The White House is experiencing a sharp division among President Donald Trump's advisors on how to manage the military confrontation with Iran and determine the appropriate moment to declare objectives achieved. Sources indicate that this divergence comes as the President continues to adjust his public stances on the course of the conflict and its timing.

Economic concerns top the agenda for a team of advisors who warn of the dire consequences of continued war on global energy markets. Officials at the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council believe that a steady rise in fuel prices could erode public support for military operations within the United States.

In contrast, a hardline faction within the administration and the Republican camp is strongly pushing to continue military operations under the name 'Saga of Fury'. This approach is led by prominent lawmakers such as Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, who believe that any retreat now would give Tehran an opportunity to restore its nuclear and military capabilities.

President Trump's recent statements reflect this hesitation, as he shifted from discussing broad strategic goals to describing the campaign as limited and having achieved most of its objectives. Despite declaring 'victory' at a rally in Kentucky, he later re-emphasized in closed meetings the necessity of not ending operations quickly to ensure 'the job is finished'.

Reports indicate that White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, and her deputy, James Blair, are inclined to narrow the scope of declared objectives and present the operation as a swift campaign nearing its end. This approach aims to protect the administration's political standing from any economic shocks that might result from disruptions to oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz.

The American strategy faces field challenges related to the nature of the asymmetric warfare waged by Iran, which relies on targeting the global financial system and shipping traffic. Approximately 20% of global oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, making any threat to this waterway a major shock to the international economy.

Financially, there is a huge gap in the cost of the confrontation, with daily US operations estimated at about $1 billion, while Iran relies on low-cost weapons. An Iranian drone costs between $20,000 and $50,000, while the US military is forced to use interceptor missiles, each costing up to $2 million.

Despite US claims of destroying large parts of the Iranian fleet and reducing missile launch capabilities by 90%, there is concern about the 'alliance trap' strategy. Through this strategy, Iran aims to prolong the conflict to exhaust the US military budget, which stands at $886 billion.

Political advisors warn that continued conflict could turn the 'Saga of Fury' into a long-term attrition similar to the military interventions Trump promised to avoid. These advisors are trying to persuade the President of the need to formulate a 'victorious exit' that preserves the prestige of the United States, even if the Iranian leadership remains in power.

For her part, White House spokeswoman, Caroline Leavitt, described reports of divisions as mere 'speculation and rumors' from unknown sources. Leavitt affirmed that President Trump is the ultimate decision-maker and that he listens to multiple opinions to ensure the full achievement of the ongoing military operation's objectives.

Lawmakers in Congress are cautiously monitoring the course of operations, with hawks believing that now is the most opportune time to deliver a decisive blow to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. They believe that any de-escalation at this time would be interpreted as American weakness in the face of attacks targeting vital interests in the region.

Gasoline prices at American stations remain the most sensitive indicator for the White House operations room as political deadlines approach. American political history proves that rising living costs associated with foreign wars often lead to a sharp decline in the popularity of the incumbent president.

Under these varying pressures, the US administration appears to be seeking a delicate balance between demonstrating military power and maintaining economic stability. The question in Washington's corridors remains: when and how will Trump decide to end the 'Saga of Fury' without it appearing to be a retreat from his electoral promises?

President Trump emphasized during closed discussions his unwillingness to withdraw early, stressing the necessity of completing the military mission entirely.

Hebrew press sources revealed dangerous intelligence details about Israel's success in carrying out a widespread assassination operation that targeted 40 Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in just 40 seconds. Intelligence analyst Ronen Bergman explained that the operation relied on exploiting a state of security relaxation on the Iranian side, which enabled Israeli aircraft to surprise decision-making centers at a critical moment.

According to the report published in the supplement of the 'Yedioth Ahronoth' newspaper, the joint planning between Tel Aviv and Washington stipulated that the attack would begin on the evening of Saturday, February 28, 2026. However, the arrival of intelligence information indicating that the meeting of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council had been moved forward prompted the military leadership to advance the strike by 12 hours to ensure all targets were hit in one location.

Bergman pointed out that the 'golden information' that changed the course of the operation was the detection of Ali Khamenei's presence inside his personal home, not in his fortified bunker. This information reached military intelligence shortly before the planes took off, leading to the inclusion of his home and military office among the immediate targets for the first strike.

In this attack, the Israeli Air Force used advanced and secret 'Rocks' ballistic missiles, characterized by their ability to be launched from long distances via 'F-15' aircraft. The use of this type of weapon aimed to maintain the element of absolute surprise and prevent Iranian radars from detecting the attack seconds before it occurred.

Strikes focused on the fortified 'Baster' area in Tehran, where the leaders of the security agencies were supposed to gather for their weekly meeting. Sources reported that the purpose of bombing the building at that time was to create widespread chaos in the Iranian leadership structure, thereby depriving the regime of the ability to make a quick decision for a military response.

The Israeli narrative indicates that luck played a significant role when intelligence learned of a parallel meeting of Iranian military intelligence chiefs at an adjacent location. Accordingly, the bombing plan was adjusted to include all contiguous sites, allowing for the elimination of dozens of officials in one precisely coordinated strike.

According to the report, Israeli aircraft launched about 30 missiles towards the Supreme Leader's home and military headquarters, completely destroying them. Sources claimed that Khamenei remained in his home despite warnings due to his desire to deny accusations of hiding, which the report described as 'arrogance' that led to the bloody end.

Bergman revealed that Khamenei was a target for assassination in a previous confrontation in June, but the US administration under Donald Trump opposed the move at the time. Washington feared that killing the Supreme Leader would prolong the war, betting that tactical strikes might force Tehran to return to the negotiating table with new conditions.

The report also quoted informed security sources as saying that the Israeli military establishment was aware of the falsity of political statements that claimed to have previously destroyed the Iranian nuclear project. The sources confirmed that the June strike was a limited tactical success and did not end the real threat, making the second round of the war a strategic necessity from Netanyahu's perspective.

Iranians learned lessons from previous confrontations, focusing on strengthening their missile capabilities after the effectiveness of their proxies in the region declined. Iranian planning was heading towards accelerating uranium enrichment to reach the brink of a nuclear weapon, which prompted Israel to prepare a comprehensive military plan that included 'cutting off the snake's head' as a first option.

Despite Iran's attempts to close intelligence gaps, Israel succeeded in penetrating the inner circles of leaders by tracking the personal guards' phones. Although officials stopped using mobile phones, long-planted espionage devices continued to operate efficiently within sovereign headquarters in the heart of Tehran.

The Israeli military plan included several stages, beginning with major political and military assassinations to clear the atmosphere of any organized reaction. This was followed by a phase of destroying defensive systems, then 200 aircraft took off to hunt ballistic missile platforms in the western regions of Iran to ensure the protection of the Israeli home front.

Israeli experts involved in the planning concluded that destroying the 'underground city' beneath Tehran would require immense firepower and the use of special gases. The plan called for simultaneous bombing by 50 aircraft to demolish fortifications above those inside, with a focus on causing structural collapses that would prevent survivors from escaping or communicating with military units.

In conclusion, the report believes that the success of the operation is due to a combination of advanced technology and accurate human intelligence, coupled with clear Iranian misjudgment. While the world awaited war, the supreme leadership remained above ground in known locations, making them easy targets for missiles that did not even need to penetrate deep trenches.

The golden information about Khamenei's presence inside his home reached intelligence a few hours before the planes took off, so the assassination was added to the target list at the last minute.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statements about forming a hexagonal alliance in the Middle East were not mere casual remarks, but rather a carefully prepared speech at the opening of a government session. Netanyahu deliberately formalized this future vision, coinciding with preparations for an upcoming visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, reflecting an Israeli desire to expand media coverage of this project.

This proposal brings to mind the 'Periphery Theory' established by Ben-Gurion in the 1950s, which aimed to bypass the Arab confrontation states and build alliances with regional powers and ethnic minorities. Historically, this strategy seeks to weaken the Arab center by engaging it in side conflicts and tensions with neighboring countries such as Turkey, Iran, and Ethiopia, to ensure the depletion of the Arab environment away from confronting the occupation.

Observers believe that Netanyahu is now trying to compensate for the previous failure of this strategy, especially after the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran and the shift in Turkish policy. Despite Israel's success in normalizing relations with several central Arab countries, the need to 'tighten the periphery' has re-emerged as a tool for political pressure and ensuring absolute hegemony amid rapid regional changes.

These moves come at a time when the region lacks what is called the 'radical Sunni axis,' as the powers Netanyahu alludes to, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey, adopt moderate positions. Sources confirm that these countries have strategic relations with Washington and support the peaceful settlement process and the two-state solution, which makes Netanyahu's claims about a radical threat an artificial situation for political purposes.

Israeli brutality and the war of annihilation in the Gaza Strip have raised the level of concern among regional regimes, including those that have pursued normalization. These countries are now questioning the feasibility of building relations with a political system that relies on the 'big stick' to impose its hegemony, and seeks to transform the supposed partnership into a relationship between an Israeli 'master' and an Arab 'subordinate.'

American behavior during the Trump era increases the fears of Washington's allies in the region, given his pragmatic mindset that sanctifies power and interest and disregards international laws. This climate of uncertainty has pushed countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to try to diversify their arms sources and slow down normalization processes, which has triggered a 'red light' for the Israeli leadership that rejects any margin of Arab independence.

Netanyahu aims, by announcing this axis, which includes India, Greece, Cyprus, and Ethiopia, to present himself to the Israeli public as a strategic leader capable of breaking international isolation. Through this vision, he tries to repair his image, which was damaged after the Al-Aqsa Flood events, demonstrating his ability to form regional alliances that isolate potential external risks and ensure his continued stay in power.

The fabrication of an 'imaginary enemy' reflects Netanyahu's continuous need to ensure internal tension within Israeli society and justify aggressive policies. This behavior also aims to find permanent justifications for rejecting the political path or making any real sacrifices related to the two-state solution, by claiming that Israel faces existential threats on multiple fronts.

Israel's existential anxiety after the Al-Aqsa Flood was manifested in the shift of security theory from 'deterrence by threat' to 'deterrence by total destruction.' The occupation is currently seeking to strike risks at their roots and prevent them from growing, while attempting to reshape the Middle East according to purely Israeli security standards, without regard for the reality of the region or the interests of its peoples.

Statements by US Ambassador Huckaby, in which he considered Egypt and Jordan potential fronts due to the presence of Islamist currents, caused confusion in diplomatic circles. Despite these countries' commitment to the settlement path, the current Israeli mindset has become hostile even to normalized parties, revealing a desire to exert political blackmail that prevents any independent movement from the American-Israeli will.

Netanyahu's behavior contains a self-contradiction that could lead to counterproductive results, as alienating potential partners increases their fears and shows Israel as an untrustworthy party. Instead of breaking isolation, these policies may expand the circle of hostility against the Zionist project, even among regimes that were described as the most moderate and closest to the West.

In conclusion, it appears that the hexagonal axis project faces significant realistic obstacles, given the intersection of the interests of the countries nominated for membership with the Arab and Islamic environment. It is unlikely that countries like India or Greece will fully mortgage their policies to the Israeli will, which makes Netanyahu's words fall within the framework of political exaggerations and personal wishes to strengthen his internal position.

Calls remain for Arab regimes to review the feasibility of settlement and normalization projects in light of this expansionist Israeli mindset. Current developments necessitate a reconsideration of Arab national security priorities, and considering the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and their resistance as the essential and strategic line of defense that protects the region from Zionist hegemonic ambitions.

Netanyahu's attempt to revive 'tightening the periphery' by pitting India against Pakistan, and Ethiopia against Egypt, reflects a desire to fuel regional conflicts. However, the growing awareness of the dangers of this project requires counter-Arab and Islamic coordination that protects common interests and prevents Israel from turning the region into an arena for its security and political experiments.

Netanyahu is trying to adapt the Middle East to Israeli standards, instead of adapting Israel to the realistic environment of the region.

Authorities in the Sultanate of Oman announced today, Friday, human casualties due to a drone attack targeting the north of the country. Security sources confirmed the death of two expatriate workers and the injury of others after a drone fell in the 'Al-Owehi' industrial zone in the wilayat of Sohar, while a second drone fell in an open area without additional damage.

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Defense revealed the interception of one of the largest waves of aerial attacks since the recent escalation began in the region. Sources explained that air defenses successfully intercepted and destroyed 56 drones launched by Iran towards the Kingdom's territory since midnight yesterday, confirming the thwarting of attempts to target vital sites.

Saudi interception operations covered wide areas, with drones being shot down while attempting to approach the Diplomatic Quarter in the capital, Riyadh. Targeting attempts also extended to Al-Kharj governorate and the Empty Quarter region, in addition to sites in the Eastern and Central regions, amidst widespread security and military alert.

As for the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai Government Media Office reported that one of the buildings in the center of the emirate sustained direct hits. Sources explained that the damage resulted from falling shrapnel from successful interception operations of an aerial attack targeting the area, with no human casualties reported so far.

On the broader regional level, the effects of the escalation extended to Turkish territory, where air raid sirens sounded at the NATO-affiliated 'Incirlik' Air Base. This alert came after suspicious aerial movements were detected in the area where American forces are stationed, raising a state of alert at the military base.

For its part, the Turkish Ministry of Defense confirmed the success of NATO air defense systems in shooting down an Iranian ballistic missile over the country's airspace. The official statement indicated that the missile was neutralized by systems stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean, in the third incident of its kind in eight days.

These rapid field developments come as part of a series of strikes launched by Tehran since February 28th. Iran claims that these attacks target American bases and interests in the region, in response to previous military operations carried out by the United States and Israel against Iranian targets.

Competent authorities in the affected countries continue their field investigations to assess the extent of the damage and collect evidence from the wreckage of the downed drones and missiles. International concern prevails about the region sliding into a comprehensive confrontation amidst the continued waves of mutual shelling and the expansion of targeting to include civilian and economic centers.

Ballistic ammunition launched from Iran and entering Turkish airspace was neutralized by NATO air and missile defense systems.

International press reports have revealed an alarming surge in casualties among women, children, and migrants due to ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Sources indicated that this increase is primarily due to intensified targeting of densely populated urban areas, leading to severe human losses among civilians compared to previous rounds of escalation.\n\nAccording to data released by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) office, recent days have witnessed a bloody shift in the nature of injuries. Figures recorded up to mid-last week show 83 children killed and 254 injured, representing approximately 23 percent of the total casualties in these confrontations.\n\nThe total number of killed and injured in less than two weeks reached about 1524 people, with statistics showing that women constitute 21 percent of this toll. Reports also noted that migrants, mostly Syrian and Palestinian refugees, account for 10 percent of the victims, reflecting the scale of the tragedy affecting the most vulnerable groups.\n\nDr. Abdalnasir Abubakar, WHO Representative in Lebanon, affirmed that strikes targeting densely populated residential areas cause widespread collateral damage. He pointed out that many civilians were unable to leave danger zones despite warnings, due to a lack of alternative options or safe shelters to resort to under current circumstances.\n\nSources spoke of tragic conditions faced by migrants and foreign workers, some of whom were left to tend farms in southern areas under bombardment. In other cases, these migrants faced difficulties accessing public shelters overcrowded with displaced people, making them directly vulnerable to shrapnel and explosions, which are the primary cause of fatalities.\n\nOn the medical front, the UN official explained that the organization had prepared in advance for potential escalation by supplying hospitals with necessary equipment to treat severe injuries. Despite these preparations and training undergone by medical teams, the continuous influx of wounded places immense pressure on the already strained health system, exhausted by successive economic crises.\n\nAbubakar warned that health authorities are developing scenarios to cope with the possibility of casualties reaching ten thousand people, which could lead to a complete depletion of medical supplies. He added that the biggest challenge lies in securing the necessary international funding to replenish essential supplies, in the absence of new international donations commensurate with the scale of the disaster.\n\nRegarding displacement, official estimates indicate approximately 700,000 displaced persons, but field projections suggest the number exceeds one million. These displaced individuals live in harsh conditions, with many forced to sleep in the open or in rudimentary tents lacking the basic necessities for a dignified life in the streets of the capital, Beirut.\n\nThe humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by displaced persons, especially the elderly, losing access to their essential medications for chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure. Medical sources confirmed a severe shortage in some areas of insulin and blood transfusion equipment, in addition to the urgent need for psychological support services for those affected by bombing and forced displacement.\n\nIn addition to direct injuries, the risk of infectious disease outbreaks looms due to overcrowding in shelters and the absence of sanitary conditions. Medical teams have recorded an increase in respiratory tract infections among children, with serious concerns about the spread of epidemics such as cholera, measles, and polio, posing an additional threat to public health.\n\nReports indicated that the risk of polio in Lebanon has become "very high," especially after cases of the disease were detected in the Gaza Strip some time ago. This threat requires a rapid response and widespread vaccination campaigns, which is increasingly difficult amidst ongoing military operations and the targeting of health infrastructure in the country.\n\nThe health sector has not been spared from direct targeting, with 49 primary care facilities and five hospitals in the south forced to close completely. Four other hospitals suffered varying degrees of damage, reducing the capacity of the medical system at a time when every available bed is desperately needed.\n\nIn a heavy toll for ambulance crews, 16 healthcare workers were killed and 29 others injured while performing their humanitarian duties. Most of these victims fell during strikes targeting emergency teams and paramedics who were trying to rescue the injured from under the rubble at targeted sites.\n\nSources concluded by issuing an urgent appeal for the necessity of protecting medical workers and ensuring the safety of health facilities in accordance with international laws. They stressed that continued targeting of paramedics hinders rescue operations and increases the number of avoidable deaths if necessary protection were provided to field teams.\n\nCivilians in Lebanon deserve better, and the country faces a series of successive crises, and this is the last thing the Lebanese needed.

Occupied Jerusalem today recorded a historical precedent, the first of its kind since 1967, as worshippers were absent from the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan. The Israeli occupation authorities continue to close the mosque for the fourteenth consecutive day, preventing Palestinians from accessing it or performing religious rituals on the holiest days of the holy month.

The occupation's security apparatuses justified their actions by imposing a state of emergency in the country due to the ongoing military developments since the Israeli-American attack on Iran on February 28th. Despite these claims, local sources confirmed that the measures exclusively target the Palestinian presence in Al-Haram Al-Sharif, while life continues differently in other areas.

For its part, the Jerusalem Governorate warned of the seriousness of this escalation, indicating that what is happening goes beyond temporary security measures to a systematic political and ideological path. The Governorate clarified that the real goal is to attempt to change the existing religious, historical, and legal reality in Al-Aqsa Mosque, exploiting the world's preoccupation with the current military circumstances.

Field sources observed an escalation in the incitement discourse led by what are known as extremist 'Temple organizations,' which call for imposing full control over the mosque. These calls coincide with tightening the noose on the Old City, where its alleys have turned into a military barracks preventing the entry of any worshipper from outside the residents of the narrow area.

Video clips documented attacks by occupation forces on youth groups that tried to gather at Bab Al-Sahira to perform the Isha and Tarawih prayers. The forces imposed a strict security cordon to prevent any attempt to break the siege imposed on the mosque, which led to clashes at several points of contact in the occupied city.

This comprehensive closure, which affected Tarawih prayers and I'tikaf, sparked a wave of widespread anger in the Palestinian street and on social media platforms. Activists considered that depriving Muslims of praying in Al-Aqsa during the last ten days represents a blatant assault on freedom of worship and a transgression of all red lines.

In an attempt to defy the prohibition decisions, hundreds of Palestinians resorted to what they described as 'worship of defiance,' where they performed prayers at the thresholds of the mosque and in the streets leading to it. These gatherings began with dozens of worshippers before expanding to include hundreds who insisted on remaining at the closest possible point to Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Observers believe that the occupation seeks to impose new realities in Al-Haram Al-Sharif, exploiting the ongoing war with Iran to pass plans for temporal and spatial division. They pointed out that international silence and the weak Arab stance encouraged the occupation authorities to extend the closure to include all days of the last ten days of Ramadan.

Bloggers and Jerusalemites described these moments as the most difficult in the city's history, as the mosque, for the first time in decades, misses the voices of worshippers and the supplications of those in I'tikaf on Laylat al-Qadr and the unique Friday. They affirmed that the Israeli bet on Palestinians getting used to the scene of a closed Al-Aqsa will fail in the face of the steadfastness of those stationed at the gates.

Jerusalemite sources concluded by warning that the continuation of this situation could lead to an explosion of conditions in the city, especially with the approach of Eid al-Fitr. They stressed that Al-Aqsa Mosque represents the core of the conflict, and that harming its sanctity under any security pretext will lead to unpredictable repercussions in the entire region.

Closing Al-Aqsa is an act of war with soft tools, and closing it is a war objective that must be thwarted.

Dr. Fadi Jumaa: Neutralizing the impact of oil on markets may reduce international pressure that could push for an end to the war and remove Iran's power card of threatening energy supplies.

Ayham Abu Ghosh: The step of resorting to strategic oil reserves is important to calm markets, but geopolitical risks remain the most important factor in determining prices.

Dr. Walaa Qudaimat: The move is a clear attempt to influence the global oil market and limit price volatility amid the war and its disruption of global energy supplies.

Dr. Thabet Abu Al-Roos: Trump's move does not guarantee price stability in the long term with the continuation of the war and the inability of the reserves to withstand any major shock.

Mohammed Al-Rajoub: This step reflects an American realization that the war may continue for a long time because countries only resort to this when they expect the crisis to continue for an extended period.

Dr. Amjad Bashkar: This step reflects growing concern about the economic repercussions of the war, not only on the United States but on the entire global economy.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

With the escalation of the war on Iran and tensions in the Gulf region, strategic oil reserves have returned to the forefront of the international scene as a key tool to try and contain the repercussions of the conflict on energy markets and the global economy, as evidenced by statements from US President Donald Trump regarding resorting to these reserves.

Political writers, analysts, specialists, economic experts, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that fears of oil supply disruptions, especially with threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, have led to a significant rise in energy prices, prompting the United States and its allies to seek urgent measures to calm markets and prevent a global economic shock.

They point out that resorting to oil reserves aims to increase supply in global markets and send reassuring messages to investors and consuming countries that energy supplies can be compensated in the event of any sudden shortage due to the war, as well as an attempt to contain the escalating economic repercussions of the conflict, especially given the sensitivity of fuel prices and their direct impact on the global economy and financial markets.

On the other hand, geopolitical risks remain the most influential factor in determining the trajectory of oil prices, given the continuation of the war and the potential for its expansion in a region considered one of the most important centers of energy production and export in the world.

This is confirmed, according to writers, analysts, specialists, experts, and university professors, that the use of strategic reserves represents a temporary measure to contain the crisis, while market stability remains dependent on the course of the war and the future of global oil supplies.

Limiting the sharp rise in oil prices

Dr. Fadi Jumaa, Professor of Political Science at the Arab American University, explains that US President Donald Trump's recourse to strategic oil reserves amid the war on Iran is a decision with intertwined political, economic, and strategic dimensions related to managing the war and its repercussions on the global economy and the American domestic front.

Jumaa points out that, from an economic perspective, the move primarily aims to curb the sharp rise in oil prices resulting from wars and geopolitical tensions in the region, especially with escalating fears of threats to oil supplies from Gulf countries, in addition to the risks facing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important maritime passages for oil flow in the world.

Jumaa notes that pumping quantities from oil reserves into the market sends a clear signal to global markets that the United States is capable of compensating for any potential supply shortage in the current phase, which contributes to calming markets and limiting price volatility.

Attempt to contain internal American conditions

Domestically, Jumaa emphasizes that the decision is particularly important because fuel prices are a sensitive factor in the political and economic mood of the American voter. Rising fuel prices negatively affect public opinion and can impact the image of the American administration and the ruling party among citizens, especially with midterm elections approaching.

Tools to curb Iranian pressure cards

On the external level, Jumaa believes that the decision carries a direct message to Iran and its allies that the United States possesses economic tools capable of reducing the impact of any attempt to use oil or threaten navigation in the Gulf as a pressure weapon.

According to Jumaa, Washington is thus seeking to weaken what is known as the "energy weapon" and demonstrate that disrupting oil flow or targeting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will not be a decisive card in the conflict.

Jumaa points out that this step has indirect repercussions on the course of the war, as neutralizing the impact of oil on markets may reduce international pressure that could push for an end to the war due to rising prices, and also removes one of Iran's power cards related to threatening global energy supplies.

Wider scope in managing the conflict

Jumaa affirms that stable energy prices give the United States a wider scope in managing the conflict, whether in continuing military pressure or later transitioning to a diplomatic path.

Jumaa stresses that the use of strategic oil reserves remains a temporary measure that cannot be relied upon for long periods, which may indicate that Washington does not expect a long-term war, as resorting to oil reserves is usually used as a short-term tool to contain crises, not as a permanent solution for managing extended conflicts.

A step to calm markets

Ayham Abu Ghosh, a journalist specializing in economic affairs, believes that the International Energy Agency's move to resort to strategic oil reserves is an important step to calm markets, but geopolitical risks remain the most important factor in determining prices.

Abu Ghosh emphasizes that energy, especially oil and gas, plays a significant role in this war and other crises as they are essential drivers of global industry, and their prices significantly determine the trajectory of the global economy and the prices of many goods and services. Therefore, economic data clearly emerge as a pressing factor in ending the war on Iran or in its continuation.

Abu Ghosh points to significant fluctuations in oil prices since the start of this war, as the Iranian side realizes that it has cards of strength and is using them to the maximum in an attempt to raise the cost to the global economy, whether by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil imports pass, or by pushing through military steps to reduce production, which will inevitably lead markets to read these risks as a rise in oil prices, raising fears of significant global inflation in addition to a period of recession.

Reassuring markets with inverse steps

According to Abu Ghosh, on the other hand, the United States is trying to reassure markets with inverse steps by sending messages that the war is nearing its end, or by pushing oil-producing countries to increase their production, or by pushing countries to use their strategic reserves.

Abu Ghosh believes that this step can calm markets and lead to relative stability in oil prices, but at the same time, it indicates a relative Iranian success in that its steps in managing the battle are indeed affecting the global economy.

Abu Ghosh points out that the International Energy Agency's announcement to release (400 million) barrels of oil through (32 countries) is the largest strategic operation in the agency's history, and this will lead to a relative calming of markets for a certain period, because this quantity only means pumping an increase equivalent to the world's consumption of oil for about (4 days) or (20 days) of the shortage that may occur from the cessation of supply through the Strait of Hormuz, even if its supply will be through about (120) days as in the American case.

Abu Ghosh explains that this step will contribute to relatively calming markets, but the matter will later depend more on geopolitical risks and the extent and duration of this war. The longer it extends and lasts, the more prices will rise again, and the closer its end or at least the secure supply of oil and gas, the prices will fall or stabilize.

Possibility of agreement with Russia

Abu Ghosh believes that these circumstances will push the United States to one of two things: either accelerating the end of the war with Iran through military or peaceful means, or an agreement with Russia to lift sanctions on it, especially regarding oil and gas exports, because that would be a decisive factor in determining prices.

A clear attempt to influence the global oil market

Political writer and researcher Dr. Walaa Qudaimat explains that US President Donald Trump's recourse to strategic oil reserves usually comes in the context of major wars and crises that lead to disruptions in energy markets and rising oil prices, noting that this tool was previously used during US President Joe Biden's administration amid the Ukrainian war, a measure that was criticized by Trump and his party at the time.

Qudaimat points out that the renewed discussion about using oil reserves in the current phase comes in the context of proposals put forward by the International Energy Agency calling for drawing from oil reserves to mitigate the sharp rise in energy prices.

Qudaimat notes that Trump's recourse to this step reflects a clear attempt to influence the global oil market and limit price volatility, especially amid escalating tensions related to the war with Iran and the potential disruption of global energy supplies it may cause.

Qudaimat believes that the goal of this step is not limited to the economic dimension, but also extends to the domestic dimension in the United States, where Trump seeks to calm American public opinion, which is directly affected by rising fuel prices and their repercussions on living and economic conditions.

Qudaimat indicates that the American administration may resort to additional measures, in addition to using strategic reserves, to ensure the continued flow of oil to global markets and to reduce fears associated with rising prices.

Managing the oil supply crisis resulting from the war

Regarding the repercussions of this step on the course of the war, Qudaimat believes that the American administration seems to be trying to move from managing direct military war to managing the oil supply crisis resulting from it, considering that the energy crisis has become one of the most prominent reflections of the ongoing conflict. Qudaimat explains that this approach reflects an attempt to invest in the repercussions of the war in a way that serves the American role and protects the domestic front, especially since the United States has one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

Qudaimat affirms that this step can also be read within the framework of Washington's attempt to manage the conflict through various means, which may include gradually moving from direct military confrontation to using more flexible political and economic tools, allowing for a rearrangement of the regional scene according to the American vision.

Largest withdrawal operation in the history of the International Energy Agency

Economic expert and analyst Dr. Thabet Abu Al-Roos confirms that US President Donald Trump's move to strategic oil reserves comes amid the escalating war on Iran and its unprecedented impact on rising global oil prices, where prices exceeded $120 per barrel, prompting the American administration to act urgently to calm markets.

Abu Al-Roos explains that the United States decided to pump about 400 million barrels from oil reserves, which is the largest withdrawal operation in the history of the International Energy Agency, with the aim of forming an international safety net that protects markets from sudden price increases.

However, Abu Al-Roos stresses that the actual daily pumping capacity does not exceed about 2 million barrels, which represents 18-20% of the daily quantity, limiting the direct impact of the reserves on markets completely.

A message of reassurance to the Gulf and Middle Eastern countries

Regarding the repercussions of the decision, Abu Al-Roos points to three main dimensions: the political dimension, as it represents a message of reassurance to the Gulf and Middle Eastern countries that the United States is capable of absorbing any shortage in oil supplies and controlling markets. The economic dimension, according to Abu Al-Roos, aims to form a safety net by resorting to reserves, but it is limited in its ability to provide oil for long periods, as the actual reserve is only 415 million barrels out of a total reserve of 750 million barrels.

Abu Al-Roos points to the commercial dimension, which combines the political and economic vision to maintain relative balance in the market.

Resilience of reserves in controlling prices

Abu Al-Roos questions the ability of the reserves to remain resilient in controlling prices for a long time, emphasizing that the reserves are not enough to address the ongoing shock, especially with the continuation of the war and the targeting of oil facilities in Iraq and Gulf countries, as well as obstacles in the Strait of Hormuz. Abu Al-Roos points out that these combined factors may create a new wave of price increases despite the pumping of reserves, reflecting the fragility of global markets in the face of any continuous disruption in energy supplies.

Abu Al-Roos believes that Trump's move aims to calm markets in the short term, but it does not guarantee price stability in the long term, given the continuation of the war and the inability of strategic reserves to withstand any major shock.

Deeper shifts in the nature of the conflict

Academic and researcher in public administration and political science Mohammed Al-Rajoub believes that US President Donald Trump's recourse to strategic oil reserves amid the escalating war on Iran reveals deeper shifts in the nature of the conflict, with its gradual transition to what can be described as an "energy war" and its increasing impact on the global economy.

Al-Rajoub points out that this step confirms that the outcome of the battle will not depend solely on military power, but also on the ability to manage the global economy and control the energy lifeline on which it relies.

Managing wars with economic tools

Al-Rajoub explains that major wars are not only managed with military tools and means, but also with economic tools, foremost among them oil. When energy markets are shaken and oil prices approach very high levels, strategic oil reserves become a political and economic tool no less influential than military power, and from this perspective, Trump's decision can be understood as aiming to curb rising energy prices.

Al-Rajoub points out that strategic oil reserves are one of the most important tools of US economic national security, as they are usually used in emergencies when global oil supplies are subject to significant disruptions or serious threats.

However, resorting to it at this time reflects, according to Al-Rajoub, that the war is no longer just an external matter, but has begun to directly affect the American domestic front and the global economy.

Al-Rajoub explains that the military escalation in the Gulf has led to disruptions in energy movement and rising global oil prices, with the price per barrel approaching high levels due to fears of supply disruptions, especially amid threats related to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world's oil passes.

Al-Rajoub believes that this reality has prompted the American administration to search for quick tools to contain the market shock and calm economic fears.

Al-Rajoub points out that the use of strategic reserves also carries a message of reassurance to global markets, as pumping additional quantities of oil into the market increases supply and curbs the acceleration of price increases.

According to Al-Rajoub, such steps are often taken in coordination with allies, as the International Energy Agency and G7 countries have discussed the possibility of releasing additional quantities from global reserves to counter market disruption resulting from the war.

The war may continue for a long time

Al-Rajoub believes that this step reflects an American realization that the war may continue for a long time, because countries usually only resort to their strategic reserves when they expect the crisis to continue for an extended period.

Al-Rajoub affirms that the decision reflects a shift in the way the war is managed, so that the confrontation is no longer only military, but has also become economic. Al-Rajoub explains that the American administration is now managing the battle on two parallel levels: militarily through direct strikes, and economically by trying to control energy markets and prevent Iran from using oil as an economic weapon in the conflict.

Al-Rajoub points out that Iran indeed possesses an influential capability on the global economy through its geographical location in the Strait of Hormuz, through which millions of barrels of oil pass daily, as the mere threat of closing the strait or disrupting navigation in it is enough to cause a shock in global markets.

Temporary impact

Despite the importance of strategic reserves, Al-Rajoub warns that their impact remains temporary, as the quantities that can be released represent only a few days of global consumption, and therefore their use may alleviate the shock in the short term but does not address the root cause of the crisis, which is the continuation of the war and tensions in the Gulf.

Three scenarios

Regarding potential scenarios, Al-Rajoub puts forward three main possibilities; the first is Washington and its allies succeeding in pumping sufficient quantities of oil to calm markets and prevent prices from reaching record levels, which would relieve internal pressure on the American administration without ending the war.

The second scenario, according to Al-Rajoub, relates to the expansion of attacks in the Gulf and perhaps the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which could push oil prices to exceed $100 or even $200 per barrel and create a real global energy crisis.

Al-Rajoub points to the third and most complex scenario, which is the transformation of the conflict into a comprehensive economic war, especially if Washington fails to curb prices or protect navigation in the straits. The United States may resort to bolder steps, such as militarily protecting oil tankers or imposing new arrangements for global energy supplies.

Growing concern about the economic repercussions of the war

Professor of Political Science Dr. Amjad Bashkar confirms that developments related to the ongoing war with Iran have begun to clearly reflect on the global economy and energy markets, noting that US President Donald Trump's statements regarding resorting to strategic oil reserves primarily aim to reassure the global market and curb rising oil prices, amid fears of the price per barrel exceeding $100, a level it has already reached amid escalating military tensions in the region. Bashkar affirms that this step reflects growing concern about the economic repercussions of the war, not only on the United States but on the entire global economy.

Bashkar points out that the continuation of the war may open the door to shifts in global energy policies, noting the increasing discussion in international circles about a potential bill or resolution related to lifting or easing sanctions imposed on Russia regarding oil exports.

Compensating for the shortage in global oil supplies

According to Bashkar, such an approach may aim to compensate for any potential shortage in global oil supplies resulting from the war between the United States and Israel on one hand and Iran on the other, especially since the repercussions of the conflict are not limited to Iran only, but extend to the entire Gulf region, which represents one of the most important centers of energy production and export in the world.

Bashkar points out that voices within Russian circles have begun to demand not to increase oil exports even if sanctions are lifted, with the aim of increasing economic pressure on the United States.

Bashkar believes that this stance may complicate global energy market calculations and exacerbate the economic crisis associated with the war.

Economic pressure strategy on the international community

Bashkar notes that Iran's targeting of oil fields in the Gulf, according to what is circulated in political analyses, may be part of an economic pressure strategy on the international community, so that the world is pushed to pressure the United States and Israel to stop the war by affecting global oil supplies.

Bashkar believes that any escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is the primary artery for energy movement in the world, could lead to serious repercussions on the international economy.

Bashkar explains that the circulating talk about the possibility of using explosive boats or planting naval mines in the strait could pose a direct threat to navigation and oil supplies, which could lead to significant price increases and deepen the global energy crisis.

Bashkar affirms that the continuation of these developments may ultimately lead to increased international pressure on the United States to stop the war, making it likely that Washington will declare victory unilaterally as a formula for exiting the conflict, similar to what happened in Yemen when the United States stopped its strikes against the Houthis without an agreement or official announcement.

In terms of description, the raging and ongoing confrontation between Iran, America, and Israel currently is not a limited confrontation or a fleeting test of strength. Rather, it is an existential conflict in which each party seeks to reshape the regional landscape according to its vision and long-term interests.\n\nNor is this confrontation a war of attrition or merely a tactical point-scoring operation. Instead, it is a bone-breaking round with all the military and strategic connotations the word carries, where major objectives intersect with the field calculations that each party seeks to achieve.\n\nHence, for Iran to thwart the direct and indirect objectives of aggression against it, it adopted two strategies: a policy of blinding and overwhelming air defense systems, thereby enabling the depletion of precision munitions and air interception missiles, and reaching a critical stage where America and its partner cannot continue the war, and must seek a settlement to bring them down from their high horse. Therefore, it launched attacks targeting American bases, missile platforms, radar systems, and security and intelligence centers spread across Arab countries in the Gulf, Jordan, and Iraq. It also carried out intense launches of missiles and kamikaze drones at the beginning of the aggression, using older, imprecise missiles to achieve this goal, paving the way for the use of precise missiles with heavy warheads, such as the Fattah, Emad, Qadr, Khorramshahr, and Kheibar Shekan models.\n\nConversely, it resorted to what is known as the economic nuclear option, which is not just a tool for political pressure, but a criterion for victory and defeat, by controlling the global energy lifeline, by seizing the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring maritime navigation within it, according to the Iranian vision that states: either security for all or security for none.\n\nAmerica sought to neutralize the Strait from the war to ensure the stability of the global economy, and Iran sought not to turn it into a tool of political pressure, but rather transformed it into a strategic leverage beyond the military field.\n\nThe American confusion, disarray, and lies, especially from the President who lies as he breathes and issues contradictory statements, became clear through the American assertion that maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is safe and unobstructed, that America destroyed the Iranian navy, and that it succeeded in neutralizing the Strait from the war and preventing Tehran from using it as an economic weapon.\n\nThe facts on the ground, however, said otherwise. Iranian responses to the American rhetoric were not delayed, especially from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which stated that the security of navigation in the Gulf is linked to Iran's security, and that any attempt to impose military control over the Strait would turn the entire region into a confrontation arena. This rhetoric was not merely a political stance, but a declaration of a military doctrine based on transforming the Strait into a strategic leverage if the war expanded.\n\nThe positive reaction of oil markets to American statements about safe navigation in the Strait, and that America would ensure navigation there by force if necessary, through warships escorting oil tankers—Trump's "heresies" and lies, which pushed oil prices back down—quickly dissipated. Iran stated that it controls the Strait of Hormuz and only prevents navigation for American and Israeli tankers, and that countries that expel American and Israeli ambassadors would have their oil tankers allowed to cross the Strait.\n\nWhen an Israeli and another American oil tanker did not comply with the Iranian decision, they were targeted by Iranian boats, disproving the American narrative that navigation in the Strait is safe, and America could not impose its control over the Strait by military force, nor did American warships escort oil tankers to ensure their passage.\n\nThe Iranian targeting of those two tankers, besides carrying Iranian political and military messages, stated that the passage through which approximately five percent of global oil trade passes daily does not need to be completely closed to become a factor of economic disruption; it is enough for passage to become risky for insurance and transport prices to rise and for shipping and navigation traffic to decline, to cause an earthquake in energy markets.\n\nAmerica failed to establish its equation that the war must remain confined to military aspects and not extend to the global energy lifeline. Iran stated that the Strait is part of the war and a strategic leverage, and it holds this card firmly. Incidentally, America's partner in the war, Israel, did not commit to preventing the war from extending to the global energy lifeline, as it deliberately bombed Iranian oil refineries and storage facilities, which prompted an Iranian response by bombing the port and oil refinery of Haifa, which produces 40% of Israel's energy. This forced Washington to ask its ally not to target Iranian oil refineries and storage facilities, because that would lead to adverse repercussions on oil prices in terms of their increase.\n\nIt is clear that the current scene indicates that the war has entered a different phase, where the global economy itself is becoming part of the confrontation arena. If pressure on navigation in Hormuz continues, the conflict may gradually shift from a direct military confrontation to an indirect global economic war, fueled by energy and its markets.\n\nThe Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geographical detail in this war; it has become the key to interpreting its outcomes. If the United States can restore full stability to navigation there, it will have succeeded in neutralizing Iran's most important leverage and can prepare to declare its victory. However, if the Strait remains an area of continuous threat, it means that Iran has succeeded in bringing the stranglehold of the global economy into the heart of the battle, a development that could redraw the balances of the war in the coming weeks, making the opening of the Strait a primary global issue, which will not happen without an agreement with Iran, whose bill must be paid in exchange for recognizing its demands regarding its nuclear file and missile program, and these are the announced conditions for compliance.

The town of Zarazir in the Galilee region witnessed widespread destruction and significant human casualties early this Friday morning, following the fall of a missile launched from Iranian territory. Medical and media sources confirmed that the number of injured rose to about 80 people, some of whom were described as being in varying conditions, in one of the most violent strikes targeting the region recently.\n\nField inspections showed the extent of the severe material damage to infrastructure and residential buildings in the town. Press reports indicated that nearly 80 homes were directly and indirectly damaged, leading to a state of panic and confusion among settlers and local residents.\n\nThis targeting came as part of three consecutive waves of missile barrages launched from Iran towards the northern part of the country within just one hour. These attacks included wide areas in Haifa, Galilee, and the occupied Golan, necessitating the activation of air defense systems on several simultaneous fronts.\n\nIn a related context, Hebrew sources announced the interception of another ballistic missile targeting the city of Eilat and the Wadi Araba region in the far south. Despite the activation of sirens, the interception prevented any human casualties or significant material damage in that desert area.\n\nAttacks also targeted the Kiryat Tivon area near the city of Haifa, where a missile directly hit a residential building. The attack resulted in significant structural damage to the building, but no human casualties were recorded among the residents who took refuge in fortified rooms.\n\nField sources explained that the Iranian attacks coincided with intense shelling by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon targeting the settlement of Kiryat Shmona and its surroundings. This synchronization, which has been repeated for the third consecutive day, indicates a high level of operational coordination between Tehran and the party in managing the battle.\n\nAgainst the backdrop of this escalation, internal pressure on the Israeli government from local authority heads in the north increased. These officials demanded the evacuation of residents an additional two kilometers from the border, given the inability of defense systems to provide full protection from intense barrages.\n\nFrom a military perspective, media reports revealed that the Israeli army has drawn up plans to continue fighting for at least an additional three weeks. These preparations come amid a conviction among security circles that the current confrontation could slide into a broader regional war than it is now.\n\nIn the political dimension, there is a state of suspicion regarding the American position, as Israeli circles believe that Washington is pushing for an expansion of the war. Despite public statements by President Donald Trump calling for calm, Israeli assessments consider them directed at domestic consumption and to reassure global financial markets.\n\n"The Israeli army is preparing for an additional three weeks of fighting, amid a perception of an American tendency to expand the scope of the war."\n

Tunisian writer Soumaya Ghannouchi affirmed that US President Donald Trump has betrayed his traditional allies in the Gulf region by fully complying with the Israeli agenda. She explained that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in luring American military power back into the shifting sands of the Middle East, something Washington elites repeatedly vowed not to repeat since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In her analysis, Ghannouchi pointed out that Netanyahu exploited his influence and close ties with Trump's inner circle, especially his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to direct US foreign policy towards a direct confrontation with Iran. This approach disregards Trump's promises during his election campaigns to end 'endless wars' and avoid involvement in costly regional conflicts.

The writer considered that what is happening now represents a repetition of the scenario of the neoconservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq under the pretext of the 'New American Century,' which ended with the decline of American hegemony and the draining of trillions of dollars. Today, Trump finds himself in the same labyrinth that his predecessors, including Barack Obama, tried to atone for and gradually withdraw from.

Ghannouchi touched upon the deep economic aspect of this relationship, where Gulf states injected massive investments exceeding $3 trillion into the US economy during Trump's 2025 tour. These funds were not limited to official channels but also extended to personal projects linked to Trump and his family, such as the 'World Liberty Financial' cryptocurrency project.

She also highlighted the role played by Jared Kushner's company, 'Affinity Partners,' which manages billions of dollars from sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. Despite this close financial link, the analysis suggests that Trump prioritized Israeli interests over the security and stability requirements sought by these allied and investing countries.

Ghannouchi explained that the decision to escalate militarily against Iran was made without genuine consultation with the Gulf states, even though they are on the front line and will bear the brunt of any retaliatory action. This marginalization reflects a shift in American security doctrine, which now views military bases in the region as a tool for joint Israeli-American attack rather than a shield to protect allies.

The writer conveyed the growing concern in Gulf circles, citing criticisms from Emirati businessman Khalaf Al Habtoor, who publicly questioned the extent of collateral damage that would be inflicted on the region's countries as a result of this escalation. These statements reflect a growing realization that the American 'protector' has, due to Israeli pressure, become a direct threat to regional security.

In the same context, voices of Gulf analysts such as Musaed Al-Maghnam emerged, who considered that the equation had been reversed, where the countries of the region are now defending the American presence, not the other way around. This frustration stems from a feeling that American promises of protection in exchange for investments and military bases have evaporated in the face of Israel's desire to settle scores with its regional adversaries.

Ghannouchi warned that the strategic Israeli goal goes beyond merely striking Iran, extending to a desire to create a regional vacuum and re-divide the region along sectarian and tribal lines. She cited articles in the Hebrew press that explicitly speak of 'Sykes-Picot 2026' to redraw maps to ensure Israel's absolute superiority amidst fragmented and weak entities.

She referred to the warnings of Saudi journalist Adhwan Al-Ahmari about the possibility of Gulf states falling into an American-Israeli 'entrapment' trap, where the region is dragged into an open confrontation, and then Washington withdraws after achieving its own goals. This scenario leaves neighboring countries in direct confrontation with the repercussions of a devastating war they were not party to the decision to ignite.

The writer believes that the unprecedented overlap between American and Israeli military operations has blurred the lines that separated Israel's private wars and traditional American support. Today, US forces are directly involved in implementing Netanyahu's security vision, making military bases in the Gulf legitimate targets in any widespread regional conflict.

The current policy of the Trump administration risks destabilizing the infrastructure of American influence in the Middle East, which for decades has been based on the principle of 'access for security.' By fully aligning with Netanyahu, Washington sacrifices its credibility with its partners, who represent a fundamental pillar in global energy markets and international investments.

Ghannouchi concluded her analysis by emphasizing that the lesson learned by the Gulf states has become clear and painful: the old security equation is no longer valid to protect them. While Israel seeks to enhance its influence through regional chaos, the United States finds its influence gradually eroding by becoming a tool to implement strategies that do not necessarily serve its highest national interests.

The pressing question remains in the corridors of international politics about Washington's ability to regain its balance before a full slide into a comprehensive regional war. Continuing on this path could lead to a strategic rupture with Arab allies, opening the door for other international powers to fill the vacuum that will be left by the decline of American reliability in the region.

Netanyahu succeeded in achieving what many in Washington swore would never happen again: luring American military power back into the Middle East.

Statements from military officials in the United States are escalating regarding achieving field successes against Iranian capabilities, with reports indicating a significant decrease in missile launches, recently reaching 90%. However, observers believe that this American optimism may not reflect the reality of the long-term conflict that Tehran is managing according to a strategic vision completely different from traditional calculations.

The Iranian leadership recognizes the enormous gap in conventional military power balances, as the US defense budget is approximately $886 billion, which is many times the Iranian budget, which does not exceed $25 billion. Based on these figures, Tehran adopts the principle of 'asymmetric warfare' that does not seek direct military victory, but rather aims to undermine the pillars upon which American influence globally rests.

Iran's strategy involves targeting three fundamental pillars of the international system: energy flows, maritime navigation routes, and the global financial system. By pressuring these sensitive nerves, Tehran seeks to generate immense economic and political pressures that will ultimately force Washington to reconsider its military options and end the state of conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as the most important strategic card in Iran's hand, as about one-fifth of the world's oil production and one-third of liquefied natural gas trade pass through it. Iranian control here does not necessarily require destroying ships; rather, creating a state of security uncertainty is sufficient to prompt insurance companies to raise their fees or cease coverage, leading to navigation paralysis and a crazy rise in energy prices.

In the technological dimension, Iran relies on low-cost drone aircraft, valued between $20,000 and $50,000 per unit. These drones pose a significant attritional challenge, as defense systems are forced to use interceptor missiles, each costing up to $2 million, making the defense process a financial burden that far exceeds the cost of the attack.

Iranian objectives extend beyond merely striking military bases to include causing disruptions in regional oil production, which immediately reflects on global supply chains from Asia to Europe. This type of economic pressure is described as 'more deadly than missiles,' as it directly affects the stability of global markets and the economic growth of major countries.

Tehran also benefits from what is known in international relations as the 'alliance trap,' where the United States finds itself compelled to defend multiple allies across vast geographical areas. This excessive strategic overextension exhausts American resources and makes forces deployed in regional bases vulnerable to continuous attrition on different fronts simultaneously.

Estimates indicate that the daily cost of US military operations under current tensions could reach $1 billion, a figure that does not include indirect consequences on the macroeconomy. This financial attrition represents the core of the Iranian gamble, where the confrontation is shifted from the battlefield of bullets to the battlefield of budgets and financial endurance.

'Strategic patience' is considered the psychological cornerstone of this doctrine, as Iran bets on the time factor to generate popular and political pressure within Western countries due to rising living costs and fuel prices. The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the likelihood of cracks appearing in the international front supporting US military actions.

In conclusion, the battle between Washington and Tehran appears to be a conflict between excessive technological power and Iran's 'bee sting' strategy. While the United States boasts of its destructive capabilities, Iran continues to work to destabilize the financial and energy systems, believing that the bitter fruits of the 'tree of patience' will ultimately be in its favor.

Iran does not seek to defeat the United States on the battlefields; it is enough for it to defeat the global system that supports American power.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged, in an official statement issued on Thursday evening, the loss of a 'KC-135 Stratotanker' aerial refueling aircraft while performing military missions in the western region of Iraq. Military sources clarified that the incident involved two aircraft on a joint mission, where one crashed in the field while the second aircraft was able to land safely at a nearby base.

CENTCOM affirmed in its initial account that the plane crash occurred within what it described as 'friendly skies' during an operation it named 'Epic Fury'. The Central Command denied that the wreckage resulted from direct targeting by hostile fire or even friendly fire, noting that search and rescue teams immediately began operations to determine the fate of the crew and the aircraft wreckage.

In contrast, the 'Islamic Resistance in Iraq' movement issued a statement early Friday morning, explicitly claiming responsibility for shooting down the American plane. The statement mentioned that its fighters targeted the plane while it was violating Iraqi airspace, affirming that the operation comes within the framework of defending the country's sovereignty and confronting the military movements of the occupation forces in the region.

The Iraqi resistance emphasized in its statement that the weapon used in the operation succeeded in accurately hitting the target over the western areas, leading to the direct crash of the plane. This announcement completely contradicts the American narrative, which attempted to classify the incident within a technical or accidental framework, far from direct combat operations.

This incident is a new link in the series of aerial losses suffered by US forces recently amid escalating tensions in the region. According to observers, this plane is at least the fourth lost by the United States since the beginning of the recent military escalation involving multiple international and regional parties.

Field reports indicate that 'KC-135' aircraft are the backbone of aerial supply operations, as they refuel fighters such as 'F-18s' to ensure their continued flight for long periods. Therefore, the loss of such an aircraft represents a logistical blow to ongoing US air operations in Iraqi and Syrian airspace.

A state of anticipation prevails in political and military circles regarding the repercussions of this incident, and whether it will lead to a change in the rules of engagement between US forces and Iraqi factions. Field sources continue to monitor US rescue efforts in the western desert of Iraq, amid media blackout on the extent of human losses among the crew.

The mujahideen of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq shot down a KC-135 aircraft belonging to the American occupation in western Iraq with a weapon.

The Galilee region in the northern occupied territories witnessed a dangerous field escalation today, Friday morning, as medical and media sources confirmed that the number of injured rose to 30 people after a rocket directly hit the Zarazir area. The missile strike caused extensive material damage to properties, while ambulance and rescue teams rushed to the site to deal with the injured and transport them to nearby hospitals.

This attack came within the framework of successive waves of rockets launched by Iran towards various Israeli targets, which prompted the occupation army to declare a state of maximum alert among its defensive systems. The army spokesman explained via social media platforms that radars detected the launch of missiles from Iranian territory, noting that aerial interception attempts are still ongoing in several areas to confront this widespread aerial threat.

In a related context, official data issued by the Israeli Tax Authority revealed the extent of economic and material losses caused by the ongoing confrontation, as the compensation fund received more than ten thousand compensation claims since the end of last February. These claims relate to direct damage to buildings, vehicles, and facilities as a result of rockets and drones that targeted the Israeli interior during the past two weeks.

Regarding human losses, the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University indicated that the current military confrontation with the Iranian side has so far resulted in the death of 14 Israelis in separate incidents. These figures reflect the extent of security and military pressure faced by the occupation in light of the continued missile barrages that have reached populated areas and sometimes bypassed air defenses.

There is a state of anticipation in Israeli political and military circles regarding the nature of the upcoming response, at a time when sirens continue to blare in the northern and central towns. Field reports confirm that the latest missile wave was among the most intense, leading to partial paralysis in some vital facilities and an increasing state of panic among settlers in the targeted areas.

The Israeli army detected missiles launched from Iran towards the territory of the State of Israel, and defensive systems are currently working to intercept the threat.

Media sources reported today, Thursday, that a prominent religious official in the Bnei Brak municipality sustained very critical injuries after being subjected to a stabbing attack in the Ramat Gan area, located east of Tel Aviv. The sources clarified that the target is "Gedalia Ben Shimon," who holds the position of head of the Religious Council in the area and is a member of the municipal council, and he was transferred to the hospital in a difficult health condition.

According to Hebrew media reports, the perpetrator of the attack is a young Palestinian from the town of "Jatt" in the territories occupied in 1948. Video documentation showed the young man approaching the Israeli official and surprising him with several stabs in different parts of his body, followed by assaulting him with blows before leaving the scene.

Following the attack, Israeli occupation forces launched extensive search operations in the area surrounding the attack site, which resulted in the arrest of the perpetrator at a nearby point. This operation comes amidst a state of escalating security tension within the occupied cities and areas adjacent to the economic and political center of gravity in Tel Aviv.

The perpetrator surprised the Israeli official by delivering successive stabs before beating him and withdrawing from the scene.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/13/2026

News Analysis

As the war between Israel and Iran expands, and the exchange of strikes between the two sides intensifies, a highly sensitive question has returned to the forefront of strategic discussions in Washington: Could Israel consider using a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran? In recent days, talk of this scenario has increased on a number of American media networks and think tanks, not as a likely option, but as a possibility that must be analyzed in light of the ongoing escalation.

However, the majority of strategic experts and former diplomats believe that the possibility of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resorting to this option remains very low, even if the war expands and Iran continues to deliver painful blows to Israel. These experts link their assessment to several strategic, political, and military factors related to the nature of Israel's nuclear doctrine, international balances, the limited military utility of any tactical nuclear strike, as well as the serious repercussions of breaking the nuclear taboo that has been established in the international system since the end of World War II.

The first of these factors relates to the nature of the role played by the Israeli nuclear arsenal in the strategic thinking of the Hebrew state. Israel does not officially admit to possessing nuclear weapons, but for decades it has followed a policy known as “nuclear ambiguity,” meaning refraining from confirming or denying possession of such weapons. Most strategic studies estimate that Israel possesses between eighty and two hundred nuclear warheads. However, the primary goal of this arsenal, according to experts in Washington, is not to use it on the battlefield, but to deter any existential threat that might threaten the state's survival.

In Israeli security literature, nuclear weapons are sometimes associated with what is known as the "Samson Option," meaning their use only if the state faces a real existential threat. Even with the expansion of the war with Iran, many analysts believe that the current conflict does not reach the level of an existential threat that might push Israel to break the nuclear taboo.

The second factor relates to the enormous political and diplomatic cost of using nuclear weapons. If Israel were to take this step, it would be the first country to use such weapons since 1945. This would likely lead to an almost complete wave of international condemnation and the imposition of harsh economic and political sanctions. Strategic relations between Israel and the United States could also be severely shaken, as Washington has for decades turned a blind eye to Israeli nuclear ambiguity within an unstated understanding based on not using these weapons. Breaking this understanding would also place Israel in unprecedented international isolation and reopen its nuclear file in international institutions, including the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In this context, some experts in Washington point out that for decades Israel has been able to move in the region with a great degree of strategic freedom, supported by extensive American political and military protection, which has made it consistently act as if it were above international accountability. However, this reality could fundamentally change if Israel were to break the nuclear taboo. The mere use of a nuclear weapon, even if tactical and limited, could overturn the political and diplomatic environment surrounding Israel and place it under unprecedented international pressure, including from its Western partners, including the United States.

The third factor relates to the limited military utility of such a strike. Major Iranian nuclear facilities, such as the Fordow and Natanz facilities, are located deep underground and fortified with layers of protection. Even the use of a tactical nuclear weapon does not necessarily guarantee the complete destruction of these facilities.

In contrast, Israel already possesses a wide range of advanced conventional American military tools, including bunker-buster bombs, cyber capabilities, and precise air strikes, in addition to covert intelligence operations. For this reason, a number of experts believe that conventional options could achieve the same military objective without risking nuclear escalation.

The fourth factor is the continuation of what researchers call the "nuclear taboo," which is the unwritten rule that emerged since the end of World War II, under which nuclear states refrained from using these weapons in armed conflicts. Even major nuclear powers avoided using them despite fighting numerous wars over the past decades.

For Israel, which relies heavily on Western political and military support, breaking this taboo could entail an enormous political and moral cost.

The fifth factor relates to the risk of regional escalation and nuclear proliferation. Israel's use of a nuclear weapon against Iran could open the door to a series of dangerous developments in the Middle East. This could include widespread Iranian missile responses or through its allies in the region, in addition to an accelerated nuclear arms race.

Major regional powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey might see such a development as an impetus to accelerate their nuclear programs or seek to acquire similar deterrent capabilities, which could turn the Middle East into one of the most dangerous regions in the world in terms of nuclear weapons proliferation.

The sixth factor is related to the nature of Iranian geography itself. Iran is a vast country with a political and military structure distributed over a large geographical area. Even if Israel were to use a tactical nuclear weapon, the strike would likely be very limited in terms of the number of targets. Practically, Israel might only be able to target one or two sites, but this would not completely paralyze the Iranian state. Tehran might be able to absorb the blow and reorganize its military and political capabilities, which reduces the strategic value of any nuclear use.

The seventh factor relates to Israeli military traditions, which tend towards conventional preemptive strikes rather than nuclear escalation. In the past, Israel has relied on precise military operations to destroy hostile nuclear programs, such as the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and the strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. These precedents reflect Israel's preference for limited and precise operations that achieve strategic objectives without sliding into catastrophic escalation.

Amidst this debate, a number of analysts in Washington point out that the increasing discussion in the American media about the possibility of using a tactical nuclear weapon partly reflects the concern within decision-making centers about the course of the war. The mere raising of this scenario in public discussion indicates a growing awareness that escalation could spiral out of control. However, most former officials and experts present this possibility within the framework of theoretical analysis, and not as a political option actually on the table for decision-makers.

Some researchers also point out that Israeli nuclear ambiguity has historically been part of a precise deterrence equation in the Middle East, based on possessing the capability without using it. If Israel were to break this balance through the actual use of nuclear weapons, it might undermine one of its most important sources of strategic power. Ambiguity gives deterrence psychological and political strength, while actual use might transform nuclear weapons from a deterrent tool into a heavy strategic burden.

In purely military calculations, experts believe that a tactical nuclear strike does not provide a quick solution to the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program. The distributed and fortified nature of Iranian facilities, in addition to the Iranian state's ability to rebuild, means that any strike, no matter how severe, might only delay the program and not end it. Rather, it might give Tehran a domestic and international political justification to accelerate the public development of its nuclear capabilities.

In conclusion, Israel might resort to a widespread military escalation using advanced conventional tools if the war continues to expand. But the use of a tactical nuclear weapon would carry an enormous strategic and political cost, in return for limited military benefit. For this reason, despite the increasing discussion about it in some media and analytical circles, the possibility of resorting to this option remains very low.

International press sources reported that Iran, in the eyes of external powers, has been stripped of a large part of its traditional military capabilities, yet it still maintains internal control despite losing a number of its most prominent political and military leaders. The rapid developments raise fundamental questions about the nature of 'the day after' if US President Donald Trump declares a final victory in his operation, which he dubbed 'Epic Rage'.

Through this operation, Trump seeks to achieve a historic accomplishment that changes the balance of power in the Middle East, something his predecessors did not dare to contemplate. The US President has set broad goals ranging from destroying Iran's military infrastructure to inciting the Iranian people to seize power and radically change the existing regime.

Reports indicate that a prolonged war faces internal obstacles in Washington, as military operations enjoy only limited support from the American public, not exceeding 30%. The rapid rise in energy prices and declining jobs are also pressuring the US administration as the midterm elections approach next November.

On the diplomatic front, the anticipated meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping emerges as an additional pressure factor to end military operations. China, which has strategic and energy ties with Tehran, strongly criticized the American attack, which may push Washington to declare victory before the end of March to facilitate the bilateral summit.

The first scenario, promoted by some circles in Washington, is the spontaneous collapse of the regime under the pressure of external bombing and internal protests. In this case, the Revolutionary Guard and Basij may abandon fighting, paving the way for the return of the monarchy, represented by Reza Pahlavi, to manage a transitional phase leading to general elections.

The second scenario appears darker, as the regime may be shaken without completely falling, opening the door to widespread chaos. With internal opposition and escalating demands from ethnic minorities such as Arabs, Kurds, and Baloch for self-rule, the country may slide into a slow civil war amid the spread of weapons.

Mojtaba Khamenei, who was appointed Supreme Leader to succeed his father, emerges as a figure representing the hardline wing of the Iranian regime. However, questions are raised about his health status and leadership ability, especially with his disappearance from public view since his father's death last February and the loss of several family members in air attacks.

The third scenario proposes the 'Venezuelan model' as a possible solution, where the regime remains in place but strikes a secret deal with the United States. Under this agreement, Tehran permanently abandons its nuclear program and reduces its missile arsenal in exchange for a gradual lifting of the suffocating economic sanctions that are debilitating the state.

This diplomatic path requires a strong figure within the regime capable of negotiating with the West, and Ali Larijani's name is being circulated as a potential candidate for this role. However, the major obstacle remains the extent to which the hardline wing associated with the Revolutionary Guard would accept such fundamental concessions that touch the core of the regime's ideology.

Sources indicate a divergence of views between Washington and Tel Aviv on the ultimate goals of the war. While the US administration wishes to end military operations quickly to avoid economic repercussions, Israel seeks to exhaust the Iranian regime as much as possible to ensure it does not rise again.

Declaring victory in this war may be unilateral, unless Tehran explicitly admits defeat, which is unlikely given the regime's political culture. This ambiguity may keep the region in a state of constant tension even after direct air strikes on vital targets cease.

Analyses confirm that Iran will emerge from this confrontation weaker regionally, especially after the damage it sustained in previous confrontations in 2025. This external weakness may push the regime to tighten its internal security grip, making the regime an increasing threat to the Iranian people themselves.

Amid infrastructure destruction, Iran will face enormous challenges in rebuilding itself economically and politically in the post-war phase. Any future leadership will have to deal with a heavy legacy of destruction and debt, in addition to a society suffering from deep divisions between loyalists and opposition.

In conclusion, Iran's future remains suspended between Trump's ambitions to change the region's political map and a complex internal reality that refuses to fully comply with external dictates. The 'day after' that everyone talks about may not be as rosy as some imagine, but rather the beginning of a new chapter of conflicts in the heart of the Middle East.

Declaring victory, if it happens, will most likely be a unilateral declaration by the United States and perhaps Israel, unless Tehran admits defeat.

The southern Dahiyeh of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, witnessed a new wave of violent aerial raids early this Friday morning, as Israeli aircraft targeted at least two locations. Thick plumes of smoke rose into the sky over the area, causing panic among local residents who have been facing continuous escalation for days.

In a significant field development, an Israeli drone targeted a civilian vehicle in the Jnah area of Beirut, causing it to completely catch fire. Firefighting and civil defense teams rushed to the scene to extinguish the blaze, amid reports of injuries resulting from this direct targeting in the heart of the capital.

The shelling did not stop at the capital's borders but extended to towns and villages deep in southern Lebanon, where media sources reported that the towns of Doueir, Ansar, and Abba were subjected to intense aerial raids. These attacks resulted in a number of injuries, while ambulance teams continued evacuation and search operations under the rubble.

Diplomatically, the State of Qatar expressed its strong condemnation of these aggressions, describing them as a blatant violation of the rules of international humanitarian law. The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed in an official statement that what is happening represents a clear breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which aims to maintain stability in the region.

Doha called on the international community to take immediate action and fulfill its responsibilities to compel the Israeli occupation authorities to stop their repeated attacks. It also emphasized its firm and supportive stance for Lebanon's unity and territorial integrity, affirming its support for all efforts aimed at enhancing Lebanese security and stability.

On the other hand, media reports revealed a sharp verbal altercation between the heads of local authorities in northern Israel and the commander of the Galilee Division in the army, Yuval Gaz. This tension came against the backdrop of intense rocket barrages launched by Hezbollah, which caused a complete paralysis in the northern settlements.

Local officials accused the army leadership of misleading them and providing incorrect security assessments about the nature of imminent threats. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the long duration of the sirens, which lasted for ten continuous minutes, reflecting the extent of the failure to contain the recent rocket attacks.

Informed sources indicated that the Northern Command had reassured the mayors hours before the attack that there were no intentions of escalation from Hezbollah's side. However, the reality on the ground was completely different, as the area was subjected to heavy shelling with projectiles and rockets throughout the night.

Thousands of settlers in the north were forced to remain in fortified shelters for long hours due to the continuous shelling, which increased the intensity of popular and official anger against the army. The heads of authorities considered that what happened proves the falsity of military claims that promoted the absence of a direct Hezbollah threat from the border.

Press sources quoted senior officials in the Northern Command as saying that the army's current strategy focuses on the defensive aspect in confronting Lebanon. These officials added that the Israeli strategic focus remains directed towards Iran as the main arena for confrontation, not the Lebanese front.

Despite these military justifications, settlement leaders believe that the army failed to protect them from anti-tank missiles and Hezbollah's offensive capabilities. They affirmed in their confrontation with the military commander that the promises made to them throughout the past year regarding border security were nothing but illusions that dissipated with the first real test.

Mutual military operations continue on the Lebanese-Palestinian border in the absence of any prospect for de-escalation, with the scope of targeting expanding to include vital areas in Beirut. Observers fear that these developments could lead the region to slide into a comprehensive confrontation that goes beyond the currently applicable rules of engagement.

What happened adds to the lie you promoted for a whole year, which is that there is no Hezbollah near the border.

The last ten days of the blessed month of Ramadan this year have arrived at Al-Aqsa Mosque with a scene completely different from what the city of Jerusalem has known for decades, as the courtyards, which used to be bustling with tens of thousands of worshippers in seclusion, appeared empty and desolate. The occupation authorities closed the doors to worshippers, preventing them from reaching the mosque or even entering the Old City, in a measure considered the first of its kind since the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967.

Under these strict restrictions, prayers inside the mosque were limited to only five people: the Imam, the muezzin, the prayer leader, the pulpit guard, and the mosque director, while the voices of the worshippers who used to fill the corridors and courtyards were absent. Field sources reported that a tone of sadness prevailed in the performance of the imams due to the absence of worshippers who were accustomed to answering the call to prayer in this sacred space.

One of the imams of Al-Aqsa Mosque, who has been leading prayers for over four decades, described the current situation as 'forced absence' of worshippers, noting that the mosque used to be crowded with visitors from Jerusalem, the Palestinian interior, and from outside the country as well. The imam expressed his deep sorrow at seeing the first of the two Qiblas empty at a time when the mosque was supposed to be filled with remembrance and seclusion around the clock.

Since the outbreak of the recent military tensions in the region on February 28, prayers in Al-Aqsa have been limited to internal loudspeakers only, depriving the residents of the Old City from hearing the call to prayer and the prayers. The Dome of the Rock prayer hall also remained completely closed, which increased the mosque's isolation and stripped it of its usual spiritual and social symbolism during Ramadan.

Jerusalemites express deep anguish over this deprivation, as imams are forced to pray in mosques near their homes to compensate for their forced absence from the mihrab of Al-Aqsa. These imams face urgent and painful questions from worshippers about when the mosque will reopen, questions that remain without clear answers amidst the ongoing 'state of emergency' imposed by the occupation.

For his part, Jerusalemite doctor Majd Al-Hadmi, who has volunteered as an imam and muezzin for 15 years, considered what is happening to be 'unreasonable deprivation' and a clear politicization of security measures. Al-Hadmi affirmed that the pretexts put forward by the occupation regarding the absence of shelters are illogical, given the robustness of the historical prayer halls, which are more fortified than modern shelters, indicating other objectives behind the emptying.

Al-Hadmi stressed that Al-Aqsa represents a unique social and spiritual space where Palestinians from different regions meet, which the occupation seeks to undermine by cutting off the lifeline to the city. He believes that the absence of Arab and Islamic identity from Jerusalem in these blessed days is a carefully planned matter to impose a new reality that ends the collective Palestinian presence in the mosque.

Historical data indicate that the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the prevention of Friday prayers there has occurred only five times since 1967, the last of which was in recent days coinciding with the ongoing military attack. This recent recurrence reflects an acceleration in the use of comprehensive closure as a punitive and political tool against Jerusalemites and Islamic holy sites.

The Governorate of Jerusalem warned that these measures fall within a systematic plan to impose direct occupation control over the mosque's administration and marginalize the role of the Islamic Endowments Department. The Governorate clarified that the occupation is exploiting the current circumstances to change the existing legal and historical status quo that recognizes Islamic custodianship over the holy sites.

Omar Al-Rajoub, Director of the Media Department in the Governorate, affirmed that the closure aims to consolidate Israeli influence and prepare the ground for future Judaization schemes in Al-Haram Al-Sharif. He considered that preventing worshippers from accessing the courtyards of Al-Aqsa during the holiest times represents a blatant violation of internationally guaranteed religious rights and a challenge to the international community.

The recent Israeli restrictions included a complete ban on seclusion (I'tikaf), stopping the entry of necessities for worshippers and staff, in addition to activating armed military patrols inside the courtyards. The measures also affected 'Dar Al-Hadith Al-Sharif' by preventing scientific circles, in a clear attempt to dry up cultural and religious sources within Al-Aqsa Mosque.

In contrast to the restrictions on Muslims, local sources observed an increase in the times settlers stormed the mosque, and the issuance of hundreds of eviction orders against those stationed there, activists, and endowment employees. This duality in treatment reveals a premeditated intention to enable Jewish presence in the mosque at the expense of authentic Islamic rights, exploiting the declared state of war.

Jerusalemite activities believe that the occupation is sending political messages that complete control over Al-Aqsa has become possible, and that it has the ability to impose a new reality without deterrence. These messages are considered a dangerous signal to the local and international communities about the future of the holy city and its holy sites, which face an unprecedented existential threat under the guise of 'security'.

In conclusion, Al-Aqsa Mosque remains captive in these blessed nights to military measures that have turned its courtyards into a barracks, while Palestinians await an Eid whose joy may not be complete until they return to the embrace of their mosque. Questions remain about the extent of popular and diplomatic resilience to restore the status quo and protect Jerusalem's identity from ongoing distortion and Judaization.

Al-Aqsa is sad and there is no one in its courtyards; I never imagined that I would see the first of the two Qiblas empty of its inhabitants on the holiest nights of the year.

The American administration announced that it has not yet begun implementing military escort operations for oil tankers crossing the Strait of Hormuz, despite escalating tensions in the region. This step comes amid warnings of the danger of the maritime passage, which has become a potential confrontation arena, as Washington fears its ships will be subjected to direct attacks by drones or cruise missiles launched from nearby Iranian coasts.

US President Donald Trump had earlier proposed using naval force to secure navigation and reopen the strait, with the aim of avoiding a global energy crisis resulting from rising oil prices. However, US military movements so far have been limited to carrying out limited strikes targeting ships accused of planting naval mines near vital passages in the region.

For his part, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified that there is no specific timetable for the start of naval escort missions, noting that the US Navy seeks to build an international coalition for this purpose. Bessent affirmed that operations will begin as soon as full military readiness and the ability to confront direct threats surrounding commercial vessels are available.

Military experts believe that the biggest challenge lies in the complex geography of the region, where Iranian missile launch platforms are located very close to shipping lanes. The distance at some critical points is less than 4 miles, meaning that missiles and drones can reach their targets within a few minutes, making interception difficult.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important energy artery, connecting the Arabian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, with about 20% of total global oil consumption passing through it. The de facto closure of the strait by the Iranian side about two weeks ago led to severe disruptions in global markets and a significant increase in shipping and insurance costs.

The past few days have witnessed a field escalation, as six oil tankers were attacked in Gulf waters, some of which were directly attributed to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These attacks come as part of the pressure strategy adopted by Tehran in response to ongoing US and Israeli military operations against targets associated with it in the region.

In a related context, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard affirmed that it would not allow any oil shipments to pass through the strait unless external attacks ceased, a position supported by the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. This Iranian insistence places the US administration before difficult choices between direct military escalation or accepting the continuation of the naval blockade.

Former military commanders at the Pentagon indicate that the narrowness of the waterway, which is no more than 21 miles wide at its narrowest points, makes ships easy targets for naval mines and guided missiles. They explained that the mere feeling of danger prompted many international shipping companies to avoid passing through the strait even before actual attacks occurred, which further complicated the crisis.

Proposed US plans to secure navigation include providing continuous air support and surveillance patrols of launch sites on the Iranian coast for proactive intervention when necessary. Despite White House attempts to reassure global markets that the situation is under control, the field reality indicates that the mission is fraught with risks that could lead to a wider conflict.

The mission is costly, complex, and not guaranteed to succeed, as drone and missile attacks can cause significant damage even to a single ship.

The French Army General Staff announced that six of its soldiers were injured in a drone attack targeting a military site in the Erbil region of Iraqi Kurdistan. Military sources clarified that the injured soldiers were carrying out joint training missions with Iraqi forces as part of counter-terrorism efforts, and they were urgently transferred to nearby medical facilities for necessary care.

According to field data provided by the Governor of Erbil, the aerial attack was carried out by two suicide drones, targeting a military base located in the 'Mahla Qahra' area. This base is approximately 40 kilometers southwest of the regional capital and is considered one of the sites where international forces operating in Iraq conduct advisory and training activities.

This field escalation comes shortly after a similar incident targeted an Italian military base located within a security complex that includes units of various foreign nationalities in Erbil. Although the previous attack did not result in casualties or human injuries, it raised widespread security concerns among the command of international forces present in the region.

In a swift reaction to the repeated targeting, Italian authorities announced their decision to temporarily withdraw all their military personnel from the targeted base to ensure their safety. These forces, including French and Italian units, have been present in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2014, with their missions focused on providing logistical and training support to local security forces within the international coalition to confront ISIS.

The region is experiencing a state of increasing security tension, as Iraqi Kurdistan has been subjected to a series of similar attacks attributed to armed factions active in the Iraqi arena. These developments coincide with broader regional unrest, placing foreign forces and military facilities in the region under constant threat from drone and missile attacks.

The injured soldiers were participating in counter-terrorism training with Iraqi partners and were immediately transferred to the nearest medical center for treatment.

The new Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, issued a decisive decree on Thursday to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed to international shipping. This strait is a strategic artery for global oil trade, and the decision immediately led to new jumps in crude prices amid fears of disruption to international supplies.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced its full commitment to implementing the new leader's orders, affirming its military readiness to enforce the closure and prevent any breaches. This move comes amidst an escalation of direct military confrontation between Tehran on one hand, and Tel Aviv and Washington on the other.

Mojtaba Khamenei appeared in his first official statement, read by an announcer on state television, after being chosen as the general leader to succeed his father, Ali Khamenei. The late leader was assassinated in Israeli-American airstrikes targeting leadership positions in Iran earlier this week.

Official sources revealed that the new leader was personally injured during the attack that led to his father's death, but his health condition is stable. The spokesman for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ismail Baqaei, confirmed that Mojtaba Khamenei is 'fine' despite the injury he sustained, and is carrying out his leadership duties normally.

In the first Israeli reaction, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a clear threat to the new leader during a recent press conference. Netanyahu refused to give any guarantees for the safety of the leaders of what he described as 'the terrorist organization,' referring to the new Iranian leadership, affirming the continuation of military operations.

Mojtaba Khamenei emphasized in his speech the necessity of the unity of the Iranian people in facing the current external challenges. He affirmed that Tehran will not back down from its right to respond to 'the blood of the martyrs,' considering that the issue of revenge is at the top of Iranian policy priorities in the coming phase.

On the regional level, the new leader sent what were described as warning messages to neighboring countries, calling on them to get rid of American influence. Khamenei considered that American military bases in the region are the primary source of instability and attraction for security tensions, denying any hostility towards Arab peoples.

Observers believe that Mojtaba Khamenei's speech reflects a complete adherence to the principles of his late father and an unwillingness to make political concessions. Analysts pointed out that the new leadership seeks to reassure the Iranian interior of the continuity of state institutions and their ability to respond militarily despite the severe blows.

In contrast, American forces continue their operations in the region to disrupt Iranian naval capabilities and try to secure shipping lanes. Sources reported that Washington seeks to remove naval mines and undermine Tehran's ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, despite the field difficulties it faces.

The American arena is witnessing increasing concern about the repercussions of this war on the local economy, especially with the decline in stock markets. Former diplomats believe that President Donald Trump's administration faces pressure to clarify its final strategy in dealing with the unprecedented Iranian escalation.

The current American administration aims, according to political assessments, to push for a change in the Iranian regime's approach to become less hostile. However, the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei, who is described as a hardliner, may complicate Washington's calculations in reaching a political settlement or a quick de-escalation.

Reports indicate that the primary battle is now focused on the maritime domain, where Iran has succeeded in targeting some ships and disrupting supplies. This reality puts the Trump administration before difficult choices between escalating military operations or accepting a new geopolitical reality imposed by Tehran.

Regarding Arab positions, experts believe that Tehran demands these countries take balanced stances and distance themselves from the conflict. The Iranian leadership warns that American interests entrenched in the region may be legitimate targets if attacks on Iranian territory continue.

In conclusion, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz remains prone to further explosion with the Revolutionary Guard's insistence on implementing the comprehensive closure decision. International circles are awaiting the nature of the upcoming Iranian response, and whether the region will slide into a widespread regional war that transcends the limits of current confrontations.

Iran will not refrain from avenging the blood of its martyrs, and this issue will remain among my top priorities.

The Israeli army admitted today, Thursday, to committing a grave tactical and field error during Wednesday night, as it failed to issue prior warnings to residents about a large-scale rocket attack launched by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. This admission came after a wave of widespread criticism directed at the security agencies following a night of terror experienced by settlers in the northern and central regions.

Official sources quoted the Northern Command of the occupation army as confirming that forces did not inform the public in a timely manner about the detection of unusual movements and deployment of Hezbollah fighters along the border. This shortcoming led to a state of severe confusion, especially with the start of the shelling, which amounted to about 200 rockets targeting various locations.

In the hours leading up to the attack, widespread rumors spread across social media platforms, causing panic among residents that lasted for many hours. Reports indicated that some mayors received initial updates about Hezbollah's preparations, but the absence of an official stance from the army increased the level of anxiety and tension.

Media sources indicated that the Israeli army's silence on Wednesday night was a wrong behavior, as it was necessary to inform the public about the nature of the expected threats. The Hebrew Broadcasting Corporation confirmed that this silence contributed to exacerbating the psychological crisis among settlers who found themselves under heavy fire without clear guidance.

On the ground, sirens sounded in more than 13 different locations within the occupied territories, where radars detected the launch of about 200 rockets from Lebanese territory. Despite the intensity of the shelling, there were no immediate reports of human casualties, but material damage and panic were widespread on the home front.

In a related context, the occupation army continued its aggression against Lebanon, as warplanes carried out a series of violent raids targeting the southern suburb of the capital Beirut. A military statement claimed that these attacks come as part of a response to the recent escalation and an attempt to reduce Hezbollah's missile capabilities targeting Israeli depth.

On the ground, the army announced that forces from the '810 Mountain Brigade' of the 210th Division are operating in strategic points in the Jabal Douf area in southern Lebanon. Military sources claimed that these operations aim to strengthen defensive lines and protect northern residents from any infiltration attempts or short-range missile attacks.

The occupation forces claimed to have found launch platforms and weapons depots belonging to Hezbollah during sweeping operations in the border areas. These seizures included mortar shells and other military equipment, which engineering units completely destroyed on site to ensure they would not be used again.

In the Beqaa region of eastern Lebanon, two Israeli raids targeted a residential building in the village of Qasr Naba, shortly after evacuation orders were issued to residents. Local sources reported that the first missile did not explode in the first raid, prompting warplanes to carry out a second raid to completely destroy the building.

Reports from the Lebanese National News Agency did not indicate any casualties in the Qasr Naba raid, but confirmed extensive material damage to surrounding properties. This shelling comes within the policy of 'pre-warnings' followed by the occupation to justify the destruction of civilian facilities under the pretext of their use by the resistance.

Observers believe that the Israeli army's admission of its mistake reflects the size of the gap between intelligence estimates and the explosive field reality on the northern front. This admission also puts the military leadership in the face of increasing popular pressure demanding better protection and more transparent communication with the public in times of emergency.

The border region has witnessed an unprecedented escalation for months, with both sides exchanging heavy shelling amid international fears of the situation sliding into an all-out war. Hezbollah confirms that its operations come in response to the ongoing Israeli aggression and in support of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip who are subjected to a war of extermination.

In light of these developments, questions are increasing within Israeli society about the effectiveness of ongoing military operations in securing calm for northern residents. Despite intensive raids, Hezbollah is still able to launch massive rocket barrages that reach distant areas and often bypass air defense systems.

In conclusion, the field situation remains prone to further escalation given the occupation's insistence on continuing its air raids and limited ground operations. Last night's events reveal that the Israeli home front still suffers from clear gaps in crisis management and warning of imminent threats.

The Northern Command admitted that the army made a mistake by not informing northern residents in a timely manner about Hezbollah's unusual deployment across the border.

The southern Dahiyeh of Beirut witnessed a new wave of violent airstrikes this Thursday evening, with attacks concentrated on the Al-Amrousiyeh neighborhood and surrounding areas. Field sources reported that the shelling came in the context of a continuous escalation targeting infrastructure and residential areas, leading to widespread destruction in the targeted sites.\n\nFor its part, the spokesperson for the Israeli occupation army claimed that air and ground forces managed to eliminate dozens of Hezbollah elements during the past twenty-four hours. The army claimed in its statement that it succeeded in destroying about 20 missile launchers that were prepared to target Israeli depth, as part of its attempts to reduce the offensive capabilities of the party.\n\nOn the political and military front, the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation revealed moves aimed at strengthening field control in areas of southern Lebanon. Sources indicated that the current plan includes establishing fixed military points and observation posts to ensure the consolidation of the Israeli presence in the areas recently infiltrated.\n\nIntensive security consultations are underway in Israeli decision-making circles to discuss the possibility of expanding the scope of the ground operation to include deeper areas. According to reports, this operation may actually begin next week if operational plans are agreed upon between the military command and the political level.\n\nIn contrast, Israel's Channel 12 quoted a senior military source as saying that there is caution in approving large-scale military operations in Lebanon. The source explained that the current trend is to avoid sliding into an all-out war on the northern front before resolving other regional issues related to the confrontation with Iran.\n\n"The 'Cabinet' mini-ministerial council is scheduled to meet to discuss the details of the next phase of military escalation on the Lebanese border. Ministers will discuss proposals to increase the area of the 'buffer zone' that Israel seeks to impose by force of arms, in response to the continued intensive missile barrages launched by Hezbollah.\n\nIn statements reflecting Israeli intentions, Security Minister Yisrael Katz affirmed that the Lebanese state has lost the ability to control its territories and prevent attacks. Katz stressed that Israel will take control of the border areas itself to ensure the security of northern towns, considering this an urgent security necessity.\n\nField data indicates that the Israeli army has increased the number of its positions inside Lebanese territory to 23 military sites. This figure represents a significant jump compared to only five sites that existed before the start of the recent escalation, confirming the strategy of gradual territorial encroachment in the south.\n\nPolitical observers believe that Lebanon is currently facing a escalating storm that threatens its fragile stability and turns it into a major war zone. Researchers explained that Israeli operations that reached the heart of the capital Beirut reflect a desire to change the rules of engagement and impose a new field reality that goes beyond previous understandings.\n\nSerious concerns arise about the possibility of opening new fronts for ground infiltration through the Western Bekaa region or observation centers in Mount Hermon. Such moves, if they occur, will lead to massive waves of human displacement and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in a country already suffering from severe economic and social collapses.\n\nIn conclusion, the field situation in Lebanon remains linked to complex regional calculations and continuous military coordination between active parties. With the continued Israeli mobilization, Lebanese and international circles are awaiting the results of the Cabinet meetings that will determine the course of the confrontation in the coming days.\n\nIsrael will control border territories because Lebanon is unable to prevent missile launches from its territory.

Warnings are escalating about the profound economic repercussions of the ongoing conflict in the region, as wars are no longer confined to military confrontations on the ground but have extended to impact the vital arteries of the globalized economy. Experts in shipping and logistics believe that any disruption in the maritime map, specifically in the Arabian Gulf region, will create a shock that transcends regional boundaries to affect every port in the world.

Logistics expert Raphael Ben Ari explained that global monitoring of developments with Iran tends to focus only on security aspects, ignoring a major economic drama unfolding behind the scenes. He pointed out that the Israeli reading of the scene confirms that the current escalation aims to impose a hefty global price, especially with the targeting of energy infrastructure, which is the lifeline of international trade.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most dangerous chokepoints in the global economy, with approximately 30% of the world's oil and gas supplies passing through this narrow waterway. Sources confirmed that any actual threat to this passage immediately translates into sharp jumps in energy prices, which was clearly evident in the recent increases, reaching 20% for a barrel of oil.

Fuel prices are the primary driver of maritime transport costs, and therefore, any increase in energy prices quickly reflects on the cost of shipping goods and essential commodities. The issue is not limited to fuel prices but extends to include changing maritime routes and reassessing security risks, making the transport process more complex and costly for global companies.

After a period of relative stability and ships returning to the Suez Canal route, the current escalation has forced shipping companies to once again revert to the alternative route around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope. This alternative route significantly prolongs sea voyages and causes an increase in fuel consumption by up to 30% compared to the shorter route through Suez.

The economic equation resulting from the longer distance and higher fuel prices has led to a massive jump in transport prices, with the cost of transporting a single container from the Far East now increasing by thousands of dollars. Many global shipping lines have begun imposing additional fees under the names 'war surcharges' and 'fuel emergencies' to cope with the increasing financial burdens resulting from security tensions.

The insurance sector is one of the most sensitive elements in this crisis, as global insurance companies are reassessing the risks of sailing in areas classified as war zones. Sources reported that some reinsurance companies have begun to refrain from covering ships in the Gulf region, while other companies have raised insurance premiums tenfold their previous value.

These financial and security pressures have caused widespread disruptions in supply chains, with many shipping companies ceasing to accept transport requests destined for ports in Gulf countries. This halt has led to a backlog of shipments in alternative ports in Asia, such as Singapore, India, and Malaysia, creating a state of confusion in the flow of goods and products across continents.

The global trade system resembles an interconnected network, and any disruption at a vital point like the Arabian Gulf spreads like wildfire throughout the entire supply chain. Hundreds of ships, including giant oil tankers and container ships, are currently facing difficulties in continuing their usual routes, threatening shortages in supply and an increase in prices for the end consumer.

Despite this regional disruption, reports indicate that the Israeli occupation is trying to maintain the continuity of its commercial systems and seaports normally. The Shipping and Ports Authority continues to issue instructions to ensure the flow of goods, while customs, import, and export activities continue in an attempt to avoid complete economic paralysis.

In the air sector, Ben Gurion Airport still receives air cargo flights, with cargo planes belonging to local companies continuing to operate to secure essential needs. However, the allocation of some flights for rescue and evacuation operations has reduced the available space for cargo transport, placing an additional burden on the already strained air transport system.

Analysts believe that the global economy is still at the beginning of a wave of disruption, and that the continuation of the crisis in the Gulf region will inevitably lead to further congestion in global ports. These logistical pressures will ultimately lead to delays in the arrival of vital supplies, which could push global inflation rates to new record levels that are difficult to control.

International trade is by nature a complex and highly sensitive system to geopolitical shocks, and every military escalation is followed by a cascading economic reaction whose end cannot be predicted. Those who observe maritime traffic today realize that the world stands on the cusp of a transitional phase that may reshape global trade routes and impose a new economic reality characterized by high costs and high risks.

In conclusion, the Israeli reading confirms that the ongoing war is no longer a border conflict but has turned into a battle on the energy front and global supply chains. If the threat of closing vital waterways continues, the economic shock will affect every home in the world, placing the international community before the responsibility of confronting these repercussions before it is too late.

The escalation in the Middle East is not just a regional event, but an economic and logistical drama shaking international trade and placing the global energy economy at the heart of the confrontation.

Official American sources reported a double attack targeting the 'Temple Israel' synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan. The incident involved a car ramming followed by intense gunfire in the area surrounding the building. FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that FBI teams immediately began their field work in cooperation with local authorities to control the situation and secure the site.

For its part, the Michigan State Police announced that preliminary investigations are underway to determine the motives behind the attack, which caused panic in the town, noting that all necessary measures are being taken to ensure the safety of residents in the area surrounding the synagogue. The local police chief confirmed in media statements that security forces successfully apprehended the suspect involved in carrying out the operation, without disclosing his identity at this time.

This attack comes in the context of a wave of security disturbances, as it is the second incident of its kind in one day after a separate shooting incident was recorded in the Dominion area of Virginia. Informed sources explained that what increases the seriousness of the Michigan incident is its occurrence at a synagogue that includes a school annex, which amplified fears of injuries among students or civilians present at the location.

Security reports linked these incidents to a series of warnings issued in the past few days regarding the possibility of places of worship in the United States being subjected to attacks described as 'terrorist'. These warnings come amid escalating political and military tensions in the region, especially direct and indirect confrontations between the United States and Israel on one hand, and Iran on the other.

Following these developments, US authorities raised the security alert level to high in major airports and vital facilities across various states, coinciding with arrests of suspects. The past few days have witnessed strict security measures, including an emergency landing of an airplane after a passenger was suspected due to the sound of the Adhan (call to prayer) emanating from his mobile phone, before he was later released after verifying his situation.

In the capital Washington and major cities, police patrols were heavily deployed at intersections and public squares to monitor the situation and protect sensitive facilities from any potential threats. Intelligence agencies are analyzing data related to the recent attacks to determine whether there are organizational links between the perpetrators or if they fall within the framework of lone wolf operations influenced by the general political climate.

A state of anticipation prevails in the American street awaiting the results of the final investigations being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into the Michigan attack, amid calls for enhanced protection around religious and educational institutions. The relevant authorities continue to review security cameras and eyewitness testimonies at the incident site to provide a complete picture of how the attack occurred and the parties that may be behind inciting it.

FBI agents are on site dealing with an attack involving a car ramming and shooting at a synagogue in West Bloomfield.

March 13, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C-For decades, the United States has anchored the global economic order. Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has presided over a system built on open markets, the primacy of the dollar, and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This architecture granted the United States enormous structural advantages: the world’s reserve currency, unrivaled financial power, and the ability to shape global trade and finance.

But history rarely stands still. The world economy has gradually become more multipolar, driven by the rise of new economic centers—most notably China and India—as well as the growing assertiveness of emerging coalitions such as BRICS. What once appeared to be an unassailable American economic hegemony is now facing structural challenges.

Washington’s recent military confrontation with Iran may accelerate that transformation.

The war, initiated under the administration of Donald Trump, was framed by its supporters as a decisive strategic move aimed at weakening Iran’s regional influence and deterring further escalation in the Middle East. Yet wars rarely remain confined to the strategic calculations that launch them. Their economic consequences often ripple across the global system in unpredictable ways.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the energy markets.

Iran sits at the heart of the global energy geography. The country borders the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime passage through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil flows. Any conflict that threatens shipping through this chokepoint immediately reverberates across the global economy. Since the outbreak of hostilities, oil markets have reacted with heightened volatility, reflecting fears that the conflict could escalate into a broader regional confrontation.

Should tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz be disrupted, energy analysts warn that oil prices could surge dramatically—possibly reaching $200 per barrel. Such a spike would not simply represent another cyclical fluctuation in commodity prices. It would amount to a systemic economic shock.

High oil prices have historically triggered recessions, inflationary spirals, and political instability. The oil crises of the 1970s offer a stark reminder of how energy shocks can reshape global economic dynamics. Today’s world economy, already burdened by inflationary pressures and geopolitical tensions, would be particularly vulnerable.

For the United States, the consequences would be especially complex.

On one hand, America is no longer as dependent on imported oil as it once was, thanks to the shale revolution. On the other hand, the global financial system—and by extension the U.S. economy—remains deeply interconnected with global energy markets. A dramatic surge in oil prices would raise transportation and manufacturing costs, intensify inflationary pressures, and force central banks to tighten monetary policy at a moment when economic growth is already fragile.

But the deeper risk is geopolitical rather than purely economic.

American economic dominance has long rested not only on the size of its economy but also on the stability of the international system it helped construct. The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, for example, depends on confidence in the broader U.S.-led financial architecture.

That architecture is increasingly under pressure.

Countries across the Global South have already begun exploring ways to reduce their dependence on the dollar. Bilateral trade agreements denominated in local currencies are expanding, while institutions associated with the BRICS grouping are promoting alternative financial mechanisms. Although these efforts remain limited in scale, they reflect a broader strategic trend: the search for economic autonomy from Western-dominated systems.

A prolonged conflict with Iran—and the economic disruptions it could trigger—may accelerate this shift.

If oil prices surge and global markets become more volatile, many countries will inevitably seek mechanisms that insulate them from geopolitical shocks originating in Washington. Energy-importing nations, particularly in Asia, could deepen financial cooperation with China while expanding regional trade arrangements that bypass dollar settlement.

For China, such developments would represent a strategic opportunity. Beijing has long sought to expand the international role of its currency and strengthen economic networks across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative have already laid the groundwork for a parallel web of economic relationships that operate partly outside Western financial structures.

In a world shaken by energy shocks and geopolitical fragmentation, those networks could become more attractive.

None of this means that American economic power is about to collapse. The United States still possesses extraordinary structural advantages: the world’s deepest capital markets, unmatched technological innovation, and global corporations that dominate entire sectors—from digital platforms to artificial intelligence. The dollar remains deeply embedded in international finance, and replacing it would require decades rather than years.

Yet economic hegemony is rarely lost in a single dramatic moment. It erodes gradually as the structural conditions that sustained it begin to change.

The war with Iran risks accelerating precisely such a process.

By triggering instability in global energy markets, raising the specter of $200 oil, and deepening geopolitical polarization, the conflict may weaken the very international system that underpins American economic influence. Instead of reinforcing U.S. leadership, the war could push more countries to hedge their bets—diversifying partnerships, currencies, and economic alliances.

The result may not be the sudden end of American power. But it could mark another decisive step toward a world in which the United States is no longer the uncontested economic center of gravity.

In that emerging multipolar order, Washington will remain a leading power—but no longer the one that sets the rules alone.

On October 7, Israel was subjected to a surprise attack that brought the Middle East back into a state of extreme tension. From Tel Aviv's perspective, this attack was not just a fleeting incident, but an extension of Iran's strategy in the region, which practices long-term attrition through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Every movement, every missile, and every threat is seen in Israel as a test of the viability of its deterrence doctrine, where any existential threat is considered a justification for a decisive and swift response. Israel's response went beyond a military operation to become both a symbolic and punitive message, aimed at punishing Iran for supporting its proxies, affirming Israel's continued existence, and declaring that any dream of an existential threat has ended.

This firm response is not random; rather, it stems from an Israeli mindset governed by the instinct for survival. Israeli existence is surrounded by a difficult historical, geographical, and political environment, which the state considers an inherently "repellent" environment, both in terms of direct threats and the hostile regional environment. Therefore, any threat, even if limited, is viewed as a test of the state's survival. Hence the intensity and speed of the Israeli response, as the state treats every threat as an opportunity to establish long-term deterrence, and the instinct for survival makes the response swift and decisive at times, regardless of regional or long-term costs. This partly explains the gap with the United States, which tends to view the conflict through a broader and more conservative strategic lens, while Israel focuses on the immediate and existential threat at the present moment.

In this context, the United States was drawn into Israel's desire for revenge and deterrence, and did not prepare its objectives in advance, nor was it ready for a war of this magnitude, because the primary objective was purely Israeli: to inflict punishment on Iran and leave the subsequent results open to dealing with circumstances at the time. Among Israel's most ambitious and perhaps least logical goals from a traditional strategic perspective was the attempt to create chaos within Iran and stir up stagnant waters. The Iranian regime is very conservative and operates cautiously without exposing itself to direct prosecution, making any external intervention to cause internal unrest extremely difficult. This desire presented Israel with a challenge and a tempting provocation at the same time, because it provides a means to weaken Iran without direct confrontation with its cohesive institutions.

Here, the gap in objectives between Israel and the United States becomes clear. Israel wants swift punishment and a comprehensive deterrent message, while the United States realizes that any attempt to completely change the Iranian regime would require years of ground intervention, making regime change a distant and unrealistic goal at the current stage. Moreover, the American approach to managing the conflict reflects a kind of deliberate chaos rather than precise strategic planning, as messages contradict and military and political orientations change rapidly, leaving allies and markets in a state of constant anticipation. In contrast, Israel expands the scope of its objectives to include Iran's vital energy facilities and missile capabilities, in an attempt to maximize pressure on the regime, while Washington tries to control the pace and restrict its objectives to avoid sliding into an uncalculated widespread war.

Furthermore, Israel's response was not limited to confronting Iran only, but extended to carry clear messages to the rest of the region's countries. From Tel Aviv's perspective, every military operation sends a signal that Israel is capable of protecting itself and deterring any threat, and that any attempt to weaken it or test its capabilities will be met with a decisive and immediate response. These messages also aim to remind allies and adversaries alike that Israel is not only an existing state, but a strategic power that can dictate the rules of the game in the region. The escalation in various locations, whether in Gaza or southern Lebanon, or targeting Iran's missile and energy capabilities, is not viewed in Israel as merely a military operation, but as part of a continuous deterrence strategy to renew regional prestige, and to affirm that any attempt to threaten Israel's existence is a red line that cannot be crossed.

Consequently, the war on Iran has become a collision arena between Israel's deterrence doctrine, the instinct for survival that governs every decision and response, American chaos, and Iran's attrition strategy through its proxies in the region. Every week brings new possibilities of unexpected escalation, diplomatic surprises, or reactions from Iran through its proxies. Israel's most ambitious scenario, which is regime change in Iran or creating internal chaos, could lead to deep regional chaos including state collapse, internal conflicts, and large waves of refugees, while the most likely scenario for the United States, with its awareness of the limitations and consequences, is limited to a partial victory and inflicting punishment, with dealing with the results later according to the prevailing circumstances.

In the end, the war on Iran is not just a military conflict, but a symbolic war of deterrence in which the United States was drawn into Israel's retaliatory goals, with open outcomes thereafter, and also aims to destabilize an internally fortified regime. It is a reminder that Israel remains, and that any existential threat is met with a decisive response, and that regional repercussions and long-term results will be managed according to the available data at the moment, making the conflict complex and full of contradictions from its beginning.

The Lebanese capital, Beirut, and its southern suburb witnessed today, Thursday, a new wave of violent Israeli air raids that targeted residential and vital areas. Field sources reported that the shelling directly targeted a building in the Bashoura neighborhood and another in the densely populated Zqaq al-Blat area, while the southern suburb was subjected to two consecutive raids that caused widespread destruction of properties.

In a remarkable field development, an Israeli drone carried out an attack targeting the courtyard of the Faculty of Science at the Lebanese University on the outskirts of the southern suburb. This raid resulted in the martyrdom of the Dean of the Faculty, Dr. Hussein Bazzi, and his colleague, Professor Dr. Mortada Sorour, in a crime that targeted academic and educational cadres in the country.

As for southern Lebanon, the Israeli war machine continued to target towns and villages, as a drone raided the public road in the town of Ain Ebel, affiliated with the Bint Jbeil district. This strike led to a number of injuries among civilians, while another raid targeted the intersection of the town of Ma'raka in the Tyre district as part of the ongoing escalation policy.

Regarding human casualties, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health announced a bloody toll as a result of a raid that targeted the town of Arki in the Sidon district in the south of the country. The ministry confirmed in a brief statement the death of 9 martyrs and the injury of 7 others with varying injuries, as ambulance and civil defense teams are working to recover the victims from under the rubble and transport the injured to hospitals.

These developments come amid the expansion of Israeli targeting to include the Lebanese interior and public facilities, amid warnings of the worsening humanitarian situation. Rescue teams continue search operations in the targeted sites in Beirut and the South, at a time when the displacement of residents from areas subjected to systematic shelling is increasing.

Dr. Hussein Bazzi, Dean of the Faculty of Science at the Lebanese University, and Dr. Mortada Sorour, a professor at the faculty, were martyred as a result of an Israeli raid that targeted the faculty's courtyard.

The Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip announced today, Thursday, a slight increase in the number of casualties who were able to reach medical facilities, as hospitals received one martyr and nine injuries in the past few hours. Medical sources clarified that these figures are limited only to evacuated cases, given the ongoing field challenges faced by rescue teams.

The ministry stressed in its field statement that the announced statistics do not represent the true extent of human losses in the Strip, due to the presence of hundreds of victims who are still missing under the rubble of destroyed buildings or lying in rugged roads. It indicated that civil defense and ambulance crews face extreme difficulties in reaching these areas due to continuous targeting or lack of necessary capabilities to recover bodies.

Regarding the statistics recorded since the eleventh of last October, official data revealed the registration of 651 martyrs and 1,741 others injured with varying degrees of wounds. During this period, specialized teams were also able to recover the bodies of 756 victims who fell in earlier times of the aggression, reflecting the scale of the ongoing tragedy in various governorates of the Strip.

As for the cumulative toll since the outbreak of the aggression on October 7, 2023, the Ministry of Health announced that the total number of martyrs has risen to 72,136 martyrs, while the number of wounded and injured reached 171,839 people. These shocking figures confirm the enormous human devastation left by the continuous military operations over many months of intensive bombing.

The humanitarian suffering continues in the Gaza Strip with the deterioration of the health system and the inability to provide necessary care for thousands of injured people who overcrowd medical corridors. Health authorities appeal to the international community for urgent intervention to provide safe corridors for rescue teams to recover the missing and provide emergency medical aid to hospitals operating beyond their capacity.

This statistic does not reflect the reality on the ground due to the large number of victims under the rubble and in the streets, where civil defense teams are unable to reach them.

Washington – Said Arikat – 12/3/2026

In a new step within its policy aimed at "drying up the funding sources of groups it designates as terrorist," the United States announced sanctions on four charitable organizations it said operate as a front for financing the Hamas movement, specifically its military wing known as "Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades," according to a statement issued by the US State Department on Thursday. The US administration states that these organizations use humanitarian work as a cover to collect funds and transfer them to military activities in the Gaza Strip.

According to the official statement, a copy of which was received by Al-Quds newspaper, these measures come within the framework of US efforts to disrupt the funding channels on which the movement relies, and to expose what Washington described as "the exploitation of civil and charitable organizations" in supporting military activities. The US administration believes that these financial networks constitute one of the main pillars that allow Hamas to maintain its organizational and military capabilities inside and outside Gaza.

Washington affirmed that the sanctions target an "illicit financing network" and aim to cut off financial flows that could be used to support the movement's military operations. It also stressed that these measures fall within a broader strategy to combat terrorism financing, including monitoring financial institutions and associations suspected of involvement in transferring funds to armed groups.

According to the statement, "the US administration simultaneously affirms that it does not target humanitarian work per se, but rather seeks to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians" through "reliable and secure" organizations, away from any political or military exploitation. Washington emphasizes that it supports international efforts aimed at improving the humanitarian conditions of Palestinians, in parallel with working towards achieving lasting peace in the region.

These sanctions are based on Executive Order 13224 on combating terrorism, which was issued in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and grants the US government broad powers to freeze financial assets and impose restrictions on individuals or entities suspected of supporting terrorist activities. The US State Department had previously listed the Hamas movement as a terrorist organization under this executive order on October 31, 2001.

The United States also designates the movement as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a designation that allows for additional sanctions and makes providing any material support to the movement a crime punishable under US law.

The US Treasury Department states that the new measures come after extensive financial investigations, during which it observed what it considered a recurring pattern of using charitable institutions to collect donations and transfer them to channels linked to Hamas. It adds that the sanctions include freezing any assets that may be subject to US jurisdiction, in addition to prohibiting financial dealings with these entities.

Washington views this step as part of a broader policy aimed at tightening the noose on the movement's financial structure, not only within the Palestinian territories but also through support networks abroad.

This step reflects the continuation of the traditional US approach to dealing with the Hamas movement, which primarily focuses on financial and legal tools to undermine the movement's capabilities. Washington believes that Hamas's financial structure is no less important than its military structure, and that striking funding sources can weaken its ability to endure and organize. However, critics argue that this approach ignores the broader political context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as financial pressure alone has not succeeded over the past decades in ending the movement's influence or reducing its popular presence in the Gaza Strip.

The targeting of charitable organizations always sparks wide debate in humanitarian and human rights circles, because the line between humanitarian work and political work in conflict zones is often fragile. In Gaza, large segments of the population rely on charitable institutions to provide food, healthcare, and education. Therefore, some observers fear that financial restrictions and sanctions could complicate the work of legitimate humanitarian organizations, or reduce the flow of international donations, which could directly affect civilians who are already living in difficult humanitarian conditions.

Politically, these sanctions come in a broader context of regional tensions and repeated military escalation in the region. Successive US administrations have used economic sanctions as a key tool in their Middle East policies, whether towards states or armed groups. However, experience shows that sanctions, despite their ability to weaken some financial networks, are rarely sufficient alone to bring about radical political change. Therefore, some analysts believe that such measures reflect conflict management more than they reflect a comprehensive strategy for resolving it.