The New York Times painted a grim picture of the outcomes of the military confrontation led by President Donald Trump against Iran, considering that it weakened American global power and caused a series of strategic setbacks. The editorial explained that the decision made last February was reckless, as it lacked congressional cover and allied support, and was based on contradictory justifications that failed to provide a clear vision for the future of the region.

The newspaper indicated that the weeks following the attack revealed an absence of precise military planning, as Trump acted based on his personal whims, ignoring intelligence warnings. Despite predictions by regional allies that the attacks would spark an internal uprising in Tehran, reality proved these estimates false; instead, it increased the cohesion of the Iranian regime in the face of external pressures.

The first and most serious setback is Iran's newfound control over the global economy through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which one-fifth of the world's energy supplies flow. While Tehran's leaders previously feared the consequences of closing the strait, the war emboldened them to disrupt navigation, giving them diplomatic and economic leverage they did not have before the confrontation.

Media sources reported that the Iranian strategy in the strait proved effective at low cost, as it relied on threats from drones and small missiles to intimidate international tankers. In contrast, Washington found itself unable to reopen the waterway without engaging in a massive and prolonged ground military operation, an option that the current administration does not seem to have the ability or desire to implement.

On the military front, the war revealed a severe depletion of American strategic weapons stockpiles, with estimates indicating that the Pentagon consumed more than 25% of its 'Tomahawk' missiles in this confrontation alone. This severe shortage prompted military leadership to withdraw missile defense systems from vital areas such as South Korea, weakening the American presence on other global fronts.

The field confrontations also showed a worrying technological gap, as the United States used billions of dollars worth of smart munitions to destroy traditional targets, while Tehran succeeded in paralyzing navigation using cheap technologies. This disparity in the cost of war raised serious questions about the readiness of the American army to confront the methods of modern asymmetric warfare in which regional powers excel.

The third setback was in the arena of international alliances, where major powers such as Japan, Canada, and most Western European countries refused to engage in the American adventure. This collective rejection reflects the erosion of trust in Washington as a reliable ally, prompting these countries to seek independent security and political arrangements away from the traditional American umbrella.

In the Middle East, the scene appears more complex, as Gulf states feel that the ceasefire suddenly announced by Trump represents an abandonment of their national security. Although Iranian threats may push some capitals to rapprochement with Washington, doubts about the wisdom of the current American leadership have come to dominate decision-making circles in the region.

The newspaper touched upon the erosion of the United States' 'moral authority,' especially after Trump's threats to wipe out Iranian civilization and target civilians. These statements, which the newspaper described as amounting to war crimes, contradict the democratic values and human rights that Washington has long claimed to defend and lead the world through.

The editorial considered that the approach of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who called for showing no mercy to enemies, represents an adoption of brutal methods rejected by international laws since World War II. This shift in official American discourse weakens Washington's ability to criticize authoritarian regimes in Russia and China, and strips it of its competitive advantage as a beacon of freedom.

The failure to secure enriched uranium or prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program represents an additional failure in the declared war objectives. Instead of curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, military chaos led to giving the Iranians additional justifications to accelerate the pace of their activities and challenge international oversight in the absence of a coherent American strategy.

The 'New York Times' believes that the only solution to this dilemma requires building a broad international coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and ensure freedom of navigation, which requires quiet diplomacy. However, the nature of the current administration, which prefers unilateral and confrontational action, makes building such a coalition almost impossible in the foreseeable future, leaving American interests hostage to escalation.

The past six weeks have proven that relying on 'intuition' in managing major international conflicts leads to catastrophic results for strategic influence. While Washington sought to demonstrate its strength, it ended up suffering from a shortage of ammunition and a crack in alliances, while Tehran emerged with diplomatic influence it had not dreamed of before the crisis erupted.

In conclusion, the newspaper affirms that this war was not just a tactical error, but an earthquake that shook the foundations of the international system led by America for decades. Restoring lost prestige will require years of serious diplomatic work and rebuilding trust with allies, which does not seem possible under current policies that prioritize threat over wisdom.

Trump's indifference left the United States on the brink of a humiliating strategic defeat and undermined the foundations of America's global leadership.

Media sources have revealed intensive diplomatic efforts currently underway to pave the way for the launch of direct and official negotiations between the occupation state and Lebanon in the American capital, Washington. These talks are scheduled to begin next Tuesday, as the concerned parties seek to move beyond the traditional ceasefire formula towards concluding a broader framework agreement that includes complex political and security issues.

This step follows high-level contacts, including a phone call between the ambassador of the occupation state to the United States, Yehiel Leiter, and Lebanon's ambassador in Washington, Nada Hamadeh Maawad. These negotiations are based on the terms of the ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024, with international directives pushing towards achieving lasting stability and gradual normalization of relations between the two sides.

Diplomatic sources reported that the existing border disputes between the two parties are not classified as fundamental obstacles that cannot be resolved. Instead, the current focus is on curbing the influence of armed forces that have hindered Lebanese state sovereignty. The sources indicated a convergence of interests between Beirut and Tel Aviv regarding strengthening the Lebanese state's authority over all its territories and ensuring security on both sides of the border.

In a related context, an active regional role emerged for both the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in pushing for these direct talks. Political circles expect both countries to provide significant political and economic support for the negotiation process, ensuring the success of the Lebanese initiative launched by President Joseph Aoun, which received immediate blessing from the American administration.

For its part, the Lebanese Presidency office confirmed the accuracy of the news regarding these talks in Washington, emphasizing that efforts in the first phase are focused on solidifying the pillars of the ceasefire. The office clarified that the upcoming meeting will represent a serious test of the parties' commitment to moving Lebanon to a new phase of regional stability, away from continuous military escalation.

The US Department of State is participating with a specialized team to follow up on the mediation between the two sides, with technical and administrative staff assigned to oversee the upcoming meetings. Observers believe that this diplomatic move represents a strategic shift in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, especially with the entry of Arab and international parties as economic and political guarantors for the success of the anticipated agreement.

The upcoming negotiations in Washington will constitute a real test for the path of regional relations and the possibility of transitioning to a new phase.

A new Emirati aid plane arrived in the city of Al Arish, loaded with 100 tons of urgent relief aid, in a scene that embodies the continuation of the UAE's humanitarian efforts to support brothers in the Gaza Strip, confirming its firm commitment to stand by the Palestinian people and alleviate the burden of the escalating humanitarian crisis.

The shipment, which was dispatched as part of the "Hamid Air Bridge," included quantities of essential foodstuffs to secure the necessary needs of affected families, in light of the difficult humanitarian conditions witnessed in the Strip.

The Emirati humanitarian aid team in the city of Al Arish was at the forefront of receiving the shipment upon its arrival, where they immediately began transferring and storing it in the Emirati Humanitarian Aid Logistics Center, in preparation for its entry into the Gaza Strip according to approved mechanisms, ensuring its rapid and efficient delivery to those in need.

Meanwhile, "Gallant Knight 3" continues to carry out its humanitarian missions since its launch, through an integrated system of air, land, and sea support routes, to secure food, relief, and medical aid for brothers in the Gaza Strip, in a vivid embodiment of the UAE's established humanitarian approach and its firm commitment to extending a helping hand and supporting brotherly peoples in times of crisis.

The word 'defeat' today seems closer to a realistic description of what the United States is facing amidst the ongoing war, as signs of losing international prestige have clearly begun to emerge with the conflict entering its second month. Official statements from the White House reveal a state of political predicament, as observers believe that extensive American involvement was not a strategic necessity for national interests as much as it was a response to internal pressures.

The Zionist lobby and Zionist Christian currents play a pivotal role in guiding the compass of the current American administration, using financial and media pressure tools and political blackmail. The events after October 7 revealed the penetration of these forces into decision-making joints, which pushed Washington to adopt narratives that facts proved false, placing the American nation before a deep internal review of its identity and global role.

Historically, the United States showed reservations towards Jewish immigration until the end of World War II, but major shifts in the balance of power in 1945 enabled Jewish groups to strengthen their positions. This rise was not a coincidence, but rather a result of a precise understanding of international variables, which reminds us of what the Russian writer Dostoevsky wrote in his famous article 'The Jewish Question' about the hidden endeavors to influence societies.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European position, especially in France and Spain, shows a fundamental divergence from the American vision towards Israel. Historical Europe views the entity as a geographical barrier or a means to dispose of the Jewish question away from the continent, while Washington goes far in adopting the Zionist project as an organic part of its global strategy, which has created a gap in interests between allies.

Political readings indicate that many European countries secretly wish for the United States to emerge 'broken' from this confrontation to rebalance power within the old continent. This ambition is not limited to Europe alone but extends to rising great powers such as China and Russia, who are closely monitoring the scene and seizing opportunities to reduce America's sole global influence.

On the ground, the downing of American aircraft raised questions about the entry of advanced air defense technologies into the conflict arena, which may indicate undeclared technical support from international powers. These qualitative developments in Iranian military capabilities, and their resilience in the face of threats, have imposed a new reality that has pushed international parties to seek negotiated paths and a temporary ceasefire to avoid sliding into an all-out confrontation.

The American propaganda machine tries to inflate limited military operations, such as rescuing pilots, to cover up the failure to achieve major strategic goals during the war. However, global public awareness has become more capable of exposing these media ploys, as rhetorical festivals are no longer able to hide the reality of field setbacks and the absence of tangible achievements on the ground.

The Arab world, and its peoples in particular, are watching this American decline with much anticipation, recalling the pains of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the setbacks that preceded it. Resilience in the face of American arrogance reopens the files of Arab national security that were shaken, especially after the humiliating way former American leaders dealt with the region's countries and their wealth.

Events have proven that the ability to control vital files such as energy, and to stand firm against military threats, can break the barrier of fear for other countries. The policy of 'no' that has begun to resonate in international political circles reflects a global exasperation with the 'demonic arrogance' practiced by Washington based solely on its material power, without regard for human values or international law.

The official Arab system finds itself today compelled to discuss the concept of national security away from the American umbrella, which has proven its complete bias. Fears that the spark of conflict will extend to other countries in the region necessitate the building of independent defensive and political strategies, relying on self-reliance and protecting national capabilities from continuous external blackmail.

The great paradox today lies in the continuous widening of the gap between the awareness of peoples and the practices of politicians, which portends a major historical event that may change the face of the region. This growing awareness is the true fruit of the popular steadfastness in Gaza and Palestine, which has reordered global priorities and revealed the reality of the powers that claim to protect democracy while practicing the most heinous forms of oppression.

Russia and China, as competing poles, fully realize that the erosion of American prestige in the Middle East necessarily means accelerating the birth of a multipolar world order. Despite caution in official statements, geopolitical movements indicate implicit support for anything that would drain American capabilities and engage them in long-term regional conflicts that weaken their global grip.

In conclusion, the 'arrogance of power' that has characterized American foreign policy for decades today seems to be digging the pit into which this hegemony will fall. History teaches us that empires that rely on military oppression and disregard the rights of peoples always end in decline, and what we see today may be the actual beginning of the end of the unique American era.

The waiting for the 'historical circumstance' that will change the balance is no longer just wishes, but has become a reality shaped by the steadfastness of anti-hegemonic forces and the erosion of traditional alliances. The events of this war will remain a turning point in the history of international relations, as history will record how the arrogance of power turned into a factor of weakness that ultimately led to the retreat of the unipolar power before the will of the peoples.

The 'arrogance of power' practiced by the United States may turn into a deep pit into which its global hegemony will fall.

Israeli diplomatic relations are undergoing a phase of accelerating deterioration, with disputes moving from closed rooms to the public in an unprecedented manner. This shift reflects increasing international pressure resulting from ongoing military operations and the impact of war images on global public opinion and political decisions in major capitals.

In Turkey, the crisis reached its peak with Ankara's announcement of preparing an official indictment targeting 35 Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This legal step comes against the backdrop of the previous Israeli attack on the 'Freedom Flotilla' which was attempting to break the siege on the Gaza Strip, reopening thorny judicial files.

Turkish escalation did not stop at the legal path but extended to include a sharp war of words in which Ankara described Netanyahu as the 'Hitler of the era'. The Israeli government, through its ministers, responded with a direct attack on President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, deepening the diplomatic rift between the two parties and reducing prospects for de-escalation in the foreseeable future.

On the European front, the Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned a high-ranking Spanish diplomat to deliver a formal reprimand to Madrid. This action followed a local event in Spain that included the detonation of an effigy representing Netanyahu, which Tel Aviv considered direct incitement and an expression of what it described as 'antisemitism'.

For its part, the Spanish government rejected these accusations outright, affirming that its stance stems from a commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and combating hate speech. Official sources in Madrid clarified that such events had previously included symbols of other world leaders without causing such diplomatic sensitivity.

In an additional escalatory step, Netanyahu decided to exclude Spanish representatives from the coordination center for the Gaza Strip, accusing Madrid of taking 'hostile' positions. This decision reflects an Israeli desire to punish countries that adopt critical stances on its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories by reducing their field roles.

As for East Asia, South Korea entered the line of diplomatic crises after President Lee Jae-myung re-posted a video documenting violations by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. Israel accused the Korean presidency of spreading 'misinformation', in an attempt to contain the Palestinian narrative which has begun to find widespread resonance in Seoul.

South Korean authorities responded by affirming that their foreign policy positions are primarily based on protecting human rights and rejecting all forms of violence and violations. These successive crises show that Israel is facing an existential challenge to its international image, as its official narrative clashes with field documentation adopted by countries previously classified as friends or quiet partners.

Israeli diplomatic disputes are no longer managed behind closed doors but have taken on a public character through official statements and digital platforms.

International press reports have highlighted the existential challenges facing the development model in the Arab Gulf states, following the military escalation led by US President Donald Trump against Iran. Analyst Steven Cook, in an article published by 'Foreign Policy' magazine, pointed out that military operations carried out without sufficient consideration of their consequences have placed the region's stability and emerging economies in immediate danger.

Cook considered that Gulf cities, which were once classified as side interests for researchers in genealogy and tribes, have transformed over the past decade into global centers of gravity, rivalling historical capitals such as Cairo and Damascus. He explained that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have made tremendous efforts to rebuild their societies and economies, creating a unique development model based primarily on attracting investments and global talent.

However, this model, which aims to transform Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Riyadh into centers for advanced technology and logistics services, is now threatened by direct confrontation with Tehran. Analytical sources believe that the recent war has raised serious questions about these countries' ability to protect their urban and economic achievements in light of the imbalance in regional deterrence.

According to the analytical reading, current diplomatic maneuvers may lead to Iranians gaining unprecedented influence in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global energy supplies. This influence will enhance Tehran's ability to threaten its neighbors with missiles and drones, thereby weakening the fundamental pillar of Gulf development: sustainable regional security.

Despite the internal political stability enjoyed by the Gulf states under their current leaderships, reliance on US military bases is no longer sufficient to curb tensions. Events following the Gaza war in October 2023 showed that Gulf states tried to distance themselves from regional conflicts to continue their development paths, but later found themselves in the eye of the storm.

Sources indicate that Gulf states continued to pump billions of dollars into mega-projects and attract major technology companies even at the height of the Israeli conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. The Gulf bet was that these conflicts would not hinder economic transformation plans, which seemed largely successful until the direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran erupted.

In June 2025, with the start of reciprocal attacks, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was hit by Iranian strikes, and despite the limited material damage, the political message was clear. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar realized that Iran's capabilities and intentions exceeded the US administration's estimates, prompting regional leaders to clarify their rejection of involvement in any offensive plans.

However, this neutral stance did not prevent the war from spreading to the heart of the Gulf in recent weeks, where energy infrastructure and the technology sector in the UAE were subjected to intense attacks. Reports indicated that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard targeted data centers in Bahrain and oil facilities in Kuwait, reaching the vital Ras Laffan facility in Qatar.

Iranians launched thousands of missiles and drones targeting Saudi oil refineries and pipelines, causing a shock among international investors. These systematic attacks were not merely a military response but appeared to be a strategic plan to threaten the economic arteries of the GCC states and force them to make political concessions.

Regarding ceasefire efforts, Cook believes that the Iranian peace plan being negotiated by Washington bodes ill for the region's countries. Iranian demands for control over the Strait of Hormuz and linking safe passage to coordination with its armed forces practically mean imposing a 'khawat' system or financial fees that might even be paid in digital currencies.

Observers believe that Trump's openness to considering these Iranian demands represents a dangerous retreat from commitments to protect international freedom of navigation. If this reality takes hold, Gulf states will find themselves forced to rely on Tehran's 'goodwill' or pay huge sums to a country that was bombing their cities and facilities just weeks earlier.

The damage to the stereotypical image of the Gulf as an oasis of security and business represents the greatest loss in this confrontation, as investors now fear the fragility of stability in the face of suicide drones. This new reality compels the leaders of Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha to reconsider their national priorities and allocate huge budgets to strengthen air defenses and protect cities.

Gulf leaders may again resort to a 'hedging' policy by strengthening relations with Beijing, seeking a lost balance amid American confusion in the region. The move towards China for advanced weapons or political guarantees has become a strong option to counter the long-term repercussions of American recklessness regarding the Iranian issue.

In conclusion, it seems that recovery from the effects of this round of conflict will take a long time and will not merely be a matter of repairing damaged oil facilities. The real challenge lies in restoring international confidence in the Gulf development model and proving its ability to withstand an regional environment that has become more hostile and complex than ever before.

The Gulf development model, based on political stability and regional security, now faces existential questions after technology and energy cities have become targets for Iranian missiles.

A few days after the announcement of a temporary truce between Iran and the United States, all eyes were on the recent talks between the two parties, which ended in failure. This failure brought tensions back to the surface and fueled speculation about the future of relations between the two powers, but it also revealed a potential new scenario: the possibility that the current truce could become permanent, and that direct hostilities would cease, which is the best scenario for the United States and the worst for Iran.

The current US President, Donald Trump, who declared war on Iran on February 28, 2026, seems determined not to engage in a direct comprehensive conflict, but at the same time, he will not completely close the door to selective hostile actions. This approach allows him to use measured responses against any Iranian action he deems a threat, especially concerning the vital Strait of Hormuz, the most sensitive strategic pressure point in the region.

What confirms Trump's approach to managing the conflict is how he handled the "12-day war," where the US President adopted a strategy of stalemate and selective control: he ceased hostilities without any formal agreements with Iran, maintaining psychological and military pressure in a calculated manner, and demonstrated Washington's ability to control the conflict according to its interests, without sliding into a comprehensive war. This approach reflects Trump's strategic method: leaving the door open for selective threats, demonstrating power without being bound by agreements that might limit freedom of action, and exploiting Iranian psychological and political tension to maintain continuous pressure. The option of withdrawing from negotiations and threatening not to negotiate now constitutes the strongest threatening leverage against Iran, and perhaps the most effective option among all American pressure tactics.

From Washington's perspective, a permanent truce means relative stability and reduced military and economic losses, while maintaining US strategic influence in the region without sliding into a comprehensive war. It also allows Americans to focus on other domestic and international issues, away from the cycle of the ongoing Iranian conflict for decades.

For Iran, a permanent truce represents a real challenge, as it is forced to comply with the limits of this truce to avoid selective American retaliation, but at the same time, it faces internal pressures to maintain its sovereignty and regional interests. This scenario leaves Iran in a state of uncertainty and presents it with a continuous strategic dilemma: every step it takes could face selective American retaliation, while any retreat or concession might be interpreted internally as weakness, increasing political and social pressures within the country.

In this context, Iranian intransigence in demands is not merely political stubbornness, but a calculated strategy to ensure the internal cohesion of the regime and prevent the United States and Israel from achieving strategic goals or gaining any sense of victory. The negotiations themselves are governed by this symbolic conflict over the "victory card," where each party seeks to assert its strength and achieve a moral gain, even under the truce, which makes any agreement fragile and dependent on the delicate balances between the two parties.

Trump's strategy relies on smart containment and flexible deterrence, where the field is left open for all future possibilities. The truce, despite being permanent, is not true peace, but a state of calculated stalemate that allows the United States to control the course of events, while Iran remains facing a continuous threat at every strategic turn. This stalemate keeps the animosity alive, but ensures that a comprehensive conflict does not erupt for now, while maintaining the possibility of using selective pressures to impose American influence.

Ultimately, the political future of the region remains suspended between permanent truces and diplomatic failure, with Trump keeping the option open for selective military action according to Iran's actions, especially concerning the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran struggles to maintain its interests without sliding into a comprehensive confrontation. The permanent truce, in this form, reflects a significant strategic gain for America and a continuous dilemma for Iran, leaving the field open for all possibilities, and confirming that the animosity between the two parties will remain present even in apparent peace, leaving Iran in a state of anticipation and continuous uncertainty, where intransigence in demands ensures the preservation of the regime's cohesion and repels any sense of moral victory for America or Israel, while talks are governed by a constant struggle over the symbolic "victory card" between the two parties.

The town of Tayasir, east of Tubas city, is experiencing a state of turmoil following the execution of young Alaa Subeih by an Israeli soldier on leave, once again highlighting the intertwined roles of the occupation army and settlers. This incident comes in the context of escalating attacks targeting the Palestinian presence in the Northern Jordan Valley, where the occupation continues to detain the martyr's body and refuses to hand it over to his family.\n\nThe Al-Safah area in Tayasir is a living example of the daily suffering endured by farmers, who face continuous harassment and direct physical assaults. Farmer Anan Daraghmeh, who transformed 120 dunams into a productive orchard providing livelihoods for dozens of families, recently suffered a violent attack that resulted in broken bones in his hand and the burning of his property and vehicles by settler groups.\n\n The stark irony is that these attacks occur within areas classified as (A) according to the Oslo Accords, which are supposed to be under full Palestinian civil and security control. This transgression proves that the settlement project does not recognize political divisions and aims to undermine any future Palestinian sovereignty over vital agricultural lands.\n\n The crimes were not limited to physical intimidation but extended to burning inhabited homes, as happened to the family of citizen Ali Al-Faqir, who were displaced after their home turned to ashes. This family of 16 is now homeless, and this is the second time they have been displaced after being previously expelled from the Al-Maleh area under flimsy military pretexts.\n\nHani Abu Ali, head of the Tayasir Village Council, indicates that settlement outposts are now suffocating the town's population expansion, with some being no more than 200 meters from citizens' homes. This deliberate proximity places hundreds of dunams of agricultural greenhouses under constant threat and prevents farmers from safely accessing their lands to harvest their crops.\n\n The violations extend beyond land to the theft of water and electricity resources, as settlers forcibly connect their own lines to Palestinian farmers' networks. This behavior imposes enormous economic and psychological burdens on the landowners, who watch their wealth plundered to support illegal settlement outposts established on the ruins of their historical rights.\n\n On the legal front, the Village Council is making strenuous efforts through communication with official bodies and Palestinian liaison to put an end to these transgressions and remove new outposts. Despite repeated promises to evacuate settlers, the reality on the ground indicates continued attempts to impose new facts through setting up tents and seizing springs.\n\n Experts in settlement affairs believe that what is happening in Tayasir falls within the "pastoral settlement" strategy, which aims to control vast areas with the fewest number of settlers. This policy relies on daily intimidation to create an environment that expels the indigenous population, ultimately leading to silent forced displacement away from international attention.\n\n The Jordan Valley, which constitutes about 30% of the West Bank's area, is considered the major food basket and strategic extension of the desired Palestinian state. Therefore, the occupation strives with all its might to transform it into closed military zones or nature reserves, to cut off any Palestinian geographical connection with the Jordanian borders.\n\n Official reports issued by the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission indicate that 2025 witnessed an unprecedented escalation, with more than 23,000 attacks recorded in various governorates. These figures reflect a systematic policy aimed at emptying the land, and have already led to the complete displacement of 13 Bedouin communities since the beginning of this year.\n\n Despite all these pressures, the residents of Tayasir and the Jordan Valley show legendary steadfastness in clinging to their lands, demanding the strengthening of infrastructure and the construction of agricultural roads as tools of resistance and resilience. Providing basic services in remote areas is the most important weapon in confronting the attempts of uprooting and displacement practiced by the various arms of the occupation.\n\n The battle in Tayasir is not just a dispute over village borders, but an existential battle that touches the core of the entire Palestinian national project. Targeting farmers in their livelihoods and burning their children's books and school bags aims to break the national will, which the residents meet with determination to remain and rebuild.\n\n Local sources confirm that the occupation army now provides full cover for settlers, and even participates with them in carrying out attacks, especially after the events of October 2023. This shift has made every settler a presumed soldier, and every Palestinian farmer a legitimate target in the eyes of the occupation system that is racing against time to effectively annex the Jordan Valley.\n\n In conclusion, international and institutional action remains an urgent necessity to protect what remains of the geographical and demographic unity of the Jordan Valley. Silence on what is happening in Tayasir and the Al-Safah area gives the green light to the occupation to continue its policy of ethnic cleansing that targets the pillars of food security and Palestinian sovereignty.\n\n We reclaimed this land from nothing, as it was unsuitable for cultivation, and we will not leave it no matter the sacrifices.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself in a complex position, striving to market the results of recent military operations as historic achievements, yet clashing with the absence of the decisive 'victory image' he accustomed his public to. Despite his desire to leverage rapprochement with the American administration for internal political gains, the reality on the ground dictates a different, ambiguous, and uncertain pace.

Political readings indicate that Netanyahu aspired to capture commemorative photos reflecting absolute strategic superiority, such as controlling nuclear facilities or completely neutralizing Iranian missile capabilities. However, the absence of these scenes has made it difficult for the Likud party to fully regain its momentum in opinion polls, with recent data showing a slight decline in the number of projected seats compared to previous periods.

In contrast, Netanyahu's popular base appears surprisingly solid, as statistics indicate that the vast majority of government coalition supporters still trust his management of security crises. This internal satisfaction gives the Prime Minister room for maneuver despite sharp criticism from international and local parties regarding the war's outcomes, which have not achieved all their stated goals.

On the far-right, a striking silence emerges from ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who previously threatened to dismantle the government at any military setback. This absolute silence regarding ceasefire agreements or the failure to achieve 'absolute victory' raises questions about the internal understandings that ensure the coalition remains cohesive despite strategic failures.

In the Israeli street, a state of confusion prevails regarding the identity of the victor in these repeated rounds, with media sources reporting that nearly half of those surveyed believe it is still too early to judge the results. These figures reflect a significant gap between official government rhetoric and the feelings of settlers in the north who continue to suffer from the consequences of displacement and instability.

The Israeli opposition, led by Yair Lapid, tried to exploit this void by directing scathing criticism, describing the current results as strategically the worst in decades. However, observers believe that the opposition is still unable to present a convincing alternative or mobilize the street in a way that leads to real political change, which keeps Netanyahu in a position of power despite the erosion of his image.

Other opposition leaders, such as Benny Gantz, show more cautious and calm stances, perhaps awaiting an opportunity to join an emergency government or form new alliances if the situation escalates. This divergence in the opposition's performance disperses efforts to pressure the government and gives Netanyahu additional time to arrange his internal affairs away from the pressures of early elections.

The issue of the 'conscription law' stands out as one of the political landmines that could ignite the internal situation at any moment, as the opposition seeks to focus its attack on this sensitive file. Analysts believe that focusing on civil and social issues may be more fruitful for the opposition than criticizing military results, which many agree are complex and difficult to resolve.

From a military perspective, it cannot be denied that Israel has inflicted severe damage on its adversaries' armament capabilities, but the continued existence of missile and nuclear threats makes any talk of 'final victory' questionable. This reality puts Netanyahu in constant confrontation with public questions about the utility of continuing operations without reaching a decisive outcome that changes the geopolitical reality.

Given these facts, it seems that Netanyahu has no incentive to bring forward the election date, as long as the opposition does not have a clear 'image of failure' through which it can overthrow him. He is banking on the time factor and his ability to manage contradictions within his coalition, benefiting from the state of uncertainty that dominates the entire region.

Residents of the northern and southern regions represent the weakest link in this political conflict, as their businesses collapse and their daily lives are directly affected without a clear time horizon for a solution. These represent the 'heart' that some political leaders spoke of as an urgent need for Israeli leadership in the next phase, away from narrow partisan calculations.

The absence of direct negotiations between major powers and regional parties further complicates the scene, making it difficult to predict an imminent end to this state of 'no war, no peace.' In this vacuum, Netanyahu continues to practice his favorite political hobby of staying in power by managing crises instead of solving them, relying on the disunity of his opponents.

In conclusion, the 'victory image' remains the missing currency in current Israeli politics, an image Netanyahu needs to restore his popularity, and the opposition needs to prove his failure. Between these two, Israeli society remains hostage to political decisions governed by calculations of personal and coalition survival, at a time when security and economic challenges are increasing.

The next phase will witness strenuous attempts by all parties to reshape the narrative about what happened in the war, as each party will seek to impose its vision on the Israeli voter. Issues such as conscription and the economic situation of reserve soldiers will play a crucial role in determining the features of the upcoming political map, away from the roar of explosions and images of missiles.

The problem lies in Netanyahu's lack of a victory image; if he had something to wave, he would celebrate the ceasefire with charts and fireworks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Saturday evening the continuation of military operations in Lebanon and threatened further escalation in the coming period. Netanyahu affirmed in a recorded speech that Tel Aviv would not agree to enter into any negotiation process unless its conditions, which include the complete dismantling of Hezbollah's military capabilities, are met.

Netanyahu claimed that the Lebanese side had recently sought repeatedly to open direct communication channels with Israel, considering that this approach came as a result of the intense military pressure exerted by the occupation army. He clarified that he had set two basic conditions for approving these discussions: the disarmament of Hezbollah and the conclusion of a peace treaty that guarantees stability for future generations.

In a related context, the Lebanese presidency confirmed in an official statement that an agreement had been reached to hold the first direct meeting between delegations from Lebanon and Israel in the American capital, Washington, next Tuesday. This announcement sparked angry reactions from Hezbollah, which condemned the move and considered it a violation of national principles in light of the ongoing aggression.

On the ground, the widespread Israeli aggression on Lebanese territories continues to claim more lives, with statistics indicating 2020 martyrs and over 6400 injured since early March. Saturday alone witnessed the fall of 97 martyrs in a series of violent raids targeting various areas, reflecting the extent of the ongoing destruction.

Netanyahu touched upon the Iranian file in his speech, claiming that Tehran is going through an unprecedented phase of weakness and facing internal crises that threaten the regime's survival. He stressed that Israel would not allow hostile forces on its borders, pledging to work to prevent Iran from acquiring enriched uranium by all available means, including military option.

The Israeli Prime Minister praised the level of coordination with the American administration in confronting Iranian threats, describing the current partnership as unprecedented. He indicated that the direct involvement of the United States in fighting alongside Israel against Iranian targets represents a major strategic shift that was not expected a year ago.

Regarding international diplomatic efforts, the United States and Iran announced last Wednesday a temporary two-week truce mediated by Pakistan. This truce aims to pave the way for a comprehensive agreement that ends the state of war that erupted last February, which has left enormous human and material losses in the region.

Despite Islamabad's and Tehran's assurances that the de-escalation should include the Lebanese front, Washington and Tel Aviv denied any correlation between the two tracks. Israel translated this stance by launching raids described as the most violent since the start of the aggression, targeting various sites in Lebanon immediately after the announcement of the Iranian-American truce.

For its part, Hebrew media sources quoted security officials as issuing instructions to the army to reduce the pace of attacks in Lebanon in the coming days. This step, according to the sources, is an attempt to build trust before the Washington talks begin, despite Israel's insistence on not withdrawing from the areas it has controlled.

In contrast, political assessments in Tel Aviv indicate that Hezbollah may resort to escalating its military operations before the start of the Washington meeting to strengthen its negotiating position. Israeli circles expect the next 48 hours to witness a wave of intense rocket attacks targeting the depth and border settlements.

Indeed, Hezbollah announced the execution of 34 diverse military operations since dawn on Saturday, targeting gatherings of occupation soldiers, military vehicles, and strategic sites. The party affirmed in its statements that these operations come in response to the ongoing massacres against Lebanese civilians and in defense of national sovereignty in the face of Israeli encroachment.

The Lebanese scene remains suspended between the hammer of military escalation on the ground and the anvil of anticipated political negotiations in Washington. While Netanyahu insists on his difficult security and political conditions, the Israeli military machine continues its operations, leaving the region facing scenarios open to all possibilities during this week.

We will not agree to any negotiations except on the two conditions of disarming Hezbollah and reaching a peace agreement that endures for generations.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has once again highlighted the violations committed by the Israeli occupation army in the occupied Palestinian territories by publishing a video documenting a brutal assault on a Palestinian body in the West Bank. The Korean President demanded a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the incident and information on the legal actions taken against the soldiers involved in this act, which violates international norms.

The details of the incident date back to September 2024, when occupation forces surrounded a house in the town of Qabatiya, south of Jenin. The military operation at the time resulted in the martyrdom of several young Palestinians after they were heavily fired upon inside the besieged building.

The videos, re-shared by the Korean President, documented harsh moments showing occupation soldiers dragging and mutilating the bodies of the martyrs before throwing them from the rooftop of the house. These scenes sparked a massive wave of local and international condemnation when they first spread, due to their blatant violation of the dignity of the deceased.

On the 'X' platform, Lee Jae-myung stressed that war crimes cannot be separated from major historical crimes condemned by the world. The Korean President compared the occupation's practices to forced slavery and massacres suffered by Jews, in a clear reference to the Holocaust and the crimes of the Japanese occupation of Korea.

In his clarification of the incident, Lee noted that the White House had previously described the incident as 'deeply disturbing.' He also pointed out that the occupation authorities had announced their intention to investigate the incident, which led him to question the actual results of those alleged investigations.

In his posts, the Korean President emphasized the need for strict adherence to international humanitarian law and the preservation of human dignity under all circumstances. He considered human rights to be the last bastion and supreme value that cannot be bartered or compromised, regardless of military justifications.

For its part, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs sharply responded to the Korean President's statements, accusing him of spreading 'misinformation.' Israeli sources claimed that the video was re-circulated out of its temporal context, alleging that the incident occurred during a complex military operation in which soldiers faced direct threats.

Tel Aviv claimed that the incident had undergone a comprehensive investigation and disciplinary actions were taken regarding it two years ago, attacking the Korean President for relying on what it described as 'fake accounts.' The Israeli Foreign Ministry also criticized Lee for ignoring attacks targeting Israel by other regional parties.

Seoul's official response was not delayed, as the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its regret for what it described as Israel's 'misunderstanding' of the President's statements. The ministry clarified that Lee Jae-myung's words were an expression of his deeply held personal convictions regarding universal human rights.

In its official statement, the Korean government affirmed its firm stance rejecting all forms of violence and anti-humanitarian acts. It stressed that respect for international humanitarian law must be a general principle applied without exception in all conflict zones around the world.

This diplomatic crisis comes at a time when the West Bank is witnessing an unprecedented escalation by occupation forces since the start of the genocide war on the Gaza Strip. Field reports indicate that more than 1,147 Palestinians have been martyred and thousands injured in West Bank cities and refugee camps in recent months.

The systematic occupation policies continue in the West Bank, including killing, mutilation, demolition of structures, and expansion of illegal settlements. The United Nations considers these practices a blatant violation of Palestinian rights in territories that international legitimacy recognizes as occupied territories.

War crimes are no different from the issues we strongly criticize, such as forced slavery and massacres committed against Jews.

The Palestinian territories witnessed another bloody day, resulting in the martyrdom of eight individuals in various areas. A young Palestinian man was martyred on Saturday evening by armed settlers during an attack on the village of Deir Jarir in Ramallah. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that Ali Hamadneh, 23, died after being shot in the back and chest while confronting the settlers.\n\nLocal sources in Deir Jarir village reported that groups of settlers stormed the western entrance of the village under heavy protection from Israeli occupation forces, who provided them with security cover. The settlers fired live ammunition indiscriminately at citizens and their properties, leading to severe tension and confrontations in the area.\n\nIn a related context of attacks in the West Bank, a Palestinian child was injured and suffered from suffocation after an attack by settlers in the Khalayel al-Louz area southeast of Bethlehem. Security sources stated that the settlers used pepper spray in their attack on citizens, necessitating on-site first aid for the injured.\n\nFor its part, Hamas condemned the escalation of settler crimes in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, describing them as part of ongoing Judaization schemes. The movement called on Palestinian youth to utilize all available means of resistance to deter these attacks and make the settlers pay for their brutal crimes targeting the Palestinian presence on the land.\n\nOfficial statistics indicate that the number of martyrs in the West Bank has risen to at least 1,148 since early October 2023, amid an unprecedented Israeli escalation. The number of injuries has reached approximately 11,750, while arrests have exceeded 22,000 in various cities and camps in the West Bank.\n\nAccording to data from the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission, settlers carried out more than 443 attacks in just one month, including shootings and property arson. These systematic attacks resulted in the martyrdom of 9 Palestinians and the destruction of vast agricultural lands, in an attempt to establish new settlement outposts by force of arms.\n\nIn the Gaza Strip, occupation forces committed a new massacre early Saturday morning, targeting a gathering of civilians in Al-Bureij camp in the central Strip. The Israeli airstrike resulted in the martyrdom of 6 citizens and varying injuries to others, continuing the policy of targeting densely populated residential areas.\n\nIn another field development, a seventh Palestinian was martyred following an airstrike carried out by occupation aircraft on the town of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip. These raids come amid ongoing military operations targeting infrastructure and inhabited homes, daily increasing the toll of civilian casualties.\n\nOn the political front, Hamas demanded that the Israeli occupation be compelled to implement the first phase of the previously concluded ceasefire agreement. The movement considered that the continuation of raids and massacres in Gaza represents an "extension of the war of extermination" and a clear disregard for the efforts of international mediators and the guarantor states of the agreement.\n\nMovement spokesman Hazem Qassem stated that the crime in Al-Bureij camp proves the legitimacy of the resistance's demands to stop Israeli violations before moving to any other stages. Qassem clarified that Israel disregards all international calls to stop the genocide operations and adhere to the announced de-escalation requirements.\n\nFor its part, the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned the Al-Bureij massacre and called on the international community to act immediately to provide international protection for the Palestinian people. The ministry stressed in its statement the necessity of imposing deterrent sanctions on the occupation authorities and activating international accountability mechanisms to prosecute those who commit ethnic cleansing crimes.\n\nAccording to the latest updates from the Ministry of Health, Israeli violations of last October's agreement have so far led to the martyrdom of 749 Palestinians and the injury of more than two thousand others. These figures reflect the extent of ongoing violations by the occupation army despite understandings reached under regional and international sponsorship.\n\nIn contrast, the Israeli occupation army admitted on Saturday evening that one of its soldiers was seriously injured during what it described as an "operational incident" in the central Gaza Strip. The army did not provide further details about the nature of the incident, at a time when intermittent clashes continue in several axes of the besieged Strip.\n\nThis crime confirms the legitimacy of the resistance forces' demand that the Israeli enemy be compelled to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement and stop its violations.

The Metropolitan Police in London announced the arrest of 92 individuals today, Saturday, during their participation in a protest event in the famous Trafalgar Square. These arrests came against the backdrop of participants' support for the 'Palestine Action' group, which is being pursued by British authorities due to its activities against companies collaborating with the Israeli occupation.

The square witnessed the gathering of about 500 demonstrators, called by the 'Defend Our Juries' organization, to express their rejection of classifying 'Palestine Action' as a banned organization. Protesters raised slogans condemning the genocide in the Gaza Strip, affirming their right to peaceful demonstration and support for movements seeking to stop the flow of weapons to Israel.

Field sources reported that police forces conducted thorough searches of participants before escorting them in small buses to detention centers. Official data indicated that the ages of those arrested varied significantly, including young people aged 27 and elderly individuals, some as old as 82.

These developments come about two weeks after the London police decided to resume prosecuting individuals who display slogans supporting the group. This measure had been temporarily suspended following a ruling by the British High Court in mid-February, which deemed the government's ban illegal.

Prominently present at the protest were British Jews opposed to Israeli policies, in addition to Holocaust survivors and members of their families. They expressed their solidarity with the Palestinian cause, considering the restriction of 'Palestine Action's' activities an assault on freedom of expression and democratic values.

In a related context, demonstrators raised a effigy of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of supporting genocide and opposing solidarity movements. This step reflects the extent of public anger towards the British government's official stance on the ongoing war against the Palestinian people and military cooperation with Tel Aviv.

The police stated in their announcement that the arrests took place with record speed, with dozens being apprehended within less than two hours of the event's start. Sources indicated that authorities had obtained legal permission to challenge the High Court's decision, paving the way for the return of arrest campaigns against activists.

'Palestine Action' has faced severe legal pressure since July 2025, when then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper officially banned it. Anyone proven to support the organization faces harsh penalties under anti-terrorism law, potentially including up to 14 years in prison.

The group is known for its direct protest methods, which include targeting weapons factories belonging to the Israeli company 'Elbit Systems' on British soil. Its activists have previously carried out incursions into air bases, where they disabled military aircraft and sprayed them with red paint to express their rejection of bloodshed.

Human rights estimates indicate that the number of individuals arrested for activities supporting the group has reached about 3,000 since last year. Despite the prosecutions, the organization, founded in 2020, affirms its continuation of work until what it describes as the apartheid system and genocide is ended.

For its part, the High Court, in its previous review, found that the vast majority of 'Palestine Action's' activities did not amount to terrorism. Nevertheless, the British government insists on prosecuting its members, placing the judiciary and security in continuous confrontation with the escalating international solidarity movements in the United Kingdom.

I am against genocide and I support Palestine Action.

The British capital, London, witnessed a new wave of security tensions after police arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. These security actions took place during a massive demonstration organized to support the "Palestine Action" organization, which is being pursued by British authorities due to its activities against companies dealing with the Israeli occupation.

Field sources reported that security forces led activists away from the center of the famous Trafalgar Square, amidst cheers and applause from hundreds of other demonstrators who participated in the sit-in. Protesters held explicit banners supporting the banned organization, making them subject to direct arrest under current laws that criminalize support for groups classified as terrorist.

London police had issued prior warnings stating that any activities aimed at supporting the group were considered "illegal." Authorities confirmed that participants in these gatherings would face legal prosecution, which was effectively translated by the intervention of forces to disperse the protesters, most of whom were elderly British citizens.

Estimates indicate that about 500 people participated in the sit-in held in Trafalgar Square, expressing their rejection of the organization's classification as a banned entity. Participants raised slogans condemning the genocide in the Gaza Strip, affirming their full solidarity with the goals of "Palestine Action" in pursuing Israeli arms factories.

Police carried out mass arrests of seated demonstrators, who were then transported to temporary collection points on the edges of the square for thorough inspection. Following this, those arrested were taken by small buses to various police stations, in an attempt to end the sit-in that lasted for several hours.

The demonstration saw a notable presence of Jewish groups opposing Israeli policies, in addition to Holocaust survivors and members of their families. Protesters carried a effigy of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of supporting genocide and opposing peaceful popular anti-war movements.

This security escalation comes after the decision to ban the organization and classify it as a terrorist organization last July, a decision that makes membership a criminal offense. Penalties stipulated in this context can reach up to 14 years in prison, placing activists under immense legal pressure in the United Kingdom.

For its part, the High Court in London issued a ruling in mid-February stating that the ban might conflict with the right to freedom of expression. This ruling came in response to a legal challenge, leading to a temporary suspension of arrests before the government announced its intention to appeal the judicial decision.

"Defend Our Juries" movement, the organizer of the protest, announced that the demonstration comes in response to what it described as the British government's complicity in Israeli crimes. The movement criticized the police's continued arrests despite judicial decisions questioning the legality of the ban imposed on the group.

The movement affirmed that prominent lawyers had warned authorities that these arrests might be illegal and lack strong constitutional backing. Nevertheless, security agencies continued to pursue participants, announcing by Saturday afternoon the arrest of 92 people ranging from young to elderly.

In testimonies from the field, one participant said that continuing to demonstrate is a moral duty that cannot be abandoned, no matter the legal pressures. She added that the moral stance of the demonstrators is firm in the face of genocide, even if the political and legal positions of the British government change.

Statistics indicate that nearly three thousand people have been arrested since the ban on "Palestine Action" was issued last year. Hundreds of these face formal criminal charges, most of which relate to carrying banners or publicly expressing support for the organization in public forums.

Judicially, British courts decided to halt all trials related to supporting the organization pending a comprehensive review of the cases at the end of next July. This judicial freeze raises questions about the government's ability to proceed with criminalizing solidarity activities with Palestine under the guise of anti-terrorism laws.

It is worth noting that "Palestine Action" was founded in 2020 with the stated goal of ending global complicity in the Israeli apartheid system. Most of its field operations focused on disrupting the production of weapons factories belonging to the Israeli company "Elbit Systems" located on British soil.

It is important that we all continue to oppose genocide; the government may backtrack on its legal position, but the ethics of the people here do not change.

Washington — Said Arikat – 4/11/2026

The political debate in the United States is witnessing a remarkable shift regarding the nature and extent of military aid provided to Israel, with parties traditionally considered within the camp of steadfast support entering the escalating controversy. In this context, the American Jewish organization J Street, which defines itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace," announced its support for the growing calls within progressive circles in Congress to reconsider US funding for Israeli missile defense systems, especially the Iron Dome system.

This stance reflects a growing crack in the traditional consensus that has long governed the American-Israeli relationship, where missile defense programs, unlike other forms of military support, enjoyed almost absolute political immunity due to their direct defensive nature and their role in protecting civilians from missile attacks.

However, J Street's entry into this debate indicates that this politically "forbidden zone" is no longer immune to re-evaluation, in light of rising voices within the Democratic Party, especially from the progressive wing, demanding a redirection of US foreign spending priorities and linking aid to stricter political and moral conditions.

In statements quoted by "Jewish Insider" magazine, a spokesperson for the organization considered that the positions of progressives should not be described as "radical," but rather fall within a legitimate debate that remarkably intersects with statements issued by both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted for war crimes before the International Criminal Court, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who affirmed on different occasions that Israel has the economic capacity to finance its defense needs, including its missile systems.

This unexpected intersection in political discourse reflects a complex scene, as the positions of ideologically disparate parties converge at one point, but they stem from contradictory motives. While progressives seek to reduce American support based on financial and ethical considerations, some Israeli leaders and American conservatives put forward the idea of "self-sufficiency" as a sign of strength, not an entry point for redefining the alliance.

J Street's position gains particular importance given its centrist position within the spectrum of pro-Israel lobbying groups, where it has consistently combined support for Israel's security with criticism of its governments' policies, especially under Benjamin Netanyahu. This positioning could give it greater ability to reshape the debate within liberal Jewish circles in the United States, and perhaps influence public opinion trends within the Democratic Party.

This development comes in a broader context of political and diplomatic tensions in American-Israeli relations, where calls are increasing within Congress to re-evaluate US foreign policy priorities, in light of internal challenges and growing financial pressures, as well as broader geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.

Although any radical change in funding policies does not seem imminent, the inclusion of systems such as the "Iron Dome" in the public debate indicates a qualitative shift in the nature of political discourse, and may open the door for deeper reviews in the near future.

The Iron Dome system has long been a red line in the American debate, as a purely defensive tool that enjoys moral and political consensus. However, J Street's position reflects the beginning of the erosion of this consensus, with the rise of a new political generation within the Democratic Party that does not deal with traditional axioms with the same degree of commitment. The debate is no longer about Israel's right to defend itself, but about the limits of the United States' commitment to funding this defense, especially in light of Israel's advanced economic and technological capabilities and increasing internal American pressures.

What is striking in this debate is the invocation of Netanyahu's and Lindsey Graham's positions to justify the progressive proposal, an apparent intersection that conceals a fundamental divergence in motives. While progressives stem from a desire to reduce American military involvement and redirect resources, the other side uses the same argument to highlight Israel's strength and independence. This rhetorical convergence gives the progressive proposal broader political cover, and removes it from the circle of "extremism," but at the same time reflects the fragility of rhetorical alliances in a highly polarized and volatile political environment.

The debate is no longer confined to the cost of support or its strategic feasibility, but rather reflects a remarkable escalation in feelings of resentment and annoyance with Israeli policies, especially in light of what is seen as repeated aggressive actions. This mood is no longer limited to progressive circles, but has begun to spread across wider segments of American society, including sectors of American Jews, some of whom are involved in frameworks such as J Street. In this context, the debate over funding becomes an expression of a deeper shift in public opinion and its trends.

Washington – Said Arikat – 12/4/2026

US Vice President J.D. Vance announced on Saturday evening the conclusion of the sensitive round of negotiations between the United States and Iran in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, without reaching an agreement, after Tehran rejected American conditions related to its nuclear program, a development that brings tension back to the forefront of the regional and international scene.

In statements to reporters, Vance said that the talks, which lasted for about 21 continuous hours, ended without a breakthrough, indicating that the American delegation would leave Pakistan and return to Washington. He explained that the US administration was seeking a "clear and explicit commitment" from Iran not to seek to acquire nuclear weapons or develop the tools that would enable it to achieve that quickly.

He added: "The primary goal of the President of the United States is to ensure that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and this is what we tried to achieve through these negotiations," noting that he was in constant contact with President Donald Trump and senior officials during the negotiation process.

Background of the Negotiations

This round came amidst a highly tense regional atmosphere, especially after the recent military escalation between Israel and Iran, and the accompanying mutual threats, in addition to the repercussions of the war in Gaza and Lebanon. Islamabad had hosted the talks in an attempt to de-escalate tensions and open a new diplomatic window between the two parties.

According to informed sources, the differences centered on the nature of the guarantees requested by Washington, which go beyond merely halting uranium enrichment, to include dismantling parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, in addition to strict restrictions on ballistic missile programs.

In contrast, Tehran rejected these conditions, considering them to infringe upon "national sovereignty" and to go beyond what could be accepted within any agreement, asserting that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature, and that it will not abandon its "legitimate rights" in developing nuclear technology.

Expected Failure or Negotiating Tactic?

Observers believe that the failure of this round was not surprising, given the widening trust gap between the two parties, especially after Washington's withdrawal from the previous nuclear agreement in 2018 during President Trump's term, and the subsequent "maximum pressure" policy that reimposed harsh sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, the nature of the current American conditions, which Tehran describes as "dictates," makes it difficult to achieve a quick breakthrough, especially in the absence of American guarantees not to repeat a withdrawal from any future agreement.

Regional and International Repercussions

The collapse of the talks is expected to increase tension in the region, with the possibility of a return to indirect military escalation between Iran and Israel, in addition to rising concerns about the acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program as a reaction to American pressures.

This failure may also affect global energy markets, given the repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important oil passages, which could impact oil prices and international economic stability.

At the same time, Washington may find itself facing limited options, ranging from tightening sanctions or returning to a new diplomatic path with less stringent conditions, or even sliding into an indirect military confrontation.

The American stance in this round reflects a continuation of an approach based on imposing maximum conditions without offering meaningful reciprocal incentives, which weakens the chances of reaching a sustainable agreement. Instead of building on the previous nuclear agreement, Washington chose to unilaterally redefine the rules of the game, ignoring that the loss of trust is the primary obstacle. Moreover, insisting on absolute guarantees from one side, without offering similar commitments, turns diplomacy into a tool of pressure rather than a means of understanding. This approach reproduces the causes of previous failures and undermines any real opportunity for a long-term negotiated solution.

American policy appears to be captive to internal considerations and regional alliances, particularly concerning Israel, more than it is based on a coherent strategic vision for nuclear non-proliferation. The rigidity of demands is inseparable from political pressures in Washington, which transforms negotiations into an arena for satisfying internal and external parties, rather than a serious path to a solution. This intertwining of domestic and foreign policy weakens the credibility of the United States as a mediator and reinforces Tehran's conviction that any agreement may be temporary and subject to collapse with changing administrations.

This round also reveals a deeper flaw in the American approach, which is the excessive reliance on pressure tools and sanctions, while neglecting to build a gradual path of trust. Previous experiences have shown that Iran responds more to balanced diplomatic engagement, not to dictates. Nevertheless, Washington continues to repeat the same approach, expecting different results. This contradiction reflects the absence of a long-term vision and increases the likelihood of escalation instead of containment. In a volatile regional environment, the continuation of this approach may push the region towards an open confrontation, rather than sparing it further crises.

By: Said Arikat

April 12, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- The contrasts between Barack Obama and Donald Trump are not just striking but clarifying. One president invested in diplomacy, coalition building, and negotiated restraint. The other has repeatedly chosen confrontation, escalation, and ultimately war. Yet the real story behind the current crisis with Iran is not simply about policy differences. It is about Trump’s enduring fixation on dismantling Obama’s legacy and proving that everything his predecessor built was fundamentally wrong.

At the center of this rivalry stands the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Obama and major world powers. The agreement placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities and allowed international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. For Obama, it was a pragmatic solution to prevent war. For Trump, it became a symbol of weakness and capitulation.

From the beginning of his political rise, Trump treated Obama’s achievements as targets for elimination. The Iran deal became his most consistent obsession. He did not merely argue that it was flawed. He portrayed it as a betrayal of American interests and of Israel, echoing the objections of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But where Netanyahu’s opposition was strategic, Trump’s often sounded personal.

Trump repeatedly invoked Obama’s name when attacking the deal, framing its existence as proof of failed leadership. He insisted that Obama had empowered Iran and endangered allies. In doing so, Trump transformed a complex diplomatic agreement into a political grievance. Ending it was not simply policy. It was a declaration that Obama had been wrong.

That declaration came in 2018, when Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement despite international verification that Iran was largely complying. European allies opposed the move and tried to preserve the deal. But Trump was unmoved. The priority was clear: dismantle Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement regardless of the consequences.

Those consequences arrived quickly. Within a year, Iran began expanding its nuclear activities, enriching more uranium and reducing cooperation with inspectors. The limits that had constrained its program eroded. Instead of eliminating the threat, Trump’s decision accelerated it. Yet his rhetoric did not change. He continued to describe the deal as a path to a nuclear weapon, reinforcing his long standing narrative.

That narrative now shapes the war itself. After abandoning negotiations for a revised agreement, Trump turned to military action. Reports indicate that Netanyahu played a key role in pushing the U.S to wage the war, reinforcing a dynamic in which Israeli concerns aligned with Trump’s instincts. But the decision to escalate also reflected Trump’s impatience with diplomacy, particularly diplomacy associated with Obama.

The war, however, has not produced a clean resolution. While U.S. and Israeli forces damaged Iranian capabilities, they did not eliminate its nuclear potential. More importantly, Iran has gained leverage by tightening control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global energy supplies. This new reality complicates any effort to claim decisive victory.

Now Washington once again needs negotiations. Talks aimed at stabilizing the situation underscore an uncomfortable truth: diplomacy remains unavoidable. Yet the context has changed. Iran enters discussions with greater leverage, and the United States faces higher costs. The very outcome Obama sought to prevent—greater instability and reduced oversight—has become reality.

Still, Trump appears determined to secure an agreement of his own. The distinction matters deeply to him. Any deal must not only resolve the crisis but also surpass Obama’s achievement. This is the core of his approach: dismantle first, then rebuild in a way that asserts personal and political superiority.

That approach carries risks. Trump’s maximalist demands, including calls for Iran to abandon enrichment entirely, are far more rigid than the incremental limits of the original agreement. Such positions may satisfy political instincts, but they reduce the chances of a workable compromise. Iran is unlikely to accept terms that appear to erase its sovereignty.

The result is a cycle in which confrontation leads back to negotiation, but on worse terms. Trump may eventually reach a deal, yet it will reflect the realities created by his own decisions. In that sense, Obama’s legacy remains unavoidable. It continues to define the baseline against which success is measured.

In trying to erase Obama, Trump has instead ensured his predecessor’s influence endures. The Iran crisis is not just a geopolitical conflict. It is also a political echo, shaped by one president’s determination to undo another. And that determination may prove to be the most consequential decision of all.

The missed opportunities before the war further highlight this dynamic. Mediators indicated that Iran had been prepared to accept significant limits on its nuclear activities, including tighter verification and reduced stockpiles. Yet these openings failed to gain traction in Washington. Critics argued that Trump’s team lacked either the patience or the technical focus to recognize what was on the table. Whether that assessment is entirely fair or not, the result is clear: a potential diplomatic offramp was bypassed in favor of escalation. That choice again reflects a broader pattern in which rejecting Obama era frameworks took precedence over refining them. It is a pattern that continues to shape events today.

Ultimately, Trump’s Iran policy cannot be separated from his view of Obama. It is driven as much by rivalry as by strategy. Until that changes, American policy risks repeating the same cycle of rupture, escalation, and reluctant return to diplomacy with higher costs and fewer options.

The dawn of April 8, 2026, witnessed a dramatic shift in the regional confrontation, as the Pakistani government announced that it had reached a ceasefire agreement through direct consensus between Tehran and Washington. This announcement came forty days after the outbreak of a widespread war launched by US President Donald Trump, in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against Iranian targets.\n\n The agreement, sponsored by Islamabad, came as a major political surprise, especially as it was reached just one hour before Trump was to implement his threats of unprecedented escalation against Iran. According to official Pakistani sources, the understandings included a comprehensive de-escalation in Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq, reflecting an international desire to contain the conflict and prevent it from sliding into a full-scale global war.\n\n For his part, Benjamin Netanyahu received this agreement as a harsh political shock, finding himself forced to deal with a reality imposed by his American ally, who had previously entrusted him with the decision of war and peace. Despite his official approval of the de-escalation, Netanyahu tried to circumvent the agreement by unilaterally excluding the Lebanese front from his field calculations.\n\n In a reaction described by observers as insane, Israeli forces launched intense bombing campaigns targeting the capital Beirut and areas of southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley. These attacks resulted in hundreds of martyrs and more than 1,600 wounded, in a wave of destruction considered the deadliest since the start of military operations in the region.\n\n These field developments revealed the extent of the gap between the American administration and the Israeli government, as Trump tried to deny Lebanon's inclusion in the agreement in line with Netanyahu's wishes. However, the Prime Minister of Pakistan reiterated the comprehensiveness of the de-escalation to all fronts, putting the White House in an embarrassing position before the international community.\n\n Analysts believe that Trump's retreat from the option of a full-scale war was not driven by a desire for peace, but rather by internal and external pressures and a shift in the balance of power on the ground. Political blackmail and pressures exerted by the Zionist lobby (AIPAC) on the American administration to ensure continued absolute support for Israeli actions are also emerging on the horizon.\n\n In contrast, the Israeli interior is experiencing a state of political turmoil, as Netanyahu faced a wave of harsh criticism from the opposition and the Hebrew press, which accused him of failing to manage the crisis. This internal crisis is considered the most severe in Netanyahu's career, as his ability to maneuver is narrowing between field pressures and Washington's international understandings.\n\n On the Iranian side, there was a kind of caution and pessimism regarding the intentions of the American administration, as commentators in Tehran considered Trump's approval to be part of a strategy of treachery and deception. Official Iranian statements stressed the need to keep "the finger on the trigger," affirming that trust in American promises remains non-existent based on previous experiences.\n\n Despite this caution, experts believe that the current reality compels all parties to deal with Pakistani mediation as a mandatory path to avoid total collapse. The increasing pressures on Trump, both from within America and from global powers, force him to submit to the logic of politics instead of the logic of pure military force.\n\n The balance of power that emerged during the "Forty-Day War" proved that escalation options no longer achieve the desired results for Netanyahu and Trump. The axis faced military and political steadfastness that prevented the achievement of the aggression's goals, leading to cracks in the regional and international position supporting Israeli military operations.\n\n Sources confirm that politics, in the end, is subject to field realities and tangible results, not just the personal desires of leaders. The failure to achieve a quick military decisive victory against Iran and its allies pushed the United States to seek a diplomatic way out through Islamabad, which explains the sudden retreat in the escalatory rhetoric.\n\n In this atmosphere, Netanyahu began to hint at the possibility of opening negotiations with the Lebanese state, at Trump's direct request to reduce the intensity of the bombing. This shift reflects an Israeli attempt to absorb international anger and circumvent the internal crisis that threatens the stability of the government in Tel Aviv.\n\n The question remains about the sustainability of this agreement in light of the ongoing field violations in Lebanon and the mutual suspicions between the parties. However, what is certain is that Pakistani mediation has succeeded in putting initial brakes on the war train that was heading towards a comprehensive regional confrontation whose end could not be predicted.\n\n In conclusion, the current scene proves that Trump, despite all displays of power, remains bound by the responsibility of political outcomes and the failure of Netanyahu's dependent policies. The coming days will reveal whether this agreement is merely a warrior's respite or the beginning of a new political path that redraws the map of conflict in the Middle East.\n\n Netanyahu's reaction revealed the severity of the political blow he received from the agreement, and the extent of Trump's submission to the pressures of the Zionist lobby.

The head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the Iranian Parliament, Ibrahim Azizi, revealed details of a new bill concerning the regulation of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Azizi explained that the proposed legislation explicitly stipulates that passing ships must pay transit fees in Iranian Rial, a step aimed at strengthening national sovereignty and the local currency.

In statements to state television, the Iranian official indicated that the bill, titled 'Safe Passage,' will place the strategic strait under the full and comprehensive control of the Iranian armed forces immediately upon its final approval. These moves come amidst escalating military tensions witnessed in the region over the past weeks.

Azizi touched upon the diplomatic aspect of managing the waterway, stating that there is a possibility of signing a bilateral cooperation agreement with the Sultanate of Oman regarding the regulation of navigation in the strait. He stressed that imposing fees in the national currency is a sovereign decision consistent with the new directions of the Iranian state in managing its geopolitical resources.

In response, US President Donald Trump quickly reacted with a harsh tone, asserting that the United States will not allow Tehran to impose any transit fees in this international passage. Trump wrote on his 'Truth Social' platform, warning that reports of imposing fees on oil tankers must stop immediately, describing the measure as dangerous.

Trump's statements coincided with the arrival of diplomatic delegations in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, in preparation for the launch of negotiations aimed at reaching a permanent ceasefire. The Iranian delegation in these talks is led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, amidst international anticipation for the results of this crucial round of direct dialogue.

From the American side, the White House announced that Vice President J.D. Vance will attend the first round of talks, reflecting the importance Washington attaches to this issue. International parties are seeking to reach a formula that ensures the stability of global energy flows, which have been severely affected by recent confrontations in the region.

President Trump had previously announced his approval to suspend military strikes against Iranian targets for two weeks as a gesture of goodwill. The US administration conditioned this suspension on the full and immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation without any obstacles or Iranian restrictions.

It is worth noting that navigation in the Strait of Hormuz was regular before the outbreak of military confrontations on February 28, as the strait is the main lifeline for global trade. Approximately 20 million barrels of oil pass through this waterway daily, representing about one-fifth of global consumption.

The outbreak of the war led to widespread disruptions in global energy markets, with oil and gas prices soaring to record levels due to fears of the strait's closure. International powers consider any threat to the safety of navigation in Hormuz a direct threat to global economic security and supply stability.

Iranian authorities officially announced the closure of the strait on March 2, threatening to target any vessel attempting to cross without prior coordination with its forces. This Iranian decision came in response to what it described as American-Israeli aggression, leading to a near-complete paralysis of major tanker traffic.

Observers believe that Tehran's insistence on collecting fees in Iranian Rial represents a direct challenge to the economic dominance of the US dollar in international transactions. This step comes in the context of a broader strategy pursued by some countries to reduce reliance on the Western financial system in light of the economic sanctions imposed on them.

These developments raise concerns about a new round of escalation if Iranian forces attempt to intercept ships that refuse to pay the proposed fees. Global shipping companies and international exchanges are closely monitoring the results of the Islamabad talks, hoping to defuse the crisis and avoid a comprehensive economic catastrophe.

On the ground, sources reported that the naval forces of the Revolutionary Guard have raised their readiness in the areas surrounding the strait and strategic islands. These field movements coincide with the political pressures exerted by the Iranian Parliament to quickly turn the fee bill into a reality on the ground.

The question remains about the international community's ability to find a compromise that guarantees the sovereignty of the littoral states of the strait while preserving the freedom of international navigation. The next few days are crucial in determining the course of the conflict, either towards comprehensive de-escalation or sliding into a wide-ranging naval confrontation.

According to the bill prepared by Parliament, transit fees through the Strait of Hormuz will be paid in Rial, Iran's national currency.

The announcement by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun of his country's intention to enter into direct negotiations with Israel in the American capital, Washington, next week, has sparked a wave of sharp division in the Lebanese street. This tension quickly manifested in field protests, with dozens of Hezbollah supporters demonstrating around the Grand Serail and various areas of the capital Beirut, raising slogans condemning this sudden political move.

In a related context, field sources observed widespread calls on social media platforms for popular mobilization in front of the Grand Serail this Saturday afternoon. These movements express an absolute rejection of the negotiation path announced by the presidency, amidst ongoing military operations and existing border tensions that have not yet subsided.

For its part, the Lebanese Army command quickly issued a strongly worded warning statement, emphasizing that it would not tolerate any movements that might threaten internal stability or civil peace. The statement clarified that the military institution respects the right to peaceful expression of opinion, but it will intervene firmly to prevent any aggression against public and private property or attempts to destabilize security in these delicate circumstances.

In its statement, the army stressed the need for citizens to exercise the highest degrees of awareness and national responsibility, calling on everyone to fully respond to the directives of the military units deployed in the field. These warnings come at a time when observers fear that the protests could escalate into internal confrontations, further complicating the already critical Lebanese scene.

On the political front, Hezbollah bloc MP Hassan Fadlallah expressed the party's absolute rejection of these negotiations, considering them a constitutional and legal violation that cannot be overlooked. Fadlallah pointed out that this step contributes to deepening internal division at a time when Lebanon needs national unity to confront external challenges and ongoing aggression.

Fadlallah clarified in his statements that tampering with the country's fate through nationally unagreed-upon negotiation channels threatens coexistence and civil peace. He affirmed that the priority should be to preserve the cohesion of the internal front rather than engaging in political paths that the party considers illegitimate and serving external agendas.

According to a statement issued by the Lebanese President's office, a tripartite phone call took place involving the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors to Washington, in the presence of the US ambassador to Beirut, who is currently in the United States. This call resulted in an agreement to hold the first meeting between the two parties next Tuesday at the US State Department headquarters to discuss thorny issues.

The anticipated meeting aims to discuss mechanisms for announcing a ceasefire and setting a timetable for the start of official negotiations under direct American patronage. President Aoun had previously expressed his readiness for direct dialogue with the Israeli side, especially after the expansion of military confrontations that began in early March.

In contrast, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Yehiel Leiter, confirmed Tel Aviv's approval to begin official peace negotiations with the Lebanese government. Leiter clarified in an official statement that Israel seeks to reach an agreement with the Lebanese state, but at the same time rejects any discussion regarding a ceasefire with Hezbollah, which it describes as a terrorist organization.

The Israeli ambassador considered Hezbollah to be the main obstacle to achieving peace between the two states, noting that Israeli military operations target the party's infrastructure. These statements confirm the wide gap in visions between the concerned parties regarding the nature of the required truce and who it should include in the next phase.

On the other hand, press sources quoted a Lebanese government official confirming that Beirut's official position stipulates achieving a comprehensive ceasefire before engaging in any negotiation details. This position comes amidst continued intensive Israeli raids on various Lebanese regions, which Hezbollah responds to with counter-rocket attacks, making the prospects for a political solution fraught with risks.

The negotiations represent a blatant violation of the Lebanese Charter, Constitution, and laws, and a manipulation of the country's fate and future.

The Republic of Mali, in a prominent diplomatic move, announced its official decision to withdraw recognition of the 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic' overseen by the Polisario Front. This announcement came during an official visit by Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop to the Moroccan capital, Rabat, where he met with his Moroccan counterpart, Nasser Bourita, to discuss bilateral relations and regional issues.

The Malian Foreign Minister affirmed that this shift in Bamako's position came after a deep and comprehensive analysis of the Sahara file, given its direct implications for peace and security in the region. Diop explained that his country now sees the Moroccan proposal as the most realistic path to end this protracted conflict, emphasizing the importance of regional stability at this sensitive stage.

The official declaration of the Malian government stressed Bamako's full support for the autonomy plan presented by Morocco, describing it as the only serious and credible basis for reaching a final settlement. Mali believes that granting autonomy to the Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty represents the optimal solution that aligns with political and on-the-ground realities, and guarantees the rights of all concerned parties.

In a related context, Mali reiterated its commitment to supporting the efforts of the United Nations and the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Sahara to reach a mutually agreed political solution. Sources indicated that the new Malian position is based on relevant UN Security Council resolutions, particularly the latest Resolution 2797 issued at the end of October last year, which enhances the momentum of the political process.

Malian diplomacy is scheduled to disseminate this new position to all regional and international organizations of which it is a member, in addition to informing diplomatic missions accredited in Bamako. This step reflects Mali's desire to align its foreign policy with the growing international trends that support the Moroccan approach to the Sahara issue.

Reports indicate that Moroccan diplomacy has achieved successive successes in this file over the past two decades, with the number of countries recognizing the Sahrawi entity significantly decreasing. According to official statistics, about 54 countries have withdrawn their recognition of the Polisario over the past 25 years, reflecting a shift in the political convictions of the African continent and the international community.

Current data confirm that more than two-thirds of the member states of the United Nations, exceeding 120 countries, now support the autonomy initiative under Moroccan sovereignty. Observers believe that this widespread support strengthens Rabat's position in international forums and places the Polisario Front in increasing diplomatic isolation, especially with the joining of influential African countries to this trend.

Despite the internal political challenges facing Mali, its recent decision is seen as a strong signal of its desire to strengthen cooperation with Morocco in security and economic fields. Analysts believe that the rapprochement between Bamako and Rabat could open new horizons for cooperation in the Sahel and Sahara region, which faces common terrorist and security threats.

In contrast, the Malian decision sparked mixed reactions, with some considering it a response to political realism, while others saw it as an attempt by the transitional authorities in Mali to break international isolation. Mali faces pressure from regional organizations such as ECOWAS and the African Union, which keeps its diplomatic moves under continuous international scrutiny.

Historically, Morocco suffered from the consequences of dual French and Spanish colonialism, which led to the recovery of its territories in varying stages through a long political and diplomatic struggle. Rabat considers the Sahara file to be 'the lens through which Morocco views the world,' and the primary criterion that determines the sincerity of friendships and the effectiveness of international partnerships.

Negotiations and international efforts continue under UN auspices to find a final solution to this conflict, while Rabat insists that autonomy is the most that can be offered. Major international powers such as the United States, France, and Spain support the Moroccan position, which gives the autonomy initiative strong legal and political momentum in the corridors of the Security Council.

Observers of African affairs believe that Mali's withdrawal of recognition represents a strong blow to the Polisario Front in its African heartland, especially since Mali was previously considered one of the countries that adopted differing positions. This shift proves the ability of Moroccan diplomacy to penetrate traditional alliances and build partnerships based on mutual interests and respect for territorial integrity.

From a legal perspective, the Malian decision strengthens the legitimacy of Moroccan demands in African forums and contributes to changing the balance of power within the African Union regarding this file. Diplomatic sources expect other countries to follow Mali's lead in the near future, given the growing conviction of the futility of separatist options in the region.

In conclusion, the Western Sahara file remains a cornerstone of the foreign policy of the region's countries, where geopolitical interests intertwine with national aspirations. With each new recognition of the autonomy initiative, the region moves closer to resolving one of the oldest conflicts on the African continent, serving the development and stability of all peoples in the region.

Mali supports the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco as the only serious and credible basis for resolving this conflict.

King Abdulaziz Air Base in the Eastern Sector of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia received a military force from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Saturday. This step comes within the framework of activating the provisions of the joint strategic defense agreement signed by the two countries earlier, to enhance military and security cooperation frameworks between Riyadh and Islamabad.

Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Defense stated in an official statement that the arriving force includes fighter jets and support aircraft belonging to the Pakistan Air Force. This military presence aims to raise the level of operational readiness and develop mechanisms for joint coordination between the armed forces of the two countries, serving the stability of the region and the balance of power within it.

This military deployment is the first announced field cooperation since the signing of the joint defense agreement last September between the Kingdom and Pakistan, which is known as the only nuclear power in the Islamic world. This move comes at a sensitive time in the region, sending clear signals about the nature of new defensive alliances.

The arrival of Pakistani fighters coincided with a temporary two-week truce in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which includes international and regional parties such as the United States, Israel, and Iran. The past period has witnessed widespread security tensions, including military strikes targeting vital facilities in the Gulf Arab states.

Observers and political analysts believe that the activation of this agreement fundamentally changes the strategic equation in the region. Experts in international politics considered the presence of Pakistani pilots and fighters on Saudi soil to be a strong deterrent message to any regional parties considering targeting the Kingdom's security, considering that the security of the two countries has become an indivisible unit.

These military movements also aim to ensure continued stability in the event of diplomatic impasses or the collapse of ongoing negotiations between major powers and Iran. Through these partnerships, Riyadh seeks to diversify its defensive options and rely on strategic allies with significant military weight on the international stage.

Deploying this force means activating the joint strategic defense agreement, and the presence of the Pakistan Air Force makes any attack on Saudi Arabia an attack on Pakistan.

International media sources reported that Beijing is on the verge of finalizing a deal to deliver advanced 'MANPADS' air defense systems to Tehran in the near future. This move comes as Iran seeks to bolster its military arsenal and replenish its stock of defensive weapons, utilizing periods of field calm to develop its combat systems.

Portable shoulder-launched air defense systems (MANPADS) are classified as one of the most important pillars of short-range air defense in modern warfare. Chinese military industries have been developing these systems since the 1970s to compete with their Russian and American counterparts in accuracy and field effectiveness.

China's journey in this field began with the first generation known as (HN-5), a system primarily based on reverse engineering of the famous Soviet 'Strela-2' missile. This generation was characterized by an effective range of up to 4.4 kilometers and the ability to hit targets at an altitude of 2.5 kilometers, despite lacking modern digital technologies.

The 1990s witnessed a qualitative leap with the entry of the (QW) series, or 'Vanguard,' into active military service. The QW-1 model is considered the first relatively modern Chinese system, as it was equipped with an advanced infrared seeker and an engagement range exceeding 5 kilometers against hostile targets.

Development continued, leading to the QW-2 model, which primarily focused on enhancing the ability to counter defensive countermeasures. This system possesses high accuracy in neutralizing targets that use flares and thermal balloons for deception, making it very effective against helicopters at low altitudes.

The QW-3 system represents a major technological shift in the family of Chinese systems, as it relies on semi-active infrared guidance. Its unique advantage lies in its ability to engage aircraft from the front rather than just pursuing them from behind, a performance comparable to advanced Western systems.

These industries culminated in the advanced (FN) generation, specifically the FN-6 system, which has gained widespread international fame in recent regional conflicts. This missile has a range of 6 kilometers with an altitude ceiling of 3.5 kilometers, making it a real threat to jet fighters and suicide drones.

Modern generations of these missiles are characterized by a superior ability to resist complex electronic and thermal jamming imposed by modern electronic warfare systems. Intelligence reports have detected the presence of these systems in several hot spots in the Middle East, with a particular focus on their increasing presence in the Iranian arsenal.

Through acquiring these Chinese technologies, Iran seeks to fill gaps in its field air defenses and protect its vital facilities from surprise attacks. These weapons provide high flexibility for ground forces due to their ease of portability and their ability to deal with a wide range of modern aerial threats.

These systems represent an extension of Soviet designs that Beijing developed into smart generations equipped with digital technologies to counter drones and fighter jets.

High-level Iraqi security sources reported that the US diplomatic support center within the Baghdad International Airport complex was subjected to a violent attack using three suicide drones. The sources stated that the attack occurred last Wednesday, with one of the drones falling very close, no more than 50 meters, from a diplomatic team on a sensitive logistical mission.

The targeted diplomatic team was accompanying American journalist Shelley Kittleson, who was recently released after being kidnapped for a full week. The transfer operation was part of strict security arrangements aimed at securing her departure from Iraqi territory immediately after she was handed over by local authorities, who in turn received her from the abducting party.

In a related context, the US State Department announced the summoning of the Iraqi ambassador in Washington to lodge a strong official protest against what it described as 'heinous terrorist attacks.' Washington accused Iran-backed armed factions of carrying out an ambush against its diplomats on April 8, considering these actions to undermine security stability in the region.

Details indicate that journalist Kittleson was initially transferred to the US Embassy in Baghdad, and then moved on Wednesday morning to the diplomatic support center via a specialized ambulance plane. The transfer operation was accompanied by two air protection aircraft, as she was scheduled to board a military cargo plane to leave the country before the sudden drone attack occurred.

The aerial bombardment caused a state of alert within the airport, leading to the postponement of the journalist's departure for several continuous hours. Sources confirmed that the additional security measures taken after the incident enabled the team to successfully complete the evacuation, with Kittleson safely leaving Iraq after the field situation stabilized.

This field escalation comes at a sensitive time, as factions under the banner of the 'Islamic Resistance in Iraq' had previously announced a suspension of their operations against US interests. This de-escalation was supposed to last for two weeks, coinciding with regional understandings between Washington and Tehran, but the recent attack violated this announcement.

For its part, the US Embassy in Baghdad warned its citizens of the possibility of additional attacks in the diplomatic vicinity and Baghdad International Airport. The embassy indicated that armed factions carried out several drone attacks just hours after the alleged de-escalation announcement, reflecting the fragility of the commitments declared by these groups.

The past period has witnessed a series of missile and drone attacks targeting the US Embassy and the diplomatic support center, especially following the military tensions that erupted last February. Washington and Baghdad exchange accusations regarding shortcomings in protecting missions, with the United States pushing for more stringent security measures to prevent the recurrence of these incidents.

Despite the Iraqi government's announcement of its full commitment to protecting diplomatic missions and intensifying security cooperation with the American side since late March, the field reality still witnesses major breaches. The recent attack on Baghdad Airport highlights the serious challenges faced by authorities in controlling uncontrolled weapons and ensuring the security of foreign diplomats.

One of the drones fell less than 50 meters from the US diplomatic team accompanying journalist Shelley Kittleson in preparation for her departure from Iraq.

Human rights and humanitarian warnings are escalating regarding the dangerous repercussions of the proposed law for the execution of Palestinian prisoners, whose effects are not limited to prison cells but extend to strike at the social fabric of the Gaza Strip. This legislative move comes in a complex political context that places the issue of prisoners at the heart of field escalation equations, raising fundamental questions about the transformation in Israeli repressive tools and their repercussions on families living in exceptional circumstances.

Live testimonies from prisoners' families confirm that their suffering has gone beyond the absence of their children to become a psychological and social siege that pursues them in the details of their daily lives. Prisoners' families see this law as the pinnacle of criminality and injustice, as the relatives of detainees pay a heavy price of isolation and marginalization, in the absence of effective international or local action that places their humanitarian suffering among the priorities of public political debate.

Psychologically, the proposed law has created a rift in the concept of 'waiting,' which for decades represented a fundamental pillar in the experience of Palestinian steadfastness behind bars. After waiting was associated with the hope of release and reunion, it has transformed, due to the threat of execution, into a source of constant anxiety and apprehension tinged with fear of losing children by a politicized judicial decision, thus emptying families' lives of any stable future horizon.

The wife of a prisoner from the Gaza Strip recounts how her life changed after the introduction of this law, as continuous fear became the primary driver of her daily life instead of optimism for freedom. She explains that the absence of legal guarantees and positive indicators has made the psychological state of families a direct target of this legislation, which seeks to undermine the morale of the popular base of prisoners through the threat of deliberate killing.

The suffering is not limited to adults but extends to children who face deep emotional and temporal gaps as a result of long deprivation from their fathers. A Palestinian child expresses this reality in poignant words, noting that her relationship with her imprisoned father has become confined to dreams and distant memories, while the new law threatens to turn these dreams into permanent nightmares that haunt the rising generation of youth.

From the perspective of prisoners inside prisons, former detainees believe that this law falls within a broader system of systematic pressures aimed at breaking the will of detainees. Conditions inside prisons already suffer from a severe shortage of basic needs and strict restrictions on communication, and the threat of execution comes as a direct psychological pressure tool aimed at destabilizing the balance of steadfastness inside detention rooms.

Observers point out that the draft law allows for the issuance of death sentences without the need for a request from the public prosecution, and does not require unanimity in the court panel; a simple majority is sufficient. These broad powers are granted to military courts, with the Minister of Defense having the right to intervene and express an opinion, which transforms the judicial process into a purely political and security tool lacking the minimum standards of international justice.

This legislation directly targets about 117 Palestinian prisoners accused of killing Israelis, placing it in the context of an escalating path that seeks to redefine the rules of engagement with the prisoner movement. This comes at a time when more than 9,500 Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons, including women and children, suffering from harsh detention conditions that lack the minimum human rights guaranteed by international conventions.

These legislative moves coincide with international and local human rights reports documenting serious violations against prisoners, including systematic torture, deliberate medical neglect, and starvation policies. Human rights sources confirm that the approval of the execution law will represent a dangerous precedent that legitimizes extrajudicial killing and further complicates the humanitarian and political scene in the region, portending new waves of popular anger.

The introduction of the execution law reflects great criminality and injustice to the reality of prisoners, whose families live in a state of isolation and daily suffering.

At the heart of "GITEX Africa – Marrakech" exhibition, amidst competing ideas from around the world, Jerusalemite entrepreneurs stood out with their nascent projects in technology and innovation, asserting their presence not only as specialists but as young people capable of creativity and excellence despite the challenges facing their city.

With remarkable confidence, these entrepreneurs showcased their projects on one of the largest technological platforms in the African continent, expressing their ambitions to expand their businesses and build partnerships with international investors, enabling them to develop their companies and transform them into tools of support and resilience, and paving the way for other entrepreneurs.

This participation was not merely an attendance at an international exhibition, but a real opportunity to discover new markets and open up to global experiences, with the support of the Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency, affiliated with the Al-Quds Committee, chaired by the Moroccan monarch King Mohammed VI.

In this context, Doaa Al-Balawi, who developed the "GrowApp" application with her partner Safaa Abu Helou, says that "the idea originated from daily challenges within nurseries, before transforming into a digital solution that allows parents to follow the details of their children's day instantly, in addition to providing an integrated administrative and financial system for institutions."

She adds: "Our participation in GITEX Africa is not just a presentation of an idea, but an opportunity to meet companies from different countries, and to prove that innovation can be born even in the most difficult environments."

In another corner of the exhibition, Abdul Rahman Barham presented his project "Hives 360", based on employing the Internet of Things in developing the beekeeping sector, through smart monitoring systems and data analysis that contributes to increasing productivity.

He points out that this participation comes as a continuation of a previous experience in which his project was ranked among the top 80 companies, adding: "This time we are participating with a clear plan to expand into the African market, especially the Moroccan one, and build partnerships with specialists in agricultural technology."

As for Amal Al-Maati, she presented the "Burhan" platform, which relies on artificial intelligence in psychological assessment and recruitment, with the aim of aligning youth skills with the needs of the labor market.

She explains that the platform "does not only look for skills, but for inclinations and passion, in an attempt to redefine the relationship between youth and the labor market, and help companies and stakeholders choose the right person in the right place."

She indicates that her journey with the Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency began from the stages of incubation and training, leading to participation in this international event.

She adds: "We have achieved important results by communicating with investors and gaining a deeper understanding of African markets, which will help us expand in the future."

Despite the diversity of their projects, these entrepreneurs are united in their gratitude to the Kingdom of Morocco and the Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency, which provided them with this opportunity, emphasizing that they were not just participants, but ambassadors for their city and their cause.

For his part, the Director in charge of managing the Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency, Mohammed Salem Al-Sharqawi, affirmed that the participation of six Palestinian startups in "GITEX Africa-Marrakech" falls within the agency's vision to empower youth and enhance their presence in technology fields, as part of its digital strategy for the period 2024-2027.

He explained that this initiative receives continuous support from the Kingdom of Morocco under the leadership of King Mohammed VI, Chairman of the Al-Quds Committee, in the context of supporting sustainable development projects in Jerusalem, in addition to direct social and humanitarian aid.

He added that participation in the exhibition provided entrepreneurs with unique opportunities to communicate with international investors and explore new markets, emphasizing that the agency's support begins with incubation, training, and capacity building, leading to empowering youth to showcase their projects on international platforms.

He pointed out that these efforts contribute to transforming ideas into sustainable projects, capable of creating job opportunities and providing stable sources of income, thereby strengthening the resilience of Jerusalemites on their land.

The participation of the Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency in the fourth edition of the exhibition was distinguished by the establishment of an institutional pavilion and a special wing for the "BMAQ Innovation Hub" incubator, with the participation of six Palestinian startups working in various fields, including artificial intelligence, financial technology, e-commerce, agricultural technology, and digital solutions.

The Pakistani capital, Islamabad, is hosting a crucial round of negotiations between Tehran and Washington, in a last-ditch effort to defuse a comprehensive explosion in the region. These talks are led by US Vice President J.D. Vance and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, at a time when Iran is suffering from severe military and economic repercussions that have weakened its negotiating position unprecedentedly.

2025 marked a dramatic turning point, as Iran lost most of its deterrent capabilities after the destruction of its air defense systems and the targeting of its nuclear facilities. This strategic exposure made the Iranian heartland accessible to Israeli fighter jets, changing the equation of conflict that had lasted for decades since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and presenting the Iranian leadership with choices, the least bitter of which was still bitter.

Reports indicate that the current truce, which ends on April 22, represents a very narrow window for reaching a sustainable agreement. International parties are seeking to solidify the ceasefire, despite doubts about diplomacy's ability to overcome the effects of the '12-day war' that systematically destroyed Iran's military infrastructure.

US assessments previously suggested that Iran would be forced to negotiate a bilateral agreement guaranteeing the dismantling of militias and opening the energy sector to international companies. However, internal Iranian calculations, which relied on the factor of time and containing successive US administrations, ultimately led to a direct military confrontation for which Tehran was unprepared.

Tehran's rejection of previous regional initiatives, including Turkish mediation, exacerbated the crisis and led it to the stage of armed confrontation. Today, the Iranian negotiator finds himself in Islamabad stripped of many of the power cards he used to maneuver with, especially after the assassination of key figures and the destruction of major nuclear sites in June 2025.

In contrast, Israel continues to exert intense pressure on the US administration to ensure that no concessions are made that would allow Iran to rebuild its capabilities. Informed sources believe that Tel Aviv is currently fighting a 'low-cost, high-yield' war, relying on US cover to ensure the continued absolute military superiority in the region.

Currently, the negotiations address thorny issues including the right to limited enrichment in exchange for strict oversight, and the lifting of UN sanctions that were reimposed at European request. But the major obstacle lies in mutual distrust, and a long history of official estrangement that began with the famous hostage crisis nearly half a century ago.

Diplomatic sources confirm that the Iranian side believed that the US military buildup was merely maneuvers for political pressure, which proved wrong when military operations broke out. This failure in strategic assessment led to Iran's loss of regional influence in Iraq and Syria, where its loyal militias gradually began to lose control.

The scenario currently being discussed in Islamabad oscillates between periodically extending the truce or returning to the square of comprehensive military escalation. Neither Washington nor Tehran seems to desire further slide into war, but the Israeli role remains the most dangerous variable and capable of thwarting any understandings that do not align with its security vision.

Proposed US demands include a comprehensive solution for Iranian militias in the region and normalization of relations with Arab and Turkish neighbors to secure a new regional depth. This radical shift in Iranian foreign policy is the price Tehran may have to pay to ensure the survival of the regime and avoid a knockout blow to its remaining vital facilities.

Economically, Iran is suffering from a suffocating blockade after the re-activation of the UN sanctions 'snapback,' which has brought its economy to the brink of collapse. The current leadership hopes that opening up to American companies in the energy sector will revive the budget, but this requires painful sovereign concessions that were previously unacceptable.

Observers believe that the remaining two-week truce period will not be enough to address complex issues that have accumulated over decades. Nevertheless, the mere sitting of high-level delegations at one table reflects the magnitude of the crisis facing both parties, and their desire to avoid a long-term war of attrition whose end cannot be predicted.

The question remains about the extent to which Iranian negotiators can convince internal power centers of the necessity of accepting the political 'poisoned chalice.' The changes that occurred in the power structure after the events of 2025 imposed a new reality that requires flexibility not previously seen in traditional Iranian revolutionary discourse.

In conclusion, the outcome of the Islamabad talks will determine the shape of the Middle East for at least the next ten years. Either we will witness the birth of a new regional order that integrates Iran under international conditions, or we will await a new round of conflict that could lead to a complete redrawing of influence maps in the region.

Today, Iran goes to negotiations with far fewer cards than it possessed before the war, and the Israeli side is always present to sabotage any agreement that does not serve its interests.

The Israeli occupation army intensified its air raids and artillery shelling on wide areas in southern Lebanon this Saturday morning, resulting in the martyrdom of at least 11 people and the destruction of a number of residential units. These attacks come on the fourth day of a wave of violent escalation, despite prior international talks about de-escalation efforts that have not found their way to implementation on the ground.

In the southern city of Sidon, an atmosphere of sadness prevailed during the funeral of 13 members of the Lebanese State Security apparatus, who were martyred as a result of an Israeli raid that targeted the Serail government building in the city of Nabatieh yesterday. This toll is the largest among official Lebanese security and military institutions since the outbreak and expansion of border confrontations.

Field sources reported that the difficult security conditions prevented the burial of some martyrs in their original villages due to the continuous shelling and violent clashes. It was decided to bury them in temporary cemeteries in the Sidon area, awaiting a ceasefire that would allow their families to transfer them to their hometowns later.

On the ground, Israeli aircraft destroyed a residential building in the town of Mayfadoun, in the Nabatieh district, leading to the martyrdom of three citizens under the rubble. The raids also targeted the town of Toul, where missiles struck several residential buildings in Martyr Sabra Street and Al-Maqam neighborhood, causing massive destruction to infrastructure and properties.

In the town of Jibsheet, occupation aircraft targeted a gathering of private electricity generators, completely destroying them and igniting huge fires at the site. An Israeli drone also carried out a raid near the Communism roundabout in the town of Kafr Rumman, while the residents of Jbaa town escaped a disaster after an unexploded missile fell in the middle of the residential area.

In the Marjayoun district, warplanes continued to target the town of Khiam with successive raids, coinciding with intense overflights by reconnaissance drones. This was accompanied by intense artillery shelling that targeted the outskirts of the town and its neighboring areas, leading to the displacement of more families to safer areas.

In the Tyre district, the occupation army used 'Merkava' tanks to shell the town of Mansouri after midnight with a number of direct shells. The towns of Qleileh and Hanine also came under concentrated artillery shelling, amidst continuous drone overflights that did not leave the area's airspace, further complicating the movement of paramedics and relief teams.

Reports indicate that Friday was exceptionally bloody, as Israel launched widespread attacks that included 59 Lebanese cities and towns, resulting in the martyrdom of 28 people. The most violent of these attacks were concentrated on the city of Nabatieh, which was subjected to what resembled a 'fire belt,' the most severe aggression the city has witnessed since early March.

On the political front, this field escalation comes at a time when news about a truce is conflicting, as Washington and Tel Aviv denied that Lebanon was included in any de-escalation agreement that regional parties had announced. Nevertheless, all eyes remain on the American capital, Washington, which is scheduled to host a direct meeting between Lebanese and Israeli delegations next Tuesday.

The upcoming meeting at the US State Department aims to set a timeline for the launch of direct negotiations aimed at halting military operations. However, the explosive field reality indicates a large gap between diplomatic efforts and the military operations launched by the occupation, directly targeting civilians and official Lebanese facilities.

Yesterday's attack caused the largest number of casualties in an official military-security institution in Lebanon since the expansion of the war began.

International attention is turning towards the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, which is preparing to host a high-level round of negotiations between Iran and the United States of America. These diplomatic moves come at a time when the Strait of Hormuz is emerging as the most important strategic pressure card in Tehran's hand, posing complex challenges for the American administration to restore global navigation.\n\nUS President Donald Trump believes that the nature of the Iranian threat has radically transformed, as the nuclear file is no longer the sole concern. Since the outbreak of direct military confrontation on February 28th, the Strait of Hormuz has become the primary dilemma threatening the stability of the global economy and energy security.\n\nDuring these negotiations, Washington seeks to secure an agreement that guarantees the full and permanent reopening of the Strait to commercial shipping. The American administration insists on the necessity of canceling any fees or restrictions that Tehran attempts to impose on international navigation, considering freedom of passage in this waterway non-negotiable.\n\nIn contrast, media reports, citing American officials, revealed a major technical crisis involving Iran's random planting of a large number of naval mines. This defensive tactic has made the process of clearing the waterway extremely complex, requiring a long time and arduous international efforts to ensure the safety of passing ships.\n\nTechnical estimates indicate that the United States may not currently possess the technology capable of sweeping these mines quickly and with complete safety. This technical reality was reflected in the statements of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who linked progress in clearing the Strait to meeting broader Iranian political demands.\n\nOn the ground, intelligence agencies have monitored Iranian movements that included withdrawing large naval vessels from the Strait area, while retaining hundreds of small, fast boats. The danger of these boats lies in their ability to deploy mines and move flexibly, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic incidents that could target commercial tankers at any moment.\n\nShipping traffic has recorded a sharp and unprecedented decline, with only nine ships passing through yesterday, a very small number compared to the normal average of 150 ships per day. This shipping paralysis places immense pressure on global supply chains and pushes Washington to seek urgent solutions to avoid a comprehensive energy crisis.\n\nUS Vice President J.D. Vance is accompanied on his trip to Islamabad by a high-level delegation including military and technical experts from the Pentagon and the National Security Council. This delegation aims to provide technical and political support in negotiations that observers describe as the 'last chance' to prevent the region from sliding into a broader, uncontrollable confrontation.\n\nPolitically, the Trump administration faces increasing domestic pressure, particularly from the Democratic Party, regarding support for Israeli military operations. Questions are mounting about Washington's ability to rein in Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Gaza and Lebanon, as part of a comprehensive deal that could lead to de-escalation on the inflamed fronts with Iran and its allies.\n\n"The Iranian threat is no longer limited to the nuclear bomb; today it is represented by the Strait of Hormuz, which has become the most dangerous pressure point in the confrontation.

The eyes of the world turn today, Saturday, to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, where a crucial round of negotiations between Iran and the United States of America is set to begin. These talks come amidst an atmosphere charged with mutual distrust, as both parties seek to reach understandings on complex security and economic issues that arose from the recent military confrontation in the region.

The Iranian delegation, comprising over 70 members led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, arrived in Pakistan amidst tight security measures. Ghalibaf affirmed upon his arrival that his country enters this round with good intentions, but he stressed at the same time that the history of negotiations with Washington has been characterized by broken promises and failure, making Iranian caution paramount.

In contrast, US Vice President J.D. Vance leads his country's delegation, which also includes former White House advisor Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff. Vance stated before departing Washington that the United States is ready for positive negotiations, provided that Tehran shows genuine seriousness, warning against any attempts at political maneuvering during the sessions.

The issue of the Strait of Hormuz tops the agenda, as US President Donald Trump conditions a two-week ceasefire on the immediate reopening of the strait. This waterway is a vital artery for global energy, with about 20% of oil and gas supplies passing through it, and its closure has caused severe disruptions in global energy markets and a record rise in prices.

For its part, Tehran adheres to clear demands to move forward with any understanding, foremost among them being an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon. Iran also demands the release of its frozen financial assets, estimated at about $120 billion, considering these steps as the only guarantee to prove American good faith at this critical stage.

On the nuclear front, a wide gap emerges between the visions of the two parties, as Trump insists, within his 15-point plan, on a complete end to uranium enrichment operations in Iranian facilities. In contrast, Tehran presented a counter-proposal of 10 points focusing on its right to enrichment for peaceful purposes, which represents a stumbling block to reaching a final agreement.

These diplomatic moves come after the outbreak of a direct military confrontation on February 28, during which the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iranian targets, followed by a response from Tehran. The conflict expanded to include a widespread Israeli aggression on Lebanon since early March, resulting in thousands of martyrs and the displacement of over a million civilians.

Sources reported that the US President expressed his dissatisfaction with the slow pace of NATO allies in supporting efforts to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump affirmed that Washington is capable of reopening the strait 'very soon,' either with Iranian cooperation or through other international alliances that have expressed their readiness to participate in this strategic mission.

In a related context, reports indicate that the current truce, which began early Wednesday with Pakistani mediation, remains very fragile due to disagreement over its inclusiveness of the Lebanese arena. While Tehran and Islamabad insist that the truce must include Lebanon, Washington and Tel Aviv deny any commitment to halt military operations there at present.

The role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands out in this equation, as he conditioned his personal approval of any strikes in Beirut on a direct request from Trump. This coordination reflects Washington's desire to manage military escalation in parallel with the ongoing diplomatic track in Islamabad to exert maximum pressure on the Iranian negotiator.

The chances of a rapid breakthrough in these negotiations remain dependent on the extent of both parties' willingness to make mutual concessions on the most complex issues. With the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz and ongoing raids in Lebanon, the regional scene remains open to all possibilities, awaiting what the coming hours of talks in Pakistan will reveal.

Tehran's experience with Washington in negotiations has always ended in failure and broken promises.