Dozens of Palestinian families in Qalandia village, located north of occupied Jerusalem, face the imminent threat of displacement after the Israeli occupation authorities issued final orders to demolish seven residential buildings. This Tuesday morning, occupation municipality crews posted demolition notices in the eastern neighborhood of the village, citing the pretext of building without a permit, which is rejected by popular and local activists in the area.

The occupation municipality specified in its notices a deadline not exceeding 21 days for residents to completely evacuate their homes, in preparation for the demolition operations. The Israeli authorities based their decision on a judicial ruling they claim has been in effect since the end of 2021, warning that they will not be responsible for any damage to property if the specified evacuation date is not met.

Local sources reported that the targeted buildings are not new, with the newest dating back more than twenty years, which refutes the occupation's claims regarding regulation and construction. The sources explained that the recent escalation in targeting this specific area is due to its connection with Israeli plans aimed at establishing a massive facility for burning and recycling waste in those areas.

The homes threatened with demolition are located on an area estimated at 15 dunams in the eastern part of Qalandia, an area very close to the entrance of the old Jerusalem International Airport. Approximately 40 Palestinians reside in these housing units, half of whom are children, facing an unknown future amid the occupation's insistence on forcibly annexing these lands to its municipal boundaries.

The residents of this area, numbering over 500, suffer from a suffocating siege imposed by the separation wall since 2002, forcing them to travel long distances and cross military checkpoints to reach the center of their village. This geographical isolation has made the eastern neighborhood of Qalandia an easy target for settlement projects aimed at changing the demographic and geographical reality in Jerusalem.

In a related context, the head of the Qalandia Village Council confirmed that the Israeli assault was not limited to demolition notices but also included decisions to confiscate 150 dunams of residents' land in recent months. These steps are part of a systematic policy aimed at controlling the eastern part of the village, which was isolated behind the wall, under the pretext of being within the administrative scope of the occupation municipality.

Local officials described the future of the village as bleak, warning that the completion of the waste recycling project and the expansion of the 'Atarot' settlement would completely suffocate the residents. Israeli plans include building 9,000 new settlement units on the lands of the Jerusalem International Airport, which will reduce the available area for Palestinians to its minimum, turning the village into a small enclave.

Historically, Qalandia village has been subjected to continuous confiscation and demolition operations since the 1970s, due to its strategic location near the industrial zone and the airport. Through these cumulative measures, the occupation seeks to end the Palestinian presence in the areas surrounding Jerusalem to ensure a continuous settlement geography that serves its long-term expansionist goals.

For its part, human rights organizations condemned these measures, considering them a blatant violation of international humanitarian law and fundamental housing rights. Al-Baidar Human Rights Organization affirmed that what is happening in Qalandia is a systematic forced displacement operation, calling on the international community and UN institutions to intervene immediately to stop the demolitions and protect families from displacement under the current circumstances.

The future of the village has become very bleak in light of the plans aimed at reducing the area of our lands from 4,000 dunams to only 150 dunams.

Naval mine-sweepers have returned to the forefront of global military attention, coinciding with escalating tensions in strategic waterways. These vessels are considered the first and primary line of defense for securing international navigation from the invisible threats posed by naval mines, which could paralyze global trade in moments.

In this context, Iranian threats have emerged as a catalyst for this attention, as the Iranian Defense Council warned that any aggression against the country's islands would be met with the planting of mines in waterways, sea lanes, and coasts. Tehran affirmed that coordination with it is the only way to ensure the passage of ships belonging to non-hostile countries through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

Military estimates indicate that Iran possesses a massive stockpile of naval mines, totaling approximately 6,000 mines, posing significant challenges to international powers. This large stockpile makes naval clearance operations a complex task requiring advanced technologies and a long time to ensure the safety of passing ships.

Mine-sweepers are known as specialized naval units that detect underwater explosive objects using advanced sonar systems. These vessels accurately locate mines and classify their types before beginning the process of dealing with them, either by in-situ detonation or deactivation using robotic technology.

The missions of these ships vary among three main types. The first is 'sweepers,' which drag mechanical or magnetic equipment to trigger and detonate mines. The second type is 'hunters,' which rely on precise searching and individual dismantling of each mine, leading to modern systems that use naval drones.

In terms of power balances, Russia tops the list of countries with the largest number of these ships, with a fleet ranging between 45 and 47 mine-sweepers. China comes in second with approximately 36 ships, reflecting the Eastern powers' interest in securing their coasts and vital areas from naval blockade.

In the Western camp, Poland has a strong fleet of 29 ships, followed by France with 19 ships, while Finland and Japan each have 18 ships. Although the United States and the United Kingdom do not top the list in terms of numbers, they possess the most advanced technology in this field.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) enhances its collective capabilities by possessing more than 100 ships dedicated to mine clearance and sea security missions. Western powers are increasingly relying on integrating unmanned systems and specialized helicopters to reduce human risks during complex clearance operations.

In conclusion, experts agree that naval mine clearance operations remain among the slowest and most sensitive military tasks in complex environments. These vessels stand out as an indispensable strategic tool for protecting maritime infrastructure and ensuring the continuous flow of energy and trade in times of peace and war alike.

The only way for non-hostile countries to pass through the Strait of Hormuz is prior coordination with Tehran.

According to "The Hill" newspaper, based on reports issued in March 2026, the US-Israeli war on Iran, known as Operation "Overwhelming Fury," has sparked growing concern within decision-making circles in Washington, amidst clear indications of the depletion of US military resources and a decline in its operational readiness. Since the start of operations on February 28, 2026, field developments have shown that the high pace of fighting and the intensive use of munitions pose unprecedented challenges to US military capabilities.Data indicates a rapid consumption of air defense missile stockpiles and high-precision munitions, in light of intensive and continuous operations, with thousands of missiles and drones launched or intercepted during the first few weeks of the campaign alone, reflecting the unprecedented scale of escalation in this conflict. Reports also indicated the destruction of at least 16 American aircraft during the first three weeks, signaling the intensity of the confrontations and the ability of Iranian defenses to inflict tangible losses. In parallel, the US Navy faces significant logistical pressures, as about 40% of available aircraft carriers have been deployed in the region, limiting the ability to respond to other potential crises.These data raise serious questions about the nature of modern warfare, which increasingly relies on advanced technology and precision munitions. The rapid consumption of these resources reveals a gap between production capacity and operational expenditure in wartime, which may force the United States to re-evaluate its military strategies. It also reflects a shift in the balance of power, where military dominance is no longer measured solely by technological superiority, but also by the ability to sustain long-term conflicts. Hence, the challenge no longer seems limited to achieving superiority on the battlefield, but extends to the ability to maintain this superiority for long periods without severe depletion.In the same context, US Department of Defense officials warned that the continuation of the campaign at this pace could negatively affect the readiness of US forces to confront other threats, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, where tensions are escalating with rival international powers. These warnings indicate the possibility of a "strategic pause" in US deterrence capability on multiple fronts, which could open the door for other adversaries to test the limits of US power in different regions of the world. Regarding human casualties, operations during the first three weeks resulted in injuries to more than 200 US soldiers, in addition to the deaths of 13 others, increasing political and internal pressure on the US administration.These developments reflect a shift in the nature of the confrontation between major powers and regional adversaries, where relatively weaker parties resort to unconventional strategies to prolong the conflict. Instead of direct confrontation, the focus is on exhausting the adversary economically and militarily, which may lead to a change in traditional rules of engagement. In this context, Iran seems to be betting on the factor of time, benefiting from the complexities of the regional scene and the intertwining of international interests, making a quick resolution elusive, and pushing towards more complex scenarios where military dimensions may intertwine with economic and political ones.The repercussions of the conflict extended beyond the direct operational arena, as Iran launched retaliatory attacks targeting US bases and infrastructure of Washington's allies throughout the Middle East. These developments also led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to navigation, a vital passage through which about 20% of global energy supplies pass. This closure caused significant disruptions in global markets, with sharp increases in the prices of some raw materials reaching 165%, reflecting the fragility of the global economy to geopolitical shocks, and raising concerns about broader economic repercussions.The repercussions of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz reveal the strategic importance of maritime passages in the global economy, where a single choke point can cause widespread disruptions. This crisis also highlights the deep interconnectedness between security and energy, as any threat to supplies immediately reflects on markets and prices. In this context, the crisis may push major countries to accelerate plans to diversify energy sources and reduce reliance on traditional passages, which may reshape the global energy map in the future, and open the door for long-term geopolitical and economic shifts.In parallel, American analysts and officials raised concerns about the ability of the US defense industrial base to keep pace with the requirements of simultaneous conflicts in multiple regions, including the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Previous warnings, dating back to 2024, when Israel exhausted huge quantities of American weapons and munitions in its war on Gaza, had pointed to this challenge, confirming that current military production may not be sufficient to support large-scale operations for long periods. These concerns are exacerbated by the rapid consumption of advanced missiles and munitions, which puts additional pressure on supply chains and manufacturing capabilities, and raises questions about the readiness of the United States to fight multi-front wars simultaneously.Overall, these developments reflect a complex picture of a conflict that extends beyond its military boundaries to include global strategic and economic dimensions, at a time when warnings are increasing about long-term repercussions that may reshape the international balance of power, and force major powers to reconsider their defense priorities and strategies in managing international crises.

The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced today, Tuesday, Islamabad's official readiness to host any potential negotiation rounds between Tehran and Washington. The ministry affirmed that the success of this initiative primarily depends on the will of both parties and their acceptance of Pakistani mediation to end the ongoing conflict in the region.\n\nInternational media reports quoted Pakistani officials as saying that arrangements might lead to direct talks within the next five days. Sources indicated that regional countries, including Turkey and Egypt, are actively contributing to facilitating communication channels to ensure the launch of these discussions as soon as possible.\n\nSources from Islamabad reported that the Pakistani initiative comes in the context of attempts to de-escalate tensions that have begun to directly affect Pakistan's security and economy. The Pakistani government seeks to leverage its balanced relations with both the United States and Iran to play the role of an impartial mediator in this complex crisis.\n\nDespite intensive diplomatic moves, sources clarified that Islamabad has not yet received a final official response from either party regarding the location and timing of the hosting. These moves coincide with internal pressures in Pakistan, fearing potential waves of displacement across the shared border with Iran if military escalation continues.\n\nFor his part, US President Donald Trump revealed that he held "very good" talks with a high-ranking Iranian official, without disclosing his identity. Based on these contacts, Trump announced the postponement of military strikes that were scheduled against Iranian energy facilities for an additional five days.\n\nIn contrast, Trump's statements faced a wave of skepticism within American political circles, with Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen describing the news as inaccurate. Van Hollen considered talk of Iran making substantial concessions to fall under "misinformation," warning that targeting energy infrastructure constitutes a violation of international law.\n\nIn a related context, the "Axios" website pointed to the possibility of an upcoming meeting in Pakistan bringing together American envoys with a high-level Iranian delegation. Although the White House described this news as speculation, reports indicate secret diplomatic activity behind the scenes to arrange this meeting.\n\nOn the Iranian side, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf denied the existence of any current negotiations with Washington, accusing international parties of spreading false news to influence oil and financial markets. Ghalibaf affirmed that the Iranian position is firm regarding the American conditions, which he described as unfair to the nuclear and missile program.\n\nFrom an Israeli perspective, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considered that the US administration sees a golden opportunity to build on what he described as military achievements to impose an agreement that achieves war objectives. At the same time, press sources reported that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed American envoys that he had received a green light from the supreme leadership in Tehran to begin serious negotiations.\n\nThe success of any initiative remains contingent on the approval of both parties and their acceptance of mediation to end the current escalation.

Israeli Security Minister, Israel Katz, hinted at expanding the scope of ground military operations to include full control over the remaining bridges over the Litani River deep inside Lebanese territory. Katz considered this step aimed at transforming the area south of the river into a buffer security zone, allegedly to cut off Hezbollah's military supply lines and prevent infiltration or rocket launches towards northern settlements.

The Israeli minister affirmed that army forces would continue their field pressure and offensive operations if Hezbollah fighters did not fully withdraw north of the Litani. These threats come at a time when southern Lebanon is witnessing an unprecedented escalation, as Israeli forces attempt to achieve new field breakthroughs after their setbacks in the eastern sector axes in recent days.

On the ground, sources reported that the occupation army intensified its air raids and artillery shelling on the western sector, using incendiary bombs in the vicinity of the towns of Naqoura and Wadi Hamoul. These intensive attacks aim to pave the way for the advance of ground forces and connect the shelling axes, amidst fierce confrontations waged by Lebanese armed groups to repel Israeli infiltration attempts.

In a significant field development, an Israeli infantry force carried out an incursion into the town of Halta in the Arqoub area, resulting in the martyrdom of one Lebanese citizen and the kidnapping of four others, who were taken to an unknown destination. This coincided with violent raids targeting the town of Selaa in the Tyre district, which, according to initial data, led to the martyrdom of four and the injury of four others with varying degrees of severity.

For its part, the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a bloody toll from the series of raids that targeted various areas in the South and Mount Lebanon, where seven people were martyred and 11 others were injured. The aerial targeting included the towns of Bashamoun in the Aley district, and Zifta in Nabatieh, in addition to the villages of Sarbin, Haris, Rashaf, Deir Antar, and Toulin, causing widespread destruction to property and infrastructure.

On the front of confrontation, Hezbollah announced the execution of a series of qualitative attacks using rockets and kamikaze drones, targeting military bases and gathering sites for occupation soldiers behind the border. The strikes focused on Israeli army movements in the areas of Al-Qawzah and Hanin, confirming direct casualties among the attacking forces attempting to establish new strongholds.

Official statistics issued by the Lebanese authorities indicate that the ongoing Israeli aggression since the beginning of March has resulted in massive human losses, with the number of martyrs exceeding 1039 people, while the number of injured reached approximately 2876. The military operations and indiscriminate shelling have also led to the displacement of more than one million citizens from their villages and towns, amidst extremely complex humanitarian conditions.

The Israeli army will control the remaining bridges over the Litani River and the area south of it to cut off supply routes and military strongholds.

Avraham Burg, the former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, revealed shocking details concerning at least five secret attempts carried out by extremist Jewish groups to blow up the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Burg explained that these attempts began since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, indicating that the primary goal was to remove Islamic landmarks to make way for the construction of the alleged Temple.

These statements came during a controversial interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, where Burg affirmed that he is not sure there aren't additional attempts that have not yet been revealed. He stressed that the issue is not only about the number of supporters of these ideas, but about the dedication and readiness of fanatical groups to carry out destructive operations on the ground.

For his part, journalist Tucker Carlson expressed his astonishment at this information, wondering if these attempts were actual conspiracies to blow up the holy sites, which Burg clearly confirmed. The interview received widespread interaction on social media platforms, especially in light of the current tensions in the occupied city of Jerusalem.

These revelations coincide with the continued complete closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque by the occupation authorities for about 25 days, citing the state of emergency declared after the recent military developments. Observers believe that this long closure represents a dangerous precedent aimed at isolating the mosque from its Palestinian surroundings and preventing prayer in it permanently.

In the context of systematic incitement, right-wing politician Moshe Feiglin expressed his satisfaction with the continued closure of what he calls 'Temple Mount,' considering that the absence of a violent reaction proves Israel's regional strength. These statements reflect a tendency among the far-right to exploit security circumstances to impose new realities in the Noble Sanctuary.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also joined the incitement campaign, publishing videos showing the occupation forces suppressing Palestinian worshipers in the streets of Jerusalem. Ben-Gvir praised the strictness of police commanders in dealing with Palestinians, emphasizing that 'firmness and strength' are the only way to ensure calm from his extremist point of view.

Incitement did not stop at political levels but extended to the right-wing media, where journalist Yinon Magal explicitly called for targeting Al-Aqsa Mosque with shelling. Magal published coordinates near the mosque after rocket fragments fell in the area, in a clear indication of his wish to destroy the Islamic prayer halls within the Old City.

In the framework of psychological warfare and deception, extremist rabbis circulated AI-generated images claiming the existence of secret military installations beneath Al-Aqsa Mosque. This type of content aims to desacralize the place and justify any future military or security aggressions that might target it under a security cover.

Jerusalemite activists confirmed that what Burg revealed reinforces fears of real plans being cooked up in the shadows of extremist Zionist circles. They pointed out that the current government, which is the most extreme in the history of the occupation, provides political and legal cover for these groups to implement their gradual aims in the mosque.

Experts in Jerusalem affairs warned that the parallel between the field closure and digital incitement paves the way for the implementation of provocative Talmudic rituals, such as the slaughter of the 'sacrifice.' These steps, if implemented, are considered a crossing of all red lines that could lead to an explosion of the situation in all Palestinian territories and the region.

Field sources reported that the occupation forces impose strict restrictions on the entry of Palestinians into the Old City and pursue anyone who tries to pray in the roads leading to Al-Aqsa. These measures come amid the absence of international and Islamic oversight over what is happening inside the mosque's walls during the long and continuous closure period.

Analysts believe that Burg's statements are not just a recollection of history, but a warning of a future planned by the Israeli right, which now controls the levers of the state. The groups that operated in secret in past decades now have parliamentary and ministerial representation that facilitates their access to their destructive goals.

Arab and Islamic condemnations of these policies continue, amid calls for the necessity of international intervention to protect the historical and legal status quo in Al-Aqsa Mosque. However, the occupation authorities continue to disregard these warnings, persisting in implementing a strategy of gradual erosion of the powers of the Islamic Endowments in the Sanctuary.

There have been at least five attempts to blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque, and I am not sure there haven't been more, as extremist groups have sought to remove it since 1967.

Hebrew press sources revealed the strategic features of the military campaign led by the Western coalition against Iran, confirming that the objectives go beyond localized strikes. Reports indicated that the current endeavor focuses on creating strategic pressure aimed at gradually weakening the structure of the Iranian regime, which opens the door for potential internal transformations.

Maariv newspaper clarified that US President Donald Trump's decision to suspend targeting Iranian energy facilities for five days does not constitute a retreat from escalation. Rather, the newspaper described this step as a tactical maneuver within a long-term path, noting that any strikes directed at energy would have a symbolic and limited impact at this stage.

In an interpretation of the internal political scene in Tehran, sources pointed to the absence of a leadership element with absolute authority to make fateful decisions regarding war or peace. However, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf emerged as the most influential figure currently, as he manages sensitive files and indirect communication with the American side.

Reports touched upon what they described as the 'small peace' currently proposed by Trump, questioning whether it would lead to a 'big peace' that guarantees complete Iranian surrender. Political circles believe that Washington will not accept ending military operations without extracting substantial concessions affecting the core of Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities.

The US administration set three impossible conditions for a ceasefire: first, the delivery of 450 kilograms of enriched uranium to ensure non-acquisition of a nuclear bomb. The demands also include Iran's unconditional agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, and to ensure freedom of commercial movement without military threats.

As for the third condition, it concerns the establishment of a strict and effective international monitoring mechanism to follow Iran's ballistic missile program and limit its development. Sources confirm that the Trump administration will not conclude any political deal or stop the military momentum unless these three criteria are fully and tangibly met on the ground.

Hebrew reports denied news that the Mossad was seeking the immediate overthrow of the regime through direct military force at present. They clarified that intelligence assessments indicate that regime change requires the maturation of internal political alternatives, which the current campaign is working to prepare through a policy of 'shock and subversion'.

According to intelligence estimates, the goal is to bring the regime to a state of incapacitation that prompts the Iranian street to move and engage in widespread protests. This strategy bets that intense external pressure will ultimately lead to internal fissures that could result in a coup or popular revolution that changes the face of power.

Sources stressed that any military operation, no matter how destructive its power, cannot automatically replace the regime without the presence of a ready alternative leadership. Therefore, the current plan focuses on destroying the economic and military pillars that the regime relies on to suppress internal opposition and manage its regional influence.

The newspaper expected this operation to continue for months or perhaps years, as political change in Tehran is a complex and long-term process. It affirmed that military pressure is merely a tool to serve the larger political goal, which is to make the cost of the current regime's continuation exorbitant and unsustainable.

The assessment by the Mossad and 'Aman' agency links military success to the ability of Iranian society to exploit the state of weakness that the regime will suffer. These agencies consider the current war to be the 'catalyst' that will produce a new geopolitical reality in the region, provided that strategic pressure continues without retreat.

In conclusion, it appears that the joint American-Israeli approach tends towards exhausting Iranian capabilities rather than entering into a comprehensive occupation war. The coming days remain dependent on the extent of Tehran's response to American conditions, or its ability to absorb successive military shocks targeting its infrastructure.

The path taken by the Trump administration reflects a desire to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East by definitively curbing Iran's role. This path requires long-term patience and close coordination among allies to ensure that the region does not slide into uncontrolled chaos that could harm Western interests.

The question remains about the Iranian regime's ability to withstand this fierce wave of military and economic pressures. While Washington insists on its conditions, Tehran tries to maneuver through figures like Ghalibaf to alleviate the impact of the strikes without making concessions that affect the core of the regime's existence.

The primary goal is to undermine, weaken, and shock the regime, and to prepare the ground for the Iranian people to act, not immediate overthrow through military force alone.

Vital energy facilities in the Iranian cities of Isfahan and Khorramshahr were subjected to a series of airstrikes on Tuesday morning, as part of the ongoing military escalation led by the United States and Israel since late February. Field sources reported that the bombing targeted the gas administration building and a pressure reduction station on Kaveh Street in Isfahan, resulting in significant material damage.

Media reports indicated that the explosion in Isfahan was so severe that it caused partial damage to some residential buildings adjacent to the targeted facility. Despite the extent of the destruction, sources noted that the facility was out of actual operation before the bombing, which relatively contributed to reducing the direct operational losses.

In the city of Khorramshahr, located in the south of the country, a projectile landed near one of the main gas pipelines supplying a power generation station. According to local officials, the explosion did not result in any human casualties or significant material damage to the station's infrastructure, confirming that the situation is under security and technical control.

For its part, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) revealed in an official statement via the 'X' platform the toll of its extensive military operations inside Iranian territory. The statement confirmed targeting more than 9,000 military and strategic targets since the outbreak of confrontations, indicating the use of a combination of strategic bombers, fighter jets, and drones.

CENTCOM clarified that the air, sea, and land attacks resulted in the destruction or severe damage to more than 140 warships belonging to the Iranian Navy. These announcements come at a time when the Israeli army confirmed carrying out a wave of raids targeting headquarters belonging to the Revolutionary Guard and the Ministry of Intelligence in the capital, Tehran.

On the internal security front, the Iranian Ministry of Security announced the implementation of a wide-ranging security operation that resulted in the arrest of 30 individuals described as 'agents'. These arrests were concentrated in the provinces of Hamadan, Lorestan, and Kerman, as part of Tehran's efforts to pursue what it calls espionage networks and subversive operations linked to foreign entities.

Amidst this military escalation, signs of behind-the-scenes diplomatic movements aimed at containing the escalating crisis emerged. Media sources quoted officials as saying that arrangements are underway for potential talks between Washington and Tehran within the next five days, with active contributions from Turkey and Egypt to facilitate this dialogue.

A senior official in the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed that Tehran has already received a set of points and proposals from the American side through international mediators. The official indicated that the relevant authorities in Iran are currently studying these points before responding to them, in light of increasing international pressure to open the Strait of Hormuz and secure global energy supplies.

US President Donald Trump had previously threatened to strike major Iranian energy facilities unless restrictions on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz were reversed. The partial closure of the strait, ongoing since early March, has caused severe disruptions in global oil markets, pushing crude prices and shipping costs to record levels.

It is worth noting that the conflict that erupted on February 28 has left hundreds dead and wounded, and witnessed dramatic events, most notably the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Tehran continues its military responses by launching missiles and drones towards Israeli targets and American interests in the region, amidst international warnings of the situation sliding into a comprehensive regional war.

The US Central Command announced that it has targeted more than 9,000 targets inside Iran since the start of military operations in late February.

Military analyst at Haaretz newspaper, Amos Harel, considered the new deadline granted by US President Donald Trump to the Iranian leadership, which extends for five days, not merely a diplomatic respite. Harel explained that the essential goal of this postponement is to give the American administration additional time to arrange its military options and prepare potential response scenarios in case the political path fails.

The analysis indicated that this behavior falls within Trump's usual tactics, where he mixes direct threats with leaving a slightly open window for negotiations. This move coincides with tangible military reinforcements in the region, including the deployment of naval units and marines to be on standby for any field emergency.

Should talks reach a dead end, Harel revealed that Washington has unprecedented escalatory options on the table. Prominent among these options is military intervention to break any blockade Tehran might impose on the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring freedom of international navigation by armed force if necessary.

Potential American plans also include field control over strategic Iranian sites, foremost among them Kharg Island, which is a vital artery for oil export. This approach aims to dry up Iranian funding sources and pressure the regime by controlling key national economic hubs.

The threats did not stop there but also included the possibility of focused air and missile strikes targeting energy facilities deep inside Iran. The analyst believes these threats aim to send a firm message that the United States is prepared to go to great lengths to protect its interests and allies.

On the ground, Harel noted that the current US administration has not set clear restrictions or red lines for military operations carried out by the occupation against Iranian targets. Air attacks continued to target various sites, reflecting a kind of implicit coordination or American turning a blind eye to Israeli movements.

Regarding the role of the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, the analysis clarified that his influence on White House decisions remains tangible and present. However, Harel believes that this influence has become less decisive compared to previous periods, as Trump tends to make his decisions based on his own vision for his country's interests first.

The analyst affirmed that the final decision on escalation or de-escalation remains solely with Trump, who may accept political compromises that do not fully satisfy the occupation's ambitions. This potential divergence in views indicates the complexity of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv in managing the thorny Iranian issue.

Regarding the future of the regime in Tehran, the analysis ruled out that the goal of "regime change" is seriously on the table in any imminent agreement. Despite Trump's previous enthusiastic statements about the collapse of the regime, political realism has begun to assert itself at the current negotiating table.

Issues related to the nuclear program remain the biggest obstacle in any potential negotiation path between the two parties. The stock of enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges constitute the cornerstone of American and international demands to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

In addition to the nuclear file, the issue of Iranian ballistic missiles stands out as one of the thorny issues that Washington insists on including in any settlement. The United States considers Tehran's growing missile capabilities a direct threat to regional stability and its military bases in the region.

Harel concluded that Iranian support for armed groups in the Middle East remains a constant item on the list of American demands. He believes that any agreement that does not address the issue of Iranian regional influence will remain incomplete from the perspective of security circles in both Washington and Tel Aviv.

The postponement is seen as part of a tactic that combines threats and opening the door for negotiation, in parallel with strengthening the military presence in the region.

The real estate mogul and man of surprises, who leads the White House with a "day labor" system, never ceases to present astonishing shows in the darkest nights, sometimes with shock, and other times with de-escalation for a few days, after he brought the world to its knees and held its breath when he gave Tehran's leaders a few hours before sending his bombers to destroy their energy facilities, starting with the largest, if Tehran did not open the strait. This apparent contradiction in the statements of the "reality TV" hero, who is fascinated by conferences and contradictory statements, is not strange, for the words of the night are erased by the day for him. He never tires of repeating the threat of "hell" which has become a meaningless phrase on his tongue, and a constant in his State of the Union address whenever he wants to intimidate his enemies or improve his negotiation terms. He entered the war with flimsy pretexts and without safe exits, as Senator "Chuck Schumer" said, and before him "Joseph Kienitz," the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned after his conscience pricked him about Trump's entry into the war, driven by the impulses of the "Likud wolf," who embellished its ability to change the regime after the initial strike, according to the "Caracas invasion" scenario, only to be surprised by the trap before he went down different paths, while the wolf remained licking its lips for an opportunity to deliver the postponed strike to Iranian energy facilities when the hands of the clock embrace at the opportune moment. Perhaps what is more dangerous than starting fires is their getting out of control, and their instigator's inability to extinguish them, and his pleading with his allies who abandoned him after he threatened them with invading parts of the "Old Continent" to help him extinguish them. Trump threw a large stone into the turbulent waters, after which diplomatic efforts intensified, from everyone concerned in the four corners of the earth, to rein in the reckless truck driver's impulsiveness, and reveal negotiations that have reached a promising stage, the truth of which Tehran's announcement of their non-occurrence does not deny. Awaiting the end of the five-day deadline on Friday, coinciding with the closure of global stock markets. The war, from which everyone will emerge with bleeding noses and broken teeth, is entering a new turning point, during which Trump will try to make a noisy exit from the wrestling ring, after his goals have shrunk to a single goal: opening the strait that is already open, thus becoming like one who is content with returning from the spoils!

Through extended conflict stations over more than seven decades, the occupiers succeeded in luring us into the arena where they achieve decisive and guaranteed superiority. Since the popular uprising of 1987 was aborted before it bore fruit, the occupiers set traps for us into which we all fell: factions, movements, forces, activities, public opinion, media, theorists, and educational, religious, cultural, and social institutions, by dragging us into armed violence, at the time chosen by the occupation, and in the arena it desired.The Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000, during which the occupiers managed to drag us all into their square capable of achieving decisive political gains and solidifying their sacred principle: "more land and fewer Arabs." During the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the occupiers succeeded in injecting Palestinian public opinion with all the elements of militarization, through a populist discourse that glorifies a singular form of resistance and excludes any call for review, performance criticism, and rationalization, thereby transferring the conflict to an open military arena, at a time and context carefully chosen by the occupiers, which enabled them to achieve deep political and strategic gains.In this context, the militarization of the Intifada was not merely a field option, but transformed into a general state of mind, through which Palestinian collective consciousness was reshaped. A populist discourse prevailed, glorifying armed action as the only option, and excluding any call for review or rationalization as an expression of weakness or retreat. This discourse integrated with media, movement, and official performance that contributed, to varying degrees, to entrenching a unilateral vision of resistance, which narrowed the scope for any real critical discussion about the utility and outcomes of the tools used.The results of this phase did not require complex analysis to understand their effects; the Al-Aqsa Intifada led to profound transformations in the structure of the conflict, manifested in the construction of the separation wall, accelerated settlement, deepened the Judaization of Jerusalem, and reshaped the security and political environment to serve the occupiers' project and agenda. It also contributed to the rise of the extreme religious right within Israel, in contrast to an unprecedented decline of left-wing forces, and the shrinking of any progressive political horizon within Israeli society. Indeed, the bloody division that began in 2007 is one of the outcomes of the state of militarization that prevailed since the Intifada; that division, which was called "military decisive action," confirmed that the priorities of influential parties in Palestinian society are not the priorities of the people, but rather the glorification of the militarization of society, even if it comes at the expense of the homeland, the people, and the cause.Then came the events of October 7th as a pivotal moment in contemporary Palestinian history, which some argue brought the Palestinian issue back to the center of international attention and broke the illusion of "stability" that prevailed in the preceding years. However, a reading of the outcomes of this operation, away from emotion, theorizing, and partisan polarization, shows that it opened the door to a harsher phase for the Palestinian people, and for a number of Arab peoples.In contrast, Palestine, our people, our generations, especially the Gaza Strip, witnessed an unprecedented escalation in levels of violence, reaching the point of genocide of people, stone, water, institutions, and all elements of life in the Strip. And here the occupation is re-occupying more than half of the Gaza Strip, controlling everything that enters the Strip, including medicine, food, and air.The assertion that resistance is a right and a duty should not be reduced to adopting a single path, or to immunizing it against criticism and review. Conscious resistance is that which is constantly subject to follow-up, monitoring, and rational evaluation, and reconsiders its tools according to criteria of effectiveness, cost, and outcomes.We are at a real crossroads, not between multiple options, but between two paths: a path that leads to strengthening survival and steadfastness, and another that opens the door to erosion and disintegration. In such moments, hesitation is not an option, but conscious decision-making becomes a historical responsibility.

Not all statements made in politics are slips of the tongue; some are carefully uttered to reveal more than they conceal. Netanyahu's words, quoting the historian Durant, are understood as equating Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) with Genghis Khan. These words reveal a vision deeper than mere provocation, but rather a redefinition of human and historical value according to a single criterion: whoever leaves an impact, regardless of its nature. Thus, values no longer center judgment, but results. Christ, in religious and historical consciousness, represents a moral model based on mercy and tolerance. His influence was not a result of authority or power, but rather an idea that settled in human conscience over centuries. Genghis Khan, on the other hand, represents a model of power and killing that redrew the world's maps through blood. The problem is not in saying that both left an impact, but in equating two different impacts and equating an idea that spreads through conviction with another that is imposed by force, which makes the comparison an insult, even if implicit. Invoking such a statement in a political discourse transforms it into a tool of justification, and herein lies the danger, transcending the idea to its uses. The question remains: why invoke this idea now? The answer is inseparable from a political and military reality where Netanyahu leads wars in the region under the pretext of defending Western civilization and values, from Gaza to Lebanon and Syria, extending to broader arenas including Yemen and Iran, all with declared political, military, and financial support from America and Western countries, all of which have a Christian background. Here lies the paradox that cannot be ignored: Netanyahu's strength and prominence are based on a system historically shaped by the teachings of Christ, yet he returns to use an argument that diminishes the value of this foundation, which goes beyond the issue of contradiction to denial. The matter here transcends the issue of insult to open the door to another question: did he err in description or inference, or did he reveal – intentionally or unintentionally – the features of the path he is treading? It is not difficult to consider Netanyahu's words and actions as an explicit admission that he is following in the footsteps of Genghis Khan, even if some see otherwise. His focus on the issue of impact, whatever the cost, cannot be ignored, which is understood as an adoption or admiration at the very least. In other words, even if he does not explicitly admit to following Genghis Khan, he has made it a project or a concept at least. Genghis Khan built his empire over rivers of blood and mountains of skulls. Although this logic today has become more complex and is based on alliances, military superiority, and opening multiple fronts, the common denominator is the reshaping of reality through power and blood exclusively. And precisely here lies the problem: redefining legitimacy by the logic of power, not values. But it is a logic that overlooks a harsh historical truth: every project based solely on power, no matter how solid, strong, and extensive it may seem, carries within it the seeds of its demise. Genghis Khan's empire, which reached extreme power, vanished because the power that created it was not enough to sustain it. This is the most important historical lesson: sustainability requires making this system morally acceptable to some extent. Consequently, Netanyahu's statement places his project in a precarious position. He admits that power is what grants him the ability to act and is the sole basis for creating the historical moment. But by the same logic, the logic of history, he also places his project in the choice of time, and history provides a conclusive answer, but it remains that it is not always who won, but who created the impact. And between those who ruled by the sword and those who ruled by an idea, the question remains that no power can overcome: what will remain when the cannons fall silent? Power, or the impact created to endure without the need for power?

We learned from our fathers and grandfathers, from our heritage: "I am with my brother against my cousin, and I am with my cousin against the stranger." A familial, tribal, political equation that imposed the values of alliance and priorities, without addition or subtraction. An equation that imposes itself on us in how to deal with and determine the priorities of alignment in the face of the Israeli-American colonial war against Iran, and with our Arab Gulf countries and peoples against the unacceptable Iranian bombing of any Arab country. This is how we were in the Iraqi-Iranian war throughout its lean years; we were with Iraq without hesitation in confronting Iran. The late Hussein taught us that we were against Iraq in its invasion of Kuwait, and Hussein advised him to withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally, to protect Iraq and for the dignity of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was stubborn and did not respond to Hussein's advice. Hussein said, and I was with him on the return flight from Iraq, Hussein said: "We will not participate in the slaughter of Iraq under the American flag," and our Jordanian army did not go to Hafar Al-Batin as Hafez al-Assad and Hosni Mubarak did. We paid the price with siege and estrangement, but we excelled by possessing national and pan-Arab dignity, with Hussein's steadfastness and wisdom, despite American anger and the reproach of our brethren. The aggressive, racist Israeli-American attack on Iran began on February 28, 2026, a neighboring Muslim country, against the backdrop of the Iranian stance: 1- Supporting the Palestinian people, 2- Rejecting the Israeli colonial project. This aggression could have made all Arabs and Muslims stand with Iran, but the Iranian mistake is similar to the Iraqi mistake in invading Kuwait on 8/2/1990, and Iran's mistake of directing bombing towards the Gulf countries and Jordan, even if it was under the pretext of targeting American institutions, overturned the Arab position and forced us to be against any infringement on our national and pan-Arab sovereignty by Iran. The Iranian bombing of the Israeli colony is the natural, legitimate, and sound response to the attack of 2/28/2026, but we fell into a deliberate trap, as we cannot stand with the colony against Iran, nor can we support Iran and remain silent about its infringement on the security and sovereignty of our countries. We are betting on the wisdom of the Arab Gulf countries, especially Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirate of Qatar, which possess broad horizons and realistic practical demands, not to be dragged into a battle that Netanyahu sought and succeeded in involving the United States, the Arab Gulf countries, and Iran in a battle that is not in their interest. The war was planned and programmed by Israel for its benefit with the aim of: First, changing Arab and international media and political attention from the crimes committed by the colony against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Second, reducing and diminishing international sympathy and solidarity with the suffering of the Palestinian people. Third, attempting to evade and dilute attention to the International Court of Justice's demand for prosecution on the basis of the crimes it committed, and the International Criminal Court's demand for Netanyahu on the basis of responsibility for committing crimes against humanity against Palestinians. Netanyahu exploited Trump's desires, who seeks to continue American hegemony and unilateralism in international politics, especially: 1- Towards China, the economic competitor, 2- Russia, the political competitor, 3- Europe, which looks towards liberation from American dominance and unilateralism, since its victory in the Cold War. The Third Gulf War was ignited by the colony with the aim of controlling the entire Arab East, starting from the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean to the borders of Iran. Through the United States, it succeeded in overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime on 4/9/2003, and overthrowing Bashar al-Assad's regime on 6/8/2024, and assassinating Hezbollah leaders and Hamas and Houthi leaders, and is moving eastward towards Iran, towards the plan and program of the powerful, influential, controlling, and dominant "Greater Colony" over the peoples of our Arab East. The question we await an answer to is what will be the outcome of this war? Will the colony be able to impose its results and achieve what it seeks?

Mutaz Bisharat, head of the settlement and Jordan Valley file in Tubas Governorate, confirmed that the Palestinian presence in the northern Jordan Valley areas faces an unprecedented existential threat. Bisharat explained that the region has witnessed a sharp decline in population numbers for years, as a result of the combined attacks by settlers and the strict military measures imposed by the Israeli occupation army.

The Palestinian official pointed out that the change in demographic reality has become tangible and clear, as the number of residents in those communities has dramatically decreased. He indicated that the area, which was teeming with thousands of Palestinians who depended on agriculture and livestock farming, has now become almost devoid of its original inhabitants.

According to the figures provided by Bisharat, more than 6,000 Palestinian citizens lived in the northern Jordan Valley areas in previous periods. However, these numbers have shrunk due to forced displacement policies, reaching today only about 1,500 citizens, which reflects the extent of the pressures exerted on the ground.

The decline was not limited to the number of individuals, but also extended to the population centers themselves, as Bisharat revealed the disappearance of dozens of villages and encampments. After the region included about 28 Palestinian population centers, only eight centers remain today, struggling to survive.

Bisharat attributed this deterioration to the daily attacks carried out by settlers, whose number is estimated at about 750,000 settlers throughout the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem. These systematic attacks aim to terrorize citizens and force them to leave their lands and livelihoods to facilitate control over them.

He explained that the methods of restriction are not limited to direct physical violence, but also include depriving Palestinians of access to vital water sources. Occupation forces also prevent farmers from entering their lands, which prevents the continuation of their agricultural activity, which represents their only lifeline.

Local sources reported that these harsh conditions forced entire families to leave their historical homes and seek safer havens. This forced displacement has led to the disintegration of the social and economic fabric of those communities that have endured for decades in the face of occupation.

The past two years have witnessed a dangerous escalation in displacement operations, especially in the Al-Maleh areas and Bedouin encampments, which were considered major centers for livestock farming. Bisharat stated that most of these communities have been almost completely evacuated, with only two families remaining in some of them, facing extremist settlers.

The official warned of the catastrophic economic repercussions of this evacuation, considering the Jordan Valley to be the most important food basket for the West Bank. The departure of residents means the cessation of vegetable, fruit, and strategic crop production, which would severely damage the local Palestinian economy and increase dependence on the occupation.

Bisharat also warned of the danger of engineering projects implemented by the occupation army in the region, such as the construction of walls, earth mounds, and road closures. He considered that these measures aim to isolate Palestinians in narrow enclaves and prevent them from geographical communication with their natural surroundings in Tubas Governorate.

Bisharat revealed Israeli plans to isolate vast areas of agricultural land, which may reach more than 190,000 dunams in Tubas Governorate alone. This isolation, if completed, will lead to the loss of thousands of dunams of the most fertile agricultural lands and natural pastures for Palestinians.

The official described what is happening in the Jordan Valley as a slow ethnic cleansing process aimed at resolving the conflict over land in favor of the settlement project. He stressed that the continued international silence on these practices encourages the occupation to proceed with emptying the region of its original inhabitants.

In light of these facts, the remaining residents find themselves in a daily confrontation with the unknown, as some families are forced to repeatedly displace within a few months. These families live in a state of permanent instability due to continuous threats of demolishing tents and confiscating property and livestock.

Bisharat concluded his statements by warning that the Palestinian presence in the Jordan Valley is on its last breath if urgent action is not taken to support the steadfastness of the residents. He stressed that protecting the Jordan Valley is protecting the future of the Palestinian state, given its sensitive geographical, economic, and political position.

More than 6,000 Palestinian citizens used to live in the Jordan Valley areas, but today only about 1,500 citizens remain due to continuous pressures.

Settler attacks are relentless in the Palestinian West Bank, from north to south. The escalation of these crimes is attributed to the direct support from Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and others in the occupation government, who provide financial and military backing and issue military decisions. These crimes would not occur without the direct protection of occupation soldiers who guard settler groups and provide them with security. Every attack they carry out, and every crime they commit, happens under the eyes of the soldiers and with instructions from ministers of the occupation government who lead the settlement movements. The support and protection for these evildoers are the real motive behind all the crimes committed. No agricultural field, livestock, poultry farms, forest or fruit trees, vehicles, or homes have been spared from looting, burning, and theft. There are many testimonies to this, most recently what happened the night before last in Beit Amrin, Burqa, and Huwara, and how they burned a health clinic and a house belonging to a family whose members miraculously survived. Had it not been for God's grace, they would have all perished. The life of the Palestinian citizen in the cities and villages of the West Bank is difficult to describe, facing the brutality of settlers who continue their rampage, and people find no one to protect them and relieve them of this savagery. On the ground, settlers armed with machine guns are under the protection of occupation soldiers, while the Palestinian citizen is unarmed and not allowed to defend themselves, their livelihood, their field, their children's sustenance, and their property, which is subjected to theft and looting by foreign settlers. In the face of this difficult reality, and while the regional war rages on several fronts, and with the continued suffering in Gaza which has not stopped even after the formation of the administrative committee and the so-called peace council, and as the suffering of people in the Palestinian West Bank and Jerusalem continues, with the increase in attacks and the level of crimes committed by settler gangs, in the absence of the required protection, and the escalation of feelings of fear and insecurity among citizens who are subjected to attacks every day. Here, the search for means and methods of protection to provide security and safety becomes an imperative necessity, and parties, factions, and the Authority with its components must work together to create a unified front to confront and deter these crimes that threaten the Palestinian human being. The suffering of people in Palestinian villages and towns due to these crimes is beyond description and words, as the circle of fear expands and the feeling of safety disappears amid repeated and continuous attacks without deterrence, which exacerbates the suffering of the residents and burdens them psychologically and economically, and no one provides them with protection, yet they continue to stand firm on their land and in their homes. In the face of these scenes, the question remains: who will provide them with protection? And how can they withstand armed gangs that attack them with burning, beating, and theft?

News Analysis

Washington, D.C - Wars are often framed as unavoidable—products of failed diplomacy or last-resort necessity. But the U.S.–Israeli war with Iran tells a different story. This was not a conflict that emerged after negotiations collapsed. It was a war launched while negotiations were still underway—twice. That distinction is not semantic. It goes to the heart of how this crisis began, and why its consequences are now being felt far beyond the battlefield.

In both 2025 and 2026, the United States and Iran were actively engaged in diplomatic talks when military action was initiated. Beginning in April 2025, negotiations mediated by Oman proceeded through multiple rounds in Muscat and Rome. Far from breaking down, these talks were repeatedly described as constructive, with both sides agreeing to continue discussions. Diplomacy was not stalled; it was slow, imperfect, and ongoing—exactly as complex negotiations tend to be.

The same pattern held in early 2026. Talks resumed in February and were again characterized as a “good start,” with further negotiations expected. Just days before the February 28 attack, officials indicated that an agreement could still be within reach. There was no clear endpoint, no mutually recognized deadline, and no definitive collapse. Diplomacy had not ended. It was still unfolding.

And yet, in both instances, Israel chose to act militarily—first in June 2025, then again on February 28, 2026—effectively overriding an active negotiating track and drawing the United States into war. These were not reactive moves taken after diplomacy had been exhausted; they were preemptive actions taken while diplomacy was still alive.

This raises a fundamental question: if negotiations were ongoing, and by all indications still viable, why was war necessary?

The economic consequences underscore the cost of that decision. A study by Bloomberg estimates that fears of a wider war erased more than $2.5 trillion from global bond markets in March alone—the worst monthly loss in years. This is not a routine correction. It is a signal of systemic stress, driven by geopolitical escalation.

The same analysis points to an even broader shock: global equities have lost an estimated $11.5 trillion in market value, reflecting a level of disruption that extends across sectors and continents. Investors are not merely reacting to uncertainty; they are repricing risk in a world where political decisions are once again overriding economic fundamentals.

The mechanism behind this disruption is both simple and severe. War drives up oil prices. Higher energy costs ripple through supply chains, increasing the cost of production, transportation, and basic goods. This fuels inflation, which in turn erodes the real value of fixed-income assets such as bonds. As inflation rises, central banks are pressured to tighten monetary policy, pushing interest rates higher and slowing growth. What begins as a geopolitical decision quickly cascades into a global economic shock.

As noted by Michael Brown, a senior strategist at Pepperstone, investor concern is increasingly centered on inflation—particularly that driven by rising energy prices. Large energy-importing economies, he warns, are especially vulnerable, facing both accelerating inflation and deteriorating government bond performance.

This vulnerability is especially acute in the United Kingdom and across Europe, where dependence on imported energy amplifies exposure to price spikes. For these economies, the likely path forward includes tighter monetary policy, higher borrowing costs, and weaker growth. In the worst-case scenario, the combination of inflation and stagnation could tip major economies toward recession—reviving fears of stagflation that many believed had been left behind decades ago.

But to focus solely on markets and macroeconomics is to miss the deeper issue. The economic fallout is not an accident; it is the consequence of political choice.

In both 2025 and 2026, military action did not follow the failure of diplomacy. It interrupted it. This distinction matters because it challenges the central narrative often used to justify war—that force becomes necessary only when all other options have been exhausted. Here, the record suggests the opposite: alternatives were still being actively pursued when they were overtaken by military escalation.

Diplomacy is rarely neat or decisive. It advances unevenly, shaped by competing interests, domestic pressures, and shifting regional dynamics. Progress is often incremental, and setbacks are inevitable. But that is not a sign of failure—it is the nature of the process. To abandon negotiations because they are incomplete is to misunderstand what diplomacy is.

The decision to move from negotiation to war, under such conditions, is not inevitability—it is agency. It reflects a judgment that the risks of continued diplomacy outweigh the risks of conflict. Yet the economic data now emerging suggests that this calculation may have been deeply flawed.

Inflation is rising across global markets. Financial systems are under strain. Growth projections are being revised downward. The costs are being distributed worldwide, affecting not only the parties to the conflict but also economies and populations with no direct stake in it.

The tragedy, then, is not simply that war occurred. It is that it occurred while alternatives still existed—and that those alternatives were not allowed to run their course.

There is a broader lesson here. When military force is used not as a last resort but as a parallel track—or even a substitute—for diplomacy, the consequences extend far beyond immediate strategic objectives. They reshape markets, destabilize economies, and impose costs on a global scale.

The question now is not only how this war began, but what it signals about the future. Will diplomacy continue to be treated as a prelude to force rather than an alternative to it? Will negotiations be given time to succeed, or cut short by decisions made in the name of urgency?

In an interconnected global economy, the answers to these questions matter not just for peace and security, but for economic stability itself. Because as this conflict makes clear, when war is chosen over diplomacy, the price is paid by everyone.

Palestine today is going through a critical phase as a result of accumulated internal divisions and the impact of the ongoing occupation, which has made addressing the effects of the past an urgent national necessity. The division between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was not merely political disagreements between factions; its impact extended to encompass the entire Palestinian people. Citizens were affected in their daily lives, whether in terms of individual and social rights, or in employment opportunities, education, and basic services, and the level of trust in national institutions declined. Furthermore, the Palestinian cause as a whole was affected, as the division weakened unified national representation and reduced the Palestinian community's ability to confront internal and external challenges, including Israeli policies, creating a double barrier to national unity and effective international action. In this context, it is clear that the Palestinian people are the true victims of division and political and social accumulations, not just one faction, which makes transitional justice a comprehensive national necessity to restore national unity and trust between society and the state.

Lessons can be learned from transitional justice experiences implemented by other countries. In Morocco, the Equity and Reconciliation Commission successfully achieved a balance between truth-telling, reparations, and institutional reform, without resorting to widespread judicial trials, which enhanced political stability and symbolic justice for victims. As for South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's experience demonstrated the importance of the "amnesty for truth" principle to overcome the legacy of apartheid and build a cohesive society based on reconciliation and mutual recognition. Tunisia's experience highlighted the necessity of a clear legal and institutional framework to address past violations, while Rwanda focused on community justice and local reconciliation after the genocide, benefiting from community traditions to ensure the rebuilding of the social fabric. These models confirm that the balance between acknowledging mistakes, reparations, institutional reform, and collective reconciliation is a fundamental factor in building sustainable national unity, and these lessons can be adapted to the specificity of the Palestinian reality to enhance their positive impact.

Palestinian transitional justice emerges as a vital national path that allows all political parties to acknowledge their mistakes and learn from past experiences, transforming past errors into a foundation for building an inclusive political and social future. What is required is for the factions to take responsibility for acknowledging mistakes, not only at the individual level but at the institutional and societal levels as a whole, to ensure that violations and transgressions are not repeated, and to create an environment where political and social differences can be managed within the bounds of law and institutions, away from violence or exclusion. Palestinian transitional justice acquires an additional strategic dimension, as it represents a tool to thwart the occupation's attempts to exploit division and weaken national cohesion, and it also represents a response to a widespread popular demand, pressuring factions to deal positively with the national reconciliation process. Returning to the people through elections alone is not enough to address divisions or restore trust between parties, and if it is not based on comprehensive national reconciliation, it will fail to achieve the desired change. However, if this proposal is agreed upon and seriously implemented, elections become an effective step, based on unity, accountability, and transparency, and establish a stable and sustainable democratic path.

The detailed proposal for Palestinian transitional justice consists of a set of integrated measures:

Building Political Consensus: Through a comprehensive national agreement among all parties to address the past and acknowledge mistakes, with oversight from an independent body representing civil society and national forces to ensure the neutrality of the process, and involving all factions in drafting the roadmap for reconciliation. Here, political challenges can be addressed by developing flexible scenarios to confront resistance, such as establishing bilateral and quarterly dialogues initially between the most conservative parties to ensure their participation, then expanding the scope of consensus to include everyone, with guarantees that the process will not be used to settle political scores.

Establishing the Palestinian Truth and Justice Commission: An independent body comprising judicial, human rights, and community figures, tasked with documenting violations, listening to victims from all over Palestine, and preparing a comprehensive report that builds a collective national memory reflecting the recognition that the entire Palestinian people are the victims, and ensuring the acknowledgment of mistakes at the individual and collective levels, with transparent dissemination of its findings to promote collective recognition. Indicators can be developed to measure the commission's success, such as: the number of beneficiaries, their satisfaction with the process, and the number of initiatives undertaken based on the commission's recommendations.

National Reparations Program: Includes providing material, social, and psychological compensation to all those affected by the division, whether at the individual or collective level, and reintegrating those affected into national institutions and jobs, in addition to rehabilitation and training programs, with official recognition of those affected to restore their dignity and enhance their sense of justice.

Flexible Approach to Accountability: Adopts the principle of "acknowledgment for mitigation," focusing on moral and political responsibility, and avoiding widespread judicial trials that may hinder national reconciliation, to ensure that acknowledging mistakes becomes part of collective learning rather than a tool for division. To emphasize the balance between justice and reconciliation, a framework can be established to clarify that the process integrates symbolic justice, acknowledgment of harm, and limited legal responsibility, thereby preventing the recurrence of violations without politicizing justice.

Reforming and Unifying Institutions: Includes reforming judicial, administrative, and security apparatuses to ensure transparency and justice, enhancing judicial independence and professionalism in administration, and establishing clear controls to prevent the recurrence of violations.

Engaging Society in Reconciliation: By supporting local and community reconciliation initiatives, and involving civil society and local frameworks in managing national dialogue, to promote a culture of acknowledgment, reconciliation, and community participation, ensuring that the process includes all affected segments of society, including youth, women, and marginalized groups. This can be enhanced through continuous media and community communication mechanisms, such as open dialogue programs, online forums, and interactive media campaigns that allow citizens to participate in formulating solutions.

Managing the Occupation File in Parallel: By systematically documenting Israeli violations through legal and international channels, while separating this file from the internal reconciliation process to ensure efforts are focused on addressing internal divisions and national reconciliation.

Integrating Memory into Education and Media: By incorporating concepts of transitional justice, acknowledgment of mistakes, and reconciliation into curricula, and producing media programs aimed at promoting a culture of acknowledgment, accountability, and tolerance among all components of society, contributing to educating new generations about the value of reconciliation and national unity.

Monitoring and Implementation Mechanisms: To ensure the continuity of the process and prevent deviation, including monitoring the implementation of the Truth and Justice Commission's recommendations, independent mechanisms for evaluating progress, and ensuring the separation of political and judicial authority. Interim evaluation indicators can be added to periodically measure the progress and effectiveness of the process.

Temporal Flexibility and Gradual Implementation: With a clear timeline for each stage of reconciliation, allowing for periodic evaluation and adjustment based on results on the ground.

This path is expected to have a multi-dimensional impact; politically, by strengthening national unity, reducing division, and increasing the legitimacy of institutions; socially, by restoring trust among citizens, promoting civic participation, and spreading a culture of reconciliation and tolerance throughout society; legally and institutionally, by developing the justice system, enhancing judicial independence, and improving the performance of security and administrative apparatuses; and internationally, by enhancing Palestine's image as a society striving for good governance and respect for human rights, and attracting technical and legal support; and in the long term, by building a strong and stable rule of law, reducing the likelihood of internal conflicts, and enabling Palestinian society to work unitedly towards an inclusive political and social future that ensures the participation of all without exclusion.

This Palestinian model of transitional justice represents a path for political acknowledgment of mistakes and learning from them by all factions, placing disagreements within the bounds of law and institutions, and addressing the harm that has affected the entire Palestinian people and the national cause as a whole. It also provides a solid foundation that makes any future elections meaningful and effective, as it ensures that political competition will be based on unity, accountability, and transparency, rather than on division or the exploitation of past divisions. Through this path, painful experiences are transformed into a basis for building an inclusive future, where political differences are managed constructively, and differences become a means of dialogue, not a tool for conflict or division, enabling Palestinian society to restore its unity and strength, and launch its national project cohesively and sustainably, benefiting from the lessons of international models such as Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, and Rwanda in acknowledging the past, making reparations, and reforming institutions as the basis for any true national reconciliation.

The military escalation led by the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered its fourth week, amidst intense airstrikes targeting facilities and lives. Despite the ferocity of the attacks, field data indicates that the declared objectives of the aggression have not yet been achieved, as the state has maintained its basic structure.

Observers believe that the loss of prominent leaders in the hierarchy of power has not led to the expected collapse or internal chaos that adversaries were banking on. Instead of popular protests condemning the authority, mass engagement in defending national sovereignty and dignity in the face of external threats has been observed.

Before the outbreak of direct confrontation, the American president exhausted all tools of military threat and intimidation, hoping for the Iranian leadership to retreat from its political positions. The American gamble was on a popular revolution that would overthrow the regime to spare the country the horrors of war, which did not happen on the ground.

The American side expressed clear astonishment at the continued Iranian resistance, with Trump questioning the secret behind not surrendering despite immense pressures. This question opens the door to understanding the nature of resilience that goes beyond traditional military calculations to dimensions related to identity and national dignity.

The inherent strength of the Iranian position relies on a philosophy that rejects dependency and considers freedom a value that cannot be bargained for, no matter the sacrifices. This type of will grants peoples the ability to endure grave risks in order to preserve their sovereignty and independent political decision-making.

For decades, political socialization in Iran has worked to mobilize society against what is described as 'global arrogance,' concepts that have been entrenched since the 1979 revolution. This socialization was not merely slogans but transformed into practical action in the face of successive international crises.

History recalls similar situations, such as the American embassy crisis that lasted 444 days, where Iranians bravely faced the threats of the Sixth Fleet. At that time, former President Jimmy Carter realized that dealing with a people who do not fear sacrifice requires completely different calculations than traditional wars.

The lack of fear of death in the Iranian political doctrine does not mean a desire for annihilation, but rather a means to defend a dignified and independent life. A life without sovereignty or moral values is considered in this perspective a meaningless existence, which reinforces the solidity of the internal front.

The symbolism of resilience is evident in the continued performance of duties by leaders from their official offices despite direct threats of assassination and bombing. Moreover, popular turnout on occasions such as International Quds Day reflects a clear message of defiance that leadership and people are in one trench.

Forecasts indicate that American dreams of imposing complete surrender will not be realized, no matter how high the material and human costs. Military technological superiority does not always guarantee decisive victories against peoples who possess a deeply rooted fighting doctrine that rejects humiliation and dependency.

The slogan 'Far be it from us to accept humiliation' represents a fundamental pillar in the Iranian collective consciousness, and it goes beyond being a political cry to become a doctrine that prevents defeat. This ideological dimension is what makes it difficult to impose settlements on 'victor and vanquished' terms, as happens in other conflicts.

It is likely that the aggressors will fail to achieve their strategic objectives, which may force them to seek safe exits and tempting settlements that save what remains of their face. Peoples who defend their existence possess long endurance and patience that aggressive powers do not have.

The next phase may witness attempts to reach an emergency truce or tempting settlements, but these will not erase the deep-seated animosity between the two sides. Each side seeks to build its own gains in preparation for future rounds of confrontation that seem inevitable given the conflicting interests.

Ultimately, Iranian resilience remains a phenomenon worthy of study from a political and social perspective, where national spirit intertwines with religious doctrine. The prospects of this resilience will determine the shape of new balances in the region for many years to come.

What can be done with people who do not fear death but seek it?

In a moment when the night's stillness collapses, doors are broken and homes are invaded. The scene is brief, but it leaves an impact that transcends its duration: soldiers enter, rampage, tamper, then wear women's private underwear—lingerie—and photograph themselves inside a space that has been violated at gunpoint. The goal here is not inspection, nor even material destruction, but rather to redefine the place itself: transforming the home from a private sanctuary into a stage for control and intrusion.

What is happening in Gaza and Lebanon is not an anomalous behavior, but a colonial technique: intimate colonialism—that form of domination that is not content with controlling land, but extends to the body, privacy, and meaning. When intimate clothing is worn and displayed on strange bodies, not only are possessions violated, but the psychological boundaries that separate the public from the private, the safe from the threatened, are breached. The intimate becomes material for colonial harm, and privacy transforms into a space susceptible to subjugation.

More dangerous than the act itself is its re-broadcasting. The photos and videos that are later published are not fleeting social media posts, but part of a deliberate strategy: delayed shock through the screen. Displaced people watch their homes violated, not at the moment of the event, but afterward—when they are powerless to act, and forced to receive. Here, the invasion does not end with the soldiers' departure; rather, another form of violation begins, settling in memory and being re-evoked whenever the image is re-watched.

This behavior, which may seem sarcastic or perverse, is at its core an organized practice of power restructuring: humiliation, subjugation, and the redefinition of the human being in relation to themselves and their body. It is a systematic occupation act, which is only complete with its reproduction and dissemination, as a means to prolong the harm and generalize it to the displaced and the entire occupied society. This aligns with the approach of liberation psychology, which views psychological violence not as an individual symptom, but as the product of an oppressive structure that must be understood in its political and social context.

The psychological impact is distributed, but it integrates into the dismantling of the social fabric:

On men: Violence manifests as complex humiliation—inability to protect, exposure of private space, and a threat to identity associated with the role of protection.

On women: The body becomes a symbolically penetrated space; anger intertwines with shame and fear, not only because of the act itself, but because of what it implies about domination over the body and the possibility of its subjugation.

On children: The boundary between what is private and what is public collapses. What was hidden from their eyes suddenly appears, not as knowledge, but as a shock that confuses their perception of safety, and plants a deep rift in their sense of the stability of the world around them.

Here, not only the individual is targeted, but the gender structure of society is targeted: humiliating men by exposing their helplessness, and violating women by desecrating their intimacy, in an integrated process of dismantling roles and relationships. It is armed intimate violence, using everyday symbols to reproduce domination.

This act extends through time. It does not happen once, but is repeated in memory, in images, in the retrieval of small details: a house door broken into, a drawer opened, a piece of cloth snatched, an order disrupted. Even if the house remains standing, it is no longer as it was. It becomes laden with the memory of violation, as if the occupation never left it.

Despite this, transforming these experiences into testimony against the occupation is not just a news narrative, but an act of resistance. Turning this testimony into a public space not only exposes the violation, but also reduces the isolation of the victims, and reconnects the experience to its collective context instead of leaving it as a silent individual burden. Thus, the ability to understand is restored, possibilities for confrontation are opened, and dignity and social relations that are intended to be torn apart are repaired.

These practices are not a marginal detail of war, but one of its precise techniques: dismantling the human being from within, by transforming their most private spaces into tools for controlling them. And confrontation begins by recognizing and naming it, not as a fleeting incident, but as a continuous structure of symbolic violence, which does not end with the event, but continues unless we succeed in dismantling it and neutralizing its impact.

Hebrew media sources revealed a remarkable shift in the Israeli army's military strategy during its ongoing aggression against Iran, as it began relying on old stockpiles of imprecise ammunition. Reports indicated that these bombs, which have been stored for about half a century, were recently used to target military sites inside Iranian territory, which was discovered by chance through monitoring the nature of the explosions and the resulting debris.

Data from the Israeli Broadcasting Authority indicates that the motives behind this decision lie in the military leadership's desire to reduce the exorbitant costs of air operations, in addition to seeking to empty warehouses of obsolete weapons. This development comes amid continued mutual confrontations since late February, with Israel and the United States launching widespread attacks, met by Tehran's firing of missiles and drones targeting Israeli depth and American interests in the region.

On the humanitarian front in Iran, the Iranian Red Crescent announced that air attacks have targeted more than 81,000 civilian sites across the country since the start of the aggression. The head of the institution, Pir Hossein Kolivand, confirmed that relief teams are working at their maximum capacity, with more than 100,000 volunteers trained to provide first aid and rapid intervention services in emergencies resulting from the intense bombing.

For his part, Iranian Health Minister, Mohammad Reza Zaferkandi, revealed a heavy toll of civilian casualties, pointing to the killing of 210 children and the injury of more than 1,500 others with varying degrees of wounds. The minister clarified that the targeting was not limited to military sites, but also included about 300 health centers and 30 ambulances, which hinders medical efforts to save the injured and constitutes a flagrant violation of international conventions.

In a related context in the Gaza Strip, the occupation forces continued their violations of the ceasefire agreement signed last October, as four Palestinians were martyred and eight others were injured in a raid targeting a police vehicle in the Nuseirat camp. Local sources reported that the vehicle was performing official duties at the Abu Sarar intersection in the central sector, in a clear attempt to undermine the security and service system that manages citizens' affairs.

Medical sources also recorded the martyrdom of another Palestinian citizen in a raid targeting a civilian gathering in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood north of Gaza City. These attacks come as part of a series of continuous violations, which have resulted in about 677 martyrs and more than 1,800 injured since October 2025, threatening the collapse of the fragile calm that came after two years of devastating war that left enormous destruction in the infrastructure.

Human rights reports indicate that the occupation deliberately targets police and service agencies in Gaza to disrupt civil peace and prevent the organization of aid distribution and basic services. This field escalation comes despite international warnings of a return to a comprehensive conflict, especially with the continued fall of civilian casualties amid international silence regarding repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement.

It is worth noting that the war that erupted in October 2023 left a catastrophic toll exceeding 72,000 martyrs and 171,000 injured, with about 90% of vital facilities in the sector destroyed. With the confrontation with Iran entering a new chapter of military escalation, fears are growing of the expansion of the regional conflict and its direct impact on the Palestinian issue, which continues to suffer from the consequences of the siege and continuous aggression.

The Israeli army began using imprecise ammunition, stored for half a century, to strike military bases in Iran to save costs and empty warehouses.

International warnings are escalating about the danger of sliding into a nuclear confrontation, as concerns are no longer limited to the immediate destruction caused by explosions, but extend to the sustained repercussions that could end human civilization. A recent report indicates that scientists are anxiously monitoring a series of environmental and health disasters that will begin immediately after the first fireballs subside.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the organization responsible for the 'Doomsday Clock,' warned that the world is at its closest point to total annihilation in history. Studies confirm that any nuclear conflict, no matter how limited, will tear apart the Earth's ecological fabric, making survival an almost impossible challenge for those who survive the initial strike.

Among the most prominent anticipated health risks is the complete collapse of the medical system, where hospitals will cease to function and sources of clean water will completely disappear. This situation will turn affected cities into hotbeds for deadly epidemics, especially with the spread of corpses that will become breeding grounds for microbes and germs in the absence of health control.

Experts anticipate a widespread outbreak of diseases such as salmonella, typhoid, and malaria, in addition to dengue fever and hepatitis. This crisis will be exacerbated by the proliferation of radiation-resistant insects, which will transmit infections from decomposing corpses to humans who survived the initial explosions around the world.

On the environmental front, the threat of a deadly 'ultraviolet spring' emerges, resulting from the destruction of the ozone layer that protects the Earth. A full-scale nuclear war is capable of destroying about 70% of this layer, while limited confrontations could cause a loss of 40%, allowing harmful rays to reach the Earth's surface directly.

This increase in ultraviolet radiation levels will lead to a massive surge in skin cancer rates and eye damage in humans and animals. Agricultural crops will also be directly affected, leading to the collapse of ecosystems that depend on a delicate balance of temperatures and solar radiation.

The phenomenon of 'black rain' is one of the most terrifying scenes in post-explosion scenarios, a contaminated mixture of ash and deadly radioactive materials. This rain falls from the sky, covering vast areas, causing immediate radiation burns and permanent contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water sources.

The impact of nuclear fallout extends hundreds of kilometers away from the explosion's epicenter, meaning that areas not directly targeted will not be safe from danger. Radioactive materials will travel through the wind to settle in the food chain, making food and water a deadly weapon against those who consume it.

The major catastrophe, however, is the 'nuclear winter' and the global famine that will follow the massive fires in cities and industrial areas. The thick smoke rising will block sunlight for long periods, leading to a sharp and sudden drop in global temperatures and a complete failure of agricultural seasons.

Scientific estimates indicate that this severe food shortage could lead to the deaths of up to 5 billion people from starvation worldwide. The suffering will not be limited to warring nations but will encompass all continents due to the cessation of international trade and the collapse of global food supply chains.

Even shelters, which many believe offer safety, may turn into deadly traps amidst the firestorms resulting from the explosions. These storms raise temperatures to unprecedented levels and consume the oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere, which could lead to suffocation inside fortified shelters.

The failure of medical and electrical equipment due to electromagnetic pulses will make it impossible to provide care for the wounded and those suffering from acute radiation syndrome. Millions will suffer excruciating pain without painkillers or sterile surgical instruments, amidst a complete power outage and communication breakdown.

These scenarios confirm that nuclear war is not merely a transient military event, but an act of collective suicide for the human race and total destruction of planet Earth. The interconnected series of disasters begins with fire and pressure, continues through radiation and disease, and ends with a civilizational and environmental collapse from which recovery is impossible.

In conclusion, these stark scientific warnings serve as an alarm bell for international leaders about the danger of military escalation in the nuclear age. Maintaining peace is not just a political option, but an imperative necessity to ensure the continuation of life on this planet and to spare humanity a dark future with no winners.

The real danger does not end when the fireballs subside; it begins with a series of disasters that will change the face of life for decades.

International press reports indicate that the joint war led by the United States and the occupation state against Iran has entered its fifth week with no signs of an imminent surrender by Tehran. Despite significant military setbacks and the loss of prominent leaders, estimates suggest that the timeline set by President Donald Trump is nearing its end without a radical change in the regime's structure.

Media sources quoted Israeli officials admitting that the conflict might end with the Iranian government remaining in power, which could create a sense of frustration among those who expected a rapid collapse. This is due to the disparity between declared objectives and the slow pace of military achievements compared to the momentum that accompanied operations in their early stages.

An Israeli military official explained that Iran represents an enormous geographical and security challenge, being a country eighty times larger than Israel and roughly half the size of the European continent. He added that the Iranian regime has succeeded over decades in building a complex security apparatus, which makes its mere resilience in the face of current attacks a victory from its perspective.

The official pointed out that the media narrative considering the regime's survival a defeat for Washington and Tel Aviv is inaccurate from the Israeli strategic perspective. From their point of view, a state that threatened to wipe Israel off the map reaching a stage where survival is considered a victory reflects the extent of the damage inflicted on its capabilities.

Sources emphasized that overthrowing the regime in Tehran was never a declared military objective of the current air operations; rather, the focus was on eliminating direct existential threats. Military leaders believe that weakening the regime creates suitable conditions for the Iranian people to choose change themselves if they wish to do so in the future.

Regarding the outcomes of the war, the military official predicted a scenario where both sides declare victory simultaneously, with the Iranian regime viewing its survival as a historical success. In contrast, Israel and the United States will consider that they have achieved their goals by destroying military infrastructure and unprecedentedly weakening Tehran's offensive capabilities.

Intelligence reports observed cracks in the combat morale of Iranian forces and increasing difficulties in coordinating organized missile barrages. Sources confirmed that field commanders are now forced to accompany their soldiers to carry out missions due to the spread of fear and confusion among ground forces.

Intelligence information also revealed that Iranian forces resorted to launching missiles from hidden positions under bridges and tunnels to avoid intense aerial surveillance. This defensive tactic has led to a significant decrease in the number of missile attacks launched from the region, indicating a decline in offensive initiative capabilities.

At the leadership level, an increase in individual decision-making by field military commanders has been observed over the past two weeks, reflecting a weakness in central coordination. Observers believe that the absence of a unified and cohesive Revolutionary Guard leadership has led to a state of disarray in the management of daily military operations.

For his part, Ofir Akunis, the Israeli Consul in New York, stated that the Iranian security establishment is weakening day by day despite its continued control over state joints. He described the current situation as very fragile, especially with the possibility of other regional parties, such as the Ansar Allah group in Yemen, entering the confrontation more broadly.

Despite the profound effects of the air campaign on the stability of the Iranian state, Akunis ruled out an imminent government collapse at present. He pointed out that the possibility of an internal uprising remains complex due to the presence of currents that oppose the regime but at the same time reject external military intervention in their country.

Regarding the American position, the Trump administration's messages were inconsistent regarding the final war objectives and the possibility of deploying ground troops. While Trump set short deadlines for ending operations, he later reaffirmed that he would not send soldiers to participate in ground operations, emphasizing that securing international waterways should be a collective responsibility.

It is important to realize that the Iranian regime manages a country 80 times larger than Israel, and they are now in a position where they consider mere survival a victory.

The Gaza Strip witnessed a shocking incident reflecting the extent of cruelty and violations practiced by the Israeli occupation army against civilians, where a child, not yet two years old, became a means of physical and psychological pressure during a military field interrogation. The incident, which occurred in the Al-Maghazi area, sparked a wave of widespread anger after details of the child's torture in front of his detained father were revealed.

The tragedy began when the young man, Osama Abu Nassar, left his home with his young child, 'Kareem,' to secure some basic necessities for the family. Suddenly, the area came under heavy fire from occupation forces stationed near the eastern border of Al-Maghazi, placing the father and his child in a direct target zone.

Local sources and eyewitnesses reported that a 'quadcopter' drone surrounded Abu Nassar, forcing him at gunpoint to leave his child alone on the ground and advance towards a temporary military checkpoint. There, the father was forced to strip completely before being interrogated by occupation soldiers in a humiliating manner.

In a scene lacking the slightest standards of humanity, the soldiers detained the infant and began to inflict various forms of physical torture upon him. The purpose of these brutal practices was to pressure the distraught father into watching his child suffer, in order to extract confessions and information during his field interrogation.

Family sources quoted Kareem's mother as providing horrific details documented in an official medical report after the child's release. It was revealed that the soldiers extinguished burning cigarette butts on various parts of the infant's body, in addition to embedding an iron nail in his leg and pricking him with sharp tools to force him to scream continuously.

Kareem was held for ten continuous hours away from his family's embrace and in conditions lacking the most basic care. After the interrogation of his father concluded, the child was handed over to Red Cross teams in the Al-Maghazi market area, in a very difficult physical and psychological state as a result of what he endured.

While Kareem returned to his mother burdened with his physical injuries, his father, Osama Abu Nassar, remains in detention in occupation prisons, with his fate and the charges against him unknown. The family lives in a state of double anxiety over the unknown fate of the father and the health condition of the child, who requires intensive medical and psychological care.

This crime sparked angry reactions on social media platforms, where activists and human rights advocates considered it a full-fledged war crime that crosses all red lines. Commentators affirmed that targeting infants and using them as hostages for military pressure represents an unprecedented moral decline in the history of modern conflicts.

Human rights organizations called for an urgent and independent international investigation into this incident and its documentation as part of the war crimes files raised against occupation leaders. Human rights advocates stressed that the absolute international silence regarding these violations gives the green light to the occupation army to repeat such brutal practices against children and women.

This incident comes in the context of a long series of violations documented daily by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which include deliberate killing and field torture. The story of Kareem remains a living testament to the extent of suffering experienced by the residents of the Strip, where even infants are not safe from the Israeli machine of oppression and abuse.

It is impossible for these to be human beings; they are monsters in human form. Indeed, even monsters are more merciful than what these individuals commit against our children.

A wave of anger has escalated among settlers and business owners within the occupation's home front, due to the government's delay in paying financial compensation for losses resulting from the ongoing war. These protests come at a time when cities and settlements are still being subjected to successive missile strikes from Iran and Hezbollah, leading to a partial paralysis in wide economic sectors.

Economic sources reported that beneficiaries of the war compensation scheme will have to wait for many weeks before receiving any financial support. The Ministry of Finance is currently working on preparing the necessary legislative drafts to regulate compensation for workers and companies, a process that requires a long time for review and public comment before being referred to the Ministerial Committee.

Estimates indicate that funds will not reach their beneficiaries before next May, given the coincidence of legislative procedures with the timing of Jewish holidays and the anticipated Knesset recess. Despite the Ministry of Finance's attempts to deny any deliberate delay, bureaucratic reality suggests that payments will not be made soon, even if laws are expedited.

Observers criticized the slow timelines for preparing legislation compared to previous confrontations, such as the events of June 2025 or the start of the war on Gaza in October 2023. It appears that the current government faces difficulties in reconciling the preparation of the state budget with meeting the urgent needs of those affected by the ongoing military operations.

Israeli anger is particularly focused on the conditions of the compensation scheme, which is limited to companies that have lost at least 25% of their annual turnover. The current model aims to compensate only salary expenses and fixed costs, which major companies with budgets of millions of dollars consider insufficient to cover their actual losses.

Informed sources confirmed that the Treasury published the aid scheme without reaching final agreements with employers on fundamental issues. This confusion has led to a state of uncertainty in the market, where stakeholders fear continued financial bleeding without a clear and direct government safety net.

An additional crisis emerges concerning severance pay and unemployment benefits for employees who were forced to stop working during the first week of the war. The current model requires an employee's absence for 14 consecutive days to be eligible, which deprives those who return to work early of any financial compensation for their period of stoppage.

Shahar Turgeman, head of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce, warned that the current Finance Minister's policies contribute to suppressing economic growth instead of stimulating it. Turgeman considered that the current scheme encourages workers to stay at home for longer periods to ensure they receive unemployment benefits, which harms the overall productivity of the Israeli economy.

Official data revealed a bitter reality for the business sector, with approximately 170 companies closing daily in Israel for about two and a half years. These figures reflect the depth of the structural crisis facing the economy, which has sharply worsened with the outbreak of recent military confrontations and the expansion of the targeting area.

A recent survey conducted by the Bank of Israel showed that economic damage affected approximately 66,000 companies employing more than two million workers. The survey indicated that a quarter of companies in the Israeli economy are currently temporarily closed or operating at a minimum human capacity, signaling an economic catastrophe.

Although some companies reported a slight improvement in employment levels compared to previous rounds, only 44% of companies are operating at a normal level. This disparity indicates that vital sectors are still suffering from labor shortages or supply chain disruptions due to the deteriorating security situation in the north and center.

In a stormy meeting of business owners, the head of the Bar Association and the CEO of the Restaurants Organization expressed their dissatisfaction with the government's disregard for the demands of the private sector. The attendees affirmed that continued procrastination in paying compensation would lead to the collapse of more small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the local economy.

Netanyahu's government faces increasing pressure to review compensation criteria and make them more flexible to include a wider segment of those affected. However, budget deficits and political complexities within the government coalition seem to prevent quick and decisive decisions to rescue the ailing economic situation.

In conclusion, settlers remain in a state of anticipation and anxiety about their financial future amidst the ongoing war and the absence of effective government solutions. The coming days remain crucial in determining whether the Knesset will be able to overcome bureaucratic obstacles to pay compensation before entering the long holiday recess.

Instead of generating growth, the Finance Minister is suppressing it, encouraging workers to stay at home to receive unemployment benefits.

Tensions are escalating in the Middle East as the military confrontation against Iran enters its fourth week, amid indications that parties are slipping into what is known as the 'escalation trap'. The irrationality of this war is evident in the Israeli ally's attempt to embroil the United States in an illegal conflict, which has not received approval from the UN Security Council or explicit authorization from the US Congress, putting the Trump administration in direct confrontation with the Constitution and international law.

On the ground, reports revealed successful assassination operations targeting the top leadership in Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of first-tier leaders, among them Ali Larijani, Secretary-General of the Supreme National Security Council. These strikes, according to informed sources, aim to block any future opportunities for diplomatic negotiation, while the new leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, survived an assassination attempt despite being injured in the initial strike that targeted the leadership headquarters.

Despite statements by US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, claiming a decline in Iranian capabilities and the collapse of its air defenses, the reality on the ground indicates fluctuations in the pace of operations. CENTCOM data shows that the total number of targeted objectives exceeded 7,000, but Iranian forces are still capable of retaliation, as evidenced by the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the targeting of vital facilities in the region.

Economically, the war has caused a severe shock to global markets, with the price of a barrel of oil jumping above $110, prompting the Trump administration to take contradictory steps, including temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil to ensure supply flow. This confusion reflects military planners' misjudgment of the repercussions of closing vital waterways and its direct impact on fuel and electricity prices in Europe and the United States.

Domestically, President Trump faces increasing public opposition, with opinion polls showing that 60% of Americans reject continued involvement in this war, which has led to a rise in gasoline prices to $4 per gallon. This public discontent threatens the Republican majority in both the House and Senate as the midterm elections approach, especially amid accusations of corruption and mismanagement of international crises against the administration.

In the context of international pressure, regional parties, including the Sultanate of Oman, sent warning messages to Washington about the necessity of regaining control over its foreign policy and curbing Israeli escalation. Diplomatic sources confirmed that continued targeting of vital Iranian facilities will inevitably lead to retaliatory actions affecting allies' interests, making de-escalation an urgent necessity to avoid a complete economic collapse.

International powers, primarily Russia, are exploiting the US preoccupation with the conflict to achieve strategic gains and historical profits from rising energy prices. While Trump describes his NATO allies as 'cowards' for refusing to participate in securing navigation, Washington finds itself isolated in a war that drains its military resources, as confirmed by the recent emergency landing of an F-35 aircraft during a combat mission.

The current Iranian strategy is based on the principle of 'survival by raising the cost of war,' which Tehran considers a victory in itself against the American and Israeli war machine. With continued mutual shelling, the prospects of achieving a 'quick victory,' as Netanyahu had hoped, are fading, and the confrontation is turning into a long-term war of attrition that threatens to change the geopolitical map of the entire region.

In conclusion, observers believe that the only way out of the crisis lies in returning to de-escalation and opening the Strait of Hormuz to stranded Gulf oil and gas tankers. The continuation of the 'escalation trap' will not only lead to the fall of regimes but may also extend its impact to include the collapse of global stability, placing the GCC countries before a historical responsibility to impose a narrative of stability away from zero-sum agendas.

The current war is a war of choice and agendas, not a war of necessity, as the United States is being dragged behind Israel's desire to eliminate the Iranian regime without clear strategic objectives.

The town of Al-Shihabiya in the Tyre district of southern Lebanon witnessed a fierce Israeli raid after midnight on Sunday-Monday, targeting a residential building and resulting in the martyrdom of one citizen and the injury of another with varying degrees of wounds. This attack coincided with a series of intense airstrikes launched by warplanes at dawn today, affecting the plain of the town of Sar'in Al-Tahta in the Beqaa in the east of the country, in addition to the towns of Rihan, Sahmar, and Zalaya in the deep south.

In a remarkable field development, the Israeli occupation army destroyed the main bridge connecting the area south of the Litani to its north, completely isolating it and rendering it out of service. Initial engineering estimates indicate that the rehabilitation of this vital artery will take a long time, exacerbating the suffering of transportation and logistics in the areas targeted by the aggression.

On the ground, sources reported that the resistance in Lebanon increased the pace of its military response, with yesterday, Saturday, recording the highest rate of operations since the start of the recent escalation, with 63 military operations. These attacks varied between the use of qualitative and guided missiles, intense rocket barrages, as well as the launch of swarms of drones and kamikaze drones that targeted occupation gatherings and sites.

Field maps show that clashes are concentrated in four main axes, with noticeable intensity in the Khiam and Taybeh axes, which are witnessing fierce direct confrontations. In contrast, Israeli forces are attempting to infiltrate villages in the western sector, where the advance of vehicles from the Marwahin area to Naqoura was observed, along with other infiltration attempts in the border axes of Maroun al-Ras and Ayta ash-Sha'b.

On the political and military level within Israel, Channel 12 Hebrew quoted a military source confirming that Tel Aviv does not intend to evacuate the residents of the northern settlements at present. The source explained that the current approach focuses on increasing fortifications and protective measures for the towns of Galilee, amid the continued concentrated rocket fire launched by Hezbollah on military sites and settlements.

In the Gaza Strip, Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement continued, with four Palestinians martyred and eight others injured as a result of targeting a police vehicle in the Nuseirat camp. Local sources confirmed that the vehicle was performing an official mission at the Abu Sarar intersection, noting that the occupation deliberately targets service agencies to undermine the security and civilian system within the besieged Strip.

Official Lebanese statistics indicate that the toll of the aggression has so far reached 1024 martyrs, including hundreds of children and women, with more than one million people displaced from their homes. In Gaza, the number of victims of ceasefire violations since last October has risen to 677 martyrs, putting fragile agreements to a real test amid the continued Israeli war machine targeting civilians and vital facilities.

Recent hours recorded the highest level of field operations since the expansion of confrontations, with Hezbollah's operations reaching 63 operations in one day.

Washington - Said Arikat - 23/3/2026

News Analysis

The Israeli blackout on losses during times of war or military escalation cannot be understood as a circumstantial behavior or an immediate response to field considerations. Rather, it is part of a deeply rooted institutional structure managed within a comprehensive approach that blends security, psychological, and political aspects. In the context of a prolonged and complex conflict, information transforms into a strategic resource parallel to military power, and controlling its flow becomes a crucial element in managing the battle, not only on the ground but also in shaping public consciousness internally and externally. From this perspective, the blackout becomes an effective tool consciously used to guide perception, manage expectations, and maintain the cohesion of the home front.

At its core, the blackout is linked to maintaining social stability and preventing the erosion of morale. Israeli society, which lives in a state of semi-permanent mobilization, is deeply affected by the scale of human losses, especially when they affect soldiers or civilians alike. Announcing high numbers could open the door to waves of anxiety, and perhaps protest, and weaken confidence in the political and military leadership, especially if operations are prolonged without a clear resolution. Therefore, information is carefully managed to maintain the state of mobilization without slipping into frustration, in a delicate balance between disclosure and concealment.

At the same time, the blackout serves a central goal of depriving the adversary of achieving moral gains. Modern wars are not only decided by controlling territory but by each party's ability to impose its narrative and convince its public of its efficacy. Disclosing losses might provide adversaries with propaganda material used to confirm the effectiveness of their operations, even if they are militarily limited. Consequently, minimizing these losses or delaying their announcement becomes part of a broader battle over image and impression, where war is managed as much as a conflict over perception as it is a field confrontation.

In addition to the psychological and media dimensions, there is a direct operational dimension that explains part of this blackout. Some information related to losses might indirectly reveal the nature of military operations, deployment tactics, or even weaknesses. In a complex and technologically advanced combat environment, any partial information can be exploited by the adversary to improve their performance. Therefore, withholding these details is seen as a precautionary measure aimed at protecting forces and maintaining the secrecy of ongoing operations.

This approach is not separate from the external political dimension, where Israel seeks to maintain an image of deterrence and control capability. This image is not merely a propaganda element but an influential factor in the calculations of allies, primarily the United States. Continued political and military support is partly linked to the general impression of Israel's ability to manage the conflict efficiently. Hence, minimizing talk about losses becomes part of maintaining this image, serving broader strategic interests.

At the level of tools, Israel relies on an institutional military censorship system that imposes clear restrictions on the dissemination of sensitive information. This censorship is not limited to prohibition but extends to indirectly guiding media discourse by determining what can be published and when. In many cases, the announcement of losses is delayed until certain procedures are completed, such as notifying families or the conclusion of related operations, which allows a margin for timing management in line with political and military objectives.

In parallel, the media narrative is guided by focusing on military achievements, such as destroying targets or neutralizing threats, while minimizing discussion of losses. Softened language is also used when referring to damages, thereby limiting their psychological impact. Reliance on unified official sources contributes to reducing the chances of conflicting narratives and enhancing media discipline, which is reflected in a coherent discourse consistent with the official narrative.

However, this approach faces increasing challenges in the era of open digital media. Social media, international press, and leaks create a reality where monopolizing information is difficult, unlike in the past. Partial or contradictory information often emerges, creating an incomplete picture and raising questions about the limits of transparency. This discrepancy can create a trust gap, especially when the differences between what is announced and what is circulated accumulate.

In this context, the Israeli blackout on losses reflects a deep structure in national security doctrine, where information is treated as a tool of power no less important than weapons. Managing public perception becomes an end in itself, and an official narrative is crafted to control consciousness and reduce the scope of doubts, while controlling the timing of information dissemination to serve political and military decisions. It is not limited to concealment but includes reshaping reality within a specific narrative framework.

The blackout also intertwines with psychological warfare management, where it is used to reduce the adversary's ability to morally exploit losses, in contrast to exaggerating successes to reshape the balance of perception. Here, the media transforms into a parallel battlefield, where the war of narratives is fought alongside military operations, in a continuous attempt to prevent the formation of an image of defeat or weakness.

This approach also reveals the nature of the relationship between the military establishment and the media, where the press is not treated as a fully independent oversight authority during crises but as an implicit partner in managing the battle. In addition to legal restrictions, self-censorship develops within the media, pushing it to adopt a discourse close to the official narrative, which limits pluralism and delays the emergence of the full picture.

Nevertheless, the blackout is no longer based solely on concealment but has become a dynamic process of managing the information flow. The challenge is no longer in preventing information but in guiding and rephrasing it within a context that serves strategic objectives. In this transformation, there is a growing realization that controlling the narrative, not just concealing it, is the key to influence in an age where information flows without limits.

The American approach differs from the Israeli blackout in being less centralized and more subject to multiple decision-making centers and oversight. In the United States, despite national security considerations, independent media institutions and Congress play an active role in revealing losses and holding the executive branch accountable, which limits the possibility of complete concealment. Moreover, a culture of relative transparency, especially after experiences like Vietnam and Iraq, has pushed for the periodic publication of casualty figures. Nevertheless, Washington resorts to reframing losses within a justificatory discourse, instead of concealing them, with a focus on strategic objectives and military achievements.

The Palestinian Police announced a painful toll of victims from falling rocket shrapnel in various governorates, as Brigadier General Louay Irzeiqat, the police spokesperson, confirmed the death of five citizens since last February 28th. Irzeiqat explained that the Central Operations Department monitored the fall of approximately 198 rocket shrapnel pieces, which caused these human losses in addition to widespread material damage to private property.

Regarding the details of the victims, the deaths were primarily concentrated in the Hebron governorate, which recorded four cases, while a fifth citizen died after falling from a height while attempting to observe rockets from an elevated position. These incidents also resulted in nine citizens sustaining various injuries, while about 27 homes and private establishments were damaged, necessitating a comprehensive security alert to confront the serious repercussions on public safety.

Based on the directives of Major General Allam Al-Saqqa, the Director-General of Police, it was decided to raise the level of field readiness for all teams and units to deal immediately with falling rocket objects. Forces are currently deployed in various affected areas in coordination with the competent authorities, with the aim of securing sites and ensuring the preservation of public security and preventing further casualties amid difficult weather and field conditions.

The police issued an urgent appeal to citizens to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance, and to completely stay away from open areas or rooftops during periods of rocket barrages. Sources warned of the danger of climbing heights for the purpose of photography, stressing that this behavior poses a direct threat to life and may lead to fatal falls or direct exposure to flying shrapnel in the air.

Brigadier General Irzeiqat emphasized the dangers of tampering with suspicious objects or attempting to move them from their place, given the possibility of them exploding at any moment and causing severe injuries or deaths. The security institution called on all residents to report any rocket remnants immediately upon discovery to the concerned authorities, with the necessity of staying in safe and protected areas away from gatherings that may be vulnerable to targeting or random falling military debris.

In conclusion of its statement, the police urged citizens to obtain information only from official sources and not to be drawn into rumors aimed at spreading panic and confusion in the Palestinian street. It also reminded of the necessity of immediate communication through free emergency numbers, which are (100) for the police, (102) for civil defense, and (101) for the Red Crescent Society, to ensure a rapid response to any emergency that threatens the safety of residents.

The Central Operations Department recorded the fall of 198 rocket shrapnel pieces in scattered areas, leading to the death of five citizens and the injury of nine others.

International media reports have revealed that the United States is accelerating the pace of its military deployment in the Middle East, as part of intensive preparations for a potential landing operation on Iran's Kharg Island. These moves come amid escalating direct military tensions between Washington and Tehran, with the US administration considering the option of a ground assault to seize the strategic island.

Informed sources stated that high-ranking American officials have informed their allies in the region, including the Israeli side, that Washington might be forced to resort to the option of occupying the island. This step represents a dramatic shift in the nature of the current confrontation, aiming to cripple Iran's economic capabilities by seizing its most important oil outlets.

For its part, an Iranian military official warned of the repercussions of any military adventure targeting Kharg Island in the Arabian Gulf. The official affirmed that Tehran would resort to escalatory options, including threatening the security of navigation in the Red Sea entirely, in response to any American attempt to seize the island, which is located 30 kilometers off the Iranian coast.

Military data indicates that American reinforcements include the deployment of thousands of Marines and elements of special naval forces. These forces include the amphibious readiness group of the warship "USS Boxer," which is a key pillar in naval landing operations and beach control.

Reinforcements also included the arrival of the amphibious transport ships "USS Portland" and "USS Comstock" to the region's waters, loaded with approximately 4,500 troops and advanced combat equipment. These deployments aim to provide the necessary cover for any swift ground operation that might target vital facilities on the island, which is the lifeline of the Iranian economy.

Kharg Island represents the main center for oil exports in Iran, with approximately 90% of Iranian crude oil being shipped through its berths, most of which is destined for Chinese markets. Therefore, controlling it would practically cut off the main financial resources of the Iranian regime and neutralize its ability to fund military operations.

The region has witnessed a state of mutual military aggression since late February, with Israeli and American forces launching continuous attacks on Iranian targets. In response, Tehran has retaliated by launching a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones towards Israeli sites, exacerbating the security crisis in the region.

In a related context, Iranian attacks targeted what it described as American bases and interests in several Arab countries, resulting in casualties and damage to civilian facilities. The targeted countries condemned these aggressions, demanding an immediate halt to the escalation that threatens to drag the region into an unprecedented comprehensive confrontation.

The United States may have no option but to launch an attack to occupy the island to secure international interests.

International press reports revealed that US President Donald Trump is reviewing the pace of military operations against Iran, in what was described as an attempt to 'de-escalate' after the objectives of the 'quick invasion' faltered. Sources indicated that Trump, who seemed determined to gradually withdraw during his trip to Florida, is still indecisive about ending the military operation, which has not yet achieved its major strategic goals.

Internal pressures are mounting on the US administration as the average price of gasoline at local stations reaches about $4 per gallon, raising concerns among the Republican electoral base. Infrastructure in the Gulf region has also been significantly affected by the reciprocal raids, while the Iranian regime has shown no signs of disintegration or retreat from power despite the severe blows it has received.

The White House's messages are characterized by clear contradictions, with critics arguing that Trump entered the conflict without a clear exit strategy, while his supporters describe this fluctuation as 'strategic ambiguity'. While sending Marine reinforcements to the region, he issues statements confirming the destruction of Iranian missile and naval capabilities, followed by posts suggesting that objectives are close to being achieved and military efforts are nearing an end.

Trump's recent speech showed a retreat from some previously declared goals, as he omitted any mention of defeating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which still holds the reins of power. Messages directed at the Iranian people, urging them to take power, were also absent, indicating a reassessment of the field reality that has proven the resilience of the Iranian security structure despite the absence of public appearances by the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Regarding the nuclear file, Trump proposed a new objective focusing on preventing Iran from approaching nuclear capability instead of the previous demand to ship all enriched materials out of the country. This approach reflects an acceptance of the status quo resulting from the destruction of major nuclear sites last June, which are still under close surveillance by US satellites to ensure activity is not resumed.

Trump demanded that US allies bear the responsibility for protecting and monitoring the Strait of Hormuz, indicating that Washington no longer relies on it directly for its supplies. Richard Haass, former National Security Council official, described this approach as 'Trump's new doctrine' based on destroying adversaries and then shifting the responsibility for managing the consequences to regional and international allies.

The weekend saw an escalation in threats, with Trump threatening to target Iranian power plants, most notably the Bushehr nuclear plant, if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully opened. This threat is a violation of international norms that consider nuclear facilities no-go areas in armed conflicts to avoid environmental disasters, reflecting the extent of frustration over the continued closure of waterways.

Diplomatic sources indicate that Trump expected an unconditional Iranian surrender within the first week of the war, which did not happen despite immense military pressure. European officials described these expectations as lacking an understanding of the nature of power centers in Iran and its national history, confirming that Tehran's refusal to surrender shocked decision-makers in Washington.

The biggest surprise for the US administration was the global energy market crisis, which the International Energy Agency described as the largest in history in terms of supply disruption. This turmoil led to the withdrawal of quantities from the US strategic reserve, which was already suffering from depleted stocks, prompting the Treasury Department to issue exceptional licenses for the delivery of oil shipments stuck at sea.

On the financial front, international institutions such as Goldman Sachs warned that oil prices would remain high until 2027 if tensions in the Strait of Hormuz continued. Tehran understands that market chaos is its most effective weapon, having threatened to ignite other energy facilities in the region, relying on an arsenal of naval mines and fast boats that still pose a threat to navigation.

Trump found himself in dire need of international allies to conduct long-term patrols in the region, something he had not planned for at the beginning of the conflict, believing the war would be swift. It became clear that securing checkpoints and waterways could take years, requiring a collective effort that Washington currently lacks due to its unilateral policies in initiating the conflict.

American expectations of widespread defections within the Revolutionary Guard or a major popular uprising to overthrow the regime from within also proved false. Despite assurances from some White House officials about existing cracks, US and European intelligence reports found no concrete evidence of an imminent collapse in the Iranian power structure, despite the liquidation of senior leaders.

Analysts believe that Trump's previous successes in swift operations against nuclear sites or in Venezuela gave him a false impression of the possibility of repeating the scenario with a country the size of Iran. It seems that the reliance on the absolute military power of the US army did not take into account the complexities of Iranian geography and demographics, turning the 'short trip' into a long-term attrition.

In conclusion, Trump faces a real dilemma between his desire to end the war before the elections and a field reality that forces him to stay or admit failure to achieve major goals. With continued ambiguity surrounding the fate of the new Iranian leadership, the region remains open to all possibilities in the absence of any real prospect for a ceasefire or a comprehensive political settlement.

Consider this Trump's new doctrine for the Middle East: We destroyed it, but you bear the responsibility.