Hebrew press reports confirmed that the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip has reached unprecedented levels as a result of the Israeli authorities' insistence on imposing strict restrictions on the flow of essential aid. The sources clarified that the risk of famine is rapidly expanding, coinciding with a near-complete collapse of the health system, where hundreds of thousands of displaced people face harsh conditions inside dilapidated tents lacking the most basic necessities of life, such as potable water or sanitation networks.

Data issued by the Civil-Military Coordination Center revealed a sharp decline in the number of trucks entering the Strip, by as much as 80% since the outbreak of confrontation with Iran. During the first week of escalation, only 590 trucks were allowed to enter, a very small number compared to the weekly average of over 4200 trucks before the war, which led to insane jumps in the prices of basic goods and the depletion of medicines and medical supplies.

Regarding the medical file, Israel continues to prevent the evacuation of thousands of patients and wounded who require urgent surgical interventions not available in the Strip's destroyed hospitals. Since February 28, the Israeli authorities have refused to allow critical cases to leave for hospitals in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, even though they represent the last hope for saving the lives of children and adults suffering from injuries or chronic diseases.

On the ground, reports monitored the continuation of near-daily military attacks targeting various areas in Gaza under the pretext of pursuing wanted individuals, operations that often result in civilian casualties. Statistics indicate that since the ceasefire agreement came into effect on October 11, 667 martyrs have fallen and more than 1800 others have been injured by Israeli army fire, putting the calm at risk.

The analytical reading of the scene concluded that Israel is suffering from increasing international isolation, as its name has become internationally associated with war crimes and genocide, especially after the issuance of an international arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu. The sources called for immediate action to lift the siege, allow international organizations to operate freely, and begin a serious political process with the Palestinian Authority to reconstruct what the war destroyed and ensure long-term stability.

Israel gains nothing from the continuation of this catastrophe, neither morally nor politically, and its name has become synonymous with terms of genocide.

California Congressman Ro Khanna revealed the outlines of a new political alliance aimed at uniting anti-war forces and advocates for working-class rights. Khanna explained that this alliance seeks to integrate the progressive agenda with the aspirations of former President Donald Trump's voters who feel disgruntled with current policies.

The Democratic Congressman affirmed that the core issues that can bring together these disparate parties include exposing the impunity of elites from legal punishment and opposing continuous military interventions in the Middle East. Khanna believes that imposing progressive taxes on immense wealth is a fundamental pillar for achieving social justice and uniting the American public.

In his discussion of regional tensions, Khanna warned of the profound and far-reaching repercussions of any military conflict with Iran, noting that the current political vision lacks a clear horizon. He added that the effects of such wars would persist long after combat operations cease, especially concerning infrastructure destruction and the loss of mutual trust.

Khanna, who has held his seat in Congress since 2017, indicated that his experience working on Jeffrey Epstein's files gave him a strong impetus to continue his oversight approach. Last year, through a joint effort with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, he succeeded in compelling authorities to release thousands of secret documents related to the case.

The Congressman considered that cooperation with Republicans on issues such as opposing war and exposing the moral corruption of elites proves the possibility of transcending traditional partisan division. He affirmed that his next goal is to move forward with legislation imposing taxes on the wealthy, despite realizing that this might upset some funders and voters in his district.

Khanna recalled his initial interest in the Epstein case during Trump's first term, when reports from survivors of sexual assault began to emerge publicly amidst attempts to cover them up. He admitted that he did not give the matter enough attention initially, but investigative journalistic coverage revealed to him the extent of government negligence in protecting victims.

The Congressman stressed that the U.S. Department of Justice had failed survivors in previous stages, which prompted him to delve into parliamentary investigations to ensure accountability. He explained that his field visits to factory towns and areas that voted for Trump revealed to him that the Epstein case symbolizes injustice for many ordinary Americans.

According to data revealed by Khanna, over three million files have been released so far, which is half of the documents related to the Epstein network. He described this action as a necessary 'moral reckoning' for the United States before its citizens and the entire world, to ensure that such crimes are not repeated.

Khanna called for the expansion of investigations to include influential figures who provided substantial financial support to Epstein despite knowing about his suspicious activities. He emphasized that those accused of human trafficking and rape must face public and fair trials, away from any political protection or financial influence they may possess.

The Congressman clarified that his role is not limited to making prejudgments but focuses on ensuring full transparency and leaving the final word to the judiciary and the American people. He stressed that 'cover-ups' represent a blatant violation of the law that cannot be tolerated, especially when it concerns public figures and official institutions.

Khanna criticized the fact that members of Congress have to make strenuous efforts to uncover information that should be publicly available under the principles of transparency. He called for the immediate release of the remaining secret files related to the case, considering that concealing the truth fuels conspiracy theories and undermines trust in state institutions.

Observers believe that Khanna's actions reflect a desire within a wing of the Democratic Party to adopt a more populist discourse focused on fighting the traditional 'establishment.' This approach aims to win back working-class voters who have shifted to the Republican camp over the last decade due to their feelings of economic marginalization.

In conclusion, Khanna affirmed that building trust, restoring the ability to generate energy, and repairing what misguided policies have destroyed will take a long time. However, he stressed that the first step begins with acknowledging mistakes and confronting the elites responsible for catastrophic decisions, both domestically and abroad.

These statements come at a time when the American political scene is experiencing sharp polarization, making Khanna's call for a bipartisan alliance widely noted. Through this path, the Congressman seeks to offer a political alternative focused on livelihood issues and criminal justice, away from narrow ideological conflicts.

Exposing elite impunity, opposing Middle East wars, and imposing taxes on immense wealth would unite progressives with disgruntled Trump voters.

For half a century, Washington's political doctrine settled on considering Iran the greatest enemy, yet dealing with this animosity remained constrained by 'containment' without sliding into open military confrontation. With Donald Trump's arrival in his second term, this strategy fundamentally changed, as hawkish rhetoric paved the way for dragging the United States into an all-out war that his predecessors dared not wage.

Sources reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed the entrenched view of the American system towards Tehran, considering that the decisions of the Iranian leadership stem from purely ideological religious foundations. This perception made the idea of reaching a sustainable diplomatic agreement almost impossible in the mind of the new decision-maker, reinforcing the inclination towards a direct military option.

Historically, major events such as the 1979 hostage crisis and support for armed groups in the region fueled the continuous animosity between the two countries. Despite this heavy legacy, successive presidents from both Democratic and Republican parties maintained policies of diplomatic isolation and economic pressure as alternatives to armed conflict, whose risks were considered grave and unpredictable.

Reports indicate that previous administrations repeatedly ruled out military options after in-depth intelligence studies warned of uncontrollable regional repercussions. However, the current Trump administration decided to break this tradition, considering that the 'maximum pressure' policy initiated in the first term was not sufficient to achieve American strategic goals.

In June 2025, US forces launched an aggression that lasted nearly two weeks, directly targeting Iranian uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to undermine the nuclear program. This military escalation coincided with rounds of negotiations described as unserious, as Washington was maneuvering diplomatically while preparing for a decisive strike.

Tensions escalated with Trump's military buildup following internal protests in Iran last January. The White House's promises to provide 'assistance' to protesters sent clear messages that the ultimate goal was no longer merely to modify Iranian behavior, but explicitly focused on regime change in Tehran.

Diplomatic moves led by Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, were merely a cover for the phase preceding the joint US-Israeli attack. According to informed sources, these moves were not actually aimed at avoiding war, but were part of a deceptive strategy that preceded the widespread military operations in February 2026.

February 28, 2026, marked a historic turning point, as air strikes and operations targeted Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military and political leaders. This mass assassination of the Iranian leadership put an end to decades of 'proxy wars' and shifted the conflict to a direct confrontation on Iranian soil for the first time.

Looking back at Trump's first term, he had already begun to undermine diplomatic solutions by withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal. Despite his advisors' opposition at the time, Trump insisted on describing the agreement as the 'worst in history,' paving the way for ending any chance of peaceful coexistence or technical understanding regarding the nuclear file.

Qassem Soleimani's assassination in 2020 was a test of red lines, but it remained confined to Iraqi territory and did not extend into Iran. At that time, Trump was still adhering to part of the traditional deterrence policy, preferring not to be drawn into an all-out war that could affect his political and economic ambitions.

Even under President Joe Biden, attempts to return to the nuclear deal continued without success, as diplomatic desire clashed with internal constraints in Washington and rigidity in Tehran. This accumulated diplomatic failure was exploited by Trump in his election campaign to promote the idea that military force was the only way to end the 'Iranian threat.'

Analysts believe that Trump's decision to wage war will have dire global consequences that extend far beyond his presidency, especially with the collapse of the state structure in Iran. The transformation from a 'rational, albeit dangerous state,' according to previous intelligence assessments, to a target for total destruction, places the region before an unknown future.

US domestic politics played a pivotal role in this escalation, as Democrats feared appearing weak before Iran even while supporting the nuclear deal. This competition for 'hawkishness' within Washington narrowed the space for diplomatic maneuvering and legitimized the more extreme options adopted by Trump in his second term.

In conclusion, what is happening today represents the embodiment of Trump's vision based on destroying the old rules of American foreign policy. Instead of the containment practiced by his predecessors, Trump chose confrontation, which may reshape the map of the Middle East, but at a human and political cost that international powers may not be able to bear.

Trump's decision to choose war over diplomacy represents a radical shift that leads the United States down a path that will not resolve the Iran crisis but will exacerbate its global consequences.

The United States of America has officially expressed its support for Lebanese President Joseph Aoun's initiative, aimed at opening direct negotiation channels with Israel to halt the military operations ongoing for nearly three weeks. The US Ambassador to Beirut, Michel Issa, affirmed that Washington appreciates the courage of the Lebanese presidency in deciding to sit at the negotiating table, considering this step essential to end the armed conflict that has gripped the country since early March.

Ambassador Issa's statements came after a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, where Issa stressed that political solutions require mutual concessions, or what he described as 'give and take'. He indicated that Israel's continued military strikes place the Lebanese state before a crucial decision regarding its stance on meeting with the Israeli side under fire, emphasizing that sustainable peace cannot be achieved without direct contributions and official meetings.

The initiative proposed by President Aoun on March 9 is based on four main axes, starting with establishing a comprehensive and immediate ceasefire on all fronts. The initiative also includes a controversial clause providing for logistical support to the Lebanese army to enable it to disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its caches and depots, in preparation for direct negotiations under international auspices to ensure border stability between the two sides.

In the diplomatic context, President Aoun reiterated his call for de-escalation during his meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot in Beirut, stressing that negotiation is the only way to protect Lebanon from total destruction. For his part, French President Emmanuel Macron entered the crisis, announcing Paris's readiness to host these talks and facilitate their procedures, provided Lebanon receives the 'green light' from the Israeli side to begin the political process.

Despite French openness to mediation, Macron drew a red line regarding the issue of official recognition of Israel, ruling out any proposals leading to this path for the time being. This French position comes in response to American media reports that spoke of a draft proposal pushing for full normalization of relations between Beirut and Tel Aviv as part of a comprehensive ceasefire deal.

On the other hand, Israeli positions remain rigid, as Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar previously affirmed that his government has no intention of conducting any direct negotiations with the Lebanese state at present. Observers believe that the gap remains wide between Lebanese aspirations for a political solution and the field objectives that Israel seeks to achieve before sitting at any hypothetical negotiating table.

Lebanon is experiencing a state of anticipation amid the escalating aggression that erupted following regional tensions, including confrontations between Israel and Iran. With the relatively diminished French role in the face of the strong rise of American mediation, the fate of Aoun's initiative remains dependent on Washington's ability to pressure Tel Aviv to accept the principle of direct negotiation with the Lebanese government and its Prime Minister, Najib Mikati.

Things cannot be resolved without give and take, and Lebanon must decide whether it can meet with the Israeli side while military operations continue.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) announced today, Friday, the complete withdrawal of its forces involved in the advisory mission in the Republic of Iraq, in a surprising move that reflects the escalating security tensions in the region. This decision comes amidst the repercussions of the direct military confrontation with Iran, whose effects have begun to extend to wide areas in the Middle East, imposing new logistical and security challenges on the international forces present there.

In an official statement issued by the Alliance's Supreme Command, US Air Force General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Alexus Grinkevich, expressed his appreciation for the Iraqi and international cooperation that facilitated the evacuation of personnel. Grinkevich affirmed that all Alliance personnel were safely transferred from Iraqi territory to European bases, praising the high professionalism shown by the men and women working on the mission during these exceptional circumstances.

Informed sources within the Alliance revealed that the withdrawal operation included hundreds of soldiers who were undertaking non-combat missions in the country, and they were fully directed to the European continent to ensure their safety. This collective step comes after Alliance member states, including Spain, Poland, and Croatia, individually initiated the withdrawal of their military units from the Gulf and Middle East region, justifying it by the exacerbation of the armed conflict surrounding Iran.

Despite the departure of forces from Iraqi territory, the Alliance clarified that its advisory mission has not officially ended, but will continue to manage and coordinate its operations through an alternative military headquarters located in the Italian city of Naples. The statement stressed that the Alliance's role in Iraq is limited to providing technical and training advice to local security forces, and aims primarily to enhance the defensive and institutional capabilities of the Iraqi state, away from any involvement in direct combat operations.

These rapid military movements indicate a radical shift in the strategy of international powers towards presence in hot contact zones, especially with the increasing risks resulting from the expansion of the war. The international community is closely monitoring the repercussions of this withdrawal on the security balance in Iraq, at a time when the Iraqi government is striving to maintain the stability of its security institutions amidst the political and military storms sweeping the region.

I would like to thank the Republic of Iraq and all allies who helped safely transfer NATO personnel from Iraq to Europe.

International press reports have revealed complex details of the nuclear negotiations that took place between Tehran and Washington prior to the outbreak of the current military confrontation. Sources indicated that the diplomatic path witnessed sharp fluctuations with changing American demands and the Iranian side's adherence to its sovereign positions, ultimately leading to a stalemate followed by a comprehensive military explosion in the region.

Political sources reported that fundamental questions still surround the objectives of the Israeli-American war against Iran, which has entered its third week. American officials claimed during negotiation rounds that Tehran was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon, accusing Iranian negotiators of boasting about their technical capabilities, which Washington considered a pretext for launching preemptive strikes to prevent a potential Iranian attack.

Negotiations held last February saw significant progress with Omani and Qatari mediation, as regional parties sought to push for a peaceful solution behind the scenes. Regional sources expressed their deep concern about the sequence of events that led to the collapse, noting that reaching a permanent solution has become extremely difficult given the current situation.

Iran and the United States had held five rounds of negotiations to resolve nuclear disputes, but these talks suffered a major setback in June 2025. At that time, Israel launched a surprise attack, in which Washington participated by bombing three key nuclear sites, leading Tehran to view American diplomacy as a cover for specific military operations.

Despite the lack of trust, Tehran agreed to return to the negotiating table in Muscat earlier this year, with Qatar emerging as a crucial player in facilitating agreement on the agenda. High-ranking Iranian sources confirmed that Washington initially accepted two basic conditions: limiting negotiations to the nuclear file only, and abandoning the demand for zero enrichment within Iranian territory.

The first meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the American delegation, which included Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, witnessed frank discussions. Araghchi expressed his readiness to reach a final agreement with full authority, while the American delegation hinted for the first time at the possibility of accepting a certain level of uranium enrichment within Iranian facilities.

One of the most prominent points of contention was Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which amounted to approximately 440.9 kilograms, a quantity theoretically sufficient to produce ten nuclear bombs. Although the American side considered the disclosure of these figures a kind of threat, Tehran stressed that it aimed to highlight the extent of concessions that could be made.

Sources indicated that the lack of technical expertise among the American delegation annoyed Iranian negotiators, as Araghchi had to explain the technical differences between reactors and enrichment facilities. In contrast, Kushner tried to introduce economic dimensions to the negotiations, proposing an 'economic complement' to any political agreement reached between the two countries.

As negotiations moved to Geneva in mid-February, Britain entered the mediation line through National Security Advisor Jonathan Powell. Despite the initial positive atmosphere, the American delegation surprised its Iranian counterpart with new demands related to dismantling the 'Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz' facilities that had been previously bombed, and building alternative above-ground centers.

Tehran rejected this demand, considering it an attempt to make its facilities exposed and easily destructible in any future confrontation. Both parties summoned the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, who confirmed that international inspection is not affected by the location of the facility, whether underground or above ground, which embarrassed the American negotiating position at the time.

In an attempt to salvage the path, Iran presented a proposal that would ensure no accumulation of enriched uranium by converting it directly into solid fuel under full international supervision. The two parties initially agreed on six guiding principles, including lifting sanctions, economic cooperation, and peaceful coexistence, with a promise to draft an initial draft at the subsequent meeting.

The last round on February 26 witnessed severe tension with increasing American military buildup in the region, as Araghchi warned that failure would mean a return to war. Despite the length and seriousness of the session, Washington escalated its demands to freeze enrichment for up to ten years after a direct call with Trump, which Tehran considered a retreat from understandings.

Despite progress in other technical files and an agreement to continue discussions in Vienna, Arab and international optimism quickly evaporated. Mediators confirmed that the American delegation had promised that there were no plans for an imminent military attack, which proved to be untrue just hours after the end of the Geneva round.

The diplomatic path ended dramatically less than 48 hours after the last Geneva meeting, following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in an Israeli raid in Tehran. This development led to the collapse of all communication channels and the launch of the comprehensive war that diplomacy had desperately tried to avoid for the past months.

Araghchi to Witkoff: If we fail today, you will attack again and we will defend ourselves, and no one will win, then you will return to the table and perhaps you will not find anyone to negotiate with.

Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), issued strong warnings about the agency's future, stressing that its continuity is now at stake. Lazzarini indicated in an official letter that the cessation of the agency's services would place the occupying state under a legal and practical obligation to assume all humanitarian tasks within the Gaza Strip, which represents a radical shift in the management of the current crisis.

These statements come at a very sensitive time, as Lazzarini is preparing to leave his post on March 31 without a permanent replacement yet. He addressed his letter to the President of the United Nations General Assembly, explaining that UNRWA may not be able to continue its operations in the near future, which threatens the stability of the region and increases the suffering of millions of Palestinian refugees who depend entirely on its services.

The Commissioner-General reviewed the extent of human and material losses suffered by the agency, stating that the two-year ongoing war in Gaza resulted in the killing of more than 390 of its staff members. He also touched upon the field violations, which included the destruction of the agency's offices in occupied East Jerusalem, considering that targeting a UN entity represents a blatant violation of international law and a challenge to the entire international community.

In the context of political pressure, Lazzarini drew attention to recent Israeli legislation approved in October 2024, which prohibits the agency's activities and prevents any official contact with its officials. These laws aim to undermine the historical role of UNRWA, which was established in 1949 to care for the affairs of Palestinian refugees, thereby deepening the humanitarian crisis and creating a dangerous administrative and legal vacuum in the occupied territories.

Regarding funding, the agency continues to suffer from the repercussions of Washington's decision to freeze its financial contributions since the beginning of 2024, following Israeli allegations against a limited number of employees. Despite international efforts to restore the agency's budget, the absence of American support, which represented the largest share, has placed UNRWA in a state of permanent financial deficit that threatens to halt the distribution of food aid, medical and educational services.

Lazzarini stressed that UNRWA's role is not limited to relief aspects only, but is a fundamental pillar for any future peace plan in the region. He warned that the absence of urgent political and financial support from UN member states will inevitably lead to regional instability, and will make it impossible to protect the fundamental rights of Palestinians under the current circumstances.

Regarding the transitional phase, UN sources confirmed that the British Christian Saunders will temporarily assume the duties of Commissioner-General starting early April. Saunders will lead the agency during one of its most difficult historical periods, as he faces the challenge of maintaining the organization's organizational structure in light of the Israeli ban and dwindling available financial resources.

The collapse of UNRWA will force Israel to assume its humanitarian responsibilities in Gaza, with far-reaching consequences for Palestinian refugees.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused a massive wave of international controversy following recent statements in which he compared Jesus Christ to the Mongol leader Genghis Khan. Netanyahu based his remarks on the vision of historian Will Durant, considering that material power and cruelty often triumph over moral principles in the course of history if societies fail to protect their existence.

These words came at a sensitive time characterized by escalating military and political confrontation between Israel and the United States on one hand, and Iran on the other. Observers considered that this discourse reflects the philosophy adopted by the current Israeli government in managing its regional conflicts, based on the principle of survival of the fittest and marginalizing human values in favor of military decisive action.

Social media platforms quickly turned into an arena for condemning this comparison, with critics and tweeters seeing it as a direct insult to the Christian religion and a mockery of a spiritual symbol followed by billions of people. Many comments considered that equating the symbol of peace and tolerance with a military leader known for his historical massacres represents a major moral and diplomatic blunder for the Israeli Prime Minister.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi entered the crisis, describing Netanyahu's statements as an expression of 'public contempt' for Christianity. Araghchi pointed to the stark contradiction in Netanyahu's discourse, which relies heavily on the support of Christian Zionist currents in the United States, while belittling Christ in his historical analyses.

The Iranian official added that glorifying a figure like Genghis Khan, whose name is associated with destruction and mass killing, clearly reveals the mentality that is managing the current war in the region. Araghchi described Netanyahu as acting with the mentality of a 'war criminal' who disregards sanctities or international norms, which increases regional tension.

In an attempt to absorb the anger, Netanyahu published a clarification on his 'X' account, denying any deliberate insult to any religion, stressing that his speech was merely a historical citation to analyze the nature of the conflict between what he described as good and evil. He claimed that Christians within Israel enjoy full protection, and that his goal was to draw lessons from history about the necessity of possessing power to defend societies.

On the Palestinian side, the statements did not pass without a response, as the Committee of Churches affirmed that Israeli practices on the ground are consistent with these statements, accusing the occupation of destroying the historical Christian presence in Palestine. The committee stressed that targeting churches and Christian institutions in Gaza and Jerusalem proves that this philosophy based on force is actually being applied to displace Palestinians of various affiliations.

Christ has no superiority over Genghis Khan, because history shows that power and cruelty prevail over morality if societies cannot defend themselves.

Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, affirmed that the Iranian people have shown a high level of vigilance in confronting what he described as 'American incompetence,' which has become clearly evident recently. Khamenei clarified that the Islamic Republic is currently experiencing what he called the 'third war,' indicating that this confrontation is a result of the despair of external powers regarding the possibility of mobilizing the Iranian street or inciting internal protests that serve their agendas.

The Iranian leader emphasized in his statements that the strategic goal of the enemies is to try to control the country's resources and work to fragment and divide it. He added that the Iranian internal front possesses strength and breadth that exceeds the adversaries' perceptions, calling for national solidarity to thwart these schemes that target the state's entity and its political and geographical unity.

Regarding regional relations, Khamenei categorically denied that the recent attacks targeting territories in Turkey and the Sultanate of Oman originated from Iranian armed forces. He affirmed that Tehran's consistent policy is based on respecting the sovereignty of neighboring countries and not harming their security, emphasizing a firm belief in the importance of strengthening diplomatic and security ties with Iran's geographical surroundings.

Domestically, the Supreme Leader called on local media to be wary of being drawn into hostile media narratives that aim to undermine national unity. He urged journalistic institutions to avoid excessive focus on weaknesses that adversaries might exploit, considering that the media battle is no less important than other confrontations in preserving the country's stability.

On the economic front, Khamenei announced that the government is currently formulating a comprehensive remedial plan aimed at extricating the economy from its current crises and improving citizens' living conditions. He raised the slogan 'Resistance Economy in the Shadow of National Unity' as the title for the next phase, considering self-reliance as the only way to confront continuous external pressures.

These moves come at a time when the Iranian economy is suffering from severe challenges, with inflation rates exceeding 50 percent, along with a significant rise in the prices of basic goods and fuel. This crisis is exacerbated by strict American sanctions targeting the energy sector and oil exports, which has led to a sharp decline in the value of the local currency and a shortage of foreign exchange reserves.

It is worth noting that these statements come amid an atmosphere of escalating regional tension, especially after a series of airstrikes carried out by the United States and Israel against Iranian targets. Through these positions, Tehran seeks to affirm the steadfastness of its military and political stance, while trying to contain the economic and social repercussions of the international pressures imposed on it.

The front line in Iran is much larger than the enemy's mentality and perceptions, and we are committed to not harming neighboring countries.

On February 28, 2026, the streets of Tehran were shaken by the sound of massive explosions, as columns of smoke rose from the presidential palace and high-security headquarters, signaling the beginning of an all-out war that was not conventional, but rather a true moment of revelation for the Iranian regime's project and its political and religious doctrine in the region. The military strikes were not merely a reaction to external pressure, but came in the context of a long-standing conflict, revealing the regime's fragility in the face of its internal challenges and external threats from the United States and Israel.

Historical Background and Regime Doctrine

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the regime's political doctrine has been based on integrating political power with religion, adopting a main axis: hostility towards Sunni Arabs and rejection of Western hegemony over Iran. Over the past four decades, the regime has used this hostility to strengthen the position of the Revolutionary Guard and expand Iran's influence in surrounding Arab countries, from the Gulf and Yemen to Syria and Iraq, exploiting sectarian divisions to its advantage.

Internally, the Iranian regime built its symbolic legitimacy on a dual equation: consolidating power through religious ideology, and demonstrating regional power at the expense of its regional adversaries, especially Sunni Arabs. This doctrine was used internally to strengthen the regime's cohesion, and even to justify its regional interventions to the Iranian people, who often viewed external hostility as far removed from their daily interests.

Iran's Conflict with Israel and America

For three decades, Israel and the United States tried to deal with Iran within policies of deterrence and negotiation. In the 1990s, Netanyahu, since his early membership in the Knesset, began to portray Iran as a permanent nuclear and military threat to Israel and the region. With the shift in the balance of power after the 2015 nuclear deal, and the escalation of American sanctions during the Trump administration, the conflict became clearer, especially after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

Israel relied on what is known as the “war between wars” to gradually strike at the capabilities of adversaries, without sliding into an all-out confrontation, benefiting from Iranian hostility towards Arabs to undermine Iranian influence in the region. However, with the events of October 2023 and the attacks on Israel, and the development of the Iranian military program, the conflict became more intense and clear, leading to a rapid slide towards an open confrontation.

The Iranian War of 2026: Unveiling the Symbolic Strategy

What distinguished the war in 2026 was the regime's targeting of Sunni Arab countries in the Gulf and Jordan, even amidst direct confrontation with the United States and Israel. This orientation revealed that hostility towards Arabs is not secondary, but rather represents a central pillar of the regime's doctrine and regional project. The strikes were not only to weaken military adversaries, but to enhance symbolic and political influence internally, and to achieve religious legitimacy derived from sectarian conflict, especially against Sunni Arabs.

In this war, Iran emerged as both an oppressed and an aggressor party: oppressed in the face of American and Israeli strikes, and an aggressor against Sunni Arabs. Nevertheless, the regime realizes that the Arab street will not unite against it due to the balances of regional interests, especially in the face of Israel and America, which made the strikes on Arabs a means to enhance its symbolic legitimacy, rather than a direct war against an actual political competitor.

Limits of the Regime's Goals and Strategic Retreat

Over time, the regime's unrealistic goals began to fall one after another. Instead of focusing on regional hegemony, the focus became on defending the land and maintaining internal cohesion, a stage that can be described as an “awakening and retreat to Iran's natural sphere.” This retreat serves the strategic goals of the United States and Israel, but it will not be fully achieved until the regime falls or is changed internally.

The war showed that hostility towards Sunni Arabs, despite being an internal symbolic tool, faces the limits of military and political reality, and that Iran has been forced to deal with American and Israeli interests in the region, while trying to exploit any weakness in Arabs to achieve internal symbolic goals.

Repercussions of the War on the Region and the Iranian Street

The Iranian War of 2026 revealed the regime's weakness in the face of its adversaries, exposed its internal conflicts, and exposed its true priorities, which are no longer hegemony, but survival and internal cohesion. Hostility towards Arabs, which was part of its historical project, appeared as a symbolic tool rather than a real strategic tool. At the same time, the bigger question remains: Can the regime maintain its internal legitimacy without the fundamental change imposed by military and political reality?

In the end, war is not just a fleeting confrontation between states, but a mirror that reveals the historical Iranian project, the limits of its ambitions, and the symbolic stakes that govern its internal and regional policies. The regime, which the conflict pushed into a defensive retreat on its own territory, will continue to seek to strengthen its symbolic and ideological authority, but the next stage will determine whether this authority can endure, or whether the fall of the regime is the only way to achieve true stability in the region.

Sadness and forced calm overshadowed the occupied city of Jerusalem on the first day of Eid al-Fitr, as the usual celebrations were absent due to the occupation's tightened security grip and its prevention of worshippers from reaching the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. The city's streets and the alleys of the Old City appeared empty of the crowds that used to revive Eid rituals in the mosque's courtyards, turning Eid into a day of oppression and pain.

Field sources reported that occupation forces continued to close the entrances to Al-Aqsa Mosque and prevented entry since the early morning hours, a measure that has been ongoing since the outbreak of recent military confrontations about three weeks ago. This reality was clearly reflected on the faces of hundreds of citizens who gathered in front of the Old City gates in a desperate attempt to reach their first Qibla.

Citizen Wajdi Muhammad Shweiki described the atmosphere as extremely painful, pointing out that depriving Muslims of prayer in the third holiest site represents a catastrophic situation that extends beyond Jerusalem to all Muslims in the world. He affirmed that confiscating the right to worship on this blessed day deepens the bleeding Palestinian wound due to the ongoing war.

Since the start of the military escalation 21 days ago, the occupation authorities have imposed strict restrictions, including preventing entry to holy sites in the Old City, including the Buraq Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Noble Sanctuary. Israeli security agencies cited security reasons for imposing a ban on gatherings of more than fifty people in these vital areas.

Over the past few days, a number of worshippers tried to break the imposed siege by performing prayers near the Old City walls under close surveillance by police officers. However, these attempts were often met with physical assault and forced removal, in an attempt to prevent any Palestinian gathering inside or around the city's historical center.

With the dawn of Eid, small groups of men and youth arrived carrying their prayer mats, trying to approach the gates while chanting Eid takbeers and shouts of testimony. Occupation forces confronted these groups with excessive force and fired tear gas canisters to disperse them and prevent them from gathering in the squares leading to the mosque.

Despite the continuous repression, worshippers insisted on remaining in their places, which eventually prompted the occupation police to allow them to perform a quick prayer in the middle of the street. An imam led the worshippers from a plastic chair in the middle of the road, a scene that embodies the suffering of Jerusalemites and their insistence on practicing their rituals despite the security restrictions.

The scene did not end with the conclusion of the prayer, as occupation forces pursued the worshippers as they left the area through the narrow alleys and assaulted some of them. Eyewitnesses described the scene as unusual and desolate, especially when compared to previous years when more than a hundred thousand worshippers flocked to the Al-Aqsa courtyards.

For his part, Ayman Abu Nijm, a resident of Beit Hanina, pointed out that the original intention is to perform prayers inside Al-Aqsa Mosque and not in the surrounding streets. Abu Nijm affirmed that this period is the longest in the history of closures that the mosque has been subjected to, indicating an unprecedented escalation in the occupation's policies towards holy sites.

Citizen Ziad Minna expressed his deep sadness, explaining that the beginning of Ramadan promised good, but the closure of the mosque and the outbreak of war turned joy into a choke. He added that sadness and oppression have become the dominant feature for the city's residents who feel isolated and deprived of their most basic religious and national rights.

In contrast, a spokesperson for the occupation police claimed that security forces allowed prayers to be held in the street without direct intervention initially, despite the state of high alert. He claimed that the intervention only came when the crowds exceeded the permitted numbers and tried to storm the Old City, alleging that the measures aim to protect the public from missile threats.

These developments come amid the ongoing war and bombardment, making this year's Eid al-Fitr one of the most difficult Eids for the city of Jerusalem. Al-Aqsa Mosque remains hostage to military measures that prevent thousands of Palestinians from accessing it, amid international silence and an escalation in the pace of daily violations.

This Ramadan is sad and painful due to the confiscation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and what is happening represents a catastrophic situation for Palestinians and Muslims in general.

The results of a recent opinion poll conducted in mid-March 2026 revealed a sharp decline in confidence levels in US President Donald Trump, especially among the independent voting bloc. Data released by YouGov in cooperation with Yahoo showed that only 27% of independent voters approve of the President's performance, while an overwhelming majority of 70% expressed their dissatisfaction, indicating a growing crisis of confidence towards the current administration.

Regarding domestic issues, Trump faced widespread criticism in his management of livelihood crises, with the cost of living issue recording the lowest levels of public approval, with only 17% support compared to 77% opposition from independents. General economic policies were not in a better state, as they received the support of 24% of participants, while 71% expressed their dissatisfaction with the financial and economic directions currently pursued by Washington.

Regarding foreign policy and security issues, the results showed widespread rejection of the administration's handling of the Iranian issue, with the approval rate reaching 27% compared to 62% of opponents. This coincided with a general decline in the evaluation of American diplomacy, as foreign policy recorded only 24% approval, which reflects public concern about engaging in international conflicts or controversial strategic decisions.

On the other hand, media sources indicated a previous poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos that revealed deep fears among the American public of the possibility of a direct military confrontation. The data showed that about 65% of citizens believe that the President may issue orders to launch a large-scale ground war against Iran, a step that is supported by only 7% of the public, which highlights a large gap between the administration's directions and voters' expectations.

Despite this decline in specific issues, Trump's overall popularity maintained relative stability at around 40%, a slight increase from the polls that followed the joint military operations between the United States and Israel against Iran in late February. These studies included large samples from various parts of the country to ensure the accuracy of the results, with a margin of error not exceeding three percentage points in most statistical estimates.

Trump's policies regarding the cost of living recorded the lowest levels of support among independents, not exceeding 17 percent.

The Iranian army issued strong warnings today, Friday, threatening to pursue US and Israeli officials and military leaders around the world. The spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces, Abu al-Fadl Shakarji, confirmed that his country's agencies are closely monitoring the movements of leaders, soldiers, and pilots, emphasizing that the pursuit will not be limited to military fields but will reach them wherever they are.

Shakarji explained in statements reported by official media that Iranian threats will include civilian and tourist facilities frequented by these officials, including parks and international resorts. He pointed out that the intelligence available to Tehran makes these locations unsafe for them anymore, in a remarkable shift in the scope of direct confrontation between the parties.

On the ground, military sources revealed that the Haifa refinery was hit by a 'Nasrallah' missile, coinciding with widespread targeting of satellite stations and Israeli radar systems. These strikes come as part of a new wave of escalation aimed at undermining the American narrative that previously promoted the erosion of Iranian missile capabilities, reflecting a decline in the credibility of statements from Washington.

In a related context, the northern and central fronts in Israel are witnessing attacks described as 'combined,' where missile barrages are coordinated between Iran and Hezbollah. This strategy relies on launching intense waves of Hezbollah missiles, with a range exceeding 300 kilometers, to deplete and engage Israeli air defense systems, creating gaps that allow advanced Iranian missiles to pass through.

Iranian missiles used in these attacks are characterized by high speeds and superior maneuverability in their final stages, which increases their destructive power and makes interception difficult. Local sources reported that these attacks are no longer limited to Tel Aviv but have extended to include vital targets in both southern and northern areas, expanding the circle of fire unprecedentedly.

Despite official Israeli secrecy, field reports indicate that the extent of destruction and losses resulting from these strikes far exceeds what military censorship announces. Sources confirm that restrictions on publication attempt to downplay the impact of missile attacks that hit strategic targets, amid the ongoing military escalation in the region.

From now on, parks, resorts, and tourist and entertainment centers around the world will not be safe for you.

A state of anticipation is escalating in political circles in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, regarding the possibility of initiating a direct negotiation process with Israel. These questions arise at a time when information is conflicting about the identity of the international party capable of sponsoring this complex file, amidst indications of a decline in French effectiveness versus growing hopes placed on the American role.

French President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged that any move towards direct negotiations still faces the necessity of obtaining explicit approval from the Israeli side. Macron considered that the key to the solution remains in Tel Aviv's hands, reflecting Paris's limited ability to impose a diplomatic agenda without broad regional and international consensus.

In a related context, the Élysée revealed the absence of a comprehensive French plan or an official proposal that includes mutual recognition at present. This admission places recent French moves within the framework of exploring intentions and testing the waters, rather than being a mature political initiative capable of making a real breakthrough in the wall of the field crisis.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot had held a series of intensive meetings with senior officials in the Lebanese state to discuss ways to de-escalate. However, the conclusion of the tour without official statements or tangible results reinforced the impression that the French mission faces complexities that exceed the diplomatic tools currently available to Paris.

Informed sources indicate that the French approach sought to achieve a gradual path beginning with disengagement between the Lebanese front and the Iranian file. This vision aims to reach a sustainable ceasefire agreement that paves the way for subsequent political negotiations, but these ambitions clash with the reality of the explosive military field.

These proposals face a fundamental obstacle, which is the limited control of the Lebanese state over war and peace decisions in light of the existing balances. Sources believe that linking military paths to regional alliances makes it difficult for the Lebanese government to respond to international demands without a radical change in the balance of power on the ground.

In the face of this diplomatic stalemate, the official Lebanese orientation has clearly begun to lean towards Washington as the only player capable of exerting effective pressure. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam expressed this orientation by demanding that the American administration intervene directly to end military operations and impose a path for comprehensive de-escalation.

In a message addressed to US President Donald Trump via international media, Salam affirmed that the United States possesses the necessary tools to decide the direction of the conflict. He stressed the necessity of a decisive American role that goes beyond mere traditional mediation to reach radical solutions that end the ongoing conflict on the southern borders.

The Lebanese scene remains hostage to international tug-of-war, awaiting what the coming days will bring in terms of movements in the White House. In the absence of international consensus, the possibilities of negotiation remain suspended between the conditions of the Israeli occupation and the ability of the major powers to formulate a political exit that spares the region further escalation.

Any direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel remain conditional on Tel Aviv giving the green light.

On the morning of February 28, 2026, the streets of Tehran were shaken by the sound of massive explosions, and columns of smoke rose from the presidential palace and other security headquarters. This was the beginning of the all-out war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, a war that was not merely a traditional military confrontation, but an attempt to reshape power and legitimacy within the Islamic Republic.

Following a series of assassinations targeting first-tier leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, and Security Advisor Ali Shamkhani, in addition to senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces, the regime suffered direct blows to its symbolic and political pillars. The fall of these figures created a leadership vacuum and a gap in symbolic legitimacy, as new leaders do not automatically inherit the symbolic capital that grants them widespread internal acceptance, increasing the likelihood of tension and conflict within the hierarchy of power.

The Iranian regime faces a continuous challenge in balancing influence among the Revolutionary Guard, the religious establishment, and the official political structure. The absence of a unifying figure to maintain this balance could transform implicit coordination into open conflict, leaving the door open for an unstable redistribution of power.

From a strategic perspective, the war was not merely a military confrontation or the elimination of leaders, but a process to weaken the regime from within and disrupt its continuity. Iran had maintained its political and security balance for decades, avoiding any direct provocation that would justify an external attack. However, the war began without a direct cause, crossing red lines and creating a new context that allowed for dealing with Tehran in a way that was previously impossible.

The series of assassinations of top leaders was not merely a military tactic, but a strategic blow to weaken symbolic legitimacy and disrupt internal power networks, opening the way for potential shifts in the political balance and the emergence of new forces within Iran. Israel explicitly declared that this series would not stop, targeting senior political, military, and intelligence officials, sowing doubt and fear within leadership circles and increasing the likelihood of internal tension and conflict.

The impact of the war cannot be understood without considering the deep disconnect between the regime's discourse and the sentiments of the Iranian people. The regime bases its policies on a revolutionary and symbolic narrative: hostility towards the West, defense of Palestine, and Iran's role as the protector of Shias in the region, relying on religious and political beliefs that prioritize external matters over internal ones. However, the Iranian citizen sees this hostility as uninspiring and not representing their direct interests. For them, the war means rising prices, resource shortages, deteriorating job opportunities, and an increase in social and economic instability.

The experiences of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen serve as a model for what could happen to Iran. Citizens fear that the United States and external powers will not commit to protecting them, and that they will leave once their strategic objectives are achieved, leaving the country to face the consequences of the war alone. When asked about the reasons for this destruction, they find that the official narrative is based on a religious and revolutionary logic far removed from national reality, and does not explain their daily suffering or national interests. The result: the reasons for the people to stand with the regime disappear, and any leadership vacuum or disruption in power becomes an opportunity for the opposition to reorganize itself and transform social discontent into a real political force capable of challenging the official narrative.

From this perspective, it is clear that the war was not merely a military confrontation, but an attempt to redefine the relationship between the regime and the people and to disrupt the internal balance of power. The Iranian regime today stands at a critical juncture: strengthening its grip on power to ensure its short-term continuity, or risking opening the door to opposition and internal conflicts in the medium term. The next phase will determine the shape of the revolutionary spirit and the future of power, and the extent of the regime's ability to restore its symbolic and political balance or the possibility of new conflicts erupting within its upper echelons.

In conclusion, the war represents a strategic turning point that redefines power in the Islamic Republic, and sows the seeds of change within Iran at all levels, whether through disrupting the hierarchy of power, influencing symbolic legitimacy, or expanding the space for internal opposition that can exploit the disconnect between the official narrative and the imagination of the Iranian people.

Washington - Said Arikat - 20/3/2026

News Analysis

The divergence in positions between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the targeting of Iran's "South Pars" gas field marks a significant turning point in the course of the war with Iran, which has lasted twenty days and was initially characterized by close coordination between the two sides. This dispute, while seemingly tactical on the surface, reflects a deeper difference in risk calculations and strategic objectives, raising serious questions about the cohesion of the alliance in managing a complex and multi-dimensional conflict in a highly sensitive region.

This issue gains particular importance because the attack on an energy facility the size of "South Pars" was not merely a limited military operation, but a step with broad economic and geopolitical repercussions. Iran responded by targeting energy infrastructure in other Middle Eastern countries, leading to a rapid regional escalation and a significant rise in global energy prices. This rise did not occur in a vacuum; it increased pressure on global economies and prompted US allies in the Gulf to express their concern, demanding that Washington play a more balanced role in curbing the escalation.

In this context, Trump's statements during a meeting in the Oval Office confirmed American reservations about the Israeli decision. He clearly indicated that he had not supported the attack, and had even asked Netanyahu not to carry it out. This statement reveals a gap in decision-making mechanisms between the two allies, as Israel appears willing to act unilaterally on issues it deems vital to its security, even without full American approval. In contrast, Netanyahu tried to downplay this divergence, emphasizing continued coordination and describing the relationship as very close, while acknowledging that Israel made the decision independently.

This divergence raises a fundamental question about the nature of leadership in this alliance: Is the United States truly leading, as Netanyahu asserts, or has Israel begun to act with a wider margin of independence amidst the complexities of the conflict? The answer to this question goes beyond the event itself, touching upon the essence of the relationship between the two parties at a moment of real test.

The dispute between Trump and Netanyahu also reflects a divergence in the philosophy of conflict management, where Trump tends to control the pace and avoid sliding into uncalculated escalation, while Netanyahu adopts a more offensive approach based on preempting threats. This divergence is not entirely new, but it became more apparent in this crisis due to the sensitivity of the targeted objective. Striking a strategic energy facility is not only seen as a military strike, but as a move that could redraw the rules of engagement and lead to a chain reaction that is difficult to contain.

From another perspective, this dispute can be read as a message directed to regional and international parties. Trump's statements may aim to reassure Washington's allies in the Gulf that the United States does not support uncontrolled escalation, while Netanyahu seeks to maintain Israel's deterrent image. This divergence in messages reflects an attempt by each party to address a different audience, adding another layer of complexity to the scene and making it difficult to interpret the positions as mere fleeting tactical differences.

In the longer term, this dispute may have a direct impact on the outcomes of the war with Iran. If the divergence in sensitive decisions continues, it could weaken the common front, giving Iran an opportunity to exploit the divisions. Conversely, this dispute might push both parties to redefine the limits of their coordination, ensuring greater clarity in decision-making. In either case, what happened indicates that the alliance, despite its strength, is not immune to deep strategic divergences.

Experts believe that the dispute between Trump and Netanyahu cannot be viewed as a fleeting incident, but rather as an indicator of deeper shifts in how the conflict with Iran is managed. While each party seeks to achieve its security and political objectives, the greatest challenge remains maintaining a delicate balance between coordination and independence. This balance, if disrupted, may not only affect the course of the war, but also the shape of the entire regional order, at a moment characterized by an unprecedented degree of fragility and tension.

Occupation military vehicles, today, Thursday, carried out widespread bulldozing operations targeting citizens' lands in the village of Ain Yabroud, located east of Ramallah city. Local sources reported that a military force supported by a heavy bulldozer stormed the eastern area of the village, and began destroying vast agricultural areas located near bypass road No. '60'.

Activist Jihad Al-Qaq confirmed that the bulldozing operations affected about 20 dunams of land owned by the villagers, where the occupation forces deliberately uprooted and destroyed dozens of ancient olive trees. Al-Qaq explained that these practices directly aim to prevent Palestinian farmers from accessing their fields, which threatens their primary source of livelihood and serves the expansionist plans in the region.

These attacks come in the context of a comprehensive Israeli escalation against Palestinian land, as official reports issued by the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed shocking figures related to last month's violations. The commission recorded more than 1965 attacks during February, ranging from physical assaults to vandalism of property and agricultural facilities in various governorates of the West Bank.

In details of settler terrorism, statistics indicated that settlers alone carried out about 355 acts of sabotage and theft, resulting in the destruction, uprooting, and poisoning of more than 1300 trees, the vast majority of which were olive trees. These figures reflect a systematic war targeting trees and stones to displace Palestinians from their lands and facilitate their control for the benefit of settlements.

Ramallah governorate topped the list of areas most affected by these attacks, as the governorate lost 731 trees as a result of the attacks by the occupation and its settlers, followed by Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus governorates. The occupation authorities continue to impose military closures on large areas under the pretext of security reasons, a policy that essentially aims to provide the necessary cover for the expansion of the settlement project at the expense of Palestinian rights.

The occupation seeks, through bulldozing operations in the eastern area of Ain Yabroud village, to deprive farmers of access to and exploitation of their lands.

US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he had made a direct request to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to immediately cease targeting energy facilities within Iranian territory. Trump's statements came during his reception of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takayishi in the Oval Office, where he assured reporters that Netanyahu had responded to this request and would not repeat such operations in the near future.

Israeli officials revealed that the recent attack carried out by the occupation army on gas facilities in Iran's South Pars field was coordinated with the US administration, despite ruling out its repetition for now. The officials explained that this attack led to a dangerous escalation in the region, as Tehran launched retaliatory air attacks targeting energy infrastructure in several Middle Eastern countries, thus expanding the scope of the confrontation that has been ongoing for weeks.

In an attempt to disavow direct consequences, Trump indicated via social media platforms that Washington was not aware in advance of the specific details of the attack on the gas field. The US President added that Israel had pledged not to target Iranian gas fields again, unless Tehran first targeted vital facilities in Qatar.

Israeli sources likened the current situation to previous attacks that targeted Iranian fuel depots, which the American side had then tried to distance itself from. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had previously stated that those operations were not American in origin, indicating that there is sometimes a divergence in target selection between the two allies.

Iranian retaliatory attacks caused severe damage to the world's largest gas plant in Qatar, in addition to targeting a major oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. Authorities in the United Arab Emirates were also forced to temporarily close some gas facilities as a precautionary measure due to escalating military tensions in the Gulf waters.

Informed sources in the region reported that Gulf countries rushed to request official clarifications from the Trump administration regarding the nature of the sudden Israeli attacks. One country contacted the US Central Command, which denied prior knowledge of the attack, creating a state of diplomatic and military confusion regarding the true level of coordination between Tel Aviv and Washington.

In a related context, Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, continued to communicate with leaders in the region to clarify that the attack on the Pars field was not a joint military operation. However, Witkoff acknowledged that Washington had prior information about Israeli intentions, despite not being directly involved in the planning or field execution of the airstrike.

Despite the absence of an official Israeli announcement of responsibility, intelligence reports confirm close coordination in general air operations between the two sides. Officials' statements reveal that strategic objectives may differ, with Israel focusing on eliminating Iranian leaders, while Washington prioritizes the destruction of Iranian missile and naval capabilities.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued a strong warning, emphasizing that Tehran would not adhere to any policy of restraint if its vital facilities were subjected to new attacks. Araghchi stressed that the previous Iranian response used only a small fraction of the available military capabilities, and that any future escalation would be met with full and unprecedented force.

The Iranian minister explained that the only reason his country had previously exercised restraint was in response to international demands to de-escalate and prevent the region from sliding into a full-scale war. He considered that targeting energy infrastructure represents a crossing of red lines and a direct aggression that necessitates an overwhelming response targeting all parties involved in the aggression.

In conclusion of his statements, Araghchi described the bombing of fuel tanks in Tehran as an act of 'environmental genocide' that caused long-term damage to the population and the biosphere. These developments come amid a state of international anticipation for what will happen in the Middle East, with continued political and military tensions between major and regional powers.

I informed Netanyahu that he must not attack Iranian energy facilities, and he will not do so again.

The intensity of the field confrontation between Iran and Israel escalated with missile attacks reaching deep into vital and strategic facilities. Field documentation showed a massive fire breaking out in the Haifa refinery, which is a key pillar in the energy and petrochemical industries, amidst clear conflicting official Israeli accounts regarding the true extent of the damage.

Media sources reported that the refinery was directly hit by an Iranian missile, while the Israeli army merely indicated that shrapnel fell in areas in the north of the country. This coincided with the launch of intense missile barrages targeting economic and population centers in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Ashkelon, keeping air raid sirens in a constant state of alert.

Field data indicates that the latest attack was of a different nature, as fragmented or cluster missiles carrying multiple warheads were used. This tactic primarily aims to disperse the capabilities of air defense systems, as it is difficult to intercept all explosive fragments falling in scattered locations instead of a single point.

Bombing was not limited to the city of Haifa but extended to sensitive sites in Ashdod and its seaport, in addition to the city of Ashkelon, which includes a vital oil terminal. Observers believe that targeting Ashkelon carries symbolic and strategic dimensions, due to its connection to the historical oil pipeline from Eilat, reflecting a desire to systematically strike energy infrastructure.

Military readings indicate a shift in Iranian tactics from a policy of quantitative 'missile saturation' to 'effective precision strikes'. A single missile now has the ability to cause widespread destruction, posing unprecedented technical and operational challenges to defense systems in protecting sensitive facilities.

Amidst this escalation, a significant gap emerges between what eyewitnesses report and the official narrative imposed by Israeli military censorship. Authorities follow a policy of selective blackout, focusing on damage in civilian areas while withholding information related to military sites and airbases that may have been hit.

Initial figures reveal a massive amount of material losses, with more than 12,000 compensation claims filed so far by settlers and affected parties. This number reflects the widespread destruction that affected private property and public facilities as a result of successive missile barrages.

According to available data, about 8,000 buildings were damaged to varying degrees, most of them concentrated in the greater Tel Aviv area and the coastal city of Ashkelon. These damages represent a heavy economic cost that directly pressures the public budget and raises questions about the effectiveness of current defensive fortifications.

Despite attempts by Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen to downplay the strikes and describe them as limited, the field reality indicates otherwise. Cohen confirmed work to restore electricity to affected areas, in an attempt to absorb public anger and reassure the anxious Israeli public.

Analysts believe that continued targeting of infrastructure will necessarily lead to increased internal pressure on the Israeli government. These pressures are not limited to the financial aspect but also extend to public confidence in the army's ability to provide the necessary protection for major strategic facilities.

These events bring to mind previous experiences in which Israel was slow to admit that sensitive sites such as Ben Gurion Airport and airbases had suffered direct hits. It seems that the policy of concealing losses aims to prevent the other side from assessing the accuracy of its strikes and achieving moral victories in the ongoing war of wills.

In conclusion, Haifa Bay, with its strategic port and major industrial complexes, remains in direct danger, with continued threats of expanding the circle of fire. Field assessment operations are ongoing to determine the final damages, amidst expectations of an increase in the bill of losses with each new round of escalation.

The use of fragmented missiles aims to disrupt Israeli air defense systems, as it is difficult to fully intercept multiple warheads.

Abu Falah village, located northeast of Ramallah city, witnessed a violent attack this Thursday evening by settlers under heavy protection from Israeli occupation forces. Local sources reported that groups of settlers stormed the outskirts of the village and assaulted citizens' properties, leading to widespread confrontations in the area during which residents tried to repel the assault.

The field confrontations resulted in several injuries among Palestinian citizens from rubber-coated metal bullets, while dozens suffered severe suffocation due to the occupation forces firing a barrage of toxic gas and tear gas canisters. Settlers also completely burned a private vehicle belonging to one of the village residents before army forces intervened to secure the attackers' withdrawal and provide them with security cover.

In a related context, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed in its latest report a dangerous escalation in the pace of settler terrorism during the past month of February. The commission documented a total of 1965 attacks carried out by occupation forces and settlers in various West Bank governorates, indicating a systematic approach aimed at restricting Palestinians and displacing them from their lands.

According to statistical data issued by the commission, the occupation army carried out 1454 direct attacks, while settlers launched 511 attacks, most of which were concentrated in Hebron governorate with 421 attacks. Nablus, Ramallah, and Jerusalem governorates followed in terms of attack intensity, reflecting a state of security chaos led by settlers amid international silence and military complicity on the ground.

Groups of settlers targeted the outskirts of the village and set fire to a citizen's vehicle, leading to the outbreak of confrontations.

Activists circulated videos on social media platforms documenting violations by Israeli occupation army soldiers inside the homes of displaced citizens in the Marjayoun region of southern Lebanon. The scenes showed soldiers deliberately vandalizing furniture and personal belongings, in a move that reflects the continuation of the systematic destruction policy of civilian property during ongoing military operations.

Sources reported that the video clips revealed behaviors described as retaliatory, where soldiers deliberately smashed the contents of homes that were empty of their owners due to shelling and displacement. The violations did not stop at material destruction but also included mocking the personal privacy of residents, which sparked a wave of widespread condemnation across the digital space.

In one of the clips, a soldier appeared displaying personal clothes belonging to a displaced woman named 'Majda', uttering sarcastic remarks claiming she left 'souvenirs' for the invading forces. These actions brought back to mind a series of similar videos published by occupation soldiers during their incursions into the neighborhoods of the Gaza Strip, which included looting jewelry and wearing Palestinian women's clothing.

Field reports indicate that these practices are not isolated incidents but appear to be a repeated approach followed by soldiers in the areas they reach, as one of the elements clearly stated in the video: 'We like to destroy their villages.' This statement reflects the mentality with which military operations are managed in targeting the infrastructure and social fabric of border areas.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip has witnessed similar practices documented by the soldiers themselves since October 7, 2023, including the theft of safes and historical artifacts and the complete destruction of residential blocks. These developments in southern Lebanon confirm the expansion of violations affecting civilians and their property in the absence of strict international oversight over the conduct of the occupation army in the field.

There is something, which is that we like to destroy their villages.

American journalistic sources have confirmed that the policies and rhetoric adopted by President Donald Trump and prominent members of the Republican Party are not limited in their risks to Muslim communities within the United States, but extend to putting US national security at stake. The 'New York Times' explained in an editorial that the escalating wave of systematic hatred against Muslims requires a firm stance to disavow it, pointing to the stark contradiction in the current administration's claims of protecting religious freedoms.

The newspaper stated that the Trump administration seeks to portray itself as a protector of religious rights by establishing specialized committees and increasing funding for religious schools, but these efforts explicitly exclude Muslims. While facilities are provided for other beliefs, Muslims face rhetoric characterized by overt hostility, as Trump previously stated publicly, 'I think Islam hates us,' which has been reflected in his policies since his first election campaign.

The sources touched upon a series of 'hateful' statements issued by Republican leaders, including Senator Tommy Tuberville's description of Islam as a 'deviant cult' rather than a religion. Extreme positions also emerged from Representative Randy Fine, who explicitly called for the deportation of Muslim immigrants and the revocation of their citizenship, and Representative Andy Ogles, who considered that there is no place for Muslims in the American social fabric, which reinforces the state of division.

Muslim politicians in Congress were not spared from Trump's direct targeting, as he described Representative Ilhan Omar as 'garbage' and demanded a halt to receiving immigrants whom he described in terms that demean their human dignity. This pattern of targeting extends to Somali and Afghan communities, whose reputations are collectively tarnished based on individual incidents, leading to repressive practices and field violence against civilians.

The newspaper indicated that this hostility practically translates into legislation and laws aimed at restricting the lives of Muslims based on illogical fears of 'Sharia law.' In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed laws prohibiting what he called 'Sharia compounds,' claims that the newspaper described as absurd and false, emphasizing that American Muslims are law-abiding and do not seek to impose their beliefs on the state's legislative system.

The analysis considered that these legislative moves in states like Texas and Florida mimic anti-Catholic laws that prevailed centuries ago, and are primarily aimed at finding a political 'scapegoat.' The newspaper stressed that millions of American Muslims are an integral part of society, serving in the military and paying taxes, and many of them chose the United States specifically because of the promises of constitutional protection for freedom of belief.

The newspaper quoted testimonies from Muslim citizens living in a state of constant anxiety, with some fearing entering mosques or displaying their religious identity in public places. Mona Qafil, director of a family services organization in Texas, said that many left their homelands seeking safety in a country they thought respected diversity, but fear has returned to haunt their daily lives due to inflammatory political rhetoric.

Observers believe that Trump's contempt for Muslims falls within a broader pattern of intolerance that includes Latinos and transgender people, which has led to a significant increase in hate crimes according to FBI data. Despite the administration's claims of combating anti-Semitism, the newspaper pointed to Trump's alliance with figures who promote hatred against Jews themselves, revealing a double standard in political criteria.

In a comparative context, the newspaper clarified that criticizing the Israeli government's policies towards Palestinians is not anti-Semitism, just as condemning violent extremism does not mean targeting an entire religion. It affirmed that the established American principle must be based on holding individuals accountable based on their personal behavior, not on their religious or ethnic identity, which the current Republican rhetoric ignores.

The 'New York Times' warned that the most dangerous repercussions of the 'new Islamophobia' lie in its harm to Washington's strategic interests, especially amid tensions with Iran. Anti-Islam statements give the impression that any political or military conflict is a 'war against religion,' which complicates diplomatic efforts and turns global public opinion against the United States in Muslim-majority countries.

The report also warned that this intolerance weakens America's standing with its strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, as these allies find it difficult to deal with an administration that despises the beliefs of their peoples. Undermining these relationships serves the interests of competing powers and diminishes Washington's influence in the vital Middle East region.

The newspaper recalled the approach of former President George W. Bush, who, despite criticism of his policies, made sure to visit a mosque a few days after the September 11 attacks to affirm that Islam is a religion of peace. Bush then stood with Muslim leaders to declare that terrorism does not represent the religion that brings comfort to a billion people, a position that completely contradicts Trump's confrontational approach.

The editorial concluded that the attacks launched by Trump and his allies against Muslims are 'shameful and full of lies,' and warrant comprehensive national condemnation that transcends partisan affiliations. Preserving American constitutional values requires protecting all citizens regardless of their creed, because neglecting the rights of one group paves the way for undermining the rights of all.

Continued inflammatory rhetoric not only threatens civil peace within the United States but also gives extremist groups a pretext to reinforce their narrative about 'the West's hostility towards Islam.' Accordingly, confronting this rhetoric is an urgent security necessity to protect America's image and vital interests in an increasingly complex global system.

Trump and his Republican Party are not interested in protecting the religious rights of Muslims; rather, they show overt hostility towards Islam that threatens social cohesion and the country's foreign interests.

The Tel Aviv area and its surroundings were subjected today, Saturday, to a series of intense Iranian missile barrages, resulting in human casualties and extensive material damage in several locations. Field sources reported that sirens blared across a wide area, including the center and the occupied Golan, prompting thousands of settlers to immediately flee to shelters and fortified rooms.

Explosions were witnessed in the sky as air defense systems attempted to intercept incoming missiles, but large shrapnel fell in populated areas. Ambulance crews confirmed at least nine injuries in the city of Rehovot, near Tel Aviv, with most cases involving the inhalation of dense smoke from fires.

Reports indicated that the attack was characterized by the use of cluster missiles, a technology that increases the area of destruction and complicates air defense tasks. These explosive warheads fell in vital locations in the cities of Rehovot and Petah Tikva, which are about 20 kilometers from the heart of Tel Aviv, reflecting the effective range of these barrages.

These missiles consist of dozens of small submunitions, each weighing between two and three kilograms, but possessing high destructive power upon impact. This explosive shrapnel caused widespread fires inside residential apartments and multi-story buildings, with plumes of smoke seen rising from several neighborhoods.

Fire and rescue teams worked for long hours attempting to control the fires that erupted in private properties and public facilities. Simultaneously, ambulances continued to transport the injured to nearby hospitals, with expectations of an increase in the number of affected individuals as field inspections of the targeted sites continued.

Technical data indicates that this type of weapon poses an exceptional challenge to the 'Iron Dome' and 'David's Sling' systems, due to the multiplicity of small targets emanating from a single missile. This multiplicity explains why explosive parts reached the ground despite the efficient activation of interception systems in the air, leading to direct damage.

Regarding the home front, residents adhered to prevention instructions and headed to public and private shelters, as a state of panic prevailed due to the repeated sound of explosions. Many families remained inside fortified areas for long periods, fearing a renewal of missile barrages described as the most intense in a long time.

In a related context, a shortage of shelters emerged in Arab towns within the Green Line, raising a wave of concern and protest among residents there. These areas lack adequate defensive infrastructure compared to major cities, making their inhabitants more vulnerable to risks in the event of shrapnel or direct missile impacts.

Local authorities continue to assess the extent of damage to infrastructure and electricity networks in the affected areas, while the military and security alert status remains. These developments come amid a rapidly escalating field escalation that places the region before open scenarios, with continued mutual threats and the expansion of targeting scope.

Cluster missiles fragment into dozens of small explosive warheads, making their complete interception a significant challenge for air defense systems.

The atmosphere of preparation for Eid al-Fitr in the town of Beit Awwa, located southwest of Hebron, turned into a comprehensive national tragedy after death targeted a gathering of women in a beauty salon. While the women were preparing to welcome Eid with renewed spirits, shrapnel from an interceptor missile pierced the metal roof of the salon, transforming the place into a scene of blood and destruction.\n\nMedical sources and eyewitnesses confirmed that the incident resulted in the martyrdom of four women, including pregnant women, in addition to injuring more than ten women with varying degrees of wounds. Deep sorrow cast a pall over all the homes in the town that had been preparing for joy, only to suddenly find themselves in a solemn funeral procession bidding farewell to some of its daughters.\n\nInjured Hadeel Masalmeh, 24, recounts the terrifying moments she experienced inside the salon, where she was working with her partner, the martyred Sahera Masalmeh. Hadeel says that the electricity suddenly cut out and visibility was lost, only to discover later that her partner Sahera had died immediately after the shrapnel fell on the 'caravan' they used as their workplace.\n\nThe tragedy did not stop at Sahera but extended to the young woman Aseel Masalmeh, who was undergoing a beauty session at the time of the incident, where she was martyred while two months pregnant. Hadeel, who suffered shrapnel wounds to her face and body, insisted on leaving the hospital despite her injuries to bid a final farewell to her companion and professional dream.\n\nIn another home of the Masalmeh family, mother Hanan Ghattashe is experiencing the shock of losing her 27-year-old daughter Amal, who dreamed of completing her postgraduate studies in accounting. Amal, who was also pregnant, went to prepare herself for Eid with her child, but the occupation's shrapnel was faster than her dreams, leaving behind children bitterly wondering about their mother's absence.\n\nThe mother-in-law of the martyred Amal describes the state of brokenness the family is experiencing, noting that Amal's husband had bought her Eid clothes that she would never wear. She explained that explosions rang out a few minutes after Amal left the house, beginning a search for her in clinics and hospitals before the news of her martyrdom was confirmed.\n\nAs for the family of the martyred Mays Masalmeh, they were waiting for her return to celebrate her twenty-second birthday, as Mays had promised her family to prepare a cake for the occasion. Instead of celebrating, the family received the body of their daughter, who died in the same incident, ending promises of joy under the rubble of the destroyed salon.\n\nField reports indicate that the town of Beit Awwa lives in constant anxiety due to its geographical location surrounded by Israeli settlements such as 'Shikaf' and 'Amatzia'. The town, like other Palestinian villages, lacks any protective infrastructure or shelters, making residents vulnerable to the risks of interceptor missiles constantly falling over their heads.\n\nThe Ministry of Interior stated in a press release that preliminary investigations proved that the destruction and deaths resulted from the direct impact of interceptor missile shrapnel hitting the fragile metal roof of the salon. Iron Dome systems are positioned adjacent to Palestinian towns, without regard for the safety of Palestinian citizens during aerial interception operations.\n\nFor his part, the director of Beit Awwa Municipality, Mohammed Masalmeh, affirmed that the calamity that befell the town is immense and unprecedented, emphasizing the danger of the absence of official information about the locations of interception platforms. He added that this ambiguity prevents local authorities from providing accurate guidance to citizens to ensure their safety in light of ongoing military threats.\n\nA state of anger prevails in the Palestinian street amidst accusations against the occupation of deliberately directing interception systems to drop their shrapnel over populated areas. Incidents of shrapnel falling have recurred in several towns such as Kafr Qasim and Jaljulia during the past forty-eight hours, indicating a dangerous pattern of disregard for civilian lives.\n\nObservers believe that Israeli defense systems treat Palestinian villages and towns as 'open areas' devoid of inhabitants, allowing missiles to be detonated over them. This treatment is a new aspect of racial discrimination, where the protection of settlements is prioritized over the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and inside Israel.\n\nLarge crowds in the Hebron governorate mourned the bodies of the four female martyrs in a solemn military and popular funeral that set off from Dura Governmental Hospital. Mourners raised slogans condemning the ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people, demanding international protection for unarmed civilians who are killed in their homes and workplaces.\n\nWith the burial of the martyrs, the beauty salon in Beit Awwa remains a witness, with its traces of blood and destruction, to a tragedy that will remain etched in the town's memory. Eid has turned into an open mourning, and new Eid clothes remain hanging in closets, reminding orphans and grieving mothers of loved ones snatched by death in a moment of treacherous missile attack.\n\n"We worked and dreamed of growing and succeeding together, I can't believe she left and abandoned me halfway.

Swiss authorities have officially announced the suspension of all export licenses for weapons and war materiel destined for the United States of America, following the ongoing military escalation and reciprocal attacks with Iran. The government confirmed in a statement that this decision strictly adheres to the country's historical policy of neutrality, noting that it is impermissible to supply weapons to any party involved in active international armed conflicts.

In a related context, Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake revealed his country's rejection of a request from Washington to deploy warplanes on Sri Lankan territory this month. Dissanayake explained to Parliament that Colombo seeks to distance itself from the escalating tensions in the Middle East, emphasizing that maintaining sovereignty and neutrality is a top priority in dealing with conflicting international powers.

Technical details of the US request included Washington's desire to transfer two fighter jets equipped with eight anti-ship missiles from its base in Djibouti to Mattala International Airport in southern Sri Lanka. This operation was scheduled to take place between March 4 and 8, but the Sri Lankan presidency decisively rejected it to prevent its territory from becoming a launchpad for military operations.

Coinciding with the US move, Tehran submitted a similar request to allow three of its warships to dock in Sri Lankan ports during their return journey from military exercises in India. The Sri Lankan President affirmed that his country treated both parties equally, rejecting the Iranian request simultaneously with the US rejection, to avoid siding with any party in the ongoing conflict.

On the humanitarian front, official sources reported that Sri Lanka is still hosting 32 Iranian sailors who were rescued after their ship was targeted off the Sri Lankan coast earlier. Coordination has taken place with the Iranian side to repatriate the bodies of 84 crew members from the ill-fated ship, while President Dissanayake affirmed that his country distinguishes between humanitarian obligations and involvement in military alliances.

Regarding the repercussions of maritime incidents related to the conflict, reports indicated that a second Iranian ship suffered a technical malfunction while returning from India, with Sri Lanka receiving its crew to provide necessary assistance. In contrast, Indian authorities granted asylum to the crew of a third Iranian ship, amidst international anticipation for the fate of the sailors and increasing tensions in the vital waterways of the region.

Export of war materiel to countries involved in an international armed conflict with Iran cannot be permitted for the duration of the conflict.

Diplomatic sources in the Iranian Foreign Ministry reported that the American administration sent a new warning message to Tehran, the third of its kind in the past few days. The sources explained that the message, conveyed through a regional mediator, included an explicit request to stop the ongoing military operations, noting that Washington has raised its pressure this time by threatening to expand the circle of assassinations targeting senior Iranian leaders if the refusal continues.

In response, Tehran affirmed its adherence to its position rejecting a ceasefire without achieving its announced preconditions by the political leadership. Iranian officials stressed that American pressure and security threats will not deter the state from its path, considering that any de-escalation must fully and clearly guarantee Iranian national interests, away from the policy of dictates and direct threats pursued by Washington.

For his part, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian outlined his country's official position, emphasizing that ending the conflict caused by the United States and Israel requires full recognition of Iran's legitimate rights. Pezeshkian added that Tehran demands financial compensation for damages resulting from the attacks, in addition to obtaining binding international guarantees to prevent the recurrence of any future aggression against Iranian territory or its leaders.

These field developments come amid an unprecedented military escalation that began since late February, where American and Israeli forces launched a series of raids and operations that resulted in the deaths of hundreds. According to reports, these operations included the assassination of high-ranking figures, most notably Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of prominent security officials, pushing the region to the brink of a comprehensive and open confrontation.

On the ground, Tehran continues its military response by launching barrages of ballistic missiles and drones towards Israeli targets and American interests in the region. These attacks have targeted vital facilities and civilian assets, including airports and ports in several Arab countries, which has sparked a wave of international and local condemnations, amid fears of the conflict spiraling out of control and turning into a widespread regional war.

There will be no end to the war before Tehran's declared goals are achieved, and the only way to a solution is the recognition of our rights and the provision of international guarantees against any future aggression.

The American administration is currently considering a range of escalatory options against the Islamic Republic of Iran, prominent among them being the possibility of direct control over Kharg Island or imposing a tight military blockade on it. These moves come within the framework of pressures aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring the flow of international navigation, as revealed by international press reports today, Friday.

Military sources reported that current field movements reflect an American readiness for advanced combat scenarios, which may include conducting amphibious landings at strategic locations. Kharg Island is considered a vital target due to its being the main artery for Iranian oil exports, making its control a devastating blow to the Iranian national economy and the state's ability to finance itself.

In the context of reinforcements, a group of amphibious ships departed from the west coast of the United States heading towards the region, comprising about six combat ships and approximately 8,000 soldiers. These units have also been equipped with 'F-35' aircraft, attack helicopters, and advanced missile systems to ensure qualitative superiority in any potential confrontation.

The arrival of approximately 2,200 US Marines to the region reinforces the hypothesis of preparation for limited-scale ground operations. Despite official statements denying any immediate intention for ground intervention, observers see this as part of Washington's 'strategic ambiguity' policy to keep all options open for decision-makers.

Any military landing operation requires achieving complete and absolute air control, which is what continuous airstrikes targeting military infrastructure and air defense systems aim for. However, Iranian defenses have shown an ability to create field surprises, most notably the targeting of a fifth-generation aircraft, which puts American military technology to a real test.

Tehran relies on an unconventional warfare doctrine in confronting external threats, aiming to draw attacking forces into a long-term war of attrition. This strategy could inflict significant human and material losses on US forces if they decide to proceed with the option of ground intervention or establish permanent presence points within Iran's complex geography.

Over the past three weeks, US and Israeli forces have intensified their airstrikes targeting missile launch platforms and vital ammunition depots. Despite the intensity of these attacks, reports indicate that they have not yet succeeded in fully neutralizing Iranian missile capabilities, as Tehran still retains the ability for precise and effective retaliation.

Newly developed missiles have entered the confrontation arena, including the 'Nasrallah' missile, which has a range of up to 2,000 kilometers and a superior ability to maneuver and resist electronic jamming. This qualitative development in the Iranian arsenal raises the cost of any military adventure targeting vital facilities and makes the protection of American bases in the region an extremely difficult task.

The American-Israeli target bank has undergone a radical shift in the recent phase, moving from targeting traditional military sites to striking infrastructure and economic facilities. The scope of operations has also expanded to include distant areas such as the Caspian Sea, in an attempt to cut strategic supply lines and tighten the military and political noose on the Iranian leadership.

US military movements reflect a readiness for advanced field scenarios, including the possibility of an amphibious landing on the strategically important Kharg Island.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced today, Friday, the death of its official spokesman, Brigadier General Ali Mohammad Naeini, due to airstrikes that Tehran described as having been carried out by the United States and Israel. In an official statement issued through its electronic platforms, the Guard clarified that Naeini died at dawn on the last day of the holy month of Ramadan, describing the operation as a treacherous terrorist attack that targeted one of its most prominent media and military cadres.

Iranian state television confirmed the news of Naeini's martyrdom, noting that in addition to his duties as official spokesman, he held the position of Deputy Head of the Public Relations Department in the military institution. The official statement did not reveal the exact location that was targeted or the technical details of the operation, merely indicating its timing in the early hours of dawn.

Brigadier General Ali Mohammad Naeini was considered one of the most influential media figures in the IRGC over the past two years, where he led the scene in discussing regional escalation files and direct confrontations. He was known for his frequent appearances to showcase Iranian missile capabilities and explain strategic response options amid escalating tensions with the Israeli occupation and the American administration.

The deceased was born in the city of Kashan and had a distinguished academic and military career, having obtained a doctorate in strategic management and a master's degree in defense management. In addition to his military duties, Naeini worked as a university professor and headed the College and Institute of Social and Cultural Sciences at Imam Hussein University, affiliated with the IRGC, and has numerous publications in the fields of management and defense.

Naeini's career with the IRGC began decades ago, where he held leadership positions in propaganda and culture during the Iran-Iraq War, including Deputy of Propaganda on the Najaf front and command. He later progressed through cultural and media positions to serve as cultural advisor to the IRGC commander, in addition to his duties as cultural deputy in the Basij forces.

In July 2024, a decision was issued to appoint him as Deputy for Public Relations in the IRGC, a position that paved the way for his prominence as the institution's official spokesman. Since then, Naeini has become the most prominent voice commenting on major military operations, especially the series of 'True Promise' operations that targeted Israeli depth in response to previous assassinations.

Days before his death, Brigadier General Naeini made press statements in which he affirmed that the IRGC's weapons system remained fully ready and was not affected by hostile attacks. He then indicated that Iran had used only a small part of its advanced missile arsenal, warning that any crossing of red lines would be met with unprecedented responses.

The IRGC mourned Naeini's career, which spanned more than four decades, spent protecting the revolution and documenting what is called the 'Sacred Defense' and confronting soft warfare. The statement considered that the role he played during the 'True Promise 2, 3, and 4' operations will remain etched in the history of the military institution as a model of altruism and media and field jihad.

This assassination operation comes at a time when the region is experiencing a state of maximum alert, with parties exchanging threats of widespread retaliatory strikes. Sources reported that Naeini's departure represents a loss for the IRGC's strategic communication apparatus, given his long experience in managing media crises and formulating Iranian military discourse in international forums.

Brigadier General Naeini was martyred during the heinous criminal terrorist attack committed by the Zionist-American camp at dawn.

Israeli authorities revealed today, Friday, a highly serious security case involving the arrest of a reserve soldier serving in the Air Force, on suspicion of involvement in espionage activities for Iranian intelligence. Sources reported that the detainee was working within the 'Iron Dome' system operating unit, which is the cornerstone of Israeli air defense, allowing him access to highly sensitive military data and locations.

According to a joint statement issued by the police and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the detainee is named Raz Cohen, 26 years old, and a resident of Jerusalem. The statement clarified that the arrest came after extensive secret investigations that proved his involvement in committing 'security crimes' affecting the state's sovereignty and national security through his direct contact with hostile intelligence elements.

Investigations showed that Cohen was fully aware of the identity of the parties he was dealing with, as his communication with Iranian operators continued for several consecutive months. The soldier received specific instructions to carry out various security tasks, including collecting and transferring technical and operational information he obtained due to his military position, in exchange for financial sums transferred to him through different methods.

Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigations, an official indictment was filed against the arrested soldier, while military censorship continues to impose strict restrictions on the publication of details of the leaked information. Fears prevail within the security establishment regarding the potential extent of damage that could be inflicted on the efficiency of defense systems if their technical details reach the hands of adversaries, especially in light of current tensions.

Sources indicated that this incident holds exceptional importance compared to previous espionage cases revealed recently, given the soldier's sensitive position within the air defense network. The sources pointed out that recent months have witnessed an escalation in Iran's attempts to recruit citizens and military personnel within Israel, where security agencies have monitored several cases in which financial motives were exploited to carry out surveillance and field information gathering operations.

For their part, the Shin Bet and the police renewed their warnings to the Israeli public about the dangers of interacting with unknown parties via social media platforms, emphasizing that Iranian intelligence is actively operating in the digital space to hunt for potential targets. Security agencies stressed that they will continue to work firmly to thwart any attempts aimed at harming the security of vital installations or recruiting human elements for hostile parties.

These developments come at a time when the region is witnessing an unprecedented military escalation since late February, with Israel and Iran exchanging missile strikes and drone attacks. These direct confrontations have resulted in casualties on both sides, making any intelligence breach in air defense systems a direct threat to the existing military balance in the ongoing state of war.

This case is more sensitive compared to previous cases, given its connection to a central air defense system, which may raise the level of potential security repercussions.

The Israeli Ministry of Health announced an increase in the number of injured Israelis to 4,099 since the outbreak of military confrontations on February 28. Medical sources clarified that the past twenty-four hours alone witnessed the registration of 150 new injuries transferred to hospitals for necessary treatment.

According to the health statement issued this Friday morning, hospitals are still receiving 80 cases, including one in a very critical condition and eight cases described as serious. The data also indicated 11 moderate cases and 60 minor injuries, reflecting the significant pressure on the Israeli medical system.

Regarding the details of the recent injuries, sources stated that among the 150 injured who entered hospitals since Thursday morning, there are two cases in serious health condition and two moderate cases. Minor injuries predominated among the rest, with 136 cases, in addition to 10 cases treated for shock and panic resulting from the shelling.

For its part, Hebrew press reports revealed the killing of 21 Israelis since the start of the operation, which the army named 'Lion's Roar'. Sources confirmed that the numbers of dead and injured are likely to increase given the continued intense missile barrages targeting Israeli depth and vital sites.

On the ground, media sources admitted the failure of air defense systems to intercept 26 cluster missiles, whose warheads managed to hit 150 different locations. This technical failure led to the expansion of destruction in the targeted areas and an increase in confusion among field forces.

In an initial assessment of the extent of material damage, economic reports indicated that about nine thousand residential buildings and facilities were damaged to varying degrees due to the concentrated Iranian shelling. The damage also affected more than three thousand cars and vehicles, placing the Israeli government before a huge compensation bill for settlers and those affected.

As for the financial cost of military operations, specialized economic sources estimated that the war cost the Israeli treasury about $6.4 billion during the first 19 days alone. This cost is among the highest historically, considering the short duration and the intensity of military use of advanced weapons.

Reports clarified that daily spending on military operations exceeds one billion shekels, equivalent to $322 million, including jet fuel and smart munitions. Dozens of fighter jets participate in these operations, carrying out daily raids, in addition to refueling aircraft provided by the United States to support the war effort.

Estimates indicate that the budget allocated for managing this war is about $12.5 billion, an amount that could quickly run out if the confrontation continues at the same pace. These figures are limited to direct military expenditures, without accounting for the paralysis that affected productive sectors and the decline in GDP.

Amidst these escalating losses, the occupation army imposes strict military censorship on media outlets to prevent the circulation of precise details about targeted sites or the true extent of casualties. Security officials warn citizens against publishing videos that might reveal vulnerabilities in air defenses or boost the morale of the other side.

These are direct defense costs only, without accounting for civilian expenses or the loss in GDP caused by the war.