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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical and human rights sources in Sudan reported deaths and injuries due to a drone attack targeting a displacement center in El Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state. The Sudan Doctors Network stated that the shelling hit the 'Unified Shelter Camp' inside the city, resulting in the death of two displaced persons and the injury of about 17 others, including a number of women and children who were sheltering in the center.

In an official statement, the network accused the Rapid Support Forces of being behind this attack, noting that targeting civilian sites and shelter centers represents a dangerous escalation that threatens the lives of thousands fleeing the conflict. The sources explained that this assault comes as part of a series of continuous attacks that the city has been subjected to for more than a week, leading to a severe deterioration in humanitarian conditions within residential neighborhoods.

Internationally, the United States expressed its grave concern over reports of massive military buildups by the Rapid Support Forces and their allies around El Obeid. Washington warned that this mobilization could be a prelude to committing 'mass atrocities' against civilians, calling on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law and protect unarmed civilians from the ravages of armed confrontations.

For his part, the head of the European Union mission in Sudan criticized the policy of besieging strategic cities, describing it as a strategy of 'siege and starvation.' The European official pointed out that these practices have been repeated in cities such as El Fasher, Al Jazirah, and Kadugli, stressing that perpetrators of these violations may face legal prosecution and strict international sanctions as a result of their direct targeting of the livelihoods of civilians.

In the context of regional movements, the African Union Commission and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) called for an immediate cessation of attacks on El Obeid and containment of the escalating military escalation. The regional organizations stressed that the continuation of hostilities in densely populated areas thwarts peace efforts and further complicates the humanitarian crisis, which has been described as the largest globally in terms of the number of displaced persons.

El Obeid has witnessed an intensification of drone attacks for about two weeks, with these strikes targeting vital facilities including the main power station and fuel stations. According to local sources, these attacks aim to paralyze movement within the city and destroy essential infrastructure, leading to the disruption of vital services for thousands of resident and displaced families alike.

On the ground, the Sudanese Army continues to strengthen its defenses within the city, with its military units carrying out preemptive strikes targeting gatherings and movements of the Rapid Support Forces in various areas of Kordofan state. The armed forces seek through these operations to prevent any ground advance towards the heart of the city, relying on the positioning of the Fifth Infantry Division, which is considered the military safety valve for the region.

Field data indicate that the Rapid Support Forces have imposed a complete siege on El Obeid from several directions for months, with their presence concentrated in strategic points such as Bara city. Despite this siege, the city remains under the control of the Sudanese Army, while fears are growing of a large-scale ground attack that could lead to bloody confrontations within densely populated neighborhoods and displacement camps.

El Obeid city acquires extreme strategic importance due to its geographical location connecting the capital Khartoum with the Kordofan and Darfur regions, making it an indispensable logistical center for managing military operations. The city is about 370 kilometers from Omdurman, and is considered the main starting point for military and civilian supplies to the western and southern states of Sudan, which explains the fierce struggle for control over it.

In addition to its military value, El Obeid represents a global economic weight, as it is known as the main center for the production and trade of gum arabic, contributing about 80% of the global production of this vital commodity. Economic experts warn that the continuation of fighting in the city will disrupt global supply chains and destroy the main source of income for thousands of farmers and workers in the Kordofan region.

The targeting comes amid ongoing attacks on the city for more than a week, exacerbating humanitarian conditions and directly threatening civilian lives.

Young Jewish generations in the United States are increasingly distancing themselves from Zionism. This divergence is particularly evident in a renewed interest in historical movements such as the Bund, which advocated for a Jewish identity based on diaspora life, in contrast to the doctrine of a "Jewish state." In France, a similar trend is emerging, though still relatively limited. Philosopher Michel Feher's latest book, "Return to Jewishness," reflects this trend.

By: Sylvain Cypel – June 11, 2026

"Diasporic" Jewishness

American Jewish youth are showing a noticeable distancing from the State of Israel. This shift began gradually since the turn of the new millennium, but it accelerated significantly after the October 7, 2023 attack, as a result of what the author describes as the cruelty shown by the Israeli government towards Palestinians. One of the most prominent manifestations of this shift is that the word "Zionist" has become used as an insult among a segment of Jewish youth.

Another striking manifestation of this distancing is the growing interest in the history of the Bund movement, a Jewish organization founded in the late 19th century. In April 2026, American author Molly Crabapple achieved remarkable success with her book "Here Where We Live Is Our Home," which recounts the history of the Bund, and remained for weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.

But why this sudden interest in a Jewish labor and cultural movement that combined a political party, a trade union, and a community organization? The movement emerged in the late 19th century in the Jewish Pale of Settlement in Eastern Europe, then disappeared by the late 1940s.

Crabapple's book title encapsulates the essence of the idea: Jews, according to the Bund, do not need to leave the places where they live to be liberated, and certainly not by seizing the land of others. What particularly distinguished the Bund was its progressive orientation and its radical opposition to Zionism. It considered itself a Marxist movement advocating for cultural autonomy.

In October 1938, its prominent leader, Henryk Erlich, wrote:

"If a Jewish state were ever established in Palestine, its spiritual climate would be based on a constant fear of the external enemy (Arabs), and an endless struggle with the internal enemy (Arabs) over every piece of land and every job opportunity. Is this the climate in which freedom, democracy, and progress can flourish? Or is it the climate in which chauvinism and reactionary tendencies grow?"

In short, the Bund believed that Jews did not need to establish a state by expelling its indigenous inhabitants, and that this idea would lead to catastrophic results.

Renewed Interest in the Bund

The author believes that what drives American Jewish youth today to be interested in the Bund is what they perceive as Zionism reaching the peak of its violence towards Palestinians. This is not because the movement can come back to life; it disappeared with the extermination of Jews in Europe, and its remaining leaders were assassinated by Joseph Stalin's regime.

However, this renewed interest embodies the possibility of living a different Jewish identity, one not based on messianism, Jewish racial superiority, or the glorification of the Israeli army as the "most moral army in the world." Instead, it aspires to a Jewishness based on the diaspora experience itself.

The author points out that a similar phenomenon has also begun to appear in France, albeit on a smaller scale. Michel Feher's book is considered one of the first French works that attempts to construct a vision of a new "diasporic" identity liberated from the burden of Zionism, following the statement issued by the "Tsedek!" group in February 2026.

Ideological Convergence Between Zionism and Antisemitism

The author describes Feher's book as a profound intellectual work that addresses the history of the Zionist movement and its contemporary reality. Among the topics he discusses are the relationships between the American Zionist right and some wings of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, including currents accused of antisemitism.

Feher provides examples of tensions within these circles, noting that some figures associated with the MAGA movement sometimes promote conspiracy theories targeting Jews, despite their political alliance with Israel.

The author believes that this climate, which combines ideological convergence with the Donald Trump administration and the persistence of anti-Jewish tendencies within some American right-wing circles, is pushing an increasing number of young Jews to seek an alternative to Zionist thought.

The Jew as an "Outcast"

Feher dedicates the last part of his book to discussing the image of the Jew as an "outcast" or "marginalized" in society. He reviews the ideas of Hannah Arendt, in addition to the French thinker Bernard Lazare.

Lazare was initially drawn to Zionism after the Dreyfus affair, and participated in the Second Zionist Congress in 1898, but he soon distanced himself from it and severed his relationship with its founder, Theodor Herzl. The author believes that this trajectory resembles what an increasing number of young American Jews are experiencing today.

He also evokes the works of historian Yuri Slezkine, who distinguished between two types of people: "Apollonians" associated with land, nationalism, and closed belonging, and "Mercurians" who embody crossing borders, cultures, and ideas. Slezkine considered the revolutionary and cosmopolitan Eastern European Jews to be a model of this second type.

In contrast, historian Enzo Traverso, in his book "The End of Jewish Modernity," argued that the success of Zionism and the integration of Jews in the United States pushed Jews from a position of revolution and change to a position of political conservatism.

Will the Future Change?

Feher hints that Traverso may have misjudged. American campuses today are witnessing a widespread presence of young Jews who are radically distancing themselves from the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

But will they succeed in achieving their goals? And will they be able to expand this trend outside the United States? The author does not provide a decisive answer, considering that the current stage is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty.

In conclusion, Feher expresses his fear that current Israeli policies will lead to a new wave of mass displacement of Palestinians, pointing to what he sees as widespread support for some of these ideas within Israeli Jewish society. Therefore, the project of "Return to Jewishness" in its liberating and diasporic sense may take a long time to crystallize and take root.

Note: This translation conveys the content of the article as it appeared in the original text, including the political opinions and descriptions contained therein, and does not necessarily represent agreed-upon facts or an objective stance on the issues mentioned.

The media committee of the Iranian negotiating delegation, known as 'Minab 168,' revealed details of the first round of talks with the United States at the 'Bürgenstock' resort in Switzerland. Official sources confirmed that the negotiations resulted in an agreement on five strategic points aimed at de-escalating regional tensions and addressing outstanding issues between the two parties.

At the forefront of the understandings, a new security equation for the Lebanese arena was agreed upon, with the Iranian delegation pushing for the consolidation of the fragile ceasefire. Consequently, it was decided to establish an international monitoring mechanism called the 'Conflict Control Unit' with direct participation from Tehran, which is considered official recognition of its role in Lebanese security arrangements, with the complete exclusion of any role for the Israeli occupation in this system.

Regarding international navigation, the agreement approved measures to ensure sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and its gradual reopening to trade traffic. This mechanism includes establishing a 'direct communication line' to inform the Iranian side of any executive obstacles, which Tehran considered a confirmation of its legal and security authority over this vital waterway.

Tehran linked the activation of joint working groups for the nuclear file and sanctions to the actual implementation of what is known as 'Article 13.' This article stipulates a comprehensive ceasefire on all fronts, especially in Lebanon, in addition to ending the naval blockade and releasing frozen Iranian financial assets abroad before moving on to the final phase of negotiations.

On the financial front, the Swiss round witnessed the signing of a bilateral memorandum of understanding between Iran and Qatar to establish executive mechanisms for releasing frozen funds. This step aims to facilitate the flow of liquidity to the Iranian Central Bank within an agreed-upon timeframe to ensure compliance with the terms of economic de-escalation.

In a remarkable development, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department issued official documents lifting sanctions on the Iranian oil and petrochemical sector for 60 days. This temporary measure allows Tehran to export its oil production and receive financial revenues through official banking channels, representing a gesture of goodwill from the American side towards the progress of negotiations.

Tehran emphasizes that these understandings represent an integrated package that cannot be disaggregated, as it refuses to delve into any technical details before seeing tangible results on the ground related to lifting economic restrictions. International parties are monitoring the sustainability of these agreements amidst ongoing field complexities in the region and mutual political pressures.

The establishment of the Conflict Control Unit with Tehran's participation means Iran's official entry into Lebanese security equations, which thwarts attempts to exclude it.

A new round of technical talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America began today, Monday, in Switzerland, aimed at discussing mechanisms for implementing the joint memorandum of understanding and forming specialized working groups. These meetings are taking place under the patronage of the mediating countries, Qatar and Pakistan, to bridge viewpoints on thorny and complex issues.

The Iranian delegation in this technical round is headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, accompanied by a high-level team including experts in political, economic, and legal fields. This step follows intensive consultations held behind closed doors to ensure the precise formulation of executive frameworks for the initial agreements.

Informed sources reported that a high-ranking Iranian delegation, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, left Switzerland returning to Tehran after a round of indirect consultations that lasted approximately 18 hours. This round was characterized by a focus on outstanding issues that require high-level political decisions before moving on to technical details.

For its part, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its welcome for the tangible progress achieved during these discussions, describing the atmosphere as positive. Despite the official welcome, the Swiss side preferred not to delve into the precise details of the results achieved, leaving the announcement to the concerned parties and mediators.

The Iranian negotiating delegation revealed a significant breakthrough in obtaining official American documents stipulating the lifting of sanctions on the oil and petrochemical sectors for 60 days. This step is seen as a gesture of goodwill from Washington to encourage Tehran to move forward in the regional and nuclear negotiation process.

On the regional level, the two parties reached initial understandings aimed at maintaining the stability of the security situation in Lebanon and preventing military escalation. These understandings include the establishment of an international monitoring mechanism that grants Iran an official role in the Lebanese security equation, which is considered a fundamental shift in managing regional issues.

The agreements also included a move towards establishing a direct communication line regarding navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, to ensure the security of waterways and avoid military friction. This mechanism aims to enhance Iranian sovereignty in its territorial waters while providing international guarantees for the safety of global trade.

Regarding the nuclear file, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei clarified that discussions in this regard were very brief and did not delve into complex technical details. Baghaei indicated that what happened was a mutual presentation of initial positions, emphasizing that comprehensive nuclear negotiations have not officially begun yet.

In contrast, a state of anticipation and caution prevails in Israeli circles regarding the outcomes of the Switzerland talks and their impact on the northern front. Media sources reported that Tel Aviv is closely monitoring the drafting of the final statement and the proposed security arrangements that may affect its influence in the region.

The Israeli government attempted to preempt the results through media leaks speaking of the army's intention to carry out partial withdrawals from positions in southern Lebanon. This step, according to observers, aims to demonstrate an independent Israeli political initiative before anticipated negotiation rounds begin in Washington with the participation of Lebanese parties.

Despite these leaks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security minister, Israel Katz, stressed their rejection of any full withdrawal that could weaken Israeli deterrence. Tel Aviv insists on remaining in what it describes as the 'security zone' to prevent any future threats similar to what happened on October 7th.

Through its field and political actions, Israel seeks to emphasize that any change in the positioning of its forces is a sovereign decision and not the result of international pressure. Attention is now turning to Washington, where an Israeli-Lebanese negotiation session is expected to be held to discuss final border arrangements in light of the new diplomatic climate.

The talks resulted in American documents related to the lifting of sanctions on the oil and petrochemical sectors for 60 days, along with regional understandings.

The Israeli occupation army continues to practice a policy of deception towards the international community, by persisting in committing massacres in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon despite repeated announcements of ceasefire agreements. These practices reflect Tel Aviv's lack of commitment to any genuine understandings, as it continues killing and destruction operations in areas it had previously classified as safe.

In a recent statistic issued by the Government Media Office, sources revealed that the occupation's violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip amounted to approximately 3338 violations. These fiery violations resulted in the martyrdom of over a thousand people and the injury of more than 3249 citizens, in addition to the arrest of dozens of Palestinians in various areas.

On the ground, the occupation army is working to expand what is called the 'Yellow Line' and control additional areas of the Gaza Strip, with reports indicating its current control over more than 60% of the Strip's area. This coincides with similar movements in southern Lebanon, where the occupation seeks to impose a new geographical reality under the pretext of establishing a buffer zone.

Imtanes Shihadeh, an expert in Israeli affairs, believes that the occupation state deals with truce agreements according to its own interpretations, which grant it freedom of military action. The occupation authorities claim that these agreements do not prevent them from carrying out preemptive strikes to remove what they describe as 'future security threats' or self-defense.

Shihadeh pointed out that Israel continues its war in Gaza at a pace that may sometimes seem slower, but it remains essentially ongoing due to the absence of real international or Arab pressure to force it to stop. He explained that the occupation is trying to maneuver on the Lebanese front to gain time and search for a 'victory image' that it has lacked since the beginning of the military confrontations.

In the context of the internal crisis, analysts affirmed that Benjamin Netanyahu and his government coalition are experiencing a strategic dilemma due to their failure to achieve the main war objectives in Gaza or Lebanon. Despite the massive destruction caused by the military machine, military achievements have not translated into political gains that would ensure the stability of the Israeli government.

Israel seeks to impose a new equation based on 'freedom of military action' to strike any attempts to restore the capabilities of the resistance in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, this equation faces rejection on the ground, while Tel Aviv is betting on the time margin available to it before any change in the US administration occurs.

For his part, Hassan Lafi, an expert in Palestinian and Israeli affairs, explained that understanding current Israeli policy requires delving into Netanyahu's personality and personal calculations. After the events of October 7, Netanyahu became obsessed with restoring his image among his far-right audience, who reject any military retreat.

Lafi noted that Washington is no longer the only influential factor in Netanyahu's decisions; rather, internal opinion polls have become the primary driver of his actions. He realizes that his political future will be decided at the Israeli ballot boxes, not in the White House, which pushes him to take hardline stances to satisfy his electoral base.

The head of the occupation government sometimes deliberately opposes American wishes to appear as a strong leader capable of saying 'no' to the biggest ally when it comes to Israel's security. This message resonates widely with the Israeli right, which aspires to build a state that imposes its will without succumbing to external pressures, which explains the continuous escalation.

Netanyahu also realizes a harsh truth: that his continued stay in power is the only guarantee of his political and legal immunity, as losing his position means facing trials and isolation. Therefore, he prefers to continue with the option of military escalation and maneuvering with political agreements to ensure the prolongation of his stay in power.

Ultimately, the occupation continues to cram hundreds of thousands of displaced people in Gaza into very confined spaces, with ongoing military operations targeting infrastructure and what remains of the necessities of life. The reliance remains on real international pressure to stop these violations that transcend all international covenants and norms.

Israel acts from the interpretation it desires for the ceasefire agreement, claiming that it does not prevent it from carrying out attacks under the pretext of removing future threats.

The issue of understanding the depths of the human psyche and exploring its intricacies remains one of the most complex axioms that has eluded human comprehension throughout the ages. Some attempts to impose specific frameworks for human understanding or behavior always clash with the reality that there are areas in consciousness and divine decree that we cannot comprehend or alter their inevitable paths.

In the context of political oddities, a statement by former US President Donald Trump emerged, in which he claimed that his country had reached a level of capability that enabled it to raise the dead. Although this statement transcends the bounds of logic and reason, it reflects a deeply rooted human tendency to desire control over what is beyond human will and fixed cosmic laws.

Since Adam's descent to Earth, humanity has striven to achieve the unattainable, attempting to transform grand aspirations into tangible realities. This desire, though sometimes stemming from an absolute will to do good and spread righteousness, often collides with the complex reality of human nature, which is inherently diverse.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the emergence of great reformers who dedicated their lives to trying to uplift the Arab and Islamic nation. These pioneers developed theories to define the path, and those who came after them tried to codify these ideas and translate them into practical steps aimed at creating a reformist core that would start from Egypt and encompass the world.

These reform projects were essentially based on the eternal principle of Omar, which links the glory of Arabs to Islam, a truth on which no two people disagree. However, the major problem arose in the attempt to formulate a model that would compel everyone, from the individual to the state, to agree on a single pace and a unified, literal application that disregards innate diversity.

The goal of restoring the glory of Arab-Islamic civilization is a noble and legitimate one, but the mechanisms for achieving it by uniting the entire world around a single idea remain a difficult aspiration. History and reality prove that absolute unity in opinion and methodology has never been a characteristic of stable human societies.

Quranic texts confirm that difference is the origin of human creation, as Allah Almighty says: 'And they will continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has bestowed mercy; and for that He created them.' This difference is not a flaw, but rather a means for the integration of life and the clarification of truths, and by its opposite, things are distinguished and their true value in existence is known.

If the Creator, Exalted be He, had willed, He would have made people one nation from the very first moment, and would not have allowed the existence of contradictions and conflicts between good and evil. But divine wisdom dictated that man should have free will, endowed with faculties of reason and the ability to choose between guidance and error, which makes the idea of forcibly 'enslaving souls' impossible.

It is narrated that one of the great movement theorists, at the end of his life, made an important review reflecting the maturity of experience, where he wished he had focused his efforts on deeply educating a limited number of young people instead of trying to accommodate the broad masses. This belated vision acknowledges the difficulty of dealing with the human psyche and its many fluctuations.

Human nature is a complex mixture of faculties and minds, capabilities and hopes, desires and self-restraint. It is an entity that carries within it opposites and contradictions that only its Creator comprehends, who inspired it with its wickedness and its piety, making the attempt to direct it in one direction an act that exceeds limited human capabilities.

Successive generations lived dreaming of the theory of 'world mastery' and the possibility of uniting all people on the path of guidance, ignoring the differences in backgrounds and inclinations and the existence of minorities. These questions about how to deal with human diversity continued to require answers and development that did not keep pace with the grand ambitions of those movements.

Looking at early Islamic history, we find that apostasy occurred in parts of the Arabian Peninsula immediately after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Lady Aisha described the state of Muslims at that time as weak and scattered, indicating that faith and commitment are not necessarily a fixed and stable state for everyone.

Even during the era of prophethood, the most glorious period of guidance, hypocrisy and hypocrites were found within the Muslim community, which confirms that human nature can accommodate contradictions even in the presence of revelation. This historical reality requires contemporary reformers to build their visions on the possible, not on the imagined impossible.

Building a just civilization that includes in its justice humans, animals, and nature requires a realistic vision that starts from what is possible and available. True reform begins with understanding that we cannot reform all of humanity, but we can work to improve reality and develop societies in accordance with God's laws in His creation.

If Allah, the One, the Irresistible, had willed, He would have made all people one nation, for difference is a cosmic law through which life is integrated.

Father Abdullah Yulio, with his national voice transcending sectarian divisions, stands as a witness to the deep roots of Christian identity in the Palestinian land. Yulio believes that Christians in Palestine are the legitimate heirs of the Arab Christians who defended the region since the dawn of history, emphasizing that the local church speaks and prays in Arabic and considers the Palestinian cause its spiritual and existential compass.

Yulio warns of an Israeli project that seeks to fragment the social fabric by inciting sectarian strife and portraying Christians as a persecuted minority, paving the way for their displacement. He points out that soft social isolation policies, which separate neighbors through sectarian institutions, aim to break the unity of destiny that was manifested in the sacrifices of national figures such as Archbishop Hilarion Capucci and the martyr Shireen Abu Akleh.

For his part, Hassan Khater, head of the International Jerusalem Center, confirms that attacks on Christian holy sites follow the same methodology used against Islamic holy sites. He explained that the occupation targeted more than 500 destroyed villages during the Nakba, and sources have recorded more than 120 documented attacks on churches and monasteries, including burning, theft, and looting, since 1948.

The confiscation of church properties and their vast lands is one of the most dangerous tools of conflict, as the endowments of the Orthodox Church, estimated at 80,000 dunams, are subjected to fraud and forgery. Khater describes these operations as systematic attempts to empty the land of its owners, considering that the survival of stones without people is the greatest aggression against the authentic Christian presence.

Experts link the systematic looting of land with the sharp demographic decline of Christians in historical Palestine. After their percentage ranged between 11% and 14% before 1948, it has now fallen to less than 1%, which reflects the success of the policies of restriction and forced displacement practiced by the occupation for eight decades.

The forms of daily violations in occupied Jerusalem vary, where clergy are subjected to spitting, egg-throwing, and beating by settlers. These attacks occur under the cover of organized policies of the occupation state that seeks to impose a purely Jewish character on the holy city, ignoring the historical rights of Muslims and Christians alike.

In a related context, Omar Awadallah, a member of the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs, believes that Israel seeks to transform the conflict from its national political character into a confined religious conflict. He stresses that targeting Christians falls within the project of extermination or forced displacement, emphasizing that Christians are the "living stones" that protect Palestinian identity from falsification.

The Presidential Committee documented egregious attacks, including targeting nuns because of their religious attire, and encroaching on lands in Bethlehem, Beit Jala, and Silwan. The committee works at the international level to explain the reality of the persecution experienced by Palestinian Christians, emphasizing that suffering does not differentiate between one citizen and another based on their religious belief.

Palestinian institutions are fighting an intellectual battle against the "Christian Zionism" movement, which attempts to distort Christian doctrine to serve the goals of the occupation. Officials stress that this movement is alien to the values of Eastern Christianity, which calls for justice and peace, and has no connection to the teachings of Jesus Christ, which are believed by the children of the national churches.

Statistical figures reflect a tragic reality, as the number of Christians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem has decreased to only about 47,000 people according to the 2017 census. The Christian population is currently concentrated in the Bethlehem Governorate, followed by Ramallah and East Jerusalem, while the Christian presence in the Gaza Strip faces the risk of complete extinction due to the ongoing war of extermination.

During the recent war on Gaza, churches were not spared from direct shelling, as the occupation targeted the Baptist Church and the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrius. These attacks resulted in the martyrdom of dozens of civilians who sought refuge in houses of God for safety, proving that the Israeli war machine does not value the sanctity of holy places.

In a tragic incident inside the Latin Church of the Holy Family, an Israeli sniper killed a mother and her daughter in cold blood, a crime that shook international church circles. The shelling of the same church was repeated in July 2024, leading to more casualties and injuries among the displaced and the priest responsible for the parish, amid international demands for an investigation.

As for the West Bank, settler attacks have become daily news affecting cemeteries and monasteries in Christian towns such as Taybeh and Beit Jala. These attacks coincide with legal and coercive attempts to seize historical properties in the heart of old Jerusalem, aiming to change the demographic and geographical character of the city in favor of settlers.

In conclusion, Christian steadfastness in Palestine remains an integral part of the comprehensive national steadfastness in the face of occupation. Despite declining numbers and pressures of displacement, national churches insist on remaining as guardians of history and identity, emphasizing that the unity of destiny among the people is the only guarantee to confront projects of liquidation and displacement.

My church is no longer confined to a place; it is all the streets and all the people, and it is my duty to protect Al-Aqsa just as a Muslim protects the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Qatari Ministry of Interior announced today, Sunday, an explosion inside an industrial facility in the Ras Laffan area, located in the north of the country, noting that the incident resulted in 54 people sustaining injuries of varying degrees. Authorities clarified that the explosion was caused by a technical malfunction during operations, while confirming that no chemical or gas leaks were detected that could threaten the public safety of residents or workers in the surrounding areas.

In a related context, the Qatari International Search and Rescue Group, affiliated with the Internal Security Force (Lekhwiya), launched extensive operations in cooperation with civil defense teams to search for 18 people who went missing after the explosion. Field teams are combing the affected site and removing debris in an attempt to locate the missing, amidst a full security and medical alert to deal with the repercussions of the operational incident that shook the industrial area.

For its part, 'QatarEnergy' issued a clarifying statement confirming that the incident occurred during the start of operational activities in Ras Laffan city, specifically at the 'Barzan' plant, which is a vital facility for securing local gas needs. The company indicated that the explosion led to a fire at the site, but emergency response teams were able to intervene quickly, contain the flames, bring them under complete control, and prevent their spread to neighboring facilities.

The competent authorities in the State of Qatar are continuing their investigations to determine the precise causes of the technical malfunction that led to this industrial disaster, while the area is subject to strict security measures to facilitate the tasks of the rescue teams. The Barzan plant is considered one of the main pillars of Qatar's energy infrastructure, and efforts are currently focused on ensuring the safety of the site and assessing the material damage resulting from the explosion, in parallel with the ongoing search operations for the missing workers.

An internal explosion occurred in one of the factories in the Ras Laffan industrial area due to a technical malfunction, and specialized teams are dealing with the incident.

Hezbollah leader Mahmoud Qamati stressed the necessity of the Israeli occupation forces' immediate and unconditional withdrawal from all Lebanese territories. Qamati explained in media statements that the occupation has no right to impose withdrawal mechanisms or determine its conditions, considering Lebanese sovereignty non-negotiable under military pressure.

Qamati pointed out that the occupation army is facing severe field dilemmas in several strategic border points, especially in Ali Al-Taher Hill and the vicinity of Arnoun Castle, in addition to the areas of Hadatha and Zawtar. He added that these military complexities make the occupation seek a way out that ensures it saves face after failing to achieve its declared field objectives.

Regarding security arrangements, the leader affirmed that the Lebanese army is the only party authorized to assume deployment and security tasks in the areas evacuated by the occupation. Qamati categorically rejected the idea of turning the South into experimental areas or giving the enemy an opportunity to impose a new security reality that serves its interests at the expense of Lebanese national sovereignty.

Qamati considered that Israel's insistence on establishing a so-called 'security zone' is not due to defensive fears, but rather part of a broader Zionist strategic project aimed at controlling areas adjacent to the borders. He saw that this plan extends to include the occupation of parts of Syria and the control of the Gaza Strip and the displacement of West Bank residents within a comprehensive aggressive vision for the region.

He explained that the occupation fully realizes that its presence in these areas will not provide security guarantees for its settlements in the North, but will rather increase the attrition of its forces. He affirmed that the resistance is closely monitoring Israeli movements and dealing with them according to field data that has proven the failure of the theory of absolute military superiority in the face of guerrilla warfare.

Regarding the cards of strength that Hezbollah possesses, Qamati said that the party relies on two main pillars: the strength of the resistance in the field and the regional political track. In this context, he referred to movements and diplomacy taking place in capitals such as Islamabad and Switzerland aimed at formulating understandings that guarantee Lebanese rights.

Qamati revealed the existence of regional power factors supporting the resistance's position, including the ability to influence vital waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab. He also noted that Iranian military support remains a standing and available option if the occupation decides to go towards a comprehensive escalation that exceeds the currently established rules.

Despite acknowledging the occupation's possession of a massive military machine, Qamati stressed that the resistance has developed effective elements of strength capable of harming the enemy. He affirmed that human losses among the occupation soldiers are the biggest price the entity pays, especially with the increasing effectiveness of kamikaze drone attacks and guided missiles.

Qamati concluded his speech by referring to the 'Ali Al-Taher Hill' model, which exhausted the capabilities of the occupation army for a full week despite its use of all land and air capabilities. He considered that this field steadfastness is the strongest message confirming that the option of resistance is the only way to impose withdrawal and protect Lebanese territories from expansionist ambitions.

Israel does not want to withdraw but faces military dilemmas in several border locations and needs to exit while saving face.

The leadership of the Jordanian Field Hospital South Gaza/10 received a delegation on Monday, comprising an elite group of elders and dignitaries from Khan Yunis city and representatives from the city's families forum. This visit came within the framework of popular appreciation for the medical and humanitarian efforts exerted by the Jordanian cadres, especially after the arrival of the new medical supply convoy, which enhanced the hospital's capabilities during the past week.

The hospital force commander affirmed during the reception of the delegation that the continuous provision of treatment services comes in response to the high royal directives and as a commitment to the national duty towards Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. He stressed that the medical teams continue to perform their duties with the highest levels of efficiency to ensure alleviating suffering for patients and visitors in light of the current circumstances.

For their part, the dignitaries of Khan Yunis expressed their gratitude for the qualitative Jordanian initiatives, foremost among them the pledge to treat 2000 Palestinian children within the Kingdom, and the launch of the "Hope Restoration" project, which aims to provide 1000 prosthetic limbs for amputees. The delegation indicated that these steps represent vital support for the dilapidated health system in the Strip and give the injured a new chance at life.

These humanitarian initiatives embody the depth of steadfast Jordanian positions towards the Palestinian people and contribute to restoring hope for thousands of families.

The diplomatic arena has witnessed intensive movements aimed at enhancing the stability of the field situation in Lebanon, where Lebanese President Joseph Aoun held a series of phone calls with senior international officials. These discussions included US Vice President J.D. Vance, Advisor Jared Kushner, as well as the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, to discuss mechanisms for solidifying the existing ceasefire.

Official sources reported that the consultations primarily focused on the necessity of stopping the ongoing Israeli escalation and ensuring adherence to de-escalation in southern Lebanon. The parties involved in the calls also raised the possibility of forming a joint coordination cell tasked with monitoring the implementation of understandings on the ground and preventing any violations that could lead to a renewed outbreak of hostilities, given the urgent need to ensure civilian security.

These diplomatic efforts come in parallel with the launch of a new round of technical talks between the United States and Iran in Switzerland, which are taking place under the joint patronage of Qatar and Pakistan. These meetings aim to establish precise executive mechanisms for the recently signed memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, which is seen as a cornerstone for reducing overall regional tension in the region.

In this context, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi affirmed that the first round of Switzerland negotiations achieved tangible progress on the issues raised, indicating that ending the Israeli war on Lebanon was strongly present at the core of the discussions. Araqchi clarified that the ongoing understandings seek to link political and field tracks to ensure the sustainability of any agreement reached between the active powers.

On the ground, a cautious calm has prevailed across all fronts in southern Lebanon since dawn on Sunday, as residents and observers await the results of the ongoing political movement in international capitals. These developments come after the 'Islamabad Understanding' came into effect, an agreement signed electronically by Presidents Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian, which includes 14 clauses aimed at ending armed conflicts and opening international shipping lanes.

This historic agreement includes explicit provisions related to halting military operations in Lebanon, as well as reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation and lifting maritime restrictions that were imposed on the Iranian side. This understanding represents a serious international attempt to end the state of conflict that has plagued the region, causing severe humanitarian and economic crises that have affected various vital sectors.

It is worth noting that Lebanon is suffering from the consequences of a widespread Israeli aggression that began in March 2026, leading to thousands of casualties, including martyrs and injured, as well as major displacement waves from border villages. Despite the current calm, some areas in the south remain under direct Israeli military control, making the solidification of the ceasefire an utmost necessity to restore full Lebanese sovereignty.

We made significant progress during the first round of negotiations in Switzerland, and the discussions included ending the Israeli war on Lebanon.

The features of ten-year-old child Rateb Abu Qaliq summarize the story of an entire Palestinian generation whose dreams were shattered before their bodies under the weight of the ongoing war. Rateb, who lived in the city of Beit Lahia, north of the Gaza Strip, did not realize that the journey of forced displacement south would strip him of his most precious possessions, as an occupation raid ambushed his family last month while they were heading to Khan Yunis, turning their path into a scene of blood and rubble.

The little one woke up in the hospital to face a bitter reality. He learned of the martyrdom of his mother, Mariam, and his younger brother, Hamid, while his tender body struggled to survive after severe injuries. Rateb underwent five complex surgeries, including interventions in the liver, intestines, and stomach, and ended with the doctors' decision to amputate his leg to save his life, leaving him displaced in Deir al-Balah, watching the world from a bed of helplessness and orphanhood.

In the absence of prosthetics and the suffocating medical blockade imposed on the Strip, Rateb's family did not surrender to despair. Instead, his cousin Ahmed, with the help of relatives, took the initiative to create an alternative solution. They salvaged a plastic water pipe from sewage waste, cleaned it, cut it, and prepared it to be a rudimentary prosthetic limb, in an attempt to lift the child out of stagnation and give him a chance to stand again.

Although this plastic leg caused him to fall repeatedly, joy appeared on Rateb's face every time he managed to stand. These attempts were not just physical movements, but a declaration of a child's will to refuse to break before the war machine, and to try to cling to what remained of his childhood amidst tragic living and health conditions in displacement centers.

The heartache is evident when Rateb tries to join his friends in playing football, as the rudimentary limb fails him whenever he tries to kick the ball hard, causing him to fall to the ground amidst a sad silence. He watches his friends running and scoring goals in the dusty displacement camps, while he remains a prisoner of a simple dream of obtaining a real prosthetic limb that will return him to the ranks of players as he was before the injury.

Rateb Abu Qaliq's cry represents a humanitarian appeal highlighting the suffering of thousands of injured people in the Gaza Strip who lack the most basic medical rehabilitation. His dream of running again is not just a sporting desire, but an attempt to expel the images of bombing and destruction from his memory, and to reclaim a part of his life that the occupation stole, awaiting a day when he can chase the ball without his plastic leg betraying him.

Every time Rateb looks at his friends running, his heart aches with longing for his mother and brother, but he gets up again, trying to stand on his plastic leg.

US Vice President J.D. Vance confirmed that the first round of talks held in Switzerland between Washington and Tehran has laid a solid foundation for reaching a comprehensive settlement. Vance explained in press statements from the Bürgenstock resort that the ultimate goal is to put a definitive end to the military operations and armed conflict currently witnessed in the Middle East.

Vance used a constructive metaphor to describe the state of the negotiations, indicating that both parties succeeded in laying the basic foundations for what he described as 'the house,' referring to the final agreement. Despite his affirmation that the construction is not yet complete, he stressed that reaching this stage serves the interests of the American people and brings closer the distances towards lasting stability.

In the context of procedural steps, the US Vice President revealed that the Iranian authorities have agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to resume their activities within the country. Detailed discussions on inspection and monitoring mechanisms are expected to begin soon, likely starting this week as a gesture of goodwill.

Coinciding with these statements, the Iranian presidency announced that President Masoud Pezeshkian will head to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, for an official visit starting tomorrow, Tuesday. This visit aims to follow up on the outcomes of the mediation led by Pakistan between Tehran and Washington, which resulted in important initial understandings in recent days.

Habibullah Abbasi, an official in the Iranian presidency, stated that the discussions in Pakistan will focus on completing political consultations and solidifying the points of agreement reached in Switzerland. These intensive diplomatic moves come amidst a regional and international desire to de-escalate the prolonged military escalation that has caused devastating losses.

For his part, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the success of the Swiss round of negotiations, describing the atmosphere as positive and constructive. Sharif indicated that the parties agreed on a clear roadmap aimed at reaching a final and comprehensive agreement within just sixty days, reflecting the seriousness of the current path.

The proposed roadmap includes the establishment of a high-level committee tasked with direct political oversight of the negotiations and ensuring the implementation of commitments. Parallel technical talks will also commence to address thorny issues, including the nuclear file, security arrangements in international waterways, and the Strait of Hormuz.

Regarding public opinion, a recent poll conducted in the United States showed a division in the American public about the usefulness of the 'Islamabad Understanding.' While 37% of participants believed that the agreement serves Iran's interests more, 22% considered it to be in Washington's interest, amidst anticipation of what the coming days will bring.

Despite the disparity in assessing who benefits, the poll revealed an overwhelming desire among 78% of Americans to end the armed conflict with Iran and resort to diplomatic solutions. This percentage reflects increasing popular pressure on the US administration to end the military involvement that began in February 2026 and led to significant economic and human consequences.

Regarding the assessment of previous policies, an overwhelming majority of 69% expressed their belief that the war was not worth the exorbitant costs paid, while 64% opposed the way the Iranian file was managed during President Donald Trump's era. These figures confirm a radical shift in the American public's view of long-term foreign conflicts.

It is worth noting that the 'Islamabad Understanding,' signed by Presidents Pezeshkian and Trump in mid-June, represents the cornerstone of the current political path. The understanding addresses fundamental issues including ending the comprehensive war, resolving conflicts in Lebanon, and lifting restrictions on maritime navigation, thus opening the door to a new phase in the region.

We have laid a very serious foundation for a successful final agreement... The agreement is the house, we haven't built the house yet, but we have laid the foundation.

Great powers in history experience pivotal moments of transformation where the sound of their fall is not deafening, but rather creeps in like a hidden crack in the wall of an empire many thought was unbreakable. Anyone who reflects on the history of empires, from Italy to Britain, realizes that the danger was not always at the borders, but grew from within through the depletion of resources in endless wars and battles whose burdens accumulated until the state could no longer bear them.

Today, after decades of the United States' sole dominance at the pinnacle of the international system following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arises about Washington's ability to continue playing the role of 'world policeman'. The nation that inherited history in 1991 now finds itself immersed in military and security commitments extending from Europe to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, at a time when an Eastern rival is silently building its strength.

Estimates from reputable research institutions, such as Brown University, indicate that the total cost of American wars after the September 11th events has exceeded eight trillion dollars. These astronomical figures do not only reflect direct military spending but also include veteran care and debt interest, placing immense pressure on the American economy which faces structural challenges.

The real problem lies not only in the scale of spending but in the deep gap between the cost and the political outcomes on the ground. The war in Afghanistan, which lasted two decades, ended with the situation returning to what it was before the intervention, while Iraq turned into a complex regional conflict arena, proving that winning military battles is much easier than managing the peace that follows.

The recent war on the Gaza Strip revealed a new aspect of American exhaustion, as Washington found itself in an unprecedented moral and political dilemma. While trying to maintain its commitment to Israel, it faces international pressure and sharp criticism due to the scale of human devastation, leading to a gradual erosion of its 'soft power' that once distinguished it internationally.

The impact of the Gaza war was not limited to abroad but extended to the American interior through university protests and sharp political divisions among intellectual elites and youth. This division puts the image of the United States as a protector of international law and human rights to a severe test, as regaining lost trust in the eyes of the people may take decades.

In contrast, China has chosen a completely different path based on 'strategic patience' and focusing on the true sources of power in the modern era. Beijing has not engaged in external military adventures but has focused its efforts on building an industrial and technological base that today makes it produce about a third of global industrial output, a figure no economic power has reached before.

China has transformed from a poor agricultural country into a technological giant dominating global supply chains, from electronics to electric vehicles and clean energy. This economic rise has provided Beijing with a solid foundation to modernize its army and develop its missile and cyber arsenal, considering factories and ports an integral part of its strategic national security.

However, asserting an inevitable American decline or an absolute Chinese rise remains an oversimplification lacking accuracy, given the considerable tools of power the United States possesses. Washington still controls the global financial system through the dollar, possesses the most advanced research and university systems, in addition to the widest network of military alliances in contemporary history.

On the other hand, China faces internal challenges that may hinder its ambitions, most notably slowing economic growth and a worsening aging population crisis. Moreover, geopolitical tensions in its regional vicinity impose constant caution, making the struggle for world leadership a long race that depends on endurance and wise resource management.

The essence of the current international conflict is not about who possesses the strongest weapon today, but about who best renews their strength instead of consuming it in peripheral conflicts. When a nation is busy fighting battles in every corner of the globe, while its rival focuses on building infrastructure and research centers, the balance of power slowly shifts beneath the surface.

The tectonic plates of the international system move just as they do underground, where the effect of an earthquake only appears when the great moment of transformation is complete. Historically, empires are often the last to know when their decline begins, because they cling to the image of their old military superiority while actual influence slips through their fingers.

The question analysts are asking today is the extent of the United States' ability to avoid the fate of previous great powers by reordering its international priorities. Can Washington balance its global commitments with its need to renew its internal strategic reserves before the burdens of empire become heavier than its capacity to endure?

Ultimately, the international scene remains open to all possibilities, but what is constant is that a rising power rarely announces its moment of reaching the peak. It is busy creating a new reality on the ground, while the weary empire tries to repair its cracked walls in a world that no longer recognizes military power alone as a criterion for sovereignty.

Empires are not only exhausted when they are defeated, but also when they find themselves responsible for managing the consequences of the wars they have fought.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian leadership, emphasizing that the United States would not hesitate to take all necessary measures to ensure Tehran's adherence to its international commitments. Trump clarified that Washington is closely monitoring Iranian behavior and will not hesitate to act in a manner it deems appropriate to protect its interests and regional security.

These statements follow an intensive round of negotiations hosted at the Bürgenstock Resort in Switzerland last Sunday, bringing together delegations from the United States and Iran. These talks fall under what is known as the 'Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding,' primarily aimed at ending the declared US-Israeli state of war against Iranian targets.

For their part, Qatar and Pakistan, as key mediators in this diplomatic process, confirmed that the negotiations had made 'encouraging progress,' inspiring cautious optimism. The participating parties agreed to extend the discussions until the end of this week, with the establishment of a technical mechanism to follow up on outstanding issues and ensure the implementation of initial understandings.

In a press conference held on Monday, Trump responded to journalists' questions about the possibility of resorting to military force if the diplomatic path fails. He clearly stated that Iran's non-compliance with the agreement or inappropriate behavior would compel him to do 'what needs to be done,' a clear reference to the tough options the US administration has on the table.

Regarding concerns about a potential economic crisis or global recession resulting from possible military action, the US President downplayed these expectations. Trump considered that the threat posed by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon far outweighs any economic damage that might be inflicted on global markets, describing a nuclear weapon as an imminent and rapidly impactful danger.

Trump also revealed details concerning frozen Iranian funds that might be released as part of the deal, clarifying that they would be subject to strict conditions. He indicated that Tehran would be obliged to use this liquidity exclusively to purchase food products from the United States, which would directly benefit the American agricultural sector.

The US President further elaborated on his economic perspective, pointing out that Iran, with a population of about 91 million, suffers from severe food crises. Accordingly, the released funds would translate into massive purchases from American farmers, ensuring that these amounts are not diverted to finance military activities or destabilization.

In a related context, J.D. Vance, the US Vice President, made statements confirming that Washington would adopt the principle of 'actions, not words' in its assessment of the Iranian side. Vance expressed satisfaction with the progress made, especially regarding Tehran's preliminary agreement to allow international inspectors to monitor its controversial nuclear facilities.

Despite this satisfaction, Vance stressed that allowing inspectors access is merely a first step that requires scrutiny of the powers granted to them within Iranian sites. He affirmed that the United States would work to strengthen oversight mechanisms to ensure Iran's inability to develop a nuclear arsenal under any circumstances, emphasizing a lack of trust in verbal promises.

These developments conclude a complex political scene, where the relationship between Washington and Tehran oscillates between the language of military threat and opportunities for diplomatic settlement. The stakes remain high for what the coming days in Switzerland will bring, and the extent to which mediators can bridge the gap between the White House's demands and the Islamic Republic's conditions.

If Iran does not comply with its agreement, or if it does not act appropriately, I will do what I have to do.

Human rights sources reported that Israeli occupation forces carried out an arrest operation on Monday morning against a high school student from Hebron Governorate, just hours before he was scheduled to take his ministerial exam. The Palestinian Prisoner's Club clarified that the detainee is 18-year-old Fajar Ahmed Al-Mashni, from the town of Al-Shuyoukh, located northeast of the governorate, where he was taken to an unknown destination.

According to data issued by the Prisoner's Club, Al-Mashni's arrest raises the number of high school students detained in Israeli prisons to 66 students this year alone. This step comes at a time when thousands of Palestinian students are taking their final exams, which began last Saturday uniformly across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in a clear challenge to the ongoing war conditions.

Human rights organizations considered the targeting of students at this sensitive stage to be part of a systematic policy aimed at obstructing the educational process and destroying the future of Palestinian youth. Sources confirmed that Israeli authorities have escalated the pursuit of students at various educational levels since last October, with detainees subjected to harsh detention conditions, including abuse and deprivation of communication with their families.

In a related context, Hebron Governorate witnessed additional attacks, including the arrest of two brothers from the Masafer Yatta area to the south, coinciding with attacks carried out by settlers targeting and vandalizing citizens' property. These violations are part of a wide-ranging campaign launched by the Israeli army and settlers in the West Bank, which has resulted in the martyrdom of hundreds, the injury of thousands, and the displacement of entire families since late last year.

In occupied Jerusalem, occupation forces arrested a child from the town of Silwan, south of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, amid ongoing incursions and raids on Palestinian villages and towns. Official reports confirm that the number of detainees in the West Bank has approached the 23,000 mark since the beginning of the latest escalation, reflecting the scale of the security campaign targeting all segments of Palestinian society.

Official statistics indicate that the West Bank has lost 1,173 martyrs since October 2023, while the number of injuries has exceeded 12,666 cases, amid extremely complex humanitarian and economic conditions. High school exams continue in the West Bank until July 8, while they extend in the Gaza Strip until the end of the same month, despite the massive destruction that has affected educational institutions there.

The Prisoner's Club stressed that students inside prisons face multiplied challenges, as they are deprived of their basic right to education guaranteed by international laws, in addition to being subjected to physical and psychological torture methods. Human rights bodies called on the international community to intervene immediately to stop the targeting of the educational process and protect Palestinian students from arbitrary arrests that pursue them even in examination halls.

The continued detention of high school students represents a direct violation of their right to education and reflects a systematic policy targeting the educational path of Palestinians.

The political leadership in Israel has issued new directives imposing clear restrictions on the movements of the Israeli army in southern Lebanon, a step reflecting increasing pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump. These pressures aim to push Tel Aviv to adhere to the terms of the memorandum of understanding concluded with Iran to end the conflict and pave the way for comprehensive negotiations on contentious issues in the region.

Media sources reported that the new regulations define the army's scope of operations within what is known as the 'Yellow Line' only, for the purpose of confronting direct and immediate threats. In contrast, these directives prohibit the execution of any military operations in distant areas or deep inside Lebanese territory, specifically in the cities of Beirut and Tyre, thereby reducing the maneuverability previously available.

Reports indicate that this step reflects a new direction for the Trump administration aimed at curbing Israeli military excesses not only in the Lebanese arena but also on multiple other fronts. Sources quoted a senior Israeli official as saying that recent American messages were firm regarding the end of the right to military action without prior restrictions.

This new American approach directly contradicts previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who repeatedly affirmed that his army has complete freedom to operate in the Lebanese security sector. Netanyahu had stressed in video recordings that military operations would continue without a time or spatial limit to ensure the security of northern residents.

In a related context, press reports revealed a deep divergence in views between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding handling the Lebanese file and its regional repercussions. The United States believes that the stability of southern Lebanon is linked to major issues such as navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz and the stability of global energy prices, in addition to the Iranian nuclear file.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government views any retreat or withdrawal from areas it controlled in southern Lebanon as a sign of weakness that Hezbollah might exploit to strengthen its position. Military circles in Tel Aviv fear that these restrictions could lead to the loss of field gains achieved during military confrontations that erupted in the last two years.

This shift comes after the US-Iran agreement came into effect on June 18, an agreement signed by Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian. The agreement includes an explicit clause emphasizing the need to respect Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty, placing Israel before new international obligations that did not exist before.

On the Gaza Strip front, Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir discussed with senior military commanders the possibility of launching a wide-ranging operation aimed at disarming the Hamas movement. These moves come amid Israeli intelligence reports indicating the increasing influence and organizational capabilities of the movement within the Strip despite years of protracted war.

Despite the proposed military plans, there is a state of concern within the Israeli security establishment regarding President Trump's stance on any widespread escalation in Gaza. Estimates anticipate that the White House will oppose any major military operation that could undermine new regional understandings, or show unexpected flexibility regarding the issue of factional weapons.

On the ground, the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, signed in October 2025, continues to witness daily Israeli violations in the form of intermittent shelling and gunfire. These continuous violations have resulted in hundreds of martyrs and wounded, threatening the collapse of the fragile calm that followed a devastating war lasting more than two years.

It is worth noting that the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 2023 has resulted in a heavy toll exceeding 73,000 martyrs and more than 173,000 wounded. Military operations have also caused the destruction of nearly 90% of civilian infrastructure, leaving the Strip in an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in modern history.

International political circles are monitoring the extent of Israel's commitment to the new American restrictions and whether they will effectively lead to de-escalation in the region. It appears that the coming phase will witness a conflict between the Israeli desire for military decisive action and the American vision seeking to achieve major diplomatic accomplishments before the upcoming elections.

The message we received in recent weeks from the Americans is clear: you had the right to operate without restrictions, and that has ended.

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 23/6/2026

News Analysis

In a notable shift in American policy, President Donald Trump's administration announced on Monday a temporary lifting of oil sanctions on Iran for sixty days, allowing the purchase of Iranian crude with US dollars. This move could grant Tehran significant financial revenues after years of selling at discounts to buyers avoiding sanctions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the decision was the culmination of "continuous and fruitful" talks in Bürgenstock, Switzerland. Vice President J.D. Vance, the chief US negotiator, confirmed that Iran had agreed to receive UN inspectors at its nuclear sites, describing it as a "major achievement for the American people." However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqaei quickly denied that Tehran had made any new commitments, emphasizing that cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency would remain governed solely by "existing procedures." The Agency has not yet commented on Trump's and Vance's statements, casting thick shadows over the essence of the announced understandings.

The contradiction between American statements and Tehran's denial highlights the core of the dilemma: while the Trump administration seeks to market a quick diplomatic achievement that allows for a partial lifting of sanctions, Iran adheres to its traditional rhetoric rejecting any new concessions. This gap reflects a lack of solid trust after years of military escalation and assassinations. Without an independent and binding verification mechanism, the oil waiver could turn into a tactical maneuver that repeats the collapse of the 2015 agreement, and reliance on good intentions remains fragile given Tehran's insistence that it has made no new commitments. Experts warn that the American gamble could backfire if promises are not translated into inspections.

Vance added that the Geneva talks, which began on Sunday and were overseen by Qatari and Pakistani mediators, laid a "very good foundation" for a final peace agreement. He unveiled the establishment of direct communication channels to de-escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and in Lebanon, where the intensity of clashes between Israel and Hezbollah has decreased. Vance considered these arrangements to prevent the "situation from getting out of control," noting that Iran had pledged to ensure freedom of navigation in the vital waterway that was closed during the June 2025 war, which drove global energy prices higher.

On the ground, these developments follow the 12-day lightning war in the summer of 2025, in which Israel and the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, leading to the expulsion of IAEA inspectors. Since then, the fate of highly enriched uranium quantities, which Tehran claims were destroyed or buried, has been shrouded in mystery. Under the memorandum of understanding signed last week, Iran agreed to reduce that stockpile under Agency supervision, in a step aimed at restoring international confidence. Tehran had accused the IAEA of providing political cover for the Israeli-American raids after a resolution accusing it of non-compliance. Analysts believe that Iran's insistence on the right to enrichment, despite its commitment to reducing the stockpile, reflects its desire to maintain its nuclear infrastructure as a strategic bargaining chip. But President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated that his country "will not back down an inch" from its right to peaceful enrichment.

As for the economic package, the US Treasury Department issued a 60-day license allowing the production, delivery, and sale of Iranian oil, which grants Tehran much-needed dollar liquidity. In parallel, Iranian Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati announced the signing of memoranda to begin the release of $24 billion in frozen assets. However, US officials did not confirm this step, and Vance stipulated that any released funds be directed to purchase American goods such as soybeans and wheat, with a ban on their use to finance terrorism, an idea he attributed to Jared Kushner, with Washington and Doha overseeing the mechanism.

The temporary exemption from oil sanctions represents a lifeline for a suffocated Iranian economy, but the details of the agreement show that Washington has not given Tehran a blank check. Linking the release of frozen assets to the purchase of American agricultural products serves Trump's electoral base, turning the crisis into an opportunity to support American farmers. In return, the influx of dollars gives Iran liquidity that may alleviate internal protests, but it keeps it at the mercy of the expiration of the sixty-day deadline, which could end with the return of sanctions if nuclear inspections falter, making the recovery fragile and dependent on commitments whose seriousness has not yet been proven. Thus, it becomes a dual pressure tool in Washington's hands.

It is worth noting that the partial lifting of sanctions and the allowance of inspections practically restore the core of the 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, describing it as the "worst deal in history." Diplomatic circles fear that conflicting interpretations could lead to the collapse of the negotiation process, similar to what happened previously, especially since Iran began reducing its inspection cooperation after the US withdrawal, and then stopped it completely after the 2025 bombing.

Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the war represented a geostrategic weapon that disrupted global energy markets. Today, Washington offers financial rewards for reopening the vital passage, an implicit acknowledgment that military deterrence alone is not enough. However, linking oil flow to inspection commitments places global energy security at the mercy of fragile negotiations. If the closure scenario is repeated in the future, the Trump administration will face two difficult choices: returning to maximum pressure, which failed previously, or making additional concessions that might encourage Tehran to use the Strait as a permanent blackmail tool. Thus, Washington moves from being a hostage of escalation to a hostage of timed de-escalation.

Nevertheless, the gap between American victory rhetoric and Iran's adherence to red lines makes it premature to speak of a real breakthrough. While awaiting the outcome of the next sixty days, the world cautiously watches this new test of intentions between Washington and Tehran. While Trump sees the oil waiver as a passport to a diplomatic legacy that ends decades of hostility, Tehran treats it as an entitlement for its steadfastness under the weight of "maximum pressure." Between two conflicting narratives, only facts on the ground can confirm whether peace is truly under construction, or if we are facing a tactical truce that hides embers that have not yet been extinguished beneath its ashes.

Hebrew sources reported that the security establishment in Israel is considering the possibility of a US decision for a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from areas in southern Lebanon. This development coincides with the start of a new round of indirect talks, aimed at formulating initial concepts for the deployment of the Lebanese army in those areas within the framework of an internationally supported pilot program.

These discussions are scheduled to take place in Washington with the participation of ambassadors from both sides and high-ranking officers with the rank of brigadier general, under direct American patronage. The meetings, which will continue until June 25, aim to bridge the gap between Israeli security demands and international pressure to end the military presence deep within Lebanese territory.

Israeli assessments indicate that the US administration may demand the Israeli army withdraw from some positions in what is known as the 'security zone' as a confidence-building measure. This measure would pave the way for Lebanese army units to deploy and assume security tasks, which Washington sees as a necessary step for the stability of the border region.

On the ground, reports have monitored Israeli army movements over the past twenty-four hours, with units beginning to reorganize their ranks and move some field sectors. These forces await decisions from the political level that will determine the shape of future military deployment in light of increasing diplomatic pressure.

Media sources quoted a senior Israeli official as saying that messages received from Washington in recent weeks have been firm and clear. The official confirmed that the previous authorization that granted Israel freedom of military action without restrictions in Lebanese territory has effectively ended, imposing a new reality on the negotiating table.

In a related context, press reports revealed a deep divergence in views between Tel Aviv and Washington regarding the future of southern Lebanon. While the US administration views the issue from a regional perspective that includes navigation and energy security, Israel focuses on preventing any political or moral gains that Hezbollah might achieve as a result of a withdrawal.

US President Donald Trump's administration seeks to achieve a quick diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East that links complex issues including Iran and the security of waterways. This American ambition clashes with an Israeli view that sees an early withdrawal as an indication of military retreat and a weakening of the field position against Lebanese factions.

Despite these pressures, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security minister, Yisrael Katz, issued a joint statement affirming the continued occupation of the so-called 'security zone'. The statement, in which Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir participated, stressed that the army would continue to work to prevent any threats targeting northern settlements or the forces stationed there.

This rigid Israeli stance comes despite the entry into force of the US-Iranian memorandum, which explicitly stipulates respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It appears that the Israeli leadership is trying to balance external pressures with internal criticism accusing the government of restricting the army's freedom of action on the northern front.

Informed sources clarified that the last meeting, which included the Northern Command, focused on the necessity of maintaining field security superiority regardless of the results of political negotiations. Netanyahu affirmed that the security of Israelis remains the top priority, indicating that no concessions would be made that would affect the army's deterrent capability in confronting border threats.

In conclusion, these developments reflect a state of cautious anticipation in political and military circles, as everyone awaits the results of the fifth Washington round. While Israel insists on the presence of its forces, international powers are pushing to impose a new reality based on recently signed agreements, leaving the region facing open scenarios.

American messages that reached Tel Aviv made it clear that the previous authorization for unrestricted movement in Lebanon has ended.

British Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, renewed his attack on his country's foreign policy, emphasizing the necessity of not overlooking the support provided by Keir Starmer's government for what he described as 'genocide' in the Gaza Strip, coinciding with the latter's departure from office.

Corbyn announced via his official account on the 'X' platform the reintroduction of a bill aimed at opening an independent and comprehensive inquiry into the nature of British complicity in the crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, stressing that these events represent the greatest crime in modern times and cannot be overlooked without legal accountability.

This parliamentary move comes within the framework of continuous pressure exerted by the left-wing current in Britain to reveal the extent of military and political support provided by London to the Israeli occupation during the war, amidst popular and human rights demands to stop arms exports and ensure the government's adherence to international law.

"We will never forget the role played by the Starmer government in the greatest crime of our era, and I have reintroduced my bill for an independent inquiry into Britain's complicity."

Recent navigation data has indicated a gradual improvement in the movement of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers through the Strait of Hormuz today, Monday. This development comes after a state of partial paralysis and slowdown that prevailed in the strategic waterway following the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's announcement of the strait's re-closure earlier this week.

Informed sources reported that the recent Iranian move was a direct response to attacks launched by Israel on Lebanese territories, which led to an immediate decline in the number of passing ships. Tehran had ended a previous closure of the strait last week after understandings with Washington that stipulated a 60-day ceasefire extension to open the door for diplomatic negotiations.

Analysis by 'Kpler,' a company specializing in ship tracking, showed that four Qatari LNG tankers headed towards the strait today, Monday. This is the first time these tankers, namely 'Wadi Al Sail,' 'Mekaines,' 'Al Sadd,' and 'Mesaimeer,' have passed through the Iranian route since the recent military tensions began in the region.

In a related context, two giant tankers, each with a capacity of two million barrels of crude oil, entered the Gulf waters, with one of them announcing its final destination as the Iraqi port of Basra. These movements reflect shipping companies' desire to resume operations despite high security risks and continuous threats of closing the waterway.

For its part, the 'Marine Traffic' platform indicated that two smaller crude oil tankers departed the strait towards the Gulf of Oman, carrying a total of two million barrels of crude. This coincided with a report by 'Clarkson's' shipping brokerage firm confirming that the general trend of navigation has started to become positive, although the number of ships remains below pre-conflict levels.

Kpler data revealed a sharp disparity in traffic, with only five ships crossing the strait on Sunday, compared to about 26 ships the previous day. The passing ships included three giant tankers carrying Saudi crude oil and fuel oil, one of which was en route to Japanese ports.

The Joint Maritime Information Center, led by the US Navy, confirmed a significant increase in commercial navigation traffic using the southern routes through Oman's territorial waters. The statement also indicated that some ships continue their course through the northern passage under Iranian control, suggesting a kind of undeclared de-escalation on the ground.

Regarding Iranian exports, the head of the National Iranian Oil Company stated that more than 25 million barrels of oil have crossed the 'siege line' since last Monday. London Stock Exchange data monitored the departure of three sanctioned giant tankers, 'Elfa,' 'Virgo,' and 'Vigor,' loaded with Iranian oil from Kharg Island.

In an attempt to secure energy supplies, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Kuwait Oil Company offered tenders for crude oil sales with flexible loading options. These options include the possibility of loading from within the Strait of Hormuz or from external terminals to avoid any sudden disruption that might affect navigation in the waterway.

The South Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries announced that two of its vessels successfully crossed the strait following the signing of a temporary ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran. The ministry did not disclose the names of the vessels for security reasons, amid the continued caution among global shipping companies.

In Japan, a spokesperson for the Shipowners' Association stated that the number of Japanese-linked ships in the Gulf region has decreased to 37 vessels. This figure represents a decline compared to about 45 vessels present in the region at the start of the military conflict, reflecting Tokyo's risk reduction strategy.

Navigation data showed that two gas tankers controlled by ADNOC, 'Al Hamra' and 'Mubaraz,' delivered shipments to gas terminals in India today, Monday. These two tankers had undertaken what were described as 'dark' voyages, where their Automatic Identification System (AIS) was turned off while crossing sensitive areas in the strait.

Sources in the shipping sector explained that ships resorting to turning off transponders has become a common tactic to avoid targeting or detection amid current tensions. This measure sometimes leads to a lack of accurate data available to global tracking systems, meaning the actual number of passing ships may be higher than recorded.

Finally, the US Central Command stated that on Saturday, 55 commercial vessels crossed the strait, carrying more than 17 million barrels of oil for global markets. This convoy included giant tankers from the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq, confirming the continued flow of global energy supplies despite repeated Iranian threats.

Daily ship traffic remains below 125 vessels, which is the usual rate before the outbreak of hostilities, but the general trend is positive.

These are not ordinary manifestations that are sweeping the Israeli settler society, manifestations that indicate a state of anxiety, tension, and a search for exits to address the unclear predicament that is sweeping Israeli society, certainly carrying a state of contradiction in dealing with Palestinian society. These manifestations are not limited to one area over another, to the 48 areas, without the 67 areas, but there is an unannounced acknowledgment that Israeli superiority, expansion, settlement, and oppression have not abolished the Palestinian people, nor have they ended them, which is an expression of the strategic failure of the Israeli settler project that managed to occupy the entire map of Palestine, but failed to expel, displace, and deport the entire Palestinian people. Unprecedented manifestations, even if heterogeneous, but they all pour into one stream, which is the existence of a Palestinian people, whom the settler project, with all its components, capabilities, and superiority, has not been able to end, and the impact of this existence on the components of Israeli society. Initially, slight manifestations, attempts to create and acknowledge the existence of two parties, Israeli and Palestinian, Arab and Hebrew, among the existing human condition in the 48 areas, and if we exclude the experience of Zionist parties, from the Labor Party, to the Likud, and the Meretz movement and others, and their repeated attempts to win Palestinian tools in their ranks, which practically diminished after the Land Day uprising in 1976, which formed a state of awakening led by the Communist Party and the Democratic Front, and the emergence of Arab parties at the beginning of the nineties: the Arab Democratic Party, the Islamic Movement, the National Democratic Assembly, the Arab Movement for Change, the Arab Nationalist Party, and the Sons of the Village movement and others, and the significance of this and its striking impact is that the Palestinian vote reached 54% in favor of Zionist parties, and decreased in 2022 to only 13%. The first prominent phenomenon is the birth of organizations, however small and modest they may seem, but they reflect a state of focus on combining the Israeli element with the Palestinian element, Arab with Hebrew, with emerging parties that do not yet have popular credibility, but these are ongoing attempts: 1- The "All its Citizens" party, led by Avraham Burg, former Speaker of the Knesset. 2- The "Together We Succeed" party, led by Israeli businessman Avi Shaked. 3- "A Place for All of Us," led by Rula Daoud and political activist Alon Lee Green. These emerging party attempts clearly carry a partnership between the Israeli and Palestinian parties, Hebrew and Arab, similar to the Communist Party, which has made deep strides and now has credibility in partnership and members of the Knesset from both sides, but the ongoing attempts reflect the realization that there are two parties that have become partners, neither of whom has been able to eliminate the other, or end its existence despite the deep political, economic, national, and ethnic differences between the two parties due to the legacy of authoritarianism, oppression, and cancellation of everything Palestinian and Arab in the 48 areas, but the initial acknowledgment through these party attempts reflects a state of development that the careful observer cannot overlook or underestimate its motives, or not consider it as an indication of the Israeli party's acknowledgment of the existence of a partner it has not been able to expel and cancel its existence on its homeland, which it has no other. This phenomenon will have consequences, especially since Arab parties have failed to penetrate Israeli society and gain an Israeli partnership working within their ranks, with the exception of the Communist Party, in order to achieve equality in the 48 areas, and independence and an end to the occupation in the 67 areas.

The most dangerous ideologies are not only those that glorify war, but those that are unable to imagine a world outside of it. When war transforms from an exceptional tool into a permanent lens for understanding reality, peace itself becomes suspect, and any attempt at a settlement turns into a threat to be resisted, not an opportunity to be seized.

This phenomenon is not merely a psychological or rhetorical matter, but a deep political problem that affects the fate of peoples and nations. Nations that succeed in transforming their power into peace build long-term stability, while nations that remain captive to the logic of perpetual conflict find themselves unable to reap the fruits of their power, no matter how great.

From this perspective, one of the most prominent contradictions in the contemporary Israeli scene can be understood. For many decades, Israel has presented itself as a strong, stable, and well-established state, possessing clear military, technological, and economic superiority, and enjoying widespread international recognition and growing relations with many countries. However, this image is accompanied at the same time by a continuous fear of any real historical settlement with the Palestinians, as if peace itself has become an existential threat.

Here arises a question that is difficult to ignore: If Israel is confident in its legitimacy and its ability to endure, why does peace seem so frightening?

A self-confident state does not fear political settlements; rather, it seeks them when it realizes that continued conflict consumes its resources and restricts its future. But when every peace initiative becomes a source of suspicion, every mention of Palestinian rights a cause for concern, and every potential settlement a step towards an "existential danger," the issue is no longer related to security alone, but extends to the nature of the relationship with the concept of legitimacy itself.

In this context, the spread of discourses that treat any initiative to stop the war or reduce tension as a prelude to a strategic catastrophe can be understood. In this type of thinking, peace is not seen as a means to achieve security, but as a danger that could destabilize an entire system built on the continuation of conflict.

The real problem is that this discourse does not treat peace as a political possibility that can succeed or fail, but as impossible in principle. Here, the discussion shifts from evaluating facts to defending a closed political doctrine. If a war breaks out, it is said to be proof of the impossibility of peace; if a truce succeeds, it is said to be merely a temporary trick; and if a settlement lasts for decades, it is said to be the result of a balance of power, not the agreement itself.

And when all facts become evidence for the same hypothesis, the hypothesis turns into a doctrine, not a political analysis.

This mentality is not new. It has appeared in many historical experiences of states and movements that have lived through long conflicts until they began to see the world from a purely security perspective. In the modern Israeli case, the ideas of the "Iron Wall" have left a deep impact on shaping part of the Israeli strategic mind, as they started from the assumption that the adversary would not voluntarily accept the existing reality, and that the only way to impose it is through overwhelming military superiority.

This perception has contributed to entrenching the idea that security is achieved primarily through force, and that political settlements come later. However, the problem arises when this idea transforms from a tool into a doctrine, from a means to an end, and from a circumstantial strategy to a comprehensive worldview.

Military force can deter adversaries, prevent defeat, and impose facts, but it cannot by itself produce legitimacy. It can control land, but it cannot by itself produce political acceptance or end the deep causes of conflict. This is why many great powers throughout history have failed to transform their military victories into lasting stability.

Here lies the fundamental paradox in the Israeli case. The more Israeli military superiority increased, it was theoretically supposed that the ability to move from managing the conflict to resolving it would also increase. But what often happened was the opposite; superiority itself became a justification for postponing political solutions instead of using it to establish sustainable peace.

The result is that peace has become, in the view of some currents, more disturbing than war itself. War allows for the postponement of difficult questions, while peace compels answering them. War allows for managing reality, while peace requires reshaping it. War keeps major issues pending, while peace necessitates dealing with borders, sovereignty, rights, and mutual recognition.

Therefore, the fear of peace does not only reveal a security crisis, but also a crisis of political trust. A state confident in its legitimacy does not fear mutual recognition, nor does it see the legitimate rights of another people as a threat to its existence. But when the mere recognition of Palestinian rights is viewed as a strategic danger, the question becomes: What is truly frightening? Peace, or what peace might reveal?

Self-confident states do not fear recognizing others, because they do not see their rights as a negation of their own. But when the recognition of another people's rights is presented as an existential threat, it suggests that the political identity still views its existence as a project that needs continuous conflict to justify itself. Here, peace becomes a test of self-confidence before it is a test of security.

True legitimacy is not measured by a state's ability to impose a fait accompli by force, but by its ability to transform this reality into a stable political order that enjoys a degree of acceptance and recognition. Therefore, what weakens the world's trust in the justice and sustainability of the legitimacy on which Israel is based is not the search for a just settlement with the Palestinians, but the insistence on managing the conflict indefinitely.

States confident in their existence seek to end wars, not to turn them into a permanent state. States confident in their legitimacy do not see peace as a threat, but as an opportunity to consolidate that legitimacy on more stable foundations.

Therefore, the question facing Israel today is not whether peace serves the Palestinians or not, but whether the continued fear of peace reveals, in its essence, a deep crisis of confidence in the ability of the Israeli project itself to live under a just and stable peace. History teaches us that force can impose facts, but it cannot by itself produce legitimacy. Sustainable legitimacy, however, is born when states have the courage to move from the logic of permanent war to the logic of peace that recognizes rights and establishes stability.

Here lies the great paradox: the more peace is presented as a threat, the more questions arise about the extent of trust in the foundations that peace itself is supposed to consecrate. A state that possesses a strong army, an advanced economy, and broad international alliances, and then sees peace as an existential danger, does not only reveal security fears, but a deeper anxiety related to its ability to transform power into stable legitimacy.

Force can impose reality, but it cannot by itself convince others of its justice. It can ensure survival for long periods, but it cannot by itself produce the political and moral acceptance that gives any historical project long-term stability. Therefore, peace, not war, remains the true test for any political project that claims confidence in itself and its future.

The question that will remain as long as the conflict persists is not whether the Palestinians need peace, but whether Israel is truly ready to test the confidence it claims to possess. Because a just peace not only tests the strength of states, but also tests the extent of their belief in the legitimacy of their foundations and their ability to coexist with the rights of others without fear or suspicion.

And whoever fears this test for too long may discover that the problem was never in peace itself, but in the questions that peace reveals when its time comes. A state that trusts in the justice of its cause does not fear settlement, and a state that trusts in the legitimacy of its existence does not see the recognition of others' rights as a threat to itself. But when peace becomes a constant source of fear, the question is no longer about the intentions of adversaries or the balance of power, but about the extent of trust in the foundation that this peace is intended to consecrate and grant stability and continuity.

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The fundamental American message is to affirm that Israel is an important partner, but it is not the decision-maker in defining American interests or directing its regional policies.Yasser Manna: The escalation of disputes between Trump and Netanyahu reflects a clear divergence in defining interests and political goals, but it does not undermine the foundations of the strategic relationship.Nizar Nazzal: Talk of the American administration seeking political alternatives to Netanyahu reflects a decline in the level of personal and political trust in the current Israeli leadership.Fayez Abbas: Trump has become more skeptical of Netanyahu's policies, and repeated calls and Israeli attempts at justification no longer receive the same response within the White House.Suleiman Bisharat: The American administration realizes that continued conflicts threaten its traditional influence in the Middle East and give rival powers, primarily China, wider opportunities.Mohammed Abu Allan Dragmeh: The tension may negatively impact Netanyahu's future and his chances of forming a new government, but it will not affect the core of strategic relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

US-Israeli relations are witnessing an unprecedented phase of political tension with the escalation of public disputes between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a development that indicates increasing divergences in defining interests and regional priorities, especially regarding the Iranian file and the future of political and security arrangements in the Middle East.These disputes, according to writers, political analysts, and specialists in separate conversations with "Al-Quds," go beyond the personal dimension between Trump and Netanyahu to touch upon strategic issues related to managing regional conflicts and the limits of Israeli influence on American decision-making, amidst indications that Washington is seeking to readjust its relationship with Tel Aviv in line with its direct interests and internal and external calculations, without this meaning undermining the foundations of the historical alliance between the two parties.In light of the ongoing wars and tensions in the region, questions are increasing about the repercussions of this divergence on Netanyahu's political future and on Israel's ability to influence the American administration's orientations, while Washington appears more inclined to contain crises through political and diplomatic channels, at a time when it is trying to protect its regional influence and confront escalating international challenges, making the current phase an important test for the nature of the relationship between the two allies and the limits of the interests that govern it.A different phase from previous disputesWriter and political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh believes that the escalating disputes between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represent a different phase from previous disputes witnessed in US-Israeli relations, not only because of their nature and intensity, but also because they are taking place between Netanyahu and the person he has always considered the closest and most supportive ally of Israel in US history.Abu Ghosh points out that Netanyahu largely built his political bets on Trump and declared his alignment with him in various American election stages, whether during his competition with Joe Biden or later with Kamala Harris.Abu Ghosh confirms that the current causes of the dispute combine personal, political, and strategic factors; on a personal level, accusations emerged within American circles that Netanyahu provided Trump with misleading assessments regarding the war on Iran, convincing him that achieving the war's objectives would be guaranteed by targeting Iranian leaders and mobilizing opposition forces against the regime.Abu Ghosh indicates that American military and intelligence circles opposed this approach, but the Israeli government pushed for the option of confrontation based on intelligence reports and pressure from influential figures within the American administration.According to Abu Ghosh, the United States had multiple political and diplomatic alternatives, and a number of its European and regional allies did not support the option of war, which later contributed to deepening the gap between the American administration and the Israeli government when the war did not achieve the results that were being promoted.Abu Ghosh explains that the dispute widened further with the approach of reaching political understandings, as Washington accused Netanyahu's government of seeking to obstruct any negotiation path and return the region to an atmosphere of military confrontation.Resorting to reducing Netanyahu's roleAccording to Abu Ghosh, the American administration resorted to reducing Netanyahu's role in some sensitive contacts and negotiations, while the Israeli government tried to influence American decision-making through pressure groups and its supportive lobbies within the United States.Abu Ghosh points out that American media reports spoke of organized Israeli moves to influence the course of proposed agreements through pressure groups and influential figures within Congress, which caused increasing resentment within the American administration, which considered interference in the American internal political arena a crossing of red lines.Disputes do not affect the core of the strategic relationshipDespite this, Abu Ghosh confirms that these disputes do not affect the core of the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel, explaining that the relationship between the two parties is deeper than individuals and governments, and is linked to established strategic interests and roles. Abu Ghosh believes that the fundamental American message to Netanyahu is to affirm that Israel is an important partner, but it is not the decision-maker in defining American interests or directing its regional policies.Abu Ghosh points out that Netanyahu, despite his objections to any American-Iranian understanding, does not have a wide margin to confront American will, and therefore will continue his attempts to influence the course of negotiations and the drafting of final agreements through political and media means and pro-Israel lobbies, while seeking to exploit any loopholes or different interpretations of the agreed texts.More hardline behavior from NetanyahuAbu Ghosh notes that the next phase may witness more hardline behavior from Netanyahu as Israeli election deadlines approach, in light of his declining political chances according to opinion polls.Abu Ghosh indicates that some Israeli circles fear that Netanyahu may resort to escalatory options in Gaza or Lebanon, or push for unilateral measures in the West Bank, in an attempt to strengthen his political position.Abu Ghosh believes that Netanyahu will remain compelled to adapt to the new American ceiling, while Washington continues to readjust the relationship to ensure the protection of its strategic interests and prevent any party from imposing its own agenda on American decision-making.Clear divergence in defining interestsWriter and researcher specializing in Israeli affairs Yasser Manna believes that the escalating disputes between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflect a clear divergence in defining interests and political goals between the two sides, but it does not rise to the level of undermining the foundations of the strategic relationship or American support for Israel.Manna explains that Netanyahu continues to bet on a policy of military pressure and prolonging the confrontation, considering it part of his political survival equation and strengthening his internal image as a leader who leads a continuous state of conflict, while the Trump administration tends to invest military results in formulating political and security arrangements aimed at stabilizing regional conditions and preventing a slide into wider confrontations.Manna indicates that what is being circulated about searching for an alternative to Netanyahu carries a political pressure message more than a strategic shift, meaning that Washington may disagree with the Israeli prime minister and pressure him, but it distinguishes between its position on him personally and its firm commitment to Israel.Scenario of containing the disputeManna suggests that the scenario of containing the dispute and continuing coordination between the two parties is the most likely, with the possibility of escalating American pressure if Washington considers that Netanyahu is obstructing paths of de-escalation or regional understandings.Manna believes that the success of these pressures may open the way for limited settlements and reduce the chances of escalation, while their failure may lead to new rounds of tension in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, emphasizing that the importance of this dispute goes beyond the bilateral framework due to its repercussions on energy security, navigation, and regional and international stability.A shift in the nature of the relationship between Washington and Tel AvivResearcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues Nizar Nazzal explains that the increasing indicators of escalating dispute between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflect an important shift in the nature of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, although these disputes have not yet reached the level of strategic rupture between the two parties.Nazzal points out that US-Israeli relations have witnessed in previous stages divergences and tensions with different American presidents, but what distinguishes the current phase is that the disputes have become public and personal, and are directly related to the management of the war, the Iranian file, and a number of other regional issues, which gives them broader political and strategic dimensions.Nazzal notes that talk of the American administration searching for political alternatives to Netanyahu reflects a decline in the level of personal and political trust in the current Israeli leadership, indicating that Washington has come to view Netanyahu as a burden on its regional project, at a time when the United States is seeking to end open wars and devote itself to confronting major international challenges, primarily competition with China, in addition to advancing regional normalization paths.The dispute over how to deal with the Iranian fileAccording to Nazzal, the most prominent dispute revolves around how to deal with the Iranian file, as Netanyahu continues to push for continued pressure and military confrontation, while Trump appears more inclined towards reaching understandings or political deals that prevent the conflict from widening.Nazzal points out that military confrontation with Iran did not achieve the desired results, but rather led to widespread economic and security repercussions that affected American interests, which reinforced the American administration's desire to avoid returning to the path of war.Nazzal believes that electoral calculations play an important role in this divergence, as continued escalation may serve Netanyahu domestically, while it does not serve Trump's interests as American political deadlines approach, amidst fears of growing Democratic influence in Congress.Nazzal indicates that the most likely scenario is to contain the disputes and maintain military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries, given the depth of the US-Israeli alliance and its connection to American state institutions, not just individuals.Rise of alternative Israeli figuresNazzal points to the possibility of weakening Netanyahu's position and the rise of alternative Israeli figures, while the scenario of the dispute turning into a comprehensive strategic crisis remains the least likely, despite being the most dangerous.Nazzal believes that the region is entering a phase of political and regional repositioning that reflects Netanyahu's declining ability to fully impose his agenda on Washington, and indicates the beginning of a clearer American discussion about the future of the Israeli leadership and the shape of future regional arrangements.Netanyahu's contribution to the confrontation with IranWriter specializing in Israeli affairs Fayez Abbas believes that the relationship between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is undergoing a remarkable transformation, in light of the growing conviction within the American administration that Netanyahu contributed to pushing Washington towards a confrontation with Iran without being able to achieve the goals he announced for that war, which was reflected in the nature of the relationship between the two sides during the recent period.Abbas points out that Netanyahu, who entered the war on Iran betting on continued full American support, is now looking for a way out of its repercussions after failing to achieve decisive results. Abbas indicates that Netanyahu tried, during the past period, to obstruct any American-Iranian understanding that could lead to an end to the state of hostility between the two countries, benefiting from various regional files, primarily the Lebanese arena.According to Abbas, Netanyahu believed that his close relationship with Trump would give him the ability to convince the American administration to continue pressure and confrontation with Iran, but the positions of influential figures within the White House, along with growing popular opposition to continued escalation, pushed Washington towards adopting a more serious negotiating path, leading to the signing of understandings and the start of direct talks between the two sides.Abbas notes that the Israeli escalation in Lebanon and the subsequent Iranian threats related to regional navigation and energy raised the concern of the American administration, which prompted it to demand that Israel stop military operations, which the Israeli government ultimately responded to.Trump more skeptical of Netanyahu's policiesAbbas confirms that Trump has become more skeptical of Netanyahu's policies, indicating that repeated calls and Israeli attempts at justification no longer receive the same response within the White House.Abbas believes that the coming weeks may be decisive for Netanyahu's political future, especially if American efforts succeed in reaching a comprehensive peace agreement with Iran or developing relations between the two parties, considering that such a development could be a harsh political blow to Netanyahu and place him before unprecedented challenges on the domestic scene.Public disputes reflect deeper transformationsWriter and political analyst Suleiman Bisharat believes that the escalating disputes between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are no longer just fleeting differences in positions, but have turned into public disputes that reflect deeper transformations in the nature of the relationship between the two parties, indicating that the transfer of these disputes to the media and mutual statements reflects the existence of internal political and electoral calculations on both sides.Bisharat explains that Trump and the Republican Party are preparing for the upcoming midterm elections in the United States, while Netanyahu and his partners in the Israeli right are preparing for any potential election, which pushes both parties to try to deny the accusations leveled against them regarding dependence on the other party.Bisharat notes that Trump faces internal criticism accusing him of succumbing to Netanyahu's influence, while the latter is accused within Israel of becoming a captive of American orientations, which is reflected in the nature of their mutual political discourse.Bisharat indicates that the war on the Gaza Strip and the subsequent widening of the conflict in the region contributed to deepening the gap within American society regarding Israeli policies, especially with the growing criticism of American support for Israel during the war.Israeli skepticism about the effectiveness of Netanyahu's policiesBisharat believes that Israeli society, in turn, is witnessing a state of skepticism about the effectiveness of the policies pursued by Netanyahu, in light of Israel's inability to achieve a complete resolution in the wars it has fought, which reinforced the belief among Israeli sectors that these wars are linked to Netanyahu's personal and political interests more than to long-term strategic goals.Bisharat believes that the United States and Israel have faced failures in dealing with the Iranian file, explaining that Trump believed that escalation towards Iran would add to his political capital and give him a new achievement, and that Israel was capable of creating conditions that would push Tehran towards retreat or collapse, but subsequent developments showed that the American administration made inaccurate assessments, which put Trump in a political dilemma and made him seek to hold Netanyahu partly responsible for the failure to avoid bearing its political cost alone.America and bringing about change in the Israeli political sceneBisharat believes that part of the American political establishment is now inclined to bring about a change in the Israeli political scene, considering that the signals emanating from Trump during the recent period suggest a desire to push towards a post-Netanyahu phase.Bisharat indicates that some American decision-making circles view Netanyahu's continuation as an obstacle to reshaping American strategy in the Middle East in line with direct American interests.Bisharat believes that the region is witnessing what he described as a "labor" in US-Israeli relations, represented by the transition from a phase of complete identification between the two parties to a phase that focuses more on interest calculations.Bisharat confirms that the question now being raised within the United States is whether the priority should be American interests or Israeli interests, especially in light of Washington's declining ability to fulfill its promises regarding calming the region and improving its internal economic conditions.Bisharat explains that the American administration also realizes that the continuation of regional conflicts threatens its traditional influence in the Middle East and gives rival powers, primarily China, wider opportunities to strengthen their presence, in addition to the growing regional roles of other powers.Criticism of Israel does not mean abandoning strategic supportAccording to Bisharat, from this perspective, recent American criticism of Israel does not mean abandoning its strategic support, as much as it reflects an attempt to reshape tools and policies to preserve American interests.Bisharat confirms that the future of the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu will remain linked to the American administration's ability to protect its interests and achieve its regional goals. If Washington succeeds in containing the repercussions of the current phase, the disputes may remain within their temporary limits, but if it sees that Netanyahu is obstructing its future vision, it may move towards supporting new political arrangements within Israel that lead to his removal from the political scene.The dispute and consistency with Trump's personalityWriter specializing in Israeli affairs Mohammed Abu Allan Dragmeh believes that the escalating disputes between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflect a special nature in the American president's personality, whose positions are difficult to predict or whose political orientations are difficult to read accurately.Dragmeh points out that Trump has shown, over the past years, a willingness to make decisions that contradict prevailing expectations, which was embodied in a series of contradictory statements and positions, especially during the war with Iran and the subsequent political and security arrangements.Dragmeh explains that the core of the current dispute is not limited to the personal dimension, but is also linked to a clear divergence in American and Israeli goals towards Iran.According to Dragmeh, while the American administration primarily focuses on the Iranian nuclear file and ensuring regional stability and preventing the conflict from widening, the Israeli government seeks to achieve broader goals that include curbing Iranian missile capabilities, weakening Tehran's regional influence, and ending the role of its allies in the region, in addition to betting on bringing about a radical change in the structure of the Iranian regime.Military options are no longer capable of achieving goalsDragmeh indicates that the American administration has become more convinced that military options are no longer capable of achieving the desired goals in dealing with Iran, which has pushed it to search for alternative political and diplomatic paths.According to Dragmeh, on the other hand, Netanyahu still adheres to the option of military pressure as the only way to deal with Tehran, which has led to a widening gap in the dispute between the two parties, especially in light of Israel's failure to achieve the goals it set during the recent confrontation.Political messages to weaken Netanyahu's imageRegarding the talk of Washington seeking an alternative to Netanyahu, Dragmeh believes that it is too early to definitively state that there is a clear American trend in this direction, but recent American statements carried political messages aimed at weakening Netanyahu's image within Israeli society and pressuring him to modify his political behavior, more than being an explicit declaration of a desire to replace him.He confirms that the existing tension may negatively affect Netanyahu's political future and his chances of forming the next Israeli government, but it will not affect the core of strategic relations between the United States and Israel, as Washington will continue its commitment to Israel's security, military superiority, and political and economic support.Dragmeh believes that any potential impact will remain linked to Netanyahu personally more than to the nature of the existing alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv, expecting that relations will return to their traditional course, whether through a new Israeli government or even if Netanyahu continues, but within the ceiling and vision determined by the American administration.

Informed sources revealed that the Israeli occupation army intends to begin reducing its military presence within Lebanese territory in the coming days. This step comes after the army announced the completion of specific offensive military missions, considering that there is no longer an operational necessity to keep large numbers of soldiers in the areas it penetrated.

These field movements coincide with a state of anticipation and concern prevailing in political circles in Tel Aviv due to the ongoing negotiations in Switzerland between Washington and Tehran. Despite official attempts to downplay these discussions, reports indicate that they primarily focus on ending the hostile situation on all fronts, especially the Lebanese front.

In contrast, conflicting statements emerge within the occupation government, reflecting a state of confusion; where Defense Minister Yisrael Katz affirmed that Israel will not withdraw from strategic sites such as Beaufort Castle and its surroundings. These positions express a current that rejects making any field concessions before ensuring strict security arrangements that meet Israeli conditions.

For his part, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called for rejecting any ceasefire agreement or imposing restrictions on the Israeli army's movements in Lebanon. Ben-Gvir described the Lebanese state as a supporter of terrorism, emphasizing the necessity of keeping all Lebanese territories an open arena for Israeli military operations without international restrictions.

Observers believe that the imminent withdrawal from areas north of the Litani River represents a preemptive step aimed at extricating Israel from a growing strategic predicament. It appears that the Israeli leadership fears that the American administration will impose an agreement that forces it to a complete withdrawal, especially with information leaking about a US-Iranian mechanism to prevent clashes.

Israeli security agencies are anxiously monitoring the outcomes of the negotiation round in Switzerland, especially after optimistic statements from Iranian and American officials about substantial progress. Tel Aviv fears that any agreement could lead to the unfreezing of Iranian funds and the loss of leverage related to the nuclear and ballistic missile files.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated that Qatari and Pakistani mediation contributed to drafting a roadmap for sixty-day negotiations to determine the form of the final agreement. This diplomatic progress places Israel under increasing international pressure to accept a political settlement that ends the ongoing war of attrition on its northern borders.

Domestically, pressure is escalating on the Netanyahu government due to the high cost of continued military operations in southern Lebanon and the increasing human losses. Experts warn that the Israeli army has begun to repeat past mistakes by getting involved in a long-term guerrilla war that drains soldiers' capabilities and fuels public anger.

In a related context, press reports revealed a severe psychological crisis affecting Israelis, with the number of people officially diagnosed with psychological crises rising to about 70,000. This massive increase from 7,000 before October reflects the extent of societal trauma and the impact of multiple wars on the home front.

Military analysts in Tel Aviv propose a 'rescue plan' aimed at avoiding direct confrontation with the administration of US President-elect Donald Trump. The proposals include demanding that Washington pressure Tehran to rein in Hezbollah, in exchange for Israeli flexibility on the ceasefire and gradual withdrawal file.

There are also calls to strengthen the role of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese army to be a party to any future agreement, instead of leaving the arena for Iran and Hezbollah to impose their conditions. This approach aims to ensure that the Israeli withdrawal is part of an international political arrangement that saves the occupation's face.

General Dani Strenovich criticized the absence of well-thought-out strategic thinking in dealing with the Lebanese crisis, describing current decisions as based on intuition and improvisation. He stressed that excessive reliance on military force will not solve the complex political problems associated with Iranian influence in the region.

Strenovich believes that current Israeli behavior has contributed to strengthening the position of Hezbollah and Iran as the only parties capable of imposing a ceasefire. It was supposed, according to his vision, to grant the Lebanese government achievements that enhance its position as a political alternative, instead of weakening it through continuous military operations.

Ultimately, Israel finds itself between two difficult choices; either remaining in a state of continuous bleeding in southern Lebanon, or withdrawing to the 'Yellow Line' and appearing as the broken party. It seems that the decision to reduce forces is an attempt to maneuver between these successive field and political pressures.

Israel today stands before two bitter choices: either keep its army in Lebanon amid a state of bleeding, or withdraw and appear as a defeated fugitive.

Jerusalem - "Al-Quds" Special Correspondent - In the city of Jerusalem, faith intertwines with history, and politics with real estate. Church properties are not merely financial assets or traditional real estate; rather, they constitute part of a broader battle related to the identity and Christian Palestinian presence in the Holy City. A report on Christian properties in the Holy City and the Palestinian interior, and the role of the Orthodox Patriarchate in preserving them, prepared by Wasel Al-Khatib, Director of the Media Department at the National Popular Conference for Jerusalem, stated that since the election of Patriarch Theophilos III as Patriarch of Jerusalem in 2005, the Orthodox Patriarchate has placed the file of protecting and restoring church properties at the forefront of its priorities, in the face of continuous settlement and legal attempts targeting one of the largest land-owning institutions in historical Palestine. The Patriarchate indicates that its strategy over the past two decades has not been limited to legal defense of disputed properties, but has also included the recovery of lands that had fallen out of its control due to old lease contracts or complex legal arrangements dating back to previous decades. Al-Khatib added in his report that among the most prominent successes announced by the Patriarchate in this context is the recovery of strategic land in the Abu Tor neighborhood, south of Jerusalem. After more than a decade of legal and financial follow-up, the Patriarchate was able in 2023 to recover its full rights to the land for approximately 80 million shekels, freeing it from legal restrictions and reservations resulting from previous agreements and leases. This land is of particular importance due to its location next to a historic Orthodox church and its containing Byzantine ruins, which led the Patriarchate to consider its recovery a model for the policy of "recovering and protecting Orthodox properties" that it has adopted for years. Tangible Successes Al-Khatib said in his report: The Patriarchate also succeeded in recovering vast areas of land belonging to the Qasr al-Yahud Monastery in the Jordan Valley area on the banks of the Jordan River, lands that had been under Israeli occupation control since 1967. Patriarch Theophilos III then considered this step to confirm the possibility of restoring the historical rights of the Church through long-term legal and diplomatic work, stressing that the battle to preserve Christian properties is not over yet. Complex Files The report added: However, the recovery file does not negate the existence of more complex files that are still subject to open dispute with the occupation authorities and settlement associations. Foremost among these files is what is known as the Jaffa Gate properties case at the entrance to the Old City of Jerusalem, which includes hotels and historical properties acquired by a settlement association through deals dating back to the era of the former Patriarch Irenaios. The Patriarchate, led by Patriarch Theophilos III, fought long legal battles to annul those deals, considering that they were based on forgery, corruption, and extortion, and that they aim to change the demographic and Christian character of the Old City. Despite the judicial setbacks suffered by the Patriarchate before the Israeli courts, it still considers the issue open politically, legally, and internationally. Silwan Issue The report stated: As for the Silwan neighborhood, which is witnessing one of the most sensitive real estate confrontations in occupied Jerusalem, some lands and properties belonging to the churches have become a focal point of escalating conflict between church institutions and settlement associations that seek to expand their presence around the Old City and Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Patriarchate affirms that any attempt to harm church properties in Silwan cannot be separated from a broader project aimed at encircling the Old City with a settlement ring that limits both the Islamic and Christian presence. The report added: These lands acquire exceptional importance due to their geographical location adjacent to the southern walls of Old Jerusalem, making them a constant target for settlement projects seeking to impose new realities on the ground. The Patriarchate bases its defense of these properties on the fact that it is one of the largest landowners in Jerusalem and Palestine. The Orthodox institution has accumulated over many centuries vast areas of land and endowments extending from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, the Jordan Valley, and parts of Galilee, and these properties have over time become one of the most important elements of Christian Palestinian steadfastness. Therefore, the Church views the protection of properties as a protection of the Christian presence itself, not merely a protection of real estate wealth. Parallel Tracks In this context, Al-Khatib's report indicated that the Patriarchate affirms that its efforts are distributed among several parallel tracks: litigation before the courts, recourse to international legal expertise, preserving Palestinian tenants in threatened properties, in addition to diplomatic work with governments and international churches to keep the issue of Christian properties present on the international agenda. Patriarch Theophilos III reiterates on many occasions that the real battle is not only over stones, but over the identity of Jerusalem and its religious and cultural diversity. The Historical Jordanian Role At the heart of these efforts, the Jordanian role stands out as one of the most important political protection umbrellas for Christian and Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. Under the Hashemite custodianship led by King Abdullah II, the historical churches in Jerusalem enjoy continuous political and diplomatic support, and the Orthodox Patriarchate considers this support a fundamental pillar in confronting the pressures its properties are subjected to. Patriarch Theophilos III has on more than one occasion thanked the Jordanian monarch for his continuous support in the battles to establish property rights and defend the Christian presence in the Holy Land, stressing that the Hashemite custodianship is not limited to protecting holy sites, but includes defending the historical and religious character of Jerusalem with all its components. Continuous Confrontation over the Narrative Thus, the battle for Orthodox properties in Jerusalem appears to be larger than just a dispute over plots of land or historical buildings. It is a continuous confrontation over narrative, identity, and existence, in which court decisions intertwine with political and diplomatic calculations. While the Patriarchate has succeeded in recent years in recovering some strategic lands and thwarting attempts to control others, files such as Silwan, Jaffa Gate, and others confirm that the conflict over Christian properties in Palestine is still open, and that the preservation of these endowments has become part of a broader battle to defend the Arab Christian presence in Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

It seems that the harsh and unprecedented Israeli reactions, both from political and media elites, who said that the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding constituted a resounding defeat for America, greater than its defeat in the Vietnam War, and that it is also tantamount to selling Israel for the cheapest prices, and this was expressed by hostile statements against the two Jews, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, saying that they were bought with Qatari money to support the agreement and the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding, while the fiercest campaign was against US Vice President J.D. Vance, who said that 80% of the weapons Israel fights with are from America. Ben-Gvir told him that Israel is capable of defending itself and does not need anyone's help, and whoever opposes Israel loses, and whoever stands by it wins. It seems that the gap between the priorities of American interests and the requirements of Israeli policy is widening, and this agreement, which granted Iran significant political and economic gains, did not take into account the goals raised by Israel at the beginning of the two wars on Iran (June/2025 and February/2026). Netanyahu, Katz, and Zamir, along with Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Sokot, Strock, and others, said that they would not withdraw from Lebanon or from the Lebanese territories that were occupied, and they would seek to establish new security and political realities, so that any withdrawal from Lebanon would be linked to the disarmament of Hezbollah, and that they would have, even after the withdrawal, freedom of action in Lebanese territories, and security and buffer zones to protect their northern settlements. This was responded to by Sheikh Naim Qassem in his Ashura celebrations speech by saying: There will be no yellow, red, or green lines, no buffer zones, no security zones, and you will leave, and there will be no agreement that infringes on Lebanon's sovereignty and is at the expense of its geography, land, and the rights of its people, their right to return to their villages and land and rebuild them, and through an agreement in which security is mutual, otherwise the field will be the judge. Israel, which rejects the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding, wants to blow up the memorandum and the agreement from the Lebanese gateway, and its military and security leadership said that the American-Iranian agreement does not obligate it. Iran suspended its delegation's trip to Switzerland until America obliges its ally Israel to adhere to the text of the memorandum, which confirmed in its first clause the guarantee of Lebanon's territorial integrity and safety. In contrast, Israel, in its attempt to blow up the agreement, expanded its aggression against Lebanon and against the city of Nabatieh, Kafr Tibnit, and Ali Al-Taher Hill, and launched the widest and fiercest raids since its aggression against Lebanon, which resulted in more than 24 martyrs and dozens of wounded, but it failed to occupy the hill or advance towards the town of Kafr Tibnit, and suffered heavy losses in its soldiers, as four soldiers were killed, including the commander of Battalion 52, and dozens were wounded in ambushes set by the party for them, in which their tanks, armored vehicles, and vehicles were burned and their advance was prevented. The violent Israeli reactions to these heavy losses and the war of attrition by the party, which manages the battle with great efficiency and qualitative tactics, create a state of confusion, turmoil, and fear among the occupation army and its military leaders, which pushed the leaders of the occupation state to say that the southern suburb should be wiped off the map. Ben-Gvir says for every tear of an Israeli mother, there should be a thousand tears for a Lebanese mother, and Smotrich says after the difficult incident in Lebanon: "It's time to speak with fire, open the gates of hell." As for Avigdor Lieberman, leader of "Israel Our Home," he says: "If the Beirut suburb remains as it is after this harsh incident, in which four Israeli army soldiers and officers were killed, it will be a direct failure for the prime minister and the minister of defense." It seems that these people want to get out of the dilemma of the agreement that now threatens their political future, and has brought them harsh reactions from Israeli society, political and media elites, Israeli opposition leaders, and settlement leaders and settlers, which led journalist Avi Eisenkot to say that the campaign known as "Lion's Roar" was nothing but "cat's meow." If Israel undertakes a wide military operation in the southern suburb, and carries out widespread assassinations of military, security, and political leaders of the party and the Lebanese resistance, this means that Iran, which does not see Lebanon as merely an area of influence, but rather as part of its strategic security and national identity, the collapse of the memorandum of understanding with America, and through harsh Iranian military responses, and going to a wider and more comprehensive military round than before, but I do not think that America will fully stand behind Israel in this round, as it will create and deepen the division in the American political stance, and there will be more cracks between the American administration and the occupation state, which may go beyond tactical differences, as well as the Arab Gulf states, perhaps this time they will wake up from their political coma and their detachment from reality, and will not allow Israel to use their airspace and territories to launch its aggression against Iran, and the same applies to America if it participates with Israel in this aggression. In my opinion, the region is heading towards a more comprehensive and wider escalation, as the occupation state will not surrender to the new balance of power, and to Iran being the decision-maker in the region and the area, but this new war and round will not only fail the ambitions of Israel's war-loving leaders and their industry, with the collapse of the goals of those wars to establish what is known as "Greater Israel" and "Great Israel," but will impose new political and security realities on it, and perhaps if the opportunity is seized and the Arab position is united, Israel will be forced to withdraw from all the Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian territories it occupied.

The war on Gaza, and the subsequent regional confrontations and American-Iranian negotiations, brought back an old question about the nature of the relationship between ideology and politics in the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Does Iran govern with a transnational revolutionary doctrine that places Palestine and the “Axis of Resistance” at the core of its strategic decisions? Or is it a state that ultimately acts according to national interest calculations like other states? The reality is that the answer does not lie in one extreme, but in combining both. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran has not been merely a traditional nation-state, but it has also not been a purely ideological state. Over decades, it has succeeded in integrating doctrine with interest, transforming ideology into a tool of regional influence and a source of internal and external legitimacy. Within this framework, the Palestinian issue has occupied a central position in Iranian discourse. Palestine was not merely a solidarity issue; it became part of the regime's political and revolutionary identity, and a fundamental pillar in building the network of regional alliances later known as the “Axis of Resistance.” However, events of recent years have revealed that the centrality of Palestine in discourse does not necessarily mean it occupies the same position in the hierarchy of strategic priorities. During the war on Gaza, the Palestinian issue did not become a condition in Iranian negotiations with the United States, nor did stopping the war or ending the siege become part of the understandings Tehran sought. Although Gaza is presented as one of the most important battlefields with Israel, negotiations focused on issues directly related to Iran: sanctions, security, economy, and regime stability. Here arises another question that concerns not only Iran but also Hamas. The movement entered the battle of October 7 based on its own calculations, and perhaps on the assumption that the expansion of the confrontation would lead to broader involvement from axis parties under the slogan of “unity of fronts.” However, the course of the war revealed that each party has its own calculations, limits, and priorities. States, even when adopting a common ideological discourse, do not abandon the logic of national interest when making fateful decisions. From this perspective, the issue does not seem to be related only to the limits of Iran's commitment to its allies, but also to Hamas's understanding of the nature of the relationship between resistance movements and their supporting states. Political and military support does not necessarily mean unity of decision or unity of destiny, just as alliance does not negate the differences between the logic of a state and the logic of a movement. Perhaps one of the questions that will impose itself on the movement after the war is whether it will re-evaluate some of its previous bets on the role of allies and the limits of their intervention in moments of major confrontation. This problem becomes more complex when it comes to the Shiite forces within the axis. The relationship between these forces and Iran is not based solely on political or military interests; it intertwines doctrinal, sectarian, and political elements, which for some of these forces are linked to the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih and the role they grant to the Iranian leadership. However, the recent war showed that this ideological dimension, despite its importance, did not negate the fact that the final decision remains that of a state governed by calculations of power, survival, and Iranian national interest. While some of these forces view the relationship with Iran as both a political and ideological partnership, Tehran views the axis from a broader perspective related to Iranian state security and its strategic interests. Hence, the inherent tension between the logic of the state and the logic of ideology, and between the calculations of the center and the expectations of the periphery, emerges. This does not mean that Iran has abandoned Palestine or its allies, but rather that support for these allies has remained constrained by a ceiling that does not threaten the supreme interests of the Iranian state. When ideology aligns with interest, they move together; when there is a conflict between them, national interest takes precedence over everything else. Here appears one of the most important paradoxes within the axis itself. While Tehran treats its revolutionary slogans with a great deal of political pragmatism, some allied forces, especially those that derive their legitimacy from the ideological dimension, still treat these slogans as a fixed and unwavering commitment regardless of circumstances. Therefore, what is legitimate for Iran in terms of negotiation, settlements, and understandings seems illegitimate when it concerns its allies or their political environments. The recent war revealed that the so-called “Axis of Resistance” is not a homogeneous ideological bloc, but an unequal network of alliances led by a state with its own interests and national calculations. In this network, Iran reserves the right to make fateful decisions according to its national priorities, even when allies bear heavy costs in defense of the common project. The war on Gaza revealed that ideology in the Iranian project is not a substitute for the state, but one of its tools. Iran does not abandon its slogans, but it always reinterprets them to serve its strategic interests. This is where the strength and continuity of the Iranian project lie, on the one hand, and the source of constant tension between it and its allies, on the other. The closer the moment of truth, the clearer the difference between a state that sees ideology as a tool to serve its interests, and forces that see ideology as an end that takes precedence over other calculations. Perhaps the most important question after all that has happened remains: Have Iran's allies, especially Hamas after October 7, realized that “unity of fronts” does not necessarily mean unity of decision or unity of destiny? And that alliance, no matter how strong its ideological and military power, does not negate the fact that states ultimately act according to their national interests first and foremost?

The Israeli political arena has recently witnessed significant tension following public statements made by US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, which included direct criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These statements sparked a wide-ranging debate within Israel, due to their implications for the nature of the relationship between Tel Aviv and Washington, and what they reveal about internal divisions within Israel itself. This article aims to analyze this development from an academic perspective, focusing on its political and strategic repercussions.First: The General Context of the American StatementsTrump's statements came at a sensitive moment when the region is experiencing escalating tension, especially on the Lebanese front and amidst discussions about the US-Iranian agreement. These statements included clear criticisms of Netanyahu's approach to managing security files, in addition to hints about Israel's excessive reliance on American support. As for Vice President J.D. Vance, he went further by directly reprimanding ministers in the Israeli government for their opposition to American directions, warning that continuing this approach could affect the level of military and political support provided by Washington.Second: Reactions within IsraelThese statements created a clear rift within Israel on three main levels. At the governmental level, Netanyahu found himself facing a dual challenge: on one hand, unprecedented American pressure; and on the other hand, criticisms from far-right ministers who believe that Washington is interfering in Israeli sovereignty. This internal tension reflects the fragility of the ruling coalition and reveals fundamental differences in vision among the government's components.As for the security establishment, military leaders and security agencies expressed concern about the deteriorating relationship with the United States, given Israel's significant reliance on American military support. Israeli reports indicate that the security establishment tends towards de-escalation with Washington, contrary to some political voices pushing for escalation.At the public opinion level, the American statements sparked a wide debate in the Israeli media, some of which described them as a "strategic warning" to the government. Opinion polls also showed a division between those who believe Netanyahu is risking the relationship with Washington and those who consider the United States to be exerting undue pressure.Third: Strategic ImplicationsThese developments reveal a significant shift in the relationship between the United States and Israel. Public statements from the highest echelons of power in Washington indicate an American desire to reset the relationship, especially concerning the Iranian and Lebanese files. They also reflect a decline in Netanyahu's ability for political maneuvering, after he had historically relied on strong personal relationships with Washington leaders.On the other hand, the internal rift in Israel emerges as a factor that further complicates the scene. The divergence between the government and the security establishment, and among the coalition components themselves, indicates an internal leadership crisis that could affect Israel's ability to make coherent strategic decisions.It can be said that Trump's and his vice president's statements were not just fleeting criticisms, but rather constituted a turning point in the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, and revealed the fragility of the Israeli political structure. They also exposed deep internal divisions that could affect the future of the government and Israel's ability to deal with regional challenges. The question remains open as to whether this crisis will lead to an internal reassessment of Israel's political approach, or whether it will develop into a deeper crisis in the relationship with the United States.* Specialist in Israeli Affairs