Hebrew press sources revealed in a recent report a deep gap between official statements issued by the occupation government after the June 2025 operation and the current military reality. The report indicated that Iran managed to significantly rebuild its missile stockpile before the outbreak of the recent confrontation, putting the credibility of previous Israeli security estimates to the test.

Occupation army estimates suggest that Tehran entered the current war possessing about 2,500 ballistic missiles, a number only about 500 missiles less than what it had at the beginning of the 'Year of Clavi' war. This proximity in numbers reflects the failure of military efforts to permanently neutralize the Iranian arsenal, despite previous claims of achieving strategic accomplishments.

According to military data, the previous June war had deprived Iran of hundreds of missiles and disrupted the production of at least 1,500 additional missiles, yet Tehran made intensive efforts to restore its capabilities. Iranian factories succeeded in accelerating the pace of production to dozens of ballistic missiles per month, with reports indicating ambitions to raise this capability to hundreds of missiles.

These data highlight a sharp contradiction with what occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on June 24, 2025, when he claimed that his state had eliminated a dual existential threat in the nuclear and ballistic fields. However, the first hours of Operation 'Lion's Roar' proved that the missile threat is still present and effective, and has not been undermined to the extent promoted by official propaganda.

For his part, Brigadier General (res.) Ran Kochav, former commander of the Air Defense Division, explained that Iran learned lessons from previous operations and developed its military response speed. While in the past, the Iranian response took many hours, Iranian forces in the current operation were able to respond within a few minutes, while maintaining an intermittent firing pace.

Iran's strategy in the first phase relied on the use of solid-fuel missiles, a technology that allows missiles to be stored ready for launch without prior warning. The attack later shifted to liquid-fuel missiles, which require a longer fueling process and extraction from fortified bunkers, reflecting a diversity in offensive tactics used against Israeli and American targets.

In a related context, reports indicate that Iran is seeking to strengthen its air defenses through negotiations with China to acquire advanced systems, although the deployment of these batteries may take a long time. The risk of targeting fighter jets and drones remains in light of these movements, further complicating the military calculations of the United States and its allies in the region.

On the Lebanese front, sources confirmed that the occupation army did not succeed in completely destroying Hezbollah's missile system, as the party still possesses thousands of projectiles and drones. Despite about 80% of its firepower being damaged, the remaining capability is sufficient to continue draining the Israeli home front for long periods.

These military developments coincide with the ongoing brutal aggression against the Gaza Strip, where the death toll since October 2023 has risen to over 72,000 martyrs. The occupation continues its control over large areas of the Strip with near-total destruction of infrastructure, amid fears of Netanyahu evading ceasefire commitments.

In light of these complexities, security experts warned against being carried away by the euphoria of 'false victory' or considering military outcomes final, especially with the fluctuations in the American position. The regional scene remains open to all possibilities, given the human and material losses suffered by both American and Iranian forces in recent days.

Life is much darker than the Israelis' tendency to consider everything either a celebration or a failure.

Israeli Professor Yagil Levy, a prominent expert in strategic affairs and civil-military relations, warned of the growing state of 'security schizophrenia' and military arrogance within the Israeli leadership following the events of October 7. Levy noted that Israel is effectively sliding towards a 'New Sparta' model, a description previously used by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about two years ago to express his vision for the future of the Hebrew state.

In his critical reading, Levy believes that current Israeli behavior can be framed within a frantic pursuit of what is called 'permanent security.' This term, which he borrowed from historian Dirk Moses, describes the state's aspiration to achieve absolute and permanent immunity from all threats. This aspiration is not content with eliminating current dangers but extends to attempting to erase any potential future threat through excessive force.

The Israeli expert explained that this approach is subject to a 'paranoid' consciousness that ultimately leads to the production of self-fulfilling threats, leaving no room for political or deterrent compromises. According to Levy, the pursuit of a final solution in this context is necessarily linked to policies of extermination, displacement, or imposing absolute control over population groups classified as an existential threat to the state.

Levy reviewed Israel's history with this concept, noting that for many years it pursued permanent security in a 'soft' form that recognized the limits of power and the constraints imposed by international law and the American position. He cited the 1973 war as an example, where Israel then realized the limits of its military capabilities, which led it to withdraw from Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt, despite its previous description of those borders as 'Auschwitz borders.'

However, the events of October 7, according to the analysis, led to the collapse of all barriers that had constrained the Israeli paranoid logic, pushing the state to adopt a more rigid and violent version of 'permanent security.' Levy considered that this shift was driven by the assumption of overwhelming military superiority and a wide margin of international tolerance for unprecedented Israeli military operations.

In a direct critique of the field results, Levy pointed out that Israel killed tens of thousands of civilians and destroyed entire residential neighborhoods in the Gaza Strip merely to pursue a limited number of fighters. He also noted the effective expansion of borders through the establishment of buffer zones within the territories of neighboring countries, in an attempt to impose a new security reality based on complete regional disarmament.

Regarding Iran, the professor stated that Israel rejected all diplomatic solutions that restrict nuclear capabilities without eliminating them, preferring to resort to direct military action. This approach reflects a desire to permanently remove the missile threat, even in cases where Iran does not initiate direct attacks, which reinforces the logic of controlling others and changing regimes.

Levy warned that the pursuit of absolute security necessarily entails restricting democracy and curbing internal opposition, as the security of individuals and groups is subordinated to an abstract goal. In this context, protection gaps in border cities like 'Kiryat Shmona' become mere acceptable collateral damage in order to achieve the goal of destroying the capabilities of adversaries like Hezbollah.

Levy also criticized the transformation of Israeli prisoners in the new military consciousness into mere secondary 'bargaining chips' in the face of major strategic goals. He affirmed that political considerations have become entirely subject to military logic, where the timing of diplomatic negotiations is determined based on windows of opportunity available for targeted assassinations instead of seeking peaceful solutions.

The analysis suggests that Israel's unilateral effort to enhance security necessarily pushes adversaries to try to bridge their weaknesses by all available means, which repeats previous historical scenarios. The inevitable result of this clash is an increase in insecurity rather than its achievement, as the adversary is forced to respond with greater force whenever it regains some of its military strength.

Levy concluded that the 'permanent security' doctrine requires the depletion of national resources and their sacrifice on the 'altar of security,' with the delusional hope that the adversary will never be able to overcome its weakness. He affirmed that Netanyahu was not mistaken when he promised that this path would lead Israel to become a 'Spartan' state living on the edge of a sword and lacking the foundations of civil stability.

On the other hand, intelligence analyst Yossi Melman reinforced this view by indicating that Netanyahu's government has an agenda to keep conflicts burning for purely electoral considerations. Melman explained that the decision to go to war in Lebanon would have been made even in the absence of provocations, to ensure the continuation of the state of emergency until the next elections in the summer or fall.

Permanent security aims not only to eliminate immediate dangers but also future ones, and therefore it is subject to a paranoid consciousness that produces self-fulfilling threats.

The least of words, with the speed of launching slogans, and layers of powerful narrations, and intercontinental missiles, that fill the land, sea, and sky with noise, brings to mind chapters of the war on Iraq that ended with the division of the country and its people, and the emergence of snakes and reptiles from beneath the earth, which fueled enmities, spread hatred, and awakened sectarian, confessional, and ethnic strife, and is still engineering the geography and demography of the entire Arab region, through imported narratives that the region's countries have not witnessed since their inception... With that supersonic speed, panting questions follow, seeking answers suspended about destinies and outcomes in a moment of excessive fluidity, during which new maps of the region are being drawn, tailored to the measure of the greedy and ambitious states in the new Middle East and its vast wealth.The burning questions are still panting, seeking answers to the size of the current and anticipated crowds, the outcomes, and the expected alignments for an open war on more surprises, which exceed the earthquake of killing the leader and forty senior Iranian leaders.Hezbollah's entry into the line of engagement, after a long silence about violations and repeated strikes, and assassinations of the party's cadres and sites throughout the past months without response, reveals a response to an Iranian decision that offered a pretext more than added value; it constitutes deterrence or prevents desecration, especially since the party contented itself with the missiles it launched that fell in open areas, but they brought responses to crowded areas that caused a wide wave of displacement that exacerbated the suffering of the Lebanese, and shocked the Shiite incubator; expressed by Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Parliament who sided with the government's discourse.The panting questions will not stop even after the war stops, as questions of "the day after" will multiply, which remained open to ambiguity and suspicion in the afflicted sector.Like the panting of charging steeds, and the dust of raiders, the questions rush, panting, anxious, and trembling.

Tehran directly pointed the finger at the Israeli occupation for being behind the aerial attack that targeted the facilities of the Aramco oil company in Saudi Arabia this Monday morning. Sources quoted a military official as saying that the operation falls under the category of a 'false flag,' through which Tel Aviv seeks to stir up regional affairs and divert attention away from the military operations it is conducting against non-civilian targets within Iranian territory.

Iranian military sources confirmed that Aramco facilities have never been among Iran's target bank until this moment, despite previous warnings to place all American and Israeli interests in the region under fire. The official explained that Iran does not hesitate to claim responsibility for any strikes it carries out, noting that intelligence data warns of similar Israeli plans that may target the Port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates in the coming period.

On the ground, the Saudi Ministry of Defense announced the success of its forces in intercepting and destroying two drones that attempted to target the Ras Tanura refinery in the Eastern Province. Informed sources reported that Aramco took immediate precautionary measures, including temporarily closing the refinery to ensure the safety of facilities and workers, confirming that the situation is now under full control and the attack did not result in significant damage to oil supplies.

This escalation comes at a time when the region is experiencing unprecedented turmoil, as Israeli and American forces continue a wide-ranging aerial campaign against Iran that began last Saturday, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people, including senior leaders. In contrast, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth admitted that the operations are directly aimed at undermining and destroying Iranian military capabilities, amid human and material losses suffered by American forces stationed in the region.

On the Palestinian front, the occupation continues its policy of restriction by closing all Gaza Strip crossings, including the Rafah crossing, coinciding with its open regional war. Reports indicate real fears that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, will renege on the commitments of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, amid the ongoing massacres that have raised the death toll in Gaza to more than 72,000 martyrs since the start of the aggression in October 2023.

Observers believe that Iran's accusation of Israel carrying out the Aramco attack reflects the depth of the security crisis in the region, as all parties try to draw new red lines. While Tehran insists that targeting Gulf oil facilities is not in its interest at the moment, concerns remain about the region sliding into a comprehensive war that goes beyond direct clashes to striking the nerve center of the global economy in international energy corridors.

The attack on Aramco facilities was carried out by Israelis and is considered an example of a false flag operation aimed at diverting the region's attention from the crimes committed inside Iran.

A report by the Soufan Center for Research stated that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has transcended the boundaries of traditional regional confrontation, moving into a phase of deliberate targeting of the global energy sector. The report clarified that Tehran, through this strategy, seeks to send sharp political and economic messages, asserting its ability to destabilize international markets, which reveals significant challenges facing the United States and Israel in their attempts to contain the spread of the war.

As the direct confrontation with Iran entered its third day, Iranian forces expanded the scope of their operations to include American military targets and strategic assets in the region, coinciding with concentrated strikes on oil and gas facilities. The attacks included vital locations such as the Ras Tanura facility in Saudi Arabia, which is a key pillar of the global oil industry, in addition to the Ras Laffan facility in Qatar, causing a state of severe concern in international economic circles.

In a striking field escalation, Iranian military sources, speaking through Brigadier General Sardar Ibrahim Jabbar, an advisor to the Revolutionary Guard, announced that the Strait of Hormuz is now completely closed to navigation. Jabbar warned that any vessel attempting to cross this strategic waterway would be subject to direct targeting and incineration, which represents a direct threat to the energy supply lines on which the world's major economies depend.

On the ground, Iranian attacks targeted the oil tanker 'Athena Nova', registered in the United Arab Emirates, via drones, while Qatar Energy announced the suspension of production operations following the attack on its facilities. These developments caused an immediate shock in energy markets, with natural gas prices in Europe jumping by up to 50%, while crude oil prices recorded a 10% increase within a few hours.

On the other hand, Israeli authorities took precautionary security measures, including the temporary closure of a number of offshore gas fields, most notably the 'Leviathan' field operated by the global company Chevron. Inside Iran, sources reported hearing explosions on the strategic Kharg Island, through which most Iranian oil exports pass, amidst ambiguity surrounding the extent of the damage resulting from these explosions and their impact on Tehran's export capabilities.

Politically, Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, affirmed that his country would not enter into any negotiations with the current US administration, denying media reports about channels of communication for renegotiation. Larijani stressed that Tehran views the current conflict as a 'regime survival' battle, indicating that the previous rules of engagement have ended and that Iran no longer recognizes any red lines in defending its interests.

Analytical studies expect these attacks to lead to a long-term disruption in the global supply and demand balance, especially in Asian and European markets that are highly dependent on the region's gas. With the 'S&P Global Japan-Korea Marker' index rising by 39%, fears are growing that the global economy will enter a new inflationary wave resulting from a shortage of energy supplies and rising marine shipping insurance costs in the turbulent region.

Iran sends a clear message about its ability to impose global economic repercussions, indicating the limited ability of Washington and Tel Aviv to contain the war.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/3/2026

According to a report in The New York Times published on Monday, President Donald Trump's decision to wage war against Iran was not a sudden move, but rather the result of a long process of secret consultations, military planning, and political pressure, especially from the Israeli leadership, coupled with a decline in confidence within the American administration regarding the possibility of reaching a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

The report indicates that the key turning point came during a lengthy meeting at the White House on February 11, where Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the prospects of war and the potential timing of any attack. At that time, the United States was engaged in indirect negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program, but Israel feared that these diplomatic efforts would disrupt the military plans secretly discussed between the two sides.

Days after the meeting, Trump began to openly express his skepticism about the usefulness of negotiating with Iran, considering that years of previous dialogue had not yielded results. He also hinted that regime change in Iran might be the best option. Just about two weeks later, he authorized a large-scale military operation in coordination with Israel, which included intensive strikes targeting military and nuclear sites and centers within the country, resulting in the death of the Iranian Supreme Leader and the country descending into chaos, in addition to the outbreak of a wave of regional violence that led to American and Iranian casualties.

Although the American president's public rhetoric seemed hesitant between seeking a diplomatic agreement and brandishing military force, the report confirms that the move towards war was steadily progressing behind the scenes. Israel played a pivotal role in pushing Washington towards a decisive strike, based on an assessment that the Iranian regime was in a weakened position. Trump was also influenced by his growing confidence after a successful American operation that overthrew the leadership in Venezuela weeks earlier.

The report indicates that opposition within the president's inner circle was very limited. Even figures previously known for their reservations about military interventions supported the idea of a broad and swift strike if an attack was decided upon. In contrast, military leaders warned of significant risks, including the potential for heavy American casualties, regional destabilization, and the depletion of American military stockpiles. However, these warnings were not fully reflected in public statements, as the operation was portrayed as easily decisive.

The report also clarifies that American officials did not fully disclose to members of Congress that the option of regime change was among the military plans, despite holding security briefings to discuss Iranian threats and the timing of potential strikes.

At the same time, nuclear negotiations with Iran continued, but the report suggests that they practically provided a temporal cover for strengthening the American military presence in the Middle East. At the beginning of the year, American forces were not ready for a long war, as no aircraft carriers were in the region and air defenses were limited. Over the weeks, two aircraft carriers and a large number of fighter jets, bombers, and defense systems were sent, allowing for an extended military campaign.

During the negotiations, Washington insisted on the demand for “zero enrichment,” meaning the complete cessation of Iran's ability to produce nuclear fuel, a condition that Tehran consistently rejected. With growing doubts within the American administration, official statements began to reflect a growing conviction that reaching an agreement was almost impossible due to the ideological nature of the Iranian regime.

Within National Security Council meetings, the discussion focused on the scale of the military operation rather than the principle of its execution. Multiple options were presented, ranging from limited strikes aimed at negotiating pressure, to a broad campaign aimed at overthrowing the Iranian leadership. Intelligence agencies presented various scenarios for what might happen in the event of the Supreme Leader's death, including the possibility of a more hardline leadership emerging, internal unrest, or a more pragmatic wing of the Revolutionary Guard coming to power.

Some officials adopted the latter scenario, believing that a pragmatic military leadership might be more willing to reach an understanding with the United States and abandon the nuclear program or reduce regional confrontation, although these expectations remained unconfirmed.

Almost the only prominent opposition came from conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who warned of the risks of war to American forces, energy prices, and relations with Arab allies, considering that Washington might be drawn into the conflict due to Israel's security priorities. However, Trump informed him that he believed the United States would be involved in the fighting anyway if Israel initiated the attack alone.

On the domestic political front, the administration did not seek clear authorization from Congress before commencing operations, which drew criticism from some lawmakers who saw the logic used to justify the war as circular, as it was considered that the military buildup itself might provoke Iran to respond, thus making an American attack inevitable.

A final round of negotiations was held in Geneva days before the strike, where Iran presented a proposal allowing for certain levels of enrichment to continue, which American negotiators rejected. After the talks concluded, the negotiating team informed the President that the chances of reaching an agreement were very slim. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel were already discussing the timing of the attack, until an intelligence breakthrough led to the identification of a meeting of senior Iranian leadership in Tehran, and the decision was made to carry out a strike directly targeting the leadership, effectively starting the war.

The course of events, as presented in the report, suggests that the diplomatic path was not necessarily a genuine attempt to avoid war, but perhaps served as a political tool to manage military timing. The continuation of negotiations coincided with the largest American military buildup in the region in years, reinforcing the impression that dialogue provided temporal cover to complete operational preparations rather than being a viable path to success. American demands, especially the “zero enrichment” condition, were known beforehand to be unacceptable to Iran, which made reaching an agreement almost impossible from the outset.

In the same context, the announcement of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's visit, scheduled for Monday, March 3, takes on additional political significance. The announcement of the visit appeared to be a continuation of the diplomatic facade and a sign of normal political engagement, at a time when military decisions had practically been made. From this perspective, the late diplomatic moves can be understood as part of managing the international scene and preparing public opinion, rather than a realistic last-ditch effort to prevent escalation, which reflects a recurring pattern in international crises where negotiating channels are sometimes used to secure political legitimacy before proceeding to wage war.

The spokesman for the Saudi army, Major General Turki Al-Maliki, announced on Tuesday morning that the US Embassy headquarters located in the diplomatic quarter of the capital Riyadh was subjected to an aerial attack carried out by drones. Al-Maliki explained that initial estimates indicate the use of two aircraft in the attack, which resulted in a limited fire and minor material damage to the building's structure, with no immediate human casualties recorded.

The diplomatic quarter, which includes the headquarters of foreign missions and diplomatic residences, witnessed strong explosions and rising columns of smoke, causing a state of concern in the area. Field sources reported that firefighting and civil defense teams rushed to the site to control the fire, while security authorities began evacuating the embassy building and its surrounding areas as a precautionary measure to ensure the safety of personnel.

Meanwhile, sources close to the Saudi military establishment revealed that air defense systems succeeded in intercepting and destroying four drones that were flying over the diplomatic quarter. This announcement coincided with press reports indicating that additional explosions were heard in the area, suggesting repeated targeting attempts of the security square that includes foreign embassies.

For its part, the US Embassy in Riyadh issued an urgent statement directing recommendations to its citizens residing in the Kingdom to stay in their homes and exercise extreme caution. The recommendations included citizens in the cities of Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dhahran. International media reports confirmed that the embassy building was empty of staff at the moment of the attack, which was attributed to Iranian sources in the context of escalating military tension in the region.

On the ground, the Saudi army raised its combat readiness to the highest levels since Monday, following a similar attack that targeted the Ras Tanura oil refinery in the Eastern Province. Military sources confirmed that the armed forces are working to secure vital installations and diplomatic centers to confront any potential aerial threats that may target the security and stability of the Kingdom.

These rapid field developments come amid a military aggression launched by Israel and the United States against targets in Iran since last Saturday morning. These operations resulted in hundreds of deaths, including Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of senior security leaders, which prompted Tehran to vow a decisive response targeting American and Israeli interests in the region.

The region is experiencing a state of military turmoil, as Tehran continues to launch barrages of ballistic missiles and drones towards the occupied territories and what it describes as American bases in neighboring countries. These mutual attacks have resulted in casualties and damage to civilian and military installations, amid international fears of the situation escalating into an uncontrollable comprehensive regional war.

The US Embassy in Riyadh was subjected to a drone attack by two drones according to initial estimates, resulting in a limited fire and minor material damage to the building.

The widespread war waged by the American-Israeli coalition against Iran casts dark shadows over the Gaza Strip, despite the relative calm that had recently prevailed in the area. The occupation government announced the complete closure of all crossings to the besieged strip, including the Rafah land crossing, raising fears that Tel Aviv would exploit the regional explosion as a pretext to continue tightening its grip on more than two million Palestinians.

Observers believe that the Gaza Strip has now become a hostage to the new power balances in the region, as the Palestinian street fears that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will evade the obligations of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement. These developments come at a time when the strip has not yet recovered from the consequences of a devastating war that lasted for more than two years and exhausted all aspects of life.

For his part, writer and political analyst Wissam Afifa affirmed that Gaza is not an isolated arena but an integral part of the explosive regional balance network. Afifa explained that the direct escalation with American participation rearranges international priorities, which may lead to a slowdown in the implementation of withdrawal clauses from Gaza or their renegotiation under the pretext of urgent security conditions in the region.

Afifa pointed out that Netanyahu may find in the regional confrontation a golden opportunity to postpone the reconstruction and military withdrawal from the areas controlled by the occupation army. In contrast, the Hamas movement finds itself facing a new reality that requires balancing the preservation of its position in the axis of resistance with the necessity of establishing a ceasefire to protect the exhausted internal front.

On the ground, this major explosion comes after previous rounds of escalation, most notably Tehran's missile attack in October 2024 in response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Those missiles then targeted the positions of the occupation army in the Netzarim axis in the heart of the Gaza Strip, reflecting the close field interconnectedness between the different arenas since the beginning of the aggression.

In June 2025, the region witnessed another wave of escalation that lasted 12 days, during which Israel targeted nuclear and military facilities deep inside Iran. That round coincided with the peak of the deliberate starvation policy practiced by the occupation against the residents of Gaza by closing the crossings, a scenario that is being repeated today in a more dangerous and comprehensive manner.

Security researcher Rami Abu Zubaida believes that the direct entry of the United States into the war means the transfer of the strategic center of gravity from Gaza to the confrontation arena with Iran. This shift will necessarily lead to a state of near-complete stagnation in the political movement related to de-escalation, putting the second phase of the agreement in a state of clinical paralysis.

Abu Zubaida warned that Gaza could turn into an arena for indirect deterrent messages, as the occupation might resort to expanding its limited operations within the strip, taking advantage of the world's preoccupation with the Iranian front. There is also another path, which is to tactically freeze military movements to avoid opening multiple fronts simultaneously that might include Iraq and Yemen.

On the humanitarian front, the numbers show the gravity of the situation, with 629 Palestinians martyred since the supposed ceasefire came into effect last October. This brings the total number of victims of the aggression since 2023 to more than 72,000 martyrs, amid the destruction of 90% of civilian infrastructure and the occupation's control over more than half of the strip's area.

Economically, researcher Ahmed Abu Qamar explained that the organic link between the Palestinian and Israeli economies makes Gaza immediately affected by any disruption in supply chains. He stressed that the closure of the Rafah crossing deprives residents of the only outlet for diversifying sources of goods, which doubles dependence on the Kerem Shalom crossing, which the occupation controls absolutely.

Abu Qamar warned that the strip's storage capacity has been completely eroded after the destruction of major warehouses during the past months of war, making markets highly sensitive to any closure, even for a single day. This reality has created a state of price distortion and a severe disruption in the availability of basic materials, threatening an unprecedented living crisis.

In a related context, field sources confirmed massive explosions in the vicinity of the Iranian Broadcasting and Television Corporation headquarters in Tehran, amid reports of hundreds killed, including high-ranking officials. Despite these strikes, the Iranian corporation announced the continuation of its broadcast, while the occupation army claimed that the headquarters was used as a cover for military operations.

The American side was not immune to losses, as the deaths of 6 American soldiers and serious injuries to 18 others were announced since the start of military operations against Iran last Saturday. Three F-15E fighter jets also crashed over Kuwaiti airspace, in what military sources described as possibly resulting from friendly fire during a state of maximum alert.

Finally, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stressed that the goal of these operations is to destroy Iran's security and missile infrastructure, not to build nations. This statement reinforces Palestinian fears that the region is heading for a wave of widespread destruction from which Gaza, which remains the weakest link in the struggle of major and regional powers, will not escape.

Washington's preoccupation with managing a broader confrontation with Iran will inevitably lead to a decrease in pressure on the Netanyahu government to complete the de-escalation requirements in Gaza.

The Middle East witnessed a dramatic shift in the balance of power following the United States, in coordination with Israel, carrying out the largest direct military operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran in decades. The strike, dubbed 'Epic Wrath,' directly targeted the leadership structure in Tehran, including the Supreme Leader and high-ranking officials, plunging the region into a dark strategic tunnel.

Sources reported that the widespread attack included the destruction of sensitive defensive and missile facilities across the country, utilizing a sophisticated arsenal of naval missiles and fighter jets. The operation also featured the use of advanced 'LUCAS' drones, which contributed to neutralizing Iranian air defense systems in the initial hours of the attack.

These developments come after years of 'maximum pressure' policy and the failure of diplomatic efforts to revive the nuclear deal, with reports indicating that regional pressures pushed Washington to adopt the military option. Observers believe that the current US administration sought to end what it describes as the transnational Iranian threat through a decisive strike targeting the regime's head and its qualitative capabilities.

For his part, the US President announced that the operation's goal goes beyond mere military retaliation, aiming instead to redraw the rules of engagement and impose a new political reality in the region. Washington affirmed that undermining Tehran's leadership structure is the only way to prevent it from achieving a nuclear breakthrough or continuing to destabilize neighboring countries through its proxies.

In response, the Iranian retaliation was not long in coming, as Tehran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks targeting American military bases in the Arabian Gulf region. The Revolutionary Guard announced that any aggression against the country's sovereignty would be met with an all-out war, warning that American and Israeli interests in the region have become legitimate and direct targets.

Economically, the strike caused an earthquake in global energy markets, with Brent crude prices immediately soaring to record levels. Major capitals are concerned about the potential disruption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is the main artery for the flow of about one-fifth of the world's daily oil consumption.

Economic analysts warned that continued escalation could push oil prices past the $100 per barrel mark, exacerbating global inflation rates. Financial markets have already begun to react to the crisis through investors fleeing to safe havens like gold, coinciding with a significant decline in regional stock market indices.

Diplomatically, a state of anticipation and caution prevailed in European capitals, which called for restraint and avoiding a slide into an uncontrollable comprehensive regional confrontation. Diplomatic sources confirmed that the European Union did not participate in the military operation, preferring to stick to negotiating paths despite the complexity of the field situation after the recent assassinations.

Russia and China, for their part, expressed grave concern about the repercussions of the attack on international peace and security, considering that the use of military force complicates crises rather than resolving them. Reports indicated that Moscow might increase its defense cooperation with Tehran in the face of this escalation, threatening to turn the conflict into a broader international confrontation.

Domestically in the United States, the operation sparked sharp political division between supporters who see it as a necessary correction of the strategic course, and opponents who warn against exceeding congressional authority. Democratic representatives demanded immediate restrictions on military operations, fearing the country's involvement in a long-term war of attrition in the Middle East without legislative authorization.

Military experts believe that 'Epic Wrath' aims to restore American deterrence, which has declined in recent years, and send a firm message to all forces allied with Iran. However, risks remain of Tehran resorting to asymmetric warfare tactics or cyberattacks that could target critical infrastructure of adversaries.

Targeting the supreme leadership in Iran represents a precedent in the history of the conflict, which puts the Iranian regime to an existential test to prove its ability to cohere and respond. All eyes are now on how Tehran will manage the succession and leadership file in the absence of its historical figures, and the extent of its impact on its regional influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

In this complex scenario, concerns arise about the bilateral confrontation turning into a multipolar war involving many regional and international parties. The military objectives achieved in the initial hours may be followed by geopolitical repercussions whose extent cannot be predicted, especially if Iran decides to activate all available pressure cards.

In conclusion, the February 2026 operation remains a turning point that will be studied for a long time in strategic research centers, as it combined military audacity with major economic risk. The question will remain whether this strike will actually lead to regional stability under a new deterrence umbrella, or if it will be the spark that ignites an unquenchable regional fire.

US President Donald Trump: This step aims to impose comprehensive change in the regime's behavior and liberate the Iranian people from oppression.

Field sources reported on Monday/Tuesday night that Israeli warplanes carried out an airstrike targeting the southern Dahiyeh of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. This attack came shortly after the occupation army issued urgent warnings to residents of the Haret Hreik area to evacuate immediately in preparation for targeting residential buildings there.

These developments come amidst a series of intense raids launched by Israeli fighter jets on various areas of the southern Dahiyeh, representing a clear violation of the previously concluded ceasefire agreement. This escalation coincides with ongoing regional tensions following the American-Israeli aggression that targeted Iran since last Saturday.

In a related context, the occupation army expanded its threats to include residents of 30 towns in southern Lebanon, demanding them to evacuate their homes immediately in preparation for widespread bombing operations. The army spokesperson for Arab media, Avichay Adraee, published a list of the targeted villages on the X platform, warning residents not to remain in those areas.

The list of threatened towns included Dhahira, Taybeh, Naqoura, Jibbin, Matmoura, Adaysseh, Beit Leif, Blida, Bani Hayyan, Bint Jbeil, Houla, Hanin, Tyre Harfa, Yaroun, and Yarin. The occupation army claimed that Hezbollah's military activities are what compel it to take field action in these populated areas.

The warnings also included additional towns such as Kafr Kila, Muhaybib, Mays al-Jabal, Marwahin, Maroun al-Ras, Markaba, Ainatha, Ayta ash-Shaab, Aitaroun, Alma ash-Shaab, Rab al-Thalathine, Ramiya, Shiheen, Talousa, and Khiam. The occupation demanded residents to move north of the line of villages specified in the military maps it published.

For its part, Hezbollah issued a statement after midnight on Tuesday, affirming that its recent attack on Israeli sites came in the context of a natural response to repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement. The party stressed that it had repeatedly warned that continued aggression without a response would lead to an unavoidable field escalation.

The party clarified in its statement that targeting a military barracks belonging to the usurping entity is a 'defensive act' and a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws of self-defense. The party called on international bodies and officials to pressure Israel to stop its aggression, considering it the direct and sole cause of all escalation in Lebanon.

The confrontations had resumed at dawn on Monday when Hezbollah targeted the 'Mishmar HaCarmel' missile defense site south of Haifa with rockets and drones. Sources confirmed that this operation came in response to the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei in a joint American-Israeli attack, and in protest against the continuous aggressions on Lebanese sovereignty.

In contrast, the Israeli army announced the launch of an 'offensive battle' against Hezbollah, vowing long days of intense fighting. Israeli forces launched a wave of widespread strikes across Lebanon, resulting in dozens of martyrs and wounded, amidst a large wave of displacement from Dahiyeh and the South.

On the Palestinian front, sources reported that the occupation army continued its artillery and aerial bombardment on various areas of the Gaza Strip, targeting the neighborhoods of Zeitoun, Shuja'iyya, and Tuffah. The bombing also affected the town of Beit Lahia and areas east of Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah, leading to martyrs and injuries among civilians.

Statistics indicate that the total casualties of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 2023 have reached 72,096 martyrs and 171,791 injured. Military operations have also caused the destruction of about 90% of civilian infrastructure, amidst the occupation's control over large areas of the Strip's land.

In Lebanon, the number of martyrs since the start of the aggression in October 2023 has exceeded 4,000 martyrs, while more than 17,000 people have been injured. Despite the recent ceasefire agreement being in effect, the number of martyrs who have fallen since its signing has reached 629 martyrs, putting the agreement on the verge of total collapse.

The Islamic Resistance's response to a military barracks in the usurping entity is a defensive act, and it is a legitimate right.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced on Monday a formal decision to completely close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic. This announcement comes amidst an unprecedented military escalation in the region, with the Iranian military command vowing to attack any naval vessels attempting to break this blockade or pass through the vital waterway.\n\nThese rapid field developments follow a widespread military aggression launched by Israel in cooperation with the United States against Iranian territory since last Saturday morning. According to informed sources, the airstrikes and military operations have resulted in hundreds of deaths, including the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, and a number of senior security officials in the country.\n\nIn the first official reaction to these attacks, Ibrahim Jabbari, an advisor to the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, confirmed in statements to state television that Iranian forces would not allow any ship to pass through the strait. Jabbari clarified that this measure comes as a legitimate defense and a direct response to the American and Israeli operations that targeted Iranian sovereignty and its top leadership.\n\n The Iranian military official stressed that the threat also includes the region's energy infrastructure, indicating that his country would place oil pipelines within the targeting circle. He added in a harsh tone that Tehran would not allow "a single drop of oil" to leave the region as long as the aggression against its territory continued, threatening global energy supplies.\n\nOn the ground, media reports indicated a massive fire breaking out on a fuel tanker named 'Athena Nova' flying the Honduran flag while it was in the Strait of Hormuz area. Sources stated that the tanker was targeted by two drones, causing severe damage to its structure and igniting its cargo.\n\nA statement issued by the Revolutionary Guard indicated that the targeted vessel was operating in coordination with US forces in the region. Reports claimed that the tanker was supplying fuel to US Navy ships, which made it a legitimate target in light of the declared state of war and escalating tensions in the Gulf waters.\n\nAlthough the Iranian military spokesman did not explicitly announce his country's responsibility for striking the tanker, he reviewed the incident as part of a military report on the Revolutionary Guard's operations in the region. This hint reflects Tehran's insistence on implementing its threats to prevent any maritime activity linked to the United States or its allies in the nearby waterways.\n\nFor its part, Tehran continues to launch barrages of ballistic missiles and drones towards targets inside Israel and what it describes as American bases deployed in neighboring countries. Some of these strikes have resulted in deaths and injuries, as well as material damage to civilian and military facilities, according to news sources.\n\n The closure of the Strait of Hormuz raises major international concerns due to its geopolitical and economic importance, as it connects major oil producers in the Gulf to global markets. Economic experts warn that disrupting navigation in this passage, through which about a fifth of the world's oil supplies pass, will inevitably lead to a crazy surge in global energy prices.\n\nThe Strait of Hormuz has been closed, we will attack and burn every ship attempting to cross, and not a single drop of oil will be allowed to leave the region.

The Israeli army announced extensive military reinforcements, including the deployment of two additional military divisions along the northern border with Lebanon and in the buffer zone adjacent to the Syrian border. These movements come amid escalating discussions within the Israeli security establishment about an intention to impose a new geographical reality aimed at securing northern settlements from missile threats.

Field assessments indicate that the occupation authorities are actively seeking full control over the Lebanese border strip in the coming phase. This plan aims to establish a buffer zone to prevent anti-tank missiles and direct weapons from reaching settlement communities, despite previous claims of destroying military infrastructure in that area.

In a related context, Israeli forces managed to establish control over five strategic military sites within Lebanese territory in the southern sector. Informed sources reported that work is currently underway to connect these sites with a network of roads and advanced military infrastructure, in a move that mimics the measures taken by the Israeli army in the Syrian border areas recently.

Despite the media blackout imposed by Israeli military censorship on the details of ground operations, reports confirm the completion of the mobilization of tens of thousands of reserve soldiers. These logistical and military preparations suggest full readiness to expand the scope of ground incursions at any moment, amid international anticipation of the outcomes of this dangerous field escalation.

On the ground, recent hours witnessed a violent wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut and several villages in southern Lebanon. These attacks, according to data from the Lebanese Disaster Management Unit, resulted in the martyrdom of 52 people and the injury of more than 150 others, raising the death toll amid continued intense aerial aggression.

On the Gaza Strip front, Israeli aggressions did not stop despite previous ceasefire agreements, as artillery and aerial bombardment targeted the neighborhoods of Zeitoun and Shuja'iyya and the town of Beit Lahia. Occupation forces also targeted areas east of Khan Yunis and Deir al-Balah, leading to more casualties and exacerbating the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the besieged strip.

Updated statistics indicate that the total number of martyrs since the start of the aggression in October 2023 has exceeded 72,000, with more than 171,000 others injured. Continuous military operations have also caused the destruction of about 90% of civilian infrastructure, making large areas of the Gaza Strip uninhabitable due to the lack of basic services.

For its part, Hezbollah continues to carry out military operations in response to Israeli assassinations and aggressions, targeting the 'Mishmar HaCarmel' site south of Haifa. These responses come within the framework of the deterrence equation that the party is trying to maintain, coinciding with the continuation of Israeli raids targeting the Lebanese interior and densely populated residential areas.

The occupation army plans to control the border strip with Lebanon to create a buffer zone under the pretext of protecting northern settlements.

News Analysis

Washington — The Trump administration’s widening war against Iran is being justified with sweeping rhetoric about security and deterrence, yet the evidence presented so far reveals a troubling reality: the United States appears to have entered a major Middle Eastern conflict without demonstrating an imminent threat, a coherent strategy, or a credible plan for ending the war it has begun.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday defended the joint U.S.–Israeli assault as a necessary response to Iranian nuclear ambitions and alleged terrorist threats. Speaking at the Pentagon’s first comprehensive briefing since hostilities began, Hegseth insisted Washington was acting defensively. “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we will end it,” he said, describing the campaign as retribution against Iran’s leadership.

Yet beyond forceful language, officials offered little new intelligence showing that Iran was preparing an immediate attack on the United States or its allies — the traditional legal and strategic threshold used to justify preventive military action. Instead, the administration’s arguments relied heavily on long-standing accusations about Iran’s intentions rather than demonstrable urgency.

The gap between justification and action has revived uncomfortable memories of earlier American wars launched on contested premises, where worst-case assumptions replaced verifiable threats and military escalation preceded political planning.

Hegseth said U.S. forces were striking Iran “surgically, overwhelmingly and unapologetically,” aiming to destroy missile infrastructure and halt any path toward nuclear weapons. But Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a far broader objective: preventing Iran from projecting power beyond its borders. That formulation effectively transforms a limited defensive rationale into an open-ended regional mission with no clear definition of success.

“This work is just beginning,” Caine acknowledged, undercutting any suggestion of a short campaign. His remarks reinforced fears that Washington may be drifting into another prolonged conflict defined less by achievable goals than by expanding military momentum.

President Donald Trump has gone even further, openly declaring that the war seeks to topple Iran’s Islamic Republic, which has ruled since 1979. Yet neither the White House nor the Pentagon has explained how regime change could realistically occur without a massive ground invasion — an option American officials appear unwilling to consider after the costly experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air campaigns alone rarely collapse entrenched governments. Instead, they often consolidate nationalist resistance. The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rather than weakening the state, risks transforming the conflict into a generational struggle fueled by revenge and domestic unity against foreign attack.

Hegseth attempted to deny the campaign constituted regime change even while remarking that the “regime sure did change,” highlighting contradictions that have come to define the administration’s messaging.

Critics increasingly argue that the war’s strategic logic lies less in American national security than in alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing objective of neutralizing Iran militarily. For decades, Netanyahu has warned that Iran represents an existential danger requiring decisive force, a position successive U.S. administrations resisted out of fear of regional escalation.

Now Washington appears to have embraced that vision without fully accounting for its consequences. No administration official has clearly articulated why Iran posed an immediate danger to Americans at the precise moment strikes were launched, raising questions about whether U.S. policy is being driven by alliance politics rather than necessity.

Domestic political reaction reflects that uncertainty. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned why American troops are dying in a war Congress never authorized and whose objectives remain undefined. Democrats are seeking a vote under the War Powers Resolution, arguing that constitutional limits on presidential war-making authority have been bypassed.

“They’re starting a war that we all know will not end well,” Jeffries warned, echoing concerns shared quietly by lawmakers in both parties.

Events on the ground are already demonstrating how quickly escalation can escape control. At least four American service members have been killed, while Kuwait mistakenly shot down three U.S. aircraft, underscoring the confusion and volatility surrounding the conflict. Iran and allied militias responded with missile attacks across multiple countries, striking Israel, U.S. facilities, and regional partners.

Even cities long considered safe economic hubs have felt the impact. Incoming fire near Dubai disrupted global aviation, stranded travelers, and rattled financial markets. Oil prices surged sharply, signaling fears that wider war could threaten the flow of energy through the Persian Gulf, a lifeline of the global economy.

Iran has long warned that any direct attack would trigger region-wide retaliation. That warning now appears less like propaganda and more like unfolding reality.

Perhaps most striking is the administration’s limited public explanation of its long-term vision. Trump has largely avoided sustained public engagement since ordering the strikes, leaving senior officials to articulate shifting rationales that alternate between deterrence, punishment, and regime change.

Historically American presidents benefit from early wartime unity, yet public opinion remains divided, reflecting fatigue after decades of conflict. Without clear evidence, defined objectives, or a realistic exit strategy, this war risks becoming another open-ended intervention with consequences far beyond Iran itself. And history offers few comforting precedents.

In every wave of tension in the region, the discourse of “Greater Israel” returns to the forefront, not as a political analysis, but as a semi-sacred truth in some forums. It is presented as an inevitable project to swallow the region from the Nile to the Euphrates, and every extremist statement is invoked to be included as conclusive evidence that expansion is the ultimate goal. But the question rarely seriously asked is: Are we facing a viable strategic plan, or an ideological ceiling used in a political negotiating context?

Critical reading compels us to distinguish between grand slogans and negotiation ceilings, between mobilization discourse and implementation policies, between the highest ambition and the highest possible.

Historically, the concept of “Greater Israel” has been associated with nationalist and religious currents within Israel, especially after the 1967 war and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan. At that time, the discussion was not theoretical, but directly related to redefining geography and identity. Figures like Menachem Begin clearly expressed a vision that considered the West Bank part of “the historical land of Israel.” With the rise of the right in recent decades, this discourse has been reinforced by leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not hidden his positions on expanding settlements and imposing sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, and explicitly proposed scenarios for annexing large parts of the West Bank. Furthermore, statements by some American officials, such as Mike Huckabee, which downplayed the idea of a Palestinian state or redefined the conflict politically and legally, added fuel to this expansionist perception.

However, transforming every extremist statement into a comprehensive regional war map poses a serious methodological problem. In political science, raising the negotiating ceiling is not a new discovery, but a classic tool: you declare the maximum you want, to eventually achieve what you can establish. When there is talk of “full sovereignty” or denial of Palestine's political existence, the goal may not be to redraw the maps of the entire region, but to establish gradual facts on the ground in the West Bank — facts that over time become irreversible.

The most painful irony is that the continuous exaggeration of the idea of “total engulfment” may — unintentionally — serve gradual annexation policies. When the danger is inflated to the level of swallowing the entire region, the hierarchy of priorities in collective consciousness is reshaped. With the repetition of extreme scenarios, the Arab street absorbs the image of the great catastrophe until it becomes familiar, imaginable, and even expected. And then, if the annexation of the West Bank or the greater part of it is proposed, it may seem — by comparison — like a “lesser” loss, a bitter reality but not the end.

Here lies the real danger: normalizing shock through comparison. When the worst is presented as the likely possibility, anything less becomes relatively acceptable. Comparison turns into a psychological adaptation tool, and decline turns into a logical progression. Instead of the annexation of Palestine being a major political, moral, and legal shock, it becomes a station within a path previously depicted as darker and wider.

This does not mean denying the existence of ideological currents that truly believe in the idea of expansion, nor downplaying the danger of settlement and partial annexation; these are realistic and implementable policies, with far-reaching strategic implications. Any unilateral change in the status of the occupied territories undermines the foundations of international law and deepens the conflict's dilemma. But there is a vast difference between annexing parts of the West Bank — a scenario clearly proposed politically — and an expansionist project extending to neighboring Arab countries, a proposal that lacks the elements of realistic power in the contemporary international system and its complex balances.

The problem is that exaggerating the portrayal of the Zionist project as a comprehensive plan to swallow the region may obscure the more important discussion: how do we confront the actual policies being implemented daily? How do we counter the maps being redrawn through settlement, administrative decisions, laws, and facts on the ground? Preoccupation with imagined maps may — without our knowing it — be the best service that can be rendered to real maps.

The intellectual and media responsibility today is not to recycle the maximum ceiling of discourse, but to dismantle it. It is not to exaggerate the catastrophic scenario, but to protect the very standard of rejection from erosion. For when we convince ourselves that the worst is inevitably coming, we become more prepared to accept what is less than it. And when the great catastrophe becomes familiar in the imagination, the smaller catastrophe becomes a reasonable compromise.

Then, the loss is not only in the land, but in the moral and political sense that defines what is acceptable and what is rejected. For the most dangerous forms of retreat do not happen all at once, but through a series of comparisons that lower the ceiling a little each time — until we find ourselves defending the minimum that we rejected yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has intensified his diplomatic efforts towards the Middle East, conducting a series of phone calls with leaders of Gulf countries including Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. These moves come amid escalating military tensions and ongoing aggression targeting Iranian territory, which has raised international concerns about the conflict spiraling out of control and turning into a comprehensive regional confrontation.

During his talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Putin stressed the need to find urgent political solutions to the current crisis, which he described as extremely dangerous. Sources reported that both sides reviewed the potential repercussions of the expanding scope of confrontations, expressing deep concern about the conflict's spark reaching the territories of other Arab countries, which could lead to dire consequences for international peace and security.

In a related context, the Russian President, during his call with his Emirati counterpart Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, affirmed the imperative of an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table. The Kremlin expressed its readiness to play a mediating role by conveying Emirati concerns to the leadership in Tehran, in an attempt to defuse the crisis and re-establish stability in the region, which is experiencing unprecedented turmoil.

As for the discussions held with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the focus was on the threats of third parties being drawn into the cycle of violence. The two leaders warned that continued military escalation would necessarily complicate the political landscape, making it difficult to contain the side effects of the combat operations that have begun to directly affect air navigation and trade movement.

For its part, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly worded statement condemning the targeting of civilian facilities and targets, both inside Iran and in neighboring Arab countries. Sources indicated that Moscow is following developments on the ground with great concern, and considers that harming civilian infrastructure represents a dangerous escalation that disregards all international laws and norms applicable in armed conflicts.

On the ground, the region witnessed widespread disruptions in air navigation after Tehran launched strikes on targets in Arab countries hosting American military bases. These developments led to the closure of airspace in several areas, causing partial paralysis of air traffic at major international airports such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi, amid a state of maximum security alert throughout the region.

Through these intensive contacts, Russia seeks to establish a de-escalation that ensures the complete collapse of the security system in the Middle East is avoided. Observers believe that direct Russian intervention with Gulf leaders reflects Moscow's desire to balance powers and prevent American unilateralism in managing the crisis, especially with the increasing risks threatening energy sources and global supply routes as a result of mutual military operations.

There is an urgent need to resolve this extremely dangerous situation through political and diplomatic means.

The Jerusalem Governorate issued a comprehensive human rights report monitoring Israeli violations in the Holy City during the past February, confirming that the occupation authorities continue to accelerate their settlement projects at an unprecedented pace. The report clarified that the occupation announced 20 new colonial plans aimed at tightening control over the city and changing its demographic and geographical features, through systematic policies including land confiscation and the expansion of existing settlements.

According to official data based on monitoring the occupation municipality's announcements, 7 of these plans reached the deposit stage, which is the final legal step before final approval. These plans aim to build 613 new settlement units, which will be established on a total area estimated at about 960 dunams of confiscated Palestinian land, threatening further fragmentation of the surrounding Arab neighborhoods.

In a related context, the occupation authorities finally approved 5 other settlement plans that include the construction of 51 housing units on an area of 40 dunams, in addition to issuing an official tender for the construction of 231 additional units. These figures reflect the extremist right-wing government's insistence on imposing a settlement reality that is difficult to reverse, exploiting the current political circumstances to implement previously postponed projects.

Regarding field attacks, sources documented 47 attacks carried out by settler gangs against Jerusalemite citizens and their properties during the same month. These attacks were characterized by excessive violence, with 9 cases of direct physical harm recorded, the most serious of which was the attack that led to the martyrdom of the young man Nasrallah Abu Siyam from the town of Mikhmas, north of Jerusalem, in a new crime added to the record of daily violations.

Settler crimes varied between live fire, setting fire to citizens' property, closing vital roads to traffic, and pursuing shepherds in open areas. The attacks also targeted places of worship and churches, as settlers stormed citizens' homes and wreaked havoc in them under direct protection and military reinforcements from the occupation forces, which provide legal and security cover for these practices.

In its report, the Governorate indicated that this harmony between settler attacks and Israeli government decisions proves the existence of an integrated plan to undermine the status quo in Jerusalem. It considered that the international community's silence regarding these practices encourages the occupation to proceed with the policy of silent ethnic cleansing and to try to completely isolate the Holy City from its Palestinian surroundings in the West Bank.

For its part, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed that the occupation's planning committees studied 107 structural plans in Jerusalem last year, indicating a long-term strategy. These plans were distributed between 41 projects outside the alleged municipality boundaries and 66 within them, a clear indication of the occupation's endeavor to connect major settlement blocs to each other and encircle the Palestinian presence in the city.

The protection of settlers by the occupation forces reflects the integration of roles between colonial groups and the right-wing government to impose new realities on the ground.

Two Palestinian brothers were martyred and three others were injured today, Monday, as a result of an attack carried out by Israeli settlers on the town of Qaryut, located south of Nablus city in the northern occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that citizen Muhammad Taha Maamar (52 years old) was martyred after being shot in the head, while his brother Fahim Taha Maamar (48 years old) was martyred due to a gunshot wound to the pelvic area.

Medical sources in the Palestinian Red Crescent reported that their teams dealt with at least three other injuries resulting from direct gunfire by settlers. Among the injured was a 15-year-old child who was shot in the shoulder. The injured were transferred to nearby hospitals to receive necessary treatment amidst a state of extreme tension that prevailed in the area.

Field sources quoted eyewitnesses that a group of settlers stormed the outskirts of Qaryut town and began bulldozing large areas of agricultural land belonging to citizens. This assault led to violent confrontations, during which settlers fired live ammunition heavily at the residents under tight protection provided by Israeli army forces present at the scene.

In a related context, Israeli occupation forces launched a widespread arrest campaign at dawn today, Monday, covering various areas of the West Bank, resulting in the arrest of 44 Palestinians. Official sources clarified that the campaign targeted 9 children, a girl, and former prisoners, in an escalation that coincided with the holy month of Ramadan and a complete disregard for the sanctity of religious occasions for Palestinians.

Raids and arrests focused on the northern West Bank governorates, where a number of homes and residential sites were converted into field interrogation points and detention centers for citizens. In Nablus governorate, Israeli forces stormed the old and new Askar camps and several villages in the eastern and southern parts, carrying out thorough searches that ended with the arrest of 8 citizens.

In Qalqilya governorate, occupation forces arrested 4 Palestinians, including a girl and released prisoners, after raiding their homes in Habla town and the city center. Tulkarm governorate witnessed similar incursions targeting various villages and suburbs, where 7 citizens were arrested after their homes were ransacked and their families terrorized in the early hours of dawn.

In Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate, incursions focused on villages and towns located north and east of the city, resulting in the arrest of 12 Palestinians, including 9 children. These raids involved heavy firing of live ammunition and sound bombs, while the campaign extended to Hebron governorate, which recorded the highest number of arrests with 13 citizens from its various towns.

Official Palestinian data indicates that the number of prisoners in occupation prisons has exceeded 9,300, including 66 women and 350 children living in harsh conditions. These arrests are accompanied by an escalation in night raids aimed at destroying infrastructure and terrorizing civilian populations in various cities and towns of the West Bank.

These field developments in the West Bank coincide with the ongoing comprehensive Israeli aggression that began in October 2023, which has so far resulted in more than 72,000 martyrs. Despite the ceasefire agreement coming into effect in October 2025, continuous Israeli violations have led to the martyrdom of 629 Palestinians since that date.

On the regional level, today, Monday, witnessed widespread Israeli raids targeting various areas in Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, further complicating the security situation. These raids came at a time when Hezbollah announced targeting the 'Mishmar HaCarmel' site south of Haifa, in response to the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei, which sparked a wave of widespread anger.

In the Gaza Strip, the occupation army continued its artillery and aerial bombardment of areas east of Khan Yunis and Deir al-Balah, in addition to targeting the Al-Zaytoun, Al-Shuja'iya, and Al-Tuffah neighborhoods. Reports confirm that the occupation still controls about 53% of the Strip's area, with about 90% of civilian and service infrastructure continuing to be destroyed.

The escalation of settler attacks in the West Bank, as happened in Qaryut today, reflects a policy of imposing facts on the ground through killing, displacement, and settlement expansion. These attacks continue amidst international silence, with the death toll in the West Bank since the start of the war exceeding 1,118 martyrs and about 22,000 detainees in occupation prisons.

Settlers fired live ammunition at citizens in Qaryut town under direct protection from the Israeli occupation army.

US President Donald Trump launched a series of strongly worded threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran, affirming his readiness to take unprecedented military steps. Trump clarified in a press interview that he does not fear the option of sending ground troops to Iranian territory if necessary, criticizing presidents who rule out this option in advance.

In simultaneous statements, the US President indicated that the ongoing military operations are only the beginning, describing what has happened so far as not having reached the peak of the required force. Trump vowed a 'major wave' of attacks that will target the Iranian interior soon, emphasizing that military pressure will escalate dramatically.

On the ground, the Israeli occupation army revealed statistical data reflecting the extent of the widespread aggression on Iranian territory since the beginning of this week. Military sources reported that Israeli forces used approximately 2,500 missiles and shells to target strategic and vital sites inside Iran in less than three days.

According to official data issued by the occupation, the airstrikes resulted in the destruction of nearly 600 infrastructure facilities belonging to the Iranian regime, including military and industrial installations. The statement also claimed the success of preemptive defenses and attacks in destroying 150 Iranian ballistic missiles before they could be launched towards their targets.

Targeting was not limited to ballistic missiles but also included the destruction of 200 air defense systems and missile launchers, in an attempt to undermine Iran's deterrent capabilities. These developments come amid active American participation through 'B-2' strategic bombers that targeted fortified sites and facilities associated with the missile and nuclear programs.

Regarding the internal political situation in Tehran, Trump acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the identity of the new leadership after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He indicated that Washington is closely monitoring succession plans, affirming that the US administration does not have accurate information about the person who will take the reins in the next phase.

Despite the significant military escalation, international reports quoted American officials expressing doubts about the ability of these operations to bring about immediate change in the Iranian regime. These officials believe that the current goal focuses on destroying qualitative military capabilities, while regime change remains a complex issue that does not appear imminent in the foreseeable future.

In a related context, the Lebanese front witnessed a parallel escalation, as Hezbollah carried out missile attacks targeting the 'Mishmar HaCarmel' site south of the occupied city of Haifa. This targeting, according to the party's statements, came as an initial response to the assassination of the Iranian leader, portending an expansion of the regional confrontation to include multiple fronts.

As for the Gaza Strip, occupation forces continued their violations of the ceasefire agreement by launching airstrikes and artillery shelling that targeted various areas in Khan Yunis and Deir al-Balah. Local sources reported the martyrdom of hundreds of Palestinians since the agreement came into effect last October, amid massive destruction affecting 90% of the Strip's infrastructure.

Recent statistics indicate that the total number of victims of the ongoing aggression on Gaza since October 2023 has exceeded 72,000 martyrs, amid the continued siege and Israeli control over large areas. This humanitarian tragedy coincides with the escalation on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts, placing the entire region on the brink of open confrontations.

The major wave has not yet happened, and it is coming soon, and I will not hesitate to send ground troops if necessary.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/2/2026

News Analysis

President Donald Trump's administration continues to justify the escalating war against Iran with broad rhetoric about security and deterrence. However, the data presented so far reveals a troubling reality: the United States appears to have entered a major military conflict in the Middle East without proving the existence of an imminent threat, formulating a clear strategy, or even having a realistic vision for how to end the war it initiated.

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended the joint US-Israeli attack, describing it as a necessary response to Iran's nuclear ambitions and alleged terrorist threats. During the Pentagon's first comprehensive briefing since the start of operations, he stressed that Washington was acting defensively, stating: "We did not start this war, but under President Trump, we will end it," presenting the campaign as an act of retaliation against the Iranian leadership.

However, the strong statements were not accompanied by new intelligence evidence showing that Iran was preparing for an imminent attack against the United States or its allies, which is the traditional condition Washington has historically relied on to justify preventive wars. Instead, the administration's justifications relied on old accusations related to Iran's future intentions, not on an urgent, demonstrable threat.

This gap between justification and action brought back painful American precedents, when wars were launched based on extreme assumptions rather than confirmed facts, with military operations preceding political planning, and the results proving far more complex than decision-makers anticipated.

Hegseth affirmed that US forces were carrying out "surgical, overwhelming, and unapologetic" strikes aimed at destroying Iran's missile capabilities and preventing any path to acquiring nuclear weapons. But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Kaine presented a much broader goal: preventing Iran from projecting its influence beyond its borders, a vague definition that transforms the war from a limited deterrence operation into an open-ended regional project with no clear measure of success.

Kaine said that "the work is still in its early stages," a statement that dispelled any impression that the confrontation would be short, and reinforced fears of Washington sliding into a long conflict governed more by the dynamics of military escalation than by achievable political objectives.

President Trump went further by explicitly declaring that the war aimed to overthrow the Iranian regime, which has been in power since 1979. However, neither the White House nor the Pentagon explained how regime change could be achieved without a massive ground invasion, an option the United States seems unprepared for after the costly experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military history indicates that air campaigns alone rarely overthrow entrenched regimes; in fact, they often strengthen internal nationalism. The assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than weakening the state, is likely to unite the Iranian interior around a narrative of resistance and revenge.

Despite Hegseth denying that the campaign was a war for regime change, he simultaneously acknowledged that "the regime has already changed," a contradiction reflecting the confusion characterizing the US administration's messages regarding the true objectives of the war.

An increasing number of critics believe that the strategic rationale for the war is not directly related to US national security as much as it reflects alignment with the vision of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who for decades has called for striking Iran. Previous US administrations refrained from adopting this option for fear of a widespread regional explosion, but Trump, since taking office on January 20, 2025, has shown enthusiasm in embracing Netanyahu's ideas in Gaza and Iran.

Today, Washington appears to have adopted that approach without fully appreciating its implications. No official has provided a clear explanation for why Iran became an immediate threat to Americans the moment the strikes began, raising questions about whether US policy is being formulated out of genuine security necessities or due to pressures from political alliances.

Domestic repercussions, in turn, reflect this ambiguity. House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned why American soldiers were falling in a war that Congress had not formally authorized, demanding the activation of the War Powers Act to ensure constitutional oversight of the decision to use force.

Jeffries said the administration was "starting a war that we all know will not end well," expressing concerns quietly echoed within both parties.

On the ground, the risks of escalation quickly began to appear. At least four American soldiers were killed, while Kuwait accidentally shot down three American planes, an indication of operational chaos and the potential for error in a complex combat environment. Iran and its allies responded by launching missiles at Israel, US bases, and regional countries, opening multiple fronts simultaneously.

Even cities that were considered economically safe havens were not spared the repercussions, as areas near Dubai were subjected to attacks that disrupted air traffic and rattled global markets. Oil prices also rose and stock markets declined amid fears of a threat to energy supplies through the Gulf, the vital artery of the global economy.

Iran had repeatedly warned that any direct attack would lead to a comprehensive regional war, a scenario that today seems closer to realization than mere propaganda threat.

Most notably, the administration's public explanation of its long-term vision has been limited. Trump has avoided extensive media appearances since issuing the strike orders, leaving other officials to provide shifting explanations ranging from deterrence and punishment to regime change.

Traditionally, US presidents enjoy public support at the beginning of wars, but public opinion this time appears divided, reflecting deep fatigue after decades of foreign conflicts. In the absence of decisive evidence, specific objectives, or a clear political exit, this conflict faces the risk of turning into a new open-ended war whose repercussions extend beyond Iran's borders, reshaping the region's balances for many years to come.

The Arab region is witnessing a state of military turmoil that began in specific points, but its fragments now threaten the overall stability of the region's countries. Amidst this raging conflict, a fundamental question arises about the ability of active parties to control the course of a war whose end is no longer in the hands of those who started it.

Domestically in Egypt, a media discourse prevails that tends towards superficiality in addressing major crises, focusing on the absence of American military bases as proof of escaping involvement in conflicts. However, this perception overlooks the structural complexities that link the military establishment to long-term international obligations and security agreements.

The peace treaty signed in 1979 remains the cornerstone in defining the shape of Egyptian military deployment in Sinai, having placed clear legal restrictions on the type of weapons and the size of forces. These restrictions, while maintaining a state of stability for decades, have created a framework that limits absolute sovereignty in field operations.

The Egyptian military force, despite its size and development, finds itself constrained by precise political and strategic calculations that make the option of direct confrontation an unpredictable risk. This constraint is closely linked to the heavy reliance on technologies, weapons, and military aid coming from the United States of America.

On the media front, a striking preoccupation with producing dramatic narratives is observed, such as the series 'Ras al-Af'a' (Head of the Serpent), which portrays the Muslim Brotherhood as the sole existential threat to the state's entity. This approach contributes to directing public opinion towards internal battles, while real regional threats move in the shadows, away from the spotlight.

Observers believe that the Egyptian public may be more aware than the media platforms that try to simplify the conflict, as citizens realize that the real dangers lie in changing alliances. Preoccupation with an internal enemy may lead to strategic oversight of the real 'serpents' lurking for the country's national security in international forums.

The features of Egyptian realpolitik are evident in recent diplomatic stances towards the Iranian-American conflict, where Cairo refrained from condemning strikes against Iranian targets. In contrast, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry was quick to criticize any targeting of American bases, reflecting a critical balance that leans towards preserving interests with Washington.

This diplomatic bias is not merely a fleeting political choice, but a reflection of the limited strategic freedom imposed by international obligations and economic realities. The Egyptian decision is governed by the necessity of maintaining regional stability and avoiding clashes that could lead to uncontrollable economic or military repercussions.

Building a strong internal front requires a unifying political discourse that transcends the policies of exclusion promoted by some media figures, with the aim of strengthening the national fabric to confront external challenges. Military power alone is not enough to protect homelands if it is not supported by public awareness that understands the extent of international pressures imposed.

Today's real battle is taking place in secret, away from television screens and the headlines of dramatic series, where new alliances are forming that may change the map of influence in the Middle East. This reality requires a precise reading of rapidly changing variables instead of getting lost in media illusions that do not serve the state's supreme interests.

The Egyptian army possesses human and material capabilities, but activating this force in the face of American or Israeli interests remains fraught with major strategic risks. The link to the Western defense system makes any independent move an adventure that could threaten the flow of vital military and logistical supplies.

Decision-makers and the media alike must separate political propaganda from the field realities imposed by geopolitics, as the challenges facing Egypt transcend narrow partisan conflicts. Strategic awareness requires acknowledging limitations and working to expand the margin of political maneuver in a turbulent international system.

Ultimately, the ability to make free decisions remains the true measure of power, and this ability is only achieved by a delicate balance between international obligations and national aspirations. The real 'serpent' is not in the series, but in those alliances and interests that may change the fate of peoples without prior warning or preparation.

Restoring strategic initiative requires a comprehensive re-evaluation of media and political discourse, so that it can immunize society against actual risks. True stability stems from a deep understanding of reality, not from escaping into side battles that drain national energies away from existential threats.

Politics is not just military power or the number of tanks, but the ability to make free decisions within complex strategic and economic constraints.

The Israeli-American partnership in the current war on Iran has become unprecedentedly clear, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu successfully imposing the Israeli vision and making it the cornerstone of American strategy in the region. This shift ended the previous hesitation within President Donald Trump's administration, tipping the scales in favor of the current advocating for direct confrontation and targeting political and military elites, as embodied in the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a move reflecting the triumph of absolute power over traditional political calculations.

Sources reported that military operations effectively began with an Israeli operation dubbed 'Rising Lion,' targeting nuclear and military facilities and technical crews. The Iranian side responded with 'True Promise 3' through ballistic missile and drone attacks. This escalation prompted the American President, who had long called for an end to wars, to engage directly through 'Midnight Hammer,' which targeted vital sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in full coordination with Tel Aviv, representing a strategic development that made Israel the 'brain' of military and security operations in the region.

The assassinations of Khamenei and his family, in addition to President Masoud Pezeshkian and former President Ahmadinejad, revealed a massive security and political breach within the structure of the Iranian regime. Field data shows a complete reliance on modern warfare technologies, where data is collected via phones and financial transfers and processed by artificial intelligence linked to intelligence agencies. In response, the Iranian retaliation escalated to igniting the region by targeting energy corridors in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf region, a tactic aimed at raising the cost of war to include everyone without red lines.

Israel and America no longer need field spies; instead, artificial intelligence platforms and digital data now play the role of informant on humanity in the most precise details of its life and death.

Palestinian sources confirmed that the Israeli occupation army has tightened its military grip on the West Bank, transforming its cities and villages into what resembles closed prisons by deploying hundreds of checkpoints, crossings, and iron gates. The Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative, Mustafa Barghouti, explained that this systematic closure has led to a severe paralysis in vital facilities, especially the health and education sectors, in addition to the severe damage inflicted on the national economy and social interaction.

These repressive measures coincide with the widespread military aggression launched by the occupation army, in cooperation with US forces, against the Islamic Republic of Iran under the name of 'Operation Lion's Roar'. Israeli decisions included closing all crossings in the occupied Palestinian territories until further notice, with very limited exceptions for so-called 'vital workers' under strict restrictions whose mechanisms have not yet been detailed.

In a related context, field sources reported that the occupation army continues its military escalation on various fronts, launching intensive airstrikes and artillery shelling targeting various areas in the Gaza Strip, including Khan Yunis, Deir al-Balah, and the Shuja'iyya and Tuffah neighborhoods. Despite the ceasefire agreement coming into effect last October, continuous Israeli violations have resulted in the martyrdom of hundreds of Palestinians and the destruction of what remained of the infrastructure.

Official statistics indicate that occupation attacks in the West Bank since October 2023 have led to the martyrdom of more than 1,118 Palestinians and the injury of approximately 11,700 others, while arrests have exceeded 22,000 detainees. These policies, according to observers, aim to impose new geographical and demographic realities on the ground, exploiting the regional preoccupation with widespread military operations.

Regionally, the aggression did not stop at the borders of Palestine but extended to include widespread raids on Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, exacerbating tensions in the region. These developments came at a time when the White House announced the United States' involvement in large-scale combat operations, reflecting high-level military coordination aimed at reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East through military force.

In the Gaza Strip, the occupation still controls about 53% of the Strip's area, with continued targeting of civilians in the eastern areas of Gaza City and the town of Beit Lahia. The total death toll from the ongoing aggression for two years has exceeded 72,000 martyrs and approximately 171,000 injured, amid destruction affecting 90% of civilian and service facilities, making daily life for residents almost impossible.

Experts believe that turning the West Bank into human enclaves represents the culmination of the collective punishment policy pursued by the occupation to break the will of Palestinians and prevent any popular movement supporting other fronts. The continued closure of crossings and the geographical division of governorates threaten an imminent humanitarian catastrophe, given the depletion of essential medical supplies and the difficulty for students and employees to reach their workplaces and educational institutions.

Cutting off the West Bank through checkpoints and closures practically represents imposing a curfew between Palestinian areas and governorates.

Washington – Said Arikat – 2/3/2026

US President Donald Trump predicted that the war he launched against Iran would last "about four weeks," at a time when US and Israeli military operations are escalating and regional losses and risks are increasing, while the US administration remains unable to provide a clear vision for the end of the conflict or a verifiable definition of what it considers a "victory."

In an interview with the "Daily Mail" published on Sunday, Trump said that the timeline for the war was known from the beginning, adding: "The operation has always taken four weeks… Iran is a big country, and no matter how strong it is, it will take four weeks — or less." However, this time estimate, according to military analysts, reflects political confidence more than a solid field assessment, especially given the nature of modern wars, which rarely adhere to pre-announced timelines.

The United States and Israel continue to carry out intensive strikes targeting Iranian military sites and infrastructure, while Tehran responds by launching ballistic missiles and drones that have proven their ability to bypass some defense systems and cause direct impact inside Israel and target American bases in the region, indicating that the balance of deterrence has not yet been decided despite US military superiority.

The "Wall Street Journal" reported that Washington is rushing to deplete Iran's missile capability before facing an inverse challenge of declining interceptor missile stockpiles. US forces have used massive numbers of "THAAD," "Patriot," and "SM-" systems to defend Israel and its regional bases, in a financially and militarily costly defensive battle.

Experts point out that this equation reveals a recurring strategic imbalance in asymmetric wars: the world's greatest power finds itself forced to use expensive defense systems to intercept much cheaper offensive means. Over time, the attrition factor may turn into an element of internal political pressure, especially if no decisive progress is made to justify the continuation of operations to the American public.

In a development reflecting escalating risks, Trump acknowledged the killing of three American soldiers in an Iranian attack targeting a US base in Kuwait, the first human losses acknowledged by US Central Command since the start of the war. The President said: "They are great soldiers… We expect this to happen, unfortunately, and it may happen again," a statement critics considered an attempt to prepare public opinion for the possibility of a rising death toll.

In a later video statement, Trump explicitly acknowledged that more Americans might be killed before the war ends, saying: "This is the reality." This rhetoric reflects a significant shift from promises of quick decisive action to managing expectations of losses, a shift that often accompanies the early stages of wars when human costs begin to emerge.

Observers note that the US administration has not yet provided a coherent narrative explaining the urgency of starting the war or its ultimate goals. The President has not delivered a lengthy address to the nation, nor has he held a comprehensive press conference, while senior officials have been absent from major political programs, which reinforced the impression that the administration is seeking to avoid intense media scrutiny regarding the intelligence justifications that preceded the attack.

Critics say that this absence recalls previous patterns in US foreign policy, where military operations begin with urgent threat narratives before those narratives are later challenged or revised. With the absence of transparency, public debate is confined between supporting the armed forces and questioning the decisions of the political leadership, a delicate balance that often collapses as the war continues and its cost rises.

In the broader context, analysts believe that setting a timeline for the war may be primarily aimed at domestic political consumption, rather than being an accurate military estimate. Successive US administrations have often sought to reassure the public that interventions would be "short and limited," before turning into longer and more complex commitments as a result of escalation dynamics and mutual reactions.

Amid continued strikes and counterattacks, the current war appears closer to a gradual war of attrition than a swift campaign. Iran does not need to achieve direct military superiority as much as it needs to prolong the confrontation to raise its political and economic cost, while Washington bets that intense military pressure will force Tehran to back down before the conflict expands.

Between these two conflicting bets, Trump's estimate that the war will end in four weeks remains an early test of the administration's credibility, as the gap between political expectations and field reality has historically been one of the most prominent factors that reshaped American attitudes towards foreign wars — often too late.

The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, announced that the agency has not yet observed any concrete evidence indicating damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure as a result of recent attacks. These statements were made during the opening of an extraordinary session of the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna, dedicated to discussing escalating tensions and threats facing Iran's nuclear program amidst ongoing military operations.

In contrast, the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, presented a different account confirming a direct targeting of the vital Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Najafi clarified that Tehran officially informed the Director-General via a message from the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, stating that the facility, which is subject to international safeguards, had been subjected to military aggression during the latest wave of Israeli and American attacks.

Grossi, in his address to member states, emphasized the necessity of exercising maximum restraint to avoid the region sliding into an unprecedented nuclear catastrophe. He indicated that initial assessments included the Bushehr power plant and the Tehran research reactor, confirming that technical communication channels with the Iranian side still face difficulties in rapid response, expressing hope for full coordination to be restored as soon as possible.

The Director-General of the agency warned that the continuation of military operations in the vicinity of nuclear facilities raises the risk to critical levels that could lead to widespread radioactive leakage. He added that the repercussions of such a scenario would not be limited to the targeted sites but could necessitate forced evacuations of residents from major cities, posing an existential threat to regional and international security.

The international warning was not limited to inside Iran but extended to include nuclear facilities in neighboring countries that could be affected by the armed conflict. Grossi pointed to the presence of four civilian nuclear reactors in the UAE, in addition to research reactors in both Jordan and Syria, considering all these sites to be within the circle of security concern as a result of the continuous military escalation.

These developments follow a request by Russia and Iran to hold an emergency meeting of the Board of Governors, which includes 35 member states, to discuss the repercussions of attacks on sensitive facilities. This extraordinary meeting precedes a regular session of the Board, reflecting the state of diplomatic alert to confront the possibilities of the conflict getting out of control in the nuclear file.

Reports indicate that the Natanz site, which is the backbone of Iran's enrichment operations, has been a repeated target of military and cyber operations in recent years. The latest Iranian accusations further complicate the scene, especially since Tehran considers the targeting of its internationally protected facilities a grave violation of conventions and norms that exempt nuclear sites from armed conflicts.

In a related context, sources reported that international concern is growing about retaliatory actions that could affect vital energy facilities in the region, potentially igniting a comprehensive regional war. The IAEA is closely monitoring any field movements or changes in radiation levels through monitoring stations, in an attempt to ensure that nuclear facilities do not become tools in the ongoing military conflict.

The possibility of a radioactive leak with serious consequences cannot be ruled out, which means the need to evacuate areas the size of major cities or larger.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/2/2026

News Analysis

As the war enters its third day, the image that accompanied the initial strike is rapidly fading. What was presented as a decisive military operation to prevent an imminent threat is turning into an open conflict, raising fundamental questions about the war's motives and whether the United States and Israel rushed into confrontation without a precise calculation of its long-term political and military repercussions.

The assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strike is the most dramatic event in the war so far. However, eliminating the head of the regime does not necessarily mean its collapse, as some interpretations in Washington and Tel Aviv assume. Historical experiences indicate that targeting the supreme leadership often leads to a re-formation of power rather than its disintegration. Younger and more hardline leaders, perhaps from the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard, are likely to advance to the decision-making center, which could strengthen the security character of the Iranian regime and give the military establishment greater influence at the expense of traditional political and religious institutions. Thus, the assassination might turn into a factor of national mobilization, giving the regime new momentum instead of quickly overthrowing it.

Domestically in the US, the killing of three American soldiers immediately shifted the war from the external theater of operations to the internal political arena. Human casualties, even in early stages, change the nature of public debate and raise questions about the war's utility and ultimate goals. With no direct and immediate threat to American soil, some critics began to question whether the administration had entered a war of choice rather than strategic necessity.

President Donald Trump tried to contain concerns with statements saying that operations could end within "four weeks or less," asserting that the campaign was "ahead of schedule." Atlantic magazine also quoted him as saying that the Iranians were seeking negotiations and that Iranian military leaders wished to surrender. However, such statements reflect a political optimism familiar at the beginning of wars, where risk assessments are often downplayed to solidify domestic support. American history, from Iraq to Afghanistan, shows that wars that begin with short-term expectations rarely end according to announced schedules.

Israel, for its part, announced its intention to expand strikes, a move reflecting a firm conviction that military force can reshape the strategic environment in the region. But critics argue that this approach ignores decades of conflict lessons, where preemptive strikes have proven capable of postponing threats, not ending them. Indeed, continuous escalation increases the likelihood of additional regional parties becoming involved, which could turn a limited confrontation into a multi-front war difficult to contain.

Trump chose to frame the war in moral language, presenting it as a necessity to protect Americans from a "dangerous" regime. However, this rhetoric, according to analysts, conceals a more complex reality of intense political pressure exerted by Benjamin Netanyahu to push Washington towards military confrontation. Turning the war into a moral issue gives it immediate political legitimacy, but it reduces the margin for diplomacy, as any subsequent retreat might appear as an abandonment of a moral principle rather than merely a strategic reassessment.

Here emerges the biggest dilemma: the absence of a clear vision for the day after. Wars aimed at changing or overthrowing regimes rarely achieve rapid stability. In the Iranian case, dismantling the traditional leadership might lead to the rise of more hardline and organized forces, creating a more hostile regime instead of a more moderate one. This possibility raises questions about whether Washington and Tel Aviv focused more on the moment of the strike than on considering its political outcomes.

The war also reveals that the decision for confrontation was not solely the product of American calculations, but rather the result of complex regional pressures converging. The strategic rapprochement between Israel and some Gulf powers concerned about Iranian influence contributed to creating a political climate that pushed towards the military option after years of hesitation. Critics point out that this pattern reflects a shift in American decision-making, where Washington sometimes becomes part of regional security agendas instead of being the party that defines them.

Militarily, officials expect the exchange of missile strikes to continue in the coming days, meaning that decisiveness will not be determined by the first strike but by each party's ability to withstand attrition. If Iran retains its ability to retaliate, the war could turn into a long confrontation that drains resources, destabilizes energy markets, and increases political pressures within the United States itself.

Just two days into the fighting, the question no longer seems to be how the war started, but why it started so quickly, and without extensive public debate about its alternatives. While Washington and Tel Aviv assert that the goal is to prevent nuclear proliferation, critics believe that the early resort to force may have accelerated the crisis instead of containing it. Between these two interpretations, the region enters a new phase that may reshape its balances for many years — a war that began with high confidence in decisiveness, but quickly reveals the limits of military power when used without a clear political vision for the end.

The Lebanese arena witnessed a dangerous military escalation today, Monday, as the Israeli occupation army carried out a precise airstrike targeting what it described as a 'prominent commander' within Hezbollah ranks in Beirut's southern Dahiyeh. This attack coincided with a wave of violent explosions that rocked the Lebanese capital, indicating an expansion of Israeli air operations to include the party's command and control centers.

In a significant political and field development, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz announced via the 'X' platform that Hezbollah's Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, has become a direct target for physical elimination. This public threat comes at a sensitive time following the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, raising the level of tension to unprecedented levels in the region and opening the door to broader confrontations.

On the ground, the occupation army command issued immediate evacuation orders for residents of more than 50 villages in southern and eastern Lebanon, in a preemptive move to launch intensive airstrikes. Local sources reported more than ten explosions in Beirut and its surroundings, while Tel Aviv confirmed that it is targeting military infrastructure and high-ranking figures it claims are linked to planning attacks against the occupied territories.

For its part, Hezbollah responded by launching rocket barrages and kamikaze drones targeting military sites in northern occupied Palestine, including the 'Mishmar HaCarmel' site south of Haifa. The party clarified in its statements that these operations come as an initial response to Khamenei's assassination, emphasizing the continuation of the resistance option in the face of ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Palestine.

Regarding the possibilities of a ground invasion, there was a state of contradiction in the statements of the occupation army spokesmen, as Nadav Shoshani denied the existence of justifications for launching a ground attack in the 'near future'. However, the other spokesman, Avi Defrin, affirmed that all military options remain on the table, indicating that Hezbollah will pay a heavy price for its recent attacks.

On the Palestinian front, Israeli aggression did not stop despite the ceasefire agreements in effect since last October, as occupation aircraft and artillery launched intensive raids on the Gaza Strip. The attacks targeted areas east of Khan Yunis and Deir al-Balah, in addition to the Zeitoun, Shuja'iyya, and Tuffah neighborhoods in Gaza City, leading to new civilian casualties.

Medical sources reported the martyrdom and injury of a number of citizens, including children, as a result of gunfire and artillery shelling targeting the town of Beit Lahia north of the Strip and the Abu al-Ajeen area east of Deir al-Balah. These violations come amid the occupation's control over about 53% of the Gaza Strip's area, and the destruction of nearly 90% of civilian infrastructure since the start of the aggression in October 2023.

Official statistics indicate that the number of martyrs since the last ceasefire agreement came into effect on October 10, 2025, has reached 629 martyrs, while about 1693 others have been injured. This continuous escalation raises the total number of victims of the comprehensive Israeli aggression to more than 72,000 martyrs and over 171,000 injured, amid catastrophic humanitarian conditions experienced by the residents of the Strip.

In a related context, sirens sounded across the occupied territories, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, warning of a new Iranian missile attack. Media sources said that a wave of missiles was launched from central Iran towards Israeli military targets, leading to widespread disruption in air traffic and a significant rise in global oil prices.

Lebanese presidency had previously received assurances from the American ambassador that Israel would not escalate militarily unless Lebanese parties initiated hostile actions. However, these understandings seem to have completely collapsed with the occupation army's insistence on holding Hezbollah fully responsible for any field escalation, and continuing to target Lebanese depth with devastating raids.

Rescue and civil defense teams in Gaza and Lebanon are suffering from extreme difficulties in recovering victims from under the rubble due to the lack of heavy equipment and the continuation of air and artillery shelling. Thousands of missing persons remain under the rubble in the streets and targeted areas, amid international warnings of a worsening humanitarian crisis if military operations continue and expand.

The latest escalation reflects the failure of diplomatic efforts to contain the conflict, which has begun to extend to include multiple regional parties, especially after the mutual attacks between Washington and Tel Aviv on one hand and Tehran on the other. Military circles in Tel Aviv expect the current offensive battle to continue for several days, with a focus on weakening Hezbollah's missile and leadership capabilities.

In conclusion, the field scene remains open to all possibilities, with continued Israeli military buildup on the northern and southern borders. In the absence of a clear political horizon, civilians in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip face the repercussions of a devastating war that does not differentiate between military targets and civilian facilities, placing the international community before its responsibilities to stop the bloodshed.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem has now become a target for elimination.

Israeli occupation aircraft and artillery renewed their targeting of wide areas in the Gaza Strip today, Monday, in a continuation of a series of systematic violations of the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 10, 2025. Local sources reported that the aerial and artillery bombardment focused on the eastern areas of Khan Yunis in the south and Deir al-Balah in the central Strip, accompanied by intense gunfire from military vehicles stationed behind the so-called 'Yellow Line'.

In Gaza City and the northern Strip, heavy artillery shelling targeted the neighborhoods of Zeitoun, Shuja'iyya, and Tuffah, in addition to targeting the northern and eastern areas of Beit Lahia. These military movements come amidst the deployment of occupation forces over an area estimated at about 53% of the Strip's territory, which are areas designated by the agreement as temporary deployment rights for the Israeli army, while it is prohibited from targeting civilians in the western areas.

Regarding human casualties, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of two young men, Omar Sufyan Manoun and Mustafa Ahmed Zaghloul, as a result of artillery shelling that targeted the Jabalia البلد area, noting that the two martyrs fell in an area outside the agreed-upon Israeli control. These new aggressions raise the death toll since the signing of the last truce agreement to 629 martyrs and more than 1600 injured, putting the agreement on the verge of total collapse.

These field developments in Gaza coincide with a widespread military escalation on the Lebanese front, where the occupation launched violent raids on the southern suburbs of Beirut and issued evacuation orders for dozens of villages. Field sources linked the escalation in Gaza to the military operations in Lebanon, especially after Hezbollah announced targeting strategic sites south of Haifa in response to the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei in a joint American-Israeli attack.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip is suffering from massive destruction affecting about 90% of its infrastructure as a result of the war of extermination that began in October 2023 with direct American support. According to the latest official statistics, the total number of martyrs in the Strip since the beginning of the aggression has exceeded 72,000 martyrs, while the number of injured has exceeded 171,000, amidst catastrophic humanitarian and health conditions experienced by the besieged population.

Since the start of the ceasefire, the Israeli army has killed 629 Palestinians and injured about 1693 others through shelling and gunfire.

The Department of Palestinian Affairs and Planning in the Palestine Liberation Organization issued its monthly report on settler attacks and the demolition of homes and structures in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, and the most prominent points were:

First: Attacks by settler gangs

During last January, settler gangs carried out (639) attacks against Palestinian citizens and their properties, an increase of 181% compared to the same period last year 2025.

These criminal attacks resulted in the martyrdom of two young men, Nasrallah Muhammad Abu Siam (19 years old) from the village of Mikhmas, northeast of Jerusalem Governorate, and Tamer Ismail Qaisiya (19 years old) from the town of Al-Dhahiriya, south of Hebron Governorate, as a result of direct shooting at them. Also, (102) citizens were injured with various wounds as a result of being beaten, shot, pelted with stones, and sprayed with gas, including (11) women and (4) children.

The attacks included (25) shooting incidents, while criminal settler gangs destroyed and uprooted (1051) fruitful trees, and stole and killed (755) head of livestock belonging to Palestinian farmers with the aim of restricting them and increasing the cost of their stay on the land. Damage was inflicted on (57) vehicles as a result of burning or stoning them, while settler gangs destroyed and burned (50) homes and agricultural, animal, and service facilities in villages and towns of the West Bank, concentrated in the governorates of Jericho, Jerusalem, Hebron, Ramallah, and Al-Bireh.

In the context of pastoral settlement expansion, the Department of Affairs and Planning monitored during the past month attempts to establish two pastoral settlement outposts in the Al-Rahwa area near the town of Al-Dhahiriya, south of Hebron, and an outpost between the villages of Jalud and Talfit.

The criminal attacks were concentrated in Nablus Governorate (145) attacks, Ramallah and Al-Bireh Governorate (145) attacks, then Hebron Governorate (129) attacks, Tubas and Northern Valleys Governorate (64) attacks, Jerusalem Governorate (46) attacks, Bethlehem Governorate (35) attacks, Salfit Governorate (24) attacks, Jericho Governorate (24) attacks, Qalqilya Governorate (14) attacks, Jenin Governorate (8) attacks, Tulkarm Governorate (6) attacks.

Second: Demolition of homes and structures

During last February, the Israeli occupation authorities demolished (215) homes and structures in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, including the demolition of (88) homes and (127) structures, among them (17) self-demolition operations in the towns of Jabal Al-Mukaber, Silwan, Beit Hanina, Sur Baher, and Al-Issawiya in occupied Jerusalem, carried out by their owners to avoid paying exorbitant fines. The demolition operations included all governorates of the West Bank.

In the framework of the collective punishment policy, the Zionist occupation army forces demolished three homes belonging to the families of martyrs: the home of martyr Mahmoud Abed in the town of Halhul, the home of martyr Walid Sabarneh in the town of Beit Ummar in Hebron Governorate, and the home of martyr Raafat Dawas in the town of Silat al-Harithiya in Jenin Governorate.

Settler gangs continued to sabotage and destroy citizens' facilities in the villages and cities of the West Bank, where the department documented settlers burning and destroying (50) homes and service, agricultural, and animal facilities, the largest of which was the demolition of (22) homes in the Al-Duyuk cluster north of Jericho city.

The occupation authorities notified (251) homes and structures of demolition and cessation of construction and work, and the notifications included the governorates of Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nablus, Tubas and the Northern Valleys, Ramallah and Al-Bireh, Qalqilya, Salfit, and Tulkarm.

The commander of the Israeli occupation army, Eyal Zamir, announced the transition of military forces from a defensive state to launching a comprehensive offensive battle against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Zamir confirmed in official statements that the army has already begun implementing waves of airstrikes, calling on the home front and the military establishment to prepare for a long period of continuous fighting and to exploit all available operational opportunities.

These field developments come after Hezbollah launched three rocket projectiles towards the city of Haifa, in addition to other barrages targeting the center of the country and drones that were intercepted over the Upper Galilee. Despite initial official silence, Hebrew media sources indicated that the security establishment sees this escalation as a pretext to complete the destruction of the party's military arsenal and disarm it permanently.

In the context of political incitement, heads of local authorities in Galilee settlements called on the Israeli government to seize what they described as 'Hezbollah's mistake' to dismantle its organizational structure in cooperation with international parties. Former National Security Advisor, Uzi Dayan, also called for the complete displacement of residents of southern Lebanon and turning the area into a 'death zone' devoid of life, emphasizing the necessity of striking the vital infrastructure of the Lebanese state.

Operationally, the occupation army initiated the call-up of thousands of reserve soldiers to reinforce various fronts, while military intelligence units began recruiting additional personnel. These moves reflect Israeli fears of the confrontation expanding to include additional fronts, especially with the continued escalating regional tension and the intertwining of issues between Lebanon and Iran.

Regarding the Iranian file, former National Security Advisor, Yaakov Nagel, revealed that the current Israeli approach is now openly focused on seeking to overthrow the ruling regime in Tehran. Nagel explained that the previous abstention from declaring this goal was due to political and diplomatic considerations, but the current phase requires harsh strikes targeting military and intelligence leaders to destabilize the regime.

Hebrew reports indicated that recent airstrikes focused intensively on the capital Tehran and vital facilities in Isfahan, where Iran is believed to be hiding quantities of enriched uranium. These raids, according to sources, aim to undermine the Iranian nuclear project concurrently with attempts to assassinate high-ranking figures in the Revolutionary Guard and sensitive security agencies.

Despite ambitious Israeli aspirations, sources in the 'Cabinet' acknowledged that there are assessments indicating that military effort alone may not be enough to overthrow the Iranian regime, but rather aims to weaken it to the maximum extent. Tel Aviv is betting that these successive strikes will encourage the Iranian street to revolt, exploiting the vacuum created after the assassination of influential leading figures in the political and military structure.

For his part, US President Donald Trump entered the crisis with statements that raised questions in Tel Aviv, where he predicted that military operations against Iran would continue for four weeks or less. Trump indicated that there were contacts with Iranian parties that requested to speak with the US administration, which raised concerns among some Israeli officials about the possibility of Washington seeking an early diplomatic solution.

Domestically in Israel, political analysts warned of the heavy price Israel might pay if the war prolongs, especially with continued economic losses in the north and disruption of life in border settlements. The diplomatic affairs editor at Hebrew Radio indicated that the capture of any Israeli pilot could turn the tables and impose new rules of engagement that the government does not desire.

Anticipation remains the master of the situation on the northern front, where intelligence estimates indicate that Hezbollah has used only a small fraction of its missile capabilities so far. Security sources fear that the latest attack is merely a 'symbolic operation' preceding a wider escalation, which puts the Israeli army on maximum alert awaiting what the coming days will bring in terms of field confrontations.

We have launched an offensive battle against Hezbollah, and we are not only on the defensive lines, but we are moving to the offensive and must prepare for many days of fighting.

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The ongoing confrontation represents an existential struggle related to the survival of the Iranian regime itself and may last longer than expected by Israel and America. Akram Atallah: It is unlikely that diplomacy will defuse the war because it has been largely exhausted during the past period without achieving tangible results. Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: The possibility of concluding a "deal under fire" using military strikes as a means of pressure to impose a new agreement with stricter conditions than the 2015 agreement. Dr. Suhail Diab: The assassination may lead to the selection of a new leadership more hardline than Khamenei and adopting a less pragmatic approach regarding nuclear negotiations, which may increase the intensity of the confrontation. Adnan Al-Sabah: US attempts to activate internal movements against the Iranian regime failed after any movement was branded as treason and serving America and Israel. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: The current conflict is a historic opportunity for Washington and Tel Aviv to strengthen their influence, and the results of the war will be pivotal in redrawing the map of the Middle East. Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" - The region is entering a very sensitive stage with the escalation of military confrontation against Iran and the reciprocal response, amid estimations that the current conflict goes beyond being a limited confrontation to take on an existential character that may reshape the balances of the Middle East. Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that the war is likely to continue for longer than expected, in light of the assassination of prominent leaders, most notably the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, and the targeting of strategic facilities and sensitive military infrastructure inside Iran, while Tehran seeks to maintain the cohesion of its political system and its ability to respond. Estimates vary regarding the outcomes of the confrontation, between the possibilities of reaching a settlement imposed by military pressures, or sliding into a long war of attrition that may extend to multiple regional arenas. Scenarios also emerge ranging from Iran's retreat and acceptance of new conditions that change its political and regional behavior, or continued escalation that may lead to widespread losses and deep security and economic repercussions that may affect the entire region. According to writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in light of the continued military confrontation, the chances of diplomatic solutions appear limited in the short term, with the widening trust gap between the parties and conflicting strategic objectives. They agree that the results of the confrontation are still undecided, and that the current stage represents a real test of the ability of the warring parties to withstand, at a time when developments on the ground may determine the shape of the regional order and the future of the balance of power in the Middle East for many years to come. A decisive moment that may reshape the region. Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, Professor of Political Science and International Relations and specialist in American affairs, believes that the region, after the war with Iran, is going through a decisive moment that may reshape the Middle East and leave deep impacts on Iran and the structure of its political system, pointing out that the outcomes of the current confrontation depend on the ability of the Iranian people to bear the consequences of the war, against the ability of Israel and the United States to continue targeting sensitive strategic sites inside Iran. Al-Deek explains that the ongoing confrontation cannot be described as a short or limited war, but rather represents an existential struggle related to the survival of the Iranian regime itself, expecting it to last longer than expected by Israel and America. Al-Deek points out that US President Donald Trump, despite previously criticizing policies of regime change by force, presents the current conflict as the culmination of decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran, going beyond mere political pressure to an attempt to dismantle the Iranian regime itself. The collapse of the new regime is not ruled out. However, Al-Deek does not rule out the collapse of the Iranian regime, but he stresses that countries after the fall of regimes usually go through a turbulent transitional phase that may witness chaos, divisions, and negative repercussions for Iran and the region. He indicates that relying on air power alone will not be enough to overthrow the Iranian regime, because air strikes do not overthrow the political system and do not alone lead to radical change, explaining that overthrowing the regime requires the presence of forces on the ground, weakness in the regime's structure, and a collapse in popular support, which has not yet been achieved, as the Iranian regime still enjoys a considerable part of popular support. Al-Deek explains that the United States' goals include ending Iran's nuclear program, destroying its missile and drone capabilities, reducing Iran's regional influence, and supporting protesters, but Washington avoids announcing clear war goals, which creates a state of ambiguity and prevents measuring its success or failure. Two scenarios for the Iranian regime. Al-Deek presents two main scenarios for the confrontation; the first is the retreat of the Iranian regime and its acceptance of American conditions, which means changing its political and regional behavior and abandoning the approach of "exporting the revolution", with the regime remaining in a new form more amenable to the United States, Israel, and neighboring countries. The second scenario, according to Al-Deek, is the continuation of confrontation and escalation, which may lead to a long war of attrition in light of the significant military superiority of Washington and Tel Aviv, which may lead to widespread losses inside Iran and economic, security, and institutional deterioration, and perhaps its transformation into a fragile or failed state and the emergence of militias within it, similar to previous experiences in the region. The war is likely to expand. Al-Deek confirms that the war is likely to expand through the parties of the Iranian camp and its allies in the region, the indicators of which have begun to appear in Iraq, pointing out that the results of the confrontation are still undecided and the scene is still confused in light of the short time that has passed since the outbreak of military operations. Al-Deek believes that diplomatic solutions are still far off at present, with the absence of effective mediations, expecting Iran to try to raise the economic and security cost of the war for the United States and its allies to push international powers such as Europe or China to intervene, and perhaps create internal pressure within the United States towards a political settlement. Al-Deek believes that initial developments indicate that Washington and Tel Aviv have achieved strategic goals by targeting prominent Iranian military and political leaders, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and weakening Iranian deterrence elements, without that meaning the overthrow of the regime in the short term. Israel and the quest to remove the Iranian regime. Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah explains that the ongoing military developments in the war on Iran and the subsequent escalation indicate that the region is heading towards a complex and long-term war, pointing out that the nature of the current confrontation does not allow it to be described as an easy or quickly decisive war, in light of the conflicting goals between the parties to the conflict and the absence of clear indications of the possibility of containing it in the short term. Atallah believes that all proposed scenarios involve great difficulties, expecting the confrontation to extend for a long period, given the nature of the existing equation between Israel and Iran, which he described as a "zero-sum equation" based on an existential conflict between two parties with great capabilities. Atallah explains that Israel seeks to remove the Iranian regime and puts all its capabilities to achieve this goal, while the Iranian regime, in turn, works to harness all its capabilities to preserve its survival and prevent its fall, which makes the conflict open to high levels of escalation without a clear space for retreat. Exhaustion of the diplomatic path. Regarding the possibility of diplomatic efforts succeeding in containing the escalation, Atallah rules out that diplomacy can defuse the war, considering that the diplomatic path has been largely exhausted during the past period without achieving tangible results. According to Atallah, diplomacy was used at some stages as a means of political maneuvering, pointing out that the United States played this role during the previous period, which contributed to deepening the lack of trust between the parties. Atallah believes that what is currently happening does not represent the climax of the confrontation but its actual beginning, expecting the parties to move towards the highest levels of escalation, without indications of their willingness to leave lines of retreat or seek quick settlements, which makes it likely that the region will enter a stage of open conflict that may extend in time and become more complex. Attempting to re-engineer the rules of engagement. Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, believes that the recent military developments in the region and the war on Iran constitute a double test; of the ability of military force to impose political conditions, against the ability of diplomacy to contain the escalation and prevent its transformation into an open regional war, in light of the escalating mutual strikes and the widening circle of tension. Abu Badawiya explains that the recent strikes indicate a shift in the conflict from the stage of traditional mutual deterrence to an attempt to re-engineer the rules of engagement, but the potential outcomes do not necessarily lead to a comprehensive war, but rather are distributed among three main scenarios. Controlled escalation. The first scenario, according to Abu Badawiya, is a "controlled escalation" based on calculated exchanges of strikes without sliding into a wide confrontation, while keeping negotiation channels open, which is the most likely possibility in the short term given the high cost of a comprehensive war for all parties in light of the fragility of the region's conditions. Regional proxy war. Abu Badawiya indicates that the second scenario is a "regional proxy war", by expanding the scope of the confrontation in arenas such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Red Sea, leading to long-term attrition without reaching a wide direct confrontation, a pattern consistent with the complex nature of the conflict between Iran and its regional and international adversaries. A deal under fire. Abu Badawiya addresses a third possibility, which is a "deal under fire", whereby military strikes are used as a means of pressure to impose a new agreement with stricter conditions than the 2015 agreement, especially after the US withdrawal from it. Abu Badawiya believes that talk of regime change in Iran, which is raised in some Israeli circles, remains closer to political ambition than to realistic probability, as historical experiences show that air strikes alone rarely lead to the overthrow of regimes that possess cohesive security apparatuses, and any wide ground intervention would be costly and unlikely for the US. Diplomacy exists but moves slowly. Regarding diplomacy, Abu Badawiya believes that it still exists but is moving slowly behind the military escalation, expecting Tehran to show tactical flexibility in the nuclear file, such as accepting to freeze certain enrichment levels in exchange for lifting sanctions and providing security guarantees, but it will not abandon the right to enrichment or its basic nuclear infrastructure without clear strategic compensation. Abu Badawiya indicates that making fundamental concessions in the ballistic missile file seems unlikely, given that they represent a fundamental pillar in the Iranian deterrence system, and Iran may accept a tactical calm in some regional arenas without a complete withdrawal from its regional influence, at a time when Washington and Tel Aviv seek a tougher agreement that includes the nuclear program, missiles, and regional influence, which keeps the negotiating gap wide and makes military strikes a tool of pressure more than a prelude to a final settlement. Abu Badawiya indicates that the region stands before two main possibilities, either reaching a forced settlement born out of military escalation, or entering a long, low-intensity conflict that redraws the maps of influence and alliances in the Middle East. Far-reaching effects on the future of Iran and the region. Dr. Suhail Diab, Professor of Political Science and specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the American-Israeli war on Iran, especially the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, has produced a series of strategic changes that constitute a crucial turning point in the regional conflict, stressing that the recent developments will have far-reaching effects on the future of Iran and the entire region. Diab explains that the first direct effect of the assassination is the erosion of trust between the American and Iranian parties, which makes a quick return to the negotiating table unlikely, postpones any possibility of a political settlement in the near future, and rearranges the balance of power according to new data. The second effect, according to Diab, is the extension of the state of war beyond Israeli and American expectations about the speed of resolution, as Iran is forced to pay the political and military price, which will prolong the confrontation and increase the cost of the war for the aggressor parties. Diab points to another important effect, which is the incitement of Iranian public opinion against the regime after the assassination of the Leader, which has gradually begun to appear, and represents an internal pressure factor on the current leadership, which may reshape Iranian internal politics. Towards less Iranian pragmatism. Diab points out that this development, with the assassination of Iranian leaders, may lead to the selection of a new Iranian leadership more hardline than Khamenei, as it is likely to adopt a less pragmatic approach regarding nuclear negotiations, which may increase the intensity of the confrontation with Israel and the United States. Diab believes that the current confrontation is a pivotal war on which the future of the Middle East and perhaps beyond the region depends, pointing to two main scenarios: First, the success of Israel and Washington with excessive brutality leading to the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and paving the way for the implementation of Israeli and American hegemony programs, including Greater Israel. The second scenario, according to Diab, is the steadfastness of the Iranian regime and its paying heavy prices, which forces the United States and Israel to retreat and request a ceasefire, and establishes a new balance of power that recognizes the legitimacy of the Iranian axis, and paves the way for regional and strategic pluralism that parallels the growing international pluralism after crises such as Ukraine and Taiwan. Diab points out that the opportunities for Israel and America to bring about radical change in the Iranian regime may be the last opportunity for decades to come, stressing that the final results will depend on the steadfastness of the Iranian people, leadership, and Iranian military forces, considering that the upcoming scenarios are open and decisive for the entire Middle East, and that the current stage represents a test of regional and international balances of power alike. The most accurate probability of a limited war. Writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah explains that the anticipated scenarios for the American-Israeli war on Iran depend primarily on the strategy and plans set by Washington and Tel Aviv, expecting that the most accurate probability is that the war will remain limited in duration and objective, given the limitations of the United States and its previous strategy in international conflicts. Al-Sabah indicates that the United States has no interest or ability to engage in a long-term war on Iranian soil, as any deep involvement could turn into a disaster for the United States similar to what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Al-Sabah explains that the options for Washington are limited to a limited strike, which may last from four days to a week at most, through which it achieves specific strategic goals, before announcing a cessation of operations. Finding a third party and replacing the American role. Al-Sabah points out that the second possible scenario is to find a third party capable of replacing the American role on Iranian soil to become the one who carries out the war for America, and in this case, the war may extend to become open and limitless, given the size of Iran and its capabilities and revolutionary doctrine, in addition to the spontaneous popular masses that appeared after the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, which included millions of Iranians in the streets of Iran and abroad in Pakistan, Yemen, and Lebanon, which reflects the magnitude of the challenge facing any external force trying to impose control. Failure of internal movement against the Iranian regime. Al-Sabah indicates that US attempts to activate internal movements against the Iranian regime have failed, after any internal movement was branded as treason and serving American and Israeli interests, which frustrated this possibility, leaving the only option as external intervention as a potential alternative to achieving goals on the ground. Regarding the role of diplomacy, Al-Sabah believes that stopping the war or defusing it depends on only two hands: the United States, which can stop immediately, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which can accept a cessation of operations without expanding the scope of the confrontation. Al-Sabah indicates that external mediations and international diplomacy, in light of the major American-Israeli attack, will not have an effective role before the cessation of operations, given the magnitude of the strikes and the depth of the military and political strategy adopted by both parties. The current battle has open outcomes. Al-Sabah confirms that the current battle has open outcomes, and that its duration and nature will depend on the ability of the United States to control operations on the one hand, and the steadfastness of Iran, its people, and the Iranian leadership on the other. Al-Sabah believes that any miscalculation could expand the scope of the conflict and prolong it unexpectedly, with possibilities of wide regional impacts extending to neighboring countries and the region as a whole. The upcoming battle may witness greater escalation. Writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem explains that the ongoing war against Iran represents a complex conflict that is difficult to read, pointing out that the Iranian reaction so far shows greater strength and importance than is rumored, compared to previous wars such as the 12-day war last year, where the qualitative Iranian strikes were delayed until only the seventh day, which reflects that the upcoming battle may witness greater escalation according to the plans of the Iranian leadership, especially after the assassination of the top leaders, including the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei, who played a pivotal role in guiding the strategy. Suwailem indicates that there is a "dangerous variable" related to how Iran will respond to the strikes, and whether it will resort to partial de-escalation or comprehensive escalation, noting that the Iranian leadership is currently studying the possibilities of responding to the maximum extent, while the American and Israeli plan will not stop at any limits, which puts great pressure on Iranian leaders such as Ali Larijani to escalate and resort to qualitative strikes, while the final answer about Iran's direction in the next stage remains open and undecided. Failure of diplomacy to defuse the war. Regarding the role of diplomacy, Suwailem stresses that it will not be able to defuse the war, considering that the American and Israeli plan aims to eradicate or radically change the regime, and therefore any possibility of Iranian retreat or negotiated solutions is considered unlikely, because Washington and Tel Aviv consider this stage an unprecedented historical opportunity to strengthen their strategic positions in the Middle East. Suwailem indicates that the nature of the Israeli and American leadership, as well as the internal situations of both Trump and Netanyahu, make military success a necessary goal to prove capability, which reduces the chances of diplomacy even before the field features of the war stabilize. The battle on the ground is still open. Suwailem indicates that the battle on the ground is still open, and that the Iranian regime, despite the great moral shock, its confrontation features have not yet been decided, with possibilities of negative or positive surprises on the ground, which makes talking about diplomatic solutions at this stage extremely difficult. Suwailem explains that the Iranian regime's continued confrontation and steadfastness can lead to a conflict that lasts for months, while the collapse or fracture of its political structure will allow the United States and Israel to achieve a "stunning and historic victory", paving the way for reshaping the Middle East according to the American and Israeli concept, which is a long-term strategic goal. Suwailem believes that the current conflict represents a historic opportunity for both Washington and Tel Aviv to strengthen their influence in the region, and that the results of the war will be pivotal in redrawing the map of regional powers and rearranging the political and military balances in the Middle East.