US President Donald Trump's announcement regarding the fate of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sparked a wave of international speculation, as he confirmed via his 'Truth Social' platform that Khamenei had been killed, describing him as one of the most evil figures in history. Despite the absence of official confirmation from Tehran so far, these statements coincided with indications from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about strong evidence supporting the hypothesis of the Supreme Leader's complete absence from the scene.

In a related context, Hebrew media sources reported that images, allegedly of the Iranian leader's body, had already been shown to both Trump and Netanyahu in recent hours. These developments come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing unprecedented military escalation, amidst news of US and Israeli attacks targeting strategic sites within Iranian territory on Saturday dawn.

Regarding security assessments, informed sources revealed that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had prepared preemptive reports on the identity of Khamenei's potential successor. These estimates suggest that the most likely scenario is the rise of hardline leaders from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to tighten their grip on key state institutions, which could complicate efforts for peaceful political change in the country.

Intelligence reports prepared over the past two weeks primarily focused on the repercussions of any direct US military intervention in Tehran. These documents examined the extent to which military operations could achieve Washington's stated goal of 'regime change,' considering the transfer of power to the military as one of the strong options on the table.

For his part, the US President did not only announce Khamenei's absence but also delivered a video address in which he described the regime in Tehran as 'terrorist.' Trump urged the Iranian people to seize the current moment to overthrow the government, considering that the recent air and missile strikes would pave the way for a widespread popular uprising that would end decades of clerical rule.

Despite these estimates, intelligence sources confirmed that the reports did not definitively determine the identity of the figure who would lead Iran in the next phase. The sources explained that ambiguity still surrounds the final American vision for the alternative form of government, despite repeated assurances from the White House about the necessity of ending Tehran's current regional influence through changing the structure of the supreme authority.

Global political circles are awaiting an official statement from the Iranian capital to confirm or deny this news, which could change the face of the Middle East. If the reports prove true, Iran will enter a critical transitional phase in which different factions of the regime will contend, amidst immense international and military pressures aimed at reshaping the balances in the region.

Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead, and military attacks will pave the way for a popular uprising.

The question is no longer whether Washington's aggressive war for Tel Aviv's hegemony over the region will happen, but rather to what extent it is containable, or what the probability of controlling its outcomes is. According to the declarations of both Trump and Netanyahu, it aims to overthrow the Iranian regime. It seems that the sticking point was not Iran's readiness to reach a less-than-fair deal; this was confirmed by the Omani mediator, Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, before the war began in the American media, where he revealed what had been achieved in negotiations with Iran, stating, "If the ultimate goal of the negotiations is to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons forever, then the negotiations have achieved an unprecedented breakthrough, as Iran has agreed not to manufacture any materials that could be used to produce a nuclear bomb, which was not present in the 2015 agreement, and that Iran's nuclear stockpile will be disposed of." However, according to media sources, the decision for war had been made three weeks prior, unrelated to the outcome of the Geneva negotiations. This aligns with Trump and Netanyahu's theory of imposing what they call peace and stability by force. Therefore, this war is aggressive and aims to enable Tel Aviv's comprehensive hegemony over the region, not just to change the Tehran regime. This war, whatever its parties' justifications, is neither a moral destiny nor a path to sustainable stability. It is an expression of policy failure and the triumph of the arrogance of hegemonic calculations by force over the logic of justice. From this position, rejecting it becomes a principled stance, not an alignment with an axis. It is a war that comes in multi-dimensional Israeli contexts, and certainly includes seizing the golden Trumpian opportunity to advance its plans against the Palestinian people, which, according to ongoing shifts in public opinion in the United States that are unfavorable to Israel, may not be repeated with future administrations. But the Palestinian question remains the most pressing: What happens to Palestine, which is in the eye of the storm for Tel Aviv? From Deterrence Attempts to All-Out Aggression In recent years, the region has been governed by the equation of "controlled escalation": limited strikes, deterrence messages, and attempts to avoid all-out war. Today, one of the dividing lines has been broken. When the confrontation moves into the open, calculations change and extend to multiple arenas across the entire region, and perhaps beyond. In such a context, the political role diminishes, and diplomacy becomes a tool subservient to managing the fire, not an alternative to it. The longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of it turning into a permanent reality that reshapes the region by brute force. Israel and Expanding the Margin of Maneuver In the climate of war, the Tel Aviv government finds an opportunity to expand its plans under the title of "the Iranian threat," not necessarily through an all-out war on the Palestinian arena, although that is not ruled out. It is certain that Tel Aviv, by exploiting the exceptional Trumpian opportunity for decisive action and liquidating the Palestinian issue, will expand the scope of implementing its plans, by accelerating the pace of settlement, consolidating creeping annexation, tightening security control in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and perhaps re-shaping the scene in Gaza within a harsher equation. Major wars do not freeze expansionist projects; rather, they often provide cover for them. In times of emergency, accountability for the occupation recedes, and international discussion shifts from ending injustice to preventing regional explosion. Here lies the moral dimension of this war: that the occupation transforms from a political crime that must be ended into a marginal detail within a larger war. The American Administration: A Tool for Israeli Hegemony Under Donald Trump's administration, the priority seems to be to establish a new balance of deterrence through direct brute force, with unlimited support for Israel and maximum pressure on Iran. Stability is redefined as the product of military superiority, not the fruit of a just settlement. However, the logic of deterrence by force, however decisive it may seem, does not produce sustainable peace, but rather establishes cycles of postponed violence. In this context, the Palestinian issue recedes to a secondary position within a broader conflict equation. The danger here is not only marginalization, but also redefining Palestine as a security file within a regional war, not a national liberation issue for a people under occupation. The Danger of Chaos: When the System Disintegrates Wars not only redraw the balance of power but can also dismantle the structures upon which the entire region is built. The question that arises today is not only who will win the deterrence round, but whether this war is pushing towards weakening states and unleashing long-term dynamics of chaos. There is a difference between a war aimed at modifying an adversary's behavior and a war used to re-engineer the entire political environment in the region. If the goal shifts from "deterrence" to comprehensive exhaustion or internal destabilization, then the region enters a dangerous phase of chaos, exceeding the limits of direct military confrontation, and perhaps leading to the collapse of regional security. The disintegration of any central state in the region does not remain an internal matter. It opens power vacuums, produces a multiplicity of weapon centers, encourages intertwined interventions, and re-ignites latent conflicts. Then the war is no longer a confrontation between specific parties, but turns into an extended state of instability. Here lies the deeper danger for Palestine. In a disintegrated regional environment, national issues recede before the logic of chaos. The slogan "security first" becomes a permanent justification for suspending any talk of justice. The occupation benefits from the collapse of the region, not from its stability. And chaos does not produce liberation, but creates a reality in which brute force is the only language. The most dangerous outcome of this war is not the victory of one party over another, but the disintegration of the regional system itself. And then Palestine becomes surrounded by a region preoccupied with its internal conflicts, not with its liberation issue. Marginalization and Exploitation Together In times of war, Palestine faces two intertwined dangers: First: marginalization, when international attention shifts to managing the major confrontation. Second: exploitation, when the Palestinian arena is used as a mutual bargaining chip: Israel to reinforce its security narrative, and Iran to prove its ability to influence deep within Israel. In both cases, the Palestinian situation fragments even further than it already is, and the issue is reduced to a function within a conflict it does not control or influence. What is required of Palestinians? To fortify the national decision from being drawn into the logic of axes, and this does not contradict the principled stance against aggressive war. It also immediately requires restoring the unity of the political framework on the basis of national consensus and genuine partnership that ends internal fragmentation. To re-establish the definition of the issue as a national liberation issue for a people under occupation, not a security file in a regional war. To develop a rational discourse based on international law and legitimate rights, and to preserve the independence of the Palestinian will. And to be wary of the illusion of relying on the clashes of others to achieve self-gain. For in times of war, the gamble is not on the outcomes of confrontations, but on protecting the issue from marginalization and exploitation, and restoring politics as a tool of independent national action.

Iranian state television announced today, Sunday, the killing of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, putting an end to his nearly 36 years of rule. The official announcement did not disclose precise details about the circumstances of his death, but it coincided with intense airstrikes targeting the capital Tehran and the Supreme Leader's residence, as part of a large-scale military operation launched by the United States and Israel.

In the first military response, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard vowed to inflict "severe punishment" on those they described as the "killers" of the Supreme Leader, emphasizing that the response would be commensurate with the magnitude of the event. For his part, US President Donald Trump confirmed the news of the killing via his social media platform, indicating that the attack aims to destroy Iran's military capabilities and bring about a radical change in the structure of governance, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Khamenei as a "tyrant" who worked for decades to destabilize the region.

Khamenei (86 years old) has been the most powerful man in the Iranian system since his selection as Supreme Leader in 1989, succeeding the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ruhollah Khomeini. Throughout his career, he led the country through severe internal and external crises, including widespread popular protests and regional confrontations, adopting an "iron fist" policy domestically and absolute hostility towards the United States and Israel abroad.

Field reports indicate that Khamenei's killing came at the height of a joint military aggression dubbed 'Lion's Roar,' targeting command and control centers in Iran. Sources had previously reported that the Supreme Leader's residence was subjected to precise raids, which also resulted in the killing of several members of his family and high-ranking security officials, leaving the region facing open scenarios of military escalation.

Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, has been killed.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced on Saturday evening a decision to close all crossings and border terminals in the occupied Palestinian territories, with the decision to take effect starting Sunday. Sources explained that this measure comes amid rapid field developments and escalating military operations in the region, noting that the closure will remain in effect until further notice without specifying a timeframe for reopening.

A statement issued by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) stated that the decision was taken at the conclusion of a comprehensive security assessment and is directly linked to the military operation launched by the Israeli and American armies. The statement confirmed that the closure would include all crossings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including the Rafah land crossing, which is the only lifeline for the Strip's residents to the outside world, exacerbating the imposed siege.

According to the official announcement, the new restrictions will apply to all Palestinians, with very limited exceptions restricted to individuals with 'vital worker' permits to cross through specific, unnamed points. The occupation authorities claimed that this closure would not directly affect the humanitarian situation inside the Gaza Strip, which is contradicted by field data confirming the disruption of supply and passenger movement.

In a related context, Palestinian security sources reported receiving notifications about rocket shrapnel falling in four different areas of the occupied West Bank. Police spokesman Louay Irzeiqat confirmed that this shrapnel fell after loud explosions in the air, noting that no injuries were reported among citizens or significant material damage to property so far.

These developments coincided with the launch of a joint military aggression between Israel and the United States against Iranian targets under the name 'Roar of the Lion,' which prompted the occupation to declare a state of extreme emergency. Sirens were heard blaring in a large number of Israeli settlements, followed by explosions resulting from aerial interception operations in the skies of the West Bank and surrounding areas.

It is worth noting that the occupation has continued to impose strict restrictions on movement through the Rafah crossing for months, as the authorities have refused to adhere to previous understandings regarding the number of travelers since October 2025. This step further increases the suffering of thousands of Palestinians who relied on the crossing for their normal movement before the start of the genocide war and the destruction of infrastructure in the Strip.

It was decided to close all crossings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip - including the Rafah crossing - starting tomorrow until further notice.

Media and analytical sources have revealed details of the extensive military operation launched by Tel Aviv under the name 'Lion's Roar,' which explicitly aims to overthrow the Iranian regime. This operation comes in full coordination with the American leadership, as the decision to expand or limit the scope of attacks is linked to the White House, amidst fears of the region sliding into a comprehensive regional escalation involving additional powers.

The initial phases of the airstrikes included targeting the Iranian regime's supreme leadership and security and political power centers in Tehran. The attack follows a gradual path seeking to radically weaken the Islamic Republic's defensive capabilities, paving the way for long-term strategic changes in the structure of power there.

For its part, Tehran did not stand idly by, responding with a counter-military operation it named 'True Promise 4.' Joint forces are currently imposing a tight siege on Iran, while continuing to target security systems to create an environment conducive to potential internal movements against the ruling regime.

The intensive aerial assault began on Saturday morning, with the first wave focusing on neutralizing Iranian air defenses to ensure complete air superiority. Following this, American forces intervened to enhance the impact of the strikes and expand their scope, specifically targeting missile depots and launch platforms that were ready for execution.

According to military analysts, the 'Lion's Roar' pattern relies on two main phases, beginning with a concentrated Israeli effort followed by full American military weight. This tactic aims to prevent Iran from executing a rapid and intense response, by destroying underground hidden platforms and short- and long-range defensive systems.

Sources reported that the operation targeted what are known as sensitive 'regime targets' to secure safe corridors for long-range American 'Tomahawk' missiles. This continuous military pressure forces the Iranian side to constantly reposition under fire, reducing its ability to coordinate large-scale missile attacks simultaneously.

Estimates indicate that Iranian missile salvos are now being launched in limited and intermittent numbers instead of the dense waves previously expected. Although this pattern forces settlers to remain in shelters for longer periods, it reduces the risk of exposure to concentrated and devastating strikes at once.

Observers believe that the final decision in the course of this war remains in the hands of US President Donald Trump, who has the authority to determine the ceiling of military operations. The United States is leading the bulk of the attacks through squadrons of fighter jets and drones that have targeted hundreds of vital targets deep inside Iran.

Tehran sensed the seriousness of the joint move, which prompted it to expand its response to include American bases and countries that had not officially declared their participation in the conflict. This development reflects the widening scope of engagement and the possibility of other regional parties, such as the Houthis in Yemen, entering the direct confrontation line.

Operation 'Lion's Roar' surpasses all previous operations in complexity and scale, including the 'Rising Lion' attack executed in mid-2025. The Israeli military establishment considers assassinations and concentrated strikes as part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at undermining the pillars of the regime in preparation for its collapse.

In contrast, Iran raised its military challenge by launching a barrage of missiles towards Israeli and American targets in the region. Experts suggest that the conflict will move towards greater geographical intensity, with the Israeli army preparing to open additional potential fronts from Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.

The direct attack on Iran represents a pivotal moment in the history of the conflict in the Middle East, with profound implications for the stability of the international system. The American side is betting on weakening the regime's central grip, while Tehran is preparing counter-scenarios to withstand this unprecedented military and political pressure.

The operational plan, which has been in place for months, includes striking missile infrastructure to prevent any threat to oil fields in the Arabian Gulf or strategic bases. The timing of the attack was chosen for the morning hours to achieve the element of tactical surprise, despite the state of maximum alert declared by Iranian agencies.

The third phase of the campaign aims to impose international isolation and a suffocating siege on Iran, coinciding with targeting security power centers. Through these continuous pressures, planners seek to create conditions to push the Iranian street towards a radical change in power, as part of a comprehensive path to end the current regime's influence.

The goal goes beyond a traditional military strike to an attempt to change the structure of governance in Tehran, as this confrontation constitutes a pivotal moment in the balances of the international system.

The United States conveyed an urgent diplomatic message to the Lebanese authorities, affirming that the Israeli side does not plan to expand its military operations or escalate its attacks against Lebanon. The American message stipulated the continuation of calm and the absence of any hostile actions originating from Lebanese territory towards Israel to ensure the preservation of this commitment.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun received the content of this message via the American Ambassador in Beirut, Michel Issa, where the Lebanese presidency clarified that the Israeli position is directly linked to the behavior of the northern front. President Aoun emphasized after the meeting that protecting Lebanon from the repercussions of external conflicts represents the state's top priority at the present time.

For his part, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned of the danger of sliding into uncalculated adventures that could threaten the country's national security, affirming the government's rejection of entering into any regional conflict. Salam indicated that the Lebanese state is conducting intensive diplomatic contacts to spare the country the consequences of the ongoing war in the region, especially with the escalating tension between Iran and Israel.

On the ground, sources reported that the Israeli army carried out a series of airstrikes targeting what it described as military facilities belonging to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The recent days also witnessed an intensification of Israeli strikes on areas in the east of the country, which increased the fears of Lebanese political forces of the expansion of direct confrontation.

In the context of international positions, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, called on all Lebanese parties to prioritize the protection of the Lebanese people. Plasschaert demanded that words be translated into concrete actions that distance Lebanon from the rapid regional developments threatening the stability of the entire region.

Regarding Hezbollah, the party called on the peoples and countries of the region to stand against what it described as the aggressive scheme against Iran, warning of dire consequences that could affect everyone. However, the party did not announce a clear intention for direct military intervention, contenting itself with expressing its full solidarity with the Islamic Republic in facing external pressures.

Hezbollah decided to cancel a memorial ceremony where its Secretary-General Naim Qassem was scheduled to speak, attributing the reason to the current security and political developments. Qassem had previously warned that any comprehensive war against Iran could ignite the entire region, which raises international concern about the possibilities of opening new fronts.

Previous reports indicate that the current tension comes after a joint attack carried out by the United States and Israel in June 2025, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and lasting for 12 days. That attack occurred at a sensitive time, as it preceded the sixth round of diplomatic talks aimed at reaching a comprehensive peace agreement.

Iran had shown flexibility before that attack, agreeing to liquidate its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and allowing American inspectors to enter its facilities. However, the American administration justified the military action at the time by stating that Iranian activities still posed a direct threat to American bases and allies in the region, which led to the failure of the diplomatic path.

In light of these complexities, the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned what it described as Iranian aggressions that targeted Gulf countries in previous times, reflecting a division in internal positions. The Lebanese government continues its attempts to neutralize the local arena from the major conflict, amid increasing public concern about the repercussions of any potential military confrontation.

Sparing Lebanon the disasters and horrors of external conflicts, and preserving its sovereignty, security, and stability, are an absolute priority.

By Said Arikat

March 1, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- News of the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in a joint American-Israeli strike has sent shockwaves across the Middle East, raising urgent questions about escalation, deterrence, and the future of diplomacy. President Donald Trump may derive personal and political satisfaction from eliminating a longtime adversary, presenting the operation as decisive strength. Yet history suggests that killing a leader rarely produces the regime change promised in triumphant rhetoric. Power structures adapt, hardliners consolidate, and conflicts often deepen rather than end. Trump himself may see this moment as an incentive to pursue meaningful rather than deceptive diplomacy, bringing the region closer not to victory, but to peace.

In the volatile aftermath of such escalation, growing speculation suggests Trump may ultimately accept a nuclear agreement with Iran closely resembling the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal signed in July 2015 under President Barack Obama and abandoned by Trump in 2018. Despite years of denunciations portraying the accord as a diplomatic failure, emerging political and strategic realities appear to be guiding Washington back toward a framework that differs more in presentation than in substance.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Trump withdrew from the agreement promising a better deal, arguing that maximum pressure, combining crippling sanctions with diplomatic isolation, would force Iran to accept far stricter terms. Nearly a decade later, the United States faces an Iran with a significantly expanded nuclear program, diminished trust in American commitments, and stronger incentives to resist additional concessions. The negotiating landscape now suggests Tehran has little reason to offer more than what it already accepted in 2015.

Under the original agreement, Iran accepted sweeping compromises: strict caps on uranium enrichment, a drastic reduction of its nuclear stockpile, limits on centrifuge development, and one of the most intrusive international inspection regimes ever negotiated. Many arms control specialists argued even then that Iran had conceded the maximum politically sustainable limits. The collapse of the deal following the American withdrawal reinforced Iranian skepticism toward future guarantees, narrowing diplomatic possibilities and raising the political cost of renewed negotiations.

Against this backdrop, current tensions, including military signaling and escalating rhetoric, appear partly designed to create political cover. Accepting a deal similar to the original agreement without first demonstrating confrontation would risk exposing Trump to accusations that he reversed one of his defining foreign policy decisions. Escalation, therefore, may function less as a pathway to war than as a staging ground for declaring victory before returning to diplomacy under a different narrative.

Trump has framed recent military strikes in explicitly political terms, openly encouraging Iranians to overthrow their government. In a statement directed at the Iranian people after the bombardment, he urged citizens to seize what he described as an opportunity for change, effectively invoking regime change as an implicit objective. Yet modern history offers little evidence that aerial bombardment alone topples entrenched governments. Regime change has historically required prolonged occupation and massive troop deployments, commitments Washington shows no willingness to undertake. Few American policymakers appear prepared to send hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Iran, rendering the rhetoric strategically disconnected from military reality.

The likely adjustments to any renewed agreement are expected to be modest. The most frequently discussed change involves extending the so called sunset clauses, which phase out certain nuclear restrictions over time. Lengthening these timelines, perhaps from roughly two decades to closer to thirty years, would allow Washington to claim improvements while leaving the agreement’s core architecture largely intact. Substantively, the framework would remain recognizably similar to the deal Trump once condemned as unacceptable.

A broader and more controversial dimension of the crisis lies in regional dynamics shaping American decision making, particularly Israel’s long standing opposition to diplomatic engagement with Iran. Successive Israeli governments have argued that sustained pressure, and if necessary military force, is the only reliable means of constraining Tehran. Critics within the United States counter that Israeli security priorities have repeatedly drawn Washington toward confrontations whose long term costs are borne primarily by American forces and taxpayers rather than regional actors themselves.

Recent history offers sobering precedents. The United States entered prolonged conflicts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria amid promises of quick strategic gains, only to find itself entangled in complex regional struggles that proved extraordinarily difficult to exit. Each intervention reshaped regional power balances in unpredictable ways while deepening American military and political commitments far beyond initial expectations. Skeptics warn that escalating confrontation with Iran risks repeating this familiar pattern, a cycle in which short term political messaging overrides long term strategy and locks Washington into conflicts it later struggles to unwind.

For Trump, the political calculus may ultimately outweigh ideological consistency. By escalating pressure first and negotiating later, he could present a revived agreement as proof that coercion succeeded where diplomacy alone allegedly failed. Such a narrative would allow him to claim personal triumph while effectively returning to a diplomatic baseline established years earlier, reframed as a new victory rather than a policy reversal.

By: Said Arikat

February 28, 2026

Washington, D.C-The United States and Israel have presented their sweeping military strikes against Iran as an act of strategic necessity — a preemptive move meant to restore deterrence, prevent future threats, and stabilize an increasingly volatile Middle East. Yet stripped of official language, the operation appears less a coherent strategy than a familiar American gamble: the belief that military force can compensate for diplomatic failure and impose political outcomes that negotiations could not achieve.

If recent history offers any guidance, that belief has rarely produced stability.

Within hours of the strikes, Iran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks against U.S. and Israeli-linked targets across the region, demonstrating how quickly the promise of controlled escalation collapses once violence begins. The operation intended to reestablish deterrence instead exposed its fragility. Deterrence cannot be restored unilaterally when each side believes escalation is necessary to preserve credibility. What Washington describes as stabilization increasingly resembles acceleration — a rapid transition from calculated risk to open-ended confrontation.

The intellectual logic behind the strikes is unmistakably familiar. Like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the action rests on preventive war: attacking today to eliminate a potential threat tomorrow. Then, American officials argued that waiting would invite catastrophe. Instead, the invasion unleashed regional fragmentation, prolonged insurgency, and a severe erosion of U.S. credibility. Military victory proved easier than political reconstruction, and the promised transformation of the region never materialized.

Two decades later, similar assumptions appear to guide policy once again. Officials speak confidently of degrading capabilities and reshaping strategic calculations, as though military superiority naturally produces political change. Iraq demonstrated the opposite lesson: overwhelming force can dismantle states far more easily than it can construct durable order.

Iran presents an even more perilous test case. It is larger, more institutionally resilient, and deeply shaped by a historical memory of foreign intervention. External attack is therefore more likely to consolidate domestic legitimacy than provoke internal collapse. Nationalist mobilization under external threat remains one of the most predictable dynamics in modern conflict, yet it continues to be underestimated in strategic planning.

Equally significant is the diplomatic context surrounding the escalation. For months, American officials publicly emphasized negotiations and de-escalation while indirect diplomatic contacts with Tehran reportedly continued. The abrupt shift from dialogue to large-scale military action reinforces a perception long entrenched across the Middle East and much of the Global South: that U.S. calls for negotiations often coexist with preparations for force.

This perception hardened after Washington withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement despite verified Iranian compliance. The decision signaled that American commitments could be reversed by domestic political change, weakening the credibility of diplomacy itself. The collapse of the agreement removed constraints on Iran’s nuclear program while discrediting advocates of engagement inside Iran who had argued that negotiation with Washington could deliver lasting benefits.

Subsequent crises deepened mistrust. Last June’s escalation, unfolding amid ongoing diplomatic engagement, reinforced the belief that negotiations may function less as pathways toward compromise than as tactical pauses within broader coercive strategies. Whether intentional or structural, the pattern carries lasting consequences. Diplomacy without credibility becomes performance, and adversaries increasingly negotiate defensively, assuming talks may precede confrontation rather than prevent it.

The strikes also reveal a broader erosion of deterrence theory. Classical deterrence assumes rational actors avoid escalation when costs become clear. Yet contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts increasingly follow inverse logic: each actor escalates precisely to demonstrate that deterrence has not failed. Israel strikes to restore deterrence; Iran retaliates to prove resilience; the United States intervenes to defend credibility. Each action invites a response, producing a cycle in which escalation becomes self-sustaining.

Washington thus confronts a paradox of its own making. By relying on force to reinforce credibility, it signals that diplomatic guarantees alone lack durability. Adversaries draw an obvious conclusion: military capability, not negotiated restraint, provides the only reliable security.

What remains strikingly absent is a clearly defined political end state. Military objectives — degrading infrastructure, imposing costs, signaling resolve — are measurable. Political outcomes remain undefined. Is success meant to compel negotiations, alter Iranian behavior, weaken the regime, or simply demonstrate resolve? The ambiguity reflects a deeper strategic uncertainty masked by operational clarity.

Iran, a nation of more than ninety million people with entrenched institutions and regional networks, is unlikely to respond predictably to external coercion. The experiences of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan demonstrate that weakening state structures without a viable political framework often produces instability that spreads beyond borders and persists for years. Yet the current approach appears to assume political outcomes will emerge organically from sustained pressure, an assumption repeatedly contradicted by recent history.

American policymakers often assume escalation can be calibrated — that force can be applied precisely enough to compel adversaries without triggering uncontrollable war. Modern conflicts repeatedly challenge this belief. Once retaliation cycles begin, leaders become constrained by credibility, domestic pressures, and alliance expectations. Wars evolve through reaction and momentum rather than initial design.

The deeper danger of the Iran strikes lies not only in immediate escalation but in the persistence of strategic overconfidence. The assumption that American power can reshape complex political realities through force alone has survived Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya largely intact despite their outcomes.

The strikes on Iran may ultimately be remembered less as a decisive demonstration of strength than as another turning point in a long pattern of miscalculation — a war begun in the conviction that escalation could restore order, only to reveal once again that power without political vision produces instability rather than control.

Iran's missile system takes center stage in the military landscape with every new escalation in the region, as the rapid technological development of these weapons emerges as one of the most significant security and political challenges. This arsenal is a strategic tool employed by Tehran to enhance its regional influence and ensure its ability to retaliate against any potential external threats.

Ballistic missiles are known as weapons that rely on rocket propulsion in their initial stages before following a free-fall trajectory towards their targets, capable of carrying various warheads. These warheads include conventional explosives or unconventional munitions, making them a deadly weapon that raises concerns among international powers regarding the stability of the Middle East.

US intelligence sources reported that Tehran has succeeded in building the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, with some reaching a range of approximately 2,000 kilometers. This declared range places many capitals and military bases, including locations within Israel, within the direct targeting circle of Iranian capabilities.

Iran's missile capabilities are distributed across multiple strategic locations, some concentrated in and around the capital Tehran, while other facilities are located in remote provinces. Reports reveal the existence of at least five fortified underground missile cities, located in areas such as Kermanshah and Semnan, and near the Persian Gulf coasts.

The list of long-range missiles includes advanced models such as the 'Sejjil' missile, which has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and the 'Emad' missile with a range of 1,700 kilometers. The arsenal also includes 'Ghadr' and 'Khorramshahr' missiles, which cover distances up to two thousand kilometers, enhancing the flexibility of Iranian military operations.

Media sources previously indicated that the 'Sejjil' missile boasts superior technical capabilities, capable of flying at speeds exceeding 17,000 kilometers per hour. Additionally, 'Kheibar' and 'Haj Qassem' missiles stand out as offensive tools capable of bypassing traditional air defenses due to their high range and speed.

Iran's arsenal is not limited to long-range missiles but also includes short and medium-range missiles such as 'Shahab-1' and 'Zolfaghar'. Tehran continuously works on developing new versions of these missiles, such as 'Emad-1', to increase their accuracy and destructive capability in the field.

In June 2025, these missiles were actually used during a 12-day military confrontation, where Tehran launched ballistic barrages that resulted in material and human losses. Iranian authorities affirm that these operations fall within their right to deterrence and retaliation against any aggressions affecting their sovereignty or interests.

Iran's development strategy relies on building underground storage and production centers equipped with advanced transport and launch systems, making them difficult to detect or destroy. Iran set a military precedent in 2020 when it launched a ballistic missile from a hidden underground facility for the first time.

Iranian military industries have successfully replicated and developed foreign technologies by dismantling and studying the components of imported missiles, enabling them to produce improved local versions. The use of lighter materials and modification of missile structures has significantly extended their geographical range and improved their field efficiency.

In a remarkable qualitative development, official Iranian sources announced in 2023 the production of the first hypersonic ballistic missile, a weapon that exceeds the speed of sound by at least five times. These missiles are characterized by their variable trajectories, making them very difficult for modern air defense systems to intercept or shoot down.

International reports indicate that Iran's missile program drew its roots from North Korean and Russian designs, with technical support from China at various stages. This blend of foreign expertise and local efforts led to the birth of a complex and diverse system of offensive and defensive weapons.

Iran also possesses significant capabilities in cruise missiles, most notably the 'Kh-55' air-launched missile, which has a range of 3,000 kilometers. The danger of this type of missile lies in its ability to fly at low altitudes and carry heavy warheads, making it a strategic weapon par excellence.

Tehran insists that its missile program is purely defensive and aims to protect its national security, denying any intention to develop nuclear warheads. Nevertheless, this arsenal remains a focal point in political negotiations and regional security arrangements, given its direct impact on the balance of power in the region.

Iran possesses the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, granting it a strategic deterrent capability that extends beyond its geographical borders.

Washington – Said Arikat – 2/28/2026

News Analysis

In an unprecedented escalation, the United States and Israel launched widespread military attacks on targets inside Iran on the dawn of February 28, 2026, targeting military and leadership sites and strategic facilities in several cities, amidst Washington's announcement of the start of "major combat operations" and public calls for regime change in Iran. Tehran quickly responded with missile and drone attacks targeting American bases and Israeli sites in the region, indicating from the first hours that the confrontation has entered an open war phase that will be difficult to contain quickly.

Field and political indicators suggest that the conflict will not be a limited strike or a short deterrence operation, but rather the beginning of a long war of attrition that could drag the Middle East into a new cycle of intertwined wars. The attacks did not target only a specific program, but included the Iranian state's security and military structure, while accompanied by American statements calling on Iranians to overthrow their government, which reinforces the impression that the true goal goes beyond deterrence towards reshaping the political system by force.

The war is presented as a preemptive step to prevent future threats, but the absence of evidence of an imminent danger raises questions about the legitimacy of resorting to military force of this magnitude. The American-Israeli discourse is based on a long record of accumulated conflicts and accusations against Iran, but it does not provide a convincing explanation for the necessity of launching an immediate war, which makes the operation closer to an optional war with long-term political goals.

The central assumption that seems to govern the current strategy is that intensive strikes will weaken the Iranian regime and push the internal society to revolt against it. However, recent history shows that external bombardment often strengthens nationalistic tendencies and grants targeted regimes defensive legitimacy, rather than leading to their collapse. Under external threat, societies tend to rally around the state, even if they oppose it internally.

More dangerous is the absence of a clear vision for the day after. The war does not seem to be accompanied by a political plan to manage a transitional phase in a large and complex country like Iran, whose population exceeds ninety million and possesses deeply rooted security and military institutions. Previous experiences in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have shown that overthrowing regimes without a vision for reconstruction often leads to a security vacuum and extended chaos that transcends the borders of the state itself.

Moreover, the limited international support for the operation deepens the risks. The campaign is practically managed by a narrow alliance, which reinforces the image of unilateral military action and weakens its political and diplomatic cover. With the start of the Iranian response and the targeting of regional bases and interests, the risk of the conflict expanding to include other countries increases, either directly or through unconventional conflict arenas.

Potential scenarios range from widespread regional escalation, or a long war of attrition, or a partial collapse of the Iranian state that opens the door to security chaos and competing armed forces. In all these possibilities, military force alone does not seem capable of achieving stability or imposing a viable political system.

Most dangerously, the war could turn into a continuous series of strikes and responses, where no party can achieve a decisive victory, while human and economic losses accumulate and the circle of instability expands. With each round of escalation, exiting the conflict becomes more difficult, and the war transforms from a political decision into a permanent geopolitical reality.

In conclusion, the current confrontation appears to be a major strategic gamble, relying on optimistic assumptions about the speed of the adversary's collapse, while historical experiences indicate that wars that begin without a clear political vision often last much longer than expected or planned for.

The region witnessed an unprecedented military escalation, as Iranian state television announced the launch of successive waves of missiles towards Israeli targets. These missile barrages come in response to what Tehran described as the joint aggression initiated by US and Israeli forces on Saturday morning, bringing the direct confrontation into a new and dangerous phase.

In a significant field development, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) revealed that it had targeted an MST-class combat support ship belonging to the US Navy in the region's waters. The IRGC warned in its statement that all other US naval vessels are now within range of Iranian missiles and drones, emphasizing its readiness to expand the scope of the military response.

For his part, US President Donald Trump confirmed the start of large-scale combat operations inside Iranian territory under the name 'Lion's Roar'. Trump explained that the strategic objectives of this operation are to completely destroy Iran's missile program infrastructure, in addition to annihilating Tehran's naval fleet to ensure regional security.

On the political front, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi described the attacks as illegal and lacking any legitimate justification. Araqchi affirmed that the Iranian armed forces had been preparing for this scenario for a long time, stressing that the aggressors would receive a harsh lesson that would redefine the balance of power in the Middle East.

Iran's chief diplomat accused the US President of prioritizing Israeli interests over his country's national interests, considering that the slogan 'America First' has effectively turned into 'Israel First'. Araqchi indicated that these policies place the United States at the bottom of the international list and drag it into conflicts that do not serve its people.

As part of intensive diplomatic moves, Araqchi held a phone call with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to discuss the repercussions of the military aggression. The Iranian minister called for the necessity of the UN Security Council's intervention to stop the aggressive actions and hold those responsible accountable, warning against the consequences of international silence regarding this dangerous escalation.

Araqchi stressed during his statements that betting on regime change in Iran is an 'impossible mission' that will not be achieved through military force or political pressure. The minister conditioned a return to any negotiation path on an immediate cessation of military attacks, emphasizing that Tehran will not negotiate under the weight of fire and direct threats.

It is worth noting that this military explosion came after the failure of three rounds of nuclear negotiations hosted by the Sultanate of Oman this month. The failure of the diplomatic track coincided with massive US military buildups in the region, paving the way for the outbreak of the current confrontation that has put Israel in a state of extreme emergency.

Regime change in Iran is an impossible mission, and the aggressors must stop first before talking about any negotiations.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced an increase in the readiness of their defensive systems to confront any potential Iranian missile attacks, coinciding with joint military movements with the United States. This strategy relies on a multi-layered defense system aimed at intercepting threats at different atmospheric levels, starting from outer space down to short-range targets.

Media reports indicated that the lessons from military confrontations over the past two years have forced the occupation army to adopt a policy of 'armament economy' due to the high intensity of launches. Despite success in intercepting many missiles, the occupation incurred heavy material losses, which led the seven-battalion air defense system to redeploy and coordinate closely with US forces.

Military experts believe that the most dangerous scenario is Tehran possessing a stockpile of heavy missiles that have not yet been used in previous attacks. It is believed that in the event of a full-scale confrontation, Iran might resort to targeting symbolic non-military centers, which would require preemptive American intervention to disable launch platforms through a barrage of cruise missiles.

Informed sources revealed that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, had previously requested a delay in military operations against Iran due to a severe shortage of interceptor missile stockpiles. However, the arrival of significant American reinforcements and the deployment of advanced systems helped fill these gaps, especially after the significant depletion of stockpiles in the June 2025 confrontations.

The 'Arrow 3' system forms the first line of defense for the occupation, designed to destroy ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere at distances up to 2400 kilometers. This system relies on pioneering technologies that allow it to deal with long-range strategic threats before they reach nearby airspace, reducing the risk of debris falling over populated areas.

The second defensive layer is the 'Arrow 2' system, which is responsible for intercepting ballistic missiles within the atmosphere at altitudes up to 100 kilometers. This system integrates with the American 'THAAD' system recently deployed in the region, providing dual protection and a high capability to track targets during the acceleration or descent phase.

Regarding medium-range threats, the occupation relies on the 'David's Sling' system, which has undergone extensive upgrades to counter cruise missiles and drones. This system operates using a direct hit method and is designed to deal with heavy projectiles that escape the upper layers, covering a range of 15 to 70 kilometers from the ground.

The Iron Dome comes in fourth place as a primary tool for dealing with short-range missiles and mortar shells, in both its land and naval versions installed on 'Sa'ar 6' ships. The naval dome plays a vital role in protecting gas platforms and strategic infrastructure offshore, supported by 'Barak' missiles designed for more distant and complex targets.

Laser technology, known as 'Iron Beam,' represents the fifth and newest layer in the occupation's defensive arsenal, aiming to provide low-cost and high-precision solutions. This system allows for the interception of drones and projectiles using advanced electro-optical guidance, which reduces the overall reliance on expensive traditional interceptor missiles.

Despite this extensive technological display, military reports confirm that these systems do not provide one hundred percent complete immunity against intensive Iranian attacks. Previous experiences have proven the ability of simultaneous missile barrages to overwhelm defense systems, keeping the occupation's home front in a constant state of anxiety from any large-scale escalation.

The worst-case scenario is Iran using heavier missiles not yet deployed if it feels an existential threat.

Official sources in Iran announced a tragic increase in the number of victims of the attack that targeted the 'Good Tree' primary school for girls in the southern province of Hormozgan. Field reports confirmed that the number of female students killed reached 57, while about 60 others sustained injuries of varying severity, causing a state of shock in local and international circles.

Sources from the Iranian Ministry of Education reported that the airstrike targeting the Minab area not only resulted in the death of female students but also injured several teachers who were present inside the educational institution. This new toll updates previous data provided by Minab's governor, Mohammad Radmehr, which indicated the killing of 51 students before the numbers were updated.

These bloody field developments come in the context of a joint military operation launched by Israel and the United States early Saturday under the name 'Lion's Roar'. US President Donald Trump officially announced the start of widespread combat operations targeting Iranian territory, representing an unprecedented escalation in the region.

The past hours witnessed a series of violent explosions that rocked several Iranian cities, with social media platforms circulating images showing a massive explosion in Tabriz. The capital Tehran and other provinces are subjected to continuous raids, amid a partial blackout on the nature of the targets hit by the intense aerial bombardment since the early morning hours.

Media sources from Tehran indicated that the issue of targeting the girls' school topped the priorities of Iranian diplomatic action, as Tehran seeks to document what it described as aggression against civilian facilities. These attacks caused a state of panic and terror among the local population, especially with the rapidly and unexpectedly increasing number of civilian casualties.

Despite the intensity of the raids, no official statement has yet been issued clarifying the nature of all buildings targeted in Tehran and other provinces. Questions arise as to whether these sites include security or military installations, or if they are related to the Iranian nuclear program, especially since the bombing affected populated residential areas.

The field situation in Iran remains prone to further escalation, with ongoing air operations targeting infrastructure and civilian areas. Rescue teams face significant difficulties in dealing with the extent of the destruction resulting from the raids, at a time when hospitals continue to receive dozens of injured victims from the targeting of the 'Good Tree' school.

The United States launched widespread combat operations in Iran.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun stressed today, Saturday, that protecting the Lebanese arena from potential disasters is an absolute priority for the state at this stage. Aoun's statements came after the start of the Israeli-American attack on Iranian territory, which raised fears of an escalation of the conflict.

President Aoun called on all constitutional authorities and relevant agencies to raise levels of readiness and joint coordination to ensure the country's stability. He pointed out that the critical nature of the current stage requires everyone to prioritize the supreme national interest above any partisan or external considerations to ensure sovereignty and security.

For his part, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned against being drawn into ill-considered adventures that could threaten the unity and security of Lebanese territory. Salam emphasized, in an appeal to citizens and political forces, the necessity of wisdom and patriotism to overcome the dangerous developments currently sweeping the region.

These official moves come amidst explicit Israeli threats to target civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, including Beirut International Airport. The occupation authorities stipulated that Hezbollah not engage in any direct military confrontation between the United States and Iran to avoid this scenario.

On the ground, media sources reported a clear state of anxiety gripping both the Lebanese street and official institutions. This tension was reflected in a series of intensive security and social meetings held by the Prime Minister to follow up on field and political developments.

In a related context, the Lebanese government affirmed that it is making strenuous diplomatic efforts with international and regional parties to spare the country the repercussions of war. These contacts aim to neutralize Lebanon from the ongoing conflict and ensure that it does not become an arena for settling major regional scores.

Fuel stations in various Lebanese regions witnessed a large rush from citizens fearing supply disruptions or the outbreak of a full-scale confrontation. This scene prompted the Ministry of Energy to issue a statement reassuring the public of the availability of sufficient quantities of fuel in the markets.

Official bodies also called on citizens not to rush to buy food items and store them excessively, emphasizing that supply chains are still operating. Despite these reassurances, anticipation remains the dominant sentiment among the public, who fear a repeat of previous crisis scenarios.

In the aviation sector, several foreign and regional airlines announced the suspension of their flights to and from Rafic Hariri International Airport in Beirut. Sources from within the airport clarified that this measure will continue for 24 hours, with the decision being reviewed periodically based on field developments.

In contrast, Middle East Airlines, the Lebanese national carrier, continued to operate its scheduled flights normally until now. Airport management and operating companies are closely monitoring the security situation to make appropriate decisions regarding the safety of air navigation in Lebanese airspace.

Protecting Lebanon from disasters is an absolute priority in the current critical phase, which requires commitment to national responsibility.

Informed sources reported the closure of the US Embassy in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, as part of strict precautionary security measures. This step comes amid intelligence information indicating the intention of three Iraqi factions to carry out drone attacks targeting Israeli sites and US military bases in the region.

For its part, the Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah issued a direct warning, affirming its intention to launch imminent attacks on US bases deployed in the country. This threat came after a military base belonging to the group was subjected to aerial attacks, prompting the faction to call on its fighters to prepare for a long-term confrontation.

On the diplomatic front, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a phone call with his Iraqi counterpart, Fuad Hussein, to discuss the rapidly developing situation. Araghchi clarified during the call that any upcoming Iranian military action would be directed exclusively against American targets in response to the aggressions against Tehran, emphasizing that no other countries or capitals in the region would be targeted.

In the context of field developments, two people were killed and three others injured as a result of airstrikes targeting the Jurf al-Sakhar base, also known as Jurf al-Nasr, located south of Baghdad. This base is a vital center for the Kata'ib Hezbollah faction, which is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces and an official component of the state's security system.

The government's Security Media Cell confirmed that the airstrikes occurred at exactly 11:50 AM on Saturday in the northern Babil province. The cell stated in an official statement that the attack resulted in the martyrdom of two individuals and injuries to others, necessitating a medical and security mobilization in the area.

In the Kurdistan Region, media sources reported that US air defenses managed to intercept unknown drones flying over the city of Erbil. Loud explosions were heard around the US Consulate, where columns of smoke were seen rising, causing concern among the city's residents.

The Iraqi government in Baghdad is holding intensive high-level meetings to discuss the repercussions of the recent escalation and ways to contain the situation. These moves coincide with parliamentary calls for an emergency session to discuss security breaches and national sovereignty in light of the repeated airstrikes.

Kata'ib Hezbollah had previously warned Washington of incurring heavy losses if a full-scale confrontation erupted in the Middle East. The military leadership of the brigades urged its elements to be fully prepared for a prolonged war of attrition, signaling a change in the previously established rules of engagement.

It is worth noting that Iraqi factions had exercised restraint during previous rounds of escalation between Iran and Israel, but the recent attacks on Jurf al-Sakhar may push these forces towards direct involvement in the regional conflict, posing complex security and political challenges for the Iraqi government.

Any Iranian targeting will be against American facilities in response to the aggression against our country, and has no relation to other countries or capitals.

The joint military attack launched by Israel and the United States against Iranian territory raised deep questions about Washington's seriousness in the diplomatic path. This escalation comes at a time when negotiation channels were witnessing intense activity to reach a comprehensive settlement of the nuclear issue.

Data indicates that the aggression, which lasted for about 12 days, came a few days before the start of the sixth round of direct talks. This timing was considered by observers as a fatal blow to the chances of building trust between Tehran and the current US administration led by Donald Trump.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi adopted a cautious approach towards American promises, aware of the possibility of Washington reneging on understandings. Nevertheless, the Iranian leadership considered that the risk of entering new negotiations was worth the experiment to avoid military escalation.

In the context of mediation, the Sultanate of Oman made diligent efforts to bridge the views between the two parties through high-level meetings in Washington. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi confirmed that the parties were on the verge of announcing a historic breakthrough in the thorny issue.

The draft agreement that was being worked on included unprecedented provisions related to strict nuclear oversight. Under it, Tehran agreed to liquidate its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium, a demand that Western powers had long called for.

Iranian concessions were not limited to this, but also included granting the International Atomic Energy Agency full and unconditional access to facilities. A remarkable development also emerged with the approval of American weapons inspectors entering alongside international inspectors to ensure absolute transparency.

Future enrichment operations in Iran were supposed to be limited to civilian and research needs only. Optimism prevailed in diplomatic circles about the possibility of signing the final principles agreement during the week that witnessed the military attacks.

However, the coordinated military operations undermined this diplomatic path, leaving the region facing open scenarios of confrontation. Analysts believe that this attack reflects the dominance of the hawkish current in Washington and Tel Aviv at the expense of peaceful political solutions.

In his justification for the military action, US President Donald Trump ignored talking about the progress made in the secret negotiations. He merely indicated that Iranian activities pose a direct threat to American interests and bases and its allies in the region and the world.

The US administration is currently facing increasing internal criticism regarding the feasibility of resorting to force in light of the availability of a diplomatic alternative. Opponents accuse Trump of succumbing to Israeli pressure aimed at preventing any potential rapprochement that could end the decades-long state of tension.

The White House is also criticized for not providing sufficient clarifications to Congress or international allies about the objectives of this sudden escalation. It appears that the lack of coordination has confused allies who were counting on the success of Omani mediation to calm the situation in the Middle East.

The question remains about the ability of the Iranian regime to return to the negotiating table after this direct military strike. The trust, which was already shaky, suffered a rift that may be difficult to repair in the foreseeable future, opening the door to a new arms race.

A peace agreement was imminent, and talks were on the verge of achieving a major breakthrough that would surpass the 2015 agreement.

The international arena is witnessing intense diplomatic activity following military attacks launched by Israeli and American forces against targets in Iran. International reactions have warned of the situation getting out of control, amidst explicit calls for the necessity of returning to the political path and avoiding military options that threaten the stability of the Middle East and the world.

In this context, Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi sent a firm message to the American administration, demanding it not to slide further into this conflict. Albusaidi affirmed that this confrontation does not serve American interests nor does it contribute to achieving global peace, stressing that the ongoing military operations blatantly contradict the principles of international law.

For its part, Turkish diplomacy actively entered the crisis, as official sources in Ankara revealed extensive movements led by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Fidan held a series of contacts that included his counterparts in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Syria, with the aim of coordinating positions and searching for practical steps to stop the mutual attacks.

On the European level, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced his categorical rejection of the unilateral military action carried out by the United States and Israel. In an official statement, Sánchez described this move as contributing to the creation of a more hostile and ambiguous international system, demanding the necessity of immediate de-escalation and adherence to international legitimacy.

In an escalating diplomatic move, French President Emmanuel Macron called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Macron explained that the outbreak of a direct confrontation between Washington and Tel Aviv on one hand, and Tehran on the other, would lead to dire consequences whose impact on international peace and security cannot be predicted.

The French Presidency office reported that Macron held separate phone calls with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan, in addition to the President of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. These discussions focused on ways to protect regional stability and prevent the conflict from spreading to neighboring countries, in light of the extreme state of alert in the region.

The French President expressed his country's readiness to harness all necessary resources to protect Paris's closest partners in the region if they request it. However, Macron stressed that the Iranian regime is required to realize the seriousness of the situation and engage in serious negotiations to end its nuclear and missile programs that concern the international community.

In contrast, the Canadian position supported the American approach, as the Canadian Prime Minister affirmed his country's stand with Washington in its efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ottawa considered current Iranian policies a direct threat to global security, necessitating firm measures to deter Tehran.

Reports from diplomatic sources indicate that the coming hours will be crucial in the corridors of the United Nations, as several countries seek to formulate a resolution calling for a ceasefire. These efforts clash with differing visions among major powers on how to deal with the Iranian file and the repercussions of the recent attack.

Anticipation remains the master of the situation in regional capitals, as observers fear that these attacks could lead to retaliatory reactions that get out of control. Consultations continue behind the scenes to try to find a political solution that spares the region a comprehensive war that could burn everything and destroy global energy supplies.

This is not your war.. American involvement does not serve Washington's interests nor the cause of global peace.

The Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip announced today, Saturday, an increase in the number of casualties from the ongoing Israeli aggression since October 7, 2023, to 72,095 martyrs and 171,784 injured. Medical sources clarified that hospitals received the bodies of 9 martyrs and 19 injured during the past twenty-four hours, as a result of a series of targeting incidents in various areas of the Strip, amid difficult field conditions that prevent rescue teams from reaching those missing under the rubble.

Regarding adherence to the ceasefire agreement concluded on October 11, official data revealed that 628 Palestinians have been martyred and 1,686 others injured since the agreement came into effect. Civil defense teams also managed to recover 735 bodies from various locations that had been previously bombed, reflecting the extent of the ongoing violations of the declared truce and the continuation of Israeli military operations.

On the ground, the early hours of Saturday witnessed a military escalation in the form of intensive airstrikes and artillery shelling targeting the eastern neighborhoods of Gaza City. Concurrently, occupation forces carried out widespread demolition operations of residential buildings in the eastern area of Khan Yunis city in the southern Strip, which falls within the policy of destroying infrastructure and residential blocks adopted by the Israeli army in border areas.

In the northern Strip, local sources reported the martyrdom of a Palestinian citizen by occupation forces' bullets in the town of Beit Lahia, which is under a strict siege and continuous military pressure. This incident comes in the context of direct targeting of civilians in contact areas, as Israeli vehicles continue to position themselves around residential areas and fire at anyone moving in those areas.

In Khan Yunis, an occupation drone targeted a tent sheltering displaced people inside a school near the Nasser Medical Complex, resulting in the martyrdom of one citizen and the injury of three others with varying degrees of wounds. The medical complex administration confirmed the arrival of victims as a result of this bombing, which targeted a densely populated tent area, exacerbating the suffering of the displaced who face harsh humanitarian conditions under the impact of the low-pressure weather system and repeated shelling.

A number of victims remain under the rubble and in the streets, as ambulance and rescue teams are unable to reach them due to continuous targeting.

Omani Foreign Minister, Badr Al Busaidi, revealed dramatic developments in the course of negotiations related to the Iranian nuclear file, describing what has been achieved as an 'unprecedented breakthrough' that was not achieved in previous negotiation rounds. Al Busaidi affirmed in media statements that Tehran has given official approval to end the military aspect of its nuclear program, indicating that a diplomatic solution has become the only viable path to avoid military escalation in the region.

The Omani minister explained that the core of the new agreement is based on the principle of 'zero stockpile' of enriched materials, where Iran has agreed not to retain any quantities of uranium that could be used as fuel to make a nuclear weapon on its territory. He stressed that this clause represents a fundamental guarantee to prevent any future attempt to produce a nuclear bomb, which surpasses in its effectiveness the restrictions that were imposed in the nuclear agreement concluded in 2015 during the administration of former US President Barack Obama.

Al Busaidi touched upon the monitoring mechanisms, confirming that the agreement grants the International Atomic Energy Agency full powers for comprehensive and extensive verification of Iranian activities. He indicated that this strict monitoring system may, in advanced stages, allow American inspectors access to Iranian facilities, which enhances international trust levels in the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program and Tehran's commitment to the terms of the new understandings.

Regarding technical details, sources mentioned that both sides agreed to reduce uranium enrichment levels to the lowest possible degrees, and to convert current materials into nuclear fuel designated for civilian purposes only. This transformation ensures no accumulation of any dual-use materials, and closes the door to any nuclear military ambitions, which the Omani minister considered a fundamental development that reshapes the security landscape in the Middle East.

The agreement was not limited to the nuclear aspect only, but also extended to include regional issues that concern Iran's neighbors; Al Busaidi announced an initial agreement to discuss Tehran's regional activities within the framework of an expanded dialogue with Arab countries. This parallel track aims to address outstanding issues outside the nuclear framework, ensuring regional stability and building relations based on good neighborliness and joint cooperation.

Regarding the timeline for implementation, the minister stated that the Austrian capital, Vienna, will host crucial meetings next Monday, followed by complementary rounds during the same week to complete the remaining technical details. Al Busaidi expected that all implementation procedures, including addressing the stockpile file and establishing final verification mechanisms, would be completed within a period not exceeding three months from now.

The head of Omani diplomacy stressed that his country is currently seeking to reach a 'comprehensive package' that includes all necessary components to ensure the sustainability of the agreement and its respect by all international parties. Despite his reservation about revealing all precise details at the present time, he affirmed that the general picture suggests that the final signing is within reach, provided that some outstanding points requiring a little additional time are completed.

Al Busaidi warned against resorting to any military action against Iranian facilities, considering that such steps would only complicate the crisis and increase regional tensions without offering real solutions. He affirmed that experience has proven that serious dialogue is the only way to permanently prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which is the goal that the international community currently agrees upon through active Omani mediation.

This announcement comes at a time when world capitals are awaiting the results of the upcoming Vienna rounds, where the Omani position represents a strong indicator of the imminent end of one of the most complex international crises in the last two decades. This agreement, if successful, is expected to alleviate regional polarization and open new horizons for economic and political cooperation between Iran and the international community, while ensuring the security and stability of neighboring countries.

I believe that we have solved the problem of the Iranian nuclear program through negotiation, by achieving a very important breakthrough that has not been achieved before, and if we build on this achievement, I believe that an agreement is very close.

The region is experiencing a state of turmoil following the Israeli-American aggression that targeted sites in the Iranian capital, Tehran, and several other areas on Saturday morning. This field escalation comes in the context of a prolonged conflict that goes beyond direct military details, raising fundamental questions about the future of political balances in the Middle East. The stance on Iran's role requires frankness without equivocation, especially in light of its deep interventions in thorny Arab issues.

Over the past decades, the Iranian regime has played a pivotal role in deepening crises within a number of Arab countries, starting from Iraq after 2003 to Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. This project was not merely humanitarian solidarity, but was based on strategic, national, and sectarian calculations aimed at entrenching clear Iranian hegemony. It is natural that this expansion would face widespread rejection from peoples who have suffered from the disintegration of their national arenas.

However, criticizing Iranian policies does not mean being drawn into simplistic readings that seek to completely remove Iran from the regional equation. Iran is a country with deep roots in the history and geography of West Asia, and it is a constant component that cannot be ignored or treated as an alien element. Attempts to forcibly exclude regional powers often lead to counterproductive results that increase instability.

Historical readings indicate that the American-Iranian confrontation did not begin with the recent events in Gaza, but rather its roots go back to 1979 and the embassy crisis in Tehran. This tension deepened over decades of conflict over the nuclear file, economic sanctions, and regional influence. Therefore, linking the current confrontation exclusively to the Palestinian issue lacks historical accuracy, as Tehran's decisions have always been governed primarily by its supreme national interests.

Tehran has used the discourse of 'resistance and steadfastness' as a tool for political and media mobilization and to gain popular legitimacy in the Arab street. Despite the presence of this discourse, practical behavior has always been subject to the cost-benefit balance specific to the Iranian state alone. This was clearly demonstrated in managing the limits of confrontation after October 2023, where the pace of interventions was adjusted to protect the security of the Iranian regime.

The issue today goes beyond fears of the nuclear program or ballistic missiles, reaching an attempt to radically rearrange the regional balance of power. There is a clear endeavor to establish unilateral regional superiority by weakening competing powers and depleting their capabilities. The sole beneficiary of this path is the Israeli occupation, which seeks to create strategic vacuums that allow it to impose absolute hegemony over the region.

Field sources reported that the recent attacks prompted neighboring countries to take strict precautionary measures to protect their national security. Iraq announced the complete closure of its airspace, and flights at Erbil International Airport were suspended until further notice. These steps reflect the extent of concern about the region sliding into a comprehensive war that may not differentiate between warring parties and neutral states.

In a related context, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE announced similar measures, including suspending flights or modifying their air routes. Syria also closed its southern air corridors for 12 hours, adopting alternative routes to ensure navigation safety. These collective measures confirm that any explosion in the Iranian-Israeli conflict will affect the economic and security consequences of all countries in the region without exception.

Within the occupied territories, the occupation authorities declared a special state of emergency, including closing airspace and suspending studies in several areas. This alert reflects the occupation's fear of potential Iranian reactions that might target Israeli depth. This state of emergency places Israeli society before complex security challenges resulting from its government's escalation policies.

For its part, Iran closed its airspace for six hours after the explosions that rocked Tehran, in a measure aimed at controlling the airspace and securing vital sites. This field development places the region at a dangerous crossroads, where the language of weapons becomes dominant over the language of diplomacy. The consequences of this clash may reproduce new maps of influence at the expense of the stability of Arab societies.

The collapse of the existing balance in the region will not produce lasting stability, but will unleash new waves of chaos and uncertainty. The loss in the event of a widespread explosion will not be limited to one party, but will affect countries that will find themselves facing a reality where equations are imposed from outside. Therefore, protecting the interests of peoples requires an independent vision that rejects subservience to any project seeking subjugation.

What is required today is a conscious and balanced regional stance that balances criticism of expansionist Iranian policies with a rejection of projects aimed at dismantling the region. It is unacceptable to turn the Arab arena into a stage for settling international scores or for entrenching unilateral Israeli hegemony. Awareness of the dangers of the current moment requires moving away from blind alignments and focusing on protecting national sovereignty.

The ongoing battle is not just a technical confrontation over centrifuges or missile ranges, but a struggle over the identity of the coming regional order. Either the region emerges with a vision that guarantees the interests of its peoples, or it remains hostage to the conflicts of major powers and proxies. This pivotal moment will determine the shape of the Middle East for decades to come, and its results will affect the lives of millions.

In conclusion, the biggest challenge remains how to prevent the conflict from turning into a tool for redrawing maps by military force. The stability of the region depends on finding real balances that respect the sovereignty of states and reject hegemony in all its forms. Between the Iranian influence project and the opposing hegemony projects, the need for an independent Arab project emerges to protect what remains of stability in this turbulent region.

The ongoing battle today is not just a technical confrontation over uranium enrichment, but a struggle over the shape of the coming regional order.

The book 'The Religious Dimension in American Policy Towards the Arab-Zionist Conflict' by researcher and diplomat Youssef Al-Hassan, raises fundamental questions about the nature of American desperation in defending the Zionist entity. The author believes that traditional explanations, which limit this support to strategic interests or the pressures of the Israeli lobby, remain inadequate for understanding the doctrinal depth that drives the ruling elites in Washington.

The book's central hypothesis revolves around the role of the contemporary Christian fundamentalist movement in the United States as a fundamental pillar of the Zionist project. Al-Hassan explains that this movement does not see Israel merely as a political ally, but considers its existence to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecies related to the Second Coming of Christ, making its defense a form of worship.

The book defines Christian fundamentalism as a radical movement that believes in the literal infallibility of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. These individuals link the establishment of the occupation state in 1948 with the approaching end of time, as their belief stipulates the 'restoration of Israel' as a chosen people to their promised land to pave the way for the appearance of the awaited Savior.

As for Evangelicals, the author describes them as the solid bloc that believes in the necessity of the Second Coming of Christ, and sees supporting Israel as drawing closer to the Creator. These beliefs go so far as to consider any criticism of Israeli policies as a divine 'curse' that afflicts opponents, which explains the political immunity Israel enjoys in Congress.

Al-Hassan highlights 'Christian Zionism' as an ideology transcending Protestant churches, promoting the historical and religious right of Jews to Palestine. He cites the 'Ball Declaration' issued in 1985, in which leaders of global churches called on Jews to immigrate to Palestine, considering that it was God's hand that gathered their diaspora.

The book traces the roots of this thought back to the 16th century in Europe, specifically with the Protestant Reformation movement. King Henry VIII's decision to translate the Torah into English in 1538 made biblical culture an integral part of the popular consciousness, paving the way for the later Balfour Declaration.

These convictions were carried by the early settlers to the 'New World,' where the 'Puritans' considered themselves children of Israel fleeing Pharaoh Britain to the Promised Land. The doctrinal identification reached the extent of naming the United States 'New Canaan' and naming American geographical features after ancient biblical names.

The author reveals how the American founding elites internalized this history, to the extent that President Thomas Jefferson proposed a state symbol embodying the children of Israel led by a cloud and a pillar of fire. This overlap between American identity and Hebrew stories made support for Zionism part of the United States' 'religious nationalism' since its inception.

In the modern era, Christian Zionism has utilized advanced media to spread its ideas through what is called the 'visible church.' Statistics cited in the book confirm that programs by pastors supporting Israel, such as Billy Graham, reach millions of viewers and listeners through thousands of radio and television stations around the world.

Al-Hassan indicates that this continuous media influx has created a broad popular base that believes Israel's borders should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. This explains why American policy towards the conflict does not change with changing presidents, as religious doctrine remains the constant compass guiding decision-makers in the White House.

The book affirms that American bias is not merely 'slips of the tongue' or fleeting positions by inexperienced diplomats, but rather the implementation of an ancient doctrinal program. The American official who supports settlement expansion often acts from a deeply rooted religious conviction that this expansion is a divine will that cannot be opposed.

Through his diplomatic experience, Youssef Al-Hassan analyzes how these ideas have permeated research centers and decision-making in Washington. He believes that confronting this bias requires a deep understanding of these religious roots, rather than merely betting on changing political or economic interests, which experience has shown to be secondary to doctrine.

The author concludes his study by emphasizing that Christian Zionism has succeeded in transforming the Palestinian issue in the Western imagination from a cause of a people under occupation into a cosmic religious battle. This transformation is what grants Israel moral and legal cover in the eyes of a large segment of the American public, despite its commission of genocide.

The book 'The Religious Dimension in American Policy' represents an important document for understanding the mechanisms of intellectual hegemony exercised by Evangelical fundamentalism. It provides the Arab reader and specialists in international affairs with a comprehensive vision of how religion intertwines with politics in the world's greatest power, and how this reflects on the future of the conflict in the region.

Supporting Israel is not an optional matter based on moral or strategic foundations, but rather a divine decree in the view of American Evangelical fundamentalism.

American intellectual Noam Chomsky believes that the global hegemony of the United States was not accidental, but rather the result of an imperial strategy crafted by economic and social elites since the end of World War II. These elites sought to preserve their interests through military, political, and economic tools, with blatant disregard for human rights despite the democratic slogans they espoused.

Since 1945, Washington has emerged as a key supporter of regimes involved in grave violations and ethnic cleansing, spanning vast geographical areas from El Salvador and Colombia to Israel and South Africa. This approach was not limited to political support but extended to direct military interventions in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq to ensure the flow of resources.

Analyses confirm that American foreign policy, whether under a Democratic or Republican administration, adheres to the same expansionist agenda aimed at strengthening dominance over global markets. However, observers believe that Donald Trump's return to the White House represents a negative turning point where the country has begun to lose its leading position in the global economy.

The United States inherited its influence from the British Empire, transforming many countries into satellite planets orbiting its sphere through loyal regimes or transnational corporations. These corporations, whose predatory nature resembles that of the old East India Company, contributed to a massive accumulation of capital within America, but it remained concentrated in the hands of a limited few.

American society today suffers from a huge economic gap, with wealth concentrated among the 'oligarchy' that controls the levers of the state from behind the scenes. Statistics indicate that 1% of the population controlled about 35% of the country's wealth by 2021, making the average American the most affected by inequality.

In the current Trumpian era, the power of money has merged with populist rhetoric, as billionaires and owners of major technology companies provided unlimited support for Trump's election campaigns. In return, Trump relied on mobilizing popular bases with nationalist slogans such as 'America First,' which analysts considered an official declaration of the end of the era of globalization.

Trump's economic policies, based on imposing exorbitant tariffs, led to counterproductive results that diminished Washington's trade influence instead of strengthening it. This economic isolation pushed historical partners, especially in Europe, towards strengthening their relations with China, the United States' primary strategic rival on the international stage.

The current administration did not stop at trade wars; its threats extended to allies and neighbors, with Trump hinting at occupying parts of Canada or seizing the Panama Canal. These statements, described by diplomatic sources as political ignorance, caused massive disruptions in the collective security system that Washington had led for centuries.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, the current administration adopts an extremist approach aimed at placing the Gaza Strip under American guardianship with international cover, after years of using the veto to prevent a ceasefire. This approach reflects a desire to impose coercive solutions that bypass Palestinian national rights and serve the security interests of the Israeli occupation.

Trump's recent speeches are characterized by an excessive focus on the language of numbers and trillions, moving away from traditional diplomacy, which has caused widespread international concern. Some European politicians, including French parliamentarians, went so far as to question the psychological fitness of the American president after analyzing his latest proposals in February 2026.

American threats have not stopped at its neighbors but have included countries such as Iran and Venezuela, reflecting a state of confusion in managing international files. Researchers see this aggressive behavior as evidence of the erosion of American soft power and its transformation into a power that relies solely on military threats and intimidation.

Analysts believe that Trump, unintentionally, is clipping his country's claws on the international stage by weakening traditional alliances such as NATO. This disintegration of international ties heralds the beginning of the end of the American era and the emergence of new international poles seeking to fill the vacuum left by Washington.

Historically, the American capitalist system had controls that ensured a minimum level of balance, but the current dominance of companies like 'Tesla' and 'Meta' has changed the rules of the political game. Political decisions have become hostage to the interests of a handful of wealthy individuals who prioritize quick gains over the long-term strategic stability of the state.

In conclusion, it seems that the United States faces an existential test under a leadership that adopts controversy and confrontation as a means of governance, which recalls historical sayings about the demise of nations due to the ignorance of their leaders. The current trajectory indicates that 'Trumpism' may be the tool that demolishes the pillars of hegemony built over eight decades.

United States foreign policy follows a consistent agenda to access resources and markets, but Trump's arrival has caused Washington to lose its leading position in the global economy.

Iranian state television announced the launch of a large-scale military operation dubbed 'True Promise 4', in a direct and swift response to the Israeli-American attack that targeted Iranian sites early Saturday morning. Tehran affirmed that this move comes to defend its sovereignty after several areas in the country were subjected to intense airstrikes that hit security and missile facilities.

The past few hours witnessed air raid sirens blaring in wide areas within the Green Line, including the Galilee, Marj Ibn Amer, and Wadi Ara, all the way to the city of Tel Aviv. Field sources reported that the Iranian missile barrages caused a state of general panic, amidst attempts by Israeli air defense systems to intercept hostile targets.

In the occupied city of Haifa, Israeli media confirmed the direct impact of missiles, leading to thick columns of smoke rising from the targeted sites. Medical sources reported a number of injuries among settlers, while ambulance and rescue teams rushed to the affected areas to assess the extent of human and material losses.

Initial estimates from sources in the Iranian capital indicate that the Revolutionary Guard launched at least 30 ballistic missiles in the first wave of the attack. This escalation came just two hours after the raids that targeted Tehran, reflecting a high readiness of the Iranian missile force for an immediate response.

The Iranian response was not limited to the Israeli interior, but also extended to include the American military presence in the region, as Iranian news agencies reported targeting Washington's bases. Tasnim news agency confirmed that the missiles targeted vital centers used by American forces, in response to direct coordination with Tel Aviv in the recent attack.

In a related context, explosions rocked scattered areas of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, coinciding with the activation of air raid sirens in Kuwait and Qatar due to intense missile activity in the skies. For its part, the Qatari authorities announced the success of their air defenses in intercepting and shooting down all targets that attempted to penetrate their airspace during the escalation round.

Fars news agency revealed that four major US military bases in the region were subjected to concentrated missile strikes carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These attacks come in implementation of previous threats in which the Iranian military leadership affirmed that it would not stand idly by in the face of any aggression launched from the territories of neighboring countries or foreign bases.

The General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces warned in a strongly worded statement that any country that places its bases or territories at the disposal of the United States and Israel will be considered a partner in the aggression. The statement stressed that those bases would be legitimate targets for Iranian fire if military operations against the Islamic Republic continued.

For its part, the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the Iranian Parliament described the current situation as a harbinger of a comprehensive regional war that may not stop at certain limits. The committee indicated that the American-Israeli coordination in bombing official and security sites in Tehran has pushed the region towards a dangerous slide that threatens international stability in general.

Any military base that provides support to the United States and Israel in their aggression will be a legitimate target for our armed forces.

What was media-dubbed the 'Deal of the Century' was not merely a fleeting political event or a casual proposal, but rather an intense expression of an entire phase aimed at politically and strategically re-engineering the region. This perception transcends the technical details of the plan to reach the conceptual framework through which the Palestinian cause and its historical essence were redefined.

The use of the term 'deal' in the context of a national issue of Palestine's weight carries dangerous implications for the legal and ethical structure of the conflict. While deals are legally based on equality and mutual benefit, invoking them under an ongoing occupation aims to shift the issue from the realm of permanent rights to areas of political bargaining.

Land, sovereignty, and identity are non-negotiable elements in the Palestinian consciousness, yet the foundational logic of recent projects attempts to make them items on a commercial agenda. From the perspective of international law, the right of peoples to self-determination remains a peremptory norm that cannot be circumvented through economic arrangements or false developmental promises.

Occupation does not acquire legitimacy with the passage of time, nor can an illegitimate reality become legal merely by the recognition of major powers. In this context, the American role in sponsoring these projects was not neutral; rather, it was consistent with a strategic vision that reordered the region's priorities to exclusively serve Israeli interests.

These projects and schemes find fertile ground for expansion in societies suffering from political fragility and identity fragmentation. Nations exhausted by their internal conflicts and divisions become less capable of formulating a unified national stance, making them more susceptible to international pressures and bargains that target their constants.

Recently, a phenomenon of redirecting the compass of animosity has emerged in the consciousness of some regimes, where the centrality of the conflict with the occupation has been replaced by other regional rivalries. This shift aims to create an 'alternative enemy' in public awareness, which objectively leads to the dissipation of energies in side conflicts that serve the continuation of settlement realities on the ground.

The Iraqi model after the 2003 invasion offers a harsh lesson on the danger of managing countries according to the logic of external interests and dismantling national institutions. The imposed restructuring policies led to the opening of deep internal conflicts, proving that the imbalance of national sovereignty inevitably leads to an imbalance of overall stability.

Reading the 'Deal of the Century' in light of current data reveals that it was not a genuine peace initiative, but an attempt to impose a low political ceiling and normalize an illegitimate reality. Peace that is not based on removing the root causes of the conflict, foremost among them the occupation, remains fragile peace lacking justice and permanence.

The widespread talk about forming a so-called 'Peace Council' emerges as an advanced institutional step aimed at translating the vision of political deals into permanent organizational structures. This transition from the level of theoretical initiatives to institutional building means an attempt to institutionalize the status quo and make it an integral part of the new regional order.

The establishment of such councils, if they move towards entrenching the imbalance instead of addressing it, will turn into a mechanism for managing the conflict, not for ending it justly. Here, the fundamental question arises as to whether peace is built on the foundations of international justice or on the basis of reorganizing the occupation in less politically costly forms.

The real danger in some political projects lies in the infrastructure and permanent structures they establish, which may make reversing their effects in the future extremely difficult. Therefore, the current battle is not merely a struggle over the texts of initiatives, but a battle of awareness to distinguish between true peace based on dignity and packaged peace.

The logic of rights remains more entrenched in history and has a deeper impact on the collective consciousness than the logic of fleeting deals imposed by temporary power balances. Between these two logics, the future of the Palestinian cause is determined: either a settlement that reproduces injustice, or a path based on law, justice, and human dignity.

The current stage requires political vigilance capable of deconstructing discourses that attempt to wrap concessions in the guise of development and economic prosperity. National sovereignty cannot be compensated by financial grants, and the right of return and self-determination remain the essence of any just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue in the face of liquidation attempts.

In conclusion, the bet remains on the ability of the Palestinian people and their living forces to adhere to constants and refuse to engage in paths that legitimize the occupation. History proves that projects that override the rights of peoples and ignore their legitimate aspirations are doomed to failure, no matter how strong the international parties supporting them.

The mere use of the term 'deal' in the context of an issue of Palestine's magnitude implies a dangerous shift in the legal and ethical structure of the conflict.

Washington – Said Arikat - 28/2/2028

News Analysis

The words of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, before the Human Rights Council this week were not merely a routine presentation of a human rights report, but rather seemed to indicate a significant shift in the nature of UN discourse regarding the war in Gaza and Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.

When Türk spoke of the possibility of Israel seeking to effect a "permanent demographic change" in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, he used one of the most sensitive terms in international law, a description rarely appearing in UN statements with such political and legal clarity.

The report, covering the period between November 2024 and October 2025, concluded that there was what the UN official described as "total disregard for human rights," pointing to widespread destruction of residential areas, severe restrictions on the population, and the use of humanitarian aid within the context of military conflict.

Türk warned that the accumulation of these measures "appears to be aimed at permanent demographic change," cautioning against growing concerns about ethnic cleansing — a description that carries legal implications that could extend beyond political condemnation to discussions of international accountability.

Gaza: A Truce Without an End to the Crisis

Despite the announcement of a ceasefire in October 2025, the report indicates that the humanitarian reality in Gaza has not seen substantial improvement. More than 600 Palestinians have been killed and over 1600 injured since the truce began, while the UN documented approximately 1700 violations, including restrictions on aid, denial of medical treatment, and repeated attacks.

The United Nations had declared a famine in the Strip in August 2025, while malnutrition continued to spread due to limited humanitarian supply flows.

Türk noted that civilians are still dying from bombing, hunger, cold, and treatable diseases, adding that what is happening "would be considered a major global crisis if it occurred anywhere else."

UN estimates indicate that more than 72,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed since Israel launched its brutal war on Gaza in October 2023, in addition to the destruction of over 80% of the infrastructure in the Strip, leading to a near-complete collapse of civil life.

The UN's use of the term "demographic change" marks a turning point in the description of the conflict, as the international institution moves from documenting the humanitarian consequences of the war to analyzing long-term political intentions and patterns. This development reflects growing concern within international legal circles that military operations are no longer understood solely as a security response, but as part of a new reality being reshaped on the ground. However, the central question remains whether the linguistic escalation will translate into actual political pressure or remain within the bounds of customary symbolic condemnation.

West Bank: Administrative Changes with Strategic Dimensions

In the occupied West Bank, the report described the situation as "extremely alarming," pointing to the killing of over a thousand Palestinians during the same period, in parallel with Israeli measures expanding the scope of civil administration in areas that were under military rule.

Türk believes that these steps solidify a reality that is gradually approaching annexation, which international law considers illegal in occupied territories. Observers note that these administrative shifts may have a more significant long-term impact than military operations themselves, as they change the legal and political structure of the land.

The High Commissioner described the overall situation as a "man-made catastrophe," holding Israel responsible for forced displacement and criticizing the absence of international accountability for grave violations.

Türk's statements reveal a deeper dilemma that transcends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself: the limited ability of the international system to translate legal reports into executive actions. While evidence and legal descriptions accumulate, accountability mechanisms remain subject to political considerations within the Security Council and international alliances. This gap between law and politics not only affects the course of the conflict but also threatens the credibility of the global human rights system, as the impression grows that state power, not the scale of the violation, is the decisive factor in determining the level of accountability.

Human Rights as a Condition for Stability

In concluding his speech, Türk stressed that any future reconstruction process or political path would not be sustainable without placing human rights at the center of the proposed solutions.

He stated that human rights in the Palestinian territories have been "crushed," emphasizing that achieving lasting stability requires addressing the root causes of the crisis, not just managing its humanitarian consequences.

As the war continues to reshape the political and geographical reality of the region, the High Commissioner's report does not merely describe the tragedy but poses a broader question to the international community: Is what is happening a fleeting humanitarian crisis, or a moment of permanent redefinition?

The Iranian capital, Tehran, witnessed a wave of intense airstrikes early Saturday morning as part of a joint Israeli-American aggression, targeting vital facilities and military sites belonging to the regime. Iranian media sources confirmed that President Masoud Pezeshkian was unharmed and in good condition, in response to Hebrew claims that alleged the targeting of all political and military leadership joints in the country.

Journalistic sources quoted security agencies in Tel Aviv as saying that the widespread attack was designed to target all elements of the Iranian regime without exception. The Israeli Army Radio clarified that the first wave of strikes focused directly on high-ranking leadership figures, and verification operations are currently underway to assess the results of these targets and their accuracy in achieving their objectives.

In a related context, field reports indicated that the targeting scope was not limited to military sites but also included sovereign ministries and headquarters belonging to the Revolutionary Guard. The raids also focused on destroying ballistic missile launch platforms and infrastructure associated with the Iranian missile program, in an attempt to undermine Tehran's deterrent capabilities.

Regarding the security movements of the supreme leadership, a state of extreme ambiguity and secrecy prevailed regarding the whereabouts of the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution. While international news circulated information about his transfer to a fortified location outside the capital, Tehran, field sources confirmed the difficulty of ascertaining his exact location given the current security conditions and the strict measures surrounding his movements.

In recent days, the Supreme Leader had appeared publicly in massive public gatherings inside the Imam Khomeini Hosseiniyeh attached to his official residence in the heart of the capital. This public appearance was preceded by warnings of a potential escalation, but the pace of the recent attack imposed new security protocols that prevent the disclosure of details of the movements of the country's supreme leadership.

For its part, Israeli security and military agencies raised the alert level to the highest degree, declaring their readiness for prolonged rounds of exchange of blows that could last for several days. Military circles in Tel Aviv anticipate an imminent Iranian response, which prompted them to expand the target bank to include additional strategic facilities in the event of continued direct confrontation.

These rapid developments come amid full operational partnership between Washington and Tel Aviv, where the aggression was coordinated at high levels to ensure maximum impact. International capitals are watching with great concern the consequences of this unprecedented military escalation, which places the entire region on the brink of a comprehensive regional confrontation open to all possibilities.

We targeted all elements of the Iranian regime, and operations may extend for several days as part of a continuous exchange of blows.

International media sources have revealed widespread doubts surrounding the justifications put forth by the administration of US President Donald Trump to pave the way for military action against Iran. An extensive report indicated that recent claims made by the White House were described as unproven or lacking scientific and intelligence accuracy.

The US administration's narrative focused on three main axes, claiming that Tehran had fully resumed its nuclear program and was capable of producing a nuclear bomb within a few days. Trump also alleged that Iran was developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of targeting American cities very soon.

In contrast, American and European officials painted a completely different picture of the situation on the ground, asserting that there was no concrete evidence of Tehran's pursuit of building a nuclear explosive device. Sources clarified that current Iranian activity is limited to restoring some sites damaged in previous attacks without achieving a strategic technical breakthrough.

Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, estimated at about a thousand pounds, remains stored underground at the Isfahan facility. Sources added that extracting these materials and converting them into warheads would require many months, refuting claims of the ability to manufacture a bomb within days.

Regarding missile capabilities, intelligence sources reported that Trump significantly exaggerated the Iranian threat to American territory. Defense Intelligence Agency assessments concluded that the development of intercontinental missiles would require a decade and intensive technical efforts that Tehran has not yet begun.

Intelligence analysts expressed concern about the possibility of information being selectively or distortedly presented to the political leadership to justify preconceived decisions. Sources likened this atmosphere to what preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when false claims about weapons of mass destruction were used to justify military action.

For his part, Representative Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, expressed deep concern following closed-door meetings with administration officials. Himes affirmed that he had not heard any convincing justification for the United States to engage in a new war in the already volatile Middle East region.

Despite Trump's assurances in his last speech that previous strikes had eliminated Iran's nuclear program, he returned to warn of Tehran's renewed ambitions. This contradiction in statements raised questions about the true objectives of the verbal and on-the-ground escalation pursued by the current administration regarding the Iranian file.

Data indicates that the sensitive Fordow nuclear site has remained out of service since the attacks that targeted it last June. Sources confirm that Iran has not established any new nuclear sites since then, despite observations of attempts to dig deeper to protect future facilities from bunker-buster bombs.

In a related context, observers noted that Trump's recent speech was characterized by a focus on the language of numbers and huge financial gains, reflecting his controversial political approach. The speech received widespread public attention, despite sharp international criticism of his foreign policies, including his use of the veto to halt the war in Gaza.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later admitted in statements that there was no conclusive evidence of Iran enriching nuclear fuel at present. However, he continued to warn that Tehran is on a path to developing weapons that may one day reach the continental United States, without specifying a precise timeline.

Some Republican lawmakers questioned the reports relied upon by White House advisors, with Senator Marsha Blackburn stating that she had not seen any data supporting the imminent bomb hypothesis. This division within the Republican Party reflects a state of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the information on which decisions of war and peace are based.

Historically, Iran has focused its missile capabilities on short and medium-range missiles to enhance regional deterrence against its adversaries in the region. Sources confirm that shifting this focus to intercontinental missiles has not yet become a top priority for Tehran, contrary to what the US administration promotes in international forums.

Tension remains high in Washington, with increasing pressure to provide transparent evidence before taking any military step that could ignite the region. Sources continue to warn that relying on questionable claims could lead to strategic disasters, repeating past mistakes in foreign military interventions.

Wars in the Middle East are not in the interest of presidents or the country, and we have not heard any convincing justification for another war now.

A strategic analysis published by the Hebrew newspaper 'Maariv', by Brigadier General (res.) Amit Yaari of the Israeli occupation army, discussed Israel's accelerating moves towards strengthening relations with India. The analysis clarified that these moves aim to build what he described as an 'axis of opportunities', which seeks to overcome traditional security threats and focus on common economic interests.

According to the vision presented by Yaari, the United States and Israel are working to establish a new regional system in the Middle East. This system is not based on tribal or religious affiliations, but rather primarily on the energy, trade, and cross-border economic partnerships sectors.

This ambitious plan relies on creating a modern 'Silk Road' extending from the Far East to the Western world and Europe. The Middle East is positioned at the heart of this project as a vital corridor connecting India and Europe, in what is known as the (IMEC) global economic corridor project.

According to the outlined plan, India will represent the major eastern gateway for this corridor due to its growing economic weight. In contrast, Israel will play the role of the western gateway leading to the European continent, giving it unprecedented geopolitical weight in the region.

The analysis indicates that countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan represent the 'heart of the corridor', where they will be used as land routes for transporting goods and energy after being unloaded from ships. This land connection aims to accelerate global trade movement and reduce reliance on traditional long maritime routes.

On the western front, Israel has succeeded in establishing a defensive and economic wing through alliances with Cyprus and Greece. This alliance ensures the flow of Israeli exports, whether goods or energy via pipelines, to reach the European interior through Greek and French ports.

The recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister is of great importance, as the Israeli analyst considered it an official announcement of the inauguration of the eastern wing of the axis. This step aims to solidify Israel's position as an indispensable element in any future regional or international arrangements.

From a security perspective, Yaari believes that the extensive defense agreements with India and Greece are not merely measures to protect borders. Rather, they are institutional tools aimed at strengthening strategic partnership and building an integrated regional infrastructure that protects the economic interests of the corridor participants.

In contrast, regional challenges to this plan emerge, as Turkey and Qatar seek to undermine this path by proposing alternatives that bypass Israel. These alternatives rely on directing trade flows from the East through Jordan and Syria to Turkish territories and from there to Europe.

The analysis also points to a conflict of influence aimed at affecting the Saudi and Emirati positions towards this project. Some parties are trying to push the UAE to abandon its close alliance with Israel, while Israel seeks to find alternative routes that overcome any political obstacles.

Among the proposed solutions to overcome geographical challenges, the trend towards recognizing 'Somaliland' stands out. This interest comes due to its strategic location controlling the southern entrance to the Red Sea, which provides additional security for navigation routes.

Regarding ports, the movements of Abu Dhabi Ports Group in the Jordanian port of Aqaba stand out as part of this integration. The group signed a long-term agreement to manage and operate the port, which enhances the efficiency of land and sea connectivity within the (IMEC) corridor system.

Adani, the Indian company that manages the port of Haifa, also plays a pivotal role in connecting with Europe through partnerships with the port of Marseille in France. This interconnectedness between ports managed by a single entity facilitates the movement of goods and reduces logistical barriers between East and West.

Yaari concluded his analysis by indicating that Israel's success in establishing the eastern and western wings of the axis proves its strategic value to the United States. He added that the project may expand in the future to include other countries if political conditions change, ensuring the dominance of this economic path.

Israel seeks to solidify its central position in the new regional fabric, so that it cannot be ignored in a system based on economy and energy.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on Saturday morning the launch of a preemptive military operation against targets in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Katz affirmed that this attack comes with the alleged aim of removing direct Iranian threats, emphasizing the imposition of a maximum state of emergency throughout Israel to confront any potential repercussions.

In a related context, defense sources revealed that the ongoing military operation was fully and pre-coordinated with the American administration. Reports indicated that planning for this attack lasted for several months, while the zero hour was set weeks ago to ensure the achievement of desired strategic objectives.

Violent explosions rocked the Iranian capital, Tehran, as missiles fell in the vital University and Jumhouri streets. Field sources reported thick plumes of smoke rising from the center of the capital, specifically around Pasteur Street, causing panic among residents during the pre-dawn meal on the tenth day of Ramadan.

Media sources clarified that the airstrikes targeted various areas including the east and north of the capital, as well as the far west where Mehrabad International Airport is located. The targeting also affected sites in Palestine and Wesal streets, while Israeli Army Radio confirmed that the attack focuses on official facilities, missile bases, and sensitive security centers.

On the leadership front, informed sources stated that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was moved to a safe location outside the capital Tehran as a precautionary measure. At the same time, Iranian civil aviation authorities announced the complete closure of the country's airspace to all flights, a measure also taken by Iraqi authorities to secure their airspace.

On the Israeli side, the army issued immediate and strict instructions to the home front, including a ban on educational activities, public gatherings, and the closure of non-essential workplaces. The Ministry of Transport also decided to close Israeli airspace to civilian navigation, in anticipation of an imminent Iranian response after sirens were activated in several areas.

These rapid military developments come amidst severe political tension, as US President Donald Trump recently declared his complete rejection of any Iranian uranium enrichment activity. These statements followed a round of negotiations in Geneva that did not yield tangible results, prompting Washington to warn its citizens against traveling to Iran and urging residents there to leave immediately.

On the ground in Palestine, the Israeli aggression did not stop concurrently with the attack on Iran, as 7 Palestinians were martyred in scattered raids on the Gaza Strip. Drones targeted the slaughterhouse area in Khan Yunis, leading to the arrival of three martyrs at Nasser Hospital, while others were martyred in raids targeting the entrances to Al-Bureij refugee camp and Beit Lahia city.

Statistics indicate a dangerous escalation in the number of casualties, with the number of martyrs resulting from the occupation's violations of the ceasefire agreement signed last October reaching approximately 618. This raises the total number of victims of the ongoing aggression since October 2023 to more than 72,000 martyrs and 171,000 injured, amidst continued indiscriminate shelling and targeting of civilians.

In the West Bank, local sources reported the closure of iron gates surrounding Palestinian cities and villages as part of the emergency measures announced by the occupation authorities. The region is in a state of high anticipation for what the coming hours will bring, especially with Israeli assurances that they expect a direct Iranian military response to these raids.

It is worth noting that this major military escalation comes at a sensitive time during the holy month of Ramadan, further complicating the humanitarian and political landscape in the region. International and regional powers are monitoring the course of events, amidst fears of the region sliding into a comprehensive regional war that transcends the boundaries of the current direct clashes between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

Israel launched a preemptive attack against Iran to remove threats, with an immediate and special state of emergency declared.

Areas of southern Lebanon witnessed a fierce wave of Israeli airstrikes this Saturday morning, heavily concentrated on Iqlim al-Tuffah and Jezzine district. Field sources reported more than ten raids targeting various points, including the Qatrani area and Wadi Barghaz, leading to a dense rise of smoke plumes covering the skies of the targeted areas.

The aerial operations extended to the vicinity of Blat town in Marjayoun district, in addition to a series of concentrated raids between the towns of Rihan and Sajed. This bombing coincided with intensive low-altitude flights by Israeli warplanes over the Beqaa regions in the east of the country, causing a state of anxiety and anticipation among the public.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army announced that its attacks targeted what it described as 'terrorist infrastructure' belonging to Hezbollah, pointing to the striking of missile launch platforms and underground tunnel openings. The military statement claimed that these operations aim to prevent the party from restoring its military capabilities or rearming to ensure the removal of any future threat.

In a related context, media sources confirmed the targeting of eight military headquarters belonging to the 'Radwan Force,' which represents Hezbollah's elite forces, with precise strikes deep in the south. These moves come within the framework of a declared Israeli strategy to limit the party's ability to launch widespread attacks if regional conditions deteriorate.

On the other side of the border, settlement councils in northern Israel issued urgent warnings to residents about the need to be prepared to hear loud explosions resulting from air force activity. These warnings reflect the scale of the ongoing military operation and the expectation of potential reactions from the Lebanese side to the continuous escalation.

In a remarkable field development, news reports revealed the start of a joint Israeli-American attack on Saturday morning, a step indicating high-level military coordination between the two parties. This move came after reinforcements of American fighter jets arrived at Israeli bases in preparation for confronting any escalatory scenarios in the region.

Israeli political circles link these raids to the escalating tensions with Tehran, as Tel Aviv places its attacks in a preemptive context to prevent Hezbollah from intervening. Through these strikes, Israel seeks to send a clear deterrent message that any involvement of the party in a regional conflict will be met with a devastating military response.

Current data indicate that the region has entered a new phase of direct confrontation, especially with the involvement of American forces in the ongoing operations. International circles are cautiously monitoring the repercussions of this joint attack and its impact on the stability of the northern front and the possibility of it sliding into an all-out war.

It is worth noting that Israel had repeatedly threatened to target the Lebanese state and its vital facilities if Hezbollah decided to engage in any military confrontation between the United States and Iran. Today's raids confirm the seriousness of these threats in light of the unprecedented military buildup witnessed in the region.

We will not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its strength or rearm, and we will continue to work to remove every threat.