Israeli occupation forces have escalated their field violations in the Quneitra governorate, southwestern Syria, carrying out new incursions targeting populated villages. Field sources reported that a military force consisting of six vehicles stormed the village of Al-Asbah in the southern countryside after setting off from the Tel Al-Ahmar West site. Soldiers raided and searched civilian homes and vandalized their property, causing panic among local residents.

In a related context, the Israeli movement was not limited to the southern countryside but extended to include the northern areas of the governorate through another incursion by a force comprising three military vehicles. This force was observed stopping briefly at the Al-Halabi village company before continuing its movement towards Al-Mushairifa village, a step that reflects the occupation's determination to expand its field presence and cross internationally recognized border lines.

Israeli aggressions also included artillery shelling targeting the vicinity of Tel Al-Ahmar East and agricultural lands located north of the Breiqa Dam in the southern Quneitra countryside. This shelling, which occurred last Tuesday evening, is part of a series of targeting operations aimed at intimidating farmers and preventing them from accessing their lands, exacerbating the difficult living conditions for residents of the border area.

Regarding geographical changes, media sources confirmed that bulldozers belonging to the occupation army carried out extensive bulldozing and expansion operations in the areas south of Breiqa village. These operations are accompanied by strict security restrictions that prevent shepherds and farmers from carrying out their daily work, which observers see as an attempt to impose a new geographical and military reality that transcends previous border understandings.

Since the major political transformations witnessed by Syria in December 2024, the border region has recorded repeated violations of the disengagement agreement signed in 1974. These violations varied between setting up temporary military checkpoints, carrying out raids and arrests targeting civilians, including children and sheep herders, in addition to the continued bulldozing of lands and annexation of new areas under flimsy security pretexts.

Despite the absence of any military threats from the new Syrian administration towards the occupation, Israeli aircraft continued to launch air raids on various sites deep inside Syria. These attacks resulted in civilian casualties, in addition to the destruction of military installations, vehicles, and ammunition belonging to the army, indicating an Israeli strategy aimed at weakening Syrian defensive capabilities during the transitional phase.

Occupation forces infiltrated Al-Asbah village, searched civilian homes, and broke down their doors, causing panic among the residents.

The escalating bread crisis in the Gaza Strip cannot be viewed as merely a transient disruption in supply chains or a logistical setback resulting from war conditions. Rather, it is a stark expression of the reshaping of conflict tools. In this context, food transforms from a self-evident human right into a major strategic pressure point aimed at breaking the will of the population and undermining the fundamental elements of their steadfastness.

Politically, this crisis reveals a systematic pattern of conflict management that relies on the politicization of vital needs. The imposed siege does not merely tighten the economic noose; it seeks to redefine the relationship between power and population through absolute control over the most minute details of daily life and the means of survival.

Disrupting the operation of bakeries and preventing the entry of flour and fuel shipments goes beyond being a field security measure; it becomes an authoritarian practice aimed at engineering the vital space of Gazans. In this equation, humanitarian aid transforms from a neutral relief act into a tool of control and regulation, where the continuation of life becomes hostage to external political decisions.

Economically, the crisis is embodied in the complete collapse of the production and consumption system within a closed and besieged environment. Bakeries, which are simple production units, rely on a complex network of vital inputs such as electricity and fuel, and any harm to these elements immediately leads to the paralysis of the entire food system.

This production paralysis leads to severe economic distortions, where the black market emerges and prices inflate wildly, turning bread into a scarce commodity subject to the logic of scarcity, not need. This reality creates deep class divides and redistributes suffering, making poverty double and coupled with severe food and health deficits.

Socially, the bread crisis imposes a new reality that reshapes relationships within Palestinian society in Gaza. The scenes of long queues stretching for hours are not just images of misery; they are an emerging social structure centered around the 'act of waiting,' which has transformed from wasted time into a suspended existential state.

Under this immense pressure, major challenges arise for traditional values of social solidarity due to dire need and limited resources. Nevertheless, inspiring forms of social resistance emerge, where people share the little available, reflecting the community's ability to innovate mechanisms for survival despite systematic policies of oppression.

Humanly, this crisis touches the core of human dignity. In the popular consciousness, bread is not just calories for survival; it is a symbol of recognition of an individual's humanity. The necessity for parents to stand for hours and sometimes return empty-handed leaves deep psychological wounds that transcend the physical pain of hunger to a feeling of complete helplessness.

Hunger in Gaza transforms into a complex psychological state that includes constant anxiety and the erosion of hope, creating fertile ground for existential despair. This transformation makes the food crisis an issue whose dimensions extend beyond the material to threaten the psychological and social identity of the besieged Palestinian individual.

Legally and ethically, the bread crisis places the international community before sharp questions about the efficacy of international humanitarian laws. While conventions stipulate the protection of civilians and ensuring access to supplies, reality reveals a huge gap, where 'war of needs' is used as an alternative or complement to traditional military operations.

This type of warfare does not only target bodies with bullets and shells but also targets the conditions of their survival and continuation by drying up food sources. The deliberate transformation of food denial into a military strategy represents a dangerous shift in the ethics of warfare and puts the credibility of the entire international system at stake.

Strategically, this policy falls under what can be called 'cumulative pressure management,' where society is exhausted through a series of successive crises. After electricity, water, and medicine crises, bread comes as the final link in a comprehensive series of exhaustion aimed at occupying society with the details of daily survival.

This systematic exhaustion aims to divert attention from any political or resistance action and to immerse individuals in the spiral of searching for a loaf of bread. However, this strategy may ultimately lead to counterproductive results, as comprehensive pressure can generate an uncontrolled explosion that completely reshapes the field and political landscape.

In conclusion, the bread crisis in Gaza remains a testament that contemporary conflict is no longer limited to borders and geography but has extended to include the most minute details of life. Understanding the dimensions of this crisis requires an awareness that a loaf of bread is not just a consumer item but a meeting point for major political, economic, and humanitarian complexities.

Restricting the entry of flour and fuel is not merely a security measure but an authoritarian practice that re-engineers the vital space of Gaza's residents, making survival itself hostage to a political decision.

The suffering of the families of Palestinian medical personnel detained in Israeli occupation prisons continues, with doctors Hussam Abu Safiya and Marwan Al-Homs held behind bars in extremely harsh humanitarian conditions. The two families live in a state of constant anxiety and longing, amidst attempts to find solace by hanging their pictures in displacement tents to keep their memory alive despite the forced separation.\n\nThe occupation forces arrested Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, in late December 2024, after a tight siege on the hospital and repeated threats to medical staff. Since then, his family has missed his leadership and spiritual role at home, with his son Elias confirming that his father's absence ended the state of tranquility and stability the family had enjoyed.\n\nDr. Abu Safiya's relatives received news of a court hearing for him after a 60-day information blackout, but his true health status remains shrouded in mystery. The occupation authorities prevent lawyers from visiting him under the pretext of security conditions, which exacerbates fears about his fate in light of reports of systematic abuse against him.\n\nAbu Safiya's colleagues recount the details of the last moments before his arrest, where he insisted on staying inside Kamal Adwan Hospital to reassure patients and the wounded despite direct threats. He was later transferred to a field interrogation point at Al-Fakhoura School, where he was forced to remove his white coat and stethoscope before being taken to an unknown destination.\n\nTestimonies from released prisoners from the notorious 'Sde Teiman' detention center revealed that Abu Safiya was subjected to severe beatings and physical and psychological abuse from the first days of his detention. Released prisoners conveyed a message from the doctor, urging human rights organizations to take urgent action and not remain silent about the field executions and abuse doctors are subjected to inside the camps.\n\nHuman rights sources reported that Dr. Abu Safiya's health condition is extremely worrying, as he has been held in solitary confinement for long weeks without formal charges. The doctor has lost a significant amount of weight due to the starvation policy and is suffering from a deterioration in his psychological state due to the inhumane detention conditions imposed by the occupation.\n\nIn a related context, the family of Dr. Marwan Al-Homs, director of field hospitals, is experiencing the shock of his abduction by an Israeli special force in July 2025. Al-Homs expected to be martyred at any moment while performing his duty, but his family never imagined that he would be abducted while wounded from in front of the International Committee of the Red Cross headquarters.\n\nDr. Al-Homs's wife, Umm Obada, lives with her seven children in a modest tent in a displacement camp southwest of Khan Younis, where a picture of her husband in his white coat hangs from the tent's ceiling. The family faces harsh living conditions after losing their sole provider and appeals to the world to intervene to save his life from the clutches of torture inside prisons.\n\nInformation from inside the prisons indicates that Dr. Al-Homs suffered broken ribs as a result of the brutal interrogation and physical torture he endured while wounded. The occupation also exerted psychological pressure on him by briefly arresting his nurse daughter Tasneem and blackmailing him with her, in addition to threatening to bomb his family in displacement tents.\n\nMohammed, Dr. Al-Homs's son, took on the responsibility of supporting his mother and siblings at an early age, trying to fill the large void left by his father amidst the war of extermination and famine. Mohammed used his social media platforms to raise awareness about his father's case and the suffering of medical personnel who are systematically targeted to destroy the healthcare system.\n\nPrisoner institutions confirm that the number of Palestinian detainees has exceeded 9,600 prisoners, including more than 730 medical personnel arrested since the beginning of the aggression. The occupation makes no distinction in its brutal treatment between civilians and doctors, which previously led to the martyrdom of Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh under torture, raising serious concerns for the lives of the rest.\n\nThe director of Al-Dameer Foundation, lawyer Alaa Al-Skafi, explained that what doctors like Al-Homs and Abu Safiya are subjected to represents a blatant violation of international humanitarian law. He pointed out that the occupation uses solitary confinement and deprivation of treatment as tools to break the will of medical personnel who stood firm in the field to serve their people.\n\nFor its part, the International Committee of the Red Cross expressed its deep concern over being denied access to detainees in Israeli prisons since October 2023. The committee's spokesperson, Amani Al-Naouq, confirmed that they receive daily distress calls from families who do not know the fate of their loved ones, emphasizing the need to grant the committee immediate access to detainees.\n\nThe issue of medical personnel prisoners remains a bleeding wound in the side of the Palestinian cause, as these doctors face slow death in the occupation's cells. Families and human rights organizations demand real international pressure to ensure their release and protection as protected persons under international conventions that criminalize targeting humanitarian teams.\n\n"We have done nothing wrong; we are performing our humanitarian duty towards the wounded and sick amidst the siege.

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/4/2024

News Analysis

The United States is pursuing a delicate diplomatic path to manage the Israeli escalation on Lebanon, preferring to avoid pushing for an immediate ceasefire, in favor of working to develop a sustainable negotiating framework that allows both parties to engage in direct dialogue. This approach, revealed during a background briefing following a high-level meeting at the State Department, reflects an approach based on "managing complexity" rather than imposing ready-made solutions, in a conflict where regional and internal calculations are intertwined in a highly sensitive manner.

According to high-ranking officials, Washington was keen to clarify a pivotal point: no American demand for a ceasefire was raised during the talks, contrary to what was circulated in media circles. "This position is attributed to a realistic reading of the field, where hostilities continue, while each party adheres to its conditions"; the Lebanese government calls for an immediate cessation of military operations, while Israel believes that suspending its operations is not possible as long as rocket fire continues, some of which is said to have coincided even with the meeting. According to American officials.

In this context, American officials acknowledge the duality of pressures: on the one hand, deep concern about the humanitarian cost, especially the widespread displacement waves within Lebanon; and on the other hand, the continuous affirmation of Israel's right to defend itself. Accordingly, Washington believes that imposing a ceasefire from outside, without mutual acceptance, will not be sustainable, but may turn into a fragile truce that will quickly collapse under the weight of field realities.

Instead, the American strategy focuses on establishing a "negotiating framework" rather than an "immediate settlement." The last meeting, which lasted longer than scheduled, was described as a "constructive first step," not only in terms of content, but also in terms of symbolism, as it is considered one of the first meetings of this level between the two sides since the early nineties. According to participants, the atmosphere was characterized by cautious positivity, with each party presenting its concerns, and the outlines of potential paths began to form, without translating into concrete proposals yet.

Washington affirms that its role remains limited to "building trust" not imposing dictates. The American administration, despite its influence, recognizes the limits of its ability to direct the course of the conflict, given the presence of international and non-international actors. Hence, it seeks to keep communication channels open, and create a negotiating environment that allows for a gradual accumulation of trust, rather than jumping to uncertain outcomes.

However, the most prominent obstacle remains the position of "Hezbollah," which is a central player in the field, but is not recognized by the United States as a legitimate negotiating partner. Washington insists that any sustainable agreement must be between two states: Israel and Lebanon, with the strengthening of the Lebanese state's position as the sole representative. This position also explains the American reservation about any parallel negotiation channels that may arise between Israel and the party, due to the potential repercussions on Lebanon's sovereignty and on the prospects for long-term stability.

In the background, Iran is present as an influential factor in American calculations. Washington believes that reducing Tehran's influence in Lebanon is a prerequisite for any sustainable settlement, and at the same time seeks to "separate the tracks" between this file and its broader talks with Iran on nuclear and regional issues. The American administration affirms that allowing Iran to determine the outcomes of the Lebanese situation will be a factor aggravating the crisis, not an entry point for its solution.

The American approach is not limited to the security dimension, but extends to the economy as a pillar of stability. Washington proposes reforms in the banking sector, improving the investment environment, and enhancing financial transparency as supporting elements for the Lebanese state's ability to assert its authority. This relationship is approached as a "chicken and egg" dilemma: there is no security stability without economic recovery, and no cohesive economy in the absence of security.

Despite the cautiously optimistic tone that accompanied the talks, American officials realize that the road is still long and full of challenges. The field is volatile, the gaps between the parties are large, while multiple diplomatic paths intersect, some of which are public and others are taking place away from the spotlight. Reports about the possibility of a short-term truce remain unconfirmed, given the limited access to all negotiating channels.

Nevertheless, Washington indicates that any reduction in the level of violence is a welcome step, provided that it does not come at the expense of the broader negotiating path. Stopping the fighting, although an urgent humanitarian goal, does not negate the need for a political framework that addresses the roots of the conflict and prevents its recurrence.

In conclusion, the American approach reflects a deep understanding that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon does not tolerate quick solutions or ready-made recipes. However, this approach faces increasing criticism, which sees it as a structural bias towards Israel, manifested in the refusal to exert serious pressure to stop military operations, despite their high humanitarian cost, especially in southern Lebanon.

Critics argue that Washington, by focusing on "managing the conflict" rather than ending it, gives Israel a wider temporal and military margin to continue its operations, while keeping Lebanon in the position of receiving pressure. This imbalanced balance is seen as reflecting a constant American priority to protect Israeli interests, even at the expense of regional stability.

The exclusion of "Hezbollah" from any official negotiating path also raises questions about the realism of the American approach, as it is difficult to imagine a sustainable settlement without the involvement of the main actor on the ground. Some analysts believe that this exclusion aims not only to strengthen the Lebanese state, but also to reshape the internal balance of power in a way that limits the influence of Washington's adversaries, within a policy closer to "divide and conquer."

At the regional level, the attempt to separate the Lebanese track from tensions with Iran appears, in the view of critics, to be a selective approach, ignoring the structural interconnectedness between the arenas of conflict. It is feared that this separation will lead to partial treatments that will not last long, given the continuation of the factors that fuel tension.

In light of this, it seems that the American bet on the "strength of the process" rather than the "speed of results" may face a difficult test, not only in its ability to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, but also in its ability to convince regional parties that Washington is playing the role of an impartial mediator, not a biased party.

Washington – Said Arikat – 4/16/2026

In a striking indication of a rapid shift within the Democratic Party, the US Senate rejected two bills aimed at halting arms sales to Israel. However, the voting process revealed an unprecedented alignment; the majority of Democrats joined the minority opposing the deals, a move reflecting a growing re-evaluation of the relationship with Israel within the party.

Forty Democratic senators out of 47 voted in favor of a resolution to block a $295 million bulldozer deal, equipment that Senator Bernie Sanders said is used to demolish homes in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. In contrast, 59 senators—mostly Republicans—opposed this direction, leading to the resolution's defeat.

Thirty-six Democrats also supported a second bill to halt a deal for one-thousand-pound bombs, valued at approximately $152 million, which Sanders indicated would be used in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. However, 63 senators voted against the bill, preventing its passage.

Despite the failure of these initiatives, their political implications appeared deeper than their legislative outcomes; the number of Democrats who joined Sanders more than doubled compared to similar attempts in 2024 and 2025, amidst escalating Israeli military operations and widening criticism within the party's base, which now views the stance on Israel as a true test of politicians' commitment to human rights issues.

In the same context, Democratic Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine, expressed in an interview with CNN on Wednesday evening, a "growing sense of weariness and frustration" within Democratic ranks regarding what he described as aggressive Israeli actions against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. He noted that this sentiment is no longer limited to activists but is resonating within legislative institutions, with increasing calls to reconsider the terms of US military support.

This shift within the Democratic Party reflects a structural change in the American political mood, where support for Israel no longer enjoys the traditional consensus that characterized past decades. The rise of a new generation of voters, along with the growing influence of progressive movements, has contributed to redefining foreign policy priorities, linking them to human rights and accountability standards. Moreover, increased media coverage of civilian suffering in conflict zones has played a pivotal role in shaping a more critical public opinion, pushing lawmakers to adopt more cautious positions regarding unconditional military support.

This change gains additional importance in the context of acute partisan polarization in the United States, as the issue of Israel has become part of the internal division between Republicans and Democrats. While Republicans continue their strong traditional support for Tel Aviv, a growing current within the Democratic Party calls for reformulating the relationship on new foundations, including clear restrictions on the use of military aid. This division not only reflects a difference in political visions but also indicates a deeper change in the values that govern the electoral base of each party.

It is worth noting that a Pew Research Center poll published last week shows that a majority among Republicans under the age of 40 view Israel negatively.

In the long run, this shift may have strategic implications that extend beyond internal debate, affecting the nature of the US-Israeli alliance itself. The continued growth of critical voices within Congress could lead to stricter conditions on arms deals, or even a comprehensive re-evaluation of forms of military support. This trend may also encourage other international allies to adopt more independent positions towards Israel, reflecting the beginning of a new phase characterized by multiple centers of influence in shaping international policies related to the conflict in the Middle East.

By: Said Arikat

April 16, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- By any conventional measure, the president of the United States sits atop the most powerful political system in modern history. Yet, as John Mearsheimer argues, even that power has limits—especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Speaking on April 14, 2026, in a conversation with Andrew Napolitano on the program “Judging Freedom,” Mearsheimer offered a stark assessment: Donald Trump is in no position to negotiate a meaningful settlement with Iran. The reason, he insists, is not diplomatic complexity or Iranian intransigence, but a far more decisive constraint—Israel and its influence over American policy.

At the heart of Mearsheimer’s argument lies a blunt proposition: Israel has no interest in a ceasefire with Iran, let alone an agreement that accommodates Tehran’s core demands. Chief among those demands is the right to maintain uranium enrichment capabilities—an issue that has long stood at the center of international negotiations. For Israel, Mearsheimer contends, such a concession is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Indeed, he goes further. Israel, in this telling, does not merely seek to contain Iran but to fundamentally weaken it—to “wreck” it, in his words, much as Syria has been devastated over the past decade. This characterization underscores the depth of mistrust and the scale of ambition that Mearsheimer attributes to Israeli strategy.

But the argument does not stop in the Middle East. Its real force lies in what it says about Washington.

According to Mearsheimer, Israel’s preferences do not remain confined to its own borders; they are projected into the American political system through what he describes as an “enormously powerful lobby.” This network of influence, he suggests, has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to shape U.S. policy at the highest levels. Since Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, Mearsheimer argues, the pattern has only intensified.

The implication is difficult to ignore: American foreign policy toward Iran is not fully autonomous. Instead, it operates within boundaries set, in significant part, by Israeli strategic priorities and their domestic political backing in the United States.

History offers at least partial support for this view. U.S. policy toward Israel has long enjoyed bipartisan consensus, reinforced by military sponsorship, intelligence sharing, and deep cultural and political ties. Skepticism toward Iran—particularly regarding its nuclear ambitions—runs just as deep. In such an environment, any American president seeking a grand bargain with Tehran faces formidable headwinds at home.

Yet Mearsheimer’s argument is not simply about influence; it is about constraint. It suggests that Trump is not merely aligned with Israel by choice, but effectively unable to deviate from it in any meaningful way. In this sense, the president’s room for maneuver is not just narrow—it is structurally limited.

There is, however, one exception.

Mearsheimer suggests that Trump might resist Israeli pressure under a single, extreme condition: a looming global economic catastrophe. If escalating conflict with Iran were to threaten the stability of the world economy—through disrupted energy markets, financial shocks, or broader geopolitical turmoil—the calculus could change. Faced with such stakes, the president might conclude that the costs of alignment outweigh the benefits.

Short of that scenario, however, Mearsheimer sees little reason for optimism. Diplomacy, in this framework, is not simply a matter of negotiation skill or political will. It is bounded by power relationships that lie beyond the negotiating table.

Critics will undoubtedly challenge this perspective. They may point to moments when U.S. presidents have acted against Israeli preferences, or argue that American policy emerges from a complex interplay of institutions, interests, and global pressures—not a single overriding influence. They may also question whether Israel truly seeks the kind of maximal outcome Mearsheimer describes, given the risks of regional instability.

Still, the power of Mearsheimer’s analysis lies in its clarity. It forces a difficult question into the open: how independent is American foreign policy when it comes to its closest allies?

In the case of Iran, his answer is unequivocal. As long as Israel opposes a deal—especially one that permits uranium enrichment—no American president, including Trump, can deliver a meaningful agreement. The obstacles are not just diplomatic; they are structural, embedded in the very fabric of U.S. politics.

Whether that diagnosis proves correct remains to be seen. But it serves as a sobering reminder that even great powers operate within limits—and that, in the high-stakes arena of Middle Eastern politics, those limits may be tighter than they appear.

In this light, critics contend that the longstanding alignment with Israel—and the outsized role of the Israeli lobby in Washington—has increasingly undermined U.S. interests and eroded its global credibility. Unconditional support for Israeli policies, particularly in the context of devastating military campaigns, has alienated allies, inflamed anti-American sentiment, and weakened Washington’s claims to uphold international norms. At home, the Israeli lobby’s influence is now the subject of sharper scrutiny, feeding public unease about distorted policy priorities. Most notably, American public opinion is no longer merely shifting but turning decisively more critical of Israel, especially among younger voters, signaling a profound and potentially lasting political realignment.

In-depth discussions are escalating in research and intellectual circles about the features of the 'day after' the ongoing war, amidst ambiguity surrounding the future of negotiations and the field results on various fronts. Observers believe that the repercussions of this confrontation will not be limited to the direct parties, but will extend to reshape the international order and relations between major powers, with fundamental impacts on the future of the Palestinian issue and the global ethical system.

In this context, Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations issued a recent scientific paper anticipating the features of the global system in the coming years, suggesting that the world is entering a deep transitional phase. The study indicates that unipolar hegemony has actually begun to decline in favor of a more complex system based on the multiplicity of power centers and the intertwining of hard and soft tools in managing international conflicts.

The research paper prepared by Dr. Walid Abdel Hay confirms that power balances are undergoing a gradual reshaping, with China emerging as a dominant technological and economic power through cross-continental strategic projects. In contrast, Russia seeks to restore its influence by employing its military and geopolitical capabilities, while Washington tries to maintain its leadership position through technological innovation and its network of international alliances.

The criteria of power have changed in the modern era; military arsenals are no longer the sole measure of superiority among nations. Control over vital waterways such as Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, and control over the advanced electronic chip industry, have become crucial elements in determining who holds the initiative in the new international order forming under the weight of crises.

The study draws attention to the growing role of giant technology companies that have transformed into international actors whose influence extends beyond the economy to shaping global public opinion. These companies now control the flow of data and information, posing unprecedented challenges to the traditional concept of national sovereignty, and making the digital space a political battleground par excellence.

The next phase is expected to witness a decline in direct traditional wars in favor of what is known as 'hybrid wars' that combine multiple and innovative tools. These wars include systematic cyberattacks against infrastructure, the use of economic sanctions as a political pressure tool, in addition to media disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing the internal stability of states.

Regarding international alliances, there are indications of an erosion of long-term solid commitments in favor of flexible and temporary alliances dictated by changing interests. This was evident in the sharp criticisms directed by former American leaders at NATO, describing it as a 'paper tiger,' which prompts countries to diversify their security and economic partnerships away from fixed axis politics.

As for the Middle East, it will remain at the heart of international competition due to its vital resources and unique geopolitical location connecting continents. However, the nature of external influence may change, with direct military intervention declining in favor of economic and investment influence tools, with the emergence of leading roles for regional powers seeking to impose new balances in the region.

Strategic readings propose a new concept that goes beyond 'multipolarity' to 'multicentricity,' where digital platforms and non-governmental actors participate in global decision-making. This overlap creates a complex network of influences that makes it difficult for any single state to control the course of international events as was previously the case.

Ongoing transformations raise fundamental questions about whether the world is heading towards a stable balance or towards a state of open and continuous competition. The question also remains about the role of technology in narrowing the gap between developed and developing countries, or whether it will lead to deepening technological and economic dependence in light of the intense race for artificial intelligence.

Understanding these profound transformations is no longer merely an intellectual luxury for researchers, but has become a strategic necessity for decision-makers in the Arab region. The world being reshaped today recognizes only power based on knowledge and the ability to control the flows of the digital economy, which requires analytical tools that go beyond inherited traditional models.

Regarding the value aspect, the current war will reopen the discussion about the role of religious and intellectual values in major international conflicts. The political and military outcomes of this confrontation are expected to affect the future of Islamic movements and the position of political regimes in the region, putting the international ethical system to a real test.

Research from study centers emphasizes the necessity of not waiting for the end of the cannons to start planning for the future, as the new reality is being shaped now in operations rooms and research centers. The strategic fluidity and uncertainty surrounding the global scene require high flexibility in dealing with accelerating variables to ensure a place in the coming international order.

In conclusion, the features of the new international order paint a picture of a world that is both more interconnected and confrontational, where economic interests intersect with geopolitical conflicts. The ability to adapt to the 'digital age' and shifts in major power balances will have the final say in determining the political map of the Middle East in the coming decades.

The world is heading towards a gradual reshaping of power balances, where power is no longer measured by military capabilities alone but by control over technology and vital straits.

The Moroccan political scene has witnessed remarkable movements by the Justice and Development Party since February 2026, movements that fundamentally transcend mere routine activities to reach a deep attempt at party self-reproduction. This movement comes amidst structural transformations in the political field, as the party seeks to overcome the state of confusion in representation and legitimacy that followed the results of the 2021 elections.

The party is currently engaged in a gradual path aimed at repositioning itself, relying on a strategy of quiet accumulation rather than sudden tactical leaps. The first signs of this approach are evident in what is known as 'rationalizing the internal organizational field,' which aims to put the house in order before embarking on any new political venture.

The party leadership has launched the process of organizing regional general assemblies for nominations, a step that not only reflects early preparation for upcoming elections but also indicates an awareness of the need to restore organizational capital. This capital suffered significant erosion due to the pressures of the second governmental term and its repercussions, which negatively impacted the party's base.

These organizational movements are not limited to arranging electoral lists but extend to re-adjusting the dialectical relationship between the center and the geographical area. Through this, the party seeks to ensure a minimum level of internal harmony between the leadership and the base, which is an essential condition for any potential political recovery in the near future.

Restoring political legitimacy in its societal dimension is considered the biggest challenge facing the 'Brothers of Morocco' at the current stage. The party is well aware that the crisis that afflicted it was not merely a decline in the number of seats, but a deep crisis of trust that affected the roots of its connection with the social groups that constituted its electoral reservoir.

As part of attempts to restore social intermediaries, the party's trend towards renewing institutional ties with the National Union of Labor in Morocco emerged. This step carries great significance, as the party seeks to transform from merely a seasonal electoral actor into a true bearer of the demands of affected professional and social groups.

At the level of political discourse, the party's General Secretariat began to adopt a tone reflecting a diligent endeavor to position itself as a structured institutional opposition. This approach moves away from mere protest and tries to focus on producing alternative policies that can convince the public of the feasibility of returning to support the party's political project.

However, this ambition clashes with a structural paradox related to how to build a convincing opposition discourse after spending two full terms at the heart of government management. The party faces a fundamental question about its ability to criticize current policies without falling into the trap of selective disavowal of its previous governmental legacy and the decisions that accompanied it.

The process of transitioning from 'the legitimacy of achievement' to 'the legitimacy of criticism' forces the party to confront internal tensions and gaps in the current political discourse. This stage requires courage in reviewing past mistakes while preserving the political identity that has distinguished the party throughout the past decades in the Moroccan arena.

These movements come in a national context characterized by weak party mediation and an increasing level of political apathy among broad segments of citizens. All representative institutions in Morocco face the challenge of declining trust, making the task of the Justice and Development Party in attracting the masses again more complex and difficult.

Sources following party affairs reported that the party is now facing a 'general mood' structure that is skeptical of the utility of political action as a whole, and not just the performance of parties. This skepticism forces the party to innovate new communication tools that go beyond traditional slogans and directly touch upon the daily concerns of the Moroccan citizen.

What distinguishes the party's movements after its last National Council meeting is the conviction of the limits of political action at the current stage. The sharp escalationist tone and declared major stakes have disappeared, replaced by quiet work focused on building the minimum conditions for returning to the forefront of the political scene.

The party's current work is based on three main pillars: a cohesive organization, a social extension that can be activated, and a credible political discourse. This strategic triangle aims to rebuild trust with society without claiming to possess absolute truth or making unrealistic rosy promises.

In conclusion, the Justice and Development Party is going through a critical transitional phase between a past burdened by the cost of participating in power and a future whose final features are not yet clear. Its success will depend on its ability to produce a new political contract that transcends narrow electoral logic towards a broader reformist horizon from within institutions.

The party realizes that its crisis was not merely representative or electoral, but affected the structure of trust that connected it to its social extensions.

A state of widespread anger prevailed in Palestinian circles following the spread of tragic scenes documenting the Israeli occupation forces' abuse of a large group of Palestinian workers. These workers were forced to hide inside a truck designated for waste transport in a desperate attempt to reach their workplaces inside the occupied territories of 1948, in pursuit of a livelihood whose avenues have narrowed in the West Bank.

The widely circulated video clips showed between 40 and 70 workers crammed in inhumane conditions inside the iron container. The truck was stopped at a military checkpoint north of the West Bank, where occupation soldiers began to practice various forms of humiliation and physical assault against the unarmed workers immediately upon discovering them.

For his part, the Secretary-General of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, Shaher Saed, condemned the brutality with which the occupation forces treated the workers, confirming that dozens of them were severely beaten. Saed explained in press statements that about half of the detained workers were transferred to hospitals as a result of severe bruises and contusions from this systematic abuse.

Saed pointed out that this incident reflects the depth of suffering experienced by Palestinian workers for three years, amidst rising unemployment rates reaching 40% of the workforce. He added that there are more than 550,000 unemployed people facing dire economic conditions, which pushes them to risk their lives and dignity to secure their families' basic needs.

The federation revealed the exorbitant costs incurred by workers in their search for work, as a worker pays between 1200 and 1500 shekels to smuggling brokers. Despite these large sums, workers face the risk of arrest or returning without finding a job opportunity, which doubles their financial and psychological burdens in light of the blocked political and economic horizon.

Union officials called on the International Labour Organization to intervene urgently and investigate the conditions of treatment of Palestinian workers, and to raise the issue to international forums such as the International Court of Justice. They stressed that the occupation bears full responsibility for these conditions, especially after thousands of workers were arbitrarily expelled and deprived of their financial and legal rights.

In the legal context, legal advisors explained that the occupation authorities treat Palestinian workers as security targets rather than as human beings seeking a livelihood. Occupation courts impose exorbitant fines and actual prison sentences ranging from six months to two years on workers caught without official work permits.

Observers described the scene as a living embodiment of Ghassan Kanafani's novel 'Men in the Sun,' but with a harsher and more tragic reality. While the protagonists of the novel hid in a water tank, the current reality forced Palestinian workers to hide among the waste, a picture reflecting the extent of degradation that living conditions have reached under the weight of the siege.

Academics and activists criticized the official and international silence regarding these blatant violations, considering that the scene is not just a passing news item but a cry in the face of global conscience. They affirmed that the piling of bodies in an iron box saturated with foul odors represents the peak of collective humiliation practiced by the occupation system against the Palestinian people.

Activists also directed sharp criticism at Palestinian leaders and unions, demanding the necessity of finding national economic alternatives that protect workers from the occupation's aggression and brokers' exploitation. They considered that the absence of real development plans has left the Palestinian worker alone facing the choice between deadly unemployment or humiliating risk.

Experts in Israeli affairs indicated that these practices are part of a comprehensive retaliatory policy adopted by the occupation government since October 7th. These policies aim to break the morale of Palestinians by targeting their livelihoods, humiliating them at military checkpoints, and theatrically broadcasting images of their suffering.

Estimates indicate that there are about 240,000 Palestinian workers who rely entirely on working inside the occupied territories, and integrating them into the local market requires many years of serious government work. In light of the financial crisis suffered by the Palestinian Authority, the economic gap widens and the suffering of families dependent on these wages exacerbates.

Union sources stated that the occupation is withholding funds and workers' entitlements estimated at about 9 billion dollars, amounts that would have been sufficient to alleviate the severity of the economic crisis if disbursed. These sources considered that preventing workers from accessing their entitlements is part of an economic war aimed at pushing Palestinian society towards comprehensive collapse.

Human rights activists concluded by emphasizing that the image of workers inside the garbage truck will remain a stain of shame that will haunt all who accept the continuation of this reality. They stressed the need to transform this pain into a pressing national action that guarantees the dignity of the Palestinian individual and protects their right to work and a decent life away from the machines of oppression and abuse.

This is not a garbage container, but a mirror of a homeland where dignity is insulted, and a reality that forces people to choose between hunger and humiliation.

Diplomatic relations between the Israeli occupation authorities and several European capitals are undergoing a period of severe and unprecedented tension, driven by increasing international criticism of the far-right government's policies. Germany and Italy have been at the forefront of recent disputes, with Hebrew reports noting a tangible decline in the level of political and security understandings due to the continued settlement expansion and ongoing military operations.

In a move reflecting the depth of the internal and external crisis, the occupation's ambassador in Berlin, Ron Prosor, publicly leveled sharp criticism at Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. These criticisms came in the wake of Smotrich's statements, which were deemed offensive to Germany, prompting the veteran Israeli diplomat to warn against the consequences of harming strategic relations with one of the most important allies on the old continent.

The crisis with Berlin escalated after an official German condemnation of settlement construction policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, which was met with a hostile and populist response from Smotrich. The right-wing minister used historical references related to the 'Holocaust' in his political debate, which sparked widespread resentment in German diplomatic circles and was considered by Ambassador Prosor to be a harmful conflation of history and current politics.

In a related context, media sources indicated that Israeli-European relations are currently experiencing their most difficult period in decades, with traditional political support gradually fading. The occupation no longer enjoys solid support except in very limited countries such as Serbia and the Czech Republic, while major powers have begun to review their positions based on facts on the ground and international law.

In a notable shift, Italy, under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, has begun to take steps interpreted as a decline in the level of security and political cooperation with Tel Aviv. Reports indicated that Rome has started reviewing or suspending some security agreements, which constitutes a severe blow to the coordination that had existed between the two sides for many years under the umbrella of common interests.

In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez continued to escalate his rhetoric against the occupation's practices, describing them as blatant violations of international humanitarian law. This stance has led to a significant decline in mutual diplomatic representation, reinforcing the hypothesis that Europe is no longer a comfortable environment for Israeli political maneuvers as it once was.

Analysts warned that this 'unprecedented erosion' of the occupation's standing within Europe will have far-reaching strategic repercussions on all fronts. In addition to political isolation, there is a prominent risk of affecting trade exchange and close scientific and academic cooperation between the two parties, areas on which Israel vitally depends for its economic and technological growth.

Analytical readings suggest that the Israeli government's attempts to compensate for the loss of European support by turning to the United States or Asian powers like India will not be sufficient. The traditional European role remains a fundamental pillar of international legitimacy and the global economic system, and its loss could put Tel Aviv in direct confrontation with increasing international sanctions or pressures.

Internally, critical voices against the current government's policy have escalated, holding the hardline right-wing responsible for the deterioration of foreign relations due to positions described as 'diplomatically ill-considered.' Observers believe that years of neglecting the European continent in favor of absolute focus on Washington have led to a backlash that reduced the occupation's influence in European forums.

In conclusion, it appears that the media and political landscape in countries like Italy has become more critical of the occupation, placing European governments under immense popular and parliamentary pressure. If the occupation does not conduct a comprehensive review of its diplomatic policies, the path of gradual political isolation may become a reality that will be difficult to reverse in the near future.

Conflating history and politics harms the memory of the Holocaust, and Israel has serious criticisms of Germany's policies regarding the protection of Jewish communities.

The wounds from the amputation of his left leg were not enough to deter the Israeli machine of oppression from brutalizing the thirty-year-old Mahmoud Abu Al-Foul, who faced chapters of torment inside the notorious 'Sde Teiman' detention center. Mahmoud's tragedy began in 2015 when shrapnel from an Israeli missile hit his leg, leading to its amputation later in 2017 after strenuous medical attempts to save it.

In late December 2024, during the occupation's implementation of what was known as the 'Generals' Plan' north of the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces stormed Kamal Adwan Hospital where Mahmoud was receiving treatment. The injured young man was forced to leave the hospital walking on one leg without his crutches, to be arrested and transferred to interrogation centers in the Gaza envelope.

Inside the dark interrogation rooms, Mahmoud faced an officer devoid of all humanity, who severely beat him using an iron chair, directly targeting his head. These successive blows caused Mahmoud to lose consciousness, and upon waking, his vision gradually faded until he plunged into complete darkness from which he has not emerged until now.

Sources reported that the occupation deliberately neglected the health condition of prisoner Abu Al-Foul, as the jailers refused to refer him to specialized doctors despite his repeated pleas. When Mahmoud tried to protest his deprivation of medical care by going on a hunger strike, the jailers met his steadfastness with electric shocks and threats of humiliating forced feeding.

Mahmoud's suffering continued for eight months inside prisons, receiving only simple painkillers and ineffective eye drops, amidst the mockery of military doctors regarding his condition. The Israeli doctor would only give false promises about the return of his sight, while inflammation ravaged his eyelids, which completely closed due to deliberate neglect.

Mahmoud was later transferred to 'Ofer' prison and then to 'Naqab' prison, where he lived in harsh conditions, moving on one leg and with lost sight, which exposed him to repeated falls and collisions with walls. Mahmoud remained isolated from news of his family, who were besieged in the northern Strip, not knowing whether they had survived the continuous bombing or had ascended as martyrs.

In October 2025, with the ceasefire decision coming into effect, the International Committee of the Red Cross informed Mahmoud of his release, beginning his journey back to Gaza. The shock was severe for his elderly mother, who received him at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis, only to find that he had lost his sight after losing his leg in previous years.

Amal Abu Al-Foul, Mahmoud's mother, says that seeing her son in this condition plunged her into a fit of bitter crying, wondering what crime he had committed to be deprived of what he held most dear. The family is now appealing to international bodies to provide urgent medical transfer outside the Strip, hoping that Mahmoud will find treatment that will restore his sight, which the jailer took from him.

Mahmoud's story is just one example of thousands of prisoners who face slow death inside occupation prisons, where statistics indicate there are currently more than 9,600 prisoners. Among these prisoners are 350 minors who live in conditions lacking the most basic elements of a dignified life and international laws.

Human rights sources confirmed that occupation prisons have witnessed the martyrdom of 326 prisoners since 1967, including 89 martyrs whose identities have been documented since the start of the genocide war on October 7, 2023. The fate of hundreds of detainees from the Gaza Strip remains unknown, as the occupation authorities refuse to disclose their places of detention or their health status.

The prisoner movement suffers from a systematic starvation policy that has led to a sharp deterioration in the weight and general health of detainees, in addition to severe overcrowding in cells. Prisoners are deprived of visits from lawyers or communication with their relatives, leaving them in complete isolation from the outside world and at the mercy of the jailers.

The Palestinian Prisoner's Day, on April 17 of each year, reminds the world of the tragedy of a people behind bars, but this year it carries a more tragic character. The testimonies given by released prisoners reveal atrocities committed daily, exceeding all red lines of international and humanitarian norms.

The scene was further darkened by the Israeli Knesset's approval of the prisoner execution law last March, which represents a green light for the legal liquidation of Palestinian detainees. This legislative escalation coincides with field practices aimed at breaking the will of prisoners and turning their lives into a continuous hell inside detention centers.

Mahmoud Abu Al-Foul remains a living witness, with his extinguished eyes, to the crimes of the occupation that do not fall by prescription, awaiting international justice that may not come soon. Popular and official demands continue for the international community to intervene to stop the bleeding of suffering inside prisons and protect prisoners from policies of deliberate killing and medical neglect.

The interrogation room and the image of the dehumanized officer were the last things Mahmoud saw before darkness fell on his eyes forever.

The risk of death for heart patients in the Gaza Strip is escalating unprecedentedly, with thousands suffering from chronic and acute diseases facing a severe shortage of essential medicines and medical supplies. This crisis is exacerbated by the continued closure of crossings and the severe complications imposed by the occupation on the travel of urgent cases for treatment abroad, turning Gaza into a large prison lacking the most basic healthcare provisions.

In a testimony reflecting the depth of the tragedy, the family of elderly Salma Abu Nadi (78 years old) recounts the suffering of their mother, who has been bedridden for two months awaiting the availability of a pacemaker battery. The patient's daughter confirms that her mother's life now hangs on the availability of this medical component, which is missing in the Strip, noting that any further delay could lead to her death given the doctors' inability to provide alternative treatments.

On the ground, continuous military operations have led to most specialized centers for cardiac surgery and catheterization going out of service, with only one center remaining operational at Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza City. This sole center faces immense pressure and a shortage of staff and equipment, making it unable to meet the growing needs of patients in the besieged Strip.

Majed Shanat, a cardiology consultant at Al-Quds Hospital, described the current health situation as 'catastrophic' by all standards, explaining that the Strip suffered from shortages before the war, but now lacks the simplest tools. Shanat pointed out that the only device currently available can only handle a very limited number of patients, not exceeding 5 cases per day, which is a tiny number compared to the volume of injuries and medical cases.

The suffering does not stop at the lack of devices but extends to delays in travel coordination procedures, as is the case with patient Mustafa Madi, who suffered cardiac arrest twice in two months. Despite the seriousness of his condition, Madi is still awaiting approval to leave the Strip, amid bureaucracy and strict security restrictions imposed by the occupation on patients and their companions.

According to data issued by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, heart diseases have become the leading cause of death in the Strip, accounting for over 56%. The ministry attributes this shocking increase to the complete cessation of operations at 5 specialized centers, the disruption of open-heart surgeries, and the complete absence of stents and essential cardiac catheterization tools.

Amid the ongoing blockade and bombardment, the Gaza Strip is witnessing what can be described as a silent humanitarian tragedy, where patients are slowly dying away from the spotlight due to the collapse of the healthcare system. Despite repeated international demands, the occupation continues to prevent the entry of life-saving medical supplies, placing the international community before a moral and legal responsibility towards thousands of threatened lives.

Heart diseases now account for more than 56% of deaths in Gaza, with specialized centers ceasing operations and essential supplies being unavailable.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced on Tuesday her government's decision to suspend the joint defense agreement with Israel, which regulated the exchange of military equipment and advanced technological research. Meloni clarified during an event in Verona that this decision comes in response to the current circumstances in the region, which necessitated halting the automatic renewal of this security protocol.

In the context of executive measures, official sources confirmed that Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto sent an official letter to his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant, informing him of the decision to suspend military cooperation. This agreement is a fundamental pillar of bilateral relations, having been subject to periodic renewal every five years since its entry into force in April 2016.

For his part, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid launched a sharp attack on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing the Italian decision as a 'shameful failure' for Israeli foreign policy. Lapid pointed out that Meloni represents the conservative right-wing current, which is supposed to be a natural ally of Israel, making the loss of her support a dangerous indicator of Tel Aviv's international isolation.

Sources in the Italian Ministry of Defense confirmed that one of the direct consequences of this decision is the immediate cessation of all forms of joint military training between the Italian and Israeli armies. The sources indicated that the decision was made after extensive consultations involving the foreign and defense ministers and the deputy prime minister, amid increasing Italian criticism of recent Israeli attacks.

Relations between Rome and Tel Aviv are experiencing increasing tension, especially after Italian forces operating within the UN mission in Lebanon were exposed to risks due to Israeli military operations. The right-wing government in Italy, which was considered one of Israel's closest allies, has begun to adopt a tougher tone towards Israeli military practices in the Palestinian and Lebanese territories.

On the European level, public pressure on governments to take firm stances against Israel is increasing, with more than a million citizens signing an initiative demanding the suspension of trade with Tel Aviv. Observers believe that the gap between European public opinion and official policies has begun to narrow in favor of taking tangible punitive measures against the policies of occupation and settlement.

In an attempt to circumvent this isolation, Israel is seeking to strengthen its partnerships with other countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, such as the Czech Republic and Serbia. Israeli Foreign Minister Gidon Sa'ar revealed proposals to transfer part of Israeli arms manufacturing operations to Czech territory to ensure the continuity of supplies and technical cooperation.

In the same context, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić announced plans to produce combat drones in cooperation with the Israeli company 'Elbit', in a move aimed at enhancing his country's defense capabilities. The Israeli company will hold a majority stake in this joint project, reflecting a new Israeli strategy to seek security alternatives outside the traditional European Union framework.

The tensions were not limited to Italy but extended to Germany, where Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich sharply attacked German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. This attack came in response to Merz's criticism of Israeli settlement plans and his explicit warning against the de facto annexation of the West Bank, which Smotrich considered unacceptable 'moral sermons'.

The German Chancellor had a phone call with Netanyahu, in which he expressed his deep concern about the developments on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories. Merz stressed that settlement expansion undermines peace prospects, a position welcomed by the Palestinian presidency, which praised the German rejection of Israeli annexation efforts.

Reports indicate that Israel is facing difficulties in maintaining the momentum of military support from its traditional European partners, including Germany, which is its second-largest arms supplier. The general mood on the old continent is clearly leaning towards opposing the continuation of the war, putting European governments under significant political and moral pressure.

In the European Parliament, left-wing deputies believe that the recent decisions by Meloni and other European leaders are an inevitable result of street pressure that can no longer tolerate silence. They stressed that continued disregard for popular demands to stop cooperation with a state practicing 'apartheid' will lead to severe political consequences within European societies themselves.

Israeli diplomacy is currently trying to contain the repercussions of the Italian decision, fearing that it may be a prelude to similar steps from other European countries that were classified as 'friendly camps'. However, the extremist statements by ministers in Netanyahu's government, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, further complicate the diplomatic mission and deepen the gap with Western capitals.

In conclusion, the suspension of the Italian defense agreement represents a fundamental shift in the map of security alliances in the Mediterranean, as the national interests of European countries have begun to directly clash with Israeli military policies. The question remains about Tel Aviv's ability to find technological and military alternatives to compensate for the loss of partnership with a major industrial power like Italy.

Given the current situation, the government decided to suspend the automatic renewal of the defense agreement with Israel.

Initial readings of the results of the 'Epic Fury' operation and the subsequent military developments indicate that Iran is undergoing a crucial transitional phase, where the regime has shifted from its traditional religious form to an authoritarian dictatorship suffering from structural weakness. This transformation was not accidental; rather, it is the result of a continuous erosion of the regime's political and religious legitimacy over the past two decades, leading to the current moment characterized by fragmentation of the supreme leadership.

The concept of 'Velayat-e Faqih' (Guardianship of the Jurist), established by Khomeini, was partly based on popular acceptance and public faith, which second-generation leaders tried to maintain through delicate balances. With the rise of the extremist bureaucratic current led by Ali Khamenei, and now the current prominence of his son Mojtaba Khamenei, it seems the regime has definitively abandoned the facade of popular legitimacy in favor of absolute authoritarian rule that offers no ideological promises to the masses.

The departure of historical leaders and the escalation of assassinations targeting senior officials have created a leadership vacuum that is difficult to fill, weakening the regime's ability to mediate between warring factions. This vacuum has pushed the Revolutionary Guard to the forefront as the sole force capable of maintaining internal security and confronting external threats, signifying a comprehensive militarization of decision-making circles in Tehran and the marginalization of civilian and diplomatic tools.

The features of 'The New Iran' are evident in the transition to a new generation of leadership for whom the Iran-Iraq War is no longer the sole reference point; rather, their consciousness has been shaped by internal repression operations and modern military confrontations. This generation adopts a security doctrine based on advanced fire deterrence and confronting internal sabotage, which requires them to formulate strategies that go beyond the traditional frameworks established by the regime's founding leaders.

In dealing with the street, the regime has removed the 'silk gloves' it used to conceal its iron fist, especially after the events of January 2026, which witnessed unprecedented public violence. The damage to traditional repression mechanisms has forced the authorities to adopt brutal direct violence as the sole tool for survival, ending an era of organized protests and heralding a phase of chaos and street violence.

Economically, the regime faces a real dilemma with the damage to major industries and the deterioration of financial resources due to sanctions and military operations. In the coming phase, the regime will be forced to direct remaining resources to support only its solid base and loyalists to ensure their allegiance, which will lead to the deliberate impoverishment of the majority of the Iranian people and the widening of the class and social gap between the authorities and citizens.

The existential threats currently facing the regime represent a strong impetus to cross all red lines, including the religious barriers that once prevented the pursuit of unconventional weapons. The desire to acquire a nuclear weapon or major strategic capabilities has become a matter of technological survival, as the regime sees these weapons as the only guarantee to prevent the state's collapse in the face of direct external attacks.

Regionally, the mask that covered Iranian movements through proxies has fallen, as Tehran was forced into direct confrontations that revealed the damage to its conventional military capabilities. This shift will push Iran to adopt 'guerrilla warfare' tactics in the air and sea, focusing on carrying out qualitative operations that serve its urgent security and economic needs instead of long-term strategic plans.

The events of October 7th caused a shock to the Iranian timeline, with analysts believing that the move came earlier than Tehran had planned within its 'annihilation of Israel' strategy. This confusion has made Iranian foreign policy more responsive to immediate crises and less reliant on organized planning, increasing instability in the region and making Iranian moves unpredictable.

Supporters of the regime currently live in a state of complete isolation from the rest of society, being fed misleading media narratives that are completely detached from economic and field realities. This isolation will push them to defend the regime more fiercely because their fate is organically linked to its survival, which increases the likelihood of bloody clashes between different segments of the population in the near future.

For ethnic and religious minorities in Iran, the current crisis will force them to strengthen their self-autonomy and internal solidarity, away from the state's centralism that has neglected their needs. While this trend may not immediately transform into an organized revolution, it weakens the cohesion of the Iranian state as a unified entity and increases the chances of independent activity that could threaten the territorial integrity of Iran.

The international community must re-evaluate the situation in Iran based on these new facts and abandon the classical perceptions that prevailed before 2026. Betting on a popular revolution similar to the events of 1979 may be unrealistic given the current brutality of repression, requiring the search for new tools to support the Iranian people and protect them from the authoritarian killing machine.

Economic sanctions will play a more effective role in the next phase due to the fragility of the Iranian economy and the regime's desperate need for liquidity to rebuild its authority. It is essential to continue economic pressure and prevent the regime from developing its offensive capabilities, especially in light of indicators confirming its pursuit of unconventional military technology to threaten regional and global security.

In conclusion, the Iran that the world knew for decades has ended, replaced by a more violent and less stable political entity, opening the door to grave dangers and new strategic opportunities. Monitoring developments in Tehran in the coming months will be crucial to determining the region's direction, as the confrontation between the regime's desire to survive and the people's aspiration for liberation will be the main driver of events.

Iran today is a completely different state; it has transitioned from a religious regime seeking legitimacy to a weak dictatorship fighting for survival through excessive violence.

In previous articles, I attempted to diagnose the features of the dual crisis afflicting the Palestinian economy, represented by public finance imbalances on one hand, and the limited capacity of the macroeconomy for recovery and growth on the other. However, theoretical diagnosis, no matter how accurate or data-driven, remains incomplete without moving to the more pressing practical question: What can be done to halt the accelerating economic deterioration in a complex regional environment, and amidst the ongoing suffocating Israeli measures that exacerbate the ambiguity of the economic and financial landscape?The realistic answer does not lie in searching for a "comprehensive solution" capable of addressing all issues at once, but rather in formulating a practical framework for crisis management that balances gradually reducing losses and maintaining a minimum level of stability, while keeping a window open for future recovery and seizing opportunities when conditions improve. The current priorities are centered on three main axes: recalibrating public finances, enhancing labor market flexibility, and preserving existing investment assets.First, recalibrating public finances requires a shift from traditional austerity measures to fiscal policies that enhance the efficiency of public spending and redefine the government's role in the economy to suit the Palestinian context. Unsustainable austerity and emergency budgets in an economy already suffering from weak aggregate demand may exacerbate the recession instead of containing it. What is needed is a move towards intelligent rationalization of public expenditures, distinguishing between productive and non-productive spending, while maintaining the minimum necessary social spending to avoid further societal instability.Conversely, enhancing local revenue collection from various sources remains crucial for reducing the fiscal deficit and providing liquidity. However, relying on increased revenues through traditional tools without risking stifling the fragile private sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises that constitute the majority of operating companies in Palestine, is not feasible. Therefore, there is a need to focus on improving collection efficiency rather than raising the tax burden, enabling the government to increase collection on one hand, and helping officially operating economic establishments play their role as drivers of economic growth, job creation, and production enhancement on the other.In addition to adjusting public finances, there is also a need to adopt more cautious management of domestic debt, which has exceeded three billion dollars according to the latest estimates. This debt constitutes a necessary financing tool given the exceptional circumstances and limited liquidity faced by the Palestinian government. At a time when public debt management has become a risky path, there is a need to search for innovative mechanisms to manage these debts, such as converting part of them into long-term bonds supported by appropriate guarantee mechanisms, enabling the government to meet its obligations not only to the banking sector but also to gradually repay arrears owed to civil servants and private sector suppliers.Second, addressing negative fluctuations in the Palestinian labor market requires adopting smart policies capable of reducing high unemployment rates, which reflect a structural crisis beyond the limits of the traditional economic cycle. Given the Israeli restrictions on movement and trade, it has become necessary to think outside traditional frameworks. In the short term, temporary intervention programs such as wage subsidies or emergency employment programs may be needed, not as sustainable solutions, but as practical tools to absorb shocks and prevent deeper deterioration in the labor market.In the medium term, investing in skills and technical education may be one of the few growth paths despite the restrictions, by enhancing employment in local productive sectors including industry and agriculture, in addition to strengthening the role of the digital economy by encouraging remote work, which allows overcoming some of the geographical restrictions imposed on Palestinian labor and connecting it to regional and international markets.Third, in an environment characterized by high political and economic risks, talking about attracting investment becomes closer to theoretical ambition. The most urgent priority has become preventing the erosion of existing investment assets, as local capital flight may be more costly than the absence of new investment flows. As practical solutions, tools such as credit guarantees through international financial institutions and multilateral development banks can play an important role in helping companies survive. Furthermore, accelerating the pace of reforms that enhance access to finance may help design innovative investment tools that are appropriate for the high level of risk in Palestine, and capable of attracting additional capital, whether from the Palestinian diaspora or through investment funds and Arab and Islamic sovereign wealth funds.Certainly, regional tensions contribute to exacerbating the uncertainty about the future of the Palestinian economy, through their potential effects on international support levels and on trade and financial flows. Nevertheless, the scene is not without narrow margins for maneuver that can be explored, such as repositioning some supply chains to create conditions for supporting import substitution in a number of essential goods, and building economic partnerships in productive sectors.Perhaps the most important transformation that should be realized is that the Palestinian economy is not facing a fleeting crisis, but an extended state of complex fragility and successive shocks. In such a context, the realistic goal becomes managing the crisis realistically, by minimizing losses as much as possible, and maintaining the continuity of economic activities in various sectors, without sliding into a state of deeper instability.Ultimately, the Palestinian economy today stands between two choices: continued economic and institutional erosion in the absence of well-considered interventions, or practical resilience based on a pragmatic approach that balances the possible and the hoped for, recognizes the limits of reality, and works to determine who will remain standing when conditions change.

Political skepticism is escalating in Lebanon regarding the efficacy of the new negotiation tracks sponsored by the United States to de-escalate the situation in the South. Influential political forces considered that any diplomatic move not based on clear guarantees and explicit Israeli commitments would remain mere attempts to sell illusions, especially in light of previous experiences with international agreements that Tel Aviv did not respect.

In this context, Hassan Qabalan, a member of the Political Bureau of the Amal Movement, affirmed that the movement's official position is firm and clear, and has been communicated to the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister through Speaker Nabih Berri. Qabalan pointed out in media statements that Lebanon possesses an international legal reference represented by Resolution 1701, warning against being drawn into what he described as 'the mirage of negotiations' that do not serve Lebanese national interests.

This stance comes after the conclusion of a round of talks in Washington, the capital, between delegations from Lebanon and Israel, the first of its kind in many decades. Despite the hopes expressed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun that this step would contribute to alleviating the suffering of the Lebanese people, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly lowered expectations, emphasizing that outstanding and complex issues cannot be settled in short sessions lasting no more than six hours.

Qabalan stressed that the reality on the ground completely contradicts any serious negotiating intentions, as Israeli forces continue systematic destruction operations and the bombing of homes in border villages extending from Naqoura to Khiam. He explained that this policy clearly aims to create a buffer zone and prevent the return of normal life to the border strip, which undermines the foundations of any potential diplomatic rapprochement at the present time.

The Amal Movement leader reviewed Lebanon's commitment to international agreements, noting that Lebanon has fulfilled what is required of it in the area south of the Litani, as acknowledged by major international powers. Approximately 9,500 Lebanese army soldiers have been deployed and military installations dismantled, steps that have received American and European praise, and even from the Israeli side itself in previous stages, without a similar commitment from the other party.

Qabalan pointed out that Resolution 1701, which was re-emphasized in November 2024, included clear mechanisms through the 'Mechanism' committee, which includes UNIFIL and other international parties. He considered that bypassing these mechanisms and moving towards new tracks is a waste of time, especially since Israeli leaders themselves, including their ambassador in Washington, downplayed the importance of these negotiating moves and mourned them before they even began.

Qabalan concluded that any negotiation process requires creating an atmosphere that reflects genuine positive intentions, which is completely lacking in the current reality. He affirmed that the Amal Movement does not get drawn into daily statements, but rather adheres to a national position that protects Lebanese sovereignty and is based on international resolutions that guarantee Lebanon's rights and put an end to continuous Israeli violations by land, sea, and air.

Lebanon has a previous international resolution and does not need to pursue the mirage of negotiations that many parties, and even Israeli leaders, have already dismissed.

US President Donald Trump revealed his administration's intentions regarding the escalating conflict with Tehran, stating in media remarks that he is not inclined to extend the current ceasefire agreement. Trump indicated that the existing truce is approaching its inevitable end, suggesting it will cease in one way or another under current circumstances.

Despite the escalatory tone, the US President expressed his preference for diplomatic solutions if they lead to a comprehensive new agreement. Trump considered reaching a political settlement to be the optimal choice, as it would give the Iranian state an opportunity to rebuild its economy and infrastructure, which have been damaged by the confrontations.

On the ground, the confrontation entered a new phase with the United States beginning to implement a comprehensive naval blockade targeting vital waterways. This military step aims to tighten the noose on Iranian foreign trade and cut off oil supply lines, reflecting the failure of previously attempted diplomatic paths.

In the first practical application of this blockade, military sources reported that a US Navy destroyer intercepted two oil tankers attempting to exit Iranian territorial waters. US forces compelled the ships to return to Chabahar Port on the Gulf of Oman, sending a firm message about the seriousness of the measures being taken.

Reports from the US Central Command indicate that the naval blockade is being implemented through a massive and unprecedented military operation in the region. More than 10,000 US troops are participating in these missions, supported by 12 naval warships and dozens of fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft to ensure complete closure of the passages.

Responsible sources confirmed that no vessel has succeeded in breaching the security cordon imposed since the announcement of the start of military operations. These moves aim to force Tehran to retract its previous threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, which represents a major artery through which one-fifth of the world's oil supplies flow.

Economically, these successive developments have caused confusion in global energy markets, with oil prices soaring to exceed $100 per barrel. Despite a slight decline later, markets remain cautiously awaiting the outcomes of the military escalation in the Gulf region and its impact on supply chains.

Observers believe that the effectiveness of the US blockade is still being tested in its early days, especially with the detection of changes in the routes of many vessels associated with Iranian oil. Political analysts warn that continued military pressure could push Tehran towards retaliatory options targeting international navigation or US interests in the region.

These tensions come in the context of an armed conflict that erupted since late February, leading to heavy human and material losses among Iranian forces. Despite the blows to Tehran's military infrastructure, it still retains strategic capabilities that make any comprehensive confrontation complex and costly.

Amidst this escalation, a faint glimmer of hope emerges regarding the possibility of resuming peace talks in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, in the coming days. The question remains whether the region will slide into a full-scale war or if economic and military pressures will force the parties to return to the negotiating table.

I am not thinking of extending the ceasefire, and the truce will end in any case, but we prefer to reach an agreement that allows Iran to rebuild itself.

The Élysée Palace is preparing to host a virtual summit next Friday, chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with the participation of dozens of countries. This expanded meeting aims to formulate a comprehensive international strategy to secure the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the flow of global trade once combat operations in the region cease.

Reports indicate that Starmer will attend the meeting in Paris in person, while the rest of the delegations will join via video conference, a step reflecting the European desire to lead the navigation security file. Notably, the United States is absent from the list of participants, while invitations have been extended to major powers such as China and India to ensure the broadest possible international consensus.

The emerging European plan seeks to build a broad international coalition that avoids the direct involvement of parties described as 'belligerents,' namely the United States, Israel, and Iran. This approach aims to create a neutral security environment that enjoys regional and international acceptance, thereby facilitating the restoration of confidence among global shipping companies that have been affected by the conflict.

Informed sources reported that the proposed defensive mission will focus in its first phase on three complex logistical and military axes. The first axis involves providing technical and navigational support to hundreds of commercial vessels currently stranded in the waterway, awaiting sufficient security guarantees to resume their voyages safely.

The second axis involves launching a large-scale operation to clear the waters of naval mines laid at the beginning of the conflict, a significant technical challenge requiring specialized expertise. The strategic importance of European countries, which possess a huge fleet of over 150 specialized vessels for detecting and removing naval mines, is highlighted here.

In the third axis, the European force intends to provide permanent military escort by deploying frigates and destroyers that will regularly patrol the strait to deter any potential threats. The operation's planners believe that this military presence will remain necessary for a long period even after ceasefire agreements are concluded, to meet the requirements of international insurance companies.

Diplomatic discussions reveal a divergence of views between Paris and London regarding Washington's role in this ambitious plan. While the French side believes that excluding the United States makes the mission more acceptable to Tehran, British officials express concern that this marginalization could strain relations with President Donald Trump's administration.

Germany is expected to officially join the initiative soon, which will give the plan additional military and financial weight given Berlin's naval capabilities. Germany has a specialized unit in the port of Kiel that includes mine-sweeping vessels and advanced submarines, capable of playing a pivotal role in securing deep waterways.

This initiative draws inspiration from the 'Aspides' operation model previously launched by the European Union to protect navigation in the Red Sea, which proved the effectiveness of independent European coordination. The plan relies on rotating the deployment of naval assets and helicopters belonging to countries such as Italy, Greece, and France to ensure sustainable monitoring and rapid intervention when necessary.

Observers link this plan to the concept of a 'coalition of the willing' previously proposed in other international contexts to enhance stability in conflict zones after peace agreements are reached. The European move ultimately aims to prevent the Strait of Hormuz from becoming a closed sphere of influence, and to ensure that it remains an open international passage for global trade and energy traffic.

The plan is based on establishing an international defensive mission that does not include the belligerent parties, referring to the United States, Israel, and Iran.

The path of military escalation led by Israel and the United States against Iran since the end of last February indicates a state of absurdity in managing international relations. War has transformed from a means to achieve political goals into an end in itself, which the two countries seek to sustain through political discourse that justifies the continuation of military operations despite their catastrophic repercussions.

This confrontation began with declared objectives: to overthrow the Iranian regime and strip it of its three elements of power: nuclear capabilities, the ballistic missile program, and the extended regional alliance system. This was clearly demonstrated in the map displayed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which identified five countries as direct military targets for Israeli operations.

Despite the intensity of the destruction caused by what is called the 'Seven Fronts War' in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, the reality on the ground confirms Israel's failure to achieve a strategic breakthrough. The regime in Tehran did not fall, and the Iranian masses did not respond to the calls for revolution repeatedly launched by Netanyahu and Trump, which caused clear disappointment to the Israeli leadership.

The appointment of Meir Ben-Shabbat as head of the 'Mossad' indicates an Israeli desire to continue attempts to stimulate internal change in Iran. However, Ben-Shabbat's previous criticisms of the lack of real preparation for this goal reflect a significant gap between political ambitions and operational capabilities on the ground.

On the other hand, Iran showed resilience in dealing with the strikes, quickly choosing a successor to the Supreme Leader after the assassination attempt targeting him. This move sent a clear message about the continuity and cohesion of the regime, at a time when Iranian air defenses succeeded in altering the balance of power in the theater of operations.

Tehran rediscovered the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as an effective strategic asset in the confrontation, forcing the American administration to change its rhetoric. President Trump shifted from talking about regime change to focusing on 'opening the strait,' which is a tactical retreat imposed by global economic and navigational necessities.

American strategic confusion reveals a division in views between Washington and Tel Aviv, especially after Trump accepted the principle of negotiation and a temporary truce. This decision caused turmoil in Netanyahu's office, who fears that diplomatic paths could undermine his military goals aimed at prolonging the conflict.

Marathon negotiations lasting 21 hours took place in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, between a high-level American delegation and an Iranian one led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. These discussions addressed thorny issues including the nuclear program, frozen assets, and navigation security in the Gulf, in an attempt to defuse a full-scale explosion.

The chances of success for these negotiations depend on the flexibility of both parties in making mutual concessions, away from the logic of a 'zero-sum game.' However, the pro-war lobby in Israel and the United States is striving to thwart any diplomatic rapprochement, promoting claims about the futility of dialogue with Tehran.

Should war reignite, its objectives will shift for the third time towards imposing a comprehensive naval blockade on Iranian ports. Trump claims that this measure aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table, a clear reversal of facts given that he was the one who previously withdrew from diplomatic paths.

The proposed naval blockade poses a threat not only to Iran but also to the interests of dozens of countries that rely on maritime transport in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Major countries like China and India, as well as European powers, have expressed their rejection of this step, which contradicts the freedom of global trade.

China clearly warned that a naval blockade would lead to severe global economic repercussions, while NATO countries refused to participate in it. This stance puts the United States in a potential confrontation with its traditional allies and increases its international isolation on this issue.

It seems that the American administration does not realize the extent of the strategic losses that could result from the continuation of an open confrontation with Iran. Regional allies, who are paying the price for these policies, find themselves without real means of defense against the exorbitant consequences of the ongoing war's folly.

Ultimately, the scene remains open to possibilities of escalation or a return to negotiations under the pressure of international need for navigation stability. But the only constant is that the American-Israeli strategy suffers from deep confusion, as objectives change with every new field setback.

The official shift from war to negotiations represents a dramatic change in the American strategic approach and reveals Washington's lack of confidence in the military option's ability to resolve the navigation issue.

Washington – Said Arikat – 14/4/2026

News Analysis

In a move that sparked widespread political debate, the US capital, Washington, hosted a meeting between the Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Mouawad, and the Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Yehiel Leiter, under the patronage of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and with the participation of the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, in addition to the advisor at the US State Department, Michael Wyndham.

Israeli Ambassador Leiter is known for being one of the most extreme settlers. He was born and raised in America before making a settlement located north of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank his residence for many years. He did not stop at living there but also contributed to the establishment of 'One Israel Fund,' an organization dedicated to raising financial donations to support settlement projects and consolidate the presence of settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to a US State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity, preparations for this meeting lasted for about a full month, i.e., before the date of the US-Iranian negotiations in Islamabad was set, in a clear attempt to separate the two tracks, despite their temporal overlap. The official stressed that the US administration believes there is no link between the talks with Iran and this Lebanese-Israeli meeting, indicating Washington's desire to keep each file within an independent negotiating framework.

In the same context of statements, the official emphasized that Iran “has dragged the Lebanese people into a war that it cannot then claim to protect them from,” considering Hezbollah an “unworthy terrorist organization that should have no political role, and its weapons must be completely disarmed,” affirming US support for this goal. He added that Washington would not allow Tehran to determine Lebanon's future, and that this meeting falls within broader efforts to redraw balances in the country away from Iranian influence.

On the humanitarian front, the official revealed that the US State Department recently approved new funding of $58.8 million to support humanitarian programs in Lebanon, aimed at providing vital assistance to displaced persons, including food, healthcare, water, sanitation services, and shelter, as well as supporting emergency response for those most affected by the conflict. He noted that Washington continuously coordinates with international organizations and donors to ensure that this aid is utilized within a coherent and effective international response.

Despite the official diplomatic nature of the meeting, political and media circles viewed it as a step lacking seriousness, considering it merely an attempt to create a visual scene showing Lebanon and Israel side-by-side under an American umbrella, without reflecting actual progress on core outstanding issues. This interpretation suggests that the meeting reflects a desire to achieve media breakthrough rather than a genuine negotiating path, in the absence of any indications of the parties' readiness to address sensitive files.

Critics also believe that the timing of the meeting and the nature of its diplomatic representation suggest that it is closer to a public relations initiative than a serious political effort, especially given the sharp internal Lebanese divisions regarding any form of communication with Israel. They add that this type of meeting may exacerbate internal tensions instead of contributing to their resolution, by giving the impression of an undeclared normalization process.

Observers warn that the American focus on disarming Hezbollah, regardless of addressing the broader context of the Lebanese crisis, may lead to counterproductive results, as this approach is seen as ignoring complex internal balances and reducing the crisis to its security dimension only, overlooking its political and economic roots.

This meeting reflects a traditional American approach that focuses on managing crises rather than solving them, where the emphasis is on creating superficial dialogue platforms without providing the necessary political conditions for their success. The absence of a clear agenda and the non-involvement of key Lebanese parties make it difficult to consider this meeting a serious step towards a sustainable settlement. Moreover, the insistence on separating negotiating tracks, despite their actual interconnectedness, reflects a simplistic reading of the complexities of the regional scene, which limits the chances of achieving a real breakthrough.

The meeting also raises the issue of Lebanese sovereignty, as its arrangement and management appear to have been largely carried out according to an external agenda, without clear internal Lebanese consensus. This reality reinforces the impression that Lebanon remains an arena for settling regional and international scores, rather than being an active party in determining its political path. Furthermore, focusing on disarming Hezbollah as the sole entry point for a solution ignores internal power balances and may complicate the scene rather than simplify it.

It is clear that the media dimension was strongly present in this meeting, as the appearance of representatives from Lebanon and Israel in one picture under American patronage constitutes a symbolic message directed at more than one party. However, this symbolism, in the absence of real political content, may be counterproductive, as it reinforces doubts about the meeting's objectives and fuels narratives rejecting any diplomatic openness. Therefore, the success of any future path requires moving beyond the logic of image towards a deeper and more realistic approach.

Recent military shifts in the region have proven that the pursuit of excessive armament is no longer the sole guarantor of political or field victories. Despite vast disparities in defense budgets, qualitative armament and negotiated solutions have emerged as an indispensable strategic alternative in contemporary international relations, especially after direct confrontations revealed the limitations of conventional power against smart deterrence strategies.

Figures indicate a wide gap between major powers and developing nations, with the US defense budget exceeding $919 billion, equivalent to more than a third of global military spending. However, this financial superiority has not translated into military decisive action against a country like Iran, whose defense budget does not exceed $7.9 billion, reflecting a shift in the concept of power from quantity and massive equipment to quality and military intelligence.

Joint military operations aimed at crippling Iranian capabilities revealed the inability of modern technologies to achieve their political objectives, despite continuous raids for 40 days and the use of the deadliest bombs. This failure to neutralize command and control centers or overthrow the political regime confirms that advanced technology alone is not enough to break the will of nations that possess asymmetric defense systems capable of absorbing shocks.

In a related context, the ongoing war of annihilation in the Gaza Strip stands out as additional evidence of the limits of excessive force, as the occupation failed to achieve its primary goal of forcing the resistance to surrender. Despite widespread destruction and massacres committed against civilians, field steadfastness has proven that the impact of technical and quantitative superiority diminishes in the face of strong political will and those who refuse to compromise on their national principles.

This new reality stems from the breaking of the West's monopoly on advanced technology, as technical knowledge has become shared and accessible to Southern countries through faster and less costly means. The rise of China as a dominant technological power has played a pivotal role in this transformation, especially with its complete control over supply chains for rare metals and nano-chips, enabling developing countries to build defense arsenals capable of confronting the strongest armies in the world.

These lessons learned are expected to prompt countries worldwide to conduct a deep review of their military doctrines, shifting from investing in heavy equipment and traditional mechanisms to focusing on missile and drone control systems. Radar systems, electronic jamming methods, and satellite reconnaissance will become the cornerstone of future defense budgets, ensuring the achievement of deterrence balance at the lowest possible costs.

Ultimately, major powers will find themselves compelled to accept the concept of asymmetric deterrence and resort to negotiated approaches as the only rational option to avoid wars of attrition. Were it not for the arrogance and extremist ideological tendencies dominating decision-making circles in Washington and Tel Aviv, the world would be safer, especially with the emergence of Chinese wisdom that prioritizes economic and political stability over considerations of military dominance.

Advanced technology is no longer the exclusive domain of the capitalist West, and the new reality has forced major powers to re-evaluate their calculations and accept the concept of asymmetric deterrence.

By: Said Arikat

April 15, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- Julian Borger’s reporting in The Guardian lays bare a disturbing inversion at the heart of Western policy: rather than defending the universal principles they claim to uphold, the United States and key European governments have, in the case of Francesca Albanese, chosen to target the messenger. His portrait of the UN special rapporteur is not only the story of one official under siege, but an indictment of a political order that punishes dissent more swiftly than it confronts alleged war crimes.

I have known Julian Borger since 2003, and I have known Francesca Albanese since she assumed her role as UN Special Rapporteur. From that vantage point, I can say with confidence that few journalists match Borger’s professionalism, rigor, and integrity as an interviewer. Equally, it is hard to think of a human rights advocate as steadfastly principled as Albanese—someone whose integrity is not only evident but immovable, even under extraordinary pressure. She is relentless, unyielding in the face of intimidation, and unwavering in her commitment to the truth, regardless of the personal or political cost. In a field that often rewards caution, her stubborn integrity sets her apart as one of the most formidable voices in human rights today.

Albanese’s offense, in essence, has been to speak with clarity. In the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s devastating military response in Gaza, she became the first UN official of her rank to characterize Israel’s actions as genocide. Whether one agrees with that legal conclusion or not, it is a claim grounded in her mandate: to investigate and report on human rights violations. Yet instead of engaging with the substance of her findings, Washington and several European capitals moved to discredit, isolate, and ultimately punish her.

The sanctions imposed by Donald Trump’s administration represent a particularly egregious example. By designating Albanese in a category typically reserved for terrorists and transnational criminals, the United States crossed a dangerous line. This was not mere diplomatic disagreement; it was an attempt to erase her capacity to function. As Borger recounts, the consequences have been sweeping—financial exclusion, the seizure of property, and restrictions so severe they amount to what has been described as a “civil death.” Such measures are not only disproportionate; they are fundamentally incompatible with the principles of due process and free expression that the United States claims to champion.

Europe’s role, while sometimes less overt, has been no less troubling. Germany’s attempt to suppress Albanese’s public appearances, reportedly going so far as to deploy police and threaten arrest over her language, reflects a broader pattern of constraining debate on Israel-Palestine. The justification—protecting the memory of the Holocaust or preventing antisemitism—is, of course, serious and necessary. But when such concerns are used to silence legitimate criticism of a state’s conduct, they risk being instrumentalized in ways that ultimately undermine both human rights and historical responsibility.

The United Kingdom and other European governments have likewise failed to provide meaningful support for an independent UN mandate holder facing extraordinary pressure. Instead, their posture has too often mirrored Washington’s: cautious at best, complicit at worst. The result is a chilling message to international civil servants and human rights advocates alike—step beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, and you may find yourself abandoned or worse.

What makes this response particularly indefensible is the scale of the humanitarian crisis that forms its backdrop. The war in Gaza has produced staggering levels of death, displacement, and destruction. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble; civilian infrastructure has been decimated; and a population already living under blockade has been pushed to the brink. In such circumstances, the need for rigorous, independent scrutiny is not optional—it is essential. Yet instead of strengthening mechanisms of accountability, Western governments have chosen to undermine one of the very figures tasked with providing it.

Borger’s interview also highlights the personal cost of this political failure. Albanese has faced death threats, harassment, and sustained campaigns against her family. These are not the actions of a system confident in its moral standing; they are the symptoms of a climate in which dissent is treated as danger. That such conditions have been tolerated—if not implicitly encouraged—by governments that regularly invoke human rights as a cornerstone of their foreign policy is deeply revealing.

There is, of course, a broader context to this reaction. Albanese’s reports do not stop at documenting alleged violations by Israel; they extend responsibility to the network of states and corporations that enable them. This includes arms suppliers, financial institutions, and political allies—many of them in the United States and Europe. In this sense, the backlash against her is not only about what she has said regarding Gaza; it is about what her findings imply for those who have supported, financed, or defended the status quo. To accept her conclusions would require a level of self-scrutiny that Western governments have thus far been unwilling to undertake.

Critics argue that Albanese’s rhetoric blurs the line between legal analysis and political advocacy, potentially weakening the impact of her work. There is merit in the concern that international law depends on precision and restraint. But this critique cannot justify the punitive measures she has faced. Disagreement with tone or framing should be addressed through debate, not sanctions or suppression. To conflate the two is to erode the very norms that underpin democratic societies.

Ultimately, the treatment of Francesca Albanese is a test—one that the United States and Europe are, at present, failing. It is a test of whether human rights are truly universal, or whether they are contingent on political convenience. It is a test of whether international institutions can operate independently, or whether they will be bent to the will of powerful states. And it is a test of whether those who speak uncomfortable truths will be protected or punished.

Julian Borger’s reporting makes one thing clear: this is not simply about one rapporteur or one conflict. It is about the credibility of a system that claims to stand for justice while sidelining those who seek to uphold it. If Western governments continue down this path—prioritizing alliance politics over accountability, and suppression over scrutiny—they risk not only abandoning the Palestinians, but also hollowing out the very ideals they profess to defend.

Hebrew press reports revealed the decision by the Minister of Transportation in the occupation government, Miri Regev, to choose Rabbi Avraham Zerbiv to participate in the main torch-lighting ceremony as part of the so-called 'Independence Day' celebrations. This choice comes despite the controversial record of the rabbi, who serves as a reserve officer in the army, having openly boasted about systematic destruction operations in the Gaza Strip.

Haaretz newspaper, in its editorial, considered this decision further evidence of the internal collapse Israel is experiencing and its loss of moral compass. The newspaper pointed out that honoring a figure who adopts genocidal rhetoric reflects the current government's tendency to normalize violence and mass destruction as an official state policy.

Published photos of Rabbi Zerbiv documented blatant violations, with one showing him occupying a school classroom in the Gaza Strip, placing his military weapon on a Muslim prayer rug. The photos also showed writings on the school walls indicating the establishment of a 'rabbinical court' in the heart of Khan Yunis city, signaling the extreme religious dimension in military operations.

The matter did not stop at photos; Zerbiv also posted a video clip on social media platforms showing him driving a military bulldozer to demolish a residential building in Gaza. This video gained widespread circulation, with the rabbi considering it a source of pride, which prompted Minister Regev to nominate him for this official honor in government celebrations.

In subsequent statements to the media, Zerbiv affirmed his extremist vision towards the Strip, saying that the solution lies in completely leveling Gaza to the ground. These statements were met with sharp criticism from left-wing and liberal circles within Israeli society, who saw them as an embodiment of war crimes committed under political cover.

Haaretz strongly criticized Minister Miri Regev's stance, describing her as indifferent to how the outside world views these actions. The newspaper added that the current government believes it lives in isolation from international values and the Western civilization it claims to belong to, while it is immersed in glorifying war and destruction.

Reports noted the transformation of the rabbi's family name 'Zerbiv' into a new linguistic verb in colloquial Hebrew, where the term 'to zerbiv' now means erasure and mass destruction. This term is currently used to describe what Gaza has suffered from the complete obliteration of residential neighborhoods, reflecting the deep penetration of the idea of annihilation into the Israeli collective consciousness.

Journalistic circles believe that using a person's name as a verb to express destruction is a powerful indictment of current Israeli policy, which has adopted this rabbi's behavior as a general approach. The phrase 'Israel zerbived Gaza' has come to embody the grim image the state presents to the international community, far from any humanitarian or legal standards.

For her part, Yedioth Ahronoth writer Einav Schiff launched a scathing attack on the decision to honor, asserting that the right-wing government is destroying all attempts to beautify its image abroad. Schiff said that choosing a person who represents 'ethnic cleansing' to light the torch is a clear message that extremists are leading the official scene.

Schiff added that the Minister of Transportation, and the government behind her, are directly contributing to confirming the international accusations directed at Israel, instead of trying to deny them. She considered that this behavior reinforces Israel's international isolation and places it in the category of countries that celebrate human rights violators and war criminals.

This controversy reflects a sharp division within Israeli society regarding the ethics of the war in Gaza, where the far-right sees Zerbiv as a national hero worthy of honor. In contrast, his critics see his honoring as an 'indelible stain' and confirmation that Israel has lost its conscience in the rubble of destroyed homes in the Strip.

Choosing Zerbiv to light the torch is not just a procedural measure, but a political declaration of Israel's new identity that prides itself on destruction. The rabbi who turned a prayer rug into a platform for his weapon has today become the symbol the government has chosen to represent its values in its most important national celebrations.

Reports concluded that Israel's standing in the world has become closely linked to the images of destruction proudly promoted by its soldiers and rabbis. With the continuation of these policies, it seems that the gap between Israel and universal human values is widening, under a government that finds no shame in celebrating extremism and devastation.

We simply need to level the Strip to the ground.

The Israeli Ministry of Health, in an official statement issued on Tuesday, revealed new updates regarding the human casualties among settlers, confirming that 47 people were injured during the past twenty-four hours. With this new statistic, the total number of injured recorded by medical departments rises to 7740 since the start of the current round of military escalation on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts, which has seen an intensification of cross-border combat operations.

Medical sources clarified that the recent injuries resulted from barrages of ballistic missiles launched from Iranian territory, in addition to shells and rockets launched by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon towards settlements and occupied cities. Reports also indicated that some of these injuries occurred due to stampedes and falls suffered by residents as they rushed to fortified shelters immediately after sirens were activated in various areas, with the severity of cases ranging from mild to moderate and serious.

Regarding the health status of the injured within medical facilities, reports indicated that about 120 injured individuals are still in hospitals receiving necessary treatments, including a limited number of cases described as very critical. This continuous increase in the number of injured comes since the outbreak of direct confrontation with Iran in late February, a confrontation that has expanded to include the northern front with Lebanon more fiercely in recent weeks.

Despite the significant increase in the number of injured, sources stated that the death toll on the Israeli side remains relatively limited compared to the scale of the bombardment, with estimates ranging between 23 and 33 fatalities. Reports attributed this disparity to the effectiveness of air defense systems and early warning systems that reduce direct human losses, while the opposing fronts in Lebanon and Iran are witnessing heavy human and material losses due to intensive airstrikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force.

The past twenty-four hours recorded 47 Israeli injuries, raising the total number of injured to 7740 people since the outbreak of military confrontations.

A state of skepticism prevails within political and security circles in Israel regarding the possibility of achieving a serious breakthrough in the ongoing negotiations between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in Washington. Analytical readings indicate that Israel still expects the failure of diplomatic tracks, not only on the Lebanese front, but even in the Iranian nuclear file, where the military establishment is preparing for the possibility of renewed war.

Leaks from within the Israeli security establishment indicate that the gap between the two sides is still very deep, making the option of military escalation closer than political settlement. Tel Aviv fears that any agreement between Washington and Tehran might give the latter an opportunity to restore its military and missile capabilities, which directly reflects on the strength of its allies in the region, especially Hezbollah.

For his part, military analyst Amos Harel warned that the Israeli leadership's continued search for a 'victory image' could lead to counterproductive results that threaten the army's efficiency. Harel pointed out that the chances of success for the Washington negotiations are slim, given that the declared Israeli goal is to dismantle Hezbollah's military structure, which the party rejects outright.

Observers believe that Israel found itself compelled to sit at the negotiating table in response to direct pressure from US President Donald Trump's administration. This shift comes after a long period of Israeli rejection of Lebanese demands, as Benjamin Netanyahu's government currently adopts a security doctrine based on exercising maximum military force to impose its conditions.

In a related context, media sources explained that Netanyahu is trying to balance American pressure with his promises to the Israeli public to crush Hezbollah's capabilities. Washington has provided Netanyahu with a diplomatic exit by launching 'peace negotiations' essentially aimed at reaching a temporary ceasefire or reducing the intensity of combat operations without appearing defeated.

Israeli experts recall previous failed experiences in negotiating with Lebanon, such as the 1983 attempts that did not yield tangible results on the ground. Professor Eyal Zisser confirms that the Lebanese side is currently focused on securing a ceasefire only, without possessing the actual ability to implement Israel's demands regarding the disarmament of armed factions.

Zisser adds that the official Israeli narrative that speaks of permanently weakening Hezbollah lacks accuracy, stressing that the party still retains a huge arsenal of missiles and drones. According to his estimates, Hezbollah is capable of managing a long-term war of attrition, citing the failure to decisively end the battle in the Gaza Strip despite a long time since its outbreak.

On the ground, reports indicate that Hezbollah still controls the initiative at many border points despite the limited Israeli incursion. Observers believe that the advance of Israeli forces has not exceeded a few kilometers in some axes after weeks of fighting, which reinforces the party's narrative about its ability to withstand and confront.

On the other hand, the fundamental disagreement over the timing of the ceasefire emerges, as Lebanon stipulates a cessation of military operations as a first step preceding any diplomatic coordination. In contrast, the Israeli government insists on the principle of 'negotiating under fire,' wishing to continue military pressure to achieve greater political gains at the negotiating table.

Analyst Tzvi Bar'el considered these negotiations to represent a 'sovereignty test' for the Lebanese state and the future of its institutions in light of the ongoing conflict. He pointed out that the gaps in positions are not only technical but relate to each party's vision for the future stability on the shared borders, which makes reaching a comprehensive agreement elusive at present.

Regarding the Iranian role, Tehran clearly linked the Islamabad negotiations track with the field developments in Lebanon, complicating the regional scene. This linkage places the Israeli negotiator before the challenge of dealing with multiple interconnected fronts, where any understandings in Washington affect the balance of power in the entire region.

In conclusion, all eyes remain on the outcome of the Washington meetings, despite the prevalence of pessimism in the statements of officials and analysts in Tel Aviv. With the continued mutual shelling, it seems that the field will remain the primary arbiter in determining the ceiling of political demands for both Israel and Lebanon in the coming period.

Israel is going to these negotiations reluctantly and at Trump's request, after having previously rejected the Lebanese government's requests for negotiations.

The Israeli army has intensified its aerial attacks on wide areas in South Lebanon and Western Bekaa, resulting in the martyrdom of several individuals and injuries among civilians. The raids included the destruction of dozens of residential units and targeting municipal centers, amidst ongoing aggression that affected the towns of Qleileh, Shemaa, the outskirts of Shebaa, and Arabsalim.

In the Western Bekaa region, intense shelling focused on the town of Sahmar, where field sources reported the martyrdom of four members of one family: a mother and her three children. This direct targeting led to the complete destruction of more than ten homes, causing widespread panic and devastation in the residential area.

Local sources reported the fall of two martyrs in an airstrike that targeted the Al-Mahmoudiya area near the town of Aishiya in the Jezzine district. The town of Adloun also recorded the fall of three more martyrs due to a similar raid, while warplanes continued to sweep Lebanese airspace and carry out precise strikes on civilian targets and infrastructure.

In the town of Arabsalim, an airstrike targeted a house in the Al-Hara Al-Tahta area, leading to the martyrdom of two people and injuring a woman with varying degrees of severity. The strike leveled the house to the ground and damaged neighboring buildings, amidst attempts by residents to pull victims from under the rubble.

Regarding drone operations, an Israeli drone targeted a civilian car on the Al-Musaylih - Nabatieh road after midnight. The attack resulted in the martyrdom of two people inside, as part of the assassination and pursuit policy adopted by the occupation on vital roads connecting southern cities.

The center of the Hosh-Sour area witnessed extensive destruction affecting shops, electricity networks, and homes, following a series of violent raids that targeted the area. These attacks caused power outages in wide neighborhoods, increasing the suffering of residents trapped in those areas under the weight of continuous shelling.

Field data indicates that Israeli aviation is specifically targeting the town of Sahmar, one of the six towns recently included in forced evacuation orders. This military focus aims to impose a new security reality that isolates the town from its geographical surroundings in Western Bekaa and the South.

Through intensifying raids on Sahmar and its surroundings, Israeli forces seek to cut off supply and movement routes between it and the villages of Yahmar, Zlaya, and Qleileh. This move comes within a strategy aimed at paralyzing movement in Western Bekaa and separating villages from each other by targeting vital bridges and mountain passes.

Ambulance and civil defense teams face immense challenges in reaching targeted sites to provide assistance and evacuate the injured. This is due to the intensive flying of drones that target any movement on the roads, making rescue operations fraught with high risks and taking longer than usual.

A state of extreme tension and anxiety prevails among the residents of Western Bekaa villages, with fears of the aggression expanding to include new areas that were not within the direct target bank. These fears coincide with the continued intensive military flights that do not leave the airspace, portending a new wave of field escalation.

The intensity of the targeting in Sahmar and its surroundings practically aims to isolate the town and the villages located south of it, which hinders movement between them and the villages of Western Bekaa.

US Senator Bernie Sanders announced an upcoming legislative move aimed at freezing massive arms deals destined for the Israeli occupation army. Sanders affirmed in his statements that he would seek to force a vote in the Senate to prevent the export of bombs, military equipment, and bulldozers estimated at about $500 million, stressing that US taxpayers should not contribute to funding the current war machine.

The US Senator described Benjamin Netanyahu's government as representing an extremist current leading operations that amount to genocide in the Gaza Strip. He pointed out that continued unconditional military support is no longer acceptable in light of the crimes committed against civilians, considering that the time has come for a radical review of the security relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, which drains American resources in destructive conflicts.

These parliamentary moves come at a time when the American political scene is witnessing a sharp division between the Democratic and Republican parties over the feasibility of continuing to arm the occupation. The bill is expected to spark heated debates within the halls of Congress, as popular pressure is increasing to stop Israeli violations and adhere to international laws that prohibit the use of American weapons in war crimes.

Regarding public opinion, recent data issued by the 'Pew' Research Center revealed a tangible shift in Americans' view of the occupation state, with the percentage of those with a negative view reaching about 60 percent. The results also showed that nearly 59 percent of respondents do not trust Netanyahu's ability to make balanced international decisions, which reflects a significant decline in popular support for Israeli policies within the United States.

In a related context, Sanders did not neglect to criticize internal political behavior, as he attacked former President Donald Trump's statements against the Pope of the Vatican after the latter criticized the war. Sanders described Trump's attack as 'disturbed and selfish' behavior, criticizing attempts to employ religious symbols in political conflicts, and emphasizing the need to respect international voices calling for a halt to military escalation in the region.

This week I will force a vote on legislation aimed at preventing the sale of nearly half a billion dollars worth of bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli army.

Since ascending to the Holy See in May 2025, Pope Leo XIV of the Vatican has pursued a cautious path towards the American administration, avoiding mentioning President Donald Trump by name until last March. This break from silence came in the form of a rare appeal to end military operations against Iran, warning of the escalating hatred in the Middle East. Reports reveal a deep chill in bilateral relations, with no meeting between the two parties yet, despite repeated invitations.

Pope Leo, who made history as the first pontiff of American origin, succeeded the late Pope Francis, who passed away in April 2025. Although his election was a source of pride for many Americans, including President Trump, expectations of a rapprochement quickly faded. Subsequent positions showed a radical divergence in ethical and political views on issues of immigration and international armed conflicts.

In a move reflecting the extent of the coolness, press sources reported the Pope's refusal of an official invitation to attend the celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. Reports quoted Vatican officials confirming no intention to visit Washington as long as the current policies of the American administration continued. This stance comes despite the participation of senior American officials, such as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, in the Pope's inauguration ceremony in their capacity as Catholics.

Tensions escalated publicly after the Pentagon summoned the Vatican's representative to Washington, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, last January. This action came in response to the Pope's criticisms of the use of military force, with American officials informing the Holy See's representative that Washington had the ability to impose its will militarily. The United States Ambassador to the Vatican later attempted to downplay the incident, describing the meeting as a frank discussion about political ethics.

With the outbreak of the American-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, 2026, the confrontation entered a new phase of verbal and moral escalation. The Pope considered the recourse of leaders involved in the conflict to religious discourse to justify the war as utterly unacceptable. He emphasized in his homilies that 'God does not listen to those who make war,' a clear reference to rejecting the use of Christian symbols in armed conflicts.

On the ground, the war caused devastating human losses, including the assassination of senior Iranian leaders and the destruction of extensive infrastructure, which raised deep concern in the Vatican. The Pope expressed his profound sorrow for the killing of civilians, including Father Pierre Raad of the Lebanese town of Qleia, who died in an Israeli bombardment. These events prompted the Holy See to intensify its calls to stop the 'cycle of violence' that now threatens global stability unprecedentedly.

The Vatican strongly criticized what it described as 'power diplomacy' and the decline of international multilateralism in favor of military fervor that began to spread in various regions. The Pope warned that war had once again become 'the fashion of the age,' criticizing the undermining of state sovereignty and direct military interventions. These positions placed the Catholic Church as a moral force in direct confrontation with the military and political ambitions of the current American administration.

In contrast, the American administration was quick to respond, with the White House spokesperson describing the Pope's statements as weak, considering prayer for military personnel a noble act. This disagreement highlights the significant gap between the Vatican's vision of global peace and Washington's vision, which relies on military superiority. Observers interpreted this debate as a direct response to the US Secretary of Defense, who uses religious language associated with historical wars.

The final days of March witnessed an escalation in the Pope's tone, as he explicitly called on President Trump to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict. This call came at a time when tensions were at their peak, with Washington threatening to completely destroy Iranian civilization. The Pope considered such threats unacceptable and contrary to the most basic human and religious values advocated by the Church.

Despite the announcement of a temporary ceasefire on April 8, doubts still surround the prospects for lasting peace given the complex conditions of both parties. Sources indicate that the first round of negotiations failed after long hours of discussions due to conflicting American and Iranian demands. The exclusion of the Lebanese front from the truce further complicated the humanitarian and political landscape in the region.

Incoming reports confirm that the American administration's bet on regime change in Tehran in a short period did not materialize, leading to increased global economic pressures. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to cast a shadow over supply chains and energy supplies, putting the world before a suffocating economic crisis. In this context, the Vatican believes that military solutions have proven ineffective in achieving the desired stability.

This conflict brings to mind the legacy of the late Pope Francis, whose relationship with Trump was also strained due to immigration and climate change issues. It seems that Pope Leo XIV is following the same approach but with greater intensity imposed by the conditions of direct war. The current tension goes beyond political differences to reach the core of religious identity and how it is represented in the public sphere.

The Catholic Church continues to exert its moral pressure by calling on citizens of the concerned countries to contact their leaders to reject the option of war. The Vatican believes that solidarity with the victims in schools, hospitals, and residential areas is the primary duty under these circumstances. The Pope's calls for peace remain a cry against what he describes as the 'absurd claim' that conflicts can be resolved through armed force.

In conclusion, the world awaits what the coming days will bring amidst the fragility of the announced truce and the continued military buildup in the region. The Vatican's position remains firm in opposing the 'logic of force,' emphasizing that true peace is not built on the ruins of civilizations. With diplomatic channels remaining closed, the clash between the Holy See and the White House is poised for more chapters under an administration that places military power above all else.

God does not listen to the prayers of those who make war, and their hands are stained with blood.

Research sources in Tel Aviv reported that the current strategic vision aligns with government directives in considering the conditional ceasefire with Iran as merely a temporary de-escalation. A strategic affairs research center believes that this agreement, which came after forty days of military confrontation, does not provide real guarantees for ending the fighting or achieving a decisive victory over the Iranian project in the region.

The institute noted in its analysis that the ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, represents a diplomatic truce to alleviate humanitarian suffering, but it lacks the required sustainability. The sources confirmed that the fragility of this path raises widespread concern in security circles, as its success is linked to the extent of the American administration's insistence on enforcing the fifteen provisions put forward by Donald Trump as a framework for a solution.

The analytical reading warned that the ongoing negotiations in Islamabad would be complex and long-term, with the possibility of military operations resuming at any moment not ruled out. The institute considered that the military achievements remain incomplete unless the Iranian nuclear threat is fully neutralized and the development of cross-border ballistic missiles is halted.

Israeli sources claimed that Tehran is trying to market the agreement as a 'great victory' to cover up the extent of the losses inflicted on its infrastructure and its collapsing economy. The analysis claimed that the Iranian regime has become internationally isolated after losing a large part of its missile arsenal and its field military leaders, amidst a suffocating living crisis suffered by the population inside the country.

Despite these losses, the institute acknowledged that geography poses major challenges, as Tehran is more than 1900 kilometers away from the Israeli border, making it a global threat. The study affirmed that Israel, despite its regional power, does not possess the sole ability to overthrow the regime in Tehran, which requires high-level strategic coordination with Washington.

Based on these facts, the center recommended that the United States be entrusted with leading the negotiating process with Iran, while the Israeli army focuses on confronting direct threats on the borders. The report stressed that the highest priority should be given to dismantling Hezbollah's capabilities in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip to ensure the security of settlements in the north and south.

The institute criticized what it described as the 'arrogant' speeches of some Israeli leaders that find no way to be implemented on the ground, calling for focusing on protecting residents in the front lines. It called for increasing military pressure on Hezbollah in parallel with opening direct diplomatic channels with the Lebanese government to impose a new security reality away from the influence of militias.

The center also directed sharp criticism at the European position, describing the absence of the old continent from the confrontation with Iran as 'shameful'. It urged European countries to fully classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and support talks aimed at disarming it, considering that the stability of the Middle East is linked to ending the hegemony of Shiite militias over Lebanese decision-making.

In a related context, the institute claimed that field changes in Syria and the collapse of some Iranian military capabilities may open the door to new opportunities for normalization in the region. Analysts believe that weakening the Iranian axis will facilitate the process of integrating Israel into the regional system, especially with Gulf countries that see Tehran as a common threat to their interests.

The center concluded that Israel must adopt a flexible diplomatic policy that demonstrates the 'justice of its cause' to the international community, instead of relying entirely on military force. It stressed that changing the rules of the game requires a bold strategy that balances military deterrence with smart political action in international forums and social media platforms to enhance Israel's image.

A partial agreement that does not end the nuclear threat or stop ballistic missiles will be a bitter victory for Israel.

A state of ambiguity and sharp fluctuations dominates the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the final picture of the diplomatic path completely absent from clear expectations. Probabilities currently oscillate between reaching partial understandings or returning to open escalation, leaving the region in a state of cautious anticipation.

According to analyses published by Hebrew media sources, the current negotiation approach is extremely dangerous, as the parties employ tactics based on intense pressure and sudden withdrawal at the last minute. This pattern of crisis management keeps all international actors in a constant state of waiting, with increasing chances of the political path collapsing at any time without warning.

Sources indicated that this ambiguity forces the Israeli military establishment to remain on constant alert and at maximum readiness, given the absence of indicators that definitively determine the direction of events. Analysts believe that the Israeli army finds itself compelled to deal with an unstable reality, where it is impossible to predict whether the path will lead to an agreement or a military confrontation.

In light of these assessments, the Israeli military command has raised the level of alert in the air force and intelligence agencies, in addition to intensifying the activity of operational circles. These steps come as part of preparations for the possibility of resuming direct confrontation, especially with increasing fears of miscalculation by any party.

Security circles in Tel Aviv fear that misunderstanding or misreading diplomatic moves could lead to preemptive escalatory steps, which could ignite a wide regional crisis. Therefore, the current phase is being treated as an "undecided" phase that requires careful monitoring of every small detail behind the scenes of international talks.

In parallel with the tension on the Iranian front, the Lebanese arena emerges as an additional pressure element in the regional equation, where violent confrontations continue in the southern regions. These field operations are taking place at a time when political corridors are witnessing indirect talks aimed at containing the situation, but the complexities on the ground still dominate.

The Israeli army continues its military operations in South Lebanon, focusing on attempts to encircle specific engagement areas to impose a new reality on the ground. Military assessments indicate that the coming days will be crucial and highly sensitive, as political developments are closely linked to the balance of power emerging in the field.

On the internal Lebanese front, reports have observed an increase in the intensity of political tensions and differences in positions among various components regarding what is happening on the border. Initial indications of attempts to redraw lines of influence within the Lebanese arena are emerging, coinciding with the continued intense Israeli military pressure on southern villages and towns.

The state of "cautious waiting" that hangs over the regional scene reflects the complexity of intertwined issues, from the Iranian nuclear program to direct confrontation fronts. The final decision on war or peace remains pending, awaiting what the coming hours will bring in terms of sudden diplomatic or field movements.

Hebrew sources confirmed that the cinematic analogies applied to the negotiating reality reflect the extent of frustration at the inability to reach tangible results. The current political game relies on nerve-wracking, with each party trying to improve its terms by brandishing military force at times, and diplomatic openness at other times.

In this context, Israeli intelligence remains in a constant state of scrutinizing Iranian intentions, trying to decipher the contradictory messages emanating from Tehran. The security establishment believes that any laxity in monitoring could give adversaries an opportunity to achieve strategic gains at the expense of Israeli security, which explains the declared state of alert.

The report also touches on the fact that international pressures have so far failed to break the stalemate, but have rather complicated the calculations of decision-makers in Tel Aviv. The United States seeks to avoid comprehensive escalation, while Israel believes that Iranian procrastination serves Tehran's goals of strengthening its regional influence and developing its military capabilities.

The field in South Lebanon is still boiling, with raids and limited ground operations continuing amidst anticipation of the results of international contacts aimed at a ceasefire. Observers believe that the link between the Lebanese front and the Iranian file has become a reality that cannot be ignored in any potential future settlement.

In conclusion, it seems that the region has entered a dark tunnel of possibilities, where no scenario, however extreme, can be ruled out. All eyes remain fixed on Washington and Tehran, awaiting a signal that could end this state of uncertainty, either with an agreement that calms spirits or an explosion that reshapes the region anew.

The Israeli army is dealing with the current situation as an undecided phase, where all scenarios remain open to the possibility of the diplomatic path collapsing.