In the course of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there have been historical moments when the possibility of transitioning to a different political reality seemed closer than it does today. Among the most prominent of these moments was the period following the Oslo Accords, when the Palestinian National Authority was formed as a political and administrative framework that could gradually evolve into the nucleus for building the institutions of a Palestinian state capable of organizing society and enhancing its steadfastness. This phase was a historical opportunity to strengthen the Palestinian presence at a time when conditions were favorable, and relations with Israel were better than they are today. The rule of law and good governance could have become tools to connect society with institutions, ensuring legitimate and clear representation for the Palestinian majority.

This moment was not solely a result of Palestinian dynamics; it also stemmed from transformations within the political society in Israel, particularly the rise of what was known as the peace camp within the Israeli Labor Party, led by figures such as Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. This movement gambled on the idea that a Palestinian authority capable of managing its society within a clear institutional framework could form the basis for a long-term political settlement, providing the Israeli peace camp with a strong argument to continue with the settlement project.

The gamble was based on the idea that Palestinians, by building strong institutions and establishing the rule of law, would present a model of a society capable of unifying internal positions and regulating the public sphere. The rule of law was meant to unite society with the institution, keeping opposition within legal frameworks without deviating from the institutional path, which would prevent any individual actor or group from altering the Authority's approach to dealing with the occupation. This meant that any individual initiative, or a small field event such as a child throwing a stone, would not be able to overturn the balance of the political process or negotiations.

However, the absence of a clear central vision and decision-making, coupled with weak institutional building, made this gamble fragile. The Palestinian public sphere remained open to multiple initiatives and political centers, leading to the erosion of internal and external trust in the Authority's ability to commit to an organized negotiation process. This also contributed to the rise of more hardline right-wing currents within Israel, threatening any peace project based on institutional betting.

The experience of Oslo and the Palestinian Authority clearly shows that weak institutions not only weaken Palestinian society but also weaken the trust of the other party in the Palestinian partner, making the field more susceptible to daily fluctuations and field crises. Under occupation, specifically, solid institutional building becomes not a luxury, but a unique form of resistance. A society that possesses strong institutions and clear laws is more capable of steadfastness and organizing public life, preventing the occupation from exploiting any internal weakness, whether through political tug-of-war or scattered individual initiatives.

Even in the event of a more hardline Israeli right-wing camp rising, the existence of strong Palestinian institutions would have changed the nature of the confrontation. A society that is institutionally and socially cohesive becomes more resilient, making it difficult for any external party to bet on penetrating or dismantling it. Strong institutions give society the ability to effectively manage the public sphere, unify political decisions, and establish the rules of the political game, so that opposition remains within the framework of the law and individual initiatives are managed in a way that does not threaten institutional unity.

This experience offers a clear lesson: institutional building does not guarantee peace or settlement, but it provides society with long-term tools of strength. Strong institutions not only enhance the ability to negotiate but also provide the ability to withstand internal and external pressures, allowing Palestinians to maintain their cohesion and unity of decision, whether in the settlement phase or in the face of escalating conflict. Furthermore, effective institutions reflect an image of an organized Palestinian entity, capable of representing the entire society, which enhances the legitimacy of decisions and makes it difficult for the occupation to exploit vacuum or divisions.

In this sense, thinking about the Oslo period and the Palestinian Authority is not just about lost political opportunities, but about the internal strength that could have been achieved, and what could have made Palestinian society more resilient, more capable of facing difficult transformations, and achieving a clear institutional political presence in the face of occupation. The most prominent lesson is that societies that succeed in building solid institutions become more capable of facing transformations, whether they lead towards settlement or conflict, and institutions transform from an administrative tool into a backbone of actual resistance.

The region is witnessing an accelerating military escalation as the Israeli-American aggression against Iran enters its third week, with Washington beginning to move thousands of Marines towards the Middle East. These movements come amid a state of strategic ambiguity surrounding the ultimate goals of the ongoing military operations, with questions about the possibility of the confrontation expanding into a direct ground clash.

In this context, media sources quoted Palmer Luckey, founder of 'Anduril' defense industries, a company specializing in the production of drones and electronic systems, as saying that the United States currently lacks the 'political will' necessary to send ground forces. Luckey explained that decades of military interventions in the region have depleted popular support and logistical capacity to sustain any long-term ground campaign.

Luckey, whose company is valued at approximately $60 billion, considered that previous American 'adventures' in the Middle East have stripped the country of its ability to wage major conventional wars. He clearly indicated that he does not believe that American forces are currently capable of repeating massive military operations on the scale of 'Victory Day,' describing this inability as a strategic problem in itself.

Despite his general support for President Donald Trump's approach, Luckey noted that the Commander-in-Chief faces a new strategic reality that dictates a different kind of warfare. He stressed that the United States is not prepared to engage in a conflict similar to World War II, neither in terms of military readiness nor in terms of national consensus on war objectives.

Luckey's statements intersect with field data indicating an intensive American military buildup in the Strait of Hormuz, where leaks revealed the transfer of amphibious and marine forces from American bases in Asia. These reinforcements aim to solidify the American military presence in the region concurrently with ongoing airstrikes and military operations against Iranian targets.

On the American domestic front, opinion polls show a significant gap between military ambitions and public acceptance, with nearly three-quarters of Americans opposing any ground intervention in Iran. This public rejection reflects a state of discontent with foreign policies that have led to Washington's involvement in long, draining conflicts over the past two decades.

Sources indicate that the current American administration is trying to balance intensive military pressure with avoiding a slide into an all-out ground war whose political consequences it may not be able to bear. However, the continued flow of troops and equipment into the Strait of Hormuz suggests that all military options remain on the table despite warnings about the absence of political will.

In conclusion, observers believe that Palmer Luckey's statements reflect concern within the American military manufacturing sector about the limitations of human and political capabilities in confronting an adversary the size of Iran. The question remains about Washington's ability to manage this conflict without the need for direct ground intervention, in light of widespread public rejection and increasing geopolitical complexities.

Our adventures in the Middle East over the past two decades have stripped America of its ability to sustain a ground military campaign.

Medical sources in the Gaza Strip reported the martyrdom of 7 Palestinian citizens and the injury of 13 others during the past forty-eight hours, bringing the total number of victims of the Israeli aggression since October 2023 to 72,234 martyrs and 171,852 injured. The sources explained that this toll comes amid continued daily Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 2025, as the occupation continues its bombing and shelling operations in various areas of the Strip.

In field details, a Palestinian woman from the Abu Shawarb family was martyred by the bullets of the occupation forces in the Maghazi camp, while medical teams recorded the injury of two children in Khan Yunis city after a wall collapsed due to strong winds. Official data indicates that the number of victims of Israeli violations since the agreement came into effect has risen to 659 martyrs and 1,754 injured, reflecting the fragility of Israeli commitment to the announced calm.

Regarding search and rescue operations, specialized teams were able to recover 756 bodies from under the rubble of buildings destroyed by the Israeli war machine, since the cessation of major military operations. Hundreds of bodies are still missing under the rubble due to the lack of capabilities and heavy equipment needed to remove the debris, which adds to the tragedy of families waiting to bury their loved ones.

Humanitarianly, a strong sandstorm carrying dust and sand hit the Gaza Strip today, Saturday, exacerbating the suffering of approximately 1.9 million displaced people living in dilapidated tents that lack the minimum means of protection. The active winds caused a number of tents to tear and fly away, especially in coastal areas and on the seashore, leaving hundreds of families in the open amid dusty weather conditions that increase health risks.

For its part, the General Directorate of Civil Defense issued urgent warnings to citizens about the need to take preventive safety measures to confront the dusty air mass. The directorate urged displaced people and residents to avoid leaving shelters except for extreme necessity, while emphasizing the wearing of medical masks, especially for patients suffering from respiratory crises and chronic diseases affected by air quality.

Civil Defense teams stressed the importance of re-securing tents and tarpaulins firmly using weights and available fastening methods to avoid them being uprooted by strong winds. This storm comes at a critical time when displaced people are suffering from a severe shortage of blankets and winter clothes, making facing weather fluctuations a real challenge that threatens the lives of children and the elderly in overcrowded camps.

In a related context, the spokesperson for the Gaza municipality called on the international community and humanitarian organizations to intervene urgently to provide safe alternatives for displaced people and protect them from natural disasters and ongoing military aggressions. He pointed out that the dilapidated infrastructure in the Strip is no longer able to absorb any additional pressures, whether resulting from military operations or the harsh weather conditions affecting the region.

During the past 48 hours, the Strip's hospitals received 7 martyrs and 13 injured as a result of the ongoing Israeli aggressions.

International press reports have revealed a radical shift in the US military's war management strategies, with artificial intelligence becoming the primary driver of battlefield decision-making processes. This development was clearly evident during recent military operations in Iran, where the Pentagon was able to target over two thousand sites in just four days, a pace that far exceeds traditional human capabilities in planning and analysis.

This unprecedented pace relies on advanced AI systems that process massive streams of intelligence data derived from satellites and drones. These technologies allow for the immediate generation of bombing options, reducing the time needed to identify targets from days and hours to mere seconds or minutes. This marks the first widespread field use of generative AI models in battlefields.

Informed sources clarified that over the past two years, the US Department of Defense has extensively integrated AI-powered technologies, foremost among them the 'Maven Smart System'. Developed by 'Palantir', this system serves as a core operating platform for Pentagon data and is used alongside advanced language models like 'Claude' to analyze combat situations in real-time.

Technical experts believe that the great importance of these models lies in their transition from merely summarizing data to the stage of inference and logical step-by-step reasoning in military problems. This shift has led to a massive increase in the volume of military decisions made, giving field commanders superior maneuverability and rapid response capabilities in complex, information-dense combat environments.

Despite the technological promises of accelerating military decisive action, these technologies raise deep concerns regarding oversight and legal accountability. Debate has recently escalated over the limits of using these models after disagreements between technology companies and the Pentagon, especially concerning the risks associated with generating targets that may not undergo sufficient human review before execution.

Human rights reports highlighted the repercussions of this extreme speed, pointing to the bombing of sensitive civilian facilities such as a girls' primary school in the Iranian city of Minab. Ambiguity still surrounds the extent of AI systems' involvement in including such sites in targeting lists, and whether the error resulted from a technical malfunction or inaccurate human assessment.

Data from the Iranian Red Crescent indicates that joint operations by the United States and the occupying state resulted in damage to over 20,000 non-military buildings, including thousands of residential units. This massive scale of destruction raises urgent questions about the criteria for target selection amidst increasing reliance on algorithms that may lack human sensibility and ethical judgment.

Researcher Jessica Dorsey compared the current campaign with the previous campaign against ISIS, illustrating the vast difference in operational efficiency and speed. While the international coalition took six months to carry out two thousand strikes in Iraq and Syria, US forces achieved the same number in just four days, highlighting the extent of the transformation technology has brought to the 'kill chain'.

The 'Maven' system acts as the software brain that manages the entire kill chain, from target identification and prioritization to weapon selection and damage assessment. This chain previously relied on bureaucratic paper procedures requiring approvals from senior leadership, which significantly delayed military operations.

Sophia Goodfriend, a researcher at Cambridge University, confirms that large language models have demonstrated a superior ability to prepare massive target lists compared to human effort. This technology allows armies to operate at an unprecedented scale, making aerial targeting a continuous and comprehensive process covering vast geographical areas in record time.

According to statements from US geospatial intelligence officials, the number of 'Maven' system users exceeded 20,000 across dozens of military entities by mid-2025. Estimates indicate that this number is continuously rising, with international allies such as NATO joining to use this advanced system in their operations.

US military leaders aim to achieve an ambitious goal of making a thousand high-quality decisions in just one hour on the battlefield. This approach reflects the desire to transform war into a precise computational process, where targets are excluded or selected based on instantaneous analyses performed by machines at lightning speed.

In addition to targeting systems, AI is used in autonomous navigation and computer vision in various conflict zones, including Gaza and Ukraine. Image recognition programs help identify missile launchers and mobile military assets, solving the 'bottleneck' problem soldiers faced when manually reviewing drone footage.

Dorsey concludes her questions about the extent to which actual human control can be exercised over systems that perform millions of calculations per second. The biggest challenge for international law remains how to track these decisions and hold those responsible accountable in the event of violations, especially when 'human judgment' becomes a mere formality in the face of machine speed.

Artificial intelligence has allowed for a qualitative leap in the volume of decisions and the speed with which military personnel can make those decisions during complex operations.

Political and military circles in Israel are witnessing a remarkable shift in rhetoric regarding Hezbollah's military capabilities, following a series of qualitative attacks recently carried out by the party. Field sources reported that this development has reopened the debate within the security establishment about the accuracy of previous assessments that indicated a decline in the party's combat power.

Official Israeli assessments since the 2024 war had promoted the idea that 'Radwan Forces,' which represent the elite unit of the party, had suffered devastating blows that rendered them ineffective. These reports claimed that previous military operations, particularly what was known as the 'Pager Operation,' had led to significant paralysis in the party's command and control system.

Israeli optimism peaked with the start of the current confrontations, as officials in Tel Aviv considered the party incapable of launching large-scale attacks. This conviction was based on the nature of the initial responses, which Israel deemed limited, reinforcing the impression that the party's military arsenal had been significantly depleted.

However, these convictions began to fade after Hezbollah carried out an operation named 'Eaten Storm' last week. This operation was characterized by high coordination and simultaneous attacks launched from multiple axes, targeting wide areas in the occupied Galilee region, causing a shock in Israeli military circles.

Press sources reported that recent intelligence reports showed an unexpected surprise for the security establishment, represented by the party's ability to redeploy units of the 'Radwan Regiments' in areas south of the Litani River. This information contradicts the official narrative that claimed the army's success in clearing border areas and destroying military infrastructure there.

In a related context, international media reports revealed a new Israeli approach aimed at expanding the scope of military operations deep into Lebanese territory. Sources quoted officials in Washington and Tel Aviv as saying that there is a serious study to extend the ground operation to the Litani River, under the pretext of eliminating the party's military presence there.

Data indicates that the occupation may adopt a 'scorched earth' strategy in southern Lebanon, similar to what it used in the Gaza Strip in recent months. This approach aims at comprehensive destruction of residential areas and infrastructure to ensure that military manifestations do not return to the border region, amidst warnings of catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

Domestically, criticism of the government and the army intensified from Israeli analysts and journalists who questioned the credibility of official statements. They considered that exaggerating Hezbollah's weakness was intended for domestic consumption, but the reality on the ground proved the existence of significant intelligence gaps.

On the ground, the occupation army continues its widespread aggression on Lebanese territories since the beginning of March, causing severe human and material losses. According to official statistics, hundreds of martyrs have fallen, including a large percentage of children and women, due to intensive air raids that targeted the southern suburbs, the Beqaa, and the South.

These developments coincide with a broader regional escalation that began in late February, where international powers engaged in direct confrontations. Hezbollah's response came by targeting sensitive military sites, confirming the continuation of the deterrence equation despite the fragile ceasefires that were discussed in previous periods.

Amidst the continued limited ground incursion that began on March 3, border villages are witnessing fierce clashes at point-blank range between party fighters and occupation forces. Sources confirm that the Lebanese resistance is showing great steadfastness in the face of advance attempts, which further complicates Israeli calculations for the next phase.

New field data came as a surprise to the security establishment, which had affirmed its success in keeping elite forces away from the borders.

The past few hours have witnessed a significant escalation on the ground following official Iranian sources announcing the launch of successive waves of missiles towards Israeli targets. These barrages come as part of what Tehran described as a continuous response to attacks on its territory, confirming that the operation falls under the name 'True Promise 4', directly targeting the Israeli interior.

Inside Israel, medical sources confirmed that seven people were transferred to hospitals in the coastal city of Eilat for treatment due to the impact of Iranian missiles. Field reports indicated that one of these injuries was described as serious, while a state of panic prevailed among settlers following the sound of violent explosions that shook the southern city.

The state of alert extended to include the occupied city of Jerusalem, where sirens blared throughout the city and its surrounding areas, prompting residents to seek shelter. Local sources reported hearing massive explosions in the city's sky resulting from attempts to intercept incoming missiles, while shrapnel fell in various areas.

In the greater Tel Aviv area, media outlets reported a missile falling in an open area, causing traffic disruption and halting movement in some facilities. Several sites in central Israel were also damaged by the latest missile barrage, with material damage recorded to infrastructure and buildings near the impact sites.

Regarding the reasons for the change in bombing tactics, informed sources explained that the reduced number of missiles launched in this phase does not mean a decline in capabilities, but rather is the result of a specific military strategy. The first phase of the attacks focused on neutralizing and destroying radars and air defense systems belonging to American and Israeli bases in the region.

This prior neutralization of air defenses made it easier and more effective for missiles to reach their targets than before, reducing the need to launch hundreds of missiles at once to overwhelm the systems. Military leaders believe that a limited number of missiles is now sufficient to achieve direct hits after the decline in interception efficiency on the other side.

In terms of technological development, Iranian forces have begun using the third and fourth generations of their ballistic missiles, which are models characterized by high accuracy and double destructive power. These missiles rely on modern guidance technologies that make them difficult to detect or shoot down before reaching their designated ground zero.

The greatest danger lies in the cluster warheads carried by these missiles, where a single warhead weighs more than a ton of explosives. As the missile approaches its target, the main warhead explodes, fragmenting into more than 80 smaller missiles, ensuring a wide area of destruction and complicating the tasks of rescue and firefighting teams.

In the Western Galilee region, sirens continued to operate for long periods in anticipation of missiles or suicide drones that might enter the airspace from different fronts. The field situation remains prone to further escalation amid the continued Iranian missile barrages and the occupation's vow to respond to these unprecedented attacks.

Iran has started using third and fourth-generation missiles, which are more advanced and accurate and possess cluster warheads that fragment upon reaching the target.

The aggressive war launched by US President Donald Trump against Iran has entered its third week, amidst what can be described as an 'American predicament.' The White House faces an impasse in achieving its strategic goal of overthrowing the Islamic Republic regime and transforming the country into a تابع (follower) orbiting in the American and Zionist spheres.

Observers believe that from the very first moment, Trump sought to replicate the Venezuelan scenario in Tehran, coveting control over Iranian resources and neutralizing the largest strongholds of resistance in the region. However, this plan encountered unexpected obstacles due to the cohesion of the Iranian internal front, despite the intensity of the American firepower used.

This war has created a kind of Arab and Islamic consensus rejecting the aggression, not necessarily out of love for the Iranian regime, but out of fear of the repercussions of upsetting the balance of power in favor of the Zionist project. Regional countries realize that Trump's success in his endeavor would threaten the political and existential map of all neighboring countries without exception.

Despite the martyrdom of Imam Ali Khamenei in the first week of the confrontation, Iran demonstrated strategic steadfastness that surprised Western intelligence circles. Tehran absorbed the initial military shock and quickly moved to a phase of organized response at political, military, and popular levels.

Iranian cities witnessed millions of citizens taking to the streets in massive demonstrations, confirming popular support for the new leadership. This popular movement sent a clear message to Trump that the war would not be a short stroll, but a long-term, systematic, and popular confrontation that would not accept surrender.

At the beginning of the third week, Imam Mojtaba Khamenei assumed leadership, and Iran began to impose counter-conditions that mediators conveyed to the American side. The new leadership insists that any understanding for a ceasefire must be comprehensive for the entire region, rejecting any partial solutions related to Iran's internal affairs alone.

Military operations in the second week evolved to take on a coordinated regional character, manifested in the night of joint shelling between the Revolutionary Guard and Lebanese Hezbollah. This direct field coordination disrupted American and Zionist calculations and proved that the resistance front operates according to a unified operations room.

The escalation was not limited to the Lebanese front but extended to include the effective and influential entry of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces into the confrontation. This expansion of the conflict area confirmed the failure of the strategy to isolate Iran and turned the war into a widespread attrition that threatens American interests in several countries.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is betting on American technological and air power to decide the battle, but field realities have proven the limitations of this bet. Despite overwhelming technical superiority, missiles and aircraft have not succeeded in breaking the will of the fighters in the Revolutionary Guard, Basij, and the Iranian army.

Trump is currently experiencing a state of despair regarding the possibility of achieving a quick victory or bringing about a radical change in the structure of the Iranian political system. The steadfastness shown by Tehran in the first and second weeks has presented the American administration with choices, the least bitter of which is still harsh, amidst increasing international pressure to de-escalate.

The military buildup assembled by Trump, the largest since the end of World War II, has not succeeded in extracting an unconditional Iranian surrender. On the contrary, Washington is now seeking diplomatic exits to save face before its allies and adversaries alike.

The current experience has proven that absolute air superiority does not necessarily mean winning the war on the ground, especially against peoples willing to sacrifice. The millions of masses who filled the squares formed a political shield that cannot be penetrated by smart missiles or concussion bombs.

World capitals are awaiting what the coming days of the third week will bring, in light of the hardening Iranian stance and the expansion of the engagement circle. It appears that the American bet on 'shock and awe' has eroded against the reality of 'war of attrition' mastered by regional forces allied with Tehran.

In conclusion, 'Trump's predicament' remains the title of the current phase, as he finds himself stuck in a war with no clear end in sight. While Washington was expecting a phone call requesting surrender, it is now receiving harsh conditions to restore calm to the inflamed region.

It has been proven that control of the air, no matter how great the initial shock, does not win a war against a composed leadership and millions of people.

The relationship between the US administration and the media has seen a new escalation, as the Pentagon and the White House directed harsh criticism at 'CNN' over its coverage of the war with Iran. This attack comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing intense military operations, reflecting the depth of the gap between official discourse and independent journalistic reports.

During a press conference held on Friday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth dedicated part of his speech to attacking the news network, focusing on a report that addressed Tehran's military capabilities. Hegseth considered what the network published about the possibility of Washington underestimating Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz to be completely lacking in credibility.

The US Secretary described the report as 'clearly absurd,' demanding the emergence of what he called 'true national journalism' that aligns with national interests in times of conflict. Hegseth did not stop at criticizing the content but also touched upon the administrative aspects of the network, expressing his hope for its ownership and management to transfer to new parties as soon as possible.

In his statements, Hegseth referred to David Ellison, head of 'Paramount Skydance,' as a prospective replacement to lead the network, considering his assumption of the position a positive step. These statements come as Ellison's company prepares to complete a massive acquisition deal for 'Warner Bros. Discovery,' the owner of the news network.

This shift in ownership is linked to political balances, as Larry Ellison, David's father and founder of 'Oracle,' is one of the primary funders of the deal and a prominent supporter of President Trump. Despite these ties, David Ellison had previously pledged to maintain the editorial independence of the network and not subject it to political pressures.

For its part, the White House entered the fray through its spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, who used the 'X' platform to describe the network's report as '100% fake.' Leavitt confirmed that military plans to confront any threat in the Strait of Hormuz have been in place and ready for implementation for decades, and are an integral part of the current strategy.

The spokesperson clarified that scenarios for dealing with the closure of maritime passages were included in the Trump administration's plans even before the launch of the large-scale military operation known as 'Raging Fury.' She stressed that questioning American readiness is not based on factual evidence but aims to stir unwarranted concern.

In contrast, 'CNN' management was quick to respond to these accusations, with its CEO Mark Thompson issuing a statement defending the integrity of the network's journalistic work. Thompson affirmed that the primary goal always remains to convey the truth to viewers, regardless of the nature of the pressures that the executive authority may exert.

Thompson concluded his statement by noting that political leaders usually resort to questioning the credibility of the press when it raises fundamental questions about their fateful decisions. He stressed that threats and insults will not deter the network from performing its professional duty of monitoring power and providing accurate information to the global public.

Any political threat or insult will not change our commitment to telling the truth to viewers in the United States and around the world.

American writer and analyst David Ignatius believes that the question of how the escalating conflict in the Middle East will end may not find a satisfactory answer in the foreseeable future, especially concerning Iran. In an article published by the "Washington Post," he suggested that the conflict might see a temporary de-escalation, including a ceasefire and the resumption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but this would not end the root causes of the confrontation.

Ignatius pointed out that Iran's military power has suffered devastating blows, destroying most of its nuclear facilities, missile arsenal, and naval fleet, in addition to the elimination of several senior leaders. However, the writer believes that the Iranian regime remains standing and resilient, as deceased leaders have been replaced by others without any signs of an internal popular uprising to overthrow the authority.

The article predicted that US President Donald Trump would declare victory as usual, likening this announcement to tactical Israeli victories that failed to definitively eliminate adversaries in Gaza or Lebanon. He explained that superiority in firepower does not necessarily mean achieving political stability, citing previous American experiences in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Ignatius warned that the United States might find itself caught in a cycle of "mowing the lawn," a term used by the Israeli occupation to describe repeated military operations that do not resolve the conflict. He emphasized that history proves that strategic bombing designed to break the will of peoples often leads to counterproductive results and increases adherence to national identity and resistance.

In his reading of the future of Iranian leadership, the writer indicated that the next phase might witness a shift towards a "second version" of the Islamic Republic, with the Revolutionary Guard controlling the levers of the state. He noted that the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as his father's successor might fuel a desire for revenge, especially since he lost family members during the current war.

On the diplomatic front, Ignatius did not rule out the emergence of pragmatic figures within the Iranian regime attempting to find channels of communication with the Trump administration to alleviate pressure. However, he cautioned that this path might not meet the aspirations of popular forces who hoped for a radical change in the regime, which intelligence experts currently see as difficult to achieve.

The article quoted Gulf sources and Iranian officials confirming that Tehran's will to fight has not yet been broken, and that the regime is banking on the factor of time and the West's weaknesses. He explained that Iranians are closely monitoring American public opinion polls that show declining support for the war, which strengthens their position to continue the confrontation until their status is recognized.

The writer touched upon regional risks, indicating that Gulf countries, especially the UAE, might be forced to strengthen their independent defenses or open direct diplomatic channels with Tehran. He considered that complete reliance on the American umbrella might become costly and unreliable under Trump's policies, which tend to burden allies with financial protection costs.

Ignatius also warned of the possibility of a return of armed operations linked to Iranian networks abroad, describing this scenario as potentially more deadly than previous experiences in the Middle East. He stressed that the absence of a comprehensive political solution would make any military victory merely a temporary truce preceding a new round of violence.

The article criticized some statements made by officials in the Trump administration, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which focus on striking Iran at its moment of weakness without considering the long-term effects. He pointed out that targeting cultural sites or civilian infrastructure could generate lasting popular anger that would be difficult to contain in the future.

Ignatius believes that the war has fundamentally changed the geopolitical reality, making a return to the pre-confrontation era impossible. He explained that the United States would have to remain on constant alert in the Gulf to ensure freedom of navigation, which contradicts Trump's desire to reduce foreign military commitments.

In concluding his analysis, the writer cited Kermit Roosevelt's memoirs about the 1953 coup, emphasizing that any real change in Iran must come from within and by the will of the people and the army. He called on the US administration to consider how to support the Iranian people instead of relying solely on military force, which has proven its limitations in achieving a decisive political victory.

Informed sources confirmed that concern prevails in decision-making circles regarding the economic consequences of continued tension in the Strait of Hormuz, despite overwhelming military superiority. Questions remain about Washington's ability to translate its field achievements into a sustainable peace agreement that guarantees regional security and definitively ends Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The regional scene remains open to all possibilities, as American electoral calculations intertwine with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's ambitions for survival. While Trump declares victory, on-the-ground data indicates that the confrontation has entered a new chapter of attrition warfare that could extend for many years.

If there is one lesson to be learned, it is that military success does not usually translate into political victory, as the adversary returns again and again.

The Israeli occupation army renewed its military threats against Beirut's southern suburb, issuing urgent evacuation warnings affecting seven densely populated residential neighborhoods. These threats included Haret Hreik, Ghobeiry, Laylaki, Hadath, as well as Burj al-Barajneh, Touwita al-Ghadir, and Chiyah, causing a state of panic among civilians.

An Israeli occupation army spokesperson claimed that these measures were a result of military activities carried out by Hezbollah in those areas, asserting that the army was forced to act forcefully against them. The Israeli statement demanded residents to immediately leave their homes and move to safe distances, prohibiting their return until new instructions are issued.

These field developments further complicate the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, as the number of displaced people is escalating beyond local absorption capacity. Lebanese authorities face immense challenges in securing shelter for thousands of families who have fled continuous shelling and threats in the suburb and the south.

In response to this crisis, field sources reported that the Lebanese government has begun preparing and opening approximately 100 additional shelters in various areas. This step aims to provide quick alternatives for families who found themselves homeless due to the expansion of Israeli targeting.

Government agencies are striving to clear public squares and main streets in Beirut and its suburbs of displaced persons' gatherings that have begun to impede traffic. This task is a primary concern for authorities attempting to maintain the flow of vital roads despite suffocating congestion and difficult security conditions.

On the relief front, informed sources described the volume of international aid reaching Lebanon as still very scarce and not meeting the minimum needs. Despite the arrival of some shipments from France, the European Union, and Jordan, the gap between available resources and increasing needs remains wide.

The Lebanese government is awaiting the arrival of additional aid promised by countries such as Qatar and Belgium, in an attempt to alleviate pressure on the health and shelter sectors. Observers believe that the international community's preoccupation with other regional issues may have contributed to the decline of the Lebanese crisis on the international priority scale.

The Lebanese government had launched an urgent appeal to the international community, demanding immediate financial support to confront the repercussions of the ongoing aggression. This appeal came during high-level meetings in which the Lebanese state affirmed its inability to face the catastrophe alone amidst the existing economic collapse.

For his part, UN Secretary-General António Guterres affirmed that Lebanon urgently needs about $350 million in emergency funding to address the displacement crisis. Guterres clarified that these amounts are allocated to secure urgent medical supplies for hospitals and to provide shelters equipped with the minimum necessities of life.

Medical needs are primarily concentrated in southern Lebanon and the southern suburb, where health facilities suffer from immense pressure and a shortage of staff and equipment. Human suffering continues to worsen as public roads turn into temporary shelters for families who could not find a place in overcrowded shelters.

Hezbollah's activities force the Israeli army to act against it with force, and residents must evacuate the areas immediately for their safety.

The cart of the street vendor 'Abu Shaheen' roams the streets of Nablus city, north of the West Bank, laden with seasonal vegetables, but his voice, which passersby were accustomed to hearing, did not receive the usual echo this year. Despite the last ten days of Ramadan and the approaching Eid al-Fitr, commercial activity appears subdued and burdened by the worries of war and regional tensions that have cast a shadow over Palestinian consumer behavior.

Abu Shaheen describes the state of the markets as 'miserable,' indicating that the fear of the unknown has led many to drastically reduce their spending and settle for minimal purchases. The vendor believes that citizens now prefer to hold onto cash instead of shopping, in anticipation of any security or economic developments that may arise amid the ongoing escalation in the region.

For her part, government employee Mona Al-Aghbar expresses the compounded pressures facing Palestinian families, as the Eid season coincided with a suffocating salary crisis and escalating political tension. She explained that the irregular disbursement of financial dues forced her to reorder her priorities, limiting purchases to necessities only to ensure Eid clothes for her three children.

Nablus city, a vital economic center, faces a strict military siege imposed by the Israeli occupation on its main entrances, isolating it from surrounding villages and towns. This field closure has led to the absence of 'external purchasing power' that the city's markets primarily depend on, especially shoppers from rural areas and from within Palestine.

Traders in the city confirmed that the closure of checkpoints, such as the Beit Furik checkpoint, for several consecutive days caused a complete paralysis in some commercial sectors. They believe that the continued restriction on movement is the biggest obstacle to any attempt to revive the market, especially during seasons that are supposed to witness annual sales peaks.

Economic estimates indicate that the Palestinian market has lost about $9 billion since the start of the war in October 2023, due to the disruption of workers prevented from reaching their workplaces. This financial bleeding has led to a tangible decrease in general purchasing power, causing the head of the household to direct their limited spending towards food supplies and fuel only.

In the clothing and retail sector, trader Ayman Al-Masry speaks of goods piling up in warehouses due to citizens' reluctance to buy non-essential items. Al-Masry explained that traders are living in a state of uncertainty, as their capital is frozen in seasonal goods that may not find buyers, threatening their ability to meet their financial obligations to suppliers.

Al-Masry adds that consumer patterns have shifted radically towards household storage of food items and gas, fearing supply disruptions or complete closure of crossings. This shift has created a significant gap in the market, where luxury sectors suffer from a severe recession, while essential goods sectors face significant pressure that could lead to shortages in some items.

Yassin Dweikat, spokesperson for the Nablus Chamber of Commerce, explained that the city witnessed slight signs of recovery before Ramadan, but these quickly dissipated with the escalation of regional tensions. He pointed out that the absence of shoppers from within the occupied territories, who represent a significant commercial pillar, contributed to deepening the financial crisis plaguing shops.

Dweikat noted that accumulated financial crises, primarily the occupation's withholding of Palestinian clearance funds, estimated at $255 million monthly, have caused a liquidity shortage. This reality has placed traders under dual pressure, as they face the costs of accumulated inventory amid a complete absence of the usual purchasing activity at such times.

In an attempt to stir the stagnant waters, many traders resorted to offering huge discounts and sales on clothes, shoes, and sweets. Through these steps, they aim to collect any amount of cash liquidity to cover their operating expenses, despite realizing that the fear dominating consumers is stronger than any price temptations.

Regarding food security, official sources in the Ministry of Economy confirmed that the strategic stock of essential goods such as flour, oil, and sugar is sufficient for six months. However, Dweikat warned that uncalculated hoarding could create artificial crises in the markets, urging citizens to buy only according to actual need.

Economic circles are anxiously monitoring the repercussions of tension in international waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, and its impact on global commodity prices. Experts believe that any increase in shipping costs or global energy prices will inevitably reflect on the Palestinian market, already burdened by crises, which could lead to a new wave of unaffordable price hikes for consumers.

The scene in the West Bank markets remains suspended between traders' hopes for an imminent breakthrough and a field and political reality that is becoming increasingly complex. While families prepare to celebrate Eid with minimal means, shops remain full of goods and empty of customers, a picture that summarizes the depth of the economic crisis left by the war and siege.

People became fearful and tightened their belts; they refrain from buying and prefer to hold onto cash in anticipation of any emergency.

The current international scene appears to be closer to a moment of profound historical transformation, as the ongoing war in the Middle East and the escalating tension between Israel, America, and Iran point to a widespread political and strategic predicament. These events are no longer to be read solely within the framework of traditional military power balances, but in the context of the erosion of the political and moral prestige of the powers that have dominated the international system since the end of World War II.

In the Israeli case, it has become clear that the war aimed at restoring its eroded deterrence image in the Gaza Strip has led to completely counterproductive results. Israel has become entangled in a spiral of military and political crises that exposed the fragility of the 'absolute superiority' idea, and placed its conduct under the microscope of global moral scrutiny for the first time in many decades.

The humanitarian tragedy in Gaza is no longer just a fleeting news item; it has become a fundamental pillar in a broad international discussion about the limits of military power in imposing political realities. This Israeli predicament is organically linked to the American predicament, as Washington finds itself drifting behind short-sighted policies that lack a coherent strategic vision, especially in managing the conflict with Tehran.

The policies of successive US administrations, particularly the impulsiveness of the Donald Trump era, have contributed to pushing the region to the brink of confrontation without offering a clear vision for the ultimate outcomes. The world's greatest power seemed to be acting on a reactive logic rather than a leadership logic, leading to the erosion of the 'moral prestige' that Washington claimed to protect through slogans of human rights and international law.

This erosion of prestige is not merely a propaganda issue; it is a fundamental element in the stability of states, as Ibn Khaldun explained in his theory on the rise and fall of states. A state reaches the peak of its power when authority is balanced with justice, but when power transforms into a tool for mere domination and loses its ability to achieve justice, it inevitably enters a phase of gradual weakness and decline.

Moving to the Iranian role, we find that Tehran exploited the strategic vacuum left by the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to expand its regional influence unprecedentedly. However, this expansion, which included Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, carried within it the seeds of a long-term crisis, as it was associated with militia networks and internal conflicts rather than stability and development projects.

Today, Iran faces a complex equation: widespread geographical influence fraught with enormous political, economic, and security burdens, embodying the concept of 'imperial overstretch' coined by historian Paul Kennedy. This concept describes the situation in which a state exceeds its economic and political capabilities in managing its external influence, ultimately leading to the depletion of its core resources.

History will record that the Gaza Strip was the first to break the prestige of the Israeli occupation, not only through its steadfastness in the face of the longest war of extermination but also through its legendary resilience on the ground and its rejection of displacement plans. Gaza exposed the entity's image as a brutal occupying power and redefined the conflict in the global consciousness as a matter of human justice against a military killing machine.

In contrast, Iran emerges as the first developing country to dare to confront the United States face-to-face, benefiting from the strategic mistakes of the major powers. This confrontation is no longer just a limited regional conflict; it has become a reflection of a broader battle for prestige and legitimacy in an international system undergoing a difficult birth and radical shifts in the balance of power.

While these international balances are changing, the official Arab system appears to be in a state of helplessness and stagnation, unable to formulate a unified position or influence the tumultuous transformations. The current Arab division makes the region captive to the policies of regional and international powers, as if the official Arab decision has become out of sync with the historical time in which other nations are moving.

The voice of the victims always remains more eloquent than political statements. The tragedy of the Syrian child in the Mediterranean waters and the faces of Gaza's children facing hunger and bombardment are living testimonies to the failure of the international system. These moral transgressions and the blood shed without cause are recorded in the annals of history and will not pass without a price paid by each party according to its role and responsibility.

The painful lesson offered by current events is that power without justice, and authority without mercy, quickly pave the way for total collapse. Empires, no matter how great, remain hostage to their moral system and their relationship with humanity, and history does not forgive those who betrayed justice or invested in the suffering of peoples for fleeting political gains.

The historical reckoning is inevitably coming for everyone who contributed to undermining the values of human dignity, as reality proves that the erosion of legitimacy is the actual prelude to the fall of great powers. What is happening in Gaza and the region today is not just another round of conflict; it is a rewriting of the rules of moral and political engagement that will govern the world in the coming decades.

Ultimately, the human being clinging to their right remains the true driver of history, while powers that rely on mere oppression fade away. The steadfastness of the oppressed in the face of advanced war machines sends a clear message that the era of absolute domination has passed, and a new dawn of power balance has begun to form from amidst the rubble and destruction.

Great powers do not suddenly fall due to a single military defeat; their decline usually begins with the erosion of their political and moral legitimacy in the eyes of others.

The severity of the humanitarian suffering in the Gaza Strip escalated today, Saturday, as the blood of martyrs mingled with the dust of sandstorms that swept through the tents of displaced persons. Medical and field sources reported the martyrdom of a Palestinian woman by Israeli occupation army bullets in Al-Maghazi camp, coinciding with the injury of two children with varying degrees of wounds due to the collapse of a wall in Khan Yunis city as a result of the strong winds hitting the area.

In details of the field attacks, sources stated that occupation vehicles stationed in the eastern areas of Al-Maghazi camp fired live bullets directly at the woman from the Abu Shawarb family, leading to her immediate death. This incident comes in the context of a series of ongoing violations of the fragile ceasefire agreement that came into effect last October.

Official statistics issued by the Ministry of Health in Gaza revealed that hospitals received seven martyrs and 13 injured during the past forty-eight hours. With this new toll, the number of victims of Israeli violations since the start of the truce has risen to 659 martyrs and more than 1700 injured, raising questions about the seriousness of adherence to the concluded agreements.

Regarding the total toll of the aggression since October 2023, the ministry confirmed that the number of officially registered martyrs reached 72,234 martyrs, while the number of injured exceeded 171,000. Medical teams indicated that search operations under the rubble are still ongoing, with 756 bodies recovered since the cessation of major military operations.

Away from the bullets, displaced persons in the Strip faced a harsh climatic challenge with a dense sandstorm that covered the sky with a dark orange color. This storm led to an almost complete lack of horizontal visibility, and caused dust and sand to infiltrate the dilapidated tents housing hundreds of thousands of families in open displacement areas.

Residents in various shelter areas tried to secure their tents using ropes and heavy stones for fear of them being uprooted by strong winds. Thousands of families, including children, the sick, and the wounded, live in conditions lacking the minimum elements of protection from weather fluctuations, which exacerbated the deterioration of the health condition of those suffering from respiratory diseases.

For his part, the spokesman for the Gaza Municipality, Husni Muhanna, stated that the sandstorm caused severe damage to residents' property and tents, especially in shelter centers located along the coast. Muhanna explained that the continuation of these weather conditions in the absence of infrastructure puts the lives of thousands at stake, calling for immediate international intervention to provide alternative housing.

Muhanna issued an urgent appeal to the international community and relief organizations to pressure for the entry of humanitarian aid and mobile homes (caravans). He stressed that temporary solutions in the form of canvas tents are no longer effective in the face of successive low-pressure systems and sandstorms that repeatedly hit the afflicted Strip.

In the context of preventive measures, the General Directorate of Civil Defense in Gaza issued a set of recommendations to residents to deal with the dust wave. The directorate called on citizens to avoid leaving their tents except for extreme necessity, emphasizing wearing masks or using wet cloth to cover the nose to avoid suffocation.

UN and local estimates indicate that about 1.9 million Palestinians are now forcibly displaced within the Gaza Strip out of 2.4 million people. These suffer from the loss of permanent shelter after the destruction of vast areas of residential neighborhoods, making them vulnerable to direct targeting or death due to harsh environmental and health conditions.

Despite the relative calm that the ceasefire agreement is supposed to provide, the field reality indicates the continuation of Israeli hostile operations. These violations vary between intermittent artillery shelling and firing at farmers and displaced persons, making a return to normal life a distant prospect in light of the ongoing siege.

Harsher weather conditions exacerbate the suffering of thousands of families living in tents that lack minimal protection, amidst ongoing difficult humanitarian conditions.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sparked a wide wave of controversy in political and international circles following his statements that directly linked US military operations against Iran with a religious ideological discourse. Hegseth affirmed in media interviews that the US armed forces do not fight solely with their technical capabilities, but are supported by 'God's providence,' warning that questioning Washington's resolve is a strategic mistake made by adversaries.

Observers believe that this type of discourse reinforces the prevailing impression in the Islamic world that the United States is waging a 'religious war' under political and military cover. During his recent appearance, the Secretary emphasized the superiority of the American fighter not only in equipment but also in will and spiritual connection, considering the current confrontation a struggle against 'extremists' seeking to fulfill destructive religious prophecies.

Hegseth did not limit himself to verbal statements but brought this religious spirit into the halls of the Pentagon, where he quoted verses from 'Psalms' during official ceremonies for the repatriation of soldiers' remains. The Secretary spoke of the Lord as 'the rock' who trains the hands of soldiers for battle and their fingers for war, reflecting a deep overlap between his personal beliefs and his official duties as the leader of the world's most powerful army.

Hegseth's vision is based on a firm conviction that the United States is a Christian nation in its essence and historical formation, which he seeks to preserve and enshrine within the military institution. The Secretary believes that the 'arsenal of faith' is no less important than the 'arsenal of liberty,' calling for the restoration of the religious identity that he believes has been marginalized in favor of secular language in recent decades.

The symbols chosen by the Secretary show the depth of his influence by the history of the Crusades, as he bears tattoos of the 'Jerusalem Cross' and Latin phrases that were the motto of European fighters in the Middle Ages. These symbols, according to analyses by international media sources, are not mere adornment but express the 'God wills it' philosophy he adopts in confronting what he describes as existential threats.

In his book 'American Crusade,' Hegseth goes further, describing the current phase as a 'crusading moment' that requires a Christian mobilization similar to what happened a thousand years ago. The book warns of the danger of 'Islamists' who seek to reshape societies, emphasizing the necessity of military, cultural, and geographical confrontation to push back this tide.

The Secretary adopts a hardline stance on the concept of 'Islam as a religion of peace,' considering it an 'illusion' that hinders the American mission to protect its values and interests. He claims in his writings that Islam has been in a perpetual state of war with those he describes as 'infidels' since its inception, a confrontational view that raises fears of transforming political conflicts into ideological wars that do not accept compromises.

In terms of foreign policy, Hegseth's absolute support for the Israeli occupation stands out as part of his 'Christian Zionist' doctrine. He sees Israel's strength and existential defense as part of biblical prophecies, considering the alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv a religious and moral alliance that transcends traditional geopolitical interests.

Within the Department of Defense, the Secretary launched initiatives aimed at strengthening the role of military chaplains and amending their guidance manuals to include more explicit religious language. He also began organizing monthly prayers at the Pentagon and hosting religious figures who advocate for 'Christian Nationalism,' raising concerns among organizations defending religious freedoms within the military.

Military human rights sources reported receiving numerous complaints about the transformation of discourse within combat units into language associated with 'the end times.' Experts warn that this trend provides rich propaganda material for extremist groups in the Islamic world, portraying the conflict as a new crusade directly targeting Muslim countries.

Academic research indicates that Hegseth's ideas represent a blend of 'Christian Nationalism' and 'American Exceptionalism,' a vision that arranges the world in a hierarchy placing Christians at the top. This thinking makes the conflict with countries like Iran a battle of values and beliefs, not merely a dispute over regional influence or the nuclear program.

Despite the criticism, Hegseth appears to enjoy support from a broad popular base that believes the United States must return to its religious roots to confront global challenges. These supporters believe that 'tolerance' in the Secretary's view may mean 'surrender,' which he completely rejects in the context of his management of defense and national security files.

The Secretary's attempts to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with his calls for military confrontation reflect the nature of the current phase of the US administration. He believes that the commandments of 'turning the other cheek' do not apply to a Secretary of Defense tasked with protecting a nation in conflict, thereby legitimizing the use of excessive force under religious cover.

In conclusion, Pete Hegseth represents a new model of American leadership that does not hide its ideological agenda, putting US relations with the Islamic world to a real test. As the military and political war continues, the question remains about the extent of the impact of this 'crusading' vision on regional stability and the future of international alliances.

America was founded as a Christian nation, and it remains a Christian nation in its DNA, and we are not only warriors armed with the arsenal of liberty, but we are also armed with the arsenal of faith.

Washington – Said Arikkat – 3/14/2026

News Analysis

Speculation has been mounting in recent weeks about the possibility of Israel launching a large-scale ground invasion into Lebanese territory, a move that could represent the most dangerous expansion of the ongoing war in the region since the confrontation with Iran erupted in late February. American and Israeli media reports indicate accelerated military preparations on Israel's northern border, while diplomatic warnings are increasing that any major ground operation could push the region into a new phase of escalation that would be difficult to contain politically or militarily, especially given the currently very high tensions between Tehran and Washington and their allies in the Middle East.

According to what the American news website Axios reported on Saturday, citing Israeli and American officials, the plan being discussed by Tel Aviv involves expanding ground operations with the aim of controlling areas south of the Litani River and pushing Hezbollah fighters north away from the Israeli border, in addition to destroying the party's military infrastructure in southern villages. An Israeli official says that the government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, had been inclined to contain the confrontation to focus on the Iranian front, but the launch of more than two hundred rockets from Lebanon changed calculations and pushed the military leadership to consider the option of a potential large-scale ground invasion.

Field reports indicate that since the war with Iran erupted, the Israeli occupation army has maintained large armored units and infantry forces near the Lebanese border and has carried out limited incursions into some border villages in recent weeks. On Friday, the occupation army announced the dispatch of additional reinforcements and the call-up of reserve forces in preparation for a wider operation. Officials say the immediate goal is to control the land and dismantle Hezbollah's positions and weapons depots, but observers warn that such an operation could quickly turn into a long war of attrition within the densely populated southern villages and towns.

In contrast, Hezbollah affirms its readiness to confront any potential ground invasion. Leader Naim Qassem said that Israeli threats do not intimidate the party but could turn into a military trap for the attacking forces. This stance is based on the experience of the long conflict with Israel, where the party previously managed to force the Israeli army to withdraw from southern Lebanon after years of fighting, and also engaged in a fierce confrontation in the 2006 war, which leads its leaders to believe that any new ground incursion will face violent and prolonged resistance within the party's local environment there.

Humanitarianly, the cost appears set to rise rapidly. The Israeli occupation army has issued widespread evacuation orders in southern Lebanon, which for the first time included towns north of the Litani River, in addition to areas in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Lebanese estimates indicate that about eight hundred thousand people have been forced to flee their homes, while the death toll has exceeded seven hundred people, many of whom are civilians. Humanitarian organizations have warned that the expansion of ground operations could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in a country already suffering from a severe economic collapse and weakness in health infrastructure and basic services for many, many years.

Politically, American sources confirm that the Trump administration has asked Israel to avoid targeting Beirut airport or major government facilities, but these controls do not significantly change the reality of broad American support for the military operation. Axios quoted an Israeli official as saying that Tel Aviv feels it has full American support. Washington, at the same time, is betting that military pressure will lead to broader negotiations that may ultimately result in an agreement that officially ends the state of war that has existed between Israel and Lebanon since 1948, at least theoretically, until today.

However, developments in the regional war make these calculations extremely complex. The confrontation escalated after the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint American-Israeli attack, an event that pushed Tehran and its allies to expand their military response across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf. UN experts also warned that American and Israeli strikes against Iran and Lebanon could constitute a violation of international law and threaten to expand the conflict to include the entire region, especially with the threat to energy routes in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large part of the world's oil passes today.

The increasing talk of a potential Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon reveals an old strategic dilemma facing Tel Aviv whenever it considers an incursion into Lebanese territory. Historical experience from the 1982 invasion to the 2006 war shows that military control does not necessarily mean achieving political or security stability; rather, occupied territories often turn into a long-term war of attrition, which Israeli military planners are well aware of. But internal political calculations and regional deterrence calculations sometimes push the Israeli leadership to risk large-scale operations despite the expected human and military cost in such a scenario.

Observers believe that the Trump administration's stance reflects a traditional pattern in American policy based on granting Israel a wide margin of military freedom of action while contenting itself with some formal controls related to infrastructure or civilians. However, this political and military support places Washington practically in the position of a partner in any potential escalation, especially if the ground invasion turns into a broader regional confrontation with Iran and its allies. At that point, the American administration may find itself facing a difficult equation that combines protecting its Israeli ally and avoiding slipping into an open war in the Middle East that may exceed its calculations.

The ongoing escalation on the Lebanese front cannot be separated from the broader war between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. The assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei constituted a strategic turning point that pushed Tehran's allies in the region to direct involvement in the confrontation. Hence, Lebanon becomes a central arena in this complex conflict where local, regional, and international elements intertwine. With continued mutual strikes, the risk of the war expanding beyond the borders of Lebanon and Israel increases, threatening global energy routes and regional stability and placing the region before a new phase of long strategic uncertainty.

A British recruit named David McIntosh revealed horrific details he witnessed during his military service in the Gaza Strip, where he documented, through video clips, the brutality of Israeli occupation forces in dealing with Palestinian civilians searching for food. The recruit explained that these violations occurred around aid distribution points belonging to the 'Gaza Humanitarian' organization, an initiative previously launched by the United States to secure relief in the Strip.

The video clips published by McIntosh on his personal accounts showed Israeli soldiers positioned on their tanks, opening fire directly and shockingly at queues of starving people. The recruit described these actions as being carried out for 'amusement' by the soldiers, noting that the locations where these crimes occurred were the same where hundreds of Palestinians were killed while waiting to receive meager food rations.

Commenting on the scenes, the British recruit affirmed that what he saw was extremely painful and incomprehensible, despite him working within a joint force that included elite elements of the American army. He praised the skills of his colleagues in the joint force but stressed that the Israeli forces surrounding those locations showed no humanity, deliberately targeting unarmed civilians in cold blood.

McIntosh accused the occupation army of systematically attempting to sabotage relief efforts by terrorizing and killing residents at their most vulnerable moments. He pointed out that Palestinians in those areas refused to surrender to hunger or let their families die, which was met with occupation bullets, committing clear and easily documented war crimes at those sensitive points.

This testimony sparked a wide wave of anger across social media platforms, where activists and human rights defenders circulated the clips as additional evidence of the genocide. Bloggers recalled the violations associated with the work of the 'Gaza Humanitarian' organization, considering that its presence did not provide protection for civilians but rather turned them into easy targets for Israeli snipers and shells.

Local sources reported painful testimonies from families who lost their children at those locations, with one citizen mentioning that his uncle was martyred while searching for food for his children at the same point the soldier filmed. Testimonies confirmed that the occupation prevented any attempts to document these field executions, even going so far as to bury some victims alive under the rubble of distribution centers.

Observers described the scenes as an embodiment of 'human hunting' operations, where starving people are lured into exposed areas under the pretext of aid distribution and then targeted. Human rights activists believed that these clips expose the falsity of the humanitarian slogans raised when these centers were established, emphasizing that the absence of international accountability encouraged the occupation to continue these practices.

Palestinian activists pointed out that the 'Gaza Humanitarian' organization left the Strip, leaving behind a legacy of blood and harsh memories, as it was accused of being 'harsher than shells.' They considered that what the British soldier published represents the beginning of a new phase of uncovering facts that the occupation tried to obscure throughout the war, stressing the need to present this evidence to international courts.

In a related context, some residents of the Strip noted that American soldiers participating in the joint force were not far from the scene, with some accusing them of implicit or actual participation in some attacks. They affirmed that the tragedy of hunger imposed by the occupation was exploited militarily and security-wise to lure citizens into real 'death traps' under the guise of relief.

Statistical data issued by the Government Media Office in Gaza indicates shocking figures related to the victims of these centers, where approximately 1109 Palestinians were directly martyred as a result of shelling or shooting inside or around American distribution centers. Among these victims were 225 children, 852 adults, and 32 elderly people, all of whom died while trying to secure a livelihood.

According to statistics, the total number of martyrs targeted while waiting for aid throughout two years of war reached 1506 martyrs, in addition to more than 19,000 injured. This means that the number of martyrs who fell in front of the 'Gaza Humanitarian' organization's centers alone represents about 73% of the total victims of aid targeting in the Strip.

The organization began its work in May of last year as an alternative imposed by circumstances and Israeli restrictions on international and UN agencies. However, UN experts warned from the outset that this mechanism was inadequate and lacked safety guarantees, as it operated only 4 centers at a time when the Strip needed hundreds of relief points to avoid overcrowding and targeting.

Field reports confirm that the transformation of relief centers into fields of field executions reflects a systematic starvation policy pursued by the occupation authorities to break the will of the popular base. The British soldier's testimony reinforces this narrative, describing the scenes as resembling clips from dark fantasy films, where humans are killed simply for their desire to survive.

In conclusion, these documents and clips remain a living testament to one of the most horrific chapters of the war on Gaza, where hunger was mixed with bullets. Human rights activists demand the necessity of opening an independent international investigation into the role of the joint forces and the direct responsibility of the occupation for turning humanitarian aid into a means of organized mass killing.

Israeli forces were openly firing at civilians for amusement at aid sites.

Kisan village, located east of Bethlehem city, witnessed a violent attack this Saturday morning carried out by groups of settlers under the protection of occupation forces. The assault resulted in four Palestinian citizens sustaining injuries of varying degrees, as settlers directly fired live ammunition at residents, leading to injuries in the lower extremities, while others were severely beaten with rifle butts and sharp tools.

Local sources confirmed that Red Crescent ambulance crews dealt with two live bullet injuries, one 52 years old and the other 39 years old, and they were transferred to the hospital for treatment after their condition was described as moderate. The sources indicated that the occupation forces deliberately obstructed the access of ambulances to the attack site initially, delaying the provision of first aid to the injured who were bleeding in the field.

The attack was not limited to physical assault but extended to looting property, as settlers seized approximately 100 head of sheep belonging to citizen Attallah Ibrahim Abyat. This theft comes in the context of the economic squeeze policy practiced by settlers against Palestinian farmers and herders in areas classified as 'C', with the aim of forcing them to leave their lands for the benefit of pastoral settlement expansion.

For its part, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission clarified that the pace of these attacks has dangerously escalated since the end of last February, with more than 192 settlement attacks recorded in various governorates of the West Bank. This wave of violence has led to the martyrdom of six individuals and the displacement of four entire Palestinian families, amidst settlers' exploitation of current regional circumstances and international preoccupation to implement annexation and silent displacement plans.

Kisan village, in particular, suffers from continuous targeting, as it is surrounded by settlement outposts that devour vast areas of its pastoral and agricultural lands. Observers confirm that these attacks are not spontaneous but come within a systematic plan to impose a new reality on the ground, through intimidating residents and preventing them from accessing their lands, and destroying the elements of their livelihood resilience in rural and marginalized areas.

The assault comes within the framework of repeated and systematic attacks targeting citizens and their property in the region to forcibly displace them.

The Israeli-American war on Iran has begun to impose a bitter economic reality on global trade, with its effects extending from the energy sector to impact international supply chains. The fighting has effectively led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by an Iranian decision, the most vital shipping lane between Iran and Oman, causing a partial paralysis of ship movement.

Informed sources reported that the closure of the strait has caused more than a hundred commercial vessels to be stranded in Gulf waters, amidst a frantic rise in maritime transport costs. Shipping companies face unprecedented challenges in securing alternative routes, leading to severe congestion in ports on the Indian Ocean, far from the conflict zone.

Italian businessman Emanuele Grimaldi, CEO of the 'Grimaldi' Group, confirmed that shipments of European cars destined for the Gulf could not reach their destination due to shelling and fighting. He explained that these shipments were forced to stop in distant African ports such as Kenya, where they were stored in secure areas awaiting stabilization of the situation.

Economic reports indicated that the war, which shook oil and gas markets over the past two weeks, has begun to permeate other industrial and commercial sectors. Major shipping hubs in Asia are currently suffering from a severe fuel shortage, while dozens of ships remain trapped within the Gulf waters unable to exit or unload their cargo.

Grimaldi mentioned that one of his company's ships is still searching for an alternative port to unload thousands of cars, while another ship remained completely trapped inside the Gulf. The major crisis lies in the fact that most nearby ports have reached their maximum capacity, as unloading a single ship requires vast areas of logistical land.

Major global shipping companies, including 'Maersk' and 'Hapag-Lloyd', announced the suspension of their operations on some key routes leading to the Middle East. This decision was made for maritime safety reasons, which immediately resulted in increased delays in cargo arrivals and higher insurance costs for ships worldwide.

This disruption represents a significant setback for the shipping sector, which was trying to recover from the repercussions of the Red Sea attacks that lasted for two years. With escalating risks in the Strait of Hormuz, companies were forced to rely entirely on the Cape of Good Hope route around Africa, despite the long distance and exorbitant additional costs.

Maritime transport experts are monitoring the situation with great concern, especially with the potential for direct impact on fuel supplies in the Asian continent. Although shipping routes across the Pacific heading to America have not been fully affected yet, the continued closure of the strait threatens the collapse of the global supply system if the conflict prolongs.

Vincent Clerc, CEO of Maersk, said that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz hinders efforts to replenish strategic oil reserves in Asia. He revealed that his company has ten ships stranded inside the Gulf, emphasizing that a return to normal operations would require at least ten days after any ceasefire agreement is reached.

One of Maersk's ships was directly hit by projectile fragments while sailing between Qatar and Oman, leading to a fire on board. The ship is currently stopped off the coast of Dubai to assess the damage, an incident that confirms the high danger faced by commercial vessels in this volatile region.

Alternative ports such as Mumbai in India witnessed unprecedented container congestion, leading to a significant jump in shipping prices from China. According to specialized data, the average cost of transporting a single container increased by 56% since the start of US and Israeli military strikes on Iranian territory.

One Chinese exporter recounted the suffering of his goods destined for Dubai, which were forcibly diverted to Karachi port in Pakistan. These shipments face daily ground fees of up to $200, while shipping companies demand additional amounts under the name of 'war fees' to transport them overland to their final destination.

Some global shipping companies have resorted to activating a rare legal procedure known as 'end of voyage', which allows them to deliver shipments to unagreed ports. This procedure is similar to a 'force majeure' situation, where the carrier disclaims responsibility for delivering goods to the original port due to compelling wartime conditions that prevent navigation.

Analysts confirm that the complete closure of a maritime area to commercial vessels is a historical precedent in the modern era of the shipping sector. Attention is now focused on international efforts to try and open safe passages, amidst warnings that the continuation of the current situation will lead to a new wave of global inflation affecting the prices of all basic commodities.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has made it difficult to replenish oil reserves in Asia, and resuming operations could take ten days even in the event of a ceasefire.

The early hours of Saturday witnessed a bloody military escalation on the Lebanese front, as the Israeli occupation army intensified its airstrikes and artillery shelling on various areas, resulting in the martyrdom of at least 23 people. The attacks notably focused on medical teams and relief centers, a move reflecting the occupation's determination to disrupt the healthcare system in the targeted areas.

The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a massacre in the town of Burj Qalawiyah in the Bint Jbeil district, where an Israeli raid targeted a primary healthcare center, leading to the martyrdom of 12 doctors, paramedics, and nurses while performing their humanitarian work. The ministry clarified that this attack is the second of its kind within a few hours after paramedics were targeted in the town of Al-Sawana.

In a related context, the Israeli occupation army issued explicit threats to target medical facilities and ambulance vehicles across Lebanese territories, claiming their use for military purposes by Hezbollah. These threats come at a time when Lebanese hospitals are suffering immense pressure due to the increasing number of wounded and injured as a result of the continuous raids.

On the ground, the death toll from the massacre committed by the occupation in the Al-Rahibat neighborhood of Nabatieh city rose to 7 martyrs, while 4 other citizens were martyred as a result of shelling that targeted a residential apartment in the Taamir Haret Saida area in the south of the country. The raids also hit the Al-Nabaa area in Burj Hammoud for the second time in one day, causing widespread property damage.

Regarding ground movements, media sources revealed Israeli plans to significantly expand ground operations in southern Lebanon, with the aim of imposing full control over the area south of the Litani River. This coincided with new evacuation orders issued by the occupation army for residents of wide areas in the south, portending a wave of displacement and broader military escalation.

For its part, Hezbollah responded with a series of intensive military operations, announcing the targeting of gatherings of occupation soldiers in the vicinity of the towns of Khiam, Maroun al-Ras, and Adaysseh with rocket salvos and artillery shells. Field sources confirmed that the resistance targeted newly established occupation sites in 'Balat' and 'Nimr al-Jamal' opposite the border town of Alma al-Shaab.

In a qualitative development, Hezbollah launched an attack with a swarm of kamikaze drones targeting the 'Stella Maris' and 'Ein Shemer' bases east of Hadera, in addition to the 'Ein Zeitim' base north of the occupied city of Safed. Rocket shelling also hit the settlements of Metula and Kiryat Shmona, achieving direct hits among the military forces stationed there.

At the international level, reports indicated that Israeli shells fell inside the headquarters of the Nepalese battalion of 'UNIFIL' forces in the town of Mays al-Jabal, which the Nepalese consulate in Beirut considered a blatant violation of international law. Despite no casualties among the international soldiers, the incident increases the tension surrounding the missions of international forces in the south.

Politically, diplomatic sources quoted Israeli officials as intending to continue the war in Lebanon even after the end of any potential military operations against other regional parties. Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz threatened that the Lebanese state would pay an 'increasing price' in its infrastructure, in reference to the occupation's intention to expand the circle of destruction to include vital facilities.

Official statistics indicate that the toll of the expanded Israeli aggression since the beginning of March has reached 773 martyrs, including more than one hundred children, while the number of injured has exceeded 1900. Military operations have also caused the displacement of more than 830,000 Lebanese from their villages and cities, amid extremely difficult humanitarian conditions.

In the Beqaa region, the sons of the official in the Islamic Group, Youssef Al-Dahouk, were martyred in a raid that targeted the town of Bar Elias, and Sheikh Hassan Ghandour was martyred in another raid that targeted his home in the town of Nabatieh Al-Fawqa. Rescue teams continue to search for missing persons under the rubble of destroyed buildings in several Lebanese areas despite the intensive drone flights.

In the capital Beirut, Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the areas of Verdun, Hamra, and Ain al-Mreisseh, which included inciting messages calling for the disarmament of the resistance. This comes at a time when Lebanese political leaders have affirmed that resistance remains the only option to confront the occupation's plans that target Lebanon's sovereignty and national existence.

This attack on the primary healthcare center in Burj Qalawiyah is the second within hours, and it comes as part of a series of deliberate targeting of medical teams.

Despite the cessation of military operations in the Gaza Strip since October 2025, the health consequences of the siege continue to plague the population, with approximately 1.6 million Palestinians, or 77% of the total population, facing critical levels of food insecurity. This harsh reality puts the lives of children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers at risk, amid warnings of chronic health problems that could extend for decades as a result of prolonged nutritional deprivation.

Documented data indicates 317 deaths directly linked to malnutrition since the outbreak of aggression in October 2023, including 119 children who died due to lack of food. International reports issued by UNICEF confirm that over 100,000 children and 37,000 pregnant women currently suffer from acute malnutrition, with expectations that this crisis will continue until at least next April.

UN statistics reveal a shocking reality, where one in five children under the age of five in the Strip suffers from wasting and acute malnutrition. The figures also show that more than 40% of pregnant and breastfeeding women lack essential nutrients, threatening the collapse of the health system for future generations who begin their lives in an environment lacking the most basic necessities for survival.

International medical sources have warned that acute malnutrition's impact is not limited to general weakness but is closely linked to an increased incidence of non-communicable diseases such as strokes, heart disease, and cancer. Unhealthy diets imposed by the siege are considered among the most significant risk factors that will lead to increased rates of premature deaths due to diabetes and blood pressure disorders in the near future.

Despite the calm of the guns, protein-rich and essential nutrient foods remain very scarce and expensive in Gaza's markets, leaving 79% of families unable to secure complete meals. Reports indicate that two-thirds of children suffer from severe food poverty, with their daily consumption limited to only one or two food groups, which is far below the minimum required for healthy growth.

Scientific studies indicate that survivors of childhood malnutrition face ongoing cognitive and educational difficulties, with their academic abilities and self-confidence lower compared to their healthy peers. Research conducted on adolescents who suffered from malnutrition in their early years also showed a persistent decrease in height rates and a significant increase in psychological and behavioral disorders that accompany them throughout their lives.

Indeed, the risk of malnutrition in Gaza effectively begins in the womb, as the effects of nutritional deprivation are transferred from mothers to fetuses, leading to the birth of extremely low-weight babies. UNICEF sources explained that these newborns face a risk of death 20 times higher than normal newborns, making the beginning of their lives a harsh battle for survival amidst collapsed humanitarian conditions.

Academic research links malnutrition during pregnancy to an increased likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adulthood. Furthermore, congenital changes associated with fetal malnutrition increase the risks of childhood obesity, in addition to osteoporosis and muscle mass loss, making the next generation in Gaza susceptible to premature aging and chronic diseases.

Regarding breastfeeding, sources from the United Nations Population Fund reported that continuous anxiety and acute malnutrition hinder the ability of three-quarters of new mothers to breastfeed their infants naturally. This inability comes at a time when the Strip lacks alternative infant formula, depriving infants of the essential antibodies contained in breast milk, which are the first line of defense against infectious diseases and death.

Reduced breastfeeding rates add a heavy burden on the health system, as children's chances of contracting fatal childhood diseases increase, while mothers' risks of certain types of cancer rise. This close link between maternal and child health makes them the primary victims of starvation policies that have left deep scars on the vital fabric of the Gaza Strip's population, scars that temporary aid will not erase.

In conclusion, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to require urgent international intervention that goes beyond merely providing calories to securing quality food that addresses the severe deficiency in vitamins and minerals. The persistence of the nutritional gap means that thousands of children will continue to suffer from stunting and impaired cognitive functions, mortgaging the future of an entire society to the consequences of a siege that spared not even the fetuses in their mothers' wombs.

Low-birth-weight infants face a risk of death approximately 20 times higher than those born at a healthy weight due to maternal malnutrition.

US President Donald Trump has issued urgent orders to move a force of Marines towards the Middle East, in a step aimed at forcibly reopening the Strait of Hormuz. These military movements come amidst growing fears of a global economic recession that could be caused by a sharp rise in energy prices due to escalating tensions.

Official sources confirmed that the warship 'USS Tripoli' has already sailed from Okinawa base in Japan, carrying approximately 5,000 sailors. This force includes the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, a unit specialized in special ground and air operations and capable of executing complex amphibious landings.

On the ground, Friday witnessed a significant escalation after additional oil tankers were fired upon by Iranian forces in the Gulf waters. This attack followed statements by the new Iranian Supreme Leader, in which he affirmed Tehran's commitment to closing the strategic strait until military attacks targeting Iranian territory cease.

Military analysts believe that the mission to secure the international shipping lane may not be limited to naval escort, but may require a large-scale ground operation. Reports published by international newspapers warned that such an intervention could lead to significant human casualties among US and allied forces due to the complex military geography of the region.

In a related context, General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that the Pentagon is dealing with a 'very complex tactical environment.' Caine explained during a press briefing that the military leadership is seeking to confirm all details before taking any executive step that could lead to a direct and comprehensive confrontation.

Proposals have emerged within US political circles calling for the seizure of Kharg Island, which is Iran's most important oil center. Although the island has not been directly affected by the conflict so far, controlling it could represent a strategic bargaining chip to ensure oil flow and prevent Tehran from using it as a base for its operations.

On the economic front, Washington took a surprising step by easing sanctions on Russian oil in an attempt to calm global markets. This decision created a rift in positions with London, where the British government expressed the need to continue financial pressure on Moscow and not to compromise on the Russian 'war chest' issue.

For his part, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the US Navy may begin escorting oil tankers by the end of this month. Wright admitted that US forces are not fully prepared for this mission at present, as military assets are currently focused on destroying Iranian offensive capabilities and military manufacturing industries.

Economic data indicates that fuel prices in the United States have reached record levels, with the price per gallon in California reaching approximately $8. Experts warn that the continued closure of the strait, through which 20% of the world's supplies pass, could push oil barrels to exceed the $300 mark if the conflict is prolonged.

Amidst this deadlock, a Turkish mediating role emerged, with the Turkish Minister of Transport announcing that a vessel belonging to his country had crossed the strait after obtaining direct permission from Iranian authorities. 14 other Turkish vessels are still waiting in the region for coordination with Tehran, at a time when Washington lacks conclusive evidence of Iran planting naval mines so far.

It's a complex tactical environment, and before we execute anything, we want to make sure we have all the field data.

Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: Israel may benefit from international preoccupation to reframe what is happening in Gaza within the regional conflict

Majed Hudeib: The continued freezing of the Peace Council will have direct repercussions on the internal situation in Gaza

Sari Sammour: Israel is trying to exploit the world's preoccupation with the war to intensify pressure on Gaza to impose new realities

Dr. Suhail Diab: If the war ends through an agreement in which Tehran seeks a regional approach, this may extend to include Lebanon and Gaza

Talal Awkal: Manifestations of obstructing entry into the second phase preceded the war on Iran, reflecting the failure of Trump's plan

Labib Taha: The absence of the Peace Council deepens the humanitarian and political crises in Gaza and reflects a clear denial of agreements

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

Amidst the Israeli war on Iran, the Gaza Strip's presence on the international agenda has receded, and the so-called Peace Council has been effectively frozen, as the attention of international powers and global media turned to the repercussions of the broader conflict in the region.

According to writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors in separate interviews with "Al-Quds," this shift has led to a decline in political and diplomatic interest in the Palestinian issue, including initiatives proposed to address the situation in the Gaza Strip, most notably the "Peace Council," which was supposed to form a political and administrative framework for addressing the post-war phase.

They believe that the decline in international pressure has provided Israel with a wider margin for action in the Gaza Strip, amidst a lower level of political and media scrutiny of its field policies.

In contrast, the freezing of political initiatives and the decline in international interest directly impact the humanitarian and administrative reality in the Strip, which already suffers from severe living crises and a shortage of food, medicine, and basic services.

This continued stalemate also threatens to delay the reconstruction process and keep Gaza in a cycle of successive crises, awaiting the new balance of power that the regional war will bring, which may reshape the region's priorities and the future of the Palestinian issue.

Gaza and the Impact of Major Transformations

Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, believes that the rapid regional developments, especially the ongoing war with Iran, have led to a significant decline in the presence of the Palestinian issue, particularly regarding the Gaza Strip, on the international political, media, and diplomatic agenda. This has been reflected in the initiatives proposed to address the situation in the Strip, including the "Gaza Peace Council."

Abu Badawiya explains that Gaza is not only affected by what happens within its narrow borders but is also greatly affected by major transformations in its surrounding regional and international environment. The Palestinian issue, despite its historical centrality in the Middle East, often recedes into the background during moments of major regional escalation, when the attention of international powers turns to conflicts considered more threatening to regional stability or the international order.

Abu Badawiya clarifies that the escalation of major crises, especially the war on Iran, pushes the international community to reorder its political and diplomatic priorities, as attention focuses on the repercussions of that confrontation and the possibilities of its expansion and its impact on regional stability, energy security, and the global economy. Similarly, international pressure related to Gaza declines, whether in terms of demanding a cessation of military operations or pushing for political and humanitarian solutions to address the crisis in the Strip.

Vacuum of International Attention

Abu Badawiya points out that this reality creates what can be described as a "vacuum of international attention," a vacuum that is practically reflected in the low level of international scrutiny and pressure on Israeli policies in Gaza, which gives Israel a wider margin to act and manage the conflict according to its own calculations, both militarily and politically.

Abu Badawiya notes that the nature of the regional system in the Middle East is based on the intertwining of crises and their competition for the agenda of international powers, as these crises are often dealt with according to a logic of prioritizing, even if the Gaza crisis has extremely dangerous humanitarian and political repercussions, making it a victim of this competition in regional crises.

Behind the Din of the War on Iran

Abu Badawiya explains that the disappearance of the Peace Council behind the din of the war on Iran reflects the preoccupation of the international environment that could support such initiatives with other more pressing priorities. When attention shifts to a broader regional conflict, the opportunities to push for initiatives aimed at calming the situation in the Strip or restarting political tracks related to it diminish.

Abu Badawiya indicates that Israel may benefit from the international community's preoccupation with other priorities by reframing what is happening in Gaza within the context of the broader regional conflict with Iran, a discourse that sometimes contributes to strengthening the acceptance of the Israeli narrative among some international powers.

Israel and the Opportunity to Establish Facts

According to Abu Badawiya, the decline in international scrutiny may also provide Israel with an opportunity to establish new field or political realities in the Strip, at a time when the level of diplomatic and media pressure related to developments in Gaza is decreasing.

Slow Humanitarian Response

On the humanitarian level, Abu Badawiya warns that the decline in international attention directly impacts the living conditions in the Strip, which already suffers from a severe shortage of basic necessities, including food, medicine, energy, and health services.

According to Abu Badawiya, the low level of political and media attention often leads to a slowdown in the international humanitarian response, given the significant role played by media coverage and political attention in mobilizing resources and directing aid.

Abu Badawiya points out that the absence of effective political initiatives perpetuates the stalemate related to the Gaza Strip, as the crisis continues to be dealt with within the framework of conflict management instead of seeking sustainable political solutions.

Abu Badawiya believes that the disappearance of the Peace Council behind the din of the war on Iran reveals the fragility of the political tracks related to the Strip and their great dependence on a supportive international environment.

Link to the Results of the War on Iran

Writer and political analyst Majed Hudeib confirms that the ongoing war on Iran has practically withdrawn the aspirations and hopes of Palestinians related to reconstruction and the restoration of normal life in the Gaza Strip, in addition to disrupting any political horizon that was proposed in the previous phase or activating the role of the Peace Council.

Hudeib explains that the freezing of the Peace Council's work is not only linked to the international parties' preoccupation with the war but is also connected to the broader context related to the project of reshaping the region in what is known as the "New Middle East," which Israel seeks to establish.

Hudeib notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vision for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian issue in general is linked to the results of the war on Iran and the new regional balance of power it will produce.

Hudeib indicates that this war has resulted in a clear shift in the international community's priorities, as attention has moved from the Gaza file to the broader conflict in the region, which has been reflected in the decline in discussions about the Peace Council or attempts to create conditions for its work to begin.

Disputes Related to the Administration of the Gaza Strip

Hudeib points out that the political scene related to the administration of the Gaza Strip is still witnessing multiple disputes, both among Palestinian forces themselves and among the concerned international parties. There are ongoing disputes about the role of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas's position on future administrative arrangements for the Strip, in addition to differences between the United States and Israel regarding "the day after" arrangements for the war, especially concerning the security file and the party that will manage the Strip and grant political legitimacy.

On the security level, Hudeib believes that the war on Iran makes it difficult to implement any security arrangements related to the Peace Council, especially those related to deploying stabilization forces or transferring security powers in Gaza.

Hudeib explains that these forces are the backbone of the Council, but their work is linked to security agreements that have not yet been reached between the United States and Israel, or between the United States and other parties involved in the Council.

Hudeib indicates that Israel, in light of the regional war and the possibilities of its expansion, focuses its security priorities on the regional front, which makes it unwilling to withdraw from Gaza or transfer security control to another party, for fear of a security vacuum that parties Israel considers linked to Iran might exploit.

Hesitation in Funding

On the economic front, Hudeib confirms that the freezing of the Peace Council's work carries clear economic implications, because the Council was supposed to form a framework for managing international aid and reconstruction projects in coordination with donor countries. However, the war on Iran led to the hesitation of these countries and international institutions to inject funding, in the absence of stability and the unclear outcomes of the regional conflict.

According to Hudeib, this reality of freezing the Peace Council's work practically means the continuation of the Gaza Strip in a state of "relief economy" dependent on limited aid instead of moving to a phase of reconstruction and development, until the results of the war become clear and the features of the new balances in the region are determined.

Continued Administrative and Political Vacuum

Hudeib warns that the continued freezing of the Peace Council will have direct repercussions on the internal situation in Gaza, including the continuation of the administrative and political vacuum and the weakening of the ability to organize civilian life and public services, at a time when the Strip already suffers from a severe shortage of food, medicine, water, and fuel.

Hudeib indicates that this vacuum may allow Hamas to strengthen its security and administrative control within the Strip, including in the police, municipalities, and judiciary sectors, which may complicate "the day after" arrangements and lead to a re-raising of the issue of the movement's role in any future political equation related to the administration of Gaza.

According to Hudeib, the shift of international attention from managing the Gaza crisis to managing the broader regional conflict practically means postponing any political or economic project related to the Strip, which threatens to exacerbate the humanitarian and administrative crisis and delay the reconstruction and stabilization process in Gaza until the results of the war in the region become clear.

Overwhelming Nature of the Ongoing War with Iran

Writer and political analyst Sari Sammour explains that news from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has clearly receded, due to the overwhelming nature of the ongoing war with Iran on the general scene, as the magnitude of the event and its strategic repercussions have made it a global focus, while other issues, including the Palestinian issue, have fallen into the background.

Sammour believes that this decline is not only linked to the momentum of the war but also to an attempt to reprogram the political scene in the region, including the Palestinian issue itself.

Israel and Exploiting War Outcomes

Sammour believes that some scenarios Israel aspires to are based on exploiting the results of the war if it ends with an American-Israeli victory over Iran, which could open the door to dangerous political and security steps affecting the Palestinian demographic reality.

Sammour explains that one of the most dangerous of these scenarios is the attempt to impose a large-scale displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip towards Egypt, through political or regional pressure, in addition to pushing Jordan to receive large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank.

Sammour notes that this vision, according to its planners, aims in the long run to reshape the reality in Gaza to return to what it was decades ago, while reducing the Palestinian population in the West Bank.

Sammour indicates that this scenario remains dependent on the results of the war, stressing that its end in a draw or without a clear resolution may limit the possibility of implementing such plans, and perhaps open different paths that may not necessarily be negative for the Gaza Strip, while any American-Israeli victory poses the most dangerous possibilities for the region and the Palestinian issue.

Major Strategic Repercussions

Sammour explains that the war with Iran carries major strategic repercussions, especially concerning energy and the global economy, which makes it a central issue for most countries in the world.

Sammour points out that the Gulf states themselves have been affected by the war, and a large part of the Arab media is Gulf-funded, at a time when the countries of the region are preoccupied with their arrangements and interests related to the war and its repercussions.

On the ground, Sammour notes that Israeli shelling of the Gaza Strip has relatively decreased compared to previous periods, but it has not stopped, while the siege and restrictions continue, exacerbating the suffering of the residents and affecting basic necessities of life.

Sammour believes that Israel is trying to exploit the world's preoccupation with the war on Iran to intensify pressure on the Strip and complicate humanitarian conditions, in order to impose new realities.

Sammour considers that the current phase is witnessing the introduction of new approaches in American and Israeli policy based on the principle of "peace through strength," meaning imposing realities by military force, and that the results of the confrontation with Iran will determine the shape of future policies in the region, including the future of the Palestinian issue and its political arrangements.

Netanyahu's Escape Forward

Dr. Suhail Diab, Professor of Political Science and specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the ongoing war between the United States and Israel on one hand and Iran on the other has pushed the Gaza Strip file to a lower rank in regional and international priorities, without meaning the closure of the file or the end of its political path, but rather its temporary freezing pending the developments of the confrontation in the region.

Diab indicates that this shift was not merely a side effect of the war, but rather consistent with the political calculations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who sought to "escape forward" towards the Iranian file to avoid commitments related to the second phase of arrangements for the Gaza Strip, as well as understandings related to Lebanon and other regional files.

Diab points out that Netanyahu believed that engaging in a confrontation with Iran might strengthen his internal political position and restore his electoral popularity, especially since he had previously hinted at the possibility of bringing forward the election date before the outbreak of the war.

Gaza's Scene After the Current Confrontation

Regarding the impact of the war on the future of the Gaza Strip, Diab proposes two main scenarios for the current confrontation. The first is a limited ceasefire similar to what is described as the "Twelve-Day War," which is the option preferred by the United States. In this case, the Gaza file is expected to return to its pre-war status, with the possibility of some adjustments that would give Washington political gains that the American president could leverage domestically, especially in the context of the midterm elections, which might raise Israeli reservations.

The second scenario, according to Diab, concerns ending the war through a comprehensive agreement that addresses the roots of the conflict, which is the proposal Iran tends towards, fearing that a temporary ceasefire would lead to a renewed war within a few months.

In this context, Diab emphasizes that Tehran seeks a comprehensive regional approach to Middle East issues, so that the agreement is not limited to ending the war in Iran only, but also extends to include the situations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Diab notes the existence of understandings and contacts between Iran and a number of regional parties, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, aimed at presenting the Gaza file as part of any potential comprehensive settlement. If this happens, the Palestinian issue – and especially the situation in Gaza – may benefit from a broader regional framework for settlement.

The Palestinian Crisis Towards the Peace Council

In contrast, Diab points to a growing crisis of confidence among the Palestinian public towards the so-called "Peace Council," led by the United States and including prominent figures such as US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who are also leading the war on Iran at the same time they are talking about arrangements for Gaza, which creates a clear contradiction that weakens Palestinian trust in any future role for it.

Diab indicates that the Gaza file is currently in a state of freeze pending the outcomes of the war, warning that the continued disagreement between the option of "ceasefire" and the option of "ending the war" may open the door for Israel to make deep field changes in Gaza and Lebanon, which could reshuffle the cards in the region and leave additional negative repercussions on the Palestinian issue.

Continued Obstruction of Transition to the Second Phase

Writer and political analyst Talal Awkal explains that the passage of about five months since the implementation of US President Donald Trump's plan, along with weeks since the last ceremonial meeting of the so-called "Trump Peace Council," has not been reflected in any tangible change on the ground in the Gaza Strip. He points out that Israel continues to obstruct the transition to the second phase of the plan and continues to impose its policies on the ground without any actual movement from the Council or its members.

Awkal indicates that Israel, at the same time, continues its policy of assassinations, shelling, and complete control over crossings and entry and exit movements, in addition to managing the file of humanitarian aid and the requirements for improving life in the Strip according to its own calculations.

Awkal notes that the Council, despite its composition which includes international, Arab, and Islamic figures alongside international envoys, has not even been able to secure the entry of the technocrat committee that is supposed to undertake administrative tasks in Gaza.

Awkal confirms that the manifestations of obstructing entry into the second phase preceded the war on Iran by a long period, which reflects the failure of Trump's plan and the submission of the concerned parties to Israeli dictates, rather than the claim due to the ongoing war in the region.

Difficult Conditions in Gaza

Awkal indicates that the living reality in Gaza has not undergone a fundamental change, as the level of fear of shelling has relatively decreased, while some foodstuffs have become available in the markets but are sold at high prices, although lower than those that prevailed during the period of widespread war. Nevertheless, manifestations of hunger, poverty, unemployment, and the spread of diseases continue to burden the lives of the residents.

Awkal affirms that the people of Gaza, despite these harsh conditions, continue to stand firm on their land, stressing that surrendering to despair or abandoning the will to live is not an option for Gazans despite the severity of the suffering.

Decline in the Presence of the Palestinian File

Researcher and political analyst Labib Taha believes that the absence of the so-called "Peace Council," which primarily includes American figures close to the US administration, poses deep and negative political implications for the Palestinian issue, amidst international transformations and preoccupation with the ongoing war against Iran. This has led to a decline in international interest in what is happening in the Palestinian territories, especially in the Gaza Strip.

Taha indicates that this Council was supposed to play a role in advancing the settlement process or keeping the Palestinian issue within the priorities of international political discussion. However, its absence at this sensitive stage reflects a shift in international attention to other files, primarily the war with Iran, which has contributed to the decline in the presence of the Palestinian file on the international stage.

Taha notes that the world is almost forgetting what is happening in Gaza, as news related to the Strip has no longer topped the international scene in the last two weeks, with the exception of scattered reports addressing the continued killing, destruction, and the war that has not stopped, even if its pace has relatively decreased compared to previous periods. He explains that this media and political decline reflects a deep imbalance in the balance of international attention.

Taha affirms that the absence of the "Peace Council" inherently carries negative messages for Palestinians, as it reflects the reality that the Palestinian side is the weakest in the international political equation, and that history has often shown that the weak pay the highest price when interests take precedence over principles.

This absence also reflects – according to Taha – that power has taken precedence over right in the management of international relations, and that the strategic interests of the United States, Israel, and their allies take precedence over the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Prioritizing International Policy

Taha believes that one of the clear indicators in this context is the prioritization of international policy, where it appears that the Palestinian issue is no longer among the priorities of the US-led international system, while other issues receive greater attention in light of escalating regional and international conflicts.

Regarding the repercussions of this on the Palestinian reality, Taha explains that this absence deepens the humanitarian and political crisis in the Gaza Strip, pointing out that what the Strip is experiencing is no longer just a passing crisis or an emergency, but a prolonged catastrophe that has lasted for more than two years, reflecting a clear denial of the agreements concluded with the Palestinian side.

Taha affirms that these developments practically mean the continued deprivation of Palestinians of their most basic human rights, noting that the discussion here is not only about political rights but about the fundamental rights with which every human being is born.

Taha explains that these rights are absent in the reality of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, while the situation in the West Bank is not much different in essence, although it differs in terms of severity, as the overall reality remains characterized by harshness, suffering, and tragic dimensions.

The military confrontation between the US-Israeli alliance and Iran has entered a critical phase in its third week, with observers noting that this conflict has become the greatest burden on the structure of US national security since the end of the Cold War. Sources reported that the US administration was forced to withdraw air defense systems and troops from strategic areas in East Asia and Europe to compensate for shortages on the Middle East front, raising questions about its efficiency and ability to manage multiple crises simultaneously.

On the ground, Washington boasted of targeting some 6,000 sites within Iranian territory in attacks that began with a swift strike that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Despite these intensive strikes, the Iranian government showed no signs of imminent collapse, as Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed to succeed his father, while President Masoud Pezeshkian and security officials appeared in the streets of Tehran, confirming the regime's continuity.

The war caused severe disruptions in the global energy market, especially with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's supplies pass. Sources indicated that Iran, despite continuous raids, managed to target at least six ships in the strait, in addition to launching a missile strike that shook Tel Aviv, reflecting its ability to inflict severe damage on the infrastructure of its opponents and their allies.

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations, described this moment as a new 'Suez Crisis' for the United States, likening the situation to what happened to Britain and France in 1956. Gerges considered the failure to protect waterways and secure allies as a decline in the prestige of the superpower, emphasizing that the world is heading towards a more chaotic multipolar system with the erosion of American credibility.

In the Gulf region, Washington's traditional allies began to re-evaluate their security bets as a result of what they described as uncertainty in American commitments. Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense agreement with Pakistan, while the UAE moved to strengthen its military relations with China, a step reflecting the desire to diversify security sources away from total reliance on US bases that no longer provide adequate protection against cheap drones.

The repercussions of the conflict extended to East Asia, where South Korea expressed deep concern after the withdrawal of 'Patriot' and 'THAAD' systems from its territory and their transfer to the Middle East. Experts believe that reducing the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific region serves Chinese interests and weakens deterrence against North Korea, casting doubt on US defense commitments to its Asian allies.

In Europe, NATO was forced to transfer surveillance equipment and air defense systems from Germany and Greece to support US bases in Turkey and Romania. This move coincided with immense economic pressure on European countries suffering from the disruption of fuel supplies from the Gulf, prompting the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Russian oil in an attempt to curb soaring global prices.

Reports indicated that major countries such as France, Italy, and India began direct communication channels with Tehran to secure the passage of their tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a clear bypass of the American leadership role. This independent diplomatic move reflects a loss of confidence in Washington's ability to enforce order in international maritime lanes, which had been a cornerstone of its global hegemony for decades.

In the context of military movements, the Pentagon sent the amphibious ship 'USS Tripoli' with thousands of Marines from Japan to the region in an attempt to bolster its field presence. However, analysts believe that these movements further drain US resources and make deployed forces easy targets for Iranian missile attacks, which have proven effective despite the sanctions imposed on Tehran for forty years.

The report noted that Russia is playing a supporting role for Iran in confronting US attacks, which President Trump himself acknowledged. This Russian-Iranian cooperation further complicates the military landscape, as Tehran benefits from technical and intelligence support to counter the superior military technology of the US-Israeli alliance, prolonging the conflict and increasing its human and material cost.

On the internal political level in Iran, American bets on a popular uprising to overthrow the regime after Khamenei's death failed. Instead, the military and security establishment appears to have tightened its grip, maintaining the ability to threaten regional capitals with 'Shahed' drones that deplete expensive American interceptor missiles in a clear strategy of attrition.

Professor Peter Frankopan considered the real problem the United States will face in the future to be 'loss of credibility,' as Washington opened 'Pandora's Box' without a clear post-war plan. He explained that restoring international trust in American power will take years, especially after the war proved that regional powers are capable of challenging American will and causing paralysis in global trade.

Gulf states face increasing pressure to engage directly in the war, which most of these countries refuse for fear of their oil facilities being subjected to retaliatory strikes. This pressure has accelerated the pace of 'strategic diversification,' as these countries seek weapon systems and security investments from China and other countries, threatening the American monopoly on the arms market in the region.

In conclusion, experts believe that the results of this war will inevitably lead to a redefinition of the balance of power, as the United States is no longer the sole power capable of imposing stability. With continued mutual shelling and tension in waterways, the old world order appears to be fading in favor of a new reality where decision-making centers are diversified and unipolar hegemony declines.

We are witnessing a 'Suez Crisis' moment for the United States, as this conflict represents an imperial overreach that could lead to a more chaotic and multipolar world.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/14/2026

News Analysis

US President Donald Trump said on Friday that the US military had carried out one of the "most powerful airstrikes" in its modern history, confirming that US forces had completely destroyed "all military targets" on Iran's Kharg Island. The island is considered one of Iran's most vital economic centers, serving as the main export point for Iranian oil to global markets.

Trump explained that the military strike was precise and focused, noting that the US military refrained, "out of consideration for principles of decency," from targeting the island's oil infrastructure, even though about 90 percent of Iranian oil exports pass through these facilities.

However, the US President linked this decision to Iran's behavior in the Gulf waters, warning that Washington might reconsider exempting oil facilities if Iran or any other party obstructs international navigation. Trump wrote in a post on his "Truth Social" platform that the United States would immediately reconsider its decision if the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz was threatened in any way.

The targeting of Kharg Island, located in the Arabian Gulf, comes at a time when global energy markets are experiencing increasing tension since the outbreak of war on February 28. Oil prices have risen significantly amid fears that the military confrontation could turn into a direct threat to global energy supplies.

Iran had responded to the American strikes by targeting passing ships in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil and gas supplies pass, which renewed international concerns about the potential disruption of one of the most important strategic energy corridors.

In a striking political development, Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, issued his first statement since taking office on Thursday, in which he affirmed that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed and that Iran would continue to target US allies in the Gulf region.

In subsequent statements, Trump said that Iran "does not have the ability to defend any target Washington wishes to attack," adding that Tehran would not be able to possess nuclear weapons or threaten the United States, the Middle East, or the world. The US President also called on the Iranian army to lay down its arms, considering that this might be the only way to save what remains of the country.

For his part, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that US forces are preparing to carry out what he described as the "largest wave of airstrikes" over Iran and the capital Tehran since the beginning of the war.

Hegseth said during a press briefing at the Pentagon that the number of sorties and bombing waves had reached unprecedented levels, indicating that military operations are continuously escalating. He added that the US and Israeli armies have targeted more than 15,000 targets inside Iran since the outbreak of the war.

The Secretary explained that this number is equivalent to targeting more than a thousand targets daily, stressing that "no other military alliance in the world is capable of carrying out operations of this magnitude."

However, this decisive American rhetoric is met with increasing skepticism among a number of observers who believe that official statements in Washington are characterized by a degree of exaggeration in portraying the extent of military superiority and the results of airstrikes. The repeated assertion of the complete destruction of Iranian military capabilities contradicts multiple field indicators that suggest Tehran still retains effective deterrent capabilities.

In recent weeks, Iran has demonstrated the ability to carry out precise and painful strikes targeting a number of US military bases in the region, causing operational damage to some military facilities and raising the level of defensive readiness at US bases deployed in the Gulf and the Middle East.

Moreover, the Iranian response was not limited to American interests alone but extended to include strong strikes against sensitive Israeli targets. Multiple reports indicate that these attacks affected strategic facilities and vital infrastructure within Israel, causing widespread disruptions in economic activity.

According to initial estimates, the strikes led to the disruption of some ports, logistics centers, and economic facilities, causing a state of paralysis in commercial and financial sectors, and directly affecting the movement of commercial transactions.

Analysts believe that these developments reveal that the confrontation is no longer merely an American air campaign inside Iran but has turned into a multi-front regional conflict in which military considerations intertwine with economic and strategic calculations.

In this context, experts believe that the focus of American rhetoric on the idea of "overwhelming superiority" may be part of a psychological war aimed at consolidating the image of military decisiveness and enhancing deterrence. However, past experiences in Middle Eastern wars indicate that military superiority, especially in airstrikes, does not necessarily translate into rapid political results.

In asymmetric wars, weaker parties possess multiple tools for retaliation, such as ballistic missiles, drones, and targeting vital infrastructure and energy corridors. With the continued exchange of strikes in the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, the war appears poised for further escalation, with all the wide-ranging repercussions this may have on the regional economy and global energy markets.

A growing number of analysts also point out that President Trump's contradictory statements, which sometimes change within a few hours, reflect a lack of real clarity in the war's objectives and strategy. Between threatening to expand strikes and sometimes calling for complete victory and a swift end to the conflict, American messages appear contradictory, which has fueled criticism within political and media circles in Washington. Some critics believe that Trump allowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push the United States into a wide-ranging war with Iran, which could entangle Washington in a long and complex regional quagmire from which it would be difficult to exit without significant political, military, and economic costs.

Anxiety is escalating in the Turkish capital, Ankara, due to the rapid military developments in the region following the American-Israeli strikes targeting Iran. The Turkish leadership has affirmed its strong opposition to this escalation from the very first moment, calling for the necessity of prioritizing the diplomatic path and returning to the negotiating table to avoid a comprehensive regional conflict that could spiral out of control.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that the continuation of military operations would completely destabilize the Middle East, describing the ongoing confrontations as an illegal war that opens the door to chaos. He explained that his country is making intensive diplomatic efforts with all international parties to de-escalate tensions, emphasizing that the top priority is an immediate ceasefire.

In a remarkable field development, the Turkish Ministry of Defense revealed that NATO air defenses intercepted a third Iranian ballistic missile in Turkish airspace last Friday. This incident is the third of its kind in March, as two missiles were previously shot down on the fourth and ninth of the same month, prompting Ankara to demand official explanations from Tehran.

Despite the presence of American forces at Incirlik Air Base, official sources confirmed that Washington did not use the base to carry out any air attacks against Iranian targets. The Turkish government maintains a cautious stance aimed at protecting its national security and economic stability, declaring its categorical refusal to be drawn into the war or to provide operational support for military attacks.

Reports indicate that Turkey has sharply criticized Israeli policies, considering that recent military moves increase the chances of a catastrophic expansion of the conflict. Ankara believes that relying on military solutions instead of political paths poses a direct threat to the delicate balance it tries to maintain between its commitments to the West and its regional interests.

In a related context, research sources revealed previous Turkish attempts to bring the warring parties together in Istanbul to launch a negotiating path that excludes the military option, but these efforts faced obstacles that led to the relocation of the meetings. This regional rivalry reflects the complexity of the political scene, as Ankara believes that what is happening represents a dangerous shift that changes the rules of the game in the region.

The issue of 'proxy forces' stands out as one of Turkey's biggest security concerns, as Ankara has warned against the exploitation of armed factions, specifically Kurdish groups in northern Iran and Syria, to carry out subversive agendas. Diplomatic sources confirmed that Turkey will not tolerate any attempts to launch an internal rebellion in Iran through elements linked to the 'People's Protection Units' or the 'Kurdistan Workers' Party'.

Information indicates concerns about the infiltration of armed elements possessing advanced military equipment across the Iraqi-Iranian border to stir up unrest in areas such as Mahabad. Ankara has informed the American side of the necessity of not using these groups as tools in the confrontation with Iran, due to the direct implications this would have on Turkish internal security and regional stability.

Political analyses concluded that Israel is playing a destabilizing role through policies that violate international law, exploiting absolute American support to implement its own agendas. Sources emphasize that the fundamental challenge facing the international community lies in curbing policies that deviate from international rules, rather than focusing solely on the repercussions of the conflict with Iran.

The ongoing war is absurd, chaotic, and illegal, and will lead to the ignition of the entire Middle East if the escalation is not contained quickly.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed that his country's top priority at the moment is to avoid sliding into the 'pits of fire' raging in the region. Erdogan explained that Ankara is moving with strategic caution to confront the schemes and traps aimed at drawing the Turkish state into the regional wars, emphasizing that internal cohesion is the only way to break the hands that extend to the country's independence and future.

In the context of protecting national sovereignty, the Turkish President affirmed that military and security institutions are taking all necessary preventive measures against any threat that might violate the country's airspace. These statements came concurrently with the Turkish Ministry of Defense's announcement of the success of NATO defenses deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean in intercepting and destroying ballistic ammunition launched from Iran and entering Turkish airspace, in an incident that is the third of its kind since the recent escalation began.

Erdogan called on the Turkish people to be vigilant against provocations of a sectarian or ethnic nature, which are systematically amplified in conjunction with military attacks targeting Iran. He pointed out that maintaining national unity is the primary guarantee for thwarting external schemes that seek to destabilize Turkey and drag it into conflicts that do not serve its national interests.

On the humanitarian front, the Turkish President expressed his deep regret over the continued conflicts and wars in the Islamic world, noting that the Gaza Strip, which has seen about 72,000 martyrs, still lacks real security despite announcements of calm. He pointed out that Israeli violations have not stopped, with the West Bank recording the deaths of more than 1,120 civilians in the past two years, in addition to hundreds of martyrs in Gaza since the agreement of last October 10.

Erdogan strongly criticized the double standards of the international community and the 'fake' conscience displayed by the virtual world, where attention is paid to simple environmental or animal issues while the tragedy of tens of thousands of children in Syria and Palestine is ignored. He affirmed that entire families have been subjected to genocide without moving a muscle among the major powers that claim to defend human rights, describing this disparity as a moral fall of the international community.

The Turkish President pointed out that some countries chose to ignore blatant injustice and war of extermination, while other countries went further by providing direct support to the perpetrators of these crimes. At the same time, he praised the few countries and organizations that had the courage to stand against the injustices in the region, emphasizing that the absence of international will is what fuels the continuation and expansion of conflicts.

In conclusion, these warnings come at a time when the region is witnessing escalating military tensions, as Turkey insists on adopting a balanced policy that protects its borders and prevents it from being drawn into direct confrontation. Official sources confirm that Turkish military vigilance will remain at its highest levels to ensure that airspace violations are not repeated, while continuing diplomatic pressure to stop the ongoing massacres in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Gaza, which has lost 72,000 martyrs, still longs for peace despite the calm, and the virtual world shows a fake conscience that ignores the extermination of entire families.

The headquarters of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was subjected to Israeli artillery shelling on Friday evening, with several shells falling inside the barracks of the Nepalese battalion stationed in the town of Mays al-Jabal. Official sources reported that this attack comes in the context of the widespread military escalation launched by the occupation army on Lebanese territory since the beginning of March.

For its part, the Nepalese Consulate in Beirut quickly condemned this direct targeting of its military sites, expressing its relief that there were no human casualties among its soldiers. The consulate stressed in a statement that targeting peacekeeping forces represents a clear violation of international conventions that protect UN missions in conflict zones.

On the ground, the occupation army committed a new massacre in the city of Nabatieh, where an airstrike targeted the residential Al-Rahibat neighborhood, resulting in the martyrdom of five citizens and the injury of five others with varying degrees of wounds. The Lebanese Ministry of Health clarified that this toll is preliminary and is likely to rise as rubble removal and search for missing persons operations continue.

Israeli raids did not stop there, but included a series of violent attacks on the towns of Al-Khraib, Zawtar Al-Sharqiyah, Al-Qasibah, Bint Jbeil, and Al-Khiam. The shelling also targeted a health center in the town of Burj Qallawi, reflecting a systematic targeting of infrastructure and relief and medical facilities in the south.

In the capital Beirut, the occupation aircraft renewed its raids on the southern suburbs, targeting the densely populated Al-Jamouz neighborhood, which led to widespread destruction of property and a state of panic among the residents. These raids come within the 'scorched earth' policy pursued by the occupation in an attempt to pressure the popular base of the resistance.

On the opposite front, the resistance in Lebanon announced the implementation of a series of qualitative operations in response to the ongoing aggressions, where it targeted a gathering of occupation soldiers in the 'Yaara' settlement with a swarm of kamikaze drones. The resistance confirmed that the drones accurately hit their targets, achieving direct hits among the forces stationed there.

Retaliatory operations also included targeting the 'Al-Sadah' military site opposite the border town of Maroun al-Ras with an intense rocket barrage, in addition to shelling gatherings of the occupation army in the northern neighborhood of the city of Al-Khiam. These field movements confirm the resistance's readiness to confront attempts at ground incursions recently initiated by the occupation.

In the context of political positions, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed that the resistance has prepared itself for a long-term battle, noting that diplomatic solutions have not succeeded in curbing the aggression. Qassem considered that the option of resistance is the only one capable of protecting Lebanon from the danger of annihilation that threatens it due to Israeli ambitions.

Official statistics issued by health authorities in Lebanon indicate that the toll of the ongoing aggression since March 2nd has reached 773 martyrs, including 103 children who fell in indiscriminate raids. The number of wounded also rose to 1933 injured, amid difficult health conditions suffered by Lebanese hospitals as a result of the siege and shelling.

On the humanitarian front, Israeli military operations caused a widespread wave of displacement, with more than 830,000 Lebanese forced to leave their homes and head to safer areas. Shelter centers face major challenges in securing basic needs for the displaced amid a severe shortage of resources and international aid.

It is worth noting that this escalation came after repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement previously reached, as the occupation expanded its targeting to include political assassinations and intense airstrikes. The resistance responded to these violations by targeting military sites in the occupied north, which led to the outbreak of the current confrontation.

International circles are watching with great concern the deterioration of the situation on the Lebanese border, especially with the repeated targeting of UNIFIL forces, which have been subjected to previous attacks that resulted in the injury of Ghanaian soldiers. Expectations remain open to further escalation in light of the occupation's insistence on continuing its aggression and the resistance's refusal to back down from defending Lebanese sovereignty.

Targeting UN peacekeeping forces' positions is a serious violation of international law and the principles that guarantee the protection of UN forces while carrying out their duties.

Palestinian medical sources announced the martyrdom of three people, including two youths under the age of seventeen, as a result of an airstrike carried out by Israeli occupation aircraft on the Gaza Strip. This raid comes amid a continuous military escalation in the Strip, as occupation forces continue to target residential areas, causing more casualties among civilians.

In the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian bloodshed did not stop, as two Palestinians were martyred by occupation army bullets during a raid on Nablus yesterday, Thursday. Field reports indicate that the pace of Israeli attacks in the West Bank has significantly escalated, with sources recording the martyrdom of at least eight citizens by settler and army forces since the start of the recent regional tensions.

The field situation in the Gaza Strip is rapidly deteriorating, with the number of martyrs rising to 23 since late February, coinciding with joint attacks launched by the United States and Israel against Iran. This escalation comes despite a ceasefire agreement that came into effect in October 2025, but repeated Israeli violations have emptied it of its content.

For his part, the military spokesman for the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, 'Abu Ubaida,' appeared in a speech on the occasion of International Quds Day, praising the military operations carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Abu Ubaida affirmed that the missile strikes that targeted the 'enemy entity' using qualitative and fragmentation missiles achieved significant deterrence and brought joy to the hearts of Palestinians suffering from the ravages of continuous aggression.

The Al-Qassam spokesman considered that the millions of Iranian people marching in support of Al-Aqsa, despite pressures and the raging war, represents conclusive evidence of the Islamic Republic's principled and steadfast stance on the Palestinian issue. He pointed out that the unity of the leadership with the masses in Tehran strengthens the steadfastness of the resistance front in the face of liquidation projects targeting the region.

Abu Ubaida stressed in his speech that the current Iranian leadership, under the shadow of Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, continues to follow the same approach drawn by the martyr Sayyed Ali Khamenei. He clarified that this continuity in military and political support represents a fundamental pillar in confronting Israeli expansionism, which is no longer limited to Palestine but extends to affect the security of the entire nation.

In conclusion of his statements, Abu Ubaida called for unifying all the energies of the Islamic nation and correcting the compass of major issues, emphasizing that Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque are going through their most dangerous phase under siege and Judaization. He warned that the Israeli occupation remains the true and sole enemy seeking to expand its circle of aggression, which requires comprehensive mobilization to defend the holy sites.

The qualitative and fragmentation missile strikes brought joy to the hearts of our afflicted people and illuminated the hearts of the free before lighting up the sky of Tel Aviv.

Observers believe that the prophecy made by American futurist George Friedman at the beginning of this century about a tripartite alliance bringing together Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv was not mere speculation but a reflection of a reality that began to take shape on the ground. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iranian-American coordination has been evident, which Iranian officials at the time confirmed by indicating that Iranian efforts were crucial to the success of American military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to the handover of power in Baghdad to forces loyal to Tehran.

In the Syrian scene, the question arises about the long Israeli silence regarding the expansion of Iranian-backed militias, where analysis suggests that this infiltration served a 'divide and conquer' strategy to pit societal components against each other. International and regional powers allowed these militias to move freely to sensitive border areas, reinforcing the hypothesis of an implicit green light aimed at draining the region and changing its demographic and political identity under the guise of hostile slogans.

Political readings of events indicate that Washington used the Iranian regime and its military arms as a cat's paw to weaken traditional powers in the Arab world and fragment the social fabric in four Arab capitals. This functional role allowed Iran to expand and believe that it had become an indispensable strategic partner, while the truth lay in exploiting this ambition to implement subversive agendas with Islamic tools, exactly as happened in previous historical experiences with other groups.

Today, it seems that the scene is heading towards an American reversal on the Iranian 'carpet weaver' after the assigned mission is completed, in a repeat of the scenario of dealing with Afghan fighters in the 1980s. Despite the fundamental differences between the power of the Iranian state and armed groups, the lesson remains in the outcomes; Washington has begun to pursue and demonize the tools it used for decades, which puts the region before dire consequences as a result of this shift in American strategy towards Tehran.

Did it ever occur to the ruling elites in Tehran that they were merely tools used by the Americans and Israelis to cross dirty swamps and destabilize the region?

International media reports, citing US administration officials, revealed that the Department of Defense 'Pentagon' has effectively begun moving large-scale military reinforcements towards the Middle East region. This step comes as part of Washington's efforts to enhance its combat and deterrent capabilities amid escalating tensions in the vital waterways of the region.

Sources clarified that US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, issued direct directives to the US Central Command to deploy the amphibious readiness group. This group includes an integrated exploratory unit of Marine Corps 'Marines' forces, known for their high capabilities in carrying out rapid landing and intervention operations in complex conditions.

Military data indicates that the human force involved in this mission amounts to approximately 5,000 personnel, combining Marines and specialized sailors. These forces are scheduled to be deployed on several warships equipped with the latest combat technologies, to ensure full readiness to deal with any security emergency that may arise in regional waters.

In the context of field movements, officials confirmed that the warship 'USS Tripoli', which was previously stationed at US bases in Japan, has begun its journey towards the Middle East. This ship accompanies its forces to join the Marine units currently present in the region, whose primary tasks are focused on supporting operations directed against Iranian movements.

Observers believe that this American military escalation comes as a direct response to recent Iranian actions that have obstructed international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. These Iranian pressures have led to clear disruptions in the global economy, manifested in a noticeable rise in fuel prices, placing additional pressure on international markets.

These field developments represent a significant strategic challenge for President Donald Trump's administration, which seeks to balance military deterrence with avoiding a slide into a full-scale confrontation. World capitals are closely monitoring the arrival of these reinforcements, and what may result from them in terms of a change in the balance of power or the restoration of stability to global maritime trade.

This step comes amid Iran's crippling of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting the global economy and raising fuel prices.