The Iranian Revolutionary Guard escalated its warning tone, threatening to target vital ports in the region, amidst the ongoing military operations led by the United States and Israel since February 28. Sources reported that this threat comes in response to the heavy human and material losses suffered by Tehran, which included the killing of more than 1,300 people and the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, pushing the region to the brink of a comprehensive confrontation.

On the ground, Ukraine entered the crisis at the official request of Washington, where President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the dispatch of expert teams and interceptor drones to protect American bases in Jordan. The United States is benefiting from Ukrainian expertise gained in dealing with Iranian-made drones, at a time when reports indicate that Tehran has launched more than two thousand missiles and drones towards various targets in the region over the past ten days.

Domestically in the United States, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed a sharp division in American public opinion, with 53% of respondents expressing their opposition to military action against Iran, while 74% expressed outright rejection of sending ground troops. In a related context, the war caused other political projects to falter, most notably the American Peace Council project in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the American administration's preoccupation with the direct conflict with Tehran and its repercussions on global energy markets.

Iranian threats to target ports come at a time when the Strait of Hormuz is facing a complete paralysis of navigation for the tenth consecutive day.

Settler groups in the occupied West Bank have escalated their deadly attacks against Palestinian citizens, exploiting the international and field preoccupation with the ongoing war against Iran. Human rights and medical sources reported that settlers intensified their attacks under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, which imposed strict movement restrictions, leading to the martyrdom of 6 Palestinians since the outbreak of the regional confrontation on February 28th.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that at least five citizens were killed by settler gunfire in various areas of the West Bank, while the human rights organization 'B'Tselem' indicated the martyrdom of a sixth person due to tear gas inhalation during a settler attack. These developments come at a time when the United States and Israel continue their widespread aggression on Iranian territories, which has resulted in increased tension in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The occupation army imposed a strict security cordon on Palestinian villages and towns, with main roads closed by iron gates and earth mounds, making remote villages easy prey for armed settler attacks. Local sources explained that these military restrictions hindered the access of ambulances and medical teams to rescue the injured, contributing to the rise in the number of victims due to bleeding or delayed medical intervention.

In the village of Abu Falah, north of Ramallah, the area witnessed a brutal attack carried out by more than 100 armed settlers under the cover of darkness, resulting in the martyrdom of two Palestinians. Sources quoted eyewitnesses that residents tried to defend their homes with stones before the settlers indiscriminately opened fire with their machine guns at the chests of citizens who tried to repel the aggression.

One of the village defenders pointed out that the martyr Thayer was killed while trying to protect a house from burning, with traces of blood remaining as evidence of the crime in the surrounding olive groves. Following the attack, a third Palestinian died from his injuries, amid accusations against the occupation forces of firing large quantities of toxic gas to secure the withdrawal of settlers from the area after committing their crime.

For his part, the spokesperson for the Palestinian Red Crescent, Ahmed Jibril, confirmed that ambulance crews face extreme difficulties in reaching conflict areas due to attacks by both settlers and the army. Jibril stated that the northern Jordan Valley, Masafer Yatta, and villages east of Ramallah suffer from a suffocating siege that prevents medical aid from reaching patients and injured people who are subjected to daily abuse.

The human rights organization 'Yesh Din' monitored more than 109 incidents of violence committed by settlers since the start of the war on Iran, including direct physical assaults, property destruction, and live fire. The organization noted a dangerous phenomenon of settlers wearing Israeli army uniforms during their attacks, which confirms the complete alignment between the military system and extremist settlement groups.

In a related context, international reports revealed that about 700 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes since the beginning of 2025 until early 2026 due to ongoing settler terrorism. These attacks coincide with an Israeli government plan to expand settlements, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, with the aim of undermining any opportunity for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the future.

Settler leaders announced the establishment of new settlement outposts in strategic locations, including a settlement overlooking the city of Nablus, as part of a plan that includes the construction of 22 new settlements announced last year. More than 700,000 settlers currently reside in illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, amidst an environment of full military protection provided by the right-wing occupation government.

On the ground, the occupation army justifies road closures as precautionary security measures in light of ongoing airstrikes on Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, which continues to launch rockets in solidarity with Tehran. However, Palestinians assert that these measures are exclusively aimed at paralyzing their movement and facilitating the mission of settler militias in seizing more land and terrorizing peaceful residents.

Regionally, the American-Israeli aggression on Iran has led to the deaths of more than 1,300 people, including high-ranking leaders, igniting multiple fronts in the region. Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting strategic centers inside Israel, resulting in the deaths of 14 Israelis and injuries to hundreds, amid strict military censorship that prevents the publication of the true extent of losses.

Amidst this regional explosion, peace efforts and international projects aimed at de-escalating the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have faltered, as international focus has shifted to direct confrontation with Iran. Observers warn that the continuation of the war will give a green light to settlers to implement 'silent transfer' plans against Palestinian Bedouin and rural communities in areas classified as 'C'.

Economic data indicate that global markets have been affected by the halt of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for the tenth consecutive day, with oil prices soaring to record levels of $119 per barrel. This global turmoil casts a shadow over the international community, which appears unable to curb Israeli aggression in the West Bank amidst the involvement of major powers in the direct conflict.

In conclusion, the Palestinian citizen in the West Bank continues to face a dual Israeli war machine; represented by the occupation army with its heavy weapons, and settler militias that now operate as an unofficial military arm. With the absence of international protection, fears of wider massacres in isolated villages, which now lack the minimum means of self-defense under the complete siege, are increasing.

Armed settler militias exploit war conditions and operate with direct support from the army to attack Palestinians and force them to leave.

The Palestinian Presidency issued a strongly worded statement condemning the occupation authorities' closure of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and preventing worshippers from accessing it, coinciding with the days of the blessed month of Ramadan. The Presidency considered these steps a dangerous escalation aimed at undermining the existing historical and legal status in the Noble Sanctuary and the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem.

In its statement, the Presidency warned against the occupation's attempts to exploit the state of tension and escalation in the region as a cover to implement plans to restrict religious sites, both Islamic and Christian. It affirmed that these practices constitute a blatant violation of international conventions that guarantee freedom of worship, emphasizing the need to stop all provocations targeting worshippers inside the mosque's courtyards.

The Presidency also demanded the immediate and unconditional opening of all Al-Aqsa Mosque gates to ensure the flow of worshippers, reiterating its affirmation that the Noble Sanctuary, with its full area of 144 dunams, is an exclusive right for Muslims. It stressed the importance of international intervention to protect the religious identity of Jerusalem and to stop any Israeli attempts aimed at changing the existing reality in the holy city.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its full area of 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims.

Washington – Said Arikat – 11/3/2026

News Analysis

The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran presents President Donald Trump's administration with a complex strategic dilemma. According to a critical reading of an article published in the "Financial Times," Washington appears to have entered a broad conflict in the Middle East without a clear vision of how to end it or manage its political and economic repercussions. This ambiguity is exacerbated by the clear contradiction in Trump's statements, which have ranged from announcing the imminent end of the war to vowing to continue fighting until the "complete defeat of the enemy."

It is worth noting that in a statement on Monday, Trump described the conflict as "completely over," a phrase that quickly reflected in global markets, as oil prices fell after a sharp rise driven by fears of supply disruption. However, this impression did not last long. Just hours later, the US president returned to a more hawkish rhetoric, emphasizing that the war would not stop before achieving a decisive victory. This fluctuation in political messages reflects, according to many observers, confusion in managing the war rather than a well-thought-out strategy to end it.

Ambiguity of Strategic Objectives

The fundamental problem in this war lies in the absence of a clear definition of its ultimate goals. Trump has spoken at different stages about destroying Iran's nuclear program, crippling its ballistic missile capabilities, bringing about a change in political leadership in Tehran, and even imposing "unconditional surrender." These objectives, while seemingly coherent on the surface, differ radically in their nature and requirements for achievement, raising a fundamental question about whether Washington has actually defined the goal it seeks.

Moreover, the war represents the largest American military deployment in the Middle East since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet Trump described it as a "short mission." This contradiction between the scale of the military operation and the nature of the political rhetoric reinforces the impression that the US administration may have underestimated the complexities of the confrontation with Iran.

War and Attrition Calculations

Despite the severe blows Iran has suffered, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the early days of the war, signs of a rapid collapse of the regime have not materialized. Tehran has shown an ability to reorganize its leadership and continue fighting, and has appointed a new figure at the top of the power hierarchy, the son of the assassinated Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, in a move aimed at demonstrating political continuity.

Field data indicate that Iran has chosen a long war of attrition strategy, an approach it had prepared for years. Despite a decline in its ability to launch missiles compared to the early days of the war, it is still capable of carrying out missile and drone attacks against Israel and the positions of Washington's allies in the Gulf. This has disrupted trade and travel in the region, and led to significant disruptions in navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy arteries.

Regional and International Repercussions

The repercussions of the war are clearly visible in the Gulf region, where some countries have been forced to temporarily reduce oil and gas production due to security risks. The leaders of these countries had previously warned that any widespread war with Iran could quickly turn into an uncontrollable regional conflict. Nevertheless, Trump – according to his statements – was surprised by Iran's attacks on countries that were not direct parties to the war, which again reflects a misjudgment of the nature of the regional conflict.

At the same time, the prospects for political change in Iran do not seem imminent. The protest movements that the country witnessed in recent years have almost disappeared with the outbreak of the war, as Iranians have become more concerned with their personal security amidst bombing, sanctions, and economic turmoil. Indeed, the war may give the Iranian regime an opportunity to strengthen its "resistance" rhetoric and mobilize public opinion around it.

End Dilemma

Given this reality, Washington's options appear limited. Continuing the war threatens to exacerbate the global energy crisis and endanger the international economy, and may also cast a shadow over the domestic political situation in the United States, especially with the approaching midterm elections. Ending the war quickly, however, might give Tehran an opportunity to declare "steadfastness" and claim political victory despite military losses.

In both scenarios, the Middle East remains prone to further instability, whether as a result of continued confrontation or due to the vacuum that may result from weakening the Iranian state without a clear political alternative.

The contradiction in Donald Trump's statements reveals a familiar pattern in his management of international crises, based on using strategic ambiguity as a pressure tool. However, this approach, which may sometimes succeed in commercial or political negotiations, becomes more dangerous in the context of wars. Conflicting signals may confuse adversaries, but at the same time, they confuse allies and global markets. In the case of the war with Iran, it seems that ambiguity has not become a deliberate strategy as much as it has become a reflection of the absence of a clear vision for what the end of the conflict should be.

Historical experience shows that overthrowing political leadership in countries with centralized systems does not necessarily lead to the collapse or surrender of the state. The opposite has happened in many cases, where external pressure has strengthened the regime's internal cohesion. In the Iranian case, the assassination of Ali Khamenei did not lead to the collapse of power, but rather prompted it to quickly rearrange the leadership hierarchy. This reflects the ability of Iranian state institutions, especially security and military ones, to maintain continuity even in the face of major political shocks.

The great paradox in this war is that its declared objectives may contradict its potential outcomes. Weakening Iran militarily may achieve tactical gains for Washington and its allies, but it may also open the door to more dangerous scenarios, such as the disintegration of the state or its transformation into an arena for internal and regional conflicts. Such a scenario could create a strategic vacuum in the Gulf and threaten global energy security. Therefore, the real challenge for decision-makers in Washington is not to win the war, but to manage the day after it.

Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, announced the continuation of joint military operations with the United States against Iran until all outlined objectives are achieved. Katz clarified in an official statement following a security assessment that the war led by US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not be subject to a specific timeline, indicating that military pressure would continue through all available means.\n\nThe Israeli minister claimed that the Iranian leadership is in hiding in tunnels, alleging that Iranian hospitals are experiencing a significant overcrowding of casualties from the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces. These statements come amidst a continuous escalation on the ground since late last February, which included airstrikes and assassinations targeting senior leaders in Tehran.\n\nIn a related context, Hebrew media sources revealed a conviction within the Israeli military establishment regarding the difficulty of overthrowing the Iranian regime through direct military means at present. The sources indicated that the army understands the serious strategic consequences that could result from an attempt to change the regime by force, emphasizing that this goal is not on the table for immediate implementation.\n\nThe Israeli army believes that ending the war must be linked to achieving tangible accomplishments in other areas, most notably undermining Iran's military manufacturing capabilities. The current strategy is shifting from destroying ready-to-launch missile platforms to targeting the infrastructure of factories and facilities that produce these weapons to ensure the long-term weakening of Tehran's offensive power.\n\nIsraeli air operations face logistical obstacles due to Iran's vast geographical area and the distribution of military facilities across distant regions. These challenges have prompted Tel Aviv to request direct support from the United States to expand the scope of air and intelligence coverage, especially given the continued targeting of internal security sites and sensitive border areas.\n\nThis confrontation is the first of its kind in decades in which Israel is fighting a country with strategic depth and independent defense industries. Reports confirm that Iran's ability to produce weapons locally makes it difficult to decisively win the battle through swift strikes, requiring a long-term approach and close coordination with international allies.\n\nOn the ground, Israeli and American attacks have resulted in the deaths of more than 1,300 people in Iran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and prominent security officials. In response, Tehran continues its retaliations by launching barrages of missiles and drones that targeted sites inside Israel, leading to casualties and injuries among civilians and military personnel.\n\nIranian attacks also targeted American bases and interests in Gulf countries, Iraq, and Jordan, resulting in the deaths of American military personnel and damage to civilian assets. These attacks were met with widespread condemnation from affected Arab countries, which called for an immediate cessation of mutual aggressions and sparing the region the woes of a comprehensive war.\n\nPrevious reports indicate that the declared strategic objectives go beyond mere military response, to include an attempt to cripple the nuclear program and ballistic missile systems. Military analysts believe that Israel may prefer an unstable and weak Iranian regime over its complete overthrow, due to the uncalculated risks that a security vacuum could cause in the region.\n\nThe Israeli vision relies on the fact that the development of strategic weapons requires institutional stability, which the current strikes are trying to undermine. While countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Iran have been able to build significant military capabilities thanks to the stability of their regimes, Israel seeks to transform Iran into a model similar to countries that have lost their ability to threaten their national security due to internal chaos.\n\n"The operation led by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu will continue without any time limit until we achieve all objectives."\n

The observer of the historical transformation paths of emerging societies notices a pathological phenomenon that clearly emerges whenever old pillars shake and new signs of awakening appear. This phenomenon is called 'bubble elites,' a class that excels at floating above the sacrifices of others, exploiting the prevailing state of value fluidity and intellectual turmoil.

These are not just passersby on the train of the stage; rather, they are parasites that suck the nectar of hopes to inject the body of the nation with the poisons of mediocrity and falsity. The tragedy of these elites begins with self-emptiness, as each of them lacks deep roots in the land from which a true intellectual derives their dignity and humility.

'Bubble elites' are rootless beings, made of a thin membrane of pretense filled with hot air of arrogance and moral inflation. This inflation is nothing but an intellectual tumor intended to create an illusion of greatness, while the truth lies in an internal fragility they try to protect with shields of bad character.

Due to their lack of solid intellectual substance, these individuals find themselves compelled to adopt a policy of demolition as an alternative to genuine construction and effectiveness. They cannot ascend to the top of the mountain, so they strive to lower the peak to be level with the bottom they stand on by attacking and betraying the sincere.

In physics, fragile objects float on the surface while gold and rubies sink into the depths, and so do bubble elites in times of revolutions. This class floats because it is the lightest in value and the quickest to respond to the winds of interests, forming a foam that obscures the view of the true flowing river.

These bubbles carry the seeds of their demise in the essence of their formation; the more they swell and become arrogant, the thinner their membrane becomes, and the moment of their inevitable explosion approaches. However, relying on self-explosion is a kind of intellectual fatalism that the vibrant spirit seeking real change rejects.

Religious and ethical duty necessitates the presence of 'pins of the sincere' who carry the consciousness of criticism and the honesty of confrontation to explode this false inflation in the public scene. This confrontation is necessary to preserve truths from vulgarity and protect societal movements from being reduced to hollow figures who carry no real project.

The height of tragedy manifests when these elites turn into hired mouthpieces, trading their intellectual dignity for crumbs of material and moral tables offered to them. These individuals have become parrots in cultural attire, repeating what they are indoctrinated with in backrooms to serve agendas unrelated to the nation's interests.

This subservience explains the spread of mediocrity in digital spaces and visual media, where the solid intellectual has been replaced by the trivial 'influencer' who addresses instincts. Mediocrity here is not just a weakness in performance, but a deliberate method to dilute major issues, flatten public awareness, and direct the masses.

The custodians of the bubble and those behind them aim to create a state of intellectual bewilderment that makes it easy to lead the masses towards goals that serve narrow interests. But history, as a harsh sieve, does not retain bubbles, no matter how high their status, but casts them into the abyss of oblivion over time.

The ongoing conflict between bubble elites and the sincere advocates of causes is an eternal struggle between falsity and truth, between the transient symptom and the enduring essence. No matter how much the noise of the mouthpieces increases and the paper palaces swell, one wall of sincerity is capable of demolishing those fragile entities and restoring things to their proper order.

The hope remains with the remaining few of those with insight who refuse to fall into the trap of mediocrity and insist that the word is a heavy trust. These are the ones who realize that the path to salvation begins by calling things by their real names without equivocation or embellishment of the bitter reality.

The bubble must be called a bubble no matter how much it inflates, and sincere thought must remain the only beacon that guides generations. Eradicating intellectual gangrene from the body of collective consciousness is the first step towards building a healthy society capable of facing challenges.

Ultimately, only what is right prevails, and the sacrifices of the sincere and the sweat of the revolutionaries remain the true fuel for major historical transformations. As for the bubble elites, their fate is to vanish as soon as they touch reality, leaving only the good impact and solid thought in the memory of living peoples.

The pin of the sincere is, in fact, a necessary surgical tool for excising intellectual gangrene from the body of collective consciousness.

A headquarters belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces in the northern region of Nineveh province was subjected to an aerial bombardment on Wednesday evening, leading to a state of security alert in the area. Field sources reported that ambulances immediately rushed to the target site, with no official final toll on human or material losses issued yet.

This attack comes in the context of a noticeable security tension witnessed in the capital Baghdad since the early morning hours, where unidentified warplanes flew at low altitudes over residential neighborhoods. Iraqi security agencies have not issued any official clarifications regarding the nature of these aircraft or the missions they were carrying out in the central skies of the country.

Meanwhile, explosions resulting from aerial interceptions and missiles were heard in the vicinity of Camp Victoria, currently known as Martyr Mohammed Alaa Air Base. This base is considered one of the vital facilities used by the Iraqi Air Force, which adds a sensitive character to repeated attempts to target it.

On the political front, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani held a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the latest developments. During the call, Sudani stressed that targeting Iraq undermines the diplomatic efforts Baghdad is making to calm regional tensions and end the raging war.

The Iraqi Prime Minister assured his Iranian counterpart of Iraq's full commitment to the security of the Islamic Republic, emphasizing his categorical rejection of using Iraqi territory as a launchpad for any external aggressions. Sudani considered the attacks on Iraqi sovereignty a serious violation of international norms and the country's national security.

For its part, the US Embassy in Baghdad raised its security warnings for its citizens residing in Iraq to the highest levels. The new diplomatic statement warned of serious risks related to kidnappings and killings that may target American citizens, pointing to the involvement of armed factions in these threats.

Informed sources explained that these warnings were not sudden, but rather an evolution of a series of measures that began with a travel ban and then a call for immediate departure. The latest statement reflects increasing American concern about the escalating influence of militias linked to regional parties and their ability to carry out qualitative operations against Western interests.

Media reports indicated that the US Embassy linked these threats to coordinated attacks targeting diplomatic and military facilities across Iraqi provinces. This warning comes at a time when the region is witnessing sharp polarization and unprecedented military escalation that directly affects the stability of the Iraqi state.

High-level Iraqi military sources reported alarming statistics on the extent of attacks the country has faced during the past period. More than 250 attacks using drones and guided missiles were recorded, covering various areas including the provinces of the Kurdistan Region and border areas.

These data indicate that the Iraqi arena has become an open theater for settling regional and international scores since the start of the latest military escalation in the region. The Iraqi government faces enormous challenges in balancing its foreign relations with maintaining internal security control and preventing the country from sliding into widespread chaos.

Targeting Iraqi territory represents a violation of the country's sovereignty and security, and we are keen not to allow our territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against neighbors.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip revealed a new and painful update to the statistics of victims of the ongoing Israeli aggression since October 2023, confirming that the number of martyrs has risen to 72,135 people. Medical sources clarified that the number of injured and wounded reached 171,830 cases, amidst extremely complex health conditions experienced by the residents of the besieged Strip.

According to the statistical statement issued by the ministry, hospitals received one new martyr and two injured in the past twenty-four hours, reflecting the continued fall of victims despite the declared truce. These figures confirm the scale of the humanitarian tragedy, whose chapters have not ceased, as medical teams are still trying to deal with the catastrophic consequences of the continuous attacks.

Regarding adherence to the ceasefire agreement in effect since last October 10, sources indicated that the Israeli occupation continues to commit daily and systematic violations through shelling and direct firing. These violations, since the agreement came into effect, have led to the martyrdom of 650 people and the injury of 1732 others, placing the agreement in a state of permanent fragility in the face of repeated aggressions.

In a related context, rescue and civil defense teams have been able to recover 756 bodies from under the rubble and in various areas since the cessation of major military operations, which continuously raises the cumulative death toll. Recovery operations face severe difficulties due to the lack of equipment and the widespread destruction that has affected residential neighborhoods, with many missing persons still under the rubble of their homes.

It is worth noting that this aggression, which received widespread American support, has led to the destruction of approximately 90% of the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, turning entire cities into ruins. According to estimates issued by the United Nations, the process of reconstructing what the Israeli war machine destroyed will require a huge budget estimated at about 70 billion dollars, amidst a complete collapse of vital and service facilities.

Israeli violations of the ceasefire since last October have risen to 650 martyrs and 1732 injured.

The 'Peace Council' initiative launched by US President Donald Trump is facing critical challenges that threaten to undermine the limited progress it has made in the Gaza Strip. The war with Iran has slowed down the project, which was proposed as part of the ceasefire understandings between Israel and Hamas last October, aiming to promote stability and reconstruction.

Despite pledges from about 24 countries totaling over $16 billion, including a $10 billion US contribution, these funds remain locked in bank accounts. Sources reported that the Council completed procedures to open accounts with the World Bank and JPMorgan Chase, but actual transfers have not yet begun due to current political and military complexities.

The initiative has seen a significant decline in the momentum provided by US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who were directly overseeing post-war arrangements. With the outbreak of direct confrontation with Tehran, the envoys' attention shifted to hot regional issues and the Ukrainian crisis, leaving the Gaza file at the bottom of diplomatic priorities.

In a related context, media sources quoted the Indonesian Foreign Minister confirming the suspension of talks related to the Council due to military escalation with Iran. Jakarta hinted at a complete withdrawal from this initiative if it continues to fail to provide tangible benefits to Palestinians on the ground, reflecting a growing state of international frustration.

On the ground, the regional war caused a major setback for relief efforts, as occupation authorities re-closed the Rafah land crossing, justifying it with security conditions resulting from the conflict with Iran. This closure led to a sharp decline in the entry of humanitarian aid, making the Council's goal of 'reconstruction' unattainable for now.

The Peace Council stipulates the disarmament of Hamas as an essential step to begin major construction operations, a task that has not seen any tangible progress so far. Observers believe that the absence of implementation mechanisms for this condition, coupled with US preoccupation with the Iranian front, reinforces the state of paralysis affecting the international Council.

For her part, researcher Zaha Hassan from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace indicated that the Council's failure to pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations raises major questions about its utility. She explained that time constraints represent additional pressure, as the mandate granted to the Council by the UN Security Council is set to expire by 2027.

Despite postponing their scheduled visit to Israel this week, President Trump affirmed his continued confidence in Witkoff and Kushner to lead these efforts. However, the reality on the ground indicates that the war that began on February 28 has changed the rules of the game, with navigation in the Strait of Hormuz remaining suspended for the tenth day and global oil prices fluctuating.

These developments coincide with reports confirming Mojtaba Khamenei's safety after recent attacks and the appointment of a new Supreme Leader in Iran, indicating deep internal shifts in Tehran. In contrast, Iran is listing US banks in the region as military targets, further complicating any international funding operations for reconstruction projects in Gaza.

Experts warn that continued marginalization of the Gaza file in favor of confrontation with Iran could lead to a renewed explosion of the situation within the Strip. With Iran launching more than 2,000 rockets and drones over the past ten days, the 'Peace Council' appears to have transformed from a reconstruction project into a new victim of comprehensive regional escalation.

The Council's inability to influence Israel to implement its commitments raises serious questions about its future, especially with the approaching end of its international mandate.

The Chief of Staff of the Israeli occupation army, Eyal Zamir, issued an official decision to transfer the Golani Brigade, one of the primary elite units, from the Gaza Strip front in the south to the Northern Command adjacent to the Lebanese border. This move followed an extensive security assessment conducted by Zamir on Wednesday with the participation of senior military commanders, to discuss the rapidly developing field situation on the northern front.

This military decision aims to reinforce the combat formations deployed in the northern region, where Golani forces will join the 210th Division stationed in the occupied Golan, the 91st Division known as the Galilee Division, in addition to the 146th and 36th Armored Divisions. Military sources confirmed that the army command will continue to monitor the field situation to make additional decisions regarding sending further reinforcements if necessary.

Military observers believe that the transfer of the elite brigade from Gaza reflects an urgent need for the occupation to restore its northern front against the precise strikes directed by Hezbollah. Recent operations have successfully targeted troop concentrations and 'T-9' military bulldozers within the Blue Line areas, causing confusion among the Israeli Northern Command.

Field reports indicate that resistance operations in Lebanon have begun to extend beyond the first and second border village lines, reaching into Israeli depth up to 120 kilometers using missiles and kamikaze drones. These advanced capabilities surprised the occupation army, which had been betting on neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities through intensive air raids and continuous breaches.

For his part, the Israeli Minister of War stated that his forces seek to control the commanding hills in the area extending from east of Ras Naqoura to the Shebaa Farms, with a depth ranging from 5 to 10 kilometers. This plan aims to secure a geographical area of approximately 1000 square kilometers to serve as an expansion base for upcoming ground operations after testing Hezbollah's defense capabilities.

In the context of military analysis, the field reality shows that Hezbollah has effectively utilized the period of relative calm since last November to rebuild its missile and human capabilities. Despite more than 10,000 Israeli violations of previous agreements, Hezbollah maintained tactical silence, which ended with the start of a series of qualitative ambushes targeting armored vehicles in Upper Galilee.

Estimates concluded that the transfer of the Golani Brigade represents an implicit acknowledgment of the difficulty of the current confrontation on the Lebanese border and the failure of the forces present there to decisively win the battle or stop the daily attrition. The question remains about the extent to which these elite reinforcements can change the balance of power in light of the development of surveillance systems and ambushes set by the resistance in the border villages.

The decision reflects Israel's need to strengthen its presence on the northern front, especially with the precise operations carried out by Hezbollah and their تجاوز (transgression) of the border village line.

Retired Major General in the Occupation Army, Yitzhak Brick, issued strong warnings against becoming engrossed in confronting Iran in a way that leads to overlooking more serious strategic threats. Brick pointed out that Turkey has gradually begun to transform into the biggest security challenge in the region, which requires a comprehensive re-evaluation of defense priorities.

In an analysis published by Hebrew media, Brick considered that decision-making circles suffer from a state he described as 'security concept blindness'. He explained that ideological positions have come to dominate realistic strategy, which hinders the ability to read the rapid geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.

The former military commander warned of scenarios of a comprehensive regional war that could erupt on several simultaneous fronts, starting from the north with Hezbollah to the existing tensions in Syria. He also pointed to the possibility of threats emerging from the Jordanian border and increasing unrest in the West Bank, leading to potential escalation with Egypt in the future.

Brick stressed that Turkey is systematically working to strengthen its regional power and consolidate its influence in the region, which places the occupation before a complex security reality. He affirmed that this Turkish expansion could put Israel in the face of an unprecedented escalation that the international arena has not witnessed before.

Regarding military readiness, Brick noted that excessive reliance on the air force represents a fatal strategic vulnerability in any large-scale confrontation. He explained that air power, despite its development, will not be sufficient alone to ensure the defense of the Israeli heartland in the event of a multi-front war.

Brick called for the necessity of building what he described as a 'steel triangle' that integrates air, land, and naval forces. He emphasized that the ground element is currently the weakest link in the defense system, which limits the army's ability to maneuver effectively.

The retired major general believes that the current weakness in the ground forces will make the army unable to protect the home front or carry out decisive attacks within enemy territory. He warned that relying solely on air strikes will leave the state in a state of 'eternal defense' that will end in inevitable collapse in the hostile Middle East environment.

Regarding the Iranian file, Brick downplayed the effectiveness of a limited air war, stressing that it would not lead to the overthrow of the regime in Tehran. He pointed out that change in Iran requires widespread internal popular movement, not just air raids that do not touch the essence of military power.

Brick also ruled out the possibility of an Israeli ground attack against Iran, considering it practically impossible due to vast distances and lack of logistical capabilities. He considered that the exclusive focus on the air option reflects a short-sighted strategy that does not meet long-term national security requirements.

Brick strongly criticized the growing 'messianic' current within Israeli society, which views existential threats as mere tests of faith. He explained that this approach ignores the realistic dangers represented by thousands of missiles falling on populated cities and simultaneous ground invasions.

Analysis indicated that ignoring military reality in favor of metaphysical interpretations weakens the home front and increases the state of unpreparedness. Brick affirmed that confronting threats requires a cold military mindset based on accurate field calculations, far from illusions.

Brick concluded by emphasizing that internal disturbances could at any moment turn into an additional battlefront that exhausts security forces. He stressed that the lack of coordination between the different military branches would lead to disaster if the country were subjected to a coordinated attack from several directions.

These statements come at a time when the region is witnessing escalating tensions, which reinforces the importance of reviewing Israeli combat doctrine. Brick demands immediate investment in ground forces to restore the lost balance in the regional balance of power.

Victory in a multi-front conflict requires a steel triangle of air, land, and naval forces, and ground capability is the missing element we have.

Lebanese territories witnessed a violent wave of Israeli airstrikes at dawn today, Wednesday, targeting various areas, resulting in bloody massacres among civilians. Official sources reported the martyrdom of at least 16 people and the injury of 26 others in an initial toll that is likely to rise due to the widespread destruction caused by the shelling.

Air attacks during the night focused on the Tyre district in the south of the country, hitting the towns of Hannawiyah, Al-Shihabiyah, Qana, and Al-Housh, in addition to the town of Tibnin in the Bint Jbeil district. The aggression also extended to the Zallaya area in western Bekaa to the east, and the Laylaki neighborhood in the southern suburb of Beirut, which was subjected to successive strikes.

Regarding the casualties, the town of Qana recorded the largest toll with the martyrdom of five citizens and the injury of five others, while the raid on the town of Hannawiyah led to the death of three martyrs, including a paramedic who was performing his humanitarian duty. In the town of Al-Shihabiyah, local sources confirmed the martyrdom of six people and the injury of seven others as a result of a direct targeting of a building.

The capital Beirut witnessed a dangerous development with the occupation's air force launching a raid targeting a residential apartment in the densely populated Aisha Bakkar area in the city center. This is the second strike to hit the heart of the capital within a few days, causing a state of extreme panic among residents in the areas surrounding the explosion site.

Security sources reported that the person targeted in the Aisha Bakkar raid belongs to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), while other reports circulated the possibility of four deaths at the site. This operation comes within the systematic assassination policy pursued by the occupation against leading cadres in Palestinian and Lebanese factions.

For its part, the Islamic Group in Lebanon issued an urgent statement categorically denying the targeting of any of its administrative offices or cadres in the recent Beirut raid. The group expressed its surprise at the haste of some media outlets to publish inaccurate information without verifying the facts on the ground.

In the context of political statements, Israeli Security Minister Yisrael Katz stressed that Tel Aviv will not back down from its military operations in Lebanon. Katz affirmed that the army will continue to deliver harsh blows to what he described as Hezbollah's remaining military capabilities, indicating the continuation of military pressure to achieve war objectives.

On the ground, sirens did not stop blaring in the settlements of the Western Galilee in northern occupied Palestine, following the detection of drone infiltration launched from Lebanon. Sources reported that Israeli air defenses were activated several times during the dawn hours to pursue aerial targets that successfully crossed the border.

Drone weapons pose an increasing challenge to Israeli air defense systems, as several suicide drones have successfully reached their targets in recent days. The occupation army admitted that three soldiers were injured by a drone explosion near a border military site yesterday, reflecting the failure of interception attempts at times.

Israeli estimates indicate that the air force carried out more than 700 raids in the recent short period, targeting infrastructure and sites in the South, Bekaa, and Baalbek. These intensive raids coincide with ground movements through which Israel aims to impose a buffer zone along the northern border to prevent the arrival of resistance fighters.

Observers believe that Israel is pursuing a strategy of 'negotiating under fire' by escalating assassinations and indiscriminate shelling of residential areas to pressure the Lebanese position. These attacks target vital centers and civilian buildings deep within cities, raising the cost of human and material losses unprecedentedly.

In the southern suburb, warplanes continued to target the Laylaki neighborhood and surrounding areas, causing widespread destruction of property and infrastructure. These raids come amid international silence regarding the targeting of populated areas, while ambulance and civil defense teams continue search operations for missing persons under the rubble.

On the border front, intermittent clashes continue between Hezbollah fighters and occupation forces attempting to penetrate some strategic points. Field reports confirm that the Lebanese resistance still retains missile and air capabilities that enable it to strike deep into Israel and respond to the massacres committed against civilians.

In conclusion, the situation in Lebanon remains open to all possibilities with the occupation's insistence on expanding the circle of fire to include major city centers. Political circles are awaiting the results of this field escalation and its impact on diplomatic efforts aimed at a ceasefire, given each party's adherence to its field conditions.

The target of the Israeli raid on the Aisha Bakkar area in Beirut is a member of the Hamas movement.

Dr. Thaer Abu Ras: It seems that the Americans have backed down from the option of overthrowing the Iranian regime, which is something Israel does not want, while Tehran will seek to change its tactics. Dr. Khaled Al-Ezzi: Clear confusion in Trump's statements, and no observer can imagine their contradictory implications and the multiple signals they carry. Moein Odeh: The impact of the first strike was significant on Trump's mood, but in the end, Iran may consider the regime's survival a victory for it, in addition to striking Israeli and American sites. Dr. Abdel Wahab Al-Qassab: Trump would not have spoken with such a high degree of confidence had he not been convinced of the decline in Iran's resilience capabilities, but the scene is still open to several possibilities. Dr. Khalil Jahshan: Trump speaks as if he is an emperor dictating to countries what they should do, and this policy has harmed America's relations even with its closest allies in Europe. Dr. Mohamed Najib Bou Taleb: Trump is known for relying on provocation, incitement, and even lies, and there is a tendency towards a dictatorship based on individual decision-making and the behavior of a chameleon-like political gang. Exclusive to "Al-Quds" dot com - US President Donald Trump's multiple and varied speeches and statements continue, carrying arrogance and contradiction, regarding the ongoing war on Iran. He sometimes escalates, as if he is an emperor who wants to dictate to Iran and other countries what to do, while at other times he delivers a more moderate speech, indicating that he is still in a state of confusion and does not yet realize what the final outcome of this war will be. Writers and observers for "Al-Quds" believe that the impact of the first strike was significant on the US President's mood, meaning that the ability of the United States and Israel to eliminate senior leaders in Iran clearly raised the pace of American statements in general, and Trump's statements in particular, noting at the same time that this clearly reveals the American position based on a fanatical and anti-Islam background and the countries of the region, in addition to a tendency towards a political dictatorship based on individual decision-making. Trump in a state of confusion and scenarios multiply. Dr. Thaer Abu Ras, a researcher at the Regional Thinking Forum and an expert on American affairs, confirms that US President Donald Trump's statements during the war on Iran were numerous, and many of them were contradictory. He points out that he sometimes escalates his rhetoric, as when he says he wants Iran to surrender, which is a clear type of escalation, and he used to say that he wanted to participate in choosing the Iranian leader, then he came back and said that he did not care much if he was a democratic figure, and even if he was a cleric, that would be acceptable to him, provided that he dealt with the United States and Israel in good faith. Abu Ras believes: Trump is still in a state of confusion and does not yet realize what the final outcome of this war will be. At every moment, and depending on whether he wants to escalate or de-escalate his rhetoric or deliver a more moderate speech, he seems to have ready statements for each of these situations. Abu Ras points to several scenarios from the perspective of the United States. The first scenario, which is the best for it, is that the intensive strikes carried out by the United States and Israel will practically push the Iranian regime to raise the white flag, whether it announces this publicly or sends a message through intermediaries to the United States stating its readiness to fully concede on the nuclear project, as well as on the ballistic missile program, and seek a quick agreement with Washington. As for the second scenario, Abu Ras says: It is based on Iran continuing the confrontation, but at the same time sending a message to the Americans that it is ready to reach an agreement on the nuclear file at least, meaning a return to the situation that existed before February 28, i.e., before the start of the Israeli-American strike. As for the third scenario, according to Abu Ras, which is an uncomfortable scenario for the United States, it is that the Iranians continue this war for several additional weeks, benefiting from the transformations taking place in the energy market, and from the growing global public opinion opposing this war, in the hope that after a week or two, pressures will practically push Donald Trump to back down from this military strike without achieving a major strategic achievement or breakthrough. Abu Ras believes that the fourth scenario will later reveal that Iran has prepared itself for a long-term war of attrition, and when we say long-term, we mean a war that may last for months, so that Iran presents a new weapon or a new military tactic every day or every few days that was not in the calculations of the United States until now. He adds: Everything remains subject to change, but current estimates indicate that the situation falls between the second and third scenarios, as no one believes that this war will extend for a very long time, and at the same time, no one sees the option of Iranian surrender as a realistic option at this moment. Abu Ras says: We are facing different Iranian and American desires; the Americans, so far, have backed down from the option of overthrowing the regime, which is something Israel does not want, while it seems that the Iranians will seek to change their tactics. Instead of relying on intensive missiles against their opponents, they may resort to other strategic steps, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, or trying to mobilize Shiite minorities in the Arab world, in the hope that these steps will lead to counter-pressures on President Trump. He explained that the United States has lost a large part of its missile inventory in recent days, especially since it was forced to distribute it to several regions around the world, and this equipment needs a period of time to be replenished. Abu Ras points out that there are many American bases around the world that need sufficient missile stockpiles, as the United States cannot keep its bases near China without missile stockpiles. If Chinese intelligence knew about this, it might encourage China to take a step such as occupying Taiwan, especially since Taiwan is, after all, strategically more important than Iran. Margin for Iranian movement in different directions. Dr. Khaled Al-Ezzi, a Lebanese expert in international relations and foreign policy, confirms that the American attack on Iran indicates clear confusion in the statements made by the US President, whose contradictory implications and multiple signals cannot be imagined by any observer. Al-Ezzi says: These statements leave a margin for the Iranian regime to move in different directions, right and left, because the US President has not clearly stated that he wants to uproot the regime, nor has he stated that he seeks to restructure the regime or clip its claws. He explains that Trump's proposal lies between threat and negotiation; he sometimes raises his tone and advances in his political and media attack, then returns to turn around and offer certain exits or margins for movement. Therefore, when he said that he wanted to intervene in the selection of the Supreme Leader, this does not mean that Trump will be part of the Shura Council through which the Supreme Leader is chosen according to the Iranian constitution, but rather he wanted to set clear points, meaning that he does not want the new Supreme Leader to be more hardline and more influential. He explains that Trump said he wants to escalate the military and industrial production process in the United States, explaining that a large percentage of ammunition and weapons went to Ukraine, but what remains is enough for the United States to fight long battles. However, he indicated that he will meet next week with arms manufacturing companies to determine new military needs. Washington uses the "carrot and stick" policy. Al-Ezzi explains that the United States uses the "carrot and stick" policy in this context, meaning that the Iranians must bear the responsibility of choice: either continue the confrontation and the accompanying bombing and destruction, or preserve their country by adopting a moderate line that requires restructuring the regime and re-floating it internationally. He explains that the American message is based on the idea of "disciplining the regime's behavior," whether militarily or politically. In return, the new Iranian leadership must deal with these messages seriously, despite the clear contradiction in the statements issued by Iranian officials, as it has become clear that everyone is making hardline statements, even the foreign minister, whose statements are supposed to be diplomatic, as his statements sometimes seem fiery as if he were a commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He points out that there is a scenario based on military escalation, through the use of new weapons aimed at destroying Iran's military industrial infrastructure and perhaps also its infrastructure. However, this scenario will not necessarily lead to regime change, because it will not happen through an internal coup or ground intervention, especially since the United States does not yet want ground intervention. As for the other scenario, according to Al-Ezzi, it relates to an attempt to bring about internal change by pressuring centers of power within the regime, including the Revolutionary Guard, in addition to using the card of nationalities, as appears in some Kurdish movements and external support for them. This scenario is based on keeping the army in its barracks, with an internal political change in which minorities, the opposition, some clerics, and bazaar merchants participate, leading to a transitional phase during which a new constitution for Iran is prepared. Al-Ezzi points out that the battle is still in its early days, and the picture is still incomplete, especially with a clear blackout on the extent of losses, which makes it difficult to accurately determine the course of military operations. Trump's statements to gauge reactions to them. Moein Odeh, a lawyer specializing in American affairs, believes that the impact of the first strike on the US President's mood was significant, meaning that the ability of the United States and Israel to eliminate senior leaders in Iran clearly raised the pace of American statements in general, and Donald Trump's statements in particular. Odeh says: This can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that Trump is known for making statements or ideas public to gauge reactions to them, which some see as evidence of instability, while others believe it is a political method based on presenting ideas or media demands and then adjusting them later according to reactions and the situation on the ground. He believes that the message that may currently be directed to the Iranian leadership is that any leader chosen without American approval may be subject to targeting, although this remains within the framework of political messages and psychological deterrence. He points out that there are currently more than one scenario on the ground. The first is the talk about the possibility of continued American and Israeli strikes at a high level, which naturally requires large quantities of ammunition, raising questions about the ability of military depots to meet this demand, or to refill them again in a short period. On the other hand, Odeh points out that military statements, especially Israeli and American, indicate that smart munitions are currently being used, launched from long distances, and have succeeded in targeting Iranian air defenses and destroying a large part of them. There is even talk of almost complete control over Iranian airspace. If this is true, it is expected that in the next few days, conventional munitions available in large quantities will be used, in addition to non-stealth bombers and aircraft, meaning that there will be no shortage of this type of ammunition. He explains that the potential shortage may be concentrated in interceptor missiles used to counter Iranian ballistic missiles and drones targeting Israel or some countries surrounding Iran. In this context, even the Ukrainian experience has entered the fray; reports indicated that experts from Ukraine recently visited Washington and presented models of the technologies they use to shoot down Iranian drones used by Russia in the war in Ukraine. As for the Iranian side, Odeh points out that fiery statements are still continuing, along with continued shelling, albeit at a different pace, of some areas in Israel or in the Gulf. However, no casualties that can be described as very significant have been recorded so far, at least at the media level. Iran announces daily that its missiles have hit their targets accurately and deeply, but these statements often seem to be directed at the media more than reflecting a clear military reality. Odeh also points out that the issue of continued military strikes and the ability of each party to continue the confrontation remains linked to several factors, including economic impacts. Targeting oil refineries or energy storage facilities in Iran, or targeting oil facilities in Gulf countries, could lead to a significant rise in global oil prices, which will affect the global economy, including the American economy. Odeh adds: Initial estimates indicated that the war could last between two and three weeks, and perhaps up to four weeks. The first week has now ended, and it is still too early to definitively say what the developments will lead to. He says if the strikes expand inside Iran and Israel or the United States succeed in achieving the announced goals, we may see moves to end the war faster. However, if Iran is able to absorb the strikes and continue to respond, the confrontation may continue for a longer period. Odeh believes that Iran will ultimately declare that the survival of the regime itself represents a victory for it, and that it was able to strike Israeli and American bases or sites. In return, Israel will announce that it has achieved significant strikes and destroyed important Iranian military capabilities, whether in the navy or air force. The next phase will reveal the features of Iran's role in the region. Dr. Abdel Wahab Al-Qassab, a political expert and visiting fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, confirms that US President Donald Trump would not have spoken with such a high degree of confidence had he not been convinced that Iran's capabilities to resist and confront had declined to low levels. He adds: Most of Iran's neighboring countries almost agree that Tehran has exhausted a large part of its capabilities, and can no longer continue to endure for a long time, which explains the confident tone with which Trump spoke in his statements. Al-Qassab points out that a deeper analysis of the situation may lead to conclusions related to the current and future course of events in Iran, noting that the available indicators suggest that Iran in the next phase may not be in a position to interfere in the affairs of neighboring countries, especially after targeting the central authority that was guiding the regime. Political expert Al-Qassab expects that the situation in Iran will move towards a phase of change, especially if the influence of the Revolutionary Guard declines and its capabilities are weakened, stressing that Iran in the next phase will not be similar to the Iran of yesterday. Al-Qassab concludes that the scene is still open to several possibilities, and that the next phase will reveal new features of Iran's role in the region. The arrogant tendency in Trump's speeches. Dr. Khalil Jahshan, Executive Director of the Arab Center in Washington, points out that Trump's various and arrogant statements are not surprising, whether since the beginning of this crisis or even since the beginning of his second term. He confirms that this arrogant tendency, which observers have become accustomed to, contradicts diplomatic and political methods and approaches according to international law, and even some American laws and customs. Jahshan adds that Trump speaks as if he is an emperor who wants to dictate to other countries what they should do, not only to Iran, but as he did previously with Venezuela, and as he is currently threatening Cuba, and speaks in a threatening tone towards Canada and Greenland, in addition to many other countries. Jahshan points out that this policy has harmed the United States' relations even with its closest allies in Europe, and he is now threatening Spain because of its stance on the war. Jahshan believes that this arrogant rhetoric has no practical value on the ground, but it proves that Trump is not qualified to lead a superpower. Regarding the impact of these statements on the American public, Jahshan explains that American society is divided on this issue. There is a wide segment of Americans who do not sympathize with Iran for many reasons, some of which are historical, dating back to many years of tension and confrontation between the United States and Iran. He says: This segment, which usually tends to support Trump, supports his hardline positions towards Iran, including talk of regime change, or demanding Iran's complete and unconditional surrender, or disarming it, and even imposing an alternative leadership on it. In contrast, Jahshan believes that a slight majority of Americans do not want to fight new wars that they consider futile, especially those that they see as coming in the context of supporting Israeli policies or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's old plans, which he had been calling for for decades. Jahshan explains that this opposition to the war may increase over time, especially if the confrontation expands or its human and economic costs increase. However, American society is still divided on this issue so far. Arrogance... a deeply rooted tendency in upbringing. Tunisian writer and analyst in political sociology, Dr. Mohamed Najib Bou Taleb, says that Trump is a well-known figure for relying on provocation, incitement, and even lies, and he seems psychologically caught up in a street fight, in an attempt to cover up his scandals. He points out that this tendency is deeply rooted in upbringing, and represents part of the American personality, especially when it is in a position to display what it imagines to be arrogant power. Bou Taleb explains that, regardless of whether this falls within the framework of psychological warfare and attacking others without regard for any standards, the essence of American policy today is based on preemptive intervention and excessive economic selfishness. He says: If we analyze this discourse psychologically and culturally, we will find that it is built on a great deal of condescension towards others, as a result of ignorance of the nature of peoples and their civilizations. A fanatical and anti-Islam religious background. Bou Taleb adds: We also clearly discover the American position based on a fanatical and anti-Islam religious background, stemming from ignorance of the history of its peoples and its principles, in addition to a tendency towards a political dictatorship based on individual decision-making and behavior similar to that of a chameleon-like political gang. He points out that the proof of this is the insistence on joining hands with the extremist religious government in Israel. Bou Taleb confirms that Trump and his entourage do not respect any cultural, religious, or diplomatic values, noting that the most dangerous thing in this is that this type of megalomania may push them towards a scenario that is actually implemented, but with dire consequences, represented by the outbreak of a world war over oil, gas, and uranium sources. Bou Taleb continues: The only deterrent to Trump's approach may be the abandonment of Western countries around him as a result of the damage that may befall their economic interests, which is unlikely, or China's intervention when its energy funding sources from the Middle East are threatened, which is the more likely possibility. Bou Taleb believes that the biggest problem is an intellectual one, asking: How can Western revolutions that shattered the world with the principles of democracy and human rights turn today into a state of dictatorship and human destruction?

Israeli occupation forces and groups of extremist settlers imposed a strict military siege on a Palestinian community located east of the city of Tubas in the northern occupied West Bank. The siege targeted about 30 Palestinian families, comprising more than 180 people, who were completely isolated from their external surroundings, with entry to or exit from the area prevented.

Local sources reported that the occupation army closed all roads and entrances leading to the eastern side of the village of Atouf, leading to a complete paralysis in the lives of the besieged residents. The sources explained that this military measure threatens the lives of more than 12,000 head of livestock that now lack water, in addition to exposing thousands of agricultural dunams to deliberate damage before the eyes of their owners who are unable to access them.

In a parallel escalation, settlers set fire to residential and agricultural structures in Khirbet Yarza, located east of Tubas, a few days after its residents were forced to leave. The fires included homes, tents, barracks, and mobile health units, in a step aimed at preventing residents from thinking about returning to their lands from which they were displaced under the threat of force.

Human rights reports confirmed that 11 Palestinian families began a forced evacuation of their homes in Khirbet Yarza since the beginning of this week, completing the tragedy of their displacement on Tuesday. Al-Baydar human rights organization described these practices as a practical application of the ethnic cleansing policy pursued by the occupation authorities to empty the Jordan Valley and the eastern slopes of the historical Palestinian presence.

Officials in the Tubas Governorate warned of a new Nakba in the region, noting that settler attacks are now carried out with full coordination and direct protection from the occupation army. The officials indicated that the extent of the damage in Khirbet Yarza has not yet been definitively determined due to the ongoing field tension and the difficulty for rescue teams or popular committees to reach the burned area.

These developments come amid an unprecedented escalation in the pace of settler attacks in the West Bank since October 8, 2023, with these attacks causing the martyrdom of 42 Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of facilities. These attacks are concentrated in areas classified as 'C' with the aim of imposing a new demographic reality that serves the expansionist settlement plans at the expense of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Overall, official data indicates that the toll of the Israeli aggression in the West Bank has reached 1,125 martyrs and about 11,700 injured since the start of the war on the Gaza Strip. The occupation forces also continue systematic arrest campaigns that have affected about 22,000 Palestinians, coinciding with home demolitions and infrastructure destruction in various governorates.

What is happening in the Jordan Valley is a new Nakba aimed at emptying the area of its original inhabitants for the sake of settlement expansion.

Official data released by the Israeli Ministry of Health today, Wednesday, revealed a significant increase in the number of injured since the start of military operations against Iran in late February. According to updated statistics, the total number of wounded admitted to Israeli hospitals has reached approximately 2557, amidst ongoing mutual attacks in the region as part of what has been dubbed 'Operation Lion's Roar'.

Medical sources clarified that 84 injured individuals are still receiving healthcare in emergency departments and specialized centers, with the condition of 10 of them described as serious. Reports also indicate 9 moderate cases and 71 minor injuries, while one injured person is undergoing a precise medical evaluation to determine the severity of their health condition due to the recent attacks.

In a related context, the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University stated that the number of Israeli fatalities since the start of the joint Israeli-American war on Iran has reached 14. However, these figures remain widely questioned by observers, due to the strict military censorship imposed by the occupation on details of human and material losses to avoid impacting the home front.

On the ground, informed sources confirmed that the Iranian army has intensified its use of drones to target strategic units and centers deep within Israel in recent hours. Despite Israeli air defenses' claims of their ability to intercept most of these targets, secrecy surrounds the nature of the facilities hit by the bombing, especially sensitive military bases that fall outside the scope of media disclosure.

This scene brings to mind a recurring pattern followed by the Israeli military establishment in previous confrontations, where damage is initially denied and then later retracted and acknowledged. This previously occurred at the 'Nevatim' airbase, which the army denied was damaged before satellite images revealed the accuracy of the hits sustained by the strategic facility in the heart of the Negev.

On the home front, a severe crisis is emerging in protecting Arab residents within the Green Line, as their towns lack the most basic public safety requirements. Data indicates that the percentage of shelters in these areas does not exceed 0.3% of the total shelters in Israel, leaving approximately 46% of the Arab population in homes completely exposed to missile threats without any fortified rooms.

These developments coincide with increasing economic and international pressures, as navigation in the Strait of Hormuz has been halted for the tenth consecutive day, leading to severe disruptions in global energy markets. Oil prices have recorded wide fluctuations ranging between $86 and $119 per barrel, casting a shadow over the stability of the global economy, which is exhausted by the repercussions of the ongoing conflict.

In the United States, the current administration faces growing public opposition, with opinion polls showing that 53% of Americans reject military involvement against Tehran. The majority of voters also expressed their categorical rejection of sending ground troops, at a time when Congress is demanding prior authorization before expanding the scope of a war that many believe its objectives remain unclear.

There is customary Israeli secrecy regarding the nature of targets that may be hit, especially when it comes to sensitive facilities or military bases.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced today, Wednesday, the implementation of what it described as the 37th wave of missile attacks as part of Operation 'True Promise-4', confirming that it was the most severe and intense since the outbreak of the current confrontations. The statement issued by the Guard clarified that the attacks continued for more than three consecutive hours, targeting a wide array of strategic targets belonging to the Israeli occupation and the United States in the region.

This wave witnessed the use of 'Khorramshahr' missiles equipped with two-ton ballistic warheads, reflecting a qualitative escalation in the destructive power used. According to official sources, the strikes focused for the second time on the satellite communication center located south of Tel Aviv, in addition to targeting vital military facilities in the cities of Haifa and West Jerusalem.

The attacks were not limited to Israeli targets but also included sites belonging to US forces in the city of Erbil, and the Arifjan base in Kuwait, in addition to directly targeting the movements of the US Fifth Fleet. These developments come amid escalating tension since late February, following a series of reciprocal attacks that resulted in heavy human and material losses for all parties.

In a related context, field sources confirmed that Tehran has begun implementing 'smart control' measures in the Strait of Hormuz, where it prevents the passage of ships linked to Israel and the United States. This escalation coincided with massive funeral ceremonies in Tehran for prominent military leaders, including the commander of the Revolutionary Guard and the chief of staff, who were killed in previous strikes.

For his part, the commander of the Aerospace Force of the Revolutionary Guard promised upcoming military surprises, indicating that Iran's missile arsenal is sufficient to continue the confrontation for many years. Sources added that Iranian military industries have not stopped production despite repeated targeting of their factories and launch platforms, confirming their possession of precision missiles capable of hitting their targets with extreme accuracy.

On the other hand, reports revealed a joint American-Israeli plan aimed at accelerating the fall of the regime in Tehran, relying primarily on internal movements. This plan is based on forming an alternative government from the basic components of Iranian society, away from ethnic divisions or minorities, to ensure the stability of the state after the fighting subsides.

Former US President Donald Trump had sent messages to the Iranian interior calling on them to stay in their homes, in reference to political arrangements that might follow the ongoing military operations. In the same context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the 'moment of truth' is approaching, claiming that the ultimate goal is regime change, not the division of Iranian geography.

Military estimates indicate that the pace of the war is progressing faster than expected in the initial plans set by Washington and Tel Aviv. While expectations suggested that operations would need five weeks to achieve their objectives, observers believe that a decisive outcome may occur in a shorter time due to the intensity of airstrikes and mutual attrition.

Regarding human losses, American sources admitted that about 150 soldiers were injured in the recent attacks that targeted their bases and operations rooms with high precision. These figures confirm the magnitude of the challenge faced by air defenses in intercepting the intense missile barrages launched from Iranian territory towards American deployment points.

Analysts believe that Iran's concealment of the number of missiles launched in recent statements is a military tactic aimed at misleading the enemy about the size of the remaining arsenal. Instead of announcing detailed figures, statements merely describe the attacks as 'intense barrages,' leaving Western intelligence agencies in a state of constant speculation about actual capabilities.

Despite the air and technical superiority of the United States and Israel, the fighting will and the ability to deliver precise strikes to vital facilities give Tehran strong leverage. This was evident in the targeting of the military part of Ben Gurion Airport and sensitive radar stations, causing severe damage to the occupation's military infrastructure.

Reports indicate that Iranian medium-range missiles have become a direct threat to American interests in neighboring countries, placing the entire region on the brink of a volcano. The targeted countries condemn these attacks that affected civilian targets and economic facilities, warning of catastrophic repercussions on global energy security and the stability of waterways.

In light of this complex scene, the bet remains on the ability of the parties to bear the cost of an open war that has begun to transcend traditional conflict boundaries. With the continued flow of information about civilian and military casualties, international pressure to impose a ceasefire is increasing, although field indicators suggest further escalation in the coming hours.

In conclusion, Operation 'True Promise-4' remains the title of a new phase of direct confrontation that may redraw the political map in the Middle East. While Iran continues to launch its missiles, global capitals await the results of the American-Israeli plan for regime change, and whether it will succeed in achieving its goals without sliding into a comprehensive regional war.

The 37th wave of attacks was the most severe and intense since the beginning of the response to the American-Israeli aggression.

Press sources, quoting the official gazette in Spain, reported that the government in Madrid has taken an official decision to dismiss its ambassador to Tel Aviv from her duties. This move came after a meeting of the Spanish Council of Ministers, where it was decided to permanently reduce the level of diplomatic representation in Israel, to be limited to a chargé d'affaires only instead of an ambassador extraordinary.

This Spanish step comes as a reciprocal measure, as Israel had previously initiated lowering its representation in Madrid to the level of chargé d'affaires since May 2024. This diplomatic deterioration reflects the depth of the gap between the two countries, especially after Spain's official recognition of the State of Palestine, a decision that sparked widespread anger in Israeli political circles and led to the recall of ambassadors.

Historically, relations between Madrid and Tel Aviv have been characterized by extreme sensitivity, as Spanish recognition of Israel was delayed until the mid-1980s. Despite the signing of multiple cooperation agreements in subsequent decades, the Spanish position continued to criticize violations against the Palestinian people, making the relationship prone to recurring crises when field events escalated.

The tension between the two parties reached unprecedented levels as a result of Spain's strict stance rejecting what Madrid described as a 'genocidal war' in the Gaza Strip. The Spanish government did not limit itself to political statements but imposed sanctions and measures aimed at pressuring for a halt to military operations, which Tel Aviv considered a hostile stance that necessitated harsh diplomatic responses.

Madrid had recalled its ambassador from Israel last week for consultations, before the recall turned into an official dismissal from the post today. The Spanish government affirms that these measures are part of its efforts to put an end to humanitarian violations in Gaza, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to international laws that ensure the protection of civilians in conflict zones.

The decision means that Spain has officially withdrawn its head of diplomatic mission and lowered the level of representation to a chargé d'affaires, in a similar move to what Israel is doing.

Hebrew press reports have shed light on the controversial record of the current US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, describing him as lacking the professional experience necessary to lead the world's most powerful military. Sources indicated that the Secretary's history is full of administrative failures and personal behaviors that raise questions about his suitability for the sensitive position he currently holds.

According to leaked information, Hegseth was dismissed about a decade ago from the presidency of a right-wing organization concerned with veterans' affairs. The dismissal decision at the time followed an internal report that documented serious transgressions, including alcohol consumption during official working hours, in addition to accusations of sexual harassment and creating a toxic and hostile work environment towards employees.

Among the most shocking incidents reported, what happened during a business trip to Ohio, where Hegseth engaged in blatant aggressive behavior. Sources reported that the current Secretary publicly chanted inflammatory phrases, saying: 'Death to all Muslims,' which reflects the depth of the extremist tendencies he adopts in his worldview and politics.

An analytical reading of Hegseth's personality indicates that he represents a departure from the prevailing norm in selecting US Secretaries of Defense, who usually have solid military and administrative backgrounds. Instead, the current Secretary appears as a personality prone to verbal violence and arrogance, with a clear lack of capacity for empathy or making balanced strategic decisions.

Hegseth is 45 years old, making him one of the youngest and least experienced secretaries in the history of the US Department of Defense 'Pentagon'. His name has been associated with small far-right organizations that received funding from wealthy families supporting hardline political agendas within and outside the United States.

Hegseth used his previous platform as an analyst on Fox News to promote controversial ideas, including the desperate defense of American soldiers convicted of committing crimes against civilians. Observers believe that these positions reinforce the Secretary's image as a supporter of impunity in cases of human rights violations during armed conflicts.

In Senate hearings held in December 2024, Hegseth faced harsh testimonies from former colleagues who confirmed his continued crude behavior. Despite being confronted with evidence of alcohol addiction and harassment, he showed no remorse or apology, considering these criticisms merely attempts by his political opponents to undermine him.

Regarding international issues, the US Secretary of War adopts a showy rhetoric towards confrontation with Iran, describing military operations as a means to demonstrate absolute hegemony. Hegseth fiercely attacks any voice criticizing military movements, whether from within the US administration or from independent media outlets.

Religious ideology intertwines with Hegseth's political orientations, as he wears a 'Jerusalem Cross' tattoo symbolizing historical periods of conflict. The Secretary promotes the 'clash of civilizations' theory, believing in white supremacy and the necessity of purifying American institutions from what he describes as 'internal enemies' from the liberal and democratic currents.

Analysts believe that the presence of such a personality at the head of the American military hierarchy raises serious concerns in the Middle East. His inclination towards violent military solutions and lack of diplomacy could lead to an uncalculated escalation in complex regional issues, especially given his full alignment with far-right currents.

Hegseth's weak administrative record makes him constantly vulnerable to criticism regarding his ability to manage the US nuclear arsenal and make fateful decisions in times of crisis. Sources believe that his selection for this position was primarily aimed at satisfying Trump's electoral base, without considering the required professional competence or psychological balance.

Reports continue to reveal more details about the 'toxic environment' Hegseth imposes in decision-making offices, where he adopts a style of continuous attack on opponents. This administrative style has led to silent resignations within the ministry, out of fear of involvement in decisions that may legally or internationally pursue their perpetrators in the future.

Sources conclude their assessment by emphasizing that Hegseth interprets political challenges in Washington as an existential battle between the far-right and the left. This sharp division, fueled by the Secretary, directly reflects on US foreign policy, making it more aggressive and less predictable in dealing with allies and adversaries alike.

Based on the foregoing, Hegseth's continued tenure remains a subject of wide debate within American political circles, amid calls for more oversight of his actions. International parties fear that his extremist ideology could ignite new conflicts in tension areas, driven by a personal desire to demonstrate military power.

Death to all Muslims... shouts echoed by the current Secretary on a previous business trip revealed by leaked reports.

The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a tragic increase in the death toll from the ongoing Israeli aggression on the country, documenting the martyrdom of 570 people over the past ten days. The ministry clarified in its report issued today, Wednesday, that among the martyrs are 86 children and 45 women, in addition to 14 healthcare workers who fell while performing their duties.

The past twenty-four hours witnessed a bloody escalation, with 84 people martyred on Tuesday alone in intense airstrikes targeting various areas. Medical teams also counted approximately 1444 injured, many of whom suffer from critical injuries as a result of concentrated shelling on residential neighborhoods and civilian facilities.

In the Beqaa region of eastern Lebanon, medical sources reported the martyrdom of 7 citizens and the injury of 23 others due to a series of violent raids that targeted villages and towns there. These attacks come as part of the occupation's expansion of its targeting circle to include the Lebanese interior, far from the direct border areas.

On the ground, airstrikes continued during the dawn and night hours, hitting the towns of Hannawiyah, Al-Shihabiyah, Qana, and Al-Housh in the Tyre district, in addition to the town of Tibnin in the Bint Jbeil district. The shelling also targeted the town of Zalaya in western Beqaa, and the Al-Laylaki neighborhood in the southern suburb of Beirut, causing massive destruction to properties.

In the capital Beirut, four people were injured to varying degrees following an Israeli raid that targeted a residential apartment in the densely populated Aisha Bakkar area. This strike reflects the occupation's insistence on pursuing targets within civilian neighborhoods in the heart of the capital, creating a state of terror and anxiety among residents and displaced persons.

On the humanitarian front, the Lebanese Red Cross mourned one of its paramedics who was martyred while performing his humanitarian duties in the town of Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon. The paramedic's martyrdom came as a result of a direct raid that targeted the area while teams were attempting to evacuate the injured and provide first aid to those affected by the shelling.

Regarding the displacement crisis, the Lebanese Ministry of Social Affairs revealed shocking figures, with the number of displaced persons reaching approximately 780,000 since the start of the aggression. About 120,000 of these are residing in official shelters that lack the most basic necessities of life due to severe overcrowding and a shortage of resources.

Field sources reported that the actual number of displaced persons might exceed one million, with almost half of them concentrated in the Beirut and Mount Lebanon areas in search of safety. Displaced families face harsh conditions, with roads and public squares in some areas turning into temporary shelters for those displaced from their homes.

Official estimates indicate that Lebanon is suffering from an undeclared international siege that exacerbates the repercussions of the current humanitarian and economic crisis. The Lebanese state has not received sufficient international support to compensate for the losses of previous wars, which exceeded 15 billion dollars, hindering any government efforts for relief or reconstruction.

Observers warned that the continued policy of systematic destruction of homes and infrastructure aims to exert direct political and popular pressure. With continued raids on the south and the suburb, experts fear that the temporary displacement crisis will turn into a permanent refugee issue requiring urgent international intervention to save the collapsing humanitarian situation.

Widespread destruction is being used as a tool of pressure by the occupation on the popular environment and the Lebanese government, threatening to turn the displaced persons crisis into a long-term refugee catastrophe.

The Middle East is witnessing a highly sensitive phase with the escalation of military confrontation between the United States and Israel on one hand, and Iran on the other. This war is not merely a traditional military conflict between regional and international parties; rather, it represents a strategic shift that could redraw the regional order in the Middle East. At the heart of these transformations, the Palestinian cause remains a fundamental factor that cannot be ignored. Although the current confrontation ostensibly focuses on regional influence and American-Israeli-Iranian military capabilities, its political and security repercussions could directly extend to the Palestinian territories. Historical experiences indicate that major wars in the Middle East rarely remain confined to their original arenas; instead, they quickly expand to include other parties within a complex network of regional alliances and balances.

The Palestinian Cause at the Heart of Regional Balances For decades, the Palestinian cause has become an integral part of the power equations in the region. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, is no longer merely a border or local political dispute; it has transformed into a central element in shaping political discourse and regional alliances. Iran's support for the Palestinian cause is one of its tools of regional influence, and it is also part of its political discourse in confronting Israeli and American policies. In contrast, Israel views this support as a direct threat to its national security, making the Palestinian territories one of the potential arenas to be affected by any regional escalation.

The Danger of Multiple Fronts One of the most prominent risks of the current war is its transformation into a multi-front conflict. Tensions could extend to several areas in the Middle East. In such a scenario, Gaza or the West Bank, including Jerusalem, could become part of the dynamics of the regional conflict, whether through direct Israeli military escalation and the activation of settler herds, as is currently the case, or through indirect security and political repercussions. This possibility increases the fragility of the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories, where Palestinian residents are already suffering from escalating economic and humanitarian pressures.

Decline in International Attention to the Palestinian Cause The war could also lead to a decline in international attention to the Palestinian cause. With the outbreak of widespread regional conflicts, international powers tend to focus their diplomatic efforts on containing military escalation and preventing the expansion of the war. In such circumstances, political initiatives aimed at resolving chronic conflicts, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, often recede. This could prolong the political stalemate that has surrounded the peace process for years.

Reshaping Regional Alliances The ongoing war may push regional countries to re-evaluate their political and security alliances. Some countries may seek to strengthen their cooperation with Israel in confronting Iranian influence, while others may adopt more balanced positions in response to public opinion pressures or their strategic interests. These shifts could directly affect the position of the Palestinian cause on the regional agenda, either by strengthening political support for Palestinians or by a decline in official attention to the issue in favor of other security considerations.

The Future of the Palestinian Cause in Light of the War The current war reveals a fundamental truth in regional politics: lasting stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved without addressing the root causes of its fundamental conflicts, foremost among them the Palestinian cause. Even if the war reshapes the military and political balance of power in the region, it will not negate Palestinian demands for freedom and independence. Indeed, the continued absence of a just political solution may keep the region vulnerable to recurring cycles of tension and instability. Ultimately, the American-Israeli war with Iran may change the map of alliances in the Middle East, but it will not change the fact that the Palestinian cause remains one of the pivotal issues determining the future of peace and stability in the region.

The joint US-Israeli aggression on Iran entered its second week amidst a state of severe internal division in the United States, as the latest opinion poll data showed that the vast majority of citizens do not support the continuation of this military conflict. According to the results of a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, about 53% of respondents oppose military operations against Tehran, while the percentage of supporters did not exceed 40%, reflecting a significant gap between the White House's direction and American public opinion.

The figures indicate an excessive sensitivity to ground intervention, as 74% of voters expressed their categorical rejection of sending US ground forces to Iranian territory, while a small percentage of only 20% supported this approach. This popular rejection comes at a time when questions are increasing about the strategic utility of escalation, especially since 55% of Americans believe that Iran does not pose an imminent and direct threat to US security at present.

On the political front, President Donald Trump faces increasing pressure to demand transparency, as 59% of survey participants affirmed the necessity for the President to return to Congress to obtain legislative approval before proceeding with military operations. Also, 62% of Americans believe that the current administration has failed to provide a clear and logical explanation for the reasons that necessitated launching this widespread military attack, which negatively affected the President's popularity, which declined to 37%.

In the context of political warnings, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal expressed his deep concern after a closed briefing in Congress, indicating that current indicators are pushing towards deploying American soldiers on the ground to achieve potential objectives. Blumenthal clarified that the Trump administration is required to provide sufficient explanations to the public about the risks soldiers face in the region, considering this war to be the presidency's choice, not the choice of the American people who are cautiously watching developments.

On the ground, military operations began on February 28, and witnessed a significant escalation that included Iran launching more than 2000 missiles and drones targeting vital facilities in Gulf countries. The UAE received the largest share of these attacks, while the Sitra refinery in Bahrain was directly targeted on March 9, resulting in human casualties and severe material damage to oil infrastructure.

The war caused a near-complete paralysis of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for the tenth consecutive day, which is the waterway through which about 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas supplies flow. This closure prompted Saudi Aramco to warn of catastrophic consequences for the stability of global energy markets, especially with the decline in crude oil production in the Middle East by about 4.9 million barrels per day since the outbreak of the confrontation.

Economically, oil markets witnessed sharp fluctuations, with the price per barrel jumping to $119 at the peak of the escalation before falling to levels of $86, amidst international fears of continued supply disruptions. Major countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE were forced to reduce their production and close vital refineries such as Al-Ruwaise and Ras Tanura as a result of direct security threats and drone attacks that targeted facilities.

Inside Iran, the weekend saw the appointment of a new Supreme Leader for the country in a move aimed at organizing the internal situation to face external military pressures. Despite assurances from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the conflict remains under control, the reduction of embassy staff in the region reflects the extent of concerns about the expansion of the confrontation and its transformation into a comprehensive regional war whose end cannot be predicted.

International positions were not far from the scene, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed his deep concern about the absence of a clear vision or exit plan to end this war. In contrast, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt insists that the end of military operations is linked to achieving what she described as 'unconditional surrender' from the Iranian side, a high bar that may prolong the conflict and its human and material costs.

Reports indicate that Russia and China are providing indirect support to Tehran, which further complicates the military and political landscape for Washington and its allies. With the US midterm elections approaching, observers believe that the lack of public support for the war could be a major obstacle for the Republican Party, especially since previous wars began with popular momentum that later eroded, while this war began with prior popular rejection.

In conclusion, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and oil facilities in Iraq and the Gulf remains the primary driver of global concern, as production in southern Iraq's fields has decreased by 70%. With missiles and drones continuing to be intercepted over Bahrain and neighboring countries, the region faces open scenarios, amidst the US administration's insistence on achieving its military objectives despite growing internal opposition and warnings of a global economic catastrophe.

This war was not chosen by the American people, but by the President, and it seems that we are heading towards deploying troops in Iran to achieve vague objectives.

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- As the United States and Israel launched their war on February 28, 2026 against Iran, the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council once again found themselves in an uncomfortably familiar position. Their strategic dilemma has shaped Gulf security policy for decades: they rely heavily on Washington for protection, yet they live in the immediate shadow of Iran. When crises erupt, Gulf leaders must reconcile alliance politics with geographic reality. Loyalty to a distant partner cannot override the risks faced at home.

A recent article published by The Economist asked whether Gulf states should join the attacks on Iran. The question reflects the widening gap between outside expectations and regional realities. In Washington and in Israel, the confrontation is framed as an opportunity to weaken a long standing adversary. In the Gulf it is seen differently: a war fought in their skies, against their infrastructure, and within reach of their cities.

Pressure from Washington has been anything but subtle. Influential voices on Capitol Hill, including Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz, have demanded that Gulf states join the military campaign alongside the United States and Israel. Some have hinted that American security commitments should be reconsidered if Gulf partners refuse to participate. The message is blunt: join the fight or risk losing the protection that has anchored Gulf security for decades.

Such rhetoric may resonate in Washington’s political arena, but it sounds very different in Gulf capitals. Calls for war are always easier when the battlefield lies thousands of miles away. For Gulf states, participation would mean inviting Iranian retaliation onto their territory. Ports, airports, oil installations, desalination plants, and crowded cities would become immediate targets.

This is why Gulf governments have chosen caution. Their military posture remains overwhelmingly defensive. Advanced air defense systems intercept missiles and drones, but Gulf states avoid launching attacks on Iran. The strategy is straightforward: defend national territory while avoiding steps that would turn the Gulf into the central battlefield of a regional war.

The economic stakes are enormous. Oil and gas facilities, shipping terminals, and financial centers form the backbone of Gulf prosperity and global energy markets. These assets are concentrated and exposed. Precision missile strikes on a handful of installations could shake markets and inflict immediate domestic damage. For governments whose stability rests on economic performance, the danger is existential.

Yet hesitation in Gulf capitals is not driven only by fear of retaliation. It also reflects doubts about the strategic logic behind the war promoted by Israel and its allies in Washington. Israel views Iran as its most serious regional adversary and has long argued for decisive action. But geography matters. While Israel sits at some distance from the Gulf battlefield, the Gulf states would absorb the immediate shock of escalation.

In effect, the countries most exposed to Iranian retaliation are being asked to carry the risks of a confrontation whose goals are defined elsewhere. For Gulf leaders this raises a simple question: whose war would they actually be fighting?

Doubts are reinforced by uncertainty about the durability of American strategy in the Middle East. For decades the partnership with Washington formed the cornerstone of Gulf defense policy. Yet recent history shows how quickly American priorities shift as administrations change and public opinion turns against foreign wars.

The legacy of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan still shapes regional thinking. Both conflicts began with promises of swift victories but evolved into prolonged campaigns that destabilized entire societies. Gulf leaders watched those outcomes carefully and concluded that dismantling a state is far easier than managing the aftermath.

That lesson looms even larger when Iran is considered. With more than eighty million people and complex political and ethnic dynamics, Iran is far larger and more intricate than either Iraq or Afghanistan. A severe weakening of the Iranian state could unleash instability across the region.

Competing factions, armed groups, and refugee flows would not remain inside Iran’s borders. Instability would spill outward into neighboring states and vital waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz. For Gulf governments the prospect of prolonged turmoil next door is far more dangerous than the uneasy balance that existed before the war.

The role of Israel adds another layer of political sensitivity. While several Gulf states normalized relations with Israel in recent years, overt military alignment against Iran carries risks. Many across the Arab and Muslim worlds would view such cooperation not as necessity but as participation in a conflict shaped largely by Israeli security priorities.

Even so, restraint brings its own dilemmas. Some policymakers argue that excessive caution could embolden Tehran and invite further missile or drone attacks. The challenge is to preserve deterrence without triggering a cycle of escalation that could spiral beyond control.

Even without direct participation, the Gulf remains central to the economic dimension of the conflict. Global energy markets depend heavily on the uninterrupted flow of oil and gas from the region. Any disruption reverberates through the world economy.

Ultimately Gulf reluctance reflects realism rather than weakness. From Washington and Israel the confrontation may appear as a strategic contest. From the Gulf it looks like a war whose costs would be immediate and devastating.

The most sober voices therefore ask a simple question: who will actually pay the price of this war? For the Gulf states the answer is painfully clear. The missiles will fall closest to them first if escalation continues unchecked tomorrow.

US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff revealed arrangements for an official visit to Israel early next week, directly aimed at enhancing joint coordination on military plans related to the ongoing war against Iran. This move marks the first of its kind for high-ranking American officials since the launch of joint military operations on February 28th.

In statements to international media, Witkoff indicated that the United States and its allies have largely undermined Iran's nuclear infrastructure. He clarified that the ability to enrich uranium is now almost completely destroyed, placing Tehran before difficult choices in the next phase of the confrontation.

On the international diplomatic front, significant developments emerged regarding Russia's stance on the conflict, with sources reporting that the Russian President held a phone call with his American counterpart, Donald Trump. During the call, the Russian side affirmed Moscow's abstention from providing Tehran with any intelligence information related to American military assets in the region.

For its part, the Kremlin remained silent on reports of US pressure to prevent information exchange with Iran, and the Russian presidential spokesman refused to comment on allegations of providing Tehran with coordinates of potential targets. These developments follow American press reports accusing Moscow of assisting its ally in identifying targets for retaliation against attacks.

In Washington, President Donald Trump downplayed the significance of any intelligence leaks that might reach the Iranian side, considering that they would not make a fundamental difference in the course of operations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also expressed confidence in field superiority, asserting that the US administration is not concerned about Iranian attempts to gather information.

On the ground, the US Secretary of Defense announced a new phase of military escalation, vowing to launch the most intense airstrikes since the war began about ten days ago. Hegseth confirmed from the Pentagon that strikes directed at targets inside Iran would see unprecedented intensity to ensure the achievement of the operation's strategic objectives.

Hegseth emphasized that the timeline for military operations is entirely subject to the assessments and decisions of President Donald Trump, who is in charge of managing the crisis. He clarified that US forces are on high alert to carry out their assigned missions with high precision deep inside Iran.

In contrast, the Iranian response came from the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, who described the American threats as desperate attempts that would not intimidate the Iranian people. Larijani affirmed in official statements that his country is prepared for a long confrontation and will not back down in the face of increasing military pressure.

Larijani invoked religious and historical symbols in his speech to emphasize the resilience of the Iranian domestic front, warning the US administration against continuing this approach. He considered that military power, no matter how great, would not be able to erase the will of nations, vowing that the results would be counterproductive for the aggressors.

It is worth noting that the military confrontations that began in late February have led to severe human and material losses on the Iranian side, including high-ranking leaders in the hierarchy of power. In return, Tehran continues its attempts to retaliate by launching missile barrages and drones targeting various locations, which has resulted in damage to civilian properties in several areas.

Let's see if the Iranians want to talk, we have almost completely destroyed their ability to enrich uranium.

US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, announced a new phase of military escalation against Tehran, confirming an unprecedented intensification of air and missile strikes. Hegseth clarified during a press conference held at the Pentagon that the operations scheduled for Tuesday would be the most violent and fierce since the first spark of the war ignited about ten days ago.

Regarding the timeline of military operations, the US Secretary stressed that President Donald Trump is the sole master of affairs and the ultimate decision-maker in determining the duration of this war. He indicated that the military establishment's mission is to implement the strategies set, while the assessment of the confrontation's end or continuation remains with the political administration in the White House.

For his part, General Dan Kane, the highest-ranking US military official, revealed details of the field operations that directly targeted Iranian naval capabilities. Kane explained that US forces used a combination of heavy artillery, fighter jets, strategic bombers, and guided naval missiles to neutralize Iranian threats in regional and international waters.

These developments come amid mutual threats, as Tehran has threatened to close waterways and prevent oil exports through the Gulf for the duration of the conflict. In response, President Trump renewed his warnings in a harsh tone, promising to confront any Iranian interference in global energy supplies with 'death, fire, and fury,' which raises international concern about disruptions to supply chains.

On the ground, General Kane confirmed that US units continue to pursue Iranian vessels designated for laying naval mines and destroying their logistical depots. These operations, according to military sources, aim to ensure freedom of navigation and prevent Tehran from using mines to obstruct the movement of commercial ships and tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

In the context of mutual accusations, Hegseth sharply criticized the Iranian army, accusing it of moving missile launch platforms to populated areas and near schools and hospitals. The US Secretary considered that these tactics aim to impede the offensive capabilities of the United States by using civilians as human shields to protect military installations.

Regarding reports of civilian casualties, Hegseth did not provide a direct response to the targeting of an elementary school in the southern city of Minab, an attack that Tehran said killed 150 people. The Secretary merely stated that US forces take strict precautions that exceed any other country in the world to ensure the avoidance of targeting non-combatants during the execution of their missions.

In contrast, Tehran did not stand idly by, as sources reported that Iranian forces launched counter-attacks using waves of ballistic missiles and suicide drones. These attacks targeted several countries in the region hosting US military bases, indicating an expansion of the confrontation and its transformation into an open regional conflict.

Today will also be the fiercest in strikes inside Iran, and President Trump is the one who decides the timeline.

In an analysis published by the 'Financial Times', writer Gideon Rachman asserted that the strategy adopted by US President Donald Trump towards Iran, inspired by his experience in Venezuela, has suffered an early failure. He explained that the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic came as a shock to Washington's plans, which had hoped to engineer a new leadership aligned with its interests.

Rachman indicated that the military operation, dubbed 'Epic Rage', was essentially aimed at finding an Iranian figure to play the role of 'Delcy Rodriguez' in Venezuela. Trump's decision to launch this war was influenced by the rapid success he achieved in Caracas at the beginning of the year, where he was impressed by the ability of military force to shift balances and access oil resources.

The United States, in coordination with Israel, moved to overthrow the Iranian government, believing that the model of selecting a new leader for Venezuela could be literally applied in Tehran. Trump had previously stated that he wished to be directly involved in the process of appointing the new leadership, just as happened with Rodriguez's inauguration following the arrest of Nicolas Maduro.

These ambitions dissipated with the announcement of Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the late leader Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated at the beginning of the conflict, as the new Supreme Leader. Despite expectations that Israel would also seek to assassinate the son, reality dictates that the future of Iranian leadership is no longer subject to direct American will as planned.

The significant gap between the two models lies in the fact that Washington had a clear channel of communication with Rodriguez before acting in Venezuela, which made her inauguration easy. In contrast, the US administration lacks a ready successor in Iran, as the White House has not shown enthusiasm for the return of the exiled Shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, to power.

Trump revealed in statements described as tragic that most of the figures Washington had considered for leading the transitional phase had passed away. This absence of pragmatic alternatives capable of consolidating power made it impossible to proceed with the 'regime change' path favored by the current US president.

Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations described this policy as aiming to install a leader who executes orders without engaging in a complex nation-building process. This approach seems attractive to Trump because it promises quick geopolitical and commercial gains and avoids involvement in long-term conflicts that do not serve his 'America First' slogan.

While Venezuela quickly transformed from an ally of Russia and China to a state subservient to American interests, the scene in Iran appears completely different and more complex. US officials visited Caracas to conclude massive energy deals, while US forces remain stuck in an open military confrontation with Tehran.

The military intervention in Iran deviated from the rapid course seen in the Venezuelan model, where Maduro's capture took only a few hours. In the Iranian case, the conflict has exceeded its first week, with Trump speaking of operations that could extend for a month or more, with the possibility of having to send ground troops.

The attack on Iran turned into a widespread regional war, with more than a dozen countries subjected to mutual missile bombardment during the first days. These developments shattered Trump's hopes for quickly controlling the situation and finding a 'great and acceptable' leader to end the conflict on Washington's terms.

The economic repercussions of the war began to appear catastrophically on global markets, with oil prices soaring to record levels after the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The rise in fuel prices puts immense political pressure on the White House, especially with crucial election dates approaching and growing public concern.

Rachman believes that Trump may find himself forced to choose between comprehensive military escalation or a rapid withdrawal to minimize political and economic losses. Trump possesses a unique ability to claim victory even in cases of clear failure, which he may resort to to justify any future retreat from his stated goals.

However, withdrawing from the Iranian confrontation will not be as simple as withdrawing from other issues, given the presence of about 40,000 US troops and strategic bases in the crosshairs. Allies and economic assets in the region are now at risk, making an end to the war on American terms questionable.

In conclusion, the 'Epic Rage' operation appears as a model of failure in assessing the adversary's strength and the absence of a political vision for the aftermath of a military strike. The gamble on the Iranian regime falling like dominoes proved unrealistic, placing the US administration in a strategic dilemma that could change the face of the region for years.

Trump revealed in a tragic irony that most of the Iranian figures Washington had considered installing as alternatives to the regime had died.

Washington – Said Arikat - 10/3/2026

News Analysis

The cancellation of the planned visit by US envoy Steve Witkoff and the President's son-in-law and former White House advisor Jared Kushner to Israel has raised widespread questions in political and media circles, especially in light of the accelerating escalation in the region and the increasing tension associated with the confrontation with Iran. Israeli media reported that the visit, which was supposed to include meetings with Israeli officials to discuss security and political developments, was suddenly canceled without an official explanation from Washington or Tel Aviv.

Normally, such decisions are not viewed as mere ordinary logistical arrangements, especially when it comes to high-level diplomatic visits at a politically and security-sensitive time. Visits of this kind often carry political and strategic messages that go beyond the protocol framework, and are used to demonstrate the level of coordination between allies or to affirm political positions at critical regional moments. Therefore, the cancellation of a visit at this level opens the door to multiple interpretations regarding what might be happening behind the scenes at this stage.

One possible explanation for this decision is related to increasing security considerations. In light of current tensions and mutual threats in the region, US and Israeli security agencies may have concluded that a visit by prominent American figures could entail unforeseen security risks. With the escalation of potential retaliatory responses or mutual military operations, the concerned parties may see that reducing the public appearance of prominent political figures represents a precautionary step to avoid any unexpected developments that could embarrass both sides or raise the level of tension.

However, the security dimension is not the only possible explanation. The cancellation of the visit may also reflect a state of reassessment within the US administration regarding how to deal with the next phase of the crisis. Normally, public political visits reflect a degree of clarity in the adopted strategy, while their cancellation may indicate that discussions within Washington are still ongoing about the nature of the next steps and the limits of possible escalation.

The US administration may be reviewing its options between continuing to support military escalation or seeking diplomatic paths that could contribute to containing the crisis. In such cases, Washington may prefer to postpone public moves until the strategic picture becomes clearer, especially if there are considerations related to international or regional reactions that may result from any further escalation.

The timing of the decision may also reflect an American tendency to prioritize broader consultations with other regional partners. Current tensions are not limited to Israel and Iran alone, but their effects extend to a number of countries in the region, especially those that host US military bases or are part of regional security arrangements. From this perspective, Washington may be seeking to conduct a series of quiet consultations with its allies in the region before making a public political visit to Israel.

However, a deeper reading of the visit's cancellation may also lead to questions about the nature of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv during moments of sharp escalation. Despite the strength of the strategic alliance between the two parties, this alliance is often not without discrepancies in assessment or in the prioritization of issues. These discrepancies often emerge during major crises when security calculations intertwine with broader political and economic interests.

In this context, it may be simplistic to assume that the United States always plays the role of a "balancer" that seeks to de-escalate in contrast to a greater Israeli impetus towards confrontation. The political reality over the past years shows that Washington has not always been a restraining force for escalation, but has often been a direct partner in policies of pressure and confrontation, whether through extensive military support or by providing political and diplomatic cover for Israel in international forums.

Moreover, the talk about the United States' constant endeavor to maintain regional stability faces increasing criticism in the region, where many observers believe that US policies often combine rhetoric calling for stability with practices on the ground that may lead to opposite results. The almost unconditional support for Israel in a number of sensitive issues, along with punitive policies towards its regional adversaries, has sometimes contributed to deepening regional polarization instead of containing it.

From this perspective, any potential discrepancy between Washington and Tel Aviv at this stage may not necessarily relate to the principle of escalation itself, but perhaps to its degree, timing, and potential repercussions on broader American interests. The United States, as a global power with multiple commitments and partnerships in the Middle East, is compelled to take into account the calculations of other countries, whether concerning energy security, the stability of regional allies, or its balances with other international powers.

In the event of differences in views regarding the limits or timing of military operations, postponing such a visit could give both sides additional time to coordinate positions and narrow the gap of discrepancies before moving to the stage of public political moves. Postponing the visit could also help avoid sending contradictory signals at a sensitive political moment where any diplomatic step might be interpreted as unconditional support for a specific path of escalation.

Ultimately, the cancellation of Witkoff and Kushner's visit may not be merely a fleeting protocol decision, but may reflect an indication that the regional scene is still in a state of great fluidity and that many important decisions related to the course of the crisis have not yet been settled. In such circumstances, diplomacy often moves in invisible paths, where crucial decisions are made away from the spotlight until the features of the next phase become clear.

While the real reason behind the cancellation of the visit remains undisclosed so far, this step most likely reflects the magnitude of the complexities surrounding the current crisis, and indicates that the calculations of major powers in the region may be more intricate and cautious than public political statements suggest.

In moments of major transformation witnessed by the region, political questions emerge as a mirror reflecting the depth of division in our way of thinking and forming our stances. The ongoing war today between Iran on one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other, has brought to the forefront an old debate characterized by intensity and fragmentation in Arab and Islamic positions. This debate reminds us of the symbolic stories of 'Byzantine debate' where people were preoccupied with marginal details while the walls of their cities were collapsing before invaders.

The current situation is not just a fleeting military confrontation, but a real test of political, religious, and social consciousness. The division we see today reflects a disconnect between thought and reality, where elites and the general public are immersed in sterile debates while the real danger surrounds everyone. These traditional stories characterize the state of civilizational weakness that recurs when words become isolated from action and field reality.

Politicians often resort to mixing religion with politics to produce rigid positions that are difficult to retract, which is clearly seen in the current conflict. The confrontation between Iran and the American-Israeli axis is not purely religious or nationalistic, but a complex struggle for power and influence. Religious identities are used here as effective mobilization tools to galvanize spirits and legitimize military actions under a guise of sanctity.

The United States and Israel frame the conflict as a confrontation with the 'Shiite Iranian threat' to divert attention from the Palestinian issue. In contrast, Iran presents itself as the patron of the 'Axis of Resistance' in confronting 'global arrogance,' a discourse aimed at legitimizing its regional influence. Between these two discourses, the Arab individual finds himself torn between contradictory readings of political and doctrinal reality.

The Arab street is divided into three main factions regarding this conflict, each with its own premises. The first faction views Iran as a doctrinal enemy whose danger surpasses the Israeli threat, stemming from a narrow identity-based perspective. The second faction aligns politically with Iran to confront the Zionist project, which it sees as an existential threat targeting the entire nation regardless of sectarian differences.

The third faction adopts the position of the 'gloating spectator,' seeing any harm inflicted upon Iran as punishment for its policies in Arab countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. This position ignores the high human cost of war and disregards the flames that may strike civilians. These three positions are not just fleeting opinions, but an expression of psychological and social identities struggling within the collective consciousness.

The jurisprudential rule 'no denial in what is differed upon' is absent from the reality of Muslims today, which turns differences of opinion into deep religious animosity. Reality indicates that disagreements do not die but are renewed on every occasion, whether simple jurisprudential or major political. This inability to manage differences turns issues into existential crises that increase the state of fragmentation and general weakness.

The disagreements among Muslims are no longer just differences in viewpoints, but have transformed into psychological identities that give their adherents a sense of moral superiority. They are also linked to a social memory formed through bitter experiences and diverse nationalities, affected by the artificial 'Sykes-Picot' borders. Each party tries to clothe its political position in a religious garment to give it symbolic power capable of mobilizing followers.

To understand this division, one must return to the historical roots of the Sunni-Shiite conflict, which began as a political struggle for power after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Over time, this political dispute transformed into a doctrinal gap, then into political borders between major empires like the Ottomans and Safavids. Today, these symbolic wounds, such as the events of Karbala and the Great Fitna, are invoked to fuel contemporary conflicts.

International powers exploit this historical division to fragment the region and achieve geopolitical goals cloaked in religion. While Iran issues the discourse of the 'oppressed,' its adversaries focus on contentious issues such as 'insulting the companions' despite fatwas prohibiting it. This mutual instrumentalization of history makes peoples fuel for wars that serve only the interests of major powers and external hegemony.

The fundamental question we must ask today is not with whom we stand, but how we understand the conflict without becoming tools in the hands of others. The true measure of protecting consciousness lies in realizing that states do not necessarily represent religion, but rather their political interests. It must also be emphasized that Palestine remains the central issue that should not be lost in the crowd of sectarian disputes.

Our preoccupation with 'Byzantine' debate over doctrinal and historical details gives colonial powers a golden opportunity to reshape the region according to their interests. The Sunni-Shiite conflict should not be used to obscure the more important question about the causes of the nation's weakness and civilizational decline. We need a conscious reading that distinguishes between religious constants and political maneuvers that use the sacred to achieve worldly goals.

The current war is a test of our maturity and our ability to overcome the open wounds that are reopened in every new conflict. History is being written before our eyes today, and our ability to understand is the dividing line between being active on our land or merely marginal observers. Continuing to be divided means remaining in the role of 'boys' who collect stray balls on the fields of adults, taking blows without the ability to respond.

In conclusion, consciousness remains the most powerful weapon in confronting attempts at fragmentation and political domestication. Overcoming the psychological and political 'Sykes-Picot' requires courage in reviewing positions and freeing oneself from the captivity of historical conflicts that no longer serve anyone but the enemies of the nation. The path to the future begins with understanding the present, away from the convulsions of the past and the alignments of powers that see us only as tools for their own projects.

The current war is not just a military confrontation, but a test of our political consciousness and our ability to read the conflict without becoming tools used by one side or another.

Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip continued today, Tuesday, as aerial and artillery bombardment resulted in the martyrdom of three people and injuries to a number of citizens. These aggressions come in the context of continuous violations by the occupation army of the ceasefire agreement signed last October 10, exacerbating the already deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Strip.

Field sources reported that the occupation army launched two raids targeting a house and a tent for displaced persons after issuing evacuation warnings, a tactic that has become a daily occurrence to terrorize civilians. In a related context, the spokesperson for the occupation army announced the liquidation of three Palestinians, claiming they attempted to cross the so-called 'Yellow Line,' which increases the intensity of field tension in border areas.

The eastern areas of Gaza City witnessed a renewal of intense artillery shelling, coinciding with air raids that targeted neighborhoods in the central governorate and northeast of Al-Bureij refugee camp. These military operations were not limited to fixed targets but extended to affect the simple infrastructure that displaced persons rely on for their daily lives under siege.

In the Sheikh Ajlin area, southwest of Gaza City, occupation aircraft targeted a tent designated for charging mobile phones and providing internet services to displaced persons. This raid caused severe material damage to nearby shelters, depriving hundreds of families of their only means of communication with the outside world.

In the southern part of the Strip, warplanes launched a raid on a house belonging to the Al-Qudra family in the vicinity of Hamad Residential City in Khan Yunis, an area crowded with displaced persons' tents. Although the raid did not result in immediate human casualties thanks to prior warnings, it caused widespread destruction that increased the suffering of the displaced who are living on the ground in that area.

Local sources confirmed that Israeli warships participated in the escalation by intermittently firing shells and machine guns towards the Gaza coast. This coincided with shooting and artillery shelling targeting the movements of citizens in various areas east of the Strip, leading to injuries among displaced persons who tried to move to meet their needs.

On the ground, video clips documented the continued extensive clearing and bulldozing operations by occupation bulldozers in the destroyed areas east of Gaza City. These military movements come at a time when residents are trying to restore their daily lives amidst the rubble, despite continuous security threats and intense drone flights.

In an update to its official data, the Ministry of Health in Gaza revealed that the number of victims since the ceasefire began on October 11 has reached 648 martyrs. The ministry explained that medical teams dealt with more than 1,700 injured, in addition to recovering hundreds of bodies from under the rubble in various governorates of the Strip.

The ministry concluded its report by indicating that the total toll of the Israeli aggression since October 7, 2023, has risen to 72,133 martyrs and 171,826 injured. These horrific figures reflect the magnitude of the humanitarian catastrophe experienced by the Palestinian people amid the continued systematic targeting of civilians and infrastructure.

The total number of victims of operations since the start of the ceasefire is 648 martyrs and 1,728 injured, indicating the continued escalation and its significant impact on displaced persons.

The six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are facing their toughest test in decades, finding themselves in the direct line of fire of the escalating conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other. Despite attempts at joint coordination, disparities in foreign policies and fears of the repercussions of military involvement continue to hinder the achievement of a unified stance towards attacks targeting their territories.

Since the launch of the American-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, the region has entered an unprecedented spiral of violence, with Tehran launching more than two thousand missiles and drones towards the Gulf states. This escalation has placed Gulf capitals before a painful reality, where the conflict is no longer far from their borders, but now threatens vital infrastructure and global energy sources.

Field data indicates that the pain has not been evenly distributed among the region's countries, as more than half of the Iranian attacks were concentrated on the United Arab Emirates. In a dangerous development, drones targeted Bahrain's only oil refinery on March 9, injuring dozens and prompting the state oil company to declare 'force majeure' in its contracts.

In Kuwait, sources reported that air defenses managed to intercept three ballistic missiles and drones targeting Kuwait International Airport. Despite the successful interception, missile fragments caused limited fires at the Subiya power station and the explosion of fuel tanks, leading to a temporary suspension of air navigation before its gradual resumption.

In Saudi Arabia, defensive forces destroyed a drone in the Empty Quarter region that was en route to target the Shaybah oil field. Official sources confirmed the registration of the first two fatalities in the Kingdom as a result of falling interceptor missile fragments, increasing popular and political pressure to take a firmer stance against continuous Iranian threats.

There is a state of paralysis in decision-making within the GCC, where officials are divided between a faction urging restraint to avoid an all-out war, and a faction demanding military deterrence against Iran. This division is essentially due to a loss of trust in the current US administration led by Donald Trump, who faces declining popularity and widespread internal opposition to the continuation of the war.

Gulf capitals bitterly recall Washington's inaction after the attacks on Saudi oil facilities in 2019, which reinforces doubts about the seriousness of American security commitments. Gulf leaders fear that Washington might succeed in dragging them into a destructive conflict, then suddenly withdraw, leaving them in direct confrontation with a wounded and motivated Iranian neighbor.

In a related context, Israeli attempts to draw regional countries into the conflict emerged through media leaks claiming the participation of Emirati and Qatari aircraft in striking targets inside Iran. Abu Dhabi and Doha quickly denied these reports entirely, with Gulf officials describing these leaks as a 'dirty game' aimed at imposing a fait accompli and embarrassing Arab states before their people.

These Israeli leaks provoke unspoken anger in Abu Dhabi, which has sought since the signing of diplomatic agreements in 2020 to build a close partnership that endured even during the war on Gaza. Observers believe that leaking information that may be secret or false represents a stab in the back of security understandings, and may sometimes amount to incitement to war crimes.

Domestically, Gulf rulers cannot ignore public opinion, which is overly sensitive to involvement in a regional war. In Bahrain, Iranian attacks raise fears of new social unrest, especially with old grievances among some groups, where videos recorded voices chanting support for the attacks as they occurred.

In the UAE, there is a divergence of views between the political capital, Abu Dhabi, which tends to adopt a firm foreign policy towards Iranian threats, and Dubai, which represents the commercial center and prefers complete neutrality. Prominent businessmen have expressed concern that the war could destroy the economic model based on stability and attracting global investments.

Advocates of restraint believe that joining the US military alliance represents an unacceptable risk, especially with a president who does not believe in international multilateralism. In contrast, the hardline faction believes that the conciliatory messages sent by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian have not prevented missiles from falling on Gulf cities, making deterrence an inescapable necessity.

The biggest concern remains related to the post-war phase; assuming the Iranian regime remains, it will face severe sanctions and billions of dollars in economic losses. Officials in the Gulf fear that Tehran may resort to blackmailing neighboring countries through intermittent drone attacks or harassing ships in vital waterways to compensate for its losses or to alleviate pressure on it.

Ultimately, it seems that the advocates of restraint currently hold the upper hand in Gulf ruling circles, awaiting what the coming days will bring. However, a major Iranian attack causing widespread human casualties could completely tip the scales, pushing the region towards an all-out confrontation that no one desires but everyone is preparing for.

It's a dirty game; Israel is trying to impose a fait accompli by leaking reports of alleged military action by GCC states.

In an analysis published by 'Foreign Affairs' magazine, academic Robert E. Pape argues that the recent military escalation against Iran has put the United States and Israel in a predicament beyond their endurance. He explained that Operation 'Epic Rage', despite its precision in targeting the leadership hierarchy in Tehran, proved that modern air power alone is not enough to resolve complex political conflicts.

Washington and Tel Aviv thought that the elimination of the Supreme Leader and senior IRGC commanders would paralyze the leadership structure and destabilize the Iranian regime. However, the Iranian response was swift and organized, with hundreds of missiles and drones launched to target a wide geographical area that included most of the Gulf states and the American military bases deployed there.

Sources reported that sirens did not stop in the occupied cities, while American forces in the Al Udeid, Al Dhafra, and Ali Al Salem bases sought shelter from Iranian projectiles. This response was not just random retaliation, but rather the beginning of a 'horizontal escalation' strategy aimed at expanding the scope of the war and prolonging it to confuse the calculations of the stronger adversary.

Iranian strikes caused enormous economic repercussions, with fires breaking out in commercial facilities in Dubai and damage to installations near Kuwait International Airport. These events led to a sharp jump in global oil prices, with traders expecting continued disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's energy supplies pass.

Pape points out that Iran has drawn lessons from previous wars fought by the United States, specifically in Vietnam and Serbia. In those conflicts, the militarily weaker party succeeded in thwarting American objectives by shifting the battle to political, economic, and social levels that made the cost of continuing the war prohibitively high.

Tehran's strategy relies on demonstrating flexibility and the ability to operate even after losing top leadership, which was embodied in launching widespread attacks just hours after the assassinations. This message is directed internally and externally, confirming that the regime possesses institutions capable of managing the conflict under the harshest conditions.

By targeting sites in nine countries hosting American forces, Iran seeks to impose what experts call 'multiple exposure'. This move aims to embarrass Washington's allied governments and show that hosting American bases brings destruction rather than security, thereby creating popular and political pressure within those countries.

Analyses confirm that Iran does not seek to defeat America in a traditional face-to-face battle, but rather aims to gain political influence and change regional power balances. Politicizing the conflict by disrupting navigation and striking the insurance and shipping sectors puts the American administration under immense pressure from Congress and the international community.

Time plays a crucial role in Iranian calculations, as the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the likelihood of disagreements between Washington and its European allies. European capitals fear energy price fluctuations and potential migration waves, which may push them to distance themselves from escalatory American policies.

On the ground, friendly fire incidents, such as American planes crashing over Kuwait, revealed the extent of logistical complexities in managing a wide front. These errors reinforce the Iranian narrative that external military intervention leads to uncontrollable chaos even by great powers.

Tehran is also trying to create a rift between the ruling regimes in the region and their peoples by portraying itself as a force resisting foreign hegemony. Iran exploits negative sentiments towards Israeli policies in the region to rally popular sympathy that transcends ideological and sectarian differences with the Iranian regime.

The American president faces a real dilemma between two difficult choices; either to redouble military efforts and impose permanent containment that may last for years without tangible political results. Or to declare 'objectives achieved' and withdraw, which would expose the administration to sharp internal criticism for failing to complete the mission.

The NATO experience in Kosovo in 1999 shows that precise air strikes can have counterproductive results, such as inciting waves of ethnic cleansing or mass displacement. In the Iranian case, military pressure could push Tehran to a greater escalation that threatens the stability of the entire global system, not just Gulf security.

In conclusion, the article concludes that 'horizontal escalation' is the most effective weapon in the hands of regional powers to counter Western technological superiority. If Washington does not realize the dimensions of this shift, it may find itself mired in a long-term war of attrition in which it loses control over the course of events it ignited.

Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily in a traditional conflict, but rather aims to gain political influence by dragging a stronger adversary into a spiral of multiple risks.