Prominent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham launched scathing criticism at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, accusing it of failing to use its military capabilities to confront what he described as the 'brutal and terrorist' Iranian regime. Graham stated that Tehran has caused a state of terror in the region and its practices have led to the deaths of seven American citizens, which necessitates decisive action from regional allies.

Through his account on the 'X' platform, the American senator questioned the strategic utility of the United States seeking to conclude a joint defense agreement with Riyadh, at a time when the latter refuses direct involvement in a battle that affects the common interests of both countries. Graham considered that military alliances must be based on the principle of actual solidarity on the ground, not just on paper, especially in light of the existential threats posed by Iran.

Graham explained that the United States continues to spend billions of dollars and sacrifice the lives of its soldiers to curb Iranian influence, which threatens the stability of the entire Middle East. In contrast, the senator believes that current Saudi actions are nothing more than diplomatic statements and behind-the-scenes moves that offer very limited benefits and do not rise to the level of current security challenges imposed by Tehran.

Graham's criticisms were not limited to Saudi Arabia alone; he also issued a direct call to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to seriously engage in military confrontation. The senator warned that the continuation of the current situation would inevitably lead to 'consequences' whose nature he did not specify, but which hint at the possibility of re-evaluating the defense and security relations linking Washington with the capitals of the region.

These sharp statements come shortly after a meeting between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Senator Graham at Al-Yamamah Palace in the capital, Riyadh, last month. According to official sources at the time, the meeting discussed the historical friendly relations between the two countries and reviewed developments in regional and international situations in a way that serves common interests.

That meeting was attended by high-level Saudi officials, including Minister of Defense Prince Khalid bin Salman and Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan. Despite the protocol atmosphere reflected in the official news of the meeting, Graham's recent statements indicate a deep divergence in views on how to deal with the Iranian file and the distribution of military burdens.

It is worth noting that Graham had previously criticized Saudi positions due to differences in views with the United Arab Emirates, particularly regarding the Yemeni file. This new wave of attack reflects increasing pressure within decision-making circles in Washington to push Gulf allies towards playing a more offensive military role in confronting Iranian activities in the region.

Why would America conclude a defense agreement with a country like Saudi Arabia that refuses to participate in a battle of common interest?

A number of Palestinian citizens suffered severe suffocation injuries on Monday evening, as a result of a series of incursions carried out by Israeli occupation forces in various areas of the occupied West Bank. Clashes focused in the town of Al-Dhahiriya, south of Hebron city, where military forces fired a barrage of toxic gas bombs and live ammunition at worshippers as they left mosques after performing Tarawih prayers.

In occupied Jerusalem, occupation machinery uprooted hundreds of trees in the lands of Sur Baher town, specifically in the Wadi al-Hummus area adjacent to the separation wall. Local sources confirmed that the bulldozing operations targeted vast areas of agricultural land located a short distance from the wall's security path, leading to the destruction of vegetation cover that dates back decades.

Field reports indicated that the area of land affected by the bulldozing is estimated at about 50 dunams, which included ancient trees, some of which were over 60 years old. The ownership of these lands belongs to citizens from Bethlehem city and Sur Baher town, who found themselves facing heavy losses as a result of the destruction of their agricultural properties, which constitute a source of livelihood and a history linked to the land.

Concurrently, the occupation army expanded its incursions to include the villages of Beitillu, Saffa, and Beit Ur al-Tahta in Ramallah governorate, in addition to the town of Tammun, south of Tubas city. Despite the heavy military presence in these areas, no arrests or house raids were reported, as military activity focused on intimidating residents and obstructing their nighttime movement.

These attacks come amid a continuous escalation of settler and army attacks on Palestinian villages and towns since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip in October 2023. Official data indicate that the West Bank is experiencing a state of permanent tension due to systematic policies that target both land and people in all governorates.

According to data from the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission, occupation authorities carried out more than 1,454 attacks in the West Bank during last February alone. These attacks varied between demolishing structures, confiscating lands, uprooting trees, and providing protection for settlers while carrying out their attacks on isolated Palestinian communities.

Regarding human losses, Palestinian statistics indicate the martyrdom of 1,125 Palestinians and the injury of about 11,700 others in the West Bank since October 7. The number of arrests has also risen to about 22,000 cases, reflecting the scale of the comprehensive military campaign launched by Israel in the occupied territories.

Occupation forces stormed Al-Dhahiriya town amid firing live ammunition, sound bombs, and toxic gas at citizens as they exited mosques.

Calls have escalated within Israeli settler circles for the necessity of exploiting the momentum from the military confrontation with Iran to impose a new security and political reality in the West Bank. Settler leaders believe that the strategic focus on Tehran should not divert attention from the need to resolve security issues in Palestinian cities and villages near Israeli population centers.

David Ben Zion, assistant head of the West Bank Settlement Council, claimed that the current phase requires moving beyond limited tactical operations to a phase of radical change. In an analysis published by Hebrew media, he pointed out that Israel made a historical mistake by adopting a containment policy towards Gaza and Lebanon, which should not be repeated in the West Bank.

Ben Zion considered Iran to undoubtedly represent the greatest existential threat through its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, but local Palestinian organizations could turn into a similar strategic threat if given the opportunity and time. He stressed that exploiting the current international pressure on Tehran represents a golden opportunity to dismantle what he described as the 'ring of fire' surrounding Israel.

Informed sources clarified that the Israeli army is currently intensifying its night operations deep within Palestinian territory, with special units carrying out continuous raids to confiscate weapons and arrest organizational cadres. However, settlers believe that these efforts remain within the framework of 'firefighting' and do not address the roots of what they describe as continuous incitement by the Palestinian Authority.

Settler leaders criticized current policies, claiming that the continued payment of salaries to the families of prisoners and martyrs fuels the motives for resistance among Palestinians. They demanded the adoption of a comprehensive offensive approach aimed at eradicating military infrastructure and smuggling networks active in various areas of the West Bank, warning of an imminent explosion if the status quo remains.

Analysts believe that clear American support for Israel in its regional war provides political cover for expanding military operations in the occupied territories. The Israeli right is exploiting this support to push for unprecedented measures aimed at undermining any military capability of the Palestinians, benefiting from the world's preoccupation with major conflict arenas.

In a related context, the name of General Avi Balut, commander of the Central Region, emerged as a pivotal figure in implementing this settler vision due to his extensive experience in the West Bank's terrain. Settlers are banking on Balut's leadership capabilities to transform military operations from localized raids into a comprehensive strategic campaign that will change the face of the region for years to come.

Reports indicate that the danger is no longer limited to isolated settlements in the heart of the West Bank but now threatens Israeli cities within the Green Line such as Netanya and Kfar Saba. This security perception is being marketed to the Israeli public to justify the upcoming military escalation and legitimize widespread attacks on Palestinian camps and cities.

For its part, political circles warned that exploiting the regional war to settle scores in the West Bank could lead to counterproductive results and ignite the situation uncontrollably. Despite this, it appears that the settler movement has strong influence within the current government to push towards this escalatory path under the pretext of 'national security'.

These moves coincide with reports indicating that the regional system is undergoing a restructuring phase, making the Palestinian arena a testing ground for more aggressive Israeli policies. The occupation seeks to impose facts on the ground that will be difficult to reverse in the future, exploiting the current state of international polarization.

The focus on 'eradicating' combat means and smuggling networks reflects an Israeli desire to strip the West Bank of any means of defense or resistance. These steps, in the view of observers, are part of a broader plan to annex large parts of the West Bank and liquidate the Palestinian issue politically and on the ground.

Despite the relative calm that may appear on the surface, Israeli military operations do not stop, indicating preparations for a broader operation. Sources confirm that coordination between the political level and the settlers has reached advanced stages to determine the strategic objectives for the next phase.

The question remains about the international community's ability to curb these settler ambitions that feed on regional wars. While attention is focused on Tehran and Beirut, the West Bank remains a silent conflict arena that the occupation plans to turn into an open confrontation front to achieve its expansionist goals.

In conclusion, it is clear that the upcoming Israeli strategy relies on the principle of 'multiple fronts' not only for defense but for offense and geopolitical change. The West Bank remains at the heart of this plan, where settlers seek to transform it into an area completely subject to absolute military control without any regard for international agreements.

We must not forget the broken windows closest to us; neglecting nearby arenas, as happened in Gaza and Lebanon, cost us heavy bloodshed on October 7th.

Official sources in the Gaza Strip reported an increase in the death toll of journalistic and media personnel to 261 martyrs since October 8, 2023. This announcement came after the martyrdom of journalist Amal Mohammed Shamali, 46 years old, who was working as a correspondent for Qatar Radio, following an Israeli airstrike that targeted her displacement location at dawn on Monday.

Local sources stated that the Israeli shelling directly targeted tents housing displaced people in the Al-Sawarah area, west of Al-Zawaida in the central Gaza Strip. This raid resulted in the martyrdom of journalist Shamali, along with Ms. Nour Saleh Al-Shallalfa and child Salsabil Anwar Faraj, in addition to the injury of about ten other citizens with varying degrees of injuries, who were subsequently transferred to nearby hospitals.

For its part, the Government Media Office in Gaza condemned what it described as the systematic and continuous targeting of Palestinian journalists by the occupation forces. The office called on human rights organizations and international and Arab journalistic unions to urgently intervene to condemn these crimes and prosecute the occupation leaders in international courts to pressure for an end to the genocide and to provide the necessary protection for media crews.

This crime comes amidst the continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement concluded on October 10, 2025, with statistics indicating the martyrdom of 648 Palestinians and the injury of 1728 others due to daily breaches since the agreement was signed. Children, women, and the elderly represent about 46% of the total victims of these ongoing breaches in various areas of the Strip.

Regarding the total losses, the American-backed genocide war has resulted in more than 72,000 martyrs and about 172,000 injured, with massive destruction affecting 90% of civilian infrastructure. UN reports estimate the cost of rebuilding what the occupation destroyed at about 70 billion dollars, amidst a catastrophic humanitarian situation experienced by the residents of the besieged Strip.

The number of journalist martyrs has risen to 261 journalist martyrs since the beginning of the genocide war on the Gaza Strip.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir announced a new expansion plan aimed at increasing the number of armed settlers in the occupied city of Jerusalem. This step includes granting personal firearm licenses to over 300,000 additional Israelis, as part of a systematic policy led by the leader of the 'Jewish Strength' party since he took office.

Ben Gvir clarified via social media platforms that the decision includes adding 41 new neighborhoods and 1,600 streets in Jerusalem to the list of areas eligible for carrying weapons. The extremist minister claimed that this measure aims to enhance what he described as 'personal security' and increase the ability to confront operations, despite human rights warnings that this step encourages targeting Palestinians.

Official statistics issued by Ben Gvir's office indicate that approximately 240,000 Israelis have already obtained weapon licenses since the end of 2022. This figure reflects a significant jump in the arming of Israeli civilians, a policy that has accelerated markedly since the outbreak of comprehensive confrontations in October 2023.

In contrast, the German government expressed its strong condemnation of the escalating violence perpetrated by settlers against Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank. A spokesperson for the German Foreign Ministry described these incidents as 'extremely shocking,' emphasizing that they are part of a long series of systematic attacks targeting unarmed residents.

Berlin stressed the need to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable, noting that the killing of five Palestinian civilians by settler gunfire within one week represents a 'tragic culmination' of the escalation on the ground. Diplomatic sources confirmed that serious discussions are currently underway within the European Union to impose strict sanctions on settlers involved in the violence.

On the ground, the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem are witnessing an unprecedented escalation in the pace of attacks carried out by both the occupation army and settlers. According to official Palestinian data, the number of martyrs since October 8, 2023, has reached approximately 1,125, in addition to nearly 11,700 others who sustained various injuries.

The violations were not limited to killing and injury but also included widespread arrest campaigns targeting approximately 22,000 Palestinians in various West Bank governorates. These campaigns are accompanied by extensive property destruction and the demolition of homes and vital facilities, in an attempt to displace the indigenous population and expand illegal settlement areas.

Israeli press reports, including those published by Haaretz newspaper, confirm that settler attacks recorded a record increase of 25% during the last year. These attacks often occur under the direct protection of occupation forces, providing cover for settlers to continue their aggressive practices against Palestinian villages and towns.

Observers and human rights activists believe that Ben Gvir's policy of facilitating weapon licenses turns the streets of Jerusalem and the West Bank into open arenas for cold-blooded killing. These measures are considered a blatant violation of international laws that consider Jerusalem and the West Bank occupied territories, obliging the occupying power to protect civilians, not to arm settlers against them.

In light of this escalation, the international community demands immediate intervention to stop the policy of indiscriminate arming and curb settler attacks. However, the Israeli government continues to ignore international warnings, proceeding with its plans aimed at changing the demographic and security reality in the holy city through the force of arms.

Citizens owning weapons is an important element in enhancing personal security and the ability to respond to incidents.

The Bekaa Valley region in eastern Lebanon is witnessing a rapid military escalation, as Israeli warplanes have intensified their airstrikes on a series of villages and towns. This bombing coincided with repeated attempts by the Israeli army to carry out ground landings deep in the region, indicating a shift in the military tactics used in the current confrontation.

According to field information, Israeli forces carried out two landing operations in less than two days targeting the Nabi Sheet area in the Baalbek district. Sources reported that these movements come in the context of infiltration attempts through which the occupation seeks to reach strategic points far from the traditional confrontation lines in southern Lebanon.

For its part, Hezbollah announced in an official statement that it confronted an Israeli infiltration attempt at dawn on Monday, after monitoring intense flights of about 15 military helicopters in the skies of the eastern mountain range coming from the Syrian side. Sources confirmed that clashes erupted after an Israeli unit was spotted advancing in the Sarghaya plain area, forcing it to retreat under fire.

These operations raise deep questions about the actual goals of the occupation, especially after the Israeli army claimed that the purpose of the first landing was to search for the remains of the missing pilot Ron Arad. However, the Israeli force remaining inside Lebanese territory for nine hours raised widespread doubts about the nature of the activity the force carried out during that long period.

Security estimates indicate that the occupation may have used the pretext of searching for remains as a cover for complex intelligence operations or as a diversion to carry out other tasks in the region. Israeli reports claimed that the operations also targeted facilities dedicated to manufacturing and storing drones used by Hezbollah in its cross-border attacks.

Observers believe that the repeated landings in the Bekaa aim to test the level of combat readiness of Hezbollah units in those areas, and to collect updated field information about the target bank. The Israeli narrative considers the Bekaa region to be a strategic weight no less important than the southern suburbs of Beirut or the border villages in the south.

Amid the continued intense flights of Israeli drones and warplanes, tension remains dominant in the Bekaa Valley, which has become an open arena for qualitative operations. Data confirms that the Israeli army places this region among its operational priorities, in an attempt to undermine the logistical and military capabilities emanating from deep within Lebanon.

Recent Israeli movements in the Bekaa open the door to major questions about the nature of the missions carried out and whether the search for the pilot's remains was a cover for deeper intelligence objectives.

The head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc in the Lebanese Parliament, Mohammed Raad, stressed that Hezbollah no longer has any option but military confrontation to defend its entity and existence in light of the continued violent Israeli airstrikes. Raad clarified in a televised speech that the party's objectives are primarily focused on expelling the occupation forces from Lebanese territories and stopping the continuous violations of national sovereignty by land, sea, and air.

In a tense internal political context, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun sharply criticized Hezbollah, accusing it of undermining the pillars of the Lebanese state to serve regional agendas affiliated with the Iranian regime. Aoun announced a political initiative aimed at reaching a comprehensive truce with Israel, noting that the government had made a definitive decision to prevent any military or security activities outside the state framework.

On the ground, Israeli security reports revealed serious concerns within the military establishment about the possibility of Hezbollah expanding its targeting scope to include vital and strategic facilities deep inside Israel in the coming days. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Security Minister Yoav Gallant were informed of these assessments, which indicate a new phase of military escalation.

Regarding human casualties, the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced a grim toll from the continuous Israeli airstrikes over the past week, with 486 martyrs and over 1,300 injured. These figures coincide with a worsening humanitarian crisis, as the governmental disaster risk management unit confirmed that the number of displaced people fleeing the shelling exceeded 660,000.

In a notable development, Hezbollah announced the execution of a missile strike targeting a satellite communications station located in central Israel, confirming a precise hit. Despite official obfuscation by the occupation authorities, circulated video clips showed plumes of smoke rising from the targeted site before their dissemination was restricted by military censorship.

For its part, Hebrew media sources, including Maariv newspaper, reported that at least 15 people were injured as a result of interceptor missile shrapnel falling in various areas of central Israel following an intense missile barrage launched from southern Lebanon. These injuries reflect the extent of the missile pressure now reaching areas far from the direct border, disrupting air defense systems.

Israeli military operations, which began on March 2nd, continue at an escalating pace, with the occupation army focusing its raids on Lebanese villages and towns. In contrast, the Lebanese resistance continues its defensive operations, asserting that reliance on God and adherence to the land are the only way to confront attempts to liquidate Lebanese existence and impose political conditions under fire.

We have no other option to preserve honor, pride, and dignity but the option of resistance and defending our existence, whatever the cost.

March 10, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- Recent remarks by former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken offer a revealing look at how close the United States has repeatedly come to being pulled into a major Middle East war. His recollections highlight moments when regional tensions nearly spiraled into broader conflict—and they raise an uncomfortable question about why Washington rarely uses the immense leverage it holds over its closest regional ally.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Blinken recalled that during the presidency of Barack Obama, Israel strongly urged the United States to launch military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli leaders warned that Iran’s program posed an existential threat and suggested that if Washington refused to act, Israel might strike alone. The implication was clear: a unilateral Israeli attack would almost certainly trigger a regional conflict that could quickly draw the United States into the fighting.

Obama resisted the pressure. Instead of military action, his administration pursued what he described as “very muscular diplomacy,” combining tough international sanctions with negotiations. That strategy eventually produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, an agreement designed to curb Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

The decision was controversial, both in Washington and abroad. Critics argued the agreement did not go far enough in restricting Iran’s long-term capabilities. Supporters countered that it prevented a near-term nuclear crisis and avoided a potentially devastating regional war. Whatever one’s view of the deal, the episode underscored a critical reality: American strategic interests do not always perfectly align with Israel’s threat perceptions.

Blinken described another moment when events nearly escalated dramatically. In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israeli officials warned Washington that Hezbollah might soon launch an attack from Lebanon. They urged a preemptive strike to neutralize the threat before it materialized.

According to Blinken, U.S. officials took a step back and carefully reviewed the intelligence. Their conclusion was that the warning was either mistaken or exaggerated. The region, he said, came within roughly thirty minutes of a major escalation before the situation was defused.

Such episodes reveal a recurring pattern. Israeli threat assessments and calls for decisive military action have at times placed Washington at the edge of a broader conflict. Yet while American leaders occasionally step in to slow events during moments of crisis, the United States rarely uses its broader political leverage to shape Israeli decisions before tensions reach that point.

This reluctance is striking given the nature of the relationship between the two countries. The United States is Israel’s most important strategic partner, providing billions of dollars in military aid, advanced weapons systems, diplomatic protection in international forums, and consistent political support. That backing has helped ensure Israel’s military dominance in the region and reinforced a close alliance that spans decades.

But the relationship also produces an imbalance. Because Israel can rely on strong American support, it can pursue aggressive security policies with the expectation that Washington will ultimately stand behind it. This dynamic can encourage risk-taking at moments when caution might better serve regional stability.

The United States has significant leverage it could employ to moderate these risks. Its military assistance, diplomatic backing, and political support give Washington considerable influence. In theory, these tools could be used to encourage restraint, discourage preemptive action, or promote strategies that reduce the likelihood of wider war.

In practice, however, that leverage is rarely applied. American support for Israel has often been treated as unconditional, even when U.S. officials privately express concern about escalation. As a result, Washington frequently finds itself managing crises after they erupt rather than shaping the conditions that might prevent them.

The consequences of this pattern extend beyond bilateral relations. Conflicts in the Middle East have repeatedly expanded beyond their initial spark—from wars in Lebanon to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and recurring cycles of violence between Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Once these confrontations escalate, they often draw in additional regional actors and complicate American strategic interests.

Blinken’s recollections highlight how narrow the margin for miscalculation can be. Intelligence warnings, political pressure, and the urgency of military decision-making can combine to push events toward confrontation in a matter of minutes. When such moments occur, even a small error in judgment could trigger a conflict involving multiple states—and potentially the United States itself.

Acknowledging these risks does not mean dismissing Israel’s security concerns. The country faces genuine threats from armed groups and hostile actors in the region. But strong alliances require more than solidarity. They also require candid assessment and, at times, the willingness to use influence to prevent dangerous escalation.

Blinken’s reflections now carry an added layer of irony. On February 28, 2026, the United States entered direct military confrontation with Iran alongside Israel, turning the very scenario he once warned about into reality. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the joint attack (still going) as the culmination of a long-held objective. In statements following the strikes, he said the partnership with Washington had finally enabled him to do what he had “hoped to do for 40 years”—to strike Iran decisively. Reports also indicated that Netanyahu viewed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump as a crucial partner in achieving that goal.

Seen in this light, Blinken’s earlier warnings sound less like speculation and more like foreshadowing. The United States had previously stepped back from the brink of war in the Middle East. This time, it crossed the threshold.

As the American-Israeli war on Iran enters its eleventh day, widespread repercussions are unfolding, not limited to the boundaries of military confrontation, but extending to affect other regional issues, foremost among them the Palestinian cause. According to Dr. Ali Jarbawi, Professor of Political Science at Birzeit University and former Palestinian Minister, the Palestinian cause has, in the shadow of this war, transformed into what can be described as a "forgotten conflict."

Jarbawi believes that what is happening in the region is no longer just a limited confrontation, but has become a regional war since its first day, due to the involvement of many parties. Although the apparent scene suggests that the conflict is between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other, the reality reveals the direct or indirect involvement of major regional powers. Furthermore, the repercussions of the war have extended beyond the region to affect the global economy, especially amidst the disruption of energy markets and the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which has impacted global oil and gas trade.

The Palestinian Cause in the Shadow of a Larger War

Within this turbulent scene, Jarbawi believes that the Palestinian cause has fallen to a lower priority on the international agenda. Major conflicts, he says, often overshadow smaller ones, which applies to the current Palestinian situation. The regional war has overshadowed what is happening in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, where international monitoring of events there has declined.

He points out that field developments clearly reflect this; international discussions about the political stages related to the war on Gaza have ceased, and the Rafah crossing has been re-closed after having been partially opened previously. At the same time, settler attacks in the West Bank have escalated and become more violent, while global attention to what is happening on the ground is absent.

From his perspective, Israel is exploiting the world's preoccupation with the war to accelerate its policies on the ground, especially in the area of settlement expansion and imposing new realities in the West Bank. Thus, Palestinians are paying the price for a conflict larger than themselves, a clear embodiment of the saying that "small conflicts pay the price for large conflicts."

Post-War Scenarios

In the long term, Jarbawi links the future of the Palestinian cause to the outcomes of the ongoing war. If Israel emerges victorious and is able to significantly weaken or change the Iranian regime, the regional balance of power may shift in a way that could increase pressure on Palestinians. Also, Gulf states, in this scenario, may become preoccupied with arranging their security and political affairs, which could reduce the Palestinian cause's presence in their priorities.

Limited Palestinian Options

In light of this reality, Jarbawi does not believe that Palestinians have wide options at the international or regional level at present, as most powers are preoccupied with the war and its repercussions. Therefore, he believes that the priority should be to arrange the internal Palestinian house, especially in light of the suffocating financial crisis suffered by the Palestinian Authority and the deteriorating economy in the West Bank due to Israeli policies and the withholding of Palestinian tax revenues.

He emphasizes that this economic crisis directly impacts the ability to manage the internal situation, increasing public frustration and weakening trust between society and the political leadership. Therefore, he believes that strengthening national cohesion and building a unified political discourse has become an urgent necessity, even if it is not sufficient to fully resolve the problem.

Escalation Probabilities in the West Bank

With the deterioration of the economic situation and the escalation of settler attacks, Jarbawi believes that the probabilities of escalation in the West Bank have increased. The lack of financial liquidity and the paralysis of economic activity create a tense social environment, accompanied by a growing state of insecurity in some areas.

In this context, he believes that strengthening the relationship between the official level and Palestinian society may help alleviate tensions and restore some degree of trust, even if partially.

End of the Two-State Solution?

Among the issues Jarbawi also addresses is the two-state solution, where he asserts that this solution has practically ended years ago, and what remains of it is merely a political slogan used in international discourse without real translation on the ground. Settlement expansion and the fragmentation of Palestinian lands have made the establishment of a viable Palestinian state almost impossible.

He believes that continued adherence to this slogan primarily aims to manage the conflict rather than resolve it, which buys time for the continuation of facts imposed on the ground. Therefore, he calls for posing new strategic questions about the future of the Palestinian national project and searching for realistic alternatives.

The Religious Dimension of the Conflict

Jarbawi also points to the escalation of the religious dimension in Israeli political discourse, especially with the rise of religious right-wing currents within the government. These currents, in his opinion, are based on a religious ideology that pushes towards controlling all of historical Palestine and perhaps expanding beyond it, as seen in Israeli policies towards neighboring countries such as Syria and Lebanon.

In this context, he draws attention to what is happening at Al-Aqsa Mosque, including incursions and restrictions on prayer, considering that reactions in the Islamic world are still below the level of the challenge posed by these policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Jarbawi believes that the Palestinian cause is going through a highly sensitive phase, as its internal crisis intersects with major regional transformations that may redraw the map of the region. While the world is preoccupied with a wide regional war, Palestinians find themselves in the position of a "forgotten conflict," making the arrangement of the internal house and the building of a new political strategy more urgent than ever.

The skies of the Middle East region have witnessed an exceptional US military movement that has attracted the attention of international observers and military analysts, as the airborne command post aircraft, the \"E-6B Mercury,\" was spotted flying. This aircraft is known in media circles as the \"Doomsday Plane,\" due to its pivotal role in managing major military operations and controlling the nuclear arsenal.\n\nThis aircraft is considered a mobile command and control center, specifically designed to connect the high command with strategic nuclear forces, including missile-carrying submarines and heavy bombers. Its utmost importance lies in its ability to issue direct orders to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads in extreme emergencies.\n\nSources reported that the deployment of this aircraft in the region comes at a sensitive time, reinforcing speculation about its potential role amid ongoing confrontations and tensions between regional parties. This move serves as a strategic deterrent message, ensuring the continuity of command and control even in the most difficult field and political circumstances.\n\n"The Doomsday Plane" is characterized by superior technical capabilities that allow it to remain airborne for up to a full week without needing to land, thanks to aerial refueling technologies. This exceptional endurance transforms it into a floating military base in the sky, capable of managing global crises from high altitudes away from ground threats.\n\nThe aircraft's structure and internal systems are designed to be resistant to nuclear explosions and electromagnetic pulses that could disrupt traditional electronic devices. It is also equipped with advanced protection systems against nuclear radiation and complex electronic jamming, ensuring that communication channels remain open with all combat units.\n\nThe aircraft can accommodate about 112 people and is equipped to host the US President, the Secretary of Defense, and senior military leaders in cases of all-out wars. The aircraft's internal environment provides all the technical means that allow these leaders to manage state affairs and direct military strikes from anywhere in the world.\n\nThe history of this model's entry into military service dates back to 1974, but it has undergone a series of deep updates during the 1980s and beyond to maintain its technical superiority. The latest of these updates was in June 2023, when Northrop Grumman developed its communication systems and internal equipment to keep pace with modern cyber threats.\n\nThe US fleet possesses only four aircraft of this type, and the Department of Defense is committed to keeping at least one of them on constant 24-hour alert. This system ensures the aircraft's readiness for immediate takeoff at any moment to become the beating heart of US command in the event of any sudden attack on ground centers.\n\nAnalysts linked the current appearance of the aircraft to previous events, as it was spotted last year coinciding with the escalation of confrontation between Israel and Iran. Its repeated appearance in the region's skies raises serious questions about the nature of the missions it performs, and whether it is linked to contingency plans to confront a potential military escalation in the regional nuclear file.\n\nUltimately, the \"E-6B Mercury\" aircraft remains the most terrifying non-combat tool in the US arsenal, as its flight indicates that crises have reached critical levels. With continued military movements in the Middle East, eyes remain on what the coming days will bring in terms of field developments reflected by these strategic flights.\n\nThe Doomsday Plane ensures that US military forces receive confirmed orders to launch nuclear missiles even if ground infrastructure is destroyed.

Washington – Said Arikat

10/3/2026

US President Donald Trump said on Monday afternoon that the war with Iran was “largely complete,” asserting that the United States was “far ahead” of the timeline he had initially estimated, which ranged between four and five weeks. Trump’s remarks came in an interview with CBS News.

Trump added that Iranian military capabilities had suffered significant blows, stating: “I believe the war is largely complete. They have no navy, no communications, no air force.”

When asked about navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, he indicated that ships were still crossing the strait, but said he was “considering taking control of it.”

In contrast, statements from Tehran suggest that the Iranian leadership is preparing for a long conflict with the United States, given its adherence to escalation and its refusal to return to the diplomatic path at the current stage. Kamal Kharrazi, foreign policy advisor to the office of the Supreme Leader, affirmed in an interview with CNN that his country is ready for a “long war,” considering that ending the conflict will only be achieved through widespread economic pressure that pushes international parties to intervene to stop what he described as “American and Israeli aggression” against Iran.

Kharrazi explained that Tehran no longer sees room for diplomacy at present, noting that his country had engaged in two rounds of negotiations with Washington, but attacks occurred at the same time those talks were ongoing, which – according to him – led to a complete loss of trust in the possibility of reaching a political settlement.

These statements reflect a clear hardening of the Iranian position after about ten days of the war’s outbreak. The leadership in Tehran is betting that the continuation of the conflict will lead to increased economic pressure on countries in the region and the world, as a result of disrupted energy markets, rising inflation rates, and supply shortages. Iranian officials believe that these pressures may push affected countries, especially in the Gulf, to pressure Washington to end the war.

On the ground, Iran expanded the scope of its attacks to include several countries in the Middle East, asserting that it targets American military interests in the Gulf states. However, multiple reports indicate that civilian facilities, including residential buildings and airports, have been subjected to repeated attacks, which increases regional tension and raises fears of the conflict’s expansion.

Iranian strikes have also affected global energy trade. Tehran exploited the fragility of the oil sector’s infrastructure and maritime transport routes, leading to a sharp decline in navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, oil prices exceeded one hundred dollars per barrel, causing disruptions in global financial markets.

According to estimates by the “Rapidan Energy Group,” the conflict has disrupted about 20 percent of global oil supplies, a level far exceeding the impact seen in markets during the Suez Canal crisis in the 1950s. The conflict has also depleted what is known as the oil market’s spare production capacity, which is the ability that producing countries rely on to quickly increase production during crises.

Politically, Iran witnessed a notable development over the weekend with a shift in the power hierarchy, as Mojtaba Khamenei, son of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was appointed to the highest leadership position in the country. Observers believe this step may indicate the possibility of continued escalation. Kharrazi affirmed that the military and political leadership in Iran is fully united behind this approach.

For his part, Trump expressed his rejection of this appointment, considering it unacceptable, but Kharrazi responded by saying that it was “none of his business.”

Iranian statements indicate a clear shift in Tehran’s strategy for managing the conflict. Instead of relying on direct negotiations, Iran appears to be seeking to expand the economic cost of the war. Recognizing its limited ability to confront the United States militarily in a traditional way, Tehran relies on asymmetric tools, such as disrupting energy supply routes and stirring regional tensions.

This strategy aims to shift pressure from the battlefield to the global economy, which may push international powers, especially in Europe and Asia, to pressure Washington to contain the escalation.

Domestically, Mojtaba Khamenei’s rise to leadership reflects an attempt to maintain the regime’s continuity at a moment of decisive conflict. In wartime, strengthening the cohesion of the political and military leadership becomes a top priority, especially with the expectation of increasing economic and social pressures within Iran itself. However, Iran’s bet on exhausting the global economy may entail significant risks, as it could push the United States and its allies to intensify military strikes and sanctions, which could open the door to a broader regional conflict that would be difficult to contain in the short term.

Israeli occupation forces launched, at dawn on Monday, a widespread campaign of raids and arrests in several cities and towns in the occupied West Bank. Human rights sources reported that Israeli forces stormed citizens' homes and wreaked havoc in them, leaving a state of terror among the residents, before arresting 24 Palestinians on the pretext that they were wanted by their security agencies.

The Palestinian Prisoner's Club clarified in a statement that the incursions were accompanied by heavy gunfire and confrontations in several areas, noting that the occupation deliberately abused the detainees and their families during the raids. These field escalations come within the framework of the continuous policy of restriction pursued by the occupation authorities against Palestinians in various governorates of the West Bank.

On the religious front, the occupation authorities continue to impose a strict siege on the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, which prevented thousands of worshipers from reaching to perform night prayers and i'tikaf in the last ten days of the month of Ramadan. Jerusalemite researchers warned that these measures aim to impose a new temporal and spatial reality that reduces the Islamic presence in the holy sites, amidst demands for international intervention to stop these violations.

Occupation forces stormed various areas of the West Bank amidst heavy gunfire, and carried out search operations and assaults against citizens.

Analytical readings of the reasons for the American-Israeli military escalation against Iran point to a pivotal role played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in solidifying President Donald Trump's decision. In a phone call on February 23, intelligence sources presented a hypothesis that an imminent meeting of the Iranian Supreme Leader and his senior advisors represented a golden opportunity to assassinate the entire leadership. This Israeli move linked Trump's ambitions for a quick victory with the 'decapitation' strategy, marketed as a final solution to the Iranian crisis.

Netanyahu's persuasion of Trump relied on what was called the 'Venezuelan example,' where the Iranian regime was portrayed as a fragile structure that would collapse once its top leadership was eliminated, much like how President Nicolas Maduro was dealt with. This analysis intersected with Trump's public statements, in which he announced the death of the Supreme Leader, describing the event as the greatest opportunity for the Iranian people to reclaim their country. It seemed Washington was betting that a military strike would force the remaining Iranian leadership to negotiate from a position of extreme weakness.

This scenario was accompanied by Netanyahu's exploitation of Trump's political need for an 'escape' from internal crises and thorny issues plaguing him in the United States. Observers believe that the decision was not merely a personal whim but was linked to a broader American strategy aimed at controlling global energy reserves and securing oil markets. However, the supposed success in Venezuela was the primary driver Netanyahu used to market the idea of eliminating the Iranian leadership as a low-cost strategic solution.

In contrast, Tehran did not remain silent, announcing the election of a new leader and initiating a series of intense retaliatory attacks that targeted Israeli depth and American bases in the region. Despite President Masoud Pezeshkian's attempts to de-escalate through diplomatic 'apologies' for some attacks, the reality on the ground indicates an unprecedented escalation. Iranian responses included targeting vital economic facilities, placing the entire region on the brink of a military and economic volcano.

A major problem emerged in Trump's handling of sensitive intelligence information, with security sources criticizing his statements that revealed secret details related to the major strike. These precedents in disclosing operational secrets, such as referring to Israeli agents visiting the Fordow nuclear facility, further complicated the security landscape. It appears that the overlap between the desire for political showmanship and the requirements of secret military operations led to counterproductive results that were not anticipated by planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Whether the war was a pre-planned strategic decision or a result of Netanyahu's success in exploiting Trump's weaknesses, the outcome is the United States entering a new 'earthquake zone.' Israel is striving to leverage this conflict to radically and permanently change regional power balances. However, the failure to achieve the 'rapid collapse' scenario of the Iranian regime opens the door to catastrophic possibilities that may not stop at the borders of the Middle East but extend to include major powers such as Russia and China.

The Arab region today suffers from the repercussions of this military gamble, as countries find themselves facing economic and security losses whose end cannot be predicted. The bet that 'decapitation' would end the war proved naive in the face of the complexities of Iranian institutions and their history of confrontation. Instead of the promised stability, these strikes have opened the floodgates of chaos, threatening to turn the conflict into a long-term war of attrition that drains everyone's resources.

Ultimately, the current scene shows that political arrogance can lead to historical catastrophes when the realities of geography and history are ignored in favor of quick deals. The Middle East, boiling on a hot plate, needs a vision that transcends the language of missiles and assassinations, especially as 'doomsday scenarios' are now on the table. If the hawkish mood in Washington does not change, the region is heading for major transformations that will redraw the political map with unprecedented destruction.

Netanyahu succeeded in exploiting the American president's weaknesses to push Washington back into the Middle Eastern earthquake zone.

US President Donald Trump confirmed that the military confrontation in Iran has reached its final stages, indicating that Tehran has almost completely lost its defensive and offensive capabilities. Trump clarified in media statements that Iranian forces no longer possess an effective naval or air force, and their communication systems have been disrupted, putting them in a critical military situation.

The US President pointed out that Washington has made significant progress in implementing its military and political plans, exceeding the previously set timeline of four to five weeks. He added that the US administration is currently evaluating the next phase of the conflict, considering that the strategic objectives of the United States are being achieved on the ground faster than expected.

Regarding the new Iranian leadership, Trump sent a firm message to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, affirming that he has no messages for him at the moment. The US President went further by revealing his consideration of choosing an alternative figure to take the reins in Tehran, without disclosing the identity of potential candidates or the nature of this anticipated political change.

On the international navigation front, Trump addressed the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, stating that commercial vessels are currently passing through it without significant obstacles. However, the US President hinted at the possibility of imposing full control over the strategic strait in the near future, a step that could redraw the map of naval influence in the Arabian Gulf region and secure global energy supplies.

Diplomatically, the Kremlin revealed a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart, during which Putin presented proposals aimed at reaching a quick and comprehensive settlement to the war in Iran. During the conversation, the two leaders discussed other thorny international issues, including the conflict in Ukraine and the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, amid reports indicating Washington's intention to ease oil sanctions on Moscow.

Economically, global energy markets experienced a severe shock immediately after these announcements, with futures prices for Brent and US crude oil falling by more than 5%. These losses are driven by expectations of increased oil supply if the Trump administration eases restrictions on Russian exports, reflecting a significant overlap between military issues in the Middle East and global economic balances.

The war in Iran is nearing its end, and they no longer have naval, air, or even communication capabilities.

Palestinian authorities and institutions have issued strong warnings about the catastrophic consequences of the announcement by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir regarding the expansion of arming settlers in occupied Jerusalem. Palestinian sources confirmed that the inclusion of hundreds of thousands of settlers on the list of those eligible to carry weapons represents a green light for committing more crimes against unarmed citizens.

The Jerusalem Governorate, in an official statement, considered this step part of systematic racist incitement, aiming to open the door for new bloody attacks in an already volatile situation. The Governorate explained that the decision includes settlers residing in settlement outposts located in the heart of densely populated Palestinian neighborhoods, which increases the pace of security risks for the indigenous population.

The Governorate stressed that the policy pursued by the current occupation government represents an open call for extrajudicial killings, and grants extremists official cover to practice violence. It pointed out that these trends are fully consistent with the extremist right-wing ideology adopted by the Israeli government, which is based on the exclusion of Palestinians and targeting their existence by all means.

Statistics issued by the Jerusalem Governorate revealed a bitter reality, where 140 martyrs have fallen in the city over the past five years, including about 70 children. Sources attributed this heavy toll to official incitement policies and systematic violence practiced by both occupation forces and settlers, especially in the absence of international accountability.

Reports confirmed that the incitement discourse led by extremist ministers in the occupation government, foremost among them Ben-Gvir, has directly contributed to fueling waves of violence against Palestinians. Since October 7, 2023, the pace of these attacks has seen an unprecedented escalation, with weapons being used as a tool to impose intimidation and forced displacement in various neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

Palestinian institutions believe that settler crimes are no longer mere individual or random incidents, but rather express a clear pattern of 'organized state terrorism'. The Governorate held the occupation government fully responsible for any security deterioration resulting from arming settlers and providing them with legal and security cover to carry out their attacks under army protection.

In a related context, the Palestinian side called on the international community, the Security Council, and the European Union to intervene immediately to stop these dangerous policies that violate the Geneva Conventions. Palestinian demands called for the necessity of disarming settlers and providing urgent international protection for the Palestinian people who face the Israeli killing and incitement machine daily.

Itamar Ben-Gvir had announced via social media platforms the qualification of 41 neighborhoods in occupied Jerusalem as areas whose residents are entitled to obtain firearm licenses. The extremist minister claimed that this measure aims to enhance what he described as 'personal security' for Israelis, ignoring the direct threats that these armed individuals pose to the lives of Palestinians.

Under this new decision, more than 300,000 additional settlers in Jerusalem will be able to apply for official weapon permits, which raises the number of armed individuals in the city to record levels. The targeted areas include very sensitive settlement outposts, among them those in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, whose residents suffer from continuous attempts at displacement.

Israeli data indicated that Ben-Gvir's era has witnessed a boom in civilian armament, with more than 240,000 Israelis obtaining weapon licenses since the end of 2022. These figures reflect the systematic policy pursued by the Ministry of National Security in transforming the settler community into armed militias working alongside regular forces.

For his part, the head of the Palestinian National Council, Rawhi Fattouh, described this expansion of armament as a dangerous escalation and an open invitation to commit massacres. Fattouh explained that this political doctrine aims to unleash the settlers in Jerusalem and the holy sites, which poses a direct threat to Al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestinian properties that are constantly targeted.

Fattouh concluded his statements by warning that these policies undermine any remaining opportunities for achieving stability or reaching a just political solution, and push the region towards a comprehensive explosion. He affirmed that the occupation seeks, through force and racism, to entrench a new colonial reality aimed at changing Jerusalem's identity and displacing its indigenous residents through armed intimidation.

The policy of arming settlers grants extreme extremists a license to take the law into their own hands in line with their ideology based on hatred and racism.

In a time when public debt levels are rising and pressures on government budgets are increasing worldwide, dealing with financial crises has become a familiar reality for many countries. However, managing public finances for the Palestinian Authority goes beyond traditional economic policies to become a more complex equation related to maintaining institutional survival under exceptional political and economic conditions.

The Palestinian Authority operates in an environment that, in other contexts, would have led to complete financial and economic collapse. Yet, at the same time, it lacks the traditional tools that governments usually resort to in times of crisis; there is no national currency that can be devalued, no full control over the most important sources of revenue, and no ability to access international capital markets. In such a context, fiscal policy transforms into a delicate balancing act between limited resources and the primary goal of preventing the erosion of public institutions.

While governments in sovereign states are measured by their ability to ensure financial stability, the Palestinian Authority is measured by its ability to pay parts of its employees' salaries on time, maintain essential services such as health and education, and preserve a fragile social contract with citizens.

Even before the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023, the Palestinian Authority faced significant difficulties in meeting its financial obligations. The war exacerbated these challenges due to a severe economic contraction and a decline in local revenues, in addition to increasing restrictions on the movement of individuals, goods, and capital.

However, the fundamental cause of the Palestinian financial crisis is not technical as much as it is political. Israel has continued to withhold an estimated $4.5 billion in accumulated Palestinian clearance funds, which are taxes and customs collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority according to the Paris Economic Protocol. These revenues constitute about two-thirds of the Authority's monthly income, making any disruption to them a direct blow to financial stability. Israel has completely stopped transferring clearance funds since May 2025, leading the Palestinian Minister of Finance to recently describe this situation as an “existential threat” to the Palestinian Authority.

The risks are further complicated by repeated threats to sever correspondent banking relations between Israeli and Palestinian banks, which could expose the entire Palestinian financial system to the risk of paralysis and disruption of essential commercial activities.

As a result, over the past two years, the Palestinian Authority has only been able to cover about 60 percent of its monthly salary bill. Public debt has also risen to unprecedented levels, with arrears accumulating for public employees and private sector suppliers. This has led to a weakening of domestic consumption, a decline in private sector liquidity, and increased pressure on the banking sector.

If these dynamics continue without swift intervention, they could lead to a vicious cycle of economic deterioration and institutional disintegration. Nevertheless, practical steps can still be taken to reduce the risks of collapse.

First, regional and international diplomatic efforts must focus on the immediate release of the withheld clearance funds. The primary problem in Palestinian public finance is not a lack of technical solutions as much as it is the politicization of revenue flows. Even a partial release of these funds, along with an extension of correspondent banking relations, could significantly alleviate the severity of the financial crisis and reduce the risks of institutional collapse.

Second, emergency funding from international donors and multilateral financial institutions should be expanded to provide short-term liquidity support that ensures the continued provision of essential services and gives the Palestinian government time to implement necessary financial and economic reforms.

In the medium term, there is a need to deepen Palestine's integration into the international financial system, by enhancing cooperation with institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Even in the absence of full sovereignty, important international precedents exist. A country like Kosovo, despite the specificity of its political situation, managed to become a member of key international financial institutions, which allowed it access to innovative financing tools and contributed to strengthening its economic resilience.

Restructuring part of the domestic debt could also help alleviate the burden of high debt service that drains a significant portion of limited monthly revenues. By converting part of these debts into long-term bonds supported by appropriate guarantee mechanisms, liquidity pressures can be eased, and resources redirected towards essential expenditures.

However, the most important question remains whether the Palestinian Authority is capable of transforming this crisis from mere survival management into an opportunity to launch structural reforms that enhance financial sustainability. Crisis management alone is not enough. Long-term financial stability requires reforms in public financial management, including expanding the tax base, rationalizing expenditures, and encouraging the growth of private sector investments to reduce reliance on politically volatile funding sources.

In the Palestinian case, preventing collapse becomes an end in itself. But it is also a prerequisite for any future path towards economic recovery and building resilient institutions in a highly complex political and economic environment.

Medical sources reported the martyrdom of 30-year-old young man Imad Falfal, and the injury of several citizens with varying degrees of wounds, following an attack carried out by an Israeli 'quadcopter' drone in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, southeast of Gaza City. The sources explained that the drone targeted a gathering of civilians near Kashko Street by directly dropping a bomb, leading to casualties amidst continued field tensions.

In a related context, the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip recorded the arrival of 7 martyrs and 17 injuries to hospitals during the past twenty-four hours, as a result of a series of scattered targeting. The ministry indicated that ambulance and rescue teams are still facing extreme difficulties in reaching other victims who are still under the rubble of destroyed homes and in rugged roads blocked by debris.

Dawn hours of this Monday witnessed another escalation, as three Palestinians were martyred, including a child and journalist Amal Mohammed Shamali, following an Israeli shelling that targeted displacement tents in central areas of the Strip. These attacks come as part of a series of daily violations committed by the occupation army of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect on October 10, 2025.

Regarding official statistics, the total number of martyrs in the Gaza Strip since the signing of the ceasefire agreement has risen to 648 martyrs, while the number of injuries has exceeded 17,700. Specialized teams have also been able to recover 755 bodies from under the rubble since that date, at a time when the World Health Organization warns of the depletion of essential medicines and medical supplies in the remaining hospitals.

Since the start of the comprehensive aggression on October 7, 2023, the total number of casualties has reached 72,133 martyrs and 171,826 injured, in an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. International reports confirm that about 90% of the civilian infrastructure in the Strip has been destroyed, with the United Nations estimating the cost of reconstruction at about 70 billion US dollars to repair what the Israeli war machine has destroyed.

The total documented martyrs since the ceasefire agreement came into effect last October reached 648 martyrs, amidst continued field violations.

The Israeli occupation authorities continue to impose a comprehensive closure on the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque for the tenth consecutive day, preventing worshippers from accessing its courtyards and performing prayers. The occupation's security apparatuses cite the declared state of emergency following the ongoing Israeli-American attack on Iran, which began on February 28th, leading to a complete disruption of religious life in the mosque.

In parallel with the closure of the mosque, occupation forces continue their tight siege on the Old City in occupied Jerusalem, preventing anyone who does not hold a residential address within its walls from entering. This measure has isolated the holy city from its surroundings and deprived tens of thousands of Palestinians of their right to access their holy sites during the days of the blessed month of Ramadan.

For its part, the Islamic-Christian Commission for Supporting Jerusalem and Holy Sites affirmed that this closure represents a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the city's history. The commission clarified in a statement that the occupation seeks, through these measures, to impose a new spatial and temporal reality, exploiting regional circumstances to pass Judaization schemes targeting the identity of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The commission pointed out that preventing Tarawih prayers and the five daily prayers directly affects the sanctity of the mosque and its religious status among Muslims worldwide. It considered that this systematic policy aims to restrict freedom of worship and a blatant assault on internationally guaranteed religious rights, especially in light of the spiritual atmosphere of the holy month.

Jerusalemite activities rejected the security pretexts put forward by the occupation to justify the closure of the mosque, describing them as repeated excuses aimed at covering up the violations. Sources indicated that the closure coincided with a wide-ranging campaign of expulsions targeting Al-Aqsa Mosque guards and those stationed there to empty it of its protectors and facilitate control over it.

The commission warned of what it described as dangerous objectives behind this closure, foremost among them undermining the powers of the Islamic Endowments Department, which has legal and administrative authority over the mosque. It also warned that these steps aim to undermine the historical and legal Hashemite custodianship that Jordan holds over the Noble Sanctuary.

In a related context, the Jerusalem Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization warned of moves led by extremist settler groups to promote the rituals of sacrificing the 'Passover offering' inside Al-Aqsa. The department confirmed that these groups exploit government support to spread incitement materials and imaginative images simulating the performance of Talmudic rituals in the heart of the blessed mosque next month.

On the economic front, merchants in the Old City are suffering heavy losses as a result of the imposed siege and the prevention of shoppers from reaching their stores. The occupation police only allow stores specializing in selling foodstuffs to open, while the majority of shops remain forcibly closed due to restrictions on the movement of merchants themselves.

Local sources reported that many merchants failed to reach their stores because their registered residential addresses in their identity cards are outside the Old City's boundaries. Even those who manage to open their shops face a complete absence of purchasing movement due to the absence of worshippers and visitors who represent the main artery of Jerusalem's economy.

In a field testimony, Jerusalemite merchant Riyad Ad'eis said that the markets in the Khan al-Zeit area appear completely empty of passersby despite some food stores being allowed to operate. He explained that merchants open their doors symbolically without any sales, stressing that the current conditions have exceeded the ability of Jerusalemites to withstand taxes and accumulated debts.

Ad'eis concluded by pointing out that the Old City's economy relies entirely on visitors to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and with the continued closure, the markets have become ghosts. He affirmed that the continuation of this situation threatens the permanent closure of many commercial establishments that are no longer able to cover their operating expenses or pay their rents.

The closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque for the tenth consecutive day constitutes an unprecedented escalation that reflects the occupation's insistence on imposing a new reality and disrupting religious rituals during Ramadan.

Research sources at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies reported that Israel is striving to prolong the military confrontation with Iran, with the aim of achieving an undeclared strategic goal of undermining the pillars of the Iranian regime and overthrowing it. This vision is based on a firm Israeli conviction that Tehran will not abandon its nuclear ambitions as long as the current regime is in power, which makes a radical change in the structure of power a security necessity from Tel Aviv's perspective.

A recent position paper considered that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exploited major political shifts, starting from the repercussions of the 'Al-Aqsa Flood' operation to Donald Trump's return to the White House, to implement plans that had been prepared for decades. Through this escalation, Netanyahu aims to ensure Israel's monopoly on nuclear power in the region and prevent the emergence of any regional competitor capable of threatening its military superiority.

The sources indicate that Israeli incitement against Iran is not new, but rather an extension of a historical policy that began with the destruction of the Iraqi 'Tammuz' reactor in 1981 and the Syrian 'Al-Kibar' reactor in 2007. Israel is currently acting as a key driver of international efforts aimed at isolating Tehran and imposing maximum sanctions on it, in an attempt to exhaust it internally before delivering devastating blows to its infrastructure.

Israeli ambitions go beyond merely weakening military capabilities, reaching the point of desiring to plunge Iran into a state of comprehensive chaos or civil war. Tel Aviv is betting on stirring separatist tendencies among ethnic minorities, who constitute about half of the population, with the aim of dismantling the Iranian state into small states or warring cantons, thereby ending its role as a unified regional power.

For its part, the Israeli military establishment adopts an approach that supports the use of excessive force to weaken Iran, but at the same time recognizes the complexities of overthrowing the regime. Military sources believe that achieving this goal requires a large-scale air campaign targeting the country's economic nerve, including oil and gas facilities and electricity grids, which faces clear reservations from the current US administration.

The divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv is evident in the energy file; the Trump administration fears that intensive strikes on Iranian oil facilities could lead to Tehran's production being removed from global markets. This scenario could cause sharp jumps in international energy prices, which Washington seeks to avoid at all costs to maintain global economic stability and its internal interests.

Furthermore, Trump's political vision differs from Netanyahu's orientations regarding the future of governance in Tehran. While Israel pushes for the complete collapse of the regime, the US administration prefers to bring about a change in the regime's behavior and policies while keeping state institutions intact, in order to avoid a security vacuum that could lead to uncontrolled chaos in a strategic region.

In a parallel context, the Iranian regime faces these plans amid an imbalance of power not in its favor, especially with the absence of an international ally from the great powers capable of providing sufficient protection or logistical support to withstand. These developments come at a time when political memory recalls Iran's previous positions, such as its support for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and its direct intervention in the Syrian crisis.

On the popular and media level, the military escalation has led to the emergence of intellectual battles and sharp sectarian alignments that have transcended the political dimensions of the event. Observers warn that the transformation of the conflict into a 'Sunni-Shiite' polarization serves Israeli goals in fragmenting the region, calling on elites and intellectuals to reorient the compass towards what they describe as the 'real existential enemy'.

In conclusion, analysts believe that the results of this conflict will redraw the map of the Middle East for decades to come. While Israel seeks to definitively resolve its conflict with the 'Iranian project', American calculations and field complexities remain an obstacle to achieving full Israeli ambitions, which places the region before open scenarios ranging from comprehensive explosion to forced settlements.

Israel has developed a conviction that the Iranian regime will not abandon its nuclear project, and that the only way to put an end to it is to overthrow the regime itself.

The relationship with Iran is one of the most complex issues in the Arab political consciousness, having begun with the Islamic Revolution in 1979 as a state of popular fascination with the fall of a tyrannical ruler protected by American will. A whole generation's awareness of this revolution was shaped by the writings of prominent thinkers such as Fahmy Howeidy and Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, who provided early readings of what was happening in Tehran.

Despite initial popular sympathy, official Arab positions, especially in Egypt during the eras of Sadat and Mubarak, were characterized by hostility and estrangement. This orientation was driven by security and political calculations aimed at rapprochement with Western powers and Gulf states, as rapprochement with Tehran was considered a red line in American policy.

The Iran-Iraq War revealed deep divisions, but the most prominent shift occurred during the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that time, political sectarianism appeared in its clearest form through Iranian support for the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, which enabled Tehran to control key aspects of the Iraqi state.

The scene of the execution of the former Iraqi President on the morning of Eid al-Adha represented the peak of sectarian provocation, as many considered it a transgression of all norms and international laws. This sectarian behavior weakened the argument of those defending the Iranian Revolution as a model for national liberation, and revealed another face of the regional conflict.

In the aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution, there were calls to open a new chapter with Tehran to break regional isolation and protect the gains of the revolution. However, the partisan and emotional calculations of some political forces, in addition to regional pressures, prevented the achievement of a real rapprochement that would serve Egyptian national interests.

The scene became more complicated with the outbreak of the Syrian Revolution, where Tehran and Hezbollah fully sided with the Syrian regime against the will of the people. This direct military intervention led to the depletion of the Iranian axis's capabilities in side battles, weakening its position in the face of direct external threats.

Observers believe that Iranian policy fell into the trap of 'exporting the revolution,' a slogan that caused long wars of attrition that destroyed the region's armies. This continuous threat pushed Gulf states to seek external protection, which legitimized the presence of American bases that became part of the regional security landscape.

Despite the sharp criticisms of Tehran's policies in Arab capitals, the supreme political interest dictates distinguishing between internal disputes and external aggression. Israeli expansion in the region represents the greatest danger, and any setback for Iran in confronting Tel Aviv will necessarily lead to an imbalance of power in favor of the occupation.

The stance on Iran should not be taken as a monolithic block, but rather should be disaggregated according to positions and circumstances. It is possible to reject Iranian intervention in Arab affairs, and at the same time reject any American or Israeli aggression targeting Iranian territory, without falling into the trap of contradiction.

The ethical and political challenge arises when trying to convince peoples who have suffered from Iranian interventions, such as Syrians and Iraqis, to align with Tehran. It is difficult to ask the victim to stand with those who contributed to the destruction of their country, even if the common enemy is the Israeli occupation.

American bases in the Gulf, which came as a justification for protection from the 'Iranian threat,' have proven through experience that they do not provide real protection during crises. This reality forces the countries of the region to search for new formulas for regional security based on good neighborliness instead of relying on external powers.

Strategically, the defeat of Iran is considered a direct weakening of the Palestinian resistance front, which finds in Tehran important military and logistical support. Therefore, maintaining the balance of power requires a vision that transcends narrow sectarian differences in favor of the central issues of the nation.

Dealing with Iran 'piecemeal' rather than 'wholesale' allows the Arab decision-maker to maneuver and protect national interests. Agreement on issues such as confronting the occupation does not necessarily mean overlooking crimes committed in other issues such as the Syrian or Iraqi files.

In conclusion, matters in the Middle East appear more complex and intricate than simple media propaganda suggests. Iran remains a major regional player that cannot be ignored, and dealing with it requires political wisdom that combines the rejection of sectarianism and the preservation of Arab national security.

The defeat of Iran is a deduction from the Palestinian resistance's balance, and gives the enemies of Arabs the opportunity to rise twice in the land.

European energy markets experienced severe disruptions on Monday, with natural gas prices soaring by up to 30% at the benchmark Dutch TTF hub. The price per megawatt-hour reached 69.5 euros, equivalent to about 80 dollars, amid growing fears of a collapse in global supply chains due to ongoing military operations against Iran.

Economic sources reported that this insane surge will inevitably lead to immense inflationary pressures on consumers in the Old Continent, especially with the heavy reliance on gas for electricity generation. Despite a slight decline in evening trading, concern still dominates major industrial sectors that fear a long-term interruption of supplies.

In the oil market, prices exceeded the 117 dollar per barrel mark for the first time since the summer of 2022, driven by the near-total halt of navigation through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Field reports indicate hundreds of ships and oil tankers piling up on both sides of the strait, fearing direct military targeting amidst unprecedented security tensions.

Ibrahim Jabari, an advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, explicitly announced that the strait has become a military exclusion zone, warning that any attempt to cross would be met with a decisive response. This threat is a devastating blow to the global economy, as approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day passed through this waterway before the outbreak of hostilities.

These economic developments come on the tenth day of the military aggression launched by the United States and Israel under the names 'Epic Fury' and 'Lion's Roar' operations. Intensive airstrikes, involving B-2 and F-35 stealth bombers, have resulted in the deaths of over 1332 people in Iran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

For its part, Tehran continues its military responses by launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones towards Israeli territory and American bases in the region. These attacks have led to the deaths of 13 Israelis and injuries to over two thousand others, in addition to the deaths of 6 American soldiers and injuries to 18 in attacks targeting Washington's interests in neighboring countries.

On the ground, Iranian attacks targeted vital facilities in the Arabian Gulf states, Iraq, and Jordan, sparking a widespread international condemnation demanding a halt to the escalation. Previous reports confirm that Iran used more than 1600 drones and 500 missiles to target civilian objects and energy facilities around Dubai Airport and other Gulf cities.

Domestically in Israel, economic reports revealed a severe budget deficit, with weekly losses reaching approximately 9.4 billion shekels due to the disruption of productive sectors and the call-up of 100,000 reserve soldiers. Washington also faces criticism in Congress over the exorbitant cost of the war, reaching one billion dollars per day, amidst accusations of exceeding war powers legislation.

Observers believe that this military explosion came at a time when nuclear negotiations were making tangible progress, recalling scenarios of overturning negotiation tables. Global markets are preparing for further price shocks if the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues and diplomatic efforts fail to contain the conflict, which has begun to expand to include multiple fronts.

The Strait of Hormuz is completely closed, and any ships attempting to cross it will be subject to direct attack.

Diplomatic sources at the United Nations revealed a new Russian move within the corridors of the Security Council, aimed at curbing the accelerating military escalation in the Middle East region. The Russian mission has distributed a draft resolution to member states, explicitly calling for a halt to all combat activities and armed operations that currently threaten regional and international stability.

This Russian step comes amid growing concern over the expansion of the conflict, with the draft emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The document specifically referred to Article Two, which prohibits the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, reflecting Moscow's desire to establish the rules of international law in dealing with current crises.

The Russian draft resolution includes a strong condemnation of all attacks targeting civilians or civilian facilities and infrastructure in the region. The text demands the necessity of providing full protection for populations not involved in hostilities, stressing that all parties are obligated to comply with international humanitarian law and the relevant Geneva Conventions on the protection of civilians during armed conflicts.

The diplomatic proposal also focuses on the importance of ensuring the security of all states in the Middle East without exception, warning of the catastrophic consequences of continued military operations. The draft calls on the concerned parties to exercise maximum restraint and refrain from any additional escalatory steps that could lead the region into a comprehensive confrontation whose outcomes cannot be controlled.

On the political side, the Russian draft resolution encourages all warring parties to return to the negotiating table without any delay or preconditions. The text emphasizes the necessity of activating diplomatic and political means as the sole way to resolve existing differences, considering that military solutions will only lead to further destruction and tragic human losses that the region has recently witnessed.

Procedurally, the draft resolution is scheduled to undergo a series of deliberations and technical discussions among Security Council members before being officially put to a vote. These sessions are expected to witness sharp tug-of-war, as some countries seek to introduce amendments to the wording to align with their political vision of current events in the region, especially regarding the determination of responsibilities for the escalation.

Diplomatic estimates indicate that the draft resolution may face a veto by the United States of America, which often opposes Russian moves on this issue. Observers also believe that the draft may fail to obtain the minimum required votes, which is nine votes, if Washington pressures member states to abstain from voting or reject the proposal.

The Russian move in the Security Council remains a new test of international will in confronting the explosive crises in the Middle East. If the resolution is passed or even widely discussed, it will re-highlight the role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, at a time when criticism of the international organization's inability to stop the bloodshed on several inflamed fronts is increasing.

The draft resolution urges all parties to immediately cease their military activities and refrain from any further escalation in the Middle East and beyond.

Medical sources in the Gaza Strip announced the martyrdom of 7 citizens and the injury of 17 others during the past twenty-four hours, as a result of a series of raids launched by occupation aircraft on various areas. This new toll comes amid ongoing military operations targeting residential areas and shelters in various governorates of the Strip.

In field details, three Palestinians, including two young girls, were martyred at dawn today, Monday, after an Israeli shelling targeted displaced persons' tents in the Al-Sawarah area, west of the Nuseirat camp in the central Strip. Sources reported that the shelling caused a large fire and damaged a number of tents, prompting residents to try to rescue the injured from under the rubble amid difficult conditions.

In Gaza City, an occupation drone targeted a group of civilians in the Ansar area, west of the city, resulting in the immediate martyrdom of three citizens. The bodies of the martyrs were transferred to nearby hospitals, while drones continued to fly intensively over the city and its surroundings.

According to the daily statistical report issued by the Ministry of Health, the total number of victims of the ongoing aggression since October 2023 has risen to 72,133 martyrs. Medical examinations also recorded that the number of injured reached 171,826, suffering from a severe shortage of medical supplies and essential medicines.

On the humanitarian front, the suffering of the Strip's residents is worsening with the continued closure of the Rafah land crossing for the tenth consecutive day, shortly after it was partially opened for humanitarian cases. This sudden closure has dashed the hopes of thousands of injured people and students who were waiting to leave the Strip to receive treatment or continue their education.

The decision to close the crossing is linked to recent military developments in the region, specifically after the outbreak of confrontation between the occupation and Iran, which negatively affected the movement of individuals and aid. The Rafah crossing is the only lifeline connecting more than two million Palestinians to the outside world, especially given the tight siege on other crossings.

Student Fadi Emad expressed his shock at the closure of the crossing, pointing out that he was preparing to travel to continue his university studies abroad after a long wait. Fadi confirmed that this closure destroyed his academic future and his psyche, as he believed he was close to achieving his dream before hopes were dashed again.

In the southern Strip, specifically in the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Yunis, there is a feeling of frustration among the displaced who had hoped for a gradual improvement in living conditions. Citizen Ali Shanti said that the outbreak of the regional war brought the situation in Gaza back to square one, which increased the complexities of daily life for the displaced in tents.

Shanti pointed out that the closure of the crossings immediately led to a crazy rise in the prices of basic goods and a severe shortage of essential products in local markets. Displaced families face extreme difficulties in securing their daily needs of food and fuel necessary to operate simple generators or cook.

Kidney failure patients, on the other hand, face a real threat to their lives, as patient Mohammed Shamia confirmed that opening the crossing has become an urgent necessity for survival. Shamia explained that he urgently needs to travel to Egypt to receive treatment, given the dilapidated health system in Gaza and its inability to provide the necessary service.

There are widespread fears that the occupation authorities will exploit regional tensions as a pretext to tighten the noose on the Gaza Strip and evade ceasefire commitments. Observers warn that the continued closure of the crossings will lead to an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, exceeding in severity the past months of the war.

Opening the crossing has become a matter of life or death for us given the limited medical services for dialysis patients.

Israeli occupation aircraft intensified their violent raids today, Monday, on the southern suburbs of Beirut and several areas in southern Lebanon, targeting what they described as financial headquarters belonging to the Al-Qard Al-Hasan institution. These aerial attacks resulted in the martyrdom of one person and the injury of 12 others with varying degrees of injuries, amidst intensive and continuous low-altitude drone flights over the capital Beirut.

In the south, the raids targeted the towns of Tyre and Jouya, leading to the martyrdom of two paramedics while performing their humanitarian duty, while a Lebanese citizen was martyred and another seriously injured after their home was destroyed in the town of Shukin. Local sources also reported the martyrdom of a municipal police officer in the town of Shebaa due to being directly targeted by a missile from an Israeli drone.

On the ground, the occupation army announced that forces from Division 36 began implementing what it described as 'precise raids' targeting Hezbollah's military infrastructure in border villages. These ground movements coincide with the aerial and artillery bombardment that has not stopped since the early morning hours along the front lines and residential areas.

In response, Hezbollah retaliated with a series of rocket operations, announcing that it had targeted the Kiryat Shmona settlement with an intensive rocket barrage. The party also confirmed shelling the 'Za'eef' air defense base in the occupied city of Haifa, emphasizing that these operations come in response to the targeting of civilians and vital installations in Lebanon.

On the domestic political front, the Lebanese Parliament took an exceptional decision to extend its legislative term for an additional two years, which means postponing the elections that were scheduled for next May. The decision was made by a majority of 76 votes against 41 opposing deputies, and the Parliament's presidency justified this step by the compelling security circumstances and the ongoing aggression against the country.

The parliamentary session witnessed a remarkable presence of deputies from the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, headed by Mohammed Raad, at a time when Lebanon is suffering from sharp political divisions over how to deal with the war. This extension is the fourth of its kind since 2013, as the council had previously extended its term several times due to successive political and security crises.

For his part, President Joseph Aoun expressed the Lebanese state's readiness to resume indirect negotiations to discuss the necessary security arrangements to stop the escalation. Aoun affirmed that he conveyed this position to influential international capitals, stressing that the decision to confine weapons to the state will be implemented according to the army command's plan once security conditions improve.

President Aoun warned against attempts to target the army institution or its leadership at this critical time, describing such attempts as 'suspicious' and serving external goals aimed at undermining state authority. He pointed out that questioning the army's capabilities is consistent with attempts to drag Lebanon into broader regional conflicts that do not serve the national interest.

In striking statements, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that Lebanon has no interest in being drawn into the ongoing conflict between the United States and Israel on one hand, and Iran on the other. Salam stressed that the top priority currently is an immediate cessation of fighting, considering that the process of handing over Hezbollah's weapons is a separate process that must follow de-escalation.

Salam clarified that the Lebanese government has not yet received integrated initiatives to stop the war, but merely ideas put forward for discussion at the international table. He revealed that the only guarantees Beirut has received relate only to neutralizing the airport and the roads leading to it from Israeli shelling to ensure the continued movement of supplies.

Regarding the legal status of the resistance's weapons, the Prime Minister affirmed that Hezbollah's military and security activities have become 'illegal' from the perspective of the current government. He added that this position represents the official orientation of the state and must be implemented, while at the same time emphasizing that Lebanon will not accept a peace that imposes Israeli conditions on it.

Moving to the Gaza Strip, Israeli violations of the fragile ceasefire agreement continued, with 3 Palestinians, including two children, martyred in shelling that targeted displaced persons' tents in the Al-Sawarah area. Medical sources reported that the number of victims of violations since last October has risen to 641 martyrs, threatening the collapse of existing security understandings.

Reports from Gaza indicate massive destruction affecting about 90% of civilian infrastructure since the start of the war of extermination in October 2023. The United Nations estimates the cost of rebuilding what the occupation destroyed at about $70 billion, amidst the continued siege and intermittent military operations targeting civilians and paramedics.

In conclusion, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are living in a state of cautious anticipation with the escalation of aerial raids and ground operations. While political parties in Beirut are trying to arrange the internal house by extending the parliament's term, the field remains the primary driver of events amidst the absence of a clear horizon for a diplomatic solution that ends the suffering of the displaced and civilians.

Hezbollah's military and security activities have become illegal, and this is the government's position and must be implemented.

A recent study conducted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has revealed fundamental and alarming shifts within the Republican Party's electoral base in the United States. Researcher Irwin J. Itzhak Mansdorf confirmed that these changes are particularly evident among younger generations, who have begun to adopt positions contrary to the party's traditional tenets.

The report, published in international media, indicated that the rising influence of conservative media personality Tucker Carlson plays a pivotal role in shaping these new trends. Despite concerns about his stances on Israel, Carlson enjoys strong support that transcends traditional reservations among younger voters.

Mansdorf explained that contemporary democracies are witnessing a paradoxical phenomenon where candidates with extreme positions can rally widespread support. This occurs when these candidates' messages resonate with deep emotions or urgent concerns among the voter base, which explains the rise of some controversial figures.

The survey, on which the study was based, included a sample of 561 Republicans and was designed to be balanced in terms of age and gender to ensure the accuracy of the results. Interviews were conducted in late January, with a statistical margin of error not exceeding 4 percent, giving the results high credibility in interpreting the landscape.

The results showed a sharp generational divide, with over 55 percent of Republicans under the age of 44 considering Tucker Carlson a potential presidential candidate. The percentage went even further, with 58 percent of this group expressing full readiness to vote for him should he decide to run.

In contrast, older age groups appeared more cautious about this populist phenomenon, with only 38 percent of Republicans over the age of 45 believing in his potential candidacy. The willingness to vote for him among this group did not exceed 41 percent, reflecting a gap in political vision between generations.

Although the report noted continued general support for Israel across different groups, there was a relative decline in the intensity of this commitment among young people. 55 percent of younger Republicans considered supporting Israel a very important issue, compared to about 69 percent among the older generation.

The most controversial indicator in the study concerned the perception of Jews as a threat to the American way of life, with 45 percent of young people expressing high concern about this. This percentage is shocking compared to only 23 percent among Republicans over the age of forty-five.

Mansdorf believes that these numbers indicate a growing readiness among young voters to adopt narratives that portray Jews as a societal problem. This shift occurs even if these voters do not explicitly identify themselves as antisemitic, reflecting a change in political and social consciousness.

The researcher attributed this phenomenon to mechanisms of political psychology, where voters tend to focus on the candidate's personal charisma rather than the details of their political positions. Concepts such as the 'halo effect' make controversial stances on sensitive issues less impactful on the final voter decision.

The report warned that the real danger facing Israel and the Jewish community in America is not just a decline in direct support. Rather, the greater challenge is Israel losing its status as a crucial issue in electoral behavior amidst the rise of extremist populist rhetoric that attracts the younger generation.

The study emphasized the need to confront candidates with controversial agendas through strategies that clearly and objectively highlight their negatives. The researcher suggested using what is known as the 'horn effect' to expose inconsistencies in their rhetoric without falling into unproductive media squabbles.

In conclusion, Mansdorf affirmed that traditional Republican support for Israel has not completely collapsed yet, but it faces a real test. The psychological mechanisms that allow for ignoring alarming positions have begun to take root in the minds of young people, which could lead to strategic shifts in American foreign policy in the future.

The biggest challenge for political institutions remains how to deal with this generation, which appears more open to alternative narratives. The continuation of these trends could mean a redefinition of traditional alliances within the United States, requiring careful monitoring of public opinion trends in the coming years.

The real danger is not the direct loss of support, but the decline of Israel's role as a crucial political issue in the face of extremist populist narratives.

Since the outbreak of the current war on Iran, questions and speculations have multiplied – not to mention wishes and complaints – about the potential role of both China and Russia, and whether either of them would intervene directly, especially since Iran is considered an ally of both great powers, and the war has American objectives that affect them. It is expected that, given the ongoing struggle between great powers to reshape the international system, they would seriously and directly confront America's attempts to solidify its sole hegemony over the world.

With the absence of indicators suggesting the possibility of direct intervention by China or Russia to support their ally Iran, a tone of frustration is rising here and there regarding what critics consider a dereliction of duty by these two countries, and a questioning not only of their intentions but also of their actual ability to confront America. To contribute to the current discussion about the expected role of China and Russia in this war, based on the history of international relations and the struggle between great powers, one can conclude that both countries will most likely refrain from direct confrontation with America, and will limit their participation to providing specific support to Iran. This is not due to a lack of desire or an admission of actual inability, but rather a conscious and informed result of serious calculations in the struggle of great powers. In short, what China and Russia are currently doing does not deviate from the traditional pattern of the history of great power struggles.***For a brief elaboration, the following points are worth noting: First, the stability of the international system is based on the principle of the balance of power. Until World War I, this stability was achieved in the form of multipolarity among European great powers, then it collapsed and transformed after World War II into stability based on bipolarity between America and the Soviet Union. The principle was disrupted by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the international system shifted to unipolarity, with America at its apex as a sole superpower dominating international affairs. Although power is concentrated in the superpower in a unipolar system, the system loses its stability due to the growing conflict between this state, which tries to maintain its sole hegemony and exclude other powers from participation, and the great powers that seek to enhance their status and role and change the power equation that is wasted in favor of the superpower.

In short, these countries, each in its own way, seek to establish a new balance of power that transforms the international system from unipolarity to bipolarity or multipolarity. Second, since the collapse of international bipolarity in the early 1990s, two great powers, Russia and China, have emerged alongside the superpower, America, as candidates to challenge its influence and control on the international stage. Russia was a great power due to its nuclear arsenal, which was equivalent to America's. However, it is worth noting that it remained weak in its relative economic power compared to America and China, and it has strived since the beginning of the third millennium to consolidate its regional position, trying to repel the expansion of NATO in its vital sphere, until it began confronting it militarily in Ukraine. As for China, after adopting the principle of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the late 1970s, it liberalized its economy, which led to the beginning of its rise as a major economic power in the world, becoming currently the second-largest economy in the world, competing with the United States for the top position. Third, a great power cannot launch a serious competition with the superpower to end its monopoly on power and global hegemony until it can achieve hegemony over its region. Only major regional powers are capable of posing a threat to the continued hegemony of the superpower. Control over the region is achieved by a great power when it can achieve a continuous economic surplus that smoothly translates into building its military capability superior to its regional neighbors.

Among the currently existing great powers, such as China, Russia, India, Germany, Britain, Japan, France, and Brazil, there are only two countries that possess the characteristic of major regional powers: China and Russia. China is strengthening its control over the South and East China Seas, while Russia is consolidating its position in Eurasia. Control over the region and hegemony over its neighbors is the cornerstone for a major regional power to expand its influence and global control. This is what America did in the past when it established absolute hegemony over its western sphere in the Americas, and then proceeded to expand its global influence and control.

This is what China is currently doing by transitioning through the "Belt and Road Initiative" to expand its regional influence and control to include various regions in the world. Russia, however, remains the weakest among the three powers due to its weaker economic capabilities compared to them, which explains its limited ability to expand its influence beyond its region. Fourth, during its regional and international ascent, and in order not to suffer an early loss, major regional powers avoid direct confrontation, specifically military confrontation, with the superpower. Instead, they resort to indirect confrontation, using diplomatic, political, and soft means, in addition to providing veiled support to other forces opposing the superpower, in an effort to drain the superpower's energy and gradually weaken it.

To achieve this, these countries, especially China currently in its confrontation with America, resort to a policy of entangling the superpower. This policy places the full responsibility for international affairs on the superpower, so that this country, in order to maintain its unique position, becomes caught in the midst of monitoring all tensions and disputes that arise in the world, and actively engaging in trying to control their contexts to ensure the continued hegemony of its influence and control, which is steadily eroding.

This requires it to extend the reach of its power and expand the spread of its military presence around the world (America currently has about 800 military bases spread around the world). The external expansion of the superpower's power leads to three things that benefit the regional great powers struggling with it. On the one hand, it drains its surplus economic power to continue providing support for the expansion of its power externally, and in return reduces its ability to finance its internal requirements, which results in damage to its economy, weakening of its productivity, increase in its public debt, and a rise in the level of discontent, conflict, and fragmentation in the internal social fabric as a result. On the other hand, the escalation of challenges facing the superpower externally leads to a gradual shift in its foreign policy from following a path based on attracting other countries through persuasion with diplomatic and soft means, to adopting a harsh path represented by imposing the necessity of compliance. This leads the superpower to become involved in costly external conflicts and wars, both financially and morally draining, and makes it prone to committing more mistakes (the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war on Gaza, the war on Iran). On a third hand, the superpower's harsh policy and its commission of errors increase the level of resentment and hostility towards it from an increasing number of parties in the world, leading to its increasing international isolation over time. All of this happens while the regional great powers carefully monitor the curve of the superpower's eroding power and the continuous decline in its global influence and hegemony, and calmly and deliberately work to invest this in the confident development of their alternative ascent.***In the struggle between great powers, and specifically when there is a clear imbalance of power, major regional powers avoid direct confrontation with the superpower.

This does not mean at all that they surrender to that country's hegemony, but rather they work hard to undermine its position by adopting indirect means. These countries know that direct confrontation with the superpower, before they can consolidate the foundations of their regional and international power, may lead to a loss that could be significant in limiting their ascent. Achieving victory in the struggle with the superpower, for them, is not achieved by a knockout blow, but by accumulating points. China, since the beginning of its rise, and especially since the beginning of the current millennium, has been accumulating points, and it is not in a hurry, as it announced years ago that by 2049 (the centenary of the Chinese Communist Party's rise to power) it would be the leading power at the top of the international system. While Russia struggles to secure a decent position for itself in the currently transforming international system, the United States is becoming more arrogant and haughty and committing more mistakes as it tries as much as possible to delay, if not prevent, collapse.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/9/2026

Amidst an unprecedented escalation of tension in the Middle East, US President Donald Trump announced that the decision to end the ongoing war with Iran would not be a unilateral American decision, but would be coordinated "to some extent" with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This statement reflects the extent of military and political entanglement between Washington and Tel Aviv in managing the conflict, at a time when the region is witnessing a series of rapid military and political developments that could redraw regional power balances.

Trump's statement came at a time when Tehran announced a sensitive transition in the religious and political hierarchy, with the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader, succeeding his father Ali Khamenei. This development is considered one of the most dangerous political shifts in Iran in decades, as the position of Supreme Leader represents the ultimate authority in the state and controls major military and strategic decisions, including managing the confrontation with the United States and Israel.

In parallel with these political developments, the region witnessed a significant military escalation. Iran launched a number of missiles towards Israel, while strong explosions were heard in the Qatari capital, Doha, amidst reports of aerial interceptions targeting drones and missiles. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also announced that their air defenses intercepted aerial targets believed to be drones or missiles that crossed the region's airspace during the escalation.

This geographical expansion of confrontations indicates that the war is no longer confined to one arena, but has transformed into a multi-front regional conflict extending across the Gulf and the Middle East. It also reflects the extent of concerns among neighboring countries about the confrontation spreading to their territories, especially given the presence of US military bases and strategic energy corridors in the region.

In another development that increases the tension, the US military announced the death of a seventh American soldier in the ongoing war in the Middle East. This number is an indicator of the deepening US military involvement in the conflict, which could open the door to internal discussions in the United States about the cost of the war and its political and military limits.

The US President escalated his rhetoric towards the new Iranian leadership, warning that the next Supreme Leader would not be able to remain in his position "for long" without the acceptance or approval of the United States. This statement reflects a clear pressure message directed at the new Iranian leadership, in an attempt to impose a political and military deterrence equation during the power transition phase.

Observers believe that these statements come within a broader American strategy aimed at weakening Iran's ability to quickly reorganize its political leadership after the power transition. Washington also seeks, according to several estimates, to use military and political pressure to push Tehran to reconsider its calculations in the regional confrontation.

In contrast, field indicators suggest that Iran is trying to demonstrate its ability to respond and establish its own deterrence equation, whether through launching missiles or by expanding the scope of indirect operations in the region. It appears that both sides are on a path of calculated escalation, with each trying to achieve strategic gains without sliding into a full-scale open war.

Amidst this complex scene, the issue of ending the war remains linked to several intertwined factors, including the military balance of power, developments in political leadership within Iran, and the extent of the United States' and Israel's ability to achieve their strategic goals. Until then, it seems that the Middle East is heading for a period of uncertainty, the outcomes of which may determine the shape of the regional order for many years to come.

Trump's statement about a "joint decision" with Israel shows the extent of the organic alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv in managing the war. Military coordination between the two countries is not new, but it has become more evident in this crisis. This also reflects the US administration's understanding that any settlement of the conflict cannot be imposed without considering Israeli security calculations. However, this approach may also raise regional concerns about marginalizing the role of other powers, and further complicate any potential diplomatic path to end the war.

Mojtaba Khamenei's appointment as Supreme Leader represents a pivotal moment in Iranian politics. The transfer of power within the ruling religious family may spark internal debate about the legitimacy of this arrangement, but at the same time, it provides continuity in the state's political and military approach. Amidst the war, the new leadership may use the rhetoric of steadfastness and resistance to bolster its internal legitimacy. Therefore, the coming period is likely to witness greater rigidity in Iranian positions, rather than openness to quick settlements.

The widening scope of strikes to include the Gulf airspace highlights the danger of the war turning into a wide-ranging regional conflict. Gulf states, despite their attempts to avoid direct involvement, find themselves at the heart of the tension due to their geographical location and the presence of foreign military bases on their territories. Any further escalation could threaten global energy routes and affect the international economy. Therefore, the importance of international diplomatic efforts to contain the crisis before it develops into a comprehensive regional confrontation that is difficult to control is increasing.

The direct military confrontation between the Israeli-American alliance and the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered its tenth day, amidst sharp differences in Israeli assessments between rushing to destroy the Iranian regime and warning against sinking into an endless quagmire of attrition. Israeli cabinet member Avi Dichter affirmed that the current air operations primarily aim to completely dismantle the Iranian nuclear project, considering that the United States has the capability and responsibility to overthrow the regime in Tehran through intensified aerial bombardment.

In a related context, occupation army commander Eyal Zamir indicated that the current war is not bound by a specific timeline, while sources in the General Staff revealed military preparations to continue fighting for at least another month. These leaders are pushing for continued intense military pressure until the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles is neutralized, as military reports claim the destruction of a large part of Iran's missile capabilities, with only about 150 active launch platforms remaining.

For his part, US President Donald Trump stated that any decision regarding a ceasefire or ending military operations would be made in full coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump clarified that the conditions set for ending the war would be firm, while his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, hinted that Washington does not rule out the option of future ground intervention despite its current focus on overwhelming air strikes.

On the other hand, Israeli voices emerged warning against the consequences of 'intoxication of power,' with reserve general Yisrael Ziv criticizing the absence of a clear exit strategy from the confrontation. Ziv expressed concerns that calls for continued military pressure could lead to Israel's involvement in a long war of attrition, recalling the Iranian regime's ability to withstand for many years, as happened in its previous war with Iraq.

Political analyst Nahum Barnea agreed with this view, noting that the military operations, which began with great momentum, lack a political vision for the next phase. Barnea warned of the effectiveness of 'Iranian patience' and Tehran's ability to disrupt daily life in Israel through sporadic and continuous missile attacks, which could turn initial military achievements into a strategic burden.

In an analysis of the field situation, military analyst Amos Harel pointed out that the war has not yet succeeded in addressing the fundamental nuclear threat represented by the enriched uranium stockpile. Harel warned that the Iranian regime's survival from this wave might push it to accelerate its steps towards acquiring nuclear weapons, criticizing what he described as the government's 'dullness of feeling' towards the suffering of the Israeli home front and the deterioration of economic conditions.

Economic reports indicate that Israel is incurring huge losses amounting to 9.4 billion shekels weekly as a result of the partial paralysis in production sectors and the call-up of 100,000 reserve soldiers. This economic pressure coincides with a sharp rise in global oil prices, posing increasing internal and international challenges for the Trump administration, especially with escalating criticism in Congress regarding the constitutionality of engaging in this war.

On the ground, air raids carried out by F-35 and B2 stealth fighters caused severe damage to a radiation facility in Isfahan, in addition to significant human losses in the capital Tehran. These strikes came after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of senior military commanders in the opening strike of the operation, causing confusion in the Iranian leadership structure.

In response to the attacks, Iran launched widespread attacks targeting countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council and vital facilities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, as well as the vicinity of Dubai airport. Tehran used hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles in these attacks, in an attempt to raise the cost of the war at the regional and international levels and pressure for a halt to military operations.

Regarding the northern front, Minister Dichter called for not relying on the Lebanese government to dismantle Hezbollah's weapons, affirming that Israel is about to establish a 'wider security belt' in southern Lebanon. These statements come at a time when the Lebanese border is witnessing ground confrontations that have resulted in the deaths of Israeli soldiers, amidst calls to expand the scope of operations to include Lebanese infrastructure.

At the level of the Israeli opposition, Yair Lapid took a hardline stance by calling for the complete destruction of Iranian oil facilities, considering that striking the lifeline of the Iranian economy is the fastest way to overthrow the regime. These statements reflect a state of political consensus within Israel on the need to capitalize on the current momentum to achieve a radical change in regional power balances, despite the looming dangers.

In conclusion, the question remains about Israel's and the United States' ability to decisively win the battle without sliding into a widespread ground confrontation or a war of attrition that drains economic and human resources. With continued mutual bombardment and escalating threats, the region awaits what the coming days will bring, given Washington's and Tel Aviv's insistence on imposing full surrender terms on Tehran.

It is unreasonable for Israel to turn into a hammer looking for every nail to hit; we must be careful not to be dragged into an endless war of attrition.

Hebrew press sources reported that global attention, preoccupied with tensions with Iran, is overlooking a dangerous escalation of what it described as "Jewish terrorism" in the occupied West Bank. The sources indicated that this violence is not random but part of a strategy aimed at pushing Palestinians to leave their lands and depopulating the area of its indigenous inhabitants.

Reports stated that the current practices carried out by settlers, with the support or silence of security agencies, put Israel in the face of international accusations of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This scene reflects an escalation in organized violence that has resulted in deaths and injuries among unarmed Palestinian civilians in recent days.

In details of the field attacks, masked settlers stormed the outskirts of Khirbet Abu Falah village, northeast of Ramallah, leading to violent stone clashes. These clashes resulted in serious head injuries to Palestinians, while Israeli army forces intervened by firing live ammunition and tear gas, causing the death of an elderly Palestinian due to a severe heart attack.

In the southern Hebron hills region, Palestinian territories witnessed a bloody shooting incident carried out by a settler against two Palestinian brothers, resulting in the death of one and critical injuries to the other. Security sources confirmed that the shooter is a reserve soldier serving in regional defense units, which raises questions about arming settlers and using their military powers to liquidate civilians.

Similar bloody scenes were repeated near Nablus city, where two Palestinians were killed by settler gunfire while trying to defend an olive grove from illegal bulldozing operations. The decision to transfer the investigation from military police to civilian police sparked widespread indignation, as this step is seen as a prelude to closing the case without holding the perpetrators accountable, as is customary in similar incidents.

Data indicates that these attacks have already led to harsh demographic consequences, with entire communities in the east of Duma village and the Aqaba area being forced to leave. This displacement comes after months of continuous harassment and direct threats that made daily life in those areas impossible under the weight of intimidation.

Observers believe that the Israeli policy relies on creating a state of permanent and painful friction for Palestinians to force them to leave their lands voluntarily in appearance and forcibly in reality. This recurring pattern of attacks is classified under "gradual displacement" policies aimed at changing the geographical and demographic reality deep within the occupied West Bank.

Sources held a group of senior Israeli officials directly responsible for these violations, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, and Itamar Ben-Gvir. The indictment also included high-ranking military leaders such as Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Central Command Commander Avi Bluth, for their role in providing security and political cover for the attackers.

In conclusion, reports stressed that Israel, as an occupying power, is legally obligated to protect civilian populations under international conventions, yet it deliberately fails to do so. With the continued escalation of violence, international pressure is increasing to demand accountability for Israeli officials before international courts to ensure impunity is not granted.

Israel, through the acquiescence of its institutions or the support of its officials for Jewish terrorism, may bear responsibility for serious violations of international law, including war crimes.

The occupation army and Israeli rulers are exploiting the world's preoccupation with the repercussions of the explosion in the region, which resulted from the Israeli-American aggression against Iran, to escalate their oppression of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Jerusalem... Since Israel began its aggression on the morning of the 28th of last month (February), the occupation forces have closed approximately one thousand one hundred military checkpoints and more than two hundred gates, turning the villages, towns, and cities of the West Bank into isolated prisons. More than a week after the aggression began, the majority of checkpoints and gates remained closed. For example, all entrances and gates to the city of Jericho were closed, making it completely isolated from the outside world, and this is the situation for dozens of villages and towns.The occupation army is not content with closures; its forces raid dozens of towns, villages, and refugee camps daily and nightly, wreaking havoc, abuse, and arresting their residents in unprecedented campaigns in terms of their scale. As for Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, they have never been closed during Ramadan throughout history. During this aggression, the occupation continued not only to prevent all West Bank residents from reaching Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque but also deliberately prevented residents of Jerusalem and the interior from reaching the mosque and prevented worshippers from entering and performing prayers there, a dangerous precedent that portends many plans. As for the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, Muslims were denied entry and prevented from performing prayers there, making it completely monopolized by Jewish worshippers.The closure of checkpoints and crossings has deepened the escalating economic crisis in the West Bank, paralyzing health and educational services, as well as commercial operations and most economic activities. These are severely suffering due to Israel's dismissal of approximately 220,000 workers who entered the unemployment market since "October 7" (2023), and due to the piracy of Finance Minister Smotrich, who confiscated most of the Palestinian tax revenues, which constitute more than 55% of the Palestinian Authority's income. The amount of money withheld by the Israeli government has exceeded three billion dollars, rendering the Palestinian Authority (whose powers have been largely confiscated) unable to pay its employees' full salaries or to fulfill its health, educational, and social obligations towards the Palestinian population.The general economic deterioration is leading to severe hardship and bankruptcies in many private sector projects and institutions. Residents of Jerusalem are subjected to further pressure, suffering from excessive taxes imposed by Israel, the scarcity of exorbitantly priced building permits, and a sharp increase in the cost of living. Due to exorbitant taxes, a large portion of shops in Jerusalem and the Old City of Hebron are forced to close their doors.However, the most dangerous phenomena are the unrestrained settler terrorist gangs that pursue residents of Palestinian villages and the desert, continuing their terrorist attacks under the protection and patronage of the occupation army. Many villages and towns, such as Qasra, Beita, Al-Mughayyir, Abu Falah, Sinjil, Turmus Ayya, Masafer Yatta, and many others, are subjected to repeated attacks, reaching the point of killing by gunfire, beating and abuse, and forced displacement of residents, as happened to more than 70 communities, most of which are Bedouin communities in the Jordan Valley, Hebron, and Ramallah. The audacity reached a point, days ago, where the occupation army stopped citizens at the checkpoint leading to the town of Al-Mughayyir, then allowed terrorist settlers to attack them, including the village doctor.It is the duty of all sympathizers and supporters of the Palestinian people to escalate their solidarity movement with them, and expose the ongoing crime of desecration.There is no real distinction between the settler terrorists who carry weapons provided by the Israeli government and the army itself, as a large number of them serve in the army, which recently made a decision to allow soldiers to keep their weapons when they are discharged from the army, or go on leave, or when they are not on official duty.Some communities, such as the Bedouin community in the Ein Samiya area, have been displaced several times from one place to another. The occupation understands that the heroic steadfastness of the Palestinian people, despite all forms of terrorism, abuse, and unjust oppression, is what thwarts the ethnic cleansing plan, and therefore it exploits events such as the ongoing aggression to escalate attacks and abuse against Palestinians. There is no doubt that the inaction of most of what is called the international community in imposing sanctions on Israel for committing the crime of genocide in Gaza encourages settlers to commit more crimes in the West Bank.What is happening in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is nothing less than a brutal desecration of its civilian population, without deterrence, and without any respect for any local or international law. While Palestinians bravely endure and perform feats in the face of oppression, it is the duty of all sympathizers and supporters of the Palestinian people to escalate their solidarity movement with them, expose and uncover the ongoing crime of desecration, and not allow media preoccupation with the ongoing war in Iran and the Gulf region to cast a dark and gloomy veil over the suffering, struggle, and steadfastness of the Palestinian people, whether in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, especially since silence on the ongoing desecration carries within it the risks of serious crimes whose consequences and repercussions no one will be able to escape.