US–Israel War on Iran: Dominance Under Question

The brief but intense confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in June 2025—lasting barely twelve days—was projected as a calibrated show of force. Officially concluded as a ceasefire, the episode aimed to restore deterrence and reset strategic equations. Yet, nearly nine months later, the outcomes appear far less definitive than anticipated.

At the time, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were reportedly progressing. The sudden escalation suggested a shift from diplomacy to coercion, widely interpreted as an attempt—driven in part by Israeli pressure—to achieve multiple objectives: degrade Iran’s strategic infrastructure, weaken its regional posture, and potentially trigger internal instability. None of these goals, however, seem to have been fully realized.

There is little doubt that Iran’s strategic installations suffered damage. However, the broader political and military picture is more nuanced. The Iranian regime has remained intact, and domestic cohesion appears to have strengthened rather than fractured. External pressure, instead of splintering the state, may have reinforced national resolve—an outcome not unfamiliar in modern conflict settings.

Equally significant is the perceptual shift. The image of unquestioned military supremacy long associated with the United States and Israel appears to have been dented. Iran’s ability—both real and projected—to respond through retaliatory actions against regional targets and US-linked assets has complicated the narrative of one-sided dominance.

Reports and claims emerging from the conflict add further complexity. Iranian officials have asserted successful targeting of military assets and bases, while some unverified accounts point to disruptions in logistical and maritime supply lines, including incidents in strategically sensitive waterways and installations in the broader Indian Ocean region. While these claims remain contested, they nonetheless contribute to a narrative of reach and resilience that Tehran appears keen to project.

The latest signals from Donald Trump—indicating a pause or deferral in further strikes on Iran’s strategic assets—have deepened speculation. This could reflect tactical recalibration, but it also raises the possibility of operational limits rather than purely strategic choice. In contemporary conflict, pauses often reveal as much as offensives.

What emerges, therefore, is not a clear victory for any side, but a reminder of limits. Military power, even when overwhelming, does not automatically translate into decisive political outcomes. Short wars can disrupt, degrade, and demonstrate—but they rarely resolve deeply embedded strategic rivalries.

For Iran, the ability to absorb pressure and maintain internal stability can be framed as a form of strategic endurance. For the United States and Israel, the episode underscores the complexity of converting battlefield advantage into lasting geopolitical gains. The balance of power may not have fundamentally shifted—but its boundaries have certainly been tested.

In the end, the twelve-day war—and the weeks that followed—reinforce a familiar lesson - in geopolitics, outcomes are rarely as clear-cut as intentions.

Over One Million Americans Say Impeach and Remove Trump

The legal advocacy organization Free Speech for People on Thursday published a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting the more than one million people who have endorsed the group’s petition to impeach and remove President Donald Trump from office.

Free Speech for People’s (FSFP) campaign—which also includes billboard trucks and projections in Washington, DC—comes ahead of the third wave of “No Kings” demonstrations, which are set to take place Saturday in thousands of locations across the United States.

“On March 28, 2026, the people will rise up,” said FSFP digital organizing strategist Jax Foley. “The No Kings 3 protest is projected to be the largest mass comobilization in US history, with over 3,000 actions planned worldwide. People across this country are organizing, mobilizing, defending their communities, and demanding accountability.”

No Kings 3 comes amid Trump’s attacks on the rule of law and constitutional rights at home and escalating militarism abroad as the president has bombed seven countries since returning to office—and 10 or possibly even 11 over the course of his two terms—while backing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

“Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law,” FSFP president and co-founder John Bonifaz said in a statement. “The constitutional remedy of impeachment exists precisely for moments like this when a president abuses power, defies the law, and attacks democracy itself. Congress must act.”

FSFP’s petition, which was launched on the day of Trump’s second inauguration, urges Congress to “take action to defend our republic and Constitution” by impeaching the president again. As of Thursday afternoon, the petition had over 1,070,000 signatures and is more than halfway to its goal of 2 million signers.

“For more than a year, FSFP’s team of lawyers, election security experts, and grassroots organizers have been tirelessly and fiercely leading the campaign to impeach and remove Trump and key administration officials,” Foley said. “We have heard from people across the United States who are with us in the call for no kings, no tyrants, and the immediate impeachment and removal of Trump and his coconspirators. Put the power back in the hands of We The People.”

Trump is the only US president to be impeached twice—once in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of justice and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. A majority of senators voted to acquit Trump in 2019; a majority—but not the requisite two-thirds—voted to convict in 2021. Both chambers of Congress are now narrowly controlled by Trump’s GOP.

“The congressional power of impeachment is designed to address this tyrannical threat to our democracy,” FSFP said in the New York Times ad. “Members of Congress must abide by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and impeach and remove Trump from office.”

Courtesy: Common Dreams

 

Two Wars One Outcome: Failure

At first glance, Israel’s war in Gaza and the US-Israel confrontation with Iran appear fundamentally different—one a confined urban battlefield, the other a vast geopolitical contest. Yet both reveal a shared strategic failure: the inability to convert overwhelming military superiority into decisive control.

In Gaza, Israel entered with clear advantages—proximity, intelligence dominance, and unmatched firepower. The expectation was swift dismantling of resistance and consolidation of control. Instead, the conflict has proven stubbornly complex. Urban warfare, asymmetric tactics, and deeply embedded resistance networks have turned territorial gains into a costly and reversible exercise. Control, despite boots on the ground, remains contested.

The Iran theatre presents an even sharper limitation. While the United States and Israel possess unquestioned military superiority, geography alone alters the equation. Iran’s size, terrain, and strategic depth make ground invasion prohibitively costly and politically untenable. Without physical occupation, the objective of “complete control” becomes inherently unrealistic. Airstrikes and missile campaigns may degrade capabilities, but they cannot impose authority.

This contrast exposes a deeper flaw in strategic thinking. If control cannot be secured in Gaza—despite proximity and ground operations—it is even less attainable in Iran, where occupation is off the table. Military power, in both cases, reveals its limits: it can destroy assets, but not command legitimacy.

Iran, however, adds another layer to this equation—endurance. Decades of sanctions have forced adaptation. Indigenous capabilities in missiles, drones, and air defense are products of necessity, not choice. More importantly, Iranian society has internalized resilience under pressure, blunting the impact of external coercion.

Equally telling is the political outcome. Attempts to incite internal dissent against Iran’s clerical leadership have largely failed. External pressure, rather than weakening the regime, appears to have reinforced it. History suggests this is no anomaly—external threats often consolidate internal cohesion.

The parallel, therefore, is not about identical conflicts but about identical miscalculations. In both Gaza and Iran, there is a persistent overestimation of what military force alone can achieve. Territory is not merely land—it is people, perception, and political acceptance. Without these, control remains an illusion.

Iran sinks US Ship carrying 30,000 Interceptors

Please watch and save this video, because shortly it may be removed. This narrates a story of Iran sinking a US Supply Ship USNS Robert E. Peary in Red Sea, where 30,000 interceptors were lost in 20 minutes. To hear details click https://youtu.be/WqAPNl-36NU?si=f-2ngZJCnc96BVCt

Mystery about Iran’s attempted strike on Diego Garcia base

Mystery about Iran’s attempted strike on Diego Garcia base

When an attempted strike of Iran on a British base became a headline, the world was astonished. Most of the people hardly had any knowledge about this base, and on top of all the distance of Iranian missile covering 4,000 kilometers was taken as a propaganda stunt. I request the viewers to listen to this brief video clip and decide if it is a publicity stunt or the harsh reality. To watch video clip, click https://youtube.com/shorts/T8Esh-e_cCw?si=bhWrDa-FPmCSsaG1

 

Lebanon Remains Israel’s Perpetual Battlefield

At first glance, Israel’s continued military engagement in Lebanon appears excessive, even perplexing. If Hezbollah is widely seen as a proxy of Iran, why does the conflict endure despite constraints on Iranian support? The answer lies not in territorial ambition, but in a doctrine shaped by insecurity and hard-learned lessons.

The origins of this confrontation trace back to the 1982 Lebanon War—a campaign aimed at neutralizing threats, not annexing territory. Yet it produced an unintended outcome: the rise of Hezbollah, a force far more adaptive and deeply embedded within Lebanon’s socio-political fabric than any of its predecessors. Its resilience stems not merely from external backing, but from local legitimacy, making it difficult to dismantle through conventional warfare.

Israel, mindful of the costs of past entanglements, no longer seeks occupation. Its strategy is narrower, yet relentless: degrade Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, disrupt its operational capacity, and maintain distance between the group and its northern frontier. This is not victory in the traditional sense—it is the management of a persistent threat.

Geography reinforces this reality. Southern Lebanon offers terrain ideally suited for asymmetric warfare, enabling even a weakened Hezbollah to project force into Israeli territory. For Israeli planners, restraint carries risk; periodic military action becomes a calculated necessity rather than a choice.

At a broader level, Lebanon serves as a proxy arena in the rivalry between Israel and Iran. Each strike on Hezbollah is also a signal to Tehran—asserting limits without crossing into direct war. This calibrated tension sustains a fragile but enduring equilibrium.

The conclusion is uncomfortable but clear. Lebanon is unlikely to witness lasting peace in the near term—not because Israel seeks to occupy it, but because it remains central to a conflict that thrives on continuity. In this unresolved contest between deterrence and resistance, stability is not the objective—only its temporary illusion.

Pakistan Needs Another Resolution

Every year on March 23, Pakistan celebrates the adoption of the Lahore Resolution—the historic declaration that ultimately paved the way for the creation of Pakistan on August 14, 1947. For the Muslims of the subcontinent, the resolution represented far more than a political demand; it embodied the aspiration for sovereignty, dignity, and the right to determine their own future. More than eight decades later, Pakistan commemorates this milestone with pride and patriotic fervor. Yet the realities of the present compel a deeper reflection: does Pakistan today require another national resolve to safeguard its independence and strengthen its future? To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/pakistan-day-resolution/