If Strait of Hormuz Reopens: Gainers and Loses

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz marks more than the restoration of a critical energy route. It represents a strategic moment where the assumptions, calculations, and objectives of major stakeholders must be reassessed. In modern geopolitics, victory is not always measured by battlefield outcomes; sometimes it is determined by who achieves their strategic objectives after the crisis ends.

For Israel, the outcome may raise difficult questions. A key objective behind applying pressure on Iran was to weaken its regional influence and constrain its ability to support allied groups. However, the restoration of energy flows and economic activity reduces the effectiveness of any strategy based primarily on economic isolation. A pressured Iran may have suffered setbacks, but it retains the ability to rebuild influence through diplomacy, regional partnerships, and economic recovery.

Similarly, Iran’s regional allies, including Hezbollah, may find an opportunity to reassess and recover from recent challenges. A reduction in confrontation gives Tehran greater space to redirect resources and rebuild political and strategic networks. However, recovery will depend not only on external support but also on internal dynamics and changing regional realities.

The economic impact extends beyond the Middle East. A decline in oil prices following the reopening of the Strait could hurt profitability for some high-cost oil producers, including segments of the US energy industry that benefited from elevated prices. At the same time, cheaper energy provides relief to consumers and industries worldwide, demonstrating that geopolitical events create winners and losers simultaneously.

The broader challenge, however, concerns the perception of American strategic dominance. For decades, the United States has maintained significant influence in the Gulf through security partnerships, military presence, and arms relationships. If Iran emerges from the crisis with its core capabilities intact, questions will be raised about the effectiveness of pressure-based strategies.

Regional countries may increasingly seek a more balanced foreign policy, avoiding excessive dependence on any single power. This could accelerate a trend toward strategic autonomy and diversified alliances.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz should therefore not be viewed simply as a victory or defeat for any one country. It highlights a deeper reality: in a multipolar world, even the strongest powers face limits. The future of the Middle East will depend less on coercion and more on the ability of nations to negotiate, adapt, and coexist.

Iran-US sign MOU: Pause in Conflict, Not End

With the signing of the memorandum of understanding (MOU), attention is shifting from military confrontation to political interpretation. As details emerge, supporters and critics in all three capitals—Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran—are attempting to define the agreement on their own terms. Such reactions are hardly surprising. In geopolitical disputes, agreements are often judged less by what they contain than by how they are perceived.

For the United States, the immediate achievement is the avoidance of a wider regional conflict. Washington can argue that a combination of military pressure and diplomacy brought Iran to the negotiating table without requiring a prolonged war. The agreement also helps contain risks to global energy supplies and international markets. However, the US administration may still face difficult questions. If Iran retains substantial strategic capabilities, critics may argue that the objectives initially articulated by Washington have only been partially achieved.

Israel can claim that its security concerns have been elevated to the center of international diplomacy. Any restrictions on Iran's military or nuclear-related activities would be viewed as a tangible gain. Yet Israeli policymakers are likely to remain cautious. Their primary concern has never been the signing of an agreement but the effectiveness of its enforcement. For Israel, verification may prove more important than the commitments themselves.

Iran, meanwhile, appears to have secured what it has long sought: relief from mounting economic and military pressure while preserving national sovereignty. Reduced sanctions pressure and improved economic prospects could provide much-needed support to the Iranian economy. At the same time, Tehran must convince domestic audiences that any commitments undertaken do not compromise its strategic independence or regional standing.

The agreement therefore creates opportunities as well as dilemmas for all three stakeholders. The United States seeks stability without appearing weak. Israel seeks security without relying solely on diplomacy. Iran seeks economic relief without sacrificing strategic autonomy.

Ultimately, the significance of the MOU will not be determined by its wording but by its durability. If implemented in good faith, it could reduce tensions in one of the world's most volatile regions. If mistrust and competing interpretations prevail, the agreement may be remembered not as a settlement, but as a temporary pause between successive crises.

The Whole World Is Losing, Except the US

My point is clear, the United States must acknowledge defeat, ensure the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, lift economic sanctions on Iran, and compensate for the losses incurred during this war. Enough time has passed, and there is no justification for portraying defeat as victory.

The ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran are increasingly becoming a rhetorical exercise rather than a strategic achievement. The ambitious campaign launched in coordination with Israel to curb Iran’s regional influence and nuclear development has failed to accomplish its stated objectives.

It would not be incorrect to say that Iran’s regional significance has increased, its negotiating posture has become more assertive, and its capacity to withstand economic pressure has proven far stronger than anticipated. After weeks of diplomacy, fundamental differences remain unresolved due to US intransigence, leaving the talks far from any meaningful breakthrough.

The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz underscores US miscalculations and Iran’s leverage, while exposing the vulnerability of oil-exporting countries that rely heavily on American security guarantees. The US blockade of the Strait has reduced the daily movement of approximately 140 vessels to only a handful of oil and LNG carriers.

The consequences have been staggering. Oil-exporting Arab states are facing uncertain revenues, while energy-importing economies are grappling with inflationary pressures and severe supply disruptions.

Despite these grim realities, Washington’s rhetoric continues to speak of progress and opportunity. Such claims stand in stark contrast to the facts and appear to be an attempt to reframe strategic underperformance as diplomatic success. This only reinforces the perception of a policy being pursued without clear goals, direction, or achievable objectives.

The central point is now unmistakable - the longer the truth is denied, the greater the price the rest of the world will be forced to pay.

 

Invisible Hand Behind Iran War

The latest round of hostilities involving Iran, Israel, and the United States raises a question that mainstream discourse appears reluctant to confront: if elected leaders are truly in control, why do military actions so often proceed in defiance of political declarations?

President Donald Trump publicly urged restraint and claimed that he "calls all the shots." Yet Israeli strikes followed almost immediately. The episode exposed a contradiction that has become increasingly common in international politics. Governments speak the language of diplomacy while military escalation continues unabated.

Perhaps the real issue is not whether Washington controls Tel Aviv or vice versa. The more important question is whether both are operating within a framework dictated by interests far larger than individual politicians.

For decades, every major crisis in the Middle East has produced the same winners. Defense industries secure larger contracts. Security establishments gain expanded powers. Energy markets remain vulnerable to disruption. Strategic planners find justification for maintaining military footprints across the region. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens pay the price through economic hardship, displacement, and insecurity.

Iran has become the latest target of this entrenched system. Officially, the objective is to halt Tehran's nuclear ambitions and neutralize its missile capabilities. Yet the scope of military pressure suggests broader ambitions. The weakening of the Iranian state, the containment of its regional influence, and perhaps even the eventual collapse of the current political order appears to be equally important goals.

The implications extend beyond the Middle East. Any disruption involving the Strait of Hormuz threatens global energy flows and places additional pressure on emerging economies. China, one of the largest consumers of Iranian energy, stands to lose from prolonged instability. In this context, the conflict increasingly resembles a chapter in a wider geopolitical contest rather than a narrowly defined security operation.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is the growing irrelevance of public accountability. Leaders change, governments come and go, yet the direction of policy remains remarkably consistent. Escalation follows escalation, regardless of electoral promises or diplomatic rhetoric.

One does not need to believe in secret conspiracies to recognize this pattern. A powerful nexus of military, economic, and geopolitical interests has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to shape outcomes. Whether it is called an establishment, a strategic network, or an informal cartel of influence, its fingerprints are visible across the region.

The tragedy is that while nations debate who fired the latest missile, few ask who benefits from a conflict that never seems to end.

Israel’s Security Paradox: Strength Without Psychological Closure

Benjamin Netanyahu’s long political dominance has coincided with one of the most turbulent phases in Israel’s modern security history. For his supporters, he represents strategic clarity in a hostile region. For critics, his era reflects the entrenchment of a permanent conflict mindset. Both interpretations, in different ways, touch the same underlying reality - Israel’s security condition today is defined as much by perception as by power.

Militarily, Israel remains one of the most capable states in the Middle East. Its intelligence infrastructure, air power, and multi-layered defence systems have significantly strengthened deterrence. Several adversaries are either weakened, fragmented, or operating under constraints not seen in previous decades. From a purely conventional standpoint, Israel’s strategic position appears more secure than in many earlier phases of its history.

Yet this is only one side of the equation. On the ground, security is not experienced in abstract balances of power. It is experienced through sirens, shelters, alerts, and the unpredictability of escalation. For civilians—particularly children growing up amid periodic conflict—security becomes a lived rhythm rather than a stable condition. Even when attacks are intercepted or contained, the psychological imprint of uncertainty remains. This is where Israel’s central paradox emerges - growing military strength has not translated into a proportional sense of psychological security.

The reason lies in the changing nature of conflict. Traditional wars between defined states have increasingly been replaced by asymmetric threats—rockets, proxy forces, cross-border raids, and regional instability. These forms of confrontation do not require parity to create disruption; they require only unpredictability. As a result, even a militarily dominant state can remain socially alert, frequently mobilized, and psychologically exposed.

Within Israeli society, this produces a dual perception. One strand believes Israel is stronger than ever, capable of managing multiple fronts simultaneously. Another strand, equally present, sees a country that remains encircled not necessarily by conventional armies, but by persistent and evolving threats that rarely disappear entirely.

Netanyahu’s political approach has reinforced this condition of “managed insecurity”—a doctrine in which deterrence is maintained not by eliminating threats, but by continuously containing them. This may strengthen strategic positioning in the short term, but it also prevents a full transition from conflict management to post-conflict normalcy.

The result is a society that oscillates between confidence and anxiety. Military superiority coexists with civilian vulnerability. Tactical successes coexist with strategic uncertainty. And periods of calm are often interpreted not as resolution, but as interludes between escalations.

The question is not whether Israelis believe their enemies are weaker or stronger. The more accurate question is whether they believe threats can ever be fully removed from their horizon.

For many, the answer remains uncertain. And it is in that uncertainty—more than in battlefield outcomes—that Israel’s modern security condition is ultimately defined.

Blockade of Strait of Hormuz: A Symptom, Not the Disease

The rising tension surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is once again dominating global headlines. Yet portraying the crisis merely as a maritime security dispute risks missing the broader geopolitical picture. The threat of disruption in one of the world's most critical energy corridors is not an isolated event; it reflects deeper and long-standing strategic tensions in the Middle East. Military posturing at sea may be the visible manifestation of the crisis, but the roots extend far beyond naval deployments.

At the center of the dispute lies the decades-long confrontation between the United States and Iran, shaped by disagreements over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, regional influence, and economic sanctions. Successive rounds of sanctions have sought to pressure Iran into altering its strategic behavior, while Iran has argued that these measures amount to economic coercion intended to weaken its sovereignty and limit its regional role.

Supporters of sanctions maintain that economic pressure remains an important instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation and deterring regional escalation.

Critics, however, argue that prolonged sanctions have often generated unintended consequences, hardening positions rather than creating space for sustainable diplomacy. This divergence reflects one of the most enduring debates in international relations - whether coercive pressure changes behavior or merely deepens confrontation.

Questions regarding global non-proliferation policies have further complicated the debate. Critics often point to perceived inconsistencies in the international system, particularly concerning different approaches toward regional nuclear capabilities. Such perceptions, whether fully justified or not, contribute to mistrust and reinforce narratives of unequal treatment.

The Strait of Hormuz therefore should not be viewed solely through the narrow lens of maritime access or freedom of navigation. Any temporary reduction in tensions at sea may provide immediate relief to energy markets, but lasting stability is unlikely to emerge without addressing the wider political and economic disputes that continue to fuel confrontation.

The lesson is straightforward - blockades and naval tensions are symptoms of deeper geopolitical fractures. Addressing the symptom may calm markets for a time, but durable stability requires resolution of the underlying political disputes that continue to shape the region's strategic landscape.

Dubai’s Dangerous Drift

For decades, Dubai built its prosperity on neutrality, commerce, and strategic pragmatism. It transformed itself into the Middle East’s leading financial and logistics hub by staying open to all sides. Today that carefully cultivated image appears increasingly at risk as the emirate seems to drift into a broader US-led confrontation with Iran.

Recent tensions with Saudi Arabia, speculation surrounding its future role in OPEC, and growing American pressure to assume a larger regional security role have created an uncomfortable perception that Dubai may be abandoning neutrality for geopolitical adventurism.

That could prove dangerously costly.

Dubai’s economic strength depends overwhelmingly on foreign investment, tourism, trade, and financial services. Unlike larger regional powers, it possesses limited industrial and manufacturing depth to absorb prolonged geopolitical shocks. The moment investors sense instability, capital flight can begin rapidly. Financial centers survive on confidence, not military alliances.

Geography further magnifies the risk. Iran lies directly across the Gulf. In any military escalation, ports, airports, financial districts, and energy infrastructure become exposed targets. Even limited retaliation could disrupt shipping lanes, damage investors’ sentiments, and undermine Dubai’s carefully built reputation as a safe commercial gateway.

Another uncomfortable reality is often overlooked. While Israel may welcome Gulf normalization politically, it also views regional influence competitively. Dubai’s emergence as a dominant commercial and logistics hub does not necessarily align with Israeli ambitions to become the region’s undisputed technological and economic powerhouse.

Critical assets such as Jebel Ali Port and Port of Fujairah are central not only to Gulf trade, but also to global supply chains. Dubai became successful by avoiding regional confrontations. Abandoning that balance may expose the emirate to consequences far beyond its calculations.

UAE and Fractured Middle East

Since endorsing the Abraham Accords, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has recast itself as a forward-looking state prioritizing economic opportunity over ideological rigidity. Normalization with Israel opened avenues in trade, technology, and finance, but it also stirred unease across sections of the Muslim world, where the move is still viewed as a departure from collective positioning on Palestine.

The discomfort is not merely rhetorical. Within parts of the Arab region, policy circles continue to debate whether such outreach weakens negotiating leverage on longstanding geopolitical disputes. Even in the United States—a principal architect of the accords—analysts have quietly flagged the risks of accelerated realignments that outpace regional stability.

Dubai’s rise as a global financial hub adds complexity to this equation. Increased capital flows, including those linked to Israeli networks, have energized its economy, but they also expose it to heightened scrutiny in an era of sanctions enforcement and financial transparency. Longstanding discussions in compliance circles about the emirate’s role in facilitating trade with Iran further underscore the delicate balance it must maintain.

Recent regional tensions have brought these vulnerabilities into sharper focus. Reports of attacks targeting strategic assets in Dubai—amid conflicting narratives about their origin—highlight a critical reality, economic hubs cannot remain insulated from geopolitical rivalries.

The UAE’s strategy reflects ambition and pragmatism, but also risk. In a region where alliances shift rapidly, economic integration without parallel security insulation may prove a fragile proposition.

Who holds the cards?

Having departed Pakistan on Saturday just as the US was preparing to send emissaries to discuss the war, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi eventually popped up for talks with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where he said Tehran is committed to strengthening its partnership with Moscow, reports Bloomberg.

Araghchi’s geopolitical chess move came after a dissonant weekend of potential feints and false starts in the effort to end the US-Israel war with Iran. As news broke that the Iranian official was leaving Islamabad, Trump announced he was canceling the trip by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, in part because the US “has all the cards.”

Iran has told Pakistan, which is operating as an intermediary, that it would cease obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz if the US ended its naval blockade of Iranian shipping. Under its plan, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research would be dealt with later, Axios reported.

While the White House said it hasn’t changed its position on “red lines” associated with Iran’s atomic program, the administration said it was nevertheless discussing the Iranian proposal.

None of this back and forth sat well with energy markets Monday, the eve of the war’s two-month anniversary. Brent crude prices rose for a sixth straight session to settle above US$108 a barrel. And at least one European leader angered by the high energy prices the continent is paying thanks to the conflict was less than diplomatic in his assessment.

The US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday, adding he didn’t see “what strategic exit the Americans are now choosing.” Tehran’s negotiators, the German leader said, are proceeding “very skillfully—or indeed very skillfully not negotiating.”

Israel: Promise of Stability Remains Fragile

At 78, Israel remains a study in contrasts—secure yet unsettled, integrated yet isolated within its immediate neighborhood. Its relations with bordering states reveal a pattern shaped less by reconciliation and more by necessity.

With Egypt and Jordan, Israel has maintained durable—if cold—peace. The framework established after the Camp David Accords continues to hold, anchored in security coordination and shared concerns over militancy and border stability. These ties are transactional, not transformative, reflecting mutual restraint rather than genuine normalization.

On its northern front, the equation turns volatile. Lebanon remains locked in a cycle of tension with Israel, largely driven by the influence of Hezbollah. Deterrence has prevented full-scale war in recent years, but the absence of a political settlement ensures that the border remains one miscalculation away from escalation.

In Syria, hostility persists in a more fragmented form. Israel’s periodic strikes targeting Iranian-linked assets underscore a broader contest with Iran for regional influence. Syria’s internal disarray has limited direct confrontation but has also entrenched a shadow conflict that resists closure.

The most enduring and consequential relationship remains with Palestine. Here, there is neither peace nor stable deterrence—only recurring cycles of confrontation. The unresolved status of Palestinians continues to define Israel’s regional image and constrains its acceptance among Arab publics, regardless of evolving state-level ties.

At 78, Israel has achieved military superiority and economic resilience, yet its neighborhood tells a more restrained story. Peace exists, but without warmth. Conflict is contained, but not resolved.

The result is a strategic environment where coexistence is managed, not embraced—and where the promise of stability remains persistently fragile.

Who Drives Washington’s War Decisions?

The decision by the United States Senate to reject resolutions aimed at halting arms sales to Israel has once again exposed the ever-present crisis in American policymaking - the gap between formal representation and the deeper forces that shape outcomes.

Elected officials in the United States are, without question, representatives of their citizens. Yet, modern governance operates within a dense web of lobbying, campaign financing, and strategic alliances that complicate this relationship.

To suggest that lawmakers are directly controlled by any foreign state would be an overreach. However, it is equally difficult to ignore the institutional weight of pro-Israel lobbying, long-standing security cooperation, and the domestic political incentives that reinforce this alignment.

Beyond this specific case lies a broader structural reality. Washington’s policy environment is influenced by a convergence of powerful sectors whose interests often align with sustained geopolitical tension.

The military-industrial complex—first cautioned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower—continues to benefit from robust defense spending and arms exports.

Energy companies operate in markets where instability can tighten supply dynamics and elevate prices.

Major media platforms, while diverse, play a critical role in framing conflicts and shaping public sentiment.

Meanwhile, financial institutions centered around Wall Street respond to—and often capitalize on—volatility and capital shifts triggered by global crises.

This is not a story of conspiracy, but of incentives. These sectors do not uniformly seek conflict; rather, they are positioned to benefit when instability arises. Policymakers, functioning within this ecosystem, may not act at the behest of these actors, but their decisions are rarely insulated from such pressures.

Crucially, US support for Israel is also anchored in strategic and ideological considerations—shared security objectives, regional calculations, and a deeply embedded bipartisan consensus. Ignoring this dimension oversimplifies a complex policy posture.

The Senate’s vote, therefore, reflects more than a single policy choice. It underscores how democratic representation coexists with layered influences—economic, strategic, and political.

The real question is not whether American lawmakers represent their people, but whether the system ensures that public interest remains the dominant force amid competing pressures.

مسلمانوں کو جاننا ضروری ہے امریکہ ایران کو کیوں تباہ کرنا چاہتا ہے؟

ایران میں اسلامی انقلاب کے بعد امریکہ اس کا سب سے بڑا دشمن بن کر سامنے آیا ہے۔ ایران پرلگ بھگ نصف صدی سے اقتصادی پابندیاں عائد ہیں۔ امریکہ اسرائیل کی مدد سے اس کےایٹمی سائنسدان اورملٹری اہلکار قتل کرچکا ہے اور حال ہی میں ایران کی اہم ترین ہستی کو شہید کیا گیا ہے۔

 ماضی میں عراق سے آٹھ سال جنگ لڑوائ گئی۔ گزشتہ سال جون میں امریکہ اوراسرائیل نے ایران کی اٹامک اوردیگراہم تنصیبات پر 12 دن حملے کیۓ اور اب سات ہفتوں سے امریکہ اوراسرائیل ایران کی اہم تنصیبات تباہ کر رہے ہیں۔ مسلمانوں کو جاننا ضروری ہے کہ امریکہ ایران کو کیوں تباہ کرنا چاہتا ہے؟

لگ بھگ تین چوتھائ صدی قبل فلسطین کی زمین پرغاصابنہ قبضہ کرکےاسرائیل قائم کیا گیا، وقت کے ساتھ اس کو وسعت دی گئی اور اب گریٹر اسرائیل کے منصوبے پر عمل کیا جارہا ہے۔ اس منصوبے میں ایران سب سے بڑی رکاوٹ بن کر سامنے آیا ہے۔ کئی عرب ممالک اسرائیل کو تسلیم کرچکے ہیں اور باقیوں سے ابراہیم اکارڈز کے تحت تسلیم کروایا جارہا ہے۔

اکثرعرب ممالک ایران کی تباہی میں امریکہ اوراسرائیل کے شریک کار بن چکے ہیں اور ان ممالک میں امریکی فوجی اڈے کام کررہے ہیں۔ ان عرب ممالک کو ذہن نشین کرایا گیا کہ ایران تمھارادشمن ہے اور یہ اڈے تمھاری حفاظت کے لیۓ ہیں۔

 اس وقت امریکہ اوراسرائیل کی ایران کےخلاف جاری جنگ میں یہ بات کھل کر سامنے آگئی کہ یہ اڈے عرب مملک نہیں بلکہ اسرائیل کی حفاظت کے لیۓ ہیں اور ان مملک کے لوگوں کو بطور ہیومن شیلڈ استعمال کیا جارہاہے۔

Ceasefire or Strategic Overreach? Washington’s Iran Dilemma

The confrontation between the United States and Iran has entered a familiar but dangerous phase: both sides speak of ceasefire, yet their conditions make peace increasingly elusive.

At the center of this standoff lies the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for global energy flows. Washington’s primary demand is its immediate reopening, coupled with far-reaching conditions: rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, curbs on its missile capabilities, and disengagement from regional allies. In effect, the United States is seeking not merely de-escalation, but a strategic reordering of Iran’s regional posture.

Tehran, unsurprisingly, views these demands as excessive. Its counter-conditions—cessation of attacks, guarantees against future aggression, and compensation for war damages—reflect a sovereignty-driven approach. Most critically, Iran insists on recognition of its authority over Hormuz, transforming a geographic chokepoint into a symbol of national leverage.

This divergence reflects a deeper divide. The United States frames the ceasefire in terms of global security and stability; Iran frames it in terms of sovereignty and deterrence. Each side demands that the other act first—Washington insisting on compliance before relief, and Tehran demanding guarantees before concessions.

It is within this context that the strategy of President Donald Trump invites scrutiny. By advancing what appears to be a maximalist framework, Washington risks conflating ceasefire with capitulation. Such an approach may project strength, but it also narrows the diplomatic space necessary for de-escalation.

There is also a structural contradiction. While the United States seeks secure and uninterrupted maritime flows, its pressure-heavy strategy may incentivize Iran to tighten, rather than loosen, its grip over the Strait. The sequencing problem—each side waiting for the other to move first—has effectively locked diplomacy in place.

Ultimately, the trajectory of this conflict suggests that both Washington and Tehran may be overestimating what force alone can achieve. While US strategy risks prolonging a conflict it seeks to shape, Iran too faces economic strain and the long-term costs of sustained confrontation.

What is increasingly evident is that neither side is positioned for a clear or lasting victory. Instead, the burden is shifting outward. Energy markets remain unsettled, trade flows uncertain, and inflationary pressures persistent—leaving much of the global economy to absorb the consequences of a conflict it neither initiated nor controls.

If this impasse endures, the outcome may not be defined by who wins the war, but by who best avoids its costs. And on that count, the rest of the world may already be losing.

 

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.

Trump faces fate worse than Bush faced in Iraq

On March 17, 2026, I posted a blog titled “Washington’s Miscalculation: War It Can't Win”. Its opening paragraph was, I quote “Since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has pursued not coexistence with Iran, but its submission. Nearly five decades of sanctions, covert operations, and proxy confrontations have produced results Washington resists admitting - Iran has not weakened — it has adapted, and in many respects, hardened”. Today, March 21, 2026 Reuters ran a story with a caption “How Trump's stated reasons, goals and timeline for Iran war have shifted”.

 According to the report, President Donald Trump and his top officials have offered shifting objectives and reasons for the US-Israeli war on Iran, which critics say shows a lack of planning for the conflict and its aftermath.

Stated objectives and expected timeline have varied, including toppling Iran's government, weakening Iran's military, security and nuclear capabilities and its regional influence, as well as supporting Israeli interests.

Here is how Trump described his ​war goals and timeline:

FEBRUARY 28: CALLS FOR IRANIANS TO TOPPLE THEIR GOVERNMENT

The Iranian people should "take over" governance of their country, Trump said in a video on ‌social media as the US and Israel launched their attacks. "It will be yours to take," he added. "This will be probably your only chance for generations."

Trump described the attacks as "major combat operations."

FEBRUARY 28: WEAKEN IRAN'S MILITARY, INFLUENCE

Trump said Washington would deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon, although Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Iran does not have nuclear weapons while the United States does. Israel is also widely believed to ​be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.

Trump insisted he would end what he described as Tehran's ballistic missile threat. "We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile ​industry to the ground," he said. "We're going to annihilate their navy."

Trump claimed Iran's long range missiles "can now threaten our very good friends and allies ⁠in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland."

His remarks echoed the case of President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, which had false claims. Neither experts nor ​US intelligence support Trump's assertions and both assess that Iran's ballistic missile program was years from threatening the US homeland.

MARCH 2: SHIFTING TIMELINE

Trump said the war was projected to last four to five ​weeks but could go on longer.

"We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes," Trump said at the White House. In a social media post, Trump said there was a "virtually unlimited supply" of US munitions and that "wars can be fought 'forever,' and very successfully, using just these supplies."

In a notification to Congress, Trump provided no timeline. Trump earlier told the Daily Mail the war could take "four weeks, ​or less," then told The New York Times four to five weeks and subsequently said it could take longer.

MARCH 2: RUBIO SAYS US ATTACKED IRAN BECAUSE ISRAEL DID

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told ​reporters Israel's determination to attack Iran forced Washington to strike.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if ‌we didn't preemptively ⁠go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said.

MARCH 3: TRUMP CONTRADICTS RUBIO

Trump said he ordered US forces to join Israel's attack on Iran because he believed Iran was about to strike first.

"I might have forced their (Israel's) hand," Trump said. "If we didn't do it, they (Iran) were going to attack first."

MARCH 04: CALL TO 'DESTROY' SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the goal was to "destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure."

MARCH 06: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' CALL

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER," Trump wrote on social ​media.

MARCH 8-11: JUST THE START BUT ALSO 'PRETTY MUCH ​COMPLETE'

Hegseth told CBS News in an interview aired ⁠March 08 strikes on Iran were "only just the beginning."

A day later, Trump told the same network "I think the war is very complete, pretty much."

"We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough," Trump told reporters later on the same day. When asked if the war was beginning ​or complete, he said: "Well, I think you could say both."

On March 11, Trump again said he thought the US had won but: "We've got ​to finish the job."

MARCH 13: ⁠SOFTENS CALL FOR INTERNAL UPRISING

In a March 13 interview, Trump told Fox News the war will end "when I feel it in my bones."

Trump softened his call for Iranians to topple their government. "So I really think that's a big hurdle to climb for people that don't have weapons," Trump said.

MARCH 19: HEGSETH SAYS NO TIME FRAME

Hegseth said Washington was not setting a time frame for the war and Trump would ⁠decide when to ​stop.

"We wouldn't want to set a definitive time frame," the Pentagon chief said. "It will be at the president's choosing, ​ultimately, where we say, 'Hey, we've achieved what we need to.'"

MARCH 20: TRUMP CONSIDERS WINDING DOWN BUT NO CEASEFIRE

Trump posted on Truth Social, "we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts" in ​the Iran war. Earlier in the day, Trump told reporters "I don't want to do a ceasefire" when asked about the war.

 

War with Iran and the Question of America’s Global Power

As the United States–Israel war against Iran enters its third week, the expanding scope of the conflict is forcing the world to reassess the role of the United States in shaping the international order. What began as a military confrontation is increasingly being interpreted as part of a broader geopolitical strategy — one that echoes patterns seen in earlier American interventions.

The latest signal came when the administration of Donald Trump announced a US$10 million bounty for information on Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s newly elevated supreme leader. The reward, issued through Washington’s “Rewards for Justice” program, targets individuals whom the United States accuses of involvement in militant activities.

Such a move is unusual in modern diplomacy. Publicly placing a bounty on a serving leader of a sovereign state sends a strong political message and inevitably raises questions about Washington’s long-term objectives in the conflict. Critics argue that the step suggests the war may extend beyond military confrontation and could ultimately aim at weakening or reshaping Iran’s leadership.

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of intense global criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The war there has produced devastating humanitarian consequences, with tens of thousands reported dead, many of them civilians. For much of the world, the expansion of conflict toward Iran reinforces the perception that the United States and Israel are pursuing a broader strategic agenda across the Middle East.

Historically, American interventions have frequently been framed in the language of security, democracy, or counter-terrorism. Yet several precedents are often cited by critics as examples where these interventions eventually evolved into attempts to alter political leadership. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, and sustained political pressure on governments in Venezuela are commonly referenced in this debate.

These precedents also revive a deeper question about the effectiveness of global governance institutions. The United Nations was established after the Second World War to prevent unilateral wars and protect the sovereignty of states. However, the structure of the Security Council — where the United States holds veto power — often limits the organization’s ability to act decisively when Washington itself is directly involved in a conflict.

This structural imbalance has created a persistent credibility dilemma. While the United Nations remains the central forum for international diplomacy, critics increasingly argue that its capacity to restrain the strategic ambitions of major powers remains limited.

As the war with Iran unfolds, the debate is no longer confined to the future of the Middle East alone. It now touches the credibility of the international system itself — and whether the global order is governed by collective rules or ultimately shaped by the interests of its most powerful states.

Time Is on Iran’s Side

Despite the overwhelming military might of the United States and Israel, time may ultimately favor Iran in the ongoing conflict, as mounting political and economic pressures strain the Trump administration.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury, US forces have reportedly struck some 6,000 Iranian targets, damaging naval vessels, missile launch sites, and other military infrastructure. The US Central Command says more than 90 Iranian vessels have been neutralized. Experts argue that Iran anticipated such attacks and structured its defense around confronting conventionally superior foes.

Analysts note that Iran is deliberately prolonging the conflict, betting it can endure military pressure longer than the US can withstand domestic political fallout. Rising oil prices, disruptions in global energy markets, and attacks on US allies in the Gulf have intensified the economic and diplomatic costs of the war. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil prices near US$100 per barrel, adding further pressure on the global economy.

Military analysts suggest that Iran’s definition of victory is simple - survival. Removing the current leadership in Tehran would require far greater military commitment than the United States has so far deployed. Pentagon officials reported that the war cost over $11.3 billion in just the first six days. The conflict has also taken a human toll - seven American service members have died, and roughly 140 have been wounded.

In his first statement as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and continue military pressure on regional adversaries. The US is considering naval escorts for oil tankers through the waterway. Analysts warn that as the conflict drags on, rising economic costs, political divisions in Washington, and potential casualties could erode domestic support for what some critics describe as an “optional war.”

While US and Israeli forces dominate tactically, Iran’s endurance strategy could make the political and economic cost of the conflict unsustainable for the United States, leaving the regime in Tehran intact and the strategic balance in the Gulf uncertain.

Time to impeach US president Donald Trump

When the President of the United States casually describes a war as an “excursion,” it inevitably raises questions about judgment and responsibility. Speaking at a press conference in Miami, Donald Trump referred to the ongoing war against Iran as “just an excursion into something that had to be done.” Such a characterization is strikingly detached from the human and geopolitical costs already unfolding.

Wars are never excursions. They bring destruction, loss of life, and long-term instability. Reports indicate that nearly 1,500 Iranians—many of them women and children—have already been killed since the conflict began. The situation escalated further when extensive air operations by Israel reportedly led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The event alone was sufficient to transform an already volatile confrontation into a crisis with far-reaching regional implications.

Equally troubling is the timing of the military escalation. The United States and Iran were reportedly engaged in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, and by several accounts those discussions were moving in a constructive direction. Launching large-scale military action during such negotiations has inevitably raised doubts about whether diplomacy was given a genuine opportunity to succeed.

The consequences are already visible beyond the battlefield. Oil prices have surged toward US$100 per barrel, heightening economic uncertainty worldwide. Regional tensions have intensified as Iran signals readiness for a prolonged confrontation, raising the possibility that the conflict could draw in additional actors across the Middle East.

At the same time, the objectives articulated by Washington appear expansive and shifting. Statements from the US administration have referenced preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling military capabilities, and even influencing the country’s political future. History offers ample evidence—from interventions in Iraq and Libya—that attempts to reshape political orders through military force rarely produce stable outcomes.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect is the rhetoric surrounding the war itself. When a conflict that has already taken thousands of lives is described as an “excursion,” it risks trivializing the gravity of military action and undermining the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the international community.

For these reasons, serious questions must now be asked in Washington. If presidential conduct has indeed inflicted lasting damage on the global image of the United States, then the constitutional mechanisms of accountability cannot be ignored. Initiating impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump may therefore become not merely a political debate, but a necessary test of democratic responsibility and institutional integrity.

Only Time Will Tell Who Survives? Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader marks a dramatic turning point in the region’s already volatile geopolitics. Coming in the aftermath of the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, during recent strikes against Iran, the succession signals continuity rather than change within the Islamic Republic’s power structure. Yet the broader question now emerging is not simply about leadership transition in Tehran, but about the intensifying confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The powerful Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, announced Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment after what it described as a decisive vote. For years, Mojtaba had been viewed as a leading contender due to his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment, security institutions and the vast economic networks that developed under his father’s long rule. His elevation therefore suggests that Iran’s hardline establishment remains firmly in control despite the shock caused by the assassination of its previous leader.

The geopolitical temperature rose further after remarks by Donald Trump, who declared that Washington should have a say in Iran’s leadership transition. The US president warned that the new leader might not “last long” without American approval. Such statements are unusual in diplomatic practice, as leadership succession is traditionally regarded as an internal matter of sovereign states.

At the same time, Israel had reportedly warned that whoever succeeded Ali Khamenei could become a target. These developments transform what might have remained an internal political transition into a potentially dangerous regional confrontation involving multiple actors.

History suggests that external pressure often produces unintended consequences in Iran. Rather than weakening the ruling establishment, foreign threats frequently reinforce internal cohesion and strengthen the narrative of resistance promoted by the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, geopolitical contests are rarely decided by bold statements or threats alone. Political survival depends on domestic legitimacy, strategic endurance and the unpredictable shifts of international power.

As tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, one reality remains clear - history, not rhetoric, determines political longevity. Only time will tell who ultimately survives this unfolding confrontation — Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

Six Uncomfortable Questions the World Avoids Answering

It is often alleged that Western media is dishonest, it tows foreign policy agenda of United States. A term Embedded Journalists is used. As the US-Iran war continues, I tried to find replies to pertinent/ select questions through AI. These questions may not have simple answers, but asking them is essential. In international politics, narratives are often shaped by power, alliances, and media influence. An informed public must therefore examine facts carefully and remain willing to question prevailing assumptions.

Who is the aggressor — the United States or Iran?
From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has carried out military interventions across several continents. Iran’s actions, though controversial, have largely remained confined to the Middle East.

Who is the terrorist — Israel or Iran?
Washington labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for supporting armed groups. Critics argue Israel’s military actions in Palestinian territories resemble state terrorism.

Who has killed the most people — the United States, Israel, or Iran?
The wars involving the United States have resulted in far greater casualties than those linked to conflicts involving Israel or Iran.

Who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains nuclear ambiguity. Iran, however, is a signatory and legally bound by the treaty.

Who is fooling Arabs the most — Israel or Iran?
Some analysts argue Israel benefits from divisions within the Arab world. Others believe Iran uses the Palestinian cause to expand its regional influence.

Why are U.S. military bases located in GCC countries?
Officially they exist to defend Gulf states and secure energy routes. Strategically, they also reinforce a regional security structure that indirectly protects Israel.