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.

Did the United States Build Gulf Bases to Protect Arab Monarchies — or Israel?

The enduring American military presence across the Gulf — from Bahrain and Qatar to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — has long been justified under the doctrine of regional stability and collective defence. Successive US administrations have argued that these bases serve as a deterrent against external threats, particularly from Iran, portrayed as a revisionist power challenging the Gulf monarchies and the broader regional order. Defence agreements were signed, billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry was purchased, and a security architecture was institutionalized under the American umbrella.

However, recent escalations — including coordinated US–Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in 2025 and 2026, followed by retaliatory attacks on American installations inside Gulf states — have reignited a fundamental question: were these bases primarily designed to shield the Gulf emirates, or to guarantee strategic depth for Israel? Critics argue that the pattern of engagement suggests a security arrangement in which Gulf territories function less as protected partners and more as forward operating platforms in a broader US–Israel strategic calculus. Supporters of the status quo counter that without American deterrence, Gulf capitals would face far greater vulnerabilities.

The debate, therefore, is not merely about military installations; it concerns sovereignty, threat perception, and the true beneficiaries of regional security alignments. Were Gulf leaders persuaded to view Iran as the primary existential threat while Israel remained outside their formal defence calculus? Or is this interpretation an oversimplification of a far more complex geopolitical reality?

I invite readers to reflect critically:
Are US bases in the Gulf fundamentally defensive shields for Arab monarchies — or strategic assets designed to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge?
Has recent regional escalation validated long-standing security assumptions, or exposed their limitations?

Your considered views will enrich this debate.

Israel launches attack against Iran

According to Reuters report, Israel has launched attack against Iran on Saturday, pushing the Middle East into a renewed military confrontation and further dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's long-running nuclear dispute with the West.

The New York Times, citing a US official, reported that US strikes on Iran were underway. A source told Reuters that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not in Tehran and had been transferred to a secure location.

The attack, coming after Israel and Iran engaged in a 12-day air war in June, follows repeated U.S.-Israeli warnings that they would strike again if Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"The State of Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran to remove threats to the State of Israel," Defence Minister Israel Katz said.

Explosions were heard in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian media reported.

The US and Iran renewed negotiations in February in a bid to resolve the decades-long dispute through diplomacy and avert the threat of a military confrontation that could destabilize the region.

Israel, however, insisted that any US deal with Iran must include the dismantling of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure, not just stopping the enrichment process, and lobbied Washington to include restrictions on Iran's missile program in the talks.

Iran said it was prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions but ruled out linking the issue to missiles.

Tehran also said it would defend itself against any attack.

It warned neighbouring countries hosting US troops that it would retaliate against American bases if Washington struck Iran.

In June last year, the US joined an Israeli military campaign against Iranian nuclear installations, in the most direct American military action ever against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran retaliated by launching missiles toward the US Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East.

Western powers have warned that Iran's ballistic missile project threatens regional stability and could deliver nuclear weapons if developed. Tehran denies seeking atomic bombs.

War with Iran Can Be a Strategic Mistake

In his recent address, US president Donald Trump again signaled that military action against Iran remains an option — citing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile program, regional conduct, and human rights record. The message was firm - Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. On that objective, there is rare bipartisan consensus in Washington, but consensus on a goal is not consensus on a method.

Public opinion in the United States is far more cautious than political rhetoric. After the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American voters are wary of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict. Polling indicates limited appetite for military escalation. That hesitation reflects hard-earned lessons - wars launched with limited objectives often expand beyond initial calculations.

For Pakistan and the broader region, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Iran sits at the crossroads of global energy routes. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices sharply higher, straining fragile economies across South Asia. For energy-importing states already battling inflation and external account pressures, this would be destabilizing.

Equally important is the question of strategic clarity. Is the objective deterrence? Degradation of nuclear capability? Or regime change? Absent a clearly articulated end-state, military action risks triggering retaliation without securing lasting stability. Even limited strikes could invite asymmetric responses across the region.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, though its stockpile of highly enriched uranium alarms Western powers. Yet past diplomatic frameworks proved that monitoring and verification are possible when political will exists. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but war is irreversible.

The 21st century offers enough evidence that military adventurism in the Middle East produces unintended and often uncontrollable consequences. From prolonged insurgencies to regional fragmentation, the record is sobering. An attack on Iran could become another costly chapter in that history — one that reshapes the region in ways no strategist can fully predict and no economy can easily absorb. Strategic restraint is not idealism; it is realism grounded in experience.

A Dangerous Drift Toward Another Unnecessary War

Signals emerging from Washington point toward a trajectory the world has seen before: military escalation presented as strategic necessity. Reports that the United States is preparing for the possibility of sustained operations against Iran should prompt serious reflection, not only in the region but among policymakers who understand how quickly “limited actions” evolve into prolonged conflicts.

Military preparedness is routine; political judgment is decisive. Confusing the two is where danger begins.

At the heart of the debate lies an uncomfortable legal tension. Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), retains the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Disputes over compliance are meant to be resolved through verification regimes and diplomacy. When the language of air strikes overshadows the mechanisms of inspection, the credibility of multilateral agreements erodes.

History offers sobering reminders. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by intelligence later discredited, destabilized a fragile state and reshaped regional security in ways few architects anticipated. The 2011 intervention in Libya, backed by NATO, removed an entrenched regime yet failed to deliver sustainable governance. These episodes illustrate a persistent reality: regime change may be swift in execution but chaotic in consequence.

Renewed rhetoric about altering Tehran’s political order risks repeating this pattern. Externally driven transitions rarely produce the institutional stability advocates promise. More often, they generate power vacuums, factional conflict, economic collapse, and long-term regional spillovers.

Moral arguments, too, demand consistency. Criticism of Iran’s domestic policies carries greater weight when human rights principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Standards invoked abroad cannot appear negotiable at home without weakening their persuasive force.

Equally problematic is the inflation of threat narratives. Iran’s regional posture is assertive and frequently destabilizing, particularly through its network of non-state partners. Yet portraying it as an imminent global menace compresses complex geopolitical realities into a binary framework that leaves little room for diplomacy. For Israel, whose security concerns are genuine, long-term stability ultimately rests on deterrence, engagement, and regional balance — not perpetual confrontation.

The risks of a sustained conflict are neither theoretical nor remote. Iran’s missile capabilities, asymmetric tools, and retaliatory doctrine make escalation highly probable. States hosting American military installations could become unintended theatres of reprisal. Energy corridors, shipping routes, and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf would face heightened vulnerability. Even a carefully calibrated campaign could trigger consequences far beyond initial objectives.

Diplomacy is slow, imperfect, and politically inconvenient. War is swift, destructive, and rarely confined to its opening script. Strategic calculations must reflect that asymmetry.

One need not be a head of state to recognize the stakes. Even an ordinary citizen can observe that conflicts launched with confidence often conclude with outcomes no one predicted — except the families, economies, and regions left to absorb the costs.

After decades marked by intervention fatigue and strategic overreach, Washington faces a defining choice: reinforce diplomacy and international law, or drift toward another confrontation whose consequences may exceed its rationale.

Strategic patience is not weakness. In a volatile geopolitical landscape, it is the most credible expression of strength.

Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium?

Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes is grounded in international law, not ideological sympathy. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is legally entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses such as medical isotopes, electricity generation, and scientific research, provided it remains under international safeguards. Tehran has consistently maintained that it does not seek nuclear weapons. Distrust alone cannot nullify a treaty-based right.

For nearly five decades, Iran has been subjected to economic sanctions, covert operations, cyber sabotage, and targeted killings of nuclear scientists. These measures, justified in the name of non-proliferation, have failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, they have entrenched confrontation, weakened moderates, and institutionalized hostility as a policy tool.

Israel has played the most aggressive role in this strategy. Operating with implicit Western backing, it has repeatedly attacked Iranian assets and openly threatened pre-emptive strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recurring warnings of unilateral military action reflect a dangerous mindset: one that treats force as a substitute for diplomacy and assumes escalation can be controlled. History suggests otherwise.

Any military adventurism against Iran would not remain a limited strike. It would provoke retaliation across the region, destabilize already fragile states, disrupt global energy supplies, and risk drawing major powers into a wider confrontation. The Middle East is already burdened by overlapping crises; igniting a new war over speculative threat perceptions would be an act of strategic recklessness.

If the objective is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, coercion has proven ineffective. Verification, inspections, and negotiated limits offer far greater security than sanctions and bombs. The West must accept that peaceful enrichment under monitoring is safer than perpetual confrontation.

Equally important, Muslim countries must move beyond silence and ambiguity. Enabling or facilitating attacks on Iran, directly or indirectly, only accelerates regional self-destruction. Strategic autonomy demands collective restraint.

Enough is enough. Denying legal rights, normalizing aggression, and tolerating unilateral strikes will not bring stability. They will only push the Middle East closer to a conflict whose consequences no one—not even its architects—can control.

Muslim World at a Crossroads: OIC Must Act Before Iran Becomes the Next Battlefield

President Donald Trump’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric toward Iran should ring alarm bells across the Muslim world. Since Washington tightened its grip on Venezuela—effectively neutralizing its oil exports and political sovereignty—the White House’s tone on Tehran has grown markedly harsher. Today, threats of regime change, military strikes, and even targeted assassinations of Iran’s top clergy are being voiced with unsettling openness.

This trajectory is neither accidental nor unprecedented.

Recent Israeli and US operations against Iran succeeded largely because of access to regional airspace and ground facilities provided by neighboring Muslim countries. That cooperation—whether voluntary or extracted under pressure—proved decisive. There is little reason to believe the next phase, should it materialize, would be any different. On the contrary, Washington is almost certainly weighing which regional capitals might again be persuaded, coerced, or compelled to facilitate action against Tehran.

Herein lies the collective failure of Muslim leadership.

Individually, many states lack the political or economic resilience to withstand sustained US pressure. Collectively they possess enormous diplomatic weight, energy leverage, and strategic relevance. Yet this collective strength remains largely untapped, diluted by divisions and bilateral calculations.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) must immediately convene an emergency summit.

Such a meeting should not be symbolic. It must produce a clear, unified resolution rejecting any military action against Iran and warning against the use of Muslim territories, airspace, or infrastructure for attacks on a fellow Muslim nation. Silence or ambiguity will be interpreted as consent.

Muslim rulers must also confront a sobering reality: Iran is not the endgame. Washington’s broader strategy has long revolved around reshaping political landscapes in energy-rich Muslim countries, often replacing sovereign governments with compliant “puppet” regimes. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan offer painful reminders of how external intervention leaves behind fractured societies and enduring instability.

The argument here is not about endorsing Iran’s policies. It is about safeguarding regional sovereignty and preventing yet another war that would devastate Muslim populations while serving external geopolitical interests.

History will judge today’s leaders by whether they chose unity over expediency.

If the Muslim world fails to draw a firm collective line now, it risks becoming a revolving battlefield—one country at a time. An emergency OIC meeting is not merely desirable; it is an urgent strategic necessity.

Iranian Foreign Minister claims situation under control

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Monday that the situation in Iran is “under control” with “many terrorist operatives” arrested.

He told foreign diplomats in a televised meeting that “confessions will be released soon” and said there is “substantial evidence of foreign involvement.”

He also said Iran is ready to negotiate with the US based on “mutual respect and interests.”

“As I have said repeatedly, we are also ready for negotiations — but fair and dignified negotiations, from an equal position, with mutual respect and based on mutual interests,” Araghchi said.

The foreign minister’s statements came after US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that Iran had “called to negotiate,” as his administration weighs potential military options for intervention against Tehran following the demonstrations.

The Iranian government has stated its readiness to negotiate several times in previous months.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the communication channel between Araghchi and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff “remains open” and “whenever necessary, messages are exchanged through that channel.” He added that “certain points and ideas have been presented by the other side,” referring to the US.

Large crowds of people have gathered in various Iranian cities in support of the country’s regime, according to video broadcast by state media.

People can be seen carrying images of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holding up copies of the Qur'an and waving Islamic Republic flags in demonstrations in cities including Kerman and Zahedan.

Iranian state agencies had called for nationwide marches on Monday in support of the regime which has faced down more than two weeks of growing protests fueled by spiraling anger over the economy, authoritarian rule and a deadly crackdown on demonstrators.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization said all flights are “operating normally and without problems” and airport services are fully functioning.

Majid Akhavan, spokesman for the organization, said travelers concerned about the status of flights because of recent internet-related issues “can obtain up-to-date information directly from airport sources”, the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.

Iran's president said Sunday that his government is determined to address Iran’s economic problems amid ongoing protests in several parts of the country.

Iran’s “enemies are seeking to sow chaos and instability” following the country’s 12-day war last June with Israel, Masoud Pezeshkian told the state television.

His remarks were the first since protests that began last month over worsening economic conditions and the record depreciation of the national currency, the rial, turned violent last week.

Pezeshkian condemned recent attacks on public places, including mosques, in Tehran and other Iranian cities, blaming the US and Israel for the violence.

There are no official casualty figures, but some NGOs outside Iran estimate the death toll at 116, including both security forces and protesters, with over 1,000 injured.

Iranian officials have accused Washington and Tel Aviv of backing the increasingly violent protests, particularly in Tehran, where government buildings, banks, buses, and mosques have been set ablaze by armed protesters in recent days.

Internet connectivity has also been suspended across the country.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of “training certain groups” inside and outside the country and bringing “terrorists from abroad” to set mosques, markets, and public places on fire.

“They have killed some with weapons, burned others, and beheaded some. Truly, these crimes are beyond our people’s nature. These are not our people. They do not belong to this country. If someone protests for this country, we listen and address their concerns,” he said.

The Iranian president said his government admits to “shortcomings and problems” and is working hard to alleviate the people’s concerns, especially regarding the economy.

“Where in the world are such protests and behaviors accepted as protests? If this happened in the US, would Americans allow it? Would Europeans allow it? If someone attacked a military base or city center, would they say, ‘Go ahead and loot it’,” he said.

He insisted that those attacking public property are not protesters, but rioters, adding that the government is willing to meet with and listen to those who have legitimate concerns.

Pezeshkian said the US and Israel tried to bring Iranians “to their knees” during the 12-day war in June but failed, and now seek to do the same through “riots.”

“We will build this country with the people’s help and stand firmly against the external conspiracies and riots, with the help of producers and merchants. We will stop them with power,” he said, offering condolences to those who have died in the ongoing protests.

Before the protests turned violent on Thursday night, US President Trump tweeted that the US would “come to the rescue” of Iranian protesters if the government used lethal force against them.

His remarks drew sharp criticism from top Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, security chief Ali Larijani, and Foreign Minister Araghchi.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of instigating Iranian youth.

“The same people who destroyed this country and killed our youth and children now instruct these rioters to destroy more.”

He reassured the public that his government will work to solve their problems and urged families “not to let their youth mix with rioters and terrorists who kill and behead.”

“Protest if you must; we will listen and solve your concerns. Let us work together to solve problems. But worsening the country’s economic situation through chaos serves no one,” he said.

Courtesy: Saudi Gazette

 

Iran: Myth of Regime Engineering

Nearly half a century after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, one uncomfortable truth remains intact- the United States has failed to toppling Iran’s clergy-dominated political system. From covert operations to overt pressure, from sanctions to sabotage, Washington’s arsenal has been vast—but its outcomes limited. This reality challenges a deeply entrenched belief in Western policymaking circles that sustained external pressure can reengineer sovereign political systems.

The US–Iran confrontation began with high drama. The failed 1980 rescue mission to free American embassy staff in Tehran was an early signal that Iran would not bend easily. Since then, the playbook has expanded—economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, cyber warfare, targeted killings, and strikes on strategic installations. Each tactic was presented as decisive; none proved so. Even with Israel’s fullest political, intelligence, and military backing, the objective of dismantling Iran’s clerical power structure remains unmet.

Washington’s current emphasis on internal unrest follows a familiar pattern. Protests in Iran—whether driven by economic hardship, social restrictions, or political frustration—are quickly framed as precursors to regime collapse. Yet history offers little evidence that externally encouraged demonstrations can dismantle a deeply entrenched ideological state. On the contrary, such pressure often consolidates power by allowing the ruling elite to externalize blame and tighten internal control.

The comparison—explicit or implied—with Venezuela is particularly flawed. The assumption that methods used against Caracas can be replicated in Tehran ignores fundamental differences. Iran is not an oil-dependent, institutionally hollow state with fractured elite consensus. It possesses ideological cohesion, parallel power structures, and decades of experience in surviving siege conditions. The belief that eliminating a leadership figure—or fueling street unrest—can unravel this system reflects strategic illusion rather than informed assessment.

That said, dismissing Iran’s internal weaknesses would be equally misleading. Economic mismanagement, corruption allegations, demographic pressure, and social discontent are real and persistent. Sanctions have undeniably deepened hardship, but domestic policy failures have magnified their impact. Iran’s ruling establishment has often responded to dissent with rigidity rather than reform, narrowing its own margin for legitimacy. These internal contradictions—not foreign intervention—pose the most credible long-term challenge to clerical dominance.

The paradox is stark - US pressure has hurt Iranian society more than it has weakened the state, while simultaneously validating the regime’s narrative of perpetual external threat. Each failed attempt at coercion reinforces Tehran’s claim that resistance, not accommodation, ensures survival.

The lesson from five decades of confrontation is neither ideological nor moral—it is strategic. Regimes are rarely dismantled from the outside, especially those forged in revolution and sustained through resistance. Iran’s future will be shaped primarily by its own political evolution, not by foreign-engineered upheaval. Any policy that ignores this reality is destined to repeat past failures—at great human and geopolitical cost.

 

Netanyahu’s Washington Visit: Strategy, Sponsorship, and Shared Responsibility

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is being portrayed as routine strategic coordination. In reality, it reflects a deeper convergence in which Washington is no longer a distant mediator but a principal enabler of Israel’s expanding regional agenda. The visit highlights not only Israeli ambitions, but also America’s sustained military, intelligence, and diplomatic sponsorship.

At the center of discussions lies Iran. Israel’s objective has clearly shifted from containment to systematic degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities—nuclear latency, missile production, drones, and proxy networks. This transition would be impossible without continued US arms supplies, intelligence sharing, and political cover. While Washington publicly warns against escalation, its steady flow of advanced weaponry and repeated shielding of Israel at international forums effectively signal consent rather than restraint.

Regime change in Iran remains a sensitive phrase in Washington, but prolonged destabilization appears to be the preferred substitute. Cyber operations, economic pressure, and covert actions designed to exploit Iran’s internal vulnerabilities fit comfortably within a grey-zone strategy that allows plausible deniability. Western intelligence agencies may not openly own such operations, but coordination and silence often speak louder than formal declarations.

Saudi normalization remains another Israeli objective, though the Gaza war has made recognition politically costly for Riyadh. Netanyahu’s calculation is that the United States can again absorb the pressure—offering security guarantees and strategic incentives to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In doing so, Washington risks further eroding its credibility across the Arab and Muslim world by prioritizing geopolitical bargains over public sentiment.

In Syria, Israel already enjoys near-unrestricted freedom of action, facilitated by US political backing and Russia’s strategic distraction. The goal now is to institutionalize strategic denial—preventing Iranian re-entrenchment and treating Syrian sovereignty as expendable in the pursuit of regional dominance.

Lebanon presents a similar pattern. Israel’s posture toward Hezbollah appears to be shifting from deterrence to attrition, with Washington focused on managing escalation rather than preventing it. Proposals to revise UNIFIL’s mandate or force Hezbollah north of the Litani risk dragging Lebanon into another devastating cycle.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s visit is less about crisis management than about reaffirming a permissive American environment—one that allows Israel to act forcefully while the United States absorbs diplomatic costs. As Washington continues to arm, shield, and enable Israel, it also assumes responsibility for the instability that follows.

Israel to Seek US Help in Another Round of War with Iran

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Mar-a-Lago to meet US President Donald Trump, reports suggest the visit is less about diplomacy and more about reigniting confrontation with Iran. Despite growing friction between Netanyahu and Trump’s advisers, the Israeli leader is expected to press Washington to support, or directly participate in, another round of military escalation.

According to NBC News, Netanyahu plans to argue that Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program presents an urgent threat requiring swift action. He is expected to present Trump with options for US involvement in potential military operations. Analysts, however, view this shift in emphasis with skepticism. Sina Toossi of the Center for International Policy notes that Netanyahu’s focus on missiles appears to be an attempt to manufacture a new casus belli after the collapse of the nuclear argument.

This inconsistency has drawn criticism even within Israel. Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s center-left Democrats party, questioned how Netanyahu could declare a “historic victory” last June—claiming Iran’s nuclear threat and missile capabilities had been neutralized—only to return months later seeking US approval to strike Iran again.

Iran will not be the only issue on the agenda. Israeli officials indicate Netanyahu will also push Trump to harden his stance on Gaza, demanding Hamas’s disarmament before any further Israeli troop withdrawals under the second phase of Trump’s peace plan. This comes amid mounting US frustration over Israel’s repeated violations of the October ceasefire.

While Trump has sought to cultivate a peacemaker image, Israel’s actions on the ground have complicated that narrative. Near-daily Israeli strikes have reportedly killed over 400 Palestinians, while a sustained blockade has left hundreds of thousands displaced, exposed to winter conditions, and deprived of adequate food, fuel, and medicine.

Trump’s advisers, according to Axios, increasingly fear Netanyahu is deliberately undermining the peace process to keep the conflict alive. Beyond Gaza, Netanyahu is also expected to seek continued US backing for Israel’s territorial expansion in Syria and renewed latitude to escalate against Hezbollah in Lebanon—both areas where Israeli actions have already strained US policy objectives.

As Toossi argues, Netanyahu’s visit reflects not a strategy to resolve crises but to defer accountability. The meeting’s outcome will test whether Washington continues to underwrite open-ended escalation—or begins to draw clearer limits around Israel’s regional ambitions.

From Superpowers to a Super Syndicate

This writeup discusses a proposition that may appear unconventional but is rooted in long-term observation. After more than a decade of writing on geopolitics in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, it has become increasingly evident that the traditional concept of regional and global superpowers no longer adequately explains contemporary international politics. Power today is exercised less through overt state rivalry and more through a coordinated, transnational arrangement that may best be described as a Super Syndicate.

This emerging order is not ideological in nature. It is driven by strategic convergence among states possessing advanced intelligence capabilities and sustained by powerful economic interests. The principal beneficiaries include the global military-industrial complex, energy exploration and production companies, major financial institutions, and international shipping networks. These actors provide the financial backbone, while intelligence agencies of aligned states facilitate operational coordination, risk management, and narrative control.

Unlike the bipolar or unipolar systems of the past, the Super Syndicate does not thrive on direct confrontation among its members. Instead, it functions through a tacit division of strategic space. Countries and regions are assigned defined spheres of influence, minimizing direct competition while maximizing collective gain. Conflicts, when they occur, are managed rather than resolved, ensuring continuity rather than closure.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict illustrates this dynamic. While Ukraine has suffered extensive human and infrastructural losses and Europe has faced economic and security disruptions, the broader global system remains intact. Arms manufacturers have recorded unprecedented growth, energy markets have been restructured, and financial systems have adjusted without systemic shock. The conflict persists not because resolution is unattainable, but because prolonged instability serves entrenched interests.

The situation in Gaza further exposes the asymmetries of this order. Israel’s military campaign has continued despite widespread international criticism and humanitarian concern. Yet institutional accountability has remained elusive. This is not merely a failure of diplomacy; it reflects a structural imbalance in which certain actors operate with effective immunity due to their strategic positioning within the broader system.

Iran’s experience offers additional insight. Despite its aspirations for regional influence, Tehran has remained constrained by prolonged economic sanctions. The recent escalation involving Israel revealed a notable regional alignment. Several Middle Eastern states, while publicly maintaining neutrality, actively supported Israel through intelligence cooperation and defensive measures. The episode underscored the limitations faced by states attempting to operate outside the prevailing strategic framework.

For Pakistan and other developing states, these trends carry important implications. Sovereignty in the contemporary international system is increasingly conditional, shaped by economic leverage, intelligence alignment, and narrative positioning rather than formal equality among states. Moral appeals and legal arguments, while important, rarely translate into decisive outcomes without strategic backing.

The conclusion is not conspiratorial but analytical - global power is no longer exercised solely through identifiable superpowers. It is mediated through a coordinated network of state and non-state actors whose interests converge across military, financial, and strategic domains. Recognizing this reality is essential for policymakers, analysts, and scholars seeking to navigate an international order that is less visible, more complex, and increasingly resistant to traditional frameworks of analysis.

Trump Keen on Turning Gaza into His Personal Property

Nothing has been more destructive for Gaza over the past two years than the bombs dropped with unwavering Western backing. Yet nothing has been more cynical than Donald Trump’s repeated appearances promoting his so-called “peace plan” for the besieged Strip. Wrapped in the language of diplomacy, Trump’s proposal reeks not of reconciliation but of ownership—an attempt to treat Gaza as a geopolitical asset to be managed, traded, and reshaped according to American convenience.

While Trump speaks of calm and reconstruction, Israeli aggression continues almost daily, violating ceasefire understandings with impunity. Washington, far from being an honest broker, remains the principal enabler—arming, financing, and diplomatically shielding Israel while performing concern for Palestinian suffering. Trump’s rhetoric cannot conceal this contradiction. Peace cannot be brokered by those underwriting the war.

As large-scale bombing subsided, a new phase of pressure emerged. Gaza became the subject of maps, crossings, donor conferences, and discussions about “the day after.” Central to this discourse is the idea of a “peace council,” international forces, and a transitional governing arrangement imposed from outside. These proposals move slowly because they are designed not to end occupation, but to recycle Western control while avoiding a frank admission of failure.

Trump’s plan—Israeli withdrawal in exchange for Hamas’s removal, followed by an internationally supervised administration—lays bare a colonial mindset. Gaza is reduced to a problem to be solved, not a people with rights. Palestinians are expected to accept a future negotiated in Washington, as if sovereignty were a favor Trump can dispense. The voices of those who endured siege and destruction are conspicuously absent.

What drives Trump’s sudden peace enthusiasm is not compassion but damage control. After a prolonged and devastating war, Israel failed to impose its will militarily, exposing the limits of US-backed force. The myth of invincibility collapsed, and global opinion shifted sharply. Trump now seeks to repackage defeat as diplomacy, positioning himself as a peacemaker while rescuing a deeply tarnished ally.

Reconstruction, under this framework, becomes another weapon. Aid is offered conditionally, tied to disarmament and political submission. This transactional logic—treating freedom as a commodity—has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Gazans refuse to be reduced to property or a bargaining chip. Their resistance has transformed from a marginal humanitarian case into a global symbol exposing Western hypocrisy. Trump may imagine himself redesigning the region, but Gaza stands as a reminder that peace imposed through power, money, or arrogance is not peace at all.

When Arms Thrive - Humanity Pays Price

As missiles streak across skies from Gaza to Ukraine, another explosion is happening far from the battlefield — an explosion of profits. The global arms industry has just booked its highest revenue ever recorded, turning geopolitical turmoil into an unprecedented financial windfall.

According to the latest Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report, the world’s top 100 arms manufacturers earned a staggering US$679 billion in 2024 — the highest figure in more than 35 years of monitoring. The trend is unmistakable - the more insecure the world becomes, the richer the military-industrial complex grows.

SIPRI notes that rising geopolitical tensions, nuclear weapons modernization, and sustained conflicts drove the bulk of the increase. A remarkable 77 of the Top 100 companies boosted their revenues, and 42 recorded double-digit growth.

For the first time since 2018, all five of the largest defence companies — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and General Dynamics — expanded their earnings simultaneously, raking in a combined US$215 billion. Four of these giants are American; the fifth is British.

Europe and North America led the surge, but increases were registered across almost all regions — except Asia and Oceania, where Chinese industry struggles dragged totals down.

One of the most troubling profit spikes came from the Gaza war. Israel’s leading arms producers — Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems — collectively increased revenues by 16% to US$16.2 billion, as the assault on the enclave killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and flattened civilian infrastructure. The numbers expose a stark reality - war zones are becoming revenue streams.

In the United States — responsible for nearly half of all global arms revenue — a new entrant emerged. SpaceX, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, entered the Top 100 for the first time, more than doubling its arms revenue to US$1.8 billion. Musk’s deep alignment with US political power, including major donations to Donald Trump and Republican candidates, underscores how closely defence profits now intertwine with political influence.

The SIPRI figures raise a sobering question, when conflict becomes profitable, who is truly invested in peace?