Is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

With each passing day and the precision with which Israel attacked Qatar, Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries, a question is getting louder, is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

It is a very important and sensitive question. Based on the strategic relationships between United States and Israel the probability just can’t be ruled out.

Here are the reasons that support the perception:

Military Support:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US foreign military aid, running into billions of dollars annually. Much of Israel’s military technology, intelligence systems, and weapons are supplied by the US.

Operational Coordination:

While not every Israeli attack is directly supervised by the US, Washington is usually informed in advance of major military operations—especially those with regional consequences like strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or beyond.

Political Cover:

The US provides Israel with diplomatic protection, especially at the UN Security Council, often vetoing resolutions that condemn Israeli actions. This gives Israel confidence that it can continue operations without facing strong international consequences.

Shared Intelligence:

The CIA, Pentagon, and Israeli intelligence frequently share intelligence. In many cases, Israeli attacks—particularly on Iran linked targets—are planned with at least some level of US awareness, if not outright coordination.

Recent Pattern:

Analysts often describe Israeli military actions as being carried out with a “green light” from Washington, even if the US doesn’t control the tactical execution.

The US may not be giving step-by-step battlefield orders, Israel’s ongoing military actions—especially in Gaza—are effectively carried out under US strategic supervision and protection, both militarily and diplomatically.

Let us explore the incidents where US involvement was direct (like supplying bombs during Gaza wars, or joint planning against Iran), to show how this collaboration works.

Let us identify the situations where the US involvement was direct or so close that it’s hard to separate support from supervision:

1. Gaza Wars (2008–09, 2014, 2021, 2023–25)

Weapons Supply:

During heavy Israeli bombardments of Gaza, the US quickly replenished Israel’s stock of precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and Iron Dome interceptors. For example, in 2014 and again in 2021, Washington quietly authorized emergency transfers of munitions while battles were still ongoing.

Political Cover:

At the UN, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, allowing Israel to continue operations.

Supervision Aspect:

Without US weapons and diplomatic shields, Israel could not have sustained these long campaigns.

2. Lebanon and Hezbollah (2006 and beyond)

2006 War:

Israel’s month-long war with Hezbollah relied on US-supplied bunker-buster bombs and real-time intelligence from American surveillance assets.

Joint Planning:

US and Israeli militaries regularly war-game scenarios of a “multi-front” war with Hezbollah, meaning Israel’s current strategy is partly drawn up with Pentagon input.

3. Operations against Iran

Nuclear Program Attacks:

The famous Stuxnet cyberattack (2009–10) on Iran’s Natanz facility was a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

Targeted Killings:

Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were carried out with US intelligence support, according to multiple reports.

Air Strikes in Syria:

Israeli strikes on Iranian convoys and depots in Syria often used US intelligence and were coordinated to avoid clashing with US troops stationed nearby.

Present Gaza War

Direct Weapons Pipeline:

US cargo planes flew precision bombs, tank shells, and artillery rounds directly to Israel while civilian casualties mounted in Gaza.

White House Green Light:

Leaks from Pentagon officials revealed Israel was asked to pause or minimize strikes, but not ordered to stop.

Embedded Coordination:

US military officers reportedly worked inside Israeli command centers to coordinate targeting and logistics — an unusually deep level of involvement.

Ongoing Strategic Framework

US and Israel have joint operations rooms for real-time intelligence sharing.

Israel’s most advanced fighter jets (F-35s) are co-produced with US technology, and software updates pass through Pentagon systems — meaning the US can monitor their use.

Israel does not fight wars in isolation; every major military campaign has US fingerprints, whether in weapons, intelligence, or diplomatic protection.

Bottom line:

While Israel pulls the trigger, the US is the one who supplies the gun, reloads it, and shields Israel from the world’s outrage. That is why many analysts argue Israeli attacks are effectively conducted under US supervision.

Significance of US base in Qatar

There are contrary responses to the Israeli attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar. These could be broadly clubbed in two categories: 1) Israel will have to pay a huge price and 2) Arabs have no spine to teach Israel a lesson. We invite the readers to first understand the significance of the US military base in Qatar. We should also keep in mind what some cynics say “Qatar is in total control of United States and the Arabs just can’t dare to think about causing even the smallest damage to the base”.

According to the details available about the US military base in Qatar (Al Udeid Air Base, near Doha) it holds very high strategic and geopolitical significance for both Washington and its regional allies.  Here’s why it matters:

1. Largest US Military Presence in the Middle East

Al Udeid hosts around 10,000–13,000 US and coalition troops. It is home to the US Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) forward headquarters. The base has one of the longest runways in the Gulf, capable of handling heavy bombers, cargo planes, and refueling aircraft.

2. Command and Control Hub

It houses the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), which directs US and allied air missions across the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. It provides real-time surveillance, intelligence, and command capabilities for regional operations.

3. Geostrategic Location

Qatar sits between Iran and Saudi Arabia, giving the US a vantage point to monitor both. Its Gulf location allows rapid deployment to hotspots in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. It acts as a deterrent against Iran’s influence and provides a security guarantee to Gulf states.

4. Operations and Wars

It has played a central role in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War. It remains critical for ongoing counterterrorism, anti-ISIS missions, and monitoring the Strait of Hormuz.

5. Political Significance

The base signals a deep US-Qatar partnership, despite Qatar’s sometimes independent stance in Gulf politics (relations with Iran, hosting Hamas leaders, supporting Muslim Brotherhood).

It provides Qatar with security insurance against regional rivals (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain), especially after the 2017 Gulf blockade.

On top of all it helps the US project power without being fully dependent on bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Turkey.

6. Energy Security

Qatar is the world’s leading LNG exporter. US presence protects not only Qatar’s infrastructure but also the global energy supply routes in the Gulf.

In short, the US base in Qatar is the backbone of American military power projection in the Middle East. It protects Gulf allies, counters Iran, secures energy flows, and anchors US influence in a volatile region.

The United States faces certain risks and vulnerabilities by relying so heavily on this base. Let us look at the risks and vulnerabilities:

1. Overdependence on a Single Hub

Al Udeid is the largest US forward operating base in the Middle East, so any disruption (attack, political fallout, or natural disaster) could cripple US operations in the region. To be precise, it acts as a “single point of failure” for command and control.

2. Exposure to Iran

Iran sees Al Udeid as a primary military threat on its doorstep. The base is well within range of Iranian ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. In a war scenario, it would likely be one of the first targets.

3. Qatar’s Independent Foreign Policy

Unlike Saudi Arabia or UAE, Qatar often balances relations with both the U.S. and rivals like Iran, Turkey, and Islamist movements. Hosting Hamas leaders and maintaining ties with Tehran means Qatar could, in theory, restrict US operations if its own diplomacy is at risk. The 2017 Gulf blockade showed how fragile intra-GCC politics are, leaving Washington in an awkward position between allies.

4. Local Political Sensitivities

Presence of US troops in Muslim-majority countries can be a political flashpoint, supporting the narratives of foreign occupation. While Qatar welcomes the base for protection, its presence could become domestically unpopular in times of crisis.

5. Energy Infrastructure as Collateral

Qatar’s LNG facilities and shipping routes are near the base. Any attack on US forces risks spilling into global energy markets, creating vulnerabilities for both Qatar and the rest of world.

6. Shifting US Strategy

The US is trying to pivot to Asia and reduce military exposure in the Middle East. Heavy reliance on Al Udeid ties Washington to regional conflicts it may want to step back from. Over time, this dependency could look like a strategic liability rather than an asset.

Other US bases in the Middle East

While Al Udeid is a strategic jewel, it’s also a big, exposed target that ties US interests tightly to Gulf politics and risks. Let us compare it with other US military footholds in the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Djibouti) — to show how it fits into the bigger US military puzzle?

1. Qatar – Al Udeid Air Base

Regional command-and-control hub that houses 10,000 to 13,000 troops. It houses Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). Long runways for heavy bombers, refueling aircraft, and transports. Central location for quick reach to Gulf, Levant, Afghanistan. Its biggest Weaknesses are: 1) within easy range of Iranian missiles and 2) Qatar’s independent diplomacy (ties with Iran, Turkey and Hamas) can complicate US use in a crisis.

2. Bahrain – Naval Support Activity (NSA) Bahrain, Manama

It is home of the US Fifth Fleet with 7,000 troops. Its strengths include: 1) provides control to US naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea., it plays vital role in keeping the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf shipping lanes open.

Its weaknesses include: Bahrain is politically unstable; Shi’a majority often protests US presence, and 2) it is vulnerable to Iran-backed militias and unrest.

3. Kuwait – Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base

It is the army logistics hub that houses more than 13,000 troops and can be termed the largest US ground presence in Gulf).

Its strengths are: 1) key supply and logistics backbone for all Gulf operations and 2) it hosts pre-positioned equipment for rapid deployment. Its weaknesses are: 1) less glamorous than Qatar/ Bahrain but essential — if disrupted, US supply lines suffer.

4. Saudi Arabia – Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB)

It is basically a backup air operations center where around 2,500 troops are kept.

Its strengths: 1) gives US redundancy in case Qatar base is hit or denied and 2) hosts missile defense systems, fighter jets, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance).

Its major weaknesses include: 1) US presence has been historically controversial in Saudi Arabia (linked to Bin Laden’s anti-US narrative) and Saudis prefer limited, rotational deployments, not permanent bases.

5. Djibouti – Camp Lemonnier (Horn of Africa)

It is primarily Africa and Red Sea operations hub with 4,000 troops.

Its strengths are: 1) key to anti-terror missions in Somalia and Yemen, and 2) strategic position on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, choke point for global shipping.

It biggest weakness is proximity to China’s naval base (first overseas Chinese base).

6. Iraq & Syria – Smaller Outposts

This is primarily to counter-ISIS missions, with 2,500 troops in Iraq and 900 Syria. It is considered highly vulnerable to political backlash and militia attacks; not long-term sustainable.

In short, Qatar’s Al Udeid is the nerve center, but the US builds redundancy through Bahrain (navy), Kuwait (logistics), and Saudi (backup). If Al Udeid went offline, US operations could still continue — but far less smoothly.

Riviera of Middle East to Trump economic zone

In a report on August 21, Axios revealed part of the US President Donald Trump’s ambition in South Lebanon according to which the region will be transformed into an investment zone. The plan, called “Trump economic zone”, would be part of a greater project extending from Gaza and the West Bank, through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf.

The “Trump economic zone” was revealed after Axios, quoting two informed sources, said in its report headlined “US asks Israel to scale down Lebanon strikes after decision to disarm Hezbollah”.

According to Axios, the Lebanese cabinet's unprecedented decision to prepare to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025 came at the urging of the US, but many in the region doubt the government will be able to carry it out.

Trump’s vision for South Lebanon is a practical application of his “economic realism” with which he approaches West Asian issues.

Obviously, the controversial US President believes that the conflict with the Israeli occupation entity can be simplified and resolved through investments.

However, the “Trump economic zone” is nothing but dreams and illusions.

Trump believes that the Lebanese strip adjacent to the border with the occupied Palestine will automatically put an end to the resistance. He is deluded that peace and prosperity will prevail once the project is implemented.

This delusion is similar to his dream of turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” which would drown the Gazans in a supposed prosperity, making them forget their resistance to the Israeli occupation!

Trump and those around him delude themselves that the popular base of the Resistance is unaware of the seriousness of what is being plotted against them.

Economic temptation may be an effective tool to confront the resistance project, but previous experiences and the occupation regime’s false peace projects no longer fool anyone.

Despite their small number and modest capabilities, resistance, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, is not merely a tactical option but rather the foundation of their sacred ideological identity, which cannot be abandoned, no matter the sacrifices and costs.

It is clear that the American empire has never ceased to treat other peoples as cheap tools for its factories. Our people believe that any Western economic initiative is nothing more than an attempt to buy people’s loyalty and turn them into slaves and mercenaries.

Last December, Israel Hayom reported that dozens of members of Ori Tzafon, also known as the Movement for Settlement in South Lebanon, had invaded the skirts of Maroun al-Ras to lay the foundation stone for a settlement called Mei Marom.

“Maroun al-Ras was an ancient Hebrew land where priests lived. We will return to all the places where Jews lived in Lebanon,” they claimed.

The Lebanese government, of course, remained silent, just as it did when Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir toured occupied Lebanese territory two weeks ago, threatening that his occupying entity “will not go back and will not allow threats to grow again.”

The government also remained silent as an Israeli prisoner in Lebanon was released unconditionally.

Meanwhile, US deputy envoy Morgan Ortagus is expected to return to Beirut early next week along with a congressional delegation that comprises hardline Zionist Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

The visit will take place as Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani made a notable statement. He affirmed Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah, which he described as “Lebanon’s strategic capital.”

 

Israeli relentless warmongering and expansionism

A tentative ceasefire appears to be holding in southern Syria after a brutal week marked by deadly clashes and escalating tensions. Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the truce on Saturday, yet the underlying realities on the ground reveal a much deeper and more troubling story.

The clashes, which erupted in the province of Suwayda on July 13, involved armed Druze groups and Bedouin tribes — communities tragically caught in the crossfire of broader regional power struggles.

Under the guise of protecting the Druze minority, Israel launched a series of aggressive and unprovoked strikes across southern Syria and even targeted the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reports that the death toll from violence has now tragically surpassed 1,000 people.

This staggering human cost starkly exposes Israel’s relentless warmongering and expansionist ambitions in West Asia. Since its devastating assault on Gaza in October 2023, Israel has escalated its campaign of violence, targeting not only Gaza but also Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. These military actions are part of a calculated strategy to impose Israeli dominance and destabilize entire nations.

Israel justifies its attacks with convenient narratives: defending the Druze minority in Syria, neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, or responding to attacks from Yemen’s Ansarullah. Yet these explanations serve as thin veils masking a pattern of aggressive intervention that violates sovereignty and inflames regional tensions.

Despite the high death toll and widespread suffering, Israel’s military ventures have failed to achieve their stated goals. In Gaza, Israel has killed tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children, yet Hamas remains resilient.

In Lebanon, the Lebanese resistance refuses to bow to Israeli pressure.

Iran has dealt significant blows to Israel in recent confrontations.

Ansarullah movement in Yemen continues to resist Israeli aggression steadfastly.

Israel’s recent strikes in Syria follow the same aggressive pattern. They aim to fragment Syria and extend Israeli control over more territory, escalating a dangerous trend since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in December last year.

Although the Syrian government under Ahmed al-Sharaa has so far refrained from direct military confrontation, popular anger against Israel’s occupation is rising sharply.

History shows that Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon in the early 1980s triggered widespread resistance and ultimately costly conflicts for the occupying forces. Syrians today are increasingly ready to form resistance groups and rise up against Israel’s incursions.

While the Syrian government has mainly limited itself to denouncing Israel’s aggression in statements, the growing anti-Israel sentiment among the Syrian population could open a new front of resistance. This serves as a stark reminder that occupation and aggression only sow seeds of conflict and instability.

The world must recognize that Israel’s unchecked military aggression is not about defense—it is a deliberate policy of domination, suffering, and division. The ongoing violence in southern Syria is a tragic symptom of this larger, dangerous strategy that endangers peace across the entire region.

 

Ceasefire in Syria signals Israeli hegemonic agenda

According to the Tehran Times, the newly announced ceasefire between Syria and Israel—brokered in the aftermath of an Israeli military escalation—has thrown into sharp relief the Tel Aviv regime’s relentless pursuit of regional dominance in West Asia.

Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the truce on Saturday, following intense Israeli airstrikes across southern Syria and the capital, Damascus, earlier in the week.

Israel claimed the bombings were carried out to “protect” the Druze minority amid spiraling violence in the southern province of Suwayda. However, critics argue this justification is nothing more than a pretext for deeper interference in Syrian affairs.

The clashes that erupted on July 13 between armed Druze groups, Bedouin tribes, and Syrian forces in Suwayda have claimed hundreds of lives.

Following the ceasefire announcement, al-Sharaa accused Israel of deliberately reigniting tensions in the region through its “flagrant aggression,” particularly the bombing of Damascus and the south.

In a statement saturated with militaristic bravado, Netanyahu declared that the ceasefire was achieved “through strength, not through pleas, not through begging.”

His comments underscore Israel’s ongoing strategy of intimidation, rather than diplomacy, in dealing with its neighbors.

While Israel frames its intervention as a humanitarian act, the reality on the ground suggests otherwise.

Netanyahu’s actions reflect a calculated effort to entrench Israeli hegemony in Syria under the guise of minority protection. Despite agreeing to a ceasefire, Israel has retained its grip on the Syrian territories it already occupies—territories widely recognized as being under illegal occupation under international law.

Adding further complexity to the situation, al-Sharaa, whose government maintains strategic ties with Washington, publicly thanked the United States—particularly the administration of President Donald Trump—for its role in brokering the ceasefire.

This acknowledgment raises troubling questions, can Israel’s aggressive campaign be separated from US geopolitical objectives in the region? Is Washington playing the role of silent accomplice while Netanyahu enforces a militarized order through unilateral violence?

The contradiction is glaring. On the one hand, al-Sharaa condemns Israeli aggression; on the other, he expresses gratitude to the very power widely seen as enabling it.

The good cop–bad cop dynamic between the US and Israel is once again on display - Netanyahu leads with force, while Washington follows with diplomatic posturing—both working toward the same endgame.

Israel’s invocation of the Druze issue appears part of a broader strategy scripted by pro-Zionist lobbies to justify the flexing of military might and normalize its presence deep inside Syrian territory.

The ceasefire is not a gesture of peace but a tactical pause—a calculated move in Israel’s long-term project of territorial expansion and political domination in West Asia. 

Past precedents—from Gaza to Lebanon—show that Israeli ceasefires are often little more than instruments of propaganda, soon violated when they no longer serve strategic objectives. Expansionism, militarism, and occupation remain pillars of Israeli policy.

This ceasefire, like others before it, cannot mask the true nature of Tel Aviv’s ambitions. It is a smokescreen, designed to conceal more sinister plans for redrawing the map of West Asia (the Middle East) to Israel’s benefit.

Only sustained unity and strategic cooperation among Muslim and Arab nations can resist this agenda and challenge the forces seeking to destabilize the region under the pretense of peace.

 

Palestinians have no place to live, except open air prisons

US President Donald Trump, hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday, talked about a controversial plan to relocate Palestinians out of Gaza. Netanyahu said the United States and Israel were working with other countries who would give Palestinians a "better future," suggesting that the residents of Gaza could move to neighboring nations. This raises a basic question, will any country/ other countries accept Palestinians?

It is a harsh reality that Palestinians have faced expulsions, restrictions, and marginalization in several countries over the decades, often due to political instability, regional conflicts, or domestic pressures in host countries. Here's a summary of key incidents and contexts:

Jordan (1970–71) Black September

After the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, large numbers of Palestinian fighters (PLO) operated from Jordan. Tensions rose between the PLO and Jordanian government. In 1970–71, during Black September, the Jordanian army crushed the PLO, killing thousands and forcing its leadership and fighters to flee to Lebanon. While most ordinary Palestinian civilians remained, some were expelled or displaced during the crackdown.

Lebanon (1982 and 1990s)

Lebanon became a new base for the PLO after Jordan. In 1982, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the PLO was forced out (mostly to Tunisia). After the Lebanese civil war ended in the 1990s, some Palestinian militias were disarmed and displaced. Lebanon still denies citizenship and basic rights to most Palestinian refugees, and they are barred from many professions.

Kuwait (1991 Gulf War)

Before 1990, over 400,000 Palestinians lived in Kuwait, many working in key sectors. During the Gulf War, PLO supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. After Kuwait was liberated in 1991, the government expelled over 200,000 Palestinians in retaliation. This was one of the largest mass expulsions in recent history.

Iraq (Post-2003 War)

Under Saddam Hussein, Palestinians were treated well and given housing and rights. After the US invasion in 2003, and the rise of sectarian violence, Palestinians were targeted by militias who viewed them as Ba'athist loyalists. Thousands fled Iraq, and some were stranded in desert camps on the border with Syria and Jordan.

Syria (2011 onwards)

Syria hosted over 500,000 Palestinians before its civil war. Many lived in Yarmouk camp (near Damascus). After 2011, Yarmouk became a war zone. Many residents were displaced, killed, or fled. Tens of thousands of Palestinians fled Syria, becoming refugees again in Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey.

Egypt

While Egypt has not expelled Palestinians en masse, it has historically been strict about residency and movement, especially after the peace treaty with Israel. After Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Egypt severely restricted the Rafah border crossing, effectively trapping Gazans and limiting their freedom.

Why This Happens

Palestinian communities often get caught in political conflicts in host countries. The presence of armed Palestinian groups (like the PLO or Hamas) has sometimes led to tensions with host governments. Palestinians are also stateless, making them especially vulnerable to political shifts and expulsions.

Moral of the story

Palestinians have been expelled, marginalized, or displaced multiple times even beyond their original 1948 exile. Their statelessness, the unresolved nature of their refugee status, and involvement in regional politics have made them especially vulnerable over decades.

It’s a story not just of one time displacement—but of repeated uprooting, often in harsh and unstable environments.

Saudi Arabia among world top donors

The Saudi Aid Platform has revealed that the total value of financial assistance provided by Saudi Arabia to around the world is amounted to approximately SR528.4 billion (US$140.9 billion), cementing the Kingdom's position as one of the largest donors globally.

The Saudi official platform revealed that Egypt topped the list of countries that benefited most from Saudi aid, with a total of US$32.49 billion, followed by Yemen with US$27.69 billion, and then Pakistan with US$13.19 billion. The list of countries that benefited the most also included Syria (US$7.53 billion) Iraq (US$7.33 billion) and Palestine (US$5.37 billion).

These figures reflect the Kingdom's commitment to its humanitarian and development role by supporting peoples and countries in confronting humanitarian crises and natural disasters, and achieving sustainable development.

These efforts are part of the realization of Saudi Vision 2030 goals that focus on strengthening international partnerships and establishing the Kingdom as a pillar of regional and international peace and stability, under the leadership of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman and Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman.

It is noteworthy that the Saudi Aid Platform is the precise electronic reference for the Kingdom's foreign contributions. The platform is divided into three categories: humanitarian, development and philanthropic projects, contributions to international organizations and bodies, and visitors’ services (refugees living inside the Kingdom).

The Saudi Aid Platform, inaugurated by King Salman in 2018, highlights the size and type of assistance provided by Saudi Arabia. The King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSrelief) re-launched this platform.

Due to the multiplicity of Saudi donor entities, this platform has become an imperative and effective tool for collecting, coordinating and documenting statistics on international assistance provided by the Kingdom to countries and people in need around the world.

US presidents have history of attacking countries without Congress approval

According to The Hill, Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history, Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades.

From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it.

That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.

The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.

Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.

“Since World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 

“Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,” Johnson said. 

That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions.

“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 

“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few opportunities,” Aguilar said. 

“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,” he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.”

The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. 

Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle.

In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him).

The law requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch.

As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran.

One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes. 

“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the standard,” said Rep.

Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet that threshold.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said. “That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”

Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.

In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. 

Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. 

Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. 

In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria, Yemen and Iraq. 

Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use of force without Congress giving the OK. 

“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.

“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.” 

Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events.

“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”

A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues.

Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate. 

“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”

 

 

Impact of Iran on resistance forces and people

The US-led Israeli aggression against Iran has imposed a complex landscape that will gradually become clearer. Iran has succeeded in preserving its sovereign gains, relying on a cohesive system of defensive strategies and indigenous capabilities that have exceeded the expectations of its enemies.

Despite the severe blows, and thanks to Iran’s military, security, diplomatic, and popular strength, Tehran has been able to show unprecedented deterrence that have inflicted unforeseen costs on its enemies.

This has been achieved through carefully considered operational performance that has efficiently confounded their calculations, while maintaining its constant readiness for any potential future surprise attack.

Tehran has avoided falling into the trap of depleting its strategic capabilities, which will establish more solid negotiating power in favor of the entire Axis of Resistance.

The legitimacy of the strategic vision of the Islamic Revolution, its institutions, and its alliances (not its arms, as the enemies promote) was strengthened, as it purified the Islamic popular consciousness and mood, which had been polluted by Western propaganda and fabricated nonsense.

The victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran compensated for the setbacks suffered by the peoples of West Asia, particularly after Egypt’s deviation from the resistance front and its subsequent normalization with the Zionist regime.

Over four decades since the blessed Islamic revolution, Iran has been able to shake the foundation of the illegitimate Zionist entity. Thus, the project of David Ben-Gurion, one of the colonial Israeli entity’s founders, has collapsed.

This imperialist project was based on forging strategic alliances with peripheral states (Iran and Turkey) in order to restrain the surrounding states (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt). 

Since the 1990s, despite the heavy toll of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Tehran’s support for Hezbollah led to the May 2000 liberation, victory in the July 2006 war, and the successive victories of Gaza from 2008 to 2021, in addition to defeating the Takfiri project in 2017.

“A million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail. We must stop the Iranian attack on Israel,” Jay Sullivan, the US senator and AIPAC member, wrote on X, making no distinction between Iranians and the Arabs, even though the imperialist project tried hard to present them as opposites. 

What Tehran has established as a firm principle is that accepting the so-called “peace” concessions, as proven by the experiences of Egypt, the PLO, Jordan, and some Persian Gulf sheikhdoms, only breeds more humiliation, submission, and degradation.

Despite the events that have followed the Al Aqsa Flood Operation - including the ongoing attacks on Gaza and Lebanon – and the fall of Damascus, Tehran demonstrated the cohesion and resilience of the resistance project, which some had imagined had collapsed irretrievably.

Most importantly, Iran has demonstrated its institutional depth, structural cohesion, and extremely solid foundation.

What our enemies dub as an Iranian “project” has been evident to the Iranian people and the peoples of the region. It has also been evident to the herds of colonial settlers as Tehran succeeded in undermining the trust between them and their fragile entity that failed to provide them with security throughout occupied Palestine.

In Lebanon, Italy took over command of UNIFIL from Spain in the presence of the head of the committee supervising the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, US General Michael Lenny, who attended despite the warning from the US spy den (the embassy) in Beirut to “take strict security measures” for fear of being targeted. 

Since assuming his position, succeeding General Jasper Jeffers, Lenny will chair a meeting of the committee (which has been suspended since March 11) to review the implementation of UN Resolution 1701.

Given the continued Israeli occupation of tens of thousands of meters of lands along the southern border, including the five points, UNIFIL’s most difficult challenge is whether and how its mandate will be renewed at the end of next August.

This is in addition to its military and civilian personnel and equipment, the value of the general budget, and, most importantly, the extent of its powers, which have not yet been decided. The Lebanese government has been preoccupied with condemning the legitimate Iranian response against the American air base in Qatar, rather than pursuing the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese Army has arrested one of the most prominent ISIS leaders “following a series of security surveillance and monitoring operations”, seizing in his possession “a large quantity of weapons and ammunition, in addition to electronic devices and equipment for manufacturing drones.”

The Lebanese Army clarified in the statement that “the detainee had assumed leadership of the organization in Lebanon after the arrest of his predecessor (who was appointed as a Caliphate of Lebanon) along with a large number of terrorists.

Impact of Iran’s legendary resilience on the Resistance forces and people

 

 

Trump urges Syrian President to sign Abraham Accords with Israel

According to media reports, US President Donald Trump urged Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa to sign the Abraham Accords with Israel during their meeting ahead of the GCC summit in Riyadh on Wednesday.

The US leader added that he is also looking to normalize relations with Sharaa. The meeting between the two comes one day after Trump said that the US was lifting sanctions on Syria.

Trump told the Syrian leader he has "a tremendous opportunity to do something historic in his country," according to an official statement by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Trump also urged Sharaa to tell all foreign terrorists to leave Syria, deport Palestinian terrorists, help the US to prevent the resurgence of ISIS, and assume responsibility for ISIS detention centers in the northeastern parts of the country.

Shaara affirmed his commitment to the 1974 disengagement with Israel, the White House statement continued, recognized the opportunities of Iranians leaving Syria, and expressed interest in joint US-Syrian efforts in combating terrorism and eliminating chemical weapons.

Trump also said that his Middle East trip doesn't push Israel aside, saying, "I think it's very good for Israel."

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was also present in the meeting, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined by video conference. Erdogan and the Saudi Crown Prince praised Trump for lifting the sanctions on Syria, Leavitt said.

Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said that Saudi Arabia would support Syria's economic recovery and thanked Trump for lifting US sanctions on Syria. He said that there are many investment opportunities in Syria after lifting US sanctions, possibly a "breakthrough" in Saudi support for Syria.

 

Trump extends ‘olive branch’ to Iran with stern warning

US President, Donald Trump on Tuesday offered an “olive branch” to Iran as he projected optimism about the future of the Middle East in remarks from Saudi Arabia.

Trump speaking at a US-Saudi investment forum in Riyadh, praised leaders in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates for turning their capitals into hubs of commerce and called it his “fervent hope” that Saudi Arabia would eventually normalize relations with Israel.

The president portraying himself as a peacemaker for global conflicts, took a softer tone toward Iran as his administration seeks to reach a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program.

“As I have shown repeatedly, I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be very profound, which obviously they are in the case of Iran,” Trump said.

“I want to make a deal with Iran. If I can make a deal with Iran I’ll be very happy,” Trump added. “We’re going to make your region and the world a safer place. But if Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbors, then we will have no choice but to inflict massive, maximum pressure.”

Trump said the olive branch to Iran “will not last forever.”

Officials from Iran and the US have been engaged in talks in recent weeks around Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump during his first term withdrew the US from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which had offered sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.

The president has in recent days signaled he could be open to Iran having a civilian nuclear program but has been adamant that Tehran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Trump also on Tuesday announced he was rolling back sanctions on Syria at the urging of allies in the Middle East in an effort to boost the new government in Damascus.

Political Swings in the Middle East in 2025

I am inclined to refer to an article by Robin Wright and Peyton Dashiel of Wilson Center. I consider it more like a US narrative. I suggest the readers to read the content dispassionately to understand how situation is likely to unfold in the near future.

In 2025, power dynamics in the Middle East shifted significantly. Sunni factions gained influence while Shiite groups tied to Iran weakened. Political turmoil, economic struggles, and escalating conflicts—especially between Israel and Iran—exacerbated regional instability, hampering diplomacy, development, and prospects for long-term peace.

Regional Shifts and Rising Conflicts

The region faced an unprecedented level of crises, with violence escalating in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. The Sunni resurgence saw Islamist parties gaining political ground in Jordan and Syria, where a military coup toppled the Assad regime. Iran’s influence waned, with its proxy militias suffering major losses due to Israeli and US airstrikes. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia bolstered its regional dominance, hosting US-Russia talks on Ukraine and offering to mediate US-Iran negotiations.

Conflicts in Gaza and the Red Sea intensified. Israel’s war with Hamas continued, with peace efforts stalling. Hostilities between Israel and Iran escalated, with both nations engaging in direct attacks. Houthi rebels in Yemen disrupted international shipping in the Red Sea, causing a sharp decline in Suez Canal traffic.

Internal Political Shifts

In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost major local elections in 2024, signaling a shift in public sentiment. The government’s arrest of opposition figure Ekrem İmamoğlu in March 2025 further fueled tensions.

In Iran, reformist Masoud Pezeshkian won the presidency, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with theocratic rule.

Tunisian President Kais Saied intensified crackdowns on opposition, extending the prison sentence of Ennahdha leader Rachid Ghannouchi.

Syria’s Assad regime collapsed after more than 70 years in power. Sunni militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized control, igniting sectarian clashes with Alawites. While Iran distanced itself from its traditional proxies, its Supreme Leader insisted Tehran did not rely on foreign militias.

Economic and Diplomatic Fallout

Economic crises deepened, with the World Bank warning of long-term stagnation. Diplomatic efforts faltered as regional rivalries intensified, particularly between Israel and Iran. With increasing violence and political upheaval, the path to stability in the Middle East remained highly uncertain.

United States: The True Godfather of Terrorism

Once again, Washington plays its old game: accusing others of terrorism while fueling it to serve its interests. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent statements in Al-Quds with Benjamin Netanyahu are part of a longstanding American policy aimed at hiding its role in destabilizing West Asia through support for terrorist groups.

This isn’t just an accusation from US rivals—it’s a reality acknowledged by American officials. In 2016, Donald Trump declared, “Obama is the founder of ISIS, and Clinton is his co-founder,” a statement backed by evidence.

During the Syrian crisis, the CIA funneled financial and logistical aid to extremist groups under the pretext of supporting “moderate opposition.” Reports from The Washington Post repeatedly exposed this strategy. John Kerry, in a leaked recording, admitted the US allowed ISIS to grow in Syria, hoping to pressure Damascus into concessions.

In 2019, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard revealed the US was directly arming al-Qaeda in Syria. Former Senator Richard Black recently reaffirmed this, exposing continued US backing of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. United Nations reports over the last decade confirm US support for Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch) via Turkey and Qatar to overthrow Assad.

Rubio talks about Syrian “instability” while ignoring US backing for Abu Mohammed al-Julani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra). Once on America’s terrorist list, al-Julani now controls Syria’s northwest with American support, rebranded as a "moderate opposition leader."

US media, like PBS, have even given him a platform, whitewashing his extremist history. A RAND Corporation report exposed that Washington considers him a “potential partner” — a shocking display of double standards. Al-Julani, now known as Ahmad al-Sharaa, orchestrated massacres of over 22,000 Alawites along Syria’s coast. Instead of facing justice, he receives political and media backing from the US, ensuring Syria remains unstable and under Western influence.

Rubio’s remarks can’t be separated from unwavering US support for Israel, which engages in daily state terrorism. Since the latest Gaza aggression began, Israeli forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians, including children, while destroying hospitals and schools — all with Washington’s cover.

The US shields Israel in the UN, using its veto to block resolutions condemning war crimes, making it complicit. Washington labels groups resisting Zionist occupation as “terrorists” while backing extremist factions in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, revealing its hypocrisy.

The US narrative — branding Iran a “terror sponsor” for supporting Palestinian and Lebanese resistance — is bankrupt. Is defending one’s homeland terrorism? Washington’s twisted equation labels those who fight occupation as “terrorists” and those enabling occupation as “defenders of democracy.”

This propaganda no longer fools the world. The Zionist entity’s crimes are broadcast live, and America’s ties to the terrorists it claims to fight are increasingly exposed.

If Rubio seeks the “greatest source of instability,” he needn’t look far — Washington itself fuels terrorism while pretending to oppose it. History won’t forget who created terrorism, nor will people forget who stood for justice and who conspired against them.

EU partially lifts sanctions on Syria

On Monday, foreign ministers of European Union (EU) decided to suspend a series of far-reaching sanctions against Syria to help the country's economic recovery and reconstruction after nearly 14 years of civil war.

According to Reuters, the Council decided to remove five financial entities (Industrial Bank, Popular Credit Bank, Saving Bank, Agricultural Cooperative Bank and Syrian Arab Airlines) from the list of entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and to allow funds and economic resources to be made available to the Central Bank of Syria.

The EU has also suspended sectoral measures in the oil, gas, electricity, and transport sectors and introduced exemptions to the ban on banking relations between Syrian banks and financial institutions in the EU to facilitate transactions for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes, as well as for the energy and transport sectors.

The bloc will monitor the country’s situation to guarantee that suspensions remain appropriate with Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, stressing that "if everything does not go right, then we are also ready to put the sanctions back".

"Any kind of government needs to be all-inclusive and taking into account all the different groups that are in Syria,” she said.

Most of the EU's sanctions were imposed following Bashar al-Assad's violent crackdown on Syrian protesters in 2011, including broad restrictions on trade, financial transactions, and key industries such as energy and transport.

The sanctions led to the collapse of EU-Syria economic relations, with trade flows worth €396 million in 2023.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad was toppled in December last year by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has since been calling for the lifting of wide-ranging sanctions to help the war-torn country's economy.

There have also been calls to remove HTS and its leader Ahmed al-Sharaa from international terrorist lists, but the Council decided to maintain such lists in relation to the al-Assad regime, as well as those on arms trafficking, dual-use goods, the chemical weapons sector, and illicit drug trafficking, among others.

The EU's blacklist, which was renewed in November, covers 318 individuals and 86 entities. All are subject to an assets freeze and a travel ban.

More than 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line and at least 16.5 million people across Syria rely on some form of humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs, according to a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Last week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that sweeping EU, US, and UK sanctions on Syria are hampering the country's economic recovery and preventing millions of Syrians from accessing essential services such as electricity, health care, water, and education.

“Rather than using broad sectoral sanctions as leverage for shifting political objectives, Western governments should recognize their direct harm to civilians and take meaningful steps to lift restrictions that impede access to basic rights,” said Hiba Zayadin, senior Syria researcher at HRW.

“A piecemeal approach of temporary exemptions and limited waivers is not enough. Sanctions that harm civilians should immediately be lifted, not refined,” Zayadin added.

EU to consider lifting sanctions on Syria

Reportedly, the European Union (EU) will meet on 24 February to discuss lifting sanctions on Syria. Internal European politics and concerns raised by Greece and Cyprus over Turkey's growing influence in the region could slow the process.

Speaking to Argus on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, representative for foreign affairs Kaja KallasKallas said the prospect of lifting sanctions on Syria looked promising.

France on February 14 convened an international conference on Syria in Paris, bringing together representatives from G7 nations, the EU, the UN, the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The participants issued a final statement calling for support of Syria's political transition, but the US did not join that statement.

The US sources told Argus that the issues raised in the statement are things Washington has not decided on, since US president Donald Trump's administration is still formulating its policy regarding Syria.

Another source with knowledge of ongoing European talks on Syria said Greece and Cyprus are more reluctant to lift sanctions on Syria. Any EU action will have to be agreed upon by all of the bloc's members.

Both countries are leery of ties between Turkey and the Syrian Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant faction in the new Syrian government.

Greece and Cyprus are worried about an oversized Turkish influence in the eastern Mediterranean following the collapse of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December.

Sanctions remain one of the biggest obstacles to Syria's recovery.

Damascus has been struggling to secure crude and refined oil products through public tenders largely because of those sanctions.

Shipowners remain cautious about sending vessels there over concerns tankers being sanctioned or stranded.

Last month the US waived sanctions prohibiting energy trade with Syria, but the country is still under EU and British sanctions, which may have narrowed the pool for bidding.

 

Why was Soleimani sent to Syria?

Four years have passed since the assassination of Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Every time the anniversary passes, an exceptional biography of an exceptional hero comes to mind. He was a hero who devoted his entire life to others and supported the oppressed, standing tall as an impregnable barrier in the face of imperialist ambitions.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important battles Martyr Soleimani led was in Syria against the Takfiri barbarism engineered by Washington and Tel Aviv.

In his book “Sobh al-Sham,” Martyr Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian explains, at the request of Martyr Soleimani, the details of the Syrian crisis that began in 2011 “so that the young generation can learn about the events in Syria and part of our region, and learn about the heroism of General Soleimani.”

Abdollahian thoroughly explains the motives of Tehran and its allies behind supporting Damascus at that stage, “The reader can clearly see on every page of the book eloquent scenes that reflect the courage of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, and his wisdom in preserving Iran’s security to the maximum extent. The great fingerprints of Gen. Soleimani are also clearly evident in its folds, for those who follow with an eye to the heart.”

Abdollahian explains how these efforts have warded off the victory of the “Western-Arab-Hebrew” coalition against the Syrian people, shedding light on “the events that swept West Asia and North Africa. In parallel, the US-Zionist axis was waiting for opportunities to exploit these pivotal transformations. 

“Why did the Egyptians go out and not a single bullet was fired? Why did ISIS not appear in Tahrir Square? Why did this not happen in Tunisia, while events in Syria took a deviant path and turned into a long terrorist war?” Abdollahian wonders 

Abdollahian reaches the conclusion: “Other rulers began to think about what they should do” for fear that the revolutions would not shake their thrones. Washington, too, was highly concerned about the fall of its historical and traditional allies one after the other without having a suitable alternative to them.

Nevertheless, the Zionist colonial entity was the most concerned, according to Abdollahian, so after an in-depth study, the Zionist officials deduced that it was necessary to prevent this torrent by implementing a “Reverse Plan”.

Accordingly, they decided to intervene in the Axis of Resistance’s countries. “In the first stage, they wanted to wreak havoc in Tehran ... They have seriously considered targeting Iran’s nuclear centers. They said we must cut off the head of the snake. After searching and examining, they reached the conclusion that this action entails complications, as it is not possible to attack Tehran and come out of the battle without losses,” he notes.

Abdollahian believed that they had no other options but to “cut off the executive arms protected by Iran” such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. At the height of these transformations, the Israeli entity made a wrong decision to wage war against Gaza on November 14, 2012, estimating that Iran was “preoccupied with the nuclear talks and had many problems that prevented it from paying attention to Gaza,” and that Hezbollah’s fighters “who would confront the Israelis had moved to Syria to combat ISIS.” 

Israel called its war “Pillar of Cloud,” while the Palestinians called it “The Battle of the Stones of Sijil”. The goal was to destroy the Palestinian resistance’s weapons depots. However, on the 8th day, the colonial occupation regime quickly requested a ceasefire without achieving any results. 

Abdollahian adds that the US-Zionist axis found out that among the most important factors that neutralized the scheme to attack Iran and weaken the resistance in Gaza was Syria’s might. Hence, they seriously thought that if they could strike Syria and cut the lines of resistance, the balance of power in the region would fundamentally change. They believed that after the fall of Syria, all routes of sending logistical aid to the resistance movement would be blocked, and the threats facing the Israeli entity in the Golan Heights would be removed. 

Foreign Minister Abdollahian says that the goal of this “Reverse Plan” has never changed, which is to weaken the countries surrounding the Israeli entity and their national armies.

Unfortunately, what he predicted came true. Syria fell, yet as Sayyed Ali Khamenei has asserted, the courageous Syrian youth – who have been inspired by Martyr Soleimani – will overcome the enemies through steadfastness and sacrifice.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

Syrian delegation arrives in Saudi Arabia

According to Saudi Gazette, a Syrian delegation, headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Assad Al-Shaibani, arrived in Riyadh on Wednesday for its first official foreign visit. The visit comes in response to an invitation from Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Eng. Waleed Al-Khuraiji, welcomed the Syrian delegation upon its arrival at King Khalid International Airport. The delegation included Minister of Defense Marhaf Abu Qasra and Intelligence Chief Anas Khattab.

Speaking on the occasion, Syrian Foreign Minister Assad Al-Shaibani emphasized that the new political administration in Syria is committed to building relationships that honor the shared history of the two nations.

“The political administration in Syria aspires to open a new and bright chapter in its relations with Saudi Arabia,” Al-Shaibani said.

On his official account on Platform X, he added: “I have just arrived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, accompanied by Minister of Defense Marhaf Abu Qasra and General Intelligence Chief Anas Khattab.”

The visit coincided with the arrival of the first Saudi relief aid convoy to Damascus on Wednesday. The convoy carried food, shelter supplies, and medical aid for the Syrian people.

This diplomatic engagement follows recent remarks by Ahmed Al-Sharaa, head of the new Syrian administration, where he underscored Saudi Arabia’s pivotal role in Syria’s future.

“Saudi Arabia has a significant role to play in Syria’s future,” he said, describing recent Saudi statements regarding Syria as “very positive.”

The new Syrian administration recently appointed Al-Shaibani as Foreign Minister following the ousting of the Assad regime by opposition forces on December 08, 2024.

 

Syrian FM to first visit Saudi Arabia

According to Saudi Gazette, Asaad Hassan Al-Shaibani, the foreign minister of Syria’s new administration, emphasized his country’s aspiration to build strategic relations with Saudi Arabia across various sectors.

In a post on the social platform X on Monday, Al-Shaibani announced that he had received an official invitation from Saudi Foreign Minister to visit the Kingdom.

“I am honored to represent my country on my first official visit to Saudi Arabia,” Al-Shaibani wrote.

Ahmed Al-Sharaa, head of Syria’s military operations administration, previously highlighted Saudi Arabia’s significant role in Syria’s future. Al-Sharaa described recent Saudi statements regarding Syria as "very positive."

He also noted the Kingdom’s substantial investment opportunities in Syria, adding, “I am proud of everything Saudi Arabia has done for Syria, and it has a major role in the country’s future.”

A high-ranking Saudi delegation, led by a Royal Court advisor, recently visited Syria and met with Al-Sharaa at the Presidential Palace.

Saudi Arabia has expressed its satisfaction with the positive developments in Syria, reiterating its commitment to the safety and stability of the Syrian people.

The Kingdom also emphasized the importance of preserving Syria’s institutions and resources while safeguarding the unity of its people.

Syria: First Female Central Bank Governor

New Syrian ruling regime has appointed Maysaa Sabrine, a former deputy governor of the Syrian central bank, as the institution’s first female governor in its more than 70-year history. Sabrine replaces Mohammed Issam Hazime, who was appointed by ousted President Bashar al-Assad in 2021.

Her appointment signals a shift in the country’s financial leadership following the dramatic political changes in Syria. A senior Syrian official confirmed Sabrine’s appointment, though she has not yet commented publicly on her new role.

This appointment comes at a critical time for Syria as the nation works to stabilize its economy and recover from years of conflict and economic challenges.

Sabrine’s extensive experience in the central bank is expected to bring continuity and expertise as Syria’s financial system faces reforms under the new administration.

 

 

HTS seeking close ties with Israel

Syria’s new rulers are seeking cordial relations with Israel despite domestic anger over the regime’s occupation of more lands of the Arab country. 

“We have no fear toward Israel, and our problem is not with Israel. There exists a people who want coexistence. They want peace. They don’t want disputes,” the governor of Damascus said Thursday. 

Maher Marwan made the comments in an interview with the US public broadcaster NPR, apparently on behalf of Syrian de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani.

Marwan added, “And we don’t want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel’s security or any other country’s security. We want peace, and we cannot be an opponent to Israel or an opponent to anyone.”

This is how he tried to justify Israeli strikes on Syria after the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebel group and its allies toppled the government of President Bashar Assad on December 08, 2024. 

Marwan said Israel’s initial trepidation after the fall of Assad was “natural.”

“Israel may have felt fear. So it advanced a little, bombed a little, etc,” he noted. 

The Israeli army has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria destroying much of the country’s military capabilities since HTS removed Assad from power. The regime claims it wants to prevent military equipment from falling into hostile hands.

Israel also sent its ground forces into a UN-patrolled buffer zone in the occupied Golan Heights and beyond after Assad’s fall. 

Israel has extended its occupation to further regions of the Syrian territory, encompassing various towns, villages, and the strategically significant Mount Hermon. 

Israel claims the occupation of additional parts of the Syrian territory is aimed at ensuring the security of the regime’s borders.  

Israel’s land incursion into Syria violates the 1974 agreement between the two sides. The United Nations and a number of countries have demanded Israel withdraw from the region. 

Syrians have also condemned Israel’s presence on the country’s territory.                                           

On Wednesday, residents of a village in the southwestern province of Quneitra protested against Israel’s military presence there. 

Israeli forces opened fire on the demonstrators in the village of Susa, injuring several of them. 

Earlier this month, Israeli forces also attacked protesters who had gathered in the village of Maariyah on the western edge of Syria’s southern Daraa province to demand an end to the regime’s military presence in the area. They shot and wounded a protester.