Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

    Monday, February 23, 2026   No comments

In recent weeks, heightened rhetoric around Iran's nuclear program has dominated headlines. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated on Fox News that Iran could be "a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material." However, credible reporting provides crucial context: following joint US-Israeli strikes in June 2025 that destroyed Iran's centrifuges and nuclear infrastructure, US and Israeli intelligence assessments currently place Iran "at least two years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon." This discrepancy between political messaging and intelligence assessments raises an important question: what truly drives the current escalation?

While non-proliferation remains a stated priority, a growing body of analysis suggests that US strategic concerns extend beyond the nuclear file to encompass the deepening alignment between Iran, China, and Russia—a convergence that could reshape regional power dynamics and challenge Western technological and diplomatic influence.

The foundation for this alignment was formalized in the 2021 China-Iran 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement. Recent reporting confirms the agreement is actively being implemented, with Iranian officials stating it is "progressing" and serving as a "cornerstone" of bilateral ties. While some analyses note implementation challenges, the strategic intent is clear: deepen economic, energy, and security cooperation.

China's Belt and Road Initiative positions Iran as a critical energy supplier and transit corridor. Beijing has repeatedly warned that military escalation against Iran would "destabilize the region and threaten its Belt and Road investments and energy security." This is not merely diplomatic posturing; it reflects tangible economic stakes.

Several reports describe China assisting Iran in reducing dependence on Western-controlled technology—a move with significant security implications:

• Satellite Navigation: Iran has publicly explored adopting China's BeiDou satellite navigation system as an alternative to US-controlled GPS. Iranian officials cited GPS disruptions during the 2025 conflict as a key motivator. While some niche outlets claim Iran has "fully replaced" GPS with BeiDou, broader reporting indicates this is an ongoing transition aimed at enhancing "digital sovereignty" and military resilience.
• Cybersecurity Cooperation: According to analysis from Modern Diplomacy, China has encouraged Tehran to strengthen digital infrastructure by adopting encrypted Chinese systems to counter intelligence penetration. While Modern Diplomacy is an independent analysis platform rather than a wire service, its reporting aligns with documented patterns of Sino-Iranian security cooperation noted by the Institute for the Study of War.
• Air Defense Capabilities: Multiple reports indicate Iran has deployed China's YLC-8B long-range anti-stealth radar. While these outlets are not mainstream wire services, the technical plausibility of such a transfer is consistent with the deepening military-technical cooperation between the two countries. Independent verification from major defense publications would strengthen this claim.

The convergence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian interests presents a strategic challenge for Washington. As noted in analysis from the Critical Threats Project, "Iran likely seeks Chinese support to strengthen its domestic security and repressive capabilities." From Beijing's perspective, supporting Iran serves multiple objectives: securing energy flows, advancing BRI infrastructure, and creating a counterweight to US influence in a strategically vital region.

Some analysts argue that US pressure on Iran is partly motivated by a desire to prevent this trilateral alignment from solidifying further. A report in The Jerusalem Post contextualized Witkoff's nuclear comments within broader US efforts to establish "very hard red lines" regarding Iran's enrichment capabilities. However, the same reporting acknowledges ongoing diplomatic channels, with US-Iran talks scheduled to resume in Geneva.

China's position is unambiguous: it "categorically rejects" military threats against Iran and emphasizes diplomatic solutions. Beijing has warned that "military adventurism" in the Middle East would destabilize global energy markets—a direct reference to its own economic interests. This stance positions China as a potential mediator while simultaneously strengthening its partnership with Tehran.

Attributing US policy toward Iran solely to a desire to disrupt China-Russia ties would be an oversimplification. Legitimate non-proliferation concerns, regional security dynamics involving Israel and Gulf states, and domestic political factors all play significant roles. However, dismissing the geopolitical dimension would also be inaccurate.

The evidence supports several verified conclusions:

• Public claims about Iran's immediate nuclear breakout capability conflict with current intelligence assessments.
• The China-Iran strategic partnership is actively being implemented, with cooperation expanding in technology and security domains.
• Iran is actively seeking to reduce technological dependencies on Western systems, with China positioned as a key alternative partner.
• China views regional stability as essential to its economic interests and has explicitly opposed military escalation against Iran.

Relations with Russia

After inking the agreement with China, Iran signed a similar strategic agreement with Russia that was finalized and ratified last year. The terms of that agreement are also being implemented now. It has been reported recently that Iran signs secret $589 million missile deal with Russia. According to the Financial Times, Iran has signed a secret $589 million arms deal with Russia to obtain thousands of advanced shoulder-fired missiles.

The agreement, reportedly signed in Moscow in December, obligates Russia to supply 500 man-portable "Verba" launch units and 2,500 "9M336" missiles over three years, the FT said, citing leaked Russian documents and sources familiar with the deal.

Deliveries are planned in three tranches from 2027 to 2029, according to the FT. The negotiations took place between Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport and the Moscow representative of Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, the FT reported. Tehran officially requested the systems last July, as indicated in a contract seen by the FT.

The current tensions around Iran cannot be reduced to a single motive. While the nuclear file remains central, the broader context of great-power competition adds layers of complexity. China's efforts to support Iran's technological sovereignty and security capabilities are documented, though the precise scope of some transfers requires verification from primary defense sources.

A fact-based approach acknowledges that US policy likely seeks to address multiple objectives simultaneously: preventing nuclear proliferation, maintaining regional alliances, and managing strategic competition with China and Russia. Similarly, China's engagement with Iran serves its own strategic interests in energy security, infrastructure development, and multipolar diplomacy.

As negotiations continue in Geneva, the path forward will require distinguishing between verified capabilities and political rhetoric, and recognizing that in an interconnected world, regional conflicts inevitably resonate across global power structures. Sustainable solutions will depend on addressing legitimate security concerns on all sides while preventing escalation that could destabilize the broader international order.

Media Review: Weekend Press Summary

Media Review: Weekend Press Summary

    Sunday, February 22, 2026   No comments

February 23, 2026

Major international media outlets over the weekend focused extensively on escalating geopolitical tensions, humanitarian crises, and significant political developments across multiple regions. This review synthesizes reporting from leading newspapers and magazines to provide a comprehensive overview of the dominant narratives shaping global discourse.

The prospect of heightened confrontation between the United States and Iran featured prominently in weekend reporting. The Wall Street Journal published a detailed account of deteriorating morale aboard the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, where sailors have expressed frustration following a second extension of their deployment—now approaching a record for the longest continuous mission in US Navy history. Crew members cited recurring failures in the vessel's sewage system, compounding daily hardships amid preparations for a potential confrontation with Iran. Several sailors and their families recounted missing funerals, births, and scheduled leave, with one service member noting that the uncertainty surrounding their return date has led many to consider resigning upon completion of the mission.

Strategic analysis in the New York Times cautioned against drawing simplistic parallels between US operations in Venezuela and a potential conflict with Iran. Experts emphasized the critical role of geography: while Caracas lies merely 10 miles from the coast, Tehran is situated approximately 400 miles inland, shielded by an ideologically committed leadership and protected by an estimated 150,000 fighters from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The paper further highlighted Iran's recent naval defense missile exercises in the Strait of Hormuz as a deliberate signal that any attempt to restrict maritime traffic could trigger severe disruptions to global oil markets.

Complementing this assessment, the Financial Times characterized the current US military buildup in the Persian Gulf as unusual in both scale and speed. Citing former Pentagon officials and regional analysts, the report suggested that deployed assets are sufficient to sustain a weeks-long air campaign. Some commentators drew comparisons to the prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion, noting that the magnitude of the deployment may intensify pressure on US policymakers to pursue decisive action. Foreign Policy added nuance to this discussion, arguing that any US military operation against Iran would likely prioritize targeted strikes against leadership and critical infrastructure rather than a prolonged ground occupation.

The New York Times further warned that ambiguity surrounding US objectives could lead Tehran to interpret any attack as an existential threat, potentially provoking a response more severe than previous escalations. This concern is underscored by the presence of approximately 40,000 US personnel across 13 military installations in the region.

Coverage of humanitarian emergencies remained a central theme. In the Guardian, Palestinian journalist Majdolen Abi Aasi provided a firsthand account of Ramadan in Gaza, describing conditions of extreme deprivation as the population endures another holy month amid ongoing conflict and restricted access to basic necessities.

Meanwhile, Le Monde reported on the deepening financial crisis facing UNRWA, the United Nations agency supporting Palestinian refugees. The agency has reduced education and health services by approximately 20% and suspended cash assistance programs for vulnerable families, following a budget shortfall exceeding $220 million. The report underscored concerns that these cuts could exacerbate instability in already fragile communities.

In Sudan, the Guardian referenced a recent UN report documenting atrocities in El Fasher, North Darfur. The article noted that early warnings of an impending offensive were not met with adequate international intervention, raising questions about the global community's capacity to respond to emerging crises.

Domestic political narratives in the United States and Europe also featured in weekend reporting. The Wall Street Journal analyzed a recent US Supreme Court decision striking down most tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, characterizing the ruling as a significant political setback. While the decision may be circumvented through alternative legal mechanisms, the paper suggested it could test the relationship between former President Trump and the judiciary.

In Europe, Nouvel Obs examined the political ramifications of a fatal attack on a young man in Lyon, France, reportedly motivated by the victim's political affiliations. The magazine observed that nationalist and far-right movements across several European countries are seeking to instrumentalize the incident to advance their agendas, potentially deepening societal polarization.

Coverage of US diplomatic rhetoric also drew scrutiny. Israeli newspaper Haaretz, quoting columnist Gideon Levy, criticized statements by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who referenced biblical interpretations to suggest Israel possesses a "divine right" to influence the broader Middle East. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Huckabee described such territorial ambitions as "acceptable," remarks that Levy argued exceed even the positions of Israel's most hardline political figures.

Weekend media coverage reflected a global landscape marked by strategic uncertainty, humanitarian urgency, and political contention. While US-Iran tensions dominated strategic analysis, reporting consistently emphasized the human dimensions of conflict—from sailors enduring extended deployments to civilians navigating life under siege. The convergence of military posturing, diplomatic rhetoric, and humanitarian need underscores the complex challenges facing policymakers and international institutions in the weeks ahead. As major outlets continue to monitor these developments, their reporting serves as a critical resource for understanding the evolving dynamics of our interconnected world.

Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

    Thursday, January 15, 2026   No comments

Reviewing a news story from  Al Jazeera:

In an era where digital spaces often shape political realities as much as streets and parliaments, a recent wave of online activism surrounding protests in Iran has come under scrutiny. What appeared to be a grassroots digital uprising—centered around the hashtag #LiberateThePersianPeople on X (formerly Twitter)—has been revealed by a detailed network analysis to be a highly coordinated campaign.

A Digital Campaign with External Origins

The protests in several Iranian cities were initially sparked by worsening economic conditions. However, online discourse quickly shifted from local grievances to sweeping political narratives about regime change, thanks in large part to the viral spread of #LiberateThePersianPeople.

Contrary to assumptions that this digital momentum originated within Iran, an investigation by Al Jazeera Verify shows that the campaign was primarily orchestrated by external actors—most notably pro-Israeli networks.

Data collected over several days reveals striking anomalies:

Of 4,370 posts analyzed, 94% were retweets, with only 170 original posts.

Despite reaching over 18 million users, the content stemmed from a very small pool of sources.

The interaction pattern followed sharp, intermittent spikes—typical of coordinated inauthentic behavior rather than organic public discourse.

A Politicized Narrative, Not Organic Outrage

The messaging pushed through the hashtag wasn’t just sympathetic to protesters—it carried a clear political agenda. Posts framed the unrest as a historic “moment of collapse,” using stark binaries like:

“The people vs. the regime”

“Freedom vs. political Islam”

“Iran vs. the Islamic Republic”

The campaign also aggressively promoted Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last Shah, as the legitimate alternative leader. Pahlavi himself actively participated, posting on X and receiving enthusiastic endorsements from Israeli-linked accounts who labeled him “the face of a new Iran.”

Direct Involvement of Israeli Officials

High-profile Israeli figures openly joined the digital push:

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security, posted in Persian calling for the “fall of the dictator” and expressing support for the protests.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s past statements were widely recirculated within the hashtag ecosystem.

Additionally, Israeli activists such as Eyal Yakobi and Halil Nueir amplified claims of excessive violence by Iranian authorities while accusing international media of silence.

Ideological Reframing and Calls for Foreign Intervention

Rather than focusing on socioeconomic demands, the campaign reframed the protests as an ideological battle against Islam itself. Posts frequently described Iran’s government as “oppressive Islam” and portrayed Persians as victims of religious tyranny—a narrative aimed at severing the link between the state and society.

Even more alarmingly, the discourse escalated into explicit calls for foreign military intervention:

Fabricated or decontextualized quotes attributed to Donald Trump suggested U.S. readiness to act if protesters faced violence.

Reza Pahlavi publicly welcomed these alleged statements.

U.S. lawmakers like Rep. Pat Fallon shared similar messages, while numerous posts urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene directly.

Central Nodes in a Coordinated Network

Network mapping identified key accounts driving the campaign:

@RhythmOfX: Created in 2024, this account changed its name five times and consistently promotes both Israeli interests and the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. It regularly calls on the U.S. to take action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

@NiohBerg: A verified account claiming to be an “Iranian Jewish activist” supporting Israel and monarchy restoration. Active since 2017 and also renamed multiple times, it presents itself as a leading voice in the movement and alleges it is wanted by Iranian authorities.

@IsraelWarRoom: This account functions as a digital “war room,” routinely reposting content from @NiohBerg and disseminating real-time alerts, U.S. official statements, and field footage related to Iran.

These nodes formed a tightly interconnected cluster, demonstrating strategic coordination rather than spontaneous solidarity.

A Weaponized Hashtag

The evidence strongly suggests that #LiberateThePersianPeople was not an authentic expression of Iranian public sentiment, but a politically weaponized digital operation launched from outside Iran. Orchestrated by networks tied to Israel and its allies, the campaign sought to hijack legitimate economic protests and reframe them as part of a broader geopolitical project—one that envisions regime change through foreign intervention and the restoration of monarchy. In doing so, it highlights a growing trend: the battlefield of narratives is now as critical—and as contested—as any physical one.

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.

Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

Media Review: Erdogan says agreement reached with Trump on Gaza ceasefire and "lasting peace"

    Friday, September 26, 2025   No comments

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he had reached an understanding with US President Donald Trump on steps to secure a ceasefire and "lasting peace" in Gaza and Palestine following their talks at the White House on Thursday.

"Our meeting was very important in terms of putting forth the will to end the massacres in Gaza. Mr. Trump stated during the meeting the need to end fighting in Gaza and reach lasting peace," Erdogan told reporters, according to a transcript released by his office on Friday.

"We explained how a ceasefire can be achieved in Gaza and the whole of Palestine, and lasting peace afterwards. An understanding was reached there," he added. "We said that the two-state solution was the formula for lasting peace in the region, that the current situation cannot continue."

Trump: “I’m not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank”

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said that he will not allow Israel to annex the occupied West Bank.

Trump’s response came after he was asked whether he had promised Arab leaders during a meeting at the United Nations this week that he would prevent any annexation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed not to allow a Palestinian state, and far-right members of his cabinet have threatened to annex the West Bank in response to the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by several Western countries. He was met by boos and walk out at the UN on Friday.

Netanyahu at the UNGA: "We'll never accept a Palestinian state. I say to the European and Western leaders; you cannot shove this Palestinian state down our throats, just because you don't have the guts to stand up against the antisemitic media... Unfortunately, the Western media is pro-Khamas"

Humanitarian Flotilla attacked, Italy Spain Sent military ships to help

Video footage taken by journalists aboard the lead ship of the Global Sumud Flotilla shows an Italian navy ship near the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said on Thursday that a second naval frigate will be deployed to support the Flotilla after it came under at least 13 drone attacks since the late hours of Tuesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Wednesday that Spain would also be sending a navy ship to assist the flotilla.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

    Monday, August 04, 2025   No comments

In a powerful and scathing op-ed published by Haaretz, Israeli writer Iris Leal delivers a searing critique of her country’s actions in the Gaza Strip, warning that the atrocities being committed there are not only devastating to Palestinians but are also dragging Israel into a profound moral, political, and diplomatic abyss. Leal’s article, titled "As Israel Kills and Starves Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself in the Process", lays bare the human cost of the war and the devastating implications for Israel’s future.

A Nation’s Self-Destruction

Leal argues that Israel is systematically isolating itself from the global community. The bridges that once connected it to the democratic world are being “torn down one by one.” She emphasizes that anyone associated with the decision-making apparatus of the war—be it political leaders, military commanders, or intelligence heads—is now becoming increasingly aware that international travel may pose legal and personal risks due to accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the center of her warning is the staggering humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. According to credible international reports cited by Leal, including data from UNICEF and The Washington Post, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them at least 18,500 children. Many of these children were killed in their sleep, while playing, or even before they learned to walk. The death toll reflects not incidental wartime casualties but a consistent pattern of destruction that Leal unequivocally describes as a "war of extermination."

Starvation as a Weapon

One of the most damning parts of Leal’s argument is Israel’s alleged use of starvation as a weapon of war. She writes that the Netanyahu government knowingly allowed infants to face starvation by failing to ensure the delivery of infant formula and basic humanitarian aid. Hospitals—already bombed or rendered dysfunctional—are unable to operate, and medical personnel themselves are suffering from hunger and exhaustion.

Even worse, Leal suggests that these outcomes were not unintended side effects, but foreseen and tolerated, under the assumption that the international community would remain silent or impotent in the face of such horrors. The Israeli leadership, in her view, has wagered that the deliberate starvation and killing of children would not result in meaningful diplomatic consequences—a gamble that, she implies, is both immoral and catastrophically shortsighted.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Leal’s article ends by posing a deeply uncomfortable question to the Israeli public and the global community: Are the people leading Israel today—its ministers, generals, intelligence chiefs—morally and legally fit to make decisions on behalf of the nation? Given the scale of the violence and its apparent intentionality, she contends that these individuals are likely complicit in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and potentially genocide.

The underlying message is clear: Israel is not just committing atrocities—it is losing its moral compass and destroying the very foundations of its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and its own citizens.

A Global Atrocity in Real Time

Leal’s voice is a rare and courageous one within a landscape that often suppresses internal dissent. Her article should serve as a wake-up call, not only to Israelis but to anyone who believes in the principles of human rights and international law. The reality in Gaza today—of mass death, child starvation, and humanitarian collapse—is not abstract. It is a documented and unfolding catastrophe that demands accountability.

What makes this atrocity even more chilling is the premeditation behind it. When a state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world deliberately withholds aid, targets civilian infrastructure, and tolerates the mass death of children, it cannot be brushed off as a tragic byproduct of war. This is systematic, intentional policy—and it represents the moral failure of a nation’s leadership. 

Meanwhile, the international community’s response remains fragmented, weak, and in some cases complicit. Leal rightly questions whether Israel’s leaders will face consequences, but the more urgent question is: Will the world act before even more lives are lost?

Silence, in this context, is not neutrality—it is complicity. As Leal poignantly concludes, Israel may believe it is winning a war, but in reality, it is tearing itself apart, sacrificing not just the lives of its enemies, but its own soul and standing in the world.

---

Sources: Haaretz, UNICEF, The Washington Post.
Link to original article: Haaretz Opinion - Aug 4, 2025

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

    Wednesday, July 30, 2025   No comments

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

    Tuesday, July 01, 2025   No comments

 At the Edge of Accountability 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has faced 88 criminal and civil indictments and was nonetheless elected to a second term, issued a public demand that Israel’s judicial system drop all charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the trial a “travesty of justice,” labeling the Israeli legal proceedings a “witch hunt,” and implied that U.S. aid to Israel might be contingent on ending Netanyahu’s prosecution. This unprecedented intervention—an indicted American leader defending an indicted Israeli leader, who is also facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court—raises a profound question: How does democracy, if it is to be taken seriously as a system of values and not merely of process, guard against corruption and the rise of authoritarian figures cloaked in democratic legitimacy? This moment is not just politically volatile; it exposes uncomfortable contradictions within how democracies perceive themselves and others.

The indictment of elected leaders in democracies such as Israel and the United States raises difficult and urgent questions about the integrity of democratic systems. When prime ministers or presidents face criminal charges—whether for corruption, abuse of power, or other serious offenses—it is natural to wonder whether democracy has failed to produce ethical and responsible leadership. But while such developments highlight vulnerabilities in democratic practice, they also reveal certain institutional strengths. Democracy does not guarantee virtuous leadership; it guarantees the opportunity for accountability. Whether that opportunity is seized—or manipulated—depends on the strength of institutions and the moral commitment of both leaders and citizens.

One of the core principles of a functioning democracy is that no one, however powerful, is above the law. The fact that legal institutions in places like the United States or Israel can bring charges against sitting or former leaders speaks to the resilience of the rule of law. In authoritarian systems, leaders often operate with impunity; in democracies, they may still face scrutiny and legal consequences. In this respect, the indictment of a head of state can be viewed not as a failure of democracy, but as evidence that democratic institutions are, at least in part, doing their job.

However, this view becomes more complicated when we consider how democracies respond to similar situations in different parts of the world. When elections in the Global South produce leaders with questionable records or populist agendas, Western democracies are quick to dismiss those outcomes as the result of “sham elections” or “corrupt processes.” Yet when similarly compromised figures rise to power within the West—figures under indictment, or credibly accused of serious misconduct—those same governments often insist that the outcome must be respected as the will of the people. They demand deference to the democratic process at home, while undermining or delegitimizing it abroad. This double standard reveals a deeper truth: in many cases, democracy is treated less as a value system than as a political instrument—embraced when convenient, disregarded when not.

Such inconsistencies are damaging not only to international credibility, but to democracy itself. If democratic legitimacy is defined not by values—such as accountability, justice, and equal representation—but by outcomes that serve particular interests, then democracy becomes hollow. The insistence that democracy must be respected when it produces indicted or corrupt leaders in Western nations, while being denied that legitimacy elsewhere, exposes the erosion of democratic ethics. It becomes clear that the principle of democracy is sometimes wielded more as a shield for power than as a reflection of shared values.

Moreover, in deeply polarized societies, even the mechanisms of accountability begin to fracture. Voters may see legal indictments not as a signal of wrongdoing, but as a partisan attack. In such an environment, democratic institutions remain formally intact, but their moral authority is weakened. Leaders who are under investigation—or even convicted—may be rewarded with public support rather than rejection. Far from being disqualified, their defiance becomes a badge of honor. This speaks not only to the failings of political elites, but to a broader cultural crisis in democratic societies: the erosion of civic norms, the rise of partisan loyalty over public ethics, and the loss of a shared commitment to the common good.

While the indictment of elected leaders does not necessarily prove that democracy is broken, it does serve as a warning. It reveals the tension between democratic form and democratic substance—between holding elections and cultivating a culture of accountability and ethical governance. The fact that such tensions are more readily condemned in the Global South than confronted at home suggests that democracy, in the hands of powerful nations, is often invoked more as a geopolitical tool than as a universal standard.

Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be judged solely by whether elections occur, or whether leaders are indicted. It must be measured by the integrity of institutions, the honesty of public discourse, and the degree to which citizens demand responsibility and justice from those who govern them. Democracy may still provide the tools to hold leaders accountable, but those tools are only effective if people are willing to use them—not selectively, not cynically, but consistently, and in defense of the values democracy is supposed to serve.

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025   No comments

Recent developments in the Middle East have raised significant concerns about Israel's national security, particularly in light of the shifting dynamics following the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. This article explores how Israel's previous strategies may backfire, especially with Turkey's increasing involvement representing a new challenge for Israeli policy.

For years, Israel has maintained a complex relationship with Syria, often justifying its military actions by citing the Iranian presence in the region. The narrative framed Iran as a significant threat, allowing Israel to conduct operations with a degree of international acquiescence. However, the fall of the Assad regime, which Israel purportedly supported and even took credit for, may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation.

The vacuum left by the fall of Assad regime has not led to a straightforward advantage for Israel. Instead, it has opened the door for a more assertive Turkey, a NATO member, to expand its influence in Syria. This shift complicates Israel's security calculus, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently stated that while Turkey does not seek confrontations with Israel in Syria, Israel's actions could pave the way for future instability in the region.

Then, sitting next to Israel's prime minister, US president Trump said that Erdogan is a "winner". President Trump's comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reveal a startling acknowledgment of Turkey's growing role in Syria. Trump congratulated Erdoğan for effectively asserting control over Syrian territories through proxies.

Turkey's potential establishment of military bases in Syria poses a direct challenge to Israel's strategic interests. While Fidan noted that any agreements the new Syrian administration might pursue with Israel are its own business, the tension remains palpable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed concerns about Turkish military presence, indicating that Israel does not want Turkey using Syrian territory as a base against it.

Iran's Enhanced Position: A Trojan Horse

Contrary to Israel's previous assertions, Iran's capacity to operate in Syria is potentially more secure due to Turkey's involvement. The collaboration between Turkey and Iran could facilitate logistics and support in ways that were previously less feasible. This partnership undermines Israel's long-standing narrative of Iranian isolation, presenting a more unified front against Israeli interests.

Moreover, Turkey's criticisms of Israeli military actions—labeling them as genocidal and a violation of regional stability—highlight the precariousness of Israel's position. Turkish officials have condemned Israeli airstrikes on Syria, which they perceive as an infringement on Syrian sovereignty. This rhetoric 

Israel's national security strategy has relied heavily on maintaining a powerless Syria. A fragmented state is easier to control and less likely to pose a direct threat. However, with Turkey's burgeoning role in the region, Israel finds itself in a precarious position. Erdoğan's ambitions could lead to the establishment of Turkish military bases in Syria, effectively transforming the landscape into a more complex battleground for Israel.

The current events in the Middle East illustrate the intricacies of regional politics and the potential repercussions of Israel’s earlier strategic choices. The fall of the Assad regime, rather than serving as a victory for Israeli security, might lead to a more complicated and threatening environment.

Trump’s Perspective on Erdogan as a "Winner"

Trump's admiration for Erdogan can be traced to Turkey's significant role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. By supporting the Islamist-led coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has effectively increased Turkey's influence in a region historically dominated by various power struggles. Trump’s comments, such as congratulating Erdogan for "taking over Syria," highlight a recognition of Turkey's strategic gains. This acknowledgment reflects Trump's broader narrative of strength and success, often favoring leaders who exhibit assertive control over their territories and dominating weaker nations.

Moreover, Trump’s personal rapport with Erdogan is notable. By describing Erdogan as "very smart" and emphasizing their strong relationship, Trump positions himself as a potential mediator in the fraught dynamics between Turkey and Israel. This personal connection may enhance Trump's ability to navigate the delicate political waters of the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly.

Erdogan’s achievements in Syria are significant. By backing opposition forces and securing a foothold in the region, Turkey has not only expanded its influence but also positioned itself as a key player in any future resolution of the Syrian crisis. However, the devastation wrought by over 11 years of war has left Syria in ruins, requiring an estimated $300 billion for reconstruction. This staggering cost presents a challenge for Turkey, as Erdogan does not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive rebuilding effort.

Moreover, Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia complicates the situation. Erdogan has cultivated strong ties with both nations, enabling Turkey to leverage its relationships with the new Syrian leadership to gain economic benefits from Iran. This alignment stabilizes Iran’s influence in Syria, creating opportunities for Turkey to extract advantages from its connections with both Iran and its adversaries. Given Syria's geographical significance but economic liabilities, Erdogan's strategy may involve encouraging Gulf states and energy-rich nations, including Iran, to participate in rebuilding efforts.

Trump's offer to mediate between Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is critical for several reasons. First, it illustrates the U.S. role as a central player in Middle Eastern diplomacy. By positioning himself as a mediator, Trump aims to stabilize relations between two countries that have historically been at odds, particularly regarding their respective approaches to the Syrian conflict.

Moreover, Trump's influence could potentially steer Erdogan towards a more conciliatory stance regarding Israel. 

While Trump’s relationship with Erdogan provides a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement, the extent of his influence is debatable. Erdogan's actions are driven by Turkey's national interests, which may not always align with U.S. or Israeli objectives. For instance, Erdogan’s strong support for Hamas and his anti-Israel rhetoric complicate any straightforward mediation effort.

Furthermore, Erdogan's recent statements indicating a desire to avoid confrontation with Israel suggest a potential openness to dialogue, albeit cautious. 

Trump's perception of Erdogan as a "winner" reflects a broader acknowledgment of Turkey's strategic gains in Syria, especially through its relationships with Iran and Russia. Erdogan's successes, while beneficial for Turkey, also pose challenges to Israeli interests, making Trump’s proposed mediation a critical juncture in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As Syria emerges from devastation, the need for reconstruction creates a complex dynamic; Erdogan will likely seek Gulf states' participation, recognizing that any rebuilding effort will come with significant geopolitical strings attached. This transformative potential could reshape regional dynamics, with the outcomes of Erdogan's actions significantly impacting the future stability of Syria and the broader SWANA region.

Media review: Is Syria on the verge of a being a failed state?

Media review: Is Syria on the verge of a being a failed state?

    Tuesday, December 10, 2024   No comments

From the developments of the last few days alone, Syria seems to be on a path of being a failed state in a region that is very volatile. Here are the recent events and how the world is reacting to them according to media reports.

Israel announced on Tuesday the destruction of about 70%-80% of the capabilities of the Syrian army

According to Israel's military forces, about 350 fighter jets from the Israeli Air Force participated in the campaign, attacking about 320 targets throughout Syria.

It added that "a number of warplanes and helicopters, radars, surface-to-air missile batteries, ships, surface-to-surface missiles, rocket shells, weapons production sites, weapons depots, Scud missiles, cruise missiles, sea-to-sea missiles, drones, and others were destroyed."

The Israeli Army Radio reported on Tuesday that the air force "attacked 250 targets in Syria in recent days," in an attack it described as "one of the largest in our history."

The radio reported, citing a military source, that "the air force destroyed dozens of Syrian warplanes in its attacks."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the Israeli "army" "destroyed the most important military sites in Syria."

The observatory added that it "documented about 310 Israeli raids on Syrian territory since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime on Sunday," while journalists from Agence France-Presse in the capital reported that they heard explosions early Tuesday.

Agence France-Presse reported that the Scientific Research Center in Damascus, affiliated with the Syrian Ministry of Defense, which was targeted by Israeli raids on Monday evening, was completely destroyed.

In parallel with the air aggression, the Israeli armed forces occupied 9 villages in the southern countryside of Damascus, according to Israeli media.

The Israeli media said that "the army reached the vicinity of the town of Qatna in the Damascus countryside, 10 km (about 6 miles) from the neighborhoods of Damascus and 15 km (about 9 miles) from the city center, adding that "the army is present in the interior regions of Syria."

In the same context, the Syrian newspaper "Al-Watan" indicated today, Tuesday, that "Israeli army forces penetrated into the south of Damascus Governorate."

The reports stated that Israeli forces "took control of the town of Hina, which is about 31 miles from Damascus, reaching the outskirts of Khan al-Shih in the Qatna area, located opposite the Lebanese Rashaya area."

In the same context, Reuters quoted 3 security sources as saying that "the Israeli military incursion into Syria reached about 25 kilometers southwest of Damascus."

Reuters added that Israeli forces "reached Qatana, which is located 10 kilometers inside Syrian territory to the east of the buffer zone."

Arab rejection of Israel's seizure of buffer zone with Syria

Arab countries expressed their rejection, on Monday, of Israel's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria after announcing the collapse of the separation of forces agreement with Damascus following the fall of the regime of ousted President Bashar al-Assad.

This came in official statements issued by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League, while the Israeli Army Radio said on Monday that army forces had penetrated the buffer zone with Syria by land, while continuing to carry out extensive air strikes with heavy bombs on sites in the area.

On Sunday, Israel announced the collapse of the 1974 separation of forces agreement with Syria, and the deployment of the Israeli army in the demilitarized buffer zone in the Syrian Golan Heights, most of which it has occupied since 1967.

The Israeli move came after Syrian opposition factions entered the capital Damascus and took control of it, with the withdrawal of regime forces from public institutions and streets, thus ending a 61-year era of Baath Party rule and 53 years of Assad family rule.

In a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Qatar strongly condemned the Israeli occupation's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria and the adjacent leadership sites, and considered it a dangerous development and a blatant attack on Syria's sovereignty and unity and a flagrant violation of international law.

It warned that the policy of imposing a fait accompli pursued by the Israeli occupation, including its attempts to occupy Syrian lands, will lead the region to more violence and tension.

The Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the attacks carried out by the Israeli occupation government by seizing the buffer zone in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and targeting Syrian lands confirm Israel's continued violation of the rules of international law and its determination to sabotage Syria's chances of restoring its security, stability and territorial integrity.

Kuwait also expressed in a statement by the Foreign Ministry its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli occupation forces' occupation of the buffer zone on the Syrian border, and considered it a blatant violation of international laws and Security Council resolutions.

It stressed the importance of the international community assuming its responsibilities to put an end to the series of Israeli attacks on the countries of the region, and to hold accountable the perpetrators of these violations in order to preserve regional and international security and peace.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said in a speech before his country's parliament that Amman condemns Israel's entry into Syrian territory and its control over the buffer zone, and categorically rejects this aggression, and stresses the unity of Syria and the unity of its territories and cohesion.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry also expressed in a statement its "condemnation of the Zionist entity's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria in the Golan and the lands adjacent to it," indicating that this measure represents a flagrant violation of international law and relevant international legitimacy resolutions.

The Arab League had expressed, in a statement on Sunday, its full condemnation of what the Israeli occupation seeks to achieve illegally, taking advantage of the developments in the internal situation in Syria, whether in terms of occupying additional lands in the Golan or considering the 1974 disengagement agreement expired.

UN keeps troops in Golan, criticizes Israel's entry into buffer zone

The United Nations confirmed on Monday that it will keep its forces in the buffer zone in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, and said that Israel's entry into the area constitutes a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) informed the Israelis that these actions constitute a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

He explained that the Israeli forces that entered the buffer zone are still deployed in 3 locations.

He stressed that "there should be no military forces or activities in the separation zone. Israel and Syria must continue to implement the provisions of the 1974 agreement and maintain stability in the Golan."

For his part, the spokesman for the international peacekeeping forces in the Golan, Nick Bernbach, said that these forces are still in their positions despite the Israeli army's control of the buffer zone.

He added that the peacekeeping forces will remain in their positions in the Golan as long as the Security Council does not adopt any change in their mandate.

For its part, the United States said that "Israel's incursion into the buffer zone in the Golan should be temporary."

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader: Syria will not engage in another war

Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which along with allied factions launched an offensive that toppled President Bashar al-Assad, said the Syrian people were "exhausted" by years of conflict and that the country would not see "another war".

"People are exhausted from war. So the country is not ready for another war, and it will not engage in another (war)," al-Jolani, who has begun using his real name Ahmed al-Sharaa, said in an interview with Britain's Sky News broadcast on Tuesday.

Two sources close to the Syrian opposition fighters told Reuters on Tuesday that the opposition leadership had ordered its fighters to withdraw from cities and to deploy units affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the police and internal security forces.

Hezbollah condemns occupation of lands in Syria: We hope it will stabilize and be in a position of rejecting its enemy "Israel"

Hezbollah stressed that the Israeli entity's occupation of more Syrian territories and its attack on military capabilities are "a dangerous aggression that must be strongly condemned," holding the Security Council, the international community, and Arab and Islamic countries "responsible for rejecting and ending it, and protecting the Syrian people at a sensitive and pivotal stage in its history."

In a statement issued on Tuesday evening, Hezbollah expressed hope that "Syria will settle on the choices of its people, achieve its renaissance, and be in a position of rejecting the Israeli occupation, preventing foreign interference in its affairs."

In the same context, Hezbollah stressed that what is happening in Syria, on the popular and political levels, and the internal and external political choices that will result from it, are "the exclusive right of the Syrian people, independent of any external influences and pressures."

While he stressed that he would remain "a supporter of Syria and its people in their right to build their future and confront their enemy, the Israeli entity," he urged taking all steps that would prevent the occupying entity from achieving its goals, and not remaining silent or watching the Israeli aggression against Syria and its people.

In this context, Hezbollah pointed out that the complete silence, Arab, Islamic and international, towards the aggression on Syria, with unlimited American support, and the failure to take practical measures to confront this aggression and support the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights, led to "Zionist excesses and encroachment on the countries of the region."

He also pointed out that "it has always warned of Israeli ambitions in the entire region, and resisted them to prevent the occupation from achieving its goals, and reiterated that the aggression on Gaza is a war of extermination and a starting point to change the face of the region and end the Palestinian cause."

It is noteworthy that Hezbollah previously confirmed that the continuing crimes committed by the Israeli occupation on Syrian territory, whether through occupying more lands in the Golan Heights, or striking and destroying the defensive capabilities of the Syrian state, "represent blatant aggression and a blatant violation of the sovereignty of the state and people in Syria."

Syria's UN envoy: Our mission continues its work... and "Israel" exploits the change of power

Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations, Qusay al-Dahhak, said that Damascus calls on the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General to prevent "Israel" from exploiting the change of power in the country.

This came during a press conference at the United Nations on Monday, commenting on the Israeli aggression against Syria, saying: "On instructions from the current government, Syria has appealed to the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, demanding that they stop the Israeli aggression."

He continued: "The Syrian Permanent Mission to the United Nations continues its work as part of the state institutions in the country, and we represent the interests of the Syrian people, and we will continue to do so."

He added: "We are working with the current Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we are waiting for a new government."

Washington: We have interests in Syria... and our forces will remain

The United States announced today that its forces will remain in Syria, while it and European countries are still studying how to deal with the armed factions that overthrew the Assad regime, and will discuss this at the upcoming G7 meeting.

US Deputy National Security Advisor John Fine confirmed during an interview at the Reuters Next conference in New York that "Washington has major interests in Syria and will express them to the relevant parties as required." Noting that US forces in Syria "are there for an important reason and are not a bargaining chip," he announced in response to a question that they will remain in Syria.

He pointed out that "the countries on the borders with Syria have justified concerns about developments," considering that "there are major risks associated with what happened in Syria as well as opportunities." Regarding communication with "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham," Fine announced that Washington "is still working on how to deal with the groups that overthrew Assad," explaining that "the classification of these groups will be based on what they do, not what they say they will do."

Earlier today, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaya Kallas, commented on the latest developments in Syria, saying that although "the initial signals are good," "new people are judged by their actions," noting "legitimate concerns about the risks of sectarian violence in Syria and the resurgence of extremism in the country." She also considered that "the fall of Assad represents a blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran."

In this context, the Group of Seven will discuss the latest developments in Syria next Friday, in a virtual meeting.

According to Agence France-Presse, the meeting, which was called before the fall of the Assad regime, was scheduled to be an official handover to Canada, which will assume the presidency of the group, but the meeting will address "other international crises, from Ukraine to the Middle East," including "the unrest in Syria."

Media review: Israel uses starvation to evacuate northern Gaza, and the Biden administration will not stop it

Media review: Israel uses starvation to evacuate northern Gaza, and the Biden administration will not stop it

    Tuesday, November 12, 2024   No comments

International newspapers focused on Israel's failure to fulfill the requests made by the United States a month ago regarding facilitating the entry of aid to the northern Gaza Strip, and said that the American administration, which can verify this, will not impose any restrictions on Tel Aviv.

The Washington Post published the results of an analysis based on more than 12 interviews with relief workers, indicating that Israel has largely failed to comply with American demands, which has pushed parts of northern Gaza to the brink of famine.

The analysis said that the Israeli failure is reflected in the decline in humanitarian aid, the continued isolation of the northern Gaza Strip, and the prevention of the resumption of commercial truck traffic.

In the same context, The Time magazine quoted a former US State Department official as saying that the Joe Biden administration "will have no difficulty in confirming that Israel prevented aid from reaching the Palestinians in Gaza because it is difficult to deny this fact."

However, the official said that the US administration "may use US national security interests as an excuse to back down from any restrictions it was considering imposing on military support for Israel."

As for Newsweek magazine, it published a report documenting the martyrdom of more than 10 Palestinians following two raids inside what Israel considers a humanitarian zone in Gaza.

The report indicated that the two raids were carried out just hours after Tel Aviv spoke of its intention to expand the humanitarian zone and at a time when the American deadline had passed, which aid organizations say proved the Israelis had failed to fulfill their commitment to the demands of the Biden administration. In Israel, Haaretz newspaper said that rescuing the hostages (prisoners) trapped in Gaza "will only be possible by threatening Benjamin Netanyahu's rule." The newspaper recalled the statements of the dismissed Defense Minister Yoav Galant, in which he confirmed that the goals of the war on Gaza had been achieved.

The newspaper said, "The role now falls on the Israeli public, which is required to pressure Netanyahu's government by all means in order to reach an agreement that frees the hostages, instead of falling into the trap of being preoccupied with endless political and security events."

In the British newspaper The Guardian, an opinion article stated that Israel's real goal in northern Gaza "is to evacuate the area of ​​Palestinians and then seize it forever."

The article reinforced its argument with statements by Israeli officials that it said tend to be part of an undeclared official policy to empty northern Gaza of its population through starvation, oppression, intimidation and killing, noting that Donald Trump's return to power "may be an encouraging factor."

Media review and A Lookback: "US elections: Gaza War is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump"

Media review and A Lookback: "US elections: Gaza War is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump"

    Wednesday, November 06, 2024   No comments

Back in May, one of our editors posted this note about why Biden would lose the election. The argument was simple: Gaza crisis is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump. 

When Biden dropped out of the race, Harris had an opportunity to make Gaza not be for her, what covid-19 was for Trump. She was asked if she would do anything different from Biden, she chose to do nothing different. 

Instead, it appeared that the problem that Biden had was just a "bad debate", not a flawed policy related to world crises. She debated, and by all accounts, she won the debate against Trump. But that did not win her the election. 

Because the problem was not a bad night debating; it has been bad policies and tolerance to killing and war crimes.

  

Media review, CNN commentator: "I hope your beeper doesn’t go off"

Media review, CNN commentator: "I hope your beeper doesn’t go off"

    Tuesday, October 29, 2024   No comments

Mainstream media guests include those who normalize acts of state terrorism, when the state of Israel turned communication devices into indiscriminate bombs. 

CNN describes the exchange that took place in its own studios with this introduction:

"CNN says a right-wing commentator will not be welcomed back on air after he made a racist remark on “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip.”

On Monday’s prime time show, after Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan stated that he supports Palestinians, conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky responded, “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.” The comment referenced the thousands of pager explosions in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah militants. CNN has learned the attacks were carried out by Israel." - CNN

The National is publishing a full chronology of Israel's war on Gaza

The National is publishing a full chronology of Israel's war on Gaza

    Friday, October 11, 2024   No comments

Message from the editor of The National: Tomorrow's front page explained

It is a year since Israel began the deadliest attack on Palestine in modern history.

According to Oxfam, more women and children have been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza this past year than in the equivalent period of any other conflict in the last two decades.

I could go on and on, provide statistic after statistic from respected charities and NGOs. But none of it could ever fully capture the reality of the situation in Gaza.

One of our political reporters attended a devastating press conference this week, hosted by the Palestinian ambassador, hearing from two women who had lost dozens of family members who described the horrors facing their people every day.

There were three journalists from English-language outlets there. Just three.

We are a very small team compared to some of the legacy titles in the UK, and we could find the time to send a reporter to this important event. Why couldn't our other media colleagues?

You could fill every newspaper in the country from cover to cover, reporting news on the horrors occurring in Gaza. But many papers can't even fill a news brief.

So we decided to work with dedicated campaigners, and fill our front page, and a huge chunk of our newspaper, with a detailed chronology of exactly what Israel has done to Gaza.

Tomorrow's front page of The National aims to highlight the scale of the atrocities taking place in Palestine, and shows that the media have a responsibility to use their platforms to share the reality of the situation with the world.

We publish a timeline of a year of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. It’s all here in black and white—the war crimes, murdered journalists, flattened hospitals, orphaned children. 7567 words, 42,000 deaths. Don’t look away.’ - Laura Webster, Editor.

                            Message from the editor of The National (https://www.thenational.scot/)

Media review: "Flattened in a year"

Media review: "Flattened in a year"

    Friday, October 11, 2024   No comments

A news story by CNN writer Sana Noor Haq, in collaboration with visuals team, over weeks of painstaking work, produced this review of what they think has happened to Gaza in one year, although Gaza Strip is flat by nature, they, nonetheless concluded it was flattened Israeli bombardment. It must take extraordinarily powerful weapons, and endless supply thereof, to flatten already flat densely populated piece of land.