🔻 First: He declares that after the withdrawal of UN forces from the south, the government will seek a “replacement,” clearly hinting at American and French forces to deploy and oversee a “demilitarized zone” south of the Litani River! This is a direct call to place the south under a new mandate.
🔻 Second: He openly adopts what he calls the “2002 Agreement” for full peace and normalization with the Zionist enemy… as if the blood of martyrs and the sacrifices of the resistance were just a page to be erased.
🔻 Third: He speaks of the possibility of opening economic files with the entity after normalization, even if “not soon.” Meaning he is laying the foundations today for tying Lebanon’s economy to the occupation tomorrow.
🔻 Fourth: He attacks the resistance’s weapons, claiming they have “failed” and do not deter Israel, ignoring seventeen years of real deterrence between 2006 and 2023, when the enemy did not dare launch an open war thanks to the strength of the resistance.
🔻 Fifth: He considers the withdrawal of the occupation from certain points a “necessary step to complete the first phase in the Litani area,” as if the entire project is simply implementing Israeli conditions step by step.
This is not just a political mistake… but a dangerous declaration of intent to drag Lebanon toward normalization, to place the south under American–French guardianship, and to strip the resistance of the weapons that safeguarded this nation.
Today’s battle is not only at the borders… but over Lebanon’s identity and choice: either the axis of resistance, or the axis of American–Israeli dictates.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😱5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Political activity between Washington and Tel Aviv toward Lebanon has converged noticeably in recent hours. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued instructions to dispatch an Israeli representative to Naqoura to begin direct contact with the Lebanese side under the title of “economic cooperation” — a move seen as an initial attempt to pave the way for a disguised normalization track between the two countries.
In parallel, the Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar reported that President Joseph Aoun informed the United States of his decision to appoint Paul Salem, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, as Lebanon’s representative in direct negotiations with Israel — a step that has generated tension with Hezbollah and discontent from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, particularly amid the absence of internal consensus on the mechanisms and structure of such negotiations.
In a second step, Aoun appointed Simon Karam as ambassador and head of the Lebanese delegation to the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission, in what the Presidency described as a defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty “in response to U.S. efforts.” Reports, however, spoke of direct pressure and threats exerted by Washington on Beirut to initiate this track.
These successive indicators suggest that a negotiation landscape is taking shape amid growing fears that the file may become yet another tool for imposing U.S.–Israeli dictates on Lebanese decision-making at a highly sensitive regional moment.
🔹 The Lebanese street begins to rise up against negotiations with the “Zionist enemy” — as popular groups have started protesting the decision, in solidarity with the positions of opposing political forces and in rejection of any normalization or negotiations with Israel under any pretext.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤3👍2
When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners
134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983
Introduction
Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, to the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister on January 13, 2025, it became clear that the political compass was veering away from its traditional orientation. But the most dangerous shift was not the name of the new prime minister — it was the event that erupted unexpectedly from Naqoura: the first official direct meeting between Lebanon and Israel since 1983, and under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah itself.
The Absence of the Man Who Drew the Red Line
Appointing Nawaf Salam was no simple step. He arrived after the absence of the one man who had, for years, stood as an impenetrable barrier against any attempt to impose a government through external pressure. Sayyed Nasrallah had the power to block entire governmental formations to preserve sovereignty and protect national decision-making. With his absence, Salam’s name passed as a “mandatory solution” under suffocating international pressure and an internally fractured reality — not as a natural political choice but as an act of submission to a new equation.
The background attributed to Salam — including claims about his advisory role during the May 17, 1983 negotiations — has never been presented to the public through official documents, yet he has never categorically denied it. This alone was enough to trigger sensitivity within the Resistance’s base. Nevertheless, the settlement moved forward, ushering in a different political phase.
Naqoura: The Event That Revealed Everything
What happened in Naqoura was neither a “technical committee” nor a “monitoring meeting.” It was the first official direct encounter with Israel since the May 17, 1983 Agreement. And comparing the contexts of 1983 and 2025 exposes the magnitude of the shift.
1983:
In that year, the Lebanese state was almost entirely under the Western axis. The government led by Shafiq al-Wazzan was fundamentally distant from the Resistance project, and Hezbollah had not yet even been born politically. There was no force within the state that expressed the popular sentiment that would later crystallize into an armed resistance. Thus, the May 17 Agreement came within a state leaning toward accommodation with Israel, even at a severe cost to sovereignty.
2025:
Today, however, the meeting took place under a government that includes ministers directly affiliated with Hezbollah — a party that has become an established pillar of political life for years, representing a massive constituency of resistance supporters. For the first Lebanese–Israeli official meeting in forty years to occur under a government containing the party cannot be dismissed as an incidental event or a mere procedural error. It is a genuine political turning point, occurring under an authority expected to represent the environment closest to the Resistance — not a government orbiting the West, as in 1983.
The Deception of Timing: When the Country Is Distracted… the Most Dangerous Steps Pass
The scene became even more alarming because of the way the meeting was passed. It occurred at a moment when all of Lebanon — the public and the media — was absorbed by the Pope’s visit, a monumental spiritual and national event that dominated the country’s attention. Amid this total distraction, the Naqoura meeting was held quietly, wrapped in vague official language about a “technical committee” and “ceasefire monitoring.”
But everything was exposed when Netanyahu emerged with the blunt Israeli narrative:
“This is the beginning of relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Lebanon.”
With that statement, the entire “technical committee” narrative collapsed.
Parliament’s Responsibility… Where Did It Go?
134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983
Introduction
Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, to the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister on January 13, 2025, it became clear that the political compass was veering away from its traditional orientation. But the most dangerous shift was not the name of the new prime minister — it was the event that erupted unexpectedly from Naqoura: the first official direct meeting between Lebanon and Israel since 1983, and under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah itself.
The Absence of the Man Who Drew the Red Line
Appointing Nawaf Salam was no simple step. He arrived after the absence of the one man who had, for years, stood as an impenetrable barrier against any attempt to impose a government through external pressure. Sayyed Nasrallah had the power to block entire governmental formations to preserve sovereignty and protect national decision-making. With his absence, Salam’s name passed as a “mandatory solution” under suffocating international pressure and an internally fractured reality — not as a natural political choice but as an act of submission to a new equation.
The background attributed to Salam — including claims about his advisory role during the May 17, 1983 negotiations — has never been presented to the public through official documents, yet he has never categorically denied it. This alone was enough to trigger sensitivity within the Resistance’s base. Nevertheless, the settlement moved forward, ushering in a different political phase.
Naqoura: The Event That Revealed Everything
What happened in Naqoura was neither a “technical committee” nor a “monitoring meeting.” It was the first official direct encounter with Israel since the May 17, 1983 Agreement. And comparing the contexts of 1983 and 2025 exposes the magnitude of the shift.
1983:
In that year, the Lebanese state was almost entirely under the Western axis. The government led by Shafiq al-Wazzan was fundamentally distant from the Resistance project, and Hezbollah had not yet even been born politically. There was no force within the state that expressed the popular sentiment that would later crystallize into an armed resistance. Thus, the May 17 Agreement came within a state leaning toward accommodation with Israel, even at a severe cost to sovereignty.
2025:
Today, however, the meeting took place under a government that includes ministers directly affiliated with Hezbollah — a party that has become an established pillar of political life for years, representing a massive constituency of resistance supporters. For the first Lebanese–Israeli official meeting in forty years to occur under a government containing the party cannot be dismissed as an incidental event or a mere procedural error. It is a genuine political turning point, occurring under an authority expected to represent the environment closest to the Resistance — not a government orbiting the West, as in 1983.
The Deception of Timing: When the Country Is Distracted… the Most Dangerous Steps Pass
The scene became even more alarming because of the way the meeting was passed. It occurred at a moment when all of Lebanon — the public and the media — was absorbed by the Pope’s visit, a monumental spiritual and national event that dominated the country’s attention. Amid this total distraction, the Naqoura meeting was held quietly, wrapped in vague official language about a “technical committee” and “ceasefire monitoring.”
But everything was exposed when Netanyahu emerged with the blunt Israeli narrative:
“This is the beginning of relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Lebanon.”
With that statement, the entire “technical committee” narrative collapsed.
Parliament’s Responsibility… Where Did It Go?
😱5
The Observer
When the Decision No Longer Resembles Its Owners 134 Days After Sayyed’s Absence… Lebanon Enters Its Most Dangerous Political Turning Point Since 1983 Introduction Everything in Lebanon changed in just 134 days. From the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah…
One would have expected the political arena to tremble, and the parliamentary blocs aligned with the Resistance to move against a step of this magnitude. But the opposite happened:
– No open debates took place
– No serious accountability was demanded
– No opposition proportional to the gravity of the event emerged
This silence was the real test — not just for the government, but for all the forces that supposedly represent the Resistance’s constituency in Parliament. The event passed without the confrontation its danger required, leaving the door open for those wishing to test Lebanon’s — all of Lebanon’s — ability to accept the first step of disguised normalization.
Iraq… A Glimpse in the Same Direction
In Iraq, a similar indicator appears, though less central to this context. Donald Trump’s statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani “nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize,” while Trump is himself wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for the Baghdad Airport assassination, exposes a clear gap between what people expect and the decisions being shaped within the state. It is yet another sign of an era in which authority is managed with a logic that resembles neither its people nor their sacrifices.
Conclusion
Naqoura is not a meeting. It is a political turning point in every sense — a moment that shatters a forty-year-old equation. And when such a step occurs under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah, its significance multiplies, its responsibility widens, and its danger grows.
When a decision no longer resembles its owners… the road that ends in disaster begins.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
– No open debates took place
– No serious accountability was demanded
– No opposition proportional to the gravity of the event emerged
This silence was the real test — not just for the government, but for all the forces that supposedly represent the Resistance’s constituency in Parliament. The event passed without the confrontation its danger required, leaving the door open for those wishing to test Lebanon’s — all of Lebanon’s — ability to accept the first step of disguised normalization.
Iraq… A Glimpse in the Same Direction
In Iraq, a similar indicator appears, though less central to this context. Donald Trump’s statement that Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani “nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize,” while Trump is himself wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for the Baghdad Airport assassination, exposes a clear gap between what people expect and the decisions being shaped within the state. It is yet another sign of an era in which authority is managed with a logic that resembles neither its people nor their sacrifices.
Conclusion
Naqoura is not a meeting. It is a political turning point in every sense — a moment that shatters a forty-year-old equation. And when such a step occurs under a government that includes ministers from Hezbollah, its significance multiplies, its responsibility widens, and its danger grows.
When a decision no longer resembles its owners… the road that ends in disaster begins.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Israel’s Channel 14 has revealed that U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus suggested to Israeli officials that they bomb the funeral of the martyred Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium in Beirut this past February.
This is not a “leak.” This is the true mindset of the American-Zionist establishment:
Assassinating the leader is not enough for them… they want to bomb an entire people, desecrate the body of a Resistance leader, and turn his funeral into a massacre.
But what Washington and Tel Aviv still fail to understand is this:
🔸 A man like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah cannot be killed — he is reborn in an entire nation.
🔸 The Axis of Resistance today is stronger, more solid, and more determined than anything their joint war rooms ever imagined.
🔸 If such an attack on the funeral had taken place, it would have ignited the entire region from sea to river — not because we seek war, but because the Resistance does not remain silent when the sanctity of its martyrs is violated.
Those who propose bombing the funeral of a leader who dedicated his life to defending the dignity of this Ummah… are the same ones who tremble today before the rockets of South Lebanon and the deterrence equations of the Axis of Resistance from Sana’a to Baghdad.
This American-Israeli mentality is precisely what made the Resistance a destiny — and made the path of confrontation a necessity beyond debate.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
The publication of the Iraqi Gazette announcing Decision No. (61) of 2025 by the Committee for Freezing Terrorist Funds—which included Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Ansar Allah among 24 “terrorist” entities—sparked widespread public anger in Iraq.
The committee explained in a statement issued on December 4, 2025, that the inclusion of these entities resulted from publishing the list before its revision was completed. It stressed that Iraq’s approval was limited only to individuals and entities linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda, based on a request from Malaysia and in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
The committee confirmed that the error will be corrected in the next issue of the Iraqi Gazette by removing the names of entities not connected to ISIS and al-Qaeda from the list.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬6
After the release of the new issue of the Iraqi Gazette, which included a disavowal of honorable figures, a timid new statement appeared claiming that what was published had (entered by mistake)!
For those unfamiliar with the Iraqi Gazette: it is the official newspaper that publishes laws only after they have been ratified by all authorities—executive, legislative, presidential, and judicial—passing through many layers of scrutiny. That is why some laws approved by parliament are delayed in implementation, awaiting their publication in this respected Gazette that does not accept “mistakes”!
What kind of mistake?
This is a law that may involve blood, money, or any other right.
Entered by mistake
Your excuse is uglier than your sin.
You wished it would pass quietly amid the distraction over who will take office after the elections, but God exposed you—the One to whom the party and its supporters belong with honor. They are His party and His supporters, and He will not abandon them.
“If you support God, He will support you” (Muhammad, verse 7).
Truly, as was said: Leadership is the proving ground of men.
And it has shown us that in your dictionary, it is honor itself that “entered by mistake.”
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
Yesterday’s Naqoura meeting, which shamefully included “civilians” in the delegations, was immediately followed by Netanyahu’s arrogant declaration: “Disarming Hezbollah is mandatory, regardless of economic cooperation.”
And today, Israel translates words into threats—striking warnings at Jbaa and Mahrouna. The message is crystal clear: negotiations will not be conducted at the table, but under the roar of firepower.
This is not diplomacy. This is coercion. Israel is imposing its equation once again, and official Lebanon has proven incapable of breaking it. The so‑called “state” stands paralyzed, while the enemy dictates the terms.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
📡 Channel 12 (Hebrew): Authorities are investigating whether Hamas fighters infiltrated his area of control and carried out the assassination.
📡 Israeli Army Radio correspondent: Abu Shabab was shot dead, details under review.
📡 Channel 14 (Hebrew): His killing proves the occupation cannot rely on mercenaries.
📡 Israeli Army Radio: After his death, senior security officials opposed the idea of forming militias cooperating with Israel in Gaza, stressing their fate is inevitable—death—just as the failed South Lebanon experiment remains a clear reminder.
🔥 The natural end for every traitor… Abu Shabab consigned to the trash heap of history.
#WarMedia
#EnemyMedia
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👏5😁1
The Israeli army has issued fresh warnings of possible airstrikes targeting two towns in southern Lebanon: Baraachit and Majadel.
This escalation raises serious questions:
• Why is the IDF expanding its threat map deeper into civilian areas, despite the clear risks of widening the conflict?
• Is this a pressure tactic aimed at deterring Hezbollah, or a prelude to a broader military campaign?
• What message does this send to regional actors, especially given the fragile balance along the Blue Line and the memory of past wars?
📌 Such warnings are not just military signals—they are political messages. They test Lebanon’s resilience, probe Hezbollah’s response, and challenge international mediators to act before the situation spirals.
🔥 The targeting of Baraachit and Majadel could mark a dangerous shift: from limited border skirmishes to a strategy of collective intimidation. The question remains—does Israel seek deterrence, or is it paving the way for escalation?
#Lebanon #SouthLebanon #IDF #Escalation
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬6
The Last Two Weeks
By : Dr Wassim Jaber
Lebanon is entering an extremely delicate phase. What is being promoted as an “economic proposal” for the development of the South reveals, upon closer examination, an attempt to fundamentally alter the identity and geography of the region. Behind the polished language lies a plan built on permanent displacement of the southern population, transforming the entire border strip into an extra-sovereign economic zone, and leasing large portions of land to Gulf states under American–Israeli supervision, all in exchange for one core condition: the disarmament of the resistance. This is not a development project; it is a blueprint for redrawing southern Lebanon.
The plan rests on several components: financial compensation designed to prevent residents from returning home, turning the area from Naqoura to Shebaa into an open investment zone, and linking the coast to Mount Hermon through large-scale projects. In the background, there is escalating pressure and hints at the possible use of force to coerce Lebanon into accepting the deal, accompanied by Egyptian warnings that Lebanon may face “total paralysis” if it refuses to sign.
The coming two weeks carry exceptional weight. Washington aims to secure Lebanon’s signature before the anticipated Trump–Netanyahu meeting. The proposed scenario begins with political pressure, military escalation, and media intimidation. If Lebanon resists, the next phase involves striking critical infrastructure and carrying out targeted assassinations of resistance leaders. The final stage would be a manufactured internal collapse, designed to push the population and the state toward desperate acceptance.
In response, calls are directed toward the resistance to exercise restraint and avoid using its strongest deterrent cards at this stage, while establishing a clear equation: “Paralysis in Beirut = Paralysis in Tel Aviv.” Time is a strategic asset, and exposing the full details of the plan to the public is essential to deprive it of political cover.
At the level of the state, the President is urged to take a firm stance: reject any proposal involving permanent displacement, refuse any form of land leasing, protect the resistance’s weapons, and disclose all details to the Lebanese people. He carries a historic responsibility to confront the project using every available diplomatic tool.
Lebanon now stands at a decisive crossroads: either accept a path leading to displacement, land leasing, disarmament, and the erosion of sovereignty, or refuse the plan outright and bear the cost of confrontation—a cost far lower than that of surrender. History shows that peoples who chose to resist, from Vietnam to Gaza, ultimately overturned far greater schemes.
From an analytical perspective, this “economic proposal” appears to be a Lebanese adaptation of the Zionist model of apartheid: emptying the land, stripping away weapons, and transforming the South into an area subject to indirect Israeli oversight, with Gulf investors serving as the financial façade. The equation is unmistakable: permanent displacement, land for rent, and an economy under guardianship—meaning a Lebanon stripped of sovereignty.
Israel is attempting to impose through political pressure what it failed to achieve through war: displacement, depopulation, and creating irreversible facts on the ground. The only true counterweight capable of derailing this project is the resistance, which is precisely why the entire plan revolves around disarming it. No nation has surrendered its weapons under pressure and remained free. Arms handed to the Zionists do not return; land that is emptied is taken; and an economy controlled from outside is invariably used to serve the Zionist agenda.
What is needed today is to expose this project openly, prevent it from passing under any “economic” pretext, shield the South from a softer remake of 1982, and support the resistance as the final line of defense for the land and its people.
By : Dr Wassim Jaber
Lebanon is entering an extremely delicate phase. What is being promoted as an “economic proposal” for the development of the South reveals, upon closer examination, an attempt to fundamentally alter the identity and geography of the region. Behind the polished language lies a plan built on permanent displacement of the southern population, transforming the entire border strip into an extra-sovereign economic zone, and leasing large portions of land to Gulf states under American–Israeli supervision, all in exchange for one core condition: the disarmament of the resistance. This is not a development project; it is a blueprint for redrawing southern Lebanon.
The plan rests on several components: financial compensation designed to prevent residents from returning home, turning the area from Naqoura to Shebaa into an open investment zone, and linking the coast to Mount Hermon through large-scale projects. In the background, there is escalating pressure and hints at the possible use of force to coerce Lebanon into accepting the deal, accompanied by Egyptian warnings that Lebanon may face “total paralysis” if it refuses to sign.
The coming two weeks carry exceptional weight. Washington aims to secure Lebanon’s signature before the anticipated Trump–Netanyahu meeting. The proposed scenario begins with political pressure, military escalation, and media intimidation. If Lebanon resists, the next phase involves striking critical infrastructure and carrying out targeted assassinations of resistance leaders. The final stage would be a manufactured internal collapse, designed to push the population and the state toward desperate acceptance.
In response, calls are directed toward the resistance to exercise restraint and avoid using its strongest deterrent cards at this stage, while establishing a clear equation: “Paralysis in Beirut = Paralysis in Tel Aviv.” Time is a strategic asset, and exposing the full details of the plan to the public is essential to deprive it of political cover.
At the level of the state, the President is urged to take a firm stance: reject any proposal involving permanent displacement, refuse any form of land leasing, protect the resistance’s weapons, and disclose all details to the Lebanese people. He carries a historic responsibility to confront the project using every available diplomatic tool.
Lebanon now stands at a decisive crossroads: either accept a path leading to displacement, land leasing, disarmament, and the erosion of sovereignty, or refuse the plan outright and bear the cost of confrontation—a cost far lower than that of surrender. History shows that peoples who chose to resist, from Vietnam to Gaza, ultimately overturned far greater schemes.
From an analytical perspective, this “economic proposal” appears to be a Lebanese adaptation of the Zionist model of apartheid: emptying the land, stripping away weapons, and transforming the South into an area subject to indirect Israeli oversight, with Gulf investors serving as the financial façade. The equation is unmistakable: permanent displacement, land for rent, and an economy under guardianship—meaning a Lebanon stripped of sovereignty.
Israel is attempting to impose through political pressure what it failed to achieve through war: displacement, depopulation, and creating irreversible facts on the ground. The only true counterweight capable of derailing this project is the resistance, which is precisely why the entire plan revolves around disarming it. No nation has surrendered its weapons under pressure and remained free. Arms handed to the Zionists do not return; land that is emptied is taken; and an economy controlled from outside is invariably used to serve the Zionist agenda.
What is needed today is to expose this project openly, prevent it from passing under any “economic” pretext, shield the South from a softer remake of 1982, and support the resistance as the final line of defense for the land and its people.
The Observer
The Last Two Weeks By : Dr Wassim Jaber Lebanon is entering an extremely delicate phase. What is being promoted as an “economic proposal” for the development of the South reveals, upon closer examination, an attempt to fundamentally alter the identity…
If Lebanon is paralyzed, Israel must be paralyzed—this is the only form of deterrence the occupation understands.
Zionism seeks a South without its people and a people without their weapons. Yet history teaches a single lesson: peoples who resist—whether in Vietnam or Gaza—break every project, no matter how powerful.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Zionism seeks a South without its people and a people without their weapons. Yet history teaches a single lesson: peoples who resist—whether in Vietnam or Gaza—break every project, no matter how powerful.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
On December 1, 2025, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Michael Rigas arrived in Baghdad as part of a regional tour that included Turkey, Iraq, and Israel. A swift visit, but one loaded with clear messages:
Washington wants to seize control of the political game in Iraq and reset the balance of influence ahead of the 2025 Iraqi elections—even through direct pressure and open threats.
Iraq: The Primary Target of the Tour
From the moment Rigas landed in Baghdad, it was clear the visit was not merely ceremonial.
Leaks from Iraqi decision-making circles spoke of direct American warnings to political forces, especially resistance factions, echoing the threatening tone used by U.S. Ambassador Mark Savana just days earlier.
Washington’s goals:
• Influence the shape of the next government,
• Restrict the factions’ influence,
• Ensure the balances established since 2003 remain unchanged.
Notably, the tour came after a series of security incidents in Iraq and Kurdistan:
A rocket strike on the Kormor gas field halted production and sparked a fire, alongside rising tensions on the Iraq–Iran border.
All this gave Washington further justification to claim it is “closely monitoring the situation” and considers Iraq a regional arena that cannot be left outside its control.
What Did Rigas Want from Turkey?
Turkish diplomatic sources leaked information suggesting Washington was worried about:
• Increased Turkish–Iranian security coordination in northern Iraq,
• Resistance faction movements around Halabja and Kirkuk,
• Progress in economic negotiations between Baghdad and Ankara beyond U.S. influence.
Thus, Rigas focused in Ankara on:
1. Preventing Turkey from opening broader lines of cooperation with Iran inside Iraq.
2. Pressuring to tie energy projects and trade corridors to U.S. oversight.
3. Securing Turkish support to block “uncomfortable political shifts” in Baghdad.
In short: Washington does not want Ankara playing an independent game in Iraq.
His Visit to Israel… The Most Critical Episode
From Israel, the American escalation phase truly began.
According to Israeli media, Rigas’s agenda centered on two files:
• Supporting Israeli operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon,
• Controlling the “Iraq front” so it does not become an additional source of pressure on Tel Aviv.
Sources in Tel Aviv said Washington wants Israel to:
• Expand intelligence-sharing on Iraqi resistance factions,
• Coordinate positions to “prevent Iraq from becoming a direct support base for Hamas and Hezbollah.”
This explains why certain incidents inside Iraq escalated in parallel with Rigas’s tour.
Where Is Michael Rigas Now? Has He Really Returned to Washington?
At the time of writing, U.S. State Department sources confirmed Rigas had completed his tour and returned to Washington. But what followed the visit is more important than the visit itself.
All developments after his departure from Baghdad suggest the trip was part of a comprehensive pressure plan now being implemented on the ground.
Did His Visit Bring Real Changes Inside Iraq?
Yes, albeit unofficially. Immediately after the visit:
• U.S. rhetoric against the factions intensified,
• Suspicious security movements appeared in some provinces,
• Washington began exerting pressure through banking and financial channels,
• Signs of direct intervention in government formation talks emerged.
The message was clear:
“We are here… and we will not allow the rules of the game to change.”
The Central Bank’s “Unintentional Error”… Coincidence or Test?
Listing “Ansar Allah” and “Hezbollah” as terrorist entities by Iraq’s central bank—then retracting it—was not merely an administrative mistake.
Indicators point to two possibilities:
1. Direct U.S. pressure pushing Baghdad to adopt financial restrictions against the resistance axis.
2. A test of Iraqi public opinion: How would people react? With anger? Silence? What will the mood be after the elections?
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😈4
The Observer
The angry reactions forced the government to withdraw the decision, exposing the fragility of the balance Washington is trying to impose.
Where Did Mark Savana Disappear Amid This Scene?
Ambassador Mark Savana did not vanish.
On the contrary, Iraqi media reports indicate he:
• Manages intensive communication channels with multiple political parties,
• Monitors the government formation file hour by hour,
• Plays the role of “pressure coordinator” between Baghdad and Washington during and after Rigas’s visit.
In other words:
Savana is the executive hand inside Iraq, while Rigas was the public political cover.
Conclusion
Rigas’s visit was not a passing tour. It was a step within an American project to redraw Iraqi politics and prevent the resistance axis from strengthening its influence.
Turkey and Israel were part of the picture, but Iraq was the main testing ground.
What unfolded after the visit confirms Iraq is no longer a passive arena… and that every American move will be met with resistance—both popular and political.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Where Did Mark Savana Disappear Amid This Scene?
Ambassador Mark Savana did not vanish.
On the contrary, Iraqi media reports indicate he:
• Manages intensive communication channels with multiple political parties,
• Monitors the government formation file hour by hour,
• Plays the role of “pressure coordinator” between Baghdad and Washington during and after Rigas’s visit.
In other words:
Savana is the executive hand inside Iraq, while Rigas was the public political cover.
Conclusion
Rigas’s visit was not a passing tour. It was a step within an American project to redraw Iraqi politics and prevent the resistance axis from strengthening its influence.
Turkey and Israel were part of the picture, but Iraq was the main testing ground.
What unfolded after the visit confirms Iraq is no longer a passive arena… and that every American move will be met with resistance—both popular and political.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😈4
Review :
Grand Delusion : The Rise and Fall of the American Ambition in the Middle East
By : Steven Simon
The culmination of almost forty years at the highest levels of policymaking and scholarship, Grand Delusion is Steven Simon’s tour de force, offering a comprehensive and deeply informed account of U.S. engagement in the Middle East. Simon begins with the Reagan administration, when American perception of the region shifted from a cluster of faraway and frequently skirmishing nations to a shining, urgent opportunity for America to (in Reagan’s words) “serve the cause of world peace and the future of mankind.”
Reagan fired the starting gun on decades of deepening American involvement, but as the global economy grew, bringing an increasing reliance on oil, U.S. diplomatic and military energies were ever more fatefully absorbed by the Middle East. Grand Delusion explores the motivations, strategies, and shortcomings of each presidential administration from Reagan to today, exposing a web of intertwined events—from the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict amid Israeli domestic politics, Cold War rivalries, and Saudi Arabia’s quest for security, to 9/11 and the war on terror—managed by a Washington policy process frequently ruled by wishful thinking and partisan politics.
Simon’s sharp sense of irony and incisive writing brings complex history to life. He illuminates the motives behind America's commitment to Israel; explodes the popular narrative of Desert Storm as a “good war”; and calls out the devastating consequences of our mistakes, particularly for people of the region trapped by the onslaught of American military action and pitiless economic sanctions.
Grand Delusion reveals that this story, while episodically impressive, has too often been tragic and at times dishonorable. As we enter a new era in foreign policy, this is an essential book, a cautionary history that illuminates American's propensity for self-deception and misadventure at a moment when the nation is redefining its engagement with a world in crisis.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Grand Delusion : The Rise and Fall of the American Ambition in the Middle East
By : Steven Simon
The culmination of almost forty years at the highest levels of policymaking and scholarship, Grand Delusion is Steven Simon’s tour de force, offering a comprehensive and deeply informed account of U.S. engagement in the Middle East. Simon begins with the Reagan administration, when American perception of the region shifted from a cluster of faraway and frequently skirmishing nations to a shining, urgent opportunity for America to (in Reagan’s words) “serve the cause of world peace and the future of mankind.”
Reagan fired the starting gun on decades of deepening American involvement, but as the global economy grew, bringing an increasing reliance on oil, U.S. diplomatic and military energies were ever more fatefully absorbed by the Middle East. Grand Delusion explores the motivations, strategies, and shortcomings of each presidential administration from Reagan to today, exposing a web of intertwined events—from the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict amid Israeli domestic politics, Cold War rivalries, and Saudi Arabia’s quest for security, to 9/11 and the war on terror—managed by a Washington policy process frequently ruled by wishful thinking and partisan politics.
Simon’s sharp sense of irony and incisive writing brings complex history to life. He illuminates the motives behind America's commitment to Israel; explodes the popular narrative of Desert Storm as a “good war”; and calls out the devastating consequences of our mistakes, particularly for people of the region trapped by the onslaught of American military action and pitiless economic sanctions.
Grand Delusion reveals that this story, while episodically impressive, has too often been tragic and at times dishonorable. As we enter a new era in foreign policy, this is an essential book, a cautionary history that illuminates American's propensity for self-deception and misadventure at a moment when the nation is redefining its engagement with a world in crisis.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Germany’s Merz Meets Netanyahu Under the Shadow of Gaza: Politics, Weapons, and the Illusion of Influence
As Israel’s war on Gaza continues to provoke global outrage, the visit of Germany’s CDU leader Friedrich Merz to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lands squarely in the middle of an international political storm. At a moment when even traditional allies are reevaluating their positions, Merz’s trip highlights the contradictions within German foreign policy, the limits of Berlin’s leverage over Israel, and the deepening crisis of Western credibility in the Middle East.
1. Why Now? The Timing Behind Merz’s Visit
Merz arrived in Israel at a time when international criticism of the war on Gaza had reached unprecedented levels. Global organizations, humanitarian agencies, and even some European governments have condemned Israel’s conduct for causing massive civilian suffering.
Instead of distancing itself, Germany doubled down.
Merz’s visit was framed publicly as a gesture of “solidarity,” but politically, it served two purposes:
1. Reaffirming German support after the German Chancellor’s recent visit to Tel Aviv.
2. Signaling political alignment with Israel across German party lines (CDU and SPD alike).
At a time when world opinion is shifting, Berlin appears determined to anchor itself firmly to Tel Aviv, regardless of the moral or diplomatic cost.
2. The Agenda: Security, Intelligence, Military Exchange, and Money
a. Security and Intelligence Cooperation
Germany and Israel already share a long-standing intelligence partnership focused on counterterrorism, surveillance technologies, and regional monitoring. According to German officials, Merz’s discussions included:
• Expansion of intelligence-sharing frameworks
• Deeper cooperation in monitoring Middle Eastern armed groups
• Continued cyber collaboration between German and Israeli agencies
Germany’s narrative frames this cooperation as “security,” but on the ground, it often translates into technical support that reinforces Israel’s military operations.
b. Military Exchange and Weapons Mentioned
Germany is one of Israel’s most important weapons suppliers. Merz’s visit highlighted ongoing military exchanges, including:
• Dolphin-class submarines (partly financed by Germany)
• Sa’ar-6 corvettes built with German shipyards
• Export of components for air-defense systems
• Armored vehicle parts and communication systems
• Precision-guided munition parts
• Equipment used in troop mobility and battlefield logistics
Although Germany claims its weapons are subject to “strict export controls,” the practical reality is that Israeli forces rely heavily on German-made systems.
c. Funding, Arms Supplies, and Indirect Support (With Figures)
Between 2013 and 2023, Germany authorized over €3 billion in arms exports to Israel. In 2023 alone, after the escalation in Gaza, approvals jumped to:
• €326 million in weapons exports (a ten-fold increase over 2022)
• Over €20 million in ammunition and weapons components
• €500 million+ in indirect financing for naval platforms
Germany also subsidized roughly one-third of the cost of Israel’s Dolphin-class submarines, amounting to hundreds of millions of euros over multiple deals.
This financial support is indirect but decisive: Berlin enables Israel to expand its military capabilities without bearing full budgetary responsibility.
3. Germany’s Shifting Position After the Chancellor’s Visit to Tel Aviv
After Chancellor Scholz’s highly publicized visit, Germany’s stance hardened:
• Continued insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself”
• Public rejection of calls for a ceasefire
• Dismissal of South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ
The government still refuses to recognize the humanitarian disaster as a result of Israeli policy, instead characterizing it as a tragic byproduct of conflict.
As Israel’s war on Gaza continues to provoke global outrage, the visit of Germany’s CDU leader Friedrich Merz to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lands squarely in the middle of an international political storm. At a moment when even traditional allies are reevaluating their positions, Merz’s trip highlights the contradictions within German foreign policy, the limits of Berlin’s leverage over Israel, and the deepening crisis of Western credibility in the Middle East.
1. Why Now? The Timing Behind Merz’s Visit
Merz arrived in Israel at a time when international criticism of the war on Gaza had reached unprecedented levels. Global organizations, humanitarian agencies, and even some European governments have condemned Israel’s conduct for causing massive civilian suffering.
Instead of distancing itself, Germany doubled down.
Merz’s visit was framed publicly as a gesture of “solidarity,” but politically, it served two purposes:
1. Reaffirming German support after the German Chancellor’s recent visit to Tel Aviv.
2. Signaling political alignment with Israel across German party lines (CDU and SPD alike).
At a time when world opinion is shifting, Berlin appears determined to anchor itself firmly to Tel Aviv, regardless of the moral or diplomatic cost.
2. The Agenda: Security, Intelligence, Military Exchange, and Money
a. Security and Intelligence Cooperation
Germany and Israel already share a long-standing intelligence partnership focused on counterterrorism, surveillance technologies, and regional monitoring. According to German officials, Merz’s discussions included:
• Expansion of intelligence-sharing frameworks
• Deeper cooperation in monitoring Middle Eastern armed groups
• Continued cyber collaboration between German and Israeli agencies
Germany’s narrative frames this cooperation as “security,” but on the ground, it often translates into technical support that reinforces Israel’s military operations.
b. Military Exchange and Weapons Mentioned
Germany is one of Israel’s most important weapons suppliers. Merz’s visit highlighted ongoing military exchanges, including:
• Dolphin-class submarines (partly financed by Germany)
• Sa’ar-6 corvettes built with German shipyards
• Export of components for air-defense systems
• Armored vehicle parts and communication systems
• Precision-guided munition parts
• Equipment used in troop mobility and battlefield logistics
Although Germany claims its weapons are subject to “strict export controls,” the practical reality is that Israeli forces rely heavily on German-made systems.
c. Funding, Arms Supplies, and Indirect Support (With Figures)
Between 2013 and 2023, Germany authorized over €3 billion in arms exports to Israel. In 2023 alone, after the escalation in Gaza, approvals jumped to:
• €326 million in weapons exports (a ten-fold increase over 2022)
• Over €20 million in ammunition and weapons components
• €500 million+ in indirect financing for naval platforms
Germany also subsidized roughly one-third of the cost of Israel’s Dolphin-class submarines, amounting to hundreds of millions of euros over multiple deals.
This financial support is indirect but decisive: Berlin enables Israel to expand its military capabilities without bearing full budgetary responsibility.
3. Germany’s Shifting Position After the Chancellor’s Visit to Tel Aviv
After Chancellor Scholz’s highly publicized visit, Germany’s stance hardened:
• Continued insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself”
• Public rejection of calls for a ceasefire
• Dismissal of South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ
The government still refuses to recognize the humanitarian disaster as a result of Israeli policy, instead characterizing it as a tragic byproduct of conflict.
🤬4
The Observer
Germany’s Merz Meets Netanyahu Under the Shadow of Gaza: Politics, Weapons, and the Illusion of Influence As Israel’s war on Gaza continues to provoke global outrage, the visit of Germany’s CDU leader Friedrich Merz to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…
Merz’s visit reinforces that both the ruling coalition and the opposition share an almost identical stance: unwavering support for Israel, limited criticism, and an unwillingness to acknowledge Palestinian rights in meaningful policy terms.
4. Points of Disagreement: The Palestinian Issue and the Two-State Illusion
a. Differences on the Palestinian Question
Germany and Israel diverge rhetorically on the long-term political solution:
• Germany still publicly supports a “revived peace process” and some form of Palestinian self-governance.
• Israel under Netanyahu rejects any discussion of sovereignty for Palestinians.
Yet these “differences” are mostly cosmetic. Germany does not impose pressure, conditions, or consequences.
b. The Two-State Solution Gap
Germany’s political class continues to repeat its official line in support of a two-state solution, even though Israeli leaders openly and repeatedly reject it.
This has turned Berlin’s position into diplomatic theater: a slogan repeated for the sake of appearances, without policy to back it.
5. The So-Called Arms-Export Pause: A Symbolic, One-Time Gesture
Germany briefly paused some arms export approvals in late 2023—but the pause:
• Did not affect ongoing contracts
• Did not include major weapons systems
• Was quietly reversed in early 2024
The measure was purely symbolic, meant to soften domestic criticism without changing Germany’s military support for Israel.
6. Why Germany Has So Little Influence Over Israel
Despite its massive economic and military contributions, Germany has almost no real leverage over Israeli policy. Several factors explain this:
a. Historical Guilt
Germany’s political elite remains deeply shaped by post-Holocaust moral responsibility. This often translates into unconditional support for Israel, regardless of circumstance.
The result:
Germany treats moral debt as a permanent foreign-policy doctrine rather than a historical lesson balanced with contemporary ethics.
b. Strategic Dependence
Germany values:
• Israeli intelligence
• Israeli military technology
• Israel’s role as a Western outpost in the Middle East
These interests limit Berlin’s willingness to confront Israeli actions.
c. Domestic Political Consensus
German mainstream parties all support Israel; any criticism is marginalized as politically dangerous.
Thus, even when Germany privately disagrees with Israeli decisions, it rarely dares to challenge them publicly.
7. Ethical Contradictions: Germany’s Weapons and Gaza’s Reality
Germany asserts that it upholds “humanitarian principles.” Yet it continues to supply weapons knowingly used in a war causing immense civilian suffering.
The ethical contradictions are stark:
• How can Germany claim moral responsibility for its past while enabling modern-day civilian harm?
• How can Berlin lecture world democracies on human rights while refusing accountability for weapons exported to an active conflict zone?
• How can Germany insist on “international law” while ignoring the legal concerns raised by humanitarian organizations regarding Israel’s conduct?
This gap between moral rhetoric and real-world actions is the core of Germany’s credibility crisis in the Middle East.
Conclusion
Merz’s visit is not an isolated event—it is part of a long-term pattern. Germany continues to support Israel politically, militarily, and financially, even as global opinion shifts and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens. While Berlin speaks of peace and human rights, its policies empower a government that rejects both.
Germany’s inability—or unwillingness—to influence Israeli strategy exposes the limits of its foreign policy and the contradictions at the heart of its alliance with Israel. As the Middle East changes, Berlin risks finding itself on the wrong side of history once again.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
4. Points of Disagreement: The Palestinian Issue and the Two-State Illusion
a. Differences on the Palestinian Question
Germany and Israel diverge rhetorically on the long-term political solution:
• Germany still publicly supports a “revived peace process” and some form of Palestinian self-governance.
• Israel under Netanyahu rejects any discussion of sovereignty for Palestinians.
Yet these “differences” are mostly cosmetic. Germany does not impose pressure, conditions, or consequences.
b. The Two-State Solution Gap
Germany’s political class continues to repeat its official line in support of a two-state solution, even though Israeli leaders openly and repeatedly reject it.
This has turned Berlin’s position into diplomatic theater: a slogan repeated for the sake of appearances, without policy to back it.
5. The So-Called Arms-Export Pause: A Symbolic, One-Time Gesture
Germany briefly paused some arms export approvals in late 2023—but the pause:
• Did not affect ongoing contracts
• Did not include major weapons systems
• Was quietly reversed in early 2024
The measure was purely symbolic, meant to soften domestic criticism without changing Germany’s military support for Israel.
6. Why Germany Has So Little Influence Over Israel
Despite its massive economic and military contributions, Germany has almost no real leverage over Israeli policy. Several factors explain this:
a. Historical Guilt
Germany’s political elite remains deeply shaped by post-Holocaust moral responsibility. This often translates into unconditional support for Israel, regardless of circumstance.
The result:
Germany treats moral debt as a permanent foreign-policy doctrine rather than a historical lesson balanced with contemporary ethics.
b. Strategic Dependence
Germany values:
• Israeli intelligence
• Israeli military technology
• Israel’s role as a Western outpost in the Middle East
These interests limit Berlin’s willingness to confront Israeli actions.
c. Domestic Political Consensus
German mainstream parties all support Israel; any criticism is marginalized as politically dangerous.
Thus, even when Germany privately disagrees with Israeli decisions, it rarely dares to challenge them publicly.
7. Ethical Contradictions: Germany’s Weapons and Gaza’s Reality
Germany asserts that it upholds “humanitarian principles.” Yet it continues to supply weapons knowingly used in a war causing immense civilian suffering.
The ethical contradictions are stark:
• How can Germany claim moral responsibility for its past while enabling modern-day civilian harm?
• How can Berlin lecture world democracies on human rights while refusing accountability for weapons exported to an active conflict zone?
• How can Germany insist on “international law” while ignoring the legal concerns raised by humanitarian organizations regarding Israel’s conduct?
This gap between moral rhetoric and real-world actions is the core of Germany’s credibility crisis in the Middle East.
Conclusion
Merz’s visit is not an isolated event—it is part of a long-term pattern. Germany continues to support Israel politically, militarily, and financially, even as global opinion shifts and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens. While Berlin speaks of peace and human rights, its policies empower a government that rejects both.
Germany’s inability—or unwillingness—to influence Israeli strategy exposes the limits of its foreign policy and the contradictions at the heart of its alliance with Israel. As the Middle East changes, Berlin risks finding itself on the wrong side of history once again.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬5
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
According to the report, he engaged in clashes with armed men and was injured while withdrawing from the site.
This appointment has triggered a wave of criticism within Israeli security circles, since Gofman is a military figure from outside the Mossad and closely tied to Netanyahu — raising concerns about politicization of the agency, especially given the current sensitive security situation.
Meanwhile, official bodies have not issued detailed confirmations regarding the circumstances shown in the video.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3🤡1😍1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
“Victory Speech of Martyr Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
(O you who believe, if you support God, He will support you and make your steps firm.)
On the first anniversary of the declaration of victory over ISIS, it is necessary to extend congratulations and blessings to all Iraqis on this great day—the day when the will of Iraq and its people triumphed over ISIS and all its regional and international supporters.
Thanks first go to the issuer of the blessed fatwa, His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, to the great religious authorities, and to the honorable seminary, which had the merit of unleashing the nation’s immense energies.
Foremost gratitude is owed to those who gave us everything—the noble martyrs, the wounded, and the disabled, who were at the forefront of jihad, sacrifice, and martyrdom, and to their patient, steadfast, and selfless families: mothers, wives, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters.
To my brothers and sons in the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), you who achieved victory alongside your brothers in our valiant army, the federal police, the Rapid Response Division, the Counter-Terrorism Forces, and the supporting security services—I say to you: you are the true owners of victory. With your effort, blood, and sacrifices, you achieved what no one could have imagined.
Thanks also go to the builders and supporters of the PMF: the heroic resistance factions, the holy shrines, the parties and groups that contributed to building the PMF formations.
Gratitude and appreciation are extended to all supporters: the noble tribes, the Hussaini processions and organizations, journalists, doctors and medical staff, artists and intellectuals, teachers and students of schools and universities, civil society organizations, and all segments of Iraqi society who contributed with rare generosity. You are all partners in this victory.
Thanks to the successive governments, with their ministries, bodies, and central and local institutions, which played a supportive role in the battle. Thanks also to the Iraqi parliament in its two terms and to the judiciary.
Out of loyalty, we recall the great support provided by the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah.
We have closed the chapter of ISIS militarily and preserved the unity of Iraq—its people and land. As we speak of victory, we in the PMF and in the rest of our armed forces have not and will not overlook the security threat posed by ISIS and its backers.
We still hold the frontlines and borders, monitor the enemy’s movements daily everywhere, and since the declaration of victory last year, we have carried out limited security and military operations to confront ISIS remnants and prevent them from harming our people across Iraq.
During the military operations, and increasingly after the victory, we worked to return our displaced people to their cities and homes, providing as much security as possible and assisting in delivering services in cooperation with local state departments.
Today, the PMF authority is engaged in reorganization, focusing on training, removing offices and camps from cities, and striving to build regular camps for its formations and departments. A significant portion of the PMF’s engineering capabilities has been dedicated since last year to providing services in Mosul, Basra, and other cities.
We work diligently and continuously to spread military, financial, and administrative discipline within the PMF formations and among its members, in line with the high status the PMF holds in the hearts of citizens.
We are always keen that the PMF, with all its formations and members, remain under the law and under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
❤🔥3❤2