The Observer
As a result of the strategic partnership between “Israel” and DP World, Tel Aviv has secured for itself a logistical and intelligence presence at Bab al-Mandab, enabling it to monitor maritime traffic—especially Iranian vessels—and allowing it to establish…
A Front for “Israel”?
DP World constitutes an ideal front for “Israel” because it possesses a global network of relationships that “Israel” itself cannot easily acquire due to many states’ diplomatic sensitivity toward the entity.
Moreover, the UAE’s position as a neutral financial–logistical hub facilitates the penetration of Israeli influence without raising suspicion in the states targeted by Tel Aviv for intelligence expansion. In addition, cooperation between “Israel” and DP World facilitates Israeli intelligence activities through artificial intelligence across a large number of states, while also benefiting from the UAE’s involvement in regional conflicts such as Yemen and the Horn of Africa in ways that serve Israeli strategic interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is strategic alignment between the objectives of “Israel” and those of the UAE. Abu Dhabi seeks to establish a ports empire, particularly in the western basin of the Indian Ocean, while “Israel” aims to control supply chains from Asia to the Mediterranean.
It can therefore be said that, following normalization, DP World has become a regional–international platform for indirect Israeli influence over ports of high geopolitical sensitivity.
This influence is not exercised through the raising of the “Israeli” flag or the direct presence of Israeli companies, but through port acquisitions, supply-chain management, the deployment of Israeli security technologies, and the exchange of maritime data. Taken together, these elements have granted “Israel,” for the first time in its history, a maritime geopolitical expansion stretching from the Strait of Hormuz in the east to East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean in the west.
➡️ Source (click here)
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
DP World constitutes an ideal front for “Israel” because it possesses a global network of relationships that “Israel” itself cannot easily acquire due to many states’ diplomatic sensitivity toward the entity.
Moreover, the UAE’s position as a neutral financial–logistical hub facilitates the penetration of Israeli influence without raising suspicion in the states targeted by Tel Aviv for intelligence expansion. In addition, cooperation between “Israel” and DP World facilitates Israeli intelligence activities through artificial intelligence across a large number of states, while also benefiting from the UAE’s involvement in regional conflicts such as Yemen and the Horn of Africa in ways that serve Israeli strategic interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is strategic alignment between the objectives of “Israel” and those of the UAE. Abu Dhabi seeks to establish a ports empire, particularly in the western basin of the Indian Ocean, while “Israel” aims to control supply chains from Asia to the Mediterranean.
It can therefore be said that, following normalization, DP World has become a regional–international platform for indirect Israeli influence over ports of high geopolitical sensitivity.
This influence is not exercised through the raising of the “Israeli” flag or the direct presence of Israeli companies, but through port acquisitions, supply-chain management, the deployment of Israeli security technologies, and the exchange of maritime data. Taken together, these elements have granted “Israel,” for the first time in its history, a maritime geopolitical expansion stretching from the Strait of Hormuz in the east to East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean in the west.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2🌚2❤1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
THE "FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT": Donald Trump, the Conversion Myth, and the Theology of Permanent War
The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid gossip. They are a symptom of a much deeper, more dangerous pathology in American foreign policy.
Whether Donald Trump has secretly recited the Shema is irrelevant; politically, financially, and militarily, he has become the most effective Zionist operative in history.
This narrative—that Trump is spiritually, if not halakhically, Jewish—is a weaponized myth. It serves to sanctify the genocide in Gaza, legitimize the annexation of the West Bank, and frame the American imperial project in the Middle East not as a strategic choice, but as a divine mandate.
1. The Genesis of the Myth: From Metaphor to "Hidden Truth"
The narrative of Trump’s "Jewish soul" was not born in a synagogue, but in the propaganda mills of the American right. It began during his first term when conservative Zionist commentator Mark Levin famously declared Trump "the first Jewish president."
Levin argued that because Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, converted and his grandchildren are Jewish, and because his policies aligned so perfectly with the Israeli right, he had effectively "converted" in spirit.
* The Kushner Factor:
Jared Kushner, the architect of the disastrous "Deal of the Century," played the role of the bridge. By integrating Trump into the inner circles of Orthodox Jewish high society in New York and Florida, Kushner created an environment where Trump’s identity was fused with Zionist interests.
* The Echo Chamber:
Today, in 2025, this metaphor has mutated. On Telegram channels and Evangelical forums, the claim of a "secret conversion" circulates to explain his fanatical devotion to Israel. It tells his base that his actions are not just political, but covenantal.
2. The Paymasters: Faith or Finance?
While the naive discuss theology, the realist follows the money. The engine behind Trump’s "conversion" to total Zionism is not the Torah, but the Adelson fortune.
* The $106 Million Down Payment:
In the 2024 election cycle, Miriam Adelson became the third-largest donor to Trump’s campaign, contributing over $106 million. This was not charity; it was a transaction. Adelson, who famously advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, did not buy a president; she bought a viceroy for Israel.
* Transactional Theology:
Trump’s policies—from the "Gaza Riviera" plans drafted by the Tony Blair Institute to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Territories—are the direct dividends of this investment. The "Jewish President" narrative effectively launders this bribery, framing corrupt donor influence as "spiritual alignment."
3. The 2025 Reality: The "Cyrus" of the Apocalypse
The irony of the "conversion" rumor is that Trump’s most fervent supporters are not Jews, but Christian Zionists. To figures like Mike Evans and the millions of Evangelicals who form the MAGA base, Trump is not a convert to Judaism, but the modern-day "Cyrus"—a heathen king anointed by God to restore Israel.
* The Theology of Genocide:
This demographic views the wars in Gaza and Lebanon not as humanitarian catastrophes, but as necessary preludes to the End Times. When Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz says "let Israel finish the job," he is speaking to a constituency that believes Israeli military dominance is a biblical requirement.
* The Unholy Alliance:
The "conversion" myth serves to unite these two disparate groups: Right-wing Jewish Zionists see a protector, while Christian Zionists see a prophecy fulfilled. The Palestinians are merely collateral damage in this theological drama.
4. Policy as Proof: The Erasure of Palestine
In his second term, Trump has stripped away the mask of "neutral mediator." The decisions made in late 2024 and throughout 2025 demonstrate a policy of total erasure.
* The "Riviera" Fantasy:
The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid gossip. They are a symptom of a much deeper, more dangerous pathology in American foreign policy.
Whether Donald Trump has secretly recited the Shema is irrelevant; politically, financially, and militarily, he has become the most effective Zionist operative in history.
This narrative—that Trump is spiritually, if not halakhically, Jewish—is a weaponized myth. It serves to sanctify the genocide in Gaza, legitimize the annexation of the West Bank, and frame the American imperial project in the Middle East not as a strategic choice, but as a divine mandate.
1. The Genesis of the Myth: From Metaphor to "Hidden Truth"
The narrative of Trump’s "Jewish soul" was not born in a synagogue, but in the propaganda mills of the American right. It began during his first term when conservative Zionist commentator Mark Levin famously declared Trump "the first Jewish president."
Levin argued that because Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, converted and his grandchildren are Jewish, and because his policies aligned so perfectly with the Israeli right, he had effectively "converted" in spirit.
* The Kushner Factor:
Jared Kushner, the architect of the disastrous "Deal of the Century," played the role of the bridge. By integrating Trump into the inner circles of Orthodox Jewish high society in New York and Florida, Kushner created an environment where Trump’s identity was fused with Zionist interests.
* The Echo Chamber:
Today, in 2025, this metaphor has mutated. On Telegram channels and Evangelical forums, the claim of a "secret conversion" circulates to explain his fanatical devotion to Israel. It tells his base that his actions are not just political, but covenantal.
2. The Paymasters: Faith or Finance?
While the naive discuss theology, the realist follows the money. The engine behind Trump’s "conversion" to total Zionism is not the Torah, but the Adelson fortune.
* The $106 Million Down Payment:
In the 2024 election cycle, Miriam Adelson became the third-largest donor to Trump’s campaign, contributing over $106 million. This was not charity; it was a transaction. Adelson, who famously advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, did not buy a president; she bought a viceroy for Israel.
* Transactional Theology:
Trump’s policies—from the "Gaza Riviera" plans drafted by the Tony Blair Institute to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Occupied Territories—are the direct dividends of this investment. The "Jewish President" narrative effectively launders this bribery, framing corrupt donor influence as "spiritual alignment."
3. The 2025 Reality: The "Cyrus" of the Apocalypse
The irony of the "conversion" rumor is that Trump’s most fervent supporters are not Jews, but Christian Zionists. To figures like Mike Evans and the millions of Evangelicals who form the MAGA base, Trump is not a convert to Judaism, but the modern-day "Cyrus"—a heathen king anointed by God to restore Israel.
* The Theology of Genocide:
This demographic views the wars in Gaza and Lebanon not as humanitarian catastrophes, but as necessary preludes to the End Times. When Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz says "let Israel finish the job," he is speaking to a constituency that believes Israeli military dominance is a biblical requirement.
* The Unholy Alliance:
The "conversion" myth serves to unite these two disparate groups: Right-wing Jewish Zionists see a protector, while Christian Zionists see a prophecy fulfilled. The Palestinians are merely collateral damage in this theological drama.
4. Policy as Proof: The Erasure of Palestine
In his second term, Trump has stripped away the mask of "neutral mediator." The decisions made in late 2024 and throughout 2025 demonstrate a policy of total erasure.
* The "Riviera" Fantasy:
👍5
The Observer
THE "FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT": Donald Trump, the Conversion Myth, and the Theology of Permanent War The rumors circulating on encrypted channels and in the corridors of power regarding Donald Trump’s alleged "conversion" to Judaism are not merely tabloid…
The administration’s endorsement of the Tony Blair Institute’s plan to rebuild Gaza as a "tourism hub"—after ethnically cleansing its population—is the ultimate expression of this cynicism. It treats Gaza not as a homeland, but as a real estate opportunity.
* Sharm el-Sheikh & The Abraham Accords:
The signing of the "Trump 20-Point Peace Plan" in Sharm el-Sheikh (October 2025) was a theatrical display of normalization. By expanding the Abraham Accords, Trump has attempted to construct a regional NATO (the "Middle East Strategic Alliance") designed solely to confront the Axis of Resistance. The "peace" offered is the peace of the graveyard for Palestinian aspirations.
5. Confrontational Analysis: The Strategic Utility of the "Jew" Trump
Why does the establishment allow, or even encourage, these rumors? Because a "Jewish" Trump is shielded from criticism.
* Immunization:
If the President is "culturally Jewish," accusations of antisemitism—often weaponized against critics of Israel—become impossible to stick to him, even as he emboldens white supremacists at home.
* Legitimacy:
For the Zionist entity, having a U.S. President viewed as "one of us" validates their most extreme violations of international law. It turns the occupation from a political dispute into a family affair, where the U.S. cannot intervene because it is "part of the family."
Conclusion:
The Weaponization of Identity
Donald Trump has not converted to Judaism. He has converted to Zionism—a political ideology of supremacy and expansion. The rumors of his religious shift are a smokescreen designed to hide the cold, hard reality of imperial interests. By cloaking $100 million donations and geopolitical maneuvering in religious robes, the U.S. and Israel have manufactured a "Holy War" narrative to justify the permanent subjugation of the region.
Whether he prays to Yahweh, Jesus, or the Almighty Dollar, the result for the Resistance is the same:
the United States remains the Great Satan, and Trump is its most willing executioner.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
* Sharm el-Sheikh & The Abraham Accords:
The signing of the "Trump 20-Point Peace Plan" in Sharm el-Sheikh (October 2025) was a theatrical display of normalization. By expanding the Abraham Accords, Trump has attempted to construct a regional NATO (the "Middle East Strategic Alliance") designed solely to confront the Axis of Resistance. The "peace" offered is the peace of the graveyard for Palestinian aspirations.
5. Confrontational Analysis: The Strategic Utility of the "Jew" Trump
Why does the establishment allow, or even encourage, these rumors? Because a "Jewish" Trump is shielded from criticism.
* Immunization:
If the President is "culturally Jewish," accusations of antisemitism—often weaponized against critics of Israel—become impossible to stick to him, even as he emboldens white supremacists at home.
* Legitimacy:
For the Zionist entity, having a U.S. President viewed as "one of us" validates their most extreme violations of international law. It turns the occupation from a political dispute into a family affair, where the U.S. cannot intervene because it is "part of the family."
Conclusion:
The Weaponization of Identity
Donald Trump has not converted to Judaism. He has converted to Zionism—a political ideology of supremacy and expansion. The rumors of his religious shift are a smokescreen designed to hide the cold, hard reality of imperial interests. By cloaking $100 million donations and geopolitical maneuvering in religious robes, the U.S. and Israel have manufactured a "Holy War" narrative to justify the permanent subjugation of the region.
Whether he prays to Yahweh, Jesus, or the Almighty Dollar, the result for the Resistance is the same:
the United States remains the Great Satan, and Trump is its most willing executioner.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
Energy Hegemony, the Egypt–Israel Gas Deal, and the Political Economy of Managed Arab Dependency
Abstract
The December 2025 approval of a long-term natural gas export agreement between Israel and Egypt—valued at approximately USD 34–35 billion and extending until 2040—marks a decisive turning point in Eastern Mediterranean energy politics. Celebrated by Israeli leadership as the largest economic deal in the state’s history, the agreement consolidates Israel’s position as a regional energy hegemon while transforming Egypt from a former gas exporter into a structurally dependent consumer. This article situates the deal within a broader political economy of energy securitization, normalization, and coercive interdependence. It traces the history of the Leviathan gas field, examines the contractual and geopolitical mechanisms that produced Egypt’s dependency, and analyzes the deal’s economic, political, and moral ramifications—particularly in the context of the ongoing siege of Gaza. A comparative section evaluates the Israel–Lebanon maritime dispute over the Karish and Qana fields, demonstrating how resistance produces limited rights while compliance generates dependency. The article argues that energy has become a primary instrument of regional domination, revealing a wider pattern of managed Arab sovereignty under Israeli and U.S. oversight.
Introduction: The Reversal of Energy Sovereignty
“Egypt conceded gas fields within its own maritime environment to the Israeli occupation, only to return as a supplicant buyer—transforming itself from a rights-holder into a subordinate client.”
This formulation captures the structural reality underlying the Egypt–Israel gas deal ratified by the Israeli government in December 2025. Far from a neutral commercial transaction, the agreement represents a historic reversal in regional energy relations, whereby Egypt—once a major gas producer and exporter—has been repositioned as a long-term consumer of Israeli gas.
According to Reuters, the agreement covers the export of approximately 130 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas from Israel’s Leviathan field to Egypt through 2040, with an estimated total value of USD 34–35 billion. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the agreement as “the largest economic deal in Israel’s history,” a characterization that underscores its strategic importance rather than its commercial neutrality.
This article argues that the deal must be read as part of a broader architecture of domination in which energy operates as a mechanism of normalization, dependency, and political leverage. From the perspective of the axis of resistance, the agreement strengthens Israel’s war economy, deepens Egypt’s fiscal and political vulnerability, and unfolds amid the ongoing siege and destruction of Gaza—without any humanitarian or political conditionality.
The Leviathan Gas Field: Discovery, Control, and Strategic Weaponization
Discovered in 2010, the Leviathan gas field is one of the largest offshore gas discoveries in recent history, with estimated reserves exceeding 620 bcm. Located roughly 130 kilometers west of the Palestinian coast under Israeli control, the field entered commercial production in 2019.
Leviathan is operated by Chevron, alongside Israeli partners NewMed Energy (formerly Delek Drilling) and Ratio Oil Exploration. From its inception, the field was conceptualized not merely as a domestic energy source but as the backbone of a regional export strategy aimed at repositioning Israel as an indispensable energy hub linking Europe, Arab markets, and global LNG supply chains.
Israeli policy discourse and industry reporting consistently framed Leviathan as a strategic asset capable of reshaping regional power relations. Energy, in this context, was never divorced from geopolitics; rather, it became an extension of Israel’s security doctrine through economic means.
Egypt’s Energy Decline: From Exporter to Importer
The Illusion of Self-Sufficiency
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3
The Observer
The discovery of Egypt’s Zohr gas field in 2015 briefly appeared to counterbalance Israel’s rise as a gas exporter. Egyptian authorities proclaimed energy self-sufficiency and promoted Egypt as a regional energy hub. Yet this narrative obscured deeper structural weaknesses, including declining production in older fields, chronic underinvestment, rapid domestic demand growth, and severe fiscal constraints.
By the early 2020s, Egypt’s gas surplus had eroded. LNG exports fluctuated, electricity shortages re-emerged, and the state increasingly relied on external borrowing rather than long-term sectoral reform.
Contractual Dependency and the Road to 2025
The first decisive shift occurred in 2018, when Egypt began importing Israeli gas through private intermediaries such as Dolphinus Holdings. This was not a temporary measure but the institutionalization of dependency.
The August 2025 Leviathan–Egypt agreement, formally approved in December, locked Egypt into a 15-year purchase commitment, guaranteeing Israel a stable export market regardless of political or regional developments.
Egyptian pipelines and LNG facilities now serve Israeli exports, effectively transforming Egyptian infrastructure into a logistical extension of Israel’s energy strategy.
Economic Consequences for Egypt: Debt, Dependency, and Sovereignty Erosion
The deal imposes significant long-term costs on Egypt’s already fragile economy. Payments are largely denominated in foreign currency, exacerbating Egypt’s balance-of-payments crisis at a time of acute dollar shortages, high inflation, and mounting external debt.
Energy costs will either be transferred to consumers—through higher electricity and fuel prices—or absorbed by the state via subsidies, deepening fiscal deficits. In either scenario, the social burden will fall disproportionately on ordinary Egyptians.
Beyond economics, the deal represents a profound erosion of energy sovereignty. When electricity generation and industrial production depend on gas supplied by a historically hostile state, political autonomy becomes structurally constrained. Energy dependency thus translates directly into political vulnerability.
Israel’s Gains: Revenue, Leverage, and the War Economy
Israel emerges as the unequivocal beneficiary. The deal guarantees:
• USD 34–35 billion in long-term revenues
• Stable demand through 2040
• Enhanced geopolitical leverage over Egypt
• Expanded credibility as a global energy supplier
According to the Financial Times, Israeli state revenues from taxation and royalties will significantly boost public finances. These revenues directly support Israel’s military and security sectors, particularly during a period of prolonged warfare.
In effect, Egyptian energy consumption becomes a financial pillar of Israel’s war economy.
The Karish–Qana Dispute: Lebanon, Managed Rights, and Contained Sovereignty
The Egypt–Israel gas arrangement must be contextualized alongside another pivotal Eastern Mediterranean case: the maritime dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Karish and Qana (Sidon) gas fields.
Karish, located south of the disputed maritime line, was unilaterally developed by Israel and entered production in 2022 under Energean. Lebanon objected to Israeli extraction prior to demarcation, warning that unilateral production constituted an act of aggression.
Under the U.S.-mediated agreement of October 2022:
• Israel retained full rights to Karish
• Lebanon secured exploration rights over Qana
• Israel is entitled to indirect financial compensation from any Qana revenues, paid via the operating company TotalEnergies
Has Lebanon Secured Its Rights?
Legally, Lebanon did obtain internationally recognized exploration rights without formal normalization with Israel—unlike Egypt. No direct gas trade or long-term dependency was created. However, Lebanon’s gains remain partial and constrained.
As of 2025, Lebanon has not extracted a single cubic meter of gas from Qana.
By the early 2020s, Egypt’s gas surplus had eroded. LNG exports fluctuated, electricity shortages re-emerged, and the state increasingly relied on external borrowing rather than long-term sectoral reform.
Contractual Dependency and the Road to 2025
The first decisive shift occurred in 2018, when Egypt began importing Israeli gas through private intermediaries such as Dolphinus Holdings. This was not a temporary measure but the institutionalization of dependency.
The August 2025 Leviathan–Egypt agreement, formally approved in December, locked Egypt into a 15-year purchase commitment, guaranteeing Israel a stable export market regardless of political or regional developments.
Egyptian pipelines and LNG facilities now serve Israeli exports, effectively transforming Egyptian infrastructure into a logistical extension of Israel’s energy strategy.
Economic Consequences for Egypt: Debt, Dependency, and Sovereignty Erosion
The deal imposes significant long-term costs on Egypt’s already fragile economy. Payments are largely denominated in foreign currency, exacerbating Egypt’s balance-of-payments crisis at a time of acute dollar shortages, high inflation, and mounting external debt.
Energy costs will either be transferred to consumers—through higher electricity and fuel prices—or absorbed by the state via subsidies, deepening fiscal deficits. In either scenario, the social burden will fall disproportionately on ordinary Egyptians.
Beyond economics, the deal represents a profound erosion of energy sovereignty. When electricity generation and industrial production depend on gas supplied by a historically hostile state, political autonomy becomes structurally constrained. Energy dependency thus translates directly into political vulnerability.
Israel’s Gains: Revenue, Leverage, and the War Economy
Israel emerges as the unequivocal beneficiary. The deal guarantees:
• USD 34–35 billion in long-term revenues
• Stable demand through 2040
• Enhanced geopolitical leverage over Egypt
• Expanded credibility as a global energy supplier
According to the Financial Times, Israeli state revenues from taxation and royalties will significantly boost public finances. These revenues directly support Israel’s military and security sectors, particularly during a period of prolonged warfare.
In effect, Egyptian energy consumption becomes a financial pillar of Israel’s war economy.
The Karish–Qana Dispute: Lebanon, Managed Rights, and Contained Sovereignty
The Egypt–Israel gas arrangement must be contextualized alongside another pivotal Eastern Mediterranean case: the maritime dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Karish and Qana (Sidon) gas fields.
Karish, located south of the disputed maritime line, was unilaterally developed by Israel and entered production in 2022 under Energean. Lebanon objected to Israeli extraction prior to demarcation, warning that unilateral production constituted an act of aggression.
Under the U.S.-mediated agreement of October 2022:
• Israel retained full rights to Karish
• Lebanon secured exploration rights over Qana
• Israel is entitled to indirect financial compensation from any Qana revenues, paid via the operating company TotalEnergies
Has Lebanon Secured Its Rights?
Legally, Lebanon did obtain internationally recognized exploration rights without formal normalization with Israel—unlike Egypt. No direct gas trade or long-term dependency was created. However, Lebanon’s gains remain partial and constrained.
As of 2025, Lebanon has not extracted a single cubic meter of gas from Qana.
👍3
The Observer
The discovery of Egypt’s Zohr gas field in 2015 briefly appeared to counterbalance Israel’s rise as a gas exporter. Egyptian authorities proclaimed energy self-sufficiency and promoted Egypt as a regional energy hub. Yet this narrative obscured deeper structural…
Exploration remains subject to corporate hesitation, geopolitical instability, and Western political pressure. Meanwhile, Israel’s production from Karish and Leviathan is immediate, monetized, and export-oriented.
Lebanon has secured legal access, not energy sovereignty.
Comparison with Egypt
Crucially, Lebanon’s limited gains were inseparable from deterrence. Negotiations accelerated only after credible resistance threats during the Karish standoff. Egypt, by contrast, negotiated from a position of compliance, not leverage.
Gaza and the Moral Rupture of Energy Normalization
The gas deal was approved while Gaza remained under total siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, and humanitarian relief. Energy, in this context, is not neutral; it is weaponized.
Despite claiming a mediating role, Egypt did not condition the agreement on lifting the siege or guaranteeing humanitarian access. From the axis-of-resistance perspective, this constitutes economic complicity and normalization amid mass civilian suffering.
Energy as Hegemony: A Political Economy Reading
The Egypt–Israel gas deal exemplifies energy securitization: the transformation of natural resources into instruments of coercion, discipline, and normalization. Israel’s gas exports function simultaneously as:
• A normalization mechanism
• A source of war financing
• A tool of regional leverage
This reflects a neo-colonial pattern in which peripheral states provide infrastructure and markets while dominant powers extract value and impose structural constraints.
Conclusion: Against the Geography of Subordination
The Egypt–Israel gas deal is not simply an economic contract; it is a strategic architecture that reshapes regional power relations. It converts Egypt into a dependent consumer, finances Israeli militarism, and proceeds without regard for Gaza’s suffering.
The Lebanon case demonstrates that resistance can extract limited rights, while Egypt’s experience shows that compliance produces dependency. Energy sovereignty, the article concludes, cannot be separated from political leverage.
A state that imports its energy from its occupier does not merely lose resources—it forfeits decision-making itself.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Lebanon has secured legal access, not energy sovereignty.
Comparison with Egypt
Crucially, Lebanon’s limited gains were inseparable from deterrence. Negotiations accelerated only after credible resistance threats during the Karish standoff. Egypt, by contrast, negotiated from a position of compliance, not leverage.
Gaza and the Moral Rupture of Energy Normalization
The gas deal was approved while Gaza remained under total siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, and humanitarian relief. Energy, in this context, is not neutral; it is weaponized.
Despite claiming a mediating role, Egypt did not condition the agreement on lifting the siege or guaranteeing humanitarian access. From the axis-of-resistance perspective, this constitutes economic complicity and normalization amid mass civilian suffering.
Energy as Hegemony: A Political Economy Reading
The Egypt–Israel gas deal exemplifies energy securitization: the transformation of natural resources into instruments of coercion, discipline, and normalization. Israel’s gas exports function simultaneously as:
• A normalization mechanism
• A source of war financing
• A tool of regional leverage
This reflects a neo-colonial pattern in which peripheral states provide infrastructure and markets while dominant powers extract value and impose structural constraints.
Conclusion: Against the Geography of Subordination
The Egypt–Israel gas deal is not simply an economic contract; it is a strategic architecture that reshapes regional power relations. It converts Egypt into a dependent consumer, finances Israeli militarism, and proceeds without regard for Gaza’s suffering.
The Lebanon case demonstrates that resistance can extract limited rights, while Egypt’s experience shows that compliance produces dependency. Energy sovereignty, the article concludes, cannot be separated from political leverage.
A state that imports its energy from its occupier does not merely lose resources—it forfeits decision-making itself.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The Occupied Syrian Golan: From Military Occupation to Political Commodification by Netanyahu, Trump, and Arab Normalization
The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied territory, but as a litmus test for the credibility of international law and the principle of sovereignty. Since 1967, the Golan has been transformed into a strategic, security, and economic asset for Israel, while being politically frozen under U.S. protection and Arab fragmentation.
1. The Golan: Syrian Territory Under History and International Law
Prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War, the Golan Heights were an integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic, administered militarily and civilly from Damascus and populated by dozens of Syrian villages. During the war, Israel occupied most of the plateau, forcibly displacing its inhabitants.
In 1981, the Israeli Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, imposing Israeli law and administration on the occupied territory in a unilateral act of annexation. The UN Security Council responded unanimously with Resolution 497, declaring the annexation “null and void and without international legal effect,” reaffirming that the Golan remains Syrian territory under occupation. However, the absence of enforcement mechanisms allowed Israel to consolidate occupation as a fait accompli.
2. Netanyahu: Institutionalizing Occupation as ‘Sovereignty’
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Golan Heights are not merely a buffer zone but a core pillar of Israel’s security doctrine and a nationalist political symbol. Throughout 2024–2025, Netanyahu repeatedly asserted that the Golan “will always remain part of Israel,” framing permanent control as a security necessity.
Just days ago, in mid-December 2025, Netanyahu once again publicly reaffirmed that the Golan Heights are part of Israel—reiterating a long-standing position rather than announcing a new legal reality. These statements aim to normalize annexation politically, despite its continued illegality under international law.
3. Trump’s 18 December 2025 Decision: ‘Granting Rights of Sovereignty’
On 18 December 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had signed a decision granting Israel what he described as “rights of sovereignty” over the Syrian Golan Heights. Speaking from the White House, Trump stated that he made the decision after realizing the strategic importance of the territory.
While politically significant, this move does not alter the international legal status of the Golan. Under UN resolutions and international consensus, the territory remains occupied Syrian land. The recognition reflects U.S. unilateralism rather than any lawful change in sovereignty.
4. Trump and the ‘Trillions of Dollars’ Remark
In widely circulated remarks, Trump later admitted that when he initially recognized Israeli control over the Golan, he believed it to be a minor issue—only to discover afterward that the territory was “worth trillions of dollars.” The statement exposed the transactional mindset behind the decision, highlighting interests tied to water resources, agriculture, strategic elevation, and potential natural wealth.
These remarks underscored that the recognition was driven by geopolitical and economic calculations, not legal or ethical considerations.
5. Syria After the War: A Vacuum Exploited
Although the Golan was occupied in 1967, Syria’s prolonged war after 2011 significantly weakened the state’s ability to impose deterrence in the south. Israel exploited this condition to expand control beyond the 1974 Disengagement Line, occupy demilitarized zones, and conduct hundreds of air operations under the pretext of countering Iranian and allied forces.
Claims that the Golan was lost due to Syria’s internal collapse are misleading; the occupation predates the war by decades. Nevertheless, the conflict provided Israel with unprecedented freedom to entrench its hold.
6. Who Lives in the Golan Today?
The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied territory, but as a litmus test for the credibility of international law and the principle of sovereignty. Since 1967, the Golan has been transformed into a strategic, security, and economic asset for Israel, while being politically frozen under U.S. protection and Arab fragmentation.
1. The Golan: Syrian Territory Under History and International Law
Prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War, the Golan Heights were an integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic, administered militarily and civilly from Damascus and populated by dozens of Syrian villages. During the war, Israel occupied most of the plateau, forcibly displacing its inhabitants.
In 1981, the Israeli Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, imposing Israeli law and administration on the occupied territory in a unilateral act of annexation. The UN Security Council responded unanimously with Resolution 497, declaring the annexation “null and void and without international legal effect,” reaffirming that the Golan remains Syrian territory under occupation. However, the absence of enforcement mechanisms allowed Israel to consolidate occupation as a fait accompli.
2. Netanyahu: Institutionalizing Occupation as ‘Sovereignty’
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Golan Heights are not merely a buffer zone but a core pillar of Israel’s security doctrine and a nationalist political symbol. Throughout 2024–2025, Netanyahu repeatedly asserted that the Golan “will always remain part of Israel,” framing permanent control as a security necessity.
Just days ago, in mid-December 2025, Netanyahu once again publicly reaffirmed that the Golan Heights are part of Israel—reiterating a long-standing position rather than announcing a new legal reality. These statements aim to normalize annexation politically, despite its continued illegality under international law.
3. Trump’s 18 December 2025 Decision: ‘Granting Rights of Sovereignty’
On 18 December 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had signed a decision granting Israel what he described as “rights of sovereignty” over the Syrian Golan Heights. Speaking from the White House, Trump stated that he made the decision after realizing the strategic importance of the territory.
While politically significant, this move does not alter the international legal status of the Golan. Under UN resolutions and international consensus, the territory remains occupied Syrian land. The recognition reflects U.S. unilateralism rather than any lawful change in sovereignty.
4. Trump and the ‘Trillions of Dollars’ Remark
In widely circulated remarks, Trump later admitted that when he initially recognized Israeli control over the Golan, he believed it to be a minor issue—only to discover afterward that the territory was “worth trillions of dollars.” The statement exposed the transactional mindset behind the decision, highlighting interests tied to water resources, agriculture, strategic elevation, and potential natural wealth.
These remarks underscored that the recognition was driven by geopolitical and economic calculations, not legal or ethical considerations.
5. Syria After the War: A Vacuum Exploited
Although the Golan was occupied in 1967, Syria’s prolonged war after 2011 significantly weakened the state’s ability to impose deterrence in the south. Israel exploited this condition to expand control beyond the 1974 Disengagement Line, occupy demilitarized zones, and conduct hundreds of air operations under the pretext of countering Iranian and allied forces.
Claims that the Golan was lost due to Syria’s internal collapse are misleading; the occupation predates the war by decades. Nevertheless, the conflict provided Israel with unprecedented freedom to entrench its hold.
6. Who Lives in the Golan Today?
👍6
The Observer
The Occupied Syrian Golan: From Military Occupation to Political Commodification by Netanyahu, Trump, and Arab Normalization The occupied Syrian Golan Heights remains one of the most enduring unresolved issues in the Arab–Zionist conflict—not merely as occupied…
Approximately 50,000 people currently live in the occupied Golan Heights. They include:
• Israeli Jewish settlers residing in illegal settlements
• Syrian Arab Druze communities, many of whom continue to reject Israeli citizenship and maintain their Syrian identity
Israel pursues gradual “Israelization” through education, infrastructure, and economic integration, but societal and political resistance persists.
7. Strategic and Security Significance: Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine
From Israel’s perspective, the Golan provides:
• Military oversight of southern Syria
• Strategic depth against Syria and Lebanon
• A forward pressure point against the Axis of Resistance
From the resistance viewpoint, the Golan functions as an advanced platform for threatening Syrian and Lebanese territory and as a cornerstone of Israel’s doctrine of domination rather than deterrence.
8. The Golan and Arab Normalization: From Silence to Complicity
The Arab silence following U.S. recognition of Israeli control over the Golan in 2019, and its renewal in 2025, cannot be separated from the broader regional shift represented by Arab normalization agreements, particularly the Abraham Accords.
Before normalization, the Golan was at least nominally referenced in Arab League statements. After normalization, it became a politically inconvenient issue. Any serious demand for its return would require confrontation with Israel and the United States—something normalization-oriented regimes are no longer willing to pursue.
More dangerously, normalization has contributed to normalizing the occupation itself, recasting Israel as a legitimate regional “security partner” with alleged rights in the Golan to counter Iran and resistance forces. Thus, the Golan has shifted from occupied Syrian land to an Israeli security asset tacitly accepted by parts of the Arab political order.
From the Axis of Resistance perspective, Israeli entrenchment in the Golan cannot be separated from normalization, which stripped occupation of its political cost and rendered international law selectively irrelevant.
9. Why the UN Has Failed to Restore the Territory
Despite clear UN resolutions, no Israeli withdrawal has occurred due to:
1. The U.S. veto, which blocks enforcement in the Security Council
2. Arab political fragmentation and the shift from confrontation to normalization
3. Syria’s exhaustion after years of war, limiting diplomatic leverage
10. Conclusion: The Golan Is an Open Struggle, Not a Closed File
The occupied Syrian Golan is not a settled issue. Under international law, it remains Syrian territory, regardless of U.S. declarations in 2019 or 18 December 2025, or Netanyahu’s repeated assertions days ago.
Trump’s admission of the Golan’s “trillion-dollar value” exposes the essence of the issue: organized land and resource appropriation under the logic of power. For the Axis of Resistance, the Golan will remain a central front in the struggle for sovereignty and liberation—not a forgotten line in UN archives.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
• Israeli Jewish settlers residing in illegal settlements
• Syrian Arab Druze communities, many of whom continue to reject Israeli citizenship and maintain their Syrian identity
Israel pursues gradual “Israelization” through education, infrastructure, and economic integration, but societal and political resistance persists.
7. Strategic and Security Significance: Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine
From Israel’s perspective, the Golan provides:
• Military oversight of southern Syria
• Strategic depth against Syria and Lebanon
• A forward pressure point against the Axis of Resistance
From the resistance viewpoint, the Golan functions as an advanced platform for threatening Syrian and Lebanese territory and as a cornerstone of Israel’s doctrine of domination rather than deterrence.
8. The Golan and Arab Normalization: From Silence to Complicity
The Arab silence following U.S. recognition of Israeli control over the Golan in 2019, and its renewal in 2025, cannot be separated from the broader regional shift represented by Arab normalization agreements, particularly the Abraham Accords.
Before normalization, the Golan was at least nominally referenced in Arab League statements. After normalization, it became a politically inconvenient issue. Any serious demand for its return would require confrontation with Israel and the United States—something normalization-oriented regimes are no longer willing to pursue.
More dangerously, normalization has contributed to normalizing the occupation itself, recasting Israel as a legitimate regional “security partner” with alleged rights in the Golan to counter Iran and resistance forces. Thus, the Golan has shifted from occupied Syrian land to an Israeli security asset tacitly accepted by parts of the Arab political order.
From the Axis of Resistance perspective, Israeli entrenchment in the Golan cannot be separated from normalization, which stripped occupation of its political cost and rendered international law selectively irrelevant.
9. Why the UN Has Failed to Restore the Territory
Despite clear UN resolutions, no Israeli withdrawal has occurred due to:
1. The U.S. veto, which blocks enforcement in the Security Council
2. Arab political fragmentation and the shift from confrontation to normalization
3. Syria’s exhaustion after years of war, limiting diplomatic leverage
10. Conclusion: The Golan Is an Open Struggle, Not a Closed File
The occupied Syrian Golan is not a settled issue. Under international law, it remains Syrian territory, regardless of U.S. declarations in 2019 or 18 December 2025, or Netanyahu’s repeated assertions days ago.
Trump’s admission of the Golan’s “trillion-dollar value” exposes the essence of the issue: organized land and resource appropriation under the logic of power. For the Axis of Resistance, the Golan will remain a central front in the struggle for sovereignty and liberation—not a forgotten line in UN archives.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍6
The current discourse surrounding Donald Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize is not a harmless diplomatic joke; it is a manifestation of a terrifying moral collapse. Trump’s frantic pursuit of this prize represents the height of imperial arrogance, but the true catastrophe lies in those "regional" voices who legitimize this obsession, forgetting that this man's hands still drip with the blood of the Leaders of Victory (Qadat al-Nasr).
1. Trump: A Butcher Seeking an Acquittal
For Trump, peace is not the end of wars or the establishment of justice; it is a "deal" enforced through economic terrorism and treacherous assassinations. How can a killer who openly ordered the cowardly missile attack targeting the martyrs Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis dare to utter the word "peace"? His obsession with the Nobel is a desperate attempt to wash away his war crimes with international "prestige," transforming the blood of the martyrs into a mere hurdle cleared on his path to personal "greatness."
2. The Nobel: A History of Whitewashing Killers
It is no wonder Trump covets this prize; he is preceded by war criminals whose hands were no less bloodied than his. From Henry Kissinger, the architect of massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia, to Barack Obama, who received it while his drones harvested innocent lives in Yemen and Libya. The "Nobel" has never been about peace; it has always been a reward for the brute force that serves Western interests. Trump realizes that the criterion is not morality, but the ability to impose hegemony and wrap it in a fraudulent "diplomatic" veil.
3. The Fall of the "Diplomats": Betraying the Covenant and the Martyrs’ Blood
Here emerges the filthiest aspect of this scene: the sycophancy of figures like Abbas Araghchi and Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani toward this repulsive idea. For these individuals to suggest—whether publicly or in closed rooms—that Trump "deserves" the prize because he is a "dealmaker" or because he "did not start new wars" is a vile and blatant betrayal of the memory of the martyrs Soleimani and Muhandis.
How dare a
FM of a country that supported the "Axis of Resistance" or a Prime Minister of a country that embraced the blood of the Leaders of Victory offer "political gifts" to their murderer? These endorsements are not "pragmatism" or "diplomatic tactics"; they are psychological defeat and a groveling submission to the executioner. Claiming Trump is a "man of peace" is a second stabbing in the chests of the martyrs and a pathetic attempt to beg for his favor to ease sanctions or gain false legitimacy at the expense of national dignity.
4. The FIFA Farce and the Commodification of Blood
The "FIFA Peace Prize" awarded to Trump completes this theater of the absurd. The transformation of sporting institutions into tools for whitewashing the image of killers proves that "peace" has become a commodity to be bought and sold. These packaged awards are successive slaps to the faces of the orphans and widows who lost their loved ones due to Trump’s reckless decisions. The peace promoted by Infantino and Trump is the peace of the graveyard, where the victim is silenced and the killer is honored in lavish celebrations.
5. Conclusion: No Peace with Killers
Trump’s Nobel obsession, and the complicity of the "half-men" among regional politicians in polishing his image, reveals a global moral bankruptcy. "Peace" under American hegemony is nothing but disguised surrender.
The blood of Soleimani and Muhandis will continue to haunt Trump and everyone who tries to exonerate him under the guise of false "peace." Whoever shakes the hand that pressed the button of assassination, or praises it, is a partner in the crime. Neither "Nobel" nor "FIFA" will wash away the shame of murder, and history will not forgive those who traded the blood of martyrs for a faded diplomatic smile toward their killer.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
The "Caliphate’s" Silence vs. Canberra’s Outcry: The Bondi Beach Operation Mystery
While the Australian government issues continuous statements confirming "ISIS" responsibility for the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney (December 14, 2025)—which resulted in 15 deaths—the latest "Harvest of Soldiers" (Al-Naba) infographic remains completely void of any reference to this operation, despite its perceived "strategic importance."
Geopolitical Observations:
* Operational Disconnect: The organization focuses its statistics on "Core" and "Active Peripheral" provinces (West Africa, Central Africa, Syria, Iraq, and the Sahel), while ignoring external operations that Western governments attribute to them.
* Delayed Adoption Policy: The organization often avoids including "inspired" operations in its official weekly harvest unless they have confirmed a pledge of allegiance (Bay'ah) or a "will video," preferring to highlight the daily wars of attrition in Africa, which accounted for the vast majority of casualties in this issue (44 killed/wounded).
Questions for the Reader:
* Why does the Australian government insist on immediately attributing the operation to ISIS (based on flags found in the suspects' vehicle), while the organization refrains from mentioning it in its official harvest? Is it because he has also been pictured with a salafi preacher taking classes with him ?
* Are we looking at "lone wolves" operating so independently that the central leadership lacks the details to include them, or are there security reasons preventing the organization from announcing it now?
*Is there a possibility that it was a revenge attack because of the atrocities that were committed in Gaza ?
*Does this silence serve the organization's narrative of exhausting the West's security apparatus without providing direct threads of evidence?
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The recurring spectacle of Donald Trump’s obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize is often dismissed as a quirk of his personal vanity. However, viewed through the lens of critical geopolitics, this fixation reveals a deeper, more systemic rot: the complete collapse of international "peace" awards into instruments of imperial legitimacy and corporate branding. Trump does not want the Nobel because he values peace; he wants it because, in the contemporary global order, "peace" has been hollowed out and refashioned as a transactional asset—a trophy for those who successfully enforce stability through coercion.
1. Trump and the Politics of Recognition
For Trump, the Nobel is the ultimate validation in a lifelong "politics of recognition." In his worldview, peace is not a condition of justice or the absence of structural violence; it is a "deal." Whether through the Abraham Accords or summits with adversarial leaders, Trump frames diplomacy as a high-stakes real estate transaction where the prize serves as the final receipt.
This is the securitization of peace: the belief that stability is achieved not through international law, but through the "maximum pressure" of a hegemon who decides which actors are "normalized" and which are liquidated. By equating his signature on a piece of paper with the resolution of century-old colonial conflicts, Trump transforms the ethical imperative of peace into a spectacle of ego, demanding the Nobel as a "payoff" for his service to the imperial status quo.
2. A Legacy of Moral Bankruptcy
Trump’s critics often claim he would "tarnish" the Nobel, yet history suggests the prize was tarnished long ago. The Nobel institution has a long-standing habit of rewarding power rather than principled peacebuilding:
* **Henry Kissinger (1973): Awarded while overseeing the carpet-bombing of Cambodia and supporting military juntas in Latin America.
* Barack Obama (2009): Handed an "advance" prize for his oratory, only to oversee a massive surge in drone warfare and the destruction of Libya.
* The 2025 "Crisis": The recent awarding of the prize to figures like María Corina Machado—who has openly called for military intervention and sanctions against her own country—confirms that the Nobel Committee has abandoned even the pretense of non-violence.
These precedents have created a vacuum of moral authority. Trump’s obsession is merely an honest reflection of what the prize has become: a tool for Western geopolitical alignment.
3. Tactical Endorsements: The Logic of Regional Actors
It is a profound irony of modern diplomacy that figures within the "Axis of Resistance" or its periphery—such as Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi or Iraq’s Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani—have been linked to the idea of a Trump Nobel. These are not moral endorsements; they are tactical maneuvers in a world of asymmetric power.
For regional leaders, suggesting Trump deserves a prize for "not starting new wars" is a diplomatic gambit designed to:
* Incentivize Restraint: Encouraging Trump’s vanity to prevent further military escalations or "maximum pressure" campaigns.
* Expose Western Hypocrisy: By suggesting Trump is as "deserving" as Obama or Kissinger, they highlight the absurdity of the award itself.
* Sanctions Politics: Framing peace as a transactional win for Trump provides him a "golden bridge" to de-escalate sanctions without appearing weak to his domestic base.
4. The FIFA "Peace Prize" Farce
The absurdity reached its zenith with the creation of the FIFA Peace Prize in late 2025. Awarded to Trump by Gianni Infantino amidst the backdrop of the 2026 World Cup preparations, this "award" represents the final commodification of peace. When political institutions like the Nobel Committee fail to satisfy the ego of the hegemon, corporate and sporting bodies step in to provide a substitute.
This "FIFA Peace" is a public relations product.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The Observer
It ignores the displacement of populations, the expansion of surveillance, and the silencing of dissent, opting instead for a glossy video package that equates "unity" with the expansion of market shares. It is the ultimate dilution of the concept: peace as a luxury brand.
5. From Peace to Performance: The Global Disorder
Trump’s Nobel obsession is the logical conclusion of a global governance system that has replaced accountability with optics. We no longer live in an era where peace prizes celebrate the cessation of violence; we live in an era where they reward the performance of power.
The crisis of the Nobel is the crisis of the liberal international order. When "peace" can be claimed by those who oversee genocides, enforce starvation sanctions, or utilize sports-washing to mask authoritarianism, the word itself loses all meaning. Trump is not the one who broke the Nobel Peace Prize; he is the one who recognized it was already for sale and simply asked for the bill.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
5. From Peace to Performance: The Global Disorder
Trump’s Nobel obsession is the logical conclusion of a global governance system that has replaced accountability with optics. We no longer live in an era where peace prizes celebrate the cessation of violence; we live in an era where they reward the performance of power.
The crisis of the Nobel is the crisis of the liberal international order. When "peace" can be claimed by those who oversee genocides, enforce starvation sanctions, or utilize sports-washing to mask authoritarianism, the word itself loses all meaning. Trump is not the one who broke the Nobel Peace Prize; he is the one who recognized it was already for sale and simply asked for the bill.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Zionist entity has stripped away the last mask of "surgical precision." While Western media parrots talking points about "self-defense," the reality on the ground is a cold, calculated experiment in automated slaughter.
This is no longer just a war of occupation; it is the world’s first AI-managed genocide.
1. The UN Indictment: “Where’s Daddy?”
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese—one of the few international voices with the courage to name the crime—has exposed the horrifying reality of the system dubbed “Where’s Daddy?” This AI program is designed not to find combatants on the battlefield, but to track Palestinian men to their homes. The algorithm waits until the "target" enters their residence to alert the military. The result is the deliberate assassination of entire families. This is not "collateral damage"; it is a pre-planned war crime. By automating the kill chain, the IOF has transformed the family home into a primary strike zone, turning the sacred space of the family into a digital death trap.
2. Dehumanization by Data
The use of systems like Lavender and The Gospel marks a moral collapse. In Gaza, life and death are now decided by data points—WhatsApp group memberships, social media connections, and movement patterns.
* Lavender: An AI database that identified up to 37,000 Palestinians as "targets" with little to no human verification.
* The Gospel: A "target factory" that generates bombing recommendations at a speed no human can match, ensuring the destruction of civilian infrastructure remains constant.
When a machine selects who dies, the "human bottleneck" of conscience is removed. Gaza has become a laboratory where the Zionist entity tests these digital tools of terror, perfecting a model of surveillance colonialism to be sold to other oppressive regimes tomorrow.
3. The Profiteers of Blood: Corporate Complicity
This automated killing machine is fueled by the giants of Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex of the West.
* Palantir (USA):
Provides real-time AI battlefield systems and predictive policing, with its leadership openly pledging total support for the occupation.
* Google & Amazon (USA):
Through Project Nimbus, they provide the cloud infrastructure and AI tools that power the occupation’s surveillance and targeting capabilities.
* Elbit Systems & Rafael (Occupied Palestine):
Produce the "SkyStriker" drones and autonomous missile systems that execute the algorithm’s commands.
* Microsoft (USA):
Implicated in providing the Azure cloud services and engineering support used by elite units like 8200.
These companies are not "neutral" tech providers; they are active participants in the liquidation of the Palestinian people. They profit from every data point collected from the ruins of Gaza.
4. From Gaza to Lebanon: The Expanding Laboratory
The world must realize that this is a regional doctrine. The same logic of techno-colonial warfare was seen in the pager terror attacks in Lebanon, where civilian infrastructure and personal devices were turned into remote-controlled bombs.
The "Axis of Resistance" is not just fighting soldiers on a front line; we are confronting a global network of surveillance, data warfare, and imperial protection that seeks to automate the submission of entire nations.
5. The Legal & Political Vacuum
Western governments remain silent because they are the investors in this technology. They view the Palestinian people as "test subjects" for the next generation of warfare. International law has not "failed"; it has been deliberately sidelined by those who write the code and provide the bombs.
Gaza is the 21st century's first fully AI-managed genocide.
What the Zionist entity is normalizing today—the right of an algorithm to exterminate a family in their sleep—is the blueprint for future imperial wars across the globe.
The Resistance remains the only barrier against this dehumanized future.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2👏2
🔻 Statement Issued by the Syrian Resistance
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
To our dear brothers in the land of Ali and Hussein,
Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you,
For fifteen years we have stood side by side, fought shoulder to shoulder, and our blood has mingled in the arenas of honor and dignity. Our cause remains one: the cause of truth, freedom, and the defense of the nation.
Brothers, the issue of handing over weapons does not concern you alone; it is a matter that affects the entire Axis of Resistance. The weapons that they seek to strip from you today are the very weapons we in Syria are in dire need of. If surrendered, they will fall into the hands of the Golani gangs, who kill and annihilate our people through dubious deals sponsored by foreign powers.
Neglecting this matter does not befit your honorable history nor your shining path. It would be a chapter filled with disgrace and shame, tarnishing the heroic sacrifices you have inscribed.
We have known you as valiant fighters, brave men not deceived by this fleeting world, who never bargain over the blood of martyrs or the rights of the nation. We in the Syrian Resistance declare our full readiness to volunteer under your leadership to defend your weapons, for they do not belong to one faction alone. They are the right of all sons of the Axis of Resistance, a sacred duty that must not be abandoned in exchange for positions or fleeting gains.
So proceed as we have always known you: loyal to the cause, steadfast in the face of pressure, holding firmly to your weapons, which are the symbol of your honor and dignity.
Syrian Resistance
December 23, 2025
In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate
To our dear brothers in the land of Ali and Hussein,
Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you,
For fifteen years we have stood side by side, fought shoulder to shoulder, and our blood has mingled in the arenas of honor and dignity. Our cause remains one: the cause of truth, freedom, and the defense of the nation.
Brothers, the issue of handing over weapons does not concern you alone; it is a matter that affects the entire Axis of Resistance. The weapons that they seek to strip from you today are the very weapons we in Syria are in dire need of. If surrendered, they will fall into the hands of the Golani gangs, who kill and annihilate our people through dubious deals sponsored by foreign powers.
Neglecting this matter does not befit your honorable history nor your shining path. It would be a chapter filled with disgrace and shame, tarnishing the heroic sacrifices you have inscribed.
We have known you as valiant fighters, brave men not deceived by this fleeting world, who never bargain over the blood of martyrs or the rights of the nation. We in the Syrian Resistance declare our full readiness to volunteer under your leadership to defend your weapons, for they do not belong to one faction alone. They are the right of all sons of the Axis of Resistance, a sacred duty that must not be abandoned in exchange for positions or fleeting gains.
So proceed as we have always known you: loyal to the cause, steadfast in the face of pressure, holding firmly to your weapons, which are the symbol of your honor and dignity.
Syrian Resistance
December 23, 2025
💔5
Timing Policy: Why Is the Issue of the Hashd and Weapons Being Raised Now?
The real question is not: Should weapons be monopolized by the state?
But rather: Why is this file being opened now, specifically? Who determines its timing? And in the interest of which political or regional project?
Timing here is not a technical detail, but a high-level political decision. It reflects a shift in the conflict from direct military confrontation to the management of power through law, pressure, and mediation.
After Gaza: When the Confrontation Moved from the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table
After the Gaza war and the expansion of regional clashes, the Axis of Resistance entered a phase of systematic political neutralization.
The goal is no longer to break these forces militarily, but to strip them of their deterrent functions—especially in arenas that can be managed politically… foremost among them, Iraq.
In this context, the slogan of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state is no longer just a reformist demand, but a regional pressure tool to remove Iraq from deterrence equations without firing a single bullet.
In Detail:
1. Regional and International Context – Post-Gaza Pressure on the Axis of Resistance
After the Gaza war and the expansion of indirect regional confrontation, the Axis of Resistance—including Iraqi factions—came under direct American–Western scrutiny.
The Western message is clear:
Armed ideological forces cannot continue to exist outside full political control in states meant to remain within “managed stability.”
Iraq, by virtue of its geopolitical position, is the most fragile link in this axis, and therefore the easiest to pressure indirectly through:
• The government
• Judicial institutions
• International discourse on “state and sovereignty”
Here, the slogan of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state is recycled as a political entry point, not as a comprehensive institutional-building process.
2. Inside Iraq – A Weak State Seeking Balance
Domestically, the Iraqi state suffers from:
• Structural weakness in security decision-making
• Multiple centers of power
• Chronic political division
• Popular pressure on sovereignty and services
In such a context, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—as the most organized and influential force outside ministerial calculations—become a structural problem for the weak state. Not because they are outside the law, but because in some files they are stronger than the state’s institutions themselves.
This reveals a dangerous contradiction:
• Instead of strengthening the state to absorb the force
• The proposal is to dismantle the force to fit the weakness of the state
3. Internal Political Agenda – Rearranging Power Balances
Raising these files now also serves conflicts within the Shiite political house itself:
• Forces seeking to reduce the influence of armed factions
• Forces aiming to re-centralize decision-making in the hands of the government
• Forces fearing the persistence of weapons outside the logic of electoral competition
Turning the PMF into a ministry, or merging it, practically means:
• Subjecting it to sectarian quotas
• Bringing it into the game of balances
• Breaking its decision-making independence
This opens the door to redistributing influence within the state.
Key Information: Baghdad–Tehran Negotiations
According to Radio Monte Carlo International:
• Baghdad is conducting direct negotiations with Iran
• The goal: to help persuade other factions to accept disarmament
• And to facilitate the process without clashes or security problems
The most important part of the leak is not the negotiations themselves, but the nature of the “dilemma” as described by Monte Carlo:
The biggest dilemma is not individual weapons,
but the possession by some factions of missile capabilities and factories for drones and rockets.
Here, all cosmetic narratives collapse.
The problem is not a rifle,
nor a stray weapon,
the problem is missiles.
The real question is not: Should weapons be monopolized by the state?
But rather: Why is this file being opened now, specifically? Who determines its timing? And in the interest of which political or regional project?
Timing here is not a technical detail, but a high-level political decision. It reflects a shift in the conflict from direct military confrontation to the management of power through law, pressure, and mediation.
After Gaza: When the Confrontation Moved from the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table
After the Gaza war and the expansion of regional clashes, the Axis of Resistance entered a phase of systematic political neutralization.
The goal is no longer to break these forces militarily, but to strip them of their deterrent functions—especially in arenas that can be managed politically… foremost among them, Iraq.
In this context, the slogan of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state is no longer just a reformist demand, but a regional pressure tool to remove Iraq from deterrence equations without firing a single bullet.
In Detail:
1. Regional and International Context – Post-Gaza Pressure on the Axis of Resistance
After the Gaza war and the expansion of indirect regional confrontation, the Axis of Resistance—including Iraqi factions—came under direct American–Western scrutiny.
The Western message is clear:
Armed ideological forces cannot continue to exist outside full political control in states meant to remain within “managed stability.”
Iraq, by virtue of its geopolitical position, is the most fragile link in this axis, and therefore the easiest to pressure indirectly through:
• The government
• Judicial institutions
• International discourse on “state and sovereignty”
Here, the slogan of monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state is recycled as a political entry point, not as a comprehensive institutional-building process.
2. Inside Iraq – A Weak State Seeking Balance
Domestically, the Iraqi state suffers from:
• Structural weakness in security decision-making
• Multiple centers of power
• Chronic political division
• Popular pressure on sovereignty and services
In such a context, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—as the most organized and influential force outside ministerial calculations—become a structural problem for the weak state. Not because they are outside the law, but because in some files they are stronger than the state’s institutions themselves.
This reveals a dangerous contradiction:
• Instead of strengthening the state to absorb the force
• The proposal is to dismantle the force to fit the weakness of the state
3. Internal Political Agenda – Rearranging Power Balances
Raising these files now also serves conflicts within the Shiite political house itself:
• Forces seeking to reduce the influence of armed factions
• Forces aiming to re-centralize decision-making in the hands of the government
• Forces fearing the persistence of weapons outside the logic of electoral competition
Turning the PMF into a ministry, or merging it, practically means:
• Subjecting it to sectarian quotas
• Bringing it into the game of balances
• Breaking its decision-making independence
This opens the door to redistributing influence within the state.
Key Information: Baghdad–Tehran Negotiations
According to Radio Monte Carlo International:
• Baghdad is conducting direct negotiations with Iran
• The goal: to help persuade other factions to accept disarmament
• And to facilitate the process without clashes or security problems
The most important part of the leak is not the negotiations themselves, but the nature of the “dilemma” as described by Monte Carlo:
The biggest dilemma is not individual weapons,
but the possession by some factions of missile capabilities and factories for drones and rockets.
Here, all cosmetic narratives collapse.
The problem is not a rifle,
nor a stray weapon,
the problem is missiles.
👍5
The Observer
Timing Policy: Why Is the Issue of the Hashd and Weapons Being Raised Now? The real question is not: Should weapons be monopolized by the state? But rather: Why is this file being opened now, specifically? Who determines its timing? And in the interest of…
In other words: the problem is with strategic deterrent capability, not internal security.
PMF and Factions: The Need to Differentiate
What is the PMF?
• An official legal force
• Established by law
• Theoretically and practically under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
• Not a militia, nor an organization outside the state
The PMF was born from the fatwa of the religious authority at a moment of existential danger, when military units collapsed, the state retreated, and Iraq was left alone to face ISIS.
What are the factions?
Within the PMF:
• They are the nucleus of its founding
• Multiple factions
• Different political and ideological loyalties
• Divergent positions on the state and weapons
Some factions:
• Declared readiness to regulate weapons
• Linked this to the withdrawal of foreign forces
• Consider their weapons as resistance arms not subject to the traditional logic of the state
Confusing the PMF as an institution with factions as organizations is deliberate misrepresentation.
Weapons Monopoly: Between the Religious Authority and Political Exploitation
The Religious Authority’s Position
The supreme religious authority clearly called for:
• Weapons to be monopolized by the state
• Rule of law
• Prevention of foreign interventions
But the authority:
• Did not propose dismantling the PMF
• Did not demand eliminating deterrent elements
• Did not grant political authorization for selective use of its discourse
What is happening today is invoking the name of the authority to cover projects that were never built on the completion of the state in the first place.
Positions of Factions and Political Forces
Factions
According to Judge Faiq Zaidan:
• Four factions declared commitment to the principle of weapons monopoly
• Without announcing actual surrender of strategic capabilities
In contrast:
• Other factions refuse to give up their weapons before clear sovereignty conditions are met
Political Forces
• Muqtada al-Sadr: explicitly calls for weapons monopoly by the state and rejects any weapons outside it
• Ammar al-Hakim: encouraged regulating weapons and integrating them into state institutions
These positions reflect a struggle within the Shiite political house over:
• Who holds power?
• Who decides its future?
• How influence is redistributed?
Proposed Scenarios: What Is Being Prepared for the PMF?
So far, two scenarios are on the table—without official announcement:
Scenario One: Turning the PMF into a Ministry
• A minister
• Sectarian quotas
• Political decision instead of field decision
• Bringing the PMF into the balance game
Scenario Two: Dismantling and Merging
• Dissolving the institution
• Distributing individuals across Defense and Interior
• Ending the exceptional status
• Terminating its special identity
In both cases:
The PMF as we know it today will not remain.
Can the Axis of Resistance Hand Over Its Weapons?
The Lebanese experience with Hezbollah shows that:
• Resistance weapons are not surrendered unless:• The state is capable
• The enemy is gone
• Guarantees are real
In Iraq, the question is not:
Do factions want to hand over weapons?
But rather:
Is the state capable of bearing what is required of it after removing the missiles?
Conclusion: The Core of the Battle Is Not Weapons… But Function
This debate is not about:
• A rifle
• Discipline
• Administrative organization
It is about:
• Who holds the deterrence decision?
• Who defines Iraq’s regional role?
• And whether it is allowed to remain a power or quietly neutralized?
When the missile becomes the problem,
we are facing a project of neutralization… not reform.
And when force is dismantled before the state is built,
we are not facing sovereignty,
but the re-engineering of weakness.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
PMF and Factions: The Need to Differentiate
What is the PMF?
• An official legal force
• Established by law
• Theoretically and practically under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
• Not a militia, nor an organization outside the state
The PMF was born from the fatwa of the religious authority at a moment of existential danger, when military units collapsed, the state retreated, and Iraq was left alone to face ISIS.
What are the factions?
Within the PMF:
• They are the nucleus of its founding
• Multiple factions
• Different political and ideological loyalties
• Divergent positions on the state and weapons
Some factions:
• Declared readiness to regulate weapons
• Linked this to the withdrawal of foreign forces
• Consider their weapons as resistance arms not subject to the traditional logic of the state
Confusing the PMF as an institution with factions as organizations is deliberate misrepresentation.
Weapons Monopoly: Between the Religious Authority and Political Exploitation
The Religious Authority’s Position
The supreme religious authority clearly called for:
• Weapons to be monopolized by the state
• Rule of law
• Prevention of foreign interventions
But the authority:
• Did not propose dismantling the PMF
• Did not demand eliminating deterrent elements
• Did not grant political authorization for selective use of its discourse
What is happening today is invoking the name of the authority to cover projects that were never built on the completion of the state in the first place.
Positions of Factions and Political Forces
Factions
According to Judge Faiq Zaidan:
• Four factions declared commitment to the principle of weapons monopoly
• Without announcing actual surrender of strategic capabilities
In contrast:
• Other factions refuse to give up their weapons before clear sovereignty conditions are met
Political Forces
• Muqtada al-Sadr: explicitly calls for weapons monopoly by the state and rejects any weapons outside it
• Ammar al-Hakim: encouraged regulating weapons and integrating them into state institutions
These positions reflect a struggle within the Shiite political house over:
• Who holds power?
• Who decides its future?
• How influence is redistributed?
Proposed Scenarios: What Is Being Prepared for the PMF?
So far, two scenarios are on the table—without official announcement:
Scenario One: Turning the PMF into a Ministry
• A minister
• Sectarian quotas
• Political decision instead of field decision
• Bringing the PMF into the balance game
Scenario Two: Dismantling and Merging
• Dissolving the institution
• Distributing individuals across Defense and Interior
• Ending the exceptional status
• Terminating its special identity
In both cases:
The PMF as we know it today will not remain.
Can the Axis of Resistance Hand Over Its Weapons?
The Lebanese experience with Hezbollah shows that:
• Resistance weapons are not surrendered unless:• The state is capable
• The enemy is gone
• Guarantees are real
In Iraq, the question is not:
Do factions want to hand over weapons?
But rather:
Is the state capable of bearing what is required of it after removing the missiles?
Conclusion: The Core of the Battle Is Not Weapons… But Function
This debate is not about:
• A rifle
• Discipline
• Administrative organization
It is about:
• Who holds the deterrence decision?
• Who defines Iraq’s regional role?
• And whether it is allowed to remain a power or quietly neutralized?
When the missile becomes the problem,
we are facing a project of neutralization… not reform.
And when force is dismantled before the state is built,
we are not facing sovereignty,
but the re-engineering of weakness.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
In this groundbreaking book, the outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. This has been updated with a new afterword on the 2023 invasion of Gaza. 1. Palestine was an Empty Land 2. The Jews were a people with out a land 3. Zionism is Judaism 4. Zionism is not Colonialism 5. The Palestinians Voluntarily Left their Homelands in 1948 6. The June 1967 War was a war of 'No Choice' 7. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East 8. The Myths about the Oslo Agreement 9. The Lies we tell about Gaza 10. The two state solution is the only way forward
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5
From “Architect of Openness” to a Strategic Burden on Iran and the Axis of Resistance
Mohammad Javad Zarif is presented in Western discourse as “the moderate face of Iran” and “the rational diplomat” capable of speaking the language of the world. Yet this image, which he built during his years as Foreign Minister (2013–2021), collides with a political, security, and strategic record weighed down by failures and contradictions.
Was Zarif truly a reformer within the system, or merely a smooth marketer of policies that proved disastrous, harming Iran and the Axis of Resistance?
1. Zarif and the Nuclear Deal – From Promise of Salvation to Total Collapse
The JCPOA – July 14, 2015
Zarif presented the nuclear deal as a historic breakthrough that would end Iran’s isolation, lift sanctions, and open the doors of the global economy. But subsequent events exposed the fragility of this wager:
• May 8, 2018: The United States unilaterally withdrew under Donald Trump, despite Iran’s full compliance according to IAEA reports.
• Washington not only failed to honor its commitments but used the deal as an intelligence and political tool to tighten pressure later.
Sanctions Instead of Relief
During Zarif’s tenure:
• More than 1,500 new sanctions were imposed under the “maximum pressure” policy (2018–2021).
• On July 31, 2019, Washington sanctioned Zarif himself, a scene that epitomized the futility of trusting the West.
The core accusation emerged:
Was Zarif the architect of sanctions relief, or—unwittingly—one of those who facilitated their tightening?
2. The Assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis – The Collapse of the Diplomacy Illusion
January 3, 2020
The United States assassinated General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in Baghdad.
This came at the height of Zarif’s talk of “de-escalation” and opening indirect negotiation channels.
• The event dealt a crushing blow to Zarif’s theory that U.S. behavior could be restrained through diplomacy.
• For the Axis of Resistance, the assassination proved that American hostility is structural, not tactical.
3. April 2021 Leak – An Unintended Admission of Failure
In April 2021, an audio interview was leaked in which Zarif admitted:
• “Diplomacy was sacrificed for the battlefield.”
• The United States was the real player that disrupted his negotiation tracks.
The leak:
• Was used in the West to portray Iran as a divided state.
• Harmed the unity of Iran’s narrative.
• Exposed the limits of Zarif’s influence within the system and weakened his credibility as a “policy architect.”
4. Security Breaches – Fakhrizadeh and Natanz
November 27, 2020
The assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh inside Iran in a complex Israeli operation.
April 2021
A major sabotage operation at the Natanz nuclear facility.
Although direct responsibility was security-related:
• Zarif’s rivals argued that the climate of openness and negotiation he promoted created a false sense of safety.
• His focus on appeasing the West came at the expense of properly assessing Israeli threats.
5. Women’s Rights and Hijab – Davos Rhetoric vs. Domestic Reality
At international forums like Davos, Zarif declared that the government “chose not to enforce hijab laws by force,” claiming that in reality hijab no longer existed by Islamic state standards, though some still adhered to it and believed in its importance.
Key questions:
• Does Zarif use women’s rights as an external cosmetic tool, while ignoring internal social and political complexities?
This contradiction weakened his credibility:
• Domestically, he was accused of media grandstanding.
6. Zarif, Resistance, and Calls for Dialogue with Washington
Zarif did not hide his preference for direct dialogue with the United States, even after:
• The failure of the nuclear deal.
• The assassinations.
• Maximum sanctions.
The decisive question:
Is this political pragmatism, or a departure from the resistance narrative?
From the Axis of Resistance’s perspective:
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍4
The Observer
• His calls weaken deterrence logic.
• They reproduce the illusion of partnership with an enemy that has not changed its behavior.
7. Relationship with the Supreme Leader
Zarif declares commitment to Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), but:
• Abroad, he presents a reformist discourse suggesting the possibility of a “post-Velayat Iran.”
• This creates a duality between internal and external messaging, raising doubts about his true position within the system’s ideological structure.
8. Zarif and the Arabs – Accusatory Rhetoric and Widening the Gap
In many debates and interviews, Zarif accused Arab states of:
• “Betraying Iran.”
• “Aligning with Washington and Tel Aviv.”
But this rhetoric:
• Ignored the complexities of the Arab scene.
• Deepened an unnecessary gap between Iran and environments supportive of the Axis of Resistance.
• Gave opponents propaganda material to portray Iran as confrontational with Arabs.
9. After Zarif – BRICS and the Turn East
After leaving office:
• Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2023).
• Officially entered BRICS (2023).
• Began actual implementation of the 25-year China agreement, though Zarif had persistently undermined Iran’s relations with China.
These major strategic shifts occurred without Zarif, raising a harsh question:
Was he more of an obstacle to this path than a driver of it?
Conclusion
Mohammad Javad Zarif is neither a complete opponent of the system nor a revolutionary reformer.
He is a diplomat, skilled in rhetoric, but:
• He bet on the West and lost.
• Marketed a reformist image that never materialized.
• Opened vulnerabilities that were exploited against Iran and the Axis of Resistance, and continue to be.
Although Zarif is now outside the state, the Pezeshkian government is the closest to his views. Perhaps one could say he is the closest thing to being the intellectual architect behind this government.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
• They reproduce the illusion of partnership with an enemy that has not changed its behavior.
7. Relationship with the Supreme Leader
Zarif declares commitment to Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), but:
• Abroad, he presents a reformist discourse suggesting the possibility of a “post-Velayat Iran.”
• This creates a duality between internal and external messaging, raising doubts about his true position within the system’s ideological structure.
8. Zarif and the Arabs – Accusatory Rhetoric and Widening the Gap
In many debates and interviews, Zarif accused Arab states of:
• “Betraying Iran.”
• “Aligning with Washington and Tel Aviv.”
But this rhetoric:
• Ignored the complexities of the Arab scene.
• Deepened an unnecessary gap between Iran and environments supportive of the Axis of Resistance.
• Gave opponents propaganda material to portray Iran as confrontational with Arabs.
9. After Zarif – BRICS and the Turn East
After leaving office:
• Iran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2023).
• Officially entered BRICS (2023).
• Began actual implementation of the 25-year China agreement, though Zarif had persistently undermined Iran’s relations with China.
These major strategic shifts occurred without Zarif, raising a harsh question:
Was he more of an obstacle to this path than a driver of it?
Conclusion
Mohammad Javad Zarif is neither a complete opponent of the system nor a revolutionary reformer.
He is a diplomat, skilled in rhetoric, but:
• He bet on the West and lost.
• Marketed a reformist image that never materialized.
• Opened vulnerabilities that were exploited against Iran and the Axis of Resistance, and continue to be.
Although Zarif is now outside the state, the Pezeshkian government is the closest to his views. Perhaps one could say he is the closest thing to being the intellectual architect behind this government.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍5💯1
New Escalation Targeting Minorities
Local sources reported an explosion inside Imam Ali Mosque (peace be upon him) in the Wadi al-Dhahab neighborhood of the city of Homs. According to preliminary information, the blast resulted in the martyrdom of twelve individuals and the injury of several others with varying degrees of wounds, amid a state of heightened security alert in the area.
Comment
This attack represents a dangerous escalation that appears to deliberately target religious minorities and places of worship, signaling an attempt to inflame sectarian tensions and undermine social stability. Such acts of violence not only violate the sanctity of religious spaces but also threaten civil peace and coexistence. Regardless of the perpetrators, targeting civilians in houses of worship constitutes a grave crime under both international humanitarian norms and basic moral principles.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😢5
Introduction
In his Foreign Affairs article, How America and Iran Can Break the Nuclear Deadlock, Javad Zarif does not merely propose a diplomatic solution to a technical dispute. Rather, he articulates a broader political discourse aimed at redefining Iran’s role, identity, and alliances at a moment of profound regional volatility. Read carefully, the article reveals an attempt at political repositioning rather than conflict resolution.
1. A Message to the Outside, Not the Inside
Zarif’s article is conspicuously detached from Iran’s internal realities. It does not address domestic crises, social tensions, or economic grievances at a time when widespread unrest is anticipated.
Instead, the piece is crafted for Western policymakers and regional actors, presenting Zarif and his current as a reasonable, marketable Iranian alternative.
Even his initiatives — such as the earlier Hormuz Peace Endeavor or the more recent Modarreh/Modda concepts — are branded in ways that resonate externally rather than domestically, reinforcing the impression that the intended audience lies beyond Iran’s borders.
2. Zarif as an Externally Endorsed Alternative
As speculation grows about political alternatives within Iran, Zarif positions himself not through popular legitimacy but through international platforms, forums, and Western publications.
The article functions as a declaration of political viability addressed to foreign capitals, implicitly stating:
“If you seek a different Iran, I represent it.”
3. Redefining the Enemy, Diluting the Conflict
One of the most troubling aspects of Zarif’s argument is his reduction of hostility to a single individual — Benjamin Netanyahu — while portraying the United States and Israel as actors plagued by “misunderstandings” rather than as aggressors engaged in sustained confrontation.
Notably:
• Attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are not framed as acts of war.
• The existential nature of the conflict is downplayed.
• Structural imperial dynamics are replaced with narratives of miscommunication.
This reframing sanitizes Western aggression and transforms a historical conflict into a solvable diplomatic glitch.
4. From the Nuclear File to a Regional Deal
Zarif’s call for a broader regional agreement is the article’s most consequential proposal.
Given:
• Iran’s previous nuclear concessions,
• and former President Hassan Rouhani’s recent admission that the nuclear deal was merely the first phase of wider negotiations,
the proposed “regional understanding” can only be interpreted as a mechanism to recalibrate Iran’s regional posture — potentially at the expense of the Axis of Resistance.
In this reading, the nuclear issue was the entry point; the regional role is the ultimate prize.
5. A Preemptive Disassociation Before War
Amid escalating tensions and the looming prospect of a regional war, Zarif’s article reads as a preemptive political disassociation from confrontation.
It signals to the West that not all Iranian actors endorse resistance or escalation, and that an alternative path — embodied by Zarif himself — exists.
This is the logic of elites preparing for the post-conflict order rather than enduring the conflict itself.
Conclusion
Zarif’s article is not a neutral peace proposal. It is a carefully constructed political document that seeks to:
• Redefine the enemy,
• Normalize Western aggression,
• And pave the way for a regional arrangement that risks dismantling the Axis of Resistance.
Its danger lies not in what it openly states, but in what it quietly prepares the ground for:
an Iran stripped of confrontation, alliances, and resistance.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2🌚2