🔴News Desk :

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?


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Nobel Fetish: Trump and the Commodification of Imperial "Peace"


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.

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

🔴The Algorithm of Extermination: Gaza as a Testing Ground for AI-Genocide


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.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

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

🔴An urgent, updated reissue of the essential book on the myths—and reality—behind the state of Israel

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

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Mohammad Javad Zarif: The Diplomat Between Two Images

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:

• 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

🔴(Breaking News)

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.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Javad Zarif and the Discourse of “Alternative Iran”: A Critical Reading

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.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

restrictions, resulting in over 30 Iraqi banks being barred from dollar transactions by external decree, paralyzing local trade.
2. Explosive Budgets: The "Electoral Bribe" Economy
* Salary Inflation: Wages and social grants consumed over 70% of the 2024-2025 budget, killing investment development.
* Historic Deficit: The 2025 budget recorded a massive speculative deficit, with internal debt rising to 92 trillion IQD (over 25% of GDP).
* Oil Dependency: Iraq remains 90% dependent on oil revenues, threatening the state with bankruptcy if global energy prices drop.
3. Politically Protected Corruption
* The "Juhi" Network: The 2024 espionage scandal within the PM’s office proved that corruption and security breaches reached the highest levels under his watch.
* Suspicious Settlements: In the "Heist of the Century" ($2.5 billion), his government focused on recovering minor portions of funds in exchange for releasing key defendants instead of delivering justice.
Conclusion: A Second Term Means Iraqi Bankruptcy
A second term for Al-Sudani is a death sentence for the remains of the economy. Iraq needs a genuine economic uprising that frees itself from the U.S. Federal Reserve, not an "employee" executing agendas aimed at starving resistant peoples.
Al-Sudani’s "institutional" vision, promoted "shrewdly," is merely a trap; he uses the names of martyrs Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis as cover for a platform seeking to bury their legacy. Iraq does not need a mediator for U.S.-Iranian meetings; it needs a leader who imposes the Iraqi will within the Axis of Resistance.
Beautifying the Collapse: Al-Mayadeen’s Fall into the Propaganda Trap
The image of this political deception is incomplete without the suspicious role of Al-Mayadeen. While claiming to be the "voice of the Resistance," the channel has slipped into the role of a "polishing platform" for Al-Sudani’s failures. Its exclusive focus on inflating Al-Sudani’s image, unlike other candidates, raises major questions about its independence.
Can "Al-Mayadeen" be considered biased media?
The answer leans toward the affirmative for several reasons:
* Political Choices : Dedicating resources to polish a figure who plays both sides with the American occupier indicates that "funding" or "narrow interests" have trumped "principle."
* Betrayal of Intellectual Integrity: Presenting Al-Sudani as a Resistance figure while he has not implemented the decision to expel U.S. forces is deliberate deception.
* Absence of Alternatives: The channel intentionally avoids highlighting other political proposals within the Coordination Framework that might be firmer against the U.S. presence.
Al-Mayadeen has lost its revolutionary luster to become an "echo of authority" rather than the "voice of the Resistance."

Al-Sudani’s term was a period of "orbital decay," and a second term would be a catastrophe for the regional struggle against hegemony.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Somaliland at the Crossroads: Geopolitics, Israeli Recognition, and International Law

On 26 December 2025, Israel became the first United Nations member state to officially recognize Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state. This move fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa. This analysis assesses the crisis through the political framework articulated by Mr. Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi in his speech dated 8 Rajab 1447 AH (28 December 2025), alongside established principles of international law.



1. Historical Origins and the “De Facto” Paradox

Somaliland, formerly a British protectorate, gained brief independence in 1960 before voluntarily uniting with the former Italian Somaliland. Following a bloody civil war and the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime in 1991, Somaliland unilaterally declared the dissolution of that union.
• The 1991 Declaration: It was grounded in the restoration of the 1960 borders rather than the creation of a new entity.
• Governance versus Recognition: For 34 years, Somaliland has maintained an effective government, its own currency, and a security apparatus, in contrast to the volatility in Mogadishu.
• The Legal Vacuum: Despite meeting the criteria of the Montevideo Convention (permanent population, defined territory, government), Somaliland remained unrecognized due to the African Union’s adherence to the principle of the “inviolability of borders” (Cairo Declaration, 1964), out of fear of opening a “Pandora’s box” of secessionist movements across the continent.



2. Strategic Interests and the al-Houthi Framework

In his Rajab 1447 AH speech, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi described the Israeli recognition as a “hostile act” and a “project to fragment the region.”
• Israel’s Objective: Control of the Red Sea corridor. Recognition provides a potential military and intelligence hub near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a strategic chokepoint, facilitating monitoring of Houthi maritime operations and limiting the influence of regional competitors such as Turkey, which has invested heavily in Mogadishu.
• Regional Encirclement: Al-Houthi views the move not as a localized diplomatic development but as part of a strategic encirclement of Yemen and the Axis of Resistance.
• Fragmentation: From this perspective, the move serves to weaken the Federal Republic of Somalia, which has maintained a firm stance in support of Palestine, by entrenching its division.



Other Beneficiaries of the Status Quo

Local elites in Hargeisa gain legitimacy and investment through the Berbera port deals with the UAE, DP World, and now Israel, strengthening their rule amid accusations of democratic backsliding. External actors such as the UAE secure military bases (Berbera base), while Ethiopia seeks access to the Red Sea; Israel exploits these dynamics in positioning itself against the Houthis. Compared with Kosovo (Western-backed recognition) or Northern Cyprus (Turkish-backed isolation), the Somaliland case benefits actors who exploit divisions in the Horn of Africa without assuming full responsibility.



Israel’s Strategic Calculations

Somaliland’s 850-kilometer coastline along the Gulf of Aden grants Israel surveillance capabilities over Bab al-Mandeb, countering Houthi attacks on shipping and Iranian arms flows, with the potential to transform Berbera into an intelligence hub alongside Emirati facilities. This aligns with Israel’s broader strategy of encircling the Red Sea—through the Abraham Accords and links to Socotra—to pressure Yemen and address displacement narratives from Gaza. Al-Houthi, however, frames this as “regional fragmentation” extending beyond Somalia. Netanyahu’s timing also links domestic politics with maritime security amid escalating Houthi threats.



3. Legal Status Under International Law

The legitimacy of Israel’s recognition is contested by the Somali Federal Government, the African Union, and the Arab League.
• Territorial Integrity: UN Resolution 1514 and the African Union’s Constitutive Act prioritize the territorial integrity of existing states.

The Somali Federal Government maintains that Somaliland is an “inseparable and inalienable” part of its territory.
• Authority to Recognize: In international law, recognition is a political act by a sovereign state. While Israel may recognize any entity, such recognition is often considered void if it violates the sovereignty of another UN member state (Somalia).
• The “Occupying Entity” Argument: Al-Houthi’s framework holds that recognition by Israel—described as an “occupying entity”—lacks moral and legal legitimacy, linking Palestinian statelessness to the “fragmentation” of Somalia.



4. Regional Security and Militarization

Recognition transforms an internal secessionist dispute into a high-risk maritime confrontation.
• Military Targets: Al-Houthi explicitly declared that any Israeli presence in Somaliland constitutes a “military target,” raising the possibility of drone or missile strikes on Somaliland ports (such as Berbera) and linking the area to the ongoing Red Sea tanker war.
• Proxy Escalation: Somalia has warned it will not tolerate foreign military bases that drag the country into proxy conflicts. The presence of Israeli intelligence or naval assets would likely provoke the Axis of Resistance and could alter Ethiopia’s security posture, particularly following its controversial memorandum of understanding with Somaliland.
• Axis Framing: Al-Houthi portrays Somaliland as an Israeli “hostile foothold” tied to Palestine through a project of “reshaping the Middle East,” rhetorically merging anti-Zionism, Somali solidarity, and Red Sea defense. Strategically, this framing justifies strikes without requiring a new escalation, embedding Somaliland within resistance narratives against “fragmentation.”



5. Policy Options and International Responses

The international response has been largely condemnatory, prioritizing regional stability over Somaliland’s claims to self-determination.
• Multilateral Channels: Somalia is mobilizing the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union to isolate the recognition. The Chairperson of the African Union, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, has already reaffirmed the principle of “non-interference with borders.”
• Diplomatic Reciprocity: Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre described the move as “reckless,” suggesting that Israel recognize the State of Palestine instead.
• The Risk of Normalization: Should other states follow Israel’s lead, the principle of territorial integrity in Africa would face a systemic challenge, potentially leading to “Balkanization,” as al-Houthi warns.



Conclusion

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is less a human-rights-based endorsement of self-determination than a geopolitical maneuver aimed at securing maritime dominance in the Red Sea. While Somaliland gains a powerful—albeit controversial—ally, it risks becoming a forward front in the broader regional confrontation between Israel and the Axis of Resistance. Under prevailing international law, the recognition remains a bilateral political act without the power to alter Somalia’s internationally recognized borders.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴From Alliance to Confrontation: How Yemen Became an Open Arena for Saudi–Emirati Conflict

The war on Yemen is no longer merely an externally imposed military campaign led by Saudi Arabia. Over time, it has evolved into a revealing laboratory of intra-Gulf contradictions, exposing the structural fragility of alliances built on coercion, rentier power, and external patronage. The recent crisis between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi—brought into sharp relief by the Saudi targeting of a vessel allegedly carrying weapons in Yemeni waters and its classification as a “security threat”—signals not an isolated incident, but a deeper strategic rupture within the coalition that launched the war.

What was once marketed as a unified “Arab coalition” has unraveled into a competition over spoils, influence, and post-war positioning, with Yemen reduced to contested terrain rather than recognized as a sovereign political entity.

I. How the Alliance Was Formed—and Why It Collapsed

When the war on Yemen began in 2015, Saudi–Emirati coordination appeared firm, backed by full American and Western political cover. The intervention was framed through familiar rhetoric: restoring “legitimacy,” countering Iranian influence, and safeguarding Arab security. Yet this narrative concealed the absence of a shared strategic vision.

Saudi Arabia entered the war driven primarily by border security anxieties and regime survival logic. Its objective was to impose a weakened, compliant Yemeni authority incapable of exercising independent sovereignty. The UAE, by contrast, approached Yemen as a long-term geopolitical investment—a gateway to ports, islands, maritime routes, and influence extending from the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa.

What initially appeared as coordination soon gave way to latent rivalry, then to indirect confrontation. The current crisis merely brings into the open what had long been evident beneath the surface.

II. Yemen: Not a Civil War, but a Contested Prize

The Saudi attack on the alleged arms ship cannot be understood as a routine security measure. It is, rather, a symptom of collapsing trust between former partners. Riyadh’s framing of the shipment as a threat implicitly acknowledges that control over weapons, territory, and proxies inside Yemen has slipped beyond Saudi command.

The UAE’s sustained backing of local militias—particularly separatist forces in southern Yemen—has actively contributed to state fragmentation. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, remains trapped in a war of attrition, unable to claim victory yet unwilling to withdraw. Yemen, in this calculus, is neither a nation nor a people, but a divisible geopolitical asset.

III. Competing Regional Projects: Borders versus Ports

At the heart of the Saudi–Emirati rift lies a clash between two distinct regional strategies:
• Saudi Arabia seeks a centralized but weak Yemeni state, functioning as a security buffer along its southern border.
• The UAE favors a decentralized Yemen, dominated through ports, islands, commercial corridors, and loyal militias—particularly in Aden, Socotra, and along the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Southern Yemen has thus become a focal point of this rivalry, stripping the coalition discourse of any remaining credibility.

IV. Washington and Tel Aviv: Managing Disorder, Not Resolving It

The United States has historically viewed intra-Gulf tensions not as liabilities, but as tools of control. Under Donald Trump’s administration—defined by transactional diplomacy and arms-deal politics—Washington showed little interest in resolving structural conflicts. Its priority was preventing escalation only insofar as it threatened energy markets or Israeli security.

Israel, meanwhile, emerges as the silent beneficiary of Gulf fragmentation. Saudi–Emirati discord enhances:
• Israeli leverage over Red Sea maritime security,
• intelligence cooperation with Gulf states,
• and Israel’s role as a pillar of the anti–Axis of Resistance architecture.

Normalization, in this context, is not peace-making—it is regional reengineering at the expense of popular sovereignty.

🔴V. Yemen and the Axis of Resistance: Strategic Reversal

Ironically, fractures within the aggressor camp have strengthened Yemen’s resistance forces, which—despite siege and devastation—have imposed new deterrence equations. The Saudi–Emirati split exposes:
• the failure of the US-backed Gulf intervention,
• the fragility of alliances grounded in opportunism,
• and the limits of military superiority when confronted by organized popular resistance.

Yemen has shifted from being perceived as the weakest link to becoming a site of systemic exposure for the regional order imposed by Washington and its allies.

VI. Where Is the Crisis Headed?

The Saudi–Emirati rift is not a temporary misunderstanding. It is structural and enduring, even if temporarily managed through American mediation. As long as Yemen remains under indirect occupation, conflict among occupiers is inevitable.

Future trajectories include:
• managed rivalry below open warfare,
• proxy-based escalation,
• or forced strategic retreat driven by battlefield realities favoring the resistance.

In all scenarios, one conclusion is unavoidable: the war on Yemen has failed, and its internal contradictions now pose a greater threat to its architects than to their adversaries.

Conclusion

What is unfolding between Saudi Arabia and the UAE marks the end of an era. The illusion of a cohesive Gulf-led regional order is dissolving, while resistance movements continue to consolidate power and legitimacy. Yemen—once targeted for submission—has become a witness to the collapse of hegemonic fantasies and a pivotal arena in the reconfiguration of regional power.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

• Hadhramout, Yemen’s largest governorate and a critical energy corridor, is emerging as the next arena of Saudi–Emirati competition. Saudi Arabia has been expanding its footprint there precisely as Emirati influence elsewhere is questioned. A power vacuum here could either be filled by Riyadh or destabilized further—both scenarios carry risks.
• Taiz, long neglected and fragmented, may experience renewed contestation as external patrons reposition. Emirati disengagement could weaken certain militias, but without a sovereign Yemeni framework, instability may persist.

In both cases, the absence of a unified Yemeni state—a condition deliberately produced by years of intervention—means that withdrawals do not automatically translate into sovereignty.

What This Means for the Houthis—and for Yemen

For Ansar Allah, the Emirati announcement is a strategic vindication. It confirms what the resistance has argued consistently: that the coalition is fragmenting under pressure, and that steadfastness alters equations.

Yet the Houthis are unlikely to misread the situation. They understand that:
• Emirati influence has not vanished,
• Saudi intentions remain ambiguous,
• and external actors may attempt to freeze, rather than resolve, the conflict.

For Yemen as a whole, the moment is ambiguous but consequential. Reduced foreign military presence may lower immediate tensions, but it also exposes the reality that Yemen’s fate has been negotiated over—not with—its people.

Saudi–Emirati Relations: Beyond Tactical Disputes

This episode will not destroy Saudi–Emirati relations, but it has permanently altered them. What once appeared as a unified Gulf front is now unmistakably a managed rivalry, characterized by:
• diverging threat perceptions,
• competition over influence,
• and conflicting endgames in Yemen.

Coordination will continue where interests align—especially under US mediation—but trust has been eroded.

Conclusion: Withdrawal as Admission

The Emirati withdrawal from Yemen does not signal peace; it signals admission—admission of limits, of failure, and of the impossibility of imposing outcomes by force on a resisting society.

As argued in Part I, Yemen was never merely a battlefield. It was a test of regional order. Today, that order is cracking.

Whether this moment leads to genuine Yemeni sovereignty or merely a rebranding of domination will depend less on Gulf declarations and more on the balance forged by resistance, resilience, and political clarity inside Yemen itself.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5