Latest Analysis and Commentary
by Robert Williams • March 9, 2026 at 1:00 pm
The Trump administration needs to pay close attention: The UAE is not merely another Gulf monarchy, another energy partner. It is one of the clearest examples in the Arab world of a country that deliberately chose modernization over ideological stagnation and development over the old politics of grievance.... This choice is precisely what makes it so important — and precisely what makes it so threatening to the forces that thrive on disorder. The UAE... demonstrated that sovereignty can be defended without fanaticism, and that prosperity can be built through peace rather than perpetual war. This is why attacks on the UAE are not merely attacks on a country. They are attacks on a model for peace. President Donald Trump no doubt sees this with clarity: his extraordinary Abraham Accords remain one of the defining strategic achievements not only of the century but of history. Defending the UAE, therefore, is entirely consistent with a hard-headed American strategy. America did not help broker the Abraham Accords only to watch their boldest Arab partner become an exposed target. A serious policy... requires seriousness: tighter intelligence coordination, stronger integrated air and missile defense, firmer deterrence against Iranian aggression and proxy warfare, and unmistakable public clarity that the United States forcefully stands by the states that choose peace over terror and an alliance with the US over revolutionary blackmail. That is not charity toward Abu Dhabi. It is a defense of American interests, and a regional balance that works in America's favor.
The Trump administration needs to pay close attention: The UAE is not merely another Gulf monarchy, another energy partner. It is one of the clearest examples in the Arab world of a country that deliberately chose modernization over ideological stagnation and development over the old politics of grievance. Pictured: U.S. President Donald J. Trump meets with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed on May 15, 2025, in Abu Dhabi. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
When United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed visited the victims of the recent attacks in hospital on March 6, he did more than offer sympathy. He delivered a message to his people, to the region, and to the world. He told the wounded and their families that those living in the Emirates are "among their family in the UAE." In his first public comments after the strikes, he also made clear that the country is "no easy prey." That was not simply compassion. It was doctrine: that his country was going to align with openness without apology. The price to his country for his outstanding leadership has been enormously high.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 9, 2026 at 5:00 am
[T]he US has provided more than $230 million to support Lebanese security forces in their effort to disarm Hezbollah and all armed groups and to confiscate rockets and missiles. Hezbollah, however, has since refused to disarm, rejecting Lebanese government directives and international pressure, specifically from the US and Israel, to relinquish its weapons. The US and the rest of the international community were wrong to assume that Hezbollah would honor the ceasefire agreement with Israel. They were also wrong to assume that the terror organization would voluntarily give up its weapons or that the Lebanese government would take any real action to reassert its security control over Lebanon. Over the past few months, US President Donald J. Trump has issued severe, repeated threats demanding the disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and, to a lesser extent, Hezbollah in Lebanon It is time for the Trump administration and other international parties to understand that ceasefire agreements or threats will never convince the jihadists of Hezbollah and Hamas voluntarily to lay down their weapons. Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) did not surrender their weapons or abandon their jihad against the West because of deals or threats. Both groups were crushed through the only language that they understand: force. Given that no Arab or Islamic country is prepared to disarm Hezbollah or Hamas, the only two countries that have the will and ability to do so are, like it or not, Israel and the United States
Given that no Arab or Islamic country is prepared to disarm Hezbollah or Hamas, the only two countries that have the will and ability to do so are, like it or not, Israel and the United States. Pictured: A Hezbollah target hit by an Israeli airstrike on March 7, 2026 in Nabi Chit, Lebanon. (Photo by Adri Salido/Getty Images)
On March 2, Lebanon's Hezbollah terror group formally joined the current Israeli-US war with Iran by firing missiles and drones at various Israeli military bases, oil infrastructure, and northern communities. Hezbollah's decision to resume its attacks on Israel came in violation of the November 2024 US-brokered ceasefire agreement between Israel and the terror organization. It also came in violation of calls for the "disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon," as required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. In August 2025, the Lebanese government, under Prime Minister Nawaf Salem and President Joseph Aoun, initiated a five-stage plan to establish a state monopoly on weapons. In response, the US has provided more than $230 million to support Lebanese security forces in their effort to disarm Hezbollah and other armed groups, and to confiscate rockets and missiles.
Continue Reading Article
by Con Coughlin • March 8, 2026 at 5:00 am
Now, following the demise of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as scores of other prominent members of the regime, countries that have previously tried to maintain cordial relations with the ayatollahs face a stark choice: do they want to maintain their ties with known Islamist extremists, or forge closer ties with the US and its allies? What if, however -- Washington and Jerusalem should both carefully note -- they choose both? With the Iranian threat gone, what would prevent them from complying with Trump's demands of the moment and enjoying the benefits of modernity -- and then, when he is no longer in office, continue supporting terrorism, religious extremism and jihad (holy war)? Just because one is happy to have a roaring economy -- as we already see with Qatar -- that does not necessarily mean one will be happy with what is already being reported as "concern" about Israel's increased standing in the region. The only GCC member state opposed to confronting Iran was -- predictably -- Qatar, a state that has tried to maintain ties with the ayatollahs while becoming one of the main backers of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly condemned the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran while saying he is "saddened" by the elimination of Khamenei and offering his "condolences" to the people of Iran. Erdogan's reaction is indicative of the close ties he has developed with Iran's ayatollahs, and his opposition to the notion of the emergence of a democratic, Western-aligned government in Tehran. Turkey, which remains a member of the Nato alliance, has done its best to undermine the Trump administration's military campaign against Iran, denying US forces vital access to its air, land and maritime space to conduct operations against the ayatollahs. The Trump administration certainly needs to take note of the long-term hostile conduct of so-called allies such as Turkey, Qatar and Pakistan as the US and Israel attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear program once and for all, and especially in rebuilding Gaza. At the very least, if Turkey is not prepared to support the US military in times of crisis and no longer acts as an ally -- and is indeed acting contrary to US interests -- then the White House would do well to conclude that the US and its allies should cease all military cooperation with it.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly condemned the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran while saying he is "saddened" by the elimination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and offering his "condolences" to the people of Iran. Erdogan's reaction is indicative of the close ties he has developed with Iran's ayatollahs, and his opposition to the notion of the emergence of a democratic, Western-aligned government in Tehran. Pictured: Erdogan meets with Khamenei in Tehran on January 29, 2014. (Image source: Iranian Supreme Leader's website/AFP via Getty Images)
US President Donald J. Trump's decision to launch his devastating military campaign against Iran's ayatollahs means that countries, such as Turkey and Qatar, which have previously been ambivalent about their attitude towards Tehran, will now need to undertake a serious reappraisal of where their true interests lie. Prior to Trump launching "Operation Epic Fury", the military campaign designed to eliminate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles or support its proxies once and for all, several important regional players sought to remain neutral as the tensions deepened between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme. Even though they claimed to be allies of the US, they also sought to maintain links with the ayatollahs, even when it became abundantly clear that the Trump administration was determined to confront Iran over its clear delaying tactics in the recent round of nuclear negotiations.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • March 8, 2026 at 4:00 am
Tehran's calculation is that Israel and the US cannot long tolerate a large number of casualties, while the Islamic Republic could do so with its weird doctrine of martyrdom. Finally, Tehran assumed that it enjoys the advantage of having a single war goal: survival. Finally, Tehran counts on what it believes is an absence of a serious alternative to the present regime... that would force the US, if not Israel, to end up taking to the post-Khamenei leadership in Tehran. Some wearers of military caps already dream of doing a Bonaparte, Iranian style. And some turbaned heads see themselves as the regime's new "Imam."
Can the US make peace with any figure from an Iranian regime that it has labeled "terrorist" and an imminent threat to American national security? Pictured: A man in military uniform protests against the United States in Tehran on March 6, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
On the eve of the current war between the Islamic Republic on one side and the US-Israel tandem on the other, I speculated about six scenarios that might take shape. It now seems that the scenario chosen by Tehran -- or what is left of its leadership -- is the Samson Option aimed at a long war designed to spread the conflict until the temple collapses on everyone's head. The choice of that option was based on several assumptions. The first was that President Donald Trump has no patience for getting involved in maze-like situations and that if short and quick success seems unavailable, he would move to another headline-catching endeavor. Last June, Trump terminated US involvement in Israel's war against Iran in just 37 hours by declaring a ceasefire that neither Israel nor Iran wanted. Trump's sensational Caracas coup lasted only five hours.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • March 7, 2026 at 5:00 am
Entire generations of Iranians have lived under a state apparatus that treats humanity as expendable; yet for decades, the international community has not only turned a blind eye; instead, it has actively funded and enabled this half-century horror show. While other countries remain silent, hesitant, or complicit through inaction, the United States and Israel have taken the only path that has a chance of restoring stability, opening the door to freedom and protecting innocent lives. Standing against tyranny – not procrastination, appeasement or bribery -- seems to be the only way to protect civilization. The sooner one disables a tyranny, the easier it is to defeat it. Today, as the United States and Israel carry out operations against Iran's tyranny, they deserve recognition and support. These are the only countries standing between the world and a state that has terrorized its citizens and the global community for nearly half a century. The silence and inaction of so many nations is no longer acceptable. Supporting these efforts means choosing freedom over despotism, courage over fear, and justice over complicity. God bless the United States and Israel -- and President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- the only brave leaders standing against this regime of terror. All who care about freedom should align with them at once.
Entire generations of Iranians have lived under a state apparatus that treats humanity as expendable; yet for decades, the international community has not only turned a blind eye; instead, it has actively funded and enabled this half-century horror show. Pictured: Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian looks on as a 'Qasem Soleimani' missile is displayed during a military parade in Tehran, on September 21, 2024. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)
For 47 years, the world has endured a regime that has consistently inflicted terror, suffering, and violence both within its own borders and across the globe. The Islamic Republic of Iran, since its inception in 1979, has built its identity around repression, brutality, and the export of radical ideology. Tens of thousands of its own citizens have been killed, tortured, or imprisoned simply for voicing dissent or seeking the simple freedoms we take for granted. The regime has crushed protests, silenced journalists, and employed fear and intimidation to maintain its grip on power. Entire generations of Iranians have lived under a state apparatus that treats humanity as expendable; yet for decades, the international community has not only turned a blind eye; instead, it has actively funded and enabled this half-century horror show. This is a regime that embodies terror at every level, a regime whose brutality is unmatched in modern history, and for far too long, its evil has gone unchecked.
Continue Reading Article
by Nils A. Haug • March 6, 2026 at 5:00 am
"Zionism" is basically the right of the Jewish nation to live in its ancestral home -- the land promised them in millennia past. Nothing more, nothing less. The safe haven of this tiny piece of land -- roughly 22,000 sq. km., about the same as the state of New Jersey - is therefore irreversibly important. Yet, it has become common for others to denigrate Israel's right even to exist. Israel, like every country, may not be perfect, but in the accusations they make against it, Israel's enemies feel the need to lie. They accuse Israelis of being "settlers" or "colonialists," meanwhile managing to block out that, on the contrary, it was Muslim armies that invaded, conquered, "colonized" and "settled" much of the planet. Examples, just in the West, include the great Christian Byzantine Empire, Christian Coptic Egypt, Iberia, Europe, and, in 1974, northern Cyprus, among other victims. France, for instance, was only saved from the invading Muslim armies by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 CE. Demonizing Israel is, of course, always a useful way for a corrupt or incompetent ruler to deflect attention from his own failures onto a convenient decoy. Throughout history, Jews, and most recently, Israel, appear to be repeatedly recruited for this distinction. Israel's antagonists, particularly in Europe, appear to be envious that a small nation, which began with sand, desert and malarial swamps, had the gall to become an international powerhouse, while they continue to struggle with economies misguidedly designed to fail, and millions of newcomers apparently intent on replacing Europe's values with their own. Israel's denigrators probably ask themselves how those "upstarts" in Israel could be so innovative and successful while they, the virtuous, so generously share countless social benefits with needy migrants -- many of whom openly say they would like to overthrow the elected government and transform Europe into an Islamic Caliphate. Despite all odds, for nearly 4,000 years, the Jewish people have survived and thrived, and notwithstanding wars and relentless attacks from enemies, the Jews -- who do not wish ill of anyone -- defeated them all to stand stronger than ever. With courage and brilliance, the determined nation of King David will not just continue to thrive; they will soar.
"Zionism" is basically the right of the Jewish nation to live in its ancestral home -- the land promised them in millennia past. Nothing more, nothing less. The safe haven of this tiny piece of land -- roughly 22,000 sq. km., about the same as the state of New Jersey - is therefore irreversibly important. Image source: iStock/Getty Images
Israel is a spiritual, multi-ethnic, hard-working nation – one founded on nearly four millennia of persecution, leavened by a divine covenant that imparted an enduring national and moral identity on its people. The dramatic events at Mt. Sinai, when the twelve tribes received the Torah with its 613 laws, established not only religious principles but a collective social identity coupled with an allocation of land in perpetuity. It was only when rooted in the promised land itself that the Jewish people could truly become a nation of destiny.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 5, 2026 at 8:00 am
The Muslim Brotherhood is no less dangerous than the Iranian regime. While banned as a terrorist organization in some Arab countries, it maintains a presence in the Middle East and operates through networks and affiliates in Western countries through various organizations, think tanks and charities that promote its Islamist ideology. The Muslim Brotherhood cannot be eliminated through military action. Fighting this movement involves a multifaceted, long-term approach combining legal designations, financial restrictions, and ideological counter-messaging. Key strategies include designating affiliates as terrorist organizations, dismantling financial networks, and limiting their influence in education and religious institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's regime share a deadly hatred of the West, advocate the destruction of Israel, and seek to undermine Arab and Islamic states that are moderate or pro-Western. Both have supported Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) and aim to unify the Muslim world (ummah) under a shared political-religious vision. [Leading Muslim Brotherhood member Sayyid] Qutb saw Islam as a liberation movement requiring active struggle -- including violence -- to overthrow regimes that obstruct God's law.... and he advocated violent, offensive jihad. "Osama bin Laden also clearly identified with Qutb's Islamist ideology. As mentioned earlier, while a student at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was tutored by Qutb's brother, Muhammad... Militarily, the al-Qa'ida leadership has adopted Qutb's understanding of jihad and embraced his overall objective... By appropriating Qutb's interpretation of the justification for jihad, al-Qa'ida has been able to rationalise war against the United States." The US government recently designated certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood (specifically in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon) as foreign terrorist organizations, following US President Donald J. Trump's November 2025 executive order to begin that process. Trump's order and the subsequent designation were good steps in the right direction, but they are hopelessly insufficient. The entire organization should be banned. There is no reason why the Trump administration should not follow the actions of Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, and officially designate the entire Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. It is meaningless to get rid of the Iranian regime while allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to continue serving as an inspiration to Islamist terrorists. The Muslim Brotherhood's reaction to the US-Israeli attack on the Iranian regime includes an appeal to Muslims to rise against the US and Israel. This call should be treated by the US and the rest of the West as a declaration of war by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood seriously needs to be the next target after the mullahs of Iran.
The Muslim Brotherhood is no less dangerous than the Iranian regime. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's regime share a deadly hatred of the West, advocate the destruction of Israel, and seek to undermine Arab and Islamic states that are moderate or pro-Western. Fighting this movement involves a multifaceted, long-term approach combining legal designations, financial restrictions, and ideological counter-messaging. Pictured: The logo of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Sunni Islamist organization aiming to institute sharia-based governance, has come out against the US-Israeli military operation targeting the Shiite Iranian regime, despite the Sunni-Shia divide that originated in 632 CE over who should succeed Islam's Prophet Mohammed. Sunnis, who make up 90% of Muslims, believed leaders should be elected by consensus, chose Abu Bakr as caliph. Shias believed leadership should follow Mohammed's bloodline, specifically via his cousin and son-in-law, Ali. In a statement published on March 1, Professor Mahmoud Hussein, acting "general guide" of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote:
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence A. Franklin • March 5, 2026 at 5:00 am
Israel's initiative in recognizing Somaliland potentially raises the level of threat from the Houthis, an Iranian-supported terrorist militia that occupies most of northern Yemen. Somaliland is located directly across from Yemen. The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah ("Friends of Allah"), have proven their durability by having survived many US and Israeli airstrikes. If Somaliland allows Israel or the US to construct air and naval facilities on its Red Sea coast, the prevalence of terrorism throughout the Middle East -- including Houthi aggression against oil and gas shipping -- could enjoy a welcome revision. The November 2025 visit to Somaliland by US Africa Command head General Dagvin Anderson suggests that Washington is also fed up with Houthi terrorist operations. Possible future joint US-Somaliland military projects could include an upgrade to the Red Sea deep port of Berbera. Most of the outrage by international organizations and regional institutions consists of the typical virtue signaling. The opposition to the recognition of Somaliland by the African Union may reflect concern that Israel's initiative has set an impertinent international diplomatic precedent. By contrast, some pro-Western African states, such as Ethiopia and Kenya, could actually benefit from increased regional security. Ethiopia, a landlocked northeast African state, might explore the possibility of lobbying the government to construct a canal across Somaliland allow Ethiopia access to Red Sea shipping lanes. Currently, Ethiopia, like Israel itself, is surrounded by hostile Islamic countries. In Ethiopia's case, it is bounded by Eritrea and Somalia. By allying with Somaliland, Ethiopia would give its majority Christian people an opportunity to end their cultural isolation. Kenya's national sovereignty is also under threat by Islamic terrorist penetration of its national borders, and the country's pro-Western orientation is already highlighted by its participation in US-sponsored counterterrorist operations against Al Shabaab.
If Somaliland allows Israel or the US to construct air and naval facilities on its Red Sea coast, the prevalence of terrorism throughout the Middle East -- including Houthi aggression against oil and gas shipping -- could enjoy a welcome revision. Pictured: People gather to celebrate Israel's recognition of Somaliland's independence in downtown Hargeisa, on December 26, 2025. (Photo by Farhan Aleli / AFP via Getty Images)
Israel's December 2025 diplomatic recognition of Somaliland as an independent state may indicate significant improvements in Middle East security. Somaliland, which originally seceded from Somalia in 1991, had not been granted diplomatic status by any other member of the United Nations prior to Israel's recognition. Israel's initiative in recognizing Somaliland potentially raises the level of threat from the Houthis, an Iranian-supported terrorist militia that occupies most of northern Yemen. Somaliland is located directly across from Yemen. The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah ("Friends of Allah"), have proven their durability by having survived many US and Israeli airstrikes. If Somaliland allows Israel or the US to construct air and naval facilities on its Red Sea coast, the prevalence of terrorism throughout the Middle East -- including Houthi aggression against oil and gas shipping -- could enjoy a welcome revision.
Continue Reading Article
by Robert Williams • March 4, 2026 at 1:30 pm
The video reveals something far more troubling: the survival of Iran's ideological and proxy doctrine inside elements aligned with Sudan's armed forces. Sudan's war, unfortunately, is no longer simply a domestic struggle for power. The war instead has increasingly been intersecting with a broader geopolitical contest stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. The speech captured in the video echoes themes familiar across Iran's regional network: hostility toward Israel, denunciations of the United States and appeals framed in Islamist ideological terms. These narratives are central to what Iran calls the "Axis of Resistance" — a loose network of movements and militias aligned with Tehran's geopolitical ambitions. Tehran's most enduring weapon has never been its army. It has been its doctrine. Sudan's civil war may now be giving that doctrine a dangerous new battlefield.
The video reveals something far more troubling: the survival of Iran's ideological and proxy doctrine inside elements aligned with Sudan's armed forces.
An exclusive video circulating among intelligence sources shows a Sudanese army officer addressing a crowd during the country's ongoing civil war. In the speech, he openly threatens Israel and expresses solidarity with Iran against the United States and its allies. At first glance, such rhetoric might appear to be the product of wartime propaganda. It is not. The video reveals something far more troubling: the survival of Iran's ideological and proxy doctrine inside elements aligned with Sudan's armed forces. Even as Iran faces economic strain and growing regional pressure, the strategic model it developed over decades — cultivating ideological allies and proxy networks — continues to spread. Sudan's civil war may now be providing fertile ground for its revival. A Civil War Becoming a Geopolitical Arena
Continue Reading Article
by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury • March 4, 2026 at 5:00 am
While Jamaat has often participated in electoral politics, its long-term objective has remained unchanged: the establishment of a theocratic state under Islamic jurisprudence. Within hours of the news [of Iranian Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khameni's elimination].... Jamaat-e-Islami...[s]enior leaders delivered speeches accusing the United States and Israel of "murder" and calling for mass mobilization. Even though organizationally separate, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat have maintained ideological synergy and periodic cooperation across South Asia and the Middle East. Both movements frame global politics as a civilizational struggle between Islamic governance and Western liberalism The party's reaction to Khamenei's death therefore aligns with a broader Brotherhood pattern: portraying Islamist leaders as martyrs, condemning Western military intervention, and mobilizing street sentiment against perceived external aggression. In Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan issued statements condemning the US and praising Khamenei. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly expressed condolences, referring to Khamenei as a "martyr," signaling Islamabad's diplomatic tilt toward Tehran.... In India, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind characterized the US-Israeli strikes as aggression and described Khamenei in reverential terms. China's engagement with Islamist political actors is not ideological but strategic... that Jamaat's anti-American rhetoric may not merely be reactive but part of a broader geopolitical appraisal. Historically, some Western policymakers have viewed Islamist parties as "moderate" alternatives to more violent jihadist factions. However, the Brotherhood's track record across the Middle East -- from Egypt to Gaza -- illustrates that participation in elections does not necessarily equate to ideological moderation. Jamaat's present mobilization over Khamenei underscores that its core worldview remains rooted in a civilizational narrative that positions the United States as an adversary. Even media outlets such as Al Jazeera have continued narratives sympathetic to Iran. By framing Khamenei's death as martyrdom and Western aggression, they reinforce their narrative of global Islamic victimhood. The danger lies not only in street protests but in gradual ideological conditioning. By presenting Iran's theocratic regime as a victim of Western aggression, Jamaat implicitly legitimizes clerical rule and the fusion of religion and state power. The protests over Khamenei's elimination are not merely about Iran. They are about ideology. For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and New Delhi, the lesson should be clear: political Islam movements cannot be evaluated solely through electoral participation, diplomatic engagement or even promises of prosperity. Their doctrinal commitments matter. The events unfolding in Bangladesh demonstrate that beneath tactical flexibility lies an enduring ideological project -- one that continues to view global politics through the lens of religious sovereignty and civilizational struggle for global control.
Pictured: Activists of the Jamaat-e-Islami party hold posters of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a protest against the US and Israel in Dhaka, Bangladesh on March 1, 2026. (Photo by Munir Uz Zaman/AFP via Getty Images)
The elimination of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in a joint US-Israeli military operation has triggered a predictable wave of outrage against the West across hardline Islamist networks. In Bangladesh, however, the reaction has revealed something deeper and more consequential: the enduring ideological character of Jamaat-e-Islami, not yet designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, and its strategic alignment with transnational Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence Kadish • March 3, 2026 at 5:00 am
Pictured: The USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, on November 13, 2025. (Photo by Paige Brown/US Navy via Getty Images)
For President Donald J. Trump, it doesn't take another 9/11 attack on the United States to strike at the head of a snake. His preemptive assault on the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, recognizes the stark reality that the ruling ayatollahs and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have not only sworn to destroy the State of Israel but seek to dominate the entire Middle East, from Yemen to Syria and beyond. They have slaughtered their own citizens, murdered American military personnel, and encouraged and funded acts of terror worldwide. Despite Trump's efforts to engage in diplomacy, it was clear from the start that the terrorists of Tehran were never going to accede to peace. They would not have stopped until their nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles had left a smoking mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, and Riyadh would probably have been not far behind.
Continue Reading Article
by Ahmed Charai • March 3, 2026 at 4:00 am
Governments confident in their legitimacy do not rely systematically on lethal repression to preserve authority. Iran's long-term stability — should responsible leadership emerge — will depend not on ideological rigidity, but on whether political structures align with the aspirations and capabilities of its people. Any future framework must be conditional, sequenced, and compliance-based. Economic reintegration would need to be phased and benchmark-driven. Whether or not any single individual ultimately leads that transformation, the emergence of structured, modernization-oriented leadership is essential if Iran is to move from confrontation to responsible statehood. What follows will not be determined by rhetoric but by decisions — in Tehran, by the Iranian people; in Washington; and across the region. This is not merely a period of tension; it is a structural test of governance, credibility, and strategic direction. The objective is the restoration of balance, sovereignty, and lawful order.
Governments confident in their legitimacy do not rely systematically on lethal repression to preserve authority. Iran's long-term stability — should responsible leadership emerge — will depend not on ideological rigidity, but on whether political structures align with the aspirations and capabilities of its people. Pictured: Members of Iran's security forces on a street in Tehran on March 2, 2026. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
For many years, I have argued that a political system built on internal repression and external confrontation cannot sustain durable legitimacy or long-term strategic credibility. A state that governs through fear at home while exporting instability abroad ultimately confronts the accumulated costs of that contradiction. No system can indefinitely suppress its society while destabilizing its region without eroding its own foundations. For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has relied on a dual doctrine: coercion internally and confrontation externally. Domestically, repression has been institutionalized — imprisonment of journalists, systematic discrimination against women, suppression of civil protests, and repeated lethal crackdowns. Externally, the regime projected power through proxy militias, ideological expansion, and calibrated destabilization, even as its own economy deteriorated under sanctions, corruption, and structural mismanagement.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 2, 2026 at 5:00 am
These Palestinian statements should be viewed as a direct threat not only against Israel, but also against the US. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have not learned from the self-defeating decisions they made in the past, when they chose to align themselves with the enemies of Israel and the US. Removing Iran's mullahs from power is not enough. The Israeli-US military operation should be expanded to include the Iranian regime's proxies.
Palestinian statements of support for the Iranian regime should be viewed as a direct threat not only against Israel, but also against the US. Pictured: Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R) meets with the late Ismail Haniyeh (C), head of the political bureau of Hamas, and Ziyad al-Nakhalah, Secretary General of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, on July 30, 2024. (Photo by the Iranian Supreme Leader's Press Office via Getty Images)
Shortly after airstrikes on Iran began on February 28, several Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), issued strong condemnations of Israel and the US and voiced support for the Iranian regime. They also called on Arabs and Muslims to stand united against Israel and the US. Palestinian support for the Iranian regime did not come as a surprise. For decades, the Iranian regime had provided significant financial and military support to both Hamas and PIJ. This backing is a cornerstone of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" strategy, which aims to project regional influence to counter Israeli and US interests in the Middle East. In the past, the Palestinians supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Continue Reading Article
by Nils A. Haug • March 1, 2026 at 5:00 am
How fitting that the US and Israel finally retaliated against 47 years of aggression by the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the week of the Biblical Purim festival. The greatness of Western civilization was primarily founded on a composite of Judeo-Christian religious values, Greek philosophy and political theory, and Roman jurisprudence, all providing definitive moral guidance. This is the noble civilization that, through its principles, has led much of the world into prosperity, democracy, individual liberty, equal justice under the law, freedom of expression and human rights. Ironically, free speech is under self-imposed threat of termination in their nations, including those located as far from Europe as Australia. When Rubio delivered his inclusionary speech, which received a standing ovation, the following day, the European Parliament, and associated personages, appeared already to have made up their minds. They were happy with the current state of affairs, thank you, and did not need America's cultural, political or scientific input; only its guarantee for defense or support for ideological dreamscapes. Their message was obvious: they would not commit to the US's idea of a common Western cultural heritage, nor would they join the US in preventing civilizational decline. Those brave souls who do have the courage to speak up are ostracized, imprisoned or overruled. Apart from ruinous civil wars to remedy the situation, the last hope seems to reside in a few dedicated personalities, mainly in the US -- that last bastion of free speech -- who occasionally appear to view the status quo as in need of a bit of a shake-up. These individuals evidently believe that the values of the West are worth preserving. Elsewhere, Western civilization endures in a few lonely places, such as Hungary and Poland, as well as the tiny nation of Israel – a courageous country that has spent nearly eight decades fighting – and winning – wars of self-defense, yet continues to be unjustly vilified by almost everyone. These are just some of the brave nations that exemplify, however imperfectly, the reservoir of Judeo-Christian values, the fount of the West. Might anyone else please sign up? Europe's decision-makers, meanwhile, blissfully carry on, condemning Israel, rebuffing the US, and voting to send their countries into barbarism.
Only a few brave nations exemplify, however imperfectly, the reservoir of Judeo-Christian values, the fount of the West. Might anyone else please sign up? Pictured: A Roman statue of Atlas (circa 2nd-century CE) at the National Archaeological Museum of Naples. (Photo by Lalupa/Wikimedia Commons)
How fitting that the US and Israel finally retaliated against 47 years of aggression by the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the week of the Biblical Purim Festival. Then, roughly 2,300 years ago, Haman, viceroy to Persia's King Ahasuerus, threw a lot ("pur", plural "purim") to determine the date by which he would kill all the Jews in the empire. This plan's successor sits (or sat) in Tehran's Palestine Square: a "doomsday clock" counting down the minutes until Israel is supposed no longer to exist: 2040, to be exact. Iran's current regime began its bellicosity in November 1979 with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's vows of "Death to America," then kidnapping and holding hostage 53 US Embassy personnel in Tehran for 444 days, until the inauguration of US President Ronald Reagan in 1981 appears to have frightened them off. The hostages were immediately released.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • March 1, 2026 at 4:00 am
[A] war is never won by one side declaring victory but when one side admits defeat. A short, sharp and necessarily limited attack will be followed by Tehran accepting a ceasefire and expressing willingness to enter a new round of negotiations, exactly like what happened last June. In that case the attack would have been pointless because Tehran has already used the negotiation charade that has continued for almost half a century. The second scenario is that the "hardline faction" is defanged and pro-US groups seize control. That would mean returning to the good old days of President Barack Obama when John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif strolled together along Lake Leman to ponder how to hoodwink critics at home. The third scenario is that the attack causes systemic collapse and enables Reza Pahlavi's "team" to concoct a transitional government and organize their referendum. [A]re [you] ready for the long haul that could produce a positive outcome as it did in West Germany, Japan and South Korea after World War II and the peninsular war.
(Image source: iStock/Getty Images)
Then what? This is the question that theoreticians of war from Sun Tzu to Jomini and Liddell-Hart and passing by Clausewitz advise leaders to ask before they order the firing of the first shot in a war. Thus, one may suggest that US President Donald Trump should also ask that question before, as many expect, he triggers a new round of military attacks on Iran. The New York Times believes that by assembling the largest strike force since 2003 Trump has cornered himself in a position from which he cannot wiggle out without losing face or more. Former State Department "strategic brain" Richard Haass claims that Trump is sleep-walking into a war. In Tehran, officials also predict some form of military action which they expect would clear the air without threatening the existence of the regime.
Continue Reading Article
|
