Latest Analysis and Commentary
by Majid Rafizadeh • April 5, 2026 at 5:00 am
For decades, the Iranian regime has played a calculated game. Every few years, when pressure intensifies — whether economic, political or military — it introduces a figure portrayed as "moderate" or "pragmatic." This narrative was once built around figures like Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, both marketed to the West as agents of change. Today, a similar narrative is emerging around Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. A closer examination of Ghalibaf's record, however, exposes the disaster in this recurring assumption. He is not an outsider, reformer or transformative figure. He is a quintessential insider — a product of the system from its earliest days. What the Trump Administration seems to find irresistible about Ghalibaf is that he is reported to be a "yes man." The Administration is likely hoping that he will be its "yes man," not the IRGC's. The sticking point that has surfaced, however, is that "[e]ven if he wants to do something, he has to get approval from the IRGC and the supreme leadership." Even when figures such as Ghalibaf are floated as potential candidates for Iran's presidency, they remain deeply embedded in a system where ultimate authority lies in layers of leadership. Whoever thinks that such individuals can independently reshape policy or fundamentally alter the regime's trajectory misunderstands how power operates in Tehran. The goal is not cooperatively to transform the system, but to help it survive. For Iran's rulers, reform is not just undesirable — it is unacceptable, the equivalent of expecting a rabbi to eat bacon on the Jewish fasting day of Yom Kippur. At present, there is a strong incentive for Iran to simply wait out Trump. Future US presidents, it is assumed, will be more accommodating; they always have been. The United States and its allies, including Israel, should not again fall for the dusted-off illusion that a new Iranian official will now, suddenly, out of a top hat, represent meaningful change.... Whether it was Khatami, Rouhani, or now Ghalibaf, in reality, within Iran's regime, there are no true moderates. As long as the current structure of the Islamic Republic remains intact, the system — not the individuals — is the defining force.
For decades, the Iranian regime has played a calculated game. When pressure intensifies — whether economic, political or military — it introduces a figure portrayed as "moderate" or "pragmatic." Today a similar narrative is emerging around Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. A closer examination of his record, however, exposes that he is not an outsider, reformer or transformative figure. He is a quintessential insider — a product of the system from its earliest days. Pictured: Ghalibaf (L) sits beside then Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, reading the Koran during Friday prayers on October 4, 2024 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by the Office of the Supreme Leader/Getty Images)
The United States should not fall for the wish that any official of the current Iranian regime will somehow be different from the others. This illusion has surfaced repeatedly, repackaged with new faces and new rhetoric, but always serving the same underlying system. Washington and its allies really need to recognize that individuals within the Islamic Republic of Iran do not operate independently of the regime's ideological core — they are products of it. For decades, the Iranian regime has played a calculated game. Every few years, when pressure intensifies — whether economic, political or military — it introduces a figure portrayed as "moderate" or "pragmatic." This narrative was once built around figures like Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, both marketed to the West as agents of change.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • April 5, 2026 at 4:30 am
Seen from a long-term angle, all three protagonists in this war risk emerging as losers. Without a clear regime change in Tehran, neither Trump nor Netanyahu could justify the huge cost in treasure and prestige of this war. A fishtail outcome would remind Americans and Israelis that Hamas is still in control of a third of the Gaza Strip and recognized as a negotiating partner by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump's Board of Peace is morphing into another of his impressionistic nature-morte tableaux. The US and Israel may also lose the Iranian people as one of the few nations known for their positive view of both countries. The theme of "you came and destroyed our industrial, economic and scientific infrastructure, but left our torturers in place" is gaining currency among Iranians both at home and abroad.
Pictured: Policemen flank a cleric atop an armored vehicle, at a public funeral for militiamen of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Tehran on March 11, 2026. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Despite numerous claims and counterclaims by Iran, Israel and the United States about the possible outcome of their current war, one thing is clear: None of the trio has achieved the goals they set for themselves when they lit its fire. On the Iranian side, the late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had hoped that by adopting the "Samson option," he would provoke a brief regional war with limited damage to his Islamic Republic because he would step in and offer another of his "heroic flexibility" tricks before things got out of hand. He also hoped he would be allowed to do a pirouette himself and re-energize his moribund regime for a few more years. However, things didn't go as he fancied. His "heroic flexibility" was designed to come after the first wave of attacks by Israeli and American bombers targeting part of Iran's military infrastructure. However, as he wasn't there to do his part, Israel and the US had to go for a second wave of bombings.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence Kadish • April 5, 2026 at 4:00 am
Iran has launched ballistic missiles capable of hitting Europe as well as US bases in the Indian Ocean. The ruling ayatollahs want to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. Pictured: The Bushehr nuclear reactor in southern Iran, photographed on August 20, 2010. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)
Like the fighter who distracts his foe with feints before bringing an uppercut that knocks out his opponent, the world has been exclusively focused on Iran shutting the Straits of Hormuz while ignoring the chilling fact that it is a regime of theocratic extremists who have launched ballistic missiles capable of hitting Europe as well as US bases in the Indian Ocean. Iran's ruling ayatollahs want to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. That is where the real threat lies -- not in a Middle East waterway -- but in Iran's missile silos and nuclear weapons program. While this conflict has seriously degraded Iran's military capability, it has also revealed the stunning fact that a regime sworn to erase Israel from the face of the planet, and which describes the U.S. as "the Great Satan," has produced an assembly line of ballistic missiles whose extended range sends a chilling message throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe.
Continue Reading Article
by Nils A. Haug • April 4, 2026 at 5:00 am
While basking in the protection offered by America's military capability so they can fund their bulging, barely-functioning welfare programs, and taking advantage of America's powerful economy with preferential tariffs in their favor, when asked for support, these putative allies run for cover. While Iran's terror is aimed at large swaths of the West, it is Israel, as the homeland of the Jewish people, that is Iran's first target for elimination. It seems that, in the eyes of Europe's elite and the European Union, the Holocaust... has become passé, if not a liability. In 2001, long before the Gaza War, France's ambassador to the UK, Daniel Bernard, already called Israel a "shitty little country" -- and "polite society defended him." [For] nearly five decades, relatively little, if any, condemnation was heard coming from the UK, France and Spain about Iran's despotic and murderous activities across a wide array of geographical arenas. Then, when the US made a small request -- the use of a base to remedy this global horror -- the UK turned it down. There is, in fact, no more loyal friend to Western interests than Israel – a tiny nation fighting to preserve civilization for all of Europe and the free world while in the crosshairs of Iran's terror activities. Yet, when Israel comes under missile barrages from Iran and its proxies, Macron never offers to send assistance of any kind, even if only defensive, nor did the UK, Spain, Germany, or any other European nation -- nor Canada. No one did, except the United States. [T]he UK, France, and Germany -- reveal their antipathy towards anything that might applaud or validate Israel's existence, perhaps out of envy over Israel's incredible economic and military success. Western Europe and Canada's elitist leaders appear unable in any way to acknowledge that "those Jews" -- supposedly those upstart "oppressor-colonialist racists" who have lived on their land for "only" 4,000 years when in fact it was the Europeans themselves who colonized large parts of the planet -- might be showing them up. Netanyahu, called by Andrew Roberts "The Churchill of the Middle East," has endured unimaginable opposition from all quarters in a seven-front war. His villainization began long before the war. Trump and Netanyahu are evidently obstacles to a "brave new world" wherein the brotherhood of man, humanitarianism, climate change, globalism, diversity, equity, central planning, and all sorts of other fanciful Marxian ideologies reign supreme. It is political correctness run rampant. The problem is not just what has overtaken Europe, but the entrenched fecklessness of its leaders.
While Israel predicably – and falsely -- gets the blame for leading the US into war with Iran, the major European powers -- the UK, France, and Germany -- reveal their antipathy towards anything that might applaud or validate Israel's existence, perhaps out of envy over Israel's incredible economic and military success. Pictured: France's President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2026 in Munich, Germany. (Photo by Kay Nietfeld-Pool/Getty Images)
Some of America's friends, purported Western allies, have shown their true colors at last. Regrettably, without shame, they have proven to be nothing but parasites. While basking in the protection offered by America's military capability so they can fund their bulging, barely-functioning welfare programs, and taking advantage of America's powerful economy with preferential tariffs in their favor, when asked for support, these putative allies run for cover. In naming and shaming these "fair-weather" friends – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, Greece and the United Kingdom, among others, the last might be a good place to start. Somehow, somewhere along the line, leading politicians of the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer specifically, seem to have overlooked a bit of history. During World War II, Great Britain would have been destroyed by Germany but for one crucial factor – the military and economic might of the United States.
Continue Reading Article
by Rahul Mishra, Harshit Prajapati and Prisie L. Patnayak • April 3, 2026 at 5:00 am
Purveyors of radical content, to reach a wider audience, have overtaken the non-confrontational format through memes, commentary video reels and influencer content. Extremist propaganda is being repackaged in local languages. Algorithms on these social media platforms serve as amplifiers for radical content. Although concealed as individual efforts, they were systematically planned and organised. Encrypted messaging platforms such as Telegram, WhatsApp, TamTam, Threema and Hoop are being used by extremists to communicate and plan activities. According to media reports, 54% of terrorism-related arrests in Malaysia involve support for Islamic State via online platforms. Terrorist organisations such as Jamaat-e-Islami have deeply penetrated Bangladeshi society -- aided and abetted by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. In Afghanistan, Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISIS-K, or ISKP) and Al-Qaeda resurfaced when the Taliban regime took over the country after the United States fled. The entire region is plagued by the online propaganda of terrorist organisations. In the region, to address the threat of cross-border terror finance and radicalisation on private social media platforms, countries urgently need to develop region-wide legal and cybersecurity frameworks. At the global level, like-minded countries need deeper cooperation with intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and stronger collaborative efforts that cut across government agencies, non-governmental organisations, tech companies and civil society organisations.
Cyber-enabled terrorism has become a critical national security issue for countries in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in India's Jammu and Kashmir, the wider Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia, where end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms and online recruitment have connected a substantial percentage of Muslim youths to Islamist terror networks. Pictured: Indian security forces in Kashmir inspect the site of a terrorist attack carried out by the Pakistani terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed, in which 40 Indian troops were killed, on February 14, 2019. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
Cyber-enabled terrorism has become a critical national security issue for countries in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in India's Jammu and Kashmir, the wider Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia, where end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms and online recruitment have connected a substantial percentage of Muslim youths to Islamist terror networks. Purveyors of radical content, to reach a wider audience, have overtaken the non-confrontational format through memes, commentary video reels and influencer content. Extremist propaganda is being repackaged in local languages. Algorithms on these social media platforms serve as amplifiers for radical content. This has led to so-called "self-radicalisation," in turn giving birth to "lone wolf " attackers who carry out political violence without direct support or instruction from an established terrorist network.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • April 2, 2026 at 5:00 am
Details emerging from recent investigations are chilling. These men are not "political activists." They are terrorists embedded in an organized network. The Muslim Brotherhood has long mastered the art of dual messaging. To the West, it presents itself as a network of charities, activists, community leaders and political organizers. Yet the same organization is, in Egypt and elsewhere, linked to terror cells, assassins, and attempts to carry out mass-casualty attacks. By failing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in its entirety, Western governments are allowing it to entrench itself politically, financially, and socially within Western societies. If the US and its allies are truly committed to confronting extremism, they seriously need to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms, not just when it explodes into violence. A full designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would disrupt its funding networks, restrict its operations and send a clear message that extremism, whether disguised as political activism or expressed through terrorism, will not be tolerated.
The Muslim Brotherhood has long mastered the art of dual messaging. To the West, it presents itself as a network of charities, activists, community leaders and political organizers. Yet the same organization is, in Egypt and elsewhere, linked to terror cells, assassins, and attempts to carry out mass-casualty attacks. If the US and its allies are truly committed to confronting extremism, they seriously need to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms, not just when it explodes into violence. Pictured: The logo of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Many Westerners, it seems, still choose to believe a lie: that the Muslim Brotherhood organization is a political and social movement that can be engaged, moderated, and safely accommodated within democratic systems. This belief is both mistaken and dangerous. Recent developments in Egypt expose an alarming reality that should shake not only the Egyptians, but also the US and other Western countries. In late March, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior announced that security forces successfully dismantled a major terrorist infrastructure linked to the Muslim Brotherhood's armed wing, HASM (Harakat Sawaid Misr, "Arms of Egypt Movement"). Details emerging from recent investigations are chilling. At the center of the plot was Mahmoud Mohamed Abdel Wanis, a prominent member of HASM who confessed to receiving advanced military training, including in sniper tactics, explosives, and anti-aircraft weaponry.
Continue Reading Article
by Drieu Godefridi • April 1, 2026 at 5:00 am
The possible destruction of the mullahs' regime in Iran would not merely represent a geopolitical victory; it would mark the dawn of an era in which the idea that all human societies must be governed by Allah's law and not by men could finally be escorted back to where it came from. Of course not all Muslims are extremists. Many might even wish to leave Islam – if doing so were not regarded by their coreligionists as apostasy, punishable by death. As Qaradawi admitted on Egyptian television in 2013, "If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam would not exist today." Although the Bible is also filled with violent passages, such as the eschatological Book of Revelation, these are mainly descriptive accounts of events: what took place or will take place. Islam is proscriptive: what you must do Keep in mind that even if a court were to rule that "Kill the Jews" and "Kill the infidels" fall into this category, the late Arab leader Yasser Arafat would simply say, "You know what to do." People in the Free World, including Muslims, often themselves targets of extremist pressure, deserve a society in which faith remains for everyone a private matter of personal choice, free from coercion or death threats.
The possible destruction of the mullahs' regime in Iran would not merely represent a geopolitical victory; it would mark the dawn of an era in which the idea that all human societies must be governed by Allah's law and not by men could finally be escorted back to where it came from. Pictured: A funeral procession in Tehran, memorializing senior officers from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who were killed in Israeli strikes, on June 28, 2025. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
In the turmoil of revolutions and the fall of empires, history sometimes seems to extend a helping hand: the opportunity, in this instance, to end at least one expansionist movement that has been threatening the West. The possible destruction of the mullahs' regime in Iran would not merely represent a geopolitical victory; it would mark the dawn of an era in which the idea that all human societies must be governed by Allah's law and not by men could finally be escorted back to where it came from. For 47 years, the mullahs' regime has not only oppressed its own people; it has also served as a center for much of the terrorism that has bloodied the planet. From the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut to financing Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda, Tehran has exported its "Revolution" to the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The fall of the ayatollahs would offer an unprecedented opportunity.
Continue Reading Article
by Uzay Bulut • March 31, 2026 at 5:00 am
Christians in Syria are once again under attack by Islamic groups affiliated with the country's jihadist regime, headed by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda leader also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Following al-Sharaa's December 2024 seizure of power in Syria, persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, Druze and Alawites, has skyrocketed as the country undergoes a process of radical Islamization. U.S. President Donald J. Trump should never have allowed HTS and al-Sharaa – who justifiably had a $10 million bounty placed on his head by the U.S. State Department – to use Syria to entrench Sunni Islam by jihad (holy war). Al-Sharaa should be replaced at once. Jihad is not a local problem. If it is rewarded with an internationally recognized government in Syria, jihad will spread like wildfire across the globe.
Following President Ahmed al-Sharaa's December 2024 seizure of power in Syria, the jihadist regime's persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, Druze and Alawites, has skyrocketed as the country undergoes a process of radical Islamization. Pictured: Mar Elyas Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus on June 22, 2025, after an attack by jihadists who murdered 25 Christians and wounded nearly 70 there during Sunday mass. (Photo by Ali Haj Suleiman/Getty Images)
Christians in Syria are once again under attack by Islamic groups affiliated with the country's jihadist regime, headed by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda leader also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani. On March 22, the Ethnikos Association of Latakia-Antaradus (EALA) -- a Canada-based non-profit that advocates for the human rights of Syria's Alawite and Rum (Greek) communities -- issued a statement about the escalating attacks on Christians in Syria: "Credible, firsthand reports indicate a serious and rapidly deteriorating security situation [is occurring] for Christians in Kfarbo (Hama Governorate), Mhardeh (Hama Governorate), Al-Suqaylabiyah (Hama Governorate), Wadi al-Nasara (Homs Governorate), and surrounding areas....
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 30, 2026 at 5:00 am
Hamas, like Iran, continues to treat the idea of disarmament with a mix of dismissal and rhetorical defiance, effectively signaling that it has no intention of giving up its weapons or altering its dream of eliminating Israel. For Hamas, disarmament is not a serious proposal. Instead, it is a tool for political theater, a way to manipulate donors and tighten its grip over the Gaza Strip. In Hamas's view, the establishment of Israel on any of this land is an illegal "Zionist project" and a form of colonial occupation. When Hamas talks about "resistance" (Arabic: muqawama), it is referring to a comprehensive framework aimed at destroying Israel through a violent jihad (holy war), similar to the Islamic conquest of the Christian Byzantine Empire, or Turkey's 1974 invasion and conquest of northern Cyprus. According to the Independent Arabia report, some 20,000 Hamas gunmen will be integrated into a new security force in the Gaza Strip and receive salaries with international funding. The new force would be granted the status of an official security apparatus, recognized regionally and internationally. The "Board of Peace" has also apparently offered "political and legal immunity" to Hamas terrorists, guaranteeing that they will not be prosecuted internationally or by Israel in exchange for their involvement in a local governing council. If true, this means that the "Board of Peace" views Hamas as a legitimate and acceptable partner in the future management of the Gaza Strip. The mere act of engaging Hamas in such negotiations is beyond problematic. It risks not only legitimizing an Islamist terror group, but also entrenching its authoritarian rule in the Gaza Strip and paving the way for more massacres against Israel. The idea of integrating Hamas terrorists into the Gaza Strip's new security apparatus is even worse. Such a move sends a message to the Palestinians that participation in terrorism carries no consequences and that terrorists can move directly from violence into official roles without a meaningful process of disarmament. Legitimizing these terrorists -- as with the Taliban in Afghanistan -- undermines any attempt to establish norms of governance based on law rather than on violence, and can only embolden other terror groups. Without a credible enforcement mechanism -- backed by unified international and regional support -- calls for disarmament remain hallucinatory. It is hard to see how pro-Hamas countries such as Qatar, Turkey, or Pakistan, all part of the "Board of Peace" -- and two of which, Qatar and Pakistan, have never even recognized Israel -- would seriously participate in any effort to force the Palestinian terror groups to give up their weapons. Without such pressure, plans for disarmament will continue to be dismissed by Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups. Any plan that assumes these groups will voluntarily lay down their weapons is dangerously unenlightened.
Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups have again rejected demands by US President Donald J. Trump's "Board of Peace" to lay down their weapons. This rejection underscores the determination of terror groups to continue their fight against Israel. Pictured: Hamas terrorists in Gaza on February 15, 2025. (Photo by Moiz Salhi/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups have again rejected demands by US President Donald J. Trump's "Board of Peace" to lay down their weapons. This rejection underscores the determination of terror groups to continue their fight against Israel. The Palestinian terror groups' refusal to hand over their weapons shows they do not take seriously Trump's repeated threats that they must disarm as part of the October 2025 US-brokered ceasefire and reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip. Trump made his latest threat in February 2026, when he warned that Hamas would be "harshly met" if they failed to disarm. Hamas, like Iran, continues to treat the idea of disarmament with a mix of dismissal and rhetorical defiance, effectively signaling that it has no intention of giving up its weapons or altering its dream of eliminating Israel.
Continue Reading Article
by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury • March 30, 2026 at 4:00 am
On March 20, 2026, US Rep. Greg Landsman introduced House Resolution 1130, which recognizes the 1971 atrocities in Bangladesh as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. On March 25, 1971... Pakistan's military launched "Operation Searchlight", a coordinated campaign of mass murder targeting civilians... that would kill millions of Bangladeshis. The central flaw in Washington's current approach is its failure to confront the ideological and organizational infrastructure that enabled the genocide in the first place. Internal documents, congressional inquiries, and independent reports have repeatedly highlighted concerns about affiliated organizations operating in North America. These apprehensions include allegations of financial links to extremist causes and the dissemination of radical ideological material. Yet, apparently due to the influence of Islamists in various walks of life in the US, enforcement remains selective, and political considerations still seem to override security imperatives. "Just as the Muslim Brotherhood spawned terrorist groups such as Hamas, Gama'a Islamiyya (which killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat), and al Qaeda, Jamaat-e-Islami also spun off terrorist groups across South Asia such as Jaysh-i-Muhammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahidin, and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan." — Michael Rubin, Middle East expert, Washington Examiner, March 31, 2025. "Within Bangladesh, Jamaat-e-Islami was particularly brutal. It was intimately involved in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide that killed up to 3 million. For this reason, many Bangladeshis consider Jamaat-e-Islami members to be war criminals.... Nevertheless, Jamaat-e-Islami still receives active support from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency... " — Michael Rubin, Washington Examiner, March 31, 2025. After recent political upheavals, means of accountability, such as the International Crimes Tribunal established by Bangladesh, have been significantly weakened. Charges against individuals linked to the 1971 atrocities have been dropped, and institutions originally established to deliver justice have faced allegations of politicization and misuse. This reversal not only undermines justice but also emboldens those who seek to revive violent ideologies. If the United States is serious about confronting terrorism, it requires designating organizations with documented links to extremist activities, dismantling financial networks that sustain them, and challenging ideological narratives that legitimize violence. It also requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths — both about past alliances and present-day policy inconsistencies. The introduction of HR-1130 is an opportunity — perhaps a last opportunity — to prioritize the victims of genocide but also the forces that made such crimes possible. Without such an alignment, the resolution risks becoming what so many similar initiatives have become: a statement of principle detached from any meaningful policy action.
Pictured: The destroyed streets of Madhabpur, Bangladesh, during the war of liberation, on July 24, 1971. (Photo by TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)
In a welcome moment of moral clarity, the United States Congress took a step toward acknowledging one of the most underreported genocides of the twentieth century. On March 20, 2026, US Rep. Greg Landsman introduced House Resolution 1130, which recognizes the 1971 atrocities in Bangladesh as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Washington, Beijing, most Arab nations — as well as Palestinian leaders Yasser Arafat and Amin al-Husseini — vehemently opposed Bangladesh's secession from Pakistan in 1971, branding the war of liberation as a "battle between Pakistani Muslims and Bengali Hindus" and comparing it to the Israel-Arab conflict.
Continue Reading Article
by Grégoire Canlorbe • March 29, 2026 at 6:00 am
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism." — Zoheir Mohsen, late PLO senior official, Trouw, March 31, 1977. Hamas did not attack military targets to "end an occupation." It attacked families to affirm an old doctrine: the Jew is not an opponent; the Jew is a problem to be erased. If you want to understand October 7, forget the comforting story of "desperation turning violent." Pogroms are not born from desperation; they are born from permission — social, religious, political permission to commit the unthinkable and feel righteous doing it. In the Battle of Jenin, there was never any "confusion in the fog of war." The story that part of a hospital had been destroyed was a total fabrication. It revealed something essential: a good story has priority over reality. The genius of the system is psychological. Once the image circulates, correction becomes irrelevant. The emotional verdict has already been delivered. In modern warfare, the camera is no longer documenting the battle. It is part of the battlefield. The objective is not only to accuse Israel. It is to morally disarm the West. If you can persuade democratic societies that defending themselves equals murdering children, you have already won half the war. They hate Israel for what it is: an infidel state – and in their midst. If Israel were a Christian state, the same problem would exist. Just look at the genocide in Nigeria – with more than 52,000 Christians killed in just 14 years – in a free society, which is a visible rejection of the Islamic totalitarian dream. The Palestinian project is not a "two-state solution" or "a better border." The project is a world where religious and political absolutism rules, where minorities submit or vanish, where women are controlled, where dissent is crushed. Israel is the laboratory target. If the West rewards October 7 with political gains, it teaches a lesson to every violent movement on earth: massacre pays. So yes — Israel is defending itself, and in doing so, it is also defending the principle that civilization cannot survive if it negotiates with barbarity as if it were a partner who is misunderstood. "In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over...." — Ion Mihai Pacepa, a lieutenant general in the Socialist Republic of Romania's Securitate, the secret police, who defected to the West in 1978, Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2003. If a deal buys time for the "wrong" side, it is not a deal — it is an extension of the threat. The point is that Israel cannot outsource its survival, and the United States cannot pretend that totalitarian jihadism can be "managed" indefinitely. Either you dismantle the infrastructure of terror, or it regrows.... Israel's enemies... are imposing a war on civilization. Peace that is built on amnesia is not peace; it is a pause before the next war. The West will not be defeated by lack of power. It will be defeated — if it is defeated — by the refusal to oppose danger when they see it.
(Image source: Pierre Rehov/Wikimedia Commons)
Pierre Rehov is a French documentary filmmaker, director, and novelist. He is known for his movies about the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli–Palestinian conflict, its treatment in the media, and about terrorism. Grégoire Canlorbe: Are Iran's and Hamas's October 7, 2023 jihadi attacks on Israel responses to what they claim, that Israel is on their land? Pierre Rehov: Jews have lived on that land for nearly 4,000 years. Palestinians, by contrast, contrary to myth, actually do not exist. As the late PLO senior official Zoheir Mohsen openly stated in an interview with the Dutch daily Trouw on March 31, 1977:
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • March 29, 2026 at 4:00 am
Trump surely knows that even if Tehran meets all his demands now, there is no guarantee it would abide by them beyond his presidential tenure or even after the US midterm elections. In other words, the Venezuelan "solution" would just mean kicking the ball down the road. If there is an "Iran problem", and I have said there is for the past 47 years, the wisest and least problematic solution is regime change. The mistake that successive US administrations, European powers and some of our neighbors have made is to narrow down the choice in dealing with a rogue regime to appeasement or war, and often deciding that the former card trumps the latter. Between appeasement and war, there is a third option: regime change through Iran's internal political dynamics. A process of people-based change started almost four years ago and in late 2025 developed into the largest national uprising the region has seen in contemporary history.
The Venezuelan "solution" for Iran would just mean kicking the ball down the road. The wisest and least problematic solution is regime change. Pictured: Venezuela's then President Nicolás Maduro meets with Iran's then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on October 22, 2016, in Tehran. (Image source: khamenei.ir)
The latest ultimatum issued to Iran by US President Donald Trump is due to end as this column appears. What happens next is anybody's guess. The president might issue another ultimatum (I have lost count of how many he has issued in the past few weeks), or he might intensify his "special military operation" against the Khomeinist regime in Tehran by using the elite of the US Army to capture the Iranian island of Kharg. Whatever he does, he might render the very word ultimatum meaningless in the political and diplomatic lexicon. I don't think we should take Trump's ultimatum as a "do and die" warning. He is a dealmaker, not a bounty hunter. In any case, he may remember President Bill Clinton's response to those who asked why the US wouldn't just go after its foes and bomb them:
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • March 28, 2026 at 5:00 am
This is precisely the moment when the greatest strategic mistake could be made: stopping halfway while leaving "moderate" extremists still in place. If left intact, the regime will almost certainly, at some point -- after the Trump administration's term ends -- accelerate its most ambitious and dangerous projects, most notably its pursuit of nuclear weapons along with ballistic missiles to deliver them. Now, faced with intensified pressure and internal fragility, the regime has, as usual, apparently signaled a willingness to negotiate. It may even agree to sweeping terms – say "yes" to anything — not because of any positive transformation but as a tactic for survival. A ceasefire deal now would not resolve the underlying problem -- it would freeze it in place temporarily while allowing the regime to recover. Once stabilized, it would resume its activities -- with the same less-than-neighborly objectives. Any agreement with this regime, or what is left of it, will almost certainly end up undoing the very gains that the US and Israel have achieved. The choice, therefore, is between finishing what has been started or once again facing the same reality just around the bend.
This is the moment when the United States and Israel could make greatest strategic mistake in the Iran war: stopping halfway while leaving "moderate" extremists still in place. Pictured: Policemen flank a cleric atop an armored vehicle, at a public funeral for militiamen of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Tehran on March 11, 2026. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Only two countries, the United States and Israel, have finally confronted a regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, for nearly half a century, has held the world hostage and destabilized an entire region, all while brutally tormenting its own people. Iran's ruling system has built its identity on ideology — an expansionist doctrine rooted in "exporting the revolution," undermining and attacking sovereign states, and financing terrorist proxies. From Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in Gaza, to the Houthis in Yemen, to the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, to terrorist cells in Latin America, the regime has poured billions into non-state actors that perpetuate cycles of violence, weaken governments, and terrorize civilians. At home, it has maintained power through repression, torture, censorship and force.
Continue Reading Article
by Pierre Rehov • March 27, 2026 at 5:00 am
This is not containment. It is disarmament. It is the eradication of Iran's nuclear ambitions as a strategic variable. And it is accompanied by equally stringent regional and military demands: the cessation of financing, arming, and directing the organizations of the proxy terrorist network that has defined Iranian power projection for decades.... The United States is not seeking behavioral change. It is demanding total transformation. The regime in Tehran still stands, which is its all-encompassing objective. Iran's territory is not occupied and its capacity to inflict damage — through missiles and proxies — has not been fully neutralized. The costs Iran has imposed on its neighbors and adversaries, both militarily and with political pressure... are perceived as significant. From this perspective, the war might not appear lost to them. In an ongoing war, one does not surrender. One bargains. Most importantly, Tehran is betting on time. After all, Trump just promised not to bomb Iran's power plants for another ten days. Trump, in their reading, is a dealmaker, not an occupier. He seeks outcomes, not endless wars. And in the echo chambers of Western media, where narratives of American overreach and impending quagmire are readily amplified, Tehran finds confirmation of its own illusions. In the end, the outcome will not be determined by rhetoric or by the theatrical posturing of preconditions. It will be determined by the hard realities of power. It is overwhelmingly, decisively, and unmistakably tilted against Iran. Those now in charge of Iran... may no longer recognize that.
The Iranian regime has not merely rejected US President Donald Trump's peace plan; it has countered with a series of conditions so detached from reality that they raise a fundamental question: is Tehran negotiating or hallucinating? Pictured: A display of mock missiles and caskets with the Israeli and US flags at a regime-organized demonstration on March 22, 2026, in central Tehran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
US President Donald J. Trump has reportedly laid out a 15-point peace plan to Iran — with conditions that, taken together, amount to Tehran's near-total strategic capitulation. In response, the Iranian regime has not merely rejected them; it has countered with a series of conditions so detached from reality that they raise a fundamental question: is Tehran negotiating or hallucinating? What is unfolding is not a classic diplomatic standoff between two adversaries seeking a middle ground. It is a confrontation between a superpower-backed coalition imposing terms from a position of overwhelming superiority, and a regime that behaves as though it were dictating the outcome of a war it is, in fact, losing.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 26, 2026 at 5:00 am
While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise. For decades, the Arab world has been organized around a single political narrative: Israel is the central threat to regional stability. This narrative has shaped diplomacy, media, education, and public discourse across the Arab world. It has served Arab regimes as a tool of legitimacy and deflection – a way to redirect internal frustrations toward an external enemy. The Arabs' failure to help the Gulf states appears to stem from a desire to continue depicting Israel, and not Iran, as the central political issue. Arab inaction is driven mainly by fear, weakness, and division, but it is reinforced by a lingering reluctance to fully abandon the old regional narrative centered on Israel. If Arab states were to fully mobilize in defense of the Gulf against Iran – politically, militarily, and rhetorically – they would be forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: that the primary threat to Arab security no longer aligns with the anti-Israel narrative that has defined the region for generations. For the people of the Gulf states, the conclusion is clear: When it matters most, Arab solidarity is unreliable, and, contrary to the political discourse in the Arab world, Israel is not the central threat to regional stability.
While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise. Pictured: Flames and smoke rise from the site of an Iranian drone attack next to Dubai International Airport on March 16, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
Recent Iranian missile and drone attacks on Gulf states – including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait – have exposed a deep and widening rift within the Arab world. While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise. For decades, the Arab world has been organized around a single political narrative: Israel is the central threat to regional stability. This narrative has shaped diplomacy, media, education, and public discourse across the Arab world. It has served Arab regimes as a tool of legitimacy and deflection – a way to redirect internal frustrations toward an external enemy.
Continue Reading Article
|
