The Recycle Playbook: How Western Intelligence Exploits Sectarian Fault Lines

By Mohamad Hammoud

The Post-Ottoman Architecture of Permanent Division

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement established a lasting framework of fragmentation throughout the Islamic world by imposing arbitrary borders that fostered persistent internal discord and structural vulnerability. According to historical reporting by the BBC, these post-Ottoman divisions deliberately fractured regional solidarity by forcing disparate communities into unstable administrative units designed to prevent the emergence of a unified geopolitical front. In contemporary times, this imperialist approach has evolved from territorial partitioning to the deliberate orchestration of sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia groups. Such manufactured polarization weakens regional resistance to foreign dominance, diverting resources toward internal strife rather than external challenges. Through the strategic use of identity politics, Western intelligence agencies perpetuate instability, rendering the Middle East susceptible to ongoing external manipulation and exploitation.

The Pan-Islamic Threat to Imperial Hegemony

The significant implications of unified pan-Islamic sentiment became evident after the 2006 July War, when Hezbollah achieved a notable military victory against “Israel” and gained substantial cross-sectarian support. A research paper by the European Council on Foreign Relations observed that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah emerged as one of the most widely admired leaders among the Arab public, effectively bridging established theological divisions. A comprehensive study by the Brookings Institution found that the Lebanese resistance articulated a compelling regional narrative that integrated revolutionary politics with broader Arab nationalism. This rapid increase in popularity alarmed Western policymakers and their regional partners, who recognized that a widely supported, cross-sectarian movement opposing occupation posed a direct challenge to imperial interests in the Levant. Established powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, perceived this evolving material and ideological alignment as a fundamental threat to their regional influence.

Weaponizing the Syrian Crucible

In response to the rise of pan-Islamic momentum, Western policymakers and their regional partners systematically leveraged the Syrian civil war to convert a political dispute into a protracted, localized sectarian conflict. Analyst Marco Nilsson, writing in Third World Quarterly, noted that regional public opinion initially supported Hezbollah’s anti-imperialist position, but its subsequent military intervention in Syria significantly undermined its cross-sectarian appeal. Data from the European Council on Foreign Relations indicate that external actors intensified the conflict by funding radical Takfiri groups, thereby redirecting regional discourse from anti-colonial unity to a polarized Sunni-Shia confrontation. While Hezbollah asserted that its military involvement was a defensive necessity to protect critical supply routes from extremist groups, the prolonged conflict ultimately played into the hands of Western intelligence services by damaging Hezbollah’s global reputation. This strategic intervention diverted regional attention from the central issue of Palestinian occupation, weakening the resistance axis through sustained internal strife.

The Recycling of the Takfiri Asset

History is now repeating itself as the resistance axis gains renewed traction, prompting Western intelligence agencies to dust off their established playbook of artificial division to protect their geopolitical interests. A recent RT report cites Russian Federal Security Service chief Aleksandr Bortnikov, who revealed that Western operatives are relocating former Islamic State fighters from Syrian detention centers. Bortnikov stated that these militants are being systematically placed in specialized operational camps across the Iraqi border to function as an asymmetrical proxy force intended to divert Iranian military resources. This deliberate reactivation of extremist networks is facilitated by existing institutional infrastructure; RT further reported that the foundational structure of ISIS was originally developed within Iraqi prison facilities such as Camp Bucca, which operated under direct Western military oversight. This recurring exploitation underscores a pattern in which Western intelligence agencies foster radical networks to destabilize independent states while avoiding responsibility for the ensuing disorder.

The Realities of the Proxy Alliance

The operational record of Takfiri groups demonstrates evidence of intelligence affiliations, as their radical rhetoric has not resulted in significant military action against “Israel.” Rather than confronting the primary occupying force in the region, these extremist groups have focused their violence internally, slaughtering fellow Muslims. Official United Nations observer reports indicate that the armed forces of “Israel” provided medical assistance, logistical support, and intelligence coordination to anti-government combatants along the occupied Golan Heights during the Syrian conflict. This battlefield cooperation reveals the functional role of these extremist networks as instruments of Western influence rather than genuine religious movements. By redeploying these groups to destabilize the Iraqi-Syrian corridor, Western intelligence aims to disrupt the strategic connection between Tehran and the Levant.

Kuwait Sentences Presenter for Backing Iran Amid US-’Israeli’ Onslaught

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Kuwaiti authorities sentenced a state TV presenter to three years in prison for posting social media content supporting Iran’s retaliatory operations during the United States-"Israeli" assault.

The Kuwaiti-born presenter, identified as Zainab Dashti, received the jail term after Kuwaiti officials found the content posted online to be pro-Iran.

The Court of Appeals in Kuwait recently upheld the verdict against her.

Dashti’s case has turned into one of the most debated media cases in Kuwait over the past few months.

The case has drawn the attention of human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners, especially amid worsening restrictions and repressive measures against journalists and political activists in the country.

On February 28, the US and "Israel" launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, martyring Iran's Leader and senior commanders; Iran responded with 100 counterattack waves over 40 days, and a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire on April 8 has largely held despite repeated US-"Israeli" violations.

Iran Demands Zero-Tolerance on Nuclear Strikes Attacks

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Slamming US- “Israeli” acts of nuclear terrorism, Iran confirmed the international community must adopt a "zero-tolerance policy" towards any armed attack on peaceful nuclear installations and promote binding international norms on the inviolability of such facilities.

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Vienna made the call in a statement during the Special Meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA Board] of Governors in Vienna on Friday.

It said military strikes against civilian nuclear energy sites constitute a fundamental violation of the very objects and purposes of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons [NPT] and the IAEA Statute.

Such attacks also weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the international non-proliferation framework, particularly the IAEA's safeguards system, and deteriorate the very basis of global peace and security, it added.

It emphasized that the most relevant resolutions of the IAEA General Conference banning strikes on nuclear installations are resolutions 444 and 533, both put forward by Iran. Conversely, the United States rejected both.

The statement urged the international community to stop these attacks on nuclear facilities from becoming a normal occurrence, warning, “Otherwise, in addition to our security, the main victim would be the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

The mission insisted that efforts to prevent such normalization must be carried out in a systematic manner, free from political manipulation, biased approach, or double standard.

“We must adopt a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ towards such attacks. We must promote the adherence to, and effectiveness of, the existing norms on the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities,” it pointed out.

It further stressed the need to establish international norms where necessary aim to “absolutely prohibit attacks or threats against safeguarded nuclear installations under any and all circumstances.”

According to the statement, Iran believes that it is entirely reasonable to expect the IAEA Director General -- especially given his candidacy for UN Secretary-General -- to follow officially recognized UN terminology and to use the official names of geographical features as reflected in relevant UN documents and also historical documents.

“Such consistency is important for preserving the impartiality, professionalism, and credibility expected of senior international officials,” it emphasized as IAEA head has refused to explicitly condemn US-Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities during two rounds of US-Israeli aggression on Iran in June 2025 and January to April 2026.  

The mission further noted that the “gravest, most extensive and unprecedented” armed attacks against IAEA-monitored nuclear sites in the Agency's history have been carried out against Iranian facilities.

“In their illegal acts of aggression in 2025 and 2026, the US-a nuclear-weapon State-and the Israeli regime - an outlaw nuclear-weapon-possessor - carried out 17 waves of multiple attacks against Iranian safeguarded nuclear facilities,” it said.

According to the statement, one of the “gravest” attacks targeted a structure located just 350 meters away from the reactor of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in human casualties.

It added, “After all, US high-ranking officials had publicly threatened to attack Iranian nuclear power plants! This Plant hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear materials, and as the IAEA DG stated, a direct hit thereto could result in a ‘very high release of radioactivity to the environment’."

The mission declared that any such attack constitutes a “material breach of a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the prohibition of aggression” and warned that both the crime of aggression and war crimes carry international liability as well as individual criminal accountability for the perpetrators.

It further reminded the meeting that the first time the IAEA considered such acts was after the Israeli regime's attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981 and said that in its resolution adopted on 12 June 1981, the UN nuclear agency’s Board of Governors strongly condemned the attack and recommended suspending any assistance to the Israeli regime as well as its membership.

The General Conference later described the attack as "an attack against the Agency and its safeguards" and suspended the provision of assistance to Israel, though it fell short of suspending the regime’s membership, it added.

However, the mission noted, declassified US documents have since revealed that American pressure and threats to cut the IAEA budget had been the main cause behind the failure to fully suspend Israel's membership.

“Moreover, in a number of resolutions and decisions adopted from 1981 to 2009, the General Conference reaffirmed that any attack or threat against safeguarded nuclear facilities constitute a violation of UN Charter, international law and IAEA Statute,” it said.

Putin: US Attack on Iran was “Unprovoked”

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he saw no actions by Iran that could justify the US attack, warning that the US-"Israeli" war on Iran is worsening regional tensions and straining relations among West Asian countries.

Speaking at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said when asked whether he considered the US attack on Iran provoked: "I do not see any provocations on the part of Iran."

The Russian president called Trump's decision to suspend hostilities "the only correct one" and expressed hope that the current ceasefire would lead to long‑term peace.

"We sincerely hope that this ceasefire, which is currently in place, will lead to a long-term peace," Putin said. He also stated that Russia is ready to work with the parties to the war to bring peace closer.

Putin also confirmed that Russia's proposal to export enriched uranium from Iran remains on the table.

"Our proposals are on the table; we do not insist on anything. If the parties involved in the war come to the conclusion that this is a good suggestion, please, if not, we will simply monitor the situation," he said.

Russia is in contact with the US, Iran and "Israel" on the issue of Iranian enriched uranium, Putin added.

He noted that Russia has no evidence that Iran is pursuing the creation of nuclear weapons, while acknowledging that "Israel" had such concerns. Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear programs, Putin said, adding that Russia cooperates with it on this issue.

Putin also stated that Russia has not supplied any weapons to Iran and that Tehran did not request them. "Iran did not ask us for this, and we have not supplied any weapons to Iran," he said.

The Russian president praised Iran's internal stability since the US-"Israeli" aggression began, noting that Western expectations of an internal collapse in Iran had proven mistaken.

"We must give credit to the Iranian leadership. Iran has ensured the internal stability of its society. This is an obvious fact," Putin said.

"After the hostilities began, some in the West thought that everything inside Iran would now collapse from within. No, that analysis was mistaken because the situation, on the contrary, is one of consolidation of Iranian society," he added.

Putin noted that the willingness of millions of Iranians to give their lives for their homeland speaks volumes and must be taken into account.

IRG Targets US Bases in Gulf Following US Aggression

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

The Public Relations Office of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRG] said its Aerospace Force is striking US bases in the Gulf in retaliation for US aggression against two islands.

The IRG targeted the Ali al-Salem Airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, saying in a statement that ballistic missiles were used in the retaliatory attacks.

At 1:30 am [local time], four violating oil tankers, which the IRG said were "provoked and directed by the invading US military," attempted to illegally exit the Strait of Hormuz without coordination and ignoring the warnings issued by the IRG Navy. After the warning, one of the tankers was targeted while the other violating vessels turned back.

Following this incident, at 2:00 am, American drones struck a telecommunications tower in Qeshm and another tower in Sirik with two projectiles.

In response to the aggression "of the child-killing US military," the IRG Aerospace Force attacked the two bases in Kuwait and Bahrain.

"We warn the invading and child-killing enemy that if these hostile acts are repeated, the response will not be limited, and you will be responsible for the consequences of the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz to oil and gas exports," the statement concluded.

Kuwaiti and Bahraini air defense systems are currently engaging incoming missile and drone attacks, as regional airspace disruptions and security alerts spread across parts of the Gulf.

“The air defenses are currently confronting missile attacks and drones,” the Kuwaiti army said in a brief statement.

Sirens were reported across Kuwait and Bahrain as authorities activated emergency response protocols. Flights bound for Kuwait were diverted to alternative destinations following the incident, according to early reports.

No immediate details were released on potential damage or casualties.

The developments came hours after the US Central Command [CENTCOM] said its forces intercepted and destroyed four drones it described as Iranian one-way attack systems launched toward the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM said the drones posed an “immediate threat” to maritime traffic in the strategic waterway.

The US military also said it attacked Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island in what it described as defensive action.

“American forces remain vigilant and postured to respond to unjustified Iranian aggression in self-defense,” CENTCOM said.

The Strait of Hormuz, a key global energy chokepoint, has remained a focal point of repeated military tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Kuwait and Bahrain, both home to major US military bases, issued alerts amid escalating US-Iran tensions. Bahrain hosts the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, while Kuwait hosts key US military installations, including Camp Arifjan.

Armenia Parliamentary Election: A Referendum to Choose between East and West

Alwaght- Armenia that has been facing an array of political and security challenges after defeat in Azerbaijan war and losing disputed Karabakh region is to hold its first parliamentary elections since all these developments. As West Asia is undergoing substantial security developments, Ukraine war is impacting the Russian-Western relationship, and the big powers are escalating their rivalry in South Caucasus, the June 7 election can leave major influence on the balance of power in Caucasus.

Around 15 political parties and coalitions are vying for the 101 seats in Armenia’s parliament in this election. But the real battle has narrowed to three major players: first, the ruling Civil Contract party led by current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan; second, the Armenia bloc headed by former President Robert Kocharyan; and third, the Powerful Armenia party led by Samvel Karapetyan. The latter two are widely seen as pro-Russia forces and stand in political opposition to the current government.

Civil Contract is fighting to hold onto power for a third consecutive term. For Pashinyan, this election is about far more than an ordinary political victory. In recent years, he has pursued a gradual shift in Armenia’s foreign policy, moving away from its traditional dependence on Russia and toward closer cooperation with the US and the European Union. The outcome, therefore, will be seen as a public referendum on whether Armenian society endorses or rejects that path.

Pashinyan leading in polls 

Poll results published in recent weeks put the ruling party at the top, suggesting that it has a high chance to win the largest number of parliamentary seats, though support for Pashinyan has dropped compared to that in 2018 election.

Some polls estimate the support for the Civil Contract at 40-45 percent, with parties of Kokharyan and Karapetyan coming next. 

In effect, the core debate driving this election comes down to one fundamental question: Should Armenia move toward the West, or remain within Russia’s strategic orbit?

Parties aligned with Pashinyan argue for deepening ties with the EU, expanding cooperation with the US, and reducing dependence on Russia. The opposition, by contrast, warns that drifting away from Russia could seriously jeopardize Armenia’s security and economy, and is pushing to rebuild traditional relations with the Moscow.

Credible polls over the past year show Armenian public opinion steadily leaning toward closer cooperation with the EU. According to a recent survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI), 72 percent of citizens support the possibility of Armenia joining the EU, and E51 percent say they would vote in favor of EU membership if a referendum were held. Armenian society is clearly trending westward, a shift that could boost Pashinyan’s chances of winning another term.

Cold and frayed Russian-Armenian relations

Given the anti-Russian sentiments building in Armenia, relations between Yerevan and Moscow are facing mounting challenges, fueling deepening mistrust on both sides.

Russia is closely watching Armenia’s political developments, especially the upcoming election. The outcome could shape Moscow’s future influence in the South Caucasus and determine how fast Armenia pivots toward the US and Europe.

From Moscow’s perspective, Pashinyan’s policies have not just weakened Russia’s standing in Armenia, but they could also set a dangerous precedent for other former Soviet republics, encouraging them to break free from Moscow’s orbit. The Kremlin fears that if this trend continues, Russia’s geopolitical clout in the Caucasus, long considered part of its traditional sphere of influence, will further erode.

That is why, in recent weeks, Russian officials have voiced their concerns to Yerevan openly and bluntly. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused Armenia of being dragged into the “anti-Russian track of the European Union” and warned that moving toward Euro-Atlantic standards could carry political and economic consequences for Yerevan.

Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin and other leaders of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) made clear at a summit in Astana that Armenia cannot be both a member of Russia-led economic structures and a candidate for EU membership. Putin cautioned that choosing the European path could come with a heavy economic price tag.

A few days ago, Russia also recalled its ambassador from Yerevan for consultations. And observers see recent restrictions on Armenian agricultural imports to the Russian market as part of this mounting pressure campaign.

West seizing opportunity created by Yerevan-Moscow tensions

After three decades of looking for a foothold in the Caucasus, the West is now making the most of the rift between Yerevan and Moscow, launching an all-out push to draw Armenia closer to Western structures.

A landmark moment came in May, when the first-ever EU-Armenia summit was held in Yerevan, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa in attendance. The two sides signed agreements on cooperation in connectivity, transport, energy, digital infrastructure, and security, while vowing to deepen political and economic ties. The EU also announced a new civilian partnership mission in Armenia and an expansion of security and defense cooperation. At the same time, Brussels has deployed teams to Armenia to counter information warfare, cyberattacks, and foreign interference in the election process.

On the bilateral front, ties between Yerevan and Washington have also deepened. In recent months, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a new strategic partnership agreement with Armenia. American officials have repeatedly voiced support for Armenia’s political reforms, and the two sides have launched fresh cooperation on energy, infrastructure, and regional transit.

One of those transit projects is the so-called "Trump Corridor", part of a Washington’s strategy to connect Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and other regional routes across the Caucasus. While Armenian leaders see this approach as simply diversifying their economic partners, Moscow views such projects as a direct tool to shrink Russia’s geopolitical role in the region.

That said, Pashinyan has repeatedly stressed that moving closer to Europe does not mean cutting ties with Russia. Armenia, he insists, still wants to cooperate within the Eurasian Economic Union, but also has every right to expand relations with the EU and the US.

The West’s growing embrace of Armenia is not just driven by Washington and Brussels. Yerevan itself has been sending positive signals westward, actively laying the groundwork for deeper ties.

So, Pashinyan's government has taken further steps in recent weeks to move closer to the West. Deepening cooperation with the EU, expanding security cooperation with the Western countries, purchasing military equipment from France and India instead of relying fully on Russia and suspending active participation in the Russian-led Collective Security Organization are among these moves. 

Even in a recent military parade in Yerevan, a major part of the displayed equipment and weapons were non-Russian, something seen by the observers as a symbol of strategic shift in Armenia. 

Under these circumstances, Kremlin officials are closely, and warily, watching Armenia’s upcoming election. A continued Pashinyan tenure could accelerate the country’s westward pivot and directly impact Russia’s strategic influence in the Caucasus.

That said, even as enthusiasm for closer Western ties has grown in Armenia and across the Caucasus in recent years, Russia’s deep hold on the region’s security, political, and economic dynamics remains intact. For that reason, even Pashinyan’s government cannot fully break free from Moscow’s strategic orbit, and is forced to maintain a delicate balancing act between East and West.

With Russia-NATO competition intensifying across the post-Soviet space, any hasty lurch toward the West could carry complex security and geopolitical consequences for Armenia, exposing it to even greater tensions.

In general, Armenia election can be one of the most determining political events of this country since its independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The significance of the election is not limited to determining the composition of the new parliament. It is actually a kind of an indirect referendum about the future path of the Armenian foreign policy and in fact the voters will choose between maintaining the newly-adopted policy of drifting to the West and keeping the traditional bonds with Russia. So the vote outcome is of strategic importance not only for Yerevan but also for Moscow, Brussels, Washington, and other influential players in South Caucasus. 

The Washington Illusion: Why the Lebanon Truce Demands Resistance Surrender

Mohamad Hammoud

The newly minted Washington ceasefire agreement between the Lebanese government and “Israel” exposes the human cost of a peace built on imbalance.

Brokered under American mediation, the joint statement claims to revive a faltering truce, yet in reality, it demands a surrender that no nation, let alone its people, could accept. The fine print asks the Lebanese Resistance to put down their arms and walk away from their homes, land, and sense of security. As The Guardian highlighted, the text sets all terms on the halt of Hezbollah’s activities and the withdrawal of its fighters from the South Litani Sector.

In a defiant response aired on Al-Manar television, Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem made it clear that demanding fighters to abandon southern Lebanon while under fire is nothing less than a demand for “surrender, defeat, and achieving the enemy’s goals.” Forcing a local defense force to leave its ancestral heartland- while “Israeli” troops remain dug in- robs Lebanon of more than just a military asset; it strips families and communities of the very sense of protection and belonging that has allowed them to survive.

This agreement, by insisting on the withdrawal of the only group that has ever held “Israeli” ambitions in check, tries to accomplish with foreign signatures and distant negotiations what months of violent war could not achieve. It is not just a policy failure; it is a human one.

The Tripartite Alliance Against the Resistance

The mechanics of this agreement reveal a troubling alliance, pushing the Lebanese government and “Israel” onto the same side against a segment of Lebanon’s own people. Reuters reports that American negotiators encouraged both states to create pilot zones, turning parts of southern Lebanon into areas controlled only by the Lebanese Armed Forces with all other groups excluded.  For many Lebanese, this feels as though their government is being asked to police its own streets for the benefit of “Israel.”

The hypocrisy is palpable: Western diplomats talk about sovereignty, but their demands force Lebanon’s leaders to act as enforcers for foreign security agendas. By signing away the presence of non-state armed groups, Lebanon’s elite risks aligning with a historic adversary to dismantle its own grassroots defense.

This ignores the reality that the resistance is not just a political player but is woven into families and communities. The Washington agreement transforms Lebanon from an independent state into a proxy-expected to serve the security wishes of Washington and "Tel Aviv", even at the expense of its own cohesion. 

The Imminent Threat of Internal Collapse

The fatal flaw of this agreement is that it risks plunging Lebanon into internal conflict. Any real attempt by Beirut to enforce these foreign demands could mean Lebanese fighting Lebanese. The Associated Press has reported the doubts of regional military experts, who question whether the Lebanese Army could-or should-try to oust fighters defending their own neighborhoods and families. This is not just a matter of military strength; it’s about the impossibility of ordering soldiers to turn against their own communities. Forcing the army into this role under outside pressure doesn’t bring peace-it threatens to tear the country apart. If Lebanon’s leaders move forward, they risk civil war. The architects of this agreement have chosen to gamble with the safety of ordinary Lebanese families to serve foreign interests.

A Legacy of Institutionalized Impunity

The cynicism of this diplomatic exercise is clear when looking at Lebanon’s past. The country has tried compliance before.

Hezbollah once pulled back from the border for over a year, giving diplomacy every chance. For ordinary people, this meant living with uncertainty and fear, hoping the world would keep its promises. But during those months, the “Israeli” military breached the ceasefire repeatedly-crossing into Lebanese airspace, shelling villages, and provoking on the border- while world powers looked away. As L’Orient-Le Jour chronicled, Western mediators have never truly held “Israel” accountable, instead demanding unwavering obedience from Lebanon.

The new Washington framework is just another trap, asking the Lebanese to surrender their defenses for empty promises, while “Israel” keeps its right to strike whenever it chooses. Stripping away Lebanon’s protection leaves families exposed, repeating a cycle of broken promises and danger.