Why does the Saudi Mufti remain silent before the disbelief of America and Israel?

Muhammad Al-Farah, a Yemeni writer, in a note criticizing the Saudi Mufti's positions on Yemen, raises the question of why takfiri positions and fatwas are activated against Muslims, but such positions are not seen against the actions of America and the Zionist regime and instances of insult to Islamic sanctities.

xx
Muhammad Al-Farah, a Yemeni writer, in a note criticizing the fatwa of takfir against Yemenis, emphasized that if Saudi Arabia had adopted a similar position against the Zionist regime, this position could have demonstrated a unified approach toward the killing of Muslims.

 
Why takfir of Muslims and silence before insult to sanctities?
 
Al-Farah, raising the question of whether such a fatwa would have been issued against Yemenis if they had normalized their relations with the Zionist regime and abandoned jihad and support for Gaza and Palestine, wrote: "Why, in the view of the Saudi Mufti, are America and the Zionist regime not seen, and only those who oppose Israel are targeted with accusations of disbelief?"
 
He emphasized: "Some religious currents see only the disbelief of Muslims and political opponents of the ruling systems, but they do not adopt similar positions against America and the Zionist regime, as well as instances of insult to Islamic sanctities."
 
This writer also, referring to numerous instances of insult and burning of the Holy Quran in various countries, asked why explicit and proportionate positions are not adopted against such actions, and why a similar reaction is not seen against insults to the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and Muslim sanctities.
 
Turning political difference into takfir
 
Al-Farah further considered the mentioned fatwa a sign of turning political difference into takfir, and said: "In such an approach, the political opponent, instead of being considered merely a party to a political difference, is introduced as a 'disbeliever,' and their life, property, and honor are exposed to violation."
 
Criticizing this approach, he wrote that such rhetoric turns political difference into takfir and legitimization of violence, and toward the people of Yemen, instead of paying attention to their rights, dignity, and sovereignty, it is based on a hostile view.
 
Criticism of the takfiri approach
 
The writer, in the final part of his note, with a sharp tone, enumerated a set of accusations attributed to opponents and considered this situation the result of an approach in which opposition to the policies of Saudi Arabia and America or support for Palestine and resistance becomes a pretext for attributing takfiri labels to opponents.
 
Al-Farah emphasized that political differences should not lead to the issuance of takfir rulings and the legitimization of Muslim lives and property, and called for equal treatment of insults to Islamic sanctities and violations of the rights of Muslim nations.

Trump is first and foremost a 'fabulist'

 

Trump is first and foremost a 'fabulist' 

1. International

September 27, 2026 - 19:22

TEHRAN - Daniel Dale, a former Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star wrote an analysis casting light on Donald Trump’s lies, calling him a “fabulist”. 

“Trump is not only a fabulist but a frequent dupe for other fabulists,” Dale wrote on the CNN website.
 
“There is a pro-dishonesty constituency within his base, at least when that dishonesty is perceived to target the ‘right’ people,” he notes.

Dale, who has joined CNN, says “when Trump gets in trouble, he ramps up the dishonesty.”

He also says “a staggering percentage of the figures Trump uses are incorrect.”

According to the Washington Post fact checker, Trump, who is known as the liar-in-chief, made 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidency, from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021. This amounted to an average of approximately 21 claims per day over his four-year term.

The Associated Press also fact-checked claims made at Trump's first cabinet meeting in January 2026, including his assertion that $18 trillion in investment was flowing into the United States, which it found unsupported and substantially exaggerated.

The following is the text of Dale’s article: 

Ten years ago this month, in my old job as Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, I started what I believed would be a quick little side project: fact-checking underdog presidential candidate Donald Trump, who was telling a remarkable number of lies but was rarely being corrected. Like a lot of people, I thought Trump would lose the 2016 election.

I was very wrong. And Trump continued to be very wrong, about a dizzying variety of subjects, for the next decade.

His relentless dishonesty has become a central feature of US and world politics. Voters and members of Congress, allies and adversaries, CEOs and investors alike have had to try to figure out how to read a man whose words are so frequently not true.

How frequently? Two months before Election Day in 2020, I had to abandon my four-year-old project of fact-checking each and every Trump statement. He was telling so many campaign lies that I’d become physically unable to look into all of them while living something loosely resembling a healthy life. By then, I’d recorded more than 8,500 false claims since September 2016.
I took a brief break from Trump-checking when he left office in 2021, replaced by a Democratic president with his own accuracy problems but nowhere near the volume or variety of Trump’s falsehoods. And then, less than two years later, Trump was back at the top of the news. I counted more than 20 false or misleading claims in his 2022 speech launching his third presidential campaign. He has not gotten any more factual since.

Since I joined CNN as a fact-check reporter in 2019, I’ve devoted most of my reporting time to the nuts-and-bolts work of separating fact from fiction. But spending hundreds of hours immersed in Trump’s rhetoric has given me some insights and personal opinions about the nature of his lying, how it is received by the public and how it is covered by the media.

There is no Washington liar like Trump

Joe Biden sometimes lied, JD Vance sometimes lies, Republicans and Democrats in Congress sometimes lie, Cabinet secretaries notably including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sometimes lie; Washington is not the nation’s capital of straight shooting. But it’s abundantly clear that there is no public official in Washington who lies like Trump – not as constantly, not as obviously, not about as many topics. I’ve heard people dismiss Trump’s mendacity with a shrugging “they all lie,” but we are witnessing a rare, very possibly once-in-a-lifetime political liar.

The bigger the crisis, the more Trump lies

Trump’s most concerted lying sprees have come in response to political difficulties: the 2018 midterms in which his party was flailing, the 2019 Ukraine scandal that led to his first impeachment, the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic that was harming his political prospects and the 2020 election he lost. When Trump gets in trouble, he ramps up the dishonesty – even in the cases where dishonesty created some of the trouble in the first place.

The smallest lies are the most distinguishing lies

A lot of people expect politicians to try to lie their way out of a career-threatening jam or lie to make their signature policies look better. The subjects Trump has lied about include a nonexistent phone call he claimed to have received from the Boy Scouts, a nonexistent Michigan “Man of the Year” award he claimed to have received years ago, and whether there were any empty seats in venues in which seats were visibly empty. None of these things are important in the slightest, but Trump’s brain has seen fit to make up a story about them. It’s a special trait.

Many Trump's lies never go away

People sometimes ask how I can debunk Trump lies immediately after he utters them. I don’t have any magic tricks. My (non-)secret is that he says the same untrue things again and again. The first time, it might take a while to research; by the 10th or 100th time, I can recite the debunking half-asleep – and there actually is a 100th time for some of the lies.

Trump has tells

Like a bad poker player, Trump has tells that indicate he is likely lying. If he delivers a story featuring an unnamed person calling him “sir,” it’s often fiction. So are many of his stories about burly working-class men crying in his presence and a good portion of his stories involving one of his critics supposedly having come to him begging. What do these colorful but dubious tales have in common? They position him as a dominant figure to whom others – even large dudes – genuflect.

All of Trump’s numbers are suspect

Poll numbers, inflation numbers, investment numbers, gas-price numbers, foreign policy numbers, crowd-size numbers, virtually every other kind of number – a staggering percentage of the figures Trump uses are incorrect. Even when an accurate statistic would make him look good, the businessman who used to inflate his reality show ratings and the size of his buildings tends to choose an inaccurate statistic that would make him look a little better. If “sir” is one of the best indications he is not telling the truth, so is him simply using a figure, any figure.

Trump is not only a supplier of bad information but a consumer of it

Trump has concocted hundreds of lies for his own advantage. But many of the laughable conspiracy theories he has promoted were borrowed from other people, and he often appears to truly believe them. That might be worse, not better. The most powerful person in the world, with access to endless expertise upon request, is not only a fabulist but a frequent dupe for other fabulists.

Trump is aware of some fact checks. He just doesn’t care

Unless you count blocking me on Twitter in 2017, Trump has never publicly acknowledged my existence. But he has sometimes acknowledged he’s aware of fact checks – while simultaneously sticking with the lies those fact checks corrected, evidently shameless about having had to be corrected.

For example, Trump has repeatedly noted that people have pointed out his claim that Biden presided over the very highest inflation in US history as incorrect. But then Trump has immediately gone on to repeat the very-highest-ever claim once more, insisting he still believes it. “Some people will correct me because they always love to correct me, even though I’m right about everything,” he said, piling another lie on top of the initial one, during a December rendition of the routine.

Trump is now surrounded by people comfortable with his lies

During Trump’s first term, White House aides would rarely respond to reporters’ questions about his lies; after all, it’s hard to defend the indefensible. But now he has surrounded himself with people willing to try. During his second term, official spokespeople regularly declare him “right” about things he is demonstrably wrong about. In a Republican ecosystem currently dominated by Trump loyalists, it’s far from career-ending to shred your credibility with the mainstream media in service of the boss.

The mainstream media doesn’t handle Trump’s lying well enough

Pro-Trump media entities have shown embarrassingly little interest in addressing his lies. But more neutral outlets have regularly failed, too. On the last full day of Trump’s first presidency in 2021, I wrote, “Too often, coverage of flagrantly dishonest Trump speeches still mentioned the dishonesty in passing or not at all. Too often, coverage still quoted the president’s lies without explaining that they were wrong.” More than five years later, these problems persist.

There are various reasons for that, including reflexive adherence to old habits, a Trump-driven deluge of breaking news and the diminished number of employed reporters. (CNN is one of very few outlets that has a full-time political fact-checker.) One of the key explanations, though, is one I wrote about back in 2017: “Trump is a human version of computer hackers’ denial-of-service attacks, flooding systems with more disinformation than they are designed to handle.” If a politician tells one blatant lie, it’s likely to get heavy coverage; if a politician tells blatant lies every week for years, it’s likely that most outlets will cease viewing them as news and that the majority will be treated as background noise.

In other words, the media strategy that former Trump White House official Steve Bannon memorably described in 2018 – “flood the zone with sh*t” – has proved effective in getting lots of falsehoods into the public discourse virtually unchallenged.

A lot of people care about Trump’s lying

When I give speeches about my work reporting on Trump’s lies, one of the most common questions I get from the audience is some variation of, “Thank you, but it’s clear that nobody cares, right?” I argue that this is false, too. It’s clear that millions of Americans either don’t believe debunkings from mainstream outlets or aren’t interested in them, but it’s also clear that millions of Americans want to know when and how the president is trying to deceive them.

Polls spanning Trump’s entire career have found that somewhere around twice as many Americans do not think he is honest and trustworthy as think he is honest and trustworthy. He’s won two presidential elections, of course, but it’s not like he’s ever convinced the entire population to stop caring about whether he is telling the truth.

Facts would matter even if only a few people were seeking them out. Fortunately, it’s far more than a few.

…but a lot of people don’t mind the lying, or even like it
 

One of my most eye-opening journalistic experiences was a 2017 reporting trip to two Trump-friendly communities in Ohio. Over and over, I heard the president’s supporters say not merely that they didn’t mind his lying but that they actively liked it – because it agitated the establishment they had come to despise. (“We’ve had so much crap in Washington for years, and now we have someone shaking ’em up really good,” one man told me with delight.) I know that many Trump supporters often don’t know he’s lying or believe his policy stances outweigh the dishonesty. But I’ve also come to understand that there is a pro-dishonesty constituency within his base, at least when that dishonesty is perceived to target the “right” people.

Speaking without a filter helps political liars be viewed as honest

I observed this phenomenon with the first frequent political liar I covered, the bellicose former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. A politician who gives the impression that they authentically speak their mind is likely to be seen by many as honest even if a high proportion of their actual words are not true. Trump has always done badly in honesty polling, but his insult-heavy, damn-the-teleprompters style has also helped convince a segment of the populace that he is not only reasonably truthful but especially truthful.

Trump’s most self-damaging lies are about prices

When Trump lies about a military deal with South Korea or Canada’s agricultural policies or the actions of some Democrat somewhere, the average voter may not know or much care that he is wildly inaccurate. When he lies that every price is lower than when he took office, or that almost every price is falling “rapidly,” even his most fervent supporters can see with their own eyes that he’s trying to trick them. I suspect that his disastrous present polling on the cost of living, and generally poor approval ratings, are connected not only to inflation itself but also his decision to aggressively deny it exists.

The lies cause real harm

Some of Trump’s lies are so bizarre or trivial that I can’t help but laugh. On the whole, though, his lies have been deeply harmful to the country. People died because of the Capitol riot prompted by his lies about the 2020 election. His lies downplaying Covid-19 almost certainly led to deaths, too. Specific people targeted by his lies, including journalists, judges and election workers, have faced threats and harassment. His lies have worsened innumerable public debates around critical policy issues. And American democracy itself is worse off for all the lying, too.

Tags

• Donald Trump
• liar
• lie
• dupe

Security complex anew: Iran's venture into a new architecture

By Sajjad Farokhipour

QOM - The war that began with the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has done more than destroy military targets and redraw the map of immediate threats. It has exposed the fragility of the security architecture that has governed the Middle East for decades. 

The old order built around American military presence, Israeli military superiority, and the political alignment of several Arab states with Washington has lost much of its previous certainty. A new regional security complex is therefore emerging which is unmistakably different from the order that existed before the war and is particularly promising for Iran. 

The central question for Tehran is no longer simply whether it can resist the pressure but whether Iran can transform the strategic consequences of that resistance into a durable regional order that better serves its national interests. Thus, a new security complex is viable in light of the following dimensions:

The most important transformation concerns the distribution of power. For decades, the Persian Gulf security system operated largely within an American-centered structure. Arab governments depended heavily on American military power, American bases constituted the backbone of deterrence, and Israel functioned as Washington's principal regional military partner. Even when Arab states disagreed with Washington, they generally operated within the limits of this security architecture. 

The war has challenged this assumption. Iran demonstrated that American military installations in the region are proved liabilities rather than security guarantees. The very bases intended to protect the Persian Gulf states turned them into potential targets. Iran's retaliation reached Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, and other locations hosting U.S. military assets. This meant something consequential: the political value of American protection has radically become less certain. 

The Persian Gulf states are therefore looking for greater strategic autonomy. Pakistan and Turkey become more important as alternative security partners, while Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Arab states increasingly calculate their security according to their own national interests rather than simply according to Washington's regional preferences. This means the emergence of a more competitive and multipolar regional structure. For Iran, this is an opportunity, but only if Tehran understands that multi-polarity requires diplomacy as much as military power.

The second transformation concerns proximity. One of the principal assumptions of the previous security order was that the United States could project overwhelming power into Iran's immediate neighborhood. The war has complicated that assumption. 

In the Caucasus, the strategic environment surrounding Iran appears less threatening than it did before the conflict. Turkey has demonstrated greater caution than a straightforward alignment with the U.S.-Israeli camp would have suggested, while Azerbaijan's relationship with Israel has become considerably more sensitive in the new environment. 

This matters because Iran's security dilemma has historically been multidirectional. Tehran has had to watch the Persian Gulf, Iraq, the Levant, Afghanistan, and the Caucasus simultaneously. A reduction in immediate pressure along one of these fronts creates strategic breathing space.

Iran should therefore resist the temptation to treat the Caucasus merely as another battlefield of confrontation. The opportunity is to convert this reduced threat environment into a diplomatic belt of stability around its northern frontier.

Perhaps the most profound change is not military but conceptual. Before the war, regional competition was heavily organized around political influence, ideological rivalry, Iran's regional networks, the Yemen conflict, and the struggle over leadership in the Muslim world. The war has elevated another issue above many of these concerns, i.e., economic survival. For Saudi Arabia, the security of oil infrastructure, maritime routes, investment, Vision 2030, and economic diversification has become inseparable from national security. The closure and disruption of the Strait of Hormuz demonstrated precisely how vulnerable an economic transformation strategy could be when regional military competition threatens energy infrastructure and maritime trade. 

This creates an unexpected opening for Iran. Iran does not need Saudi Arabia to become its ally. It needs Saudi Arabia to recognize that permanent confrontation with Iran is incompatible with Saudi economic ambitions. This distinction is crucial. A Saudi Arabia primarily concerned with protecting its economy is a Saudi Arabia with incentives to negotiate with Tehran. 

The same logic helps explain the growing divergence between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Their differences over Yemen, oil policy, Israel, and regional security have become increasingly visible, demonstrating that the Persian Gulf is not a single strategic actor. Iran's opportunity is therefore not to divide the Persian Gulf through confrontation, but to encourage a regional security logic in which economic interdependence becomes more valuable than permanent military alignment with Washington.

The war has also altered the region's patterns of amity and enmity. At the governmental level, Iran's attacks on Arab territories hosting U.S. military assets generated anger and divergence. Tehran does not ignore this reality because any attempt to build a new security order while disregarding Arab perceptions would be strategically wrong. Iran's diplomatic endeavor amid the conflict showed its regional concern and responsibility for neighbors. Nevertheless, another process has occurred at the societal level. Iran's direct military resistance to the United States and Israel has changed perceptions among segments of Arab and Muslim public opinion. 

Whatever their governments' disagreements with Tehran, many communities interpreted Iran's resistance as evidence that American and Israeli dominance over Muslims is far from correct. This creates an important ideational opportunity for Iran. The Axis of Resistance may have suffered organizational and material setbacks, particularly in Lebanon, but the broader idea of resistance has not necessarily weakened. Indeed, the war has strengthened its symbolic appeal among populations that view the existing regional order as dominated by external powers. If Tehran wants Arab governments to accept a new regional balance, it must translate the core idea of resistance into the broader proposition of regional sovereignty, strategic autonomy, economic security, and freedom from external domination. That would be much easier for Arab states to embrace.

The military balance also presents Iran with both opportunities and challenges. The war demonstrated that Iran possesses considerable capabilities for imposing costs on U.S. regional assets and disrupting the assumptions underlying the existing security architecture. At the same time, the conflict exposed some Iranian vulnerabilities, particularly in infrastructure and air defense, for each of them Iran needs to find a feasible solution to securely project its new role in the region.

Perhaps the most important question is who will manage regional security after the war. The United States has historically acted as the external custodian of the Persian Gulf security system. However, the war has undermined the proposition that American bases necessarily make their host countries safer. In fact, several Persian Gulf governments now increasingly view the U.S. military presence through a double lens: it provides protection, but it can also make them targets. This, at least, means that America's custodianship has become contestable. Iran, however, should not assume that the decline of American credibility automatically produces Iranian dominance. The emerging system may instead be characterized by multiple centers of coercive power.

Last but not least, the most consequential transformation is occurring inside Iran's own strategic thinking. For years, Iranian military strategy was largely reactive: respond to Israeli strikes, deter American intervention, support partners, and preserve strategic depth. The new environment encourages a different logic. Iran has demonstrated a willingness to strike directly at the military infrastructure supporting an attack against it. This represents a movement from deterrence by retaliation toward deterrence through proactive risk creation. Iran's strongest strategic position would be one in which its adversaries understand that aggression against Iran will impose unacceptable costs, while its neighbors simultaneously understand that Iranian power does not necessarily threaten their economic survival. Tehran must now construct that difficult balance.

In the end, the new architecture Iran should seek is not a revised version of the old order but a regional and peaceful security complex rooted in shared economic profit. It would require an Iran that is unsanctioned and able to participate fully in the region's economic life; Arab states that are unthreatened by Israel and free to pursue their own security and development; and Arab countries that are unexploited by great powers. Only such a settlement can transform the war's strategic upheaval into a durable order in which Iranian security, Arab autonomy, and regional prosperity reinforce one another rather than remain permanently opposed.

Tags

• US-Israeli attacks
• Iran
• war

The school of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah has found a place in the conscience of the free people of the world

Ayatollah Arafi

The Director of the Seminaries, in a message to the Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, commemorating the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyid Hashem Safi al-Din, emphasized the strategic bond of the Resistance Front and the support of the seminaries for Hezbollah, and said: "Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah is an eternal truth in the Islamic world and a life-giving school."

Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, in his message to Hujjat al-Islam Sheikh Naim Qassem, described Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah as an eternal truth in the Islamic world and a life-giving school.

Referring to the enemy's effort to separate the arenas of resistance, he wrote: "The events of the past two years have shown that the arenas of resistance, from Tehran to Beirut and from Gaza to Sana'a and Baghdad, are various manifestations of a single front."

The Director of the Seminaries emphasized in this message: "The unity of the resistance is not a proxy relationship; rather, it is a bond arising from shared faith, a shared enemy, and a shared ideal – a bond in which each arena, by its own will and decision, steps on a single path."

Ayatollah Arafi also announced that the seminaries stand with all their might alongside Hezbollah and the Resistance Front.

The text of the message of Ayatollah Arafi, the Director of the Seminaries, to Hujjat al-Islam Sheikh Naim Qassem, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, is as follows:

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

"Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with God. Among them are those who have fulfilled their vow, and among them are those who await, and they have not changed in the least." (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:23)

Dear brother and mujahid scholar, His Eminence Hujjat al-Islam Sheikh Naim Qassem,

Respected Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon

Two years have passed since that evening of September 27, 2024, when the Zionist enemy, with the open support of America, dropped dozens of bunker-buster bombs on the southern suburbs of Beirut, thinking that by silencing the voice of the Sayyid of Resistance, it would also extinguish the lamp of resistance. (They want to extinguish the light of God with their mouths, but God will perfect His light, even though the disbelievers dislike it.) Now, on the second anniversary of the martyrdom of the Sayyid of the martyrs of the Ummah, Hujjat al-Islam Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, and his truthful and longtime companion, Hujjat al-Islam the martyr Sayyid Hashem Safi al-Din (may God be pleased with them both), in the name of the seminaries, professors, scholars, and students, while renewing our condolences to Your Eminence, to the noble families of those two martyrs, to the honored Hezbollah, and to the noble people of Lebanon, I present some points.

First; the blood that reversed the equation. The enemies assumed that with the elimination of leadership, the body of the resistance would disintegrate – the same miscalculation they had committed earlier in the martyrdom of Sayyid Abbas al-Musawi and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, and today they are afflicted with it in the martyrdom of the martyred Imam. But two years passed, and what the world saw was not collapse, but the rebuilding of command, endurance, and authority on the battlefield, and the spread of the discourse of resistance in hearts and minds. This is the same immutable divine tradition that turns the blood of the martyr into the seed of life for the Ummah (And never think of those who have been killed in the way of God as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision), and the same truth that the martyred Sayyid repeatedly stated: We are not defeated; if we win, we win, and if we are martyred, we still win. Today, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah is not a memory, but an eternal truth of the Islamic world and a life-giving school – a school that has transcended the borders of Shiism and Lebanon and has found a place in the conscience of the free people of the world.

Second; the Sayyid of Resistance, a mujahid scholar and a comprehensive personality. That noble martyr was a product of the seminaries of Najaf and Qom and showed that authentic Shia clergy can bring together knowledge and action, wisdom and courage, and spirituality and politics in one personality. He was the embodiment of moral virtues and the symbol of Arab and Islamic dignity; he possessed strategic intellect and deep political understanding, efficient management, and field courage, and his word, backed by his truthfulness, was proof even to his enemies. His great lesson for all of us is that with empty hands but a firm will, one can build great capacities from small opportunities. The secret of all this was his Wilayah-orientedness and his sincere adherence to the line of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) and the martyred Imam, Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei (may God be pleased with him). The seminaries take pride in such a son and consider him a clear model of the "scholar in the field" for today's generation of seminary students. "Magnanimity and patience," "courage, revolutionary and jihadist spirit," "wisdom and rationality, knowledge and intellect," "world-awareness," "leadership and management power in crises," "social institution-building and power-building," "creative and innovative military intellect," "Wilayah-orientedness," "global thinking and civilizational approach," "attraction and repulsion," "restless, hardworking, and tireless spirit" were among the distinguished and prominent characteristics of this martyr of the Resistance Front and the model of steadfastness. Today we are proud to introduce the school of Sayyid Hassan to all the free people of the world as the lost treasure of contemporary humanity in the materialist world of Western civilization.

Third; the caravan of martyrs. We honor the memory of the martyr Sayyid Hashem Safi al-Din, that loyal companion and constant associate of the Sayyid of Resistance, and the memory of all commanders, fighters, and innocent people who were martyred on this path. This caravan, from the martyr Sheikh Ragheb Harb and the martyr Sayyid Abbas al-Musawi to the martyr Hajj Imad Mughniyeh and the martyr Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Hajj Qasem alongside all the martyrs of the Resistance Front, is a continuous chain of jihad, sincerity, truthfulness, and loyalty, whose description is this divine word: "And they did not change in the least."

Fourth; Your Eminence, the standard-bearer of continuity. In the most difficult days of the history of the resistance, when the enemy thought Hezbollah was left without a captain, Your Eminence, alongside another group of powerful and wise commanders, relying on your long history in jihad and management and more than three decades of companionship with the martyred secretaries-general, took on a heavy responsibility and kept the flag raised. Your wisdom in safeguarding Hezbollah's internal cohesion and its regeneration and strengthening, in preserving Lebanon's national unity, in thwarting the seditious plots that the enemy had counted on, and in renewing a firm covenant with the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, and in expanding the Resistance Front into a regional and global front, is worthy of appreciation and honor. The seminaries know Your Eminence as an erudite scholar, a thoughtful writer, and a wise leader, and as we have previously announced, they stand with all their might alongside you. Without any doubt, victory, conquest, and final triumph over the enemies, the destruction of Israel, the destruction of America's superpower status, and the destruction of the decadent Western civilization are the definitive tradition of God and the inevitable destiny of the Resistance Front, the great nation of Lebanon, the dear and beloved Hezbollah, and all the mujahideen.

Fifth; addressing the mujahid brothers in Hezbollah. We salute the commanders, officials, representatives, fighters, and relief, media, and cultural forces of Hezbollah. You are the trustees of the blood of the Sayyid of Martyrs, and with your faith, discipline, and insight, you have proven that Hezbollah is not dependent on individuals, but is founded on knowledge, faith, will, and Wilayah. We pay tribute to the honored wounded, especially the victims of the pager explosion crime and the recent war, who, with eye and hand injuries, displayed the clearest insight and the most steadfast will. "Indeed, the party of God – they are the victorious."

Sixth; addressing the noble people of Lebanon and its loyal Shia. We sincerely thank the great people of Lebanon, especially the patient people of the south, the southern suburbs, and the Bekaa. You endured displacement with dignity and insight, you overcame the destruction of homes with patience and faith, and by returning to your homeland, you showed the world the unbreakable bond between the people and the resistance. The mothers, fathers, spouses, and children of the martyrs of Lebanon stood like Zainab and gave meaning to the greatness of this resistance not in its weapons, but in the will of a living nation. The Shia of Lebanon are the heirs of the school of Jabal Amel – a school that nurtured the First Martyr and the Second Martyr, and from which Lebanese-origin scholars such as Muhaqqiq Karaki and Sheikh Bahai emerged, creating a scientific and spiritual bond between Lebanon and the seminaries of Iran that is today manifested in the trench of resistance. We also appreciate all the free people of Lebanon, from every denomination and sect, who stood alongside the resistance and preserved national unity. Know that you are among the best helpers of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) throughout history, and by the grace of your patience and resistance, the aspirations of the prophets and divine saints are being realized. The world is at its historical turning point, global relations are changing, the historical battle of truth and falsehood is approaching its end, and the new Islamic civilization is taking shape – and you are participants and partners in all these transformations. Today and the future of history belong to you and are indebted to the sacrifices of you and all the nations sent forth in Iran, Iraq, and Yemen.

Seventh; the authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian nation, in the imposed war of America and the Zionist regime, also placed the grief of the martyrdom of its Imam and Leader on its heart. But the enemy, who had pinned its hopes on the collapse of the Islamic system, was astonished to see that based on the legal mechanism, the leadership was entrusted to Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei (may God protect him), and the nation gathered around Wilayah with unity and steadfastness. The Islamic Republic emerged from this difficult test more steadfast and cohesive and considered support for the resistance not a passing tactic, but a strategic and principled policy. This is the clear language of a bond that no pressure will weaken. Today, the Islamic Republic system, despite the imposition of a global war, sieges, sanctions, injustices, and an all-out combined military, political, economic, media, and cognitive war, is in complete authority with a united, cohesive, and mobilized people, with officials of determination and will, with vigilant and powerful commanders and armed forces, and with many allies in all corners of the world, close to final victory and conquest, and alongside all the mujahideen, it will pass through all obstacles and problems with dignity, power, and wisdom.

Eighth; the unity of the arenas, a strategic truth. The enemy has always tried to separate the arenas of resistance from one another to bring each to its knees in isolation. But the events of these two years have shown that the arenas of resistance, from Tehran to Beirut and from Gaza to Sana'a and Baghdad, from the Strait of Hormuz to Bab al-Mandab, are various manifestations of a single front. This unity is not a proxy relationship; it is a bond arising from shared faith, a shared enemy, and a shared ideal, in which each arena, by its own will and decision, steps on a single path to secure national strategic interests, objective and real regional interests, and the grand interests of the Islamic Ummah. The blood of the Iranian commander martyrs that was shed on the soil alongside the blood of Hezbollah martyrs is a symbol of this bond. "Indeed, God loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a solid structure."

Ninth; the covenant of the seminaries. The seminaries, of which the martyred Sayyid was a proud son, are firm in their covenant with his path and are ready to fulfill their share in safeguarding and explaining the intellectual legacy of that martyr in the fields of jurisprudence, political thought, management, and the ethics of jihad, in translating and publishing this legacy into various languages, in expanding scientific ties with the seminaries and scholars of Lebanon, and in any scientific, spiritual, and propagational support for the Resistance Front.

In conclusion, we once again honor the memory of the Sayyid of the martyrs of the Ummah and all the martyrs of the resistance, and ask Almighty God for success, health, steadfastness, and victory for Your Eminence and all the mujahid brothers in Hezbollah; in hope of the day when, by the blessing of the blood of these martyrs, noble Al-Quds will be liberated and the truthful divine promise will be fulfilled. Greetings, salutations, and the best favors, kindnesses, and vast mercy of God be upon the noble Hezbollah, upon the dignified Shia and Muslims of Lebanon, and upon the entire Islamic Ummah.

Foreign Affairs: World learning from Iran’s ‘precise mass’ warfare as costly Western systems falter

TEHRAN — In a stunning admission that challenges the foundations of modern Western military doctrine, the influential American journal Foreign Affairs has published a comprehensive analysis revealing how Iran has successfully dismantled the aggressive war plans of the United States and Israel. 

The detailed report serves as a post-mortem on the hubris of the Pentagon, explicitly stating that the future of global warfare is being dictated by the very strategies pioneered by Tehran, and that the world is now actively learning from the Iranian model of endurance and precision.

Foreign Affairs recounts the initial phase of the conflict, noting that when the United States and Israel launched their aggression against Iran, they expected a swift and decisive victory. According to the article, American planners anticipated that they would quickly overwhelm the government. The publication details the sheer scale of the assault, stating that in the war’s first 24 hours, American and Israeli forces hit roughly 1,000 targets. Over the following 39 days, they struck 12,000 more, with the stated intent of laying waste to Iran’s military infrastructure and eliminating top leadership. Yet, Foreign Affairs acknowledges that more than six months later, Iran not only remains intact but is arguably stronger than before. The journal concedes that Tehran immediately replaced its lost officials, struck back at Washington, and successfully shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, thereby driving up global energy prices and securing newfound political leverage that has left US officials deeply frustrated.

At the core of the Foreign Affairs analysis is the concept of “precise mass,” which the journal defines as high-volume, low-cost, precision-guided weapons. The publication notes that the age of this doctrine is well underway, stating that it is no longer possible for the US military to win a full-blown war simply by using small numbers of expensive, exquisite weapons to dazzle opponents. Crucially, the journal admits that offense is currently cheaper than defense, observing that the price of effective interceptors has yet to fall to the level of attack drones and missiles. It points out that militaries cannot endlessly block salvos of 35,000 dollar Shahed-136 attack drones with 4-million-dollar Patriot missiles.

Foreign Affairs further notes that the world is learning from Iran, building on lessons that were already emerging in other conflicts. The journal provides an extensive list of nations that are now pivoting to adopt this Iranian-style strategy. The publication says six European states, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have signed a letter of intent to jointly develop a one-way attack drone, and Saudi Arabia has unveiled its own attack drone modeled on the Shahed. Even Japan has requested a record 55.6 billion-dollar defense budget, largely to purchase vast quantities of attack drones.

The report by Foreign Affairs also addresses the failure of the American air campaign to neutralize Iran’s capabilities. It reveals that in the years before the war, Iran built a vast underground network of missile infrastructure spread across its territory that has proved impossible for US and Israeli forces to eliminate. The United States struggled significantly to destroy these dispersed production facilities, which Foreign Affairs notes inverted the assumptions that have guided American airpower campaigns since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. 

Foreign Affairs provides a scathing critique of the organizational inertia within the US military. The article explains that the most powerful militaries are organized around small numbers of exquisite, expensive, and hard-to-produce platforms like Tomahawk missiles and F-35s. These units are trained to avoid wasting systems, whereas “precise mass” requires units to move quickly and prioritize volume over perfection. Because the US is locked into these legacy structures, it has struggled to adapt. Washington is now finding itself burning through its stockpiles of Tomahawks, SM-6 missiles, and other expensive systems to deal with the damage inflicted by Iran, leaving the US scrambling to resupply its own stocks and those of partners in places like Taiwan and Ukraine.

Regarding the role of technology, Foreign Affairs admits that while the US has utilized artificial intelligence systems to identify and recommend targets—even citing the use of the Maven Smart System—these advantages are not the deciding factor. The journal acknowledges that the current race to artificial general intelligence is not the primary driver of how AI is shaping warfare. 

In its concluding remarks, Foreign Affairs issues a stark warning to the American defense establishment. It insists that the country’s reliance on exquisite, expensive, and hard-to-produce weapons is no longer sufficient to win wars or protect allies. The journal stresses that the United States must stop carrying on as if the Cold War just ended. It argues that if the US wants to maintain its military edge, it has no choice but to embrace the reality of “precise mass”—a strategy that Iran has already mastered and demonstrated to the world. Ultimately, Foreign Affairs admits that through indigenous resilience and the successful deployment of cost-effective strike capabilities, Iran has proven that a determined nation can stymie even the most conventionally powerful military in the world.

Tags

• Iran
• U.S.
• Israel

Trump's "Small Potatoes" Keep Growing

 By Staff Writer 

New Pentagon figures show wounded US troops rising as the war with Iran continues

TEHRAN — Donald Trump once dismissed the six-month-old war with Iran as “small potatoes.” But the potatoes keep getting bigger.

The Pentagon has quietly added another 37 US service members to its public tally of personnel wounded during the Iran war, without explaining when, where or how they were injured. The latest update brings the number of wounded listed in the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) to 861, adding 29 Navy sailors and eight Marines to the previously reported figure.

A Navy official confirmed that the 29 sailors had returned to duty but provided no details about their injuries. The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command did not publicly identify any recent attack or incident that would account for the additional casualties. The Washington Post reported that Pentagon officials did not respond to requests for an explanation.

The latest unexplained adjustment is only the newest episode in a growing series of discrepancies surrounding the administration’s accounting of the human and material cost of the conflict.

A casualty count that keeps changing

The Pentagon’s public casualty figures have repeatedly changed during the conflict.

On September 18, The Washington Post reported that six US officials familiar with the Defense Department’s internal accounting said at least 22 American service members had died in the Middle East since the beginning of the Iran war on February 28 — four more than the 18 deaths then listed in the Pentagon’s public database. A sixth official put the number at 23.

The officials stressed that not all of the additional deaths could necessarily be attributed directly to combat with Iran, but said they involved U.S. personnel in the region amid the ongoing hostilities. Three U.S. contractors were also reported to have died since combat operations began. The circumstances of the additional military deaths had not been publicly disclosed.

The Pentagon subsequently added another death to its public database, bringing the disclosed total to 19. The Army identified the service member as Capt. Bianca C. Wilkerson, who died on September 18 following a medical emergency while traveling to the Middle East.

That still left a gap between the public database and the higher figures provided by officials.

Four dead — then removed from the tally

The most striking episode occurred in July.

Four U.S. troops killed during renewed fighting with Iran were temporarily removed from the Pentagon’s official Iran-war casualty count. Three soldiers had been killed when an American base in Jordan was struck by Iranian missiles and drones on July 17; another died in Iraq during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone.

The Pentagon’s public database initially showed 18 deaths. It then dropped to 14, while the number of wounded also fell sharply.
Pentagon officials attributed the sudden changes to “anomalies” and “temporary data disruptions.”

The four deaths and more than 200 wounded personnel later reappeared in a new DCAS category called “Overseas Operations,” rather than under “Operation Epic Fury,” the administration’s designation for the Iran campaign. The Pentagon subsequently said that Operation Epic Fury had ended and that casualties associated with renewed fighting were therefore being recorded separately.

Whatever the administrative explanation, the change created a basic problem for the public: a war casualty database was no longer presenting all casualties connected to the conflict under the same heading.

 Nearly 100 injured — but missing from the database

The discrepancy became even more difficult to explain in July.

On July 20, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said that nearly 100 US service members had suffered some degree of injury since July 7 and that 96 percent had returned to duty.

Yet those injuries did not appear in the DCAS totals at the time. The database still showed 14 deaths and did not reflect the nearly 100 additional injuries acknowledged by the Pentagon.

Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats subsequently demanded an explanation, noting that the Pentagon’s own public statements and its casualty database were reporting different realities.

The senators asked the Defense Department to disclose how CENTCOM decides whether an injury is significant enough to be publicly reported, how many injuries had been omitted because personnel quickly returned to duty, and whether injuries from attacks in Jordan were included in DCAS.

Attacks and injuries that were not publicly announced

The questions were particularly significant because U.S. officials had acknowledged that American forces in Jordan had been attacked several times before the July 17 strike.

The Senate inquiry specifically asked the Pentagon how many service members had been injured in three Iranian attacks on US forces in Jordan during the week preceding the better-known July 17 attack, whether those injuries had been entered into DCAS and who authorized the decision not to publicly disclose the attacks or associated injuries.

This raised a broader question: how many injuries can occur during a war without appearing in the public record if the personnel involved return to duty quickly?

The Lincoln’s hidden human cost

The latest revelations also extend beyond battlefield casualties.

On September 23, CBS News reported that the Navy had acknowledged eight suicide attempts among personnel assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group during its months-long deployment.

The figure covered sailors assigned to the carrier, its air wing and accompanying destroyers. A defense official told CBS that two of the eight attempts occurred during active fighting with Iran.

The strike group had spent more than 250 consecutive days at sea during the year, while families had raised concerns about food shortages, supply problems, plumbing failures and deteriorating mental health among personnel.

The Navy has disputed suggestions that there was an increase in suicide attempts and said personnel had access to counselors, chaplains and other support services. Nevertheless, the disclosure added another dimension to the cost of a conflict that officials have repeatedly sought to portray as limited.

From “small potatoes” to a growing bill

Trump described the conflict as “small potatoes” on September 4 while defending Vice President JD Vance’s characterization that the fighting was no longer a war. At the time, Trump acknowledged 18 US deaths and said the conflict had cost taxpayers more than $37.5 billion.

Since then, the publicly disclosed casualty count has risen, officials have reported that the real death toll is higher, and dozens of previously unreported wounded personnel have appeared in the Pentagon database.

The administration’s accounting has also faced questions over the classification of casualties, the reporting of injuries and the disclosure of attacks on US forces.

The issue has therefore become larger than a dispute over numbers. It is about whether the American public and Congress can obtain a consistent account of the human cost of a war being financed by US taxpayers.

Growing pressure inside Washington

The administration has faced increasingly vocal demands for transparency.

In July, all Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee demanded a “full and accurate accounting” of those killed, wounded or injured in connection with Operation Epic Fury. They cited discrepancies between Pentagon statements and DCAS figures and said the inconsistencies undermined confidence in the government’s accounting of the war’s human cost.

In August, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and 17 Democratic senators introduced legislation aimed at preventing the Pentagon from arbitrarily recategorizing an ongoing conflict and requiring restoration of casualty records associated with the Iran war.

After the latest report that at least 22 service members may have died, Duckworth and Rep. Pat Ryan renewed their demand for Congress to pass the legislation. The proposed law would require more frequent public casualty reporting and prohibit the manipulation of casualty records through changes in the designation of an ongoing operation.

The criticism has not been confined to Democrats. Questions over the shifting casualty categories have also drawn attention from Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Thomas Massie, who questioned the logic of treating renewed fighting as a separate conflict for casualty-accounting purposes.

For an administration that has repeatedly emphasized the limited scale and cost of its military campaign against Iran, the expanding list of unexplained injuries, disputed death figures, reclassified casualties and previously undisclosed incidents presents an increasingly awkward arithmetic.

The “small potatoes” are getting harder to keep small.

Tags

• Donald Trump
• pentagon
• war
• Iran