Operation Epic Fury: Juvenile Fantasies and Colonial Ambitions on Full Display

The fact that the murder of 165 innocent schoolgirls in Minab was met with silence, while Iran’s response to US-Israeli aggression was met with choreographed condemnation, shows a skewed international order that breeds conflicts.

Simon Chege Ndiritu

On Arrogant Purveyors of Massacres

On March 3, 2026, Iranians laid to rest 165 schoolgirls killed by US and Israel bombing in Minab City during the opening of Donald Trump’s Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026. The US-Israel also assassinated Iran’s supreme leader and military leaders, which was followed by Trump’s further meddling in Iranian internal affairs by calling on citizens to overthrow their government. Notably, both aggressors launched the bombing campaign as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to have another round of negotiations, showing a repeat of lawless behavior similar to what happened on June 13, 2025. Also noteworthy was that these negotiations entailed Washington presenting impossible conditions to Iran, on the one hand, while wondering why Iran was not capitulating in the face of US military deployment.

While the US and Israel termed their attack as “preemptive,” the Pentagon revealed to Congress that Iran was not preparing to attack, showing that Washington started a war of choice. This view was also confirmed by the US Secretary of State, who divulged that Washington bombed Iran because it wanted to shield Israel from retaliation the Jewish state would elicit after attacking Iran. With evidence showing that the ongoing war against Iran is an unprovoked war of choice, this article illuminates how the West’s juvenile fantasies and a skewed international system have enabled decades-long multispectral aggression on nations and also complicated the attainment of sustainable peace.

Between the date when the US-Israeli bombing killed 165 schoolgirls and staff in Minab city and when they were laid to rest on March 3, 2026, no Western European leader had condemned this blatant attack, showing their hidden approval

Trump’s Hollywood Thinking

Trump’s naming of the ongoing operation against Iran displays how juvenile and out of touch with reality the architects of this war are. Including the name “Fury” shows that the US wants to express wild anger toward a country that cannot attack its territory, displaying the immaturity of the intellect that fashioned this war. Similarly, the use of the term “epic,” which denotes narratives designed to enthrall audiences, is also in bad taste, as it shows that Washington planned to entertain its audience by killing innocent people and destroying infrastructure in Iran. Consequently, it is surreal that some Americans, Western Europeans, and their allies are entertained by or acquiesce to the animalistic attitude displayed in fashioning this war.

While giving credit where it is due, the intelligentsia in Washington has become honest, as it no longer conceals US colonial interests in terms such as “enduring freedom,” “restoring democracy,” and others that featured in the names of previous, yet equally senseless wars. The name “Operation Epic Fury” reflects low quality of thinking that could have well been generated by Trump’s budget marketers for one of his matches with Vince McMahon during his days in pro-wrestling. Unfortunately, this low quality of intellect is applied in managing relations between countries with real leaders, populations, and militaries, and results in tragic events such as bombing a school full of young girls to make for an “epic” view, while destroying Iran’s military, which cannot target the US territory, to demonstrate Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s “fury.” Even worse, the real reason for this war may be a diversion from the ongoing Epstein scandal, plus Washington’s colonial ambitions of plundering Iran’s resources and facilitating Israel’s hegemonic ambitions. Western Europe and other US allies are okay with this reality, and their stand endangers the peace of the rest of the world. The Kenyan president, among selected African leaders, some reported to have stashed proceeds of corruption in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also condemned Iran’s retaliatory bombing of the US military installations in the Gulf countries but had remained silent concerning the US-Israel bombing of a UN member. Therefore, a system emerges that accepts and sanitizes US actions at all costs, which precipitated the current war.

Allies Cheering Lawlessness for Narrow-Minded Ambitions

Between the date when the US-Israeli bombing killed 165 schoolgirls and staff in Minab city and when they were laid to rest on March 3, 2026 no Western European leader had condemned this blatant attack, showing their hidden approval. Meanwhile, the UK Prime Minister, Kier Starmer; French President, Emanuel Macron; and German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, condemned Iran’s retaliation, some threatening to join the US or avail their resources for the US to intensify its attacks, euphemized as defending Israel. It seems the US, Israel, and their allies expected Iran to surrender to the West’s parochial interests of overthrowing the Iranian government to balkanize and loot the country’s resources. In this case, the US is acting like a small-town bully who has recruited the majority to shout at his victims, level endless accusations against them, and hence convince them to accept Washington’s bullying to earn acceptance as “democratic” or “free markets,” among others. This mentality is seen in Western Europe’s condemnation of Iran’s retaliation as indiscriminate and destabilizing. Borrowing from the analogy of bully-justifying hecklers seen above, the US-Israeli murder of Iranian civilians is promoted by Western Europeans as “precise,” “preemptive,” or “promoting stability.” This Jarring explanation has been used by the West to promote a world order that has dehumanized people in the rest of the world for centuries.

The West has created labels and policies for colonizing, sidelining, or exploiting other groups, including Africans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, Russians, and Chinese. Those targeted are dehumanized and cast in a way suggesting they do not deserve rights to their lives and resources, as the genocide in Gaza and the massacre in Minab show. This same attitude has driven 47 years of inhumane sanctions against Iran, which were targeted at collapsing the government to plunder its energy resources for Western neocolonial ambitions. Sadly, many other countries have supported or allowed these sanctions, which have curtailed targeted countries’ right to development. Studies have shown that development makes societies less likely to go to war as people prefer enjoying opportunities provided by prosperity. It can be argued that America’s sanctions have made the Iranian society willing to fight, especially against Washington, which is desirable.

Prolonged Conflict as the Oppressed Fight Back

An openly biased international system condemning some nations to underdevelopment and constant threats of war has made countries such as Iran and Russia skeptical of Western diplomatic overtures. These countries have chosen to use military means after learning that the West does not recognize their rights and interests, but prefers to recruit vassals that play a cacophony to browbeat appointed adversaries to give up their rights. However, these civilizational nations have cultivated inner strength and learned to rely on themselves to fight the West at all costs while ignoring its vassals. This reality means that Iran and Russia will hold out for as long as they can. Sustainable peace will only be achieved if the West learns to respect the rights of all other peoples or if it is defeated and denied the ability to enforce a tiered and discriminatory international system.

Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

Diplomacy Bombed: How the Israel-US Bombardment on Iran Buried International Law in Pursuing Regional Hegemony

Launched in the midst of optimistic nuclear negotiations, the attack on Iran signals not deterrence but the collapse of diplomacy and the international legal order. What began as a “preventive strike” has become a regional conflagration in a widening conflict.

Ricardo Martins

A Strike in the Midst of Diplomacy: Undermining Negotiation and International Norms

The recent attack by Israel on Iran, followed by the United States, marked an abrupt rupture in a positive diplomatic process. According to mediation efforts led by Oman, negotiations between Washington and Tehran over uranium enrichment were reportedly advancing. Most strikingly, Iran had agreed to place its enriched uranium in a third country, which is a major concession in nuclear diplomacy.

In such a context, the timing of the attack raises fundamental geopolitical questions. If diplomatic momentum was building, why escalate militarily? From my perspective, the strike appears less as a defensive necessity (at least from the side of the U.S.) and more as a strategic move by Israel to prevent a US–Iran accord that could have altered regional power balances. Diplomacy was once again sidelined in favour of force, a recurring pattern in Israeli and US politics.

The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real

Under international law, the legitimacy of preventive military action is highly contested unless an imminent threat is demonstrable. The argument that Iran poses a direct and immediate threat to US territory remains far from credible. Rather, the justification appears anchored in Israel’s long-standing security doctrine of preemption: a doctrine historically invoked to justify strikes against perceived existential threats. Yet preemption without clear imminence blurs the line between defence and aggression, especially when undertaken without explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council.

The absence of congressional approval in Washington further complicates the domestic legal framework of the U.S. intervention. For many Americans, the question is not simply geopolitical but constitutional: does the executive branch have the authority to initiate another major war without legislative consent? Public protests across US cities suggest that support for escalation is far from unanimous.

Strategic Calculations: Israeli Regional Hegemony and Regime Change

Israel’s strategic rationale appears rooted in a broader regional vision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently framed Iran as the principal threat to Israeli security, and since the 1990s, Netanyahu has announced that Iran is weeks or months from getting the atomic bomb. The objective, critics argue, extends beyond nuclear containment toward the weakening or the collapse of the Iranian regime itself. For Netanyahu, only an Iran abiding by the Abraham Accords is welcome.

Statements by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett suggesting that “Turkey is the new Iran” hint at a wider strategic outlook: neutralise emerging regional competitors sequentially to preserve Israeli military superiority. In this view, implementing chaos in Iran could produce a fragmented regional landscape in which Israel remains the dominant military power.

However, regime change operations rarely succeed through airstrikes alone. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than precipitating collapse, appears to have consolidated nationalist sentiment. Martyrdom narratives are powerful in Iranian political culture; instead of weakening the regime, such actions may harden internal cohesion and accelerate succession mechanisms. History shows that external attacks often strengthen authoritarian systems rather than dismantle them. Moreover, civilian casualties, including reported strikes on hospitals and girls’ schools, deepen international scrutiny.

Europe’s Divided Response: Shameful Subordination

The European reaction has revealed fractures within the European Union. High Representative Kaja Kallas adopted language perceived as disproportionately critical of Iran while avoiding a clear condemnation of Israeli or American actions.

Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly floated the idea of a “credible transition” in Iran, interpreted as a tacit endorsement of regime change, despite lacking a formal mandate to determine EU foreign policy.

In contrast, Spain adopted a markedly different stance. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned the strikes as violations of international law and blocked US aircraft from using Spanish bases beyond agreed bilateral frameworks. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares reaffirmed that bases such as Naval Base Rota and Morón Air Base operate under strict sovereignty constraints.

German officials are discussing possible participation — potentially via coordination from Ramstein Air Base — highlight the EU’s strategic dilemma. Unlike support for Ukraine, there is no unified European strategy or clearly defined quid pro quo with Washington.

Europe may ultimately bear disproportionate consequences: surging energy prices, renewed refugee flows, and the strengthening of far-right movements capitalising on instability. Strategic alignment without autonomous policy planning risks undermining EU credibility as a normative power committed to multilateralism.

Regional Escalation and the Risk of a Wider War

The Middle East is already trapped. Iran has targeted all countries hosting US, British, and French bases in the region that have allowed the use of the airspace to bomb the Islamic Republic, transforming the confrontation into a broader regional conflict. The reported strike claims involving the USS Abraham Lincoln illustrate the rapid horizontal escalation potential.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear increasingly aligned with Washington and Tel Aviv, authorising defensive or retaliatory measures. Oil and gas markets have responded sharply, accentuating the global economic implications.

According to the analysis discussed on France Télévisions, the United Arab Emirates emerges as the country most exposed after Israel due to its strategic positioning and close security alignment with Washington. As a key logistical, financial, touristic, and military hub in the Gulf, hosting sensitive infrastructure and major Western interests, the UAE becomes a prime target for potential Iranian retaliation while remaining highly vulnerable to energy shocks and disruptions in regional trade and investments. Beyond the immediate security risks, the broader economic model of the Gulf monarchies — heavily dependent on stability, global investment flows, and uninterrupted energy exports — now faces an existential threat in the event of prolonged regional escalation.

Meanwhile, China faces a strategic calculation. As Iran’s key economic partner and energy supplier, Beijing has incentives to prevent regime collapse and regional chaos. Yet direct military involvement would risk confrontation with the US. China is therefore likely to provide diplomatic and information backing, as well as economic lifelines, rather than overt military support.

The prospect of “World War III” remains speculative, but miscalculation risks are real. When multiple regional and global powers are indirectly engaged, escalation ladders become difficult to control. Russia is aware of it and is acting cautiously.

Political Futures: Domestic Costs and Strategic Uncertainty

Domestically, President Donald Trump faces political risk. Initiating a new Middle Eastern war without broad public support or congressional authorisation may deepen polarisation. Anti-war protests across American cities suggest limited enthusiasm for prolonged engagement.

For Israel, victory is similarly elusive. Air superiority does not automatically translate into political transformation. For Iran, martyrdom and nationalist mobilisation may strengthen rather than weaken regime legitimacy.

The central geopolitical paradox remains: even if framed as preventive security, the operation may ultimately consolidate Iran’s internal unity, destabilise the Gulf monarchies and Europe economically, and entrench long-term regional volatility.

In sum, this crisis therefore extends beyond Iran, signalling a disturbing reality: international law appears increasingly reduced to rubble, its authority buried in the graveyards of modern warfare, a reality confirmed by the rhetoric of Pete Hegseth, who has stated that U.S. strategic decisions should not be subordinated to democracy, international legal norms, or multilateral constraints.

Ricardo Martins, Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations

“Burnt Bridges”: Why Trump’s Plan to Use Kurds Against Iran Is Doomed to Fail

 March 2026. The Middle East stands on the brink of a new large-scale conflict.

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid

Following a series of devastating U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran is engulfed in uncertainty. However, the White House, facing the prospect of a ground operation in mountainous terrain, is betting on an old, tested, but extremely risky tool—Kurdish forces. The Donald Trump administration views the Kurds as ideal “cannon fodder” to ignite a civil war in Iran. But will this plan work? Given Trump’s history of betrayals, deceit, and cynical pragmatism, the attempt to play the Kurdish card might not only fail but could also backfire on the United States itself.

A Proxy Army for a Big War

While the U.S. Air Force continues to bomb Iranian cities and Donald Trump boasts about destroying the enemy’s navy, Washington is soberly assessing the risks. Sending thousands of American soldiers into Iran would be political suicide for a president who promised voters an end to “endless wars.” Analysts agree: the U.S. will not launch a full-scale invasion like in Iraq or Afghanistan due to the mountainous terrain, the risk of high casualties, and a lack of public support.

Despite the loud headlines and CIA leaks, the active use of Kurds in full-scale combat operations is unlikely

A solution was quickly found. As early as March 4th, the South Korean publication Donga Ilbo reported that thousands of Kurdish fighters had begun a ground offensive into Iran from Iraqi territory. According to Fox News and CNN, cited by the publication, the operation is coordinated with active participation from the CIA, which is providing weapons and equipment.

But is this really the case? Currently, data on a massive invasion by thousands of Kurdish fighters is contradictory.

The scenario appears logical: The Kurds, who make up about 10% of Iran’s population (approximately 9 million people), have historically faced discrimination within the Shia theocracy. They are concentrated in the western provinces bordering Iraq, making them an ideal foothold. Kurdish parties based in Iraqi Kurdistan have already united into the “Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan,” establishing a unified military command.

Israel: Old Ties and New Opportunities

The role of Israel deserves special attention. Tel Aviv has long-standing, complex but generally positive relations with Kurdish movements, viewing them as a natural counterweight to hostile Arab and Iranian regimes. In the current conflict, Israel has taken on the role of “igniter.” According to Middle East Eye, the Israeli Air Force is striking positions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) precisely in Iran’s western provinces, effectively preparing a corridor for the advancement of Kurdish forces.

According to experts, Israeli strategists are actively exploring the option of using Iranian Kurds (specifically groups like PAK, linked to the PKK) as manpower instead of American soldiers. For Israel, this is an opportunity to inflict maximum damage on its primary enemy without getting bogged down in a protracted ground conflict. The calculation is that the Kurdish national movement could become the “Trojan horse” capable of exploding Iran from within.

However, a fundamental contradiction lies here: the interests of Israel and the U.S. are often situational. And if Washington decides its goals are achieved, the Kurds could once again be left alone to face an enraged adversary.

“I Don’t Like the Kurds”: A Bloody History of Betrayals

This is precisely where Trump’s plan begins to unravel. To understand why the Kurds are unlikely to become a pliable tool in the White House’s hands, one need only look at Trump’s relationship with these people.

As early as 2020, the world learned shocking details from the memoirs of former National Security Advisor John Bolton. According to Bolton, Trump stated in a small circle, “I don’t like the Kurds. They run from the Iraqis, they run from the Turks. The only time they don’t run is when we’re bombing everything around them with F-18s.” This statement isn’t mere rudeness; it’s the quintessence of Trump’s approach: he despises those he considers weak and feels no moral obligation towards allies.

The most cynical example was the betrayal of the Syrian Kurds in October 2019. Trump then ordered the withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria, effectively giving a “green light” to the Turkish invasion. The Kurds, who had lost 11,000 fighters battling ISIS and were America’s only reliable partner on the ground, were abandoned to their fate. American officers on the ground were shocked: “They trusted us, and we betrayed that trust,” one of them told The New Arab at the time.

The “1991 Syndrome” is also vivid in Kurdish memory. Then, President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein but abandoned them when the uprising began, allowing the regime’s army to brutally crush the rebellion with helicopters. Now, this nightmare seems poised to repeat itself in Iran.

Can the U.S. Ignite a Civil War in Iran?

Formally, the prerequisites for unrest exist. Besides ethnic Kurds, Iran is home to disaffected Baluch, Azeris, and Arabs. Following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the initial strikes, a power vacuum could emerge in the country. The White House has already openly stated its readiness to deal with a “new government” and is discussing who should lead Iran after regime change.

Trump personally called on Iranian diplomats worldwide to seek asylum, promising to help “form a new, better Iran.” It would seem this is the moment of truth: Kurds and other minorities should rise up and overthrow the hated regime.

But reality is more complex.

Fear of History Repeating. As analyst Oral Toga noted in a comment to Middle East Eye, the fact that the U.S. abandoned the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) will serve as a lesson for Kurds in Iraq and Iran. “The airstrikes will end someday, but Tehran will remain there forever,” he reminds us.

Lack of Strategy. The U.S. and Israel have no clear vision for Iran’s future. Do they want a unitary state, a federation, or the complete disintegration of the country? Using the Kurds as a battering ram without guaranteeing them autonomy or protection after the war would condemn the region to a bloodbath. The Kurdish leaders themselves understand this. As activist Golaleh Sharafkandi stated, “We have a political program supported by an army, not the other way around.”

Regional Opposition. The creation of a new Kurdish zone of influence in northern Iran would be opposed not only by Iran but also by Turkey and even Azerbaijan, which see it as a threat to their sovereignty and a risk of separatism. Ankara already brutally suppresses any pro-Kurdish movements near its borders. Azerbaijan, which has strategic relations with Turkey and Israel, has already expressed condolences to Iran and called for peace, fearing destabilization.

Operational Difficulties. Several sources, including the Turkish agency Anadolu, report that the information about the offensive has been denied or clarified. The Kurdish factions themselves deny starting a full-scale invasion, and Iranian media report that the border is under control. The groups ready to fight number, by various estimates, between 8,000 and 10,000 people—insufficient to conquer territory without direct air support and U.S. special forces, which Trump is not yet ready to provide.

Dreams of a Caliphate and the Bitter Truth

Donald Trump’s attempt to use the Kurds as a match to ignite the powder keg of Iran appears to be an adventure based on a denial of reality. Yes, the Kurds hate the Ayatollahs’ regime. Yes, they want autonomy and rights. But they do not want to once again become bargaining chips in a high-stakes game where their physical survival is on the line.

Trump has already twice demonstrated his true attitude towards Kurdish allies—in Iraq and Syria. A third time could be the last, not for the American president’s reputation, but for hundreds of thousands of civilians who would find themselves caught between the hammer of the Iranian army and the anvil of American geopolitical ambitions. The Kurdish leaders, united in a coalition, understand perfectly well: when the situation gets hot, the White House might once again throw up its hands and say, “This is not our war.”

Therefore, despite the loud headlines and CIA leaks, the active use of Kurds in full-scale combat operations is unlikely. Kurds might try to expand their autonomy amidst the chaos, but playing the role of a disciplined U.S. proxy army that can be unleashed on Tehran and then written off—they won’t buy that anymore. The price of trust in America under Trump has proven too high, and paying off those debts may take decades.

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, political scientist, expert on the Arab world

165 Broken Hearts in Minab: Is This Your True Face, West?

While politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv rub their hands together with the smug grins of overfed hyenas, in southern Iran, in the city of Minab, the earth has opened up to receive one hundred and sixty-five children’s bodies.

Muhammad Hamid ad-Din

One hundred and sixty-five girls, students of the “Shajareh Tayyebeh” elementary school, will never see their mothers again. They won’t grow up and won’t become doctors or teachers. Their flesh is mixed with the rubble of desks and textbooks because someone in the Pentagon decided this school was a military target.

This isn’t just a war crime. This is a ritual sacrifice on the altar of their own self-importance. And the executioners—those who gave the order and those who now cynically look away, pretending nothing happened—they are not human. They are inhuman, cannibals, gangsters with nuclear bombs and aircraft carriers, drunk on their own impunity.

The Western world, which loves to drape itself in the cloak of defender of democracy and human rights, has once again shown its true face—the face of an executioner wiping bloody hands on velvet curtains and pretending it’s just a factory defect.

The whole world sees your true face. You are inhuman, undeserving of the right to be called human. You are bloody jesters, flooding the planet with oil and tears

“Were they not children, just ‘collateral damage’?”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that pathetic geopolitics clerk, when asked about the death of the schoolgirls, stammered something incoherent: “I would rather not get this wrong… we would never intentionally target a school.”

A lie! A brazen, cynical, brutal lie! You didn’t make a mistake. You aimed, and you struck. Furthermore, you struck the city of Minab, in Hormozgan province. Your precision-guided bombs, which you’re so proud of, couldn’t have “accidentally” fallen on a building full of children. They went exactly where they were sent. To a place with no missile launchers, no ammunition depots—just desks, blackboards, and little ponytails.

For you, murderers from the US and Israel, Iranians aren’t people. They’re slaves who must silently endure the beatings of their masters. And if a slave dares to disobey, if a country dares to have its path and its will, then you can burn their children alive. So they know their place.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi published photos that make your blood run cold: hundreds of fresh graves, dug side-by-side. Small graves. He wrote, “These are the graves of more than 160 innocent girls… This is the real face of the ‘salvation’ Trump promised.”

Where are you now, fighters for women’s rights? Where is your outrage, Western feminist organizations? You march in the streets over a misused pronoun, but you stay silent when bombs tear apart seven-year-old girls in Iran. Because these girls aren’t white, not European, not Israeli. To you, they are “second-class people.” Racial arrogance blinds you, filling your eyes with the lead of hatred for anything that doesn’t bow to your “golden calf.”

Operation “Epic Fury” or Operation “Children’s Massacre”?

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a military operation against Iran. The stated goal: to destroy missile and nuclear capabilities. But something went “wrong,” and the “precision” weapons somehow ended up in schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods.

Figures that the Western press dismisses as “Iranian exaggeration” (because if this is true, their entire hypocritical mask slips away):

Minab, girls’ school: 170 dead (as of March 3).

Lamerd, gymnasium: Up to 20 young female volleyball players torn to pieces.

Tehran, Gandhi Hospital: A direct hit. Babies being evacuated from incubators. And these are “precision strikes”? Or is this a method of intimidation so the Iranian people know: you can’t hide, not even in a hospital bed?

Rubio, emboldened after his initial disastrous interviews, now declares, “The most powerful strikes are yet to come. The next phase will be even more brutal.”

Do you hear, mothers of Iran? They’re promising you even more brutal strikes. They promise to kill your children in even more sophisticated ways. Because you dared not to kneel.

Historical Memory: From Napalm to “Smart Bombs”

The gentlemen “civilizers” have always been renowned for their humanism. History holds the ledger of their atrocities, but each time they pretend it was “another life” and an “accident.”

Remember Vietnam. They didn’t just drop bombs; they napalmed entire villages. Remember the photo of the girl running down the road with her back burned? That was them. And they never apologized.

Remember Yugoslavia. The bombing of Belgrade, the destruction of bridges, and chemical plants poisoning everything around. They killed children during Easter holidays. And they never apologized.

Remember Iraq. Sanctions that took the lives of half a million children. Then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked about the deaths of Iraqi children, cynically replied, “We think the price is worth it.” Is the price of children’s lives “worth it” for your policies?

Yesterday it was Gaza, today it’s Minab. The same pattern everywhere: massive strikes, “intelligence errors,” and absolute silence from the “international community” when it comes to non-Europeans.

Silence on the Airwaves: Why is UNICEF Stammering and Biden Sleeping?

The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and UNESCO have “expressed concern.” They are “deeply concerned” about the impact on educational institutions. What a noble concern! While they are “concerned,” Iran has already buried its children. Their PR agents write press releases while rescuers pull severed little hands and dolls, burned along with their owners, from the rubble.

Western media—those prostitutes of imperialism—pretended nothing happened. As Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accurately noted, they “didn’t notice” this information. On the front pages: celebrity scandals, inflation in Europe, anything but photos of burned Iranian schoolgirls. Because if you show that, the viewer might ask, “What was that for?” And God forbid the viewer realizes they’re being fed propaganda while innocent blood is being spilled.

The silence of Western leaders is complicity. Every European leader who didn’t come out and condemn this strike and every president who didn’t demand an immediate investigation has the blood of those one hundred and sixty-five girls on their hands.

The Bestial Snarl of the “World Order”

What happened in Minab is not a mistake. It’s the logical outcome of a policy that divides people into higher and lower. Into those who deserve to live and those who can be killed for the sake of “resources” and “democratic security.”

The US and Israel have shown they are terrorist states. Not figuratively, but literally. Their methods are those of gangsters: if you don’t pay protection money, we’ll kill your children to teach others a lesson. This isn’t politics; it’s cannibalism. They drink the blood of the Iranian people and wipe their mouths with the American flag.

You didn’t apologize for Vietnam. You didn’t apologize for Iraq. Furthermore, you didn’t apologize for Gaza. You didn’t apologize for Minab. You will never apologize because, in your arrogant, racist logic, an Iranian doesn’t deserve an apology. He should be grateful he was killed “humanely.”

But we see you. The whole world sees your true face. You are inhuman, undeserving of the right to be called human. You are bloody jesters, flooding the planet with oil and tears. And may every night you dream of one hundred and sixty-five girls from Minab, reaching out their charred hands and whispering, “Why?”

Because you have no answer, Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu. And you never will. Only eternal shame, the people’s hatred, and the curses of the mothers whose children you killed for your amusement.

Muhammad Hamid ad-Din, prominent Palestinian journalist

A Blunder by Donald Trump

The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran has become a serious milestone in politics. It is already absolutely clear that it has led to extremely negative consequences, fraught with alarming complications.

Mohammed Amer

Oil and gas prices have sharply increased, and this is only the beginning. The main issue, however, is the disruption of the long-established routes and supply chains for goods across the entire globe. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz will inevitably complicate the delivery of energy resources to various parts of the planet.

Washington is interested in chaos reigning in the Middle East, as it provides the US with numerous benefits; the region becomes unsafe, therefore capital and expertise are supposed to flow to America, because Europe is declining and it is better to steer clear of it. On 3 March 2026, Bloomberg Agency already expressed doubt about the region being able to maintain its ability to ‘attract’ talent from around the world and to sustain its status as a financial centre.

It is noteworthy that the Western media focuses on reproaches against Tehran, having turned a blind eye to the murder of nearly 200 Iranian children

This area of the globe will remain unstable for some time and lose its former attractiveness. The Gulf countries have already started feeling it: the Saudi newspaper ‘Arab News’ overtly emphasised that they found themselves in a ‘hopeless position.’

Hiding behind the Atlantic Ocean, the US, having the rivalry with China as its primary task, treats its allies with disregard, whether in the Middle East or Europe – they are incapable of protecting them. Washington, focused on its idea of the Western Hemisphere, where they seek entire and absolute dominance – hence the seizure of the Panama Canal the intention to annex Canada and Greenland – shows that it will achieve its tasks by any means.

It is noteworthy that the Western media focuses on reproaches against Tehran, having turned a blind eye to the murder of nearly 200 Iranian children.

It should be pointed out that many American media outlets have called Trump’s actions reckless, and although they show little sympathy for Iran, nevertheless the idea that the president does not have the right to declare war and that this is solely the competence of Congress, is increasingly asserting itself.

A certain number of legislators are preparing to introduce a corresponding bill. The thought is increasingly voiced that illegal and arbitrary violence could lead to unpredictable tragic repercussions, because it is difficult to contain.

Washington has unilaterally assumed the right not just to interfere with the affairs of other countries but to kidnap and kill their leaders. This is unlikely to please anyone. Even the pro-American former German Foreign Minister A. Baerbock condemned the US attack on Iran.

In the United States per se, some influential political scientists, Tucker Carlson in particular, castigate the provocative role of Israel, and an increasing number of journalists are now differentiating between the national interests of America and those of Israel. Netanyahu is perhaps the smartest politician in the region, but objectively he is undermining his country’s position worldwide: on 22 February, the Israeli prime minister spoke of some kind of hexagon of Israeli influence, putting an emphasis on the utmost expansion of cooperation with India based on their civilisational proximity, or, to put it simpler, on an alliance against Islam. However, his line of forceful resolution of all problems is causing increasing protest within Israel itself.

A growing number of observers are coming to the following conclusion: the goal declared by the US administration – to force Iran to abandon the creation of nuclear weapons and to refrain from the war unleashed for this purpose – will ultimately prove counterproductive and even false, since it will prompt the states of the region to acquire an atomic bomb as quickly as possible to ensure their own security.

Artificial Intelligence Requires Sensible Application

The war of the US and Israel against Iran has certainly aggravated the international tension. However, what is particularly alarming is the fact that all the military operations were carried out with the use of artificial intelligence. The English newspaper The Financial Times reported on 2 March that Israel hacked surveillance cameras on Tehran’s roads and used AI to plan the assassination of Ali Khamenei. Israeli intelligence identified the lifestyle of Khamenei and his security personnel, including travel routes and working hours of high-ranking officials who were usually close to the now-deceased Iranian leader. The US Central Intelligence Agency provided additional data confirming Khamenei’s exact location on the day of his assassination: in total, 30 rockets were fired at the residence complex, with cell towers in the area being disabled so that security personnel would be deprived of an opportunity to receive calls.

All these facts indicate that the use of artificial intelligence systems in military operations is taking on a very perilous character. In fact, this is another step towards world war. Therefore, the situation unfolding in the region is fraught with hazardous and currently unpredictable consequences.

In these conditions, most people in developing countries pin their hopes for an improvement in the international climate on the activities of the BRICS member states.

Mohammed Amer, Syrian publicist

The desert trap: America facing Iran

 As the shadow of the desert speaks amidst the clash of missiles and torn diplomacies, the empire hesitates in the face of strategic endurance.

Mohamed Lamine KABA

Since February 28, a new wave of military tensions has pitted Washington and Tel Aviv against Tehran, even as delicate negotiations continued in Geneva. Behind the official rhetoric of an imminent victory, several strategic signals suggest the emergence of a poorly anticipated and potentially costly conflict for the US-Israeli coalition. Under the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government, the region is plunging into a new strategic spiral that is destabilizing diplomatic stability, even though the Twelve Day War had already foreshadowed the coalition’s failure in 2025.

Furthermore, the current crisis also reveals the geopolitical ambiguities of the Gulf Arab states, whose stance oscillates between security calculations and strategic silence in the face of military operations. The attitude of several governments in the Arabian Peninsula reflects a form of diplomatic balancing act that indirectly fuels the dynamics of the conflict, even though increasing data from the peninsula reveals that Iran has achieved significant successes in neutralizing American military infrastructure in the region.

Far from an anticipated victory, the United States finds itself in a self-imposed geopolitical impasse, facing costly military resistance and progressive diplomatic isolation

Naturally, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and several European states maintain an official discourse of stability while supporting damaging actions that exacerbate regional fragmentation. This strategic double standard proves once again the political hypocrisy of some of the United States’ partners, whose rhetoric of peace contrasts sharply with the reality of the military and diplomatic operations deployed on the ground.

Should we see in this nascent war the sign of an irreversible shift in the global strategic balance, or the beginning of a new historical impasse for the United States vis-à-vis Iran? The following analysis explores the underlying causes of this confrontation.

Technological asymmetry and cost war

The current conflict paradoxically reveals the depth of an economic war disguised as a conventional military confrontation. In retaliation, Iranian forces have targeted approximately 27 US bases and installations in the region, according to Western analysts. THAAD anti-missile systems have been particularly hard hit, with radars destroyed at seven strategic sites. This situation exposes a structural vulnerability in Western infrastructure to low-cost drones.

On the first day of the conflict, it appeared that Iran was attacking empty bases, from which the Americans had withdrawn personnel and critical equipment, while genuinely strategic Iranian installations were protected by an effective missile defense system. However, it is now established that this was not the case: satellite imagery shows numerous Iranian missiles striking against American and allied missile defense systems.

Similarly, the American bases in the Gulf countries were built with American taxpayers’ money. Today, “thanks” to the military adventure of a certain individual, they are being reduced to ashes. Who will be held responsible? Furthermore, fuel prices in the United States have reached de facto historic highs. Taxpayers continue to foot the bill.

Added to this is another, darker reality. These bases are surrounded by civilian and industrial infrastructure. Civilian populations in the Gulf countries are suffering and dying. Collateral damage is occurring. Production is disrupted. Is the owner of the bases prepared to compensate for these losses?

At the same time, asymmetric warfare is disrupting traditional power theory. A Patriot missile costs around four million dollars, while an Iranian drone can be produced for as little as twenty thousand dollars. This disparity transforms each interception into a prolonged financial drain for the United States. American technological advantage is eroding in a war of economic attrition where precision is giving way to saturation. Satellite imagery confirms targeted strikes against advanced defense systems.

In this configuration, the war is no longer about armored vehicles but about budgetary calculations. Iran exploits operational density rather than absolute superiority, forcing Washington to deploy disproportionate resources for each interception. This strategy challenges the Western doctrine of techno-military dominance and reveals the vulnerabilities of a power dependent on costly platforms in a theater saturated with diffuse threats.

Fragmentation of alliances and crisis of diplomatic legitimacy

The war also exposed the fracturing of the Western Front. The strategic unity hoped for by Washington dissolved in the face of internal political divisions. Spain refused to provide significant logistical support, while the United Kingdom failed to coordinate its operational commitments. This gradual disintegration undermined the credibility of a military coalition that had historically relied on NATO cohesion.

The conflict crossed a dangerous diplomatic threshold when US-Israeli strikes hit a crucial point in international negotiations without a UN mandate. This action paradoxically reduced the political space available for a regional compromise and plunged the area into a climate of political chaos. China and Russia responded by convening an emergency meeting of the Security Council, explicitly condemning the use of force against Iranian sovereignty and calling for an immediate ceasefire to resume negotiations that had been sabotaged by Washington and Tel Aviv.

However, American authorities do not understand the nature of the conflict in Iran, and the United States is incapable of winning it, according to a statement by retired American diplomat and colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. He emphasizes that Washington misunderstands the anthropological nature of the conflict: “American leaders do not understand the nature of the conflict in Iran. The main factor is that we are dealing with a three-hundred-year-old nation of 90 million people, 53% of whom are of Persian origin, facing numerous problems, but which is condemning itself to self-destruction, making things incredibly difficult for us.” This means that Iran draws not only on a deep history but also on a complex civilizational identity that makes any military capitulation virtually impossible. The war then becomes an existential confrontation rather than a simple geopolitical competition.

Strategic impasse and upheaval of the world order

The American and Israeli strategy is mired in a fundamental contradiction: wanting to contain Iran while simultaneously destabilizing the regional diplomatic architecture. The ongoing bombings, the hunt for ballistic missiles, and the surveillance of underground bases point to a war of attrition with no clear political end in sight. Air strikes have failed to neutralize the technological mobility of Iranian forces.

In this context of escalating tensions, Donald Trump has publicly raised the possibility of deploying ground troops on Iranian territory. However, this prospect appears less as a coherent strategy than as an attempt to regain the initiative through military force. Yet, neither the American military establishment nor public opinion in the United States seems willing to support the opening of a new ground front in the Middle East, which places Washington in a genuine strategic impasse.

Meanwhile, Tehran attributes the civilian casualties to what it calls a joint US-Israeli aggression. Washington’s legal response appears weak: the invocation of the UN Charter struggles to withstand a rigorous interpretation of international law, further undermining the intervention’s diplomatic legitimacy.

Internationally, the American initiative to impose new sanctions was blocked by a double veto from China and Russia. This diplomatic resistance thwarted the “strikes and encirclement” plan aimed at isolating Tehran. Furthermore, the war exacerbated divisions within NATO and delayed several strategic programs related to containment in the Indo-Pacific region.

Far from an anticipated victory, the United States finds itself in a self-imposed geopolitical impasse, facing costly military resistance and progressive diplomatic isolation. The quagmire in the Middle East is diverting attention from global priorities and weakening American hegemonic projection in a world that has become multipolar.

To conclude, the power that believes it dominates the desert often ends up a prisoner of its own sand.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

Strategic and Economic Impacts of the Iran War

The ongoing US-Israel-Iran war would not only increase inflation but would also trigger a new arms race around the world.

Abbas Hashemite

Economic Impacts of the US-Israeli Attack on Iran

The ongoing US-Israeli attack on Iran has profound strategic and economic impacts on global markets. The US and Israeli attack on Iran has not only revealed President Donald Trump’s hypocritical nature, but it has also exposed the United States and the whole world to significant dangers. The United States used nuclear negotiations as a smoke screen to catch Iran off guard. Washington and Tehran were engaged in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. The US repeatedly stated that it wants to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear power. However, amidst the reports of positive developments in the second round of these peace talks, the US, and Israel conducted a combined attack on Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military conducted strikes in Iran due to reports of a possible Iranian attack on the United States. However, the Pentagon has recently rejected the claim that there were any reports of Iran’s potential first strike.

After the recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the threat of nuclear proliferation has increased more than ever

This reveals the hidden agenda behind these strikes. The US and Israel seek regime change in Iran to install a pro-Israel and pro-West government in the country. The US and Israeli attack on Iran targeted the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top-level military leaders and government officials. The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and many other high-level officials were killed in these strikes. The US and Israel also struck other targets in Iran, igniting geopolitical tensions and a broader conflict in the Middle East and beyond. In response to the US and Israeli attack, Iran conducted missile attacks on US military assets and bases in the whole region, especially in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

This US-Israeli military campaign against Iran has a profound economic fallout on the whole world, especially the GCC region. The GCC countries are highly dependent on food and agricultural imports for their survival. They import 85% of their food, including meat and vegetables, due to an arid climate, limited arable land, and water scarcity, making them vulnerable to supply chain shocks. Iran is a key supplier of food and agricultural products to the GCC. Between March 2024 and February 2025, Iran’s exports of food and agricultural products to Gulf Cooperation Council countries reached an estimated $7.6 billion. Due to the ongoing tensions, these food and agricultural supplies to the Gulf States could be disrupted by Iran.

Tehran has significant influence over the Strait of Hormuz. Soon after the US and Israeli strikes, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard blocked the Strait, disrupting the global supply chain. A quarter of global maritime oil trade, around 15 million barrels per day, flows through this route. Soon after the closure of this trade route, the oil prices jumped from $70 to $80 per barrel. In addition, Qatar has also halted its LNG production due to Iranian drone and missile strikes, resulting in around a 54% surge in gas prices in European countries. LNG prices in Asia have also jumped around 35% since then. Moreover, the price of Brent crude oil has also increased 10% since the start of the conflict. Prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz will further increase global energy prices. The impacts of disruption of the global supply chain will not only impact the lives of people in the Middle East or Europe, but will also have a direct impact on everyday life throughout the globe, including US citizens.

The US-Israel war with Iran and the threat of a New Arms Race

Another major implication of the US and Israeli attack on Iran is the threat of a renewed arms race and nuclear proliferation around the world. For the past few decades, the United States has attacked different countries under the false pretense of defending democracy and human rights. It attacked Iraq over the sham allegations of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by the country. Its attack on Iran over the allegations of the country’s preparation to gain nuclear weapons has made all the non-nuclear states cautious. The current anarchic world is ruled by the notion that might is right, as evidenced by the US and Israel’s actions around the world. The United States also invaded Venezuela, accusing the government of supporting drug trafficking gangs without providing any evidence.

These developments have inculcated a sense of fear among the non-nuclear states. Since returning to the office, Donald Trump has repeatedly issued warnings and threats directed at member states of the European Union, escalating tensions between Washington and its transatlantic allies. He even threatened to occupy Greenland. After the recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the threat of nuclear proliferation has increased more than ever. France has recently announced that it would increase its nuclear arsenal to defend the country from any sort of existential threat. The Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has also hinted that the country might seek to acquire nuclear weapons in the future. Such actions could trigger a strategic chain, leading to a renewed arms race and nuclear proliferation around the world. This demonstrates that the US and Israeli aggression around the world, especially their military campaign against Iran, has made the world more volatile and insecure.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist