The War Iran Won: Why Washington’s Allies Are Turning to Tehran

By Mohamad Hammoud

Eight months after the United States and “Israel” launched their war against Iran, senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey arrived in Tehran on October 26 to discuss regional security. Their visit raised a question that battlefield assessments cannot answer: What happens when the world's strongest military fails to impose its political will?

CNN identified the visitors as Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani army chief Asim Munir, and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin. Their countries belong to the Mecca Alliance, a defense arrangement. Although the meeting produced no formal agreement, Washington's partners were discussing security with the country it had sought to isolate.

Military Destruction, Strategic Survival

Washington and “Israel” inflicted extensive damage on Iranian infrastructure, but destruction did not produce political submission. In Foreign Policy, former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack argued that the war had not eliminated Iran's capacity to threaten Gulf economies. His assessment illustrates why military superiority and strategic success are different: an adversary can suffer serious losses while retaining the ability to impose costs.

The Strait of Hormuz makes that distinction concrete. Washington's naval counter-blockade of Iranian ports has not stopped Tehran from asserting control over the strategic waterway. Iran's ability to disrupt international shipping and energy exports continues to threaten Gulf economies, giving Tehran considerable leverage even after eight months of war.

The Limits of American Protection

For decades, Washington justified its Gulf presence by promising to protect regional allies. American bases, advanced air defenses, and billions in weapons purchases supported that promise. Yet the war exposed its limits: Iranian attacks showed that sophisticated defenses could not fully shield infrastructure or prevent disruption to trade and energy supplies.

Saudi Arabia also faces renewed attacks from Yemen's Ansarullah movement, increasing the risks of a wider confrontation. Together, these pressures raise an uncomfortable question for Riyadh: What protection can Washington guarantee if another American attack on Iran exposes Saudi facilities to retaliation? Direct engagement with Tehran offers a way to reduce that risk rather than merely prepare to absorb it.

Tehran's Regional Vision Gains Ground

For years, Iran has advocated a regional security system that reduces outside interference, particularly American dominance. Washington's military partnerships long limited the proposal's appeal, but the October 26 meeting suggests those calculations may be shifting. Anadolu Agency quoted Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei describing the talks as a possible beginning of such a framework. His remarks mattered because Saudi Arabia, a longtime American partner, was now participating in the discussion.

The implications also drew attention from “Israeli” observers. CNN cited Danny Citrinowicz, a former senior “Israeli” military intelligence official, who interpreted the meeting as recognition that Iran remains a central regional player. His assessment highlights the political influence Tehran retains despite the war.

Washington Threatens, Its Partners Negotiate

President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened renewed military strikes against Iran, but Tehran's warnings of retaliation against American bases, Gulf infrastructure, and regional economic interests have raised the stakes of another confrontation.

Each new threat from Washington carries the possibility of a response that could spread the destruction far beyond Iran's borders, placing America's regional partners directly in the line of fire. Trump's failure to follow through on his latest threats suggests that Iran's ability to retaliate has complicated Washington's military calculations, while giving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey powerful reasons to seek a diplomatic alternative.

Rather than wait for another American attack that could endanger their own security and economies, the three countries traveled to Tehran to explore ways to prevent further escalation. Pakistan reportedly initiated the meeting, while Turkey's participation reflected its own interest in regional stability. Together, their diplomatic efforts illustrate how Iran's deterrent capabilities are influencing the decisions of governments that have traditionally relied on American military protection.

The Strategic Price of War

The war has damaged Washington's credibility among countries that trusted its security guarantees. Iran now claims greater control over the Strait of Hormuz, threatening global shipping and driving up energy costs, while Gulf governments have watched their infrastructure come under attack despite billions spent on American protection.

Rather than weakening Iran's regional position, the war has exposed America's inability to protect its allies or impose its political demands. Eight months later, those allies are traveling to Tehran seeking the security Washington failed to guarantee. That is the strategic reversal: Iran has gained leverage and influence, while America has paid the price in credibility, economic stability, and regional dominance.

Iran’s nuclear industry has reached full maturity: AEOI spox

TEHRAN, (MNA) – A spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has stated that the country’s nuclear industry has reached full maturity, and has now achieved self-sufficiency in the construction of nuclear power plants.

Behrouz Kamalvandi, who is also the deputy for the International, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, made the remarks in an interview with the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRNN) on Wednesday, expounding on the significance of the development of the nuclear energy in the world.

Clarifying the objectives and significance of the presence of the participation of the Iranian delegation in the International Conference of Nuclear Power in South Korea, Kamalvandi emphasized that global nuclear industry is divided into two sectors: energy and non-energy. Nuclear medicine, agriculture, and industry are among the fields where nuclear technology is applied within the non-energy sector, while nuclear power generation constitutes a significant part of the nuclear industry.

The sixth ministerial conference on nuclear energy is currently underway in South Korea, he said, adding, “Perhaps one of the reasons for the increased attention given to this subject in recent years lies in global environmental challenges, issues that have become a serious concern for the international community and further underscore the necessity of shifting toward nuclear energy.”

Given the development of modern technologies, including artificial intelligence, digital technologies, and the electrification of vehicles, the demand for electricity is steadily increasing. Hence, the expansion of nuclear power generation has become an undeniable necessity, the spokesman stressed.

In technical terms, nuclear-generated electricity is referred to as "baseload" power. It differs in this respect from certain other clean energy sources, such as wind and solar, where power generation depends on atmospheric conditions, the intensity of sunlight, or wind speeds.

In contrast, nuclear power plants provide stable and continuous electricity generation; this characteristic has further underscored the importance of developing such facilities, he continued.

Regarding Iran’s standing in the utilization of modern technologies, Kamalvandi stated, "Given my approximately 14 years of continuous service at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, I can say with confidence that the nation’s nuclear industry has reached full maturity, and we have now achieved self-sufficiency in the construction of nuclear power plants."

Iran among 5 countries in eye stem cell transplantation

TEHRAN, (MNA) –The head of the Iranian Ophthalmology Society announced that the success rate of eye stem cell transplantation in Iran exceeds 85%, placing the country among the world’s top five in this field.

According to published reports by local Iranian media, the treatment is used for certain severe eye injuries caused by chemical and thermal burns. The cost of the treatment is also covered by government funding, according to the head of the Iranian Ophthalmology Society.

Eye stem cell transplantation is a treatment method used to restore the ocular surface in patients whose limbal stem cells, located in the cornea, have been destroyed or impaired by severe injuries, including chemical and thermal burns. These cells play a role in maintaining and regenerating the corneal surface, and damage to them can lead to vision loss.

Eye stem cell transplantation is a treatment method used to restore the ocular surface in patients whose limbal stem cells, located in the cornea, have been destroyed or impaired by severe injuries, including chemical and thermal burns. These cells play a role in maintaining and regenerating the corneal surface, and damage to them can lead to vision loss.

The scientific secretary of the Iranian Ophthalmology Congress also identified diabetes and its effects on the retina as major threats to eye health. He also warned about the consequences of prolonged computer use and the development of dry eye.

Diabetes can damage the blood vessels in the retina, potentially leading to visual impairment. Dry eye is also a common problem associated with prolonged screen use and may cause symptoms such as burning, a foreign-body sensation, and intermittent blurred vision.

In recent years, Iran has made progress in developing treatments for eye diseases, including corneal transplantation and the use of advanced technologies to restore vision.

Princes, Thieves and Billions: The Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East

By Mohamad Hammoud

Matthew Cole’s investigation describes how Gulf rulers used secret accounts, covert operations, and Jared Kushner’s White House access to advance their ambitions against Iran, strengthen “Israel” and sideline Palestinian sovereignty.

Donald Trump promised to put America first. Yet an explosive investigation describes how his son-in-law Jared Kushner became the intermediary in a multibillion-dollar arrangement connecting Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and “Israel.”

The Money Behind the Diplomacy

In an October 22 Vanity Fair investigation adapted from Princes and Thieves, journalist Matthew Cole reports that Mohamed bin Zayed and Mohammed bin Salman discussed establishing a fund exceeding $10 billion with Jared Kushner to advance their objectives through Washington, including promoting Emirati priorities with Trump.

The arrangement was intended to remain secret, but the first clues emerged in 2017, when Dutch intelligence learned that a Russian GRU hacker was traveling to Britain. Working with British authorities, Dutch operatives persuaded the hacker to become a double agent, gaining access to a Russian intelligence server containing screenshots from

Kushner’s Compromised iPhone.

That discovery led investigators to a broader financial network. By 2018, Dutch investigators had reverse-engineered the intrusion and were monitoring Kushner as he accessed a UAE bank account receiving hundreds of millions of dollars through Azerbaijan. Cole also describes transfers to a warlord, a mercenary, and a former contract killer, connecting the financial dealings to covert operations beyond Washington.

Secret Accounts, Mercenaries and Netanyahu

Cole identifies the account as Alpha, held at First Abu Dhabi Bank through the government-funded Watani Al Emarat Foundation, where approximately $750 million flowed in and Kushner was granted signing authority. The account was linked to covert Emirati arms purchases and overseas operations, including an $85 million transfer to Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar and financing connected to mercenary networks associated with Blackwater founder Erik Prince.

But the allegations did not end with Emirati operations. A separate account, identified as Beta, brought Netanyahu directly into the financial network. Cole reports that bin Zayed transferred approximately $1 billion through Azerbaijan into an account at the Bank of “Israel”. According to a source familiar with the arrangement, Netanyahu encouraged Kushner to deposit the money there, making funds intended for Kushner personally appear to be government deposits.

Netanyahu’s involvement did not end there, as he also demanded notification before withdrawals, with communications passing through Ambassador David Friedman. Cole describes funds subsequently moving into accounts in Cyprus, while a separate account of the transactions identifies a $50 million transfer described as a personal payment.

Remaking the Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman, Mohammed bin Zayed, and Netanyahu shared a common ambition: confronting Iran and bringing Arab governments closer to “Israel”, although each pursued his own interests. Bin Salman sought American backing to consolidate his leadership and challenge Tehran, while bin Zayed wanted Washington to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement, a goal Netanyahu shared. Kushner’s close relationship with Trump gave them a direct channel to the White House, advancing normalization and an “Israeli”-Palestinian settlement favorable to Netanyahu.

Their cooperation also extended into military planning, with Cole describing a third account intended to finance emergency “Israeli” military assistance to the UAE in the event of an Iranian attack. This growing partnership helped pave the way for the so-called “Abraham Accords”, allowing Arab-“Israeli” normalization to proceed without Palestinian statehood. Kushner’s peace proposal failed to gain Palestinian acceptance, leaving the Palestinian question unresolved until the subsequent war in Gaza brought it back to the center of American diplomacy, with Kushner again involved in regional negotiations.

From Public Office to Private Billions

Kushner’s financial troubles raise further questions about his dealings with Gulf monarchies. His family business faced a looming $1.4 billion mortgage payment on 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and sought outside financing, including from investors connected to Qatar. The property was eventually rescued through a long-term lease with Brookfield, whose real estate business had received investment from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund. After leaving the White House, Kushner established Affinity Partners, which secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.

These financial connections also raise questions about government oversight, particularly after four senior Trump administration officials told Cole they knew of no presidential authorization for Kushner’s access to foreign government accounts.

Kushner and Ambassador David Friedman have denied the reported arrangements, but Cole’s investigation raises a larger question: whose interests were being served when American diplomacy became entangled with secret foreign financing?

Trump promised to put America first, yet the investigation raises the possibility that private financial interests and Netanyahu’s regional ambitions took precedence over the interests of the American public.

Wave of Mosque Demolitions in India Part of BJP’s Anti-Islam agenda

Iqbal Jassat

Increased mosque demolitions in India reflect the ruling BJP's anti-Islam policies. Ever since Narendra Modi, a vurulently anti-Muslim politician, came to power, he has promoted Hindutva ideology with Muslims and their heritage sites being a special target (Image: ChatGPT).

The recent eviction notice served on the historic Race Course Mosque in New Delhi—a structure situated mere steps from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official residence—has reignited a fierce global and domestic debate over urban space, heritage, and minority rights in India.

To the Land and Development Office (L&DO), the directive was a routine administrative matter: a six-day notice to vacate an “unauthorised” structure built on government land.

To human rights organizations, legal scholars, and India’s Muslim minority, however, the incident is viewed as another chapter in a systematic campaign aimed at erasing Islamic heritage under the banner of municipal governance.

Imam Mohammed Haroon, who has been associated with the mosque for nearly 40 years, said in a video circulated on social media that the mosque’s electricity and water connections had been disconnected and all gates closed by the L&DO, reported The Indian Express.

Analysts tracking the region note that what once appeared to be isolated municipal actions have coalesced into a distinct pattern.

According to data compiled by independent watchdogs, including a comprehensive study by the Millat Times, over 2,000 administrative actions involving Muslim religious and community properties were documented between 2020 and 2026.

This trend peaked dramatically during a 45-day window in mid-2026, when at least 23 mosques, madrasas, and shrines were partially or fully dismantled across states such as Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Delhi.

Critics argue that these actions greatly fuel the widely held international view that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) harbors an anti-Islam agenda.

The core of this argument rests on the concept of selective enforcement.

Not surprisingly, human rights groups allege that municipal bulldozers are deployed with an asymmetric frequency and speed against Islamic sites, while similarly situated structures belonging to Hindus are often granted regularisation, deferred action, or legal protection.

Furthermore, opponents emphasize that many of the targeted sites are not recent encroachments but centuries-old heritage landmarks.

The Race Course Mosque, for instance, is officially listed among heritage properties on the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) website, and representatives maintain that a 2021 survey found no evidence of illegal encroachment.

Similarly, the 2024 demolition of the Akhoondji Masjid in Delhi and the removal of a 600-year-old mosque in Ujjain to make way for a Hindu pilgrimage route are cited by historians as evidence that ancient cultural footprints are being systematically erased.

This process, critics argue, aligns closely with the broader political ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism), which seeks to de-emphasize India’s multi-faith past in favor of a majoritarian national identity.

A significant point of contention is the apparent bypassing of due process.

United Nations Human Rights experts have repeatedly voiced alarm over India’s “bulldozer justice,” noting that many evictions and demolitions are executed with minimal advance warning.

In the case of the New Delhi mosque, basic utilities like water and electricity were disconnected weeks before the formal eviction notice expired, severely curtailing the community’s ability to seek timely judicial intervention.

Surely one cannot be faulted in believing that the law is being weaponized rather than enforced.

Ultimately, the debate over India’s mosque demolitions reflects a deeper struggle over the nation’s democratic fabric.

While authorities defend these measures as essential steps toward urban renewal and the neutral application of property laws, the speed, scale, and specific targeting of historical Islamic sites continue to draw international condemnation.

As historic structures vanish from the capital’s landscape, the pattern reinforces an uneasy conclusion for observers worldwide: that under the guise of municipal order, the physical markers of India’s Muslim identities are being permanently eliminated.

Iqbal Jassat, Executive Member, Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa

HindutvaIndiaIslamophobiaNarendra Modidemolition of mosquesRace Course MosqueBharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

Russia’s Putin hails Iran's martyred Leader role in GECF

TEHRAN, (MNA) – Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised the role played by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in establishment of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

In his remarks at the 8th Summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Iran’s martyred Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, played a significant role in the establishment of GECF.

President Putin also welcomed the remarks by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian regarding the need for collective action by GECF member states against unilateral sanctions.

Putin called on member states to counter unilateral Western sanctions against energy-rich countries, which he said lead to unfair competition. The consequences of these sanctions not only affect gas consumers but also impact producers, he added.

He also pointed to the rising trend of global gas consumption, stating that by 2050, global demand for gas will reach 5.5 trillion cubic meters per year, and international supply will increase by about 1.5 times.

Putin criticized European sanctions against Russia, saying that by turning away from Russian energy resources, Europe is damaging its own industry and social sector.

The price of fuel woke the Europeans up

TEHRAN, (MNA) – After months of accompanying America's policies against Iran, European countries are now worried about the expansion of conflicts and the rise in oil and fuel prices.

After months of accompanying America's policies against Iran, European countries are now worried about the expansion of conflicts and the rise in oil and fuel prices; a concern that shows the consequences of a military adventure do not remain confined to the battlefield and can affect the daily lives of citizens and the economic stability of countries that played a role in shaping the crisis. Now, the increase in energy costs and the possibility of expanding instability in global markets have led European governments to conclude that continuing the confrontation with Iran can have consequences beyond their initial calculations.

The Guardian newspaper, in a report by Patrick Wintour, wrote that the foreign ministers of eight European and Middle Eastern countries at a meeting in Istanbul have called on America and the Zionist regime not to resume their attacks on Iran. They have warned that the resumption of conflicts could expand the crisis across the region and push oil prices even higher. According to this newspaper, the formation of a kind of multinational "anti-war bloc" has gained importance under conditions in which Tehran's nuclear negotiations are at a deadlock and signs of Washington's and Tel Aviv's willingness to resume military actions are visible.

But the fundamental question is: to what extent did European countries, when accompanying America's and the Zionist regime's actions against Iran, take into account the consequences of such a policy for their own security and economy? Some European governments, by providing facilities and military or logistical support to America, participated in a process that increased pressure on Iran. Now those same countries are warning about the expansion of the crisis and its economic consequences; as if the increase in energy costs has made them more aware than before of the real dimensions of this confrontation.

Europe now faces the contradictory result of a policy in which accompanying military pressure against Iran has been combined with concern about the consequences of that same pressure for the European economy. European governments cannot, on the one hand, play a role in providing the ground for military actions or supporting Washington's policies, and on the other hand, expect the potential consequences of these actions to remain directed only at Iran and the countries of the region. In today's interconnected world, security crises are quickly transferred to energy markets, supply chains, and the living costs of citizens.

In this context, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important determining variables in security and economic equations. This strategic waterway is considered the passage route for an important part of the global trade in oil and gas, and any serious disruption in the transit of energy-carrying ships through it can confront global markets with a shock. The rise in oil prices, the growth of transportation costs, and the increase in the price of petroleum products are among the consequences that can quickly be transferred to the economies of energy-importing countries.

Iran, too, due to its geographical position and strategic capacities in the region, is an important part of the global energy security equations. For this reason, the possibility of disruption in the transit of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, even without the realization of the scenario of this waterway being closed, can affect market expectations and governments' calculations. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not a certain and inevitable consequence, but ignoring the risks arising from the intensification of the confrontation around it would also not be realistic. Governments that support increased military pressure on Iran must also take into account in their calculations the possibility of reciprocal reactions and their effects on the global energy market.

For European countries, this issue is doubly important. The rise in oil and fuel prices does not only raise the cost of energy supply; it can also increase production costs in factories, the transportation of goods, services, and the provision of households' daily needs. Under such circumstances, inflationary pressure intensifies, and European industries may face greater difficulty in competing with producers in other regions of the world. In this way, the consequences of the crisis go beyond the level of foreign relations and become a direct issue in the lives of citizens and the performance of European economies.

For this reason, today's concern of European countries cannot be considered merely a diplomatic position; this concern reflects the collision of political calculations with economic and geopolitical realities. Accompanying Washington may have political or security considerations for some European governments, but this accompaniment does not mean immunity from the consequences of America's decisions. When the crisis expands, Washington's allies may also face costs in which they had no determining role in the initial decision-making and whose effects they cannot easily prevent.

The position taken by the foreign ministers of eight countries in Istanbul shows that concern about the expansion of the crisis has now become one of the serious considerations in relations among the countries of the region and Europe. However, opposition to the resumption of military actions does not necessarily mean a fundamental change in the policy of these countries toward Iran; perhaps concern about economic and security costs has driven them to adopt such a position more than any other factor. Nevertheless, this same concern also shows that the continuation of the confrontation can create divisions even among America's allies and increase the political costs of Washington's decisions.

Ultimately, the increase in Europe's concern about oil and fuel prices is a reminder of a clear reality: one cannot play a role in intensifying a crisis and expect its costs to remain solely on the shoulders of the opposing side. European governments must learn from the current experience that their energy security and economic stability are not separate from developments in the Middle East, and that military policies can create unforeseen consequences for their own supporters. Now that the increase in energy costs has become a serious concern, the fundamental question remains: why were the economic and security consequences of this path not given the place they have today in the calculations of European countries before accompanying military actions against Iran?