Sunday, June 14, 2026

True Power Belongs to Allah Alone: Lessons from Al-Aqsa Flood, Gaza, Iran, and the Axis of Resistance

The events of the last few years – Al-Aqsa Flood, the war on Gaza, the confrontation with Iran, and the broader struggle of the Axis of Resistance – have stripped away many illusions we carried about this world.

They have taught us, once again, what the Qur’an stated from the beginning: true power belongs to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, and to those who are His awliya – His friends, helpers, and those who stand firm on His path.

1. The illusion of “superpowers”  

The world spends decades speaking of certain states as “superpowers.” They are measured by aircraft carriers, stockpiles, sanctions, and media dominance. Yet what we have witnessed is that military and economic might alone do not equal true power.

True power is the ability to remain unbroken in spirit when everything material is taken. It is the ability to choose dignity over submission, principle over convenience, and steadfastness over fear. The so-called superpowers can destroy, blockade, and pressure, but they cannot create the conviction that makes a people say: “We will not surrender.”

That conviction is not purchased with money or weapons. It is granted by Allah to those He chooses.

2. Victory or Martyrdom: Two sides of the same coin  

One of the clearest lessons from Gaza, from Lebanon, from Yemen, and from Iran is the mindset of those who identify with the Axis of Resistance. Their stated creed is not “survival at any cost.” It is “victory or martyrdom” – and in their understanding, both are victories.

Victory is not only defined by territory gained or battles won in the conventional sense. Martyrdom, when a person stands for justice and refuses to bow to oppression, is also a victory. It preserves honor, it preserves independence, it preserves a message for future generations. 

Those who hold this belief do not negotiate away their dignity. They do not trade their cause for temporary safety. Because they see their struggle as being under the guardianship of Allah, not under the calculation of worldly powers.

3. The contrast with those who compromised  

History shows that not all have taken the same path. Many individuals, movements, and even states have chosen to compromise, to kneel, to make deals with forces that demand silence about injustice. The reasoning is often “pragmatism” or “avoiding harm.” 

But the recent years have shown the cost of that path: loss of credibility, loss of influence, and ultimately, the inability to protect one’s own people when the same “evil forces” turn on them later. Kneeling does not guarantee safety. It only guarantees that the next demand will be higher.

4. What this means for us today  

The events in Al-Aqsa, Gaza, Iran, and across West Asia are not just political headlines. They are reminders:

1.  No human power is absolute. Empires rise and fall. Sanctions come and go. But the decree of Allah stands.

2.  Dignity is not negotiable. Once a nation or a people sell their independence for comfort, it is difficult to buy it back.

3.  Steadfastness is itself power. Those who do not surrender, who do not abandon their principles under pressure, demonstrate a strength that no army can replicate.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says in the Qur’an: “And do not weaken in pursuit of the enemy. If you are suffering, they are also suffering as you are suffering, but you expect from Allah what they do not expect.” [4:104]

Conclusion  

What Al-Aqsa Flood, the genocide in Gaza, the war on Iran, and the struggle of the Axis of Resistance have taught us is not a military lesson alone. It is a spiritual one.

True power is not in the size of an arsenal. It is in the heart that refuses to submit to anyone except Allah. It is in the people who choose victory or martyrdom, who protect their independence and dignity, and who do not kneel to oppression.

The world’s “superpowers” can project force, but they cannot manufacture that kind of power. That belongs to Allah, and He gives it to His awliya – those who stand with Him.

Lebanon’s Paradox: A Land of Intellectual Light and Political Fire

By Salim Mohamed Badat

Introduction

For decades, Lebanon has stood at the center of one of the most complex and consequential conflicts in the modern Middle East. Nestled on the eastern Mediterranean coast, this small nation has endured invasions, occupations, assassinations, aerial bombardments, economic crises, and civil war. Yet despite immense hardship, Lebanon has remained a symbol of resilience and resistance.

At the heart of its modern story lies the struggle against Israeli occupation, the emergence of Hezbollah as a resistance movement, the support of Iran, the interconnected struggles of Palestine and Lebanon, and the determination of ordinary Lebanese people, Muslim and Christian alike, to preserve their homeland.

Today, as war once again engulfs southern Lebanon, the country faces a crisis that many believe echoes the devastation witnessed in Gaza.

Lebanon: A Land of Diversity and Coexistence

Unlike many countries in the region, Lebanon has historically been home to a remarkable diversity of religious communities.

Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Maronite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druze, Armenians, and other communities have lived side by side for generations.

Despite political tensions and periods of conflict, Lebanon developed a unique social fabric in which churches and mosques often stand within walking distance of one another. In many towns and villages, Christians and Muslims have shared neighborhoods, businesses, schools, and public life.

This pluralistic character remains one of Lebanon's defining features. When conflict strikes Lebanon, it does not distinguish between communities. Bombs do not differentiate between Christian and Muslim homes. Destruction affects entire towns, villages, and populations alike.

Beirut: The Intellectual Capital of the Arab World

Long before it became associated with war and geopolitical conflict, Beirut was known as the cultural capital of the Arab world. Often called the "Paris of the Middle East," Beirut became a center of publishing, journalism, literature, philosophy, education, and political thought.

Throughout the twentieth century, intellectuals from across the Arab world traveled to Beirut seeking a space where ideas could be debated freely and where newspapers, books, and political movements flourished.

The city's cafes became gathering places for poets, revolutionaries, professors, journalists, and activists. Its universities attracted students from across the Middle East and Africa.

Even during periods of war and instability, Beirut retained its reputation as a city of resilience and creativity. The Lebanese people repeatedly rebuilt their capital after civil war, invasion, and bombardment, refusing to allow conflict to erase their identity.

Despite economic hardship and ongoing tensions, Beirut remains one of the most culturally influential cities in the Arab world.

Lebanon's Great Thinkers and Intellectual Legacy

Lebanon has produced some of the most influential writers, philosophers, scholars, and poets in modern history. Among them was Khalil Gibran, whose masterpiece The Prophet has been translated into dozens of languages and continues to inspire readers worldwide. Gibran wrote passionately about freedom, dignity, justice, and the human spirit.

His famous words continue to resonate:

"Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave, eats a bread it does not harvest, and drinks a wine that flows not from its own winepress." Many interpret these words as a warning against dependence, domination, and the loss of national sovereignty.

Another major figure was Antoun Saadeh, who emphasized national self determination and resistance to foreign influence.

Historian Albert Hourani helped shape modern understanding of Arab intellectual history and identity, while Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish spent important years in Beirut, writing some of his most powerful reflections on exile, resistance, and homeland.

Beirut also became a refuge for numerous Palestinian intellectuals, journalists, and writers displaced by occupation and conflict.

The Intellectual Foundations of Resistance

The Lebanese resistance did not emerge solely from military necessity. It was also shaped by a rich intellectual tradition emphasizing dignity, sovereignty, cultural identity, and opposition to foreign domination.

Across Lebanon's political spectrum, many thinkers argued that nations possess the right to defend themselves against occupation and external control.

The concept of resistance therefore became more than a military strategy; it evolved into a cultural and moral principle.

Lebanese intellectual discourse repeatedly returned to several themes:

-Defence of national sovereignty

-Resistance to occupation

-Protection of cultural identity

-Solidarity with oppressed peoples

-Coexistence among diverse religious communities.

These ideas helped shape both political movements and the broader social consciousness of Lebanese society.

The Israeli Invasion and the Birth of Hezbollah.

The modern resistance movement emerged from the turmoil of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Israeli forces advanced deep into Lebanese territory, reaching Beirut and occupying large portions of the country. Southern Lebanon remained under occupation for many years.

At the same time, Lebanese believed their own government was compromised to effectively defend the nation. 

It was within this environment that Hezbollah emerged. Founded during the early 1980s with support from Iran and inspired by the Islamic Revolution, Hezbollah began as a relatively small resistance movement committed to ending Israeli occupation and defending Lebanese territory.

Over time, Hezbollah developed extensive military, social, educational, and charitable institutions that embedded it deeply within Lebanese society.

For most Lebanese, Hezbollah became synonymous with resistance.

Iran and the Axis of Resistance

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran adopted support for anti-occupation movements as a central component of its regional policy.

Through financial assistance, military training, political support, and strategic cooperation, Iran helped transform Hezbollah into one of the most capable non-state military organizations in the world.

Over time, this relationship became part of what is often called the "Axis of Resistance," a network of states and movements opposed to Israeli occupation and Western military intervention in the region.

The Liberation of Southern Lebanon

For eighteen years, much of southern Lebanon remained under Israeli occupation, during which Hezbollah conducted a sustained campaign of resistance against Israeli forces and their local allies. In May 2000, Israel withdrew from most of the occupied territory, an event that was widely celebrated across Lebanon and much of the Arab and Muslim world.

Hassan Nasrallah and the Leadership of Resistance

No individual became more closely associated with Hezbollah than Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

For more than three decades, Nasrallah led the movement and became one of the most influential political figures in the Middle East.

Under his leadership, Hezbollah evolved from a relatively small resistance organization into a major military, political, and social force.

His popularity reached extraordinary levels following the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.

He is as a symbol of steadfastness and resistance, whilst Zionist and sectarian critics regarded him as a controversial figure whose influence extended beyond Lebanon's borders.

Hassan Nasrallah  represented far more than a political leader; he embodied resistance itself.

Following Nasrallah's death, leadership of Hezbollah passed to Sheikh Naim Qassem. His appointment represents continuity.

Beirut, Palestine, and a Shared Cause

Beirut has long occupied a special place in the Palestinian struggle. For decades, Palestinian refugees, intellectuals, journalists, and activists found refuge in Lebanon. 

The city became a center of Palestinian political and cultural activity. Many of the Arab world's most influential discussions concerning Palestine took place in Beirut's universities, newspapers, publishing houses, and cultural institutions.

For Lebanese, support for Palestine is not simply a political position. It is intertwined with their own experiences of invasion, displacement, occupation, and resistance.

Syria: The Strategic Bridge

For many years, Syria served as the geographical bridge linking Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinian resistance movements.

Under Assad, Damascus maintained close relations with both Iran and Hezbollah, facilitating regional coordination and  also supplying support to Hamas in Palestine. 

Now under Jolani in Syria and  his alliances with USA, the shifting regional alliances have altered these dynamics considerably, creating uncertainty about future patterns of cooperation.

The Current War in Southern Lebanon

Southern Lebanon is facing a severe crisis marked by repeated airstrikes, artillery fire, and widespread destruction across border communities. Homes, infrastructure, and farmland have been heavily damaged, and thousands of civilians have been displaced, many of them forced to flee again after previously rebuilding their lives following earlier conflicts.

For residents, this is a daily reality of fear, loss, and instability rather than a distant political issue. Observers have drawn comparisons to patterns seen in Gaza due to the scale of destruction and displacement. Amid the worsening humanitarian situation, Hezbollah remains the main armed force confronting Israeli operations in the south and a central actor in Lebanon’s ongoing security and political landscape.

The Silence of Much of the Muslim World

Those sectarian scholars who weep for Gaza, Sudan, and others must not omit Lebanon from their duas. Its suffering is often ignored not by accident, but because of sectarian bias against its Shia population. 

The Quran repeatedly calls believers to stand for justice and defend the oppressed. Such principles, many argue, cannot be selectively applied.

A grieving mother in southern Lebanon experiences the same pain as a grieving mother in Gaza or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Human suffering transcends sectarian and religious boundaries.

The people of Lebanon, Muslims and Christians alike, have paid a heavy price in regional conflicts. Their suffering deserves recognition, and their resilience deserves respect. Justice loses its meaning when it is applied selectively.

Conclusion: Lebanon is more than a Battlefield.

Too often, Lebanon is viewed solely through the lens of conflict. Yet Lebanon is far more than war. It is a land of ancient civilizations, towering mountains, coastal cities, religious diversity, intellectual achievement, artistic creativity, and remarkable resilience.

It has produced world renowned scholars, poets, philosophers, journalists, entrepreneurs, and activists. Its people have repeatedly rebuilt their society after devastation.

Even as bombs fall upon Lebanon, the spirit of Beirut, the intellectual traditions of Lebanon, and the determination of its people continue to endure.

Lebanon's story is therefore not merely one of resistance against occupation. It is also a story of culture, coexistence, knowledge, creativity, and an unwavering refusal to surrender its identity.

Salim Mohamed Badat

Writer exploring the intersection of faith, politics and justice 

Friday, June 12, 2026

Iran: A civilization that refuses to bow

 By Syeda Farheen Naqi Mossavi

HAFIZABAD, Pakistan – Iran is often discussed through the language of sanctions, nuclear negotiations, and regional tensions. Yet those headlines tell only a small part of the story. Behind the politics stands a civilization that has survived for thousands of years and has repeatedly outlived the forces that sought to dominate it.

Few countries carry a historical memory as deep as Iran's. Long before the modern world took shape, Persia was already one of the great centers of human civilization. Under Cyrus the Great, the Persian Empire stretched across vast territories and governed diverse peoples. Historians still debate many aspects of that era, but there is little disagreement about its importance.

What followed was not a history of uninterrupted glory.

The Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great. Centuries later, Mongol armies swept across the region, leaving destruction that changed the course of Iranian history. Cities were burned, libraries vanished, and countless lives were lost. Looking back, it would have been reasonable to assume that such blows might permanently break a civilization. 
They did not.

Iran's history is marked by a remarkable ability to absorb shocks and reinvent itself. Dynasties rose and fell. Foreign powers arrived with armies, trade agreements, and political ambitions. Borders shifted. Governments changed. Yet something deeper endured.

That resilience was tested again in the modern era. The 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh became a defining event in Iran's political consciousness and strengthened suspicions of foreign interference that continue to influence public debate today. 
The 1979 Revolution then transformed the country's political order and altered its relationship with much of the world. Almost immediately afterward came the Iran-Iraq War, a conflict that lasted eight years and left scars that are still visible. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded. Families lost fathers, sons, and brothers. Entire communities carried the weight of that sacrifice.

For many nations, such experiences become turning points from which recovery is slow and uncertain. 
Iran recovered.

That does not mean the country emerged without problems. Modern Iran faces harsh economic sanctions and Western-led pressure in various forms. But history suggests that reducing Iran to today's disputes misses the larger picture.

The country has spent much of its existence confronting challenges larger and stronger than itself. Some arrived on horseback, some arrived in military uniforms, and others arrived through international politics. Each era brought predictions of decline. Yet Iran remained. 
Perhaps that is what makes its history worth studying.

Civilizations are often remembered for the power they once possessed. Iran's story is equally about endurance. It is about a society that continued after empires collapsed, after wars ended, and after generations were forced to rebuild from loss.

The lesson is not that Iran was never defeated. History clearly shows otherwise.

The lesson is that defeat was never the end of the story. 
Again and again, Iranians buried their dead, rebuilt their cities, preserved their culture, and moved forward. That persistence helps explain why a civilization born thousands of years ago remains a living presence in the modern world.

Today, Iran is standing and fighting. Salute to its people who are not afraid of any kind of threat in order to protect their civilization. Trump is psychologically unstable and is himself worried about how he can protect himself from Iranians now. If Trump had studied history, he would have thought twice before approaching a civilization whose crown jewel is education. But history repeats itself. Today Iran still stands strong, neither bowed nor exhausted.

Many powerful empires survive only in museums and history books. Iran is still here.

Empires that once seemed unstoppable have vanished into history. Their monuments remain, but their civilizations are gone. Iran remains alive, still arguing, adapting, creating, and shaping its future. For thousands of years, Iranians have shown that survival is not simply about strength, but about endurance, memory, and the determination to stand again after every fall.

Across millennia, one truth keeps rising from its past: civilizations do not endure by avoiding destruction. They endure by refusing to be defined by it. Iran is one of those rare civilizations that bends under pressure yet never breaks into silence. A civilization forged by fire, tested by invasion, and still refusing to bow.

That is why Iran’s story continues. Not because it was never defeated, but because, despite everything it has endured.

The ultimate lesson of Iran is this: a civilization willing to sacrifice everything for its independence may bend under pressure, but it will never be erased, and it will never bow.

How Israel justifies bombing anything that exists

 By Garsha Vazirian

TEHRAN — In another flagrant breach of the fragile April ceasefire in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and its allies, the Israeli military executed a brazen airstrike against the Mahshahr petrochemical complex in southwestern Iran on June 8.

The Israeli military boasted of acting on precise intelligence, claiming the facilities were “utilized” by the Iranian armed forces to “produce and export raw materials for weapons production.”

Without providing any evidence whatsoever, Tel Aviv claims these targeted structures produced unique materials that serve as critical components for ballistic missiles.

It is a tidy corporate narrative, delivered with a straight face, as if dropping munitions on a massive industrial center is merely a routine supply chain audit.

This aggression exposes a maniacal legal fiction that Israel and its American partners are desperate to normalize.

The domino fallacy and the Periodic Table

The justification rests entirely on the deceptive political technology of dual use.

The Mahshahr petrochemical complex is a cornerstone of Iran’s civilian economy, processing foundational polymers, fertilizers, and consumer materials.

To treat these industrial inputs as inherent threats is to declare war on the Periodic Table itself. Toluene can be a solvent for paint or a precursor for explosives; ethylene glycol goes into car antifreeze or plastic explosives.

By the logic deployed at Mahshahr, any facility manufacturing an atom that might eventually brush against a soldier’s uniform becomes a legitimate military target.

This introduces an infinite regress of targeting logic where the concept of civilian life completely evaporates.

Under this pretext, a bakery that sells bread to defense industry workers transforms into a node in the military caloric supply chain.

The cement factory mixing concrete for apartment buildings becomes a bunker facility. A local tissue paper workshop where an engineer wipes his forehead is suddenly providing aerodynamic perspiration control for a weapons program.

If a soldier wears a uniform, the paint shop is a camouflage lab; if a general takes a photo, the camera shop is an optical targeting asset; if troops eat rations, the supermarket is an energy replenishment depot.

Recycling the Gaza blueprint

This is the exact blueprint used to turn the Gaza Strip into a graveyard of infrastructure.

For years, the magical incantation was “Hamas utilization,” a public relations gimmick that tried to justify the systematic destruction of hospitals, universities, bakeries, and places of worship.

The coordinates have changed, but the rhetorical machinery remains identical. The phrases “missile capability” or “military application” are simply the updated euphemistic code word designed to launder war crimes and grant permission to bomb everything keeping the civilian population alive.

The underlying objective is the normalization of economic terrorism and collective punishment.

The reciprocity boomerang

The architects and supporters of this fiendish doctrine fail to realize that their logic is a double-edged sword inviting devastating reciprocity.

Israel operates under mandatory conscription laws; the vast majority of its adult population has served or is currently serving in the military. Its economy is structurally intertwined with its military apparatus.

If Iran adopts this exact playbook, any Israeli power plant, automotive factory, or tech startup is instantly a legitimate target, as it sustains a fully mobilized garrison state.

A soldier drinks coffee? Tel Aviv coffee chains become strategic infrastructure nodes. A reservist drives a car? The automotive factory qualifies for neutralization.

Furthermore, this logic directly threatens American warmongering assets across the Persian Gulf. The U.S. bases in Arab states rely heavily on local civilian power grids and commercial ports. These are all open season now.

The silence of the hypocrites

Meanwhile, the self-appointed guardians of the “rules-based international order” have developed a sudden case of collective amnesia.

The silence emanating from Western capitals and human rights advocates is deeply critical. They fail to comprehend that international law is only valid when universally applied.

By nodding along to Israel’s fantastical justifications, they are legalizing the future destruction of their own industrial assets.

Tel Aviv treats international law as little more than a protection racket granting itself an infinite exemption card, yet in its hubris it has unwittingly painted a massive bullseye on the entire Western military-industrial supply chain, along with the infrastructure of Washington’s accomplices in the Persian Gulf.

So in the next round, whenever it is going to be, Iran may well act in explicit self-defense and militarily prevent desalinated water from ever reaching the mouths of the aggressors who happen to operate from certain Persian Gulf countries. After all, let us not forget that Iran has a right to defend itself.

From Siniora’s tears in 2006 to Iran’s missiles in 2026

TEHRAN —When Lebanon came under a cruel attack by Israel in the summer of 2006, Arab foreign ministers gathered in Beirut on August 7 to express their support for Lebanon. At the time, Fouad Siniora was Lebanon’s prime minister.

Addressing the foreign ministers, Siniora delivered an incredibly emotional speech that became one of the defining moments of the war.

Choking back tears, he broke down twice during the address. He said: "Our 'Arabness' is unconditional. Your support is your duty and responsibility."

Imploring fellow Arab countries to help Lebanon, Siniora said, "The confidence I'm speaking to you with is based on the sorrows of widowed mothers, dead children, and the cries of the displaced... a setback that has set our country and your country Lebanon decades into the past."

However, the Arab foreign ministers did not dare to issue an ultimatum to Israel to stop crimes in Lebanon, or it would face consequences. However, neither those days, nor these days, does Israel take the Arab world seriously. It has even made the UAE subservient. 

However, 20 years later the situation has fundamentally changed. The joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in February 2026 has inadvertently helped the Islamic Republic to set the rules of engagement.

In its ceasefire agreement with the U.S., which went into effect in April, Iran linked a halt to Israeli raids on Beirut as a precondition if the ceasefire is going to hold.

However, Israel violated the truce by bombarding the Dahiyeh region of Beirut on Sunday, June 8. The bombardment left analysts, politicians and military experts around the world, especially those in the Arab and Western world, guessing what would be Iran’s response. Some firmly believed that Iran would not endanger the truce that might lead to another full-fledged war with Israel and the U.S. for the sake of Lebanon.

However, to the surprise of the skeptics, on Sunday night Iran responded to the attack on Beirut by firing about 10 ballistic missiles at Israel, including striking the Ramat David Airbase where Israeli warplanes took off and struck Beirut.

More than two decades of military threats against Iran by Israel and the U.S. for its UN-monitored nuclear program made Iran promote its defensive and offensive power and turn the country into a great power that imposes its conditions on the U.S. and disciplines Israel.

Compare the prevalent conditions these days with the year 2006, in which Prime Minister Siniora tearfully implored the Arab nations to prevent the Israeli massacre of Lebanese and destruction of the country, but no tangible move emerged.

Israeli efforts to spread crime in Gaza: The goals and tools

By Wesam Bahrani

TEHRAN – In Gaza, the Israeli regime’s systematic targeting of security agencies is an attempt to achieve several objectives, foremost among them portraying the coastal enclave as a lawless region where no authority exists.

During the past seven months of relative calm in Gaza, scores of people have been killed and injured as a result of successive Israeli assassination operations. These attacks specifically targeted first- and second-tier leaders within the Palestinian resistance forces.

Among them were Ezzedine al-Haddad and Mohammed Awda, chiefs of staff of the Qassam Brigades in the Strip, along with other commanders handling sensitive, highly complex, and critical files.

Among the resistance forces that suffered the heaviest blows during this period were those tasked with maintaining security and stability in the small, devastated enclave. These included both government security agencies and their counterparts within the resistance movement’s security structures, which play a decisive security and intelligence role in Gaza, particularly since the outbreak of the genocidal war in October 2023.

Since the beginning of the Gaza genocide, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have deliberately targeted all government police and security agencies, destroying their centers and capabilities. It has also pursued and assassinated their commanders and officials of all ranks and positions.

Thousands of officers and personnel from these agencies have been killed or wounded, creating an unprecedented security vacuum that led to disastrous consequences, including widespread theft, rising crime rates, and a significant increase in killings linked to family disputes.

Despite the tremendous efforts made by these agencies to address the severe disruption caused by the IOF aggression and their persistent attempts to reorganize themselves using younger personnel within their ranks, the ferocity and relentless nature of the Zionist campaign prevented them from implementing most of the emergency plans they sought to implement during the genocidal war.

After several critical months of security vacuum, Palestinian resistance forces sought to compensate for part of the gap created by the paralysis of police and security institutions. They assigned selected members, particularly those affiliated with their security units, to undertake these duties. These individuals possessed extensive experience in community security, protecting the home front, confronting collaborators working with the IOF, tracking them, and thwarting their plots and schemes.

Although these units were also targeted by the IOF, much like the government’s police and security agencies, they proved more capable of absorbing the impact and minimizing the consequences. This was due to their decentralized structure, lack of exposure to the IOF by limiting the use of identifiable vehicles and equipment, and the concealment of the identities of personnel working in this sensitive field.

About five months after the genocidal war started, the resistance movement’s security agencies, together with some government institutions that had regained part of their operational capacity, succeeded in significantly restoring domestic security in Gaza. While conditions did not return to pre-genocide levels, they improved considerably compared to the situation that prevailed immediately after the outbreak of the genocide, especially during its first four months.

Over the past two months, the IOF intensified its targeting of the resistance front’s security agencies after apparently obtaining intelligence about some of their senior leaders. Government security institutions, which had managed to restore some of their facilities during the current truce, were also affected. The IOF targeted these facilities and centers, killing those inside, including civilian visitors and inmates.

Within the resistance movement’s security and intelligence agencies, many active leaders were targeted either through direct assassinations by fighter jets and surveillance drones or through traitorous militants that carried out several assassination operations, most of them concentrated in the central governorate and Khan Younis. These attacks targeted senior security officials with extensive experience in security and counterintelligence work, while another set of IOF operations aimed at senior resistance security officials failed.

Several days ago, IOF warplanes bombed several residential apartments in four different areas of Gaza City, causing many casualties among men, women, and children. Those killed included senior leaders within Hamas’s General Security Service, widely regarded as the central security institution operating inside Gaza.

These systematic attacks against the Palestinian resistance movement’s security agencies and government security institutions serve several objectives.

Chief among them is portraying Gaza as a territory beyond the rule of law, where chaos is the prevailing norm, a dangerous place for anyone inside, and that the international community must support any security or political body other than the Palestinian resistance movement to restore order.

This is pursued through several methods, including spreading rumors and false news built on distortions and exaggerated figures, particularly regarding the scale of lawlessness and levels of social violence. While such problems cannot be entirely denied, they are portrayed as far more severe than they actually are by the Israeli regime’s narratives and their agents.

Another policy by the Zionist regime to reinforce this narrative is fueling family disputes, which have reportedly become a notable aspect of daily life in Gaza. Through collaborators and social media, the occupying regime instills hatred among citizens and promotes divisions between residents and displaced people, rich and poor, and between those who own homes, partial homes, tents, or makeshift shelters.

These comparisons, which the occupying regime is seeking to transform into a broader social culture, have become a major factor behind many disputes. They are frequently linked to killings and thefts that have reportedly increased in recent months, as most of Gaza’s population suffers from poverty, destitution, and limited means due to the suffocating Israeli blockade.

At this point, security authorities in Gaza reportedly concluded that the IOF facilitates many family conflicts by supplying weapons to some combatants through collaborators. In other cases, security forces rushing to break up clashes, especially armed confrontations, have themselves been targeted. This pattern has become increasingly noticeable whenever disputes occur. The IOF also uses social media platforms to incite sedition through anonymous and unverified pages.

A second objective pursued by the occupying regime is preparing the ground for a larger role for collaborating militias. Much of the information circulating indicates these groups could play a broader role than the one assigned to them since their formation. This primarily involves controlling larger areas of Gaza, whether within the so-called “yellow zone,” where these militias are currently concentrated, or in areas adjacent to the “yellow line”.

Over the past three weeks, the IOF has expanded its occupation in these areas to unprecedented levels, in some cases extending seven kilometers westward in Khan Younis and approximately three and a half kilometers in Gaza City. 

These reports are reinforced by newly established IOF sites near the so-called “yellow line”, occupied exclusively by members of these proxy militias. These sites are being used as launching points for aggression aimed at cutting off Salah al-Din Road, Gaza’s most important transportation route, and abducting civilians traveling to and from Gaza City. They have also been used to launch attacks on nearby areas, as recently occurred south of the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City.

From the occupying regime’s perspective, the Palestinian resistance movement’s security agencies represent the core obstacle to such activities. Experience has shown that these agencies are capable of confronting the expansion of militias, limiting their influence, and acting forcefully against them.

Consequently, weakening these agencies, dismantling their organizational structures, and disrupting their operational balance, particularly through the targeting of senior leaders, has become an urgent priority.

The Zionist regime may have additional objectives behind its systematic and continuous targeting of security institutions.

These include spreading fear and despair among Gaza’s population and creating the impression that the forces that once protected and defended them have disappeared or, at the very least, lost much of their effectiveness. This narrative has appeared in Israeli social media posts and is backed up by the Zionist regime’s officials who openly speak about mass emigration from Gaza at a certain stage.

Nevertheless, contrary to what Israel is seeking, the resistance’s movement security agencies, together with government security institutions, continue to maintain a notable degree of control. Despite the losses suffered, they remain cohesive and resilient, carrying out their assigned duties with determination and effectiveness. 

They understand that their collapse would constitute a devastating blow to the broader Palestinian resistance project in Gaza and to community security, which is considered a fundamental pillar of continued resilience in the face of the ongoing genocide.

Palestinian resistance forces also believe that the sacrifices made by their leaders, personnel, and members will one day contribute to ending the occupation regime’s presence in historic Palestine. They also know that this day is very near, needing only more patience.

A blue sweater and a shoe in the bombed schoolyard

 By Garsha Vazirian

100+ days after the Pentagon vaporized a primary school in Minab, a look at the architects and accomplices behind the modern My Lai

TEHRAN — Over 100 days have passed since the missiles struck. Over 100 days of grief that does not diminish, of mothers holding schoolbooks of their martyred children, of small graves that should never have been dug.

Over 100 days have bled away, and the Pentagon’s sham “investigation” has produced not one shred of accountability. It has yielded only a polished monument of silence.

The dust in Hormozgan has settled, the bodies have been identified by names hastily written on bloody notebooks, but Washington remains a fortress of denial.

On February 28, Tomahawks were unleashed on the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab. There are 155 martyrs: 73 boys, 47 girls, 26 teachers, seven parents, one school bus driver, and one pharmacy technician.

Imagine you are the father or mother of Makan Nasiri. Over 100 days have passed; for you, it has been over 100 years. No remains have been found. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

All you have left of your little boy, the apple of your eye, is a crumpled blue sweater and a single shoe found in the schoolyard.

Or imagine you are the parent of one of the 47 martyred girls. You sit beside a symbolic grave, knowing the men who did this will never see a courtroom. “What was their crime?” you ask. “What was their crime?”

Naming the machinery

This slaughter was executed by the political architects of the American war machine. Donald Trump made the decision to wage a genocidal campaign of aggression against Iran. The campaign has been known as Trump’s “war of choice.”

He has proved his bloodlust by threatening to “destroy the Iranian civilization” and bomb Iran “back to the stone ages,” declarations that left no room for doubt that his war has deliberately consumed the innocent.

Trump’s weak gaslighting, claiming the strike was done by Iran despite clear Tomahawk missile wreckage in the rubble, was a malicious attempt to cover up a massacre.

Behind him stands Pete Hegseth, the “War” Secretary who dismantled civilian harm reduction frameworks, demanding “maximum lethality” over tepid legality. He provided the bloodthirsty moral license to shrug off a primary school.

CENTCOM Commander Brad Cooper went before Congress to insult the memory of the dead. He hid behind the clinical label of a complex investigation, claiming the school sat on an active cruise missile base.

Satellite data from a decade prior proves the school had been physically walled off and operating purely as an educational institution since 2016.

At sea, Leigh R. Tate and Jeffrey E. York sat in an air-conditioned combat information center, ordering the Tomahawks to fire. They oversaw a triple tap strike, ensuring children seeking refuge in the school’s yard and prayer room were vaporized.

Yet the guilt does not end with the American uniform or the executive office. The roster of the complicit extends to the Israeli regime, for obvious reasons.

The military-industrial giants, Raytheon which manufactured the Tomahawk missiles that shredded children’s bodies alongside corporate titans such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin whose quarterly earnings swelled with every new war, are drenched in the blood of Minab.

So too are the self-proclaimed Iranian “opposition” figures in Western capitals, the diaspora mercenaries who lobbied feverishly for U.S.-Israeli strikes on their own homeland, proving their blind loyalty to foreign regimes that merely used them as useful idiots and discarded them like dirty tissues once their purpose was served.

Add to them the European governments that mouthed “grave concern” while refusing to condemn the massacre, the paralyzed United Nations Security Council, and the Western press corps that have systematically laundered the Pentagon’s lies. All are accomplices. All will be remembered.

A psychology of dissociation

How do the killers sleep at night? How does the weapons officer close his eyes without seeing their faces? How does the captain who gave the launch command kiss his own children without tasting the ashes of Minab on his lips?

They sleep because the empire has perfected a psychology of dissociation.

The kill chain fragments responsibility. The Tampa analyst sees a pattern of life. The lawyer checks boxes. The sailor executes a command. Each link tells themselves the system did it.

But the system is made of human beings. They sleep because patriotic mythology teaches them that killing Iranians is valor. They are told they are sheepdogs, when they are all wolves.

The modern My Lai

History proves this was a structural blueprint. On March 16 of 1968, American soldiers slaughtered over 500 unarmed civilians under the pretext of clearing a Viet Cong stronghold.

Over half a century later in Minab, the same framework was deployed. The blueprint is identical. The military denies the event, blames the victims as human shields, opens an internal investigation to exhaust public memory, and grants absolute immunity.

Sleep does not equal peace. The murderer’s slumber is stitched together by denial and patchworked with rationalizations.

One day, those stitches will tear. History is littered with the bones of empires that thought they could kill without consequence.

The blood spilled in Minab cannot be washed away by bureaucratic delay, nor can it be isolated from the wider sea of slaughter that has defined this aggression.

The 155 lives stolen from that primary school are part of a staggering, bloody ledger; in total, more than 3,400 people have been martyred in the recent war on Iran, of whom approximately 1,460 are civilians, innocent women, men, children, and the elderly.

These thousands of stolen breaths now haunt the clinical hallways of the Pentagon and echo in the cold sonar pings of the warship hulls that engineered their execution.

The murderers cannot erase these stains or escape the cumulative weight of a justice that history is already preparing for the courtroom of eternity.