Qatar Chooses Geography Over Ideology in Its Iran Diplomacy

by Dr Mustafa Fetouri

An Iranian-launched missile is intercepted and destroyed by defense systems over Doha, Qatar on February 28, 2026. [Ali Altunkaya – Anadolu Agency]

Over the years, tiny Qatar has emerged as a pivotal regional mediator, deploying balanced approaches to critical crises stretching from the Gulf to the Horn of Africa with a high degree of success. More recently, Doha has had to navigate increasingly volatile conflicts closer to home, most notably the fallout from the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

By positioning itself as an indispensable diplomatic conduit, Doha has transformed its inherent geographic vulnerability into a strategic asset, proving that in a region often defined by rigid ideological blocs, pragmatic functional diplomacy remains the only viable path toward stability.

This approach acknowledges the unyielding reality of geography: Iran is a permanent fixture of the regional landscape. Consequently, Doha’s policy is built on the premise that neighbors, whether they approve of Tehran’s policies or not, must prioritize sustainable engagement over the cycle of permanent confrontation.

Despite finding itself on the receiving end of significant Iranian missile and drone barrages during the opening weeks of the 2026 war—a direct consequence of its role as the host for the largest U.S. military base outside US territory, at Al-Udeid—Doha has pointedly returned to the route of mediation. While other regional powers have found themselves sidelined by their own military postures or perceived lack of neutrality, Qatar has leveraged its functional middle status to maintain a seat at the table. This diplomatic dexterity is not merely a choice of style but a calculated necessity born of its specific surroundings. For Qatar, the shift from ideological alignment to geographic realism is most visible in its complex relationship with Tehran—a partnership dictated more by the shared coordinates of the massive offshore gas fields than by the shifting winds of unpredictable political calculations. Even as strikes on the Ras Laffan industrial hub forced a temporary declaration of force majeure on energy exports, Doha remained the only capital capable of facilitating the high-stakes negotiations over tens of billions in frozen Iranian assets. This underscores a sobering reality: in the Gulf, one can choose their allies, but they cannot choose their geography.

Historically, both Qatar and Oman have distinguished themselves as the two Gulf nations capable of maintaining a delicate equilibrium between their GCC commitments and their relationship with Tehran.

For decades, when regional tensions have threatened to spill over into open conflict, Doha and Muscat have frequently acted as the “safety valves” of the Gulf.

Through its history of mediation—ranging from the 2008 Lebanon crisis to the 2020 U.S.-Taliban deal—Qatar has demonstrated a strategic preference for the “table” over the “trigger.” This role has become particularly vital in June 2026; following the intense military escalations of Operation Epic Fury, Doha has once again positioned itself as the indispensable broker. While Oman pioneered the pre-war “Rome and Muscat rounds” in early February, the post-war phase has seen Qatar take the lead in facilitating the current negotiations for a 60-day ceasefire extension. By managing the release of $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets, a top Iranian demand, Doha isn’t just mediating a dispute; it is providing the essential financial “carrots” required to prevent a regional conflagration that would devastate the global energy market. In this context, Qatar’s intervention is a masterclass in regional survival, proving that functional dialogue remains a more effective deterrent than the most advanced missile defense systems.

The most acute test of Qatar’s “Geography over Ideology” diplomacy has been its response to the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Since it start in October 2023, Doha has successfully mediated three major breakthroughs: the initial November 2023 truce, the January 2025 pause, and the current October 2025 Comprehensive Peace Plan. These interventions have solidified Qatar’s position as the primary interlocutor between the West and the Palestinian resistance. Critically, Qatar’s hosting of the Hamas political office since 2012 was a direct response to a U.S. request during the Obama administration to facilitate a trackable, manageable channel for dialogue. By maintaining this policy, Doha has provided the only functional venue where hostage releases and humanitarian truces could be negotiated. In a region where other capitals have opted for either total isolation or rigid normalization, Qatar’s willingness to engage with all parties—regardless of their international standing—proves that a “neutral ground” is not just a diplomatic luxury, but a humanitarian necessity.

Unlike other GCC neighbors who rushed to sign the Abraham Accords—effectively decoupling their security from the Palestinian cause—Qatar has maintained direct technical links to Israel without formalizing diplomatic normalization.

By refusing to follow the path of the UAE or Bahrain, Doha has demonstrated that regional influence does not require abandoning the Palestinian file.

Instead, it has leveraged its unique position to act as a vital financial and humanitarian conduit, overseeing the reconstruction efforts in Gaza after previous wars and managing the flow of aid that keeps the territory from total collapse. This approach proves that true mediation requires keeping lines open to all without being pulled into their ideological orbits. In the volatile landscape of 2026, Qatar’s refusal to normalize serves as its greatest diplomatic asset; it remains the only state capable of speaking to both the Israeli security establishment and the Palestinian resistance, bridging a gap that formal normalization has, ironically, only widened.

However, the current U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran has exposed the precarious limits of this “balanced” approach. Despite Doha’s years of investment in de-escalation, the outbreak of war on Iran last February saw Qatar caught in a violent pincer. Two days after the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on February 28, Tehran responded with a barrage of drones and missiles targeting Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG complex—the very heart of the state’s economic power. This escalation forced QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on several European deliveries, a stark reminder that while geography dictates Qatar’s diplomacy, it also makes the state a primary collateral victim in any regional conflagration.

Ultimately, Qatar’s geography before ideology tactics represent a sophisticated, albeit high-stakes, survival strategy in a region where external traditional security alliances come with high price tag. Doha has effectively turned a potential flashpoint over the frozen Iranian cash into a mechanism for regional cooling down. While critics may view this pragmatism as a dangerous double game, the reality suggests otherwise: in a landscape where the “Abraham Accords” and various normalization projects failed to prevent the direct U.S.-Israeli agrresion on Iran, Qatar’s functional middle ground remains a viable exit ramp.

Whether this model can withstand the pressures of a fragmenting international order remains to be seen, but for now, Doha has proven that in the heart of the Gulf, the “table” is a far more resilient tool than the trigger.

The Gaza genocide drops the last fig leaf of Western democracy and tolerance

by Ahmed Asmar

A view of the destruction at the Al-Mawasi area where an Israeli strike targeting a food warehouse and an open area caused significant damage to vehicles and tents in Khan Yunis, Gaza, Palestine on May 29, 2026. [Abed Rahim Khatib – Anadolu Agency]

For decades, Western democracies presented themselves as the gold standard of exemplary governance and tolerance; the shining “beacons of hope” that the rest of the world was expected to follow. But the Gaza genocide has torn that facade apart. What we have witnessed over the past two years is not a reflection of democracy but its humiliation. What we have seen is not the protection of human rights but patterns of racism and intolerance.

The mask is off, exposing a system built on double standards, selective outrage, and a chilling willingness to crush the very freedoms it claims to champion.

The Dutch shame: A pregnant woman vs. a police officer with his dog

Few incidents have exposed this hypocrisy as brutally as what happened in the Netherlands on 19th May. Dutch police officers responded to a disturbance at an asylum seekers’ center in Zeist. A Palestinian refugee, Wesam Miqdad, had smashed the television, fridge, and door of his room after learning that his brother had been killed in Gaza, however, he surrendered without resistance.

What happened next shocked the world. When his wife—nine months pregnant—tried to inquire about his condition and ask if she could stay by his side, an officer with a police dog approached her, pried her away from her husband, and violently threw her to the ground. The footage, which went viral on 29th May, showed a visibly pregnant woman being dragged and slammed onto the floor of the asylum center.

The response of the Dutch authorities was first, denial. According to the victim, the officials tried to deny the incident altogether, claiming there were no records to support their account. Then, police claimed they were responding to a threat involving a knife—allegations not being verified, and no recordings prior to the arrest that support their falsehood.

Only when the video sneaked its way onto social media did the truth emerge. The victims had been fully compliant. The husband had been on his knees with his hands behind his back. There was no threat. There was no justification for brutality against a pregnant woman whose only “crime” was wanting to stay with her detained husband. The woman later gave birth, and both mother and baby survived—a miracle given the violence she endured.

What makes the incident even more disturbing, according to Wesam, is that the police’s brutality was driven by the knowledge that he was a Palestinian from Gaza—not by any threat he posed.

It looks like a pattern, not an isolated incident

What happened in the Netherlands was not an isolated outbreak of police brutality. It was the latest—and most grotesque—example of a systematic intolerance towards immigrants who once believed that they reached the land freedom, tolerance, and respect of human rights, and when adding the Palestinian dimension to the incident, it is, as well, a crackdown on anyone who dares to express solidarity with the Palestinian people or criticize Israel’s genocidal practices.

In Germany, the crackdown has been relentless and far-reaching. Since 7th October 2023, German authorities have imposed a comprehensive domestic crackdown on Palestine solidarity in tandem with the government’s political backing for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Almost in 2025 alone, Berlin police reported nearly 9,000 criminal charges linked to pro-Palestinian protests. Participants in these solidarity activities were constantly subjected to severe police brutality, including kettling, pepper spraying, punching, and choking.

The German government has formally outlawed and banned several pro-Palestinian groups. Human rights groups have condemned these measures, warning that the deliberate conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is being used to stifle free speech in solidarity with Palestine.

In France, the situation has been equally alarming. Pro-Palestinian events often unfold under heavy police presence, treated as threatening rather than a legitimate right to freedom of expression. In late April 2025, the French Interior Minister initiated proceedings to dissolve Urgence Palestine, one of the country’s most visible and active pro-Palestinian groups, on baseless grounds that the group is condoning terrorism.

These are not isolated incidents; they are a systematic pattern.

The hypocrisy exposed: Democracy for some, repression for others

The Gaza genocide has done what decades of criticism could not: it has stripped Western democracy of its moral pretensions. The same governments that lecture the world on human rights have become laboratories for the criminalization of solidarity with Palestine. The same countries that hypocritically defend freedom of speech at home have banned slogans, cancelled academic events, and arrested students for expressing political opinion.

A report in October 2025 by the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) warned that the crackdown “reveals a profound crisis: not only of human rights in the occupied territories but of freedom itself in societies that claim to be democratic.”

Governments in the UK, US, France and Germany have “weaponised” domestic counterterrorism legislation and fears of antisemitism to suppress public anger over the Gaza war, the study also said.

The final fig leaf has fallen

For me, this revelation was not shocking. I still remember how the Western governments overthrew elected governments in the region and beyond in the recent past. I remember the double standards on Palestine for decades. The only difference is that now, the brutality is being broadcast live on social media for the entire world to see.

The Gaza genocide has exposed the truth that Western democracy is not a universal standard of freedom—it is a selective tool applied when convenient, suspended when it contradicts with the interests of a criminal entity. The same Europe that sanctioned Russia for its conflict with Ukraine, stands silent while thousands of children and women were killed in Gaza. 

As for the Dutch police officer who threw a pregnant woman to the ground, his superiors will investigate, they may reassign him elsewhere, they may issue a statement about “following procedures.” But the system that enabled him, justified him, and then tried to deny his actions will remain intact, exactly as such system allowed police to suppress freedom of expression in solidarity with Palestine.

Passports, prisons, and Palestine: Pakistan’s official anti-Zionism

by Junaid S. Ahmad

Thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, holding flags and banners, attend the march to show their solidarity for Palestine marking one year of anti-war and to protest the Israeli army’s ongoing attacks on Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon in Karachi, Pakistan on October 06, 2024. [Sabir Mazhar – Anadolu Agency]

There is a species of Islamabad analysis that should be served on expensive hotel stationery, with diplomatic coffee, complimentary ambiguity, and a small warning at the bottom: may contain traces of reality. The recent Middle East Eye  piece — “Why Pakistan will likely refuse to join the Abraham Accords” — belongs gloriously to this genre:

It mistakes elite choreography for the country’s actual politics, passport inscriptions for anti-imperialism, and conversations conducted somewhere between GHQ, the Prime Minister’s House, and the Serena Hotel lobby for the pulse of a country of 240 million people.

This is not analysis. It is elite gossip dressed up as geopolitical insight. 

The Passport Is Not a Revolution

Yes, Pakistani passports exclude Israel. Yes, Pakistan has not formally recognized the Zionist state. Yes, this matters. But to inflate this into evidence of Pakistan’s unique moral exceptionalism is not erudition; it is travel-document mysticism.

Roughly forty other Muslim-majority states also do not recognize Israel. Pakistan is not some solitary anti-Zionist lighthouse standing heroically against a sea of Arab betrayal. It is one state among many whose formal non-recognition coexists with deep entanglement in the imperial architecture that protects Israel.

The relevant question is not whether Islamabad hosts an Israeli embassy. The question is whether Pakistan’s ruling order materially opposes the regional system that makes Zionist supremacy possible: American military power, Gulf authoritarianism, surveillance cooperation, debt dependency, comprador elites, and the systematic suffocation of popular politics.

On that test, the state’s record is not ‘principled refusal.’ It is polished hypocrisy with a foreign-office seal.

Civil Society, Apparently Sighted Near the Buffet

The MEE article’s most charming hallucination is its portrait of Pakistan’s “vibrant and contested” political landscape restraining normalization. One admires the optimism. One also wonders whether the author has recently tried to wave a Palestinian flag, organize a Gaza protest, defend Imran Khan, criticize the military establishment, or say anything remotely honest about Pakistan’s foreign policy without being treated as an aspiring insurgent.

Small Palestine protests have been policed with the solemn panic usually reserved for armed rebellions. Senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, one of Pakistan’s most consistent and courageous Palestine solidarity figures, has displayed more moral clarity than entire conference halls of credentialed analysts. Yet somehow we are invited to believe that Pakistan is a flourishing democratic bazaar in which parliament, media, civil society, and public opinion all majestically shape foreign policy.

If this is vibrancy, paralysis deserves an apology.

The Elite Is Not the People

The Pakistani people have never needed tutorials in anti-Zionism. They have opposed Palestine’s occupation instinctively, morally, religiously, and politically for generations. They have also opposed authoritarian rule at home with the same instinct. That is precisely the connection establishment-friendly analysis works so hard to sever.

Pakistan’s ruling elite invokes Palestine as poetry and abandons it as policy. It mourns Gaza in speeches while preserving the relationships that make Gaza’s destruction diplomatically manageable. It condemns Israel while depending on Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and the broader imperial circuit for money, recognition, weapons, loans, employment pipelines, and regime survival.

This is not anti-Zionism. It is anti-Zionist branding. It is Palestine as decorative upholstery for a state that fears its own people more than it fears empire.

The Imran Khan Exception

Any serious discussion of Pakistan and normalization must confront the fact the MEE piece politely tiptoes around: what happened in 2020. Imran Khan faced immense pressure from the military establishment, Washington, and Gulf capitals to move Pakistan toward recognition or normalization with Israel. He refused.

More importantly, he understood where his real strength lay: not in Rawalpindi’s permission, not in Washington’s approval, not in Gulf patronage, but in the overwhelming moral sentiment of the Pakistani people.

That refusal was not a footnote. It was the central political fact. Khan’s position made clear that Palestine in Pakistan is not merely a foreign-policy file. It is a popular moral boundary. His imprisonment today makes the contradiction even sharper: the man who resisted normalization sits in a cell, while the system that wanted flexibility
with Zionism now recites Palestine in the sacred vocabulary of state hypocrisy.

The prison down the road tells us more about Pakistan’s Palestine policy than any anonymous official quoted over coffee.

The Abraham Accords as Political Cosmetics

Trump’s demand that Pakistan and others join the Abraham Accords should not be mistaken for strategic genius. Trumpism is not doctrine; it is imperial impulse dressed up as deal-making and shouted through a campaign microphone.

One day it gestures toward a deal. The next day it throws a rhetorical steak to the Zionist lobby by demanding Muslim accession to normalization. The demand often functions less as a realistic expectation than as political theatre: Muslim regimes refuse theatrically, harvest cheap domestic legitimacy, and continue serving the same imperial order through other channels. 

This is the oldest trick in regional politics: reject the symbol, preserve the structure. Refuse the embassy, maintain the dependency. Denounce Tel Aviv, obey Washington. Speak of Palestine, discipline Pakistanis. Wave the flag abroad, break the citizen at home.

Anti-Zionism Without Democracy Is Theatre

The fatal weakness of the MEE article is that it treats Pakistan’s refusal to recognize Israel as evidence of political virtue rather than as the opening sentence of a much darker inquiry. Pakistan cannot meaningfully oppose Zionism while reproducing the same grammar of domination at home: securitization, repression, elite impunity, managed
media, jailed opponents, disappeared activists, and fear of popular agency.

Zionism fears Palestinian political agency. Pakistan’s establishment fears Pakistani political agency. The contexts differ, but the instinct rhymes with disturbing elegance: control the population, criminalize resistance, monopolize legitimacy, call dissent disorder, and market the whole arrangement as stability.

So yes, Pakistan will likely refuse to join the Abraham Accords. But not because its rulers are heroic guardians of Palestine. They will refuse because recognition remains politically radioactive. The people have made it so. The tragedy is that the same people who defend Palestine are denied sovereignty in their own republic.

That is why the Serena Hotel theory of anti-Zionism collapses. It hears the state and calls it society. It interviews power and mistakes the echo for the street. It sees Pakistan’s passport and misses Pakistan’s prison. It notices formal non-recognition and misses structural collaboration.

Pakistan’s people have chosen Palestine. Its rulers have chosen management, dependency, and fear. And until the state stops treating its own citizens as a security problem to be contained, every official performance of anti-Zionism will remain what it has too often been: a flag waved from behind prison bars, a sermon delivered by jailers, a declaration of solidarity issued from inside the architecture of submission.

The issue, then, is not whether Pakistan will recognize Israel. The deeper question is whether Pakistan will ever recognize its own people.

The Palestine industry: The rats of Gaza and the opportunists among us

by Dr Ramzy Baroud

Palestinian woman Wisam Abdulhadi, who lost her husband in an Israeli attack, is seen with her children who have developed skin diseases at where they take shelter in Al-Azhar University in Gaza City, Gaza, Palestine on April 24, 2026. [Mahmoud Abu Hamda – Anadolu Agency]

It all started with a call to my family in a displacement camp in northern Gaza.

Since internet lines rarely stay connected, I managed to send a message to the widow of my cousin—who was killed along with all of his sons during the ongoing Gaza genocide. I asked her a simple question: what do Gazans want?

My purpose was to gather raw testimonies from her neighbours to weave into a letter to a European official whose country is active in pursuing justice for Palestinians. I chose this approach to bypass clichéd political discourse and avoid the pitfall of speaking on behalf of those enduring genocide and famine. Palestinians in Gaza are entirely capable of speaking for themselves.

The responses, however, reframed my entire approach. While I am deeply tied to my community in Gaza, I had anticipated a direct focus on macro-political language—on statehood, rights, and global justice. Instead, I was met with the visceral reality of immediate physical survival.

“We want a life… we want a dignified life,” she said. “A dignified life with food, water, and even the ability to breathe. One feels so suffocated. We need so many things… so, so many things. We need psychological support, financial support, and moral support.”

Another neighbour said: “They (Israel) fight us with everything, absolutely everything; even when we are sleeping in our beds, the mosquitoes drain us. Insects and rats are all around us, fleas, and the heat is killing us. There are no fans and there is no electricity.”

Yes, many spoke about Karameh (dignity), hurriye (freedom), and Haq al-Awda (the Right of Return), but these broad political and social rights were almost always tied directly to the everyday struggle for education, for water, for basic medical care, and—against rats.

The rats. This is the recurring nightmare in the minds of Gazan parents who find themselves unable to protect their children even from rodents. Nearly two million Palestinians remain displaced in horrific conditions, trapped in barely 40 percent of an already tiny, besieged Strip.

I spent the day trying to process the pain, grief, and humble expectations of these proud people.

Yet later that evening, a seemingly separate matter came to my attention. I learned of two characters—Aziz Abu Sarah, a Palestinian from the 1948 areas, and Maoz Inon, an Israeli—who have been touring for months, promoting what they call their ‘The Future Is Peace’ tour.

These two individuals have achieved global celebrity status, sitting down with the likes of famed US comedian Jon Stewart on The Daily Show and ultimately meeting with Pope Francis himself.

To the unexamined eye, the two are peddling a message of ‘peace’ and ‘forgiveness’, routinely staging a display where they forgive each other at the end of their talks. All of this serves as a promotional springboard for their week-long ‘peace tour’ inside Israel, sold commercially at the competitive price of $4,200 per person, air tickets excluded.

The sad truth is that this corporate approach to ‘peacebuilding’ is not unique; it is a symptom of a broader trend exploiting Palestine. Even more tragically, many individual Palestinians have capitalized on the well-intentioned but often misunderstood concept of ‘centering Palestinian voices’ to accumulate personal wealth, status, and prestige, while their own brethren cannot find drinkable water and teeter on the brink of starvation.

The Arabic maxim, famous in Palestine for generations, has long contended that “the revolution is a tree watered by the blood of the martyrs, and its fruits are plucked by the opportunists and the cowards.”

Shouldn’t mass extermination be a moral threshold that stops opportunists from feeding their pathological greed?

Desperate for solidarity, Palestinians in Gaza continue to hope that global efforts will eventually aid their raw struggle for freedom, dignity, clean water, and relief from the rats. And millions worldwide are indeed well-meaning; they care about Gaza in ways that no social media post can ever capture.

The crisis is that the balance between genuine solidarity and outright exploitation at times risks tipping in favor of the exploiters. We are witnessing the rise of a lucrative cult of personality, built on high speaker fees and business-class tickets, circumnavigating the globe under the guise of advocacy. There are those who have experienced a literal ‘rags to riches’ transformation since October 7, becoming overnight celebrities and acting like heroic figures surrounded by adoring fans, simply for doing their basic jobs or taking a public moral position.

There are organisations amassing massive budgets, hosting events costing up to $200,000 over a single weekend, simply to regurgitate the same old stances without strategy, slogans without action plans, and claims of stupendous ‘victories’ while Gazans die of thirst and hunger.

On the other hand, Palestinian officials and those who tout the official line continue to turn their backs on the reality of Gaza while reaping the immense benefits of global solidarity: the prestige of diplomatic recognition, the red carpets rolled out for bureaucrats, and the standing ovations at international conferences.

The circle of exploitation grows wider, while the actual messages filtering out from the displacement camps grow more tragic by the day:

“I want my family back — the family Israel took from me.”

“I want to bury my children who are still under the rubble.”

“I want my father released from prison. We have no one else but him.”

“The rats, the rats, brother. They are eating the flesh of our children.”

As I reflected on the horror of those parents helpless to protect their children, the word “rats” took on a heavier meaning.

The struggle for Palestinian freedom must remain anchored in the soil of Gaza. The global solidarity movement must not be permitted to mutate into a careerist industry for self-seeking individuals masquerading as saviours.

This creeping opportunism must be fought with the exact same urgency as the literal rats of Gaza.

Opening the Strait of Hormuz has become top US Priority

Crescent International

The Strait of Hormuz is the global chokepoint. Iran's restriction of tanker traffic has caused panic in Washington DC. Donald Trump feels particularly vulnerable because high gas prices have had a cascading effect on food prices and other commodities. Ordinary Americans are experiencing great difficulty and have turned against Trump.

Testifying before Congress on June 2, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first priority of the Trump regime was to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Prior to the US-zionist attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the strait was open to all shipping.

The February 28 illegal and unprovoked attack was launched in the middle of negotations, the second in eight months.

It showed US duplicity, and together with its zionist ward, exposed the criminal nature of the evil duo.

In retaliation for the US-zionist attack, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to shipping from hostile countries, including the US, zionist Israel and their allies.

It is open to countries that are friendly, or at least not hostile to the Islamic Republic.

Now, the US regime is desperately trying to get the narrow waterway opened.

More than 20 percent of global oil supplies pass through the strait.

Restricted tanker traffic has caused soaring gas prices worldwide, including in the US.

The cascading effect has been felt far and wide.

Grocery prices, fertilizer prices and transportation costs have soared.

These have caused immense difficulties, especially for ordinary Americans who literally live vulnerable hand to mouth.

The US boasts the highest GDP in the world but ordinary Americans do not benefit from it.

The high GDP only benefits oligarchs around Donald Trump and his criminal regime.

The Trump family has raked in $4 billion in one year through shady deals since he became president for the second time in January 2025.

Trump, however, is desperate for a deal with Iran because of soaring prices.

He is squealing like a pig caught by the tail being dragged to the slaugherhouse.

Iran has no interest in saving him.

It insists on a permanent ceasefire on all fronts so that the evil duo would not dare to attack again.

Tehran has threatened to fire hundreds of missiles at northern occupied Palestine if Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine continue.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has made clear that the ceasefire includes Lebanon and Palestine.

Any attacks there are a clear violation of the ceasefire terms.

If the zionist entity does not stop those attacks, Iran would consider that a clear breach of the ceasefire agreement and was under no obligation to hold it.

Further, Iran has suspended the indirect talks because of US-zionist aggression.

While Trump insists that negotiations with Iran “have been going on continuously”, the ground realities point in a different direction.

It is not clear who among the Iranians Trump is talking to.

Perhaps, he is having a conversation with himself.

This is not unusual.

A compulsive liar and fraud, he thinks other people are just as stupid as he is.

Unfortunately most Americans are, especially the MAGA crowd.

Following the US military Central Command’s (CENTCOM) ludicrous claim on June 3 that it had launched “self-defence” fire on Iran’s Qeshm Island, Tehran retaliated against Kuwait and Bahrain.

Iranian drone and missile strikes hit a terminal at Kuwait’s international airport early today.

The Kuwaiti regime said one person was killed and 63 wounded in Iranian drone and missile strikes.

They also inflicted “significant material damage”.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said retaliatory strikes “should serve as a lesson” for the US.

The attacks were in response to US strikes on a commercial vessel and Iran’s communications tower.

Tehran said it attacked the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and a helicopter base in Kuwait.

A pattern has emerged.

Iran will not allow the US and zionist Israel to establish a “new normal” whereby the evil duo carry out criminal attacks and claim nothing had changed.

Iran’s retaliatory strikes are meant to send a clear message that Tehran will hit back any locations from which missiles or attacks on Iranian facilities and the Iranian navy have been conducted.

Tehran had announced even before this illegal war that there will be swift retaliation against any attack from any country.

It will target the location from which the attack originated.

Three regimes in particular have been extremely hostile to Iran: tiny Bahrain, the UAE and Kuwait.

American bases on these entities have been used to attack Iran.

Not surprisingly, Iran’s Foreign Ministry has said that the Kuwaitis and the Bahrainis bear full responsibility for US attacks on Iranian facilities.

Further, Iran’s retaliatory action is also their responsibility because they allowed the Americans to use bases on their land to commit aggression against Iran.

Strait of HormuzDonald TrumpMarco RubioUS congresszionist war crimesKuwaitBahrainUAE

The Abraham Accords: Strategic Cornerstone for Regional Stability or a Calculated Diversion?

Muslim Mahmood

The shift began not with a treaty, but with a series of quiet understandings in the corridors of power across West Asia, where the old order is being dismantled by the very states that once relied on it.

While the official narrative out of Washington depicts the Abraham Accords as a historic pivot toward peace, internal assessments and seasoned diplomatic voices suggest a far more complex reality of transactional security and strategic hedging.

Timeline of the Abrahamic Realignment

• September 15, 2020: The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain sign ‘normalization agreements’ with Israel at the White House.
• December 22, 2020: Morocco signs a tripartite declaration with the United States and Israel, linking normalization to the recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara.
• January 6, 2021: Sudan signs the Abraham Accords Declaration in Khartoum following its removal from the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
• October 7, 2023: Hamas-led operation from Gaza sparked a devastating regional conflict that placed the normalization process in West Asia under severe political and strategic strain.
• June 13, 2025: Israel and the US launched Operations Rising Lion and Midnight Hammer respectively, a 12-day military aggression targeting Iranian military and civilian infrastructures.
• November 7, 2025: Kazakhstan formally joins the Accords, extending the framework’s reach into Central Asia.
• May 23, 2026: Donald Trump holds a conference call with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and other regional states to demand they join the Accords as part of a deal to end current hostilities.

The Mirage of Regional Peace

Former American diplomat Chas Freeman, a veteran of the West Asian political landscape, argues that the US is currently retreating from its traditional dominance as regional players begin to assert strategic autonomy.

Freeman characterizes the Abraham Accords not as a path to peace, but as a “diversion” designed to secure American support for authoritarian internal security while buttressing a defensive stand against Iran.

According to Freeman, the age of Euro-American global ascendancy is past, and states in the region are now diversifying their international relationships to adjust to a multipolar reality where they no longer take direction from external powers.

Furthermore, Freeman notes that Israel’s military options are largely spent, having failed to achieve a lasting peace through conventional force.

He argues that while Israel can continue its current military posture, actual stability can only come from reconciliation with the Palestinian people and neighboring Arab states—a resolution the Accords were largely designed to bypass.

This assessment is shared by some analysts who view the current expansion efforts as a distraction technique to mask the high costs of recent military escalations in West Asia.

Trump’s hopes for a “New Order”

In his second term, Trump has pushed for an even more aggressive policy, attempting to establish a “new order” in West Asia that integrates Arab and Muslim-majority states into a formal peace agreement with Israel.

This policy is rooted in geoeconomics, utilizing financial and economic incentives to circumvent long-standing political grievances.

His regime has explicitly linked the end of the current war to the immediate normalization of relations, even floating the provocative suggestion that the Islamic Republic of Iran could eventually join the framework.

While Trump describes the Accords as creating a “financial, economic, and social boom,” the push for expansion has met significant resistance.

Saudi, Qatari and Pakistan rulers have reportedly remained silent during recent demands to sign the agreement, reflecting the prohibitive political costs of normalization while Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues.

Despite this, the Trump regime continues to view the Accords as a blueprint for US leadership, favoring transactional diplomacy over traditional practices.

The Abraham Security Alliance Against Tehran

The coalition is functioning as a critical security bulwark against Iranian influence by integrating local military and intelligence capabilities.

This “Abraham Security Alliance” has already seen operational cooperation; during Iranian missile assaults in 2024, the UAE shared trajectory intelligence and Bahrain coordinated naval interceptions to protect Israeli territory.

Shared threats from aligned groups in Yemen and Lebanon have solidified these bonds, as Arabian rulers increasingly prioritize long-term strategic interests over popular domestic pressure.

The military integration extends into the industrial sector, with Israeli defense firms establishing subsidiaries in the UAE to co-develop anti-drone systems and electronic warfare suites.

This cooperation allows western powers to shift from direct intervention to a model of regional burden-sharing.

However, some experts warn that this encirclement may force Iran into a “threshold” nuclear dynamic, where the degradation of its conventional power makes the pursuit of nuclear weapons the only remaining deterrent.

Competition for Global Corridor

Underpinning the diplomatic maneuvers is fierce competition for control over West Asia’s strategic waterways and trade routes.

The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), designed to connect India to Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, serves as a direct competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

This project only remains viable within an expanded normalization framework, binding regional partners to American technological and economic systems.

The strategic importance of maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz—through which 20% of global oil supply passes—means the US cannot fully disengage, even as its focus shifts toward the Indo-Pacific.

Non-state actors have discovered that they can impose global costs by disrupting these corridors, creating a new “chokepoint order” where the command of circulation is as vital as the control of territory.

This has led to a state of “strategic exhaustion” for US power, as it is drawn into a persistent burden of crisis management across global shipping lanes.

The Unresolved Variable of Popular Sentiment

Despite the rapid integration of defense and technology sectors, the “warm peace” envisioned by the Accords’ architects has struggled to penetrate the broader public in West Asian states.

Popular opposition remains a significant obstacle, with citizens in signatory states increasingly viewing normalization as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

In 2024, the murder of a Chabad emissary in the UAE raised serious questions about the long-term safety of the Jewish community within the region and the resilience of the interfaith “coexistence” model.

The future viability of the framework hinges on its ability to manage these internal pressures while expanding to include regional hegemons like Saudi Arabia.

The Accords have survived the initial shock of the Gaza war but the political costs for new signatories remain high as long as there is no credible commitment to Palestinian statehood.

In the absence of a settlement, some fear that the attempt to isolate the Palestinian issue could eventually push the region back into a cycle of violent struggle as a last resort.

Realpolitik in a Fragmented Landscape

The Abraham Accords are evolving from a set of symbolic peace deals into an adaptive infrastructure of security and industrial cooperation.

This transition reflects a world where power is measured by resilience—the capacity to absorb structural shocks without collapse.

As the US is pushed from being the “world’s policeman” to a facilitator of local alliances, the region is left to find its own balance between the competing influences of Washington, Beijing and Tehran.

The truth of the Accords lies in this shift.

They are less about ending conflict and more about managing a new era of systemic disorder.

Abraham AccordsDonald TrumpUS imperialismEU complicity in zionist war crimes