How Iran’s Valiant Resistance Has Changed The Dynamics of Power In West Asia

Kevin Barrett

The West Asia region is the birthplace and heartland of Islam. It is also the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.

These two facts, taken together, terrify the Epstein class oligarchs who rule the west. Though the world is transitioning to alternative energy, fossil fuel is still the key geostrategic commodity. If West Asian Muslims ever assert control over their own resources, they will gain immense leverage over global finance, and find themselves in a position to dethrone the usury banking cartel that currently rules much of the world.

That usury cartel is disproportionately Jewish. Its leading members are fervent zionists attached to the Greater Israel project, which aims to dominate West Asia and ultimately capture and ethnically cleanse all the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. West Asian Muslims, for their part, despise usury, which is expressly forbidden by Islam, and oppose the ongoing zionist genocide of the Holy Land and environs.

The eight decades following World War II have witnessed an epic clash between the indigenous mostly-Muslim population of West Asia and the invading zionists and imperialists who have plundered the region’s resources to fund their global empire. Until 2026, the zionist-imperialist invaders had the upper hand. They have extracted tens of trillions of dollars in energy wealth, using it to prop up the US dollar and fund the construction of the ring of military bases girdling the planet.

But on February 11, 2026, US President Donald Trump made a fateful decision. Goaded by his Epstein-files-owning master, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump ordered a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran. That attack was carried out on February 28, following a diplomatic ruse aimed at lulling Iran into a false sense of security.

Trump and Netanyahu expected Iran to surrender. They hoped that assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatullah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and other leaders would somehow lead to a “regime change,” propelling pro-US, pro-“Israel” leaders into power.

Iranians had other ideas. Outraged by the dastardly murder of their leaders, and by the double-tap massacre of 168 girls and 26 female teachers at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School in Minab, as well as other atrocities, the Iranian people rallied behind their Islamic Republic and its leadership. Immediately after the attack, Iran struck back, raining down missiles on Israel and US bases in the region. A few hours later, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to all enemy countries—starting with the US, Israel, and the Gulf monarchies that had allowed their territory be used for the sneak attack on Iran.

The war raged at full-strength for six weeks, ebbed in the second half of April, and may well flare up again. Iran has pounded “Israel” as well as US bases in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, while the US has bombed civilian as well as military targets in Iran, killing thousands of civilians and injuring tens of thousands. (The Iranian Red Crescent estimates that the zio-Americans have damaged more than 100,000 civilian targets.)

Though the Americans and Israelis have successfully blown up schools, hospitals, places of worship, apartment blocks, and other civilian sites, along with critical infrastructure such as railways and bridges, they have been unable to significantly degrade Iran’s military capabilities. Iran stores its missiles, drones, and speedboats deep underground, often beneath mountains, where even the biggest US bombs cannot touch them. Meanwhile, despite Trump’s bombastic claims, western media has admitted that most of Iran’s military power remains intact, even as the US is exhausting its vastly more expensive arsenal.

Regional US military bases have been decimated. The New York Times, BBC, and other mainstream outlets have estimated that nearly half of the US fixed footprint in West Asia has been “structurally compromised” meaning effectively taken out of action by Iranian missiles and drones. According to one report, the 13 US bases closest to Iran are “all but uninhabitable,” and American military personnel have been forced to evacuate and work from hotel rooms. As its protector was being humiliated, “Israel” too suffered billions of dollars in damages. Iranian missiles have impacted buildings adjacent to nuclear facilities in Dimona, among other high-value targets, exposing the Iron Dome as an Iron Sieve.

The zionists and imperialists have effectively lost the war of attrition, as they are using up expensive and difficult-to-replace weapons much faster than Iran is going through its inventory of easier-to-replace drones and missiles. Crucially, Iran has demonstrated that its “nuclear option”—shutting the Strait of Hormuz, the global economy’s single most crucial artery—is not a bluff but a fait accompli. What’s more, Iran has every reason to maintain permanent control over the Strait and extract war reparations by charging a toll. The US and its deranged leader can rage and drool and tweet unhinged threats, but they cannot re-open the Strait.

Iran has escalation dominance: Whatever horrific level of damage the zio-Americans inflict on Iran, the Iranians can inflict that same level or greater on America’s vassals in the region. (The Gulf monarchies would become instantly uninhabitable without desalinization and air conditioning.) The upshot is that Iran has won the war, and all that remains is for the zionist-imperialist camp to face reality and admit it.

By emerging from the war with permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz—and insisting that the US withdraw from the region—Iran can radically reshape the balance of power in West Asia. Prior to the war, the US could pretend that it owned West Asia and its energy resources, using its military occupation of the Gulf monarchies to demand various forms of tribute while insisting that oil and gas be priced in dollars.

Now that American military power has met its Iranian match, a new power dynamic will emerge, as regional countries see the US-“Israeli” presence not as a guarantee of security, but as the region’s leading cause of instability, chaos, and bloodshed. New, multilateral security partnerships will emerge, led by regional countries, and presumably featuring China—the biggest consumer of West Asian energy—as a key player.

The new power dynamic in West Asia will ultimately dethrone the western usury banking cartel. As the Chinese model of banking as a public utility meets Islam’s prohibition of usury, with the former backed by manufacturing clout and the latter by immense energy resources, a new paradigm for global finance will emerge.

This epic shift in the balance of power will offer Muslims the opportunity to reform their societies and make them more genuinely Islamic. Independent, sovereign Muslim nations, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, cannot be bullied by western power into accepting un-Islamic political, economic, and cultural institutions and practices. As the other West Asian peoples gain their independence and sovereignty, thanks primarily to the courageous and steadfast resistance of the Iranian people and allied pro-Resistance forces, they too will have the opportunity to throw off western colonial influences and “be themselves.”

In the not-too-distant future, in sha’Allah, a peaceful, prosperous, genuinely sovereign West Asia will play a leading role in forging an enduring global order in which aspirations for justice and dignity, rather than bullying arrogance, will have the upper hand. When that day arrives, the people of the region, and the world, will owe a huge debt of gratitude to the courage and steadfastness of the citizens and supporters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who could not be cowed by the most horrifically disgusting threats, nor by the revolting and repeated massacres of their leaders and citizens—and who saw through the Epstein class propaganda beamed endlessly at them and at the entire world. Islamic Iran and its supporters have taken heed of the Qur’anic verse: “O you who are firmly committed [to Allah’s here-and-now power presence], if any depraved person comes to you with [slanderous and propagandistic] information, you are ordered [by Us] to verify it lest you [falsely] accuse people because of erroneous information, and then afterward feel regretful for what you have done” (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat al-Hujurat, verse 06). All the lies of the evildoers of the Epstein-class western media, and the bloodcurdling threats and bloodspilling atrocities of the western uniformed terrorists, could not convince them to do otherwise.

Axis of ResistanceIslamic Republic of Iran

Beyond Sectarianism: Reclaiming The Pivotal Ummah And Reframing Contemporary Muslim Political Thought

Mohamed Ousman

Sectarianism remains one of the most debilitating forces within the contemporary Muslim world. It fragments the ummah and undermines its capacity to respond to both internal crises and external challenges. Sectarian narratives—particularly those weaponized in modern geopolitical conflicts—must be critically examined because they function less as theological disagreements and more as political tools of division.

Drawing on Qur’anic principles, the concept of ummatan wasatan (the pivotal ummah), and contemporary Islamic political thought, we must develop a framework for transcending sectarianism. The strategic posture of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be integrated into this analysis as a case study in state-level resistance, to situate the broader struggle within the context of the ongoing threat to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa.

Sectarianism as Political Instrument

Sectarianism in the contemporary Muslim world is frequently presented as an organic outgrowth of theological disagreement. However, a closer examination reveals that it is often politically constructed, strategically amplified and institutionally sustained.

The language used to mobilize sectarian sentiment—frequently emotional and accusatory—serves to obscure structural realities and redirect attention away from systemic issues such as Islamic governance, Allah’s power and authority and external domination.

The persistence of claims that reduce complex geopolitical engagements to simplistic sectarian motives reflects a broader crisis in critical thinking within segments of the Muslim public sphere. Such narratives not only distort reality but also prevent the emergence of a unified and strategic response to global challenges.

Debunking Sectarian Narratives

The assertion that contemporary conflicts—such as those in Syria—can be reduced to sectarian agendas ignores empirical realities. State actors operate within strategic, military and geopolitical frameworks that cannot be adequately explained through a sectarian lense. The endurance of such narratives, despite contrary evidence, suggests that they are maintained less by fact and more by institutional reinforcement.

Clergy-driven sectarianism, in particular, often relies on emotional mobilization rather than analytical rigor. By framing conflicts in binary terms—Sunni versus Shi‘i—it simplifies complex realities and fosters a state of intellectual dependency among followers. This dynamic inhibits independent thinking and reinforces cycles of division.

Stated plainly, the non-thinking sectarian clergy-class prey on the support through keeping their flock braindead. If there are people that still believe the Islamic Republic of Iran wanted to kill Sunnis in Syria and beyond, they should consider this. Its defensive war against the US and Israel demonstrates beyond any doubt that if it wanted to exterminate Sunnis it has the fire-power to do so. Only an absolute moron would still believe such sectarian narrative.

The Concept of Ummatan Wasatan: Reclaiming Centrality

The Qur’anic concept of ummatan wasatan (the pivotal community) provides a powerful counter-framework to sectarian fragmentation. Centrality here implies more than moderation; it denotes leadership, relevance and moral authority. A central ummah is one that:

1. Sets ideological and ethical standards rather than importing them.
2. Engages proactively with global issues instead of reacting defensively.
3. Maintains equilibrium between material and spiritual priorities.

In this vision, the ummah is not peripheral but central to human affairs—capable of dispensing justice and promoting equity. However, contemporary Muslims largely occupy a marginal position, often influenced by external ideologies and internal divisions.

The relationship between the centrality of the ummah and the centrality of the Prophet’s model is crucial. When the Prophetic example is marginalized, the ummah itself becomes marginalized. Conversely, when the Sunnah and seerah serve as guiding frameworks, the ummah regains its capacity to lead.

Strategic Leadership and the Question of Agency

In examining contemporary Muslim political actors, the Islamic Republic of Iran presents a complex case. Regardless of one’s position on its policies, it has demonstrated a degree of strategic independence and resistance to external pressures that is rare among Muslim-majority states.

Its regional engagements are often interpreted through sectarian lenses, yet such interpretations overlook broader strategic considerations, including deterrence, alliance-building, and geopolitical balancing. Reducing these actions to sectarian motives obscures the reality of statecraft and reinforces divisive narratives.

A critical approach requires moving beyond polemics to evaluate actions based on consistency and alignment with broader Islamic principles of justice and sovereignty.

Sectarianism and the Fragmentation of the Ummah

Sectarianism undermines the very conditions necessary for the emergence of a central ummah. It:

1. Divides collective resources and attention.
2. Weakens political leverage.
3. Erodes moral credibility.

By contrast, a central ummah consolidates its priorities and acts with unity of purpose. It is not reactive to external agendas nor confined by internal divisions. Instead, it defines its own trajectory and engages the world from a position of clarity and strength.

The zionist Threat to Holy Land North And Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa

Imam Muhammad Al-Asi’s Qur’anic framework offers a dynamic and historically grounded method for understanding contemporary events, including the zionist Israeli Jewish threat to the Holy Land North and Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. Central to his interpretation is the concept of ibadan lana—a category of individuals defined by their complete alignment with divine will rather than by sectarian, ethnic or national identity.

Within Surah al-Isra, Al-Asi identifies recurring cycles of corruption and divine accountability. These cycles are not confined to a single historical moment but recur when conditions are replicated. The current situation in Al-Quds (Jerusalem), therefore, is interpreted as part of a second cycle, paralleling earlier periods in which Bani Isra’il exercised disruptive influence.

In this framework, the zionist project is not merely a political phenomenon but a manifestation of systemic imbalance that reflects both external aggression and internal weakness within the Muslim ummah. The persistence of occupation and encroachment is thus linked to the absence of a morally coherent and unified Muslim response.

Al-Asi’s emphasis on ibadan lana directly challenges sectarian paradigms. Liberation, in this view, will not be achieved by Sunnis as Sunnis or Shi‘is as Shi‘is, but by a community that transcends these divisions and embodies Qur’anic principles. This reorientation shifts the focus from identity politics to ethical alignment.

Furthermore, Al-Asi critiques the tendency to prioritize ritual over substance. The evaluation of leadership based solely on outward religiosity, rather than on policies and justice, contributes to political stagnation. In the context of al-Aqsa, this misalignment allows for the continuation of ineffective responses.

Ultimately, Al-Asi’s framework positions the liberation of Holy Land north and Al Masjid Al-Aqsa as contingent upon the reformation of the Muslim ummah into a cohesive, morally grounded force. Without this transformation, external confrontation remains insufficient.

Imam Zafar Bangash’s Seerah Framework

Bangash’s seerah-based analysis emphasizes the strategic clarity of the Prophetic mission. The sequence of events in early Islamic history—particularly the prioritization of internal consolidation—provides a model for contemporary action.

The liberation of Makkah established a center of authority and unity, which later enabled the expansion of justice beyond Arabia, including the eventual integration of Holy Land north. This sequence underscores the importance of building a stable and principled base before engaging in broader struggle.

Applied to the current context, Bangash’s framework suggests that efforts to address the zionist Israeli Jewish threat to Holy Land north and Al Masjid Al-Aqsa must begin with internal reorganization within the Muslim world. Fragmented and weak entities are unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes.

Bangash also highlights the role of leadership that embodies Islamic values in both rhetoric and action. The absence of such leadership contributes to strategic incoherence and limits the effectiveness of collective efforts.

Dr. Kalim Siddiqui’s Islamic Movement Theory

Siddiqui’s theory centers on the necessity of a unified Islamic movement capable of transcending national boundaries. He argues that the decline of the ummah is rooted in the loss of authentic political authority grounded in Islamic principles.

In the case of Holy Land north and Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, Siddiqui would interpret the zionist Israeli Jewish threat as a symptom of systemic fragmentation. The division of the Muslim world into nation-states has weakened its capacity to act collectively and strategically.

Siddiqui advocates for the reconstruction of a global Islamic movement that prioritizes unity, clarity of purpose and institutional strength. Such a movement would not be constrained by sectarian or national divisions but would operate as a coherent force.

This perspective aligns with the concept of ummatan wasatan, emphasizing centrality, leadership and moral authority. Without such a movement, responses to crises like the colonization of Holy Land north and Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa remain reactive and limited.

Sectarianism is not merely a theological difference; it is a political liability that fragments the ummah and undermines its potential. Debunking sectarian narratives requires a return to foundational principles that emphasize unity, justice and strategic clarity.

The concept of a pivotal ummah provides a framework for reclaiming relevance and leadership. When combined with Qur’anic guidance, Prophetic precedent and coherent Islamic movement theory, it offers a path toward overcoming internal divisions and addressing external challenges.

The struggle for Holy Land north and Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, therefore, is inseparable from the broader task of rebuilding the ummah as a unified and morally grounded community. Only through such transformation can meaningful and lasting change be achieved.

Bibliography

Al-Āsī, Muhammad: The Ascendant Qur’an: Realigning Man to the Divine Power Culture. Various Volumes. Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, (2008-2024).

Bangash, Zafar: In Pursuit of the Power of Islam: Major Writings of Kalim Siddiqui. Toronto: The Open Press (1996).

Bangash, Zafar: Power Manifestations of the Sirah. Toronto: ICIT. (2011).

Bangash, Zafar: Editorial introduction to Siddiqui’s collected works

Bangash, Zafar: Articles in Crescent International (various issues)

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/the-seerah-as-a-model-for-the-total-transformation-of-society

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/power-dimensions-in-the-sirah-of-the-noble-messenger-saws

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/eid-milad-un-nabi-an-opportunity-to-broaden-our-perception-of-the-seerah

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/the-importance-of-re-examining-the-seerah-of-the-prophet

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/the-centrality-of-the-prophet-s-use-of-power-in-the-method-of-the-seerah

Siddiqui, Kalim: The Islamic Movement: A Systems Approach. London: The Muslim Institute, (1976).

Siddiqui, Kalim: Issues in the Islamic Movement. Toronto: The Open Press (1982).

Siddiqui, Kalim: Beyond the Muslim Nation-State. The Muslim Institute (1977).

Siddiqui, Kalim: Stages of Islamic Revolution. London: The Open Press, (1996).

Sectarianism

Hajj According To The Qur’an Or Bani Saud Imposed Rituals?

Editor

The US-zionist barbarism unleashed against Muslims is universally acknowledged. The evil duo also has the support of most European states as well as the Arabian potentates.

Completely subservient to the imperialists and zionists, these Arabians have Muslim names but their actions would make the mushriks of Makkah of yester-years proud of their conduct.

When Muslims liberated Makkah from the clutches of the mushriks in the 8th year of the Hijrah, the Ka‘aba was cleansed of the idols that had polluted the Sacred House. The following year, Allah (الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ) revealed a series of ayats that commanded Muslims to proclaim their open dissociation from the mushrikeen at the time of Hajj.

Let us recall just one ayat from the majestic Qur’an that challenges the Saudi-style dumbing down of Hajj: “And a proclamation from Allah and His Apostle [is herewith made] to all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage [Hajj], ‘Allah disavows all who attribute divinity/authority to any beside Him, and [so does] His Apostle…’” (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat al-Tawbah, verse 03).

While Muslims are forbidden from relying on mushrik powers (Surat al-Ma’ida, verse 51), there is an even more emphatic command from Allah (الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ) for Muslims to proclaim their dissociation from such powers at the time of Hajj. The illegal occupiers of the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula, the Bani Saud insist that Muslims must not bring up such matters during Hajj. Perhaps they fear that Muslims coming of age may indict the felonious khadims as being mushriks themselves.

This year’s Hajj, falling near the end of May, brings to the fore even greater urgency in view of the ongoing US-zionist genocides in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon and Yemen. It necessitates a conscious return to what Allah commands in the noble Qur’an. Mere rituals will not do when millions of innocent Muslims are being slaughtered, injured or starved to death.

The emphasis on rituals, drummed into the heads of ordinary Muslims, is deliberate. It obviates the need to undertake the more important task of declaring their dissociation from the powers of shirk and nifaq as commanded by Allah.

Committed Muslims that try to draw attention to these Qur’anic injunctions are accused of “politicizing” Hajj. The illegal usurpers of the Haramayn (the two holy cities of Makkah and al-Madinah)—the Najdi Beduoins—also control the affairs of Hajj. They insist that Muslims must indulge only in rituals and not bring up the divine command of dissociation from the mushrikeen, as specified in the noble Qur’an (nastaghfirullah) lest it exposes their subservience.

Under what Islamic injunction do the illegitimate rulers and their court ‘ulama impose such restrictions? Are Muslims required to fulfill their obligations according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the noble Messenger (ﷺ) or abide by the oppressive policies of the Bani Saud?

As committed Muslims valiantly resist the barbaric onslaught of the imperialists and zionists, the proper utilization of Hajj as a platform for Muslim unity has never been felt with greater urgency. Hajj is the largest annual gathering of Muslims anywhere in the world. This is an opportunity afforded by Allah for Muslims to discuss the burning issues confronting them and to try and seek solutions to their problems.

Muslims throughout history utilized the important platform of Hajj until the Najdi Bedouins were installed in power by the British colonialists. Muslims from all parts of the world used to gather at Hajj to discuss the challenges they faced in their respective locales. Many Islamic movements gained strength from such discussions and interactions.

Today, unfortunately, such discussions are forbidden. If Muslims cannot raise these issues at the time of Hajj, where else should they turn to plead their case with Allah (الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ)? Why should the policy preferences of Bani Saud take precedence over the teachings of the Qur’an?

Muslims must rise up against such restrictions and liberate the Haramayn from the clutches of the Bedouins from the backwaters of Najd in the Arabian Peninsula. During the time of the Prophet (ﷺ), the Najdi Beduoins, like the Makkan mushriks, were the most implacable in their enmity to the message of Islam. This is still the case today.

Such other Beduoin clans and tribes from neighbouring locales like the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain et al, have also joined this anti-Islamic crusade. Today, they have the backing of the imperialists and zionists as well. Muslims are trapped in rituals and told to not utter a word about the injustices and killings going on around them.

In view of the ongoing US-zionist genocide of Muslims, liberation of the Haramayn from the clutches of the Najdi Beduoins has become an urgent priority for the global Islamic movement. Muslims performing Hajj this year must not miss the opportunity to fully abide by the commands of Allah.

The Najdi Beduoins have no right to impose their jahili thinking on Muslims performing Hajj. They do not own the Haramayn even if they are in illegal control of it. Muslims must be clear on this point.

The Haramayn are the common heritage of the Ummah. Hajj is ordained by Allah to be performed according to His commands, not based on the whims and superstitions of the Najdi Beduoins. They are busy promoting vulgarity with music concerts, gambling casinos and opening bars. These people cannot be allowed to administer the affairs of Hajj, especially when Muslims face an existential threat from the imperialists and zionists.

HajjKingdom of Saudi Arabia

The speech delivered today by Iran's leader, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei

Imran R Naqvi

The speech delivered today by Iran's leader, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, was remarkably straightforward and clear. He openly advocates for a struggle against the United States and Israel—both of whom are determined to challenge Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz—and asserts that the Iranian people, too, desire this outcome with all their might.

He states that Iran's military strength will be preserved and that there will be no capitulation regarding its nuclear capabilities or ballistic missiles; furthermore, by specifically citing how the efforts of Portugal and the Netherlands to seize the Strait of Hormuz were repelled through intense resistance, he declares that the United States and Israel will meet with the very same fate.

Mujtaba Khamenei's statements indicate that war is inevitable and that the Revolutionary Guards are preparing for a new, more comprehensive conflict. His citation of historical examples drawn from over two centuries of attempted invasions further confirms the expectation of potential ground assaults, air strikes, or amphibious landing operations.

NPT Review Summit: Confronting nuclear hypocrisy amid Iran war

The NPT review conference in session at the UN headquarters in New York

Nuclear weapons are not humane and do not belong to humanity. Yet nations continue to possess them, pursuing their deterrence value as much as their use as tools to dominate and bully weaker nations.

As nations meet in New York this week for a United Nations summit reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, disarmament activists insist, “A world free of nuclear weapons is both possible and necessary.”

The 1968 treaty is premised on the principle: “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none.” Under the NPT, states without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them, while those that possess them commit to eventual disarmament. While non-nuclear states have largely honoured their part of the deal, no nuclear-weapon state has taken meaningful steps toward total disarmament. The only nation that did so was South Africa, under the leadership of its visionary president and freedom fighter Nelson Mandela.

At best, what the U.S. and the Soviet Union did under the pretext of nuclear disarmament during the NPT’s heyday was reduce the number of warheads in their arsenals. That made little sense, for they still retained thousands of warheads capable of ensuring mutually assured destruction (MAD).

The ongoing review summit assumes double significance because, on the one hand, it seeks to revive treaty ambitions and the ground rules for non-proliferation, and, on the other, it is being held amid the Iran war, at the centre of which is the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The treaty allows signatories to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran has been doing just that, while abiding by NPT rules and denouncing nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual leader, assassinated in a US-Israeli attack on February 28, was a staunch opponent of nuclear weapons. His fatwa labelled nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, since they kill not only combatants but also non-combatant civilians.

The US and Israel have no moral authority to call on Iran to dismantle its nuclear programme while they themselves remain armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons capable of destroying our planet several times over.

Although we call nuclear weapons inhumane, the paradox is that they assure peace through deterrence, whereby a nuclear-armed nation uses the threat of massive retaliation to dissuade an adversary from attacking. If nuclear weapons offer peace, Iran may be justified in setting aside the former leader’s fatwa and pursuing a bomb. After all, its adherence to the NPT has invited wars, not rewards.

Iran has ratified the NPT and therefore has not only a legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear technology but also the international community’s support for its programme. United States President Donald Trump, who, along with Israel, launched an illegal war on Iran on February 27, is going beyond the NPT by calling on Iran to forgo any enrichment whatsoever as part of a permanent peace deal with the US. Needless to say, Iran has rejected Trump’s demand.

Trump claims that the US‑Israeli attacks have obliterated Iran’s nuclear programme, and whatever enriched uranium Iran possesses now lies several hundred feet underground at nuclear facilities destroyed by 5,000‑pound bunker‑buster bombs. His war secretary, Pete Hegseth, in testimony to Congress this week, admitted that Iran’s nuclear facilities were no more but justified the war on the ludicrous claim that Iran still harboured nuclear ambitions.

Nuclear disarmament cannot be lopsided. If Iran cannot have a bomb, no country on the planet should. This is meaningful nuclear disarmament. If a disarmament regime allows some powerful states to possess thousands of nuclear weapons without international supervision while calling on Iran to disown its peaceful right to nuclear technology, it is hypocrisy.

If the disarmament community fears an Iranian bomb on the premise that the “mad mullahs” cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, they should be equally, if not more, worried about the war criminals in democratic garb in the US and Israel. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are trigger‑happy fanatics who have scant respect for international law. In the US and Israel, political fanatics regularly call for the use of nuclear weapons against Muslim nations. “Nuking Makkah” is not only the title of a work of fiction but also a rallying cry among Islamophobic fanatics in the US and Israel. Israel possesses nearly 100 nuclear weapons, yet the IAEA says nothing. The UN imposes no sanctions. The US pretends ignorance and treats Israel as a non‑nuclear state, while providing it nearly US$4 billion in aid every year.

The US has some 10,000 nuclear warheads—each capable of devastation several hundred times more intense than Hiroshima, where some 200,000 Japanese died as a result of history’s first nuclear attack carried out by the US on August 6, 1945. Russia also has a similar number of nuclear weapons, if not more.

In a recent interview with the media, Trump was asked whether he would nuke Iran, following his outrageous remark about eliminating the entire Iranian civilisation. He replied that he would never use nuclear weapons. But can we trust Trump? After all, he is adept at resorting to deception. Twice he held talks with Iran, and twice he attacked it when those talks were nearing a breakthrough.

On February 27, the day the current war broke out, mediator Oman announced that Iran had agreed to “zero accumulation”, “zero stockpiling”, and full verification of its existing stockpile by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while also committing to downblend whatever enriched uranium it possessed. Trump had what he wanted before the war, but he squandered the Iranian offer and went to war.

Trump is not a peace president. For him, peace is pretence. His claim to the Nobel Peace Prize is theatre. At least his predecessors, especially Barack Obama, were seen as campaigning to promote nuclear disarmament through the NPT. Obama set the tone for the success of the 2010 NPT Review Summit and later, together with five other great powers, signed the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran to formalise Iran’s commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon.

The NPT recognises only five nations as nuclear powers—all five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council, the key UN organ entrusted with maintaining world peace. In addition, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel also possess nuclear weapons.

With Trump and Netanyahu relying more on war than on peace to resolve international disputes, nations without nuclear weapons may only wish they had them. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it might have deterred a war. The US would never go to war with nuclear‑armed North Korea.

As long as nuclear hypocrisy persists—condemning Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme while allowing Israel to maintain nuclear bombs—disarmament and NPT review conferences have little meaning. 

The ongoing review conference, if serious about its goals of assessing the treaty’s implementation, strengthening nuclear non‑proliferation, advancing disarmament, and promoting peaceful nuclear energy use, should work out a solution to the standoff between the US and Iran. It must assert and send a message to Trump that Iran, as an NPT member, has the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and that denying this right through military force will only lead to further proliferation.

Meloni’s Revolt: Italy Suspends Israel Defense Pact as Trump Turns on Rome

 On 14 April 2026, Giorgia Meloni delivered a decision that instantly disrupted the post-Cold War assumption of automatic alignment within the Western security architecture.

Adrian Korczyński

A Sovereign Break in the Western Security Chain

The Italian prime minister announced the suspension of the automatic renewal mechanism of the Italy–Israel defense memorandum — signed in 2003 and ratified by Israel in 2005–2006 — a framework covering military technology exchange, equipment cooperation, and defense industry procurement.

The move was not symbolic. It was structural.

The sequence of events — escalation in Lebanon, suspension of the defense memorandum, and the Trump–Meloni confrontation — reveals a widening fault line within the Western alliance system

It halted a system that had renewed itself every five years without friction for over two decades — a mechanism that embodied the very logic of unquestioned alignment. In Rome, the decision was framed as a matter of national interest and strategic reassessment. In Tel Aviv and Washington, it was read for what it was: a rupture in the chain of automatic Western cohesion.

This was not a policy adjustment. It was an assertion of sovereignty against external strategic pressure.

Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the Political Shockwave

The immediate backdrop was the intensification of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, marked by mass civilian casualties and strikes affecting areas near UNIFIL positions where Italian peacekeepers are deployed — incidents widely seen as crossing the line from counterinsurgency into destabilizing escalation.

For Rome, the situation ceased to be distant. It became immediate, tangible, and politically untenable.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated that attacks on Lebanese civilians were unacceptable, signaling a rare and explicit divergence from Israel’s operational narrative. The presence of Italian troops under a UN mandate only sharpened the stakes: what was unfolding was not abstract geopolitics, but a direct exposure of Italian personnel to a widening conflict.

The combination of indiscriminate battlefield escalation, diplomatic friction following incidents involving UNIFIL, and mounting domestic pressure accelerated Meloni’s decision — turning caution into action.

The 2003 Memorandum: From Automaticity to Sovereign Control

The Italy–Israel defense memorandum represented a deep layer of Western military integration: cooperation across defense industries, training of personnel, research and development, and advanced technology transfers.

Its defining feature was inertia — automatic renewal every five years unless explicitly challenged.

Meloni’s government challenged it.

By suspending the renewal mechanism, Rome reintroduced political control into what had long functioned as a self-perpetuating system. The agreement was not terminated, but its underlying logic — continuity without consent — was decisively broken.

In geopolitical terms, this injected uncertainty into a previously stable axis. In political terms, it marked a shift from alignment as default to alignment as choice.

Trump vs. Meloni: From Alignment to Open Confrontation

On 14 April, the rupture expanded into the transatlantic sphere.

In an interview with Corriere della Sera, Donald Trump launched a direct attack on Meloni, criticizing her refusal to allow Italian bases to be used for US military operations related to Iran. His words were unambiguous: “I’m shocked at her. I thought she had courage, but I was wrong.”

What lay behind the criticism was not only disagreement, but expectation — the assumption that allied territory remains available for strategic use when called upon.

Meloni rejected that premise.

The trigger for Trump’s remarks was her defense of Pope Leo XIV after he criticized the Iran war. Meloni called Trump’s attack on the pontiff “unacceptable.” Trump escalated further: “She’s unacceptable because she doesn’t care whether Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

What had once been framed as ideological proximity between Trump and Europe’s conservative leaders dissolved in real time. The episode revealed something deeper than a personal clash: a structural tension between national decision-making and external strategic demands.

Italy’s Strategic Reality

Italy’s position in this crisis is defined less by ideology than by geography and responsibility.

It maintains UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon. It faces direct energy and security exposure to instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Its constitutional framework carries a historical aversion to foreign military entanglements imposed from outside national consensus.

These are constraints no government can ignore.

Meloni’s decision, therefore, was not a sudden departure from alignment, but the inevitable result of competing imperatives — alliance expectations on one side, national risk and responsibility on the other.

Spain under Sánchez has moved along a parallel trajectory, refusing to provide bases for operations against Iran and articulating a legal framing of the conflict that diverges sharply from transatlantic orthodoxy. Despite profound domestic differences, Rome and Madrid converge on one principle: sovereignty cannot be outsourced.

The Fracturing Atlantic Order

The sequence of events — escalation in Lebanon, suspension of the defense memorandum, and the Trump–Meloni confrontation — reveals a widening fault line within the Western alliance system.

At its core lies a contradiction: global military commitments shaped in a unipolar era confronting governments that must answer to national electorates in an increasingly multipolar world.

For decades, alignment functioned as an operating system. Today, it is becoming a negotiation.

Italy’s refusal to make its territory available for operations it did not authorize crystallized this shift. It was not a tactical disagreement, but a rejection of predefined roles within an inherited geopolitical framework.

Conclusion: The Moment of Decision

What unfolded between 13 and 15 April is not an isolated dispute. It is a signal.

The era of automatic alignment is giving way to an era of conditional sovereignty. Governments are no longer willing to translate alliance membership into unconditional compliance — especially when the costs are immediate, and the risks are borne domestically.

Meloni’s decision, the backlash from Washington, and the rupture with Israel all point in the same direction: the gradual erosion of hierarchical order within the Atlantic system.

One line now defines the moment:

Italy has chosen to decide for itself.

And in doing so, it has exposed a reality others are only beginning to confront — that in a multipolar world, sovereignty is not declared.

It is exercised.

Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research