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.

How does China define the new global order?

 By Mahdi Zolfaghari

TEHRAN - Over the past two decades, China has transformed from an emerging economic power into one of the most influential actors in the global economy. Rapid economic growth, extensive industrial development, and the expansion of its trade influence have enabled Beijing to play an increasingly prominent role not only in economic dynamics but also, gradually, in global security and strategic affairs. The key question is how China can simultaneously shape a new economic order while also influencing international security dynamics.

China’s first and most significant tool of global influence is its economic strength and vast production capacity. Over the past four decades, China has become the world’s second-largest economy and now holds a substantial share of global trade. According to international statistics, China’s gross domestic product exceeds $18 trillion, and the country is the world’s largest exporter of goods. This position allows Beijing to play a more active role in shaping the rules of the global economy through trade, investment, and technology.

One of China’s most important initiatives in this regard is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—a large-scale project aimed at developing transportation, energy, and communication infrastructure across Asia, Europe, and Africa. The initiative, which includes projects in more than 140 countries, represents China’s effort to build a new network of economic and trade routes. Such a network could increase economic interdependence among countries while strengthening China’s role in the global economy.

However, China’s influence is not limited to the economic sphere. The connection between economic power and strategic influence has become a defining feature of Beijing’s foreign policy in recent years. Investments in ports, railways, digital infrastructure, and energy projects across different regions provide not only economic benefits but also potential geopolitical implications. For example, China’s involvement in the development of strategic ports in various parts of the world can enhance its role in maritime security and global trade dynamics.

At the same time, China has sought to expand its presence in international institutions and multilateral mechanisms. The establishment of institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and its active participation in organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) reflect Beijing’s efforts to shape new frameworks for economic and security cooperation. Over time, these institutions could become complementary to—or even competitors of—some traditional structures of the global economic system.

Another important factor is China’s growing technological and military capabilities. Massive investments in areas such as artificial intelligence, space technologies, next-generation communication networks, and advanced industries have not only supported the country’s economic growth but also strengthened its strategic capacity. Alongside these developments, the expansion of China’s naval capabilities and the modernization of its armed forces suggest that Beijing is seeking a more active role in safeguarding its interests within the international security environment.

Nevertheless, China’s influence on the global order does not rely solely on hard power. Economic diplomacy, regional cooperation, and participation in addressing global challenges also form an important part of its strategy. Issues such as energy security, climate change, and the stability of global supply chains are areas where China has attempted to play a more constructive role.

In sum, the combination of economic power, cross-border infrastructure initiatives, technological advancement, and active participation in multilateral frameworks has positioned China as a key actor in shaping a new global order. If this trajectory continues, China will not only play a significant role in defining the economic dynamics of the future world but may also influence some of the major security and strategic equations of the international system.

* Mahdi Zolfaghari, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Asian Studies, Allameh Tabataba’i University

Israeli war on Lebanon could serve as catalyst for regional unity

TEHRAN – The Israeli war on Lebanon serves as a major test of the Arab world's willingness to cooperate with Iran. The Islamic Republic has linked its own ceasefire discussions with the U.S. to the inclusion of Lebanon in any agreement. To counter this, the Trump administration has heavily pressured Beirut to enter U.S.-mediated negotiations with Israel. The primary goal is to push Lebanon into direct talks with Israel, potentially forcing the Lebanese government into direct conflict with Hezbollah.

Writing for IRNA, Seyed Hossein Mousavi, director of the Middle East Research Center for Scientific and Strategic Studies, urged Arab states—particularly those along the southern shores of the Persian Gulf—to support Iran's policy of safeguarding Lebanese interests, especially as Israeli leaders pursue the "Greater Israel" project.

The following is the text of his article:

The war imposed by the United States and Israel against Iran has marked a turning point in contemporary history, demonstrating that a new Middle East is being reshaped—one that will be significantly different from what the U.S. and Israel had envisioned.

It has now become evident that the imposed war failed to achieve the desired outcome sought by the West, and their objectives of overthrowing the Islamic Republic were unsuccessful. What the West, particularly the U.S., had long marketed as the “New Middle East” has, in the aftermath of the war, lost its appeal. The prospect of Arab and Islamic countries joining the Abraham Accords has now become a bitter irony.

The attack on Iran and the unilateralism and arrogance displayed by the U.S. and Israel, coupled with their disregard for the interests and fate of their allies in the Arab world—especially the Persian Gulf states—has taught Arab and Islamic countries an important lesson: that the U.S., due to its unquestioning alignment with the Zionist regime, cannot be considered a stable and reliable partner.

At the same time, Israel’s clear shift in its security strategy from deterrence to regional dominance and strategic hegemony, along with its openly declared ambition to reshape the regional geopolitical map under the banner of “Greater Israel,” a concept promoted by Israel’s right-wing and extremist factions, has made it clear to almost everyone in the Middle East that Israel’s hostility is directed not only toward the Islamic Republic of Iran but also inherently toward Arab and Islamic countries.

In the “Greater Israel” map, designed by Israeli strategists such as Oded Yinon and pursued by Benjamin Netanyahu and the current right-wing Israeli government, the Arab states surrounding Israel would be fragmented to ensure Israeli supremacy. Under this vision, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt would lose portions of their territory, transformed into buffer zones or devastated lands in the name of Israel’s security. Moreover, there would effectively be no Palestinian state, rendering the internationally supported and Arab-backed two-state solution impossible. Alongside the military implementation of this project, Israel’s extremist leadership has promoted the slogan of “Greater Israel,” framing dominance over Arab territories as part of Jewish civilization and a fake historic Jewish claim to the Middle East.

It appears that Arab countries have increasingly become aware of this significant threat to their own existence. Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence, warned of this phenomenon in an article published in Asharq Al-Awsat on May 9 in which he urged Arab states to exercise restraint in response to Iran’s actions during the war, as Iran was targeting U.S. military bases in Persian Gulf Arab states. It now seems that these states have realized that escalating tensions, encouraging further conflict, and emphasizing their disputes with Iran ultimately serve Israel’s interests.

The essence of the Abraham Accords project is the normalization of relations between Arab and Islamic countries and Israel. However, one side of this equation—Israel itself—appears fundamentally uninterested in peaceful normalization with its neighbors. Instead, it seeks to impose its power and secure their unconditional submission.

Arab countries also seem increasingly convinced that the American military presence on their soil is detrimental to their interests. Rather than enhancing their security, the deployment of U.S. forces has contributed to strengthening Israeli dominance and supporting Netanyahu’s adventurist policies. Furthermore, in light of the findings and consequences of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, the Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf now face a critical crossroads in determining their future foreign policy orientation.

On the one hand, they recognize that enduring historical, geographical, and geopolitical realities compel them to maintain good-neighborly relations with Iran and to repair bilateral ties. On the other hand, Iran’s heightened awareness of the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a powerful geopolitical instrument introduces an element of uncertainty regarding the future economic development and prosperity of these countries.

For this reason, they naturally prefer to pursue a path of peace with Iran—especially since Iran emerged from the fires of war with dignity and resilience after confronting the U.S. as the greatest military power in the world and Israel as a  regional power, and withstanding some of the most intense military strikes imaginable. It is therefore evident that these countries must acknowledge this reality and strive to improve relations.

Nevertheless, Arab states remain concerned that the power vacuum created by a reduced U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf—a development that has effectively materialized through attacks on American bases in the region and a reduction in the passage of U.S. naval fleets through the Strait of Hormuz—could be filled by an expanded Iranian military presence. Yet experience has repeatedly shown that whenever the regional Arab states have extended a hand of friendship toward Iran, they have received a fraternal response. It is clear that if hostile actions cease, the factors promoting coexistence in the Persian Gulf region will prove stronger than those driving division.

Lebanon may serve as a useful test case for measuring the Arab world’s willingness to cooperate with Iran. Hezbollah, representing a significant segment of Lebanon’s Shiite community, has undertaken legitimate measures to defend its territory against Israeli territorial ambitions and efforts to dominate Lebanon. In an effort to prevent this issue from becoming linked to indirect negotiations between Iran and the U.S., Washington has increased pressure on the Lebanese government to participate in trilateral talks in Washington and to engage in dialogue with Israel.

It is evident that the objectives of these meetings—the third round of which was recently held—offer no guarantees for ending Israel’s repeated and ongoing territorial violations against Lebanon. As noted earlier, Israel’s security strategy is based on fragmenting neighboring countries. Israel’s primary objective in participating in these trilateral discussions is to encourage the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. It seeks to turn the Lebanese state into a partner against Hezbollah, even if the cost is dragging Lebanon into the abyss of civil war. Moreover, experience has shown that Israel does not consistently adhere to its agreements and continues to pursue its broader strategic objectives.

The Persian Gulf states could have played a constructive role in the course of Iran–U.S. negotiations by firmly supporting Iran’s insistence on including a comprehensive ceasefire and an end to the war in Lebanon among the provisions of any understanding. They could also have cooperated in leveraging the influence created by Iran’s negotiations with the U.S. to secure an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Everyone understands that the Lebanese government brings little leverage to these negotiations, and that their likely outcome may be to encourage internal conflict rather than peace. Demonstrations of goodwill by Arab countries—particularly the Persian Gulf states—could help strengthen trust between Iran and its neighbors, thereby paving the way for the gradual emergence of new structures for coexistence and strategic cooperation in West Asia.