Iran holds the keys to victory in the war with USA and Israel

USA and Israel want out under desperate conditions

by Ranjan Solomon

Protesters hold Iranian flags and chant a slogan during a rally outside Sydney Town Hall on March 14, 2026 in Sydney, Australia. [Muhammad Roni Syawal Bintang – Anadolu Agency]

“We do not choose between empires -we choose dignity, sovereignty, and freedom.”

(Soekarno was the leader of the Indonesian struggle for independence)

As of March 25-26, 2026, Iran has rejected U.S. proposals to end the conflict, instead outlining five key conditions, as reported by Iranian state media and Iranian Embassy in South Africa. These conditions, aimed at halting the current hostilities, include:

• A complete stop to U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran and its allies.
• The establishment of concrete mechanisms to prevent the re-imposition of war.
• Guaranteed and clear payment for war damages and compensation.
• An end to fighting across all fronts involving Iran and its regional “resistance” allies.
• Recognition of Iranian sovereignty and control over the Strait of Hormuz.

These demands are seen as a counterproposal to what Iran labelled an “excessive” 15-point U.S. plan. Iranian officials stated they would not accept dictates from the U.S. and will continue resisting until their own conditions are met, citing that if they engaged in talks with the USA, it would tantamount to an admission of defeat.

Donald Trump finds himself in a nightmarish space. He is clearly under serious delusions (and lying through his teeth) when he states that had had “very good and productive conversations” with Iran, saying the sides had “major points of agreement”. He claimed to have paused strikes on Iranian power plants to allow these negotiations to proceed. A senior Iranian official mocked the claim, questioning if the U.S. was “negotiating with themselves”.

Iran has denied direct or indirect negotiations, its Foreign Ministry acknowledged receiving “messages” from friendly nations regarding U.S. willingness to talk, but denied these exchanges amounted to formal negotiations. Iran has accused the Trump administration of fabricating news about talks to control high energy prices in the US and to manage the economic impact of the war, which has seen the Strait of Hormuz closed, hurting global markets. These claims follow a period of intense military engagement, with the U.S. and Israel striking Iranian sites. Iran has reiterated that its position on the war and the Strait of Hormuz remains unchanged. The situation shows a clear divergence in narratives, with the U.S. trying to project control and diplomacy, while Iran seeks to project strength and deny a retreat.

Despite US-Israeli air strikes on Feb 28, 2026, targeting senior leaders and nuclear facilities, Iran’s regime has displayed resilience. Iran has launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles targeting US military bases in Gulf states and in Israel. Iran has also warned that any further moves by the US or its backers will result in “relentless, unceasing attacks” on regional infrastructure. Analysts indicate Iran is shifting toward “strategic containment” and pragmatic endurance, retaining its ability to project power over critical energy chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. Iran continues to evade sanctions with economic support from China, which buys the vast majority of its oil.

White House figures have suggested the US should “declare victory and get out” of the conflict, seeking an “off-ramp” or negotiated settlement. Critics allege US official statements claiming Iran’s navy and air force are finished are not supported by ground reality, drawing parallels to false optimistic reporting from previous wars.

White House figures have suggested the US should “declare victory and get out” of the conflict, seeking an “off-ramp” or negotiated settlement. Critics allege U.S. official statements claiming Iran’s navy and air force are finished are not supported by ground reality, drawing parallels to false optimistic reporting from previous wars.

Based on reports as of March 2026, the United States, under President Donald Trump, is exploring an exit strategy or “off-ramp” from the conflict with Iran by framing tactical successes as a “declared victory”. The administration faces pressure to end the war due to concerns over regional stability, global economic impacts, and the desire to avoid a prolonged, costly entanglement.

The White House is shifting goals away from regime change toward limited objectives, such as degrading Iran’s military capabilities and ensuring oil security in the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump indicated the conflict was decided early on, citing the destruction of Iranian naval vessels and missile capacity, which advisers urge him to use as a “mission accomplished” moment to exit. The administration has sent a 15-point plan to Tehran aimed at ending hostilities, which includes demanding Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions and regional militia support.

Advisers suggest using the degraded state of Iran’s military to compel negotiations, rather than continuing a campaign that could turn into an unsustainable occupation.

Despite US strikes destroying significant portions of Iran’s military capabilities, the Iranian regime has shown resilience, leading to concerns that Iran could also claim victory by simply surviving the conflict.

Reports highlight a divide in Washington, with some officials favouring an immediate exit, while others push for further escalation.

As of March 2026, Israel has experienced significant structural, economic, and security-related damage from prolonged regional conflicts, yet it continues to act as a central, albeit constrained, player in, and sometimes an obstacle to, peace negotiations.

Israel’s economy has suffered heavily, with losses exceeding $57 billion (roughly 177 billion shekels) between 2023 and early 2026, representing about 8.6% of its annual GDP. The ongoing conflict has caused debt to approach 70% of GDP, necessitating a revised 2026 state budget that added $13 billion to finance war efforts.

The Port of Eilat entered bankruptcy and closed due to disruptions in shipping, while the prolonged conflict has led to decreased exports to certain regions. Attacks on Israeli territory increased by 120% in 2025 compared to 2024, with continued attacks into 2026.

The Israel equation

Israel remains an active participant in regional dynamics, with its actions often influencing, or being seen as trying to block, US-Iran peace talks.

Despite fatigue, Israeli officials have stated the “war is not close to ending,” continuing strikes in Gaza and against Iranian targets in 2026. Israel is in a “forever war” scenario, where it is struggling with the costs of managing multiple fronts, including Gaza and Lebanon. Some observers note that the damage has created a new, challenging precedent for Israeli security, potentially weakening its traditional military deterrence, though it still holds significant offensive power.

In summary, the damage is severe and long-term, causing significant financial stress, but Israel continues to hold a defining role in Middle East negotiations, largely through its continued military presence and its capacity to disrupt or support peace initiatives.

The GCC quandary

Post the Iran war, the GCC faces an urgent need for a new regional security architecture, shifting from reliance on US protection to an inclusive “cooperative security model.” This structure would likely incorporate Iran and Iraq to prevent future conflicts, moving beyond the current defensive, fragmented posture toward a collective, stable, and locally-driven equilibrium.

Instead of deepening rifts, the new arrangement would prioritize a, new arrangement between the GCC states and Iran to ensure regional stability, with an, inclusion of Iran and Iraq in a new structure. The war has highlighted the risks of relying on US-Israel protection, prompting, GCC states to reconsider their security dependence. With, oil infrastructure and regional stability threatened by direct attacks, the focus is shifting to, protecting Gulf investments and preventing further conflict.

While, Riyadh stands to gain from a weakened Iran, the potential for an, Iranian state collapse or fragmentation poses, a massive threat to regional stability.

Prospects of regional integration

A Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) without U.S. and Israeli dominance would likely shift toward a security architecture rooted in regional integration, featuring normalized ties with Iran, reduced reliance on foreign military bases, and increased strategic autonomy. This shift would accelerate a pivot toward Eastern powers like China and Russia for trade and diplomatic partnerships. Gulf states would pivot from reliance on U.S. security guarantees toward regional security arrangements, potentially including frameworks with Iran to manage regional disputes. A major reduction or removal of U.S. military infrastructure – long considered targets by Iran – would likely occur, fundamentally altering the GCC’s defense profile.

GCC sovereign wealth funds might pivot from Western investments toward domestic development, infrastructure projects, and partnerships with Asian, Russian, or Chinese initiatives. The pursuit of normalizing ties with Israel, as seen in the Abraham Accords, would likely freeze or reverse, as GCC nations re-prioritize Arab and Islamic world alignment. The GCC might experience fewer retaliatory attacks from regional actors who currently target US-backed infrastructure.

The GCC could emerge as a more independent geopolitical actor, rather than one involved in or impacted by conflicts that are seen as foreign-driven.

Russia and China upset the regional applecart

Russia and China are reshaping the Middle East by leveraging a perceived U.S. pullback to build deep economic and security ties with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. China drives infrastructure and trade via the Belt and Road Initiative, while Russia focuses on energy coordination and security, offering GCC states a, often seen as, non-interfering alternative partnership.

China is a dominant trade partner, investing heavily in technology and infrastructure. Russia works closely with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stabilize oil prices and expand trade, particularly through buying and reselling sanctioned energy products.

Russia maintains a key security presence, particularly in Syria, and provides arms to regional actors. While not replacing the U.S. security umbrella, Russia and China offer weapons and military technology with fewer conditions than Western powers, including assistance with civil nuclear programs.

The war has highlighted the risks of relying on US-Israel protection, prompting, GCC states to reconsider their security dependence.

China has increased its diplomatic weight, notably mediating the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement in 2023, signalling a shift toward regional conflict resolution.

GCC nations use this engagement to hedge against dependency on the U.S., diversifying their strategic partners and negotiating better terms with Western counterparts.

While both often align in countering Western influence, their approaches differ, with Russia focusing on political support and security, and China prioritizing economic investment.

The growing role of Russia and China contributes to a more multipolar Middle East, where GCC countries leverage relationships with multiple global powers to meet economic diversification goals, such as Saudi Vision 2030, and security

In the final reckoning, this war has exposed the limits of power when confronted with resolve. Iran has demonstrated that endurance, geography, and strategic patience can outweigh brute force, forcing its adversaries into uneasy calculations of exit rather than victory. The United States and Israel may still command formidable arsenals, but their political will is fraying under the weight of an unwinnable confrontation. What now emerges is not merely a military stalemate, but a shifting world order where regional actors reclaim agency. If there is a lesson here, it is stark: domination is no longer assured, and dignity, once asserted, can redraw the map of power itself.

The envisaged five stages of Israel’s next colonial phase

by Ramona Wadi

Israeli forces take security forces after a Palestinian family’s home on Halava Street was blown up by the Israeli army during a raid in the West Bank city of Nablus, Palestine on March 28, 2026. [Issam Rimawi – Anadolu Agency]

Nickolay Mladenov, the former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, now the Board of Peace High Representative for Gaza, is misrepresenting Gaza to the full capability of Western complicity with colonialism.  Over the span of eight months, the Board of Peace is supposed to implement the five stages of disarmament, subject to agreement by Israel and Hamas. Israel has nothing to lose whether the agreement goes through or not. For Palestinians, however, the picture is bleak either way, and no amount of double speak by Mladenov can disguise the fact that disarmament and reconstruction facilitate Israel’s control over Gaza through the Board of Peace.

Stopping military operations and implementing humanitarian protocols constitutes the first stage of disarmament.

While the language used by Mladenov infers the usual concept of both sides, as if equivalence exists between the coloniser and the colonised, the first stage actually points to the failure of maintaining the agreed-upon ceasefire in October 2025 and entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Disarming Hamas continues to provide a veneer for Israel’s genocide by various means, including violating ceasefires and depriving Palestinians of humanitarian aid. According to Mladenov, the first phase is based on reciprocity, but reciprocity is not a reality in a colonial genocidal reality. 

The second stage, which Mladenov terms sequencing, refers to the collection of  “the most dangerous weapons” and destroying Gaza’s tunnels. Rhetorical reciprocity is only related to the first stage. While focusing on collecting weapons from Hamas – on a scale from the most dangerous to personal weapons, there is no mention of Israel’s US-made 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs. The colonial enterprise that committed genocide will not reciprocally be asked to surrender its most dangerous weapons. Instead, Hamas, resistance groups and Palestinians in possession of weapons which are no match for Israel’s military arsenal, remain the focus of Mladenov’s plan, if only for the Board to Peace to maintain a semblance of relevance. 

Verification is the third stage. “Compliance (with the program) will need to be monitored and verified,” Mladenov stated. Compliance is of course only requested from Palestinians, not from Israel which committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. Mladenov noted that reconstruction will only take place if Hamas is disarmed, thus clearly implying that human rights and basic needs are now negotiable and cannot be taken for granted. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who recently expressed support and cooperation with the Board of Peace, likely finds no objection to human rights bargaining.

No one expects any better from the UN at this point, but the UN is also at a point in time when it can relinquish its human rights posturing in favour of a more authentic positioning – an institution whose existence depends upon human rights violations, just like colonialism depends upon colonial violence to thrive. 

In the fourth stage, which according to Mladenov “addresses the people”, Palestinians affiliated with resistance groups will be allowed to “re-enter civilian life with dignity, through structured amnesty arrangements and reintegration programs.” Colonialism offers no dignity, and Israel will likely oppose any so-called reintegration not only because Hamas has been used as the narrative for genocide in Israel’s rhetoric, but also because Israeli leaders have called the entire population of Gaza a legitimate target for genocide. 

The fifth state would verify the disarmament, and Israeli forces’ withdrawal from Gaza “except for a presence in a security perimeter.” Based upon verification of disarmament, reconstruction would then be able to start. 

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, previously linked to overseeing reconstruction, will be involved in the disarmament plan. The NCAG is headed by Ali Shaath, who previously held positions within the Palestinian Authority. In January, Shaath stated, ‘We are committed to establishing security, restoring the essential services that form the bedrock of human dignity such as electricity, water, healthcare and education, as well as cultivating a society rooted in peace, democracy and justice.”

 There are too many PA echoes in that statement, not least the security narrative that is not derived from within an independent Palestinian society, but as a surveillance imposition that erodes the political freedom for Palestinians in Gaza.

The NCAG, Mladenov told the UN Security Council, “exercises authority solely on an interim basis. The end state is a reformed Palestinian Authority capable of governing Gaza and the West Bank, and ultimately a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

Reform and Palestinian statehood may look like a gradual progress in diplomatic rhetoric, but Mladenov has not stated what the PA’s reform would look like, and how much further it would have to capitulate to Western demands and illusory state-building to be allowed authority over Gaza. The PA has not been able to negotiate one single demand towards Palestinian statehood, although it did celebrate its futile symbolic achievements while Israel further expanded its settlements in the occupied West Bank and eroded even the illusion of a Palestinian state.

It is easy to see why Mladenov, Israel and the US would want Gaza to suffer the same fate as the occupied West Bank. The international community would benefit from the illusion of prosperity, of a society that partly mimics the normalised economic inequalities found in Western societies. Such discrepancies are easier to overlook than the unfolding genocide in Gaza, where the near total destruction of the land and its visibility have now reached an unwanted global scrutiny. 

In the short term, hypothetically, disarming Hamas will leave Israel with a lesser security narrative. However, turning Gaza into a replica of the occupied West Bank facilitates the colonial process for Israel. With Palestinian anti-colonial resistance stamped out, and the PA as the governing body, the West would envisage a similar scenario of donor funding creating dependence on the West and marginalising the resistance movements. 

However, one crucial detail which the Western narrative leaves out is Gaza’s strength as a representation of the entirety of the Palestinian population since 1948. Israel and Western leaders worked hard to consolidate an image of Gaza and the occupied West Bank as distinctive entities to fragment Palestinian liberation. The same colonial dynamics will now have an equally hard time convincing Palestinians in Gaza to subjugate themselves to what the occupied West Bank symbolises in terms of politics and security coordination with Israel, paid for by the West.

Iran’s Retaliation Against US/Israel Has Potential to Reignite Arab Spring

Iqbal Jassat

Screen shot of the front page of The Times of Israel of March 29, 2026.

“Iranian attack on Saudi air base heavily damages key US surveillance aircraft” – The Times of Israel – March 29, 2026.

Headlines such as the one above were unimaginable before February 28, 2026.

However, resulting from Netanyahu and Trump’s unprovoked and illegitimate war on Iran, the amazing retaliation by the Islamic Republic has paved the way for rearranging the political architecture of West Asia (aka the Middle East).

Iran’s incredible defensive war has brilliantly lit fires under the feet of Arabian oligarchs.

At the same time, it offers the Arab population a golden opportunity to wrest control from Israel’s Gulf monarchs by asserting their sovereign duty to revolt against unelected despots.

The dominion of Islam’s civilization which stretched across the entire Arabian Peninsula and which was broken by imperialism and colonial powers, needs to be re-established.

Iran provides the opportunity to have the region cleansed of western colonies and their unwelcome military bases.

The paradox of US/Israel’s regime change agenda in Iran, has ironically created space and opportunity for millions of poor and marginalised Arabs to rid their nation-states of western imposed monarchs.

The spark was lit by the powerful #ToofanAlAqsa on October 7, 2023 and continues to this day to wipe zionist colonialism and its US hegemony from the region, thanks to the resilience of Palestinian Resistance movements Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The baton carried by Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ansarullah in Yemen, the resistance in Iraq and of course Iran, carries a huge price.

The prize though is freedom for themselves but also for the world—freed from zionist tyranny.

Many analysts may argue that the notion of liberty from entrenched authoritarian Arabian regimes is complex.

However the desire for justice and freedom is not.

Recent polls, such as from the Arab Barometer, indicates that over 70% of Arab respondents support democracy, with many still viewing the goals of the Arab Spring favorably.

While it is true that the “Arab Spring” was brutally targeted by repressive regimes who were aided by the west to strengthen their control including by expanding military footprints, resistance to it remains alive.

The intensification of repression which has seen thousands jailed, tortured and killed has not dimmed demands for freedom and liberty, particularly among the youth who were forced to endure the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, as mere spectators.

The revulsion against Israel in solidarity with Palestine's freedom struggle and the anger against their emirs, sultans and kings for being complicit in zionism’s war on Iran, will fill the streets of Arab capitals if allowed to protest.

Though the “deep state” in various Arab autocracies including Egypt have placed huge barriers to change, what we are witnessing in Iran’s sophisticated and strategic retaliation has attacked these obstacles.

We are at the cusp of revolutionary changes with the potential to finally see the last kicks of a dying zionist project.

The Arab population whose demands for accountability from their US-backed rulers are not an exception to the anticipated collapse of artificial nation-states.

Their voices matter and must be heard.

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

Islamic Republic of IranUS war crimeszionist war crimesSaudi air base

Will the US-Israeli war on Iran open the road to Palestinian freedom?

by Dr Ramzy Baroud

Children perform during an event marking the 50th anniversary of Palestinian Land Day in Gaza City on March 29, 2026. [Abdalhkem Abu Riash – Anadolu Agency]

Some are expressing frustration that Iran’s conditions to end the war have not explicitly and unequivocally included a demand to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and dismantle the apartheid regime.

Among the conditions circulated in Iranian and sympathetic media—though not formally confirmed by Tehran—is the proposition that any resolution must include an end to Israel’s war across all fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. However, these conditions did not specifically prioritize the freedom of Palestine as a precondition to ending the war.

That frustration is neither misplaced nor marginal. For many, Palestine is not one issue among others, but the defining axis of the conflict itself. Precisely for that reason, however, it cannot be approached in isolation. To treat the current war solely through what has or has not been explicitly stated risks narrowing a profoundly complex confrontation into a single dimension, when in fact it is through this broader, interconnected struggle that the question of Palestine is ultimately being shaped, contested, and potentially resolved.

Several strands of analysis capture elements of this reality, but few sustain it. Some focus narrowly on Israeli domestic politics, arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war to preserve his coalition, delay accountability, and avoid legal consequences that could end his political career.

Others shift to a broader strategic reading, situating the war within Israel’s long-standing pursuit of regional dominance—neutralizing adversaries, expanding normalization, and consolidating its position as the central power in the region.

A third line of analysis, closer to the mainstream, continues to operate within the declared framework of Washington and Tel Aviv. Even when it introduces criticism, it remains anchored in the language of Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli “security,” and the familiar architecture of justification.

This framework is not neutral. It systematically evades assigning responsibility to Israel for the war, just as it has persistently refused to confront the genocide in Gaza. Even its criticisms of US President Donald Trump remain procedural—focused on the White House’s unclear objectives, poor coordination, and contradictory messaging—rather than on the political and moral logic driving the war itself.

Between narrowly internal explanations and an increasingly hollow mainstream narrative, the broader historical trajectory disappears from view.

The truth lies elsewhere.

The Middle East has not entered a crisis suddenly. It has been shaped—deliberately—for instability. What we are witnessing is not an abrupt rupture, but the acceleration of a long-standing historical process that is now reaching a decisive phase.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, concluded between Britain and France, did not simply divide territory; it engineered fragmentation. Arbitrary borders were imposed with little regard for historical, cultural, or social realities, ensuring that the region would remain politically fractured and externally manageable.

This colonial framework was later reinforced through post-World War II arrangements that transferred effective control of the region to the United States. A defining moment came in 1945, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abdulaziz aboard the USS Quincy, establishing a strategic formula: American security guarantees in exchange for stable access to oil resources.

That arrangement evolved, particularly in the 1970s, into the petrodollar system, whereby global oil transactions were denominated in US dollars. The consequences were structural. Global demand for the dollar was secured, and the strength of the US economy became directly tied to its influence over Middle Eastern energy flows.

From that point onward, US dominance in the region was not merely strategic—it was foundational to the global economic order.

When did this begin to shift?

A common answer points to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Intended to consolidate American control, the war instead destabilized the region in profound and lasting ways, exposing the limits of direct military intervention and accelerating forces that Washington itself could not fully contain.

By 2011, the United States began to recalibrate. The Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” reflected a strategic reorientation toward China, while in the Middle East, Washington adopted a more indirect model of engagement—often described as “leading from behind.”

This approach was evident in Libya in 2011, where NATO forces, under US coordination, intervened militarily without a large-scale American ground presence, resulting not in stability, but in state collapse.

Across Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, the United States increasingly relied on proxies, regional alliances, and hybrid forms of warfare. It sought to maintain influence while reducing the political and financial costs of direct occupation.

Within this evolving framework, Israel assumed a more central role. It was no longer simply an ally, but a pillar—positioned as a regional guarantor of security within a US-led order.

Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, were incorporated into this arrangement as economic partners, their normalization with Israel framed as both pragmatic and inevitable.

The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, formalized this shift. They were not merely diplomatic agreements but components of a broader project to reorganize the Middle East in alignment with US and Israeli strategic priorities.

While widely described as a betrayal of Palestine—and rightly so—the Accords were also designed to bypass the Palestinian question altogether. Jared Kushner articulated this logic explicitly, arguing that regional cooperation and economic integration could proceed independently of resolving Palestinian rights.

The discourse itself began to shift accordingly. Israel adopted and expanded the language of a “new Middle East,” advancing a vision in which it occupies a central, uncontested position.

This vision was made unmistakably clear in September 2023, when Netanyahu addressed the United Nations and presented a map of the region that excluded Palestine entirely—a political statement as much as a visual one.

Yet even the genocide in Gaza did not fundamentally disrupt this trajectory. Several Arab governments, despite rhetorical condemnation, continued to prioritize the preservation of this emerging order, investing political capital in its survival while offering little meaningful support to Palestinians.

This posture is not accidental.

Many Gulf states were not the product of anti-colonial liberation movements, but of colonial arrangements. As former British protectorates, their political and security systems remain deeply intertwined with Western power.

Their limited population size, territorial depth, and strategic autonomy render them dependent on external guarantees for survival.

With China still cautious in projecting military power, and unwilling—at least for now—to replace the United States as a security patron, these states remain anchored to Western political validation, military protection, and technological infrastructure.

From their perspective, the collapse of the existing order is not liberation—it is risk.

This helps explain the absence of any serious shift in their stance toward Israel, even when Israeli leaders openly articulate expansionist ambitions. Netanyahu himself has repeatedly framed Israel’s role in terms that suggest a broader regional project—namely “Greater Israel”—one that extends beyond partnership into dominance.

Such statements, while alarming to some, have not fundamentally altered the calculations of Arab regimes. They have long understood the nature of Israeli power, yet continue to operate within a system that rewards alignment with stronger actors, not resistance to them.

With all of this in mind, the US-Israeli war on Iran cannot be understood as a series of isolated decisions or short-term calculations. It is the outcome of a layered and cumulative historical trajectory.

Yes, Netanyahu seeks political survival. Yes, US policy remains deeply shaped by pro-Israel influence. But to reduce the war to these factors alone is to miss its structural function: the attempt to impose a new regional order.

It is precisely within this broader context that the Palestinian resistance in Gaza must be understood. It was never intended to defeat Israel in conventional military terms. Rather, its objective was to widen the scope of the conflict, disrupt Israel’s ability to unilaterally reshape the region, and challenge what can be understood as an emerging ‘Sykes-Picot II’—this time centered on Israeli dominance.

Israel is fully aware of this dynamic. Hence its constant framing of the war as existential, equating it with its founding moment in 1948—the Nakba, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Yet Iran’s powerful response, the sustained role of Hezbollah, the involvement of Ansarallah, and the broader consolidation of the Axis of Resistance suggest that Israel may not achieve its strategic objectives after all.

And this is precisely where much of the prevailing analysis falls short.

For the Axis of Resistance, victory does not require a decisive military triumph. It requires endurance. Not losing, in this context, is itself a strategic victory.

Such an outcome would not simply interrupt the existing trajectory; it would begin to reverse it. The strategic arc that followed the Iraq war—reinforced by the ‘pivot to Asia’, the collapse of the Arab uprisings, and the normalization process—would be fundamentally unsettled. Israel’s role as a regional ‘security’ guarantor would be weakened, compelling Arab regimes to reassess their alignments and, potentially, to explore new forms of regional coexistence—not with Israel, but with Iran.

In that same moment, the United States would face a narrowing set of options: either deepen its entanglement in a region it has been attempting to recalibrate away from, or accept an altered geopolitical landscape in which Iran and its allies are no longer peripheral actors, but entrenched and unavoidable forces in shaping the region’s future.

While this alone will not liberate Palestine or dismantle apartheid, it would nonetheless open new political, geopolitical, and legal spaces for Palestinians to operate—spaces made possible by shifting regional balances and a loosening of long-standing constraints.

If the US-Israeli war on Iran fails, the implications will extend well beyond the battlefield. What will begin to unravel is not only the existing balance of power, but the very language and assumptions that have governed the region for decades.

In that context, global powers such as China and Russia are likely to position themselves more assertively as alternative economic and strategic partners, seeking to capitalize on a changing regional landscape.

At the same time, some European states—already signaling discomfort with US policy—may attempt to negotiate new arrangements, particularly given the strategic centrality of the Strait of Hormuz and its direct implications for global energy flows.

Countries across the Global South may also draw lessons from this moment, exploring forms of regional cooperation that challenge inherited colonial frameworks and long-standing hierarchies of power.

Taken together, these shifts do not resolve the ‘Palestinian question’—but they do create openings. They expand the terrain on which Palestinians and their allies, including the global solidarity movement, can act, organize, and exert pressure.

With support for Israel declining among ordinary Americans, and with global solidarity for Palestine reaching unprecedented levels—including within Western societies—the contours of a broader political shift are already emerging.

The challenge now is not simply to recognize that change is underway, but to understand its depth and direction, so as not to remain confined to partial readings of the war on Iran. It must instead be engaged as part of a larger struggle over the future of the region, in which Palestine remains central.

Dimona’s shadow: How Israel’s nuclear monopoly warps Middle East security

by Ronny P Sasmita

View of a road sign directing towards the city of Dimona, close to Israel’s nuclear power plant on 22 April 2021 [AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images]

The skies over Tehran and Natanz may still carry the lingering haze of joint U.S.-Israeli operations. Yet the world, filtered through the dominant voice of Western media, continues to be fed a singular narrative: the latent danger of Iran’s uranium enrichment, perpetually described as being “one step away” from a nuclear warhead. Amid the noise of economic sanctions, United Nations Security Council resolutions, and preemptive military strikes that have devastated Iran’s civilian-military infrastructure, there exists a deafening silence surrounding the Middle East’s most tangible arsenal of weapons of mass destruction: Israel’s nuclear stockpile.

In reality, the region’s security architecture is not threatened by a nuclear capability that might exist in the future, but by one that has existed for more than six decades. In the Negev desert stands the Dimona complex, a black box untouched by inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), immune to sanctions, and maintained as one of the international community’s most tightly guarded open secrets. This contradiction represents perhaps the most blatant manifestation of global double standards, preserving Israel’s nuclear privilege above international law.

In the Negev desert stands the Dimona complex, a black box untouched by inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), immune to sanctions, and maintained as one of the international community’s most tightly guarded open secrets.

History shows that Israel’s nuclear ambitions were not merely a reaction to external threats, but part of a broader geostrategic design to secure regional hegemony. Since David Ben-Gurion articulated the post-Holocaust doctrine of “Never Again,” nuclear capability has been framed as the “Samson Option”, a last-resort deterrent that ensures Israel can destroy the region if its existence is threatened. Yet this privilege did not emerge organically. It was constructed through deception, clandestine procurement networks, and sustained diplomatic protection from great powers, ironically, those that now present themselves as global guardians of non-proliferation.

Israel’s success in maintaining its status as the Middle East’s sole nuclear power rests on its policy of amimut, or nuclear opacity. Through this doctrine, Israel enjoys the strategic advantages of nuclear deterrence without incurring the political or economic costs. This has fundamentally distorted the regional discourse: the world is compelled to panic over a state that formally adheres to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), albeit under scrutiny, while tolerating another that refuses to sign the treaty and is widely believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads.

The Labyrinth of Opacity and God-Tier Privilege

The turning point that legitimized this international hypocrisy came in 1969. In a secret meeting at the White House, President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir forged an understanding that would shape U.S. foreign policy for decades. Washington would cease pressuring Israel to sign the NPT or allow inspections of Dimona, provided Israel maintained a low profile and refrained from overt nuclear testing. In effect, the United States became a diplomatic shield for Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons program, an irony for a country that has repeatedly invoked nuclear concerns to justify interventions elsewhere.

This marked a stark departure from the era of John F. Kennedy. JFK was the only U.S. president willing to confront Israel’s nuclear ambitions directly. For him, nuclear proliferation was a “personal nightmare” that threatened global stability. He went so far as to warn Ben-Gurion that U.S. support could be “seriously jeopardized” if independent inspections of Dimona were not permitted. Following Kennedy’s assassination, however, such pressure evaporated under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, replaced by a pragmatic accommodation that allowed Israel’s “bomb in the basement” to quietly expand.

In effect, the United States became a diplomatic shield for Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons program, an irony for a country that has repeatedly invoked nuclear concerns to justify interventions elsewhere.

This privilege has enabled Israel to develop an advanced nuclear triad, including Jericho ballistic missiles, modified F-15I fighter jets, and Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching nuclear-armed cruise missiles from beneath the sea. With estimates ranging between 90 and 400 warheads, Israel possesses not only a deterrent but also a potent instrument of diplomatic coercion. When Arab states, led by Egypt, have consistently called for a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East, the United States and its allies have routinely blocked such initiatives to preserve Israel’s exceptional status.

This nuclear privilege has also created what many non-Western diplomats describe as a “compliance trap.” States like Iran, which are signatories to the NPT, face intense scrutiny and economic punishment for procedural deviations. Meanwhile, Israel—operating outside the framework of international law—enjoys access to the most advanced military technologies from the West. This systemic inequity fuels instability, signaling that the most effective way to avoid international pressure is not compliance, but power.

An Architecture of Sabotage

To maintain its nuclear monopoly, Israel has pursued an aggressive geostrategic doctrine that routinely violates the sovereignty of other states. Known as the Begin Doctrine, formalized in 1981, it asserts that Israel will not allow any Middle Eastern country to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is an extraordinary claim of authority: a state with undeclared nuclear weapons asserting the right to destroy others’ nuclear capabilities, even those intended for peaceful purposes, under the banner of self-defense.

Its first manifestation came with Operation Opera on June 7, 1981, when Israeli fighter jets destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. Despite condemnation from the United Nations, the precedent was set. Israel effectively assumed the role of the region’s unilateral enforcer. This pattern repeated in 2007 with Operation Outside the Box, which obliterated Syria’s Al-Kibar facility. These preemptive strikes were driven by a clear calculation: that major global powers would continue to grant Israel impunity, regardless of the overt violations of international law.

When Arab states, led by Egypt, have consistently called for a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East, the United States and its allies have routinely blocked such initiatives to preserve Israel’s exceptional status.

Against Iran, this architecture of sabotage has reached unprecedented levels of sophistication and lethality. Over the past two decades, Israel has waged a shadow war involving the assassination of nuclear scientists in Tehran, sometimes using remotely operated weapons, as well as cyberattacks like Stuxnet, which crippled thousands of centrifuges at Natanz. These operations have often been conducted in close coordination with U.S. intelligence, underscoring how Western non-proliferation policy frequently functions as an instrument to preserve Israel’s military dominance.

The escalation culminated in the Rising Lion campaign in 2025 and Operation Epic Fury in early 2026. Backed by the Trump administration and tacit support from several European capitals, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was targeted through large-scale airstrikes that largely disregarded the risks of radiation exposure to civilians. Israel justified these actions by claiming diplomacy had failed. Yet this narrative omits a critical reality: Israel has consistently undermined diplomatic efforts, including by seizing Iran’s nuclear archives in 2018 to help justify the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. The objective has never been merely to prevent an “Iranian bomb,” but to preserve Israel’s monopoly on power.

A Shadow Alliance in the Negev Desert

The portrayal of Israel as a small, self-reliant state under constant siege is a carefully constructed myth. The history of its nuclear program is one of covert international collaboration, involving countries that now lead global anti-nuclear campaigns. Without technological assistance from France, heavy water supplied by Norway via the United Kingdom, and uranium sourced from Argentina, the Dimona facility would never have materialized.

Israel has consistently undermined diplomatic efforts, including by seizing Iran’s nuclear archives in 2018 to help justify the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. The objective has never been merely to prevent an “Iranian bomb,” but to preserve Israel’s monopoly on power.

France, now a vocal critic of Iran, played a central role by supplying the EL-102 reactor and a plutonium reprocessing plant in 1957, partly as repayment for Israel’s support during the Suez Crisis. Even more striking was Israel’s nuclear collaboration with apartheid South Africa in the 1970s. As two internationally isolated regimes, they developed deep military ties. Declassified documents reveal that Shimon Peres once offered to sell nuclear warheads to Pretoria. This partnership likely culminated in the 1979 Vela Incident, when a suspected nuclear test was detected in the Indian Ocean. Despite strong evidence pointing to a joint Israeli-South African test, the Carter administration chose to obscure the findings to protect its ally.

Such collaborations demonstrate that, for Israel, international norms are secondary to strategic imperatives. While aiding a racially segregated regime’s nuclear ambitions, Israel simultaneously leveraged its diplomatic influence to block cooperation between its adversaries and other states. This pattern persists today in the form of cyber and surveillance technologies exported to authoritarian regimes in exchange for diplomatic support.

Western backing has also extended to high-level intelligence operations to secure nuclear materials. In the 1968 Plumbat Affair, Israeli intelligence reportedly acquired 200 tons of yellowcake uranium through a front-company scheme involving a cargo ship in Antwerp. Rather than triggering sanctions or legal consequences, the operation was widely regarded as a remarkable intelligence success. Over time, the international community has normalized such state-level misconduct, creating a skewed moral framework where the security of one nation is deemed more important than the integrity of international law itself.

The Double Standard

Today, when the international community speaks of nuclear threats in the Middle East, the subject is invariably Iran. Yet the most immediate and substantial threat, Israel’s nuclear arsenal, remains untouchable. This double standard has evolved into a kind of doctrine in global diplomacy, where allegiance to Israel’s security necessitates the suspension of logic and justice. How can a state with hundreds of unmonitored nuclear warheads be framed as a “stabilizing force,” while another under strict IAEA oversight is cast as an existential threat?

This hypocrisy is especially evident in the application of the NPT. Intended as a universal instrument, it has instead functioned in the Middle East as a mechanism to constrain Arab states and Iran, while allowing Israel to expand its nuclear capabilities unchecked. The United States has consistently used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions targeting Israel’s nuclear program. Such policies not only undermine Washington’s credibility but erode the very foundations of international law. When laws apply only to the weak, they become instruments of domination rather than justice.

This hypocrisy is especially evident in the application of the NPT. Intended as a universal instrument, it has instead functioned in the Middle East as a mechanism to constrain Arab states and Iran, while allowing Israel to expand its nuclear capabilities unchecked.

Looking ahead, Middle Eastern security will not be achieved through bombing Natanz or assassinating scientists in Tehran. As long as Israel is permitted to maintain its nuclear monopoly under the protection of Western double standards, the region will remain locked in a cycle of proliferation. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others will inevitably seek their own nuclear capabilities to counterbalance Israeli dominance. Israel’s strategy of “mowing the grass” may delay conflict, but it cannot resolve it.

The time has come for the world to stop feigning ignorance about Dimona. Any serious conversation about peace in the Middle East must begin with dismantling Israel’s nuclear privilege and demanding universal transparency. Without equal pressure on Israel to join the NPT and place its facilities under IAEA safeguards, the rhetoric of non-proliferation is little more than diplomatic theater. Regional security can only be built on a foundation of equality, not under the shadow of a nuclear monopoly sustained by global hypocrisy.