Shifting Power: US Fragility Exposed in the Iran War — Politico & Foreign Affairs

Mohamad Hammoud

The American military machine, long viewed as the guarantor of the post-Cold War order, is increasingly confronting a crisis of strategic exhaustion that threatens its credibility beyond the Middle East. Analyses published in Politico and Foreign Affairs suggest that China now views the United States less as an unchallenged superpower and more as a state struggling to sustain the weight of its global commitments.

The confrontation with Iran did not simply expose temporary battlefield difficulties; it revealed deeper structural vulnerabilities in American military readiness, industrial production, and long-term force sustainability at a moment when President Donald Trump prepares for high-stakes diplomacy with Beijing.

Ammunition Depletion and Industrial Weakness

The clearest sign of that strain emerged through the rapid depletion of American weapons stockpiles during the confrontation with Iran. As Foreign Affairs noted, the extensive use of THAAD and Patriot missile interceptors forced Washington to redistribute systems from other deployments merely to maintain operational readiness in the Middle East. What appeared to be a wartime logistical challenge increasingly resembles a broader industrial weakness because defense manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin have struggled to keep pace with demand for advanced munitions. That reality signals to Beijing that the American “arsenal of democracy” may no longer possess the industrial depth required for sustained peer-to-peer conflict.

The Limits of American Force Projection

That perception has been reinforced by the broader failure of American force projection in the region. Despite deploying its most advanced weapons, Washington failed to fully secure maritime routes or force Iran into strategic retreat. As discussed by CNN, the continued instability surrounding the Strait of Hormuz demonstrated that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control. The gap between Washington’s rhetoric and operational outcomes has become impossible for Chinese planners to ignore, particularly after the United States shifted military resources from South Korea and Japan to sustain operations in the Middle East. In Beijing’s view, those reallocations suggest that Washington may no longer be capable of managing simultaneous crises without exposing vulnerabilities elsewhere.

China’s Leverage Through Supply Chains

At the same time, the conflict highlighted another contradiction at the center of American power: the United States remains deeply dependent on the very country it increasingly defines as its primary geopolitical rival. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, nearly every advanced American weapons platform, from F-35 fighter jets to missile guidance systems, depends on rare earth minerals processed predominantly in China. Consequently, efforts to rebuild depleted stockpiles remain tied to supply chains influenced by Beijing itself. That dependency transforms economic competition into strategic leverage because China’s control over critical industrial materials gives it influence over the long-term sustainability of American military production.

Gulf Realignment and Beijing’s Expanding Influence

These pressures are unfolding alongside a broader geopolitical realignment in the Gulf, where regional powers increasingly appear unwilling to rely exclusively on Washington’s security umbrella. According to Al Jazeera, China has positioned itself as a pragmatic alternative by emphasizing infrastructure investment, economic integration, and energy cooperation rather than direct military intervention. Beijing’s continued support for Iranian oil exports and logistical networks has further demonstrated that it can weaken American pressure campaigns without engaging in open confrontation. As a result, the Iranian conflict has accelerated the perception that the unipolar era of uncontested American dominance is gradually giving way to a more fragmented and multipolar order.

Taiwan and the Emerging Balance of Power

Nowhere is that shift more significant than in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs argues that Beijing increasingly sees the strategic balance moving in its favor as American military resources become more dispersed and politically constrained. Chinese policymakers studying the Iranian conflict are observing that American dominance depends upon logistical endurance and industrial depth that may prove difficult to sustain under prolonged pressure. In that sense, the Iranian conflict became more than a regional confrontation. It became a demonstration of how sustained military engagements can slowly erode the operational flexibility that once defined American global supremacy.

The Twilight of Unchallenged Hegemony

The broader implication is not the complete collapse of American power, but the recognition that the international system is entering a different strategic era. President Trump may arrive in Beijing still representing a global military and economic power, yet negotiations will unfold under conditions increasingly shaped by industrial competition, supply-chain dependency, and geopolitical overstretch rather than unquestioned American dominance. The central issue is no longer whether the United States remains influential, but whether it can continue sustaining global primacy in a world where industrial resilience increasingly matters as much as military force itself.

“Lebanese Sovereignty” and “American Diplomacy” …Two Sides of the Same Lie!

 Layla Ammasha

More than twenty-four hours have passed, yet the “sovereignty meter” in Lebanon hasn’t registered even the slightest tremor- despite the blatant shock caused by the US ambassador in Beirut, Michel Issa. Behind the scenes, there’s talk that this “meter” may be rigged: it simply doesn’t record anything coming from the United States or its envoys, no matter how strongly it strikes at Lebanon’s sovereignty, dignity, and national honor. Others suggest that the failure to register anything is due to the repetition of similar incidents- so frequent that they’ve come to be seen as normal, even routine, within Lebanon’s so-called “sovereign” trajectory.

In reality, what Ambassador Issa said from the pulpit in Bkerki is less an insult to those he told to leave Lebanon and find another country, and more an insult to those who claim to defend sovereignty and national dignity. His remark that Netanyahu is “not a boogeyman,” while dismissive of Lebanese people who see him as an enemy responsible for killing them and destroying their villages, is also an affront to much of humanity across races, religions, and nations. That “not a boogeyman” is, quite simply, a war criminal-one many countries refuse to receive or meet, and some would even detain if he passed through their territory.

By diplomatic norms and standards, Issa’s remarks amount to a violation of sovereignty that should warrant accountability- even expulsion. At the very least, he should be summoned to the Foreign Ministry, warned against repeating such statements, or formally notified that he is “persona non grata” in Lebanon. That hasn’t happened, largely because the ministry is headed by a figure [belonging to the Lebanese Forces] whose political affiliations blur the line between governmental duty and partisan activism.

In the end, the Foreign Ministry- like others who champion “sovereignty”- swallowed the insult directed at the country. They avoided addressing it, or even justifying it, having learned from a previous incident involving US envoy Tom Barrack, who described the Lebanese as “animalistic.” Back then, they rushed to soften or reinterpret the remark. One even went so far as to deny what people had clearly heard- until Barrack himself repeated and clarified his words.

Before Issa and Barrack, the same “sovereignty advocates” stayed silent when US envoy Morgan Ortagus stood at Baabda Palace and thanked “Israel” for attacking a segment of the Lebanese population. If we were to list, chronologically, the violations committed by American “diplomacy” against Lebanese sovereignty, we’d need pages upon pages. Such violations seem to be a standard practice- especially in countries where local pro-American figures excel at producing hollow sovereignty slogans.

What Issa did, then, fits squarely within the pattern of American-style diplomacy—despite the fact that he lacks experience in the field and holds no academic or professional qualifications even for a junior diplomatic role. His only “qualification” for becoming U.S. ambassador to Lebanon appears to be the will of “the fool in the White House.” And fools, as the saying goes, tend to appoint people who resemble them. In this sense, Trump’s global team can be seen as variations of the same kind of foolishness, with Issa being one of its recurring and competing versions- each striving to please Trump and fully comply with his impulses.

From all this, one might conclude that American-style diplomacy requires neither knowledge nor respect for protocol. It’s merely a polished façade through which the United States exercises its arrogance, dominance, and the recklessness of its leader who is residing in the White House.
American diplomacy is merely a fake title to a truth that contradicts diplomacy work. Likewise, “sovereignty” in Lebanon is reduced to a hollow slogan- masking dependency, submission, and subservience to the US and its proxies. Those who weren’t even stirred by the occupation of Lebanese land, the killing and displacement of its people, are the same ones who now posture as defenders of sovereignty. Not only did they remain silent in the face of ongoing massacres, they went so far as to applaud the killer and grant him the right to continue- while criticizing him only if he appeared unable to do so. Yet on TV screens and social media, they are the loudest voices lecturing about sovereignty.

Lebanese people initially reacted to Issa’s remarks- seen as a representative of Trump-era arrogance in Beirut- with shock, which quickly turned into a wave of dark humor. Some treated the situation comically, mocking the audacity of a “guest” telling the inhabitants of a home to leave their own house. Others scrutinized Issa himself, portraying him as an émigré frozen in time since his departure- returning with a mix of arrogance, control, and a deep misunderstanding of the country’s nature and balance.

In the same context, many activists raised a hypothetical question: what if the Iranian ambassador had said, from a Lebanese or social media platform, that a segment of Lebanese society should leave the country and find another place to live? How would Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry have reacted to such a “sovereignty quake”? What kind of outrage would have flooded the streets and social media? What words would have sufficed for those aligned with the U.S. to express their anger and rejection of such blatant interference?

In short, there’s no real shock in the remarks made by Issa [Washington’s ambassador to Beirut and a representative of Trumpian foolishness in Lebanon-or in the silence of those who loudly but falsely claim to defend sovereignty, distorting its very meaning. Still, for the sake of history and memory, it is necessary to pause at this scene of submission. However often it repeats, it remains a condemnation- and a lasting stain of shame on all those who are complicit.

The San Diego Mosque Attack: When Politics Breeds Hate, Sacred Spaces Bleed Fear

Javed Akbar

Normalization of anti-Muslim bigotry has led to the shooting and killings at the San Diego Islamic Center in California, USA (Image Chat GPT).

The attack on the Islamic Center of San Diego is not merely another entry in America’s grim ledger of mass shootings.

They managed to kill three Muslims—security guard Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, and Nader Awad—before the terrorists apparently shot themselves.

Yet for the Muslim families who gathered there — and for the children attending the Islamic day school on the premises—such technical distinctions offer no refuge.

Fear does not negotiate in geography.

It settles in the body, in memory, in the silence before stepping out the door.

To treat this as an isolated burst of violence is to misunderstand the pattern.

The United States has grown disturbingly accustomed to mass shootings in schools, churches, synagogues, concerts, and shopping malls.

But when the target is a mosque, the act does not emerge from a vacuum of randomness alone.

It is incubated in a cultural atmosphere where anti-Muslim suspicion has been steadily normalized, repackaged as politics, and laundered through the language of security, patriotism, and “civilization.”

The May 18 attack on the Islamic Center of San Diego is now being investigated as a possible hate crime.

Early reports suggest the assailants were teenagers influenced by anti-Muslim rhetoric and generalized hate ideology.

A security guard who attempted to intervene was killed.

Children were evacuated in panic.

These are not just statistics; they are fragments of a society’s moral failure.

This failure is not new

In Canada, the memory of the January 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting still lingers as a national wound.

Six worshippers were murdered during evening prayers—men who had come seeking nothing more radical than peace and community.

Then came the June 2021 attack in London, Ontario, where four members of a Muslim family were deliberately run over by a pick up truck in an act of targeted violence that orphaned a child and shocked a country that often prides itself on tolerance.

These are not disconnected tragedies; They form a continuum

Mosques across North America have endured bomb threats, vandalism, harassment, and armed intimidation.

Muslim women wearing hijab describe navigating public spaces with a constant awareness of vulnerability.

Parents quietly calculate risk before sending children to religious classes.

A sanctuary, by definition, should not require security assessments.

The deeper danger lies in how such hostility becomes thinkable.

Hate does not begin with violence; it begins with permission.

And permission is often granted not by fringe actors alone, but by the steady drip of political and media rhetoric that reduces an entire faith to a problem to be managed.

The normalization of anti-Muslim narrative accelerated dramatically after Donald Trump entered the political stage in 2015, transforming suspicion of Muslims from fringe discourse into mainstream political currency.

Demonization of Muslims reached a peak when calls for banning Muslims from entering the country entered mainstream political discourse.

Even when softened later, the underlying message lingered: suspicion is acceptable, exclusion is defensible, fear is rational.

Words matter more than their speakers often admit

No serious argument suggests that political rhetoric directly loads a gun.

But it is intellectually dishonest to deny that sustained demonization alters the moral weather.

It lowers the threshold of empathy.

It tells the unstable that their fears are shared, their anger justified, and their fantasies of “defense” socially intelligible.

There is also a troubling asymmetry in public response.

When perpetrators are Muslim, entire communities are subjected to interrogation, as though collective guilt were self-evident.

When Muslims are victims, the language shifts: “isolated incident,” “mental health crisis,” “tragedy without context.”

The imbalance is not merely semantic.

It shapes whose suffering is politicized and whose is quietly absorbed.

This is not only a Muslim concern; it is a societal problem.

In a society where people fear their places of worship, civic trust is already eroding.

Democracy does not collapse only through coups or constitutional crises; it erodes when fear becomes routine and belonging becomes conditional.

Canada and the US now face a clear test.

They can either confront anti-Muslim hatred with the same moral urgency applied to other forms of extremism, or continue treating it as ambient background noise—regrettable, periodic, but ultimately tolerable.

Condemnation after each tragedy is no longer sufficient.

What is required is political discipline: a refusal to weaponize identity for electoral gain; a media culture that resists outrage as spectacle; and digital platforms that acknowledge their role in accelerating ideological radicalization.

Above all, there must be a cultural insistence on one principle: no group should be rendered suspect by default.

Because history is unambiguous on one point.

When people are repeatedly described as alien, dangerous, or incompatible, it is only a matter of time before someone decides that elimination is a form of clarity.

The families affected in San Diego deserve more than condolences.

They deserve an honest reckoning with the climate that made their fear predictable.

And Muslim communities across North America deserve something that should never have been in question: the simple, fundamental right to gather, to pray, and to live without looking over their shoulder.

Javed Akbar is a freelance writer whose opinion columns have appeared in the Toronto Star and numerous digital platforms. He can be reached at: mjavedakbar@gmail.com

San Diego Islamic CenterTerrorist AttackIslamophobiaDonald Trumpanti-Muslim hate in the US

Brinkmanship and Betrayal: The Fragmented Reality of Project Freedom

By Mohamad Hammoud

A Reflective Analysis of Presidential Indecision and the Engineering of Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz

The Trump administration has become trapped in a cycle of military escalation and retreat in the Middle East, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump repeatedly threatens Iran with force, only to reverse course when confrontation approaches direct conflict. This pattern has weakened American credibility and exposed a foreign policy shaped more by political pressure and image management than by strategic consistency. Recent reporting from The Washington Post described a White House that continuously shifts its timeline for confronting or disengaging from Iran, revealing indecision at the center of the administration.

Trump appears caught between competing pressures. On one side, he recognizes that a large-scale war with Iran would be unpopular among American voters and costly for the United States. On the other hand, he faces pressure from hawkish political allies and from the government of “Israel,” particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to maintain a confrontational posture toward Tehran. The result is a fragmented policy that satisfies neither advocates of restraint nor supporters of military escalation.

Project Freedom and Manufactured Confrontation

This contradiction became most visible through “Project Freedom,” launched on May 4 and presented publicly as a humanitarian naval mission intended to protect commercial shipping in the Gulf. The administration claimed the operation ensured “freedom of navigation” and protected vessels from Iranian interference. In practice, it functioned as a military buildup inserted into an already volatile security environment.

By deploying advanced naval assets close to Iranian waters, Washington created a situation in which Tehran faced two options: accept a sustained foreign military presence near its coastline or respond militarily and risk open war. The administration appeared to expect that repeated warnings of “unprecedented force,” as reported by The Spectator, combined with Trump’s public statements on social media declaring that “the era of patience is over” [CBS News], would push Iran into retreat.

Instead, the opposite occurred. Iranian forces fired missiles at vessels under US protection on May 4, 2026, according to CBS News, while Fars News Agency reported that two missiles struck a US Navy vessel near Jask port, forcing it to withdraw. Rather than producing deterrence, the confrontation exposed the limits of the administration’s pressure strategy. The Wall Street Journal later reported Trump’s frustration as Iran failed to yield under escalating threats.

Executive Power and Congressional Evasion

“Project Freedom” also exposed how presidential authority can expand military action without formal congressional approval. Instead of framing the deployment as an escalation against Iran, the administration described it as an “escort mission” to protect commercial shipping and stranded crews in the Strait of Hormuz. This framing reduced political resistance and avoided a direct congressional debate over war powers.

According to The Spectator and Time, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly presented Project Freedom as a rescue operation for more than 20,000 seafarers and nearly 1,600 commercial vessels allegedly trapped in the Gulf. Critics argued that humanitarian language masked a strategic objective: applying military pressure on Iran while avoiding the political cost of seeking authorization for another regional conflict.

Failed Brinkmanship and Strategic Retreat

Whether Trump intended to create leverage for war while bypassing Congress or merely sought to pressure Tehran into concessions remains unclear. Both interpretations are supported by the administration’s behavior. What is clear is that after earlier threats of overwhelming retaliation, Iranian forces struck American naval assets in the region.

Despite those warnings, the White House stepped back from escalation. It cited diplomatic developments, including communications from Pakistani officials, as justification for restraint. The shift from aggressive threats to withdrawal reinforced the perception of an administration operating through improvisation and political signaling rather than a coherent strategy.

Permanent Crisis as Policy

Permanent Crisis as Policy “Project Freedom” reflects a broader pattern in US policy toward Iran: repeated misjudgment of how Iran responds to pressure. Across successive administrations, Washington has assumed that escalation would produce compliance, but Iran has consistently resisted and adjusted rather than yield.

This recurring failure is reinforced by external influence, particularly from “Israel,” which has pushed US policy toward confrontation. The result is a strategy shaped less by independent assessment than by external pressure and repeated misreading of outcomes.

UN Warns of “Israel’s” Ethnic Cleansing across Palestine

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

The United Nations has called on the “Israeli” occupation to put an end to “acts of genocide” in Gaza, while warning of escalating “ethnic cleansing” across the Palestinian territory and the occupied West Bank.

In a report published Monday, the UN Human Rights Office said its investigation into “Israeli” military operations in Gaza through May 2025 found that the occupation committed “serious violations of international humanitarian law,” which, in many cases, "may" amount to war crimes and other atrocity crimes.

The report noted that although the “Israeli” occupation claimed its military operation sought the return of captives and targeted military objectives, many of the killings documented by investigators were deemed unlawful.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, nearly 73,000 people have been martyred since the war began, while several international investigations, including inquiries by the United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have concluded that the Israeli war on Gaza constitutes genocide.

Although a ceasefire was reached in October, “Israeli” occupation forces continued to impose a strict security regime on Gaza, with hundreds more Palestinians killed in the months since the truce.

Conflict monitoring groups have also warned that “Israeli” bombardment of Gaza intensified after last month’s ceasefire between Iran and the “Israeli” occupation, while settler attacks and military raids across the occupied West Bank have sharply increased.

The UN report warned that the “Israeli” occupation’s “concerted and accelerating practice of undermining the fabric of Palestinian life while consolidating the annexation of large parts” of the occupied Palestinian territories reflects a dangerous escalation.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the “Israeli” occupation to “prevent the commission of acts of genocide,” allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes, and “end its unlawful presence in the Palestinian territory.”

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in the occupied Palestinian territories, said the ceasefire had failed to bring “meaningful accountability” or address “the underlying driver - the protracted occupation.”

Regarding the occupied West Bank, Sunghay said “Israeli” occupation forces and settlers were increasingly carrying out attacks against Palestinians “with impunity, often together.”

“Impunity only fuels recurrence,” Sunghay said, adding that most of the violations documented over recent decades had gone unpunished, leaving victims without prospects for justice.

Is US Hegemony In The Middle East Beginning To Fade?

By Al-Ahed News 

Images of American side’s inability have begun to emerge as a result of the war it waged against the Islamic Republic, and its lack of a clear plan or strategic vision, according to what more than one US official and figure has acknowledged. This inability is now being translated into confusion and setbacks in the American presence in the Middle East, particularly regarding the readiness and equipment of US forces.

This is confirmed by private diplomatic and military sources who spoke to the Al-Ahed News website, indicating that US aircraft carriers and warships are suffering from difficult conditions, with soldiers reportedly enduring living conditions that have reached the point of economizing on both the quantity and quality of their daily food.

The sources also confirmed to Al-Ahed News that senior officers, who were once treated with exceptional care and attention, are now complaining about deteriorating conditions; something that has begun to create significant confusion within the US Navy.

This state of disarray also extends to the strategic weapons stockpile, which, according to the same sources, will not be replenished for another six years.

The sources further state that there is significant confusion within the Pentagon, while US President Donald Trump does not read most reports, and when he does, he does not always act upon them. This, they say, is generating widespread dissatisfaction within the US military establishment.

Perhaps the most serious information leaked by these diplomatic and military sources close to Al-Ahed News is the serious consideration being given to evacuating some US bases in the region

In this context, a US general is quoted, according to the same sources, as saying that “it is difficult to achieve dominance even if we kill a large number of Iranians, because even factions that previously opposed the system will defend the state,” recalling that “the United States has already experienced this in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia; so what would it be like with Iran,” implying that American political calculations on this matter are fundamentally flawed.

The sources conclude that diplomats in the region are complaining about the decline of American influence that once prevailed, emphasizing that Europeans are speaking about the high cost of any intervention and warning of losing ventures in the event of entering a war.

Raad: The Government’s Course Threatens the Country with Disaster

By Mohammad Raad, head of the Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc

The reality confirmed by the rounds of direct negotiations between Lebanon and the enemy is that the ruling camp has effectively embraced the occupation’s narrative against the resistance. On that basis, it has begun reshaping the domestic political landscape around the idea that the Lebanese are willing to coexist with the occupation in exchange for helping the authorities enforce the principle that weapons should be exclusively in the hands of the state.

According to the narrative promoted by the ruling camp, the core problem is that the resistance refuses to surrender to the enemy and rejects the government’s proposal for “state monopoly over arms” while occupation persists. From this perspective, the authorities see no path to securing American approval, European goodwill, and regional acceptance except by extending a hand to the enemy, opening direct negotiations with it, and eliminating the resistance in favor of the occupation. Meanwhile, issues such as a ceasefire and “Israeli” withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory are being postponed until this mission- which both the Lebanese and “Israeli” negotiators reportedly prioritize, under American mediation and sponsorship- is completed.

The government’s logic does not appear to stem from ignorance of where this path leads, but rather from a deep conviction and political commitment that this option represents, in its view, the country’s way out of war and collapse- even at the expense of sovereignty and dignity.

By contrast, the resistance’s position is fundamentally rooted in the Lebanese people’s right to sovereignty and their rejection of occupation, regardless of how much territory is under “Israeli” control. Since the 1949 armistice, the country has remained in a state of hostility with the Zionist entity, which has never concealed its ambitions toward Lebanon, as demonstrated by repeated invasions, wars, and attacks. The resistance argues that only confrontation and armed resistance have ever succeeded in forcing “Israel” out of Lebanese land, while international efforts throughout previous stages failed to secure Lebanon’s rights.

The resistance’s view further holds that yielding to the enemy and accepting its conditions only encourages it to expand, intimidate, dominate, and continue launching wars and invasions whenever political conditions allow. On the other hand, when the enemy is convinced that its occupation will face determined resistance—even if prolonged and costly—it will think twice before carrying out further aggression. Conversely, if it senses defeat, weakness, or willingness to compromise sovereignty and national interests, it will intensify pressure on all fronts to impose surrender and submission to its demands.

The entire world acknowledges that the resistance fully complied with the ceasefire agreement announced on November 27, 2024, and deferred responsibility to the Lebanese authorities, which assumed the task of implementing the agreement, restoring sovereignty, removing the occupation, securing the release of prisoners, returning residents to their villages, and beginning reconstruction efforts.

The government’s logic, it argues, stems not from ignorance but from firm conviction and political commitment—even at the expense of sovereignty and dignity.

As soon as “Israel” sensed that the Lebanese authorities had moved forward with the August 5 decision to implement exclusive state control over weapons, it escalated its attacks and began demanding that Lebanon carry out this decision before any ceasefire could take effect. Since then, the authorities have followed a downward path of concessions, step after step, culminating in the most recent round of direct negotiations, which they entered without constitutional or national authorization. The country now stands at a dangerous crossroads that threatens major disasters, for which this government will bear responsibility, especially as it receives applause from all those opposed to genuine and honorable sovereignty and independence in Lebanon.

The Lebanese people have the right to know where the authorities are leading them today. They also have the right to understand that all the sacrifices made in the path of resistance pale in comparison to the disasters awaiting the country if the government continues down the road of submission to the enemy’s demands and conditions.

It is also the right of the Lebanese people to know that the authorities’ reliance on the occupation to disarm resistance fighters, while the enemy intensifies its aggression against Lebanon, is a grave crime against the nation and its people.

Our responsibility within the resistance camp is to show the Lebanese what we believe to be the soundest and most effective path to defeating Zionist aggression. Together with our honorable, patient, and sacrificing people, we confront the brutal “Israeli” occupation in defense of our existence, our homeland, and all Lebanese who value sovereignty and national dignity. We endure bloodshed, displacement, and wounds, and remain steadfast in order to preserve our freedom and our country’s sovereignty.

We express gratitude to all who support us- whether Iranian, Arab, or foreign. We do not accept any conditions or place one’s interests above those of Lebanon and its people.

As for those who misunderstand the resistance or are swayed by hostile propaganda against it, we remain committed to addressing them in a way that ensures they hear our message, even if they remain unconvinced.

Those who support the enemy, incite against Lebanon and its interests, or provide services to what it calls the “criminal Zionist aggression project,” should be held accountable under the law. We affirm that the path of concessions will ultimately end in disappointment and failure.

To the Lebanese citizens and Arab and Muslim brothers everywhere, we say with all honesty and brotherhood:

“Whoever accepts us in the name of truth-God has greater right to the truth. And whoever rejects us, we shall remain patient until God judges between us and the wrongdoing people.”

Hezbollah Drones Outsmart The Enemy’s Top Tech Minds

By Al-Ahed News 

Amid its failure to find a solution to the threat of drones, the Chief of Staff of the occupation forces, General Eyal Zamir, held an urgent professional discussion the day before yesterday, involving the leadership of the Technology Division, Unit 81, and the Research and Development Directorate of the Ministry of War.

The meeting aimed to address Hezbollah’s growing capabilities in the field of explosive-laden drones.

The "Israeli" Channel 7 website reported that, despite the presence of the “Israeli” army’s top technological minds and war ministry experts, the discussion ended without reaching any operational solution.

The central challenge raised during the discussion was fiber-optic drones. Unlike conventional drones that operate via radio waves and can be jammed through electronic warfare systems, these new drones are connected to their operators through a thin fiber-optic cable.

This connection gives them two lethal advantages: there is no way to sever the link between the operator and the drone using electronic warfare, and the operator receives a smooth, precise image up to the moment of impact, enabling surgical precision in targeting.

The website noted that, in the absence of a technological countermeasure, the instructions given to “Israeli” troops in southern Lebanon remain rudimentary, relying largely on physical attempts to intercept drones over positions and vehicles by firing light weapons.

The Strategic Crouch: Deception as a Weapon of War

By Mohamad Hammoud

The smoking ruins of Southern Lebanon became the stage for a prolonged period of calculated silence that blinded some of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence agencies for over a year.

Following the heavy losses of late 2024, the resistance adopted the strategic logic of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military theorist who argued that successful warfare depends on deception, patience, and concealment. Rather than responding immediately to repeated provocations, the resistance used the fifteen-month ceasefire period to rebuild its command structure, secure communication networks, replenish missile and drone stockpiles, and adapt to new battlefield realities under the cover of apparent weakness.

As "Israeli" jets violated the ceasefire with near-daily impunity, the absence of retaliation was interpreted in “Tel Aviv” and Washington as evidence that the organization had been strategically crippled. This perception emboldened political factions in Beirut and Western officials alike to intensify demands for immediate disarmament, mistakenly believing the resistance had been neutralized.

In practice, however, the silence achieved something far more consequential than temporary restraint. By absorbing relentless strikes without firing a single rocket in return, the resistance exposed several realities simultaneously: that "Israel" does not respect treaties or international law when no deterrent exists; that the Lebanese state remained incapable of preventing repeated violations of its sovereignty; and that Western powers treated Hezbollah’s disarmament as a greater priority than enforcing ceasefire violations occurring almost daily inside Lebanon.

According to regional observers cited by Al Jazeera, the period reinforced the resistance’s argument that diplomacy without force becomes little more than ritualized weakness, and that the occupation responds less to negotiated agreements than to deterrent power.

Rebuilding Beneath the Illusion of Defeat

While Western intelligence agencies celebrated what they described as a “decapitated” organization, the resistance was quietly rebuilding beneath the cover of apparent defeat. Following Sun Tzu’s advice to remain “mysterious to the point of soundlessness,” the group maintained a silence that reinforced the belief within "Israel" that it had been strategically crippled.

As "Israeli" attention and surveillance priorities shifted elsewhere, the resistance reorganized its command structure, secured new logistical corridors for drones and missiles, hardened subterranean infrastructure, and replaced compromised communication systems largely out of sight.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the scale of this rebuilding became visible only after the coordinated barrage of March 2026 revealed a level of readiness constructed during the fifteen-month lull.

The Drone Shock and Intelligence Failure

The clearest manifestation of this resurgence was the deployment of advanced fiber-optic guided drones, a technology that rendered large portions of "Israel’s" multi-billion-dollar electronic warfare systems ineffective. According to The Washington Post, these wired drones do not emit radio signals and are therefore resistant to conventional jamming systems. Analysts at the Alma Research and Education Center reported that they provided uninterrupted video guidance until the moment of impact, enabling precision strikes against vulnerable armored targets.

This development exposed a growing gap between earlier intelligence assessments and battlefield reality. Many analysts had assumed the organization was incapable of meaningful innovation while under sustained pressure, which made the emergence of such capabilities particularly unexpected. Once CNN reported on the use of “Ukraine-style” tactics in Northern "Israel," that reassessment became increasingly difficult to avoid in public discourse and analysis.

The Collapse of Diplomatic Credibility

The events of the fifteen-month ceasefire also served as a scathing indictment of Western diplomacy, which consistently failed to hold "Israel" accountable for repeated violations of the agreement. Throughout 2025, while the resistance remained publicly restrained, Western governments largely ignored escalating airstrikes and targeted assassinations, reinforcing the perception that the "Israeli" force operated under a different legal standard.

This atmosphere of impunity strengthened the broader argument of the resistance that international law functions less as a universal principle than as a mechanism selectively enforced by powerful states. The New York Times reported that the persistent erosion of the ceasefire significantly damaged the credibility of future negotiations in the region.

For the resistance, the conclusion was clear: deterrence, not international guarantees, remained the only reliable protection against continued escalation. By allowing "Israel" to repeatedly undermine the agreement it had signed without consequence, Western powers unintentionally reinforced the very worldview they sought to contain.

The Shattered Shield: Assessing the Multi-Front Erosion of “Israel’s” Strategic Power

By Mohamad Hammoud

The cumulative strain of continuous military engagement has severely eroded the “Israeli” army’s operational readiness and internal cohesion. An investigative report by Haaretz revealed that the military withheld full data on thousands of soldiers permanently discharged due to severe psychological trauma and mental illness.

Following legal proceedings, the military was forced to acknowledge that 7,241 officers and soldiers were discharged for psychiatric reasons during the first year of intense regional combat alone, while refusing further cooperation to avoid releasing what internal sources described as “unflattering” figures that could damage public morale.

Beyond this partial disclosure, the available indicators point to a broader and rapidly deepening crisis. Although the updated total of permanent combat discharges remains classified, data from the “Israeli” War Ministry’s Rehabilitation Department shows that approximately 80,000 soldiers have entered treatment programs since the war began, including nearly 26,000 cases involving mental illness and acute post-traumatic stress disorder.

This internal strain has been accompanied by a measurable rise in psychological collapse within the ranks. Yeni Şafak reported that suicides among active-duty personnel doubled during the latter phase of the military campaigns, underscoring what critics describe as an institutional failure to contain severe combat burnout among frontline units.

As these pressures intensify, military personnel monitoring the situation have linked them to an increasingly acute manpower shortage. According to accounts from within the system, commanders fear opening a “Pandora’s box,” arguing that acknowledging the full scale of psychological trauma could leave the military without sufficient combat-ready troops to sustain prolonged cross-border operations in south Lebanon.

The effects are no longer confined to the military sphere. Anadolu Agency reports that a growing number of middle-class Israelis, particularly those holding dual citizenship or transferable professional skills, are permanently leaving the country amid economic instability and the persistent threat of regional escalation.

The Technological Failure: Air Superiority Pierced by Autonomous and Wired Assets

The historic assumption of total airspace dominance has been dismantled by the growing inability to counter Hezbollah’s rapidly evolving unmanned aerial systems. The “Israeli” daily “Yedioth Ahronoth” reported that the military general staff admitted it possesses no effective technological or tactical solution to counter the wave of first-person-view suicide drones penetrating the northern front.

This vulnerability became especially visible following the introduction of un-jammable fiber-optic-guided drones, which use microscopic glass cables to physically transmit commands and high-resolution video, rendering “Israel’s” multi-billion-dollar electronic warfare and spectral jamming systems ineffective. Beyond these wired systems, intelligence assessments from the Alma Research and Education Center indicate that Hezbollah has integrated drones utilizing localized Artificial Intelligence and autonomous terminal-guidance algorithms capable of independently tracking and locking onto moving targets. Because these systems require no active radio-frequency signatures or satellite communication, traditional radar detection and early-warning networks are severely compromised.

Following lethal strikes on armored units in southern Lebanon, Israeli media outlets documented deep frustration within frontline units, where soldiers resorted to hanging fishing nets over windows and firing service rifles in desperate attempts to intercept low-flying drones.

The vulnerability of the domestic front was further exposed by a massive explosion near a state-owned missile propulsion facility in "Beit Shemesh", which triggered widespread panic and forced defense firms to issue rare public statements attributing the blast to experimental testing. This internal volatility mirrors the broader strategic paralysis exposed during the recent direct military confrontation with Iran, which demonstrated the limits of defensive shielding against sustained, multi-directional ballistic barrages.

The Economic and Diplomatic Fracture

The prolonged multi-front war has triggered severe economic and diplomatic deterioration. On May 17, 2026, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 3.3 percent during the first quarter of the year, driven by reserve mobilizations that disrupted the high-tech and agricultural sectors while weakening consumer spending. Xinhua News Agency also reported a broader slowdown in business activity, reflecting declining investment, collapsing tourism, and mounting fiscal pressure from the enormous cost of sustaining military operations and missile defense systems. The widening deficit has deepened dependence on continuous emergency financial support from the United States.

At the same time, “Israel” faces mounting international isolation. According to reports published by Anadolu Agency, the International Criminal Court has advanced proceedings involving senior political and military officials over alleged war crimes and human rights violations. The growing legal and political scrutiny has contributed to declining international support, particularly in the United States, where major protests and shifting public opinion increasingly challenge long-standing support for continued military financing and unconditional diplomatic backing.

Why Islamic Iran Will Now Strike More Boldly Across the Region

Crescent International

The US-zionist aggression against Iran did more than escalate military tensions across West Asia.

It fundamentally transformed Tehran’s approach towards the regional order itself.

For years, Islamic Iran maintained a soft approach towards western-backed dictatorial regimes when confronting American and Israeli pressure.

Tehran made sure there was a level of respect for the formal sovereignty of neighboring Arab states.

Even when these western-backed Arabian regimes aligned themselves with Washington, Islamic Iran avoided treating them as its principal enemies.

It also refrained from conducting largescale retaliatory strikes inside their territory.

This approach is no longer applicable.

The Ramadan War exposed what Iran knew for years: western-installed regimes either willingly enabled the US-Israeli campaign against Iran or lacked the agency to prevent their territory from being transformed into operational platforms for foreign powers.

The most revealing development was the disclosure that Israeli forces, in coordination with the US, secretly established a military outpost deep inside Iraq’s western desert before launching the war on February 28.

The base reportedly housed Israeli forces, served as a logistics hub for the Israeli Air Force, and hosted rescue teams for downed Israeli pilots.

Iraqi soldiers who approached the site after a farmer noticed suspicious military activity were reportedly fired upon, killing one Iraqi soldier and wounding two others.

The implications are enormous.

Iraq — a country whose parliament has repeatedly demanded reduction in foreign military presence—was unknowingly hosting a covert Israeli military installation used to attack a neighboring Muslim state.

Even more significant was Baghdad’s inability to detect or prevent the operation until Iraqi soldiers were alerted by a farmer who noticed suspicious military activity.

The farmer, Awad al-Shammari, was killed in an Israeli helicopter strike, according to the Middle East Eye, quoting the New York Times.

For Tehran, this confirms that many regional countries no longer possess meaningful strategic sovereignty independent of American and Israeli influence.

And these monarchies only reinforced this perception during the war.

Israel transferred Iron Dome batteries and military personnel into the UAE, marking the first deployment of the system outside Israel and the US.

Israeli and Emirati officials coordinated closely throughout the war while Iranian missiles and drones struck targets across the western shores of the Persian Gulf.

The zionist-UAE cooperation was not symbolic.

Israeli troops were physically deployed on Emirati and Iraqi soil operating advanced military systems against Iran.

Israeli aircraft also conducted strikes in southern Iran specifically to prevent attacks on the Arabian entities.

From Tehran’s perspective, the distinction between “neutral” regional regimes and active participants in the anti-Iran alliance has now disappeared.

More importantly, Iran has learned that these regimes lack both the willingness and capability to exercise their sovereignty against Washington and Israel.

For Tehran, this reality removes many previous constraints.

Prior to February 2026, Tehran avoided action that could directly embarrass or destabilize these regimes because it still viewed them as formally sovereign actors.

But the Ramadan War has fundamentally altered this now outdated approach.

If regional regimes cannot prevent Israel from secretly building military facilities on their territory, cannot prevent their airspace and infrastructure from being integrated into attacks on Iran, and cannot even secure meaningful protection from their western allies, Tehran no longer sees any reason to maintain earlier diplomatic sensitivities.

This does not mean Iran will pursue reckless escalation.

But it does mean Tehran is likely to adopt a far more direct and uncompromising posture.

The old framework — where Iran distinguished between hostile western powers and formally sovereign neighboring states—has largely collapsed.

Tehran increasingly views the region as a deeply penetrated security architecture subordinated to US and zionist interests.

This perception changes the rules of confrontation.

Military infrastructure, intelligence networks, logistical corridors, and covert facilities across the region will now be treated by Iran not as protected sovereign spaces, but as legitimate components of the battlefield.

In essence, the war dissolved many of the political boundaries Tehran once tried to preserve.

By allowing foreign powers to transform regional territory into operational platforms against Iran, these regimes have, in Tehran’s eyes, forfeited the sovereignty they previously demanded others to respect.

And once this principle disappeared, the regional order has now untied Iran’s hands.

This is a reality even the US and Israeli elites are beginning to regret.

IranGCCGeopoliticsRamadan War