Tehran, AXIS OF RESISTANCE – The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy’s successful capture of a United States unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) in the Strait of Hormuz marks a monumental shift in the regional balance of power, signalling the dawn of a “new and possibly final phase” of the war against American imperialism.

Prominent Iranian academic and political analyst Dr Mohammad Marandi outlined this strategic paradigm shift during an interview on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff, emphasising that Tehran’s growing military and electronic warfare sophistication is forcing Washington to confront capabilities it has fatally underestimated.

A Major Blow to US Technological Arrogance

The IRGC Navy announced earlier this week that its forces seized the advanced US underwater drone at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz in a highly complex dawn operation. According to Marandi, the fact that the vessel was captured entirely intact is a devastating blow to the myth of American technological superiority.

“The very fact that the Iranians were able to capture it intact shows that US technology is not as good as it is presented to us as being,” Marandi stressed. He noted that Washington was desperately attempting to spy on subsurface activities in the vital waterway, only to have its surveillance thwarted and its equipment hijacked.

Crucially, Marandi pointed out that the captured US technology will not only accelerate Iran’s own underwater and electronic warfare programs but will also be shared with strategic global partners like China and Russia, further exposing the vulnerabilities of the US military-industrial complex.

Drawing parallels to the Islamic Republic’s earlier successes in electronically hijacking US drones during the American occupation of Afghanistan, Marandi noted that this latest seizure will serve as a powerful catalyst for Iran’s indigenous defense industry.

The Final Phase: Sinking US Warships

The capture of the UUV has reportedly enraged Washington, leading to aggressive posturing. However, Marandi warned that any further US escalation will be met with devastating consequences. He revealed that Iran has deliberately held back from sinking US naval vessels in previous encounters, choosing instead to strike fear into the enemy and force them to retreat.

If the conflict escalates further, that restraint will vanish. “Iran will sink those ships,” Marandi stated unequivocally, warning that the US military’s arrogance stems from a profound ignorance of Tehran’s true missile and electronic warfare capabilities.

“We are moving towards a major escalation, and we are moving into a new phase of the war and possibly the final phase,” Marandi emphasised. He compared the US military’s current position to a man trapped in quicksand: “The more the Trump regime struggles, the more it sinks, and the more it sinks, the more desperate it becomes.”

The End of the American Foothold

According to Marandi, the overarching strategic objective of the Axis of Resistance—the permanent expulsion of US occupation forces from West Asia—is now closer than ever. He declared that Washington is rapidly losing its grip on the region and that its military presence is no longer sustainable.

Iran is determined to inflict such a catastrophic cost on the United States and its regional proxies that no future American president will ever dare to threaten Tehran again. This permanent expulsion of US forces will naturally weaken the Zionist entity, which relies entirely on American military backing, while bringing immense benefits to Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and the broader region.

Marandi also delivered a stern warning to US-aligned Arab regimes in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. He cautioned that these unpopular governments are economically vulnerable and politically isolated; their complicity in Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s crimes against Gaza and Lebanon has placed them on a collision course with their own populations, threatening a catastrophic regional economic crash.

Ultimate Warning to Netanyahu

Reaffirming Iran’s uncompromising stance, Marandi insisted that any diplomatic agreements must be fully honoured, including the immediate cessation of Zionist death and destruction in Gaza and Lebanon.

He concluded with a dire warning directed at the Zionist regime’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing recent statements from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council: “Sooner or later, Iran will send Netanyahu to hell.” As the US Empire sinks deeper into its own quicksand, the Axis of Resistance stands resolute and ready to deliver the final blows to American hegemony and Zionist occupation in West Asia.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

In a compelling analysis on Al Mayadeen’s The Great Standoff, Professor Mohammad Marandi and former Pentagon analyst Michael Maalouf dissected the enduring resilience of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the unwavering cohesion of the Axis of Resistance, and the deepening strategic and economic crises facing the United States and the Zionist entity. The discussion highlighted how Iranian unity has shattered Western illusions while exposing the utter complicity and failure of US-aligned regional regimes.

Iranian Unity: The Ultimate Deterrent

Both analysts emphasised that the internal cohesion of the Iranian people has proven to be the ultimate deterrent against US and Zionist aggression. Professor Marandi dismantled the narrative promoted by Takfiri and US-aligned regimes, which seeks to portray Iran’s diverse demographics as a vulnerability. Recalling an encounter with a Gulf think-tank director who had traveled through Iran’s Kurdish and southeastern provinces, Marandi noted the official’s admission that Sunni Muslims in Iran enjoy significantly more freedom and rights than those in his own US-aligned country.

This internal solidarity was on full display during the recent 12-Day War and subsequent infiltration attempts. Marandi highlighted that the province of Kurdistan recorded the highest number of citizen reports to intelligence agencies, demonstrating profound grassroots cooperation.

Michael Maalouf reinforced this, noting that the US and Zionist regimes—specifically citing Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—had foolishly calculated that external military attacks would trigger an internal uprising. Instead, the aggression only solidified national unity. “If it weren’t for the unity of the Iranian people, the government would have fallen,” Maalouf stated, confirming that external pressure has only unified the Iranian populace.

The Axis of Resistance vs. Complicit Arab Regimes

Drawing a sharp contrast, Marandi condemned the inaction of regional governments, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan. “None of them are doing anything to save the Palestinians. None of them are sacrificing,” he declared. He argued that these regimes facilitate US military operations by providing airspace, bases, and funding, while simultaneously attempting to undermine the Resistance through distorted narratives.

The true burden of defending Palestine and Lebanon, Marandi and Maalouf stressed, falls entirely on the Axis of Resistance. Marandi invoked the historic and ongoing sacrifices of the Resistance, pointing to the blood of martyred leaders like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Ali Khamenei as the ultimate testament to Iran and Hezbollah’s unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause.

Regarding Lebanon, the analysts delivered a scathing critique of the installed Lebanese government. Marandi described the government’s diplomatic capitulations as a “rare gift” to Netanyahu at a time when global opinion is turning against the Zionist entity. Maalouf was equally blunt, asserting that the Lebanese army is “dead on arrival” and that Hezbollah remains the only active force defending Lebanon’s territorial integrity against the Zionist occupation. Maalouf affirmed that Iran will not abandon Lebanon, warning that the Axis is fully prepared to take the necessary measures to punish the Zionist entity for its atrocities.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Economic Collapse of Gulf Proxies

The discussion also exposed the severe economic vulnerabilities of the Persian Gulf states. Marandi warned that the economies of US-aligned Gulf nations are in a state worse than stagnation due to their total reliance on oil and gas exports amid regional instability. He noted that Iran and Oman maintain firm control over the management of the Strait of Hormuz, immune to US pressure.

In a stark warning to Gulf monarchies, Marandi stated that their complicity in the war against Iran would be their undoing. “Ironically, the strangulation that the U.S. Treasury Secretary has been speaking about will bring about their fall, not the fall of anyone else,” he said.

Maalouf debunked Trump’s claims of US naval dominance in the Gulf, calling the assertion that the US Navy is escorting commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz a “lie.” He pointed out that the US military initiative has failed, forcing Washington into a desperate economic war that is backfiring. The resulting commodity disruptions are driving up diesel prices and crippling the US trucking industry, effectively bringing the American economy “to a grinding halt.”

Western Institutions Stripped of Credibility

Both analysts concluded that Western institutions, particularly the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have lost all credibility in Tehran and the broader Global South. Marandi condemned the IAEA for its long-documented history of funnelling intelligence to Western and Zionist spy agencies. Furthermore, the agency has repeatedly verified Iran’s nuclear facilities as peaceful, yet failed to condemn the US and Zionist military strikes against them.

Maalouf echoed this sentiment, criticising the IAEA’s blatant double standards regarding the Zionist regime’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. He argued that Western media and institutions are increasingly rejected by global audiences who can see through the official narratives. “No one trusts the Western media because we see things with our own eyes,” Maalouf concluded, noting that the resulting loss of trust has left the Trump administration with abysmal credibility and collapsing approval ratings.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

TEHRAN — Iran has officially transitioned from a defensive posture to a comprehensive offensive strategy, warning that any further American aggression will be met with overwhelming and devastating force, according to prominent Iranian academic and political analyst Mohammad Marandi.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen’s The Great Standoff: Iran and the World, Marandi emphasised that the United States is now facing a “no going back” reality. With Tehran fully prepared to escalate the conflict, he stated that Washington faces “only bad options” as the Axis of Resistance stands firm.

Intentional War Crimes by the US

Marandi dismantled the narrative that recent US strikes on Iranian soil were “accidental.” He pointed to precision bombings of civilian infrastructure—including a school in Minab, a sports complex in La Mer, and a bridge in Tehran on the national Nature Day holiday—as undeniable proof of calculated American aggression.

“Three rockets hit that place in a residential neighbourhood; there was no military asset there,” Marandi stated, emphasising that Washington intentionally targets civilians when precision weapons are deployed. “So no one can conclude but to say that this was intentional.”

Climbing the Escalation Ladder

A major turning point in the ongoing standoff occurred on September 5, when Iranian forces struck US naval ships attempting to breach the Strait of Hormuz during a ceasefire. While previous encounters involved drone strikes to send a calibrated message, Marandi noted that the recent retaliation utilised advanced missiles.

“This is an important milestone. Iran has gone up the escalation ladder,” he explained, highlighting the Islamic Republic’s technological readiness and military supremacy. Under the new leadership of the Supreme National Security Council, Tehran’s strategy is “clear as day”: any American strike will trigger a severe, unyielding reaction.

A Dire Warning to US Proxies and the Gulf

Marandi delivered a stark warning to Gulf regimes assisting the US war machine against Iran: their survival is at stake. He cautioned that an expanded escalatory conflict would be fatal for American proxies in the region.

“They will not survive an expanded escalatory conflict,” Marandi declared.

If Gulf states continue to facilitate US aggression, Marandi warned, Iran will not hesitate to obliterate their energy infrastructure. “Iran can destroy the oil fields, it can destroy the gas installations, then those pipelines will be empty,” he said, noting that rebuilding such infrastructure would take years and cost billions.

Despite the heightened tensions, Marandi clarified that Iran has not completely shuttered the Strait of Hormuz. Vital energy routes remain open to nations that do not partake in the aggression, allowing Iraqi and Chinese tankers safe passage. The blockade is strictly targeted at regimes actively aiding the United States.

Global Fallout and US Decline

Addressing the political leadership in Washington, Marandi singled out US officials—including War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—alongside Donald Trump and Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing them of “dragging the United States down.”

He warned that Tehran “will pull no punches,” and cautioned that an all-out regional war engineered by the US would trigger a catastrophic crash of the global economy.

“Iran is prepared for escalation, and it will continue to escalate as far as necessary,” Marandi concluded. “And Iran is determined to defeat the United States.”

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

Introduction

In what analysts and citizens alike are condemning as a blatant return to gunboat diplomacy, the United States has successfully engineered a sweeping takeover of Venezuela’s energy sector. Following a massive US military operation on January 3, 2026, which culminated in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his transfer to New York on “narco-terrorism” charges, the resulting interim government in Caracas has been forced into a highly controversial agreement. Far from a standard commercial partnership, the deal represents a profound loss of sovereignty and a reassertion of US hegemony in Latin America.

The “Colonial” Oil Deal

Announced by US President Donald Trump on August 30 as “the biggest oil deal in world history,” the arrangement grants Washington unprecedented control over Venezuela’s most strategic asset. Under the terms of the 25-year bilateral framework—which some US officials claim could span up to a century—the US has secured majority access to 17 strategic oilfields and an estimated 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, representing roughly one-fifth of the country’s total.

The backlash within Venezuela has been swift and severe, cutting across the deeply fractured political spectrum. Rafael Ramirez, a former head of the state oil company PDVSA, characterised the arrangement as the opening of “a new form of US colonialism.” Exiled economist Francisco Rodriguez urged the National Assembly to reject the “predatory deal,” arguing that the interim administration is handing over the nation’s wealth “at gunpoint.” Despite Interim President Delcy Rodríguez’s claims that Venezuela retains sovereignty and that the deal will yield $209 billion in state revenue, experts have dismantled this framing, pointing out the meagre returns per barrel and the total loss of operational control.

The Pentagon’s Expanding Mandate

The mechanics of the deal reveal an extraordinary expansion of the US military-industrial complex into foreign energy markets. The Pentagon’s little-known Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) has taken a central role in structuring the agreement. Through the use of “penny warrants”—financial instruments allowing the US government to convert them into shares for a nominal amount of as little as one cent—the Pentagon is poised to acquire up to a 35% equity stake in the parent company of the oil producer at the center of the deal.

Furthermore, the State Department is set to receive 20% of the oil produced at cost, along with the right of first refusal on the remaining 80% of the output. This places the US government in an unusual and dominant position in the global oil market, effectively transforming a defence office originally meant to strengthen the US industrial base into a major foreign equity player.

A Controversial Partner: The Rise of Alejandro Betancourt

At the heart of this Pentagon-backed venture is North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) and its founder, Venezuelan billionaire Alejandro Betancourt López. Betancourt’s ascent to Washington’s favoured oil partner has raised severe ethical and legal questions. Previously scrutinised by US federal prosecutors, Spanish, and Swiss authorities for his alleged involvement in a scheme to embezzle over $1 billion from PDVSA and launder the proceeds, Betancourt’s legal troubles seemingly vanished as his utility to Washington grew.

Before Maduro’s forcible removal, Betancourt supplied critical information that helped US authorities enforce a crippling naval blockade and tanker seizures against Venezuela. Following his cooperation, the US Justice Department quietly paused its money-laundering investigation into him, and Washington reportedly pressured Swiss authorities to ease their pursuit, leading to the withdrawal of a Swiss extradition request from the UK. Today, the billionaire once probed for looting Venezuelan state funds is the linchpin of the US effort to reshape the country’s economy.

Conclusion

The US-Venezuela oil agreement lays bare a modern iteration of imperialism, where military force, regime change, and the suspension of legal accountability for favoured oligarchs are utilised to extract sovereign wealth. With Maduro currently fighting for his freedom in a New York courtroom—where his lawyers are seeking dismissal based on head-of-state immunity—and his country’s resources being carved up by the Pentagon and controversial private equity partners, the deal stands as a stark testament to the ruthless efficacy of 21st-century US gunboat diplomacy.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

In a stark message to the imperialist powers and their regional lackeys, prominent political analyst Professor Mohammad Marandi has declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared for a prolonged, decisive, and crushing war against the United States.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen, Marandi laid bare the strategic reality of the battlefield: The American regime has fallen directly into a carefully laid trap by the Axis of Resistance. Far from being intimidated by Washington’s hollow threats, the armed forces of the Islamic Revolution have transitioned to a resolute offensive posture.

Depleted Shields and the Underground Fortress

Marandi highlighted the catastrophic depletion of American military stockpiles. During recent Iranian retaliatory strikes, US and Jordanian forces were forced to burn through approximately 100 surface-to-air missiles, severely draining their Patriot interceptor reserves. With over 1,500 of their 2,330 available Patriot missiles already consumed, the US military-industrial complex is proving entirely incapable of sustaining a high-intensity conflict with a self-sufficient military power like Iran.

Furthermore, Iran’s true deterrent power remains deeply fortified. Marandi noted that the nation’s core military capabilities are housed in massive, impenetrable underground cities. On the surface, tens of thousands of decoys are deliberately planted to waste American munitions and confuse enemy intelligence, turning US targeting efforts into a futile exercise.

The Strait of Hormuz: An Impenetrable Chokehold

In a chilling warning to the US Navy, Marandi confirmed that the strategic Strait of Hormuz has been extensively mined by Iranian forces. “The United States cannot remove those or dismantle the mines,” he stated unequivocally, daring the American fleet to test the waters and pay the ultimate price. Control of global maritime chokepoints now rests firmly in the hands of the Resistance.

The Command of Wilayat: From Defence to Total Offence

This formidable readiness is not accidental. According to Marandi, the strategic shift from a defensive stance to an overwhelming offensive posture is a direct result of the blessed guidance of the Supreme Leader, Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, and the tactical brilliance of General Mohsen Rezaei in his new role chairing the Supreme National Security Council. Iran now holds absolute “escalation dominance,” bolstered by new, undisclosed weapon systems that will make the coming days and weeks a nightmare for American forces.

Death Warrants for Regional Puppets

The Islamic Republic also issued a severe ultimatum to the subservient monarchies and regimes of the Persian Gulf and West Asia. By allowing their airspace to be used for US aggression—including the cowardly American strike on a wedding in Sirik that martyred innocent Iranians—governments in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan have abandoned any facade of neutrality.

“These regimes... will be severely punished,” Marandi warned, asserting that the very existence of these compromised governments is now in question. By collaborating with Washington, they have American blood on their hands, and the Axis of Resistance will not spare them from the coming storm.

The Final Standoff

As the US midterm elections approach, the American regime finds itself bogged down in a war of attrition it cannot win. With the morale of the Iranian armed forces soaring and the nation united behind the leadership of Wilayat al-Faqih, Tehran is prepared to deliver heavy-handed, crushing blows. The era of American impunity in West Asia has ended; the decisive phase of the resistance has begun.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

When Jameela Jamil criticised Britain’s colonial legacy during a recent podcast appearance, the reaction was swift and predictable. Her remarks touched two nerves at once: the political legacy of Brexit and the unresolved question of Britain’s responsibility for the devastation inflicted on colonised nations, particularly the Indian subcontinent.

Jamil argued that Brexit helped create the political atmosphere that empowered Donald Trump’s rise in the United States. She also condemned Britain’s imperial record, pointing to estimates by scholars who argue that Britain extracted enormous wealth from India over nearly two centuries of colonial rule. One widely cited figure places the value of that extraction at around £43 trillion.

For defenders of empire, this was unacceptable. Rather than seriously engage with the historical arguments, several right-wing commentators moved quickly to discredit Jamil herself.

One response focused less on colonialism and more on attacking Jamil personally. Instead of answering the core questions — What did Britain take? What did empire destroy? What is owed to the descendants of those who suffered? — the criticism leaned on ridicule and character judgment. This is a familiar tactic: when the facts of empire are too uncomfortable, attack the person raising them.

Another response attempted to dismiss the reparations argument by selectively citing voices that downplay Britain’s economic exploitation of India. But this ignores the broader historical record: colonial policies contributed to repeated famines, mass poverty, economic deindustrialisation, and deep social divisions. Britain did not simply “govern” India; it extracted from it, reshaped it, and left behind wounds that remain politically and economically visible today.

Defenders of empire often claim that Britain gave India railways, institutions, education, or democracy. Yet these arguments rarely mention that colonial infrastructure was designed primarily to serve imperial interests, not the liberation of the colonised. They also ignore the fact that, by the time Britain left India in 1947, literacy remained shockingly low and the subcontinent had been partitioned amid catastrophic violence.

A third line of attack framed Jamil as an out-of-touch celebrity promoting “elite guilt.” This argument tries to present anti-colonial critique as something imposed on ordinary British people by privileged liberals. But the reality is very different. Empire enriched Britain as a state and economic system, while colonised peoples paid the heaviest price. To discuss that history is not an attack on ordinary workers; it is an attempt to confront the structures that benefited from global exploitation.

Some commentators even invoked George Orwell to criticise anti-imperial sentiment. Yet Orwell himself described empire in deeply critical terms and recognised that Britain’s standard of living was connected to the suffering of colonised peoples. Selectively quoting Orwell while ignoring his condemnation of imperialism only exposes the weakness of the argument.

The uproar over Jamil’s comments reveals a larger problem: Britain still struggles to speak honestly about empire. Its colonial past is often softened into nostalgia, presented as a story of order, development, and civilisational mission. But for much of the world, the British Empire meant occupation, famine, theft, racial hierarchy, and political manipulation.

Whether one agrees with every word Jamil said is not the central issue. The real question is why even raising the subject of reparations and colonial plunder provokes such fury. If Britain’s imperial record were as benevolent as its defenders claim, they would not need to rely on mockery, deflection, or personal attacks.

Jamil’s comments forced a conversation that many would rather avoid. And the reaction to her proved her point: the empire may be gone, but its defenders remain determined to protect its mythology.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

Based on the original analysis by Dr. Ali Hassan Heydari

When a sovereign nation is subjected to unprovoked military aggression, its leadership assassinated, and its children slaughtered, what exactly is the duty of the United Nations? This is not a complicated question, but it is one the global establishment refuses to answer.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has not remained silent in the face of American and Zionist aggression. Since the very beginning of this war, Tehran has pursued the matter through official channels, formally documenting the violations of its sovereignty. On February 28, Iran demanded an emergency UN Security Council session to halt the unlawful use of force and demand accountability. The Council convened, but the outcome was predictable: paralysis.

Today, the issue is not whether Iran approached the UN. The issue is why, after a member state presented clear, undeniable evidence of war crimes, the so-called “collective security mechanism” failed to act.

The Hypocrisy of “Selective” Human Rights

This is not a routine political dispute; it is a war where civilian infrastructure is deliberately targeted. When the Zionist regime and its American backers attacked a school in Minab, murdering 168 innocent students, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights offered nothing but a subdued, hollow statement.

Where was the global outrage? Where was the emergency intervention?

The answer is clear: in the eyes of the Western-dominated UN, the political identity of the victim dictates the value of their life. A child is a child, and a school is a school. Yet, the international response to the massacre in Minab—or the slaughter of over 70,000 innocents in Gaza—proves that “human rights” are merely a political weapon wielded against the Axis of Resistance, not a universal principle.

The Core Lesson: True Security Cannot Be Outsourced

Iran’s criticism of the UN is not just a political protest; it is a fundamental questioning of an international legal order that has been reduced to an instrument of imperial power.

Here lies the most crucial lesson for the Ummah and the Axis of Resistance: A nation that entrusts its security to the will of corrupt international bodies will always remain vulnerable. Iran’s experience has proven that while international diplomacy is necessary, it is utterly ineffective when global organisations are held hostage by the very powers committing the aggression.

We will not abandon our legal and diplomatic pursuit. Every crime, every strike, and every violation will be documented so that no atrocity goes unchallenged in the historical record. But we know the ultimate truth: our sovereignty is not guaranteed by UN resolutions. It is guaranteed by our national strength, our unity, and our deterrence.

The Death of the UN’s Credibility

Today, the people of Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon need more than empty expressions of “concern.” If the UN cannot enforce its own rules against the blatant aggression of the US and the Zionist regime, then the UN itself has lost its reason to exist.

The most important warning to the world is this: The UN retains its credibility only when it defends the law against the arrogant powers. Otherwise, its silence is not merely a failure—it is active complicity. In the current global order, power has attempted to replace law. And against that arrogant power, only the steadfast strength of the Wilayah remains our ultimate shield.

In a resounding testament to the power of steadfast resistance, the Islamic Republic of Iran is proving that it will decisively outlast the United States in the ongoing six-month conflict. In a revealing discussion on Al Mayadeen’s The Great Standoff: Iran and the World, prominent Iranian academic Professor Mohammad Marandi and former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof laid bare the crumbling military, economic, and geopolitical leverage of the American empire.

The Reality of the Siege: War Crimes and Steadfast Resilience

Professor Marandi highlighted that the current phase of the “Ramadan War”—now stretching into its sixth month—has devolved into a brutal form of siege warfare orchestrated by Washington. He condemned this strategy as a blatant war crime, noting that instead of direct kinetic strikes on civilian infrastructure, the US is waging a comprehensive economic war against the Iranian people, aiming to crush civilian morale and deprive the youth of basic necessities.

“These sanctions today are sanctions that have never existed, the likes of which have never existed in human history,” Marandi declared. “But the Iranians continue to remain steadfast, and they will punish the aggressor.” He emphasised that throughout every phase of this prolonged conflict—from the initial 40-day war to the 13 days of fighting following Washington’s betrayal of diplomatic agreements—Iran has consistently outlasted the enemy. “The Iranians know that this is a war for survival,” he affirmed, pointing to the unmatched resilience of Iran and its allies across the Axis of Resistance.

A Swift and Decisive Response to American Arrogance

Addressing the potential for renewed military escalation, Marandi warned that the chances are “significant and substantial.” He issued a clear deterrent to Washington: any attempt to completely crush the Iranian economy, especially with the complicity of regional regimes, will be met with a swift, decisive, and overwhelming military response from the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, he noted the deep strategic synergy between the Iranian and Russian fronts, both of which are successfully exposing and crippling US and European influence globally.

The Collapse of American Power and Flawed Zionist Intelligence

From inside the Pentagon, Michael Maloof confirmed what the Axis of Resistance has long known: this conflict has exposed the severe limitations of American military might. “It has shown that a country such as Iran, which is far less capable militarily, can stand up to a superpower, and did so successfully, to the point that it’s at a stalemate,” Maloof observed. He blamed the catastrophic war on the US blindly following flawed intelligence from the occupying Zionist regime—a miscalculation that has cost Washington dearly.

According to Maloof, Iran, much like Russia and China, has successfully dismantled its reliance on the weaponised US dollar, proving to the world that the American economic empire is highly vulnerable. This historic shift is fundamentally altering the security architecture of West Asia. Gulf states are now realising that hosting US military bases does not offer protection but rather makes them targets of preemptive aggression, proving that “the Middle East of old is no longer going to return.”

The Decaying War Machine and the Multipolar Dawn

The American war machine is showing severe signs of decay. Maloof noted that US military readiness is “diminishing tremendously” in the region, with the US critically short on its ability to rearm or sustain its naval flotillas indefinitely. He sharply criticised US leadership for relying on “bluster” and deception to mask their failing empire.

Ultimately, the war on Iran is not just a regional conflict but a pivotal front in the global struggle against unipolar American hegemony. As the Axis of Resistance, alongside global multipolar forces, builds independent financial and security systems, the American empire finds itself isolated. Washington’s attempts to weaponise sanctions have failed, and as the empire flails, the resistance stands tall—ready, resilient, and victorious.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

Every resistance movement carries archives it can never open. Palestinian and Lebanese security files hold decades of recruitment cases, blown operations, and breaches whose full circumstances may never surface; other secrets died with the people who carried them. The Zionist entity, by contrast, publishes. Retired officials write memoirs — Yossi Cohen’s 2025 The Sword of Freedom, Ronen Bergman’s Rise and Kill First, built on roughly a thousand interviews. Old assassinations become books and television.

That openness is not transparency. Personal ambition and institutional score-settling shape these accounts — one former Mossad chief reportedly fed writers operational detail to wound Netanyahu. Some volumes are designed to steer the resistance toward a particular version of events and close a sensitive file before the full picture emerges. And they leak useful fragments alongside deliberate or accidental falsehoods: Bergman’s index names Noam Erez as the officer behind the Mughniyeh assassination, yet also places Yahya Ayyash at Marj al-Zuhur, where he was never among the deported. The lesson is methodological: read these accounts for what they reveal inadvertently, not for what they claim.

Recruitment Without a Room

The old model required a handler across a table. That table is gone. Financial distress, private correspondence, medical records, travel histories, and intimate relationships can now be mapped from a distance, long before the target realises an approach has begun.

In Gaza, the pressure is existential. In September 2025, The Cradle reported that members of the Dughmush and Bakr families were killed after rejecting Shin Bet overtures — offers of money, weapons, and protection in exchange for forming armed groups modelled on the Abu Shabab militia. Marwan Bakr, the family mukhtar, answered: “We will not be tools in the hands of those who kill us.” Nizar Doghmush, head of his family council: “Death is easier than the stigma of betrayal.” Every refusal has a price — but these refusals are the nucleus of collective steadfastness.

In Iran, the entry point was softer. On 26 June 2025, an X account identifying itself as Mossad Farsi advertised telemedicine consultations over WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal — Persian-speaking specialists in cardiology, oncology, psychology — advising users to connect through a VPN. A single consultation yields names, locations, family ties, health records, and a private line of communication, while presenting the enemy’s intelligence service as more attentive to Iranians than their own government. Scholarships, conferences, and diaspora associations serve the same logic: students in sensitive technical fields are especially valuable, because recruitment abroad is harder to detect once they return home.

Protocols Written After the Breach

A Lebanese security source describes the counter-measures bluntly: “Entering the embassies of certain countries, or even passing through those countries in transit, is sufficient grounds for suspension or dismissal.” A cadre who travels without permission — even somewhere neither hostile nor suspicious — is suspended for years: “enough time for the handler to lose any hope of benefiting from the cadre if he has been recruited.”

Some rules arrived late. After a mid-ranking Palestinian cadre was abducted in an Asian country — freed before he was killed, but not before surrendering what he held — even retirees were barred from travel for three years after resignation.

The exposure surface is wider than cadres realise. Medical travel forces patients and relatives to hand documents, diagnoses, and travel plans to hospitals, charities, insurers, visa offices, and intermediaries. A hostile service needs to compromise only one link in that chain. Beyond money and ideology, captured agents describe quieter motives: the need to feel important, the desire for citizenship, the attraction of proximity to power. Recruitment succeeds where a service identifies the private story a target wants to believe about himself. The scale of the threat is visible in Lebanon, where the ISF and Hezbollah have repeatedly dismantled cross-sectarian Zionist networks — the largest announced in 2022 — and in Iran’s arrests after the June 2025 war, which spread across logistics, transport, and ordinary civilian work.

The Agent Who Doesn’t Just Report

The most destructive asset is not the one who transmits coordinates. It is the one whose warning converts an operation into an ambush, or lets a structure be observed until every node is exposed. Resistance sources attribute compromised operations to internal breach — the 2005 Ghajar operation, the first Zikim naval assault of 2014 — and speak of an agent known only as “N.N.,” allegedly embedded in a Gaza armed wing for 25 years. Such claims remain attributed, and rightly so; but the pattern they describe is consistent.

One anecdote captures the method. A former female prisoner, dispatched on a bombing mission more than 15 years before her release, says that days before she left prison, Israel assassinated the commander who had sent her. The only two people capable of assembling the full picture were prevented from ever comparing it.

The West Bank illustrates the macro version. Between 2017 and 2019, a retired security source recounts, Israel allowed a developing armed structure to expand, monitoring every meeting abroad, and arrested only after the financing and weapons-transfer chains were exposed. “One rotten tomato can spoil many others... A masterstroke is worth a thousand ordinary blows. This explains why the West Bank did not rise up in the opening days of Al-Aqsa Flood and has not done so to this day.” Notably, Israeli officials themselves claim they held no high-level agent inside Hamas’s senior leadership — which is why the Flood proceeded without warning, and why the later successes in Lebanon and Iran stand in such sharp contrast.

The Asymmetry of Silence

This returns the analysis to its opening frame. The Zionist regime can absorb publicity around its successes; disclosure is rebranded as deterrence. The resistance cannot. Acknowledging a breach teaches the enemy which methods were identified, and risks turning a single betrayal into evidence of systemic rot. Silence is not censorship — it is a security protocol. And it is, structurally, a disadvantage in the narrative war: the side that publishes first writes the first draft of the conflict’s history.

Reference: The Cradle

Recent geopolitical analyses have exposed the glaring vulnerabilities of the United States’ latest attempt to strangle the Islamic Republic of Iran. Far from the devastating blow advertised by American officials and their Zionist allies, the renewed “maximum pressure” campaign has proven to be little more than a hollow roar—a desperate reflex of a declining imperial power.

Prominent voices, including former CIA analyst Larry Johnson and University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi, have dissected the sheer absurdity of Washington’s assumptions. The American regime continues to operate on the outdated delusion that Iran remains a captive of the petrodollar system and the Western banking monopoly. In reality, the Islamic Republic has successfully engineered a strategic pivot, dismantling the efficacy of US sanctions through its deep integration with BRICS and the Global South.

The Death of the Petrodollar and the Rise of Multipolarity

The US sanctions regime is predicated on the false premise that Washington still controls global trade. Today, Iran conducts its international commerce in Chinese yuan and other non-dollar currencies, bypassing American financial institutions entirely.

As noted by analysts, the Islamic Republic is no longer an economic hostage of the West. When the US previously attempted to impose blockades, nations like Pakistan defiantly opened multiple land routes for trade with Tehran, dealing a direct slap in the face to American hegemony. Iran’s robust partnerships with Russia, China, and its neighbours have built an impenetrable economic fortress that the US Treasury Department simply cannot penetrate.

Uncompromising Demands: The Strait of Hormuz as a Geopolitical Lever

While Washington engages in performative economic warfare, Tehran has laid down absolute red lines. The Islamic Republic remains unfazed by American threats and has made it unequivocally clear: business as usual will not resume until the demands of the Axis of Resistance are met.

These preconditions include the complete withdrawal of the Zionist occupation forces from Lebanon and an immediate end to the genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The message, delivered clearly to regional mediators, is that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to the enemies of the Resistance until the American regime and its Zionist entity cease their aggression.

A Self-Inflicted Energy Crisis for the American Empire

The irony of Washington’s sanctions is that they are exacerbating a global energy shortage that disproportionately harms the United States itself. With the disruption of sour crude from the Persian Gulf, the American regime is facing severe shortages in diesel and aviation fuel production. Having exhausted its strategic petroleum reserves, the US finds itself economically weaker than at any point in recent memory, burdened by a national debt exceeding $40 trillion.

Furthermore, American arrogance has alienated its supposed allies. By picking fights with neighbouring countries like Canada, the US risks pushing vital energy suppliers into the arms of the Eastern bloc, further accelerating the transition of global oil trade to China.

A New Security Architecture in West Asia

The decline of American influence is perhaps most evident in the shifting security dynamics of West Asia. The recent defence pact discussions between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan—often referred to as the Mecca Agreement—signal a profound regional realignment. While Tehran remains cautiously observant regarding the specific objectives of this grouping, the overarching reality is undeniable: the region is moving toward a new security architecture that effectively excludes the United States.

Even traditional US client states in the Persian Gulf are no longer viewing Washington as a reliable security partner, increasingly seeking mutual defence pacts independent of American oversight.

The IRGC and the Fortress of Resistance

Despite the hardships inflicted by decades of economic warfare, the resilience of the Iranian nation remains unbroken. While any other nation—be it in Europe or the Arab world—would have collapsed under the weight of such pressure, the Islamic Republic stands stronger than ever.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the regular Armed Forces have stepped forward, integrating their logistical and construction capabilities with the government to combat economic warfare on the domestic front. The unity between the Iranian people, the state, and the Axis of Resistance has birthed a new international reality.

As the Global South rises and the BRICS alliance surpasses the G7 in economic output, the future undeniably belongs to the Resistance. The United States will continue to fail against Iran, and the dawn of a multipolar world order, free from American imperialism and Zionist occupation, is fast approaching.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

The Question That Defines the War

Every prolonged conflict eventually reduces itself to a single, brutal question: who bends first? Not who fires the most precise missile, not who dominates the airspace on day one, but who can carry the weight of war—financially, politically, psychologically—longer than the other before the costs force a change in objectives.

A newly circulated strategic study takes up that question directly, pitting Iran against the United States across every measurable dimension of endurance: time management, fiscal sustainability, military readiness, societal resilience, governmental adaptability, escalation control, and the capacity to absorb shocks while still generating solutions. Its conclusion is neither simple nor comfortable for Washington: the side that looks weaker on paper is proving harder to break in practice.

The Asymmetry of Economic Pain

The study is careful not to romanticise Iran’s position. Tehran faces a severe economic shock. Sanctions, infrastructure damage, and the disruption of trade impose real suffering on ordinary Iranians. Yet the authors argue that Iran enters this war equipped with what they call a “resistance economy”—a survival-oriented economic architecture refined over decades of isolation. It is not prosperity, but it is resilience, and resilience is what prolonged war demands.

The United States, by contrast, absorbs its costs through a different channel: higher energy prices, inflationary pressure, rising interest rates, expanding national debt, and the strain of sustained military spending. Some sectors—oil producers, refiners, defence contractors—may even profit. But those gains accrue to private balance sheets, not to the American household struggling at the pump or the grocery checkout. The study’s decisive framing is clear: the question is not who pays more in absolute terms, but who converts economic pain into political pressure first.

Military Superiority Meets Structural Limits

American military dominance is not in dispute. The study does not challenge it. What it challenges is the assumption that dominance translates seamlessly into outcomes. Ammunition consumption rates, stretched supply chains, the logistical burden of global force deployment, and the political cost of sustained operations all impose ceilings that no budget increase can simply erase.

The most pointed illustration the study offers is the redeployment of the last U.S. aircraft carrier from the Asia-Pacific theatre to cover West Asia. One war, the authors note, is consuming the very assets that underpin American deterrence against China. This is what they term “strategic overstretch”—not a collapse of capability, but a thinning of it across too many theatres until presence becomes symbolic rather than substantive.

The Political Price Washington Is Paying

Where the study sharpens its argument most is on the political front. It identifies a widening gap between military achievement and strategic outcome. Strikes are executed; objectives remain unmet. Credibility declines. Allies grow uncertain. Public opinion, already strained, drifts further from support for the war’s continuation.

Iran, meanwhile, has experienced the opposite domestic effect. The study argues that the war has, at least to this point, strengthened the regime’s legitimacy and reinforced internal cohesion. The narrative of national resistance against an overwhelming external power has done what decades of sanctions could not: consolidated a fractured polity around its leadership.

Endurance as Strategy

Perhaps the study’s most striking analytical move is its treatment of Iranian endurance not as passive suffering but as active strategy. Tehran’s willingness to absorb punishment, regenerate combat capabilities, and simply remain in the fight is presented as a deliberate instrument of leverage. Duration itself becomes a weapon.

The Strait of Hormuz is the sharpest expression of this logic. Iran’s practical ability to threaten, disrupt, or close the Strait is framed not merely as a military capability but as a negotiating tool—a means of imposing costs on adversaries and extracting concessions without firing a shot. The countervailing cost, the study acknowledges, is the erosion of regional trust in Iran. Neighbours hedge. Alliances shift. Tehran gains leverage but loses goodwill.

The Psychological and Reputational Reckoning

The study extends its analysis beyond material measures into perception. Iran’s ability to withstand American military power despite an enormous disparity in resources has, the authors argue, damaged global perceptions of U.S. military invincibility. Beijing and Moscow, watching and calculating, draw their own conclusions about the limits of American force projection.

Domestically, the study points to declining morale and readiness within U.S. forces, alongside growing institutional doubt about the original decision to enter the war. The information war—narrative, imagery, framing—has become an extension of the kinetic confrontation, with both sides labouring to shape how the conflict is understood at home and abroad.

Strategic Impasse and the Multipolar Horizon

The study’s bottom-line assessment is stark: the confrontation has entered a phase of “strategic impasse.” Neither side can impose a decisive outcome on its own terms. But the balance of endurance, the authors argue, tilts toward Tehran.

Washington’s vulnerabilities are characterised as strategic—concerning global influence, alliance credibility, and the long-term sustainability of U.S. hegemony. Iran’s vulnerabilities are characterised as operational and tactical—problems of logistics, infrastructure, and battlefield management that leave greater room for adaptation and improvisation. Strategic problems, the study implies, are harder to solve than tactical ones.

The authors frame the conflict as more than a regional war. They see it as a potential inflexion point: the moment when the post–Cold War era of predominant American power begins to give way to a more contested, multipolar security order. Not because Iran wins, but because Washington is shown to be unable to end the war on its own terms—and that inability is observed, recorded, and remembered by every capital watching.

The Final Measure

Wars are rarely lost in a single battle. They are lost in the slow accumulation of costs that a political system can no longer justify to itself. The study’s central finding is that this accumulation is now working faster against the United States than against Iran. American endurance is eroding; Iranian endurance is holding. The gap between them is the space in which the war’s outcome will ultimately be decided—not by the next strike, but by the next political calculation in a capital that can no longer explain why the war must continue.

Endurance, in the end, is not a military metric. It is a political one. And politics, unlike munitions, cannot be resupplied by a factory.

Reference: Zeinab Al Saffar

The long-curated narrative of the British Empire as the great “abolitionist” power of the 19th century has taken another heavy blow. A newly uncovered 1847 letter has revealed that a prominent British trading company, Sandbach, Tinne and Company, continued to illegally traffic enslaved Africans to Guyana years after the official abolition of slavery across the British Empire.

The damning document, unearthed by author and researcher Malik Al Nasir, was sent to the firm’s Liverpool headquarters by Peter Miller Watson, who managed the company’s colonial interests in Demerara, Guyana. In stark, dehumanising language, Watson recorded the arrival of the company vessel, the Parker, describing its human payload as a “cargo of negroes.” The manifest listed 115 adult men, 86 adult women, and over 120 children.

Britain outlawed the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 legally prohibited slavery across the Empire. Yet, in 1847, the machinery of human trafficking was still operating under the protection of the British crown and the ledger books of its elite.

Analysis: The Architecture of Western Blood Capital

To view this merely as a historical anomaly or the rogue actions of a single company is to misunderstand the foundational architecture of Western capitalism. The exposure of Sandbach, Tinne and Company’s ongoing trafficking shines a harsh light on the grotesque financial realities that built the modern West.

At the exact time these elites were secretly importing enslaved human beings, they were simultaneously reaping massive payouts from the British government. Following the 1833 Abolition Act, the British government did not compensate the enslaved for their lifetime of torture and stolen labour; instead, it compensated the slave owners for the “loss of their property.”

Shareholders and associates of Sandbach, Tinne and Company—including the Sandbach, Tinne, and Gladstone families—were among the biggest beneficiaries of this blood money. John Gladstone, father of future four-time British Prime Minister William Gladstone, received the largest individual compensation payment awarded by the state.

In a staggering display of imperial injustice, the British government took out a massive £20 million loan (equivalent to 40% of the national budget at the time) to pay off the slave-owning class. The debt was so enormous that British taxpayers were still paying it off well into the 21st century, with the Treasury only officially clearing the debt in 2015.

This is the hidden mechanism of Western wealth accumulation. The capital generated by illegal, post-abolition trafficking and state-sponsored reparations for slave owners did not disappear. It was invested into banks, railways, real estate, and political dynasties that still govern the West today. The British working class and the colonised Global South were forced to finance the “reparations” of the very men who were secretly continuing to traffic human beings.

The Myth of the “Benevolent” Empire

This historical revelation strips away the liberal myth of Western moral superiority. The West routinely weaponises the concept of “human rights” to sanction, destabilise, and lecture nations in the Global South and the Resistance Axis. Yet, the foundational capital of the world’s premier financial hubs in London and New York is drenched in systemic, state-sanctioned criminality that persisted long after it was supposedly outlawed.

The language used in the 1847 manifest removes any ambiguity. Watson referred to the trafficked Africans as “cargo,” casually noting three deaths during the voyage and attributing them to the “wretched state in which they had lived ashore.” He was not speaking of liberated refugees or indentured servants; he was speaking the cold, calculated language of the illegal slave trade, treating human death solely as a loss of corporate property.

Overwriting the Colonial Ledger

The evidence is now central to a new research project titled Overwriting-Underwriting, launched at the Museum of Liverpool to coincide with UNESCO’s International Day of Remembrance of the Slave Trade. The initiative seeks to expose how colonial wealth structures continued to shape Western institutions long after the official end of slavery.

For those opposing modern imperialism, the Parker manifest serves as a grim analytical reminder: The official end of an oppressive law rarely stops the machinery of profit for the imperial elite. The British Empire did not end slavery out of a sudden moral awakening; it transitioned into new forms of colonial extraction and indentured servitude, ensuring that the wealth of the Global South continued to flow into the pockets of the Western elite.

Until this blood capital is acknowledged and repatriated, the West’s lectures on morality and human rights remain exactly what they have always been: an imperial lie designed to sanitise a history of relentless plunder.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

Tehran’s Strategic Depth Defies American Siege Warfare

The United States continues its relentless campaign of economic terrorism against the Islamic Republic of Iran, desperately attempting to tighten its chokehold by pressuring Gulf states to sever their commercial lifelines with Tehran. However, as highlighted in a recent analysis on Al Mayadeen’s “The Great Standoff: Iran and the World,” this strategy of “maximum pressure” is not only doomed to fail but risks triggering a catastrophic economic and security fallout across the entire region.

Dr. Mohammad Marandi, a prominent professor at the University of Tehran, dismantled the delusions of American policymakers, emphasising that years of illegal US sanctions have only accelerated Iran’s march toward complete economic self-sufficiency. By pivoting toward the Global South, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Islamic Republic has successfully built a resilient, diversified economy that is impervious to Western coercion.

“There is no doubt that the Iranians take US threats seriously,” Dr. Marandi noted, affirming that Tehran has fully adapted to the prolonged economic warfare waged by the arrogant powers. Unlike the fragile, oil-dependent monarchies of the Persian Gulf, Iran possesses a robust domestic production base and a vast network of alternative trade corridors spanning Central Asia, Russia, Pakistan, and Iraq.

The Vulnerability of Subservient Gulf Monarchies

In a desperate bid to strangle Iran’s economy, the US is now targeting intermediaries, particularly the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has historically served as a vital commercial hub for Iranian trade. Dr. Joshua Landis, a professor at the University of Oklahoma, observed that the American administration views the UAE as a powerful weapon to impoverish the Iranian people.

However, this imperialist manoeuvre carries severe risks for the Gulf regimes themselves. Dr. Marandi issued a stark warning to the rulers of the UAE and other Gulf states who have sold out their sovereignty to host American military bases.

“The situation inside their country is not good. The economic situation is very bad,” Marandi stated, pointing out that by granting the US access to their airspace and military installations, these regimes have actively participated in the war against the Axis of Resistance. Consequently, they have made their own economies legitimate targets for Iranian countermeasures.

“Who will collapse? Obviously, it won’t be Iran,” Marandi declared, stressing that Tehran has the capability to paralyse the region. “Iran can shut down all the ports in this region... It can shut down all the economies in this region, not just in West Asia but in the Caucasus.”

Economic Terrorism and Western Hypocrisy

Dr. Marandi sharply condemned the Western sanctions regime, exposing it for what it truly is: a brutal form of collective punishment designed to starve civilians, women, and children into submission. Drawing direct parallels to the genocidal sieges imposed on Gaza, Syria, Cuba, and Iraq, he dismissed Western claims of “humanitarian concern” as a hollow facade masking ruthless geopolitical coercion. Yet, the steadfast Iranian nation, guided by the principles of Wilayah, possesses the strategic depth to endure and overcome this economic aggression.

The Zionist Agenda to Divide the Ummah

Beyond the economic sphere, the US-Israeli axis is actively working to reshape regional alliances to serve the interests of the Zionist entity. Dr. Landis pointed out that the ongoing aggression against the Axis of Resistance is being exploited by “Israel” to drag Arab Gulf states into a tacit, strategic alliance against Iran.

Despite widespread popular anger across the Arab and Islamic world toward the Zionist entity’s crimes, the US is engineering a regional polarisation that forces Gulf monarchies to align with Tel Aviv. “As Iran counterattacks Gulf countries in order to punish the United States and its allies, those countries will, despite themselves, be sucked in on the side of Israel to hurt Iran,” Landis explained.

This sinister plot aims to fracture the Middle East, turning an internal regional issue into a broader conflict that weakens the Ummah while simultaneously boosting the strategic posture of the Zionist regime. It is a desperate attempt to derail the growing realisation among Arab nations that “Israel” and American imperialism are the true sources of instability in West Asia.

Blowback on the American Empire

The architects of this economic war are also feeling the pain at home. The disruption of maritime oil shipments and the tightening blockade of the Strait of Hormuz are sending shockwaves through global energy markets. Dr. Landis warned that the resulting surge in oil prices, skyrocketing inflation, and suffering bond markets are severely damaging the US and European economies.

With the US administration deeply divided over whether its true goal is regime change or a new nuclear capitulation deal, the domestic political cost of this failed foreign policy is mounting. As the economic fallout worsens, the American electorate is beginning to feel the sting of their government’s reckless imperial adventures.

Ultimately, the Axis of Resistance remains unbroken. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not be bullied into submission, and the American dream of regional hegemony will continue to crumble against the steadfast resolve of the Iranian nation and its allies.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

By Dr. Ali Hassan Heydari

The Strait of Hormuz today is no longer just a strategic waterway; it has become the most critical test of American power in West Asia. And the significance of this test lies not in which side tells its victory story more loudly, but in a simpler question: has the United States — with all its military superiority — been able to restore Hormuz to its pre-war condition? The evidence now emerging from within the United States itself supplies a clear answer. It has not.

The Admission From Washington’s Own Think Tanks

The most authoritative American research centers have acknowledged that Iran emerged from the war with increased control and influence over the strait. According to the Brookings Institution, Iran managed to establish control over Hormuz in the aftermath of the war, gaining leverage over approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil — while America’s post-war position has deteriorated compared to its pre-war status. As Brookings wrote in June 2026, Iran has been able to use Hormuz as a lever of pressure by restricting shipping.

And Hormuz is not an ordinary maritime route. According to data from the US Energy Information Administration, approximately 20 million barrels of oil passed through the strait daily prior to the crisis. The same agency records how violently the disruption of the second quarter of 2026 shook the markets: Brent crude traded in a wild range, spiking to $118 per barrel at the peak of the crisis. Even now, in late August, prices remain far above pre-war levels, and — as Al Jazeera reported this month — hopes for a full reopening keep collapsing, because Tehran has made plain that the waterway will not return to “normal” without major American concessions. The issue, therefore, is not merely control over a strait. Every development at Hormuz translates directly into fuel prices, inflation, transportation costs, and the energy security of the global economy — including that of the United States.

A Blockade Is Not a Restoration

From here, Washington’s current deadlock becomes apparent. The US can insist on continued military pressure and blockade. But the ability to sustain a blockade is not the same as the ability to restore global trade to normalcy. The longer this situation persists, the more its cost will be borne not only by Iran: the global economy, Arab oil-producing countries, Asian consumers, and even the American people will pay the price through rising energy costs and inflation.

Under such conditions, discussions about “transit fees” or financial mechanisms to guarantee shipping security are no longer peripheral issues. They are part of the effort to find a practical way out of this strategic deadlock. The very talk of controlled transit and coordination fees — reportedly around $2 million per vessel under recent arrangements, which Iran insists are fees for coordinating safe passage rather than tolls — is the sound of the equation shifting. To discuss them at all necessarily requires accepting the design of new arrangements for Hormuz, and that acceptance itself signals a change in the balance.

Equally, the United States must abandon a comforting illusion: that pipelines and alternative routes can reduce global trade’s vulnerability to Hormuz. The geographical and economic reality remains unchanged. None of these alternatives can fully replace Hormuz in the short term. For this reason, the only viable strategy is not the elimination of Hormuz, but the acceptance of new arrangements for it.

Firepower Cannot Restore Confidence

The central question for Washington is therefore no longer whether the US possesses sufficient military power to pressure Iran. It is whether Washington can guarantee stable, normal shipping security without a political agreement with Tehran. The experience of recent months has shown that the answer is far from simple.

This reveals a fundamental truth: military power can destroy military positions, but it cannot alone restore a vital waterway to normalcy. Shipping security depends not only on the presence of warships. Shipping companies, insurers, tanker owners, and energy markets must all have confidence that passage through the strait is safe and predictable. More important than any political claim of “control” over the strait is the restoration of normal commercial flow — and that confidence cannot be bombed into existence.

No Sustainable Order Without Iran

Thus the question today presents Washington with a simple choice, however bitter: either continue efforts to return Hormuz to its pre-war status — which is no longer achievable — or accept the escalating military, economic, and political costs within the framework of an agreement that aligns shipping security with the region’s new reality. In the end, the United States will likely find itself compelled to choose the second option.

At the same time, one principle cannot be ignored: no sustainable and workable arrangements for Hormuz can be established without considering Iran’s role. This is precisely the reality that American sources — albeit in different language — have approached and acknowledged. The experience of Hormuz has demonstrated that while the United States possesses enormous destructive power, restoring the normal flow of trade through such a vital chokepoint requires more than firepower. It requires acceptance of the failure of the war strategy against Iran, acknowledgment of realities on the ground, and the pursuit of a comprehensive, guaranteed agreement for an honourable exit from the current strategic deadlock.

If Washington insists on denying the new reality through continued military pressure, it will eventually be compelled — in the long term — to accept withdrawal from the region. Conversely, accepting a new security and economic framework, even if politically difficult for the United States, could provide a path to reduce costs and end the current stalemate.

Because in the Strait of Hormuz today, geography is intertwined with the global economy. And given Iran’s strategic military capabilities, no power can ignore the reality that Iran is now stronger than it was before the war.

After spectacularly failing to achieve any of his military objectives in his aggressive campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran, US President Donald Trump has once again taken to his megaphone to declare victory. Unable to secure the battlefield or force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has now announced what he pompously calls the “most crushing economic operation” in history—a transparent admission of military defeat thinly veiled as grand geopolitical rhetoric.

Trump’s Truth Social Tantrum

In a rambling post on Truth Social, the self-proclaimed “deal-maker” lashed out at Tehran after his naval blockade completely failed to choke off Iranian exports.

Iran’s Resilience vs. American Fantasy

The irony of Trump’s claims is staggering. While the American bully thug asserts that Iran is “hanging by a thread,” the Islamic Republic just reported an astonishing $7.5 billion in oil revenue in the first four months of 2026 alone. This represents a massive 150% year-on-year increase, effortlessly achieved despite Trump’s much-hyped and entirely ineffective military and naval pressures.

The “greatest dealmaker,” who previously promised to “obliterate” Iran, is now reduced to empty threats to “crush” it economically. Meanwhile, back home, Trump’s administration is scrambling to explain to the American working class why domestic diesel prices have skyrocketed to a record-shattering $5.47 per gallon.

Desperation and “Economic D-Day”

In a desperate bid to enforce his failing maximum pressure regime, Trump extended his threats globally, warning any nation that dares to provide a lifeline to the Axis of Resistance.

But one has to ask: if Iran is supposedly “hanging by a thread,” why does Washington need a “crushing” new operation and global ultimatums? The answer is obvious. Trump’s military gambles failed, and the US is now grasping at any rhetorical straw that sounds tough to cover up its strategic defeat.

The Crumbling Empire: $40 Trillion in Debt

While Trump fantasises about crushing Iran’s economy, his own country’s fiscal house is burning to the ground. The US Treasury Department recently confirmed that total American public debt has topped a staggering $40 trillion for the first time in history—crossing that threshold less than five months after hitting $39 trillion.

The American debt load has more than doubled since 2017, revealing the hollow nature of their capitalist system:

• $7.8 trillion added under Trump’s first term.

• $8.4 trillion added under the Biden administration.

• $3.8 trillion added since Trump’s return to office in 2025.

Furthermore, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Trump’s tax-and-spending laws will add another $4.7 trillion to the deficit—a fitting legacy for a president who constantly brags about fictitious economic “victories.”

Bankrupt at Home, Defeated Abroad

Global markets are taking notice, with investors demanding higher returns to hold rapidly depreciating US debt. Long-bond yields have hit their highest levels in nearly two decades. Consequently, interest payments on the US national debt have ballooned to roughly $1.1 trillion a year.

Remarkably, this interest burden has now overtaken Medicare to become the second-largest line item in the federal budget, trailing only Social Security. The United States government now spends more money just to service its insurmountable debt than it does on providing healthcare for its elderly citizens.

Yet, from the depths of this domestic economic ruin, its delusional president continues to threaten the world with an “economic D-Day” against a resilient Iran. It is the ultimate portrait of a dying empire: bankrupt at home, defeated abroad, and sustained only by the empty, desperate boasts of its failing leader.

TEHRAN — In a blistering assessment of the ongoing confrontation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, prominent Iranian academic and geopolitical analyst Professor Sayyed Mohammad Marandi has declared that Washington has suffered a crushing “strategic and moral defeat” in its hybrid war against Tehran.

Speaking in an exclusive interview on Al Mayadeen’s “Iran and the World” program, Prof. Marandi dismantled the illusion of American power, arguing that the US’s relentless aggression and chronic inability to honour its own diplomatic commitments have only fortified the resolve of the Iranian nation and the broader Axis of Resistance.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Washington

At the core of the American defeat, according to Marandi, is the total collapse of Washington’s credibility on the world stage. He pointed to the historical record of the US administration—specifically its willingness to sign international agreements only to maliciously undermine and abandon them—as definitive proof of its treacherous nature.

“We attempted to have peace, but our enemy failed to take its own signature and its own promise and its own commitment seriously,” Marandi stated.

This blatant disregard for international law and diplomatic norms has not weakened Iran; rather, it has served as a global awakening. Marandi argued that Washington’s betrayal of its own treaties has reinforced confidence among Iran’s allies and the independent nations of the Global South, who now clearly see the United States not as a champion of a “rules-based order,” but as a rogue imperial power. Iran, by contrast, has proven its genuine pursuit of peace, securing a profound moral victory while the US drowns in its own hypocrisy.

A Legacy of Strategic Failures

Drawing a direct line between the current hybrid war on Iran and the catastrophic history of US military interventions in West Asia, Marandi invoked the ultimate symbol of American humiliation: the disastrous occupation of Afghanistan. He explicitly labelled the US defeat and chaotic expulsion from Afghanistan as a “strategic defeat,” extending this exact assessment to Washington’s broader military and political manoeuvres across the region today.

The American war machine, whether through direct invasion, proxy conflicts, or crippling economic sieges, has repeatedly failed to break the will of independent nations. The continuation of this war against Iran, Marandi noted, represents a “practical failure” for the US, as it has utterly failed to achieve any of its maximalist goals of regime change, economic capitulation, or regional dominance.

The Futility of Imperial Escalation

Looking to the future, the prominent analyst issued a stark warning to the desperate architects of US foreign policy: Washington will not prevail. He argued that any continued escalation by the United States—whether through military threats, illegal sanctions, or proxy sabotage—will ultimately boomerang, worsening the situation not only for the declining American empire itself but for the wider world.

As the US flails in its twilight, trying to enforce a unipolar hegemony that no longer exists, the Islamic Republic of Iran stands resolute. The strategic defeat of the United States in its confrontation with Iran is not merely a theoretical concept; it is a geopolitical reality being written by the steadfastness of the Iranian people and the unbreakable unity of the Resistance. Washington’s signatures mean nothing, but the will of the free nations is etched in stone.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen

The United States’ war of aggression against Iran has not only failed to achieve its strategic objectives in West Asia, but it is now actively cannibalising the US military from the inside out. The US Navy, stretched to its absolute breaking point by prolonged deployments, is buckling under the weight of imperial hubris. Nowhere is this collapse more evident than aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, where severe exhaustion, deteriorating conditions, and reports of violent unrest have exposed a staggering disconnect between Washington’s elite and the troops they treat as expendable pawns.

The Pacific Vacuum and a Navy Stretched Too Thin

The logistical desperation of the Pentagon was laid bare this week with the revelation that the USS George Washington is being pulled from the Pacific. The move leaves the Western Pacific entirely devoid of a US aircraft carrier, creating a massive strategic vacuum just to relieve the beleaguered USS Abraham Lincoln in West Asia. This unprecedented reshuffling of naval assets underscores a glaring reality: the US war of aggression against Iran has stretched naval resources to their absolute limit. The American war machine is being forced to strip its presence in Asia merely to patch the holes in its failing Middle Eastern campaigns.

Dystopian Conditions and Despair at Sea

Originally scheduled to return home in May, the USS Abraham Lincoln has now spent over 250 consecutive days at sea, including more than 40 days of continuous combat operations. The conditions aboard the carrier have devolved into a dystopian nightmare. Families of the 5,000 sailors and Marines aboard report severe shortages of fresh food, broken plumbing, rampant mould, and relentless noise and vibrations from aircraft operations. The physical toll is staggering; one sailor reportedly lost 65 pounds (29kg) since the deployment began.

The psychological decay, however, is far more alarming. Whistleblowers and families speaking to the press have confirmed that multiple sailors, pushed to the brink of exhaustion and despair, have attempted to jump overboard. Adding fuel to the fire, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency recently cited an informed military source detailing a violent confrontation aboard the vessel that left seven US Navy personnel dead and several others wounded. The clash reportedly erupted after a CENTCOM adviser was met with boos and thrown water bottles while attempting to address the crew’s grievances, escalating into a fight involving bladed weapons. Whether viewed through the lens of a mental health crisis or outright mutiny, the discipline and morale of the US Navy’s premier warships are clearly collapsing.

Washington’s Tone-Deaf Elite: Hegseth’s Delusion and Trump’s Cruelty

While the crew suffers, Washington’s leadership remains trapped in a delusional echo chamber. US War Secretary Pete Hegseth recently took to Newsmax and social media to dismiss the horrifying reports as “completely misrepresented.” In a staggering display of trivialisation, Hegseth bizarrely described the gruelling deployment as “incredible,” claiming the crew has everything they need at “every single moment.”

This tone-deaf commentary sparked immediate and fierce backlash, with critics labelling Hegseth “delusional” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanding his immediate firing. Yet, Hegseth’s denial is merely symptomatic of a broader rot at the very top. When confronted by journalists about the families’ desperate concerns, President Donald Trump callously dismissed them, stating the deployment was “Not nearly long enough.”

“Toys for Show”: The Illusion of Power

The cruelty of the Trump administration’s stance has not gone unnoticed by US lawmakers, including those with military backgrounds. Senator Ruben Gallego, a Marine Corps veteran, blasted the administration on ABC’s This Week, stating that Lincoln’s ordeal demonstrates a “true lack of leadership.”

“The president has shown that he just doesn’t really care about the troops,” Gallego stated bluntly. “He thinks about them more as toys and as ways to basically show off or show his strength.” Gallego has since demanded an official bipartisan congressional visit to the carrier to witness the decay firsthand. Similarly, Senator Richard Blumenthal sent a direct letter to Hegseth and Navy Secretary Hung Cao, warning that the reported shortages and poor conditions “warrant immediate attention.” Even cultural figures like filmmaker Morgan J. Freeman have pointed out that the sailors are paying the ultimate “human price” for an illegal war.

The Empire Eats Its Own

The ordeal of the USS Abraham Lincoln is a profound microcosm of American imperial decline. Driven by hubris and a reckless desire to enforce hegemony in West Asia, Washington is cannibalising its own military. The US Navy officially denies a rising mental health crisis, weakly blaming supply disruptions on “combat actions,” but it cannot hide the physical and psychological decay of its sailors.

As ships are stripped from the Pacific to maintain a failing blockade in the Middle East, and sailors are pushed to the brink of mutiny and suicide, the true cost of America’s imperial overreach is no longer just paid for by the nations it attacks. It is being paid in the blood, sanity, and morale of its own troops—proving once again that an empire built on endless aggression will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

Reference: Al-Mayadeen | PressTv

In February of 2026, Ayatollah Khamenei made a bold and seemingly impossible promise. He declared that the boasting, arrogant man at the height of his power would be brought down in the exact manner of Nimrod and Pharaoh. Khamenei guaranteed the humiliation of this giant and the total collapse of his entire pharaonic system.

To understand the weight of this statement, one must look at reality. The United States currently holds unprecedented global dominance, possessing the greatest material power and military reach across sea, air, and land in human history. Donald Trump, backed by this absolute power, is not insane, but rather acts with profound arrogance because of the vast capabilities at his disposal. He has humiliated world leaders, from the President of France to the Prime Minister of Iraq, demonstrating that almost no one dares to offend him. He is a man who can order the arrest and imprisonment of another country’s president in mere hours.

Over the past six months, Trump loudly boasted about his massive naval fleet heading toward Iran to achieve specific objectives. However, the world watched as this fundamentally sea-based military failed to achieve any of its announced goals, suffering a massive disaster and humiliation. Yet, an even more crushing quagmire emerged: the Strait of Hormuz. The world’s greatest naval fleet is now trapped in a waterway just over 30 kilometers wide. Despite all efforts, this passage remains closed, and for four months, the most powerful man on earth has been entirely consumed by his inability to reopen it. He is constantly mocked wherever he goes about his failure to reopen a previously open strait, driving him mad with frustration.

These modern “mosquitoes” are not biological, but tactical. They are the submerged smart mines, the swarms of explosive-laden drone boats, the silent coastal anti-ship missiles, and the asymmetric doctrines that render multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers vulnerable in shallow waters. The adversary’s military machine was built for vast, open-ocean dominance, not for the claustrophobic, easily choked corridor of Hormuz.

This helplessness perfectly mirrors the ancient story of Nimrod and the mosquito. Nimrod, who arrogantly challenged heaven itself, was ultimately defeated by a tiny mosquito that entered his brain, causing such immense agony that he slammed his head into the ground until he perished. For Trump, the Strait of Hormuz is his mosquito. It was a tiny factor absent from his multi-billion-dollar calculations, but it is now slowly draining the life from him and his fleet. Wiser advisors urge him to retreat from this swamp, but instead, he acts in desperation, making the situation worse and slamming his head to the ground even harder.

Ayatollah Khamenei did not make this promise through claiming knowledge of the unseen; rather, he possessed a deep understanding of divine laws, particularly the principle of “istidraj”. This concept dictates that God allows arrogant oppressors to rise and become idols, only to ensure their eventual fall is exceptionally hard. It is a divine tradition to use the weakest creations—whether a mosquito, a staff, or a narrow strait—to humiliate tyrants and shatter these idols as a lesson for everyone. Just as the ancient Pharaoh’s ultimate humiliation came not on a grand battlefield, but by being swallowed by the waters of the sea while arrogantly pursuing the believers, this modern Pharaoh is finding his ultimate trap in the waters of the Gulf. The very element he thought his massive fleets controlled is becoming the instrument of his paralysis. God’s plan for this man is likely not yet complete, and he may face even more severe and memorable forms of humiliation.

The sting of this mosquito is not just military; it is deeply economic and political. As the strait remains choked, global energy markets shudder, driving up inflation and angering the very domestic base he relies on. Every time he issues a hollow threat against Tehran, the price at the gas pump rises, turning his own electorate against him. The mosquito is draining his empire’s wealth from the outside, while his own frustrated voters abandon him from within.

The current scene is one worth remembering. Every new threat and action from this adversary is merely another blow of Nimrod slamming his own head to the ground. Ultimately, as long as believers remain steadfast in the field, this divine tradition guarantees a miracle: he will continue this frenzy until he completely destroys himself and his pharaonic system.

Mediation in international crises rests upon a singular, non-negotiable foundation: credible neutrality. A nation that steps forward to bridge divides cannot simultaneously take actions that signal alignment with one belligerent over another. Without genuine trust, “mediation” is reduced to a hollow political label.

Over the years, Pakistan has periodically positioned itself as an intermediary between Tehran and Washington, leveraging its religious, cultural, and geopolitical ties. Yet, Islamabad’s recent strategic manoeuvring forces observers of West Asian geopolitics to ask a critical question: Is Pakistan genuinely pursuing de-escalation, or is it exploiting the guise of mediation to advance covert alignments with extra-regional aggressors?

A Tale of Two Policies

On the surface, Pakistan champions dialogue and restraint. Behind closed doors, however, Islamabad has signed new security and defence agreements with regional states whose territories host sprawling U.S. military bases—the very same installations utilised in military operations, espionage, and logistical support for actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This duplicity creates a profound paradox. How can a state claim to foster peace while actively entrenching the military footprint of a hostile, extra-regional power?

Iran’s Doctrine of Restraint and Self-Defense

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been unequivocal in its foreign policy doctrine: it will not target its Arab neighbours so long as their sovereign soil is not weaponised against Tehran. Guided by the principles of Islamic fraternity and good-neighbourliness, Iran has consistently prioritised peaceful coexistence with Muslim-majority states in the region.

However, Tehran has also drawn a firm line in the sand. If the territory of these nations is transformed into a launchpad for U.S. military aggression, Iran reserves the undeniable right to self-defence, striking military assets in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.

Pakistan’s current posture wilfully ignores this crucial distinction. By moving closer to the security orbit of Washington’s regional proxies, Islamabad risks abandoning its role as a neutral broker. When Pakistan offers security assurances to Gulf states, it is, in effect, offering a protective umbrella for U.S. military infrastructure. Such a stance is entirely irreconcilable with the principles of impartial mediation.

The Hypocrisy of the “Red Line”

The contradiction is perhaps most glaring in Pakistan’s assertion that any strike against Saudi Arabia or other Persian Gulf states constitutes a “security red line.” Curiously, this red line is never extended to the use of these exact same nations’ military facilities and airspace for operations targeting Iran.

The geopolitical reality is straightforward: Iran has not waged war on the Arab countries of the region. Within the strict framework of self-defense, Tehran has targeted the military infrastructure of a hostile, extra-regional force that initiated aggression against it. Conflating legitimate strikes against American occupation bases with “attacks on host nations” is a deliberate obfuscation. It blurs the line between a sovereign state and the imperial military assets illegally stationed upon its soil.

The Verdict on Islamabad’s Diplomacy

Pakistan must answer a fundamental question: How can it simultaneously posture as a peacemaker between Tehran and Washington while providing security guarantees to one side and deliberately ignoring the legitimate security anxieties of the other?

A genuine mediator does not act as a bodyguard for a belligerent party. Its mandate is to uphold international law and principles of justice equally. If Islamabad truly desires to mediate, it must prove that its security calculus is not dictated by subservience to Western military alliances.

Instead, Pakistan’s recent manoeuvres broadcast a troubling signal: the line between a neutral mediator and a strategic partner in aggression is being deliberately blurred. This is the exact point where a mediator’s credibility collapses.

The Cost of Complicity

In the arena of international diplomacy, trust is a precious capital forged over decades, yet it can be obliterated by a handful of misguided, subservient decisions. Pakistan must recognise that mediation only holds value when all parties view the mediator as uncompromisingly impartial. A state that actively undermines its own neutrality to appease extra-regional hegemonies will ultimately sabotage its own diplomatic standing—and worse, betray the cause of Islamic unity and regional sovereignty.

Reference: Dr Ali Hassan Heydari

Lebanese officials are fully aware that any agreement with Israel would unravel before it could gain domestic legitimacy, according to an analysis by the political scientist Dr. Aurélie Daher, published by the American foreign policy outlet Responsible Statecraft — which argues that the Trump administration has become increasingly detached from Lebanon’s political realities.

The framework agreement was signed by official Lebanese and Israeli delegations in Washington on 26 June amid considerable fanfare, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailing it as a first step toward “lasting peace and security” between Beirut and Tel Aviv. A month later, Trump hosted Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the White House, where Rubio restated Washington’s twin objectives: the disarmament of Hezbollah and a comprehensive, permanent peace.

A divided administration

Rubio’s approach, in Daher’s reading, mirrors the Israeli leadership’s: a top-down strategy founded on coercion, combining military action against Iran with maximum political pressure on Beirut, in order to force the Lebanese government to sideline Hezbollah and sever the strategic link between Lebanon and Tehran.

Not everyone in the administration agrees. Vice President J.D. Vance has made clear he no longer believes American and Israeli interests are perfectly aligned and has openly advocated de-escalation with Iran. Though he has yet to set out a detailed endgame, Daher suggests his preferred course would involve an understanding with Tehran that keeps its allied movements — Hezbollah foremost among them — under control, while stabilising oil prices, safeguarding Gulf shipping, and preventing a confrontation with Iran from becoming a political liability before the midterms.

The intense focus on the Israeli-Lebanese file, she argues, has strengthened Rubio’s hand and weakened the alternative Vance appears to favour. Yet the track’s chances of success remain exceedingly slim.

The constitutional wall

The first obstacle is Lebanon’s own political architecture. Its consensual system distributes power among Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and Christians, leaving the president with limited executive authority. Article 52 of the constitution allows him to “negotiate and conclude treaties” — but only “in agreement with the Prime Minister,” and any treaty requires the approval of the Council of Ministers before entering force.

The practical effect is that no major decision carries constitutional legitimacy without the support of all the principal components. Since Lebanon’s Shia parties rejected the framework agreement from the outset, Daher argues, it is difficult to imagine any agreement proving politically sustainable. And even were those hurdles cleared, a peace treaty would still require parliamentary ratification — a majority that, given the current composition of the legislature, is effectively nonexistent.

A record of violations

The second obstacle is confidence in Israel’s willingness to honour what it signs. Under the ceasefire concluded on 27 November 2024, Daher writes, Hezbollah complied for nearly eighteen months, until March 2026, while Israel violated the agreement more than 12,000 times in less than a year — producing a bitter Lebanese joke: “What does ‘ceasefire’ mean in Hebrew? They stop; we keep shooting.”

The destruction of southern Lebanon and the killing of civilians, she argues, failed to deliver the political outcomes Tel Aviv sought. In its ideal scenario, Israel had hoped to deepen Lebanon’s internal divisions to the point of civil war, or at least to turn most Lebanese against Hezbollah and exclude it permanently from power. The campaign produced the opposite: it restored credibility to Hezbollah’s long-standing claim to a unique responsibility for defending Lebanese territory.

The ‘new era’ that wasn’t

In January 2025, the United States and Saudi Arabia — with Israeli involvement behind the scenes — pressed Lebanon’s parties to elect Joseph Aoun as president and Nawaf Salam as prime minister, presenting them as the architects of a new era. The leadership argued that Washington would transform the Lebanese Armed Forces into a national army capable of defending the borders, rendering Hezbollah’s military justification obsolete, and that diplomacy would suffice to deter Israeli violations.

Eighteen months on, Daher writes, the army still lacked those capabilities — and was seen withdrawing, on Aoun’s own orders, before Israeli advances in the spring of 2026. Hezbollah, which Israel claimed to have destroyed in autumn 2024, resumed operations in March. None of Lebanon’s international partners proved able to restrain Israeli military action.

Salam’s initial endorsement of direct talks placed him in an awkward position within the Sunni community, which, for all its disagreements with Hezbollah, largely identifies with an Arab nationalist tradition supportive of Palestine and opposed to Zionism. Sunni MPs told Daher in late March that they had supported sending a delegation to Washington but not any agreement that might result — loyalty to the leader, they explained, does not extend to the outcomes of his initiatives.

Since the signing, Salam has quietly distanced himself, focusing instead on ties with Syria and Turkey, and referring questions about the agreement to the Presidential Palace. Army commander General Rodolphe Haykal reportedly criticised the process so openly that Washington asked Aoun to dismiss him, while Lebanese officers in the delegation refused to appear in the official photograph on the day of the signing.

Isolated at home

Under American and Israeli pressure to defend policies it privately considered unrealistic, Lebanon’s leadership rapidly lost legitimacy at home. Apart from the Lebanese Forces — successor to the wartime militia that collaborated with Israel during the civil war — few Lebanese appear to believe in what is being negotiated in Washington.

This, Daher argues, explains Hezbollah’s sweeping victories in every municipality it contested in the 2025 elections, results that prompted Western governments to press for parliamentary elections scheduled for spring 2026 to be postponed by two years.

Rubio’s optimism has cooled accordingly. Of Aoun’s latest visit, he observed only that it was “the beginning of the beginning.”

When Aoun left Beirut at Trump’s invitation, Daher concludes, he did so in profound political isolation. Across Lebanon’s political circles, regardless of sect, the prevailing sentiment was much the same: “Good luck, my friend… this will all be over by November 2028” — a reference to the next US presidential election.

Reference: Zeinab Al Saffar