Latest Analysis and Commentary
by Pierre Rehov • April 19, 2026 at 5:00 am
One of the most persistent and dangerous misreadings of the confrontation with Iran is the stubborn confusion between a brutal ideological regime and the people it has oppressed for nearly five decades. In Western capitals, where moral clarity too often yields to political expediency, this confusion produces a strange paralysis: the fear of "hurting the Iranian people" serves as an excuse to tolerate a regime that has hurt them far more cruelly and systematically than any outside power ever has. In January 2026, the Iranian regime launched one of the deadliest crackdowns in its modern history, with protests met by a "shoot-to-kill" order "by any means necessary," issued by the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on January 9. Estimates vary, but internal health data and independent investigations suggest that between 30,000 and 36,500 protesters were killed in just two days, and tens of thousands more wounded or arrested in January alone. The idea that Iran's beleaguered people will suddenly, somehow, with no weapons whatsoever, magically rise up and take back their country from a regime armed to the teeth and with a rich record of mass-murder is beyond delusional. The result would be equivalent to the Warsaw Ghetto, whose last few hundred inhabitants tried to take on the German army, or the US resistance at the Alamo: heroic but predictably headed to defeat. Some of the Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, might prefer Iran to remain as any kind of dictatorship rather than a democracy, in order not to give their own citizens fancy ideas about freer forms of government. Such a sham solution, however, would be seen as a monumental betrayal of "Help is on its way" -- and undoubtedly be used to harm Republicans in the upcoming US midterm elections. The worst result would be for the Trump Administration to throw Iran's desperate citizens from a ruthless clerical frying pan into a ruthless militaristic fire. The brutality would be the same, just secular instead of religious -- a predatory system whose power rests on projecting strength at home while playing the victim abroad. The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they do not identify with the rulers who claim to speak for them. This is a population held hostage, not a nation united behind its regime. Western critics who call a military approach – even one that has offered the regime many off-ramps – reckless should answer a simple question: what is the alternative? More rounds of negotiations with a regime that has violated every agreement it ever signed? Passive acceptance while thousands more Iranians are jailed, tortured, or executed? Moral grandstanding without consequences? That is not a policy — it is abdication. "Iran is a 47-year-old war crime." — US Senator John Fetterman (D-PA). The real Iran — the one that protests, resists, and yearns for normal life — has been the victim of a war its leaders have waged on it for decades. The real tragedy would be to prolong any part of it. Until this strategic distinction is understood, debates about Iran will remain trapped in the same sterile cycle of confusion and fear — the very environment in which the West has enabled the regime not only to thrive, but to prevail.
The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they do not identify with the rulers who claim to speak for them. This is a population held hostage, not a nation united behind its regime. Pictured: Iranians protest against the regime on January 9, 2026, in Tehran. (Photo by MAHSA/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
One of the most persistent and dangerous misreadings of the confrontation with Iran is the stubborn confusion between a brutal ideological regime and the people it has oppressed for nearly five decades. This is no accident. Tehran has long understood that its best defense is not its missiles or its proxies, but its control of the narrative. In Western capitals, where moral clarity too often yields to political expediency, this confusion produces a strange paralysis: the fear of "hurting the Iranian people" serves as an excuse to tolerate a regime that has hurt them far more cruelly and systematically than any outside power ever has.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • April 19, 2026 at 4:00 am
Under the system created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, even the chiefs of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are not allowed to hold staff meetings without prior approval of the Office of the Supreme Guide ("Beit-e Rahbari") and the presence of his military advisers. Two things seem clear at this juncture. The Khomeini-Khamenei system cannot be rebuilt even if the new "Supreme Guide" Mojtaba Khamenei is really alive and kicking. The second thing is that a reshuffling of cards that leaves the regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law.
A reshuffling of cards that leaves Iran's regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law. Pictured: Members of the Iranian security forces stand under a billboard of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on April 9, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
The ceasefire declared in the US-Israel war against Iran is set to end in the next couple of days amid conflicting views on what might happen next. By the time of writing this piece, many observers thought that both sides might agree to an extension of the brittle truce for a further 45 days. In a world of a 24-hour news cycle, punctuated by tweets and video clips, that may sound like a long time. In last June's war against Iran, US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire after 35 hours of bombing. He had also declared "mission accomplished" in Venezuela after a 5-hour raid to arrest President Nicolás Maduro. When the second round of war against Iran seemed to stall, the president threatened to turn Iran back to the Stone Age in just 4 hours. In the Islamabad peace talks last week, Vice President JD Vance decided that enough was enough after a 16-hour back-and-forth with Tehran's emissaries, half of it spent on translation of what each side said.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • April 18, 2026 at 5:00 am
[T]he latest escalation in hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with Hezbollah. Israel found itself faced with ongoing rocket fire from Lebanon and the presence of a heavily armed group on its border – in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which had unanimously required of Lebanon: "three principles -- no foreign forces, no weapons for nongovernmental militias, and no independent authority separate from the central government -- as vital to a lasting Lebanese peace." Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons, command centers and operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods.... With Hezbollah's military targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian population centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it. Responsibility for these war crimes lies squarely with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which deliberately orchestrated them. Any resulting casualties cannot be judged outside this context. In 2024, Hezbollah violated its ceasefire with Israel and also attacked in 2025 at Iran's behest. Israel's response comports with what any sovereign state would do when confronted with attacks on its territory and civilian population. If there is to be any meaningful discussion about stability in the Middle East, it needs to begin with an honest acknowledgment of these realities. Otherwise, international reactions will continue to mischaracterize the problem by criticizing responses while overlooking their causes -- and contributing to the conflict rather than to its resolution.
Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons, command centers and operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods. With Hezbollah's military targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian population centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it. Pictured: A Hezbollah weapons cache found by Israeli forces in the village of Al-Khayyam in southern Lebanon, on March 27, 2025. (Photo by IDF Spokesperson's Office)
Once again, large segments of the international community, from the United Nations to key European governments, appear either unwilling or unable to confront the basic and uncomfortable reality that the latest escalation in hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with Hezbollah. This silence — or at best, selective acknowledgment — when, without provocation, rockets were launched into Israel, stands in blazing contrast to the instant outrage when Israel responds. That imbalance is not just dishonest; it distorts the foundation of how conflicts like this are understood.
Continue Reading Article
by Robert Williams • April 17, 2026 at 5:00 am
"European institutions demonstrate a continued record of engagement with and support for Muslim Brotherhood-related organisations. The most visible examples occur in the form of direct funding." — Paul Stott and Tommaso Virgili, in the report "The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe," October 2021. According to a report published by the ECR Group in December 2025, "Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood. Brotherism, Islamophobia and the EU," written by Tommaso Virgili and Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, the European Commission is still funding Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations that "exploit EU funding and institutions to advance their agenda." A bit hard for the EU, therefore, to feign ignorance. "They [these Muslim Brotherhood organizations] get funding and legitimacy that other totalitarian groups would never dream of getting.... these organizations play a clever game of dominoes, leveraging legitimacy in one member state to gain credibility in another or at the European level, then using that to charm more grant-making bodies. This creates a vicious cycle of ever-growing legitimacy and funding from multiple sources..." — Charlie Wiemers, Swedish Member of European Parliament, in "Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood." "If an organization claims to uphold European values, authorities take it at face value. Denying funding for failing to align with those values requires ironclad evidence, but monitoring isn't built to scrutinize content. A few missteps are brushed off as one-offs, and any official who dares push back risks accusations of racism or 'Islamophobia'—a chilling effect that will prevent most officials from acting unless they are extraordinarily principled and courageous." — Charlie Wiemers, in "Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood."
An unelected and deeply undemocratic institution – the European Commission – is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood, spending taxpayer money on it, and legitimizing it. Pictured: European Commission headquarters, the Berlaymont building in Brussels. (Photo by Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images)
The European Commission, the unelected executive arm of the European Union, assured Europeans in 2019 that it was not spending their hard-earned taxpayer money on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). In response to a question by Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of European Parliament, about the Commission's funding of the MB, European Commission Vice President Margaritis Schinas said: "[T]he European Commission does not finance extremists. On the contrary, we have very strong oversight and audit of our financing... and if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested to have it."
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • April 16, 2026 at 5:00 am
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem dismissed the talks as "futile" and reaffirmed that his organization will not disarm. Wafiq Safa, a senior Hezbollah official, told The Associated Press that his organization will refuse to abide by any agreements that may result from the direct Lebanon-Israel talks: "[A]s for the outcomes of this negotiation between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy, we are not interested in or concerned with them at all.... We are not bound by what they agree to." These statements are not simply rhetoric. They are a proclamation that Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, will determine whether Lebanon goes to war or pursues peace. Lebanon has effectively become a protectorate of Iran. The consequences for the Lebanese people have been devastating.
Lebanon has effectively become a protectorate of Iran. The consequences for the Lebanese people have been devastating. Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into two calamitous confrontations with Israel in just the last three years. Pictured: Hezbollah supporters hold an anti-government protest on April 11, 2026 in Beirut, Lebanon. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)
This week, as the Lebanese government was preparing to participate in US-mediated talks with Israel in Washington, DC, Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization, delivered its verdict: No negotiations, no compromise. Only war. The talks, which took place on April 14, aim to ensure "long-term security of Israel's northern border" while supporting Lebanon's efforts to "reclaim full sovereignty over its territory." In a televised speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem dismissed the talks as "futile" and reaffirmed that his organization will not disarm. Referring to statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Hezbollah's weapons must be dismantled and that Israel wants a real peace agreement with Lebanon, Qassem declared: "We will not rest, stop or surrender. We will let the battlefield speak for itself. We will remain in the field until our last breath."
Qassem added:
Continue Reading Article
by Ahmed Charai • April 16, 2026 at 4:00 am
President Joseph Aoun deserves real credit for helping make this possible. Moving forward in the face of Hezbollah's pressure and threats... was an act of political courage. It reflected an understanding that Lebanon cannot recover as long as an armed organization, backed by Tehran, continues to operate above the state and beyond the law. The Lebanese people themselves have been held hostage for years by Hezbollah and, through Hezbollah, by Iran. Iran remains committed to using armed movements across the region to project power, destabilize states, and encircle its adversaries. Hezbollah will not retreat willingly. Iran will not abandon one of its most valuable instruments of influence without resistance. The door has opened. Washington must now decide whether it has the resolve to keep it open long enough for history to move through it
Pictured: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C) speaks during a meeting with Israel's Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (2L) and Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (2R), at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (Photo by Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)
What happened at the U.S. State Department was not a routine diplomatic encounter. It was a strategic moment of rare consequence. Lebanese and Israeli representatives sat down in direct talks under American auspices, breaking through a political and psychological barrier that for decades had seemed immovable. In a region disfigured by war, proxy violence, fear, and ideological blackmail, this was more than a meeting. It was an opening. This moment matters not because peace is suddenly at hand, nor because one diplomatic breakthrough can erase years of hostility, bloodshed, and mistrust. It matters because it has punctured the deadlock. It has shown that paralysis is not destiny, that history is not frozen, and that Hezbollah's veto over Lebanon's future is not absolute.
Continue Reading Article
by Pierre Rehov • April 15, 2026 at 5:00 am
The issue is no longer whether the regime in Tehran is under strain — it clearly is — but whether Washington is preparing, consciously or not, to replace a brutal clerical dictatorship with a brutal military one. The idea that a military structure could serve as a "moderate" transitional governing authority in Iran seems to rest on the fragile assumption that professionalism leads to moderation. Regional history says otherwise. From Egypt to Pakistan, militaries that stepped in to "restore order" entrenched their own authoritarian rule. Iran offers no reason to believe it would be different. What makes the current moment so dangerous is that, if no credible alternative to the mullahs takes power -- one that is rooted in popular legitimacy -- the vacuum will not remain empty. It will be filled by the most organized, armed actors available — the IRGC and security apparatus -- the same forces that slaughtered more than 30,000 of their own citizens on the streets in just two days. The faces change, but the repression, torture and hangings stay the same. The former Shah's army, the Artesh, relegated to patrolling Iran's borders, may lack the theological zeal of the IRGC, but it has shown no commitment to dismantling the structures of repression. Any kind of real, long-term peace requires the total end of Iran's regime, not its adaptation. The Islamic Republic unfortunately cannot be reformed, any more than could the Afghan Taliban. The regime's legitimacy is rooted in a doctrine built on confrontation — both with the West and with its own population. Preserving any part of this ruling structure, whether through the IRGC or segments of the military, risks perpetuating the same destabilizing brutality. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while essential, addresses only one dimension of the threat. A non-nuclear authoritarian Iran remains capable of repression at home and destabilization abroad. Removing the threat of nuclear bombs does not create peace; it merely limits the scale of the potential catastrophe. For Trump to declare victory based on a ceasefire, partial concessions, or the emergence of supposedly "pragmatic" actors would be catastrophically naïve. Whatever happened to Trump's "Help is on its way"? To say that economic collapse will make it easier for the Iranians to change their government if they wish might sound good, but it is fantasyland. They have no weapons. The Iranian people are not asking for a redistribution of brutality. They are asking for a new system entirely. Will Washington recognize this distinction, or will Trump's legacy, instead of peace, be -- in Syria as well -- that he simply exchanged one tyranny for another?
The issue is no longer whether the regime in Tehran is under strain — it clearly is — but whether Washington is preparing, consciously or not, to replace a brutal clerical dictatorship with a brutal military one. Pictured: Iran's then Supreme Leader, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, prepares to award a medal to the late General Amir Ali Hajizadeh (L), then commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in the presence of the senior IRGC leadership, in Tehran on October 6, 2024. (Image source: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader)
A recurring illusion in American foreign policy is that removing the most visible layer of oppression in a brutal regime, as in Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, is enough to claim victory. It is politically convenient and media-friendly, but in the instance of the Islamic Republic of Iran, looks to be strategically disastrous. Today, as pressure mounts on Iran and US President Donald J. Trump signals a willingness to seize a perceived opening — most recently through a 15-day ceasefire — the same illusion is once again taking shape. The issue is no longer whether the regime in Tehran is under strain — it clearly is — but whether Washington is preparing, consciously or not, to replace a brutal clerical dictatorship with a brutal military one.
Continue Reading Article
by Guy Millière • April 14, 2026 at 5:00 am
Iran's regime -- not to be confused with its tormented people, many of whom have sacrificing their lives since 1999 trying to oust it -- has, since its installation in 1979, threatened "Death to America" ("the Great Satan") and "Death to Israel" ("the Little Satan"). For 39 years running, Iran has boasted the prestigious label, conferred on it by the US State Department, of the "world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Iran, along with Qatar, is reportedly a principal financier of international Islamic terrorism as well as a leading agent of global destabilization. Israel and the United States seem to have concluded, as US President Franklin Roosevelt had regarding the Third Reich in 1941, that, "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him." The Iranian regime's "a week to 10 days" must have sounded sufficiently like an "imminent threat" and a "clear and present danger" to have the Trump Administration decide that it would be preferable to neutralize the regime before the regime neutralized the United States. [The] "sunset clauses" in Obama's 2015 JCPOA "nuclear deal"... would have enabled Iran legitimately to have as many nuclear weapons as it liked by October 2025. When Trump cancelled the JCPOA in 2018, that was the bullet he skillfully dodged. Other American politicians have wrongly accused the Trump administration of violating the arguably unconstitutional 1973 War Powers Act. There was no point in allowing Iran to become another North Korea. "You want to see the stock market go down?" Trump asked on Fox News. "Let a couple of nuclear bombs be dropped on us." Most of these politicians in Europe never condemned decades of atrocities committed by Iran's regime. On January 9, 2026 — at the very moment Iran's regime was slaughtering more than 30,000 of its unarmed people on the streets — Starmer, Macron and Merz published a joint statement heroically expressing "deep concern." That was it. The immigration to Western Europe of increasingly large Muslim populations, who never assimilated and seem quite devoted to a hatred for Israel and Jews -- as well as for Christians -- has contributed to a resurgence in antagonism toward Jews among political leaders seeking votes throughout Western Europe. "Western Europe is profoundly afflicted by a political and sociological death wish," wrote Conrad Black last month. "The United States will not save them from that; only they can." Israel — which most West European leaders in power seem to hold in contempt — is clearly the most reliable ally of the United States; it is these West European leaders who deserve to be held in contempt. Under their dismal and unprincipled leadership, and their wanton surrender to demanding newcomers, Western Europe as we know it may well be heading toward collapse.
For decades, Western European countries have been living for free under the umbrella of American defense. When their leaders refused President Donald Trump's request to use NATO airbases during the war with Iran, Trump used a single word to characterize their leaders: "cowards." Israel — which most West European leaders in power seem to hold in contempt — is clearly the most reliable ally of the United States; it is these West European leaders who deserve to be held in contempt. Pictured: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in London, England, on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Toby Melville/ WPA Pool/Getty Images)
The entire Western world needs to take a clear stand. Iran's regime -- not to be confused with its tormented people, many of whom have sacrificing their lives since 1999 trying to oust it -- has, since its installation in 1979, threatened "Death to America" ("the Great Satan") and "Death to Israel" ("the Little Satan"). "When you chant 'Death to America!' it is not just a slogan," Iran's late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced in 2023, "it is a policy." The year before, he predicted: "Death to America will happen. In the new order I am talking about, America will no longer have any important role."
In 2008, Iran's then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised that Israel "will be wiped off [the map]." The so-called "moderate" former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, on "Al Quds Day," December 14, 2001, said:
Continue Reading Article
by Bassam Tawil • April 13, 2026 at 5:00 am
Equally disturbing is the role of Al-Jazeera itself. Owned, funded, and controlled by the government of Qatar, Al-Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language channel, has long provided a platform for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Its coverage frequently echoes Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood narratives, and amplifies anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic rhetoric. Reports by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have documented Al-Jazeera providing a platform for guests who assert that Jews are "enemies of Muslims and all humanity" or that they control global affairs. "Among the Islamist terrorist organizations that Qatar and Al-Jazeera have supported over the years are the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizbullah, the Al-Nusrah Front/ Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham, ISIS, Hamas, and even the Shiite Iranian proxies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), which are currently engaged in direct conflict with the U.S. and other Western countries." — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024. "According to its website, Al-Jazeera has 'over 70 bureaus around the globe' and is 'one of the largest and most influential international news networks in the world'.... Between 2004 and 2020, AJ+ Facebook videos had been viewed over 10 billion times, and it had amassed over 11 million followers on Facebook." — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024. "Al Jazeera just surpassed CNN and BBC as the world's most-watched international news network. Its Arabic channel hit 400 million weekly viewers." — Pakistani commentator Amna Kausar, March 2026. "Since the October 7 attack... The network has been operating as a propaganda outlet in the service of Hamas 24/7, with hardly any coverage of other topics. The channel expresses unreserved support for Hamas, justifying the deadly attack, showing footage of it obtained from the body-cams of the terrorists, and celebrating it as a victory that has brought pride and honor to the Islamic nation." — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024. Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism.
Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism. Pictured: The headquarters of Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. (Photo by Karim Jaafar/AFP via Getty Images)
The death of another Palestinian "journalist" working for Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV empire has once again triggered outrage and drawn condemnations from some in the international community. Yet those who rushed to denounce Israel for targeting the Gaza-based "journalist" are ignoring voluminous evidence that he and some of his Palestinian colleagues were, in fact, active members of terrorist organizations. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Mohammed Wishah, an Al-Jazeera "reporter" killed in an April 8 Israeli airstrike, was not merely a media figure. He was a "key terrorist" in Hamas's military wing, Izz a-Din al-Qassam, and was involved in weapons production, including rockets and drones, and actively planning attacks against Israeli soldiers and the State of Israel.
Continue Reading Article
by Pierre Rehov • April 12, 2026 at 5:00 am
Regimes are destabilized but left standing, Jihadist ecosystems are weakened but not dismantled. Recycled figures from the same ideological mold are repackaged as partners. This sadly makes for half-finished wars presented as advisability. In Syria... Ahmed al-Sharaa, known under his former identity as Abu Mohammad al-Julani — a man once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and long listed with a $10 million American bounty on his head — was welcomed at the White House on November 10, 2025, and, in what was framed as a historic diplomatic opening, publicly described by Trump as a "strong leader." To then legitimize these terrorists under the convenient fiction of ideological conversion is not merely contradictory; it signals to the entire region that time and patience are sufficient to outlast Western resolve. Ideologies do not just dissolve when their representatives adopt the codes of diplomacy. They simply put on suits and ties, prepare to say what Western leaders would like to hear and re-enter the international arena through a legitimacy granted by those who once sought to eradicate them. The former head of Romanian Intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who defected from the Soviet-bloc to the West in 1978, wrote as early as 2003: "In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch." The central flaw that continues to undermine Western policy seems to be the illusion that eliminating individuals is equivalent to dismantling the system that produces them. Trump's position appears divided between two incompatible premises. On one side is a clear recognition that the Iranian regime is intrinsically hostile, driven by an expansionist vision anchored in a theology that elevates martyrdom above compromise and confrontation above coexistence. On the other side is the temptation -- a recurring wish -- to explore engagement with supposedly "less radical" elements within that same system, as though extremism were a matter of degree rather than a defining principle. This ambiguity is a strategic fault line. As long as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the clerical hierarchy, and the ideological infrastructure remain intact, any figure presented as moderate operates within boundaries that preclude genuine transformation. What appears as moderation to Western observers instead often functions as tactical adaptation within an unchanged ideological framework. Half-measures, in this context, represent the most dangerous possible course. They combine the costs of intervention with the failure of restraint: destabilizing adversaries without removing their capacity to rebuild and, in doing so, often strengthening the very dynamics the half-measurists were seeking to contain. If... the objective is seriously to alter the dynamics that perpetuate a conflict — to dismantle the ideological regimes and frameworks that export instability across the region — then partial measures are indistinguishable from failure. American voters, particularly before midterm elections, are unlikely to engage with the subtleties of diplomatic maneuvering or the layered complexities of proxy warfare. Their judgment will rest on visible outcomes: on the coherence between declared objectives and tangible results. In that light, a strategy that delivers disruption without resolution risks being perceived not as prudence but as an abdication of purpose, just another American cut-and-run. There can be no rehabilitation of jihadists under new labels, no reliance on hypothetical "moderates" within revolutionary systems, and no acceptance of partial outcomes as substitutes for structural change. Anything less will ensure that the same threats will persist, reconfigured and reinforced, for the next round of conflict.
Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a man once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and long listed with a $10 million American bounty on his head, was welcomed at the White House on November 10, 2025 (pictured), and, in what was framed as a historic diplomatic opening, publicly described by Trump as a "strong leader." To legitimize these terrorists under the convenient fiction of ideological conversion is not merely contradictory; it signals to the entire region that time and patience are sufficient to outlast Western resolve. (Image source: Donald Trump/Truth Social/Wikimedia Commons)
There is, in Washington, a recurring temptation: that the Middle East can be managed, contained, adjusted at the margins through economic pressure, surgical strikes, and the careful selection of supposedly "acceptable" figures drawn from within the very systems that generated the chaos. US President Donald Trump, whose instincts have often broken with this practice, now appears perilously close to reproducing it. The issue is not a lack of clarity— he understands the nature of the threat far better than most Western leaders — but the potential failure of an operation halted midway. Regimes are destabilized but left standing, Jihadist ecosystems are weakened but not dismantled. Recycled figures from the same ideological mold are repackaged as partners. This sadly makes for half-finished wars presented as advisability.
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • April 12, 2026 at 4:00 am
Each ceasefire prolonged a war that neither side had the resolve to fight to the finish. Technically, the ceasefire gives [Trump] a chance to trigger another 60-day "special operation" if the two-week window to a lasting accord is shut. The core of what is known as "the Iran problem" is simple: the regime in Tehran must either become like other governments in the region or turn the whole region like itself. Thus, we are back to the question of regime change. Trump says that has already happened in Tehran. Fact is he came close, but no cigar.
The core of what is known as "the Iran problem" is simple: the regime in Tehran must either become like other governments in the region or turn the whole region like itself. Thus, we are back to the question of regime change. Pictured: US Vice President JD Vance, on April 11, 2026, in Islamabad, Pakistan, where he is leading the negotiations with Iran. (Photo by Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Here we go again! Another ceasefire in a war between Iran and the United States that began 47 years ago when a ragtag gang of juvenile revolutionaries raided and occupied the American Embassy in Tehran and took its 66 diplomats hostage for 444 days. The next clash came when President Jimmy Carter sent six helicopters into Iran to free the hostages, but had to accept a ceasefire to allow members of his failed mission to flee to safety, leaving behind the corpses of eight US servicemen. The next clash, in April 1988, saw the US Navy sinking half of the Iranian Navy and forcing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to accept a humiliating ceasefire. In between, the on-off clash continued with episodes of high tension punctuating periods of relative calm. Each ceasefire prolonged a war that neither side had the resolve to fight to the finish.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • April 11, 2026 at 5:00 am
Above all, the Strait of Hormuz must remain a free and open international waterway, governed by established principles of maritime law rather than unilateral control. Any international monitoring force must include a permanent US presence to guarantee that the international forces remain effective. The UNIFIL peacekeeping forces in Lebanon apparently found it easier to be onlookers, complicit in ignoring all agreements. Ensuring open access is not simply a regional concern — it is a global imperative. In addition, throughout the entire region, the aggressive dimension of Iran's regime must be seriously addressed. The persistent use of rhetoric such as "death to America" and "death to Israel" reflects a deeply embedded worldview that legitimizes hostility and frames confrontation as a moral imperative.... A durable resolution in Iran -- as well as for other states such as Qatar -- requires not only behavioral change but also a shift away from the regime's rhetoric of aggression. In short, there can be no upfront relief granted to Iran, no phased easing based on promises, and no concessions granted in anticipation of compliance. Every aspect of the regime's commitments -- uranium removal, dismantlement of nuclear and missile infrastructure, and cessation of destabilizing activities -- must be fully verified. To relieve any pressure prematurely would be to give the regime exactly what it seeks: space to recover, regroup, and ultimately resume its previous trajectory.
With the Islamic Republic of Iran, a ceasefire does not necessarily indicate a genuine shift in intent. It more likely functions as a tactical pause to relieve pressure, rebuild capabilities, and buy time under the cover of diplomacy. Iran's is a regime whose leadership is divided between those who speak and those who decide. The politicians may negotiate, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and intelligence apparatus ultimately determine the course of action. Pictured: A funeral procession, featuring banners memorializing senior officers from the IRGC who were killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran's Enqelab Square on June 28, 2025. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Iran has ostensibly agreed to a two-week ceasefire -- which, intentionally or not, it broke within minutes -- and to negotiations. At first glance, an agreement may seem a meaningful step. With the Islamic Republic of Iran, however, a ceasefire does not necessarily indicate a genuine shift in intent. As US President Donald J. Trump and his negotiators undoubtedly know, it more likely functions as a tactical pause to relieve pressure, rebuild capabilities, and buy time under the cover of diplomacy.
Continue Reading Article
by Nasir Saeed • April 10, 2026 at 5:00 am
[T]his is not simply a controversial ruling; it is a test of whether the law can truly protect the most vulnerable, or whether it can be manipulated to legitimise their exploitation. This sequence transforms what begins as an allegation of abduction into a legal narrative of voluntary marriage. The Shahbaz judgment reinforces this pattern rather than challenging it. At the heart of the judgment lies the concept of "consent." The Court treated Maria's statement as sufficient proof that she acted of her own free will. But this raises the question: can a 12-year-old meaningfully consent to religious conversion and marriage? In effect, the judgment creates a contradiction: the law punishes child marriage yet simultaneously allows its consequences to stand. This weakens the deterrent effect of the law... A kidnapping case was turned into a custody case. So, a proceeding meant to test unlawful custody became, in effect, a proceeding that legitimised the very custody under challenge. Article 227 [of Pakistan's Constitution] explicitly protects the personal laws of non-Muslim citizens. Applying religious reasoning in a way that affects a Christian minor raises serious concerns about whether this protection has been fully respected. Pakistan is a signatory to key international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). These are not symbolic commitments — they impose clear legal obligations. The Court's decision appears to stand in direct tension with these obligations. By recognising a marriage involving a minor, it risks normalising a practice that international law requires states to abolish. A legal system derives its legitimacy not only from its adherence to rules, but from its ability to deliver justice. The Shahbaz case is more than a legal dispute. It is a test of whether the law can fulfil its most basic purpose: to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If a 12-year-old girl can be removed from her family, presented before a court, and her statement treated as decisive proof of consent — without deeper scrutiny — then the legal system risks failing those it is meant to serve. [T]his case is not just about one child. It is about the principle that no legal system should allow vulnerability to be mistaken for choice.
The recent judgment of Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court in the case of 12-year-old Christian girl Maria Shahbaz has triggered protests and concern. Pictured: The seat of Pakistan's Constitutional Court, in Islamabad. (Photo by Aamir Qureshi/ AFP via Getty Images)
The recent judgment of Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court in the case of 12-year-old Christian girl Maria Shahbaz has triggered protests, concern, and deep unease — not only within Pakistan but across the international human rights community. For many, this is not simply a controversial ruling; it is a test of whether the law can truly protect the most vulnerable, or whether it can be manipulated to legitimise their exploitation. Maria disappeared from her home on July 29, 2025. Her family reported her abduction, and alleged that she had been kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam, and married off to an adult man. Like many similar cases involving girls from non-Muslim minorities, events moved quickly. Within two days, Maria appeared before a magistrate, recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and claimed that she was 18 years old, had converted willingly, and had married of her own free will.
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence Kadish • April 10, 2026 at 4:00 am
Pictured: Physicist Stephen Wukitch stands in front of an image of the fusion core at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Plasma Science and Fusion Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on January 25, 2023. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)
Developing nuclear fusion energy -- which will be indispensable to generate the enormous amounts of energy that will soon be needed for AI, data centers, quantum computing, and to prevent the Communist Chinese Party from overtaking the United States as this century's global superpower –- is fast making progress. Whoever has the best AI – which realistically can only be fueled by limitless quantities of clean, inexpensive energy – will be the country able to win any war with autonomous drones and other robotics. If we do not develop them, China will – and is already well on the way.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • April 9, 2026 at 5:00 am
Hamas remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects disarmament. The "Board of Peace" is therefore confronting a harsh reality: Hamas, like Iran, is not motivated by deadlines, incentives, or promises of reconstruction. It is motivated by ideology and by war. In Hamas's worldview, the war is not about the Gaza Strip. It is about reshaping the Middle East -- and beyond -- in its own image. Any policy based on the assumption that Hamas can be persuaded to disarm is simply detached from reality. The danger is that this rhetoric is designed to inflame public opinion in Arab and Islamic countries against their own governments, potentially destabilizing countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that have chosen a path of pragmatism, normalization, and cooperation with Israel and the West. Hamas remains a partner of Iran's regional war machine, a committed enemy of peace, and a direct threat to the stability of the Middle East. The question is whether the US is ready to listen.
An April 5 speech by Hamas military spokesman Abu Obaida (pictured) leaves no doubt: Hamas remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects disarmament. Hamas remains a partner of Iran's regional war machine, a committed enemy of peace, and a direct threat to the stability of the Middle East. (Image source: Hamas via X)
An April 5 speech by Hamas military spokesman Abu Obaida leaves no doubt: Hamas remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects disarmament. Meanwhile, US President Donald J. Trump's "Board of Peace," an initiative to stabilize and rebuild the Gaza Strip, seems to be increasing pressure on Hamas. According to a report published in The New York Times, the board has set a deadline for the terror group to agree to a disarmament framework in the Gaza Strip by the end of the coming week. Abu Obaida's speech, unfortunately, is an emphatic warning that Hamas has no intention of complying:
Continue Reading Article
|
