The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Trump’s critics cry “war crimes” while ignoring decades of U.S. precedent—revealing less a legal argument than a reflexive, and deeply selective, political outrage.
The Left and some on the Right went crazy over a recent Trump tweet.
He warned that if the Iranian regime did not cease blocking the
international Strait of Hormuz, he would hit its dual military-civilian
infrastructure. He promised that “a whole civilization will die tonight,
never to be brought back again.”
His wording may have been sloppy, but Trump obviously meant that the
murderous civilization/culture of radical Iranian theocratic Islam would
cease to exist and wouldn’t come back once power plants and
transportation systems crucial to the regime’s survival were cut off.
Why do we know that?
Because, unlike in most prior American wars, Trump has never targeted
dual-use infrastructure—not in bombing ISIS, not in removing the
Venezuelan thug Nicolás Maduro, not in the 2025 bombing of Iran’s
nuclear facilities, and not in the present war—with the exception of a
key bridge central to the regime’s efforts to reposition missile assets
to avoid air strikes.
Ever since Trump announced that “help is on the way” to the Iranian
people, the entire aim of the five-week war has been to selectively
target the regime’s command and control and military assets.
The goal was to diminish its threats abroad, while weakening and humiliating the mullahcracy at home—so that soon the Iranian people might at last be able to overthrow the odious theocracy.
Trump’s critics knew all that.
But they see political advantage in tagging Trump as a Strangelovian
madman, no different from the Nazi criminals in the docket at Nuremberg.
A few less unhinged people argue that his rhetoric nevertheless comes across as unpresidential.
Perhaps.
But it may be no accident that his Gen. Curtis LeMay-like bluster might have pressured the Iranians to reopen negotiations.
On Monday, the Democrat Borg was declaring Trump a savage maniac.
By Tuesday, it was blasting him as a TACO (“Trump Always Chickens
Out”) for not carrying out what the day before they had dubbed a war
crime.
The common denominator was an overarching, deranged hatred of the
president, as his critics can never decide whether he is Adolf Hitler or
Neville Chamberlain.
But since the Left has called for investigations of war crimes, by all means let them begin.
Obviously, Trump’s critics conveniently no longer buy the argument of
“dual-use.” It posits that the juice powering an evil enemy is its
roads, bridges, fuel, and electricity. To disable them supposedly
shortens the war and the killing.
In World War II, we leveled a dozen Japanese cities because the Tokyo
junta had outsourced the assembly of weapons to urban neighborhood
workshops.
We joined the British in leveling Dresden by targeting German transportation.
Perhaps the Left will now remove the iconic names of Democratic
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman from our buildings and monuments?
Truman should be a twofer boogeyman.
He ordered every bridge and hydroelectric plant in North Korea to be incinerated during the Korean War.
How about the Lyndon Johnson/Richard Nixon bombing of North Vietnam?
Their war machine annihilated most of its civilian infrastructure in
efforts to force the communists to negotiate.
The 42-day bombing campaign in the First Gulf War targeted power stations, roads, bridges, and dual-use government buildings.
Should we go back and Trotskyize its strategic architects—George H. W. Bush and Gen. Colin Powell?
Sen. Mark Kelly is one of Trump’s fiercest critics in pressing the
war crimes charge. Perhaps he, too, should be post facto investigated by
the International Criminal Court, given the fact that, in 1991, he was a
pilot in an air force that frequently hit bridges and other dual-use
targets?
How about the “noble” NATO effort in Serbia?
According to the logic of current critics, there must be lots of war
criminals still to be found who were involved in that merciless 1999
bombing of Belgrade.
Bill Clinton’s gambit wrecked all the bridges on the Danube and often left more than a million civilians without power.
Will we indict Barack Obama for ordering more than 500 targeted
predator assassination hits on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border without
Congressional authorization, strikes that ended up killing four American
citizens?
Perhaps we can reinvestigate Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and
Susan Rice, the architects of the 2011 “unlawful” and Congressionally
“unauthorized” seven-month bombing of a mostly inert Libya.
And why not reexamine Obama? He snubbed the 60–90 War Powers Act
window, which required him to obtain congressional authority to continue
that mindless devastation.
The Libyan wreckage included civilian ships, port facilities, TV
buildings, telecommunications, and government offices—and left the
country an utter mess that continues 15 years later.
The left-wing and paleo Right fury has far exceeded any legitimate critique of strategy and tactics.
It has now become not just incoherent but crazed, since it appears
that many despise Trump more than they do the murderous Iranian regime.
And now they add the weight of rank hypocrisy to their serial untruths.
In a phone call with his German counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar says ceasefire does not apply to Tehran’s terror proxy in Lebanon.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said on Wednesday that the Iran ceasefire does not extend to Hezbollah forces operating in Lebanon.
In
a post on X, Sa’ar said he spoke with German Foreign Minister Johann
Wadephul following the truce, emphasizing that Israel and the United
States remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons. He added that he expects the same determination to be shown in
diplomatic efforts, citing comments by U.S. President Donald Trump
earlier in the day.
Sa’ar stressed that “Lebanon, from which
Hezbollah operates against Israel and its citizens, is not Iranian
territory and is not part of the ceasefire.”
I spoke with my friend @JoWadephul the German Foreign Minister, following the announcement of the ceasefire in the war with Iran. The United States and Israel have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to achieving the goal that matters to the entire international community:… pic.twitter.com/CyBC7muZ9V
— Gideon Sa'ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 8, 2026
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also clarified on
Wednesday that “Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire” announced by
Trump, adding that the message has been made clear to all parties.
She noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
expressed support for the U.S.-brokered ceasefire with Iran and assured
Trump that Israel “will continue to be a helpful partner” over the next
two weeks.
Leavitt described
the ceasefire as “a victory for the United States of America,”
crediting “Operation Epic Fury” with dismantling Iran’s military
capabilities and forcing Tehran to agree to halt hostilities. She said
in 38 days, U.S. forces conducted more than 13,000 strikes that
destroyed much of Iran’s defense infrastructure, air and naval forces
and weapons production.
The press secretary said Iran’s ability to fund and arm terror proxy
groups has been “greatly reduced” and that the country’s nuclear
ambitions have been “eliminated.” Leavitt said the campaign’s success
created leverage for “tough negotiations” that led Iran to reopen the
Strait of Hormuz and propose what she called a “workable” basis for
continued diplomacy.
Leavitt stressed that Trump’s negotiating red lines,
including ending uranium enrichment inside Iran, “have not changed,”
and rejected reports suggesting otherwise as “false.” She said the
president “will only accept a deal that serves America’s interests.”
Thirteen
U.S. troops were killed during the 38-day campaign, Leavitt said,
adding that Trump “honors their ultimate sacrifice,” which she said
helped secure the ceasefire and laid the groundwork for future peace
talks.
Israel continued attacks on the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Iran said violates the ceasefire agreement. Trump and Israel say the agreement doesn't require the attacks to stop.
The ceasefire agreement in the conflict with Iran is hitting rough waters Thursday.
Semiofficial news agencies in Iran reported that Iranian forces have
mined the Strait of Hormuz, and the opening of the crucial waterway was a
key aspect of President Donald Trump's ceasefire conditions, the Associated Press reported.
On Wednesday, Israel bombed Beirut, and it wasn't clear if the
ceasefire agreement required Israel to stop its attacks on the
Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah. Iran claims the continued attacks
are a violation of the agreement, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and President Donald Trump say it is not.
"The negotiations will focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon," the prime minister said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem, March 19, 2026.(photo credit: SHALEV SHALOM/POOL)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
on Thursday announced that his cabinet would begin ceasefire and
Hezbollah disarmament talks with Lebanon "as soon as possible," in light
of the current active warfront between the IDF and Hezbollah and the
upcoming peace talks with Iran in Islamabad.
Netanyahu's
decision was motivated by "Lebanon's repeated requests to open direct
negotiations with Israel," the prime minister said, adding that
"negotiations will focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing
peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon."
This announcement came just minutes before Hezbollah launched a barrage of rockets, triggering sirens in northern Israel.
The negotiations, expected to begin on Tuesday, will be conducted between Israeli ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter and Lebanese ambassador to the United States Nada Hamadeh Moawad, Israeli sources told The Jerusalem Post.
Michel Issa, the US ambassador to Lebanon, is expected to mediate the talks, sources said.
Israeli
sources stated that there is currently no ceasefire and that Israeli
forces will remain on the ground in Lebanon in the immediate future to
act against any threat from Hezbollah.
Yechiel
Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the US departs from the US Capitol on
Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US, June 25, 2025 (credit:
REUTERS/Nathan Howard)
An
hour before Netanyahu’s statement, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said
he was pursuing a diplomatic track on this matter that was beginning to
be seen "positively" by international actors, according to Reuters.
A senior Lebanese official also told Reuters
that Lebanon had spent the last day pushing for a temporary ceasefire
to allow for broader talks with Israel, describing the effort as a
"separate track but the same model" as the US-Iran truce.
The official said no date or location had been set yet, according to Reuters, but that Lebanon needed the US as a mediator and guarantor of any agreement.
Lebanon has been attempting to initiate negotiations with Israel for weeks
Sources told the Post
that in recent weeks, Lebanon sought to negotiate with Israel, mainly
to prevent further IDF incursions into Lebanese territory. Negotiation
requests with Israel had been passed through officials in both US
President Donald Trump's administration and the French government.
The
Trump administration reportedly told the Lebanese government to "first
act seriously to disarm Hezbollah, and then we'll talk with Israel," the
sources added. The French government, on the other hand, attempted to
promote talks between Lebanon and Israel. Israel turned down these
talks, the source said, as it accused Lebanon of not preventing
Hezbollah from attacking, forcing the IDF to act within Lebanon's
territory.
Trump asks Netanyahu to scale back Lebanon strikes
Trump
asked Netanyahu to scale back Israel’s strikes in Lebanon in a phone
conversation on Wednesday, NBC News reported on Thursday.
NBC
cited an unnamed senior administration official as saying that Trump
made the request to help ensure the success of negotiations with Iran.
Continued IDF ops. in Lebanon will ruin Iran peace talks in Islamabad, Iranian officials claim
"The
continuation of these aggressions will render negotiations meaningless.
Our finger remains on the trigger. Iran will never abandon its Lebanese
brothers and sisters," the Iranian president wrote.
Also on Thursday, Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf called for a halt to IDF operations in Lebanon
in an X post, linking the issue to the upcoming talks in Islamabad,
saying that "Lebanon and the entire Resistance Axis, as Iran's allies,
form an inseparable part of the ceasefire."
"[Pakistani]
PM Shehbaz Sharif publicly and clearly stressed the Lebanon issue;
there is no room for denial and backtracking," Ghalibaf continued.
"Ceasefire violations carry explicit costs and STRONG responses," he
wrote. "Extinguish the fire immediately."
In the past 24 hours, only six ships have passed through the strait.
Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – a vital Persisan Gull region
waterway through which large amounts of oil, liquefied natural gas and
petrochemicals flow — remained below 10% that of normal Thursday.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that vessels would
need to sail through Iranian waters around Larak Island to avoid waters
that have been mined, Reuters reported.
In the past 24 hours, only six ships have passed through the strait.
Normally, 140 ships would have passed through in that time.
The Israeli military says about 100 terror targets hit across Lebanon in coordinated assault planned over weeks.
Israeli Air Force fighter jet seen in
central Israel amid the ongoing war between Israel-U.S. and Iran, March
18, 2026. Photo by Nati Shohat/Flash90.
The Israel Defense Forces on Wednesday carried out its
largest coordinated strikes against Hezbollah terror targets in Lebanon
since the start of “Operation Roaring Lion,” hitting about 100 sites
across multiple areas simultaneously within 10 minutes.
The
large-scale wave of attacks targeted Hezbollah headquarters, military
infrastructure and command-and-control centers in Beirut, the Beqaa
Valley and Southern Lebanon, according to the Israeli army.
The
targets included intelligence command centers and central headquarters
used to direct and plan attacks against IDF troops and Israeli
civilians; infrastructure tied to Hezbollah’s rocket and naval units;
and assets belonging to the Radwan Force and the Aerial (127) Unit.
The
IDF said the operation was based on precise intelligence and had been
planned over several weeks by the Operations Directorate, Intelligence
Directorate, Israeli Air Force and Northern Command to “deepen the
damage” to Iran’s Lebanese proxy.
“Most of the infrastructure that was struck was located within the
heart of the civilian population, as part of Hezbollah’s cynical
exploitation of Lebanese civilians as human shields in order to
safeguard its operations,” the military said.
Prior to the strikes, measures were taken to mitigate harm to uninvolved individuals as much as possible, it added.
“The
Hezbollah terror organization deliberately decided to join the war,
operating on behalf of the Iranian terror regime while harming the State
of Lebanon and its civilians. The State of Lebanon and its civilians
must refuse Hezbollah’s entrenchment in civilian areas and its weapon
build-up capabilities,” the IDF continued.
Israeli Defense
Minister Israel Katz said in a recorded video that hundreds of
terrorists were hit in the IAF surprise attack, which constituted “the
largest concentrated strike Hezbollah has suffered since the ‘Pager
Operation.’”
Katz was referring to the Mossad’s Sept. 17-18, 2024, pager attacks
that wounded thousands of Hezbollah operatives, after the Iranian proxy
launched a war against the Jewish state a day after Hamas’s Oct. 7,
2023, massacre.
Defense
Minister Israel Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir attend a
situation assessment at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, March 25,
2026. Photo by Elad Malka/Israel Ministry of Defense.
On Wednesday, Katz further congratulated the IDF on the
“flawless execution, and ... Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for
leading the decision and insisting on separating the arenas between Iran
and Lebanon.”
He went on to say that Jerusalem insisted on
distinguishing between Iran and Lebanon, so that Israel can “change the
reality in Lebanon and remove threats from the residents of the north.”
The
minister further vowed that Israel is not the same as it was prior to
Oct. 7 and will not tolerate any threat or harm to its citizens,
something that Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem “did not
understand.”
Qassem’s “personal turn will also come,” Katz
threatened, referring to the fate of his predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah,
who was eliminated on Sep. 27, 2024.
“We promised to bring security to the residents of the north—and that is exactly what we will do,” he added.
Israel Defense Forces soldiers during operations in Southern Lebanon, March 2026. Credit: IDF.
Netanyahu issued a statement Wednesday expressing support for the truce, but said it “does not include Lebanon.”
IDF
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said on Tuesday that troops are
“deepening the multi-focal effort to degrade the Hezbollah terrorist
organization.”
“We continue to establish a forward defense posture
to prevent direct fire toward our communities, while simultaneously
operating against surface-to-surface fire,” he said.
“In every
encounter, our troops prevail over Hezbollah. War carries heavy costs,
and we will continue to act to remove threats against our civilians,” he
added.
IDF
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir (right) and Northern Command chief
Maj. Gen. Rafi Milo (left) during a situational assessment at Northern
Command, March 16, 2026. Credit: IDF
The IDF has struck more than 3,500 targets and killed more
than 1,000 Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon since the Iranian-backed
group entered the war in support of Tehran on March 2.
Hezbollah
began firing rockets and suicide drones at Israel after the
assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was
targeted in the opening strikes of “Operation Roaring Lion” on Feb. 28.
In
response to Hezbollah’s violation of the U.S.-brokered Nov. 27, 2024,
truce agreement, Jerusalem launched an aerial campaign against the
Iranian proxy and ordered IDF troops to advance and take control of
additional areas in Southern Lebanon to halt cross-border attacks.
Why Does the West Keep Misreading Islamic Power Structures?
The rulers of the Middle East
learned long ago -- from the United States falling for their Charlie
Brown football routine every time -- how to outwit the West or outlast
it.
With the Gaza Strip, US President Donald J. Trump sets up a
"Board of Peace" ostensibly to oversee the permanent disarmament of
Hamas, only to pack it with Islamists dedicated to waging war, who have
no interest in seeing any kind of peace, and then turns his attention
elsewhere while Hamas comfortably builds up its power base again.
Meanwhile, to the presumed delight of both Erdogan and Mohammed
bin Salman, al-Sharaa has been using his "chance at greatness" to
unobstructedly massacre Christians, Druze, Kurds and Alawites throughout
Syria.
In Iran, it looks as if Trump might be about to repeat these
catastrophes by allowing Mohammad Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's Majlis
(parliament) and a longtime hardline Islamist, to continue tormenting
Iran's betrayed citizens. If "HELP IS ON ITS WAY," as Trump promised,
this sure is not it.
Ghalibaf is not a moderate. Ghalibaf has never been a
moderate.... His entire career path runs directly in the opposite
direction of anyone diverging from the regime.
The illusion of his "pragmatism," as with Syria's al-Sharaa, has
been carefully cultivated, both domestically and abroad.... He speaks of
fighting corruption, modernization and administrative reform. For
Western observers eager to identify "moderates" inside the Iranian
system, these "assurances" are often sufficient. Yet this is precisely
where the misunderstanding begins.
The familiar Western narrative of "moderates versus hardliners" within the regime reflects Western hopes, not Iranian reality.
The Islamic Republic of Iran does not produce moderates in the
Western sense. It produces highly effective operatives. Ghalibaf is
among its most accomplished. Mistaking expediency for moderation,
however, is exactly the kind of Western error that regimes such as
Iran's have learned to exploit with consistency – and the obliging
complicity of the West.
Mohammad Ghalibaf is not a moderate. Ghalibaf has never been
a moderate. He is a product of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its
purest form — a man forged inside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC), shaped by its doctrines, promoted through its networks, and
sustained by its system of power. Pictured: Ghalibaf in Tehran on June
15, 2024. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)
Russia, China and the Middle East are theaters where Western
strategic illusions tend to erode too slowly -- almost politely -- until
reality forces its way through.
The rulers of the Middle East learned long ago -- from the United States falling for their Charlie Brown football routine every time -- how to outwit the West or outlast it.
With the Gaza Strip, US President Donald J. Trump sets up a "Board of
Peace" ostensibly to oversee the permanent disarmament of Hamas, only
to pack it with Islamists dedicated to waging war, who have no interest
in seeing any kind of peace, and then turns his attention elsewhere
while Hamas comfortably builds up its power base again.
In Syria, when Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
strongly suggested in May 2025 that Trump recognize Ahmed al-Sharaa --
an al-Qaeda terrorist leader with a US $10 million bounty on his head --
as president of Syria, Trump replied, with a gratifying flash of skepticism:
"[A]fter discussing the situation in Syria with the Crown
Prince, your Crown Prince, and also with President Erdogan of Turkey
who called me the other day and asked for a very similar thing... I will
be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give
them a chance at greatness. Oh, what I'd do for the Crown Prince."
Meanwhile, to the presumed delight of both Erdogan and Mohammed bin
Salman, al-Sharaa has been using his "chance at greatness" to
unobstructedly massacre Christians, Druze, Kurds and Alawites throughout
Syria.
"Following al-Sharaa's December 2024 seizure of power in
Syria, persecution of religious minorities, including Christians, Druze
and Alawites, has skyrocketed as the country undergoes a process of
radical Islamization....
"U.S. President Donald J. Trump should never have allowed HTS and
al-Sharaa – who justifiably had a $10 million bounty placed on his head
by the U.S. State Department – to use Syria to entrench Sunni Islam by
jihad (holy war). Al-Sharaa should be replaced at once."
In Iran, it looks as if Trump might be about to repeat these
catastrophes by allowing Mohammad Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's Majlis
(parliament) and a longtime hardline Islamist, to continue tormenting
Iran's betrayed citizens. If "HELP IS ON ITS WAY," as Trump promised, this sure is not it.
Iran rarely bothers with subtlety. It operates through interlocking
religious, military and political layers, yet the coherence of its
system remains absolute. Once again, Washington risks misreading that
coherence by projecting onto the regime internal factional distinctions
that simply do not exist.
The latest case is almost textbook: The recurring suggestion, echoed in some of Trump's pronouncements
and in certain Western analyses, that Ghalibaf represents a form of
"moderation" within Iran's regime is not merely inaccurate; it is wildly
misleading.
It reflects the West's persistent error of confusing tactical
variations with genuine ideological divergence, and mistaking longtime
regime insiders for potential reformers.
Ghalibaf is not a moderate. Ghalibaf has never been
a moderate. He is a product of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its
purest form — a man forged inside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC), shaped by its doctrines, promoted through its networks, and
sustained by its system of power. His entire career path runs directly
in the opposite direction of anyone diverging from the regime. He is a
military officer who entered politics as an extension of the regime's
coercive apparatus.
Appointed by then Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Ghalibaf commanded
the IRGC's Aerospace Force from 1997 to 2000. He then served as chief
of Iran's national police (Law Enforcement Command) from 2000 to 2005, a
period that included the brutal suppression
of the 1999 student protests. From 2005 to 2017 he was mayor of Tehran.
He was elected to the Majlis in 2020 and chosen as speaker on May 28,
2020 — an office to which he has been repeatedly re-elected, most
recently in May 2024.
Each of these positions represents not a departure from hard power,
but a different expression of it. In Iran, there is no clean separation
between military and political authority — only continuity. Ghalibaf
embodies exactly that.
The illusion of his "pragmatism," as with Syria's al-Sharaa, has been carefully cultivated,
both domestically and abroad. Compared to more overtly ideological
figures, Ghalibaf sometimes adopts the language of efficiency,
governance and economic management. He speaks of fighting corruption,
modernization and administrative reform.
For Western observers eager to identify "moderates" inside the Iranian
system, these "assurances" are often sufficient. Yet this is precisely
where the misunderstanding begins.
In the Iranian political
lexicon, "pragmatism" does not mean moderation in the Western sense or
any willingness to compromise on the regime's core principles. It means
the operational skill to manage power effectively while keeping the
ideological core intact. Ghalibaf is not softening the regime — he is
optimizing its operations. His record does not leave much ambiguity.
As a senior IRGC figure, he belonged to the institution responsible
for projecting Iranian power abroad through proxy militias and
asymmetric warfare. As police chief, he oversaw security forces during
periods of domestic unrest, contributing to the machinery that
suppresses dissent with efficiency and, when necessary, force.
Allegations of corruption
have dogged him for years — not as isolated scandals, but as symptoms
of how power circulates in the system through patronage, loyalty and
control of economic networks linked to the security apparatus.
None of this places him in the margins. It places him at the center.
His role as Majlis speaker since 2020 only reinforces this reality. In
Western parliamentary systems, legislative leadership may signal
pluralism and institutional independence. In Iran, the Majlis operates
within strict boundaries set by the Supreme Leader and enforced by the
Guardian Council, which vets candidates for the Majlis and reviews
legislation for compatibility with Islamic law and the constitution. The
speaker is not a counterweight to the system. He is one of its key
instruments — tasked with managing the legislative expression of
strategic priorities, maintaining internal cohesion, and preserving the
façade of "elected" governance.
Amid the conflict with Israel and the United States, Ghalibaf has
emerged as a central figure in shaping the regime's internal and
external messaging. On March 23, 2026, he publicly rejected
any notion of direct negotiations with Washington, dismissing reports
of talks as "fake news" intended "to manipulate the financial and oil
markets and to escape the quagmire in which America and Israel are
trapped."
These statements were not signs of independence so much as
exquisitely aligned with the regime's strategic posture: resistance,
denial of vulnerability, and refusal to appear to negotiate under
pressure. That is not the language of a moderate seeking de-escalation.
It is the calibrated response of a system that understands the value of
controlled confrontation.
Trump's foreign policy often focuses on identifying points of
leverage — figures within adversarial systems who might respond to
pressure, incentives or transactional deals. In some contexts, this
approach can produce results. It requires, however, accurately
identifying who actually holds autonomous decision-making power.
In Iran, that power does not reside in the parliament or its speaker.
It resides with the Supreme Leader – currently the son of Ali Khamenei,
Mojtaba Khamenei, who is reportedly badly wounded
-- or his inner circle and the security apparatus that supports the
system. Figures such as Ghalibaf are not alternative centers of
authority. They are extensions of the same core.
Treating Ghalibaf as a potential interlocutor and possible future leader
— or worse, as a supposedly moderating influence — risks engaging with
the regime in ways it has mastered for decades: presenting the
appearance of diversity while preserving absolute unity. Tehran has long
perfected this duality
— showing multiple faces to the outside world while ensuring that all
meaningful decisions converge on the same ideological objectives. The
familiar Western narrative of "moderates versus hardliners" within the
regime reflects Western hopes, not Iranian reality.
Internal differences certainly exist within the regime, but they
concern methods, timing and priorities — not ultimate goals. The
preservation of the Islamic Republic, its influence across the Middle
East, its confrontation with Israel, and its long-term challenge to
American presence in the region remain constants. Ghalibaf operates
entirely within this framework. He does not question it; he advances it.
Misreading figures like Ghalibaf can lead to policy miscalculations:
overestimating prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough, underestimating
the regime's cohesion, and misinterpreting the signals it sends. When
Tehran speaks through Ghalibaf, it is not testing moderation. It is
carefully reinforcing its position, probing reactions, and preserving
its future. Every statement is deliberate.
Europe, which has repeatedly sought to engage perceived "moderates"
in Iran, should recognize this pattern from years of negotiations
followed by repeated breakdowns. Changes in tone have rarely produced
changes in behavior. For Washington, any analysis of exploitable
internal divisions needs to be grounded in reality, not in wishful
thinking.
This tendency extends beyond Iran. Western strategic culture often
searches for "reasonable" counterparts inside adversarial systems —
hoping that behind the rhetoric lie actors who "think like us" and can
be persuaded or transformed. Sometimes this approach works. In Iran's
current power structure, it is misplaced.
Ghalibaf is not a bridge to the West. He is not a
reformer-in-waiting. He is not a pragmatic counterweight to ideological
hardliners. He is one of them — more disciplined in his language and
polished in presentation, but fully aligned in substance. Labeling him a
moderate is not only wrong. It unintentionally lends credibility to the
regime's own narrative.
Trump is right to approach Iran from a position of strength and to
reject illusions of easy compromise. But strength demands being able,
with clarity, to identify the nature of the actors involved. Ghalibaf,
unfortunately, does not represent an opening. He represents continuity
of the same system, the same objectives, and the same willingness to
wield power, internally and externally, to ensure his own and the
regime's survival.
The Islamic Republic of Iran does not produce moderates in the
Western sense. It produces highly effective operatives. Ghalibaf is
among its most accomplished. Mistaking expediency for moderation,
however, is exactly the kind of Western error that regimes such as
Iran's have learned to exploit with consistency – and the obliging
complicity of the West.
Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas,
is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the
author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third
Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on
the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte "
became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and
directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle
Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the
persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)"
highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization
as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.
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.
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:
"What the enemy is trying to push through today against
the Palestinian resistance, via our brotherly mediators [Egypt, Qatar,
and Turkey], is extremely dangerous. Raising the issue of weapons in
this blunt manner is nothing but an overt attempt to continue the
genocide against our people, something we will not accept under any
circumstances. What the enemy failed to take from us through tanks and
war, it will not be able to take through politics or at the negotiating
table."
Far from preparing to disarm, Hamas is publicly declaring its commitment to continued jihad, praising the Iranian regime and its proxies, and inciting Palestinians to escalate attacks against Israel.
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.
The speech, in fact, is a manifesto of defiance.
From the outset, Abu Obaida frames the conflict in explicitly
religious terms. Portraying the war not as a territorial dispute, but as
a religious obligation, he calls on Muslims to "unite their ranks in confronting the disbelievers."
He goes further by describing the current war as a "decisive phase in the history of this Ummah
[Islamic nation]," a turning point meant to restore Islamic dominance
and reverse what he calls the humiliation of Muslim lands:
"For even if the balance of power is disturbed, our truth is stronger than their falsehood, and our Ummah is one, its enemy is one."
In Hamas's worldview, the war is not about the Gaza Strip. It is about reshaping the Middle East – and beyond. It is a call for jihad.
Equally revealing is the Hamas spokesman's repeated reference to the
"Zionist-American assault" on Iran. By fusing Israel and the US into a
single enemy, Hamas is openly declaring that the jihad is not
directed only at Israel, but also at Washington. This is a direct
message to American policymakers: Hamas does not distinguish between
Israel and the US. It sees both as legitimate targets.
The implications are worse than they might at first look.
For Israel, the speech confirms that Hamas, like Iran, has not
changed ideologically, despite the heavy military blows it has suffered
since its October 7, 2023 invasion of Israel. On the contrary, the
terror group remains as committed as ever to Israel's destruction. Abu
Obaida's praise for Iran, Hezbollah, and Yemen's Houthis underscores
Hamas's integration into a broader Iran-led war effort. Israel is not
facing an isolated terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip, but a
coordinated regional "Axis of Resistance."
For the US, the message is equally clear. Hamas is rejecting any
notion of compromise or disarmament. Despite repeated calls from Trump
to lay down its arms, Hamas is doubling down on its strategy of armed
struggle. The speech makes clear that Hamas views American pressure not as a reason to moderate, but as a further justification for jihad:
"The [US-Israeli] aggression will not achieve its
results. The illusion of normalization they seek is doomed to failure.
Those who hope to impose foreign ideologies from across the seas on our
nation do not know the heritage, civilization, and power that the nation
possesses."
Any policy based on the assumption that Hamas can be persuaded to disarm is simply detached from reality.
The speech also contains an unmistakable warning to pro-Western Arab states, particularly in the Gulf. By accusing
unnamed actors of seeking to "alter the concepts of the Islamic
religion" and impose foreign systems of governance, Hamas is effectively
attacking Arab regimes aligned with the US. These countries are
portrayed not as partners, but as part of the problem – complicit in
what Hamas describes as a campaign to subjugate the Islamic world.
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.
At the same time, Hamas continues to incite violence on the ground.
Abu Obaida's call for unity and confrontation, regrettably, is not "just
talk." It is a direct appeal to Palestinians in the West Bank and
Jerusalem to escalate their confrontation with Israel into deadly
terrorist attacks. The speech's portrayal of the war as a global crisis –
claiming that Israel is plunging "the region, and indeed the world,
into its furnace," is, in addition, part of a broader propaganda effort
by Hamas to shift blame for regional instability onto Israel and the US.
Stripped of its religious and ideological language, the message is
simple: Hamas has no intention of ending the war. It is preparing for
more.
The speech by Abu Obaida is a loud wake-up call. Hamas is planning escalation.
For Israel, the US, and pro-Western states, any strategy that
assumes Hamas can be integrated, moderated, or coaxed into abandoning
its weapons is not only unrealistic; it is naïve and dangerous.
Hamas at least is being honest. Hamas is not negotiating. Hamas is
not moderating. Hamas is not preparing for peace. October 7, 2023, was
not an isolated attack. It was part of an ongoing jihad: "The
strikes [against Israel] by the fighters of Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen are
an extension of the Al-Aqsa Flood [Hamas's October 7 massacre]."
Israel, the US, and the Arab states aligned with the West might
recognize the simple truth: 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.
A ceasefire that leaves the regime structurally intact is not peace. It is an intermission. It is a guarantee that the same threat will return in altered form, demanding a higher price later. But military pressure alone cannot write the final chapter. That chapter belongs to the Iranian people.
If this war stops with the
regime still standing, still organized, and still capable of rebuilding,
Tehran will do what it always does: declare survival a victory, turn
endurance into propaganda, and return more dangerous than before. A
wounded regime is not a reformed regime. It is often a more vindictive
one.
A ceasefire that leaves the regime structurally intact is not
peace. It is an intermission. It is a guarantee that the same threat
will return in altered form, demanding a higher price later. But
military pressure alone cannot write the final chapter. That chapter
belongs to the Iranian people.
Trump has already helped shatter the myth that Tehran is
untouchable. He should not now allow the regime to survive this war by
pretending survival is strength. He should finish the job.
It must end with Iran's terror state broken, America's allies
strengthened, deterrence restored, and the opening of a different future
for Iran and for the Middle East.
President Donald Trump has already helped shatter the myth
that Tehran is untouchable. He should not now allow the regime to
survive this war by pretending survival is strength. He should finish
the job. Pictured: Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio walk to
board Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, on March 20,
2026. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
This war has exposed truths that too many in Washington have spent years trying to avoid.
This war has shown again that Israel's indispensable ally is not
elite fashion or diplomatic theater. It is the United States of America
when led by a president willing to act. President Donald Trump made that
clear not with rhetoric, but with force, resolve, and strategic
clarity.
The second truth is just as important: the Gulf states also have only
one genuine great-power ally, and that is the United States.
When Iran and its terror network threaten the region, every major
power reveals what it really is. America acted. Russia watched. China
calculated. Trump chose to use American power, credibility, and
deterrence to protect regional partners under pressure. He could have
behaved as Russia did, observing the conflict with satisfaction as
instability spread and America's allies came under attack. He could have
behaved as China does, speaking the language of balance while
protecting only its own interests. But he did not. He acted.
Too much of the Arab and Muslim world, meanwhile, has watched this
war from the sidelines. Divided, weakened, and strategically confused,
many have offered rhetoric without any meaningful logistical, military,
or political weight. Worse, one gets the impression that some are
quietly pleased to see successful Gulf states placed under pressure.
Countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and
Qatar have built influence, wealth, and relative stability while others
remained trapped in grievance, stagnation, and failure. To watch
dictatorial and expansionist forces menace these states while responding
with passivity, envy, or cynical silence is not merely disappointing.
It is disgraceful.
Making a difference
This war may leave behind one lasting political consequence across
the Gulf: a re-evaluation of alliances. States in the region are likely
to separate true friends from false ones with much greater clarity. They
have now seen who acted, who hesitated, who hid behind slogans, and who
quietly enjoyed the spectacle. And they have also seen that the United
States — and only the United States — remains the power capable of
making a real difference.
That matters because this war has settled another question once and
for all: the regime in Tehran is not a difficult negotiating partner,
and not a normal regional power. It is the central engine of organized
instability in the Middle East.
Chaos is its method
For decades, the Islamic Republic has armed proxies, fueled sectarian
conflict, intimidated Arab governments, threatened Israel, undermined
regional security, and treated terror not as an exception but as an
instrument of policy. Chaos is not an accidental byproduct of the
regime. Chaos is its method. That is why this moment cannot end in
another half-measure.
If this war stops with the regime still standing, still organized,
and still capable of rebuilding, Tehran will do what it always does:
declare survival a victory, turn endurance into propaganda, and return
more dangerous than before. A wounded regime is not a reformed regime.
It is often a more vindictive one.
And the danger is not only external. It is internal as well. If the
regime survives this war with enough of its coercive machinery intact,
it will tighten repression at home, claim renewed legitimacy through
defiance, and intensify the persecution of its own people. It will
imprison more dissidents, crush more protests, silence more women, and
brutalize more students. The Iranian people are not partners of the
regime in this confrontation. They are its first victims.
This is where too many European analysts still fail to understand the
stakes. The issue is not simply whether Iran can absorb military
punishment. The issue is whether the regime will be allowed to convert
survival into political recovery. If it does, then this war will have
achieved far less than it should.
That is why the objective must be stated plainly. Not another fake
diplomatic reset. Not another cosmetic agreement that buys Tehran time.
Not another pause dressed up as strategy. The goal must be to break the
regime's machinery of coercion so thoroughly that it can no longer
threaten Israel, blackmail the Gulf, dominate its own people through
terror, or hold the region and the global economy hostage.
This is not an argument for endless war. It is the opposite. It is an argument against strategic hesitation.
A conflict without a clear political end-state only postpones the
next crisis. A ceasefire that leaves the regime structurally intact is
not peace. It is an intermission. It is a guarantee that the same threat
will return in altered form, demanding a higher price later. But
military pressure alone cannot write the final chapter. That chapter
belongs to the Iranian people.
Years of corruption, repression, economic ruin, and ideological
brutality have hollowed out this regime from within. Women have
resisted. Students have resisted. Workers have resisted. Families have
resisted. Ordinary Iranians have shown remarkable courage in the face of
a system that has stolen dignity, prosperity, and freedom from an
ancient nation.
They deserve more than sympathy. They deserve an opening.
Once the regime's coercive capacity is broken far enough, the center
of gravity must shift inward. The free world should speak not only about
Iran, but to Iranians — to the women who refused humiliation, to the
youth who refused silence, to the workers who refused fear, and to all
those who know their country deserves better than clerical violence and
permanent captivity.
That would be the real victory.
Not just damaged facilities. Not just destroyed launchers. Not just
another temporary restoration of deterrence. A real victory would mean a
regime unable to recover its old posture, a stronger alignment among
responsible regional states, restored deterrence in the Gulf, and an
Iranian people finally given the chance to reclaim their nation.
Trump has already helped shatter the myth that Tehran is untouchable.
He should not now allow the regime to survive this war by pretending
survival is strength.
He should finish the job.
It must end with Iran's terror state broken, America's allies
strengthened, deterrence restored, and the opening of a different future
for Iran and for the Middle East.
This article was originally published by the Jerusalem Post
Ahmed Charal is the publisher of the Jerusalem
Strategic Tribune and serves on the boards of directors of the Atlantic
Council, the International Crisis Group, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the
Center for the National Interest.
Brig. Gen. Majid Khademi died in an overnight strike in Tehran.
Two Israeli Air Force F-15 “Baz” fighter jets during operational activity. Credit: Israel Defense Forces.
The Israel Defense Forces killed Brig.-Gen. Majid
Khademi, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence chief and
one of the IRGC’s most senior operatives, Defense Minister Israel Katz
confirmed on Monday.
“The terrorist regime in Iran continues to
launch missiles at the Israeli home front, killing and harming Israeli
civilians,” Katz said during a situational assessment with senior
military officials. “I was updated by the chief of staff that, overnight
in Tehran, the IDF eliminated Majid Khadami, head of the IRGC
intelligence organization—one of those directly responsible for these
war crimes and one of the three most senior officials in the
organization.
“The Revolutionary Guards fire at civilians, and we eliminate the terrorist leaders,” the minister said.
Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force killed a senior IRGC
commander responsible for managing the “commercial operations” of the
terrorist organization’s oil revenues and bypassing international
sanctions, the military said on Sunday.
Mohammad Reza Ashrafi
Kahi, who was killed by an airstrike in Tehran on Friday, “managed the
commercial operations of the Oil Headquarters, estimated at billions of
dollars annually, and advanced the development of the IRGC’s military
capabilities, as well as those of the Iranian terror regime’s proxies
across the Middle East, foremost among them the Houthi terrorist regime,
and the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations,” the IDF stated.
Oil
revenues “fund the IRGC’s ballistic missile and UAV arrays, which are
used to launch attacks toward the territory of the State of Israel and
Gulf states, and to target oil infrastructure across the region,”
according to the IDF.
The army noted that Ashrafi’s death followed
the March 31 airstrike that killed Jamshid Eshaqi, who led a covert oil
funding network supporting Iran’s regular military and the IRGC, “and
constitutes an additional significant blow to the economic foundations
of Iran’s security apparatus.
“The IDF will continue to operate
against commanders and leaders of the Iranian terror regime wherever
necessary,” the statement concluded.
U.S. President Donald Trump told Fox News
on Sunday that if the Iranian regime doesn’t strike a deal by Tuesday,
he would consider “blowing everything up and taking over the oil.”
“You’re going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country,” the president said in a conversation with Fox
foreign correspondent Trey Yingst. Trump added that those who are
negotiating on the behalf of the regime have been granted amnesty from
elimination so they can continue the talks on Monday.
Yingst spoke
with Trump shortly after the president had warned Tehran in a Truth
Social post that “time is running out” to make a deal.
“Tuesday
will be Power Plant Day and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran.
There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy
bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,”
wrote Trump.
Trump later on Sunday apparently named the specific
time by which the Iranians must open the Strait of Hormuz, extending his
previous deadline to Tuesday night.
His 10-day ultimatum was set to expire Monday, but the cryptic post on Truth Social read, “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”
