Saja Sharara lost her life when a missile struck the couple’s home just 48 hours after their wedding
The husband of a 28-year-old Lebanese woman killed in an Israeli airstrike just two days after their wedding has told RT how he was speaking to his wife on the phone moments before their home was hit.
Saja Sharara was killed at the couple’s home in Arabsalim, southern Lebanon, on August 27. Six other people, including a child, were wounded.
Hussein said he called Saja after hearing about an Israeli strike nearby. Minutes later, she called him back and suddenly said: “A rocket, a rocket is coming towards us, Hussein.”
The connection was lost. “The rocket fell on her,” Hussein recalled. “And then I realized that it was over.”
Israel has not said specifically what it was targeting at the house. It said its wider attacks in the Nabatieh area targeted Hezbollah infrastructure in response to drones launched at IDF troops. No Israeli casualties were reported.
Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon have continued despite a US-mediated ceasefire. More than 4,000 people have been killed and over 12,000 wounded in Israeli attacks on Lebanon since March, according to Lebanese authorities.
Hussein said the continuing Israeli military presence and air operations mean there is no ceasefire in practice.
“There is no ceasefire as long as this enemy is on our land and the aviation is flying above us,” he told RT.
RT’s Steve Sweeney spoke exclusively with Hussein in southern Lebanon about the future he and Saja had planned together.
September 6, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Comments Off on Lebanese man tells RT how Israeli strike killed his bride
Hezbollah’s Media Relations Office has categorically denied any connection to a security cell reportedly arrested on suspicion of seeking to destabilize Lebanon and Syria, dismissing the accusations as entirely baseless.
In a statement released Wednesday, the office stressed that Hezbollah has no connection whatsoever, direct or indirect, to any such cell or group. It said certain media outlets, which it accused of a pattern of leveling false accusations against the Resistance, had circulated the claims linking Hezbollah to the alleged cell.
The office said attempts by these outlets to implicate Hezbollah in security-related cases, relying on unnamed sources, are part of a disinformation campaign aimed at tarnishing the group’s image, sowing discord, and undermining security and stability in Lebanon.
It asserted that the reports are part of a broader effort to malign the Resistance through unverified claims attributed to anonymous sources.
A recurring pattern
The denial follows months of similar accusations against Hezbollah from Syrian officials since the fall of the al-Assad government.
In July, Hezbollah rejected claims tying it to an attempt to smuggle weapons and missiles across the Syrian-Iraqi border, after Syrian authorities said they had intercepted a shipment concealed inside a fuel tanker arriving from Iraq. Also in April and May, the group denied allegations linking it to a cell accused of plotting to assassinate a religious figure.
Hezbollah has affirmed on each occasion that it maintains no activity, connection, or presence inside Syrian territory. The group has said the repetition of such claims raises serious questions and points to parties seeking to inflame tension between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.
Hezbollah has also pointed to similar fabricated allegations emerging from Bahrain and Kuwait, warning of a foreign plot aimed at stoking tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance and destabilizing the wider region.
The group has consistently framed the recurring accusations as a coordinated effort tied to the broader Zionist-American agenda in the region, arguing that the timing and pattern of the claims serve to isolate the Resistance and strain relations between Lebanon and Syria at a sensitive political juncture.
September 2, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Wars for Israel | Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, Syria |
Comments Off on Hezbollah denies ties to alleged Syria-Lebanon ‘destabilization cell’
Gaza’s resistance factions recently agreed to a US-backed disarmament roadmap. Despite having consistently demanded this step be taken over the course of nearly three years, as a prerequisite to ending its invasion, Israel flatly rejected the proposal. In order to properly understand this renewed disarmament campaign, it is essential to consider the historic context that makes true disarmament impossible.
“If Hamas just gave up its weapons…” and “Hamas cannot control Gaza after their attacks on Israel…” have been popular arguments featured in the English-language media, not only since the beginning of the Gaza genocide, but for decades now. On July 6, Hamas declared that it had agreed to hand over control of Gaza’s civil administration to a technocratic governing committee and by July 30 the movement had pledged to implement a disarmament plan. Both of these agreements, reached through the US’s Board of Peace (BoP), provoked nothing more than pledges of further violence from the Israeli authorities.
The reason for this is that Israel will accept only a disarmament process that leaves the Palestinian people completely defenseless and at the full mercy of their occupying army. Therefore, the Hamas movement and its armed allies, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), have stressed that a disarmament plan must be sequential, not a surrender agreement as the Israelis are demanding.
While the Fatah Party is the only major Palestinian political Party that is not currently a proscribed terrorist organization in the US, UK and most EU nations, it was once considered to be one of the leading global terrorist organizations by the Israelis and their allies. In order to destroy the Fatah-led Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Besieging Beirut, where the PLO had established itself in exile, the Israelis killed around 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese before eventually offering the Palestinians an ultimatum: continue fighting until the last drop of blood, or the organization give up their resistance and flee. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat chose to flee to Tunisia and accepted defeat.
Yet, Israel did not live up to its word. Following this agreement, horrifying massacres would be inflicted against the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. On September 16, 1982, with no resistance to even attempt to aid them, the infamous Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred. Israeli forces watched on as their fascist Lebanese allied militia force, Kataeb, mass murdered up to 3,500 civilians over a 43-hour period. Almost all of the victims were women and children, because many of the men previously living there were involved in the resistance and had fled as part of the agreement.
Israel also refused to leave southern Lebanon, establishing an illegal occupation of the south of the country despite signing a withdrawal agreement, formally securing its role as an occupier in 1985. This ended up triggering the founding of the Party Israel today blames for its current war against Lebanon, Hezbollah.
The lessons of 1982 have never been forgotten. In fact, the aftershocks of the PLO’s retreat are still being felt today, as the trauma of the setback triggered a chain of events that resulted in a major ideological sea change.
Although it has often been argued that the developments that emerged off the back of the Post World War II global order – oriented around the United Nations system, concepts of Human Rights and International Law – had ushered in changes that rendered old models of armed struggle null and void, the predicament of Palestine today has largely discredited this argument.
Under the model of a “rules-based order” and “Western liberal democracy”, nations are supposed to behave rationally. Under this understanding, Israel, which is assumed to live up to the definition of a modern State, is therefore argued to behave rationally.
Prior to October 7, 2023, the Palestinian resistance factions argued that their armed struggle was necessary and that they were not fighting a rational enemy. Nearly three years later, they have been vindicated. The former leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, challenged this concept of Israel’s assumed rational nature, arguing that through armed struggle the reaction of his people’s occupiers would lead them to two options: An all-out regional war or a negotiated Two-state settlement.
The Algerian revolutionary philosopher Frantz Fanon wrote that “Colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence.”
Although written with Algeria’s struggle against the French as its key reference point, this exact reasoning can be seen to have heavily inspired the Fatah Party’s foundational doctrine, which argued the necessity of armed struggle as a means of national liberation. The expulsion of between 800,000 to 900,000 Pieds-noirs settlers, along with France’s occupying forces, from Algeria in 1962, long served as a major inspiration for the Palestinian resistance, in particular the Fatah Party.
In the immediate aftermath of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, the abovementioned quote from Fanon’s seminal work ‘The Wretched of the Earth ’ was once again popularised as a defense of the October 7, 2023, attack, masterminded by the Qassam Brigades of Hamas. A popular critique of this line of thinking was that the violence witnessed that day could not overcome Israel’s violence and that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is too different to that of the French occupation of Algeria for the analogy to work.
As is the case with analogies, they are not perfect, nor are they meant to be. What Yahya Sinwar, the head of the Qassam Brigades, Mohammed al-Deif, and others who engineered the October 7 offensive were doing was challenging the occupier in an unprecedented manner. Whether they understood the full extent to which Israel was willing to go in response is somewhat irrelevant to the conversation at hand; instead, what is important is the way things have played out.
With modern weapons and technology, Israel has put on display the colonial mindset. There is no argument to present that the genocide in Gaza is rational; it is indiscriminate, it has been an extermination, and as we have seen, there has been no carefully calibrated plan. Instead, the Zionists have lashed out on every conceivable front, and as a result, the global public has rallied against them. As Sinwar predicted, Tel Aviv’s totally irrational behavior has led to regional confrontation, and before it is his ultimatum.
‘Greater Violence’ and Abandoning Resistance
For those who have familiarised themselves with Frantz Fanon’s work, another concept he introduces is the concept of the native wrestling back his humanity through the use of armed struggle. In the Palestinian experience, this certainly applies.
The origin of the modern Palestinian liberation movement is often traced back to around 1918. The Urban Palestinian population evidently contributed in the early stages of the national movement to its concepts and demands, with the likes of the Muslim-Christian Associations that were established as political clubs contributing towards this. As influential Palestinian journalist, writer, and PFLP official Ghassan Kanafani discussed, the semi-feudal and religious nature of Palestine’s leadership had its various fallbacks, but would eventually contribute to encouraging a series of revolts.
Palestine’s masses, during the formative days of its national movement under the British Mandate, were not the urban communities; instead, they were the Fellaheen (farmers and agricultural workers). These workers would form the backbone of each revolt against the British and Zionists between 1921 and 1933.
During the early 1930s, one of the central figures in the history of Palestinian resistance, Sheikh Izz ad-Deen al-Qassam, would begin training workers he recruited in Haifa and carrying out armed attacks against British-Zionist targets. “It is a Jihad of victory of martyrdom” was the slogan that the Sheikh developed, one that the spokesperson for Hamas’ armed wing, Abu Obeida, would repeat in every televised speech following October 7, 2023.
The most iconic artwork, literature and songs representing Palestinian national identity have long been centered around the Fellaheen, the people of the countryside, taking specific pride in those who resisted with whatever means were available. A gun, hand grenade, or stone- whatever tools were available- it didn’t matter; the theme was struggle.
In the Palestinian experience, an entire culture of resistance was forged through generations of armed revolt and accompanying forms of struggle, shaping an identity, centering the concept of standing up for oneself against all odds. Palestine’s movement for national liberation has been predominantly led, post-1948, by the refugee population, whether they be the internally displaced in Gaza, the people of the camps in the occupied West Bank, or the diaspora who live in exile in neighboring nations.
Whether we look to the Arab Revolt between 1936-39, the resistance to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine 1947-49, the historic battle of Karameh in 1968 or even the 1982 war, none of these represented victories and yet each ended up representing a means to an end. Palestinian resistance fighters have employed a large range of tactics throughout different eras of their struggle, some in order to raise awareness for their cause, some to achieve tactical victories and oftentimes as a means of reacting to the violence inflicted against themselves.
Israel’s obsession with disarmament, which currently fits into a larger regional push from Washington and Tel Aviv, is not about conflict resolution; it is about domination and submission. The idea is to remove the means of the Palestinians to fight back, so that they are totally at the mercy of the occupying regime.
Hamas, along with almost a dozen other resistance factions in Gaza, seeks to achieve a resolution through a phased disarmament scheme, where their weapons will be stored and only obtained by a future Palestinian State. They will not accept Israel’s demands that they surrender.
There is no nation on earth that is disarmed and is forbidden from having its own military. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated that his government’s intent is to prevent a Palestinian State at all costs, while his opposition also opposes any deal that will lead to a State of Palestine. Disarmament is a means to destroy the national struggle of the land’s indigenous inhabitants, which the people understand well.
“Your steadfastness, despite abandonment. Your patience, your sacrifice, and your defiance of oppression and deprivation are what enrages your enemy the most. The night will inevitably come to an end. Victory comes with patience, and relief with hardship. And with every hardship there is ease.” – Huthaifa Samir al-Kahlout (Abu Obeida), the former spokesperson for the Qassam Brigades, addressing the people of Gaza in a final speech prior to his assassination.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
September 2, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Zionism |
Comments Off on Palestinian Resistance and the Politics of Disarmament: A Historical Perspective
There is a possibility that Benjamin Netanyahu will no longer be Prime Minister of Israel following the upcoming elections in October, with the opposition party Yashar led by former IDF Chief of the General Staff Gadi Eisenkot leading in many polls.
But removing Netanyahu and replacing him with Gadi Eisenkot will not change Israel’s genocidal nature.
In fact, it was Gadi Eisenkot who invented the Israeli military doctrine that functioned as the blueprint for the Genocide in Gaza, called the Dahiya Doctrine.
This Doctrine was invented by Eisenkot when he was Chief of Northern Command during the Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006.
“What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved”, Eisenkot said, referring to the doctrine in 2008.
It was exactly this doctrine of collective civilian punishment which was used during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008, which killed 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children, and Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in 2014, which killed more than 1,500 Palestinian civilians, including 500 children.
This doctrine was eventually applied during the Israeli genocide in Gaza starting in October of 2023.
Gadi Eisenkot was also responsible for the mass slaughter of peaceful Palestinian protestors during the Great March of Return in 2018.
As the Institute for Middle East Understanding documented:
- Eisenkot was chief of staff of the Israeli military in 2018 when Israeli snipers killed at least 189 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, including 35 children, three paramedics, and two journalists, and wounded more than 6,000 others, during the Great March of Return. As noted by the Israeli rights group, B’Tselem.
- “Over the course of the protests, the Israeli military implemented an open-fire policy of using live fire against unarmed protestors who posed no threat to the well-armored soldiers on the other side of the fence or to anyone else.”
- An independent U.N. commission of inquiry into the protests concluded there were: “reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.”
Gadi Eisenkot opposes any kind of sovereignty for Palestinians, recently telling Israel Hayom “The two-state solution is a grave mistake” and “Anyone who thinks about a two-state solution after Oct. 7 is simply delusional.”
As for the West Bank, journalist Séamus Malekafzali noted in the Nation that he has espoused support for “maintaining settlements in the West Bank, opposing full annexation not because it is against international law or morally wrong, but because the new Arab population would endanger the Jewish majority in Israel.”
As for Lebanon, Gadi Eisenkot has positioned himself as more extreme than Netanyahu.
Malekafzali noted that, “In some respects, Eisenkot has gone even further than Netanyahu. He criticized the original ceasefire agreement in Lebanon that still allowed Israel almost total freedom of action, and in March, advocated ‘maximum force in minimum time,’ hoping to cause religious strife in Lebanon by ‘humiliating’ the Shia population by forcing them into Christian areas.”
In reality, Gadi Eisenkot, if he is able to win a majority or minority government in October, will be a more suitable face for the Israeli occupation than Benjamin Netanyahu.
While he likely will shy away from the same genocidal rhetoric as Netanyahu and the Likud coalition, this will only be done for propaganda purposes.
In reality, he is the creator of the doctrine the Gaza genocide is based on, and engineered the slaughter of Palestinian protestors during the Great March of Return.
He will put a more respectable face on Israel, while continuing to deny any kind of sovereignty for Palestinians and pushing forward with an Israeli occupation of South Lebanon.
August 30, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Zionism |
Comments Off on No Matter Who Is In Power, Israel Will Stay Genocidal.
As Israel continues to ramp up its destruction of south Lebanon, critics ask why Hezbollah suddenly stopped responding and whether the group is again out of options. The tactical pause on the Lebanese organization’s part will not last, and its options are more numerous than some may expect.
When Hezbollah began responding to 15 months of Israeli daily ceasefire violations in early March of this year, it came as a shock to many who had assumed the group to have been defeated and that its silence was to be taken as a weakness. Although here at the Palestine Chronicle, I and others had argued that Hezbollah was simply rebuilding its stockpiles, the common consensus in international media was to assume it was finished as an effective resistance force.
Since April 16, the group has again chosen to halt its daily operations against the Israelis and abide by a shaky ceasefire agreement which Israel has once again decided to violate on a daily basis. Only when the occupying army attempts to advance further into Lebanon will the organization’s fighters choose to engage, which has again triggered rumors of weakness.
When the US-backed Lebanese government signed its agreement recognizing Israel, taking away its right to appeal to international courts over war crimes committed against its people and permitting an occupation of southern Lebanon, a number of different factors were also present that forced Hezbollah to halt its fire.
The first was that the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding was already in place and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had managed to force the Israelis to stop bombing Beirut and halt its major attacks on southern Lebanese civilian centers.
Another factor at play was the US government’s overt pressure that was being applied to the Syrian leadership to invade the Bekaa Valley and carry out Israel’s dirty work. Then there was a clear-cut escalation on the part of the government in Beirut that sought to legitimize a clash between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah in pursuit of disarming the resistance group.
When considering the Iran angle, Tehran had managed through the threat of missile fire to get the Israelis to temporarily back off from major air assaults in Lebanon. Although the Trump administration used its puppets in Beirut to sign a meaningless agreement that Tel Aviv couldn’t care less for, the gains were made that at least some pressure had been taken off of the civilian population of Lebanon. This consideration is significant as it allowed for around 350,000 people to return to their homes and halted the large-scale civilian killings.
Then there were the considerations of Hezbollah when it comes to a potential domestic clash and Syrian invasion. Instead of continuing its daily operations against occupying forces, it was given the space to continue to supply itself with more armaments, to reposition assets in preparation for the worst-case scenario of a Syrian invasion, but it also allowed for tensions to simmer between itself and the Lebanese leadership.
Former Hezbollah Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah had long advocated for minimizing the risk of internal clashes and even making compromises in order to allow the group to focus its energies on resisting Israel; it appears that this is the same line of thinking being employed by the group’s leadership today. Although Lebanon is on the verge of a major clash, historically speaking, the resistance group has always had to deal with major pushbacks from domestic players, including significant issues with the Amal movement that are today its close allies.
All of this being said, escalating against the Israeli occupiers can come in two forms, either through proceeding on the path of daily operations that inflict material and soldier losses on the enemy, or to fight in a larger multi-front battle. As demonstrated during the 41-day war earlier this year, fighting alongside its Iranian allies makes Hezbollah much more effective.
When Iranian ballistic missiles are raining down on Israeli targets, and Israel’s air force is preoccupied with striking targets inside Iran, it gives Hezbollah the space to pull off more effective attacks on the Israelis. Keep in mind that the group has demonstrated it possesses a sizable arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, alongside its large drone stockpiles, making it capable of striking into Israel’s strategic depth. Doing this alone, however, comes with a higher price than if it is part of a multi-front equation. This is also why Yemen’s Ansarallah threatened to become involved in a war in support of Hezbollah, before Iran’s threats and warning missile fire were enough to coerce the Israelis to back off prior to April 16.
This is all to say that if Hezbollah is fighting the Israelis alone and does not have to worry about a Syrian invasion and civil war, it can very effectively bog down their occupiers and demonstrate their ability to do this for months, absent Iran or any other front being active. Yet, the organization is in a much stronger position should it simply wait for an expansion of the conflict and then unleash a new strategy to bring the fight to the Israelis in ways we have not previously witnessed.
During the lead-up to Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah would carry out an average of 300 operations per month against the occupiers. At some points during the latest conflict, we saw the group carry out as many as 100 operations in a single day. With this being said, the Israeli leadership’s mindset today is not the same as it was in the late 1990s, meaning that they are willing to go much further than ever before since October 7 of 2023. They have been seeking to accelerate their long-term expansionist vision, not caring about how attacks targeting civilians impact their image whatsoever.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that Hezbollah will begin its operations once again under three different scenarios:
- They are forced to do so defensively due to attacks from Israel, perhaps combined with a Syrian attack and/or domestic clash.
- They will participate in a multi-front war.
- They will wait until they can ensure that they can fight Israel alone and make them pay the maximum price for their occupation when the time is right, seeking to bog the Israelis down for as long as possible and continuously using asymmetric warfare tactics.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
August 29, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Zionism |
Comments Off on Hezbollah’s Options in Resisting and Why It Decided to Stop Responding
Nothing is in place to ensure an Israeli-US victory against the Iranians, but Tel Aviv is not backing down and seeks to complete its mission aimed at dealing an enormous blow to Iran’s economy.
This week, the US Trump administration decided to impose another batch of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in what it has labeled ‘Operation Economic Outcast’. Yet, this measure’s viability is about to expire and could end up backfiring tremendously, as all the chips are now in place for Tehran to drag Washington deeper into a fiery regional inferno.
Since April 8, when the US and Iran both agreed to a two-week-long ceasefire, American President Donald Trump has been playing a game designed to manipulate oil markets and has attempted just about every tactic known to man in order to simply off-put the economic iceberg that the global economy is heading straight towards.
See, the problem that the Trump administration faces is that its initial attack on Iran failed tremendously. But now, he cannot simply admit defeat and walk away. If he signs a deal with Tehran, then it will be a de facto surrender agreement that ensures a collapse in US regional hegemony and that Israel is left to face the consequences of its actions, with an empowered and emboldened Iran ready to support Tel Aviv’s downfall.
After around 40 days of war with Iran, the Israeli and American leaderships had come to the realization that the only viable next step was to begin targeting Iranian civilian infrastructure – if they were to have any hope of achieving regime change. This, after all, was the Israeli plot to begin with, as they understood well that the Islamic Republic was not going to fall as a result of the air campaign alone.
Targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure comes with an evident price; this means that the retaliation is going to destroy the key infrastructure of the surrounding States also, from which the US will be launching its attacks. Included on this target list will be Israeli infrastructure also, which is what gives such an air campaign a specific time limit. Israel will view the price of the campaign against Iran as something they are willing to pay, as long as the Islamic Republic will be weakened significantly in the process.
Therefore, Tel Aviv’s leadership will take the necessary hits until that price becomes too high, at which point they will have to get the US to back off. For Israel, the destruction of the Persian Gulf Arab States is a plus, not a minus, as it eliminates economic competitors, but for the United States and most nations around the world, this is catastrophic.
For these reasons, Trump has gone back and forth between strategies designed to get the Iranians to buckle under pressure. He has implemented a counter-blockade on Iran, attempted to use negotiations and a Memorandum of Understanding to divide the Islamic Republic’s leadership, while also working to carve out an alternate route in the Strait of Hormuz.
When the Iranians saw through the MoU deception and responded forcefully, some may even say proactively, the US military began engaging in a tit-for-tat low-intensity battle with the Iranians that sought to try and degrade Iran’s military capabilities in the south.
Now, the latest move has been to introduce the most extreme sanctions program ever as a last-ditch attempt to pressure Tehran. These sanctions are different because they don’t just target Iran’s economy; they are designed to target its allies and trade partners, since the previous maximum-pressure sanctions already targeted everything imaginable.
There is also a reason why this has never been tried before in this way, because it can potentially backfire. You aren’t only targeting Iran; you are going after a large number of countries in the process, including China. Beijing itself has already threatened to retaliate.
Since early March, for all intents and purposes, the Strait of Hormuz has been closed, with only brief periods during which any meaningful number of tankers have been able to make it out. With the deterioration of the MoU, another card was played by the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance, as Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government announced a counter-blockade on Saudi Arabia.
By reopening the frozen conflict in Yemen, which had remained under a shaky ceasefire since 2022, it meant that the Yemeni Armed Forces would proceed with the project to not only liberate their nation, but to punish Saudi Arabia where it hurts the most. The Red Sea was a Saudi lifeline, allowing them to continue to export 6 million barrels of oil per day; suddenly, that option was cut, and the limited amount it is now capable of getting out of its Western Ports is exported via the Suez Canal, with insurance rates skyrocketing because of the risk.
Iran has demonstrated time and time again that it is capable of surviving under the weight of US sanctions for long periods. The United States, on the other hand, has not started to properly feel the effects of its actions. One way they have managed to offset the economic fallout of the Strait’s closure is to tap into their Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which have just sunk to their lowest levels since 1982, with experts claiming that they only have 41 days of these supplies left. It barely helps that Trump has also picked this time to engage in a declared trade war with its northern neighbor, Canada, nor that he has made outlandish decisions across the board.
Donald Trump has so far doubled down on his decisions and told the American public that they simply have to put up with the rising oil prices, as their contribution to “preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon”. But the people are not buying it and clearly see that this war is being fought for Israel’s interests, not their own.
Desperate to reshape the region in Israel’s favor, the US has quickly attempted to have both the Iraqi and Lebanese governments disarm resistance factions aligned with Iran. Short of triggering catastrophic civil wars, this strategy cannot be implemented quickly and will have little real-world impact. Similarly, in the Gaza Strip, the Trump administration has put pressure on Hamas to suddenly disarm, providing the Israelis with a green light to amp up their strikes on the civilian population.
Nothing is in place to ensure an Israeli-US victory against the Iranians, but Tel Aviv is not backing down and seeks to complete its mission aimed at dealing an enormous blow to Iran’s economy. Their long-term game is to see a deterioration of the Islamic Republic after its infrastructure takes enormous hits, but this is by no means a guarantee.
Even if Israel gets precisely what it wants, the US will not win. The moment of truth is approaching as the walls close in; the US can either decide that it will act in America’s vital interests and end the war, or throw all its weight behind Israel’s desires.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
August 29, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Yemen, Zionism |
Comments Off on Why the Iran War is about to Escalate over The Coming Months
Things are becoming increasingly clear about the US green light for the Israeli enemy to press ahead with its attacks on southern Lebanon. According to US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, Washington has not, so far, reached an agreement with Tel Aviv to halt its assaults.
Even more strikingly, asking ‘Israel’ to stop attacking southern Lebanon apparently amounts to asking it to “do everything,” according to Issa, himself of Lebanese origin, whose broken Arabic carries a distinctly Lebanese accent.
The remarks by Issa were made Wednesday, after a meeting with Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdel Latif Derian.
“So far, we haven’t agreed with them (Israelis) to halt attacks (on southern Lebanon),” Issa told reporters.
The US ambassador, meanwhile, made it clear that Washington is instead pressing disarmament of Hezbollah Lebanese resistance group as the condition for ‘Israel’ to fulfill its own obligations under the ceasefire that was lately reached in June.
“There is no agreement to end the Israeli aggression because Hezbollah has not handed over its weapons,” Issa added.
Hezbollah “does not want to do anything, so why ask Israel to do everything?”
He claimed, however, that Washington remained open to talks with Hezbollah “if they have something to offer us”, but dismissed what he described as unproductive contacts, saying negotiations could not amount to “visits and coffee”.
Asked whether Washington was effectively making Hezbollah’s disarmament a precondition for ‘Israel’ to halt its attacks and withdraw, Issa simply framed the issue as a question of “who should act first.”
“If two people are in dispute, one of them asks the other to start implementing what is required of him so that he, in turn, implements what he is required to do,” he said.
The problem with the analogy, however, is that one of the two parties, which is Hezbollah, has already stopped attacking northern occupied Palestine, while the other, which is the Israeli enemy, goes ahead with daily airstrikes, artillery shelling, assassinations, demolitions and systematic destruction across southern Lebanon.
But apparently, asking ‘Israel’ to stop such aggression is asking it to do “everything.”
August 27, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on US Envoy’s Logic: Asking ‘Israel’ to Stop Bombing S. Lebanon Is Asking It to “Do Everything”
Iran has thwarted a planned Syrian military intervention in Lebanon that was being prepared at the request of the United States, delivering a direct warning to Damascus that any Syrian military entry into Lebanese territory would be met with a regional response, according to Iranian sources cited by U News.
The Iranian warning included threats to stir up the Syrian–Iraqi border, open a confrontation line in Homs, support Alawite movements in the Syrian coastal region, and encourage the Kurds to return militarily to the outskirts of Aleppo.
The warning was not directed solely at Damascus; it also reached Ankara, Baghdad, Doha, and Riyadh, carrying the message that any Syrian adventure against Hezbollah in Lebanon would not remain confined to the Bekaa Valley but could turn into a broad regional confrontation within Syrian territory.
Iran succeeded in transforming any potential Syrian intervention in Lebanon from a military option that could be marketed to the US into a high-cost regional adventure, sources said. The Iranian warning, which reached Damascus through Turkish channels, included a threat of Iranian ballistic missile strikes that would begin from Damascus and include, in the first wave, more than 100 strategic targets, foremost among them the Syrian presidential palace.
The US-backed scenario: a three-pronged offensive into Lebanon
The scenario promoted by figures linked to the US embassy in Lebanon involves sending Syrian armed units from the Masnaa crossing toward Chtoura in the Lebanese Bekaa and on to the city of Zahle, simultaneously with mobilization from the eastern highlands toward the city of Baalbek.
The proposed scenario also includes declaring the city of Tripoli a Syrian zone of influence, with advancing forces benefiting from local environments, particularly in some Sunni-majority areas.
The presumed goal of the operation is to strike Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure in the Bekaa and to create military and political pressure that would force the party to withdraw or accept new security arrangements.
Hezbollah prepared, treats potential Syrian operation as US-Israeli pressure
Iran’s warning has prompted regional parties to reassess the cost of the scenario, especially since Syria, emerging from deep military and political transformations, does not appear capable of enduring a new internal war.
Hezbollah is treating the information about a potential Syrian intervention extremely seriously and has taken precautionary measures in the Bekaa in anticipation of any possible Syrian incursion.
Hezbollah does not view the scenario as a separate Syrian operation, but rather as part of US–Israeli–regional pressure aimed at dismantling the structure of resistance in Lebanon from the east, following Israel’s failure to achieve a decisive result in the south.
Iraq’s rejection, UAE’s enthusiasm, and Saudi caution
Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri visited Damascus and informed Syrian officials of Baghdad’s rejection of any Syrian military expansion into Lebanese territory. Al-Shatri warned that Iraqi forces, primarily factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, might enter Syrian territory if an intervention against Hezbollah occurred.
The Iraqi position added a further layer of deterrence to the Iranian warning, signalling that Damascus could face military pressure not only from within Syria but also from its eastern border.
The UAE is enthusiastic about funding any Syrian military operation in Lebanon, with officials quoted as ready to pay troop salaries as well as finance combat operations. This financial backing suggests that the UAE views the intervention as an opportunity to curtail Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, despite the broader regional risks that Iran has highlighted.
Qatar rejects Syrian intervention in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia does not object to an intervention as long as it is within arrangements that weaken Hezbollah without igniting the region. The divergent positions among Gulf states underscore the complex calculations at play, with Riyadh appearing to balance its opposition to Hezbollah against the dangers of a wider conflict that Iran has explicitly threatened to unleash on Syrian soil.
August 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Middle East, Syria, United States |
Comments Off on Iran blocks US-backed plan for Syrian military intervention in Lebanon
For decades, U.S. policy in Lebanon has focused on the elimination of Hezbollah, or at least its military wing. But the Trump administration has taken this effort to new heights.
The State Department is sponsoring the first ever direct talks between Lebanon and Israel since the Madrid peace talks, with the disarmament of Hezbollah being a central objective of those talks.
Washington has also taken the unprecedented step of sanctioning individuals from outside the party whom it accuses of undermining the campaign against Hezbollah, including members of Lebanon’s state security apparatus. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are engaged in an unprecedented financial crackdown on Hezbollah, as the New York Times reported this week.
Ironically, however, Donald Trump is also the first sitting American president to express a willingness to hold direct talks with the Lebanese Shiite movement.
“I would speak to Hezbollah. I speak to everybody. I’ll speak to people that a lot of people think I shouldn’t be speaking to, and things work out,” Trump told reporters during an oval office meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Joseph Aoun last month.
While it would be easy to dismiss these remarks as typical Trumpian grandstanding, there appears to be more to the story.
Multiple reports have recently emerged indicating that serious attempts have been made to open direct channels between Washington and Hezbollah.
According to the Middle East Eye, Trump told Beirut’s ambassador to Washington last May that he wanted to talk to the group in a bid to salvage a shaky ceasefire with Israel. The Lebanese presidency reportedly turned down the request over concerns that holding such talks would undermine Aoun by bypassing the Lebanese government.
That same report quotes senior Lebanese officials saying that both the Trump administration and some of its predecessors have attempted to open direct channels with Hezbollah, but the group rejected these advances.
Another recent report by the Lebanese daily Aljoumhouria revealed that senior Iraqi officials told a visiting Hezbollah delegation that Iraq was ready to sponsor and host direct talks between Washington and the Lebanese Shiite movement. The offer, the report noted, was made shortly before Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s recent visit to Washington, only to be turned down by Hezbollah.
Sources from within the Lebanese Shiite movement confirm that there has been a recent push to establish direct channels between the two sides. “The Americans have made several attempts through a number of intermediaries to engage directly with Hezbollah,” a Hezbollah source explained to RS. “It’s true that al-Zaidi pursued such efforts, but certainly not at our request.”
Interestingly, however, senior Hezbollah officials refused to clarify the group’s stance on the issue despite media reports that it had flatly rejected such offers. “Hezbollah wants to keep its stance concerning this issue out of the media, without giving any indication as to how it will respond to such initiatives,” a political official in the Lebanese Shiite movement told RS. “Our policy is to not reveal how we intend to approach this issue”.
This suggests that Hezbollah is not necessarily rejecting dialogue with Washington out of hand. Talks “will happen if there is an opportunity that presents itself,” said Muhanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“But there will be an ambiguity because the organization basically tries to avoid acknowledging that they’re discussing anything with the ‘Great Satan,’” Hage Ali said, referencing a term Iran and its allies use to label the United States.
According to Hage Ali, who has authored numerous publications about Hezbollah, the group stands to benefit from such dialogue in more ways than one. “Direct contact between the U.S. and Hezbollah would eventually undermine the Lebanese government track,” he explained, in reference to the direct talks Lebanon’s government is holding with Israel. “This is useful for Hezbollah.”
Hezbollah could also use talks with Washington to make a deal under which any measures related to its weapons and military activities would be conditioned on amending Lebanon’s constitutional system to “grant Lebanese Shiites a bigger share of power,” Hage Ali said.
Still, it is difficult to see Hezbollah negotiating away its weapons absent an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and a genuine guarantee that Israel will permanently end military operations in Lebanon. This stems from the fact that the group was founded as a resistance movement against Israel back in the early 1980s, long before it became a political party in 1992.
Meanwhile there is little to suggest that Israel is willing to take any steps that would encourage Hezbollah to take a more flexible stance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told a recent cabinet meeting that he will not succumb to American demands to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel’s Foreign Ministry even published a map where parts of southern Lebanon appeared incorporated into Israel. The map, which Israel posted on X, stirred an uproar in Lebanon before it was taken down. (Israeli officials described the controversial map as the result of “an artificial intelligence error.”)
There is also the issue of Iran which has only doubled down on its support for its Lebanese ally. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei has framed support for Hezbollah as a “strategic mandate” for the Islamic Republic, while underscoring that any deal with the United States is contingent on respecting Lebanon’s territorial integrity and an end to Israeli military operations in the country.
That Khamenei cast his country’s support for Hezbollah in strategic terms — and not merely as an ideological obligation — supports the notion that the Iranian leadership believes supporting the group has become a greater necessity in the wake of the recent conflicts, not least given how Israel has directly attacked Iran in these wars. In other words, rather than weakening the bonds between Tehran and Hezbollah, Israeli attacks on Iran have apparently strengthened these bonds, giving them a stronger strategic rationale.
Against this backdrop, it is far more plausible that, at least for now, Hezbollah is pinning its hopes on what comes out of a potential agreement between Washington and Tehran, as opposed to riskier paths like direct talks with the Trump administration.
“The objective behind the American attempts to establish direct channels with us is to remove Lebanon and Hezbollah specifically from the Islamabad talks,” explained the first Hezbollah source, referencing U.S.-Iran negotiations in Pakistan.
Holding talks with the United States as a separate track from Islamabad would place Hezbollah in a weaker position, he argued, while being part of a framework with Iran which “hold strong cards” means that any agreement reached “will have guarantees.”
Ali Rizk is a security analyst with a Masters Degree in Counterterrorism from Australia’s Macquarie University. Rizk is a contributor to the American Conservative, and his work has appeared in the National Interest, Middle East Eye, and the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
August 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Trump wants to talk to Hezbollah. Will they pick up the phone?
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denounced the latest claims by Israeli officials over the occupied Golan Heights, emphasizing that the strategic region is an “inseparable” part of Syria.
The ministry, in a statement released on Thursday, vehemently condemned the rhetoric of criminal Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Golan Heights, occupied by the Tel Aviv regime for almost 60 years, will remain part of Israel “for eternity”, and his fierce opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
“Basically, the leader of the criminal gang and mafia ruling over the occupied Palestinian territories is not in a position to comment on the formation of an independent Palestinian state, because the Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinian people, and the racist illusions of the genocidal Zionist regime cannot change this reality,” the statement added.
It added that “the Golan Heights are an inseparable part of the territory of Syria, and the colonial ambitions of a usurping and occupying entity cannot change its legal and historical realities.”
The Iranian foreign ministry also condemned Colombia’s recent recognition of the Israeli regime’s sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, calling it a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
“Within this framework, the Colombian government’s recent decision to recognize the sovereignty of the Zionist regime over the occupied Golan Heights is completely rejected and condemned, and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law concerning respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states,” the statement also read.
It noted that such an action also conflicts with the recognized principle of international law prohibiting recognition of the effects of unlawful acts and entails international responsibility of the Colombian government.
While emphasizing the legal, moral and humanitarian obligation of all governments, particularly Muslim countries, to help Palestinians achieve their right to self-determination and freedom from the Zionist regime’s occupation, apartheid and colonialism, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled the responsibility of the UN Security Council to stop the occupation and relentless aggression of the Zionist regime against occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and other countries in the region.
The statement went on to note that the Palestinian issue remains the most important humanitarian and moral subject of the contemporary world, which began in 1948 with the creation of a fabricated entity in the historic land of Palestine and, through its cancerous expansion, has made the entire West Asia region and the world insecure.
“There is no doubt that the comprehensive support of the United States and certain Western countries, including Britain, France, Germany and Canada, for the genocidal Zionist regime has been the main factor behind its impunity and has led to the continuation and intensification of its expansionism and crimes in the region,” the statement pointed out.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, while reiterating its principled position in support of the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people to liberate their land from occupation, strongly condemns any attempt to marginalize the Palestinian issue, the Iranian foreign ministry concluded.
August 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | Canada, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, UK, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Israeli-occupied Golan Heights inseparable part of Syria, says Iranian Foreign Ministry
An Israeli drone strike on the city of Nabatieh wounded two civilians, the Emergency Operations Center of Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health announced.
The strike was carried out in two successive rounds, with the second targeting an ambulance team from the Islamic Health Authority, Islamic Message Scouts Association, and other medical personnel that had arrived at the scene to evacuate the wounded. The strike damaged an ambulance.
The Ministry renewed its condemnation of the continued Israeli targeting of ambulance crews, describing it as an unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law and all international norms.
Lebanese health authorities have reported multiple “double-tap” and “triple-tap” Israeli airstrikes targeting emergency medical and civil defense crews in southern Lebanon. The secondary and tertiary strikes reportedly hit rescuers as they arrived at the scene to evacuate and treat people wounded in earlier attacks.
Israeli strikes targeted Nabatieh, other areas in southern Lebanon
Earlier today, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported that Israeli occupation forces carried out a powerful mass demolition in the town of Majdal Zoun, southern Lebanon.
The IOF also dropped explosive materials on the al-Dabsha area in the Nabatieh district, causing raging fires.
Meanwhile, an Israeli drone reportedly dropped explosive and incendiary materials near the University District on the outskirts of Kfar Rumman.
The town of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah was also subjected to intermittent artillery fire, alongside machine-gun fire from invading Israeli units toward residential areas. At dawn, Israeli artillery shelled Wadi al-Hujeir and the Ali al-Taher Heights.
This comes amid continued Israeli attacks across southern Lebanon, including the demolition and destruction of homes, the leveling of cemeteries, the burning of wooded areas, as well as artillery shelling and drone strikes.
The Israeli aggression has persisted despite a framework agreement and direct negotiations between the Israeli occupation and Lebanese governments.
August 11, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Comments Off on Israeli ‘double-tap’ strike targets rescuers in Nabatieh
Underlying regional calculations behind the new military alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have been shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran, says an analyst.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Anusar Farooqui, a US-based writer and commentator who is also the founder and CEO of Systematic Portfolios LLC, said the newly signed “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement” is aimed at the Israeli regime.
“The alliance politics of the Sunni Arab powers is driven by fear of Israel, not Iran,” he said.
“The Saudis and especially the Turks are very fearful of Israeli plans,” he added, noting that Israeli discussions about confronting Turkey, including talk of a possible surprise attack intended to cripple the Turkish air force, had contributed to Ankara’s concerns.
The agreement was signed on Friday in Mecca by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
The three countries said an armed attack against any one of them would be regarded as an attack against all, while describing the pact as a means of strengthening collective deterrence and regional stability.
The agreement did not specify the practical obligations of its members. A Turkish official said it was not directed against any particular actor, remained open to other regional countries and did not replace existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements.
Farooqui said the absence of Egypt from the initial agreement was particularly significant.
“The important thing about the announcement is the conspicuous absence of Egypt,” he told the Press TV website, adding that the possibility of a Turkish-Egyptian military pact was central to understanding the regional balance.
“The Egyptian question is paramount: why has it taken a pass,” the analyst asked.
He added that such a pact would represent a much stronger counterweight to Israel and said the United States understood the implications.
“So it seems to have intervened to prevent the nightmare from happening,” he said.
Egypt’s position, however, has not been presented as permanently outside the arrangement. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Saturday Egypt could eventually join the pact after several technical issues were resolved.
He described Egypt as Ankara’s “natural partner” and said other countries had also expressed interest in joining, although the founding members were still discussing how expansion should be handled.
The new military alliance comes amid US-Israeli destabilizing actions in the region. Since October 2023, Israel has waged a genocidal war on Gaza, invaded southern Lebanon and occupied territory in Syria, while also launching two wars of aggression with the United States against Iran that triggered massive retaliatory strikes against US and Israeli assets in the region.
Meanwhile, the regime’s bellicose agenda has raised concerns about the so-called “Greater Israel” scheme that regards Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as well as parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as part of the Zionist entity.
Israeli regime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in October 2025 that he feels a deep connection to “this vision”, describing it as “a historical and spiritual mission.”
On the other hand, some analysts have linked the growing Turkish-Israeli rivalry to a broader contest over regional influence. Turkey and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1949 and their strategic and commercial ties have survived tense rhetoric.
Yet tensions seem to have intensified recently over Gaza, Syria, energy routes, maritime issues and Ankara’s expanding regional role.
Pakistan’s position has added another dimension to the emerging security alignment.
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on Saturday, following the signing of the agreement, that Israel was “a threat to the entire Muslim world” and called for “a united military front” against it, while noting that the regime poses a direct threat to countries across the region.
The broader security environment has also been affected by changes in the US military posture. Washington has reportedly withdrawn warplanes and other military equipment from countries including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates following Iranian retaliatory strikes.
Asked whether the new alliance could eventually contribute to a region without US military presence and with Israel more contained, Farooqui said the current arrangement is insufficient.
“Not without Egypt,” he told the Press TV website. “The Saudi-Turkish-Pakistan pact is mostly for show. By itself, it is not an effective balancing coalition against Israel.”
August 9, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst
Aletho News 