The Israeli occupation army has acknowledged that disarming Hezbollah is not among the objectives of the current war, marking a significant reversal from positions held just two weeks prior, and a tacit admission of the limits of its military options in Lebanon.
“Israel’s” Channel 12 first reported the shift, with Israel Hayom military correspondent Lilach Shoval confirming that dismantling Hezbollah’s weapons is “not on the agenda.”
Yedioth Ahronoth described it as a formal change in the army’s direction, especially as the reversal came only two weeks after the army had publicly insisted it would pursue the full dismantling of Hezbollah’s arsenal.
The army now defines its primary objectives against Hezbollah as significantly weakening the group, establishing “a deep defensive line”, and demolishing dozens of homes along the frontline villages, mirroring the “yellow line” model applied in Gaza.
On disarmament, Israeli army officials admitted that “we must be modest on this issue.”
A sharp reversal
The course reversal stands in stark contrast to the maximalist rhetoric that defined the aggression’s opening weeks. Israeli War Minister Israel Katz had vowed to “separate Lebanon from the Iranian arena and strip Hezbollah of its ability to threaten, changing once and for all the situation in Lebanon,” explicitly invoking the Gaza model.
Meanwhile, IOF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir declared the campaign would end with “Hezbollah suffering a devastating blow,” while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich went further, calling for the Litani River to become the entity’s “new border with the Lebanese state.”
Katz had also announced on March 24 that the IOF would establish a permanent security zone inside Lebanon up to the Litani River. He stated that all homes in border-adjacent villages would be demolished and that the return of displaced Lebanese civilians would be “completely prevented.”
Where officials once spoke of transforming Lebanon’s strategic landscape, the occupation army now concedes that full disarmament would require “a full occupation of Lebanon and the systematic dismantling of military infrastructure in every village,” conditions it realizes are unrealistic.
Notably, Israeli officials maintained that only the IOF, not the Lebanese state or any other party, could disarm Hezbollah, while simultaneously acknowledging that the conditions to do so do not exist.
‘A complex arena’
Earlier in the week, Israeli Channel 11, citing former army and Mossad officials, reported that “the Lebanese arena differs entirely from any other in terms of its complexity and military entanglement.”
Retired Major General and former Mossad chief Danny Yatom said Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon “hold a relative advantage over the Israeli army due to their deep familiarity with the terrain,” adding that “every tree trunk and every small hill can serve as an ambush position.”
He cautioned that even controlling territory up to the Litani River “would not solve the problem of rockets and shells,” and stressed that the real challenge lies in adapting at the tactical level, not merely the strategic one.
Lieutenant Colonel (res.) Oren Leshem, a former senior Israeli Air Force officer, was equally candid, saying there is “no magic solution to the Lebanon issue” and that the army has tried every available approach over the past 18 years, including during the Second Lebanon War, yet the situation “remains complex and highly challenging.”
Channel 14 added that “the problem in Lebanon is that military forces are constantly on the move and exposed, while Hezbollah exploits the terrain to target them.”
On 7 March, the British government contractor Siren Associates unveiled Monitor Lebanon, a “real-time situational awareness platform” framed as a public safety tool “designed to help individuals and organizations understand and navigate Lebanon’s rapidly evolving security environment.”
The tool sifts vast swaths of “open-source information” from “news agencies, verified social media accounts, Telegram channels, conflict monitoring initiatives, and traffic data systems.”
Presented as a lifeline for journalists, humanitarian workers, businesses, and civilians during Israel’s ongoing war on Lebanon, the platform carries a far more operational intelligence function. Behind the humanitarian branding lies a sophisticated surveillance infrastructure embedded deep within the Lebanese state.
At the core of Monitor Lebanon is a live interactive incident map tracking “reported security events and key operational information.” The data is highly detailed, including information on “affected areas, road conditions, hospital locations, and other indicators that help users understand how developments may affect movement and access.”
A press release announcing the platform’s launch asserts Monitor Lebanon was initially constructed to provide Siren Associates staff with “a clearer view” of local events, before being rolled out for general public use.
“Already, team members displaced by the ongoing hostilities have been using it to check for reported strikes near their homes and to track evacuation orders. But many more people are navigating the same uncertainty, so we want to make this tool available to anyone who may benefit from clearer, real-time information.”
How did a British contractor produce such a detailed, nationwide surveillance platform instantly as the occupation state escalated its assault on Lebanon?
The answer lies in nearly two decades of British-backed penetration.
As The Cradle revealed in September 2021, Siren has received tens of millions of pounds from London to “professionalize” Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces (ISF). Staffed by former British military, intelligence, and policing officials, the company operates in Lebanon’s security sector in plain sight, yet largely beyond scrutiny.
Embedding control through ‘reform’
Siren’s footprint inside Lebanon’s state apparatus is extensive. The company maintains close ties with senior ISF officers, political figures, ministries, and intelligence branches. It has also cultivated future leadership within the ISF through training and recruitment programs.
In May 2019, Siren established Lebanon’s Command and Control Center with British funding. The installation provides the ISF with “state-of-the-art equipment, information and communication technology systems, [and] an analysis and planning room,” purportedly to strengthen the security forces’ intelligence capabilities.
In practice, it embedded a direct channel for British intelligence into Lebanon’s internal security infrastructure.
Such access grants London visibility over investigations, operations, and internal data flows. Over time, this has enabled the systematic accumulation of sensitive information on Lebanese citizens.
The scale of this data collection expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Siren quietly built COVAX, the digital backbone of the Lebanese government’s COVID19 vaccine rollout. Users could register, schedule appointments, and receive vaccine certificates. Over four million people used the service, logging extraordinary amounts of personal information in the process.
What appeared as public health infrastructure operated as a mass data capture system.
From welfare to surveillance architecture
COVAX became the foundation for broader digital penetration. In 2021, the World Bank allocated $246 million to Lebanon for social assistance. Siren used its existing infrastructure to launch DAEM, whereby citizens could apply for social assistance “in record time.”
Carole Alsharabati, Siren’s longtime research chief, has explained that “the idea [was] to deploy a system that was fully digitized from A to Z, just like we did for the vaccine.”
“The registration, the selection, then the payment, the cash transfer, the verification, the dashboard, etcetera. Everything was digitized. And we used the same framework, the same ecosystem, the same machines, the same security protection, the same data governance approach we used in the vaccine.”
Alsharabati described Lebanon at the time as a “very difficult environment,” with the experience of building DAEM “a wild journey.” After all, the country lacked a unique ID system, digital identification, or any established data governance rules, procedures, or even cybersecurity.
However, “nothing stood in the way of Siren’s determination to tackle these and many other challenges.” Evidently, the British and Lebanese governments were happy with the results. It was just the beginning of Siren’s new role in Beirut, constructing deeply intrusive databases on citizens.
This work has been replicated in multiple fields over the years, culminating in Monitor Lebanon’s recent launch. Much of this activity passed entirely under the public radar. It was not until December 2024 that Siren’s central COVAX role was openly admitted on the company’s official website, for example. That same month, Siren announced it had built a bespoke resource for the ISF, collating “operational data to inform decision making around mission planning, resourcing and management.”
Under the project’s auspices, British intelligence created a network of six separate Command and Control Centers across the country, linked digitally to 22 regional operation rooms. A “digital platform that enables the capture and analysis of crime and operational data” was also developed.
In December 2024, too, Siren disclosed how it had introduced “e-governance tools connecting more than 20 ministries, 1,000 municipalities and 1,500 mukhtars [local governments].” Unmentioned was a major scandal that erupted over this effort upon its rollout two years prior.
According to Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, the platforms produced by Siren were not secure, and permitted the firm to harvest the data of millions of users. Dubbed IMPACT, the resource allowed citizens to access a variety of government services, including applying for welfare payments.
The British embassy in Beirut, which funded the platform to the tune of $3 million, denied any wrongdoing, as did Siren. Nonetheless, local digital rights group SMEX expressed grave concerns over the security of private information stored by IMPACT, which was highly sensitive in nature.
Mapping a society for war
That Siren hoards an enormous amount of invasive information as a result of its work for and with the ISF is underlined by an April 2025 study, funded by Britain’s International Development wing. It probed “irregular maritime migration from Lebanon over the past three years,” placing the phenomenon in the context of Beirut’s “ongoing political, socio-economic, and security crises.”
The research sought to ascertain “who is migrating, why they are choosing to leave by sea, and what risks they face – particularly across gender lines.”
In September 2025, London renewed Siren’s ISF contract, allocating £46.3 million (around $61.3 million) – a significant increase. The timing raises serious questions about how much of that funding went into building Monitor Lebanon ahead of renewed Israeli escalation.
Since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023, British activity in West Asia has pointed toward deeper involvement in a wider war effort targeting Iran and its allies.
In November that year, London attempted to secure unrestricted military access to Lebanese territory under the pretext of “emergency missions.” The proposal would have allowed British forces to operate freely, armed and immune from prosecution.
Public backlash forced Beirut to reject the plan. But the infrastructure remained.
Through Siren, Britain has built a digital panopticon spanning Lebanon’s institutions and population. This system provides real-time intelligence with clear military applications.
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, the benefits are obvious. Such data can be used to identify, track, and target members of Hezbollah and their support networks. It can also map civilian environments in ways that facilitate precision strikes.
Siren’s projects consistently overlap with services provided by Hezbollah. This is not accidental.
For years, British intelligence has worked to undermine the resistance movement’s social base by constructing parallel state structures.
For example, under the terms of a Foreign Office-funded youth radicalization effort, London sought to create an alternative to Beirut’s Hezbollah-run Ministry of Youth and Sport. It was hoped that “young, talented students and graduates” would thus reject the group.
There is little sign of these initiatives having borne fruit. A promptly deleted 23 March Daily Telegraph report documented how Lebanese Christians wholeheartedly embrace Hezbollah, and are determined to resist western-inspired efforts by Beirut’s army to disarm the resistance faction. “How can we as Christians in this area not be with Hezbollah?” a local citizen asked the newspaper perplexedly.
“They protect our churches. They helped us fight ISIS. During COVID, they gave us free care in their hospitals. When there was no electricity, they gave us generators. They even put up a Christmas tree at Christmas. How can we not be with them now?”
Despite the practical impossibility of disarming Hezbollah, it is a fantasy long harbored by western powers, which has gained in ever-mounting urgency since Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza commenced.
A British parliamentary briefing in September 2025 expressed optimism that the election of former Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) commander Joseph Aoun as president would weaken Hezbollah’s military wing.
That same month, US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack openly proposed equipping the LAF “so they can fight their own people.”
He acknowledged that Israel’s aggression since October 2023 had only increased Hezbollah’s popularity, while offering “zero” incentive for disarmament.
Aoun’s presidency has not dismantled Hezbollah. Israeli military escalation continues, with mounting losses on the battlefield and rising civilian casualties across Lebanon.
While its catastrophic military losses accumulate daily, innocent Lebanese civilians are being killed in significant numbers. The line of responsibility for their deaths may lead directly back to London, courtesy of Siren Associates.
Three Indonesian soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon in less than 48 hours. They were not fighters. They were part of a United Nations peacekeeping mission (UNIFIL). They were stationed in known positions. And still, they died.
This is not a tragic accident. It is a clear signal.
The sequence of events matters. On 29th March, a projectile struck a UN position near Adchit al-Qusayr, killing one Indonesian peacekeeper and critically injuring another. Hours later, a second incident—an explosion that destroyed a UN vehicle near Bani Hayyan—killed two more.
Three dead. In uniform. Under a UN flag.
The Israeli military says it is “reviewing” what happened and emphasises that these deaths occurred in an “active combat zone.” But that explanation is not convincing. UNIFIL positions are fixed, mapped, and communicated to all parties. Peacekeepers are not hidden actors. They are the most visible neutral presence in any conflict zone.
If they are being hit, it is not because they cannot be seen. It is because they are being disregarded.
That distinction matters. Because it speaks directly to intent.
Since early March, Israel has expanded its military campaign in Lebanon, pushing deeper into the south and openly pursuing a buffer zone up to the Litani River. This is not a limited operation. It is a widening one. It has already killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon and displaced many more.
Peacekeepers are now operating inside a battlefield that is expanding by design.
And this is the point: states that are preparing for peace do not expand war zones. They do not normalize strikes in areas populated by international forces. They do not repeatedly hit locations that are clearly marked as neutral.
Israel’s conduct in Lebanon is not consistent with a state seeking de-escalation. It is consistent with one prioritizing military objectives over diplomatic constraints.
Indonesia’s response—condemnation, calls for investigation, appeals for restraint—is justified but insufficient. Because it avoids the larger conclusion that these events force upon us.
Indonesia continues to promote the two-state solution as the ultimate answer to the Palestinian issue. But that position now rests on assumptions that no longer hold.
A two-state solution requires, at minimum, that parties are moving toward coexistence. That territorial arrangements are negotiable. That violence is being contained, not expanded.
None of that is happening.
Instead, the conflict is widening geographically and intensifying militarily. What began as a confrontation involving Gaza has now spread across Lebanon and into a broader regional war involving Iran and the United States. The logic of escalation has overtaken the logic of negotiation.
And in that environment, the two-state solution is not a plan. It is a slogan.
The deaths of Indonesian soldiers should end the illusion.
These were not abstract victims. They were Indonesia’s direct contribution to international peacekeeping. They were deployed to uphold a system that depends on one basic principle: that neutral actors will be protected.
That principle is now collapsing.
UNIFIL itself has warned that attacks on peacekeepers may constitute war crimes. Yet such warnings have not altered behavior. Peacekeepers have been hit before in this conflict. They are being hit again. The pattern is clear.
At some point, repetition stops being accidental. It becomes structural.
Indonesia must respond accordingly.
Continuing to promote a two-state solution under these conditions is not principled diplomacy. It is a refusal to adapt. It ignores the fact that one side is actively reshaping the map through force while the other side lacks the capacity to negotiate from any meaningful position.
A policy built on outdated assumptions will not produce results. It will only produce more statements—more condemnations, more investigations, more funerals.
The government in Jakarta needs to abandon the illusion that those rights will be secured through a framework that no longer reflects reality.
The immediate priorities are clearer: enforce accountability for attacks on peacekeepers, push for enforceable ceasefires, and recognise that the current trajectory of Israeli military policy is not compatible with peace.
The deaths of three Indonesian soldiers are not a side effect of war. They are evidence of its direction.
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Sunday, marking the 30th day of Iranian national defense against the US-Israeli aggression, that the US president’s objectives have dramatically shifted since the start of the war on Iran.
“The enemy who claimed to have destroyed our air, naval, and missile forces, and had a plan for the collapse of the Islamic Republic, has now set his goal on reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” Ghalibaf said.
“Reopening a strait that was open before the war has become Trump’s operational dream,” he said mockingly.
Ghalibaf stated that the war on Iran, which has come to be known as the Ramadan War, is now at its most critical moment. He noted that Trump is unable to secure the support of European countries, that energy markets are out of control, and that food inflation is approaching.
The war bites the belligerent
The Parliament Speaker detailed the damage inflicted on US military assets throughout the conflict. “The manifestations of American arrogance, from the F-35 to the aircraft carrier and US regional bases, have suffered major blows,” he said. “Strikes on the Israeli regime have been effective, precise, and foundation-shaking.”
Ghalibaf also highlighted the growing strength of the Resistance Axis across the region.
“Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was constantly threatened with disarmament, is today an important and effective part of the Resistance and has trapped the malignant Israeli regime,” he said.
“The Resistance in Iraq is fighting heroically and has astonished the enemy. Ansarallah in Yemen has breathed new life into the Resistance front and is ready to achieve spectacular surprises.”
“This is the honor and greatness of the Resistance front against the world’s arrogant powers,” Ghalibaf stated. “Trump has been accused worldwide of waging a pointless war and has no answer for his public opinion. The evil of initiating the war has returned to its initiator.”
Here is a background section summarizing the current situation with the Strait of Hormuz, based on the Al Mayadeen article:
The battle for the Strait of Hormuz
Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas shipments pass, has become a central front in the war on Iran. Iranian authorities have restricted the movement of vessels linked to the US and “Israel” or those supporting, requiring ships to obtain approval before transiting the strategic waterway.
Tehran has made clear that “nonhostile” ships may pass safely if authorized, while the strait remains “closed only to enemies carrying out cowardly aggression against Iran,” as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi put it. The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps has turned back multiple container ships attempting to transit without authorization.
Iran’s Parliament is now advancing legislation to impose formal tolls on vessels passing through the strait, a move lawmakers say is designed to assert Tehran’s “sovereignty, control and oversight” over the passage, much like the model applied by Turkey in the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits. The toll system would build on temporary fees applied since late February.
US President Donald Trump has threatened an escalation in the aggression against Iran’s power infrastructure if the strait remains closed, while US attempts to organize international naval escorts to bypass Iran’s control over the strait have so far failed.
The new framework signals Tehran’s intent to use its control over its waterway to regulate access systematically, rather than relying on ad hoc measures, while simultaneously sending a message to the US and “Israel” about the country’s ability to control this key energy corridor.
Openly declaring its intent to illegally occupy southern Lebanon, Israel finds itself in a costly ground battle with Hezbollah, from which there are indications Syria may soon be roped in. This is born from the understanding that in order to successfully weaken the Lebanese resistance, the Israeli military must penetrate the Bekaa Valley area.
Understanding the costly price of attempting to physically take all of south Lebanon militarily, both Washington and Tel Aviv have been attempting to devise strategies that would help achieve Israel’s war goals of weakening Hezbollah.
One possible option that has been placed on the table is the use of Syria’s military to invade Lebanon’s border and attack Hezbollah, aiming to go after what is labelled critical infrastructure belonging to the Lebanese group. According to reports, the US Trump administration has directly put pressure on Syrian leader Ahmed al-Shara’a to do just that.
In the event of such an assault, the Beka’a Valley would be the target territory. The Beka’a is what Israel’s Alma Research and Education think-tank calls “Hezbollah’s strategic depth”, which it argues is the group’s “operational and logistical center of gravity”. If Tel Aviv truly seeks to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities, a ground incursion into this region is the only way to truly achieve such a goal.
Another plausible option is that Israel itself will use Syrian territory in order to invade Lebanon’s eastern border. This would appear possible, as the current Hayat Tahrir al-Sham administration in Damascus has allowed Israel to use Lebanese territory on two occasions so far.
Although al-Shara’a doesn’t grant direct permission, he refuses to deploy his forces to prevent the Israelis from violating Syria’s sovereignty. Earlier this year, the leadership in Damascus agreed to setting up a soft normalisation understanding with the Israelis. According to US State Department press release, the following was agreed upon:
“Both Sides have decided to establish a joint fusion mechanism—a dedicated communication cell—to facilitate immediate and ongoing coordination on their intelligence sharing, military de-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and commercial opportunities under the supervision of the United States.”
It suffices to say that Syria’s current leader, who once spoke of conquering occupied Jerusalem, has clearly aligned himself with the United States and now openly states he will pose no threat to Israel. Instead of fighting back against Israel’s ever growing occupation of more Syrian lands, or responding to civilian massacres inside his territory, he has instead sought to disarm those Syrians who are threatened by the belligerent occupying force in the south.
Despite this, Israel has continually attacked Syrian territory, including bombing the ministry of defence in Damascus. Recently, it also attacked Syrian military positions in the Damascus countryside, citing renewed sectarian clashes between Israeli-aligned Druze separatists and HTS allied forces.
In December of last year, parades were held in Damascus and other Syrian cities, where armed factions making up the country’s new armed forces held marches in the streets to mark the fall of Bashar al-Assad. Notably, these soldiers chanted in solidarity with Gaza and issued threats to Israel.
Some groups belonging to the new Syrian security forces, also burned Israeli flags and expressed solidarity with the village of Beit Jinn, where a group of locals had organised an ambush against Israeli invading forces. Israel then bombarded the village, which is home to both Palestinians and Syrians, murdering at least 13 civilians.
A series of Syrian Resistance groups have also popped up in the country’s south, occasionally carrying out rocket attacks or opening fire on Israeli soldiers with light weapons. The most prominent group has been ‘Jabhat al-Moqowameh al-Islammiya Fe Souriya’ [The Islamic Resistance Front In Syria].
The newest group to emerge is called ‘Kataeb Jund al-Karrar Fe Balad as-Sham’ [Soldiers of the Karrar Brigades in the Levant] also emerged on March 8, publishing a video of themselves firing rockets at US military positions in Syria’s Palmyra. The group has additionally claimed attacks on Israel.
If Syrian President Ahmed al-Shara’a orders an attack on Lebanon, this could immediately trigger an incursion into Syria by the powerful Iraqi groups aligned with Hezbollah. An official statement issued by The Islamic Resistance Coordination Committee in Iraq explicitly threatened that:
“We see the treachery of the new authority in Syria and are monitoring its coordination with the enemy. We say clearly: if you dare violate the sovereignty of Lebanon and its patient, resisting people, we will turn your land into an open arena of fire. He who warns has given fair notice.”
On the other hand, due to the fragile security situation inside Syria, if the Israeli military does attempt to launch an offensive from inside Syrian territory, there is always a chance that they will come under attack from a whole myriad of forces. It is possible that what currently constitutes the Syrian Army, may even break ranks and refuse to listen to the leadership in Damascus.
On March 6, a botched Israeli special forces raid targeted the Lebanese village of Nabi Cheet, located east of Beirut. In order to conduct this infiltration operation – which was successfully repelled due to a joint effort from Hezbollah, local militias and the Lebanese Army – it used Syrian territory. Notably, it launched its assault from an area located north-west of Damascus.
Israel has so far displaced over a million people in Lebanon, openly declaring its intent to expand what it calls a military “buffer zone”. Israeli defence minister Israel Katz doesn’t mince his words however, openly declaring that he is seeking to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
To this effect, the Israeli military has not only ordered the entire population of southern Lebanon to evacuate the territory, but also bombed five primary bridges connecting the south to the rest of the country. And yet, on the ground, the Israeli army is having a difficult time simply passing the border villages, where Hezbollah has damaged or destroyed around 70 Merkava tanks so far.
If the Israelis come under attack from forces inside Syria itself, they could be dragged into a painful quagmire there. This could also come about in the event that Syria’s al-Shara’a decides to seize the opportunity of Israel being distracted in Lebanon, to launch an offensive against the Druze separatist militias in Sweida. In order to save their Druze militia allies from suffering a major defeat, the Israeli army itself could get roped into direct clashes with Syrian forces.
Therefore, if the Israeli leadership makes the decision to escalate the Lebanon conflict by making a move towards the Bekaa Valley, they could very easily find themselves dealing with a totally new reality inside Syria too.
An Israeli “tank massacre”, reminiscent of the Lebanon war of 2006, has been taking place in southern Lebanon, as Hezbollah surprises the invading army with the use of a range of anti-tank weapons and drones.
On March 25, Hezbollah unleashed a fury on Israel’s Merkava tanks, announcing that they had struck a total of 21, in addition to striking 3 D-9 Bulldozers and 2 militarized Humvees. The following day, the Lebanese group released a series of videos depicting some of their operations.
In order to carry out so many strikes against Israeli armored vehicles, Hezbollah has traditionally used a variety of guided anti-tank guided munitions (ATGM). Prominently made use of have been weapons ranging from varying kinds of the Russian-made Kornet anti-tank systems, to the Almas (diamond) system that is an Iranian reverse-engineered version of the Israeli-made Spike AGTM, a top attack missile that is particularly effective.
During the Lebanon-Israel war of 2024, Hezbollah announced that it had destroyed a total of 59 Israeli tanks between the end of September and November 27. This time around, Hezbollah has already claimed to have struck around 70. It is unclear how many of these hits damaged or destroyed the tanks, but it suffices to say that this is a significant development.
Between October of 2023 and October of 2024, the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, claimed to have carried out 480 operations targeting Israeli tanks. A later report by Israeli news outlet Maariv cited data arguing that at least 500 military vehicles of varying kinds had sustained damage in Gaza. How many were totally destroyed is unknown, due to Israeli military censorship.
However, even a damaged tank is a major issue as they take a long time to repair, and the process is often costly. The reason why the figures from Gaza matter is that, in the case of the Palestinian resistance groups, they primarily used weapons like the Yassin-105 tandem warhead RPG, and then later, they were forced to use less sophisticated kinds of RPGs. Hezbollah, by comparison, has a much more sophisticated arsenal of anti-tank weapons.
A Game Changer?
During this war, which Hezbollah entered on March 2, citing Israel’s 15,400 ceasefire violations against the country and refusal to withdraw from occupied territory, a new weapon appears to be shaping the group’s ground confrontation with the Israeli invading army. That is the FPV (first-person-view) drone, equipped with heavy explosive charges.
The video published on March 26 by the Lebanese group’s military media featured one of these FPV drones directly striking a weak spot on an Israeli Merkava tank. Since March 25, when these weapons started to be used to combat invading Israeli military vehicles, they have been deployed routinely to target their tanks.
FPV drones using a fiber-optic capability are notably immune to electromagnetic jamming, making them extremely difficult to bring down and have been used extensively in the Ukraine-Russia war. Although no statistic is presented to back up this claim, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that FPV drones account for most battlefield casualties in Ukraine.
Regardless of the precise numbers of casualties inflicted in the Ukraine-Russia war by this drone, it is broadly accepted that it has been a game-changer, with it being the weapon of choice against various kinds of tanks and armored vehicles.
Another bonus to the FPV drone, beyond its use to target weak points on military vehicles, is the fact that the recordings can also be recovered as proof of what it struck. In Baghdad, just over a week ago, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq used two FPV drones to target a US military base, with one drone filming the other striking its target.
When fighting a war against Israel, which is perhaps the most well-known military on earth for hiding its soldiers’ deaths, this can come in handy for Hezbollah, which could potentially use the footage to embarrass the Israeli military.
If Israel proceeds with its ground invasion of Lebanon, launching a full-scale invasion, it may at some point run out of tanks, or at the very least have to begin rationing its use of them.
– 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.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for the annexation of territory from Lebanon up to the Litani River, saying “Israel” should seize vast swathes of land in southern Lebanon,
“The new Israeli border must be the Litani,” Smotrich said on Israeli radio on Monday. “The campaign needs to end with a different reality entirely, both with the Hezbollah decision but also with the change of Israel’s borders.”
The Litani River is located nearly 40 kilometers inside Lebanese territory from the South.
Since early March, “Israel” has ordered all residents of southern Lebanon to leave areas south of the Litani, citing what it called “limited and targeted ground operations against key Hezbollah strongholds.”
Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron condemned “Israel’s” actions in Lebanon as “inappropriate and even unacceptable,” arguing that “Israel’s” repeated wars against the Resistance have never produced the desired results.
“Israel” has repeatedly launched military campaigns against Lebanon since 1978 and occupied most southern Lebanon between 1982 and 2000, maintaining a self-declared “security zone” until resistance operations forced a withdrawal. It is still in occupation of Lebanese territory
Israeli aggression on Lebanon kills 1,024 civilians since March 2
The number of martyrs resulting from the ongoing Israeli aggression on Lebanon since March 2 has risen to 1,024, with at least 2,740 others wounded, Lebanon’s Ministry of Health announced on Saturday.
The figures reflect the intensifying human toll of the continued aggression, which has escalated across multiple regions in South Lebanon and beyond.
Israeli warplanes targeted a residential apartment in the town of Bshamoun in Mount Lebanon, marking a continued expansion of strikes into populated areas.
Earlier reports confirmed an Israeli attack on an apartment in Hazmieh, also in Mount Lebanon, resulting in the death of a civilian, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
Multiple airstrikes were also recorded on the Southern Suburb of Beirut, with at least seven raids recorded in the area.
The attacks come amid ongoing escalation targeting densely populated neighborhoods.
Israeli strikes also hit several areas in southern Lebanon, including:
Zifta
Al-Burghliya
A gas station near the Rashidieh camp in Tyre
Strikes were reported in al-Bayyada, the al-Ashrafiyat area on the outskirts of al-Abbasiyah, as well as in Ayta al-Shaab, Arnoun, Qabrikha, and areas between Burj al-Shamali and al-Bazourieh.
Artillery shelling also targeted the outskirts of Kfar Kila, indicating a continued pattern of bombardment across border areas.
Earlier in the day, four martyrs were reported following a dawn strike on a residential building in Majdal Selem.
This morning, Lebanese citizen was martyred and another injured after Israeli occupation forces (IOF) stormed the town of Halta in the Arqoub region of the Hasbaya district in southern Lebanon, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported.
According to our correspondent, Israeli forces raided several homes in the al-Hara al-Fawqa neighborhood, opening fire on civilians before withdrawing from the town after abducting one resident.
On March 19, RT war correspondent Steve Sweeney and his cameraman Ali Rida Sbeity were injured by an Israeli strike meters from where they stood in southern Lebanon.
Sweeney was on camera reporting on recent Israeli attacks on southern Lebanese towns and infrastructure when he heard the sound of an incoming projectile. Ducking and running, he managed to escape the brunt of the impact.
According to the journalists, an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at their filming position near Al-Qasmiya Bridge, where Sweeney was reporting on, “the targeting of bridges and the forced displacement of one million people, an ethnic cleansing operation on a larger scale than the Nakba,” as he later stated, referencing the violent displacement of Palestinians which accompanied the creation of the Jewish State in the late 1940s.
The men were treated for shrapnel injuries. Sweeney said, adding “I’m amazed that we survived. We were incredibly lucky to come away with the injuries we did.”
Just a day prior, Sweeney had posted on X about the Israeli targeted airstrike on Lebanese journalist and Al-Manar TV presenter Mohammad Sherri and his wife. Both were killed. Sweeney reposted the news with the words, “Targeting journalists is a war crime.”
The next day, he himself was targeted.
This deliberate targeting of journalists wearing press vests is another Israeli war crime, in a long list of Israeli war crimes which include killing at least 261 Palestinian journalists in Gaza in the past two years alone, as well as previously killing Lebanese journalists and bombing Iranian media repeatedly.
Targeted assassinations of journalists by the Israeli army are not new. Back in 2008, Fadel Shana, a Reuters cameraman in Gaza, was killed by a flechette shell fired by an Israeli tank as he worked.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all press killings globally in both 2025 and 2024. CPJ notes that the Israeli army has committed more targeted killings of journalists than any other government’s military since the CPJ began documentation in 1992.
Russian condemnation, British silence
RT Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan posted on X about the targeted attack, clearly stating the journalists had been targeted by an Israeli strike and stating, “War journalists are not legitimate targets.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova highlighted that in no way could the strike be considered accidental, particularly given, “the rocket did not hit an ‘important strategic military target’, but the location of the report.”
While Western media is always quick to highlight claims of legacy media journalists in danger, no matter how staged it appears to be, when it comes to journalists actually under attack the outrage is selective.
Although the attack on Sweeney and Sbeity was filmed on camera in broad daylight, with Israel virtually the only possible culprit, British media in particular have been disinterested. The BBC’s report ran with the headline, “Missile lands next to presenter during live report from Lebanon.” Barely noticeable in small print many lines later, the BBC mentions the “ongoing Israeli air strikes and ground operations in southern Lebanon.”
The BBC listing an experienced war correspondent as a “presenter” was also not accidental. The overall flippant tone of their report was to insinuate a minor incident had occurred, the missile’s origin unknown.
Other media followed suit, includingThe Independent, which didn’t even mention, not even in small print, Israeli bombings of Lebanon.
As for the British government, the reaction thus far has been nothing. Declassified UK posted on X that the Foreign Office’s response to British journalist Steve Sweeney being targeted by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon was simply to reply to the government’s position made before Sweeney was targeted, a word salad blaming Iran and Lebanese Resistance, Hezbollah, and whitewashing the US-Israeli strikes which were the direct cause of Iranian retaliation.
It also claimed the government would, “continue our support for British nationals in the region.” Clearly, that support doesn’t extend to Sweeney.
Remarkably, later the same day that he was nearly killed, Sweeney was already back outside reporting, defiantly stating, “If Israel thinks today’s strike will silence us and keep us out of the field they are very, very mistaken.”
To the CPJ’s credit, despite its failing elsewhere (like failing to report on Russian journalists killed by the Ukrainian regime), it did issue a strong and clear condemnation of the attack on Sweeney and Sbeity, unequivocally naming Israel as the perpetrator.
It called for “an investigation into the apparent targeting” of the journalists, and emphasized they were injured, “when an Israeli air strike hit just feet away from where they were filming while wearing clearly marked press gear and with their equipment clearly visible in southern Lebanon.”
CPJ stated, “Striking reporters who are clearly marked as a press constitutes a violation of international law.” See, BBC and co? It’s not that hard.
Not only does Israel, empowered by Western silence and cooperation, bomb civilians and civilian infrastructure. It also targets journalists, whose job it is to document these atrocities. Refusal to call these attacks out for what they are is cowardly at best, complicit at worst.
Eva Bartlett, an award-winning Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine, as well as Venezuela and the Donbass.
Israeli journalists with connections to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party are now openly calling for an Israeli annexation of Southern Lebanon and the establishment of Jewish settlements, after the Israeli bombing campaign has displaced over one million people from Southern Lebanon.
Netanyahu-connected figures in the Israeli media are now using this mass displacement to push for a permanent Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon.
Amit Segal, a Likud connected journalist, in the Miriam Adelson funded outlet Israel Hayompraised Trump for supporting the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and hoped that the Trump administration would approve an Israeli annexation of Southern Lebanon, writing, “Trump, a man with no sentimentality for old borders, already shook the Middle East when he agreed in principle to recognize Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria in the framework of the Peace to Prosperity plan, and when he supported mass emigration from Gaza. The mass migration from southern Lebanon has already happened. The only question is whether he will give Israel merely de facto approval of its new northern border or de jure approval as well.”
Referring to IDF militants who expanded up to the Litani River in Southern Lebanon, Amit Segal hoped it would lead to permanent occupation, writing, “Is this a temporary, isolated event? Soldiers who went deeper into Lebanon this week should think again, and remember that IDF forces have now been on the summit of the Syrian Hermon since the end of 2024, with no expiration date.”
Taking it a step further, Michael Freund, a former deputy communications director of Benjamin Netanyahu, writing in The Jerusalem Post, explicitly advocated for a permanent Israeli occupation with Jewish settlements of Southern Lebanon calling for Israel to “incorporate southern Lebanon into sovereign Israel and settle it with Jews.”
He added that, “A growing movement in Israel has begun to argue that the only way to guarantee lasting security in the North is not merely military control of territory but the establishment of permanent Jewish communities there. One such initiative is Uri Tzafon (‘Awaken, O North’), an organization advocating the settlement of southern Lebanon as a long-term security solution.”
He advocated that Israel “maintains control of the territory south of” the Litani River and the “establishment of Jewish communities there”.
Michael Freund cited biblical Israel as a justification for stealing Lebanese land, writing, “Biblical sources describe the borders of Canaan as extending northward toward Sidon, and the territory of the tribes of Israel included it as well” along with arguing that Israeli annexation of Southern Lebanon is needed for “security”, (i.e. destroying Hezbollah’s ability to defend against Israeli expansion).
The motive behind the war in Iran has always been the Greater Israel project. With Israel’s mass displacement of Southern Lebanon, the Likud-friendly media is already explicitly stating that this move was done to advance the project and expand Israeli territory into Southern Lebanon.
What’s the difference between Vietnam and the Iran War? Answer: Trump had an exit strategy for Vietnam.
How much collective responsibility can the West take for the shitstorm it is in now, otherwise known as ’The Iran War’? Many would like to blame most of it on Trump for being a manchild and just going ahead with the most madcap military venture NATO countries have ever known, against all the expert advice, and ending up with a regime which is even more hardcore for having a bomb, world energy prices soaring and causing chaos due to Iran choking the Straits of Hormuz, and the entire relationship between Washington and its allies in the region reduced to a handful of dust?
The reality is that Trump took the decision to go to war not based on one issue alone. Left-wing commentators in the U.S. would like us to think it was to distract the media away from the latest revelations of the DOJ and the Epstein files, which had a tome of evidence accusing him of having inappropriate relations with a 13-year-old girl. But there were other reasons which pushed him over the line. Top of that list is surely that Netanyahu was blackmailing him, threatening to release recordings of his phone calls with Epstein where they talk about young girls. Add to that, it was probably pointed out to him that he was not going to keep both houses when the midterms come unless a considerable amount of Jewish American money was pumped into his campaign.
But it isn’t just Trump that has got us all into this mess that we’re in. For decades, the EU allowed Israel to ratchet up their brutal occupation of Palestinians and in the process to dehumanize them, leading to the climax of the Gaza genocide. This gave an unrealistic sense of impunity, almost akin to a divine intervention to religious fanatics who already believed that they were the chosen people and that they had a right to murder those beneath them and steal their property. Look at the reaction of western governments and in particular the EU when the events of October 7th unfolded and how they supported any response at all from Israel. In fact, just look at how any UK government minister reacted to the start of the Iran War, which, if we didn’t know better, might have thought it was started by Iran.
Trump is isolated now not for his rank stupidity, or his delusional views about who he is and what America is. He is isolated by EU leaders as none of them want to be part of a new Vietnam War scenario which goes on for years and only produces body bags — only to keep a U.S. president from looking like a total fuckwit in front of his own people.
Yes, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans don’t really understand what Trump just did in Iran. Even today, something like 80 percent of Republicans polled agree with his decision to begin a conflict with Iran, while Democrats are in the other camp altogether, perhaps better informed of Trump’s rationale behind going ahead with the plan.
Most likely the plan had been on the table for months and each time a military expert pointed out the harsh realities of it bringing blowback on a global level, affecting not only pump prices rocketing but just about everything else over the longer term, they were ignored or swapped for a sycophant in a uniform who just nodded like a demented parcel shelf toy dog until he had a whole room full of them. Does the American public understand just how self-indulgent Trump has been and that he has now created for himself a new threat, like a magician pulling a pigeon out of his hat? While the so-called ’threat’ from Iran goes from being a vague, opaque notion which most people don’t even believe, to being something quite real and lucid to the point that, ironically, Trump can now present it to the gullible public and hope they don’t notice that he manufactured it all by himself.
Yet it is remarkable how detached Europeans are from Trump and his plans. What an extraordinary example of how diplomacy is entirely dead and not worth the paper it’s written on, when EU ambassadors had no clue about these meetings and what came out of them. Shouldn’t EU leaders have stepped in at some point and warned him he was playing with fire and that the only certainty was that the West was guaranteed to be the burn victim? What about our intelligence services? It is inconceivable they didn’t know what was coming? Did they not tip off their own governments? Likely they did and that London, Paris and Berlin simply did nothing, such is the non-existent special relationship between Old Europe and Washington. Even Britain.
Transatlantic relations between the U.S. and EU countries is never going to be the same again if something can’t be done to get a dialogue going. Sure, Trump may pull the U.S. out of NATO just out of spite, like a fuming four-year-old who’s just lost his ball to an angry neighbour, but other, bigger relations are probably burnt forever. Washington’s relations with Israel can never go back to the Master (Israel) Slave (U.S.) set-up. And America’s relations with Gulf Arab countries is going to be hard to put back on an even keel when Arab leaders can see how fake they were in the first place.
Trump’s childish revelation recently that he couldn’t have imagined Iran hitting the GCC countries feels like a seven-year-old boy trying to explain to a room full of adults that he didn’t realise that borrowing his friend’s go-kart would result in so much damage as no one told him the jalopy would go so fast down a hill. The EU has a similar idiot in power, though. Kaja Kallas, a name which conjures up a 1980s underarm deodorant or a Greek ferry company, is blessed by at least not looking as stupid as she really is. This daughter of an Estonian communist politician, who was happy to live the high life under the Soviets, seems to be almost entirely brain dead when she gets on the podium or in front of the six microphones (all of EU TV networks who are actually paid cash to broadcast her moronic ramblings) and harps on about Russia getting more money now from oil sales. It’s literally like watching someone in a mental institution who hasn’t taken their medication talking to the mirror with a toothbrush as a mic and trying to sound clever.
But it’s no joke how the West got to where it is with Iran, when these same buffoons for decades have been encouraging Israel to expand its ideas and, red in tooth and claw, reach a point today where they are either starving people so as to ethnically cleanse Gaza or simply bombing women and children in their tents — or taking over part of Lebanon, a decades-old fantasy which didn’t end well in 1982 when they tried it before.
So the Trump joke is less funny when you see it in the light of who led him to where he is and what his inconsistent messages are to EU leaders. He is stuck in the past and tends to be someone trying to correct or duplicate U.S. foreign policy. Of course, he lacks élan, though, which is also part of the problem with such leaders. In the early 70s, when Nixon wanted to devalue the dollar but retain its power around the world, EU leaders were horrified. Apparently, he simply said to them: “It’s our dollar, but it’s your problem.”
UK media has whitewashed Israel’s attempt to kill British war journalist Steve Sweeney and his Lebanese cameraman Ali Rida while they were broadcasting live from southern Lebanon on 19 March.
Footage shot by Rida shows Sweeney giving a news report about a previous Israeli strike when he realizes another strike is headed towards them. He quickly ducks as the missile is seen exploding as it hits the ground just meters behind him.
Sweeney was treated at the hospital to remove shrapnel from the bomb that was embedded in his arm.
While reporting on the strike, the BBC used a headline stating, “Missile lands next to presenter during live report from Lebanon.”
The headline did not mention that Israel had fired the missile, nor did it describe Sweeney as a journalist or war correspondent, while implying the strike was only random or simply an accident.
The Independent newspaper described the incident in a similar way, writing “A missile landed just a few feet away from a British journalist as he was reporting live from Lebanon.”
“Footage shared by Russian state broadcaster RT on Thursday (19 March) shows Steve Sweeney, its Lebanon bureau chief, running for cover as an explosion detonated behind him,” The Independent added, also failing to mention Israel had launched the strike.
The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, acknowledged Israel’s role, but referred to Sweeney’s statement that Israel tried to kill him as only a “claim.”
“British journalist Steve Sweeney has claimed Israel ‘tried to kill him’ in a targeted airstrike that left him and his cameraman with minor injuries,” the Daily Mail wrote.
The New York Post and CNN used similar headlines, omitting mention of Israeli responsibility, while taking Israel’s claims at face value that its military does not target journalists in the body of the article.
“Insane moment missile blows up just feet away from reporter in Lebanon,” stated the New York Post headline.
CNN wrote, “News crew narrowly escapes strike in southern Lebanon,” while publishing only the video and no other details on its website.
BBC, The Independent, and Daily Mail reports ignore Israel’s deliberate killing of Lebanese journalists covering Israeli war crimes since 2023.
The targeting of Sweeney and Rida came just one day after Israel assassinated Al Manar journalist Mohammad Sherri and his wife in a brutal strike on Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, as part of a series of deadly attacks that killed at least a dozen.
During its previous war on Lebanon – which started in 2023 and ended in a so-called ceasefire in 2024 – the Israeli army murdered three Lebanese journalists with an airstrike as they slept at a media guesthouse in southeast Lebanon.
“The 3:00 am airstrike turned the site – a series of chalets nestled among trees that had been rented by various media outlets covering the war – into rubble. Cars marked ‘PRESS’ were overturned and covered in dust and debris, and at least one satellite dish for live broadcasting was totally destroyed,” AP reported.
The strikes killed camera operator Ghassan Najjar and broadcast technician Mohammed Rida of Al Mayadeen TV, and camera operator Wissam Qassim, who worked for Hezbollah-affiliated Al Manar TV.
“The journalists thought they were safe because this south Lebanon area wasn’t in Israel’s evacuation zone,” PBS journalist Leila Molana-Allen wrote on X.
Molana-Allen, who is also currently reporting from Lebanon, said the journalists had given details of their movements to UN peacekeepers to send to the Israeli military.
“Turns out the IDF [Israeli military] used that info to bomb them while they were all inside asleep,” Molana-Allen reported.
Lebanese journalists had already been working for almost a year under the shadow of Israel’s killings of Reuters video journalist Issam Abdullah on 13 October 2023 and Al Mayadeen journalist Farah Omar, her cameraman Rabih al-Maamari, and their assistant Hussein Akil on 21 November 2023.
All four were killed reporting from the Lebanon–Israel border area after the war between Lebanon and Israel began on 8 October 2023, the next day after the launch of Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
A Reuters investigation concluded that Abdullah was killed and six others were injured when Israeli troops fired two tank shells directly at a group of journalists from Reuters, AFP, and Al Jazeera who were filming at an open spot one kilometer from the border.
A record 129 journalists and media workers were killed worldwide in 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported, with Israel responsible for two-thirds of the deaths, including many it killed in Gaza.
Sixteen days into the American-Israeli war on Iran, the battlefield tells a story that Pentagon planners had not anticipated. Tehran’s streets remain filled with defiant crowds, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for US-linked ships, and the US military bases in the region smolder.
Patricia Marins, an independent defense analyst based in Brazil, has been following the war unfold with a keen eye on the shifting strategic balance.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Marins said she has been witnessing the emergence of something the region has never quite witnessed before: the “Iranian model” of warfare proving itself against the world’s most powerful military.
“The Iranian model possesses several distinct characteristics compared to the American model exported to Arab countries. It is built for attrition warfare and resilience, featuring an extensive network of underground facilities and a focus on long-range precision-guided munitions,” she stressed.
“All of this was achieved through investment in research centers, universities, reverse engineering, and the steady implementation of a domestic defense industry, which in many respects is dual-use.”
On the other hand, the American model exported to the Persian Gulf countries consists of “vulnerable surface installations, almost no degree of indigenous production, and consequently a disconnect between research centers, reverse engineering, and the military industry,” which Marins added is not limited to the US model, but all Western models.
“Kuwait paid over $310 million for each Eurofighter Typhoon, nothing short of extortion,” she said, making a clear distinction between the American and Iranian models.
Today, amid the war that was triggered by the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on February 28, and the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and some top-ranking military commanders, that investment is paying dividends.
Marins believes the contrast in the military tech leap is not lost on regional observers.
“I believe this Iranian model is being closely watched by all (Persian) Gulf countries at this moment. I see a high probability of it serving as a reference in several areas. I even believe it has inspired the Saudi missile industry, which is currently absorbing Chinese technology,” she said.
“Iran inspires, yet it still maintains a guarded distance from the (Persian) Gulf countries in this sector.”
Beyond the missile and drone arsenal, Iran also enjoys the geographical advantage, the Brazilian analyst stated.
“Iran’s advantage begins with its geographical position, but it is confirmed by its military prowess. And Iran knows how to leverage both very effectively,” she said
She referred to the Ghadir-class submarine, which is affordable, stealthy, and designed specifically for the waters it operates in – the Persian Gulf – especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait’s “shallow, high-salinity, and high-temperature conditions create a challenging, noisy, and complex environment for sonar, favoring small, fast, and highly maneuverable platforms,” she asserted.
“It is the perfect marriage between the weapon and the environment in which it operates,” she said. “Iran knows how to use the geography that already favors them.”
Then there is Yemen as well, which has indicated willingness to join the front against the US and Israel, after the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement and Iraqi resistance groups.
“Iran has been a master player. Knowing that by maintaining influence in Yemen, in a situation like this, they could exert power over both straits,” Marins said.
“However, all of this requires prudence and maturity.”
With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed already for the US and its allied vessels, if Yemen’s Ansarullah movement follows through and shuts down the Bab el-Mandeb strait as well, the costs would be abysmal, she noted.
“This would expand the conflict on that axis to European countries, as has already occurred. I believe Iran is weighing the necessity of this escalation and whether it is truly required. While Hormuz involves oil and gas, Bab el-Mandeb involves the flow of goods between the West and Asia,” Marins remarked.
“If this strait is closed, it will have a massive economic impact. I see Iran as prudent and disciplined as a nation must be during a war.”
While media reports have cited figures of $1 billion per day for American attacks, with one estimate putting the first six days at $11 billion, Marins believes the true cost is far higher.
In her projections, she suggests the costs for the US could reach a colossal $360 billion within two months if the war continues unabated, a sum that she stresses “would test the patience of any treasury, let alone American taxpayers already feeling the pinch of soaring oil prices.”
“Israel’s operations during the 12-day war generated a daily cost of around $700 million. However, by the end of the war, once the costs of interceptors and damages were added, this daily cost hit nearly $2 billion,” she told the Press TV website.
“I believe this will be Israel’s cost, but the American cost so far is triple that due to three factors: the number of interceptors expended, the quantity of missiles and guided bombs used, and the cost of damages to bases and radars.”
When these factors are combined, Marins noted, the cost is expected to be “no less than $6-8 billion daily during these two weeks of war.”
On reports that Trump’s advisors are advising him to declare victory and find an exit, Marins doubts the American victory in this war is even possible.
“I don’t think so. I see Iran in a much better strategic position to win the conflict. As long as Iran maintains control of the strait, the pressure will be on Donald Trump’s shoulders, no matter how many bombs he drops,” she said.
But beneath that tactical reality lies a deeper truth about the nature of this war. Iran has demonstrated a capacity to absorb bombings while being resilient, limiting drone actions over its territory, and fighting an asymmetric war on its own terms, Marins said.
“So far, I believe Iran has conducted an asymmetric war with very few mistakes,” Marins said. “One that the US and Israel simply don’t know how to fight.”
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | April 19, 2016
Since the Korean War, but particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 until today, the United States has been steadily escalating its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Taking advantage of many colossal events of the past 36 years, [1] the hyper-empire has institutionalized its massive presence on land and sea, and expanded its objectives to include the unambiguous physical control of the area, as well as the clear understanding that local Arab governments should abide by them. The pretext is always the same: in “defense” of the national interests and security of the United States. From observing how the United States has been interacting with the governments of the region, and by judging from the size of its expeditionary force, we could reach a basic conclusion. The United States is occupying, de facto, the entire Arabian Peninsula. (Yemen, devastated by Saudi and American jets is yet to be conquered. Oman? Britain returned not as colonial ruler but as a soft occupying power.)
Under this articulation, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are virtually occupied countries. If we compare this type of occupation to the mandate and protectorate regimes of the past, the results might be identical—the nations affected by it lose sovereignty. When Arab governments comply with the objectives of a foreign power that station military forces on their national milieu, then that power controls them in multiple ways including how they react to policy deliberations and what decisions they intend to take on specific issues. A good method to verify the concept of effective occupation is this: take notice of what the United States says and wants, and then compare it to what the gulf rulers do in response. (I shall discuss this detail at some point in the upcoming parts.)
If the presence of US forces or other means of political pressure are a factor in Saudi Arabia’s interventionist Arab wars, then we need to debate this issue. However, from the history of resistance to colonialism, we learnt: if a powerful state imposes its order on a nation by military means or other forms of coercion, and if this nation does not resist that imposition, then a mental subordination to the powerful state will ensue. This is especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia. One single event, 9/11, has transformed it from a US “ally” into an instant political hostage of the American Empire. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 