Israel’s Iran Strategy Uses US Military & Gulf States as Its Pawns
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | March 29, 2026
While most honest analysts will conclude that the decision made by the White House came as a result of pressure from the Israelis or that this is a war that is being fought for Tel Aviv’s interests, many fail to see any clear strategy at play.
In order to understand the strategy behind the US-Israeli assault on the Islamic Republic, you must first remove the notion that the United States is in the driving seat to any significant extent.
Almost immediately after the 12-Day War in June of 2025, the Israeli leadership was already preparing for the next round. On July 7, Axios News even reported that officials in Tel Aviv believed that US President Trump would give them another green light to attack.
Meanwhile, the most influential Zionist think tanks in Washington DC, the likes of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), were openly discussing the necessity of a new round of confrontations.
These think tanks facilitated discussions and published pieces in which they made it clear that while the next round was inevitable, it had to be the last round, and that the US’s involvement would be important in deciding outcomes.
Understanding the Israeli Strategy
It is no coincidence that senior Israeli officials, all the way from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to opposition leader Yair Lapid, have all recently publicly endorsed the “Greater Israel Project”.
This is not simply posturing, this is their goal. But how does this fit into the Iran war? Well, it will begin to make sense when the context is all provided.
Firstly, the Greater Israel Project’s strategy is grounded in an academic article published by a former Israeli intelligence officer and journalist, Oded Yinon. The plan did not advocate for the physical expansion of the Israeli State’s borders over every nation between the Euphrates River and the River Nile, but instead opted for an approach that would transform Israel into a regional empire.
In order to achieve this goal of a “Greater Israel”, it would first necessitate the collapse of all the region’s sovereign States, which would instead be broken up into warring sectarian and ethno-regimes.
The purpose of achieving the disintegration of the surrounding nations is a simple concept to understand. If they are all divided, economically weak, and lack the military capabilities to stand up to Israel, it makes it easy for the Israelis to control them.
Take, for example, the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq, or the semi-autonomous zone in southern Syria’s Sweida Province, now carved out by Israeli-backed separatists.
Syria and Iraq are perfect examples of what happens when a nation is torn apart and sectarianism, or ethno-supremacist ideologies, are spread through deliberate propaganda campaigns.
Although Secular Arab Nationalism failed in the region, the chief proponent of it, former Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, was indeed correct in his analysis as to why it was a net positive for the region.
A united Arab World would undoubtedly be far stronger than the simple modern nation-states of the region, whose borders were drawn up by European colonial powers.
For the Israelis, they had always sought to impose this long-term solution upon West Asia, of a “Greater Israel”, but were previously seeking to do it in a slow and methodical way, opposed to a ruthlessly violent one.
Part of this way of thinking was centered around the idea that Israel maintained a “deterrence capacity”, meaning that their military power was capable of deterring any significant strategic threat from rising against it.
On October 7, 2023, the Qassam Brigades of Hamas crippled this strategy and debunked the notion of their “deterrence capacity”. A few thousand Palestinian fighters managed to overcome the most militarily advanced army in the region, bursting through the gates of their concentration camp, despite the world’s most advanced surveillance systems being present in the area.
The Palestinian groups themselves appear to have been genuinely surprised by how easily they were capable of achieving their goals. Not only did they inflict a blow on the Israeli military and seize captives, but they also managed to collapse the entire Israeli southern command, all with light weapons.
To Israel, the message was clear: The Arab populations of Jordan and Egypt had taken to the streets, some even pouring across the Jordanian border. The weakest link in the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance had dealt the Israeli military its most embarrassing defeat. Deterrence was dead, and former Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, was proven correct: “Israel is weaker than a spider’s web”.
The decision to commit genocide was therefore ordered. Israel believed it had to show the Arab World what it was truly capable of, as a means of asserting its control. In the cases of the Arab populations in Jordan, Egypt, and even the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the fear tactics appeared to have worked. Then they made an irreversible mistake.
In September 2024, they assassinated Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, a move that completely changed the thinking of Iran and its allies. Now, the message had been received loud and clear; preparations for the last war had to be made. Up until then, the Axis of Resistance had been attempting to close the chapter of the Gaza genocide; now, they understood that destroying Gaza wasn’t the end goal of Israel.
Israel had decided it would accelerate its national project of gradual expansion, meaning that the Islamic Republic of Iran had to be deposed. A failure to overthrow the Iranian government would represent an existential threat to this project.
Israel’s Iran War Strategy
As I have been writing in the Palestine Chronicle for the past eight months, the only viable strategy that the Israelis could hope to use, in order to see any gains, is one where Iran’s civilian infrastructure is the primary target.
That means: taking out power stations, desalination plants along with other key water facilities – less than 3% of Iran’s water needs come from desalination – while blowing up oil and gas facilities, bombing factories, destroying agricultural lands, inflicting costly environmental catastrophes, and attempting to cripple the Iranian State’s ability to function. In other words, a policy that replicates the Gaza model on a much wider scale, impacting a nation of 92 million people.
Tel Aviv’s goal here is a long-term regime change operation, one that will happen gradually following the war itself. Israel knows that destroying Iran’s military capabilities was never going to be possible. Yes, they may have some successes, but totally crippling their missile and drone programs through strikes alone won’t work.
Therefore, they seek to try and force Tehran to expend a large portion of its missile arsenal, making it more difficult for them to start a new war in the near future following the conflict’s conclusion.
If you look at Syria, for example, the government of Bashar al-Assad did not collapse during the war. Instead, the Syrian State slowly eroded from the inside, due to its isolation and the US-EU’s maximum pressure sanctions.
In the end, the Syrian State was largely bought out and was so corrupt that there was little left. When Ahmed al-Shara’a marched into Aleppo and then Damascus, he did so without any fight, although there were some exceptions where a few units resisted.
Now, Damascus is open for Israeli citizens, the leadership in Syria meets with Israeli officials face-to-face, and has even set up a joint normalizing mechanism between both sides. Therefore, using the long game strategy against Iran makes the most sense in Israel’s strategic thinking.
Then there comes the convenient side effect of the strategy, which begins to explain how the US leadership is not in the driver’s seat at all. That being the weakening of the Persian Gulf Arab nations.
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are experiencing untold economic devastation as a result of this war. The reason for this, evidently, is that they all host US bases and have permitted a large presence of American military and intelligence personnel inside their countries.
Oman, and to a lesser extent Qatar, have been the only Gulf nations that appear to be pushing back against the true culprits in this war, the Israelis and US. Muscat in particular has blasted the “security arrangements” in the region and condemned normalising efforts with Tel Aviv, pointing their fingers in the right direction.
Bahrain and especially the UAE have gone in the opposite direction. They are only increasing their pro-Israeli and anti-Iran rhetoric, which comes as little surprise given that both have normalized relations with the Zionists. Riyadh, on the other hand, appears to be on a separate trajectory, with its rhetoric being diplomatic, while its actions suggest it is hostile towards Iran.
The Israelis, despite their efforts to normalize ties with the Gulf States, do not want strong nations to exist anywhere in West Asia under their accelerationist approach to achieving an Israel Empire. This appears to be something that the leadership in Abu Dhabi and Manama have not proven intelligent enough to figure out.
That is why the Israeli leadership had started to announce their next targets, following Iran, were the leaderships in Turkiye and even Pakistan. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a threat in the way that Iran is, but he does command one of the most powerful military forces in the region and rules over a developing economy, working towards transforming itself into a key global trade hub.
Alone, the idea that Turkiye would begin to build an economic or defence alliance with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Egypt, poses a direct threat to the Greater Israel Project. In Syria, we see a similar thing; although Ankara does not present a clear and present military challenge to the Israelis as a result of its influence in Damascus, it acts as a potential competitor, a nation that may seek to curtail Israeli expansionist plots.
The GCC countries, which are in alliance with one another, maintain immense economic power. As we see today, if the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, the entire world is impacted. Back in 1973, these Persian Gulf Arab States exercised that power temporarily. One thing to keep in mind with the Israelis is that they never forget history and are infamous for holding grudges.
So, the dismantlement of the Gulf Arab nations’ economies, or at the very least, the weakening of these countries, is viewed as a positive development in Tel Aviv. As for the US, this war is similarly disastrous, but Israel fails to care less.
This war has destroyed US power projection, making it open to its top chosen adversaries – Russia and China – in a number of other arenas. Donald Trump personally has business ties in the Gulf, which don’t benefit from this conflict, so even on a personal level, it isn’t exactly a victory. The entire Western World, allying itself with the US and Israel, is suffering economically, and as a result, this will mean social unrest is possible, even if it takes time to come to fruition.
An embarrassment has already been dealt to the US military, which is being made to look like a paper tiger, as Mao Zedong once called it. Its future in the Gulf region may have just been ruined, along with those billions, or trillions as Trump believes, of investments – from Gulf States – may no longer materialize. The entire White House Security Doctrine, published last year, has been torn up and set on fire.
In terms of soldier casualties, the Trump administration is evidently hiding the true figure, but it goes without saying that this isn’t good news. NATO has been forced to flee Iraq. The US has even lifted sanctions on Moscow and a limited number of sanctions on Iranian oil. There is simply nothing that the US stands to gain from this war, even if it were to somehow pull off a victory; at this point, it would prove pyrrhic.
With all of this being said, what the Israelis are doing is making a massive gamble. A series of risks that appear so far to be backfiring, as Tehran appears to have pre-empted the conspiracies set against it. The final results of the war are not yet in, but the odds appear to be on the side of Iran.
– 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.
Iraqi resistance conducts drone strike on US-run base in Syria
Press TV – March 28, 2026
Fighters from the anti-terror group Islamic Resistance in Iraq have conducted a drone strike against an installation operated by US occupation forces in Syria’s southwestern al-Tanf region, close to the borders with Iraq and Jordan.
The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that air defense systems manned by members of the ruling Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militant group had intercepted and shot down an unmanned aircraft as it was flying in the skies over the base.
It added that the drone had most likely set off from an area in neighboring Iraq, without specifying the exact location.
Back on March 20, Iraqi resistance groups destroyed three critical sites at the US-run Harir base in Erbil — the capital of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, sharply reducing American military activities there.
An informed source said the positions were targeted simultaneously with missile strikes on the Victory Airbase close to the Baghdad International Airport.
Over the past two weeks, coordinated drone and missile attacks have repeatedly struck key infrastructure at Harir, including its central radar system, which was hit at least four times and ultimately destroyed.
Failing to Defeat Hezbollah, Israel & US Pressure Syria’s Ahmed al-Sharaa to Join War
By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | March 27, 2026
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.
No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | March 16, 2026
When Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched their military aggression against Iran on 28th February, they appeared convinced that the war would be swift. Netanyahu reportedly assured Washington that the campaign would deliver a decisive strategic victory—one capable of reordering the Middle East and restoring Israel’s battered deterrence.
Whether Netanyahu himself believed that promise is another matter.
For decades, influential circles within Israel’s strategic establishment have not necessarily sought stability, but rather “creative destruction.” The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.
This idea did not emerge overnight. It was articulated most clearly in a 1996 policy paper titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of US neoconservative strategists, including Richard Perle.
The document argued that Israel should abandon land-for-peace diplomacy and instead pursue a strategy that would weaken or remove hostile regimes in the region, particularly Iraq and Syria. The goal was not merely military victory but a geopolitical restructuring of the Middle East in Israel’s favor.
The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.
In many ways, the subsequent decades seemed to validate that theory—at least from Tel Aviv’s perspective.
The Middle East Reordered
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was widely considered a catastrophe for Washington. Hundreds of thousands died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the United States became entangled in one of the most destabilising occupations in modern history.
Yet the war removed Saddam Hussein’s government, dismantled the Baath Party, and destroyed what had once been the strongest Arab army in the region. For Israel, the strategic consequences were significant.
Iraq, historically one of the few Arab states capable of confronting Israel militarily, ceased to exist as a coherent regional power. Years of instability followed, leaving Baghdad with a fragile political system struggling to maintain national cohesion.
Syria, another central concern in Israeli strategic thinking, would later descend into its own devastating war beginning in 2011. Libya collapsed earlier after NATO’s intervention in 2011 as well. Across the region, once-formidable Arab nationalist states fractured into weakened or internally divided systems.
From Israel’s vantage point, the theory of regional fragmentation appeared to be paying dividends.
Without strong Arab states capable of projecting military power, several Gulf governments began reconsidering their long-standing refusal to normalise relations with Israel.
The result was the Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020 under the Trump administration, which formalised normalisation between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later followed by Morocco and Sudan. For a moment, it seemed that the geopolitical transformation envisioned decades earlier had been realised.
Gaza changed the equation
But history rarely moves in straight lines. Israel’s genocide in Gaza did not produce the strategic victory Israeli leaders had anticipated. Instead, the war exposed deep vulnerabilities in Israel’s military and political standing.
More importantly, Palestinian resistance demonstrated that overwhelming military force could not translate into decisive political control.
The consequences reverberated far beyond Gaza.
The war galvanized resistance movements across the region, deepened divisions within Arab and Muslim societies between governments aligned with Washington and those opposed to Israeli policies, and ignited an unprecedented wave of global solidarity with Palestinians. Israel’s international image suffered dramatically.
For decades, Western political discourse framed Israel as a democratic outpost surrounded by hostile forces. That narrative has steadily eroded. Increasingly, Israel is described—even by major international organizations—as a state engaged in systematic oppression and, in Gaza’s case, genocidal violence.
The strategic cost of that reputational collapse cannot be overstated. Military power relies not only on weapons but also on legitimacy. And legitimacy, once lost, is difficult to recover.
Netanyahu’s final gamble
Against this backdrop, the war on Iran emerged as Netanyahu’s most consequential gamble.
If successful, it could restore Israel’s regional dominance and reassert its deterrence. Defeating Iran—or even severely weakening it—would reshape the balance of power across the Middle East. But failure carries equally profound consequences.
Netanyahu, now facing an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in 2024 over war crimes in Gaza, has tied his political survival to the promise of strategic victory.
In multiple interviews over the past year, he has framed the confrontation with Iran in almost biblical terms. In one televised address in 2025, Netanyahu declared that Israel was engaged in a “historic mission” to secure the future of the Jewish state for generations. Such rhetoric reveals not confidence but desperation.
What was supposed to be a rapid campaign increasingly resembles a prolonged conflict. Israel cannot wage such a war alone. It never could. Thus, Netanyahu worked tirelessly to draw the United States directly into the conflict—a familiar pattern in modern Middle Eastern wars.
The paradox of Trump’s war
For Americans, the question remains: why did Donald Trump—who repeatedly campaigned against “endless wars”—allow the US to enter yet another Middle Eastern conflict?
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump famously declared: “We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilised the Middle East.”
Yet nearly a decade later, his administration has plunged Washington into a confrontation whose potential consequences dwarf those of the earlier wars.
The precise motivations matter less to those living under the bombs.
Across the region, the scenes are painfully familiar: devastated cities, mass graves, grieving families, and societies once again forced to endure the violence of foreign intervention.
But this war is unfolding in a fundamentally different geopolitical environment.
The US no longer commands the unchallenged dominance it once enjoyed. China has emerged as a major economic and strategic actor. Russia continues to project influence. Regional powers have gained confidence in resisting Washington’s dictates.
The Middle East itself has changed.
A war already going wrong
Early signs suggest that the war is not unfolding according to the expectations of Washington or Tel Aviv.
Reports from US and Israeli media indicate that missile-defense systems in Israel and several Gulf states are facing a serious strain under sustained attacks. Meanwhile, Iran and its regional allies have demonstrated missile capabilities far more extensive than many analysts had anticipated.
Energy markets provide another indication of shifting dynamics. Rather than securing greater control over global energy flows, the war has disrupted supplies and strengthened Iran’s leverage over key maritime routes.
Strategic assumptions built on decades of uncontested American military power are colliding with a far more complex reality.
Even the political rhetoric emanating from Washington has become noticeably defensive and increasingly angry—often a sign that events are not unfolding as planned.
Within the Trump administration itself, the intellectual poverty of the moment is difficult to miss. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose public persona is built on television bravado rather than strategic literacy, has often framed the conflict in language that sounds less like military doctrine and more like locker-room theatrics.
Hegseth’s style is symptomatic of a broader intellectual collapse within Washington’s war-making circles—where historical knowledge is replaced by slogans, and strategic planning by theatrical displays of toughness.
In speeches and interviews, he has repeatedly reduced complex geopolitical realities into crude narratives of strength, masculinity, and domination. Such rhetoric may excite partisan audiences, but it reveals a deeper problem: the people directing the most dangerous war in decades appear to understand very little about the forces they have unleashed.
In such an environment, wars are not analyzed; they are performed.
The end of an era?
Netanyahu sought to dominate the Middle East. Washington sought to reaffirm its position as the world’s unrivaled superpower. Neither objective appears within reach.
Instead, the war may accelerate the very transformations it was meant to prevent: a declining US strategic role, a weakened Israeli deterrent posture, and a Middle East increasingly shaped by regional actors rather than external powers.
Trump, despite the lofty and belligerent language, is in reality a weak president. Rage is rarely the language of strength; it is often the mask of insecurity. His administration has overestimated America’s military omnipotence, undermined allies and antagonized adversaries alike, and entered a war whose historical, political, and strategic dimensions it scarcely understands.
How can a leadership so consumed by narcissism and spectacle fully grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe it has helped unleash?
One would expect wisdom in moments of global crisis. What we have instead is a chorus of slogans, threats, and self-congratulation emanating from Washington—an administration seemingly incapable of distinguishing between what power can achieve and what it cannot.
They do not understand how profoundly the world has changed. They do not understand how the Middle East now perceives American military adventurism. And they certainly do not understand that Israel itself has become, politically and morally, a declining brand.
Of course, Trump and his equally arrogant administration will continue searching for any fragment of ‘victory’ to sell to their constituency as the greatest triumph in history. There will always be zealots ready to believe such myths.
But most Americans—and the overwhelming majority of people around the world—no longer do. Partly because this war on Iran is immoral. And partly because history has very little patience for losers.
Syrian president vows ‘absolute support’ to disarm Hezbollah
The Cradle | March 11, 2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun received a phone call on 10 March from his Syrian counterpart, ex-Al-Qaeda chief Ahmad al-Sharaa, who expressed his support for Beirut’s efforts in disarming Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Presidency said Aoun and Sharaa discussed regional developments and stressed that “the current delicate situation requires activating coordination and consultation between the two countries, especially with regard to the need to control the borders and prevent any security breaches from any side.”
The Syrian Presidency also released its own statement on the call with Aoun. “President Sharaa expressed his explicit and absolute support for the efforts led by President Joseph Aoun to disarm ‘Hezbollah.’ He affirmed that this step is essential for solidifying Lebanese state sovereignty and shielding the region from the repercussions of ongoing regional armed conflicts,” the statement said.
It also called for “joint action” between Lebanon and Syria, “to ensure the safety of the Syrian and Lebanese peoples and to protect the gains of stability achieved recently.”
The phone call comes hours after Damascus claimed that it came under attack by Hezbollah on the Syrian–Lebanese border.
The Syrian army said “Hezbollah militias” fired shells toward its positions near Serghaya, adding that reinforcements from the Lebanese resistance group had been observed arriving along the Syrian–Lebanese border.
Syrian officials said they were monitoring the situation, coordinating with the Lebanese army, and studying possible responses, warning that the Syrian army “will not tolerate any attack targeting Syria.”
Hezbollah, which is busy fighting an Israeli invasion in the south, has not released any statements commenting on the matter.
The Lebanese resistance fought in Syria for years alongside the former government, and took part in the recapture of several parts of the country from groups including Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and other extremist organizations who were at the time considered the Syrian opposition.
The Nusra Front was later rebranded into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that toppled former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government in 2024 and now dominates Syria’s Defense Ministry.
Nusra occupied large swathes of the northern and eastern Lebanese border region for years at the start of the Syrian war, and was eventually expelled by Hezbollah and the Lebanese army.
Clashes broke out between the Lebanese army and Syrian troops earlier this year, after Damascus’s forces advanced against the border under the pretext of dealing with smuggling.
Heavy clashes also erupted between the Syrian army and Lebanese tribes on the border in 2025. Damascus falsely claimed at the time that it was fighting Hezbollah.
Since the start of the war in Iran and the entry of Hezbollah into the conflict, the Syrian military has been building up its presence along the Lebanese border, claiming the measures are aimed at “combating smuggling.”
The new authorities in Damascus have allied themselves with Washington. Damascus has been working, at the request of the US, to prevent any Hezbollah-bound weapons from entering Lebanon.
It has also been cracking down on Palestinian resistance factions.
US envoy Tom Barrack threatened Lebanon last year with a Syrian incursion, and said Damascus would “actively assist us in confronting and dismantling the remnants of ISIS, the IRGC [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist networks.”
“Burnt Bridges”: Why Trump’s Plan to Use Kurds Against Iran Is Doomed to Fail
By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid – New Eastern Outlook – March 7, 2026
Following a series of devastating U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran is engulfed in uncertainty. However, the White House, facing the prospect of a ground operation in mountainous terrain, is betting on an old, tested, but extremely risky tool—Kurdish forces. The Donald Trump administration views the Kurds as ideal “cannon fodder” to ignite a civil war in Iran. But will this plan work? Given Trump’s history of betrayals, deceit, and cynical pragmatism, the attempt to play the Kurdish card might not only fail but could also backfire on the United States itself.
A Proxy Army for a Big War
While the U.S. Air Force continues to bomb Iranian cities and Donald Trump boasts about destroying the enemy’s navy, Washington is soberly assessing the risks. Sending thousands of American soldiers into Iran would be political suicide for a president who promised voters an end to “endless wars.” Analysts agree: the U.S. will not launch a full-scale invasion like in Iraq or Afghanistan due to the mountainous terrain, the risk of high casualties, and a lack of public support.
A solution was quickly found. As early as March 4th, the South Korean publication Donga Ilbo reported that thousands of Kurdish fighters had begun a ground offensive into Iran from Iraqi territory. According to Fox News and CNN, cited by the publication, the operation is coordinated with active participation from the CIA, which is providing weapons and equipment.
But is this really the case? Currently, data on a massive invasion by thousands of Kurdish fighters is contradictory.
The scenario appears logical: The Kurds, who make up about 10% of Iran’s population (approximately 9 million people), have historically faced discrimination within the Shia theocracy. They are concentrated in the western provinces bordering Iraq, making them an ideal foothold. Kurdish parties based in Iraqi Kurdistan have already united into the “Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan,” establishing a unified military command.
Israel: Old Ties and New Opportunities
The role of Israel deserves special attention. Tel Aviv has long-standing, complex but generally positive relations with Kurdish movements, viewing them as a natural counterweight to hostile Arab and Iranian regimes. In the current conflict, Israel has taken on the role of “igniter.” According to Middle East Eye, the Israeli Air Force is striking positions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) precisely in Iran’s western provinces, effectively preparing a corridor for the advancement of Kurdish forces.
According to experts, Israeli strategists are actively exploring the option of using Iranian Kurds (specifically groups like PAK, linked to the PKK) as manpower instead of American soldiers. For Israel, this is an opportunity to inflict maximum damage on its primary enemy without getting bogged down in a protracted ground conflict. The calculation is that the Kurdish national movement could become the “Trojan horse” capable of exploding Iran from within.
However, a fundamental contradiction lies here: the interests of Israel and the U.S. are often situational. And if Washington decides its goals are achieved, the Kurds could once again be left alone to face an enraged adversary.
“I Don’t Like the Kurds”: A Bloody History of Betrayals
This is precisely where Trump’s plan begins to unravel. To understand why the Kurds are unlikely to become a pliable tool in the White House’s hands, one need only look at Trump’s relationship with these people.
As early as 2020, the world learned shocking details from the memoirs of former National Security Advisor John Bolton. According to Bolton, Trump stated in a small circle, “I don’t like the Kurds. They run from the Iraqis, they run from the Turks. The only time they don’t run is when we’re bombing everything around them with F-18s.” This statement isn’t mere rudeness; it’s the quintessence of Trump’s approach: he despises those he considers weak and feels no moral obligation towards allies.
The most cynical example was the betrayal of the Syrian Kurds in October 2019. Trump then ordered the withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria, effectively giving a “green light” to the Turkish invasion. The Kurds, who had lost 11,000 fighters battling ISIS and were America’s only reliable partner on the ground, were abandoned to their fate. American officers on the ground were shocked: “They trusted us, and we betrayed that trust,” one of them told The New Arab at the time.
The “1991 Syndrome” is also vivid in Kurdish memory. Then, President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein but abandoned them when the uprising began, allowing the regime’s army to brutally crush the rebellion with helicopters. Now, this nightmare seems poised to repeat itself in Iran.
Can the U.S. Ignite a Civil War in Iran?
Formally, the prerequisites for unrest exist. Besides ethnic Kurds, Iran is home to disaffected Baluch, Azeris, and Arabs. Following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the initial strikes, a power vacuum could emerge in the country. The White House has already openly stated its readiness to deal with a “new government” and is discussing who should lead Iran after regime change.
Trump personally called on Iranian diplomats worldwide to seek asylum, promising to help “form a new, better Iran.” It would seem this is the moment of truth: Kurds and other minorities should rise up and overthrow the hated regime.
But reality is more complex.
Fear of History Repeating. As analyst Oral Toga noted in a comment to Middle East Eye, the fact that the U.S. abandoned the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) will serve as a lesson for Kurds in Iraq and Iran. “The airstrikes will end someday, but Tehran will remain there forever,” he reminds us.
Lack of Strategy. The U.S. and Israel have no clear vision for Iran’s future. Do they want a unitary state, a federation, or the complete disintegration of the country? Using the Kurds as a battering ram without guaranteeing them autonomy or protection after the war would condemn the region to a bloodbath. The Kurdish leaders themselves understand this. As activist Golaleh Sharafkandi stated, “We have a political program supported by an army, not the other way around.”
Regional Opposition. The creation of a new Kurdish zone of influence in northern Iran would be opposed not only by Iran but also by Turkey and even Azerbaijan, which see it as a threat to their sovereignty and a risk of separatism. Ankara already brutally suppresses any pro-Kurdish movements near its borders. Azerbaijan, which has strategic relations with Turkey and Israel, has already expressed condolences to Iran and called for peace, fearing destabilization.
Operational Difficulties. Several sources, including the Turkish agency Anadolu, report that the information about the offensive has been denied or clarified. The Kurdish factions themselves deny starting a full-scale invasion, and Iranian media report that the border is under control. The groups ready to fight number, by various estimates, between 8,000 and 10,000 people—insufficient to conquer territory without direct air support and U.S. special forces, which Trump is not yet ready to provide.
Dreams of a Caliphate and the Bitter Truth
Donald Trump’s attempt to use the Kurds as a match to ignite the powder keg of Iran appears to be an adventure based on a denial of reality. Yes, the Kurds hate the Ayatollahs’ regime. Yes, they want autonomy and rights. But they do not want to once again become bargaining chips in a high-stakes game where their physical survival is on the line.
Trump has already twice demonstrated his true attitude towards Kurdish allies—in Iraq and Syria. A third time could be the last, not for the American president’s reputation, but for hundreds of thousands of civilians who would find themselves caught between the hammer of the Iranian army and the anvil of American geopolitical ambitions. The Kurdish leaders, united in a coalition, understand perfectly well: when the situation gets hot, the White House might once again throw up its hands and say, “This is not our war.”
Therefore, despite the loud headlines and CIA leaks, the active use of Kurds in full-scale combat operations is unlikely. Kurds might try to expand their autonomy amidst the chaos, but playing the role of a disciplined U.S. proxy army that can be unleashed on Tehran and then written off—they won’t buy that anymore. The price of trust in America under Trump has proven too high, and paying off those debts may take decades.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, political scientist, expert on the Arab world
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Did Israel Just Forfeit Its ‘Right To Exist’? — Carlson’s Interview with Huckabee
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 28, 2026
Key Takeaways
- Senior political figures openly endorsed a Nile-to-Euphrates territorial vision.
- The “Greater Israel” concept is no longer fringe rhetoric.
- Israel’s borders remain undeclared while territorial expansion continues.
- Legal justifications rooted in Balfour and UNGA 181 are increasingly strained.
- The demand to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” faces growing scrutiny.
The Mainstreaming of ‘Greater Israel’
There is no nation on earth whose government constantly demands its critics acknowledge its ‘right to exist’ as does Israel; this is because it seeks the world’s acquiescence as a means of enabling the indefensible. In truth, nobody, short of Christian Zionists and Jewish Supremacists believe Israel has a right to exist.
In Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, the idea of Israel’s legitimacy was not only touched upon, but completely unraveled through a basic series of questions. Instead of furiously clashing with the self-described Christian Zionist, all Carlson did was ask serious follow-up questions and demand answers.
Since then, the fallout from what was a trainwreck of an interview for Huckabee has triggered a wave of backlash from countries throughout the region. The US ambassador triggered this backlash after affirming his belief that Israel is entitled to all of the land between the River Nile and the Euphrates River, as part of its biblical right to exist.
This enormous land grab is what is known as the ‘Greater Israel Project’, once dubbed an outlandish conspiracy theory. ‘Greater Israel’ would include all of Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, most of Syria, along with parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkiye. Therefore, it is no wonder that a US ambassador expressing his belief that Tel Aviv is entitled to all of this territory drew the ire of the entire region.
However, an even more important development came only days later, receiving much less media attention. The leader of the Israeli opposition, former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, expressed his own belief that Israel should seize all of the territory between the Nile and the Euphrates. Pegged as the more liberal and moderate opponent of Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, Lapid argued that the territory should be seized only when the right “security” predicament presents itself.
Even though Lapid’s comments did not draw the same kind of backlash from the Arab world’s leadership, his open confession of belief in a biblical right to all of ‘Greater Israel’ is a more important and damning development than the comments of Huckabee. This clearly demonstrates that the entire mainstream Israeli political establishment seeks to achieve this vision.
The Loss of Legitimacy
As pointed out during Tucker Carlson’s interview with the US ambassador to Israel, the infamous Balfour Declaration was written by British Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild. An important fact that is often never brought into question as the Balfour Declaration is often cited as a legal document justifying Israel’s existence. Instead, it was a document between two men.
From there, Israeli propagandists will point to later British government declarations as cementing this ‘right to establish a Jewish State in occupied Palestine. Finally, there is the 1947 United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 that is held up as Israel’s de facto birth certificate. This, of course, ignores the fact that Israel was only granted 56% of the land, yet seized nearly 80% of the entire territory.
However, all of this is now irrelevant to the question of Israel’s alleged legitimacy and ‘right to exist’. The reason for this is very simple: the British sought to grant the territory of occupied Palestine, and so too did the UNGA resolution 181. No legal document exists to legitimize the occupation of Syrian and Lebanese lands, as the Israelis continue to expand their borders into these neighboring nations.
Which brings us back to the alleged ‘biblical’ right to existence that the US ambassador, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and opposition leader Yair Lapid have all expressed their belief in. The Israelis have historically occupied Egyptian territory, and many Israeli politicians, including current ministers in the Likud Party’s coalition government, have expressed their desire to return to Egypt once again.
The Politics of the ‘Right to Exist’
Israel has never declared its borders, and since 1967 has occupied territory from both Syria and Lebanon, in violation of international law. At this current moment, it is capturing more and more land in southern Syria on a near-daily basis.
Therefore, Israel, as a nation that has no definable borders and whose political leadership, along with its society, believes in its biblical right to seize the territory belonging to its neighbors, has no legal basis to exist as it does today. It has committed genocide, apartheid, mass ethnic cleansings, and operates a system of total Jewish Supremacy in all the land it has seized, through war.
In addition to this, the Zionist movement has actively worked, especially since October 7, 2023, to not only undermine the United Nations as a whole, but to replace it. Yet turns around and cites a UNGA resolution as its ‘legal right to exist’. It violates all known diplomatic norms, having attacked the former Iranian embassy in Syria, bombarded Doha despite its status as a US ally, while ignoring a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza back in 2024.
The only argument that can be made for the continued existence of Israel as it functions today is an ideological one. This means that only two categories of human beings fit into this camp, Jewish Supremacists who believe in a biblical title to the land, and their Christian Zionist allies, who also provide a similar, theologically grounded argument.
There is no evidence that the majority, or even a plurality, of Christians believe in the concept of a ‘Greater Israel’, despite the best efforts of Christian Zionist lobby groups – the most powerful of which operate in the United States. In other words, a very small portion of the global population believes in this biblical interpretation. Even more troubling for the Zionist movement is that its settler colonial project was founded and led for much of its history by atheists.
If we are to define Israel by its current borders, which are undeclared and forever expanding, then there simply is no basis for arguing its existence, unless you do so from a theological perspective. As demonstrated through the questions offered to Ambassador Huckabee, who is himself a Christian pastor, there is no way of demonstrating that the Jewish population, or at least the majority of those Jewish people living in occupied Palestine, are directly related to the Israelites of the bible. In fact, all of the available DNA evidence would suggest that the Palestinians are more closely blood related to that population.
There is no nation on earth today that operates a system of ethno-religious supremacy as Israel does, no nation that violates international law as Israel does, nor is there another nation that bases its legitimacy on isolated and out of context passages from religious texts like Israel does either.
The reason why pro-Israel advocates are constantly demanding that everyone validate their legitimacy and ‘right to exist’ is simple: the affirmation of their flimsy arguments is what provides them the basis to continue behaving as the out-of-control regime that Israel is.
What Israel’s ‘right to exist’ comes down to is the belief that it should be allowed to dispossess millions of Muslims, Christians, and other indigenous peoples of their lands, in order to establish a system of domination. That ethnic cleansing is its right, the acquisition of territory via war is its right, and that committing mass murder against anyone who fights back is also their right.
Israel’s biblical ‘right to exist’ is just as valid as its right to kill entire populations it deems to be ‘Amalek’. If they do have that right, then so too does the so-called “Islamic State” terrorist organization.
The arguments made by Daesh (ISIS) and Israel for their ambitions to establish ever-expanding regimes of tyranny both carry the exact same level of historical and factual legitimacy. That is to say, neither argument carries any weight, beyond it being the belief of an isolated group of extremists – amongst the global population – who believe in a warped religious ‘right’ and that their theological arguments make them superior to all other human beings.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Lebanon: Between sovereignty and the mirage of normalization
By Ali Abou Jbara | The Cradle | February 26, 2026
The smoke had barely lifted from the latest Israeli bombardment of south Lebanon when another conversation began circulating in Beirut. While border villages buried their dead and families searched through rubble, a parallel discourse surfaced in studios and on digital platforms: normalization with Israel presented as a viable political path.
The ongoing war on Lebanon, marked by unprecedented Israeli escalation, daily raids, and widespread destruction, exposed more than military vulnerability. It revealed that certain voices inside the country no longer conceal their position toward Tel Aviv.
They now speak openly of public normalization as the cure for Lebanon’s crises – even as Israeli warplanes violate Lebanese skies, despite the so-called ceasefire. What is marketed as pragmatism begins to resemble political surrender.
Prominent personalities have amplified this shift. Journalist Marcel Ghanem declared live on his program “Sar al-Waqt” on MTV that he was considering speaking directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and suggested repealing Lebanese laws that criminalize dealings with Israel.
Digital platforms followed the same trajectory. “Hona Beirut” circulated videos of Israelis sending populist messages to Lebanese audiences – “We want peace with Lebanon. We want to visit Beirut and enjoy fattoush and shawarma” – carefully packaged to soften the image of a state whose aircraft continue to strike Lebanese territory.
Political figures moved even further. MP Paula Yacoubian stated publicly: “If salvation comes through Israel, let it come but save us.” Charles Jabbour, head of the Lebanese Forces (LF) party media apparatus, argued that Israel does not occupy Lebanon and does not attack the Lebanese, claiming instead that it monitors Hezbollah to ensure implementation of past agreements. He concluded: “If Hezbollah wins, Lebanon loses. If Israel wins, Lebanon wins.”
Such statements are deliberate. They substitute national consensus with partisan calculus and recast normalization as responsible governance.
Expansion as governing doctrine
Advocates of a “quick peace” treat Israel as a state seeking stability. The political current in Tel Aviv suggests something else entirely.
Under Netanyahu and his alliance with ultra-religious and nationalist forces, the “Greater Israel” vision operates as a strategic direction.
On 22 September 2023, Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and presented a map that includes Gaza and the occupied West Bank as part of Israel, using the biblical name “Judea and Samaria” instead of the West Bank – in a symbolic dedication to the annexation project.
His coalition partner, Finance Minister and leader of “Religious Zionism” Bezalel Smotrich, had stated in 2016 that Israel’s borders “must extend to Damascus,” and appeared in Paris in March 2023 in front of a map that considers Jordan part of the “Land of Israel.”
Since Menachem Begin and the Likud party came to power in 1977, the concept of “Greater Israel” has morphed into a political program based on settlement expansion and changing demographic realities. This current is based on interpretations from the Book of Genesis that consider the “Promised Land” to extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. Even Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, wrote in the 1930s that establishing a state on part of the land would serve as a first stage, not an endpoint.
Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, expansionist language hardened. Military operations broadened in Gaza and the occupied West Bank while strikes intensified in Syria and Lebanon. “Security depth” expanded to encompass regional theaters.
On 21 February 2026, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that, under a biblical interpretation of land promised in Genesis, it “would be fine if [Israel] took it all,” implicitly extending Israel’s reach across much of West Asia – remarks that sparked sharp regional condemnation.
Maps circulated by proponents of this project extend beyond historic Palestine. They incorporate Lebanon, Jordan, most of Syria, half of Iraq, and territories in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Kuwait.
Against that strategic horizon, Lebanese normalization rhetoric begins to feel profoundly detached from the lived reality of the country. Border villages remain scarred, Lebanese airspace is violated without consequence, and sovereignty is subjected to daily erosion, yet normalization is presented as transactional diplomacy, detached from geography and history.
It is precisely here that the Lebanese debate turns unsettling. What does it mean to pursue “peace” with a project whose declared maps stretch beyond its recognized borders? How does a state whose skies, waters, and land are routinely breached convince itself to trust assurances from a government that treats expansion as a generational mission?
The occupied West Bank as precedent
The occupied West Bank offers a concrete case study. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the settler population has grown from roughly 250,000 to more than 700,000. Hundreds of settlements and outposts now fragment the territory. Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen has described this as imposing “de facto sovereignty” – gradual annexation without formal declaration.
Land confiscations, bypass roads, settlement blocs, and armed settler protection have eroded the territorial basis for Palestinian statehood. Smotrich openly advocates annexation and rejects Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu presides over what observers describe as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, with settlement expansion central to its agenda.
Three decades of negotiations unfolded alongside continuous territorial transformation. Diplomatic processes advanced in parallel with irreversible changes on the ground. This is how “peace” is managed when it is a tool to strengthen control, not to end it.
Despite this record, similar assumptions appear in Lebanese discourse. MP Camille Chamoun of the Free Patriots Party says he does not believe Israel has an interest in violating international agreements and Lebanese borders.
MP Sami Gemayel, head of the Kataeb Party, suggests that relations with Israel and western countries may protect Lebanon. Even Lebanese actress and writer Carine Rizkallah said on the TV program Al-Masar that she hoped there would be no new war with Israel and that “it’s time to end these problems between the two countries.”
The irony is that Lebanese rhetoric promoting normalization leans on an assumption of good faith from the other side, even though the occupied West Bank continues to show how such assumptions unfold in practice. There, decades of agreements, conferences, and international sponsorship did not halt expansion; they unfolded alongside it, as settlements multiplied, land was fragmented, and entire areas were quietly absorbed into a new reality.
If this is where the occupied West Bank has arrived after years of accords and external guarantees, on what basis is Lebanon encouraged to trust similar assurances? The experience is not abstract or distant. It is ongoing, visible, and instructive for anyone willing to look.
Regional patterns of influence
The broader region reinforces this reading. After the fall of the previous Syrian government on 8 December 2024, Israeli influence expanded in southern and central Syria, capitalizing on security vacuums and fragmentation. Strategic corridors between northern Syria and Israeli ports strengthened. Control over the occupied Golan Heights and adjacent water resources deepened.
Turkiye adopted a confrontational stance toward Israeli expansion, warning that the absence of clear red lines destabilizes Syria and opens space for broader intervention. Ankara expanded its diplomatic engagement on Palestine, strengthened regional alliances, and emphasized deterrence, demonstrating that even governments with formal ties to Israel are wary of unchecked expansion.
Across neighboring states, internal divisions have created entry points for influence. Settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, strikes in Syria, and sustained violations in Lebanon reflect an interconnected strategy.
Normalization premised on unilateral concession narrows strategic space. In regional practice, asymmetrical engagement tends to consolidate the stronger party’s position.
Lebanon operates within that same environment. Any official normalization would unfold against Israel’s strategic framework and military advantage. Expectations of reciprocal restraint lack precedent in current regional dynamics.
Lebanon’s historical record
Lebanon’s experience with Israeli aggression remains documented. In April 1996, Israeli forces bombed a UN base in Qana, killing more than 100 civilians who had sought shelter. In September 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred under the watch of the Israeli army. The 1982 Israeli invasion reached Beirut, and south Lebanon remained under occupation until 2000, liberated only through sustained resistance.
The July 2006 war resulted in more than 1,200 Lebanese deaths, extensive infrastructure destruction, and the displacement of nearly one million people. Airspace violations continued long after hostilities subsided.
Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Hezbollah’s decision to open a northern support front, strikes on southern villages resumed, placing Lebanon within a wider expansionist frame.
In this context, normalization proposals detach policy from cumulative experience. They assume recalibration without structural change. Historical precedent suggests otherwise.
Legal foundations
Lebanon’s stance toward Israel is codified in law. Since 1955, the Boycott of Israel Law has prohibited commercial, cultural, and political dealings with the Israeli enemy. The law remains in force and constitutes a foundational element of Lebanese state policy.
The penal code criminalizes espionage and communication with the enemy, including cooperation that provides political, media, or moral benefit. In contemporary circumstances, public statements or digital content that promote normalization may fall within this framework if deemed to confer advantage. Penalties can include imprisonment and fines.
Given ongoing Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, normalization carries national security implications under existing legislation. Judicial and security institutions retain authority to investigate potential breaches.
This legal architecture reflects accumulated historical experience rather than abstract doctrine.
Sovereignty under pressure
The present debate concerns strategic direction under sustained pressure. An expansionist project operates openly in the region. Lebanon’s historical memory remains recent.
Calls for normalization at a moment of ongoing aggression raise structural questions about sovereignty, deterrence, and long-term stability. Strategic environments shaped by military asymmetry rarely reward unilateral accommodation.
Lebanon faces a clear dilemma. Defending sovereignty requires political coherence and deterrent capacity. Pursuing normalization without reciprocal structural change invites further testing of borders and institutions.
The chosen trajectory will shape more than just diplomatic posture. It will define how the state positions itself within a region undergoing forced transformation.
Israeli Opposition Leader Endorses Greater Israel
The Dissident | February 24, 2026
U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, sparked major backlash during his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, where he openly endorsed the idea of a Greater Israel, stating that “it would be fine” if Israel took large swaths of the Middle East.
In damage control mode, Zionists attempted to paint Huckbee’s claims as fringe or extreme within Israel, but Israel’s opposition leader , Yair Lapid, has confirmed that the prospect of an expansionist Greater Israel is supported even by the more supposedly “liberal” wing of the Israeli political spectrum.
When asked, “The Ambassador Huckabee said this week, and we know the extent of the American administration on the government here, that he supports Israeli control from the Euphrates to the Nile, this means [control] over Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, do you support it or do you think this should be stopped?”, Lapid replied, “I don’t think I have a dispute on the biblical level [about] what the original borders of Israel are.”
Lapid went on to endorse massive Israeli expansion, saying, “support anything that will allow the Jews [to have] a big, vast, strong land, and a safe shelter for us, for our children, and for our children’s children. That’s what I support” adding, “However possible” when asked “How vast?”.
When further asked, “Until Iraq?” Lapid replied, “The discussion is a security discussion. The fact that we are in our ancestral land… Yesh Atid’s position is as follows: Zionism is based on the bible. Our mandate of the land of Israel is biblical. The biblical borders of Israel are clear. There are also considerations of security, of policy, and of time. We were in exile for 2,000 years… you don’t really want all this lecture, right? At least you were not waiting for it… The answer is: there are practical considerations here. Beyond the practical considerations, I believe that our ownership deed over the land of Israel is the bible, therefore the borders are the biblical borders”.
Lapid even advocated that Israel take “as much as possible” of Greater Israel, saying, “Fundamentally, the great, big and vast Israel, as much as possible within the limitations of Israeli security and considerations of Israeli policy”.
Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu has previously stated that he “subscribed to a ‘vision’ for a ‘Greater Israel’” and “very much”, “felt connected to the ‘Greater Israel’ vision”.
Israeli officials have long been clear that their end goal in Gaza and the West Bank has been total ethnic cleansing and annexation, with Israel’s Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel admitting , “we will make Gaza unlivable for humans until the population leaves, and then we will do the same for the West Bank”.
But Yair Lapid’s comments show that across the spectrum from Netanyahu to his “liberal” opposition, Israel has expansionist ambitions beyond Gaza and the West Bank, and wants to take “as much as possible” of Greater Israel.
ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
By Fuad Walid Itayim | The Cradle | February 12, 2026
Early last month, the forces of the ‘new’ Syrian army flooded across north and east Syria. The troops seized key cities and major oil fields, effectively ending a decade of US-backed Kurdish autonomy – with Washington’s blessing.
One of those cities was Raqqa, the former capital of ISIS’s self-proclaimed ‘caliphate’ in Syria and a symbol of sectarianism, bloodshed, and iron-fist rule.
Raqqa remembers
It was in Raqqa where scores of soldiers from the now-dismantled Syrian Arab Army (SAA) were executed in cold blood by ISIS militants. Many of these soldiers had their severed heads impaled on pikes on the city’s outskirts.
It was also in Raqqa where countless young girls and women, many of them Yezidis abducted from Iraq in 2014, were sold into slavery in what ISIS called Souq al-Sabaya – the ‘market of female captives.’
As Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani) armed forces entered the city in early 2026, his soldiers were gleeful, excited, and reminiscent. Many of them had been there before.
A closer look at the officers leading this offensive reveals a stark reality: ISIS has not been defeated. It has been absorbed, rebranded, and redeployed across Syria, reclaiming its ‘caliphate.’
ISIS reborn under Turkiye’s shadow
The Violations Documentation Center in Northern Syria (VDCNY), a Manbij-based human rights organization that monitors abuses against Kurds, released a report in August 2024 identifying dozens of extremist militants formerly affiliated with ISIS who were later incorporated into the Turkiye-backed Syrian National Army (SNA).
The SNA was formed by Ankara in 2017 and for years served as the Turkish military’s arm in northern Syria. Turkish forces had invaded Syria in 2016 to carry out an operation against the US-backed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), whose dominant component is the People’s Protection Units (YPG) – which Ankara regards as the Syrian extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Turkiye went on to occupy swathes of Syrian territory and maintains that presence today.
Free Syrian Army (FSA) factions that assisted Turkiye’s 2016 intervention were reorganized into what became the SNA. After Raqqa fell to the SDF in 2017, this coalition absorbed scores of fleeing ISIS members. Over time, the SNA continued integrating former ISIS fighters into its ranks.
The ISIS ‘caliphate’ seemed defeated at a certain point. In reality, much of the heavy fighting against ISIS across Syria had been carried out by the former Syrian army, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, allied Iran-backed factions, and the Russian air force. The credit, however, went to Washington and the SDF – which today has been abandoned once again by the US military.
But ISIS was regrouping and reestablishing itself under a new name, with direct Turkish backing and under the watchful eye of US forces.
As VDCNY bluntly stated: “ISIS grew on the shoulders of the Free Syrian Army.”
Below is a partial list of former ISIS figures who were later absorbed into the SNA:
Abu Mohammad al-Jazrawi
According to the August 2024 VDCNY report, Abu Mohammad al-Jazrawi – born Abdullah Mohammad al-Anzi – is a Saudi national who joined ISIS in 2015 after arriving in Syria illegally via Turkiye – like tens of thousands of others from various parts of the world who did the same.
During his time with ISIS, he participated in battles against the Syrian army in the Syrian Desert and Homs countryside. He ended up becoming a military commander in Ahrar al-Sham, a notorious, sectarian extremist group responsible for many war crimes and atrocities.
Ahrar al-Sham had previously fought alongside Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front before eventually being embedded into the SNA. The extremist group is responsible for numerous war crimes, including the deadly shelling of civilians in the Shia-majority towns of Nubul and Zahraa in Aleppo, during the early years of the war.
Bashar Smeid
Nicknamed Abu Islam al-Qalamouni, Smeid joined ISIS in 2014 and participated in fighting in the Palmyra desert, Damascus countryside, and near Al-Tanf Base – where US forces were training extremist militants.
In 2016, he took command of a security detachment that oversaw the infiltration of three car bombs into Damascus’s Sayyida Zaynab area. He ended up moving to northern Syria’s Idlib in 2017 and worked with his group to funnel ISIS leaders into Turkiye.
A year later, he joined the SNA’s Ahrar al-Sharqiya faction – another criminal sectarian organization that was happy to take in ISIS leaders. In March 2023, members of Ahrar al-Sharqiya murdered four Kurdish civilians celebrating Newroz (Kurdish New Year).
Sabahi al-Ibrahim al-Muslih
Known as Abu Hamza al-Suhail, Muslih was a leader in ISIS’s Shura Council and oversaw trials on charges of apostasy and blasphemy that resulted in dozens of executions. He ended up joining the SNA’s 20th Division. While reports said he was killed in a US drone strike a few years ago, he remains a prime example of the type of characters who were joining the SNA.
Awad Jamal al-Jarad
Jarad joined ISIS in 2015 and commanded a battalion within the organization. He later entered the SNA’s Hamza Division in 2018, participated in Turkish offensives in Afrin, and subsequently joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya.
By August 2024, he was leading a unit of 30 men and had transformed the city of Tal Abyad’s post office into his personal headquarters and command center, according to VDCNY. The Hamza Division is responsible for sectarian violence, sexual assault, and other war crimes.
Majid al-Khalid
Khalid, nicknamed Hajj Abu Omar al-Ansari, formed Liwa al-Haq in Hama during the early years of the war, before incorporating his organization into ISIS in 2014. He was considered one of the founders of ISIS in Hama city.
He ended up becoming the Emir of Hama during his time with ISIS and took command of the suicide (‘Inghimassi’) battalions – which sent thousands of young men to blow themselves up in holy sites and civilian areas. In 2017, he joined the Hamza Division and became a battalion commander in the group.
Salem Turki al-Antari
Antari, nicknamed Abu Saddam al-Ansari, joined ISIS in 2014 in the Badia desert region, where he served as a commander and led extremists in battle against the former Syrian army in Palmyra and near Al-Tanf Base.
He went on to become the Emir of Palmyra. Antari later joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya in 2017 and took part in Turkish-backed assaults against Afrin, Tal Rifaat, and Ras al-Ain. He was also implicated in the roadside execution of Kurdish politician Hevrin Khalaf in 2019. In 2024, the ex-ISIS chief was appointed as the commander of the US-backed Syria Free Army (SFA), which was formed by Washington in 2022 and trained in the Al-Tanf Base.
SFA now operates under the Syrian Defense Ministry. Between 2015 and 2017, Antari took part in the ISIS takeover of Palmyra and the battles with the Syrian army that ensued. The terrorist organization’s assault on Palmyra destroyed some of Syria’s most cherished cultural heritage. In 2015, ISIS notoriously publicly beheaded renowned 83-year-old Syrian archeologist Khaled al-Asaad for refusing to reveal the locations of hidden antiquities.
Raad Issa al-Barghash
Also known as Abu Zainab, Barghash pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2013. He fought with the group in Ain al-Arab (Kobane) and elsewhere, and was responsible for the killing of many civilians. In 2017, he fled to Aleppo and entered the ranks of Ahrar al-Sharqiya, eventually becoming a top security chief in the group.
Thamer Nasser al-Iraqi
An Iraqi citizen, he joined ISIS in 2013 in Homs and then served as the military fortifications Emir in the Al-Shaddadi area until 2015. In 2016, he became the Emir of the armaments department in Raqqa, and then an advisor to the ISIS Security Office No. 011 in Raqqa.
Iraqi participated in the Battle of Mosul in 2014. Three years later, he fled towards the city of Jarablus, east of Aleppo. In November 2017, he joined Ahrar al-Sharqiya and participated in Operation Olive Branch and Operation Peace Spring, launched by the Turkish army in 2018 and 2019. He also participated in bombings and summary executions of Kurdish civilians in the Jindires district of Afrin.
Sayf Boulad Abu Bakr
Abu Bakr, now a dual Syrian-Turkish citizen, had defected from the old Syrian military to join the FSA in 2012. These defections were encouraged by foreign intervention and funding. The FSA never maintained the status of a unified opposition force, quickly splintering into different factions that aligned themselves with extremist groups.
He joined ISIS in 2013 and was appointed governor of Al-Bab during the organization’s control over the city. A few years later, he ended up as commander in the Hamza Division, taking part in several Turkish-backed offensives against Kurdish forces.
During his time with ISIS, he appeared in a propaganda video where another member of the group is heard demanding “repentance” from around a dozen prisoners kneeling before them. The prisoners are identified in the video as members of the PKK.
Abu Bakr was also associated with Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, an FSA commander who publicly praised ISIS following the capture of Menagh Air Base in 2013.
Abu Bakr is now a senior commander in the Syrian army. In May 2025, the EU imposed sanctions on him, including asset freezes and a travel ban, citing “serious human rights abuses in Syria, including torture and arbitrary killings of civilians.”
Washington’s ‘partner’ in fighting ISIS
These are only select examples.
In 2025, the entire Turkish-backed SNA was formally integrated into the Syrian Defense Ministry. Following the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the SNA – effectively ISIS in new attire – became a core pillar of the current Syrian army, alongside Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), previously the Nusra Front. HTS itself contains numerous former ISIS members and has a long record of war crimes.
After the SDF was thrown under the bus by Washington in early 2026, Syrian forces swept across the north and captured key oil fields and cities. Soldiers were jubilant upon their entry into Raqqa, charged with nostalgia for ISIS’s glory days.
During the assault on northern Syria, tens of thousands of ISIS militants and their families were set free as troops entered Al-Hawl Prison Camp, which was previously run by the SDF.
Videos on social media showed government troops arriving at Al-Hawl and allowing the prisoners to leave. During the fighting days earlier, hundreds of ISIS prisoners escaped from Al-Shaddadi Prison. The SDF lost control of the facility and accused the US of ignoring its calls for help. Two kilometers away from the prison is a US coalition military base.
“The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS], we are proud of this,” video footage showed one Iraqi woman, dressed in a niqab, saying as she was leaving Al-Hawl.
The new Syrian army is saturated with former ISIS commanders and fighters – yet Washington now describes it as a “partner” in combating ISIS.
This is the same army that massacred Alawites and Druze in March and July of 2025, and committed heinous war crimes against Kurds during attacks against the SDF in January 2026.
President Sharaa, the former ISIS and Al-Qaeda leader behind deadly sectarian suicide bombings in both Iraq and Syria, (as well deadly attacks in Lebanon and the occupation of the country’s border with Syria) has vowed to protect minorities, and claims he is leading a campaign to rid Syria of extremism.
This is impossible with an army made up of ISIS and a political leadership made up of violent warlords.
An investigation released by The Cradle last year reveals that since Sharaa came to power, Syria has witnessed a government-linked campaign of mass abduction and sexual enslavement targeting young Alawite women. Syrian government forces also committed massacres targeting minorities, including Druze and Alawites.
In a new video from the assault on the north, a Syrian soldier films two female Kurdish fighters captured during battle. As he drives around with the two women in the back of his vehicle, he brags about how they will make a “perfect gift” for his commander.
ISIS is very much alive. And it now rules the entirety of Syria under the protection and sponsorship of the US and Turkiye.
The Toxic Border: How Israel’s Chemical Spraying is Reshaping Life in South Lebanon
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 8, 2026
Reports that Israeli aircraft sprayed chemical agents along the Lebanese border — later identified as toxic defoliants — have intensified concerns over environmental damage, civilian harm, and possible violations of international law, with similar incidents also reported in southern Syria.
Key Takeaways
- UN peacekeepers suspended patrols after being warned that aircraft would spray chemical agents near the Blue Line.
- The sprayed substance was later identified as a toxic herbicide linked to cancer.
- The campaign is seen as serving both military land-clearing and civilian displacement purposes.
- Similar chemical spraying incidents have been reported in southern Syria.
- Rights groups say targeting farmland may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
- Spraying along the Blue Line
Israel is waging chemical warfare against both Lebanese and Syrian lands, a campaign that may not only have dire environmental repercussions but also inflict long-term health problems on local civilian populations.
On February 1, the United Nations peacekeeping forces stationed in southern Lebanon – UNIFIL – were forced to suspend their patrols along what is known as the Blue Line that demarcates the de facto Israeli-Lebanese border. They did so out of safety concerns for their soldiers, after Israel informed them it would be using planes to spray chemical agents in the area.
Tel Aviv initially informed UNIFIL that the chemical agent was “non-toxic.” Nevertheless, the UN reiterated its “concerns” about flight movements in the area, stressing that such activities violate UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
It wasn’t long until it was discovered that the agent being sprayed was, in fact, toxic. Allegedly, the specific agent used, for which a toxicology test was conducted, is a defoliant and herbicide that is linked to cancer.
Israel is currently on its way to violating the Lebanon ceasefire, which went into effect on November 27, 2024, nearly 10,000 times. This makes it the most violated ceasefire deal in recorded history.
Israeli strikes, targeting north to south and even the capital city of Beirut, have killed hundreds. Despite this, there have been no recorded violations by Hezbollah or the Lebanese Army.
A Strategy of Erasure
What is so consequential about Israel’s use of chemical agents in southern Lebanon is that it has two primary purposes. The first is to kill everything it touches, to clear the land for military purposes. The second is that it is being used as a form of collective punishment, a likely intention behind which is to drive Lebanese citizens from their homes.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of this is that there is a dark history of such chemicals being used for the same purposes elsewhere. The most infamous case is that of the US military spraying Agent Orange, also a herbicide and defoliant, during the Vietnam War.
As a result of the callous use of Agent Orange, both the civilian population of Vietnam and US soldiers alike ended up contracting serious chronic health problems. One of the results was birth defects, cancers such as Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and even neurodegenerative diseases. This was in addition to what was labeled ecocide in the country.
While some may argue that the Israelis are simply using chemical agents to clear the land, as a security precaution, this is not plausible. Israel has the capability and has historically used heavy equipment to clear the land.
Deploying chemical agents, which it is of note that they haven’t done so on their side of the Blue Line, is clearly a malicious attack on Lebanese lands and the civilian population living there.
Beyond Lebanon
Israelis have frequently expressed their dismay over the immediate return of Lebanese villagers to their destroyed homes in the south, particularly near the unofficial border, as Israel has never declared its borders.
Meanwhile, a considerable percentage of Israelis, formerly living in settlements like Kiryat Shimona, that were hit the hardest by Hezbollah during the last war, have refused to return.
It has not only been Lebanon that has been subjected to such chemical agent attacks, but southern Syria has also fallen victim to the Israeli military spraying similar chemical agents on its lands.
While the Lebanese government has come under criticism for often ignoring the plight of its citizens in the south, the Syrian government completely refrains from addressing the ongoing occupation and war crimes committed in the south of their country.
The refusal of Damascus to even voice its concern about the chemical warfare being waged against its people and lands has made it less of an issue than in Lebanon, as Beirut has raised its voice.
“The deliberate targeting of civilian farmland violates international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on attacking or destroying objects indispensable to civilian survival,” commented the Switzerland-based Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
It also demanded accountability for Israel’s “large-scale destruction of private property without specific military necessity amounts to a war crime and undermines food security and basic livelihoods in the affected areas.”
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Featured Video
No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
An Expert Military Analysis of War with China
Actually, None is Necessary
By Fred Reed • Unz Review • December 13, 2020
The Correlation of Armed Forces: U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $634.8 billion in 2019. Exports were $163.0 billion; imports were $471.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $308.8 billion in 2019. Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $76.7 billion in 2019. Services exports were $56.5 billion; services imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $36.4 billion in 2019.
There is talk within the Washingtoniat of a possible war with China. Steve Bannon, who apparently was dropped on his head as a child, actually favors such a war. We hear the usual shoo-the-boobs alarm about how the Chinese are doing something terrible and we must gird our loins and American values and show them what for, bow wow, woof. The danger is that the current game of who-blinks-first in Asian waters might actually provoke a shooting war. You know the kind of thing: One warship refuses to get out of the way of another, a collision ensues, some retard lieutenant who signed up on waivers opens fire, and we’re off and running. It is not a good idea to let children play with matches.
The said war is discussed either in emotional terms by idiots or in purely naval terms by those familiar with such things, so we hear of the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain and whose missiles against the other’s missiles and so on. This would be appropriate if we were fighting World War Two again. Which we aren’t. Let’s take a quick-and-dirty look at how such a war might go.
To begin the war, America would overestimate itself and underestimate China. This is doctrine in the Pentagon. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Theodore Postol: Iran’s Missiles & Drones Were Underestimated
- Iran To Target Military Industrial-Tech Complex That Facilitated Gaza Genocide
- Collapsing Empire: The Resistance Disarms ‘Israel’
- Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service
- Rethinking America’s greatest threat: Iran vs. Israel-Firsters
- Iran accuses adversaries of false flags to strain Turkey ties
- Poland rules out sending Patriot missiles to US/Israel amid war on Iran
- Tehran approves new Hormuz plan with major restrictions
- No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
- UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network
- If Americans Knew
- Ann Coulter Rips Into Fox News for Iran War Coverage, Compares to False Rigged 2020 Election Reporting
- Joe Kent Urges Americans To Call White House and Congress To Object To Sending Troops Into Iran
- DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat
- Swedish foundation to build 400 schools as over 650,000 Gaza children remain without education for 2 years
- Israeli army admits photshopping image of slain Lebanese journalist
- This is how Israel is systematically killing health workers under the cover of war in Lebanon
- Carrying life under fire: Israeli invasion of Lebanon leaves pregnant women facing deadly risks
- Champagne all around for the new death penalty (for Palestinians) law – Not a ceasefire Day 172
- Why are Palestinian books struggling to be seen on Amazon?
- The Line Between Affinity and Conspiracy
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 