Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing mounting accusations that he ignored warnings ahead of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as a bitter blame game over one of Israel’s worst security failures emerges in the final weeks of the election campaign.
Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar has filed a defamation suit against Netanyahu, accusing him of falsely blaming intelligence officials for the attack despite receiving repeated alerts about security threats.
The Hamas-led assault killed around 1,200 people in southern Israel, with another 251 taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent military offensive in Gaza has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, according to the local health authorities.
Bar is seeking nearly $1 million in damages, claiming he warned the prime minister of growing danger in the months preceding the assault. He says a long trail of documents will expose Netanyahu’s account of events as false.
“Israel’s worst disaster has become political kryptonite,” RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij reported from Jerusalem on Friday, as the country prepares to vote on October 27.
Netanyahu, however, maintains that Bar failed to alert him to the imminent threat on the morning of the attack, despite discussing warning signs with senior military officials. He has accused the former intelligence chief of failing to take measures that could have prevented the bloodshed.
Further questions have been raised by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, who claims officials attempted to alter the recorded time of a phone call made on the morning of October 7.
The prime minister has also denied reports that he received advance warnings from Egyptian intelligence and UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed. The claims have drawn criticism from political rivals, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot.
Questions have also emerged over Netanyahu’s handling of the subsequent Gaza war. Former Israeli hostage negotiator Nitzan Alon has suggested that political considerations delayed a deal that could have brought captives home much earlier.
“We could have possibly saved hostages who were killed in captivity, and we missed this opportunity,” Alon said, adding that an earlier agreement might also have saved thousands of lives on both sides.
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$280+ BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation 150B direct “aid” and $ 130B in “Offense” contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
Aftermath of Iranian strike on Camp Buehring, Kuwait, undated photo.
The US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered changes that extend far beyond the battlefield, threatening to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East and across the world. These shifts include the possibility of an expanded Chinese military presence, Israel’s adoption of a strategy of permanent border wars, and Tehran’s increased ability to threaten its adversaries despite the losses it has suffered.
In an article published by Foreign Policy, Kenneth Pollack, vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute, says the war could mark a historic turning point that redraws the rules of geopolitics. He warned that its long-term strategic consequences could prove more serious than its immediate military effects.
According to Pollack, a former military analyst at the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the war demonstrated the effectiveness of Western defense systems in intercepting most Iranian missiles and drones. However, the small proportion that got through was enough to cause significant damage and raise economic and psychological concerns across the Gulf states.
A war meant to limit Iranian hegemony in the Middle East may have instead enabled it. https://t.co/NkRjWsI0MQ
Pollack argues that intercepting around 90% of incoming attacks does not provide sufficient protection, as the remaining damage threatens the energy, trade, investment and tourism sectors and undermines the Gulf’s image as a safe haven for business and stability.
After recognizing the limitations of relying on US and Israeli protection, countries in the region began purchasing Turkish drones, while others are seeking to develop their own production capabilities in cooperation with American, Israeli, Chinese and Ukrainian companies.
China and Military Power
Pollack also notes that the war exposed the limits of China’s ability to protect its interests and partners in the region, despite its heavy reliance on Gulf oil, which accounts for up to half of its oil imports, and annual trade with regional countries exceeding $500 billion.
He suggests that these developments could prompt China to strengthen its ability to project military power in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, taking advantage of the expansion of its navy and aircraft carrier fleet.
If this shift materializes, it could alter the region’s military balance and security relationships, presenting Washington with a new competitor in a sphere it has dominated for decades.
‘Israel’ and Permanent Wars
In a possible development, Pollack expects ‘Israel’ to adopt a strategy based on establishing buffer zones in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria, while conducting continuous military operations to prevent its adversaries from developing capabilities that threaten its security.
He compares this approach to the strategy of the Roman Empire, which relied on buffer zones and wars beyond its borders to maintain domestic stability.
However, such a strategy would require long-term military and societal mobilization, potentially straining Israeli economy and harming its technology sector, which depends on global openness.
Continued military operations could also deepen Israeli isolation and widen disagreements with the United States, where criticism of the alliance between the two countries is growing.
Iran Could Emerge Stronger
Regarding Iran, Pollack does not rule out the possibility that the war could strengthen Tehran’s influence rather than weaken it. Iran has learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz and targeting Washington’s allies can impose substantial economic and psychological costs on all sides.
Pollack also believes that the rise of those he describes as hardliners could make reaching a nuclear agreement more difficult, particularly if they become convinced that acquiring nuclear weapons is the only way to prevent future attacks.
He noteds that Russian and Chinese support could help Iran rebuild and upgrade its arsenal. Therefore, ending the war without deterring Iran’s ability to disrupt maritime traffic and threaten the Gulf could leave Tehran with greater regional and international influence, despite its military losses.
MP Mohammad Raad, head of the Loyalty to the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, in the Lebanese parliament, speaking in public adress undated (Resistance Media)
Lebanese MP Mohammad Raad says resistance is Lebanon’s legitimate defense option, condemning calls for direct negotiations and warning against threats to sovereignty.
Resistance is “the necessary and legitimate national defense option for Lebanon,” head of the Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, affirmed on Monday, stressing that attempts to demonize it and undermine its standing constitute “a national and moral crime.”
In a statement, Raad condemned repeated remarks and social media posts from official and unofficial sources that, he said, endorse direct negotiations with the Israeli occupation and submission to its conditions, which undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and legitimize the occupation of Lebanese territory.
Raad said such positions seek to weaken the Resistance’s role and challenge its legitimacy while targeting its members and social base, stating this approach is in compliance with US directives. He added that these positions serve external powers pressuring Lebanon to align with the Israeli occupation and pursue surrender and normalization projects, while disregarding the Lebanese Constitution and applicable laws.
The Hezbollah MP concluded that “the legitimacy of the Resistance is the mother and origin of all legitimacies,” warning that denying the Resistance its rights constitutes an assault on life itself.
“Discussing details without acknowledging the fundamental right amounts to squandering the homeland and its citizens,” he said.
Similarly, Baalbek-Hermel parliamentary bloc member Ali al-Miqdad said Lebanon faces multiple forms of warfare extending beyond military confrontation to include economic, security and political pressure. He described the situation as reflecting US-Israeli tutelage over Lebanon’s political decision-making and sovereignty, stressing that the country’s independence must not be compromised.
Fadlallah warns against US agenda in Lebanon
Last Thursday, in a similar address, member of Lebanon’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc Hassan Fadlallah condemned Lebanese officials over the seizure of a vehicle and its cargo in Dahr al-Baidar on October 5, accusing some authorities of pursuing measures that serve the Israeli occupation’s interests and implement a US agenda.
Speaking at a press conference, Fadlallah said the Resistance had promptly informed security agencies that the vehicle belonged to Hezbollah following its seizure. He demanded the immediate release of the detainees and the vehicle’s contents, stating that the cargo is part of the capabilities the Resistance relies on to defend Lebanon.
Fadlallah also rejected the Lebanese Cabinet’s March 2, 2026 decision banning Hezbollah’s military and security activities, calling it a violation of the Constitution and the National Pact. He declared the decision null and void, stressing that the Resistance did not recognize its effects.
Warning Lebanese officials against implementing “an American agenda”, Fadlallah said their actions contradicted efforts to achieve stability through dialogue. He also accused the authorities of responding with silence and helplessness as the Israeli occupation continued its attacks on Lebanon.
War… what is it good for? That might be the best way to sum up the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the midterms.
Imagine this. It’s 2024, and it’s the US presidential election. What are your main points of concern as a voter? Why the economy and healthcare, of course, with foreign policy way off in the distance in fourth place after the Supreme Court appointments.
Two world-changing wars, thousands of sanctions, and half a world order later, what are your main concerns? Again, the economy tops the list.
You might wonder why the economy has topped voters’ concerns for years, yet the foreign policy decisions driving so many of your most pressing economic woes still rank lower on your own list of priorities.
Never mind the war in Ukraine, which already put you on the path of sanctioning Russia and driving up fertilizer and diesel prices, but a months-long war on Iran in which one of the world’s most important pathways for oil is blocked seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
It almost seems like voters in the US still haven’t learned from these past decades: When their country goes to war, they’re the ones left footing the bill, except that this is a bill they have to read in fine print.
That’s what voters have come to see firsthand. The US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump’s tariff wars reach voters through expenses they usually classify as domestic: keeping a car on the road, buying oil for your engine, buying food, receiving a parcel. These choices travel through supply chains before becoming part of your calculations. You know life has become more expensive, but you’ve only just been able to place your finger on why.
Many Americans now recognize the connection, but whether they punish the governing party for it is a separate question.
The journey from war to checkout
You can see the fallout clearly through the motor-oil shortage. According to the Financial Times, one Iranian defensive strike during the war damaged a Qatari plant producing Group III base oils, essential ingredients in many synthetic lubricants. The war also disrupted supplies feeding other producers. US base-oil prices almost quadrupled from February to a record $12.45 a gallon, according to Argus data.
Valvoline raised oil-change prices by $5 to $7 after lubricant costs climbed 60% since March. Costco priced a ten-quart synthetic-oil package at $57.99, compared with about $30 last year, and limited purchases. Those are consumer costs, attached to a service many drivers cannot postpone indefinitely.
People don’t need to know the technical specifications of a lubricant to understand what another seven dollars means. The question is what they have to give up to find it, and whether they believe the people responsible will ever be asked the same question.
Fuel is another blow that voters felt. By October 16, AAA figures reported by AP put gasoline at $4.33 a gallon, 45% above its prewar level, and diesel at $6.33, up 68%. The second number reaches people who never drive a diesel vehicle: their groceries and household goods still require transport.
For a household asking how to get by before payday, paying for the commute can mean spending less elsewhere. Maintaining the car remains necessary precisely because losing it would make earning that money harder. So, they postpone a service, put off a journey, reconsider a purchase, and that’s just gas and oil for your own family.
Agriculture paints another picture. Natural gas helps produce nitrogen fertilizers, including urea; sulfur recovered from oil and gas processing is converted into sulfuric acid for phosphate fertilizers. IFPRI identifies disruption caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran as a threat to both supply routes. The consequences travel through crop production, animal feed, processing, refrigeration, and distribution before reaching consumers, who have to absorb the brunt of the price increases.
Russia adds another dimension to this confrontational policy adopted by the West. Western sanctions following the Ukraine war reshaped diesel trade, with Europe replacing Russian supplies and Russian cargoes seeking other buyers.
On October 9, the US Treasury authorized transactions involving Russian diesel. Washington was now effectively backtracking on its previous sanctions because Trump was in a bind so close to the elections.
Tariffs, now that’s another fumble that damaged ordinary people. Research published by the New York Fed estimates that the 2025–26 tariffs had added 2.9 percentage points to inflation in the non-oil consumer goods studied by February
The tariff contribution to annual inflation can fade while the price level remains elevated. A slower increase won’t restore the money already missing from a family budget.
Turns out America First is remarkably efficient at finding Americans to invoice.
Are voters making the connection?
The connection between foreign policy (i.e. war, tariffs, US meddling, etc.) and the troubles faced by the US economy cannot be ignored. But this is where optics matter. This is where the analysis should focus. Not simply on whether or not foreign policy has an impact, but how that impact is seen, and what decisions are made thereafter.
If narrative and media overtake reality, then this is where perception of the effects of the war matters. People who do not believe Trump made a mess of his war of choice and that they have to pay up for it out of their own pocket will be more likely to excuse Trump’s fiascos as cases of strategic “oops”, to put it in light terms.
So do people see these links themselves? A Chicago Council–Ipsos survey conducted May 1–3 found 86% of adults believed the Iran war was bad for the US cost of living. That included 76% of Republicans and 89% of independents. This was a question about perceived economic consequences, not simply whether respondents liked Trump.
The Council’s July survey found 81% considered tariffs bad for living costs, including 62% of Republicans. Yet 63% of Republicans said the Iran war had been worth fighting. Different questions reveal different judgments: Republicans recognize the economic cost of the war, but they won’t abandon the party over it because they’ve been made to believe this sacrifice was worth it.
The broader responsibility question is more divided. AP-NORC’s September poll found 65% attributed higher-than-usual prices to Trump’s policies. Among Republicans, however, 67% assigned higher prices to factors beyond his control. Beyond the fact that these prices can’t be attributed solely to any one reason, this goes to show how Trump’s popular base has found excuses for his blunders, in the sense that: “Yes, the cost of living is higher, yes, the sacrifice was worth it, but it’s not Trump’s fault; things just happened.”
This is exactly where the political campaigns operate, in that gap of understanding between fact and perception. A voter may feel the damage, even identify its connection to war, and still regard the president as justified. Another may interpret the same bill as evidence that the administration has broken its bargain with the public.
The bill reaches the ballot
In July’s Chicago Council survey, 37% selected inflation and living costs as their single most important voting concern; only 2% selected the Iran war. An October AP-NORC poll, allowing voters to identify several important issues, found 85% naming the economy and 84% living costs. It also found 79% disapproving of Trump’s handling of living costs. Together, these responses show an exposed administration facing an electorate preoccupied with affordability. They do not calculate how many votes any particular policy will cost it.
Democrats and allied groups are acting on that vulnerability. AP found that 61 of 65 distinct Iran-themed advertisements in competitive congressional races emphasized household costs. The ads aired more than 43,000 times from September 1 through October 14, costing an estimated $42 million. That measures the effort to turn war into an affordability issue, rather than proof that the effort persuaded anyone.
So foreign policy may help decide these midterms without ever topping voters’ lists under its own name. Farmers don’t have to know the chemistry of fertilizer to vote against the cost of it. Trump is not on the ballot, but his congressional allies may discover that his foreign policy has followed them all the way into the voting booth. That’s the main issue at stake. Yes, Trump’s foreign policy choices have had terrible repercussions on the economy. Yes, voters do recognize that they’re footing the bill for it. But does that translate to more of the same, or a change of course in the ballots?
Democrats have an opening, then. Whether they have an alternative is a less comfortable question. AP-NORC’s late-September poll found that 27% of registered voters trusted neither party to handle the cost of living. A Republican defeat would not automatically amount to faith in the opposition, much less an endorsement of whatever foreign policy it offers.
If Democrats win a congressional majority, the test will be whether they challenge the policies behind those bills with the enthusiasm they’re lambasting Trump in their ads. Otherwise, Americans could get a new congressional majority and the same expensive foreign policy, now with a more sympathetic complaints department.
US President Donald Trump alongside a military honor gard carring a casket, in comming missile strike, a fighter jet, the Iranian flag, and midterm election graphis (Illustrated by Mahdi Rtail; Al Mayadeen English)
From depleted THAAD stockpiles to rising gas prices, see how Pentagon logistical shortages in the Middle East are quietly deciding the 2026 midterm vote.
As American voters prepare to head to the polls for the November 2026 midterms, political strategists are obsessively tracking the usual metrics of presidential approval ratings, inflation indices, and consumer sentiment. But beneath the surface of campaign rhetoric lies a hidden variable quietly shaping the electoral landscape: the severe depletion of the United States military’s air defense munitions.
What began as a highly technical logistical challenge for the Pentagon has rapidly metastasized into a pervasive political and economic vulnerability. Following a grueling aggression against Iranian assets earlier this year, the US military burned through a staggering portion of its high-end interceptors.
Now, an inability to rapidly replenish those stockpiles is forcing difficult tactical compromises for the US and its allies in West Asia. The US military’s reduced capacity to unilaterally secure vital shipping lanes in the Gulf and Red Sea has sent shockwaves through the global supply chain. For the American electorate, this strategic shortfall is not an abstract geopolitical concern; it is a kitchen-table crisis felt directly at the gas pump and the grocery store.
US President Donald Trump currently faces approval ratings hovering around 36%, with public dissatisfaction heavily anchored in economic anxiety and the fatigue of a prolonged, indecisive conflict.
A thorough analysis of military supply chains, economic indicators, and public sentiment reveals a profound link between the erosion of America’s munitions stockpile and the erosion of the governing party’s political capital.
Running on empty
To understand the political fallout, one must first confront the tactical reality of modern asymmetric warfare. The Iranian response to American aggression was defined by the relentless barrage of inexpensive drones and ballistic missiles, which the US attempted to counter using some of the most sophisticated, expensive, and difficult-to-produce air defense systems in its arsenal.
According to an April 2026 assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), US forces expended roughly 45% of their Patriot interceptors and an alarming 50% of their Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors during the seven-week aggression. The sheer volume of incoming fire forced the Pentagon into an unsustainable cost-exchange ratio, routinely firing multimillion-dollar interceptors to neutralize threats that cost a fraction of that amount to produce.
The crisis lies in the fact that these interceptors cannot be quickly replaced. The US defense industrial base, optimized for peacetime efficiency rather than wartime surge capacity, is currently strained to its limits. In May 2026, War Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that replacing the munitions heavily used during the Iran conflict would take “months and years… depending on the weapon system.”
CSIS analysis corroborates this timeline. While the Army has requested 857 THAAD interceptors in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget, deliveries are not projected to begin until mid-2029. Replacing the expenditures from the Iran campaign alone will take the US until the end of the decade.
Standard Missiles (SM-3s and SM-6s) utilized by the Navy face similar bottlenecks, with inventories not expected to return to prewar levels until early 2029. This massive gap between consumption and production has left the US military in a precarious state of rationing.
Tactical hesitation and the illusion of decisive victory
For military planners, a hollowed-out interceptor stockpile alters every operational calculus. Prior to the escalation, ousted US Army Chief of Staff General Randy George warned in late 2025 that THAAD and Patriot stocks were critically low. Those warnings were borne out as the US-Israeli aggression progressed.
Because the military cannot guarantee an impenetrable defensive shield, commanders are forced into a strategy of “selective countering”. They must conserve dwindling interceptors for high-value military targets, sometimes leaving lesser infrastructure exposed. The human cost of this vulnerability became clear in July, when a restart of attacks and counterattacks saw Iranian retaliatory strikes penetrate these thinned defenses, killing three US troops.
Depletion has also affected offensive capabilities, as Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at CSIS, noted that a lack of long-range interceptors and standoff munitions requires US forces to use “short or medium range munitions instead… and that means you have to get in much closer. Makes the platforms much more vulnerable.”
This vulnerability naturally breeds operational hesitation. The US is constrained from launching the kind of overwhelming, large-scale offensive operations required to force an adversary’s surrender because it lacks the defensive umbrella to protect its own forces from the inevitable counter-attacks. Consequently, the prospect of a “decisive victory” evaporates.
Historically, the American public has little patience for wars of attrition. Voters crave clear objectives and definitive resolutions. Public support rapidly decays when a military campaign drags on with no apparent end in sight. The electorate perceives a superpower bogged down by its own logistical limitations, fostering an anxiety that the nation is trapped in a perpetual, low-boil conflict that drains resources without delivering security. A recent AP-NORC poll from early 2026 found that 59% of Americans felt US military action in Iran had “gone too far.” This fosters an anxiety that the nation is trapped in a perpetual, low-boil conflict that drains resources without delivering security.
The toll at the pump, checkout aisle
If the munitions shortage were purely a battlefield concern, its impact on the 2026 midterms might be muted. But West Asia is the central artery of global energy markets and international shipping, and the US military’s inability to secure it has immediate domestic consequences.
Without a sufficient stockpile of high-end interceptors to counter persistent drone and anti-ship missile salvos, the US Navy cannot maintain a persistent defensive umbrella over commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea and the Gulf. Commercial carriers, wary of unintercepted strikes, have increasingly rerouted vessels around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope or absorbed soaring war-risk insurance premiums to transit the Gulf. These maritime bottlenecks act as an indirect tariff on the US economy, driving up freight fees, delaying components, and reinforcing elevated energy benchmarks.
That logistical friction translates rapidly into domestic consumer sentiment. According to an October 2026 Harris Poll conducted for The Guardian, the vast majority of Americans report struggling to afford everyday necessities like gas and groceries, forcing households to cut back on discretionary spending. The reporting characterized consumers as “angrier than ever” ahead of the midterms, caught between high baseline food and energy costs and a cooling, uncertain labor market.
While a voter in a swing district is unlikely to track the inventory figures of PAC-3 MSE or SM-6 interceptors, they register every price change at the pump and the grocery checkout. The logistical shortfall that limits US power projection abroad translates into economic vulnerability at home.
Public sentiment shift
The political weaponization of this dynamic is already evident in the polling data. A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in early October 2026 highlighted how deeply the war on Iran and its economic ripples have permeated the electorate.
The data illustrate a striking intersection of foreign policy and domestic anxiety. Seventy-three percent of surveyed respondents reported being “extremely or very concerned” about higher gas and fuel prices directly resulting from the US military action against Iran, up from 69% in March. Furthermore, public awareness of the military’s logistical struggles is growing, as 45% expressed extreme or very high concern over a “shortage of weapons for the US military,” a significant jump from 31% earlier in the year.
These are not isolated data points; they are the architecture of a midterm backlash. The public is highly averse to further escalation, with 72% expressing deep concern over the prospect of the US sending ground troops to Iran.
The administration finds itself in an electoral trap. It cannot achieve a decisive military victory without an unacceptable loss of American lives or a miraculous surge in munitions production, yet the ongoing confrontation continues to drive the inflation that is sinking its political fortunes.
Trump’s approval ratings reflect this inescapable bind. With an aggregate approval sitting around 36%, and dipping as low as 30% in Pew’s October tracking, the administration is facing the brunt of an electorate that feels squeezed economically and anxious globally.
Verdict on the ballot
The 2026 midterms will be debated in terms of inflation, leadership, and economic policy. Yet, any post-mortem of this election must recognize the profound, indirect role of the defense industrial base. The US munitions depletion is the structural foundation upon which much of the current economic and political instability rests.
After the world’s leading superpower expended half of its critical air defense interceptors in seven weeks, the consequences inevitably bled out of the battlefield and into the supermarket. The inability to protect shipping lanes drives up energy prices; the resulting inflation angers voters; and the lack of a decisive military resolution fuels a narrative of perpetual instability.
As the new Congress convenes after November, the most pressing question will not just be how to manage inflation, but how to rebuild the hollowed-out shield of the American military. Until the gap between munitions consumption and production is closed, the logistical limits of the US armed forces will continue to act as a silent, powerful constraint on both American foreign policy and domestic political survival.
“The U.S. government has observed the power of hip hop culture as a vehicle for expression, protest, and a political voice for young people,” Professor Sujatha Fernandes, a sociologist at the University of Sydney and the author of the book, “Close to the Edge: In Search of the Global Hip Hop Generation,” told MintPress News.
“Groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID earlier consistently chose Black cultural expressions from jazz to hip hop as a way of infiltrating those societies and trying to promote regime change,” she added.
One of those countries is Bangladesh. In 2024, longstanding prime minister Sheikh Hasina was toppled in a U.S.-supported revolution. Hasina’s relationship with Washington had seriously deteriorated over her friendliness towards China and her refusal to cede control of the strategically-located Saint Martin’s Island in the Bay of Bengal so the U.S. could build a military base there.
Just days after meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Liu, Hasina publicly warned that a “white skin country” had threatened there would be trouble for her if she did not grant it permission to build a base in Bangladeshi territory. Nevertheless, she remained obstinate; “I do not want to come to power by leasing out parts of the country or handing it over to someone else,” she said.
Three weeks later, nationwide protests erupted across the country. Specifically targeted at a controversial quota system that reserved 30% of government jobs for the families of those that fought for the country’s independence in 1971, the movement quickly expanded to include people from a wide swath of society. It also turned extremely violent: over 1,4000 people were killed before the military stepped in, forcing Hasina to ignominiously flee to India by helicopter.
Hasina was replaced by Muhammad Yunus, a longtime associate, mentor, and close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton. One month after the affair, Yunus traveled to New York to meet with President Biden, who offered “continued U.S. support as Bangladesh implements its new reform agenda.” Yunus also spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative, where he revealed that the protests were not a spontaneous uprising, but an operation “meticulously designed” by young Bangladeshi leaders.
One of the leaders of the demonstrations was rapper and barrister Towfique Ahmed, who shot to prominence after he offered to provide free legal support to anyone arrested by Hasina’s forces.
Yet Ahmed had for years been on the U.S. government payroll, explicitly as an agent of change, the International Republican Institute (IRI) – a CIA front group – funding and promoting his music career far and wide.
A leaked IRI document published by The Grayzone shows that the organization’s expressly stated goal was to “destabilize Bangladesh’s politics.” To that end, they spent millions funding all manner of opposition groups and figures, including musicians like Ahmed, whom, the document notes, “are neither solely an artist nor solely an activist; instead, they are functioning as a hybrid agent of change.”
“If the public is more aware of current issues of government oppression, discrimination and shrinking space for political participation, then the Bangladeshi people will be more active to drive [a] power shift through social and political reforms,” it concludes.
As it was never intended to see the light of day, the report is unusually frank about the U.S. government’s explicit goals of regime change, and does not mask it with vague language alluding to democracy promotion.
The IRI produced a number of music videos for Ahmed, and helped spread his music far and wide. His song, “Tui parish” (You Can Do It) is a thinly-veiled call for regime change. As the IRI notes, “Tui Parish” “targets youth with a message of perseverance in difficult times and encourages those who are committed to strengthen democracy in Bangladesh in every possible way including protests and street movements.”
Another song, “E Daay Kaar” (Demand It!) the IRI states, was specifically “designed to reveal social issues in Bangladesh and build up disappointment and even dissent to government so as to call for social and political reforms.”
Ahmed’s music became an anthem of the protests, thanks in part to the IRI consistently promoting it, including on its own televised cultural program, that, it boasted, “reached over 79,000 households in Bangladesh.” In total, the IRI spent millions supporting a wide range of artists, musicians, dancers and actors, all with the goal of removing Hasina from power.
Today, Bangladesh and the United States are in the final stages of agreeing a new strategic military partnership that will grant the U.S. the rights to use a plethora of Bangladeshi ports and airbases for military purposes.
Senegal: The Revolution Will Be Organized
If Bangladesh was the perfect insurrection, Senegal was the blueprint. Western media called it the “Rap Revolution.” In 2012, enormous protests against President Abdoulaye Wade broke out. The 85-year-old leader was seeking a controversial third term in office, and was attempting to bring his son, Karim, into high office – a move many critics saw as Wade trying to establish a family dynasty.
The demonstrations were led by a rap collective called “Y’En a Marre” (Enough is Enough). Y’En a Marre capitalized on public discontent over corruption, blackouts, and economic stagnation, inflaming tensions and encouraged people out on the streets.
One rapper in particular had been sowing the seeds for action for quite some time. In 2010, Cheikh Oumar Touré, known by his stage name, Thiat, released the song with his group, the Keurgui Crew called “Coup 2 Guele” (Diatribe), in which he and his partner, Kilifeu, excoriated Wade and called for a revolution.
“Old man, your seven year presidential reign has been expensive,” “You cheated during the last elections,” “This lusty regime has wasted all our money,” he raps. “Let’s fight this buffoon who is stealing all our money” he tells his countrymen, while concluding that the people of Senegal must “act on our words in the same way we resisted Hitler and De Gaulle.”
Surprisingly, the Kergui Crew immediately released an English version of the song, suggesting their intended audience was not purely Senegalese. Thiat was elevated to stardom in the West, where he received a great deal of positive press, long before the protests even began.
Coup 2 Guele became the soundtrack to the struggle, and Wade was decisively beaten at the ballot box, as Western media applauded this innovative form of activism. Thiat and Y’En a Marre became known worldwide as “the rappers who took down a dictator.”
Many expected Thiat to formally enter electoral politics. Instead, however, one of his first major post-revolution moves was to announce that he had been appointed a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The NED was explicitly set up as a front group of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In the wake of a series of public scandals that seriously hurt the agency’s credibility, the Reagan administration established the NED in 1983. It proceeded to act as a front group for the CIA, carrying out many of its most controversial regime change operations abroad, in an effort to give the U.S. some level of plausible deniability. The endowment interfered in the 1996 Russian elections to ensure U.S. puppet Boris Yeltsin remained in power. Six years later, it bankrolled a briefly successful coup against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. It has also funded and supported insurrections in Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Belarus, among other countries.
Although it is funded and staffed by the U.S. government and its officials, the NED is technically a private entity, meaning it is not subject to the same transparency laws and public scrutiny as a body like the CIA.
In their more candid moments, NED leaders are unequivocal about the organization’s role. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, NED president from 1984 to 2021, said, explaining why his organization was set up. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.
USAID – an official government body – has functioned in much the same way, acting as a CIA front group, spying on both enemy and friendly countries, and organizing countless coups around the world. When the Trump administration cut funding to USAID last year, it inadvertently exposed a global network of over 6,000 journalists and nearly 1,000 “independent” media outlets that suddenly faced immediate bankruptcy. In 2025, USAID and its activities were formally subsumed into the State Department.
It was this context that explains why so many were shocked when Thiat made his announcement, and led some to wonder how much the United States was involved in the seemingly spontaneous, grassroots uprising.
Certainly, the NED had been agitating in Senegal for years. In 2006, it funded a project whose public goal was to “strengthen understanding and advocacy for democracy among the urban middle class and youth in Senegal.” The NED’s local partners, it stated, would “lead a civic education campaign on democracy consisting of a series of published investigative reports on Senegal’s democratic development and training seminars for young people, civic organizations, and political parties.
Another 2009 NED project, entitled “Partners for Democratic Change” promised to “create a platform for dialogue between civil and military actors in Senegal,” suggesting that Washington was eager for its chosen activists to have closer ties to the military.
The Reagan-Fascell Fellowship gave Thiat an international platform, and allowed him to travel worldwide. The fellowship, the NED itself noted, provided him the time and resources to compose a new album.
Thiat, however, appears to dismiss any criticism or claims of U.S. involvement in Senegal. In a recent interview, he stated that, “We are showing that we can change everything without the intervention of other countries and without military interventions. And without the West, of course.” “Most African presidents are puppets of the West,” concluded the NED-funded activist.
Washington continues to fund hip hop artists in Senegal. In 2018, the NED’s sister organization, USAID, collaborated with political rapper, Last Under to produce an album, while in 2023, it partnered with Sister LB to release a track to promote “transparency and accountability” in the country’s extractive industries.
And if there is one Senegalese rapper that receives more effusive Western press coverage than Thiat, it is Babacar Niang, better known as Matador. “You can learn everything you need to know about the main challenges facing Africa today by talking to just two people in Senegal: the rapper and the weatherman” wrote Thomas Friedman in the pages of The New York Times, describing Matador as a “pioneer,” and the “voice of the voiceless,” and featuring him in his documentary, “Years of Living Dangerously.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Matador is also closely connected to Washington. Africulturban, the multimedia center he cofounded, is directly funded by the U.S. Embassy in Dakar.
West Africa: Rage on Behalf of the Machine
Both Thiat and Kilifeu from the Keur Gui Crew also later participated in a much wider hip hop project bankrolled and overseen by the NED’s World Movement For Democracy. As part of a 2019 attempt to build bridges and links between “pro-democracy” (i.e. U.S.-backed) forces across Western Africa, the NED sponsored the production of a rap album, “Music as a Messenger of Democracy,” featuring a plethora of political artists from the region.
In addition to the Keur Gui Crew, this included Sengalese/Beninise rapper Moonaya, Awa Bling and Killa Ace from The Gambia, Nigeria’s Cill, Togo’s Elom 20ce, as well as Ami Yerewolo and Master Soumy from Mali.
Not only did the NED fund the production and promotion of the album, but it further supported the artists by hosting rap shows across the region. One example was a 2018 hip hop night in Dakar, Senegal, where, in addition to Thiat and Kilifeu, it flew in Elom 20ce and Killa Ace for the performance. Meanwhile, Cill spoke at the World Movement For Democracy’s Tenth Global Assembly.
Another West African hip hop act with a close relationship with the NED is DJ Switch, a popular Nigerian artist who collaborated with rap legend Busta Rhymes on a remix to her hit song, “So Tey.”
DJ Switch campaigned against police brutality, and even livestreamed the shooting of anti-government protestors, an act that jeopardized her safety in her home country. Only a few months after this incident, it was announced that, like Thiat, she had become an NED Reagan-Fascell Fellow.
For the United States government, the point of sponsoring huge numbers of individuals and organizations around the world is far less about training the shock troops who will lead a color revolution (although that certainly happens), and more about ensuring that a giant cadre of pro-U.S. agents exists in all countries and in all manner of influential fields, from politics and business to academics and the arts. This is so if the U.S. does decide to do something, there will be a loyal intelligentsia to support it. Rappers are merely a tiny piece of this puzzle.
One country, however, where hip hop artists are very much at the forefront of the U.S.’ regime change plans is Cuba.
Cuba: The Great Astroturfed Revolution
The United States has been trying to overthrow the government of Cuba since the Revolution of 1959. And in July 2021, they thought they had concocted the perfect plan. Washington spent enormous amounts of resources encouraging Cubans into the streets in an attempt to topple President Miguel Díaz-Canel.
America believed it had found the ideal figurehead in Yotuel, an aging rapper who left Cuba in the 1990s, and had released the anti-government song, “Patria y Vida” (Fatherland and Life) to great U.S. fanfare just months earlier. “For those new to the issue of Cuba, the protests we are witnessing were started by artists, not politicians,” tweeted Cuban-American senator Marco Rubio, “This song ‘Patria y Vida’ powerfully explains how young Cubans feel. And its release was so impactful, you will go to jail if caught playing it in Cuba,” he claimed, sharing a link to the track with his millions of followers.
Collectively, this coverage identified “Patria y Vida” as the clarion call for a new generation, noted that it was a retort to the communist slogan “Patria o Muerte” (fatherland or death), and presented Yotuel as a crusading warrior of democracy. But none told readers that anti-government Cuban rappers like Yotuel had been sponsored, hothoused, and coached for years by the U.S. government for precisely this purpose.
The NED was, at the time, financing numerous schemes training Cuban rappers as agents of regime change. One project entitled “Empowering Cuban Hip-Hop Artists as Leaders in Society,” stated that its goal was to “promote citizen participation and social change,” and to “raise awareness about the role hip-hop artists have in strengthening democracy in the region.” Another, called “Promoting Freedom of Expression in Cuba through the Arts,” claimed it was partnering with local musicians on projects related to “democracy, human rights, and historical memory,” and to help “increase awareness about the Cuban reality.” This “reality,” as President Biden himself stated the week of the insurrection, was that the Cuban government is an “authoritarian regime” that has meted out “decades of repression” while its leaders only “enrich themselves.”
At the same time, USAID was offering $2 million worth of funding to groups that could use culture to bring about a color revolution in Cuba. The announcement directly referenced Yotuel as a model to follow, stating that,
“Artists and musicians have taken to the streets to protest government repression, producing anthems such as ‘Patria y Vida,’ which has not only brought greater global awareness to the plight of the Cuban people but also served as a rallying cry for change on the island.”
In the end, despite the impeccable coordination from the U.S. government, social media, the Cuban-American lobby, celebrities, and the press, all of whom came together to bombard the country with messaging telling them to get out on the streets, barely a few thousand people island-wide heeded their call. Moreover, they were dwarfed by far larger, pro-government counter-demonstrations (images of which, for some time, Western media often presented as anti-government marches).
The reality was that Patria y Vida’s supposed popularity was largely astroturfed. Yotuel had not even lived in Cuba for a quarter-century, and instead led a much larger sympathy demonstration in Miami. Days later, President Biden invited him to the White House for a special meeting.
Despite its failure, the U.S. government has evidently still not given up on Yotuel as a potential regime change leader. This September, he appeared at the NED’s 2026 Democracy Awards and performed “Patria y Vida” live to those in attendance.
This was not the first time that Washington had been caught using hip hop to overthrow the Cuban government. In fact, inside Cuba, the rap scene is notorious for being full of undercover U.S. agents. Gaining popularity in the late 1990s, local rappers had a considerable impact on society, helping bring to the fore many previously under-discussed topics. The United States saw their biting critiques of racism as a wedge they could exploit, and attempted to infiltrate their ranks.
In 2009, the U.S. government sent Serbian music promoter Rajko Bozic to the island with a mission: to recruit a stable of rappers to use as anti-government shock troops. Bozic was a veteran of Otpor, a CIA-backed political group that led the insurrection against Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic – the first successful color revolution of the century.
Bozic soon found willing partners in rap group, Los Aldeanos. With seemingly limitless funds for the operation, he immediately started aggressively promoting the duo, producing an anti-government TV show they starred in. Although it was not broadcast on television, Bozic and his team simply paid for it to be distributed around the country on DVDs and USB drives instead.
He also used Washington’s money and connections to get their music on the radio, and to bribe big Latino music stars into allowing them to open for them at their gigs, thus buying them more credibility and exposure. Los Aldeanos were even flown to Serbia for secret training, under the guise of playing at the Exit Music Festival.
Cuban authorities eventually exposed the scheme, however, and Los Aldeanos fled to Florida.
Being a hip hop fan in Cuba is fraught with difficulties. Without realizing, many Cubans are listening to albums, reading hip hop magazines, or even going to concerts secretly funded by the U.S national security state. The Caribbean island is without doubt where Washington has most concentrated its efforts in attempting to co-opt the rap scene.
Yet, for all its efforts, Fernandes told MintPress that the U.S. government has had little success. Cuba, she said, is a place with an organic hip hop movement built from the ground up, and rappers are “not trying to overthrow their government but to create more spaces for their demands of anti-racism and equality under an expanding market economy. They had little reason to collaborate with U.S. agencies.”
As Fernandes explained, being found to be in the pay of a CIA front group would be seen as something of a scarlet letter:
“Cuban artists are wary of working with any U.S. government agencies, because it would completely damage their credibility and compromise their own belief systems. That’s not to say there aren’t newer and younger artists who may be more willing to engage with the U.S. government. But among long-term and established artists, they realize that any such engagement would risk closure of their critical spaces and loss of their credibility.”
Nevertheless, the Trump/Rubio administration has made toppling the Cuban government a major foreign policy priority. If they continue with this plan, it is quite possible we will soon be seeing more Yotuels and Los Aldeanos.
Funding a Global Medium
In the Republic of Congo, President Denis Sassou Nguesso has been faced with over a decade of opposition from the Ras-le-Bol movement, which, in 2015, coordinated the largest anti-government protests in the country’s history in response to his attempts to change the constitution.
Ras-le-Bol shares many similarities with Y’En a Marre in Senegal. For one, they were both co-founded by a rapper, in this case, Martial Pa’nucci. Pa’nucci noted that he took direct inspiration from Senegal. Indeed, Ras-le-Bol is a direct translation of Y’En a Marre, both meaning “enough is enough.” And like Thiat, Pa’nucci is a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.
While at the NED, he used the time to produce “Music for a Democratic Future in Congo”, a 12-track album the NED describes as “denouncing the dictatorship and kleptocracy that undermines his country.”
Unlike in Senegal, however, Ras-le-Bol has been unsuccessful in dislodging Sassou Nguesso, who first came to power in 1979.
The U.S. government has also supported the career of Moroccan political rapper Youssra Oukaf, better known as Soultana. Soultana takes on issues such as patriarchy and sexism in her music, and has helped other women enter the arena. While finding no aid from her own government, she has found plenty from Washington. “For me, it’s so big. It’s not just support, it’s an honor,” she said of her U.S. backing.
In Jordan, a USAID audit reveals that the agency greenlit a project to produce a rap song “targeting first-time voters” ahead of the 2007 elections. The song, it claims, was “played by most commercial radio stations” and reached “more than 2 million Jordanians.”
The U.S. government has also sponsored rap projects on a smaller scale in Uganda, South Africa, Tanzania, Ghana, and El Salvador. These initiatives range from concerts in Haiti featuring Wyclef Jean, to small scale workshops aimed at youths.
For Fernandes, hip hop is such a powerful medium because of its history and its universality:
“[It] goes back to its origins at a time when the organized left/Black Power was under attack and in decline, and the culture provided a voice for Black youth in the U.S. and globally when so many other avenues were closed. That continues to be true today. But the other reason is its musical innovation and style – the rhythm and beats derived from African-American culture that caught on like fire in the diaspora and beyond.”
To this day, hip hop still maintains its rebellious spirit. But even counter-cultural art forms are not immune to being co-opted by the powerful.
Rap as a Pacifying Force
While successive American administrations have used rap as a wedge to divide populations against each other and heighten existing contradictions within societies, they have also used it as a uniting force in nations with friendly governments, tamping down tensions and papering over divisions.
That was the case in Colombia, a country ravaged by decades of brutal drug war and mass killings by U.S.-backed far-right militias. In 2020, USAID’s Alliances and Reconciliation Program created an initiative aimed at the country’s youth with a message of coexistence, truth, dialogue, and reconciliation.
It appointed local rappers, Melisa MC, and Ken Zingle, as ambassadors of the program. Together, the pair produced the song, “Rímalo” (Rhyme It), which served as the project’s anthem.
Later, USAID also developed an outreach program targeting youths in conflict-affected areas of Colombia (where it was often the United States itself supplying the weapons). The program aimed to channel young people’s anger and frustration into peaceful co-existence and music creation. USAID published one of these rap songs, “Queremos” (We Want) on YouTube.
At the same time in Kenya, USAID partnered with well-known rapper King Kaka to launch its #16BarsforPeace hip hop campaign, wherein it challenged Kenyan youth to submit videos of themselves rapping about peace and conflict resolution.
Hundreds entered the competition, with the winner getting to rap with King Kaka on his song, “Mbekse” (“Two”: an allusion to the two fingers used to make the universal “peace” sign). Also appearing on the track was U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Kyle McCarter, who delivered a short verse in Swahili.
From “Fight the Power” To Working For Power
The United States government has long understood the power of hip hop. Since 2001, the State Department has sent American hip hop artists, DJs, and beatboxers across the globe as cultural envoys to spread pro-U.S. messaging. Why would it do this? Mark Katz, the former director of the State Department’s hip hop diplomacy’s program explained:
“Hip hop is well known to be the product of young, marginalized Americans of color who insisted on being heard and seen and who reveled in their survival. As the embodiment of struggle and celebration, hip hop resonates deeply with young people around the world. It’s the perfect vehicle for promoting a more nuanced and positive image of the United States and for connecting with populations that our embassies rarely engage.”
In 2024, the State Department announced it was joining forces with YouTube to create a new “Global Music Ambassador” program. The initiative was directly modeled on Washington’s Cold War-era efforts to use the arts to inspire U.S.-backed regime change in Eastern Europe, and to use musical tours as covers that the CIA could use to assassinate foreign leaders.
A number of rap artists, including Chuck D and Armani White, are signed up to the program. Also participating is Lyor Cohen, the Israeli former head of the iconic Def Jam record label, and current head of YouTube Music. Cohen noted that YouTube would strive to help the U.S. government “leverage global events.” “We will utilize major international gatherings to inspire action,” he said. What kind of “actions” the State Department is interested in fomenting was not directly stated, and so is open to speculation.
Chuck D’s participation in the project surprised and shocked many. The Public Enemy frontman and writer of songs such as “Fight the Power” and “Rebel Without a Cause” portrays himself as Malcolm X with a microphone. And yet, he willingly volunteered for an endeavor that Cohen explicitly presented as a thinly veiled regime change project.
The CIA has long used music as a cover for overthrowing foreign governments. In 1960, it embedded itself on Louis Armstrong’s tour of the Congo, accompanying the jazz legend in order to secretly gather information on the movements of the country’s prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, whom CIA director Allen Dulles described as Africa’s Fidel Castro. Lumumba was assassinated later that year, plunging the country into decades of U.S.-backed dictatorship, from which it has never recovered.
The project continued until the successful overthrow of Communism and Eastern Europe; events in which the U.S. government played a significant role. There have long been credible rumors that the CIA wrote and promoted the Scorpions’ hit song “Winds of Change” as regime change propaganda. Meanwhile, David Hasselhoff – the American singer who has long been inexplicablypopular in Germany – has strongly insinuated that he worked with the agency to bring down the Berlin Wall. His song, “Looking for Freedom,” became the unofficial anthem of the wall’s destruction, and he played it to a huge Berlin crowd in 1989.
More recently, in Venezuela, the NED funded and supported rock bands producing music aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing the socialist government. In 2011, for example, it was involved in approximately two dozen agreements for funding its performance and distribution. This included funding a national music contest, with the winners playing in Caracas. The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, note that the project aimed to “promote greater reflection among Venezuelan youth about freedom of expression, their connection with democracy, and the state of democracy in the country.”
The NED got more than it bargained for, however, when the contest’s local organizers chose “Primates” – an overtly racist track that compared the (primarily Black and mixed race) government and its supporters as subhuman monkeys and gorillas – as its national winner. This sort of music was far less easy to support internationally than something like “Patria y Vida.”
Breakdancing With The Devil
The United States has been at war for 231 of its 250-year history. Its military spending rivals that of all other countries combined, and it operates a network of nearly 1,000 military bases worldwide. Its post-9/11 wars have killed at least 4.5 million people and displaced over 38 million more. Even by the most charitable metrics, it militarily supports three-quarters of the world’s dictatorships, and has launched nearly 500 foreign military interventions in its history. President Trump has bombed eight countries in the past 12 months, and has threatened military action against Greenland, Canada, Panama, North Korea, and Cuba.
It has also overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of more than 50 foreign countries, including some of the most vibrant experiments in democracy the world has ever seen. It does this through a network of institutions influenced, directed, or financed by the Central Intelligence Agency, including the IRI, NED, and USAID.
That is why it is so inappropriate and problematic for any individual or entity claiming to support democracy, freedom, and human rights to work with these agencies. Many of the musicians profiled here truly have put their lives in danger by opposing genuinely repressive governments. But their claims to be fighting for justice are undermined by their decision to liaise with organizations representing the most dangerous threat to freedom in modern history.
In short, while many of these rappers may have good intentions, if they have not realized this basic truism of human rights, they are either hopelessly naive and ignorant (and therefore unworthy of attention) or, worse, have chosen to become unofficial agents of the U.S. government, attempting to further extend Washington’s control. In either case, they should be heavily scrutinized. Even for genuine activists in extremely poor and repressive countries, where money and support are hard to come by, collaborating with the CIA and its cutouts should be a non-starter.
Hip hop grew out of Black struggles against oppression in America. As it flourished, both the artform and its message resonated with people worldwide. Aware of this, the U.S. government has attempted to hijack it, and use it for its own, nefarious ends. (Although, contrary to some more outlandish conspiratorial claims put forward by the likes of Joe Rogan, its involvement in the rap scene as a whole still remains marginal).
Nevertheless, what Washington has proven is that rappers can be regime change artists, too. Some rappers choose to fight the power. Others choose to represent it.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh reaffirmed Friday Tehran’s commitment to securing an end to the Israeli war on Lebanon as part of any broader regional agreement, emphasizing that the conflicts across the region are interconnected and cannot be resolved independently.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Khatibzadeh stressed that Iran continues to pursue a diplomatic resolution despite repeated violations of existing agreements by Washington and “Israel”, maintaining that there is no alternative to negotiations based on mutual respect and the fulfillment of commitments.
His remarks followed a series of meetings in Beirut, including discussions at the Lebanese Foreign Ministry and with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and the Prime Minister’s Office, which he described as positive and reflective of the close and ongoing consultations between Lebanon and Iran.
Khatibzadeh emphasized that Tehran had worked during the visit to bring positions closer together and ensure that Lebanon would be included in any final agreement.
He stressed that the Israeli occupation must end its war on Lebanon and the wider Levant, emphasizing that developments across the region cannot be separated from one another.
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said that the Washington track has reached a dead end, arguing that it was opened by the Israeli occupation to undermine the Islamabad process.
According to the Iranian official, ending the wars across all fronts was among Tehran’s fundamental conditions during mediation efforts.
He argued that continued hostilities on any single front would effectively mean that the wider war remained ongoing, reaffirming Iran’s commitment to securing an end to the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Khatibzadeh also accused Washington and “Israel” of undermining the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, saying the agreement had been violated through attacks against Iran and Lebanon just days after its signing.
He maintained that subsequent developments represented a continuation of those violations, accusing “Israel” of attempting to derail the Islamabad peace process by pursuing a separate Washington-backed negotiating track with Lebanon.
The Iranian diplomat further accused the Israeli occupation of evading its commitments, arguing that Washington bears responsibility for restraining its regional ally and ensuring compliance with agreements.
Hezbollah, deterrence, and Iran’s relations with Lebanon
Turning to Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, Khatibzadeh emphasized the Lebanese origins of the Resistance movement, describing its establishment as a response to Israeli aggression and the occupation of Lebanese territory.
He explained that Hezbollah emerged through the efforts of Lebanese youths from different religious and sectarian backgrounds who united around the objective of ending the occupation.
The Iranian official stressed that Tehran’s relationships with its allies are rooted in shared principles, convictions, and values, affirming that the Islamic Republic remains committed to standing by its friends.
Khatibzadeh also condemned the Israeli occupation’s disregard for international law, calling on the Lebanese people to support Hezbollah and contribute to strengthening the country’s deterrence capabilities against further aggression.
Regarding the issue surrounding the Iranian ambassador in Beirut, he confirmed that efforts to address the matter had been set in motion, expressing confidence that it could be resolved through dialogue and diplomatic prudence.
Iran rejects US pressure, insists on diplomatic solution
Addressing Washington’s policies toward Tehran, Khatibzadeh dismissed the significance of US domestic political developments, including elections and statements by President Donald Trump, maintaining that Iran’s position would not be dictated by American political considerations.
Instead, he stressed that Washington must be held accountable for failing to honor its commitments.
The deputy foreign minister reiterated Iran’s readiness to engage in balanced negotiations and pursue reconciliation based on mutual respect, provided the United States demonstrates a genuine willingness to act responsibly.
Reflecting on the US-Israeli war on Iran, Khatibzadeh described the aggression as illegal and a violation of international law, arguing that Washington had sought to overthrow the Iranian government, undermine the country’s territorial integrity, and dismantle its deterrence capabilities.
He maintained that those objectives had failed, describing the confrontation as an existential war in which Iran resisted attempts to undermine its sovereignty.
Despite the scale of the confrontation, Khatibzadeh emphasized that diplomacy remains the only viable path toward a lasting resolution.
He reaffirmed Tehran’s willingness to address concerns surrounding its nuclear program while safeguarding its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
On the Strait of Hormuz, Khatibzadeh recalled Tehran’s comprehensive operational proposal to reopen the strategic waterway for a limited period of seven days, pointing to the initiative as part of Iran’s approach to addressing the ongoing crisis.
He nevertheless warned that Iran remained prepared to defend itself should further military aggression be imposed upon it, affirming Tehran’s readiness to fight to the last drop of blood.
Discussing the broader international situation, Khatibzadeh argued that the world was undergoing a transition from the existing international order toward a new global arrangement, with technological competition, particularly over artificial intelligence, emerging as a central arena of geopolitical rivalry.
He maintained that the war had exposed the limitations of US military power in the region and shattered illusions of strength held by the Israeli occupation.
Iran warns neighboring states against involvement in aggression
Addressing relations with neighboring countries, Khatibzadeh accused Kuwait and Bahrain of allowing their territories to be used to launch attacks against Iran during the war.
He argued that countries involved in facilitating such operations could not subsequently portray themselves as victims of the conflict.
The Iranian diplomat stressed that neighboring states must refrain from participating in regional alignments directed against Iran and Iraq, underscoring Tehran’s opposition to the use of neighboring territories for hostile military operations.
Tehran calls for immediate end to Saudi blockade on Yemen
Turning to Yemen, Khatibzadeh called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the Saudi blockade, warning of the severe humanitarian consequences of continued hostilities.
He highlighted the acute shortages of food and medicine facing the Yemeni population, stressing the need to alleviate civilian suffering and create the conditions necessary for Yemenis to resume their normal lives.
His remarks reaffirmed Tehran’s position that ending the humanitarian crisis in Yemen requires both an immediate halt to military operations and the lifting of restrictions that continue to obstruct access to essential supplies.
Yemen’s Health Ministry reports 124 martyrs and 327 wounded since the Saudi escalation began on September 3.
Photo shows a girl killed in a Saudi cluster munition strike on residential homes in Yemen’s Dhamar Ans district, which killed at least three children, on October 16, 2026. (Photo: Al Masirah)
At least 124 people have been killed, and 327 others wounded as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s escalating aggression against Yemen since fighting intensified on September 3, Yemen’s Ministry of Health has announced.
The devastating toll comes as Saudi warplanes carried out 101 airstrikes and missile attacks targeting civilian infrastructure across the country in just the past 24 hours, underscoring the criminal and indiscriminate nature of the Saudi war machine.
According to a statement by the Yemeni Armed Forces, Saudi F-15 and Typhoon fighter jets, which took off from the Khamis Mushait and Taif military bases, along with missile attacks launched from Najran, struck civilian sites in the capital Sanaa and the provinces of Dhale, Taiz, Hodeidah, Dhamar, Marib, Saada, Al-Jawf, Amran, and Lahj. The strikes have left civilian casualties, including women and children.
The latest barrage brings the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks since the escalation began to a staggering 2,489.
Yemeni forces strike Saudi command center
In a separate development, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out a missile strike on a military facility adjacent to the Aden airport.
An unnamed military source told the Yemen News Agency (Saba) that the attack successfully hit a command headquarters of Saudi-led forces and a weapons depot located in the Badr camp in Aden province.
No casualties were reported from the operation.
It was the second major strike in Aden in two days, following a Thursday attack on a palace complex in the city used as a headquarters for the Saudi-backed mercenaries.
Despite the precision of the operation, Saudi-backed mercenaries and their media apparatus immediately sought to distort the facts, attempting to portray the Yemeni Armed Forces as targeting civilian sites.
This propaganda campaign is part of a broader effort by Riyadh and its proxies to obscure the reality that Yemen’s retaliatory strikes are directed exclusively at military positions, command centers, and weapons depots used to wage war against the Yemeni people.
The latest escalation comes against the backdrop of more than a decade of brutal Saudi-led war and blockade against Yemen, which began in 2015 when Riyadh intervened militarily in an attempt to restore a Saudi-aligned regime in Sana’a.
Initial reports suggest strikes on the Al-Maashiq Palace in Aden, Yemen.
Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree recently dismissed Saudi outrage over Yemen’s retaliatory strikes on Saudi airports, pointing to the coalition’s record of carrying out 274,302 airstrikes against Yemen over the course of 12 years.
He renewed the warning that Saudi airspace and airports remain unsafe, with the exception of the airspace over Mecca and Medina.
Saudi Arabia has sharply escalated its aggression in recent weeks, with Yemeni officials reporting hundreds of airstrikes across the country as Riyadh seeks to restore a Saudi-aligned regime in Sana’a.
In response, the Yemeni Armed Forces have launched several major counteroffensive operations along the Red Sea coast, driving Saudi-backed mercenaries from strategic positions.
Yemeni forces have also seized strategic areas and islands around the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, significantly strengthening their position at one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.
With the November 3 US midterm elections approaching amid mounting economic pressure and growing public opposition to the US-Israeli war on Iran, the possibility of Democrats regaining control of Congress has prompted debate over whether an electoral shift could alter Washington’s policies toward West Asia.
Since Washington and “Israel” launched their military aggression against Iran on February 28, 2026, the confrontation has evolved into a prolonged regional crisis, disrupting global energy supplies, straining American military resources, and exposing the costs of Washington’s regional security commitments.
The repercussions have extended into US domestic politics, where rising fuel prices and dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump’s handling of the war have provided Democrats with an opportunity to challenge Republican leadership.
However, the prospect of a Democratic majority raises a more fundamental question than whether Congress could restrain Trump.
Would a change in congressional leadership challenge the foundations of American military intervention in West Asia, or would it primarily alter the methods through which Washington pursues longstanding regional objectives?
The question carries particular significance given the Democratic Party’s own record.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza began in October 2023 under Democratic President Joe Biden, whose administration maintained extensive military assistance and diplomatic protection for “Israel” despite mounting Palestinian civilian casualties and international condemnation.
Similarly, successive Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained economic sanctions against Iran, expanded military partnerships across the Gulf, and supported the strategic relationship between Washington and the Israeli occupation.
An examination of these policies, alongside recent congressional votes and the legal powers available to lawmakers, reveals the distinction between opposing a particular administration’s military decisions and challenging the broader political and military structures sustaining US influence in the region.
Gaza genocide began under a Democratic administration
Any assessment of whether Democrats would fundamentally change American policy toward Palestine must begin with the party’s most recent record in government.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza began during Biden’s presidency, following the October 7, 2023 attacks and the subsequent Israeli military offensive against the Palestinian enclave.
Although the military campaign was initiated and conducted by Israeli authorities, Washington’s role extended beyond expressions of political support.
The Biden administration continued supplying weapons, approved additional military assistance, and used American diplomatic influence to protect “Israel” from international measures seeking to halt its operations.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, the United States approved at least $17.9 billion in security assistance for Israeli military operations in Gaza and elsewhere during the first year following October 7, 2023.
The researchers estimated that American spending on military assistance to “Israel” and related US military operations across the region amounted to at least $22.76 billion during that period.
Washington’s support continued even as Israeli operations devastated Gaza’s healthcare system, destroyed civilian infrastructure, displaced much of its population, and created catastrophic humanitarian conditions.
On December 8, 2023, Washington blocked a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
It subsequently vetoed another ceasefire resolution on February 20, 2024, and a third on November 20, 2024.
These decisions prevented the Security Council from adopting the proposed measures despite substantial international support.
The administration’s position became particularly contentious in May 2024, when the US State Department acknowledged that it was reasonable to assess that American-supplied weapons had been used by Israeli forces in instances inconsistent with international humanitarian law.
Nevertheless, Washington maintained its broader military assistance relationship, although Biden temporarily suspended the delivery of certain heavy bombs amid concerns over Israeli operations in Rafah.
The commission identified four acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention and concluded that Israeli authorities possessed genocidal intent. “Israel” rejected the findings.
The significance of the Biden administration’s record extends directly into the current electoral debate.
Yet their party’s most recent administration provided substantial military and diplomatic support to “Israel” during the period that the UN commission subsequently determined constituted genocide.
This does not mean Democratic lawmakers held identical positions. Progressive members of Congress increasingly demanded a ceasefire and challenged weapons transfers.
However, the administration’s decisions demonstrate why opposition to Trump’s policies cannot automatically be interpreted as opposition to the broader American military relationship with “Israel”.
US support for “Israel” is institutional, not merely presidential
Washington’s military relationship with “Israel” is not dependent on a particular administration or the personal relationship between an American president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is sustained through long-term financing arrangements, intelligence cooperation, weapons procurement, joint military programs, and congressional legislation.
In September 2016, the Obama administration negotiated a ten-year memorandum of understanding committing Washington to seek $38 billion in military assistance for “Israel” between fiscal years 2019 and 2028, subject to congressional appropriations.
The agreement includes $33 billion in foreign military financing and $5 billion for missile-defense programs.
The arrangement established the framework under which subsequent Republican and Democratic administrations have continued allocating substantial military resources to “Israel”.
Its importance lies not simply in the amount of assistance involved, but in the institutional continuity it created.
Military procurement commitments, weapons development programs, and defense-industrial partnerships can extend across administrations, limiting the practical consequences of political disagreements over particular Israeli operations.
These relationships have also continued to expand.
In June 2026, Human Rights Watch warned that Section 219 of proposed American defense legislation could deepen US-Israeli military integration through cooperation involving missile defense, artificial intelligence, surveillance technologies, and intelligence-sharing systems.
The organization warned that increased technological integration could create further risks of American involvement in unlawful Israeli military operations.
The proposed provisions had not become law at the time of the warning, but they illustrated how military cooperation could become embedded in arrangements extending beyond individual weapons transfers.
A Democratic-controlled Congress could challenge such provisions.
However, doing so would require confronting established military and technological partnerships, rather than simply criticizing Netanyahu or opposing specific military campaigns.
Democrats divided over ending military assistance
Recent congressional voting records reveal significant divisions within the Democratic Party over how far Washington should go in restricting support for “Israel”.
On July 15, 2026, the House of Representatives considered an amendment introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie seeking to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual security assistance to “Israel” from a proposed spending measure.
The amendment failed by 314 votes to 104.
However, the Democratic caucus was almost evenly divided.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the proposal, arguing that its language was excessively broad and could affect humanitarian assistance, refugee-related initiatives, and other activities beyond military aid.
House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark supported the amendment, arguing that continued assistance could not remain unconditional.
The result demonstrated increasing Democratic willingness to challenge military assistance to “Israel”, but also highlighted the absence of agreement over the extent and mechanisms of any restrictions.
One concerned $295 million in Caterpillar bulldozers, equipment associated with Israeli demolition operations, while the other targeted a $151.8 million sale involving approximately 12,000 bombs and related services.
Both measures failed, with procedural votes of 40-59 and 36-63.
Although the attempts were unsuccessful, Sanders emphasized the increase in Democratic support compared with previous efforts.
Among Americans overall, 41% expressed greater sympathy for Palestinians, while 36% favored Israelis, a difference that was not statistically significant.
These figures represent a substantial shift in American public attitudes compared with earlier decades of consistently greater sympathy for Israelis.
However, electoral preferences do not automatically translate into legislative outcomes.
Following the July vote on military assistance, AIPAC publicly criticized the 103 Democratic lawmakers who supported the amendment, defending continued American security assistance to “Israel”.
At the same time, progressive candidates and lawmakers have increasingly challenged the party’s longstanding positions on Palestine.
The resulting political divide suggests that future Democratic policy may depend not only on whether the party controls Congress, but also on which factions exercise influence within its leadership and committees.
Iran: Opposing Trump’s war is not the same as opposing US pressure
The distinction between challenging an administration’s military decisions and reconsidering Washington’s broader regional strategy is particularly evident in the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Since the February 28 offensive, Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly questioned Trump’s constitutional authority to conduct military operations without specific congressional authorization.
The confrontation has generated substantial financial and military costs.
According to a September Congressional Research Service report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that US military operations had cost approximately $38 billion by August 1, 2026.
The conflict has also depleted military inventories, strained missile-defense resources, and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Democratic lawmakers have responded by introducing resolutions seeking to restrict unauthorized military operations.
Four Republicans joined Democrats and independents in supporting it, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman opposed the measure.
The vote demonstrated substantial congressional resistance to the administration’s conduct of the war.
However, the central question concerns what that opposition actually represents.
The resolution sought to restrict the president’s military authority. It did not establish a comprehensive alternative to Washington’s sanctions policy, regional military deployments, or strategic commitments.
A Democratic lawmaker could oppose Trump’s decision to launch military strikes while continuing to support financial restrictions on Tehran, military cooperation with Gulf governments, and efforts to limit Iran’s regional influence.
Such positions would represent opposition to particular methods of intervention rather than necessarily rejecting the broader policy of pressuring Iran.
This distinction is essential when assessing the prospects of a Democratic majority.
Bipartisan sanctions expose a deeper continuity
Perhaps the clearest recent demonstration of bipartisan continuity emerged in September, even as Democrats intensified criticism of Trump’s military operations against Iran.
Although the legislation primarily targeted Russia, it also extended the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 through 2031, prolonging existing statutory restrictions affecting Iran’s energy sector and other activities.
The measure received support from lawmakers belonging to both major political parties.
The Senate approved the legislation by 86 votes to 11 in August, while the House endorsed the final version by 262 votes to 159 on September 16.
Among House Democrats, 58 supported the bill, although others opposed it, including Jeffries, who raised objections to its broader provisions concerning tariffs.
The legislation is important because it demonstrates that opposition to the US-Israeli military campaign does not necessarily translate into opposition to economic pressure against Tehran.
This is not a new contradiction.
Under Obama, Washington negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, providing sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.
Trump subsequently withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed sweeping sanctions.
The Biden administration attempted to restore nuclear diplomacy but maintained extensive restrictions while negotiations continued.
These policies were not identical. The nuclear agreement represented a substantial diplomatic departure from Trump’s maximum-pressure approach.
Nevertheless, the persistence of sanctions across administrations illustrates how economic coercion has remained an important instrument of American policy toward Iran.
A Democratic majority could therefore attempt to halt additional military escalation while supporting continued financial pressure.
Such an outcome could meaningfully reduce the risk of further direct attacks without necessarily ending Washington’s broader confrontation with Tehran.
What could Congress actually change?
Although American regional policy has demonstrated substantial bipartisan continuity, congressional control remains consequential.
Under the US Constitution, Congress possesses authority over appropriations, legislation, declarations of war, and oversight of federal agencies.
A Democratic-controlled House could investigate military operations, scrutinize weapons transfers, refuse certain new appropriations, and propose restrictions on the use of federal funds.
The financial dimension is particularly significant.
In June 2026, the White House submitted a supplemental request that included $21 billion for munitions and $17.3 billion for operational costs associated with military operations against Iran.
A future Democratic majority could challenge comparable requests, demand reporting requirements, or seek legislative restrictions preventing funds from being used for specified military activities.
However, Congress would need to enact binding legislation to establish many such limitations.
Control of the House alone would not allow Democrats to unilaterally terminate military operations or prohibit all weapons transfers.
A Democratic-controlled Senate would offer opportunities for additional oversight, scrutiny of presidential appointments, and consideration of resolutions opposing arms sales.
But most contested legislation would remain subject to the Senate’s filibuster rules.
Even if Democrats gained control of both chambers, Trump would retain his presidential veto.
Overriding that veto would require two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate.
The Arms Export Control Act presents additional difficulties.
Congress can introduce resolutions seeking to block notified weapons sales, but such measures must become law to impose binding prohibitions.
The executive branch also possesses emergency authorities that can allow certain transfers to bypass standard congressional review periods.
A Congressional Research Service analysis has noted that Congress has never successfully blocked a proposed arms sale through a joint resolution of disapproval under the established process.
These limitations do not render congressional control irrelevant.
They demonstrate why the ability to hold hearings, pass symbolic resolutions, or criticize the president must be distinguished from the ability to impose enforceable changes.
Oversight could expose US military conduct without ending intervention
One area where Democratic congressional control could produce more immediate consequences is oversight of American military operations.
Committee leadership would allow Democrats to investigate the legal basis for the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, examine intelligence assessments, scrutinize military spending, and seek information concerning civilian casualties.
According to the Congressional Research Service, a US Tomahawk missile reportedly struck the school, killing more than 150 people, most of them children.
A preliminary American military investigation reportedly concluded that US forces were responsible and had relied on outdated targeting information.
Similar investigations could examine whether American weapons supplied to “Israel” were used in violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza or Lebanon.
However, oversight alone would not guarantee accountability.
Investigations could expose evidence of misconduct without compelling changes in military policy, particularly if the administration resisted congressional demands or lawmakers failed to secure support for subsequent legislation.
The distinction between documenting the consequences of military intervention and preventing their recurrence would therefore remain central.
Iraq shows the limits of a Democratic congressional victory
The Iraq War offers a historical example of the difficulties facing a congressional majority attempting to challenge an ongoing military campaign.
Following the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats gained control of both chambers amid widespread opposition to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In 2007, Congress approved legislation linking additional military funding to a timetable for withdrawing US forces.
Unable to secure the votes required to override the veto, the Democratic-controlled Congress subsequently approved additional funding without the proposed withdrawal timetable.
The confrontation demonstrated that congressional opposition could create significant political pressure without necessarily forcing a change in military strategy.
It also exposed the difficulty of using appropriations to confront a president conducting an ongoing military campaign.
For Democrats in 2027, similar tensions could emerge over Iran.
Would lawmakers be willing to withhold additional funding if the administration argued that the money was necessary to protect deployed American forces?
Would restrictions extend to military operations involving “Israel” or Gulf partners?
And would opposition to Trump’s decisions develop into a broader challenge to Washington’s regional military commitments?
These questions concern political willingness as much as constitutional authority.
The regional military architecture remains largely bipartisan
The wider implications of a Democratic majority extend beyond the immediate confrontations involving Iran and Palestine.
Washington’s influence across West Asia rests on extensive military partnerships, arms agreements, intelligence cooperation, and strategic infrastructure maintained under successive administrations.
American military facilities across the Gulf have faced attacks, regional energy infrastructure has experienced disruption, and shipping restrictions have demonstrated the global economic consequences of escalation around the Strait of Hormuz.
Nevertheless, Washington continues to pursue military cooperation with regional governments.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between February 28 and September 2026, the Trump administration notified Congress of more than $64 billion in proposed arms sales to “Israel” and several Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
Of that amount, approximately $25.3 billion involved emergency procedures that bypassed standard congressional review requirements.
These arrangements illustrate the extent to which Washington’s regional presence depends on a network of military relationships rather than direct operations alone.
A Democratic majority could seek changes in those relationships, but opposition to Trump’s campaign against Iran would not automatically imply support for reducing American military deployments, limiting arms sales to regional partners, or restructuring Washington’s security commitments.
The same distinction applies to Palestine.
Congress could condition military assistance, investigate weapons transfers, and increase humanitarian funding.
However, formal diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood remains within the president’s exclusive constitutional recognition authority.
Similarly, a Democratic congressional majority could pressure the administration over its diplomatic support for “Israel”, but could not independently determine Washington’s voting position at the United Nations.
The persistence of these powers and institutions means that substantive foreign policy change would require more than a new congressional majority.
What would meaningful change actually require?
The central question following the November elections would not simply be whether Democrats introduce legislation criticizing Trump.
It would be whether Congress adopts measures capable of changing the financial, legal, and military arrangements underpinning Washington’s regional policies.
On Iran, such measures could involve enforceable restrictions on offensive military operations, changes to sanctions legislation, or limits on funds supporting further escalation.
On Palestine, they could include binding conditions on weapons transfers, restrictions on military assistance used in unlawful operations, and stronger legal accountability requirements.
More broadly, Congress could reconsider the scope of American military commitments, the terms of security assistance agreements, and the role of US forces across West Asia.
These decisions would represent a more substantial departure than symbolic resolutions or investigations focused exclusively on the actions of the Trump administration.
However, the current Democratic voting record does not establish a unified commitment to pursuing such a transformation.
The party contains lawmakers advocating far-reaching restrictions alongside others who support longstanding military and security arrangements.
This internal division matters because a narrow congressional majority could be sufficient to control committee leadership without providing the votes necessary to enact major changes.
The distinction between electoral control and policy transformation is therefore not merely constitutional.
It also concerns the political priorities of the lawmakers who would exercise that control.
Different leadership, enduring strategic commitments?
The November midterms could alter the balance of power in Washington and create additional obstacles to Trump’s military campaign against Iran.
A Democratic majority could strengthen oversight, challenge additional military spending, increase scrutiny of weapons transfers to “Israel”, and raise the political costs of further escalation.
Such developments would have tangible consequences, particularly if Congress enacted binding financial or legal restrictions.
Nevertheless, the historical record demonstrates that Washington’s regional policies have been sustained through institutions and commitments extending across Democratic and Republican administrations.
The Biden administration maintained military and diplomatic backing for “Israel” during the genocide in Gaza.
The Obama administration negotiated the long-term military assistance framework that continues to structure American support for the Israeli occupation.
And even as Democrats criticized Trump’s war on Iran, Congress approved legislation extending sanctions against Tehran through 2031.
These decisions reveal a crucial distinction between contesting the conduct of American military intervention and reconsidering the broader strategy behind it.
Changes in the pace of military operations, diplomatic tactics, or congressional oversight can carry considerable consequences without necessarily reversing established security commitments.
A Democratic majority could therefore constrain how Washington exercises its regional power without fundamentally changing the military, economic, and diplomatic policies through which that power has historically been maintained.
Whether the next Congress goes further would depend on the legislation lawmakers introduce, the restrictions they are prepared to enforce, and their willingness to challenge policies supported by administrations of their own party.
For Iran, Palestine, and the wider region, the significance of the elections will ultimately be measured not by which party controls Congress, but by whether American policy itself undergoes a substantive change.
Voters who put Donald Trump back in office over their ecconomic concerns now give him some of his rating on the ecconomy. (Illustrated by Ali al-Hadi Shmiiess for Al- Mayadeen English)
US growth of 2.2% looks solid on paper, yet prices, pay, hiring and mortgage rates are squeezing households as the Iran war and federal debt push costs up.
Donald Trump won the White House in 2024 largely on voters’ frustration with the economy. Of the 45% of voters who told exit pollsters that their families were worse off than four years earlier, 80% chose him, and AP VoteCast found that nearly two-thirds of the voters who said inflation mattered most to their decision did the same.
Fast forward to 2026, and less than three weeks before the midterm elections, that frustration is working against his party. Emerson College Polling finds that voters who rank the economy first now favor the Democratic candidate by 55% to 41%, and gasoline averages $4.36 a gallon, $1.24 more than a year ago, according to AAA.
The economy is also the issue voters rank highest this year. In a Pew Research Center survey, 29% of registered voters named it as the topic they most want candidates to address, ahead of every other issue, and 41% of likely voters in Emerson’s poll said it concerns them most. A July Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that the economy and high prices were the factors registered voters cited most often in their congressional choices.
Trump’s ratings explain the shift. An AP-NORC poll released October 1 found that 26% of Americans approve of how he is handling the economy and 17% approve of his handling of the cost of living, and 65% say his policies, more than outside factors, are responsible for high prices.
Trump’s explanation, given at a White House event on September 30, was that he had done “a very bad job of explaining how good the country is doing,” alongside his claim that the country is doing better than it ever has.
Three things explain why the economy officials describe and the one voters live in look so different. A war that raised the price of fuel for every household, borrowing that has helped push long-term interest rates to their highest level in 24 years, and a growth engine that runs on a small group of high-income households, AI companies, and government deficits.
An economy growing, on paper
By the standard measures, the economy is expanding. Real GDP grew at a 2.2% annual rate in the second quarter after 2.5% in the first, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis; unemployment was 4.2% in September against 4.4% a year earlier, and the Census Bureau reported that real median household income reached a record $87,460 in 2025, although income at the 10th percentile showed no significant change.
Officials describe a stronger economy than these figures show. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick predicted in January that first-quarter growth would top 5%, and the quarter finished at 2.5%.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said in May that growth could reach “north of four, north of five” percent, particularly if the war on Iran ended soon. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Axios this month that the numbers are strong “apart” from headline inflation.
The figures that arrived after those statements do not match them. Growth came in at 2.5% and 2.2% in the first two quarters, about half of what Lutnick predicted for the first, and Bessent’s exception covers the two measures households check first.
Inflation stood at 2.4% earlier this year, when Trump described it as defeated, and reached 3.7% in September, while real hourly earnings ended the same month 0.7% below their level a year earlier.
Higher prices, thinner pay and costlier loans
Consumer prices rose 3.7% in the 12 months to September, up from 3.4% in August and from 2.4% in February, before the war, with gasoline up 9.1% in September alone and 34.2% over the year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The $1.24 rise in the average pump price adds about $19 to filling a 15-gallon tank, and AAA says this is the first October in which the national average has topped $4.
But pay has not kept up. Average hourly earnings rose about 3% over the year, which left real hourly earnings 0.7% lower in September than a year earlier, whereas BLS data show them growing about 1.2% in January and February before energy prices rose.
Hiring has slowed as well, with employers adding 29,000 jobs in September against about 90,000 expected and revisions removing 60,000 jobs from July and August, so a 4.2% unemployment rate protects people who have jobs while people looking for work or a better job face fewer openings.
Loans have become costlier too. Freddie Mac’s survey put the average 30-year mortgage at 7.40% on October 8 against 6.30% a year earlier, which adds about $290 a month in principal and interest to a $400,000 loan.
The University of Michigan’s preliminary October sentiment index of 46.3 included a record-low reading on current conditions, with confidence down 20% among Republicans and 13% among Democrats since January.
Bessent attributes the current price pressure mainly to the war on Iran, so the war is the next place to look.
What the US war on Iran has cost
Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz carried about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, so its disruption raised fuel prices everywhere, and crude was still above $90 a barrel in early October according to AAA.
The cost reaches households first through gasoline and diesel and then through the goods that diesel moves. Brown University’s Iran War Energy Cost tracker estimates about $100 billion in extra gasoline and diesel spending by early September, more than $760 per household, and Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimated in July that higher energy and borrowing costs had cost the typical household about $1,100.
Officials said the shock would pass. Bessent told the Senate Finance Committee in June that the inflation was a short-term blip, yet headline inflation held at 3.4% in July and August and rose to 3.7% in September when gasoline climbed again.
The Federal Reserve responded to inflation that its chair, Kevin Warsh, described as too high for too long, raising its policy rate unanimously on September 16 to a range of 3.75% to 4%, its first increase since 2023, and 16 of 18 officials projected at least one more by year-end.
That tightening arrives on top of a federal deficit and a bond market that were already under strain.
The federal government borrowed about $2.0 trillion in the fiscal year that ended September 30, $218 billion more than the year before, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with $7.4 trillion of spending set against $5.4 trillion of revenue.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the deficit equals 6.2% of GDP and that interest costs reached a record $1.1 trillion, and its president, Maya MacGuineas, says the government now spends more on yearly interest than on national defense.
That borrowing meets a more expensive bond market. The 10-year Treasury yield, which is the return investors demand for lending to the government for ten years and the benchmark for mortgages and corporate loans, reached 5.34% on October 1, its highest since 2002. It stood near 4% in February and has risen about 60 basis points, or 0.6 percentage points, since the end of July, and mortgage rates rose with it from just under 6% at their low to 7.40%.
No single cause explains the rise. The Fed’s September minutes, released October 7, record that yields from two to ten years climbed about 35 basis points between meetings, with market commentary citing geopolitical developments, uncertainty over a Treasury buyback program and competition for capital from heavy corporate borrowing to finance artificial intelligence infrastructure.
The New York Fed’s estimate of the term premium, the extra return investors require for holding a long-term bond, reached its highest level since 2014, which Reuters said reflects concern about rising debt and government financing. Bessent has called the bond moves global, and yields have also risen in Britain, France and Germany, though the term premium suggests US debt is part of the explanation.
The Dallas Fed cited Wall Street estimates of about $300 billion in AI-related investment-grade bond issuance this year, roughly an eighth of the long-term bond supply from Treasury issuance, which puts AI companies and the Treasury in competition for the same lenders.
The medium-term effects fall first on housing, where mortgage rates above 7% discourage buying and building, and on business projects outside the AI sector, which must promise higher returns to justify borrowing. The long-term effect runs through the federal budget, because the Treasury refinances maturing debt at prevailing rates and each new issue at a higher yield locks in a larger interest bill until it matures.
CBO projects that publicly held debt, now about 100% of GDP, will reach 120% by 2036. CBO Director Phillip Swagel said at a Minneapolis Fed conference on October 8 that growth alone is unlikely to stabilize that path, and Fortune reported that he put the necessary growth at 5% to 6% a year, a figure CBO has not separately confirmed, against its baseline of 1.8% from 2027 and the roughly 3% growth Bessent has argued could help.
What is holding growth up?
Three supports account for much of the growth that continues despite the squeeze on households.
Consumer spending is the largest, rising at a 3.8% annual rate in the second quarter, and a January analysis by Moody’s Analytics of Federal Reserve data found that households in the top 20% by income account for 59% of it, which helps explain why spending stays firm while sentiment sits near record lows. That spending is also outrunning income, since personal outlays rose $190.7 billion in August against a $66.6 billion rise in personal income, and the saving rate was 4.1%, according to BEA.
Share prices support the same households through what economists call the wealth effect, in which owners of rising assets spend more. The Kobeissi Letter, a market research newsletter, calculated that 42 AI-linked companies produced two-thirds of the S&P 500’s price gains since the start of 2024, while the Fed minutes record that this year’s rise in equity prices came entirely from higher earnings as price-to-earnings multiples fell.
AI investment adds to growth directly through spending on data centers, software and equipment. No official statistic isolates it, and imported chips subtract from GDP when counted as imports, so estimates vary, with ING putting the contribution near a third of year-over-year growth.
Government borrowing is the third support, because a $2.0 trillion deficit equal to 6.2% of GDP, nearly three times the economy’s 2.2% growth rate, sustains demand through tax cuts, transfers and government purchases, although no official figure divides growth by cause.
The three supports depend on one another. Rising share prices lift spending by wealthy households, technology companies borrow to build data centers, their bond sales add to the long-term debt that Treasury borrowing already supplies, and higher yields then raise mortgage costs for everyone else. If AI earnings disappoint, share prices, wealth-driven spending, investment, and the debt financing it would all come under pressure together.
What to watch for in October
Three releases will show whether the pressures are easing before the election.
The University of Michigan publishes its final October sentiment reading on October 23, the Federal Reserve announces its next rate decision on October 28 after a two-day meeting, and the Commerce Department publishes September personal income and outlays on October 29.
Oil shipments through Hormuz matter as much as any of them, because gasoline accounted for more than half of September’s monthly price increase.
The evidence before November 3 shows an economy that is growing on a narrow base, that took a price shock from a war the United States launched, and that will carry the borrowing costs after the shock fades.
What this means for the midterms
When asked how they judge the economy, a CBS News survey found that almost all Americans use prices to gauge the well-being of the economy. And if conditions continue as is, costs are likely to compound.
Gas prices tend to fall more slowly than they rise, according to CNN’s reporting, so relief at the pump would trail any end to the fighting. Sixteen of 18 Fed officials expect another rate increase this year, which would keep mortgage and business loan rates high at a time when employers added only 29,000 jobs in September, and the government’s interest bill would grow with them, narrowing its room to offer relief.
The effect on the election shows up in the polling. The CBS News Battleground Tracker estimates that Democrats hold a narrow House majority, with the advantage coming mostly from frustration over prices and a Republican base that looks less likely to vote. Reuters/Ipsos found that 64% of Republicans give the White House at least some blame for rising costs.
Trump told supporters on September 30 that his failure was in explaining how well the country is doing, and the voters he is addressing have spent the year comparing that description with their own receipts.
By Christopher Lynn Hedges (born September 18, 1956) American journalist, author, commentator and Presbyterian minister.
In his early career, Hedges worked as a freelance war correspondent in Central America for The Christian Science Monitor, NPR, and The Dallas Morning News. Hedges reported for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005, and served as the Times Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief during the wars in the former Yugoslavia.In 2001, Hedges contributed to The New York Times staff entry that received the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.
Chris Hedges
”Donald Trump exhibits the classic traits of psychopaths — superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance, a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation and incapacity for remorse or guilt.
But is he evil?
Susan Nieman
If, as the philosopher Susan Nieman writes, evil is not simply the opposite of good but inimical to it, if the aim of evil is to destroy all moral distinctions, then Trump qualifies as evil. Morality, for Trump, is for losers. All life is transactional. Self-interest and self-enrichment usurp all other considerations. No one else matters.
In her new book, “Call It Evil: Understanding the Trump Era,” Neiman argues that evil “isn’t cruelty but something much worse: the ideas that allow cruelty to become ordinary.”
She continues:
There’s a difference between calling one action evil and calling another a crime. Crimes are things for which we have procedures—at least for punishing, if not for preventing. This means that a crime can be fit in some way into the rest of our experience. To call an action evil is to suggest it cannot—and that it thereby threatens the trust in the world that we need to navigate it. There’s no signpost on the border between evil and awful. Evil is what you say when your jaw begins to drop if you sense that a line has been crossed.
Trump crosses line after line. He declares wars on a whim. He enriches himself and his family in crypto schemes, from which he has made over a billion dollars. He orders assassinations and the kidnapping of heads of state. He uses billions of taxpayer dollars to sustain genocide in Palestine and since January 2025 has provided over $20 billion in new arms sales to Israel. He guts government departments designed to lift up the vulnerable and bloats the war budget. He builds rogue paramilitary forces to terrorize citizens and immigrants. He attacks and attempts to censor the news industry.
In short, he does what all who commit evil do.
He fosters a world where nothing is sacred and where democracy and civic virtues do not exist.
Concepts of fairness, decorum, justice and empathy are imploded by the Trump administration. His threat to annihilate Iran – i.e. carry out genocide – announced of all places at the United Nations, is greeted with indifference by a public rendered numb by his moral vacuity.
“Once the supremacy of self-interest is enshrined as commonsense realism rather than a philosophical idea, moral capacities like empathy and shame become not just naïve but suspect,” Neiman writes. “Sadists exist and cause no end of pain. But the most common forms of evil arise from the view that only fools believe in anything but their own advantage.”
The institutions designed to protect democracy, to safeguard civic virtues, to foster equality — including the courts, law firms, universities and the media, all of which have been captured by the billionaire class — swiftly fell to their knees to curry favor with the Trump White House. The titans in Silicon Valley showered him and his campaign with millions of dollars. The supposed virtues these institutions and individuals claimed they championed were jettisoned. These virtues, they illustrated, were nothing more than branding, performance art, a sham.
To an enraged public Trump’s transparent greed and cruelty is preferable to the slick hypocrisy of the politicians, Republican and Democrat, who preceded him. He does not engage in their faux empathy. In fact, he seems incapable of empathy.
Once morality is for fools, virtue makes no sense. Once we believe we should grab what we can, even at the expense of those around us, we surrender to evil.
“Unlike the rest of us, he permanently exhibits the combination of motives we are told are the true forces driving human behavior,” Neiman writes of Trump:
Nor does he appear to understand any other. Though he recognizes that other people, aka losers, have norms, he has no idea of how norms work, moving people to override self-interest in order to honor them. In acting on the international stage like Richard Dawkins’s ruthless genes, he has attracted millions of followers who tell us they admire his authenticity. This doesn’t mean his followers are deplorable. They may not be evil at all, but in a world where implacable self-interest is usually camouflaged in soft colors, they find his candor refreshing. They have so often heard that people conceal the raw self-interest that really moves things, they’re relieved to watch a man who never hides it.
The worst evil, Neiman argues, “may be the denial of evil – as well as disdain for any goodness that might oppose it. When self-interest becomes the basis of reason, evil no longer needs to justify itself. It’s already been mistaken for rationality.”
This evil leads us down the familiar road to fascism. It was Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s first term, who warned us, calling Trump “fascist to the core.”
The media — too spineless to label Trump a fascist — prefers the word “authoritarian,’ which Neiman notes may be a more bearable word, but “will not make fascism more bearable.”
Authoritarianism, she notes:
[I]s a word that can be useful for describing certain German professors, and the softer sort of Latin American military regime. But a country where masked men deport people to wastelands they’ve never seen? Combat troops occupy major cities and shoot peacefully protesting citizens? A government that coerces media, universities, and other countries to suit its will? A military that blows fishermen to bits with the meagerest of justifications, then begins the kind of wars the International Military Court at Nuremberg condemned? As it wrote in 1946, ‘To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’ It would be easy to go on, but counting crimes is pointless. Before these words are printed, the administration will have found countless new ways to flout the rule of law.
We are in deep trouble.
The moral rot in our society preceded Trump. He is its logical conclusion. He is the apotheosis of a culture where greed, exploitation and self-interest, the core tenets of neoliberalism, are held up as the defining forces of human existence.
We must fight back while we can. But to do so requires that we recapture the language of good and evil. It requires us to make moral choices and to accept self-sacrifice. It requires us to name the bleakness before us, not turn our faces from the fascist monolith being cemented into place.
Denying these truths and refusing to defy evil will ensure our enslavement.
Speaking these truths and standing with the oppressed and the marginalized, even at the cost of our own financial and physical security, will set us free.”
Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too.
Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$280+ BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation 150B direct “aid” and $ 130B in “Offense” contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT’s fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
Posted on October 15, 2026 by uprootedpalestinians
Saudi Arabia’s expensive air defenses and sustained airstrikes have failed to neutralize Yemen’s resilient missile capabilities and underground infrastructure, exposing the strategic limitations of technological superiority against adaptive, decentralized warfare.
The Saudi infrastructure spurring its petroleum economy is under sustained, repeated, and increasingly precise retaliatory attacks from the Yemeni armed forces as tensions escalate.
For a kingdom that has spent hundreds of billions of dollars constructing what it imagined would be an impenetrable security architecture, US fighter jets, French air defense batteries, German naval vessels, British training contracts, and the crown jewel of it all, the US-built Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, the recent developments have sent jitters through the power corridors of Riyadh.
Yemeni armed forces lack sophisticated weapons industries, satellite constellations, or foreign exchange reserves. Still, the Sana’a government has managed to effectively sever Saudi Arabia’s access to Bab al-Mandeb, the narrow maritime chokepoint through which a critical fraction of global energy trade flows.
It is this force that compelled the closure of King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh through drone and missile operations, a siege-for-siege response to the years-long Saudi aerial and maritime blockade that has strangled Yemen’s civilian population.
It is this force whose precision strikes on Aramco facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais, on pumping stations, and on refinery infrastructure across the kingdom’s vital petroleum belt have demonstrated, with regularity, that Saudi Arabia cannot defend what matters most to it.
The kingdom’s response has been a characteristic search for foreign saviors. Delegations to Islamabad requesting Pakistani air defense expertise. Urgent consultations in Ankara. Emergency procurement discussions in Washington and London. The image projected is not of a self-sufficient regional power but of an anxious client state, checkbook in hand, shopping for solutions to a self-imposed problem its own military has proven structurally incapable of solving.
King Khalid International Airport burns after a retaliatory Yemeni strike
Air defense collapse, and the THAAD failure
Before turning to the specific subject of Saudi airstrikes against underground Yemeni installations, the most visible symptom of strategic incoherence, it is worth situating that failure within the broader collapse of Saudi military credibility.
Saudi-backed ground forces in Yemen have consisted primarily of foreign forces, Yemeni tribal militias of variable loyalty, and special operations elements from various foreign actors. Against the organized, ideologically motivated, and tactically experienced ground forces of the Sana’a government, they have repeatedly failed to hold terrain.
More damaging to Saudi prestige than any ground reversal, however, has been the comprehensive failure of domestic and foreign air defense systems. The kingdom paid in excess of $15 billion for its THAAD battery, a system purpose-built to intercept ballistic missiles.
The procurement involved years on the American waiting list, diplomatic negotiations at the highest levels, and the deployment of US military personnel to operate and maintain the system.
Saudi leadership purchased THAAD not merely as a military capability but as a political statement: ‘We have bought the best the Americans make, and we are protected.’
Yemeni ballistic missiles, launched in single-digit coordinated salvos, sometimes as few as two or three per strike, have penetrated this layered defense with regularity. Whether through saturation, trajectory manipulation, or simple exploitation of the system’s well-documented limitations against short-range ballistic missiles, Yemeni forces have consistently gotten through.
Saudi military personnel posing with a THAAD launcher
The Air Force that cannot win
By almost any metric of hardware quality, the RSAF is a formidable force on paper. It operates the F-15SA, the Saudi Advanced variant of the F-15 Eagle, in numbers that make it the second-largest F-15 fleet in the world, behind only the United States Air Force itself.
The F-15SA incorporates the APG-63(V)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, the latest mission computer architecture, digital fly-by-wire flight controls, and compatibility with the full American precision munitions inventory.
Alongside the F-15 fleet, the RSAF fields Eurofighter Typhoons, Panavia Tornadoes, and a supporting infrastructure of tankers, electronic warfare aircraft, and intelligence-gathering platforms that most regional air forces can only dream of.
The RSAF has operated over Yemen since March 2015, a decade, with complete air superiority. There is no Yemeni air force capable of contesting the airspace. Saudi pilots fly with impunity in the sense that no enemy aircraft will challenge them.
The operating environment, in terms of air-to-air threat, is essentially zero.
And yet the strategic outcome is failure. The Yemeni military’s ability to launch ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones at targets inside Saudi Arabia, and to do so with increasing accuracy and frequency, has not been degraded in any measurable way.
The missile production infrastructure has not been destroyed. The command structure has not been decapitated. The flow of materiel has not been stopped.
What the RSAF has accomplished, at tremendous financial cost and with horrific humanitarian consequences for the Yemeni population, is the destruction of civilian infrastructure – bridges, markets, hospitals, water treatment facilities, and residential neighborhoods.
A Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA on the tarmac at a Saudi airbase
The underground problem
The specific absurdity the Saudi Ministry of Defense has presented to the world as evidence of effectiveness involves strikes against underground installations in northern Yemen.
The footage is remarkably consistent in its production values and in its uselessness as evidence, involving dramatic angles, slow-motion detonations, epic orchestral or nasheed-inflected soundtracks, plumes of smoke and dust rising from ridgelines or hillsides, and the implicit claim that something of military significance has been destroyed.
What is actually being shown is a hole in a mountain, or the entrance to a tunnel, or a surface vent of an underground complex.
To understand why this constitutes the expenditure of very expensive munitions for essentially no military return, one must understand the history of underground military infrastructure in Yemen, and the specific context in which Ansarullah developed it.
The Yemeni military in its earliest form, from the first Sa’ada war in 2004 through the subsequent cycles of war before the 2014-2015 collapse of the Saudi-backed Hadi regime, was concentrated largely in the mountainous terrain of Sa’ada governorate.
These highlands are geologically ideal for irregular warfare. The terrain is broken, the rock is workable, and the valleys create natural defensive corridors.
The Saudi Air Force bombing tunnel entrances and causing little more than a few hours of work for construction crews
By the time the Ansarullah movement formed the popular government in Sana’a in 2014-2015 and inherited the full infrastructure of the Yemeni state, including the military bases, ammunition depots, command centers, and technical facilities that had been under construction since the 1970s, it had already developed deep institutional knowledge of subterranean operations.
What it then did was scale. The former Yemeni armed forces had invested substantially in hardened underground facilities, many of them constructed with Soviet and Chinese assistance during the Cold War competition for influence in the Arabian Peninsula.
Some of these facilities were designed to survive exactly the kind of air campaign now being directed against them. The result is a layered underground infrastructure: legacy hardened military sites, expanded and modified; natural cave systems developed into military use; and new purpose-built tunnel complexes constructed during the ongoing war itself, using both local engineering capacity and the technical lessons accumulated over a decade of surviving devastating Saudi airstrikes.
Satellite footage from 2024 depicting activity and construction efforts at Yemeni underground facilities during the ceasefire period.
What a tunnel strike actually achieves
The operational reality of striking a tunnel complex with conventional air-delivered munitions is well understood in military literature, and the conclusion is uncomfortable for anyone proposing that Saudi airstrikes are achieving meaningful degradation of Yemeni underground facilities.
A strike on a tunnel entrance achieves, at best, a temporary blockage of that specific entrance. The structural integrity of the tunnel itself, which may extend hundreds of meters into solid rock, is essentially unaffected by a bomb detonating at its mouth.
The debris created by the strike can typically be cleared by a team with hand tools and light equipment in a timeframe ranging from hours to a few days, depending on the extent of the collapse and the resources available.
If the complex has multiple entrances, which any competent military facility will, the affected entrance is irrelevant to operational continuity from the moment the strike lands.
More Saudi strikes against hardened Yemeni positions
The B-2 precedent: When America tried and came up short
The limits of even the most capable bunker-busting capability in the world were demonstrated twice by American attacks against Yemeni underground facilities.
In 2024 and 2025, the United States deployed B-2 Spirit strategic bombers against Yemeni targets on at least two documented occasions.
The B-2 is the only aircraft currently in service capable of carrying the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a weapon specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities. The MOP weighs approximately 30,000 pounds, of which roughly 5,300 pounds is explosive fill.
The B-2 strikes on Yemen, involving aircraft worth approximately $2.1 billion each operating from Diego Garcia, did not stop or meaningfully degrade Yemeni missile and drone operations. Attacks against Saudi Arabia and against shipping in the Red Sea corridor continued with no observable reduction in tempo or capability.
American B-2s stationed in Diego Garcia in 2025
In the aftermath of these aggressive attacks, American officials indicated that MOPs had not been used, and that the strikes employed BLU-109 configurations. The explanation offered, that MOPs were available but not used, is curious.
One reading is that the Americans assessed the targets as not requiring MOP-class munitions, implying the strikes achieved their objectives. Another reading, perhaps the most operationally honest, is that the facility hardening had been assessed, the limitations of available munitions were understood, and the strikes were ordered for political and deterrent signaling purposes rather than with genuine expectations of permanent infrastructure destruction.
Alternatively, it is possible that MOPs were used but failed to cause the desired impact. Whatever the reasoning, the operational result is the same. The most expensive aircraft in the world, using serious penetrating munitions, operating with complete air superiority, did not stop Yemeni strikes.
A B-2 Spirit in flight dropping a test version of GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
What Is Saudi Arabia actually trying to achieve?
Against this backdrop, a decade of strikes, an unimpaired and growing Yemeni strike capability, and a demonstrated American inability to eliminate the Yemeni resistance with the world’s most capable penetrating weapons, the question of Saudi strategic intent becomes genuinely difficult to answer charitably.Several possible explanations exist, and they are not mutually exclusive.
The footage released recently is domestic and regional political products as much as military communications. Saudi leadership is under significant pressure, from the ruling family itself, from the business community whose assets are being struck, from foreign partners watching the kingdom’s security guarantees erode in real time.
Producing footage of dramatic explosions and pairing it with inspiring music is a way of asserting that something is being done, regardless of whether that something is achieving anything.
Perhaps most honestly, the RSAF may be striking underground entrances and hardened facilities because it has exhausted every other target category and this is what remains on the approved list. The visible Yemeni military infrastructure in exposed positions was struck and restruck in the first years of the aggression.
Mobile missile launchers, a notoriously difficult target category even for the most capable intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance assets, have proven largely elusive. Leadership targets are well protected. Logistics nodes are dispersed and mobile. The mountain tunnel entrance, in this reading, is not a strategic choice but a default, the target that is findable, strikable, and filmable, even if not destroyable.
The structural problem: An Air Force without a purpose it can fulfill
The deeper failure of the RSAF is not a problem of hardware or pilots. It is a problem of strategic function. The RSAF was designed, equipped, and trained for air superiority operations against a peer air force, long-range strike operations against a state with a coherent target set, and close air support for conventional ground forces in maneuver warfare.
None of these missions exist in Yemen. There is no peer air force. The target set is not a coherent state infrastructure that can be collapsed by strategic bombing. It is a distributed, mobile, dispersed, and deeply underground military system that has been hardened specifically against air attack and has had a decade to learn the precise capabilities and habits of the air force striking it.
The result is an air force conducting a strike campaign that is unable to produce the strategic effect its users require. The Yemeni missile and drone capability is not going to be destroyed from the air with the munitions the RSAF has available.
It was not going to be destroyed by the Americans with significantly better munitions. It will not be destroyed by any future configuration of Saudi, American, or other coalition air power.
Saudi Arabia is in the position of a man who has spent his fortune on the finest locks and alarms, watched his house burn down anyway, and is now asking locksmiths in Islamabad, Ankara, Washington, and London whether they have something better.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has reiterated that the Islamic Republic stands prepared to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Irish novelist Sally Rooney speaks at a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Super panel at the Teachers Club in Dublin, Ireland, April 9, 2026.
Irish novelist Sally Rooney says her books can no longer be sold in the UK because of her support for Palestine Action, warning that fulfilling her British publishing contracts could now constitute a “criminal offense.”
The bestselling author of Normal People and Conversations with Friends made the remarks in a statement provided to The Guardian on Wednesday, saying her support for the pro-Palestinian activist group means her books can no longer be sold in the UK and she can no longer receive royalties from British sales.
She said she had made every effort to be transparent about her beliefs and intentions and was prepared to accept the consequences.
Rooney has previously said she would donate her earnings to Palestine Action.
The pro-Palestine group that carries out direct action against Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chains was proscribed as a “terrorist organization” in July 2025.
The following month, Rooney published an opinion piece declaring her intention to continue supporting the group, which remains legal in the Republic of Ireland.
In a witness statement submitted to the High Court in London, Rooney warned that the group’s proscription could undermine freedom of expression, force her existing books off British shelves and prevent her future works from being published in the UK.
Her publisher, Faber, has consequently decided to stop supplying her books in the country, a decision Rooney fully supports.
In a separate statement, Faber said UK legislation had created circumstances in which it could no longer pass on to Rooney the earnings generated by British sales of her books.
Rooney also canceled a planned trip to the UK to receive an award, fearing she could be arrested over her declared support for Palestine Action.
Rooney’s books have enjoyed major commercial success in the UK, with Normal People selling more than one million copies, while Conversations with Friends and Beautiful World,Where Are You have each sold more than 500,000 copies.
The BBC adaptation of Normal People attracted 62.7 million views, becoming the broadcaster’s most-streamed series of 2020.
Under the UK government’s ban on Palestine Action, both membership in the group and expressing support for it are “criminal offenses.”
Wearing clothing or displaying items in circumstances that indicate support for the organization can also lead to prosecution.
Last year, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenged the ban. The High Court ruled in her favor in February, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in June. The Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal next month.
More than 3,700 people have been arrested since the ban came into force, many for holding signs in support of the group. About 2,500 people have been charged, although none have gone to trial, as the legal challenge to the ban continues.
A Yemeni official has revealed that mediation efforts are underway to free the city of Taiz without a fight and hand its administration to its own people, as the Yemeni Armed Forces continue to advance against Saudi-backed forces.
Arif al-Ameri, coordinator for relations and communication for the parties opposed to the aggression, told Al Mayadeen Wednesday that the armed forces are pressing ahead with efforts to “liberate land from the mercenaries and aggression forces.”
He explained that the approach is to free an area, hand its administration to local residents, and then move on to the next.
Taiz a ‘capital of culture’
Al-Ameri described Taiz as the “capital of culture” and said its liberation would amount to a “geopolitical shift.”
He disclosed that mediation efforts to free the city without fighting are already in progress, and that messages of reassurance are being sent to say the people of Taiz will be the ones to run its affairs.
He added that intensive efforts are also underway to spare the governorates not yet liberated from bloodshed, through the same assurances and the same handover of administration to local residents.
Al-Ameri concluded that Sanaa welcomes any mediation that meets the demands of the Yemeni people, lifts the siege and protects national sovereignty.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief in Yemen had reported earlier that the Yemeni Armed Forces have reached the outskirts and entrances of Taiz city, while mediation continues to secure the withdrawal of forces from some districts.
Saudi raids bomb civilian sites
The developments come against a backdrop of continued Saudi aggression against Yemen. Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Saudi warplanes carried out 42 airstrikes and missile attacks over the past 24 hours, targeting civilian sites in Sanaa and in the governorates of Taiz, Lahj, Marib and Amran, as well as Mayun Island.
Saree said Saudi F-15 and Typhoon jets took off from the Khamis Mushait and Taif air bases, while the missile attacks were launched from Najran. He added that the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks on Yemen since the latest escalation began has reached 2,323.
On Tuesday, Saree announced a special military operation targeting Aramco facilities in Dhahran in the Eastern Province, King Khalid International Airport, and the Aramco refinery in Riyadh, in response to wide-scale Saudi attacks on Sanaa earlier the same day.
“The operation involved a large number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones,” Saree said. “By the grace of Allah, the strikes hit their targets accurately, causing destruction and fires at the targeted sites.”
He vowed that operations deep inside Saudi territory will continue in the coming days, targeting Saudi Arabia’s airports and oil facilities, warning that “the consequences will be severe for it.”
Saree urged international shipping companies, along with civilians and workers at the targeted airports and companies, to stay away from those sites and evacuate them immediately, as they have become legitimate targets.
He reaffirmed Sanaa’s military equation of “blockade for blockade, escalation for escalation,” and said Yemeni forces will keep targeting Saudi military buildups “until the aggression against our beloved country stops and the blockade is lifted.”
Israeli Army Spokesperson announced, “Following the explosion in the north of the country, a preliminary investigation conducted by IDF forces at the scene indicates that the blast was likely caused by a Hezbollah cluster bomb that had remained in the area and detonated.”
The military spox added that the incident remained under investigation, noting that the IOF continue operating in the area.
Israeli media reported that 20 Zionist settlers were injured to varying degrees in Yiftah, in the Ramim Ridge area along the Lebanese border. The reports said the injuries were believed to have resulted from an explosion at the scene, possibly caused by unexploded ordnance.
Supreme Political Council President Mahdi al-Mashat says strikes on Saudi Arabia aim to end the 12-year war and blockade on Yemen, reclaim national resources, expel occupiers, and safeguard holy sites and maritime security.
Sanaa’s military operations against Saudi Arabia are justified and aim to force Riyadh to end its longstanding aggression and blockade of Yemen, Mahdi al-Mashat, the president of the Supreme Political Council, said on Tuesday.
In remarks to SABA News Agency, al-Mashat said the most immediate path to a solution lies in ending the Saudi war and blockade against Yemen. He emphasized that the battle is now aimed at bringing an end to 12 years of continued aggression and siege, reclaiming the country’s national wealth and resources, and expelling every occupier from Yemeni territory.
He reaffirmed Yemen’s determination to confront Saudi Arabia until its war and blockade are brought to an end, including by striking its military build-ups to thwart its objective of occupying the country.
Addressing Saudi Arabia directly, al-Mashat stated that “the sensible one among those involved in the invasion of Yemen is the one who takes the initiative to leave it before it is too late.”
Al-Mashat further noted that Saudi policies had repeatedly obstructed major national milestones, weakened the Yemeni state, and prevented the country from harnessing its resources and wealth. Yemenis, he maintained, now face a historic opportunity to consolidate their national project and build a strong and just state, free from subservience to foreign powers or external dependency.
Holy sites are a red line, international navigation is safe
Al-Mashat held KSA fully responsible for any attack on holy sites or any attempt to implicate the Yemeni people in such acts. Emphasizing that holy sites constitute a red line, he warned that Sanaa would not remain silent in the face of any reckless act.
He argued that Saudi Arabia’s repeated allegations that Yemen had targeted Medina exposed its state of helplessness and failure, while reflecting its actions in accordance with Zionist plans. Al-Mashat also renewed his call for countries and entities endorsing these accusations to reconsider their positions and verify the claims.
In a separate statement, al-Mashat condemned “the crimes of Saudi aggression and the targeting of civilians,” saying they laid bare Riyadh’s “brutality” and affirming Yemen’s right to respond.
Concluding his remarks, he stressed that international navigation remains safe and that Yemen is committed to fulfilling its international obligations concerning maritime navigation.
He warned, however, that the threat to maritime security stems from Saudi Arabia turning the Bab al-Mandab Strait into a war zone, and called on the international community to condemn this course of action.
The agency added that the aggression has involved 300,000 Saudi airstrikes, which have hit homes, residential neighborhoods, markets, hospitals, and schools. It said the raids have also struck funeral gatherings, weddings, roads, bridges, displacement camps, airports, ports, and factories.
On Tuesday, Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Saudi warplanes carried out 104 airstrikes across Yemen over the past 24 hours.
Saree said the raids bombed the governorates of Sanaa, Dhamar, Taiz, Amran, Lahj, al-Jawf, Marib, Saada, and Saada.
In a separate incident, three citizens were martyred after an unexploded remnant of the Saudi aggression detonated in the Hays district, south of Hodeidah, Saba News Agency reported.
Iran’s top security official says the US will meet the same fate as previous powers that tried to conquer Iran.
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Major General Mohsen Rezaei, says powers greater than the US have tried to conquer Iran but ultimately ended up in the “dustbin of history.”
During an exclusive interview with Press TV on Saturday, Rezaei said the “US suffered repeated defeats in its confrontation with Iran and has consequently turned to economic warfare out of desperation.”
Iran, rather than the US, would determine when the confrontation ends, he said, stressing that Tehran would continue its resistance until its rightful demands are met.
Addressing the presence of US forces in the region, Rezaei told Press TV that the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reflected Washington’s failure to impose its military agenda on the region, describing it as a vindication of Iran’s resistance to American military presence in West Asia.
Rezaei further said that more than “30 million Iranians have registered in ‘Janfada’ (Sacrifice for Iran) Campaign to take up arms in the event of US aggression.”
On the prospects for ending the war, Rezaei said Iran would continue to pursue diplomacy but would not return to its previous negotiating framework.
“We will not return to the diplomatic approach of the past,” he said, referring to three rounds of negotiations that he said had ended with the United States abandoning talks and attacking Iran.
“Of course, we have never abandoned diplomacy, and we never will. But we have changed our approach,” he added.
Rezaei said Iran had presented Washington with seven conditions, following contacts through Pakistan, Qatar and Iraq. According to him, the United States had responded to the proposals, accepting some conditions while leaving others unclear.
He described the American response as inadequate and said Washington needed to clarify the outstanding issues before further steps could be taken.
“We are not in the process of responding to the Americans. They have responded to us, and we consider their response inadequate,” he said.
$2 trillion in US tech infrastructure could be targeted
The senior official warned that, if Washington launched another act of aggression against Iran, American assets could be targeted, including key data systems and artificial intelligence sensors.
Rezaei further warned that US-linked technology infrastructure worth more than $2 trillion in the region could be targeted if Iran came under attack again.
“The pulse of the American economy in this region runs through our part of the world,” Rezaei said, adding that the United States has placed valuable technological assets in West Asia, including data centers and artificial intelligence facilities.
“We have not yet included these assets among our targets. But if war breaks out, many of these cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities, and numerous other sites will be destroyed,” he said.
He also warned that Iran is prepared to deploy additional military capabilities if the war resumes.
He said Tehran had deliberately held back some of its military capabilities during the 12-day war and had used more of its capabilities during the subsequent 40-day aggression.
“Today, we are fully prepared to introduce new capabilities if the war starts again,” he said.
Rezaei also identified Washington and its regional allies as the root of the problem surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
Rezaei said Tehran would retain control over the management of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a substantial share of global energy supplies normally passes.
“Our control over the Strait of Hormuz represents enormous national wealth and a major national asset,” he said, adding that Iran’s interests extended beyond collecting fees from passing ships.
He said Iran could derive economic benefits from charging vessels for security, insurance and environmental protection, but maintained that the strait’s wider strategic value lay in ensuring security in the region.
“From now on, therefore, we will maintain control over the management of the Strait of Hormuz. It will remain under our management to ensure peace and security in the region. We will not back down on this issue,” he said.
Rezaei rejected US claims that the waterway was open, noting that some vessels are operating through smuggling networks and that the current level of maritime traffic remained far below prewar levels.
He also said Iranian forces had been striking five or six vessels involved in such operations on any given night over the preceding two or three months.
Rezaei pointed out that restrictions on shipping had affected the movement of oil, gas, helium and fertilizers, while contributing to higher energy prices and economic pressure.
Before the war, he said, the strait had been open and maritime traffic had proceeded without such disruption.
Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to the latest round of US-Israeli aggression, preventing US and allied ships from navigating the strategic waterway.
The move resulted in a significant increase in oil and energy prices across the globe, especially in the US, forcing Washington and the International Energy Agency (IEA) to release their strategic resources several times.
Following the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Iran and the US in June, Tehran opened the Strait of Hormuz, but after the US violated the MoU by blockading Iranian ports, Iran’s Armed Forces closed the maritime corridor once again.
‘The Iranian people do not surrender’
Rezaei also rejected the prospect of Iran yielding to US pressure, stressing that the outcome of the war would ultimately depend on the Iranian people.
“The Iranian people do not surrender. They are the ones who force others to surrender before them. But they will never surrender to you,” he said.
He added that Iran would continue resisting until its rights were recognized, while saying that US officials are underestimating the country’s history and national resolve.
In his closing remarks, Rezaei said Washington’s efforts to weaken Iran had instead strengthened opposition to the United States among Iranians.
“The end of this war is in the hands of the Iranian nation,” he said. “They will not abandon their resistance, steadfastness, or defense until they force you to recognize their rights.”
A senior Yemeni source tells Al Mayadeen that over 400 Saudi-backed forces were killed or wounded in Ras al-Ara, as Saudi Arabia mobilizes its ground forces despite the scale of its losses.
Saudi Arabia has been pressing its military mobilizations to achieve any field advance, regardless of the cost, a senior Yemeni source told Al Mayadeen, amid mounting casualties among Saudi-backed forces.
The source said there is growing discontent among Saudi-backed forces over the “shocking” number of dead and wounded, while Saudi Arabia continues pushing its forces forward despite the losses.
The Yemeni source said more than 400 members of the Giants Brigades, a Saudi-backed formation, have been killed or wounded so far in Ras al-Ara in Lahj, including commanders.
The mounting casualties have fueled discontent among Saudi-backed fighters, according to the source, who said the scale of the losses has become a source of growing concern among the forces deployed in the area.
WATCH | Yemeni Armed Forces Military Media shares footage showing security operations in the remaining areas of Same'a , As-Silw, and Al-Mawasit districts, alongside Saudi-backed forces surrendering to the Yemeni Armed Forces in response to the general amnesty decree.#Yemen… pic.twitter.com/b2BygcveSx
The intensity of the Yemeni missile attacks, he said, has complicated Saudi Arabia’s efforts to achieve military gains and added pressure to its ongoing escalation against Yemen.
The source also pointed to growing fears in Saudi Arabia that the war could continue for an extended period, adding that some companies and investors have already begun considering leaving Saudi Arabia.
YAF repel second Saudi-backed advance toward Bab al-Mandab from Lahj
In a statement, Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Yemeni Armed Forces, said the YAF struck the advancing forces with a large number of ballistic missiles, supported by artillery and heavy weapons, preventing them from making any further advances.
The forces also reported that more than 30 ambulances had arrived in Aden carrying dead and wounded members of the Saudi-backed formations.
The announcement comes amid conflicting accounts of control over areas around Bab al-Mandab, with Saudi-backed forces claiming to have secured positions in the area while the Yemeni Armed Forces say they have repelled repeated advances and driven back the attacking forces.
تمكنت قواتنا المسلحة بفضل الله وعونه وتأييده _وللمرة الثانية خلال ساعات_ من التصدي وطرد التحشيدات التابعة للعدو السعودي التى حاولت التقدم من جهة لحج باتجاه باب المندب ولم تحرز أي تقدم بفضل الله، وتم استهدافها بعدد كبير من الصواريخ الباليستية و الإسناد المدفعي وبالأسلحة الثقيلة…
The Israeli occupation entity is facing mounting criticism and growing isolation across Europe, as opposition to its war in Gaza and policies in the occupied West Bank moves beyond public protests into professional and trade union decisions and economic pressure that is beginning to raise concerns within the Israeli enemy’s defense industry.
While European Union governments struggle to agree on coordinated measures, segments of European society are taking steps to impose practical costs on the continuation of Israeli policies.
In a report from Brussels, The Guardian correspondent Jennifer Rankin examines the contrast between rising public anger across Europe and the EU’s inability to translate it into a common policy.
Despite a shift in Britain’s position, including London’s announcement of broad trade sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements and its condemnation of what it described as ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, these steps have yet to translate into collective European action on the scale anticipated.
Widening Divide
France and Canada have joined commitments to restrict settlement products and penalize entities that facilitate or benefit from settlement activities. Other countries have also announced plans to restrict trade with companies operating beyond the Green Line. However, these measures have yet to produce a unified European front capable of changing the calculations of the Zionist government.
Opinion polls reveal a widening gap between official policies and the views of large segments of the public. According to a Pew Research Center survey covering 10 European countries, unfavorable views of “Israel” increased in several countries compared with the previous year.
The proportion of respondents expressing negative views reached 75% in Italy, 73% in Germany, and 70% in Green Line, indicating that criticism is no longer confined to countries most supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Cultural Boycotts
The shift is also extending into the cultural sphere. Five countries have chosen to boycott this year’s Eurovision Song Contest in protest against the Israeli participation, after organizers rejected calls to exclude the country over its conduct during the Gaza war and escalating violence in the West Bank. The Israeli enemy’s participation in European events is thus facing opposition extending beyond political circles to cultural institutions and the public.
These developments come amid the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The Guardian reported that the Palestinian death toll had exceeded 74,000, including at least 21,200 children, since the war erupted following the October 7, 2023, attack.
Humanitarian conditions remain dire, with shortages of water, food, medicine, and medical equipment, alongside economic collapse, the spread of disease, and continued fatalities despite the announcement of a ceasefire.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the repercussions could extend beyond companies operating in settlements to other Israeli businesses, as foreign companies may prefer to avoid Israeli suppliers to reduce legal and commercial risks.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march through the streets of Paris, France, after gathering at Place de la Bastille for a demonstration organized by CAPJPO-EuroPalestine on September 12, 2026. (Photo by Umit Donmez/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Internal Divisions Within the EU
The European Union, which maintains extensive trade ties with the Israeli occupation worth approximately €68 billion ($73.4 billion), remains constrained by internal divisions.
Spain and Ireland are pushing for a review of whether “Israel” complies with the human rights conditions set out in the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Germany and Austria oppose measures targeting the Israeli government, while the positions of the Czech Republic and Italy are closer to those of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. France, the Netherlands, and other countries have adopted more critical positions but have failed to secure consensus on sanctions.
Martin Konečný, director of the European Middle East Project in Brussels, described the EU’s stance as a continuation of a state of “self-imposed ineffectiveness.”
Pressure on Brussels intensified after more than 500 former European officials and diplomats issued a statement criticizing the bloc’s failure to act over developments in Gaza and the West Bank. They accused Germany and Italy of obstructing European measures, undermining the EU’s values and the two-state solution.
Pressure from Professional Bodies and Trade Unions
While governments have struggled to agree on collective action, pressure has begun to emerge through professional organizations and trade unions.
In another report for The Guardian, Denis Campbell wrote that Britain’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society had ended Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva’s sponsorship and participation in its annual conference following an internal review that raised concerns about company activities deemed inconsistent with the institution’s values.
The decision followed a similar move by the Royal College of Nursing, which severed its ties with the company after pressure from pro-Palestinian activists.
The campaign called on healthcare institutions to apply consistent ethical standards, noting that British professional bodies had taken action against Russian companies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Activists have called for the same ethical scrutiny to be applied to commercial relationships and investments linked to the Israeli occupation entity, urging other healthcare institutions to review their ties with Teva.
The controversy surrounding the company, however, is not based solely on its connection to the Zionist entity. Teva has previously faced fines and legal settlements in the United States and Europe, including a €462.6 million ($499.6 million) European fine in 2024 over anticompetitive practices in the market for a multiple sclerosis drug. The company has also faced earlier cases involving drug price-fixing and bribery.
Teva has rejected the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s decision, warning against the politicization of healthcare.
Defense Industry Faces Mounting Risks
In a more sensitive sector, concerns are growing in the Israeli occupation entity that trade restrictions could develop into broader pressure on its defense industry.
Yuval Azulai, writing for Ynet, the news website affiliated with Yedioth Ahronoth, reported that British and Canadian arms manufacturers had begun questioning the so-called Israeli defense companies about their activities in settlements, their sources of raw materials, and their commercial relationships with businesses operating there.
The responses could become a decisive factor in determining whether cooperation continues, particularly if foreign companies fear violating sanctions regulations.
The risk is that the consequences could extend beyond businesses operating in settlements to other Israeli companies, as foreign firms may choose to avoid Israeli suppliers to limit legal and commercial exposure.
Replacing components used in fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and communications systems could also take months because of the testing and modifications required to ensure system safety and operational readiness.
Attempts to Disrupt Shipments
In France, pressure has moved beyond calls for boycotts to attempts to disrupt shipments linked to the Israeli occupation’s military industry.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in a report by Hagai Amit in collaboration with TheMarker, said French labor organizations claimed to have prevented a shipment of components intended for Israeli defense company Elbit Systems from being loaded onto an Air France flight from Charles de Gaulle Airport to Ben Gurion Airport.
The unions announced that they would also seek to prevent the shipment from being transported on an El Al flight, calling on French authorities and airlines to stop it.
Air France, meanwhile, confirmed that the shipment had not been carried aboard its aircraft and said it does not transport weapons or ammunition to “Israel.”
These developments do not mean Europe has agreed on a unified policy or that public opposition will automatically translate into a comprehensive trade and arms embargo. They do, however, point to a changing European environment in which government positions are no longer the sole factor shaping relations with the Zionist entity.
As trade unions, professional institutions, and companies move to reduce or reassess their ties with the Zionist enemy, continued cooperation is becoming more costly and complicated.
This highlights the dilemma facing Netanyahu: while his government speaks of building security and industrial independence to make “Israel” less reliant on foreign partners, European pressure underscores how difficult that goal is to achieve in a world of interconnected manufacturing, technology, and defense supply chains.
Governments may continue to delay action, but the growing number of European societies and institutions withdrawing their ethical and commercial support for the Israeli occupation entity is gradually narrowing the room for maneuver available to it.
Source: Agencies (translated and edited by Al-Manar)
University of Tahran Professor Mohammad Marandi and Former FBI special agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley on Al-Mayadeen’s the Grand Standoff: Iran and the World (Al Mayadeen English)
Marandi argues that Iran’s pressure on the Strait of Hormuz is complicating Trump’s calculations, while Rowley raises concerns about a possible false-flag operation influencing the US midterm elections.
Iran will not trust US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic assurances without concrete implementation of Washington’s commitments, University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi said.
Speaking on Al Mayadeen‘s nightly program The Grand Standoff: Iran and the World, Marandi argued that pressure on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is complicating the US president’s efforts to manage oil prices ahead of the midterm elections.
Marandi added that Tehran had repeatedly experienced US deception in negotiations and violations of agreements, including the 2015 nuclear deal and a more recent memorandum of understanding (MoU). He argued that the United States could not expect Iran to change its approach to the strategic waterway while Washington continued to refuse to fulfill its obligations.
“The only thing that we know is that so that we can say for certain is that he’s trying to bring down the price of oil because the higher the price of oil the higher the price of gasoline,” Marandi stressed, linking the administration’s statements about diplomacy to concerns over rising energy costs and the approaching elections.
Former FBI special agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley, speaking separately on the program, pointed to mounting affordability pressures in the United States, divisions among Republicans and growing opposition to Trump’s handling of the war. She argued that the economic consequences of foreign wars were increasingly affecting Americans who had supported the president.
Marandi: Iran will not trust US promises without implementation
The Iranian professor said Tehran had little reason to regard assurances from the Trump administration as credible, citing a pattern of Washington violating agreements after signing them.
Marandi accused Washington of violating the more recent MoU by failing to ensure Israeli forces left Lebanon and ended the genocide in Gaza, refusing to return “stolen” Iranian assets, and attempting to establish a US-backed corridor through the Strait of Hormuz.
US failed to honor its obligations
He maintained that Iran had begun to implement the MoU, with shipping through the waterway increasing, before the United States failed to honor its obligations.
“The Iranians have been very clear that that can only happen through implementation because we already have Trump’s signature and obviously since he signed the MOU in front of the world and he refused to implement it that is a clear indication that he is completely unreliable,” Marandi said.
He added that communications between Washington and Tehran could continue, but that exchanges of messages alone would not be enough to secure an agreement.
“For the Iranians, negotiations can take place. These messages can go back and forth in direct negotiations, but unless the United States carries out its obligations, the Iranians are going to continue pursuing their policy of limiting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz,” he emphasized.
Marandi argued that Iran’s approach to the waterway was therefore tied to its broader dispute with Washington rather than to diplomatic statements coming from the White House.
Strait of Hormuz puts pressure on oil prices
The Iranian academic argued that Trump was attempting to contain rising oil prices through public statements about negotiations and the possibility of postponing further aggression against Iran.
He attributed the increase in oil prices to a substantial decline in crude shipments through the Strait of Hormuz over roughly 10 days, which he linked to Iranian attacks on ships that Tehran considers to have violated its regulations.
Marandi said much of the oil that continued to pass through the waterway did so with Iranian consent, while other vessels had been struck after attempting to transit without Tehran’s permission.
He also addressed reports in Western media that Iran was collecting fees from ships permitted to pass through the strait, while stressing that he could not independently confirm the claims.
“I don’t want to say that’s true or not, but the point is that that is what we’re hearing now in the Western media,” he said.
‘The prices will remain high’
Marandi argued that Iran had decided from the beginning of the war to exercise control over the waterway and collect fees, particularly from regional oil and gas exporters that he accused of complicity in the war against Iran. He named Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates among the countries he held responsible.
The Iranian professor also disputed claims that US economic pressure had brought Iran close to collapse. He said flights between Iran and other countries, including China, were continuing despite restrictions and warnings from US officials.
While he acknowledged that Iran’s economic situation was difficult, Marandi argued that Washington was also facing mounting costs and political consequences.
He said higher oil prices were feeding into gasoline and diesel costs, as well as the prices of goods produced through refineries and petrochemical plants.
“The prices will remain high,” he said, arguing that Trump’s public efforts to talk down the oil market had not succeeded.
Midterm elections add to Trump’s political pressures
Marandi said the economic fallout from the war could damage Trump’s standing ahead of the US midterm elections, although he cautioned that the outcome remained uncertain because of problems with US polling.
He argued that Trump’s repeated statements about diplomatic progress and his reluctance to launch further attacks before the elections reflected concern about the domestic consequences of a wider war.
Marandi stressed that Iran had not officially declared a policy of seeking to punish Trump electorally. However, he said Tehran’s pressure on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was worsening the economic conditions the US president is facing.
“If Trump loses that doesn’t mean the war is going to come to an end by any means but if he loses badly especially in the Senate then the pressure on Trump will increase,” Marandi said.
He attributed that potential pressure partly to opposition among Democratic voters to “Israel” and the war, while acknowledging that hostility toward Trump would also shape the political response.
Iran is militarily stronger now
Marandi further argued that Iran’s military posture was complicating US calculations in the region. He said Tehran’s warning that it could launch a preemptive strike was intended to make Washington more cautious about its military deployments.
He suggested that the withdrawal of US aircraft from a base in the United Kingdom could reflect concerns about vulnerability, but said that he did not know the reason for the move.
Marandi also said Iran was militarily stronger than it had been seven or eight months earlier and was preparing for the possibility of war breaking out again.
He cautioned that a defeat for Trump in the midterms would not necessarily prevent further US aggression, arguing that the administration remained capable of escalating the war despite its domestic political difficulties.
Rowley points to affordability crisis and Republican divisions
On her part, Rowley said Republican candidates were showing signs of concern about their association with Trump as the midterm elections approached.
She cited instances in which Republicans were distancing themselves from the president and said some candidates were emphasizing affordability and promising to end the war in an effort to appeal to voters.
Rowley cautioned that electoral forecasts remained uncertain, noting that Trump had previously defied expectations. She also criticized his public remarks, including comments she said suggested that the bombing of San Diego and Los Angeles would be a good thing.
She interpreted those remarks as an attempt to divide Americans into political allies and opponents, arguing that the president was treating people in the two cities as “expendable”.
‘Affordability is the problem’
Rowley also questioned whether Republican candidates could be trusted to deliver on their campaign promises, despite their growing emphasis on the cost of living.
“Affordability is the problem, because right now the cost of everything in the United States is going up, including especially including things like fertilizer,” she stressed.
She pointed to fertilizer, sulfur, and phosphate producers laying off workers or shutting down operations, arguing that the economic consequences were reaching people who had repeatedly voted for Trump.
“You got to end the foreign wars in order to make things affordable,” Rowley said.
Her remarks echoed Marandi’s assessment that the economic costs of the war could become a significant political liability for the Trump administration, although the two speakers approached the issue from different perspectives.
Rowley warns of escalation ahead of the elections
Rowley said some commentators believed Trump might escalate the war after the midterm elections, while arguing that a ploy before the vote could also be used to influence the political debate.
She raised the possibility of a false-flag operation, describing it as an incident that could be exaggerated to provide a last-minute political advantage to Trump and Republican candidates.
“But what he could do before the election, very possible, is they could use some kind of what they call a false flag, which is any incident. It could be something like the fly Dubai or the thing in the UK with the base where they said people were attacking the base. Anything like that, that they can exaggerate to turn into a last-minute assistance for Donald Trump and the Republican candidates,” she warned.
‘October surprise’
Rowley linked that possibility to the US political tradition of an “October surprise”, in which a late development can influence an election campaign.
“In fact, you know, this was called they called this in politics in the United States. They called it October surprise. So it’s really common that a politician will try to pull out some October surprise, revealing something, usually a lie or a false flag,” Rowley added.
She also criticized Trump’s threats of nuclear war, saying that people who had helped elect him were now calling for his impeachment over the danger of nuclear escalation.
Reflecting on her own opposition to the genocide in Gaza, Rowley said she had been protesting for three years and continued to be distressed by the killing of children.
She argued that the war and its wider consequences had undermined the image Trump had sought to cultivate as a president who would end foreign wars.
The lesser of two evils
In Rowley’s view, the US two-party system left voters struggling to choose between candidates they viewed as the lesser of two evils, while offering few guarantees that campaign promises would be honored.
“I’m frustrated with our political process here, but it’s going to be an interesting midterm election, that’s for sure,” she said.
Marandi, meanwhile, maintained that Iran would continue to apply pressure through its policy toward the Strait of Hormuz and would not reveal its full military intentions. He argued that Washington’s options were becoming more difficult as the conflict continued to weigh on the US economy and Trump’s political position.
Neither speaker suggested that the midterm elections alone would determine whether the war would end. Marandi explicitly warned that even a significant Republican defeat would not necessarily bring the war to a close.
Leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi, affirmed that the crimes of the Saudi regime against the Yemeni people will not break their will or force them to surrender. Instead, they increase their conviction in the justice of their cause and their drive to confront the aggression. He warned that any participation by Arab or Islamic countries, groups, or organizations in the aggression against Yemen represents complicity in sin, crime, and injustice, along with all the consequences that entail in this world and the Hereafter.
In his speech today, Thursday, marking the tenth anniversary of the 2016 bombing of the Grand Hall in Sanaa by Saudi regime aircraft, he described the Saudi regime as a criminal regime that kills children and women. He stated that it engages in continuous collective targeting of civilians, mosques, markets, and residential neighborhoods in the capital, Sanaa, and other Yemeni provinces.
He emphasized that the Saudi regime’s approach in its aggression against Yemen follows a Zionist, tyrannical approach that contradicts the values and teachings of Islam, innate human values, and international norms and laws, relying on methods of deception in the name of religion.
The Grand Hall Massacre and the Targeting of Social Gatherings
The leader of Ansar Allah explained that funeral gatherings in Yemen are major social events. He noted that the 2016 funeral was widely attended by various segments of Yemeni society, filling the hall before the Saudi regime targeted the gathering with missiles to kill as many people as possible.
He added that this remains the enemy’s objective when attacking social gatherings, noting that it continued targeting funeral halls and wedding celebrations. He recalled the crime targeting a wedding in Sanban, Dhamar Governorate, which resulted in 49 martyrs and 70 wounded.
He stated that the Saudi regime has committed horrific crimes against the Yemeni people, to the extent that hardly a day passes without a anniversary of a crime committed, asking: “Is this not excessive bloodshed?”
He pointed out that this criminality continued year after year, as Yemen enters its twelfth year while the Saudi regime insists on continuing its aggression and blockade against the Yemeni people.
He addressed the Attan bomb crime as one of the most famous major atrocities, emphasizing that the bomb that exploded in Sanaa was an internationally prohibited weapon, as evidenced by the massive destruction, casualties, and injuries it caused.
He also recalled the crime targeting a bus carrying children in Dhahyan, where the Saudi aggressor described the children on board as “military experts,” even though they were students, in addition to the targeting of weddings in Dhamar and Hajjah, the Al-Mocha crime in Taiz Governorate, and crimes across Al-Hudaydah and other Yemeni provinces.
He stressed that Yemeni provinces have witnessed crimes under various classifications, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and major atrocities, alongside targeting people in markets and mosques, noting that the Saudi regime continues collective targeting and strikes on markets and residential areas.
He recalled the first crime committed at the start of the aggression on March 26, 2015, which targeted residential neighborhoods in Sanaa, emphasizing that this approach has continued ever since.
He stated: “Since the escalation resumed, the Saudi regime has returned to the same methods through its crimes in Sanaa, targeting female students and residents, as well as strikes in Al-Hudaydah, Taiz, and Saada, leading to child and female casualties.” He emphasized that the killing of thousands of children and women in Yemen represents a systematic criminal act.
Targeting Civilians and the American, Zionist, and British Role
The leader of Ansar Allah noted that Western media outlets have recently reported an increase in civilian, female, and child casualties since the Israeli enemy resumed cooperation with the Saudi regime. He explained that this role was evident in earlier stages as well, as the Saudi regime relied on them to identify targets—what to bomb and where to bomb—in accordance with this tyrannical approach.
He stated that Saudi behavior in the aggression against Yemen is built on a Zionist approach that contradicts Islamic teachings, values, norms, and international laws, and that it builds its military stance on this direction and trains its military formations accordingly.
He added that this includes treating prisoners in a brutal and despicable manner that has no relation to Islamic ethics or the innate customs of the Yemeni people.
He affirmed that the Saudi aggressor follows the Zionist path and fits those characteristics, describing it as “the most fierce of opponents.” He pointed to the painful scenes people watch on satellite channels showing wounded women and children, as well as affected families.
Among these scenes, he mentioned Ali Muhammad Adhli in Hajjah Governorate, whose family was targeted by the Saudi aggressor, leaving only one survivor, alongside painful scenes in Sanaa, Al-Hudaydah, and other provinces.
He emphasized that there is absolutely no justification for these attacks, recalling the targeting of citizens’ homes and central markets in Taiz, including the central market at the Mawiyah junction, which was described as targeting “Houthi gatherings” when it was actually a gathering of citizens from all walks of life in a central market, noting that documentation is clear.
He said: “The Saudi regime, under American supervision and with Zionist and British participation, deliberately commits the most heinous crimes against the Yemeni people,” stressing the importance of sharing footage documenting these crimes within the Islamic community, across various media outlets, and on a human level.
He added that these images have spread widely over past years, exposing the criminal nature of the Saudi regime.
Quranic Awareness in Confronting Deception Under Religious Titles
The leader of Ansar Allah stressed the importance of Quranic awareness in safeguarding the Islamic nation against methods of deception and misdirection. He opened his speech with the Quranic verse: “And among the people is he whose speech pleases you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents.”
He explained that the verse provides a precise divine evaluation and diagnosis of a group of people inside and outside the Islamic arena, and that the Quran aims to raise the nation’s level of awareness so it remains insightful and is not deceived by the methods of oppressors and criminals.
He noted that this group presents flashy religious or humanitarian slogans to mislead people and win their admiration, emphasizing that Quranic awareness must prevent the nation from supporting any tyrant or entity that follows a deviant path.
He explained that the gap between deceptive slogans and the reality of those behind them becomes clear during times of conflict and confrontation, where masks fall and true values are revealed.
He added that those described by Allah as “the fiercest of opponents” strip themselves of moral and human values during disputes, indulge in injustice and aggression, insist on oppression and stubbornness, and refuse to yield to truth, justice, or sincere advice.
He pointed out that the aggressiveness and excessive criminality of this group reach the point of destroying crops and livestock by targeting agricultural and economic sectors through various means, committing genocide, violating human life, and targeting animal resources, alongside committing major atrocities and refusing calls to truth.
He denounced the Saudi regime presenting itself as the bearer of the banner of Islam and placing the Shahada and the sword on its national flag, while that sword was never drawn against the nation’s enemies, nor did it take a single military stance against them.
He questioned whether the Saudi aggressor ever took a military stance against the U.S. or Israel at any time or on any issue, emphasizing that its criminal history has been directed against the Islamic nation, primarily the Yemeni people—who are among the most harmed—as well as tribes across the Arabian Peninsula that were largely eradicated, noting these as documented historical facts.
He also questioned why the Saudi regime commits these crimes while presenting itself as the Servitor of the Two Holy Mosques, describing it as an addict to crime and the shedding of innocent blood.
He pointed to heart-wrenching scenes of killed children and women, stressing that killing them is unanimously considered a crime among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
He stated that the Saudi aggressor is a criminal and killer of children and women, and not as it presents itself under deceptive religious banners that fool the naive. Following the Zionist path demonstrates that it represents neither Islam nor the Sunnah, but rather a brutal Zionist criminal approach that violates sanctities and attacks people.
He added that these crimes represent a heavy burden and sin in the scale of divine justice, and that the Saudi aggressor faces an evil fate in this world and the Hereafter, becoming the object of divine punishment.
The Sanctity of Human Life and False Claims of Protecting Holy Sites
The leader of Ansarullah noted that this fate has befallen many tyrants and arrogant figures throughout history who thought their tyranny guaranteed their survival and the realization of their goals, only for divine decree to surround them, changing their circumstances until they fell into the abyss.
He said that tyrants possessed massive armies, immense resources, and political influence, but when they turned toward injustice, divine punishment struck them a decisive blow, making their capabilities useless, noting many such examples in both the modern and Arab world.
He emphasized that Allah has magnified the sanctity of human life and that targeting communities and killing people is no simple matter in divine justice, even if some believe American backing is enough, forgetting divine retribution.
He described the Saudi regime’s self-portrayal as a defender of holy sites—and its framing of the war against the Yemeni people as a sectarian defense of them—as a lie and crime exposed by its actions. He asked how anyone committing daily crimes and killing women and children can act with credibility under the title of “defending holy sites.”
He stressed that the Yemeni people are among the most eager to protect holy sites and are at the forefront of those moving to defend them.
Aggression Crimes Increase the Yemeni People’s Commitment to Their Cause
The leader of Ansarullah affirmed that the Saudi aggressor’s attempt to break the will of the Yemeni people and force them into submission is a delusion, as the people become increasingly convinced of the justice of their cause and driven to confront the regime that kills women and children.
He stated that the Saudi criminal history against the nation and the eradication of tribes in the Arabian Peninsula reflect the truth of the Quranic descriptions of these practices.
He added that the past twelve years bear witness that the Yemeni society’s response differs from what the aggressor hopes: the more excessive its bloodshed and commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, the more determined the people become to confront it.
He asked: “Are these feelings of brokenness, humiliation, and surrender, or does this noble, faithful people grow more determined to fulfill its moral and religious responsibility to confront the oppressive aggressor?”
He stressed that anyone counting on forcing the Yemeni people into surrender through these crimes is delusional, explaining that the armed forces and mobilization are moving earnestly out of this responsibility.
He added that tribes and social components reject these crimes with anger, taking a firm stance against those who commit them.
Supporting the Saudi Regime Is Complicity in Sin and Aggression
The leader of Ansar Allah warned any Arab or Islamic countries, groups, or organizations against getting involved in serving the Saudi aggressor in Yemen, stressing that whoever supports it implicates themselves in sin, crime, and oppression, with all the worldly and otherworldly consequences that follow.
He considered one of the nation’s greatest problems to be forgetting God in calculations of loyalty and enmity, which have strayed from religious and moral principles.
He stated that anyone involving themselves with the Saudi aggressor in killing women and children taints their own reputation and dishonors their country, adding that standing with a killer of children is the ultimate stain.
He added that such participation tarnishes history and honor, leaving dark pages of sin, crime, and aggression, burdening the participant with the sin of oppressing the Yemeni Muslim people.
He emphasized that the matter is not simple: the Yemeni people are a Muslim, oppressed nation, and the Saudi oppression against them is among the most heinous forms of injustice on earth.
He called on every country, government, army, and organization seeking a stance in the Islamic arena to support the oppressed Palestinian people, emphasizing that their cause is clear and deserving of the nation’s backing.
He questioned what the Saudi regime lacks in terms of money or military capabilities—being a partner to the U.S., Britain, and Israel with immense resources—stressing that it does not need support, and that standing with it is pure complicity in sin and aggression.
Financial Inducements and the Lesson of Sudanese Participation The leader of Ansar Allah noted that some who take stances far from God and Islamic principles act out of financial inducements, describing this motive as demonic when it leads to siding with oppressors against the oppressed for financial gain.
He called for taking a lesson from Omar al-Bashir, who believed changing his stances would achieve his interests, taking unjust positions against the Yemeni people without justification despite the brotherly relations between the Yemeni and Sudanese peoples.
He explained that Al-Bashir allied with the Saudi regime and supported its crimes against the Yemeni people, sending the Sudanese army and Janjaweed to participate in the aggression, where they committed terrible atrocities in the areas they attacked.
He asked about the outcome, emphasizing that financial gains proved to be a mirage in the face of divine punishment, as Omar al-Bashir lost everything and was overthrown, while the state of the Sudanese army and Janjaweed is now well known.
He expressed sadness over the crimes being committed in Sudan, emphasizing that it grieves the Yemeni people.
He added that governments turning into mercenaries for money reflects the issue of forgetting God, noting that some may act not out of financial motives, but due to political calculations and other drivers.
Advice to Qatar and Reviewing Stances on Aggression
noted that he advised Qatar yesterday, after it began adopting the Saudi aggression politically and media-wise, emphasizing that this represents participation in injustice, and quoting the tradition that whoever participates in the killing of a believer even with a single word will come on the Day of Resurrection written on him: “Despairing of Allah’s mercy.”
He stated that he reminded Qatar yesterday of what the Saudi regime did to it, and reminds it today of facts it lived in its own reality, after participating in 2015 in the aggression against Yemen, even at the military level. Yet the Saudi regime did not appreciate that, but rather mistreated it, launched a major campaign against it, and worked to blockade and isolate it.
He explained that Qatar was left with only an air corridor for civil aviation, while the Saudi regime worked to isolate it completely, boycotting it politically and economically, inciting others against it in the Gulf states and the United States, describing the Qataris as terrorists and supporters of terrorism, and inciting Trump against them.
He added that Saudi Arabia took negative stances toward Qatar in international files and public relations, almost isolating it from its Islamic surroundings, and even harassed it regarding the Hajj pilgrimage.
He emphasized that the Saudi regime did all of this without justification and that it despises Qatar, saying: “We know, and you know,” while pointing out that its ambitions toward Qatar are extremely negative, and that it wants to take control of it if it receives American permission.
He added that the bare minimum of Saudi Arabia’s goals is regime change in Qatar and installing a puppet emir who submits to all its dictates.
On the other hand, he pointed out that among Qatar’s virtues was working to resolve conflicts in Yemen and many other countries, describing that as a fine effort that allowed it to attain a prestigious status and aroused Saudi envy.
He considered that its return now to dependency on the Saudi regime represents a very significant decline from where it had reached and from the status it had attained.
Three years after Al-Aqsa Flood, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has claimed thousands of lives, including children, poets, academics, athletes, doctors and families whose stories reveal the human cost of the war.
Before Gaza’s martyrs were turned into statistics by the West-backed genocidal regime in Tel Aviv, they had names, families and dreams for the future.
A 13-year-old boy sat in front of a camera, excitedly talking about reaching 100,000 subscribers on YouTube. A poet kept writing as Israeli bombardment intensified around him. A grandfather held the body of his three-year-old granddaughter after an Israeli airstrike killed her, calling her “the soul of my soul.”
Three years after the historic Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, which was followed by the Israeli regime’s all-out genocidal war on the besieged Palestinian territory, those images and words remain part of the record of a genocide that has transformed life in Gaza.
Since the regime launched its genocidal aggression, entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed, families have been eliminated, and people from across Palestinian society have appeared in long and dark casualty lists.
At least 74,000 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 21,000 children, since October 7, 2023. That is about one in every 30 people in Gaza, or roughly 3 percent of its pre-war population. The actual toll is likely higher, with thousands still buried under rubble.
The dead include children, parents, doctors, academics, athletes, journalists, artists and students. Some were killed by the regime with their families inside their homes.
Others were buried beneath buildings hit by Israeli airstrikes and are still not accounted for. Some were killed while sheltering in places they had fled to for safety.
Their cold-blooded murders were documented in news, photographs, videos, messages and the accounts of relatives and survivors.
The ten Palestinians featured here are among those whose lives and deaths became known beyond Gaza during the genocide.
Refaat Al-Araeer: Gaza’s beloved poet
Refaat Al-Araeer was killed when a missile struck his sister’s home in Al-Shujaiya on December 7, 2023. He was Gaza’s most prominent writer and professor of world literature.
He had taught creative writing at the Islamic University of Gaza, his classes a refuge for students who wrote under the brutal Israeli siege.
Before his death, he posted a short poem titled If I Must Die, ending with the line: “Let it be a tale.” The poem became Gaza’s anthem of endurance, recited at protests across the world.
Just two days before his death, Al Araeer wrote a tribute to the Palestinian resistance.
“More horrific Israeli bombardments…We could die this dawn. I wish I were a freedom fighter so I die fighting back those invading Israeli genocidal maniacs invading my neighbourhood and my city.”
In one of his last public interviews, the Palestinian poet vowed that, if necessary, he would die by the same pen through which he lived.
“I am an academic. Probably the toughest thing I have at home is an Expo marker. But if the Israelis invade and barge at us, charge at us, open door-to-door to massacre us, I am going to use that marker to throw it at Israeli soldiers even if that is the last thing that I would be able to do.”
Three-year-old Reem and five-year-old Tareq were among those killed when Israeli strikes levelled their home in Al-Nuseirat in November 2023.
Their grandfather, Khaled Nabhan, became a reluctant face of Gaza’s grief. In a viral video, he was seen kissing Reem’s lifeless body, holding her earring pinned to his chest.
“She was my ruh-el-ruh,” he said, the essence of my soul.
The haunting image joined a growing archive of unbearable civilian testimony, family photos turned into evidence.
Khaled Nabhan: ‘The soul of my soul’
Nabhan became a familiar face of Gaza’s grief after an Israeli airstrike killed his grandchildren.
Reem and Tareq had been inseparable from their grandfather. In a video, Nabhan fixed Tareq’s hair and photographed the bodies of the two children as they lay beneath white shrouds, waiting to be buried.
“We were inseparable. I loved her more than my soul,” he said after Reem’s killing.
The man who had lost his grandchildren did not leave the streets of Gaza after their killing.
Nabhan began appearing among displaced Palestinians, helping distribute food and assisting people who had lost their homes. He spoke about his own family’s losses while trying to help others endure theirs.
He also spoke of further Israeli attacks on his relatives, including the bombing of his brother’s home.
Then, in December 2024, Israel killed him. An Israeli airstrike struck a home belonging to the Abu Hajar family in Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza. Nabhan was among those killed.
In August 2022, 13-year-old Awni Eldous posted a video thanking his viewers for helping his channel reach 1,000 subscribers. Beaming at the camera, he spoke excitedly about his ambition to reach 100,000 subscribers, then 500,000, 1 million and, eventually, 10 million.
“I am Awni Eldous, a Palestinian from Gaza. I am 12 years old,” he said.
“The goal of this channel is to reach 100,000 subscribers. And 500,000, then 1 million, and God willing to reach 10 million subscribers with your support and love.”
More than a year later, in late October 2023, an Israeli airstrike struck Awni’s home in northern Gaza, killing him and his entire family.
Awni’s fascination with computers was inspired by his father, a computer engineer. He would imitate his father by taking apart laptops and trying to put them back together.
Photos shared on the Facebook page of his school, Safad Primary School (A) for boys, show him standing before a blackboard with a motherboard in his hands, teaching other students about computer technology as part of the Little Teachers Initiative.
His relatives affectionately called him “Engineer Awni” because of his love for computers.
His aunt, Ala’a, said Awni looked up to YouTubers who had turned their hobbies into careers. “He wanted to be like them – to have followers and fans.”
Awni’s channel now has 1.72 million subscribers. He was killed with his family at a time when he was still building the future he had described in his videos.
The call lasted over three hours. Hind, trapped in her family’s car under Israeli fire, was talking to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) team.
Her family lay motionless beside her. “Please come take me,” she whispered to the PRCS dispatcher. “It’s getting dark and I am afraid of the dark.”
Hind’s voice, recorded and circulated worldwide, became one of the most haunting records of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The PRCS rescue team sent to reach her was itself targeted by Israel and killed before arrival.
Her story would later be immortalised in The Voice of Hind Rajab, a docudrama that won the Silver Lion award and received a record 23-minute standing ovation at its premiere.
In May 2024, pro-Palestine student protestors at Columbia University renamed Hamilton Hall to “Hind’s Hall”, carrying her name into the global protest movement against genocide.
A human rights body was also named after her – Hind Rajab Foundation – which documents Israeli war crimes in Gaza and exposes the war criminals behind those crimes.
Ibrahim Hamed Hussein al-Astal: Professor who prayed for Gaza
A day after Israel launched its war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, Professor Ibrahim Hamed Hussein al-Astal took to Facebook with a prayer for his city and its people.
“Oh God, Lord of the worlds, protect us from troubles, and protect Gaza and its people, and be our aid, O God, sustain it with Your help,” he wrote on October 8.
Fifteen days later, an Israeli airstrike hit his home in Gaza City, killing the 62-year-old professor, his wife Nadia Yassin Hussein al-Astal and their two daughters.
A total of 87 members of Al-Astal’s extended family were killed in the strikes.
For years, Al-Astal had been part of Gaza’s academic life. He served as dean of the Faculty of Education at the Islamic University of Gaza and taught and researched education, including curriculum and mathematics teaching methods.
He earned his PhD in 1996 and later taught at universities in the United Arab Emirates before returning to Gaza and joining the Islamic University. He became head of the Curriculum and Teaching Methods department and was appointed dean in 2019.
His work was centred on education and the students who would shape Gaza’s future.
Mohammed Barakat was preparing for the pre-dawn meal on the first day of Ramadan when an Israeli airstrike hit his family home in Khan Younis.
The Israeli attack killed the Palestinian football star and several members of his family.
Barakat had represented Palestine’s national football team and played as a striker and captain for Khan Younis Youth Club, where he became one of Gaza’s best-known footballers. He began his career in 2015 and quickly became a familiar name among football fans in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Supporters called him “the legend of Khan Younis.”
Over the course of his career, the 39-year-old scored 114 goals, including for several clubs in the occupied West Bank and Jordan, among them Al-Wehdat, as well as Saudi Arabia’s Al-Shoala.
Barakat, regarded as Gaza’s first centurion of goals and one of the besieged territory’s top scorers, also represented the Palestinian national team, making three appearances, and played for Ahly Gaza in the local league.
His final goal came on August 18, 2023, in a 1–1 draw against Shujayea Club at Yarmouk Stadium in Gaza City, during the second week of the Palestinian Premier League.
Ansar Allah supporters wave Palestinian flags during weekly rally against the US and the Israel regime in Sanaa, Yemen, Friday, July 11, 2025 (AP Photo/Osamah Abedulrahman)
The Yemeni Armed Forces’ Chief of the General Staff, Yousef al-Madani, tells the Al-Qassam and Al-Quds Brigades that Sanaa will stand with them in any new escalation.
Yemen’s Chief of the General Staff, Major General Youssef al-Madani, has pledged that Sanaa will stand with the Palestinian Resistance in any new phase of escalation, in two messages sent to the Al-Qassam and Al-Quds Brigades on the third anniversary of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation.
In his message to Al-Qassam, the military wing of Hamas, al-Madani said, “We are with you until victory, and our battle continues until Al-Aqsa and the site of the Prophet’s night journey are liberated.”
He said free people across the Ummah have joined the effort to support Gaza, with Yemen setting a “powerful lesson” in how to do so. Yemen, he added, has put its strategic location and all of its resources at the service of the Palestinian cause.
“Neither aggression, nor siege, nor wounds will deter us from supporting Palestine and Gaza,” al-Madani affirmed, stressing that Yemen stands with the Palestinian people and by their side in any new phase of escalation.
Al-Aqsa Flood drew the lines
Al-Madani said October 7 “revealed the truth” and put people and their positions to the test. The Al-Aqsa Flood, he added, dealt a decisive blow to the normalization project and drew a clear line between the Resistance front and the normalization front.
In his separate message to the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad movement, al-Madani asserted that Gaza’s fighters “wrote the greatest epic” on October 7 and inflicted the biggest defeat the enemy has ever suffered.
He added that the United States, for its part, emerged defeated from its confrontation with Yemen.
He noted that the Yemeni people have done their Islamic duty since the Al-Aqsa Flood “to the fullest extent possible and at every level.” The military operations in support of Gaza, he stressed, “were carried out in large numbers and did not stop until the night the ceasefire was announced.”
Sayyed al-Houthi explained that Yemen’s stance was “the highest level the Yemeni people could offer.” He revealed that Saudi Arabia sought to cooperate with “Israel” from the start of Yemen’s operations in support of the Palestinian people, and took part in interception operations “even outside its airspace and over the sea.”
Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, that the liberation of southern Lebanon is “before our eyes”, and ‘Israel’ will not be able to remain in the south, even if it takes some time.
“This Resistance, which has stood steadfast, has been able to present a legend of steadfastness.”
Addressing a ceremony for launching the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of Legacy of late Hezbollah S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said, “The steadfastness of the Resistance is among the blessings of the Master of the Ummah’s Martyrs and his guidance, as well as of this dear and pure people. We can only be a Resistance as long as aggression exists.”
“The solution begins with the enemy leaving in humiliation, along with the American who supports it with all his might in order to attack our region,” His Eminence added, “As for internal Lebanese affairs, we are ready to cooperate, but without any dictates from abroad.”
Wars unfold in rounds, but the final round belongs to the people of the land and the truth, and to those who have followed the path of the mujahideen and martyrs, Sheikh Qassem stressed.
Sheikh Qassem saluted the dear Iraqi people, their religious authority, leadership, and the Popular Mobilization Forces [Al Hashd Al Shaabi], because “they succeeded in expelling the American occupier from Iraq, and through their sacrifices and steadfastness, they were able to drive the American tyrant out of their country”.
He added: “Therefore, whether the one seeking to control Iraq is the Takfiri [forces], or the arrogant and colonial power seeking to dominate Iraq, the Iraqi people are, by the grace of Almighty God, capable of expelling the occupiers, whoever they may be and whatever their orientations, so that Iraq can remain independent, dignified, and strong.”
“The sacrifices of the Palestinian people are immense, and the Israeli, American, and Western injustice is extraordinary and unnatural. But given the nobility of this people and its sacrifices, it must emerge victorious,” Sheikh Qassem said, “I pray to Allah Almighty to grant them success in occupied Palestine, in Gaza, the West Bank, and Al-Quds, so that they may attain the highest ranks and positions, and that they may be liberated and liberate.”
Speaking on the occasion of the launch ceremony of the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said: “Today, we gather under the auspices of the memory of the two noble martyrs, the two esteemed Sayyeds: the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, and the Hashemite Sayyed, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, as well as the righteous martyrs, to launch this foundation, which will be dedicated to preserving the works and heritage of the supreme martyr, Sayyed Hassan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him. Today, we announce the launch of the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him.”
He continued: “This foundation was established by the Shura Council of Hezbollah and is supervised by the Secretary-General. It has a comprehensive organizational structure aimed at preserving the heritage presented by the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah and making use of it in all cultural, social, educational, and political fields.”
He added: “This vast heritage filled the public sphere throughout the years of his life, which he devoted to obedience to Almighty God and to Islamic, jihadist, national, patriotic, and liberation work at the level of Lebanon and, indeed, at the level of the entire region.”
Sheikh Qassem noted that “Hezbollah was established in 1982, and His Eminence Sayyed Hasan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, assumed the Secretary-Generalship in succession to the Master of the Martyrs of the Resistance, Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, in 1992, ten years after the establishment of the party.”
He explained: “The establishment had its foundations, its principles, and its men, and Sayyed Hassan was one of the men of the founding generation.”
He continued: “However, from 1992 until his martyrdom—31 years—he worked to consolidate the foundations of the Resistance, the foundations of this authentic thought, and the foundations of an orientation that would govern and influence future generations in pursuit of liberation, dignity, honor, and a virtuous and happy life in obedience to Almighty God.”
Sheikh Qassem said: “We are dealing with a very vast heritage: words, speeches, meetings, dialogues, meeting minutes, and an oral memory accumulated over this long period spanning decades. We need to collect and archive this material and make it available to researchers and the public through social media platforms, as well as through publications, books, and various works. It should also serve as material for analysis by institutions and researchers at universities and in different fields, so that they may benefit from the abundance of material presented at the intellectual and cultural levels, as well as at the political and practical levels.”
He stressed: “We are dealing with a great treasure that must be collected and made available to the public, researchers, and future generations. This is why the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, has been launched.”
Sheikh Qassem added: “On this occasion, I would like to mention some of the themes that constitute the pillars of this heritage and the foundations of this great structure, namely the structure of Hezbollah and the Resistance’s orientation in Lebanon and our region.
“First: One of the constants upon which he worked throughout this entire period was adherence to Islam and carrying the Islamic approach—the authentic Muhammadan Islam, which is concerned with cultivating the human being and providing him with a methodology that sets his life right and grants him reward in the Hereafter. Almighty God says: ‘Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.’ Islam excels through its methodology, its cultivation, its formation of the human being, its virtues and noble qualities, its construction of dignity, and its establishment of a happy life in this world and the Hereafter. This requires us to work according to it and to raise generations upon this great and righteous path.”
“Throughout that entire period, His Eminence Sayyed worked to highlight the concepts, ideas, and beliefs of Islam, as well as guidance and education based on Islam and the general policies upon which Islam is founded. This is extremely important, so that we understand that he was one of those who worked throughout history to preserve this approach and present it to humanity in a contemporary manner that remains consistent with the constants of this religion.”
“The second theme is education in jihad, and this is a fundamental point. Jihad is an essential principle and a foundation. In order to protect our generations, our land, our rights, and our dignity, we must struggle against the enemies, and we must confront those enemies who commit aggression for no reason other than domination and oppression, as is the case with America and Israel, as well as all enemies and colonizers who have come throughout history and may come in the future. Jihad is a fundamental principle and must be firmly established.”
“One of His Eminence the Sayyed’s distinguishing features was his strong emphasis, when addressing the issue of jihad, on the Karbala and Ashura dimension and on the leadership of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, the undisputed Master of the Martyrs. The path embodied by Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, is the path of sacrifice in its highest form, a path that ensures the steadfastness of faith, the steadfastness of rights, and the steadfastness of the free and dignified human being.
“Likewise, in Ashura, there was Lady Zaynab, peace be upon her, who carried the banner and complemented the path of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, within a system connected to the presence of family members, relatives, friends, and believers, conveying the message that the entire society is called upon to follow the path of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him.”
“The Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah excelled in conveying the Hussaini concept to the people and in emphasizing the commemoration of Ashura. In any case, Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, said: ‘Everything we have is from Ashura.’ The practical application of this statement was carried out by His Eminence, the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hassan, who worked not only during the days of Ashura but continuously to encourage jihad, foster a culture of martyrdom, and educate the Ummah.”
“Thus, the path of jihad is an integrated path. We need to collect these themes and become acquainted with them, as well as with the details that he presented and upon which he educated people directly throughout these decades. This enabled us to experience in practice the true strength needed to confront challenges.
“Third: Wilayah. The third theme is wilayah. Wilayah is not something newly invented; it is a foundation and one of the principles of religion: ‘Indeed, your wali is only Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe—those who establish prayer and give zakat while bowing. And whoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe as his wali, then indeed the party of Allah will be victorious.’
“This wilayah extends from Allah to the Prophet, to Amir al-Mu’minin Ali, peace be upon him, to the Imams, peace and blessings be upon them all, to the authority of the Islamic jurist in our time, and ultimately to the handing over of the banner to Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance.”
“His emphasis on wilayah was part of this faith and part of his sincerity toward Almighty God. His emphasis on allegiance to Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, and then to Imam Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul, was an inseparable part of this integrated system, which falls under the banner of: ‘Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.’ It has also been proven through practical experience that this wilayah provides momentum, strength, and capability.”
“The fourth theme is the connection with Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance. His Eminence the Sayyed always spoke about the connection with Imam al-Mahdi and the Mahdist banner, and about being among the soldiers of Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance. Almighty God says: ‘And We desired to bestow favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors.’ This is one of the interpretations concerning the reappearance of Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance, and the leadership of victory at the level of humanity and the establishment of justice throughout the earth.”
“Our Sayyed always emphasized that we are living in the era of waiting, and that waiting means wilayah toward Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance; confidence in the overwhelming victory that will encompass the world; confidence in the justice that will spread throughout the world; and belief in the reappearance of the Proof, which the Lord of the Worlds, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and the Imams have promised us. This, therefore, is a fundamental matter. We need to understand the steps upon which he built his approach and through which he mobilized people.”
“The fifth theme is Islamic unity. He was extremely keen on unity between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as unity within the Shiite community, and on extending this unity to the national and broader human levels. This education and approach that he promoted was what created this broad popular support. Do you not notice how Muslims in different parts of the world love him, feel attached to him, and believe in his path and orientations? This is because he addressed them—he addressed their minds and their hearts—and appealed to sound principles.”
“Likewise, free people around the world viewed him in a positive light because he also stood with the oppressed, and this is an inseparable part of faith.
“At the domestic level, he was a patriot par excellence, standing for coexistence, the Taif Agreement, national unity, and for us to stand together: the Army, the people, and the Resistance. This is his famous formula through which he sought to make us all one bloc, one united body, in confronting external enemies, particularly the occupying and aggressor Israeli enemy that has long targeted our region. These are matters that require us to examine them and produce statements, positions, and analyses that affirm this principle.”
“The sixth and final matter in my discussion of these themes is defense and resistance. If we want to define resistance in the modern era, we can say that the first resistance figure is His Eminence Sayyed Hasan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him. Why? Because he laid its foundations, mobilized people on its basis, and worked with all resistance fighters throughout the world to create unity, connection, and interaction.
“He adopted the Resistance as a duty and a project from Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, and then from Imam Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul, and from Imam Musa al-Sadr, may God return him and his two brothers safely. In building and establishing this path, he followed the approach of Sheikh Ragheb Harb and Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi.”
“All these are resistance paths that lead to consolidating determination, strength, and will, while ensuring the necessary means and capabilities. We must not forget in this regard the major role played by the martyred commander Hajj Qassem Soleimani, who was highly capable, influential, and a major source of support throughout the region.”
“We need to study this heritage and become acquainted with it.”
Hezbollah Secretary-General says the war has rounds, asserting that the last round “belongs to the people of the land.”
The liberation of southern Lebanon is within sight, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stated on Tuesday, stressing that the Israeli occupation would not be able to remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely, no matter how much time passes.
Speaking at the inauguration of an institution dedicated to preserving and publishing the legacy of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said “Israel” will not be able to remain in southern Lebanon “even after a while,” adding, “Do not ask us what we will do because we cannot but be a resistance as long as this enemy exists.”
He credited the Resistance’s endurance, which he emphasized had “created a legend of steadfastness,” to the guidance of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and the resilience of the Lebanese people.
“We can be nothing but a resistance as long as the aggression continues,” Sheikh Qassem stressed, adding that “the solution begins when the enemy is forced to withdraw in defeat, along with the United States, which supports it with all its might and enables its aggression against our region.”
“The war has rounds, but the last round belongs to the people of the land and the rightful cause and to whosoever followed the path of the mujahideen and martyrs,” the Resistance leader asserted.
Sheikh Qassem hails Iraq, rejects US interference
Sheikh Qassem saluted the Iraqi people, their religious authority, leadership, and the Popular Mobilization Forces, saying they had succeeded in expelling the US occupier from Iraq.
On Lebanon’s internal affairs, he said Hezbollah is prepared to address domestic matters away from any US interference.
“We are ready to handle internal matters on the basis of the Constitution and laws and without American interventions,” Sheikh Qassem stated.
Hezbollah launches institution dedicated to legacy of Sayyed Nasrallah
On Tuesday, Sheikh Qassem announced the launch of an institution dedicated to preserving and publishing the legacy of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, saying the institution’s aim is to preserve Sayyed Hassan’s “immense legacy” and make its “vast body of material available to the public, researchers, and future generations.”
He added that the “institution was approved by Hezbollah’s Shura Council and operates under the supervision of the Secretary-General through a comprehensive organizational structure.”
Preserving Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s legacy
Sheikh Qassem highlighted Islam as one of the core principles that guided Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, particularly its teachings on nurturing the individual and providing a framework for life based on sound principles.
He also emphasized Sayyed Nasrallah’s commitment to cultivating a spirit of jihad, particularly through Karbala and Ashura.
Hezbollah’s leader stressed that the martyred Sayyed “excelled in conveying the Hussaini ethos to the people and placed great importance on preserving the memory and traditions of Ashura.”
‘Israel’ maintains ceasefire violations
Sheikh Qassem’s remarks come as Israeli occupation forces continue to carry out attacks and demolitions in southern Lebanon, underscoring the violations that persist despite the ceasefire agreement.
The daily attacks are part of persistent, unabated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, with the Israeli military carrying out demolitions, destruction, and bulldozing operations inside occupied southern villages despite the Lebanese government reaching an agreement with “Israel” under US auspices.
Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Major General Amir Hatami
Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Major General Amir Hatami has warned that the Iranian Armed Forces will deliver a crushing response to any renewed hostile action, declaring that Iran remains fully prepared and vigilant.
Hatami made the remarks during a visit to Army units stationed in Fars Province, where he reviewed the personnel’s combat morale, equipment readiness and defensive capabilities.
Referring to the Armed Forces’ achievements in the recent US-Israeli war against Iran, the Army chief said that although war causes damage, what matters is its outcome, which, rather than surrender, brought honor and pride to the country.
He maintained that the war has not yet ended, saying the enemy has turned to other methods after failing on the military battlefield.
“After failing on the military battlefield, the enemy has resorted to other methods and, through sanctions and economic pressure, is trying to put the people under pressure, while at the same time pursuing many measures to create insecurity and unrest,” Hatami said.
“The Armed Forces, while maintaining readiness and vigilance, will deliver a crushing response to the enemy’s threats if it makes another mistake,” he added.
Hatami also described war as an arena of resilience, saying the side capable of demonstrating greater resistance and resilience would ultimately prevail.
“We consider ourselves to be on the path of defending the truth, trust in divine promises, and with this belief, we will continue the path of confronting the enemy and defending the country,” he said.
The US and the Israeli regime waged their first criminal war against Iran, which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.
In both wars, Iran’s resistance and successful retaliatory operations forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire.
Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war.
In July, the US conducted waves of deadly air raids on Iran and imposed a naval blockade of the country in violation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Islamic Republic, signed on June 17, to end the war.
In response, the Iranian Armed Forces launched devastating strikes against strategic American targets across West Asia and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to all traffic.
Footage shows Yemeni strikes on Saudi concentrations in Ras al-Arah with several locally made ballidtic missles on October 5, 2026 (Yemeni mediavia Telegram)
Yemeni Armed Forces remain in Mokha and Bab al-Mandab, Yemeni field sources confirmed to Al Mayadeen on Monday, stressing that no breaches have been reported in the area.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief, citing sources, asserted that Saudi-backed forces control neither Mokha nor Bab al-Mandab or the surrounding areas.
The sources said Saudi-backed forces managed to make only a limited advance in al-Mudarabah, near Bab al-Mandab, where they were immediately targeted.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief also reported that the Yemeni Armed Forces are pressing ahead in Taiz governorate. He added that they expect further advances along the western coast under Saudi cover and are determined to strike them.
Al-Zubaidi: Claims of gains are psychological warfare
Brigadier General Abdul Ghani al-Zubaidi, a Sanaa-based expert in military and political affairs, told Al Mayadeen that fighting remains concentrated in an area bordering Dhubab. He noted the Saudi-aligned forces have made no gains on the ground and that claims otherwise amount to “media exaggeration and psychological warfare.”
Meanwhile, Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi, citing a well-informed source, told Al Mayadeen that the news coming out of Yemen is “very good”, dismissing what some outlets have reported as “nothing more than a propaganda campaign.”
“We must not be fooled by what media outlets affiliated with the region’s regimes are saying about Yemen,” he added.
Similarly, Brigadier General Mujib Shamsan, a Sanaa-based political and military affairs expert, told Al Mayadeen that the Saudi-backed forces “fled as the Yemeni Armed Forces advanced,” just 48 hours after operations began on the western coast.
20+ strikes near Ras al-‘Arah
In a related development, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out more than 20 strikes on Saudi troop concentrations between Ras al-Arah and al-Suqaya, a military source told Saba News Agency.
The strikes left dozens of forces killed or wounded and set a number of vehicles ablaze, the source said, adding that many of the wounded were taken to hospitals in Aden and Lahij.
The source also dismissed coverage by Saudi-aligned channels as “fake news” that points to their failure, accusing them of feeding their audiences “invented victories”. They added that the Yemeni Armed Forces are continuing to drive Saudi concentrations out of districts across Taiz governorate.
Yemeni forces advance in Taiz
Earlier on Monday, a senior military source told Al Mayadeen that the YAF have taken control of more than 2,000 square kilometers in Taiz governorate and expelled Saudi-backed forces from al-Ma’afer and al-Mawasit districts. The source said Yemeni forces reached Rashad al-Alimi’s residence and warned that any Saudi military buildup would be targeted wherever it takes place.
Saudi Arabia has escalated its aggression, bombing civilian infrastructure in Sanaa, Saada, Taiz, Hajjah, and Marib governorates and leaving civilians dead and wounded, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.
Mohammad Abdul Salam, head of Sanaa’s negotiating delegation, said Monday that Riyadh was now stepping to the forefront of the aggression after the defeats suffered by the forces it mobilized, and that Saudi Arabia must bear all the consequences.
In response, the Yemeni Armed Forces continue to target vital facilities inside Saudi Arabia and Saudi military concentrations on Yemeni territory.
Iranian profesesor of English literature Orrientalism at the University of Tehran Mohammad Marandi and former US Pentagon official Mickael Maalouf (Al Mayadeen)
Michael Maalouf and Mohammad Marandi warn that a new Iran war could escalate rapidly, with US forces, “Israel”, NATO, and regional allies facing wider conflict.
“Israel” may act militarily against Iran before the November US elections and force Washington into a war it is committed to backing, Michael Maalouf, a former US government official, said, while University of Tehran professor Mohammad Marandi stated that Iran has adjusted to a wartime economy and will respond far more assertively to any new aggression.
On Al Mayadeen‘s The Great Standoff: Iran and the World, Maalouf said Trump “is being his usual hyperbolic self,” noting that US president has threatened “the annihilation, his words, of an entire civilization” while speaking of peace as close at hand.
Maalouf argued that Trump should return to the MOU he signed and is obliged to abide by it, but has chosen not to, attributing that choice to domestic pressure from the Israeli lobby within the United States, which is pushing a hardline approach.
“The usual thinking these days around here is that, well, he may do something militarily after the November elections,” Maalouf stated, noting that Trump’s own concern is more immediate.
Elections stand behind ‘Israel’ acting on its own
“Israel may do something on its own simply because they have their own elections come in October,” Maalouf said, adding that by late October, Netanyahu must show his people he is living up to what he promised in order to stay in office.
Maalouf explained that Netanyahu “May instigate something even before Donald Trump, which will force Donald Trump then to go militarily to back him up,” Maalouf continued, emphasizing that Washington is too committed to “Israel” at this point to pull out.
He further noted that many US assets are now based in “Israel” because most Gulf bases “have been eliminated or are useless.” With nothing new on the table, Trump refuses what he agreed to, and Maalouf does not see Iran backing off those points.
“I think that we’re on a collision course,” he stated, adding that it could come sooner than expected and “could be from Israel itself.”
NATO involvement would make Europe a target
Should European states get involved as NATO Secretary General Rutte suggested, Maalouf said, it “opens up them to attack.”
“If they were to attack and respond from their bases and let the United States use the bases, yeah, they are just as susceptible as a co-belligerent as the United States and Israel are themselves.”
Maalouf noted that the United States is reaching a realization that it is being pushed back by Iran’s increased military capabilities, which is why ships are being moved further out. Another carrier may bring the total to three strike groups, he said, but they will be “stuck out in the middle of nowhere,” with no ports or facilities to reload or restock.
Given Iran’s enhanced missile capabilities, Maalouf went on to explain that, “it’s very clear that they might be capable of hitting the aircraft carriers and strike groups as far away as Diego Garcia.” If so, US naval potential is very limited, he argued, since even launching aircraft would require refueling that puts those aircraft and the refuelers in jeopardy.
“I just don’t see any happy ending to this scenario as it’s now coming along,” he added.
Trump, Hegseth are offering no alternative
Maalouf said that Trump and his Secretary of War “are offering no alternatives,” while the Secretary of Treasury wants greater economic hardships, pointing to “the rise of a multipolar world order that just is going to reject working with the United States or feel pressured any longer,” because Iran has stood up to the United States over time.
This frustrates Trump’s calculations, Maalouf argued, since “he doesn’t have an easy way.”
On Europe, he said, “I don’t know what Route is talking about, frankly, when it comes to assisting the United States.”
Maalouf emphasized that Europe “never got involved when their own interests were involved and when the Strait of Hormuz was shut down,” despite depending on the strait more than the United States does. Their publics would likely be outraged at being drawn into further crises while their economies suffer from the Ukrainian war, he added.
He further clarified that involvement “also then thereby makes them targets,” since Iran “does have a missile capability to hit even targets in Europe.” Rutte, he said, “is just speaking out of, I think, just out of the corner of his mouth.”
Wartime production and shortages
Maalouf agreed that moving from a consumer economy to wartime production takes time and that the switchover has been difficult, with factories slow to reach production.
He also pointed to difficulties in obtaining components, noting that “every state in the United States has some aspect of production to contribute to that wartime production.” Delivery times, he added, are “much longer now,” while acquiring components takes longer and costs far more.
As an example, he cited limited supplies of some gasoline octanes for everyday US consumers and sky-high diesel costs that have driven many companies out of business. The disruption, he noted, “has really messed up the complete supply cycle.”
Rebuilding missiles could take years, Maalouf stated, while some may already be obsolete. The same problem applies to THAAD and Patriot systems, which “take years to rebuild, and we’re already very critically short in terms of supply,” including for European countries that have depended on US supplies.
Against that backdrop, Maalouf questioned Europe’s ability to sustain a war, saying, “I don’t see how they could conceivably go to war or fight a war,” since Europe is not sending supplies to Ukraine any longer and could not use limited stocks against Iran.
While “Pete Hegseth may brag about how completely capable the United States is,” Maalouf said, “the reality is, is that we are, the United States is very critically short on supply.”
Sophisticated systems take a very long time to produce and even longer to field, he added and restocking would also be limited because Iran can keep ships out of the area if they appear headed for use against Iran.
Direct action against Yemen will be costly, futile
Maalouf said direct military action against Yemen, which has been tried unsuccessfully before, “will just cost them the very limited stocks and supplies, stockpiles that they have of weapons.” The Yemenis, he added, “have shown a very capable way of surviving previous US, direct US attacks. And they are very mobile.”
He noted that even the Saudis are struggling against the Yemenis, while their supplies remain limited because they must come from the United States.
According to Maalouf, Yemen has demonstrated a strong ability to wage conflict against Saudi Arabia, shut down the Bab al-Mandab Strait, extend the conflict into the region, and withstand attacks from the Saudi-backed government of Yemen.
The Ansar Allah group is showing a tremendous capability and “a flexibility,” Maalouf stated, while noting that it has again targeted Aramco and pipelines, with a major impact on Saudi Arabia’s future economic capabilities that “could be destroyed entirely.”
For its part, the United States has chosen not to get involved, Maalouf said, arguing that it would rapidly run out of equipment and ammunition while also wanting to fight Iran.
He pointed to “a limitation that I think the American people have now begun to realize is reaching a very serious state,” with discussion already that the United States “has lost the conflict, the war in the Middle East, and has had to withdraw as a consequence.” Yemen, he added, “is holding its own.”
Marandi says Iran has prepared for a new round of warfare
“Fundamentally speaking, as you know as well as I, nothing has really changed,” Marandi said. Iran “has prepared itself for a new round of warfare” and “adjusted its economy to a wartime economy to make sure that it is prepared for a long war.”
As part of that preparation, the government has given the armed forces an exceptionally large budget for research and development, while also expanding underground missile and drone bases and other capabilities, Marandi explained.
Marandi pointed out that “the Iranians continue to say that we are willing to negotiate, but the negotiations must lead to the implementation of the MOU.”
That memorandum includes Article 1, which, Marandi noted, “means that the entire region must have peace.” Achieving that would require the Zionist regime to “end its occupation and end its genocide,” while other articles address Iranian stolen assets, sanctions, and other matters between Iran and the United States.
For now, however, Marandi sees little sign of a change in Washington. “We don’t see any fundamental shift in Washington, no major move,” he stated. Instead, “the expectation is that we may be moving or we will quite possibly be moving towards another round of US-Zionist aggression or US aggression against the people of Iran.”
Any such confrontation would be met with a different Iranian response, he warned: “But this time around, the Iranians are going to behave very differently. They’re going to be far more assertive in their response.”
The consequences would also extend to US coalition partners in the region. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the Emirates, Marandi argued, “all of them will pay heavily because they are co-belligerents.”
He said those governments are “guilty of slaughtering Iranian children and Iranian citizens” and said they are already deeply vulnerable after seven months of war they helped impose on Iran. Meanwhile, Yemen’s forces and Ansar Allah “are imposing their will on the Saudi regime and its proxies,” he noted.
These governments therefore face a more precarious position if Washington escalates, in Marandi’s assessment. “It is not an ideal time for these regimes because if the United States escalates, these regimes are already much more fragile than they were before.”
He added: “They’ve always been fragile regimes, and this could ultimately lead to their collapse. So they should be very careful about the road that they tread upon.”
Iran is also continuing to upgrade its missile systems, particularly in terms of range and maneuverability. Marandi described those improvements as “obviously going to be very critical in the next war if that happens, which is quite likely.”
Aggression on Iran could happen after Israeli elections
Marandi asserted that Iran is prepared, explaining that Iranian missiles will strike not only US targets across the region but also bases hosting US jets or assets further away, with the US Navy a target as well. “If the war escalates, the Iranians are going to escalate,” he said, and if the United States targets Iranian infrastructure, then “all bets are off.”
Iran “will obviously destroy the infrastructure of the regimes that assist the United States,” he continued, which would collapse the global economy because those regimes would collapse. Additionally, Iran will target US naval ships, aircraft carriers, and bases hosting US forces wherever they may be if Washington chooses that road, Marandi said.
On the other hand, Marandi said that the United States may launch an all-out genocidal war, which Trump has threatened, or carry out more limited strikes. Even then, the NATO head has gloated that “5,000 flights took off from European airports to assist the United States in bombing Iran,” making the Europeans complicit, Marandi said.
Marandi cautioned that if Iran feels it necessary to strike US assets in European countries, “it will do so,” noting Iran has told Bulgaria it risks attack for hosting US planes and that those planes were ultimately withdrawn. “Iran has countless missiles. The number of Iranian missiles are enough to last for years,” Marandi stated.
Yemen also has very large numbers of missiles and drones that can last a long time, he said, so “Iran and Yemen have more than enough to continue fighting for the years to come. So the Americans should take all of this very seriously.”
Economic pressure runs both ways
Marandi said the President’s office cited personal reasons for the resignation of a ministry figure, with details expected to emerge in the coming days. He noted there were differences with others in the ministry, and the appointment had been controversial from the start, with many in the ministry welcoming the change.
“The economic situation in Iran is difficult, but the Iranians are also imposing a difficult situation on the United States and its partners,” Marandi said. Strikes on tankers violating Iran’s rules are increasing daily in the Strait of Hormuz, and the amount of oil leaving the strait has decreased significantly, he noted.
A tanker was also struck off Yemen’s coast, Marandi added, saying “the news is not good for the United States and its allies.”
Marandi noted that oil leaving the strait on small ships costs about $20 a barrel, meaning that what reaches global markets arrives at great cost even before insurance is counted.
Marandi argued that “while the United States is strangling, and the United States and its partners in this war have been trying to strangle Iran, the Iranians are strangling the United States and its partners back.”
The countries most at risk of collapse, he said, are “US proxies in the region”, particularly those dependent almost entirely on oil and gas, which “will not be sustainable” if the situation continues.
With the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait holding stocks and bonds in the United States, Marandi doubts Washington will allow them to sell those assets, meaning their economic situation will deteriorate further.
Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Sana’a International Airport was “foolish behavior” against Yemen’s people, Marandi said, adding that Riyadh “is now being badly mauled by Yemen.”
Iran’s economic situation remains difficult, but the pressure has not changed Tehran’s determination to resist. “The United States intends to make ordinary people suffer,” Marandi said, “the Iranians know that they have no option but to resist, and resist they will.”
Marandi contrasts Iranian and US military production
“One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the Iranian military industry is designed very differently from that of the United States,” Marandi said, adding that the same is true of Russia and China.
Marandi explained that in Iran, the state controls industry and may use the private sector but determines the path forward. “In other words, it is the state that controls the capital. In the United States, it’s the capital that controls the state,” including the military industry.
“US weapon systems are far too expensive and do not meet the practical needs of the armed forces because profit is prioritized,” Marandi argued.
He pointed to the resulting mismatch in US military production, saying many systems, ships, and planes “are not necessarily useful for today’s warfare or tomorrow’s warfare, but they make a lot of money for the private industries.” Iran, by contrast, has expanded its missile program to meet the needs of its armed forces.
“So Iranian missiles are much cheaper. They’re much larger in number. They are much more swiftly produced,” Marandi stated.
Despite spending infinitely more on defense, the United States “is incapable of fighting this sort of war with Iran,” he said, while also being overstretched by Ukraine and its confrontation with China. “The Iranians take advantage of that, and they’ve taught the American government, the Trump regime, a major lesson during the last seven months,” Marandi added.
Yemen victories bad news for ‘Israel’: Marandi
The victories of Ansar Allah and Yemen’s forces and government are “very, very welcome news” and “major victories of the Yemeni people” that should give hope across the region, Marandi stated.
Marandi asserted the developments are a broader setback for “Israel” and the United States. “This is very bad news for the Zionist regime. It’s very bad news for the United States, and it’s good for the people of Gaza and the people of Lebanon and, of course, for the people of Iran as well,” he continued.
In addition, Marandi recalled that the capabilities of Yemen and the resistance in Iraq are enormous, while many of Iran’s own capabilities “have been left untouched.”
The capabilities of US partners such as the Saudi regime are being degraded daily, Marandi noted, while pressure from Iran in the Strait of Hormuz is adding to the strain on other US proxies.
“None of this bodes well for the United States in the weeks and months ahead,” he concluded. “And, of course, anything that weakens the United States weakens the Israeli regime too.”
The Associated Press reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed to deny a report that he had warned Netanyahu of an impending Hamas operation ahead of October 7, 2023.
This screengrab shows Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, a senior advisor to the IRGC commander-in-chief and former IRGC Navy commander, speaking in an interview with the IRIB on September 4, 2026.
A senior Iranian military adviser said the United States has withdrawn its forces more than 1,000 kilometers from Iran’s borders, describing the pullback as a direct result of Iran’s authority and the power of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Force.
Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, a senior advisor to the IRGC commander-in-chief and former Navy commander, made the remarks in a televised interview on Sunday night.
“The Americans fled and moved more than 1,000 kilometers away from our borders. This was not their choice; it was due to the authority of the Islamic Republic and the authority of the IRGC Ground Force,” Fadavi said.
He stressed that for the first time, no American vessels are present in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman, or even the northern Indian Ocean.
Fadavi said the Strait of Hormuz has been under Iran’s control for many months and that the United States has failed to achieve any of its objectives in the war.
“The fighters who stood against the world’s material superpowers thwarted all their goals. The enemy—the Great Satan America—has not achieved any of its objectives in this war,” he said.
He noted that ship captains crossing the southern part of the Strait of Hormuz have formally objected to the route but are forced to pass due to insurance, financial, and liability concerns.
The IRGC Navy has warned that any vessel traversing this route could be subject to Iranian naval action.
“The IRGC Navy has informed the ships that if they pass through this route, their vessels may be targeted at any point,” Fadavi said. “The captains have officially stated they are forced to pass and would never choose this route if it were up to them.”
He added that only three to four million barrels of oil per day are currently transiting an alternative route outside the area officially designated by Iran, a negligible amount compared to pre-war traffic.
US vulnerability
Addressing US military capabilities, Fadavi stated that Washington cannot assert sovereignty in the region without a physical naval presence.
“The Americans must use their vessels because you cannot exercise full sovereignty with air power. You can bomb the region every day, but unless your forces have a physical presence, you cannot impose your will,” he said.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf says the Strait of Hormuz won’t reopen as long as Tehran’s seven conditions are not met.
He stressed that American vessels are “100 percent vulnerable” to IRGC forces and that past attempts to enter the Strait of Hormuz were met with attacks by the IRGC Navy and Aerospace Force.
‘We target US bases, not regional countries’
Fadavi said Iran has never targeted regional countries but has struck US bases hosted on their soil.
“We did not hit Muslim countries. We hit bases that were at the disposal of Iran’s enemy—not just the enemy of Islam, but the enemy of humanity—and were located in regional countries,” he said.
He called on regional states to stand up to the United States, citing Iraq’s insistence on the withdrawal of American forces and the recent US War Department announcement that its troops have left Iraq.
Warning against ground invasion
Asked about a potential US ground invasion, Fadavi said any such move would be met with a response that targets American interests wherever they are.
“Any base belonging to the Americans, any vessel belonging to the Americans, will be targeted by the grace of God,” he said.
He also dismissed US threats, saying Washington has failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in its Daesh project, and will fail again.
He noted that the US military budget equals that of the entire world, yet Washington has failed to achieve its objectives due to the direct impact of the conflict on the global and American economies.
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority says three Emirati oil tankers that were struck by unknown projectiles when transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday were already on the authority’s Non-Compliant List.
Fadavi said Iran and Oman, as the two littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz, have written and agreed upon the rules governing the waterway and are implementing them.
He also highlighted that Iran and Oman, as the sovereign owners of the Strait of Hormuz, have jointly drafted and implemented the governing laws for the waterway, dismissing US attempts to impose its will from 10,000 kilometers away.
“We and Oman are the two parties that own the Strait of Hormuz. We have written the rules, agreed upon them, and are applying them,” he said. “The Americans, with all their material power, have not been able to impose their will.”
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah told Al Mayadeen the party was close to internal solutions before being surprised by the government’s framework agreement with “Israel”.
Member of Parliament Hassan Fadlallah told Al Mayadeen the party had come close to internal solutions on the Resistance and its weapons before it was “surprised” by the move toward the framework agreement with “Israel”.
He said the agreement was handled in a “just sign” manner, without calm discussion or consultation with experts.
Fadlallah, a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, spoke in a special episode marking the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Sayyed Hashem Safieddine. Sayyed Safieddine was killed in an Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs on October 3, 2024.
The framework agreement and the Resistance’s stance
Lebanon, “Israel”, and the United States signed the US-brokered trilateral framework in Washington on June 26, following five rounds of direct US-sponsored talks that began April 14.
Its text ties any Israeli redeployment in southern Lebanon to the disarmament of the Resistance across the country. Hezbollah rejected the framework immediately, calling it a surrender and refusing any link between Israeli withdrawal and its own disarmament. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “Israel” would remain in the so-called security zone in southern Lebanon while coordinating a withdrawal, that is yet to come.
Fadlallah said Hezbollah spoke with the president’s advisor to find a formula to reverse the treatment of the Resistance as illegitimate. On March 2, Lebanon’s cabinet banned Hezbollah’s military and security activities and demanded it hand over its weapons.
Ready for dialogue, with conditions
Fadlallah said Hezbollah is ready for dialogue on a national security strategy after the Israeli withdrawal. He said dialogue needs conditions so it does not produce the opposite results, adding that the party was “among the advocates of understanding despite all the wounds.”
On weapons, Fadlallah said the authorities must first secure the state in the South.
“Give me a state in the South before talking about restricting weapons, war and peace,” he said, adding that the authorities do not give the South enough attention.
“It is not possible to accept that there is a guardian over the Lebanese Army,” he underlined, saying that authorities “handed everything to the Israeli occupation.”
“It is not possible to govern the country by antagonizing half the Lebanese people,” Fadlallah stressed, questioning whether the president can complete his term amid the existing stalemate in the country.
Reconstruction: “Deliberate negligence”
On reconstruction, Fadlallah said Hezbollah proposed to Prime Minister Nawaf Salam that the file be broken into parts. He described “slowness that is not innocent” in handling it, saying the government has the money and that there is “deliberate negligence.”
He said a World Bank loan linked to war damage has not been disbursed, calling the delay “foot-dragging, some of it deliberate.”
The World Bank’s $250 million Lebanon Emergency Assistance Project is the first tranche of a $1 billion framework to repair infrastructure damaged in the 2023-24 war on Lebanon. Parliament approved it at the end of 2025.
Aid plan and the right to self-defense
Fadlallah said Hezbollah will not disclose the final sums tied to aid for residents of affected areas “because it would shock the Americans.”
He said a comprehensive plan to ease the burden on people will be announced by Hezbollah.
Fadlallah underscored that if the authorities are unable to protect people, they “have no right to prevent people from defending themselves.” He concluded by saying that security and political issues must be resolved through internal understanding.
Saudi Arabia’s strike on Sanaa International Airport in July brought an end to more than three years of uneasy calm. The truce that began in April 2022 had never become a final settlement, but it had largely kept the Saudi-led coalition and Sanaa from returning to full-scale war.
Now, the fighting has spread along Yemen’s western coast and across the border into Saudi territory, while the prospect of negotiations remains as distant as it is unavoidable.
For Yemenis, the cost of the war reaches far beyond the front lines. The Saudi-led intervention began on 26 March 2015, and the blockade and destruction of infrastructure have compounded the damage of combat.
A UNDP estimate projected 377,000 conflict-attributable deaths by the end of 2021, including 154,000 from direct violence and 223,000 from hunger, disease, and other indirect causes.
Subsequent deaths and the renewed fighting have only deepened the toll. In the south and east, Saudi and UAE-backed forces have also held areas containing much of Yemen’s oil and gas wealth.
The withdrawal of the UAE’s remaining forces early this year left Riyadh with greater responsibility for the military and political direction of its Yemeni allies. It did not erase the competing loyalties within those forces.
Saudi Arabia has spent the intervening months trying to bring them under firmer command, while Sanaa has built up its own military capabilities. Each side entered this round of fighting with the previous years of restraint behind it and unfinished business ahead.
The road map that never took hold
The diplomatic opening began with the Chinese-brokered Saudi–Iranian rapprochement in March 2023. Riyadh, unable to secure a military victory in Yemen after eight years of war, could present a negotiated exit as part of a wider easing of regional tensions.
A joint Saudi–Omani delegation headed by Saudi Ambassador Mohammed al-Jaber visited Sanaa the following April. Meetings in Sanaa, Riyadh, and Muscat continued through the year.
On 23 December 2023, UN envoy Hans Grundberg announced commitments toward a nationwide ceasefire, the payment of public-sector salaries, the resumption of oil exports, the opening of roads, and the easing of restrictions on Sanaa Airport and Hodeidah Port.
These commitments were intended to be put into a UN road map leading to an inclusive political process. The announcement offered a framework, but the road map itself was not signed and implemented. Its unresolved details would become more consequential as the region moved toward a wider war.
Following the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Sanaa launched its Red Sea campaign against shipping it identified as linked to Israel. US and British attacks on Yemen followed. Washington pressed for an end to Yemen’s operations in support of Gaza, while the political track with Riyadh stalled.
Sanaa says Saudi Arabia also failed to deliver the economic measures discussed during the earlier talks. What had been presented as a path to settlement became another period in which the parties prepared for the possibility of renewed combat.
That possibility became reality after the July airport strike. In September, the Ansarallah-aligned Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) advanced through western Yemen, taking Mokha and positions near Bab al-Mandab, along with Red Sea islands.
Sanaa declared Saudi-linked shipping a target and launched missiles and drones at sites inside the kingdom. Saudi airstrikes resumed across Yemen. The blockade has disrupted Saudi oil shipments through the Red Sea, although the claim that Saudi exports have fallen to zero is contradicted by reported September export volumes.
Talks on new ground
Yemeni researcher and journalist Talib al-Hassani expects any new negotiation with Saudi Arabia to reflect the current balance on the ground. Sanaa has never ruled out talks, he says, but it cannot simply resume the unfulfilled understandings of 2023.
The first shots and airstrikes of this round ended any realistic prospect of carrying on as though the old process had remained intact. Riyadh may still invoke parts of it to preserve the appearance of continuity, but Sanaa would bring new demands to the table.
Hassani, editor-in-chief of the Sanaa-based Al Masirah channel, tells The Cradle that the strongest guarantee of any agreement is Yemen’s ability to enforce it. The 2022 truce and the subsequent road map commitments, in his account, arose from military pressure on Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh then found room to delay their implementation without immediately returning to war. No effective monitoring mechanism or enforceable guarantees made such delay costly.
He believes Saudi Arabia could seek another truce to regroup before resuming the war. Sanaa’s answer, he says, should be to demand concrete steps from the opening session, with deadlines that cannot be stretched indefinitely. Otherwise, a ceasefire could once again give Riyadh time to repair weaknesses in its forces and reorganize the factions fighting on its behalf.
Brigadier General Abed al-Thawr, an advisor to Sanaa’s Ministry of Defense and Military Production, offers a similar reading of the previous negotiations. Since 2015, he tells The Cradle, Riyadh has used talks to improve its military and political position. He contends that Saudi Arabia accepted de-escalation in 2022 to address gaps in its security system. He alleges that it subsequently sought help from the US, Britain, and Israel to do so.
Guarantees beyond Riyadh
Thawr says decades of troubled relations have left Yemenis unwilling to accept Saudi assurances on their own. He wants guarantees from outside the region, naming the UN Security Council, Russia, and China among possible guarantors.
He also points to Arab states Sanaa trusts, including Oman, Algeria, and Tunisia, even though several of the governments he names do not formally recognize the authorities in Sanaa.
Thawr wants international recognition of Sanaa’s government, arguing that its support at home gives it the authority to negotiate on Yemen’s behalf. He also rejects Riyadh’s claim to a mediator’s role.
“As for the question of Saudi mediation, which Riyadh has tried in recent months to portray as an effort to bring about calm, that is rejected entirely. Saudi Arabia is a party to the war, not a mediator in it. The Yemeni people understand that Saudi Arabia is the enemy responsible for all this killing, destruction, and hardship, and that it has long-standing designs on their wealth and land.”
He also wants any funds attached to a settlement held in accounts that can be monitored, including in a trusted Arab country such as Oman and at the central bank in Sanaa. A promise to pay salaries or finance reconstruction would mean little, in his view, unless the money were secured and its release tied to an agreed schedule. These proposals show how far Sanaa’s demands now extend beyond an immediate ceasefire.
Reports since July have named Egypt, Turkiye, and Pakistan as possible participants in mediation alongside Oman. Sanaa has neither confirmed nor denied those contacts, and their precise roles remain unclear.
The closer those countries move toward Riyadh militarily, however, the harder it may be for them to present themselves to Sanaa as neutral intermediaries. Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan consulted under the Mecca Defense Pact in late September as the fighting intensified.
Hamid Asim, a member of Sanaa’s national negotiating delegation, insists the door to talks remains open. Sanaa wants “an end to the aggression, the lifting of the blockade, payment of compensation, the release of prisoners, and the withdrawal of forces occupying parts of the country,” he tells The Cradle.
In his view, the earlier road map could still inform a settlement, provided it incorporates demands arising from the latest escalation and Sanaa’s new position on the ground.
Thawr argues that broader political issues must be settled before older, secondary files are addressed on a fixed timetable. His principal demands include an end to Saudi intervention in Yemeni affairs, an end to what he calls Riyadh’s tutelage, the lifting of the blockade, and Saudi responsibility for the consequences of the war. These positions go well beyond the economic and confidence-building measures that dominated the UN’s 2023 announcement.
Asim, a former assistant secretary-general of the Nasserist Unionist People’s Organization, says Sanaa’s leadership has ordered its forces to keep every option available until commitments are carried out in practice.
He names Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the Supreme Political Council (SPC), and the government in describing that decision. Past Saudi delays, he says, have made Sanaa unwilling to halt its campaign merely in exchange for a declaration of intent. The armed forces, he adds, are ready for any scenario.
Armies built during the lull
The years of de-escalation gave both sides time to prepare. Sanaa expanded its arsenal while fighting the US and Israel following the 7 October 2023 Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Saudi Arabia worked to restructure the forces aligned with it inside Yemen, particularly as its rivalry with the UAE sharpened in the south and east.
The Saudi-backed Homeland Shield Forces, known in Arabic as Dera al-Watan, became central to Riyadh’s effort to establish a command less dependent on formations historically backed by Abu Dhabi.
The Southern Transitional Council (STC), the Giants Brigades, and forces associated with Tariq Saleh remained on the ground after the UAE withdrew its remaining troops. Their rivalries and local interests have made a unified command difficult.
Sanaa watched those deployments and says it acted before Saudi Arabia could open a new offensive. Its seizure of western coastal territory, including Mokha and positions around Bab al-Mandab, gave it a stronger hold on the approaches to the Red Sea.
Its strikes on Saudi energy and military sites then brought the confrontation back into the kingdom. The shipping campaign has forced tankers to divert and placed additional pressure on Riyadh’s oil export routes, already strained by the wider regional war.
Saudi aircraft have since carried out repeated strikes across Yemen. The Ansarallah-aligned armed forces reported 52 air and missile attacks in a single 24-hour period in late September, while Saudi authorities reported intercepting Yemeni missiles aimed at targets inside the kingdom.
Riyadh has also sought support from Pakistan and Turkiye under their defense agreement. Public statements from those countries have not established that either intends to send troops into Yemen.
Hassani sees little in these Saudi moves to suggest an imminent return to negotiations. Yet war also carries a growing price for Riyadh. Sanaa, in his view, would approach any talks after consolidating territorial gains and imposing costs across the border and at sea.
The Yemeni parties beyond the front
Sanaa also has to decide how to deal with Yemeni factions outside its control. Some are fighting alongside Saudi Arabia; others have stayed out of the latest battles or lost ground as the western front changed hands.
Any settlement with Riyadh would leave these internal questions unresolved unless those factions were brought into a political process of their own.
Asim says channels in Sanaa are dealing with tribes and districts still under the influence of Saudi-backed forces, though he gives no details of the discussions. He describes Yemenis as standing alongside the armed forces against the Saudi campaign. That account does not mean all the country’s factions share Sanaa’s political aims, and the differing loyalties visible across the south and east remain an obstacle to a national agreement.
Hassani distinguishes between groups Sanaa believes it can approach now and those it expects to confront on the battlefield first. He names the STC and some components in Hadhramaut that are not currently involved in the fighting as possible interlocutors.
Direct dialogue is preferable when it can produce an understanding, he says. With factions still committed to fighting, he believes negotiations will become useful only after they have suffered a military setback.
Riyadh can negotiate an end to its intervention, but it cannot settle Yemen’s internal divisions on behalf of the factions it has armed. Sanaa’s coastal advance gives it a stronger hand across the Saudi negotiating table.
Whether it can turn that advantage into an agreement with other Yemenis is a battle of a different kind, one the missiles and the blockade cannot decide.
As US President Donald Trump threatens Iran with annihilation, Iranian missiles and drones have been targeting Israeli Mossad proxies, American bases and destroying tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington’s allies in Riyadh are meanwhile suffering enormous losses due to their war on Yemen, which has collapsed a joint project that sought to inflict regime change.
In the latest episode of The Target stream, MintPress News’ Robert Inlakesh takes a look at the silent ballistic missile attacks that are being carried out against US bases in Jordan that are no longer even receiving comment from US Central Command. As President Trump’s rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) suggested genocidal intent, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been acting preemptively to take out rising threats.
With gas prices continuing to go up, hitting working class people in their pockets, the Trump administration is refusing to end the war on Iran and continues to back up Israel at every turn. The US media, on the other hand, is leaking more damning reports about the stunning military failure in the Persian Gulf, exposing that the Navy noted a total of 8 attempted suicides aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed the General Assembly, speaking to an almost empty room as up to 77 nations delegates walked out upon him taking to the podium. During his speech, he played victim while also holding up a prop pager in reference to the Mossad operation carried out against Hezbollah in Lebanon two years ago. Up to 3,000 people were wounded in what the former head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, labelled an act of terrorism.
Beyond that, the Israeli Premier’s speech was received as weak. Robert Inlakesh notes that two years ago Netanyahu had ordered the assassination of Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah from the United Nations building, while this time around he decided to complain about popular streamer Hasan Piker.
Back in Tel Aviv, the Israeli media have been signalling that their aid in targeting the Yemeni Armed Forces could be a stepping stone towards normalisation with Saudi Arabia. Yet, it hasn’t proven a very successful one. Riyadh’s proxy forces in Yemen continue to take a beating, losing more territory by the day, as the Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a vows to deliver more crushing blows to Saudi infrastructure in retaliation for ongoing air strikes.
Israel’s presence on the strategic Mayyun Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has officially come to an end, as Yemen keeps a close eye on its military buildups in Somaliland and Socotra Island.
Last year, the Israeli leadership were presenting their grand plans for regional hegemony to the world, openly discussing the Greater Israel Project, however, the repeated failures of the US-Israeli alliance in their war against Iran and its allies have left them lashing out irrationally with no clear route to victory.
The Target stream analyses this growing shift, the change in power dynamics, the footage coming from the battlefield in Yemen and the desperate propaganda of the US empire’s allies.
A fighter with Yemen’s Houthi rebels carries a rocket-prepelled grenade launcher as they march during a mobilazation campaign in Sanaa, Yemen, Thursday, Sepember 10, 2026 (AP)
The Yemeni Armed Forces continue advancing in Taiz despite intensified Saudi airstrikes, while Sanaa accuses Saudi forces of war crimes in Saada.
The Yemeni Armed Forces continued advancing across northern Taiz and areas east and south of the southwestern province, according to the Al Mayadeen‘s Yemen bureau chief, as reports indicated operations targeting Saudi military leaders and Saudi-backed troop concentrations in the province.
The developments came as Saudi airstrikes intensified across Taiz on Friday, with Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent reporting that the raids were the most intense yet. Despite the escalation, the strikes failed to halt the reported advance of the Yemeni Armed Forces on the province’s various fronts.
Reports also indicated that Yemeni forces carried out operations targeting Saudi military leadership and concentrations of forces backed by Riyadh in Taiz.
Sanaa says protecting Taiz residents is the priority
In a related development, the spokesperson for the Sanaa government said Friday that the sole target of Yemeni Armed Forces operations is the “Saudi enemy and its troop concentrations.”
The spokesperson reassured residents of Taiz, stressing that protecting their lives and property remains the foremost objective of the Yemeni Armed Forces during their military operations.
The statement came amid continued military developments in the province and Saudi airstrikes targeting areas linked to the ongoing fighting.
Sanaa forces target Saudi positions in Aden
Media outlets based in Aden, Yemen, reported that Sanaa forces carried out a combined missile and drone attack targeting positions in the al-Buraiqah district, west of Aden Governorate.
According to the reports, the targeted positions host Saudi forces operating in the area.
The reported attack comes as the Yemeni Armed Forces continue their military response to the ongoing Saudi aggression against the country, targeting Saudi-backed military concentrations on Yemeni territory.
As part of its response to the Saudi aggression, the Yemeni Armed Forces have also targeted vital facilities inside Saudi Arabia and imposed restrictions on the movement of Saudi-linked vessels in the Red Sea, according to Sanaa.
94 Saudi attacks on Yemen in 24 hours
Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced on Friday that Saudi warplanes carried out 94 airstrikes on Yemen over the past 24 hours. He put the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks on the country at 1,350 since the escalation began.
Saree said the strikes hit civilian sites in the provinces of Sanaa, Saada, Taiz, Hajjah, Amran and Ibb, killing and wounding civilians.
According to his statement, the raids were flown by F-15 and Typhoon aircraft that took off from the Khamis Mushait and Taif air bases, while missile attacks were launched from Najran and Jizan.
Al-Masirah TV reported repeated Saudi airstrikes, missile attacks and artillery shelling on residential areas in Saada province, along the border with Saudi Arabia, causing heavy damage to homes and property.
Two years after Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s martyrdom, Nawaf al-Moussawi recalls his character, faith, compassion, and enduring legacy in an exclusive interview.
I, the writer of these lines, remember my friends and me waiting eagerly for an announcement regarding an address by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah whenever the political situation in the region became too hot for comfort.
We always saw him as the voice of reason, a figure to whom we could look up to when the line between fact and fiction became blurred. Sayyed to us, and to many others, was the fix to our regional worries.
Two years following his martyrdom now, it feels like we haven’t really been given the chance to grieve the loss; 30 years in the same seat, raising a generation on the lessons of holding on to truth, forbidding falsehood, and never riding by the side of a tyrannical force.
The war on Lebanon and the region has continued since his loss, continuously pushing us away from sitting with the fact that he’s no longer with us.
To try to come to terms with his loss, and to try to understand how Hezbollah and its support group continue to live under his cloak, I spoke to the Head of Hezbollah’s Resources and Borders Department, Nawwaf al-Moussawi, about Sayyed Hassan, his memories with him, and the current state of Lebanese politics.
I, Hassan Fakih, representing Al Mayadeen, went to the location where the interview would take place.
The weather was nicer than in the few weeks that had passed; clouds covered the sky above us as we were expecting rain that afternoon.
When we arrived, we entered the room where the interview would be held. Three flags stood post in the corner, one Lebanese, one for Hezbollah, and one for the Resources and Borders Department. By the window, a large conference table with a couple of strategic maps scattered across it.
As the cameras were being set up, I examined the personal library; dozens of religious and academic texts filled the shelves, a small Quran crowned the shelves at the top.
A picture of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was hanging near the door, smiling at all who enter the room.
We had just finished setting up the cameras and the seating arrangements when al-Moussawi walked in; after a few introductory remarks, we began.
I first asked him what he felt, on a personal note, about the Legacy of Sayyed Hassan two years after his martyrdom.
“His Eminence the Sayyed was as close to an Insān al-Kāmil (complete person) as he could be,” al-Moussawi said.
In Islamic theology, Insān al-Kāmil is the honourific title of the Prophet Mohammad, and is said about those who reflect deep Divine understanding and reflection of those attributes.
“[He] was not simply a leader of a party or of a specific population within a country, but he was a leader of the downtrodden and oppressed, who sought to rise from the grip of oppression and gain their rights,” al-Moussawi added.
Al-Moussawi told me that he first met Sayyed Hassan when he went to Beirut to serve as the Party’s official in the city, while he was managing the editorial operations of Hezbollah’s newspaper.
“From that moment, I discovered a unique individual, someone utterly devoted to the cause he served, who practiced complete self-effacement out of sincerity to God Almighty,” he told me. “Regarding his personality, what specific aspect comes to mind now?”
You can feel the proximity al-Moussawi and Sayyed Hassan had, his mannerisms when speaking about the memories he had of him with such grief.
He told me about a moment between Sayyed Hassan and his daughter during the war on Lebanon war.
“I was on a phone call with Sayyed Hassan, and my daughter, who was roughly ten years old at the time, was beside me. She told me that she would like to speak with Sayyed Hassan,” his face filled with warmth as he continued the story.
Al-Moussawi added that Sayyed Hassan heard his daughter and, in turn, asked for the phone to be handed over to her. The young girl asked for a meeting with Sayyed Hassan, probably unfamiliar with the reality of war.
“Of course, he told my daughter, ‘God willing,'” al-Moussawi said. But “a short amount of time after the war concluded, Hajj Jihad, the head of Sayyed Hassan’s security, told me that Sayyed Hassan would like to meet with you and your family.”
He emphasized the fact that even after all the horrors that Lebanon witnessed during that war, Sayyed Hassan made sure not to forget about the request of his daughter.
“This is a personal memory I have of him among many others,” he said. “I used to address him with the phrase ‘the beloved Sayyed,’ as I believe that no one, regardless of who they may be, can meet Sayyed Hassan without loving him.”
In an exclusive interview for Al Mayadeen English, Nawaf al-Moussawi, Head of Hezbollah’s Resources and Borders Department, recalled a deeply personal moment between Sayyed Hassan and his young daughter during the July 2006 war, offering a glimpse into the character of the… pic.twitter.com/YgQErEKo1v
He noted that even in political matters, Sayyed Hassan would conduct his business in a warm, compassionate, and understanding manner, noting that Sayyed would even discuss with political adversaries and enemies, within the Lebanese republic, of course, with a realistic and objective style, with the hope of avoiding confrontation whenever possible.
“Unless the enemy or adversary forced [conflict] upon him, in which case he would meet it with resolve,” he said.
Al-Moussawi noted that Sayyed Hassan’s approach came directly from the manners of Imam Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Mohammad and the first caliph in Shia theology.
His love for the people
Al-Moussawi made sure to highlight Sayyed’s love of the people when telling me about Sayyed Hassan’s character.
“Despite the fact that the most difficult thing for him was that security conditions prevented him from receiving people as he used to … he would go to the homes of the martyrs’ families, sit with them on the ground, talk to them, and share their simple meals,” he said.
He added, “I believe his love for people is evident in their love for him. Their love for him is a reflection of his love for them. He was very protective of them.”
“That’s why, when he was once asked if he would have done what led to the outbreak of war in 2006 if he had known about the Israeli bombing and the crimes they committed, he said no, he wouldn’t have done it,” he said. “He was protective of his family and his people, and even when forced to fight, he kept it to the minimum extent necessary to avoid further tragedies.”
During the days leading up to the anniversary of Sayyed Hassan’s martyrdom, media outlets began releasing exclusive footage of him, one of which showed him being driven in the back of a car in religious attire, checking in on us.
Al-Moussawi noted that Sayyed Hassan would also leave his post in civilian clothing to check in on the people. “For example, in 2006, in a disguise, he visited, from afar, the places to which people had been displaced. He toured them, looked after their affairs … those who thought he was in one fortified place were mistaken.”
In an exclusive interview for Al Mayadeen English, Nawaf al-Moussawi, Head of Hezbollah’s Resources and Borders Department, argued that Lebanon’s post-war administration does not reflect the will of the Lebanese people.
This was a question I’ve been looking forward to asking. I’ve spoken to friends who have taken up the path of becoming clerics before about Islamic mysticism, and we would always love to rewatch old Ramadan speeches by Sayyed Hassan, and small clips where he’d speak about the power of faith and supplication.
Sayyed Hassan, in his younger days, gave a lecture about the mysticism of Ayatollah Khomeini and his son, Sayyed Jawad Nasrallah, stated in an interview shortly after the martyrdom of his father that he, Sayyed Hassan, was of the mystic/Irfani school.
“People are accustomed to calling someone ‘Wali Allah’ (guardian/protector appointed by God) who secludes himself in a corner or sits in a cave worshipping God Almighty,” al-Moussawi said. “But the true guardians are those who are engaged in the affairs of life and remain close to God Almighty, sincerely devoted to Him.”
Sayyed Hassan would constantly tell us in his speeches that we should hold prayers and supplications close to our hearts and to keep steadfast in our faith.
In a previous speech of his, he said that our worship and prayer make us soldiers of God, with all the spiritual might that it provides us.
“Even if you besiege us in a small piece of land – just so you know who you are killing and besieging – we don’t feel that we are besieged, as we have the earth, the mountains, the valleys, the soil, the rivers, the seas, the oceans, the clouds, the winds, the sun, the moon, the stars, the seven heavens, the angels, and what God has created of what we know and don’t know [on our side],” Sayyed Hassan stated.
This list, as Sayyed Hassan noted, is the backing that the believers of God have in their fight against tyranny, adding that the US, with all its military might, is the one being besieged in this scenario.
“Whoever believes in God cannot feel besieged even if the entire geography in which he exists is closed off to him,” Sayyed Hassan said in the speech.
Al-Moussawi said that mystics are usually known for their consistent prayer and remembrance of God through various litanies and acts of worship, but given Sayyed Hassan’s security concerns, he could not afford such lengthy acts.
He noted that one of the mountains of mysticism, Sheikh Taqi Bahjat, relayed to Sayyed Hassan that he should limit himself to two things: “intend everything you do, even drinking water, for God Almighty, and at all times keep death before your eyes,” emphasizing that it’s exactly what the martyr did.
“You find many mystics saying that our foremost figure in mysticism is His Eminence,” al-Moussawi said. “He gave mysticism a new definition: practical mysticism based on engaging in action to defend and protect people, not seclusion in a private corner.”
He concluded the point by stating that “Sayyed, may God be pleased with him, established a new school of mysticism, or rather, gave a new definition of mysticism.”
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen English, Nawaf al-Moussawi, Head of Hezbollah’s Resources and Borders Department, addressed claims that Hezbollah operates as an Iranian proxy and reflected on Sayyed Hassan’s relationship with Iran.
After 40 minutes of discussing Sayyed Hassan and internal political matters, I asked al-Moussawi what he missed most about the martyred Hezbollah secretary-general.
Those who have lost a loved one know the mannerisms of al-Moussawi well. After being asked this question, a smile caused by a wave of memories came out, then the anxious hand movements, the lack of eye contact as one tries to collect their thoughts.
“There’s no way for me to put it into words,” al-Moussawi said. “I tell you this with full honesty: I turn away whenever – for example, on TV, there’s a broadcast of Sayyed Hassan’s speeches; I avoid listening to it; if there’s a picture of him, I look away; his absence is still a deep, burning wound.”
He added, “It’s painful. That is why I try to avoid this subject because I have little strength to withstand this pain.”
Al-Moussawi added that he agreed to speak about the loss of Sayyed Hassan and accept requests to speak about him as part of an obligation that fell on him and those who knew the martyr personally, to continue sharing his legacy.
He relayed a story about the love that he and his family had with the martyr.
“One time I told Sayyed Hassan, ‘You know, if you and I ever had an argument and my children found out that we had an argument, they would take your side over mine?’ … I’ve raised them to be like that,” he said.
Al-Moussawi added that he lost the person dearest to him, someone he cherished more than his own existence.
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen English, Nawaf al-Moussawi, Head of Hezbollah’s Resources and Borders Department, spoke about the profound personal grief he continues to experience following the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan.
He said that if someone went to him, or anyone else who loved the martyr, and asked to take the remainder of their lives and add on to the life of Sayyed Hassan, that he and others would willingly and wholeheartedly accept.
“However, what’s done is done, and it is our responsibility to move forward with [his movement] until we leave this world and meet with him, God willing, in purgatory and in the afterlife,” al-Moussawi said.
As al-Moussawi spoke to me about the life, legacy, and loss of Sayyed Hassan, his words were heavy, full of pain and remorse.
Sayyed Hassan was such that even those who only knew him from behind a screen speak of him with the same grief.
A hole was carved out of the hearts of millions with his martyrdom. The grief still lingers in the air, and the roads are decorated with the martyr’s smile, as all anyone wishes to see or hear again is his laugh and humanist takes on this world.
As we ended the interview, al-Moussawi wished us luck and good tidings in our attempts to share the legacy of the martyr. A prayer, I feel, stretches to all who love Sayyed Hassan.
The withdrawal of US troops leave Iraq facing the ecconomical and insituutional damage accumulated through sanctions and occupation (Illustrated by Batoul Chamas for Al Mayadeen English)
As the September 30 deadline ends the US military presence, Iraq is left with wrecked industry, a payroll state, and a financial system Washington controls.
Iraq’s government has declared September 30 the final date for ending the US-led coalition’s military mission. Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office says October 1 will find the country “free of any foreign military presence,” closing a deployment that once reached about 170,000 US troops.
But withdrawal leaves intact much of the damage inflicted by the invasion and the 13 years of sanctions that preceded it, along with the financial arrangements through which Washington continues to exert influence.
The US left Iraq’s productive economy devastated, its institutions dismantled and reshaped, and its workforce left increasingly dependent on a state funded by oil. Access to that income remains vulnerable to US pressure.
The question after the troops leave is how much control Iraq will have over the economy they leave behind.
Thirteen years of sanctions
The erosion of Iraq’s economy began long before March 2003. The UN Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions after Saddam Hussein’s regime invaded Kuwait in 1990. Drawing on internal UN records, Joy Gordon’s Invisible War describes one of the most comprehensive and devastating sanctions regimes ever imposed.
The embargo quickly collapsed incomes. Reconstructed World Bank estimates showed GDP per capita collapsing to a third in a single year, going from about $3,527 in 1990 to $1,255 in 1991.
Public employees who had earned $150 to $200 a month before sanctions were earning $3 to $5 by 1996, according to a 1997 assessment. By 2000, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported salaries as low as $2 a month and unemployment around 50 percent.
Factories, power stations, and water plants could not recover without imported equipment and spare parts. Yet any member of the sanctions committee could hold an entire contract indefinitely, even over a single disputed item. Gordon documents Washington’s use of the “dual-use” designation to restrict goods as basic as water pipes. By August 2002, the UN counted 2,058 contracts worth about $5.2 billion that had been placed on hold, including $745 million in oil industry equipment.
The restrictions also placed Iraq’s oil income beyond Baghdad’s direct control. Under the Oil-for-Food program, buyers paid into a UN-administered escrow account. After deductions for compensation, administration, and weapons inspections, the proceeds could finance only approved purchases. Iraq exported roughly $65 billion in oil under the program but could not use that money as ordinary budget revenue for wages, maintenance, or local services.
The collapse pushed skilled workers out of their professions. A UN humanitarian survey of 1,157 degree holders employed by aid organizations found 725 in general-service or menial jobs, including doctors, engineers, and scientists working as drivers, clerks, and guards.
By the time US troops arrived, Iraq had endured years of falling wages, industrial decline, and lost expertise. The occupation’s first decisions deepened that damage.
Dismantling the state, contracting out reconstruction
On May 16, 2003, the occupation authority issued Order 1, barring senior Baath Party members from public employment and requiring the screening of senior staff in ministries, hospitals, and universities. A week later, Order 2 dissolved the Defense Ministry, army, Republican Guard, and intelligence bodies.
The International Center for Transitional Justice estimates that Order 2 alone left about 400,000 conscripts, officers, and officials without jobs. The World Bank counted more than 2 million unemployed Iraqis, nearly 30 percent of the labor force, around 2003–2004. Meanwhile, Iraq’s health minister estimated that roughly half the country’s prewar doctors had fled as kidnapping and assassination made their work increasingly dangerous.
The occupation then opened the weakened economy to foreign competition. Order 39 allowed wholly foreign-owned companies and guaranteed investors treatment no less favorable than Iraqi businesses, while excluding natural resource extraction. Other orders suspended tariffs, later replaced by a flat 5 percent levy, and capped income tax at 15 percent from 2004. The World Bank warned that rapid opening would cost jobs in a country whose private sector was too weak to employ displaced workers.
Reconstruction brought billions of dollars, but much of the spending flowed through foreign contractors. The United States spent more than $60 billion over roughly a decade, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). More than $25 billion went to training and equipping security forces after the occupation had dissolved Iraq’s existing military institutions.
SIGIR found that reconstruction began without adequate security, consultation with Iraqi ministries, or planning for long-term maintenance. Its final report estimated waste at $3 billion to $5 billion from the main reconstruction fund and as much as $8 billion overall. The largest early infrastructure contracts went mainly to US firms. A $1.8 billion award to Bechtel in January 2004 was open only to American bidders.
Iraq’s own money followed a similar path. UN Security Council Resolution 1483 established the Development Fund for Iraq to receive oil revenue, with the occupation authority directing spending until June 2004.
An Iraq Revenue Watch analysis of contracts paid from Iraqi funds found that US companies received 74 percent of their value. US and British companies together received 85 percent, while Iraqi firms received 2 percent. Audits found that 73 percent of the value of Development Fund contracts above $5 million had been awarded without competitive bidding.
Oversight was inadequate even to establish how some of that money had been used. A 2010 SIGIR audit found that the Defense Department had failed to establish required accounting controls for about $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion it received from the fund. It could not document spending of about $2.6 billion.
The result was a reconstruction process that directed vast sums abroad while leaving Iraq with damaged services, limited productive capacity, and institutions struggling to rebuild.
An oil-funded system of patronage
With factories closed or looted and no private industry to replace them, the state became the place where Iraqis look for work. An assessment by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, using World Bank data, says public employment accounts for nearly all formal jobs and 40 percent of all jobs. Salaries and pensions took about 90 trillion dinars, roughly $69 billion, more than 40 percent of the 2024 budget, and the World Bank says another half a million government jobs were added during the spending expansion that preceded 2025.
The private sector has not filled the gap. Estimates put imports at more than 90 percent of the goods in Iraqi shops, while manufacturing makes up only around 2 percent of GDP. The World Bank says nearly 29 percent of the population is aged 15 to 29, and that this large group is entering the labor market amid limited job creation, a preference for public-sector work, and a private sector too small to absorb them. Youth unemployment is about 32 percent, and only around 11 percent of women take part in the labor force.
The IMF’s 2025 assessment describes the same pattern, citing high unemployment, an excessive state footprint, corruption, a weak banking system, and an inefficient electricity sector, and it called the wage trajectory fiscally unsustainable. Analysts describe a cycle in which secure public wages raise the pay that educated workers expect, private firms struggle with unreliable power and weak finance, and young graduates keep turning to the state for jobs, which raises the demand for more public hiring.
Oil pays for all of it. The World Bank estimates that oil supplied about 88 percent of government revenue and 91 percent of exports in 2025.
The financial levers Washington keeps
Iraq’s oil income has passed through outside hands since 1996, first a UN escrow, then the occupation authority’s fund, and now the New York Fed.
The Development Fund’s accounts were opened at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Iraqi oil revenue still flows. Buyers pay dollars into a Ministry of Finance account, and the Central Bank of Iraq converts part of the income into dinars for government spending. US jurisdiction over dollar clearing, correspondent banking, and physical cash shipments gives Washington substantial influence over Iraq’s access to its money.
In January 2020, after Iraq’s parliament called for foreign troops to leave, the Trump administration threatened to block access to the account. Iraqi officials said it then held about $35 billion and warned that losing access would disrupt salary payments and the exchange rate.
US restrictions introduced in November 2022 forced banks seeking dollars for international transfers to disclose the final beneficiaries and purposes of transactions through an electronic platform, with requests screened by the New York Fed. US and Iraqi accounts linked the measures to concerns about transfers to sanctioned Iranian actors.
Consequently, more than 80 percent of daily wire requests were initially blocked or returned. Transfers fell from $224.4 million on October 17, 2022, to $22.9 million on January 17, 2023. Demand shifted to the parallel market, where the dinar traded at about 1,588 to the dollar in February against a newly set official rate of 1,300. In a country dependent on imported food and consumer goods, restricted dollar access raised costs for ordinary households.
In April 2026, Washington applied pressure through physical cash, halting a shipment of about $500 million and suspending parts of security cooperation. Iraqi officials said the halt affected banknotes used for travel, medical treatment, education, and retail exchange, while electronic transfers for imports continued. Some shipments resumed in July. On September 26, Baghdad announced that Washington had agreed to continue them.
US sanctions have also reshaped access to Iraq’s oil fields. Russia’s Lukoil left West Qurna 2 after sanctions, and Chevron signed agreements to take over its development. During al-Zaidi’s July visit to Washington, Iraq signed dozens of agreements with companies including ExxonMobil, KBR, Halliburton, and Shell. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright cited more than $60 billion in commercial agreements, while al-Zaidi told The National that US companies would receive top priority. According to the Atlantic Council, Donald Trump framed the deals as American oil companies taking the place of US forces.
As US forces prepare to leave Iraq, they leave behind a trail of devastation. Decades of sanctions and occupation have weakened its productive economy, dismantled state institutions, and left livelihoods dependent on an oil-funded system of patronage. The consequences will endure long after the troops depart.
Washington retains substantial power over Iraq through its influence over dollar access and the financial channels that sustain the state. The withdrawal ends a military mission, while leaving Baghdad to contend with both the damage of US intervention and the control Washington continues to exercise.
After 23 years of the US’ invasion of Iraq, a new era is expected to begin on October 1 with the announcement of the official withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.
Iranians attend a rally commenrorating the martyrdom of Lebanese Resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as they hold posters of him in downtown Tehran, September 30, 2024 (AP)
Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei honors martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, hails Iran’s legacy of resistance, and declares that the era of subservience will never return.
Martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was a man “who held immense love for his nation and his school of thought,” the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, stated.
In a message marking Sacred Defense Week – which commemorates Iran’s resistance during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war – and the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Lebanese Resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sayyed Khamenei noted that his “sincere speeches and courageous actions strengthened the hearts of his people, and indeed, the hearts of the free peoples of the world.”
He described the martyred leader as “a man who elevated Lebanon,” which for years had been a “backyard” for certain powers, “to a position of great stature” with divine support and victory as his “constant companions”.
“Throughout the history of the Levant, until now, after the prophets and their successors, no man of such stature has emerged,” Sayyed Khamenei stressed.
Sayyed Khamenei hails Lebanon’s Resistance
The Iranian Leader noted that the “honorable banner of the Resistance is now in the hands of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, who will courageously carry forward Sayyed Nasrallah’s path at the forefront of Hezbollah’s steadfast ranks.”
On Lebanon, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei described the days that Lebanon is passing through as “distinctive and glorious days for them and for all the Resistance fighters,” while for those who placed their hopes in the false promises of their oppressors and protectors when it came to confronting the Israeli enemy, they are “humiliating and degrading days.”
Iran’s Sacred Defense broke the grip of colonial powers
On Sacred Defense Week, Sayyed Khamenei recalled the opening days of the month of Mehr as an occasion to commemorate the “Days of Allah” and the imposed war that the Iranian people endured for eight years, in a way that embodied national solidarity and steadfast adherence to revolutionary Islam, while contributing to the confrontation of hegemony and colonialism.
Sayyed Khamenei said Iranians today are recalling the period nearly 20 years before the outbreak of the war, together with the hostility of the colonial powers during that era, particularly the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry and the US-orchestrated coup. He noted that the Islamic Revolution, under the leadership of Imam Khomeini, brought an end to an era in which the ambassadors of the great powers dictated their orders to Iran’s ruling authorities.
Iran’s imposed war became a crucible of resistance and faith
On the Islamic Revolution, he asserted that its victory and the subsequent establishment of the Islamic Republic constituted a profound transformation for the powers that coveted Iran’s wealth and sought to “return the revolutionary nation to its previous course.”
He stressed that the imposed war was “their most important undertaking during the first decade of the Islamic Republic’s existence.”
He noted that the war, launched by the “anti-people Baath Party” on the basis of the illusion that it would last only a few days and result in an easy victory, ultimately served to strengthen the Islamic system.
He said this transformation became “a defining feature of this system in the face of subsequent hostile events.”
Sayyed Khamenei stressed that those years were transformed, “through the Revolution and the raising of the banner of Islam and jihad amid the imposed war, into glorious days which, even 38 years after the war’s end, remain rich with lessons in worship, courage, resistance, morality, and humanity.”
Iran will never return to days of subservience, disgrace
Sayyed Khamenei said “Iran’s enemies” seek to return the country to the days of “backwardness, humiliation, subservience, and disgrace,” while the Islamic Republic is now living through days marked by “progress, dignity, independence, and a lofty standing in the Islamic world.”
To this end, he highlighted the participation of millions of Iranians in public squares and streets in recent days, as well as the declaration by more than 30 million Iranians of their readiness to defend their country. He further noted that a call for renewed readiness reached its target of 500,000 people within the first 100 minutes.
In his message, he said Iran emerged stronger from the imposed war and subsequent confrontations, stressing that the country remains committed to its rightful positions, including maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Sayyed Khamenei concluded, “As a servant of the dear Iranian people, I declare that those bygone days whose return our enemy longs for have passed and will never return.”
Ayatollah Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei stressed on Monday that the days of foreign domination that Iran’s enemies seek to bring back are over and will never return.
In a message on the occasion of the Sacred Defense Week and the second martyrdom anniversary of late Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Leader Sayyed Khamenei praised Sayyed Nasrallah as “a man whose greatness is unparalleled in Levant’s history since the prophets and their successors.”
His eminence said the years preceding the Islamic Revolution were marked by foreign domination, dependence and the intervention of Western powers in Iran’s affairs, adding that the Revolution led by Imam Khomeini (RA) ended that situation and established the Islamic Republic.
Leader Sayyed Khamenei described the imposed war launched by the Baathist regime of Iraq as a major effort by Iran’s adversaries in the first decade of the Islamic Republic to reverse the course of the Revolution. He said Iran emerged from the war stronger and more resilient, a pattern that continued through subsequent crises and conflicts.
His eminence contrasted Iran’s situation in the early years after the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution with its current position, saying the country had once inherited limited means to defend itself but has since developed the capabilities to confront its adversaries. The Leader said Iran today enjoys greater progress, independence and standing in the Islamic world.
“The past days that our enemy wishes to return have passed and will never be repeated,” the Leader said, stressing that the Islamic Republic’s future would be stronger as a result of the experiences and legacy of the Islamic Revolution and the Sacred Defense.
The days preceding the Islamic Revolution were dark and bleak, when ambassadors of the Arrogant Powers would dictate their demands and prohibitions to the Shah of Iran and he would execute those demands
“Enemies Halted Given Painful Blows of Brave Iranians”
On the ongoing tensions with Iran’s adversaries in the region, including developments involving the Strait of Hormuz, Leader Sayyed Khamenei said those who once sought to dominate Iran have been forced to confront the country’s military capabilities, adding that Iran’s defense capabilities have fundamentally changed the balance compared with previous decades.
In those days, two seas in southern Iran were once like a “playground” for enemy forces, but they no longer today venture beyond the Arabian Sea “given the painful blows they have received from brave Iranian fighters and the defenders of the Strait of Hormuz,” his eminence said.
Those days to which the enemies long to return Iran were days of backwardness, humiliation, dependency. And the days we live in today are overflowing with progress, dignity, independence, and an elevated level of reputability in the Islamic world and indeed across the globe.
Iran’s current achievements should be viewed in light of the sacrifices of Imam Khomeini (RA) and martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, whose leadership contributed to Iran’s present standing, Leader Sayyed Khamenei stressed, noting that their legacy would help shape a stronger future.
“Sayyed Nasrallah Unparalleled in Levant”
The Leader then paid tribute to Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on the second anniversary of his martyrdom, describing him as a prominent figure of the resistance front and a sincere advocate of the Lebanese people and the cause he represented.
“His sincere counsel and courageous actions strengthened hearts of his people and free people worldwide.”
Leader Sayyed Khamenei highlighted Sayyed Nasrallah’s role in the history of the resistance and said his legacy continues under Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem.
“Sayyed Nasrallah elevated Lebanon, which once a backyard for some powers, to greatness. His greatness was unparalleled in Levant’s history since the prophets and their successors”
He said the current period in Lebanon would remain an important chapter in the history of the resistance, adding that the sacrifices of Sayyed Nasrallah, Sayyed Hashem Safieddine and other Resistance fighters would continue to influence future generations.
“Lebanon’s current days are glorious for Resistance fighters and humiliating for those relying on oppressors.”
His eminence concluded by expressing hope that, through divine assistance, the Iranian people and the Resistance Front would continue to achieve “victory, triumph and dignity,” while their adversaries would face defeat and humiliation.
Attendents listen to speech during the central event commemorating the the second annveersary of the martyre of Isslam and humanty, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, in Sanaa, Yemen, Septemper 27, 2026 (AP Masira TV)
Speaking at the central event for the second anniversary of Sayyed Nasrallah’s martyrdom in Sanaa, religious scholar Fouad Naji, a member of the Yemen Scholars Association, said ٍSayyed Nasrallah was “the first to change the equation and registered a victory over Israel.”
He added that the Hezbollah leader “was the heart of the axis and the safety valve of the region when he stood before the crime of the century and was and still is a nightmare in the throat of the Zionists.”
Sayyed Nasrallah: Islamic symbol not framed by geography
The cleric said the greatest description of the late Sayyed was the one given by Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi, who called him the “Martyr of Islam and humanity,” asserting it as “worthy of his stature.” He also said the late Hezbollah leader is “an Islamic symbol not confined by geography” and “provided the living proof that religion can lead life.”
Sayyed Nasrallah “was the man of the stage by standing in the face of the New Middle East project,” Naji said, emphasizing that the Yemeni people “will not forget his stance with us when he stood with us while everyone else abandoned us.”
“Our generations will not forget him.”
Naji further stated that “the blood of the martyr Nasrallah and his companion Sayyed Safieddine is a sweeping flood that will change the face of the world and overturn the balances in favor of the believers.”
Sayyed Nasrallah devoted his life to resisting hegemony, colonialism
The acting prime minister of Yemen, cleric Mohammed Muftah said, “We commemorate the martyrdom of Sayyed Nasrallah, one of the most important leaders and great figures of humanity.” He stated that Sayyed Nasrallah “devoted his life to the Palestinian cause and to the option of resistance in the face of occupation and projects of hegemony and colonialism.”
“The assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is not considered a victory for the enemy after 40 years of planning, surveillance, and attempts,” Muftah noted, asserting that “the enemies thought that by assassinating Sayyed Nasrallah they would assassinate his project, but they failed.”
Sayyed Nasrallah “created a fixed equation when he did and said, ‘We never lose; when we win, we achieve victory, and when we are martyred, we achieve victory.'” He described Sayyed Nasrallah’s school as “legendary and exceptional” and said it “will extend to broad generations.”
Muftah pledged to the late leader, saying, “We remain faithful to the covenant, and we will proceed on the path and approach until the liberation of Al-Aqsa and we pray in it.”
Two years after the assassination of Lebanese Resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, commemorations were held across Lebanon and the wider region, with supporters gathering around his shrine in Beirut’s Southern Suburb from the early morning hours under the slogan “We remain true to our pledge.”
Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent in Beirut reported that preparations around the shrine were completed as citizens began arriving from the early morning, with large attendance expected amid continuing Israeli aggression against southern Lebanon.
In southern Lebanon, the town of Deir Qanoun al-Nahr hosted large crowds for a central ceremony commemorating the martyrdom of Sayyed Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, who was assassinated after him, with photographs of both lining the streets.
In Tehran, the second anniversary is being marked with another public ceremony.
Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent reported that the event is being held at the municipal building, where Hezbollah’s flag and banner have been raised, alongside flags, banners and slogans associated with the Resistance.
Meanwhile, Al Mayadeen‘s bureau chief in Baghdad said Sayyed Nasrallah’s image is present in the Iraqi consciousness, with supporters viewing him as a regional leader who confronted “Israel” and helped shape a regional political path built around resistance.
A ceremony was held at the municipal building in Tehran, Iran, where Hezbollah’s flag and banner were raised alongside flags and slogans associated with the Resistance, conveying a message of continued Iranian commitment to supporting Hezbollah in confronting the Israeli occupation and defending sovereignty, according to Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent.
In Sanaa, Yemen, a central ceremony is underway to commemorate the second anniversary of the martyrdom of the “Martyr of Islam and Humanity,” Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, with participants recalling his steadfast support for Yemen and his solidarity with its people throughout years of Saudi-led aggression.
On November 3, 2023, as Palestinian children were being pulled from beneath the ruins of Gaza, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke not only about war, strategy, or Resistance.
He spoke about them.
He invoked the women and children emerging from beneath the rubble. He argued that the images coming out of Gaza had exposed the contradiction between Western proclamations of human rights and Western support for the Israeli assault.
His argument was ultimately about something larger than geopolitics.
What did witnessing such suffering demand of a human being?
The martyred leader did not see Gaza as a cause to be supported from afar. To him, defending its people was a duty born of humanity itself, and remaining silent in the face of their suffering meant confronting uncomfortable questions about one’s humanity, faith, and honor.
That conviction had been articulated more than a decade earlier.
During the Israeli assault on Gaza in November 2012, he declared that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah would not abandon Gaza and its Resistance, describing standing with its people as a “religious and moral and humanitarian obligation.”
“How can we accept peace and security while the Palestinians have no peace and no security?”
This was Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: a man who could not rest while Gaza bled, who rejected safety while Palestinian children lived beneath bombs, and who carried Palestine not as a… pic.twitter.com/XSOweSqf0x
Eleven years later, as Gaza endured devastation on an unprecedented scale, those words took on a darker weight: humanitarian obligation was no longer something merely spoken, but something paid for in sacrifice.
The children who exposed the horror
The November 3 speech offers perhaps the clearest insight into the humanitarian dimension of Sayyed Nasrallah’s position on Gaza.
⚡️⭕️ The goals set by the Lebanese support front on November 3rd 2023, in the first speech of Martyr Sayed Hassan Nasrallah after October 7th 2023.
Today the war on Gaza stopped, with Hamas specifically victorious and still on the ground after the pre-planned war of annihilation… pic.twitter.com/wkpEaGv6zD
By then, thousands of Palestinians had been killed. Children appeared daily in footage from bombed homes and overwhelmed hospitals. Families dug relatives from collapsed buildings as access to water, food, medicine, electricity and fuel deteriorated.
Children, in particular, repeatedly appeared in his moral argument.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, their suffering stripped away the comfortable language through which wars are often discussed.
The child beneath the rubble was not somebody else’s child. The mother searching hospitals was not somebody else’s mother. The father carrying his child did not become morally distant simply because he lived beyond Lebanon’s border.
International institutions would later document the severity of what Gaza’s civilian population had endured.
The human cost behind the war
In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Security Minister Yoav Gallant, finding reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. The chamber also cited reasonable grounds concerning intentionally directing attacks against Gaza’s civilian population.
The ICC said Gaza’s civilians had been deprived of objects indispensable to survival, including food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity. It also said shortages of anesthetics had forced doctors to conduct procedures, including amputations on children, without adequate anesthesia.
This was the reality behind the political vocabulary.
“Collateral damage” could mean a child losing a limb.
“Evacuation” could mean a family carrying what remained of its life from one unsafe place to another.
Destroyed infrastructure meant hunger, thirst, disease, and hospitals unable to adequately treat the wounded.
It was this human reality that Sayyed Nasrallah insisted could not be reduced to a distant tragedy.
🚨 Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah:
"Israel" It defies the will of the world, the international community, and the International Court of Justice, which ordered an end to the attack on Rafah." pic.twitter.com/MQqrER2gRI
Over the following months, that connection remained central to Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches.
The position carried an increasingly high cost for Lebanon. Southern villages were repeatedly struck, civilians were killed, homes and agricultural land were damaged or destroyed, and tens of thousands were displaced as Israeli attacks escalated.
Yet Sayyed Nasrallah did not publicly sever the Lebanese front from Gaza.
By June, as Israeli threats of a wider war against Lebanon intensified, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that if such a war were imposed, “the Resistance will fight without restraints, without rules and without limits.”
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah underlined in a televised speech the substantial role played by the Lebanese support front in the war on #Gaza in the face of the Israeli occupation. pic.twitter.com/0VgvmHJ5NS
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) June 19, 2024
A month later, amid ceasefire negotiations, he reiterated that Hezbollah’s operations remained tied to Gaza, saying the Resistance would halt them if a ceasefire were reached there without requiring a separate Lebanese agreement.
“What Hamas accepts, we all accept,” he said.
For supporters of the Resistance, this is where his position acquired its deepest moral significance.
It was easy to stand with Gaza when solidarity cost nothing.
The real test came when that solidarity demanded sacrifice.
A fatherly conception of responsibility
That distinction also gives meaning to the paternal image through which many supporters remember Sayyed Nasrallah.
For them, he represented more than the secretary-general of Hezbollah. He was associated with protection, guidance and reassurance among communities shaped by occupation, invasion and repeated war.
Two years after his martyrdom, Al Mayadeen revisits the life, political vision, and enduring impact of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
From building a cohesive organization that weathered the region's hardest trials to defining a doctrine of resistance amidst immense human and economic… pic.twitter.com/yqBKPrTtD6
Placed beside Gaza, that image acquires another dimension.
To speak symbolically of Sayyed Nasrallah as a father to Gaza’s children is not to suggest that he could shelter every child from an Israeli bomb or replace every parent they lost.
It describes instead the moral instinct reflected in the position he repeatedly articulated.
A father does not ask whether a suffering child is politically convenient before recognizing pain. He does not examine nationality before recognizing fear. He does not see hunger and decide that geography has absolved him of concern.
This is why Gaza’s children were central to his humanitarian language. They were not statistics or military terminology, but children whose suffering, in his view, demanded a human response.
“No matter what the sacrifices are”
By September 2024, that principle had become intensely personal.
On September 17 and 18, communication devices exploded across Lebanon, killing dozens and injuring thousands. Explosions occurred in homes, markets, and other civilian spaces, and children were among the casualties.
In his September 19 speech, Sayyed Nasrallah described the attacks as an unprecedented security and humanitarian blow, but rejected the possibility that they would force Hezbollah to abandon its support for Gaza.
The Resistance, he said, would continue supporting Palestinians “no matter what the consequences are, what the sacrifices are, what scenarios will unfold.”
On September 19, 2024, Martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah reaffirmed the Resistance’s support for the Palestinian people, vowing amid the ongoing Israeli genocide to never stop supporting Gaza no matter what.
Eight days later, on September 27, 2024, he was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs.
Those words carry a different weight two years later.
He spoke of consequences after the consequences had already reached Lebanon. He spoke of sacrifice while the country was bleeding. He maintained the connection with Gaza when the danger was no longer theoretical.
Then the sacrifice included him.
"When we are also partners in martyrdom, together we will achieve the inevitable and forthcoming victory, God willing."
During his eulogy for martyred leader Fouad Shokor last month, #Hezbollah's martyred Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah reassured Resistance supporters… pic.twitter.com/kNZBdEyh5y
The words he had once offered to console the Resistance after the martyrdom of its commanders would soon acquire a painful new meaning after his own.
Whatever disputes remain over Hezbollah’s strategy, the continuity in Sayyed Nasrallah’s publicly stated position is clear: he did not abandon Gaza when maintaining that position became costly.
Two years later, Gaza’s children remain
Perhaps the most painful part of remembering those speeches today is that the children at their center continue to suffer.
In August 2026, UNICEF reported that at least 300 children had reportedly been killed in Gaza during the 300 days following the October 2025 ceasefire announcement — an average of one child every day. Hundreds more were injured, while malnutrition, disease, unsafe water and damaged sanitation systems continued to shape children’s lives.
"A ceasefire that leaves an average of one child dead each and every day is failing children," – @UNICEFmena Regional Director Edouard Beigbeder. "With hundreds more children injured, many severely, children in Gaza are still waiting for the end to the violence they were… pic.twitter.com/pkm34Mqj16
By September, OCHA reported that Israeli airstrikes and other attacks continued to affect populated areas, while 91% of assessed households faced moderate-to-high water insecurity.
The ruins themselves have become part of childhood.
A damaged home can become a grave. A destroyed water network can threaten life without another bomb falling. A crippled hospital can turn a survivable wound into a death sentence.
Gaza’s children, the measure of solidarity
Fourteen years have passed since Sayyed Nasrallah described standing with Gaza as a “religious and moral and humanitarian obligation.” Nearly three years have passed since he invoked Gaza’s children beneath the rubble. Two years have passed since his own death. Yet the question running through those speeches remains: What does solidarity mean if it disappears the moment it demands sacrifice?
For Sayyed Nasrallah, Gaza’s suffering could not be made distant by borders or political calculations. Its children mattered because they were children.
Perhaps that is why the paternal image associated with him resonates so deeply among those who mourn him.
Fatherhood, at its most elemental, means refusing indifference to a child’s pain — to protect where one can, to remain when leaving would be easier, and to say: your suffering concerns me.
Two years after Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s death, Gaza’s children remain the most painful measure of that principle. And the question he posed through his speeches remains before a world that saw their suffering unfold: What does silence mean when the children beneath the rubble can be seen by everyone?
Member of the Loyalty to the Resistance Block, MP Hasan Fadlallah, emphasized that the main battle today is liberating the land, protecting the people, returning to the southern villages and towns, and rebuilding them. He stressed that Hezbollah and the Amal Movement have not closed the doors to a political solution, but they reject submission and surrender.
Speaking during a memorial ceremony held in Beirut’s Dahieh, Fadlallah stated that the resistance supports diplomacy based on rights and indirect negotiations if it leads to the liberation of the South, the withdrawal of the occupation, and the return of the residents. He considered that any agreement linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance perpetuates the continuation of the occupation.
He pointed out that the resistance arose as a result of the occupation, affirming that it remains in a defensive position, and that steadfastness, resistance, and local and regional dynamics are what will lead to the liberation of the South.
Fadlallah also criticized the government’s performance, stating that the continued presence of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement within it is tied to “national and political necessities” rather than an endorsement of its policies. He called for an end to what he described as incitement against the resistance and its community, urging a move away from disinformation and division, while confirming that its resistance is “as firmly rooted as our existence in our country.”
Special Coverage | Sana’a threatens a sweeping response targeting Saudi bases and strategic interests should the blockade continue… تغطية خاصة | صنعاء تتوعد برد واسع يستهدف القواعد والمصالح الاستراتيجية السعودية إذا استمر الحصار …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e16M9El_68M
Long before Yemen emerged as a regional force, Sayyed Nasrallah recognized the strength of a people who would refuse to bow, endure the war, and reshape the balance of West Asia.
The world saw bombs falling on Yemen. Martyred Lebanese Resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah saw what lay behind them.
When a US-backed, Saudi-led coalition launched aggression against Yemen in March 2015, it was presented under the guise of an “effort to restore a political order in Sanaa.” But Sayyed Nasrallah rejected that claim from the outset.
Beneath the language of “restoring legitimacy and security,” he saw an attempt to impose a political outcome on an entire people through overwhelming military force, to break Yemen’s will, restore outside influence, and compel its people to surrender their sovereignty.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s assessment was not confined to a single speech.
Beyond the aggression
Across years of Saudi aggression, the former secretary general of Hezbollah returned to the same themes: Yemen’s resistance, its sovereignty, the limits of military coercion, and the ability of the Yemeni people to withstand pressure that had been expected to produce political submission.
More than a decade later, Yemen occupies a markedly different place in the regional landscape.
The Saudi-led aggression that began with an attempt to reshape Yemen’s political balance became a prolonged war. The Yemeni resistance survived years of military pressure and locally developed increasingly sophisticated military capabilities. The war eventually became intertwined with wider regional calculations involving Saudi Arabia, the United States, “Israel”, and the Red Sea.
After October 2023, Yemen’s role expanded again. Sanaa’s Yemeni Armed Forces began launching operations in solidarity with Gaza amid the Israeli genocide, drawing the country directly into the regional struggle for Palestine.
The question, looking back, is not whether Sayyed Nasrallah foresaw every development that followed.
It is more precise, and historically more useful, to ask what he actually identified about Yemen at different moments, what happened afterward, and why prominent Yemenis today believe his reading of their country was significant.
The first days
Sayyed Nasrallah’s first major solidarity came as the Saudi-led aggression on Yemen was still in its opening hours.
On March 27, 2015, two days after the launch of the aggression, he challenged the argument that developments in Yemen constituted an “existential security threat to Saudi Arabia.”
He asked why Saudi Arabia viewed Yemen as a threat while “Israel”, with one of the region’s most powerful militaries, remained a far more obvious strategic challenge.
The question reflected one of the foundations of his interpretation of the war: that Yemen was being viewed through the interests of outside powers rather than through the political aspirations of the Yemenis themselves.
Sayyed Nasrallah also challenged claims that Yemen’s emerging political order was simply an Iranian project, asking where the Iranian armies and military bases in Yemen were.
His argument was that the war could not be understood simply as an extension of Iranian-Saudi tension at the time.
He went further, arguing that Saudi Arabia had lost the degree of influence it had previously exercised over Yemen and that the war was intended to restore that influence.
‘A balm for Yemenis’ wound’
For Yemenis experiencing the first hours of the war, the significance of Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches was immediate.
Dr. Ahmed Ahmed Saleh al-Arami, professor of modern history, president of Al-Bayda University, and deputy chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the International Palestine Conference, remembers the atmosphere vividly.
“That speech was like a balm in the early hours of the coalition aggression against Yemen,” al-Arami said. “At the time, we were following the media, regimes, and statements, all of which were mobilizing against the Yemeni people. The only position that came forward with such strength was that of the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.”
Al-Arami said Sayyed Nasrallah did not merely condemn the aggression. He explained its underlying objectives and challenged the assumption that military superiority would translate into political victory.
He recalled Sayyed Nasrallah concluding the speech with a declaration of confidence in Yemen’s ability to withstand the aggression.
“The Yemeni people will rub the noses of the Saud family in the soil of Yemen,” al-Arami recalled him saying during his speech at a crowded ceremony to mark the Tenth of Muharram in Beirut’s Southern Suburb (Dahieh) in October 2016.
“The Saudi war on the Yemeni people does not seem to be fought on the basis of achieving political goals, but reflects the level of grudge and revenge. This form of crime, which grinds humans, stone, children, and adults, and targets everything in Yemen, is Saudi Arabia’s hatred war of a Wahhabi taste,” Sayyed Nasrallah added at the time.
Inevitability of Yemen’s victory
Dr. Khaled Yahya al-Emad, a member of the Yemeni Shura Council, similarly places Sayyed Nasrallah’s position at the very beginning of the war.
“When we remember or speak of the late resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, he was someone who saw with the light of God,” al-Emad stressed. “From the very first day of the aggression by the Saud family against Yemen, he said that victory would be on Yemen’s side.”
For al-Emad, Sayyed Nasrallah’s assessment remained consistent throughout the war.
“He consistently spoke about the Yemenis, Yemen, and their suffering at the hands of the Saud family, as well as the inevitability of their victory,” he stressed.
“And that is what happened. The Yemenis emerged victorious, and today they are rubbing the noses of the Saud family in the mud,” he affirmed.
The language was emphatic, but it reflected a broader assessment that Yemen’s resistance possessed the determination to withstand an aggression built on military superiority.
That understanding would inform Sayyed Nasrallah’s subsequent speeches as the war entered a prolonged phase.
The limits of force
As the war continued, Sayyed Nasrallah’s analysis increasingly focused on the widening gap between military power and political outcomes.
In a 2016 Al Mayadeen interview, he described the war on Yemen as unjust. He questioned the logic of continuing an aggression that had already failed to produce the political submission its backers sought.
“Their scheme in Yemen has failed,” he emphasized.
He also challenged the assumption that Saudi Arabia could ultimately use its financial resources to reconstruct Yemen and translate that reconstruction into political control.
The point was central to his broader understanding of resistance: destruction could be inflicted from the outside, but political submission could not simply be purchased or imposed.
By then, the war was already demonstrating its durability.
Sayyed Nasrallah described the Yemeni people as having endured an extraordinary period of fighting and emphasized the role of their determination and military capabilities in preventing their defeat.
‘The unjust war’
Years later, in December 2020, he returned to the same argument.
“The Yemeni people have fought for more than 2100 days,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing to the Yemeni people’s determination and access to weapons as fundamental sources of their ability to continue fighting.
“Look, my understanding is that Saudi Arabia—particularly in recent years—does not act rationally. Rather, it acts out of spite and hostility. This war on Yemen—tell me, what is the reason for it? What logic? What basis? What law? What interests? What principle? What is the rationale behind this unjust war?” he said at the time.
The significance of the statement lies partly in its timing.
By late 2020, the war had lasted for more than five years. Whatever expectations had accompanied the opening of the Saudi-led aggression, the war had not produced a quick political settlement.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, the persistence of the war highlighted the distance between the scale of military force deployed against Yemen and the political objectives it was supposed to achieve.
When the battlefield became regional
The war’s trajectory increasingly complicated the idea that the war could be contained within Yemen.
In 2019, Yemeni Armed Forces operations against Saudi oil facilities demonstrated the ability of the aggression on Yemen to spill over to critical infrastructure beyond Yemen’s borders.
They showed the extent of deterrence Sanaa managed to establish.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, the war on Yemen was never entirely separate from the wider balance of power in West Asia.
He said in a televised speech on September 20, 2019, “The thing that will protect the installations and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia is halting the war against the Yemeni people.”
Noting that the YAF’s operation had initially halved Saudi oil output, he added, “Your house is made of glass, and your economy is made of glass….”
After all, Yemen’s own leadership had made decisions, developed military capabilities, and increasingly affected the strategic significance of its geographic position.
For the top Yemeni figures interviewed by Al Mayadeen English for this article, Sayyed Nasrallah’s significance cannot be explained entirely through military or geopolitical analysis.
Abdul Rahman Alahnomi, chairman of the General Corporation for Radio and Television, described Sayyed Nasrallah as a prominent voice defending the injustice inflicted upon the Yemenis.
“The late Resistance leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was a beacon of defense against the injustice suffered by the Yemeni people,” Alahnomi said. “His positions of solidarity with Yemen in confronting the Saudi-American aggression were like a balm for our wounds, while also serving as a source of inspiration for other free people around the world and encouraging them to adopt similar positions toward what was happening in Yemen.”
For the Ambassador in the Ministry of Interior in Sanaa, Abdullah Ali Sabri, Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches became something Yemenis actively awaited.
Sabri heartfully recalled Sayyed Nasrallah, describing his speech on the second day of the aggression as the greatest position he had taken in his life.
He also remembered Sayyed Nasrallah asking, “If the Yemenis are not Arabs, then who are the [true] Arabs?”
In a similar vein, Abu Aqil Abdullah Alnimi, a member of the Political Bureau of Ansar Allah, stressed that “Sayyed Nasrallah was the icon of his time and the leader of his era; his speeches were a balm and a source of healing.”
Profound loss
The significance of Sayyed Nasrallah’s words came from their perceived sincerity.
Yemenis believed that Sayyed Nasrallah was not speaking about their suffering as an abstract geopolitical issue.
“He spoke to Yemenis with emotion, loved Yemen deeply, and made that clear through his words and speeches,” Alnimi said.
That emotional connection became particularly important during an aggression in which Yemenis often felt isolated internationally.
“There was no one in the world who would wipe away our tears or tend to our wounds except the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” Alnimi emphasized.
A relationship beyond political solidarity
Alnimi recalled a relationship that, in the perception of many Yemenis, went beyond political solidarity.
“We considered him as though he were among us, as though he were the leader who taught us, advised us, guided us, and raised our morale,” Alnimi said.
“Sayyed Nasrallah’s absence was, for us, a great wound that will never heal and can never heal,” Alnimi stressed. “He left behind a great and profound void that no one else can fill.”
Orphaned Yemen
Alnimi described Yemen during the war as an isolated country.
“Yemen was an orphan. It had no one to support it, no one to stand by its side, and no one to wipe away its tears or tend to its wounds except the martyr, the martyr of humanity, and the martyr of all Muslims, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” Alnimi said.
On his part, Sabri likewise described Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches as a key source of confidence and morale during the confrontation.
Their recollections reveal why Sayyed Nasrallah’s Yemen speeches acquired a significance that cannot be reduced to their geopolitical content.
For these Yemeni figures, he was not merely an outside political leader commenting on a foreign war. He was someone who repeatedly acknowledged Yemen’s suffering, defended its right to resist, and treated its people as actors who should be able to determine their own future.
2017: ‘I wish I were a fighter in your ranks’
Meanwhile, Al-Arami remembers another moment that, in his view, demonstrated the depth of Sayyed Nasrallah’s identification with the Yemeni resistance.
During the escalation of the Battle of the Western Coast in 2017, al-Arami recalled Sayyed Nasrallah saying on June 30, 2018, “I wish I were a fighter in your ranks, under the banner of your dear and courageous leader, Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi.”
The statement came at a time when fighting was intensifying along Yemen’s western coastline.
Al-Arami said the words resonated with fighters and strengthened their morale.
The episode is significant not because one speech can be shown to have determined the course of a battle, but because it demonstrates how Sayyed Nasrallah’s public language about Yemen had evolved.
He was no longer merely explaining the struggle to an external audience.
He was addressing the Yemeni resistance itself.
Bread under siege
Another recollection from al-Arami reveals a different side of Sayyed Nasrallah’s relationship with Yemen.
After Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi said on May 23, 2021, that Yemenis were prepared to share their daily bread with Palestinians, Sayyed Nasrallah reportedly responded on May 25, 2021, by asking whether Yemenis themselves had enough food under the Saudi blockade.
“Sayyed, you yourselves are under siege. Do you even have bread to spare to share with the Palestinian people?” Sayyed Nasrallah asked at the time, reflecting the depth of the Yemenis’ altruism.
The exchange captured a defining thread running through Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches on Yemen: the connection between resistance, human dignity, and the suffering of peoples under siege.
Yemen’s support for Palestine was not occurring in conditions of prosperity or security. It was being articulated by a society enduring war and deprivation itself.
Historical moment
For al-Arami, Sayyed Nasrallah understood the significance of that gesture and responded to it emotionally.
The moment also foreshadowed a development that would become increasingly important years later: Yemen’s identification of its own struggle with the Palestinian cause.
From war on Yemen to the Red Sea
The next transformation in Yemen’s role occurred after the Saudi-led aggression had already reshaped the country’s military and political landscape.
The emergence of increasingly capable Yemeni missiles and drones altered the strategic equation with Saudi Arabia and later created a wider regional dimension to the struggle.
Then came October 2023.
As “Israel” launched its genocide in Gaza, the Yemeni Armed Forces declared on October 19, 2023, that their military operations would target Israeli-linked interests and shipping in support of the Palestinian cause.
The Red Sea consequently became one of the most important theatres in the broader regional confrontation.
What had begun in 2015 as a Saudi-led aggression centered on Yemen’s political order had acquired consequences for international maritime traffic, regional security, and US occupation forces’ deployments in West Asia.
This marked a profound change in Yemen’s position.
A country long neglected, exploited, and subjected to devastating aggression had emerged as a force capable of shaping strategic calculations far beyond the Arabian Peninsula.
Reshaping the regional balance
For years, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah insisted that Yemen should never be viewed as politically passive or strategically marginal.
Yemeni leaders made their own decisions. Their actions reflected their own political calculations, their interpretation of the Palestinian cause, and their assessment of Yemen’s interests.
Sayyed Nasrallah told Al Mayadeen‘s Chairman of the Board of Directors, Ghassan Ben Jeddou, that “in the war on Yemen, Hezbollah is not qualified to play the role of mediation, because we are a party that sides with Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the Yemeni people, and Ansar Allah movement.”
Sayyed Nasrallah delivered these remarks during the “Dialogue of the 40th Anniversary” on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Hezbollah’s founding on July 25, 2022, adding that “the mediator usually requests concessions from the two parties, but what concessions can be requested from Ansar Allah?”
He stressed that “the Iranians gave a clear answer regarding mediation in the Yemeni war, which means that the Yemenis won’t, in any circumstances, waive their rights.”
Yemen and Palestine
The connection to Palestine was not an afterthought in Sayyed Nasrallah’s understanding of Yemen.
From his earliest speeches, he repeatedly challenged Arab governments over their focus on Yemen while “Israel” remained at the center of the region’s strategic landscape.
“If the aim of the war on Yemen is to save the Yemeni people, then why did Saudi Arabia abandon the Palestinian people for long decades?” the martyred leader said in a speech aired on Al Manar TV in March 2018.
Over time, he increasingly described the different resistance fronts as interconnected.
That framework became particularly relevant after October 2023.
Yemen’s military operations in support of Gaza transformed the country’s regional role and placed it directly within a confrontation involving “Israel”, the United States, and other Western imperialist powers.
An explicit connection
For Yemeni figures such as Alahnomi, the connection was explicit.
He linked the Yemeni confrontation with the broader struggle for Palestine and viewed Yemen’s later military posture as part of its commitment to the Palestinian cause.
The significance of this development extends beyond the language of regional alliances.
It demonstrated how Yemen’s geographic position on the Red Sea and near Bab al-Mandeb could give a relatively isolated country considerable strategic leverage.
That was a dimension of Yemen’s importance that became increasingly difficult to ignore.
Looking back
What, then, can be said with confidence about Sayyed Nasrallah’s reading of Yemen?
The record establishes that he envisioned every subsequent event.
He questioned whether military aggression could produce political submission. He treated Yemen as a political actor rather than merely a theatre for a wider regional confrontation. He emphasized the capacity of its people to endure pressure and repeatedly warned that the consequences of the war could extend beyond Yemen’s borders.
The subsequent course of the war gave those arguments a historical record against which they could be assessed.
The Yemeni resistance survived the aggression and developed significant military capabilities. The war affected Saudi territory and later international maritime routes in the Red Sea. Yemen emerged as an actor capable of shaping regional calculations, while its resistance became increasingly connected to the Palestinian cause.
These developments help explain why top Yemeni figures continue to return to Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches.
Yemen’s suffering matters in its own right
Alnimi embraced them for championing Yemen with a depth of feeling that was unmistakable.
Al-Emad sees in them an early confidence in Yemen’s ability to endure.
Al-Arami remembers them as moments that provided reassurance when Yemen appeared isolated.
Alahnomi recalls them as a form of solidarity that transcended conventional political statements.
Sabri remembers them as words that made Yemenis feel that someone beyond their borders was listening.
Their testimony also reveals something that a purely strategic reading of Sayyed Nasrallah’s speeches would miss.
His importance to many Yemenis was not only that he assessed the war differently from Saudi Arabia or Western imperialist governments.
It was that he spoke about Yemen as its suffering mattered in its own right.
A window into Sayyed Nasrallah’s wider vision
The Yemen story ultimately points beyond Yemen.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s understanding of the region was built around a recurring set of ideas: resistance, sovereignty, deterrence, Palestinian centrality, and the limits of external power.
Those ideas appeared in his discussions of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Palestine as well.
Lebanon was viewed through the question of resistance to Israeli aggression.
Syria was understood within a wider struggle involving the state, armed groups, and foreign meddling.
Palestine remained, in his speeches, the central cause around which much of the region’s political struggle continued to revolve.
Yemen became another expression of that broader worldview.
An emerging power in West Asia
Yemen’s trajectory was particularly significant because the country underwent, within a decade, a dramatic transformation in its regional position.
The record shows a regional leader who consistently argued that Yemen’s political agency and capacity for resistance were being underestimated.
The years that followed provided substantial evidence against which that argument could be assessed.
Perhaps that is the most enduring significance of Sayyed Nasrallah’s Yemen speeches.
They were not simply predictions about how a particular war would end.
They were part of a broader argument about power in West Asia: that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control; that local actors cannot always be reduced to proxies of larger powers; and that societies subjected to external pressure can, under certain conditions, transform resistance into strategic influence.
What happens when a country refuses to surrender simply because a more powerful coalition demanded so?
For Yemen, the answer unfolded over more than a decade of war.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, it was a conviction he articulated from the very first days.
For the wider region, Yemen stands as a powerful testament to how an aggression launched to subjugate a nation can instead transform the strategic map of West Asia. What began as an attempt to break Yemen’s political will could not extinguish its resistance or silence its voice.
And through those years, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s unwavering belief in Yemen became part of the country’s own story, a legacy carried in the memory of its people and preserved among those who continue to see Resistance as a force capable of defying domination.
His words endure not simply as memories of a revolutionary leader, but as part of Yemen’s history and the wider history of resistance.
Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Major General Ahmad Vahidi lauded Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s address to the UN General Assembly, saying his declaration that Iran is not afraid of war echoed the “loud and steadfast voice” of the Iranian nation.
In a message issued following the president’s speech at the UNGA, Major General Vahidi said, “’We are not afraid of war’ is the loud and steadfast voice of the Iranian nation.”
He noted that this message was conveyed from the podium of the United Nations by the Iranian president and “resounded in the ears of the world.”
Pezeshkian, addressing the UN General Assembly on Wednesday night, said the Iranian people have experienced firsthand the consequences of military power and the destructive decisions of those who used it, adding that Iran’s resilience has been tested and that the enemies now know well that Iran cannot be forced to surrender through war.
Pezeshkian: “Iran will not seek anyone’s permission to defend itself”
▪️ Iran will not accept being deprived of peaceful nuclear knowledge.
The Iranian president stressed that Iran has never initiated a war and has consistently demonstrated its commitment to the negotiating table. “They imposed war on us, but we proved that we are not afraid of war when it comes to defending ourselves, and we do not shy away from negotiations for the sake of peace,” Pezeshkian said, adding, “We will stand to the last breath to defend our beloved Iran.”
President @drpezeshkian in an interview with Fox News: “If they want to continue the war, we will respond decisively.”
🔻 “We have never been the ones to start a war, but if they want to continue fighting us, we will respond decisively.
In July 2021, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah revealed a significant battle unlike any the Resistance had faced, stating that “[the media battle] is a fundamental part of the grand battle and full confrontation.” He went on to repeat this in an August 2021 speech during Ashura and in October 2023 in his speech commemorating Prophet Muhammad’s birth anniversary.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, resistance requires a holistic approach. The military aspect is just one facet of an all-encompassing battle that extends into many other areas, and one of the main elements in this battle is the media, around which he built a philosophy based on truthfulness and credibility, ethical conduct, and development.
It is from this philosophy that he derived the most important weapon in this battle: credibility, arguing that for the Resistance, its strength does not lie in piles of cash or fancy equipment, but in its honesty and truthfulness.
Credibility as a weapon
In his July 2021 speech, the Resistance’s leader emphasized that “the enemy [Israel] and settlers believe the Resistance’s media more than their own leaders and outlets,” attributing this to the honesty of the Resistance since its founding.
According to Sayyed Nasrallah, this trust is an admission that credibility, once earned, becomes a significant force that enemies cannot easily counter.
This credibility does not come from a vacuum, but from a track record of promises kept and rhetoric grounded in reality, building a philosophy of a Resistance that says what it does, and does what it says.
Perhaps the strongest manifestation of this philosophy is the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. In his May 26, 2000 speech in Bint Jbeil, Sayyed Nasrallah vowed to return all detainees in Israeli captivity, asserting, “Sheikh Abdul Kareem Obeid, Abu Ali ad-Dirani, Samir al-Kintar, and every captive in the Israeli prisons shall soon return to you, God willing.”
This was not merely a celebratory announcement stemming from the triumph over the Israeli occupation, but a clear declaration of the Resistance’s objectives and the road map it is working toward. Years later, Hezbollah fulfilled this promise and secured the release of its captives through two exchanges in 2004 and 2008.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s guiding principles in media
The media is not a communications concern separate from the battle, but an operational strategy. The same logic that governs military confrontation was applied to the battle over perception.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s strategic thinking can be organized around three pillars: media as a direct command responsibility, a tool of psychological warfare, and a frontline that must be defended.
One of the most revealing aspects of Sayyed Nasrallah’s media philosophy is that he did not delegate it to a team, instead assuming a direct role and hands-on involvement in this battle. During the 2006 war, the leader of Hezbollah was in direct contact with Al Manar TV through an internal telephone line, according to the news outlet’s then-director Abdallah Qassir.
According to Qassir, Sayyed Nasrallah “would follow even some details being reported on Al Manar, give instructions, and was keen that Al Manar sustain its coverage.” In Sayyed Nasrallah’s view, the channel’s staying on air was itself a victory for the Resistance, proving the importance of this battlefield for him.
Defense of the media frontline
On the defensive front, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah laid out a set of principles in his 2021 Ashura speech that read like a manual on how to fight this battle, grounded in reality, truthfulness, ethical guidance, and collective responsibility.
For Sayyed Nasrallah, immunity is the first defensive line: according to him, the media war waged by enemies “must not affect us. This war must not shake us. This war must not make us doubt, hesitate, get lost, despair, or wander off.” He emphasized that “you must not take every piece of news that comes to you, build on it, distribute it, and adopt it because this means destruction and the end.”
The second principle is truth and honesty in transmission, with the leader of the Resistance emphasizing reliance on the truth and being careful that “our position is right, and what we have to say is true”. He also called for honesty in conveying facts, asserting, “We must not falsify, distort, or invent facts.”
The third principle Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized was an ethical one: discipline in language. He called for no insults, no baseless accusations, no personal attacks, because these actions erode the credibility that made the Resistance’s media effective.
The fourth principle Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah outlined is collective responsibility. “This media battle today is the responsibility of everyone. All men and women, young and old, must participate in it, regardless of their specialization. The most important and most dangerous thing during this time is social networking. This allows everyone to be part of the media campaign, whether attacking or defending friends and enemies,” he affirmed.
The psychological front
Credibility and defensive lines shine when they are deployed for the purpose of psychological warfare. In a December 2009 speech, Sayyed Nasrallah explained that the primary goal of the psychological war is to “create fear, terror, and panic on the other front,” immediately inverting this framework and applying it to the Resistance’s media.
Just as the enemy uses the media to wage psychological warfare and break the Resistance’s will, the Resistance can use it to break the enemy’s confidence.
In the same speech, he identified specific methods the enemy uses: exaggerating capabilities, threatening destruction, and broadcasting military exercises. He argued that the Resistance must understand these methods to counter them and, where possible, deploy them in return.
One aspect of this offensive is using credible threats as a weapon. Ron Schleifer, head of the Center for National Security and Media Studies at Ariel University and a researcher specializing in information warfare, told the Israeli outlet Walla in 2016 that Israelis had learned the importance of psychological warfare from the positions, statements, and conduct of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, realizing that wars are not decided solely through bombing and shelling.
“A fundamental principle in psychological warfare is that if you cannot confront the enemy’s weapons, you influence the fingers that pull the trigger,” Schleifer noted, emphasizing that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was “100% successful” in this domain, since the Resistance’s threats to strike Haifa or the Saar Warship crystallized into real events that became ingrained in Israeli collective memory.
This builds upon the points the leader made regarding truthfulness and honesty, since a threat that the enemy simply does not believe has no use in the psychological battle.
Without media, victories are nil
Part of this psychological war that the media wages is the transmission of victories and achievements, a role that goes beyond reporting on victory and becomes a crucial part that leads to these accomplishments.
In his July 2021 speech, Sayyed Nasrallah stated that “if it were not for the Resistance media, the victories and achievements of the Axis of Resistance would not have been transmitted to the public, and all these victories would have been lost.”
Here, media is not simply a tool to transmit the victories; the media becomes an inseparable part of these victories, and without it, these victories would simply be wasted. Resistance media contributed to “making the victory” by relying on facts, data, and research rather than mere rhetoric.
Why does this matter for psychological warfare? Because a victory that is seen becomes a psychological fact on the enemy’s side as well. When Hezbollah’s achievements are transmitted credibly, they don’t just reassure the Resistance’s own base; they demonstrate to the enemy that the Resistance is capable of delivering on its threats.
The integrated deterrence equation
The success of this psychological war plays into an integral element of resistance: deterrence. While military capabilities fight the physical battle, the mental battle is fought through the media, a weapon as important as missiles and drones.
In his July 2021 speech, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized the development of the media as a parallel path to developing military capabilities, saying, “Media confrontation must develop just as military confrontation develops, because it is an authentic part of the battle.”
Media supports military power not from the sidelines; it must be developed in the same way as military confrontation, using the same logic and the same seriousness, because it is part of the same battle, not a separate activity. The tools of military, security, political, and media confrontation are listed together as one integrated arsenal.
In his October 2023 speech commemorating the Prophet’s birth, he goes as far as putting the media war above the military one in terms of danger and destructiveness, calling it “a war more dangerous and more destructive than military war.”
This equation of media with military power is not abstract. Sayyed Nasrallah directly links the media to the construction of what he calls a “new deterrence equation.” In the same July 2021 speech, he stated that the Resistance must “formulate and consolidate the discourse and strategy of the new deterrence equation: al-Quds against the entire region.”
This strategic doctrine holds that the use of the media to create reverse psychological warfare is one of the central pillars of his asymmetric deterrence model, alongside missile capabilities and the strategy of targeting the enemy’s social vulnerabilities.
Spider web speech
This is best displayed in his 2000 Spider Web speech: his deterrence model does not rest on matching Israeli military capabilities; it rests on targeting the vulnerability he identified there, Israeli society’s unwillingness to endure sustained casualties and pressure.
A threat that is not believed does not deter. A victory that is not transmitted is a victory lost. And a media that is not trusted cannot transmit anything at all.
For deterrence to function, that vulnerability must be communicated, and the media is the mechanism to achieve that. It transmits the threat, projects the image of a Resistance that will not break, and turns psychological pressure into a permanent condition rather than a passing tactic.
Deterrence is not an abstraction here; it is the mechanism that prevents war, protects Lebanon, and preserves the Resistance’s ability to function. The media battle is fought so that deterrence functions, so that the enemy believes the threat is real, so that the Spider Web thesis is internalized on the Israeli side, and so that what the Resistance has built is protected.
The media isn’t merely about reporting and describing what is happening; it becomes how the Resistance fights its battles, and Sayyed Nasrallah’s framework is how the media turns from a resistance tool into resistance itself.
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian holds an imageof martyred Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei during the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly at on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026 (AP)
Iran’s president tells the UNGA that Iran will not surrender, defends its nuclear rights, and calls for diplomacy and justice for Palestine.
Iran will not bow to US pressure, and Tehran remains committed to diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday.
Pezeshkian’s address came a day after US President Donald Trump used his UNGA speech to issue a warning to Iran and call for its economic isolation, threatening to “annihilate the Islamic Republic.” Reuters reported that Pezeshkian’s speech reaffirmed Tehran’s position that it would not surrender while keeping open the possibility of diplomacy.
The Iranian president focused much of his address on the US war on Iran, the Israeli occupation’s actions against Gaza, Iran’s nuclear program, regional security, and double standards in the international system.
He rejected accusations that Iran is a source of regional instability, arguing that Tehran has acted in self-defense and does not seek military power for aggression or hegemony.
‘We have only defended ourselves’
Pezeshkian opened his address by rejecting the characterization of Iran as “terrorist”, saying that Iranians have themselves been victims of US and Israeli terrorism and aggression.
He carried pictures showing students from Minab and Lamerd who were killed by US-Israeli airstrikes on the Islamic Republic, commemorating them in his speech alongside martyred Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, whose picture he also held.
He referred to attacks on Iranian cities and facilities, including a strike on a school in Minab and a sports hall in Lamerd where children were present. He said Iranian scientists, civilians, and children had been killed in attacks carried out with US and Israeli weapons.
“Those who are terrorists and train and protect terrorists describe us as such. We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists,” Pezeshkian said.
He accused the United States and the Israeli occupation of targeting Iranian universities, healthcare centers, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, describing such attacks as violations of international law.
Pezeshkian also recalled the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on the day of his presidential inauguration, saying the incident demonstrated the threats facing Iran.
Turning to Gaza, he said more than 80,000 civilians had been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced, accusing the Israeli occupation of committing genocide while those who resist it are labeled “terrorists”.
Iran defends its right to peaceful nuclear technology
A central part of Pezeshkian’s address focused on Iran’s nuclear program.
He said Tehran seeks nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including medicine, agriculture, industry, and electricity generation, rejecting restrictions that would prevent Iran from developing such capabilities.
“Iran does not accept for nuclear technology to be at the exclusive disposal of some, of a handful,” he said. “We will not, we will not bow our head and give up the right that is inherently ours. We say it clearly, no nuclear weapons and no limitations to peaceful nuclear technology.”
Pezeshkian maintained that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons while insisting that its right to peaceful nuclear technology should not be restricted.
He also framed Iran’s military capabilities as defensive, arguing that Tehran needs sufficient strength to deter attacks against its territory.
“Iran must be powerful so as to avoid being threatened, to avoid its future being threatened,” he said, adding that Tehran does not seek hegemony or security at the expense of other countries.
Justice for Palestine key to Lasting peace in West Asia
The Iranian president devoted a significant portion of his speech to Palestine, describing Gaza as evidence of the failure of international mechanisms to prevent civilian suffering.
“Palestine remains an open wound on the conscience of the international community and Gaza remains a symbol of the failure of international mechanisms to prevent civilian suffering,” Pezeshkian said.
He argued that lasting peace in West Asia cannot be achieved without justice for Palestinians, linking the continuation of resistance to the persistence of occupation, aggression, and displacement.
“Lasting peace in West Asia is impossible without justice for Palestine,” he said. “As long as occupation, aggression and injustice persist in the world, resistance will continue.”
Pezeshkian also rejected the notion that resistance could be eliminated through military force, arguing that Palestinians would continue resisting attempts to remove them from their land.
He called for regional issues to be addressed by countries in the region rather than through the intervention of outside powers.
Iran calls for regional security, diplomacy
Addressing regional relations, the Iranian president said Iran does not regard neighboring countries as security rivals and instead wants strong neighbors and regional cooperation.
On the Strait of Hormuz, he said Iran could not accept a situation in which outside powers benefited from the waterway while using it to impose military pressure and insecurity on Iran.
“We will not succumb to that. The expansion of warfare will not result in security,” he said.
His remarks came amid heightened tensions surrounding the strategic waterway and the wider US war on Iran. Iran has previously signaled that the Strait of Hormuz could form part of discussions over de-escalation if US military and economic pressure is reduced and the blockade is lifted.
Pezeshkian said regional security cannot be achieved by one country alone, arguing that neighboring states must cooperate to establish a broader security framework.
Iran remains open to negotiations
The Iranian president also directly addressed those responsible for aggression against Iran, saying Tehran had demonstrated that it could not be forced into surrender.
“Iran has never, ever been an aggressor, has never started a war, and has always shown her commitment to the negotiating table,” Pezeshkian said.
He stressed that Iran would continue defending itself while maintaining its readiness for diplomacy.
Addressing Trump directly, Pezeshkian said Iran was prepared to engage in dialogue and negotiations but would not accept negotiations conducted under military pressure.
“Iran must be understood by Mr. Trump and those who seek to bully us that we are ready for dialogue and diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force,” he said.
The speech came as Iranian and US officials were communicating indirectly through mediators on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Reuters reported that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner communicated through mediators on Wednesday, marking the first such contacts in months.
Pezeshkian concluded by calling for an international order based on equal rights, justice, human dignity, and the rejection of double standards.
“A peace that does not encompass all is no peace and fairness and justice that does not embrace all is not worthy of being called justice and fairness,” he said.
Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad during an interview with AL-Manar (August 2025).
Head of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc MP Mohammad Raad said a national consensus on a comprehensive security and defense strategy requires a sovereign authority, stressing that the resistance group’s red lines remain unchanged.
In an interview with Al-Modon, published on Wednesday, MP Raad linked any discussion of the state’s monopoly on weapons to Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, an end to Isrseli attacks, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River, describing these steps as a prelude to reaching agreement on a comprehensive national defense strategy.
On negotiations, MP Raad voiced Hezbollah’s readiness to engage positively with any agreement that guarantees an Israeli withdrawal and a cessation of hostilities, provided it is reached through indirect negotiations and entails no concessions to the Israeli enemy.
The senior Hezbollah lawmaker called on President Joseph Aoun to uphold the Constitution and the National Accord Document while safeguarding national unity.
MP Raad reaffirmed the strength of Hezbollah’s ties with Iran, stressing the Israeli Republic’s keenness to keep Lebanon as the first item on the agenda for implementation under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
The Hezbollah MP, meanwhile, referred to strong relation with Amal Movement, saying they “remain in a strong position,” while declining to comment on the possibility of direct US dialogue with Hezbollah.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Mohsen Rezaei warned regional countries against joining a US plan to restrict Iranian aviation, saying any attempt to prevent Iranian aircraft from using regional airports could affect flights from those countries as well.
Speaking to Iranian state television on Wednesday, Rezaei said Iran would respond to US President Donald Trump’s remarks about the war against Iran, describing Trump’s UN General Assembly speech as the address of “a defeated criminal” seeking to defend himself.
Rezaei said Iran has not attacked other countries since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and has only defended itself. He hit back at the US and the Israeli regime for waging aggression and said Iran has emerged from the war with greater power.
Rezaei also stated that Iran has inflicted serious damage on US military assets during the conflict, including striking advanced US aircraft and targeting the USS George Washington. He further noted that Iran has seized a US submarine and is conducting reverse engineering on it.
On diplomacy, Rezaei said there has been no change in Iran’s position and that Tehran is pursuing a new diplomatic approach.
“We are not returning to the past,” he said, stressing that the US must take concrete steps to regain the trust of the Iranian people.
“If America does not first fulfill our conditions, neither will the Strait of Hormuz open nor will we negotiate,” Rezaei said.
He said Iran has seven conditions, which have been put in writing and conveyed through Pakistan and Qatar. He added that Tehran’s conditions must be fulfilled before the Strait of Hormuz is reopened.
Rezaei said Iran is seeking guarantees as part of its new diplomacy, stressing that the Strait of Hormuz remains an instrument for securing Iran’s rights.
He also rejected accusations that Iran seeks war, saying Yemenis are independent and that Tehran does not want a conflict between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Reacting to the US plan to sanction Iranian aircraft, Rezaei urged regional states not to cooperate with Washington in restricting Iran’s aviation sector.
“We ask all the countries of the region not to join America’s adventure,” he said.
“If they do not allow Iranian aircraft to travel, their own airports will not be able to have flights either,” Rezaei warned.
“You are our friends, but you should not join America’s ranks. You should prevent the war from spreading,” he told the regional and neighboring states.
Four decades after the massacre, activists from Italy, Argentina and international solidarity movements gathered at the Sabra and Shatila cemetery, linking the memory of those killed to the harrowing genocide still unfolding across Palestine, Lebanon and the wider region.
Rain fell over the entrance of the Sabra and Shatila cemetery as mourners and activists made their way toward the graves, some weeping beneath the gray sky. The passage into the cemetery carried the weight of 44 years of memory, as if the people massacred here had never truly left the place.
Their names, their killings, and the grief of their families remain embedded in the site, where international activists joined Palestinians and Lebanese to mark the 44th anniversary of the massacre.
A memory inseparable from the present
But for those who traveled from abroad, the commemoration was not simply an act of looking back.
It was a declaration that memory remains inseparable from the present.
For Italian activist Caterina Mari, the responsibility to remember Sabra and Shatila has been passed from one generation to the next. She recalled Italian journalist Stefano Chiarini, who repeatedly visited Lebanon and helped bring attention to the cemetery and its victims.
“Now in Italy we take the testimony,” Mari told Al Mayadeen English. “As young people we have the obligation to do that.”
She said that obligation is also connected to the complicity of Western governments in supporting “Israel”.
Same bloodied hands
Mari argued that international activists gathering at Sabra and Shatila are not there to dictate how Palestinians should live, but to stand alongside those resisting oppression.
“The Palestinians and all the oppressed people in the world, they must choose by themselves,” she told Al Mayadeen English. “We are not the people that come here and say how to live.”
For Mari, the connection between Sabra and Shatila and the Israeli aggression across West Asia today is direct.
“The perpetrators are always the same,” she said, pointing to Western governments that support “Israel”.
“And the massacre here is the same massacre that happened today. Because it’s the same hands.”
She added that activists must go beyond commemorating the victims.
“We, as a testimony, have to stop all of this,” Mari said. “Not only to march, but to stop all of this.”
‘More important than ever’
Eulalia Millaret, an Italian activist with the organization Don’t Forget Sabra and Shatila, said the passage of time has made remembrance more urgent rather than less relevant.
“It’s more important than ever right now,” she stressed.
For Millaret, remembering Sabra and Shatila also means remembering the victims of subsequent massacres.
“We will never forget, not only Sabra and Shatila, but all the massacres that have been going on during all these years,” she told Al Mayadeen English, referring to the Israeli genocide in Gaza as well as Israeli aggression in Lebanon, most notably in south Lebanon, Beirut and the capital’s Southern Suburb.
“And we will never forget any of these massacres and any of the people that have lost their lives, any of the martyrs,” she added.
Millaret said international activists are also working in their own countries to pressure governments to sever relations with “Israel”.
“We try to fight always with the same message, to pressure our governments to stop any kind of relationship with the genocidal state of Israel,” she said.
She linked the continuation of aggression to the persistence of Israeli occupation.
“Because Israel still exists. That’s the main problem. The occupation is still ongoing,” Millaret emphasized.
In Millaret’s view, activists would continue supporting resistance in both Palestine and Lebanon.
From Gaza to Sabra and Shatila
For Vincenzo Fullone, an Italian activist with the Freedom Flotilla, arriving at Sabra and Shatila was part of a wider effort to stand with Palestinians.
Fullone told Al Mayadeen English that he had participated in the latest Freedom Flotilla mission toward Gaza aboard the Conscience and was abducted by “Israel” for five days at Ketziot.
He recalled demanding the release of Palestinian doctor Hussam Abu Safiya and urged people not to forget Palestinian medical workers.
“Please, don’t forget Hussam. Don’t forget the doctors of the children,” he pleaded.
Fullone added that when activists are prevented from reaching Gaza, their solidarity does not stop.
“We are in Lebanon today because if they block us toward Gaza, we arrive in Sabra Shatila because the Palestinian is here too,” he said.
For him, the Palestinian presence in Lebanon is itself part of the story of forcible displacement and continuing occupation.
“The Palestinian is in a refugee camp,” he said. “The Palestinian is under genocide in Lebanon.”
“Free Palestine”
Asked what message international activists were sending by gathering at the cemetery, Fullone responded simply, “Free Palestine!”
He said activists should learn from Palestinian resistance rather than speak on behalf of Palestinians.
“We learn the resistance from Palestinian people,” he said. “To learn the resistance because the West forgets the resistance.”
Fullone also drew a direct line between the massacre commemorated at the cemetery and the current regional Israeli aggression unfolding today across West Asia.
“It’s the same mind. The same terrorists,” he stressed.
He pointed to the continued Israeli occupation and incursions in Palestinian cities and territories, as well as Lebanon, saying, “They occupy Palestine in Ramallah. They occupy Palestine in Jenin. They occupy Palestine in Gaza. They occupy Palestine in Lebanon.”
Memory as an act of resistance
For Argentine activist Lissandro Brusco, the gathering was rooted in the idea that people retain the memory of massacres and transform that memory into political action.
“Because the people have memory, because the people choose to resist,” Brusco told Al Mayadeen English when asked why activists continue to gather at Sabra and Shatila 44 years later.
He described the gathering of Palestinians, Lebanese and international activists in Beirut as a refusal to forget the massacre or reconcile with those he holds responsible.
“We do not forget, we do not forgive, we do not reconcile,” Brusco said.
His message extended beyond commemoration.
“The message for all of us is not to resign, to follow the path of the struggle,” he said, pointing to Palestinians as well as people in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon.
A struggle extending beyond Palestine
Brusco framed the present struggle as extending beyond Palestine, describing it as a confrontation involving North American imperialism and the Israeli colonial entity.
“Today is the message precisely of not forgetting to continue the struggle,” he affirmed.
For him, the significance of the anniversary therefore lies not only in remembering those massacred in 1982, but in carrying their memory into the present.
“Not only to vindicate and make a commemorative act, but to continue this struggle,” Brusco said.
Forty-four years later
As the rain continued around the cemetery, the anniversary brought together people whose lives and backgrounds stretch far beyond Beirut, activists from Italy, Argentina and international solidarity movements standing alongside Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis and Yemenis.
Their political positions differ in language and emphasis, but their interviews converge on one point: Sabra and Shatila remains, for them, a living memory rather than a closed chapter.
The cemetery has become a place where remembrance meets activism, where the victims of 1982 are remembered alongside those killed in subsequent genocides.
Forty-four years on, Sabra and Shatila remains more than a memory for those who return each year. The voices of survivors, the memory of those killed, and the testimony of activists keep the massacre in the public record, drawing a line between a tragedy remembered and genocides still being documented today. For those gathered at the cemetery, remembrance is not an endpoint; it is a demand that the victims not be forgotten and that history not be allowed to repeat itself.
Supporters of Yemeni Ansar Allah march with a poster showing Seyyed Abdul Malik Badreddine Al-Houthi during a rally to markthe 12-years anvirsary of September 21 Revolution, Yemen, Sunday, Sept. 20,2026 (AP)
Ansar Allah marks the September 21 Revolution, highlighting Yemen’s regional role, sovereignty efforts, and continued opposition to the Saudi-led blockade.
The September Revolution enabled Yemen to play the role of a regional actor, noting that the Yemeni people continue to fight for independence and the lifting of the Saudi-led blockade, the Ansar Allah movement said on Monday.
In a statement marking the September 21 Revolution, the movement’s Political Bureau said, “The steadfastness and resilience of our people in the face of the aggression represented the hallmark of their blessed revolution, which united societal efforts.”
The Political Bureau affirmed that “the youthful revolution and the principles on which it was founded moved Yemen to the position of a regional actor,” noting that “the army of the September 21 revolution carried out its humanitarian and moral role in supporting Gaza and confronting the war of extermination.”
It also stressed that the Yemeni people “continue to wage the battle for sovereignty and independence until the aggression is halted, the blockade is lifted, and their legitimate goals are achieved.”
The September 21 Revolution refers to September 21, 2014, when the Ansar Allah movement took control of political decision-making headquarters in the capital, Sanaa, following armed clashes in response to large popular protests in the capital that rejected the previous government’s decisions to lift subsidies on petroleum derivatives.
Security apparatuses on full alert to foil enemy schemes: Interior Ministry
Elsewhere, the Interior Minister of Sanaa, Major General Abdul Karim al-Houthi, affirmed that security agencies are fully ready and prepared to thwart all plans of the enemy and its tools and to respond to security challenges.
The minister explained that security agencies have already begun providing all security and administrative services to the residents of the liberated districts in the western coast region.
This comes as the head of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, affirmed on Sunday that what the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out in some coastal areas was “a national operation to impose sovereignty and expel Saudi mobilizations.”
He also stressed that “the options will escalate and take more painful forms,” adding, “We will not retreat from our rights even if we offer our lives as the price for that.”
This comes as the Yemeni Armed Forces confront Saudi-backed forces in several governorates, after launching preemptive strikes against their field mobilizations, in parallel with Yemeni forces targeting vital facilities in Saudi territory in response to its aggression and blockade of the country.
The Major Confrontation – Latest Edition | The New York Times: Saudi Arabia’s request for military support puts Trump in a bind | …المواجهة الكبرى – آخر طبعة | “نيويورك تايمز”: طلب السعودية دعماً عسكرياً يضع ترامب في مأزق | …
The “Fedayeen for Iran” drills began in Tehran on Friday morning, with 313,000 Iranians taking part, according to the Mehr News Agency. The gathering marks Sacred Defense Week and the 200th night of the Iranian people’s steadfastness in the face of US-Israeli aggression.
The drill began at 8:00 am, with participants from across Iran marching from Imam Hussein Square and the nearby highway intersection toward Enqelab Square.
The drill is organized under the “My Life as a Sacrifice” initiative, run by the IRGC’s Mohammad Rasoul Allah Corps. Brigadier General Hassan Hassanzadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps’ Mohammad Rasoul Allah Corps in Tehran, told Al Mayadeen that roughly 33 million Iranians have registered to join the initiative nationwide, with registrations in Tehran alone surpassing 400,000 ahead of Friday’s event.
On Friday morning, Iranians took to the streets to participate in the Fedayeen of Iran military and popular maneuver.
Hassanzadeh said that Friday’s event was one of the largest drills and organized popular gatherings in the country’s history, adding that “friends and enemies alike” would witness it.
Iranian officials have repeatedly affirmed that the Iranian people stand fully prepared to mobilize and make sacrifices in defense of their land, country, and national achievements.
Iran more prepared than before the 12-Day War
Speaking to Al Mayadeen ahead of the drill, Hassanzadeh said Iran is now more prepared than it was before the 12-Day War and the Ramadan War, noting that Tehran operates within a defensive strategy to protect itself, its country, its values, and its people.
He stressed that the US and “Israel” failed to defeat or destabilize Iran, and that the hostilities against the country instead strengthened national cohesion.
“Throughout history, the Iranian people have proven that whenever they face aggression, they become more united,” Hassanzadeh said.
Continued missile production
Hassanzadeh said the IRGC holds extensive military capabilities and equipment that have not yet been disclosed, adding that Iran used only a portion of its capabilities in prior confrontations. He warned that Iran’s adversaries would “experience these capabilities” if necessary.
He added that Iran’s missile and drone production and development continue at full pace without interruption, and that Iranian forces have reached a higher level of readiness to respond to any aggression targeting the country.
Riyadh Shelled, Shock in Tel Aviv… Yemen Is Being Slaughtered with Cotton Wool, Yet Saudi Arabia Is Surrendering! The F-35 Has Fallen for Good – Najah Mohammed Ali قصف الرياض وصدمة في تل أبيب.. اليمن يذبح بالقطنة والسعودية تستلم! ال f35 سقطت للأبد نجاح محمد علي
A battalion of volunteer forces parades in Tehran during the Janfada drill on September 18, 2026, as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other officials attend the event (Photo by ISNA).
The massive “Janfada-ye Iran / Sacrifice for Iran” rally began in Tehran on Friday, bringing together hundreds of thousands of people, including women, youth and other segments of the Iranian public, with simultaneous gatherings held across the country.
In Tehran, the main rally features a 313,000-strong parade stretching from Imam Hussein Square to Enghelab Square, highlighting the broad public participation in the Janfada-ye Iran campaign.
The figure 313 carries particular significance in Islamic tradition. It is associated with the Battle of Badr in 624 CE, the first major battle of the early Muslim community, whose victory became an important symbol of faith and steadfastness in Islamic history.
The rally also features a display of Iranian drones, showcasing part of the country’s indigenous unmanned aerial capabilities.
Thousands of people took part in the “Sacrifice for Iran” campaign in Tehran, staging a march from Imam Hossein Square to Enghelab Square to demonstrate national unity.
Thousands of people took part in the “Sacrifice for Iran” campaign in Tehran, staging a march from Imam Hossein Square to Enghelab Square to demonstrate national unity.
Veterans of the Sacred Defense wars have also joined the gathering, while women and Iranian youth are taking part in separate sections of the parade, according to Tasnim news agency.
Participants wearing burial shrouds have also joined the rally, symbolizing their readiness to sacrifice themselves in defense of Iran.
⚡️BREAKING: Mobilization has Begun in Tehran with the aim of Forming 1,000 Battalions and will now be Expanded to the Entire Country pic.twitter.com/p2hI6HizRH
According to General Hassan-Zadeh, commander of the Greater Tehran Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, about 500,000 people had registered in Tehran to participate in the event.
The “Janfada-ye Iran” campaign began on March 29 following the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, and has since grown into a nationwide mobilization with more than 32 million participants, as a symbol of faith, steadfastness and readiness for sacrifice in defense of the country.
Trump’s declaration presents a very interesting media narrative and a potential end to ‘Project Ukraine’ that is worth taking a deeper dive into.
No one expected that Donald Trump, after a congratulatory birthday phone call to his Russian counterpart, would declare that Russian diesel fuel would prove to be the solution to America’s current fuel shortages. If the Trump presidency has yielded anything it is a lot of interesting headlines that seem to come out of nowhere, that can sadly, quite often, fade right back into the mist from whence they came. Sometimes Trump’s words can fill us with hope like this ‘Diesel Deal’, and others like his recent UN speech, where he threatened to potentially kill all Iranians, fill us with dread. This declaration by our enigmatic leader presents a very interesting media narrative and a potential end to ‘Project Ukraine’ that is worth taking a deeper dive into.
Trump has blamed Zelensky for the global energy shortages, especially those concerning diesel fuel. At the time, everyone thought this was just a cheap Twitter-style deflection from the failed war against Iran, which certainly caused a lot of fuel transport disruption. That is to say, the White House was projecting this crisis, that it allowed to happen, or actively caused, to be thrown onto the scapegoat Zelensky. However, this form of deflection or projection is no longer just words in a pre-election narrative, but has become action. Sanctions on Russian diesel have been lifted and the first shipment is already on its way as I write these words. Something tangible has occurred.
Zelensky was actually warned some six times to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure. Blow up children in the Donbass and beyond ‘sure’, but attacking what the West wants from Russia more than anything is ‘totally unacceptable’. Zelensky, who as stated above was warned half-a-dozen times to back of strikes on oil/gas, upon hearing of Trump’s decision to purchase Russian diesel fuel did the following:
2) He immediately cut off peace talks in Miami with the Trump’s aides, the Kushner-Witkoff duo, which is yet another spitting in the face of Donald Trump.
The wildest thing of all is that the ‘narcissist’ Trump has already publically thanked President Putin twice for this deal. Appearing at a rally, Americans standing behind Trump wildly cheered in favor of the announcement of peace with Russia plus extra fuel for America. Russophobia is a hobby of the globalist bourgeoisie and Epstein Island, not American truckers and farmers.
It’s a great narrative, let’s hope it lasts
Trump has now put 100% of the blame for global energy/fuel problems directly onto Zelensky, and called him out personally for keeping the war going over the last two years. Thus, the narrative is forming into something like: If the war in Ukraine is the cause of the fuel shortages, and Zelensky is the cause of the war continuing, that means the U.S. can make a deal with Russia even if ‘they started it’, with the corollary that Zelensky logically needs to go as he is the source of the problem. But going even deeper into the narrative we can see the most interesting thing of all or as they like to say online ‘the quiet part’: Trump has essentially declared that Russian energy output is of vital strategic interest to the United States.
It is these kind of words that take the black pill out of my mouth and directly inject ‘hopium’ into my bloodstream. The idea of the American President declaring that NOT being at war with Russia is of vital strategic interest to the USA is something I have been dreaming of my entire adult life. This is exactly the logic that we need to finally and ultimately end the Cold War + Project for a New American Century mentality in politics and finally allow the USA to rebuild and invest into itself. This very well could be America’s mulitpolar awakening by using a logic trap similar to the other ones that have been used to do the exact opposite and keep the USA locked in eternal foreign wars of luxury for ‘national security’. This new logic trap could look something like this: “So you want war with Russia? That must mean you want to harm America, you dirty traitor! You’ll take the fuel from farmer Joe and our kids will starve, you monster! Russia being left alone to produce fuel is a national security interest of America, are you against our country’s national security? Do you want to weaken manly America for those gay Europeans?”.
But as we slam that hopium injection into our veins we have to remember that Donald Trump has said a lot of things, changed his mind many times, or was forced to change it, and perhaps isn’t quite the unilateral decider that he makes himself out to be on TV.
It takes two to tango, but one orange man to keep his word.
The transcripts from this now famous birthday phone chat look very different on the American and Russian sides, which is par for the course. Trump’s team tends to write discussed things as proven facts whereas the Russians are more noncommittal in their language. But the diesel sanctions are gone for now and the boats are moving, so this looks to be real… at least until the mid-term votes are cast.
The American side has since threatened to cut Zelensky off from intelligence sharing, which could be an instant deathblow to their military efforts as many experts believe that only U.S. intel has allowed them to survive this long. Without such targeting data they will be sent back to 20th century warfare instantly, and they would no longer be able to strike deep into Russia. RT wrote the following on this issue:
A Ukrainian official told Axios that Witkoff and Kushner threatened to cut off US intelligence sharing with Kiev if it continued to ignore Trump’s requests to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries, but the US official denied that any such threat had been made.
But here is where we have to hold our breath, for despite how nice this new narrative sounds, and how it is the perfect exit for the USA from its participation in Project Ukraine we should not forget the words of President Putin from some time ago when he talked about the true power of any U.S. President:
“So a person is elected — he comes with ideas… Then people with briefcases come visit him, well-dressed, in dark suits — kind of like mine.”
So the real question might be, will the Zionist Lobby, Epstein Elite, Three-Letter Organizations, Influential Billionaires, and all the other spooks on Capitol Hill actually let President Trump actually end this war? Will the POTUS be allowed to do this?
We should recall that after Zelensky acted disgracefully in the White House at the start of Trump’s second term everyone thought this conflict would be over. Trump the famous narcissist seemed visibly angry and offended on camera during their verbal spat. But the war went on. There was the Anchorage Summit, which had tons of hype and everyone thought then that the U.S. would pull support from Kiev. But it did not. Trump’s enemies including the Biden Clan are linked to massive corruption in Ukraine which has all been exposed. This would have been a great off ramp from the conflict, but Trump did not or could not take it. And in general, Trump’s rhetoric towards Zelensky and other European politicians has been overtly harsh and disrespectful. The man accused of being a ‘blowhard’ somehow always speaks quite politely behind the backs and to the faces of Putin and Xi.
Thus, although I want peace and mutually-respectful cooperation between the USA and Russia perhaps this deal will only last till the midterm elections, when all of a sudden Zelensky will go back to being “a bastard, but he’s our bastard”, and the conflict will go marching on. Perhaps this is our October Surprise from the Republican side of the aisle? And in December we can all be ‘surprised again’ when the war resumes full-force and thousands more Slavs die on the battlefield?
Now, Donald Trump withgritted teeth is slinging forththe idea that he thinks “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new President”. But after the votes are counted in America he may just go back to passively hating and tolerating Zelensky till the end of his term or till an Oreshnik finds the mark one day. We also cannot forget that the West has been lobbying for a major ceasefire from the Russians for a long time. Presumably this would be used to regroup, rest, rearm and then just go right back to fighting till the last Ukrainian. NowTrump wants elections in Kiev, which will probably demand a ceasefire to enact. But will he be pushing for a three-day ceasefire, or try to trick the Russians into agreeing to a month-long freeze or more?
One ‘good’ sign on this issue from a Russian standpoint is that there are now already calls for Zelensky to resign over this issue on Twitter/X coming from all sides even pro-Ukrainian ones:
“’Zelensky must resign’ – Ukrainian media. That was quick. Zelensky ignored Trump’s warnings not to attack Russian oil refineries SIX times. This morning, Zelensky has bombed another Russian oil refinery. Ukrainians are calling for Zelensky‘s resignation.
Former Ukrainian MP and Metinvest co-owner Vadym Novynskyi has called on Zelensky to resign and hand over all power to Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada following the Trump-Putin agreements.”
We have to remember that Ukraine in 2026 is already a police state where any dissent means you could get thrown into a bus and taken to the front to die or vanish into a prison as a Russian ‘spy’. Thus, when important people gang up against Zelensky openly it is much more of a potent statement than Hollywood actors safely making Tik-Toks against Trump from their luxurious bedrooms.
The rest of the world won’t sit around and do nothing.
Some moronic ‘Putin sold out the BRICS’ counter-narrative is sure to arise from Kiev’s bot accounts soon. Obviously someone is going to say that the Kremlin threw their Iranian brothers to the Zio-lobby machine! But in actuality, it looks like the Iranians are going to justship their oil through Russiaand sell it as ‘Russian’ and everyone will be happy. The Caspian Sea will be even more busy in the near future. If sanctioned accomplished anything they really increased trade between Russia and Iran.
No one in Moscow is planning on selling out Tehran; they want America to join the Multipolar World while still saving face and reduce the global threat level of nuclear war which is vastly too high at present. Iran and China were surely consulted on this issue before any Diesel Deal was finalized.
The real danger of Trump calling for the removal of Zelensky comes from Europe, where certain factions, politicians and their financiers may take radical action in response. And Trump’s reaction to this response could be even more radical now. Would it be possible that NATO might greenlight the Baltics to just open up another front to ‘see what happens’? Will France finally go through on its threat and just deploy troops openly en masse to save the Napoleon in Green from political or potentially physical death? So far the EU has only threatened even more sanctions. If the previous 20+ packages of sanctions failed, I wonder what is left to actually sanction. Ursula is promising the biggest and most expansive sanctions packet for Monday, October 12th, but I doubt it will change anything. The only thing that would change the situation is if the EU did something really aggressive, drastic and stupid militarily.
What about the rest of the sanctions?
The Russian media has done a disservice to the public by writing that “Trump will lift sanctions” over-and-over again when the only sanctions being lifted are on diesel exports for half a year. All of the rest of the sanctions are still there. You still cannot fly directly from Moscow to New York, and money transfers via SWIFT are still mostly blocked. We have to remember that at least in theory sanctions are a form of punishment for crimes committed against, in this case, international law and the United States. So how can relations between the USA and Russian Federation truly be normalized when one still accuses the other of crimes it believes it did not even commit?
After Project Ukraine ends things could change rapidly, but there can be no true friendship until Washington trusts Aeroflot enough to let them land on U.S. territory. We cannot be both under a sanctions war and normalized at the same time. But this new Trump narrative, if he can stick with it to its logical conclusion, is the perfect off-ramp for America and the way we can finally end this war and go back to some sense of normalcy with the apocalypse pushed far off into the future beyond all of our lifespans.
Yemen’s Armed Forces have imposed a no-fly zone over Riyadh following a massive assault by Saudi Arabia using 100 aircraft, combined with a shock offensive aimed at capturing Bab el-Mandeb. In this Monday’s edition of The Target, MintPress News’ Robert Inlakesh breaks down the conflict on the ground and why the US-Israeli backed surprise attack is a failure.
In the early hours of Monday morning, Saudi Arabia carried out over 1,000 airstrikes across Yemeni territory, in what would soon be declared by the Kingdom’s proxy forces as Operation Yemen’s Dawn. The attempted offensive, which has already collapsed, sought to seize the Western coast of the country from the rule of the Ansarallah-led government based in Sana’a.
Forces belonging to the Salafist-dominated Southern Giants Brigades, alongside allied Saudi-backed militias, initiated a series of ambush attacks which succeeded in penetrating the strategic Bab el-Mandeb area. Backed up by the airpower of their allies in Riyadh, they inflicted scores of casualties amongst soldiers belonging to the Yemeni Armed Forces and even filmed themselves committing ramming attacks on fighters who had already surrendered.
On the Target Stream, we take a look at the Yemeni retaliatory attacks on Saudi Arabia’s airbases, oil refineries and even the missile fire that has sought to impose a no-fly zone on the Kingdom. Robert Inlakesh also breaks down the conflict in Yemen and the context behind the two warring sides.
An enormous amount of propaganda has created a shield behind which the Gulf Monarchies, United States and Israel hide in this war. This includes everything from the spread of sectarian propaganda, unsubstantiated allegations of Yemeni missile attacks on Holy Sites, as well as claims that the Bab el-Mandeb Strait will be closed to international shipping. In reality, only Saudi Arabia has been subjected to a blockade in the Red Sea so far, while the other potential target could be Israel assuming it resumes its genocide in Gaza or launches another major assault on Lebanon.
We also look at Yemen’s use of strategic precision-guided ballistic missiles, both long and short range, that are being used to destroy militant convoys and successfully target Saudi ARAMCO facilities.
The capture of Bab el-Mandeb and the entire West coast of Yemen collapsed part of Israel’s strategic foothold developed in Red Sea and Horn of Africa, as the Ansarallah-led government forces now control the Mayyun Island where a joint Emirati-Israeli project was uncovered in 2025.
In a new joint statement, Pakistan and Turkiye have now declared their intentions to enter the war on Yemen on the side of Saudi Arabia. This includes sending more weapons, fighter jets, air defense systems and troops to aid Riyadh. The recently signed ‘Mecca Pact’ agreement was previously advertised as a defence alliance that could represent a new ‘Sunni Muslim NATO’, yet is now fighting a war against a Muslim country using Israeli targeting data to do so.
Inlakesh also analyses the question of regional national sovereignty, using the case of Iraq’s recent detention of its own citizens for driving vehicles over an American flag at a parade. He explores the ways in which the US continue to exert pressure on Baghdad, holding their leadership hostage financially.
US imperialism and Israeli expansionism is on the line in Yemen, making it an important and the most active front in the ongoing regional war. It is a battle for national sovereignty, control of strategic water-ways and to end decades of aggression.
