Middle East Press On: Israel-US War on Iran, Iran's Closure, Lindsey Graham, Turkey, Hezbollah's Comeback, South Africa, Al-Aqsa Mosque Raises Alarm During Ramadan, New Age Islam's Selection, 14 March 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
14 March 2026
Israel-US and Iran War: A geostrategic transformation
Existential attrition: Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz
Lindsey Graham: A warmonger in the service of Israel and the defence industry
How Iran war may impact Turkiye-South Caucasus ties
From ‘Victory’ to Shock: Hezbollah’s Unexpected Comeback
Helen Zille’s Stance on South Africa-Iran Ties Raises False Alarm
‘A Declaration of War’ — Closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque Raises Alarm During Ramadan
------
Israel-US and Iran War: A geostrategic transformation
March 13, 2026
By Dr Zakir Hussain
After the 12-day war in May last year, it was clear that both sides would be face-to-face soon. They restarted on 28th February 2026. Israel-US adopted the same pattern of targeting the top brass, including the Grand Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the very first day, thinking that in the absence of these officials, the Iranian administration would be like a rudderless ship. This would create confusion and provide an easy opportunity for regime change.
Thirteen days have passed, yet there are no visible signs of either the fall of the regime or a pause or ceasefire. Despite US-Israel’s anguish, Iran selected Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader – an act of defiance.
Both sides continue to bombard each other’s vital infrastructure, including civilian and military targets. Energy installations such as oil depots and refineries have become primary targets. Under a tit-for-tat policy, Iran has also declared that financial centers, banks, and offices of major technology companies such as Google, YouTube, and Microsoft could be the next targets. Already 26 US bases have been targeted. Following the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the conflict rapidly expanded from a limited confrontation into a regional war, and with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, its effects are now visible in the global economy and in the daily lives of ordinary people. Approximately 130 oil ships are anchored, stopping 20% oil which passes through the narrow strait of 33 km. Already four ships were targeted which tried to bypass the warning.
Among the GCC countries, the UAE faced the highest number of attacks.
Iran’s aggressive response and selection of Mojtaba, a hardliner, as Ayatollah, appear to indicate that Iran is prepared for a prolonged conflict, whereas the United States and Israel seem eager to conclude the war quickly. Meanwhile, President Trump’s plan to send Kurdish Peshmerga into Iran via Iraq seems like another disaster.
Tehran had been closely and patiently observing military buildups in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Oman, and the Mediterranean Sea for several weeks. The United States mobilized a substantial part of its defence capabilities, including naval armadas and two aircraft carriers, Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford. Hundreds of fifth-generation stealth fighter jets were deployed along with advanced air-defence systems such as THAAD and large stockpiles of interceptors.
In addition, the United States strengthened its military presence across several bases in the Gulf region, including Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq.
Israel also appeared determined to launch what it described as a “fight-to-the-finish” war with the Islamic Republic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly stated that he had been waiting for such a war for nearly forty years. Iran, on the other hand, has long maintained that it began preparing for such a scenario after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The earlier conflict in May had already revealed the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. However, the current course of the war suggests that the US–Israel alliance underestimated Iran’s military capabilities, particularly its missile and drone systems, careful planning, and effective use of its military resources.
Compared with the US–Israel alliance, Tehran appears to possess a clearer understanding of its adversaries’ strengths, limitations, and operational constraints.
Iran was also aware of its own limitations. Its air force cannot match the capabilities of US and Israeli fighter jets, and its airspace remains vulnerable to aerial attacks. As the conflict expanded, these vulnerabilities became evident. At the same time, the United States and Israel appeared to have an incomplete assessment of Iran’s capabilities. Although they possessed precise intelligence about the locations of Iranian leaders and senior officials—they killed several commanders and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-they appeared to lack detailed knowledge of Iran’s missile infrastructure, drone networks, and underground silos developed over several decades.
It also appears that the US–Israel side underestimated the possibility of indirect assistance from Russia and China, relying heavily instead on air superiority and defensive shield systems.
Iran’s war strategy
A detailed military assessment would require expert analysis, but developments in the conflict suggest that Iran followed a three-stage strategy.
First, Iran responded to the US-Israel attacks by deploying large numbers of drones, many reportedly stored since 2011 and 2013. These drones forced US–Israel defence systems to respond with expensive interceptors. In financial terms, this created an asymmetric dynamic: Iranian drones costing between $20,000 and $50,000 were intercepted by missiles costing between $1 million and $2 million. As the wave of drone attacks continued, interceptor stocks began to decline, gradually exposing the airspace of US bases and Israel to greater risk.
Second, once defensive systems were strained, Iran launched more advanced missiles targeting radar installations, communication centres, satellites, and data facilities. Reports indicate damage to communication and data infrastructure at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and at military installations in Bahrain. Such attacks disrupted surveillance and communication systems that coordinate missile defence networks such as THAAD, David’s Sling, Arrow, and Iron Dome. Command and monitoring centres that once gathered and transmitted military data across thousands of kilometres became severely limited in their operations.
Meanwhile, attacks on naval assets reportedly forced aircraft carriers operating in the Gulf of Oman to reposition farther from the Iranian coastline.
Hormuz blockade and its impact
After weakening regional defence systems, Iran announced a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, through which roughly 20 percent of global crude oil and a similar share of liquefied natural gas passes.
It has targeted four vessels, including one linked to India, that attempted to pass through. Iran has reportedly deployed underwater tunnels and small, agile boats to intercept or attack ships that violate the blockade.
At the same time, attacks on energy facilities in Saudi Arabia and the temporary closure of Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas facilities disrupted global energy supplies. As a result, gas prices in Europe rose sharply while crude oil prices increased from about $62 per barrel to more than $100. Some analysts warn that if the conflict continues, oil prices could rise further, potentially reaching $200 per barrel. Such developments could trigger inflation, supply-chain disruptions, and rising unemployment worldwide.
Future of the War
Large public gatherings during funeral processions and demonstrations suggest that, at least during wartime, sections of the population have rallied around the leadership.
Reports have also mentioned proposals to deploy Kurdish Peshmerga forces into Iran through Iraq. However, the region’s history suggests that such operations would face significant geographical and logistical difficulties. During the Iran–Iraq War, Saddam Hussein also attempted to advance through the mountainous terrain of the Zagros region but faced serious constraints.
Some Iranian sources have claimed the capture of US special forces personnel and the killing of several Israeli officials during the conflict, although many of these claims remain difficult to verify independently.
Chances of a Ceasefire
Iranian authorities have reportedly outlined three conditions for a ceasefire. First, all military attacks by the United States and Israel must stop immediately. Second, Tehran seeks assurances that such attacks will not be repeated in the future. Third, Iran demands recognition of its sovereignty and compensation for damages caused during the conflict. These conditions are not easy. Who will ensure that the U.S. and Israel would not attack in the future? Second, who will pay the reconstruction cost, etc.? It is true that regional problems can be resolved only when the issue of Palestine is resolved in a fair and just manner. Lebanon and Yemen, Syria also need attention.
Future Trajectory-Palestine solution is the only solution
Even if the present war stops, regional stability will remain uncertain. Long-standing political and security disputes remain unresolved. Israel is unlikely to abandon its strategic objectives, Greater Israel, while tensions involving Hezbollah and Hamas are likely to persist. The United States may also increase pressure on Gulf states to revise their security arrangements so that regional partners become more directly involved in future conflicts.
Implications for India
For India, energy security remains a major concern. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could affect oil supplies and trade routes. Approximately 50% oil passes through the route, while Houthis are there to choke off the Red Sea navigation.
India must also prepare contingency plans for the evacuation of its 9 million workers from the region and strengthen logistical arrangements to safeguard trade and shipping routes in the event of prolonged instability. Chemical fertilizers are another major concern for India. The region provides the bulk of fertilizers and ensures food security. Disruption in supply line has significantly affected the supply of fresh vegetables, perishable items including agriproducts , poultry and meat products
In the long term, India is to sign a long term energy agreement with the US. At the same time, India needs a more coherent West Asia policy and must avoid being drawn into the region’s strategic conflicts. The region is sensitive as well as vital to India’s economy and geostrategy. India needs a careful policy.
Source: middleeastmonitor.com
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260313-israel-us-and-iran-war-a-geostrategic-transformation/
-------
Existential attrition: Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz
March 13, 2026
By Dr Binoy Kampmark
With each day of glorified actions against Iran, with each cloudy press session claiming supreme success through sheer force, the Trump administration is struggling to keep up appearances. Through an approach of existential attrition, the clerical regime in Tehran is now causing shocks and tingles in the global market, striking where influence is strongest: the petrol pump, the cash register, the hip pocket. Its missiles, drones or projectiles may not be able to reach the United States or Australia, but a note of panic is setting in.
Even before shipping was attacked (threats sufficed), the Strait of Hormuz was already being emptied of traffic. Fearing losses, major shipping firms such as Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM ceased transiting cargo through the waterways. Since the war commenced on February 28, transits through the Strait have virtually stopped. This putative closure imperils the transfer of a fifth of the world’s oil supply, a fifth of the global trade in liquified natural gas, and some 13% of the global share in chemicals, including essential fertilisers. Freight rates for oil tankers, war risk insurance premiums and costs of marine fuel are all rising steeply.
A social media post from Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi brimming with satisfaction captured the mood: “9 days into Operation Epic Mistake, oil prices have doubled while all commodities are skyrocketing. We know the US is plotting against our oil and nuclear sites in hopes of containing huge inflationary shock. Iran is fully prepared.” He also promised that Iran had “many surprises in store.”
On March 11, a spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters resolutely declared that any vessel linked to Israel, the United States or their allies would be “considered a legitimate target”. He also rejected the effectualness of efforts to suppress price rises. “You will not be able to artificially lower the price of oil. Expect oil at $200 per barrel,” he warned. “The price of oil depends on regional security, and you are the main source of insecurity in the region.”
An effort to halt the rise of the oil price was made with a decision by 32 member states of the International Energy Agency (IEA) to release 400 million barrels of oil. “This is a major action aiming to alleviate the immediate impacts of the disruption in markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol explained in his address. “But to be clear, the most important thing for the return to stable flows of oil and gas is the resumption of transit through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Over March 11 and 12, in what seemed to be an effort to counter this move, the IRGC made good its word, attacking some six vessels, using projectiles and explosive-laden unmanned surface vessels. Targets included the Marshall Islands-flagged Safesea Vishu and the Malta-flagged Zefyros, both carrying fuel cargoes from Iraq. The Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree dry bulk vessel was hit by what was described as “two projectiles of unknown origin”. Mines have also been deployed to further complicate the prospect of transit.
The response from President Donald Trump and his officials to the price rises has been one of unrelenting fantasy. “The recent increase of oil and gas prices is temporary,” stated White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “and this operation [attacking Iran] will result in lower gas prices in the long term”. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was also unjustifiably confident that the price shocks would endure for a matter of “weeks, not months”.
After attending a classified and seemingly confused briefing on the war on March 10, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut was left unimpressed. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait,” he revealed, “but suffice to say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open.” This was “unforgivable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.” The primary war goal of the administration, as Murphy understood, was “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.” Such visionaries.
The Trump credo of estranged reality ignores the growing and enduring consequences of the strait’s closure and the war. A backlog of tankers on both sides of the waterway is growing. Ports are becoming congested with overstaying vessels. Production of oil and gas, impaired by Iranian attacks and continued closure, will have to resume in such states as Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Anas Alhajji, a global energy markets boffin, offers a grim analysis:
Asked on whether vessels should still brave the journey through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump spoke with unfounded optimism. “I think they should. I think you’re going to see great safety”. The new round of strikes on shipping by Iran, initiated at a fraction of the cost of the US-Israel campaign against it, coupled with the inexorable rise of prices, suggests otherwise. In this regard at least, economics may well prove to be destiny.
Source: middleeastmonitor.com
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260313-existential-attrition-irans-closure-of-the-strait-of-hormuz/
-----
Lindsey Graham: A warmonger in the service of Israel and the defence industry
March 13, 2026
By Ahmed Asmar
In the dark corridors of the United States’ power and politics, where morality is starkly traded for profit, and human lives are calculated as unimportant line items on a balance sheet, few figures embody the terrible mix of greed and warmongering quite like Senator Lindsey Graham. The notorious South Carolina Republican has positioned himself as the Senate’s most reliable cheerleader for endless wars—not in service of the American people, but in service to two masters: the Israeli colonial project and the blood-soaked defense industry that profits from every conflict it helps ignite.
It requires no deep intelligence operation to track the statements of American politicians who beat the drums of war that is mostly covered with religious heresies.
This devilish relationship between death merchants and their legislative allies has fueled the American-led wars in the past two decades, in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and most recently, the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran.
Lindsey Graham stands as the typical politician of this unholy alliance—a politician whose words and votes consistently prioritize the profits of the war industry and the expansionist ambitions of a foreign state (Israel) over the wellbeing of the American people who fund it all with their tax dollars.
This is not an idle accusation, the financial trail connecting Graham to the machinery of death is clearly documented. Since 2018, Graham’s electoral campaigns have pocketed at least $2.1 million directly from defense corporations—companies whose stock prices soar with every bomb dropped and every conflict escalated. Add to this the millions flowing from Zionist-Israeli lobbies, most prominently AIPAC. These donations\funds make Graham represents not the people of South Carolina, but an elite greed that profits from perpetuating wars and conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, where every explosion translates into shareholder value.
The devil’s own words on US-led wars in Iran, Gaza, and Ukraine
His statements do not merely support wars but celebrate them as an economic opportunity, a business venture dressed in patriotic language. When the US-Israeli aggression against Iran intensified, Graham openly fantasized about regime change in Tehran, predicting the emergence of a “new Middle East” where, in his own words, “we are going to make a ton of money.” Confronted with the sky-high cost of a conflict that burns approximately one billion dollars per day, Graham declared it the “best money ever spent.” Such money that could fund healthcare for millions of uninsured Americans. Money that could rebuild crumbling infrastructure, modernize schools, and improve social welfare across the American impoverished communities.
During Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, as images of slaughtered Palestinian children circled the globe, Graham revealed where his loyalties truly lie. In June 2024, he alleged that “slow-walking weapons for Israel only prolongs the war,” demanding that the US provide whatever weaponry Israel needed to continue its campaign of destruction against a defenseless civilian population. Not a word about the thousands of children buried under rubble. Not a whisper about hospitals reduced to dust. Only the cold, calculating logic of the arms dealer: keep the weapons flowing, keep the war going, keep the profits coming.
Not far from Iran and Gaza, Graham’s warmongering also emerges in the context of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. Here, he speaks openly about the economic logic of endless conflict. In March 2025, Graham brazenly articulated his vision, urging the US to supply Ukraine with whatever weapons needed to continue fighting Russia, framing these shipments as a “direct economic boost to American manufacturing and the defense supply chain.”
The vicious circle of endless wars
Defense corporations donate to politicians like Graham. Those politicians authorize wars and weapons sales. Wars create demand for more weapons. More weapons mean more corporate profits. More profits mean more donations. The circle closes, and the killing continues.
As long as politicians like Lindsey Graham occupy seats of power, the vast majority of the American people’s voice, who want their tax dollars spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social services, will remain unheard. The defense industry complex will continue to feed on conflict. Israel will continue its expansionist agenda with American weapons and money.
Lindsey Graham is not merely a hawk or a warmonger, and it is not exaggerating to say he is something far more sinister: a man who has made peace with evil because evil pays more and helps remain in power. In his service to Israel and the defense industry, in his disregard for American interests and human life, he embodies the moral corruption at the heart of American foreign policy. And as long as he and others like him maintain their grip on power, the world can expect only more wars, more deaths, and more profit for the merchants of death.
Source: middleeastmonitor.com
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260313-lindsey-graham-a-devilish-warmonger-in-service-of-israel-and-defense-industry-at-americas-expense/
------
How Iran war may impact Turkiye-South Caucasus ties
DR. SINEM CENGIZ
March 13, 2026
After more than three decades of tensions, a relative calm has been achieved in the South Caucasus — a region long dominated by intense rivalry between Azerbaijan and Armenia and among global powers, namely Russia and the West. Last August, Baku and Yerevan agreed to put aside their war and take steps toward diplomacy, focusing on economic cooperation. But this fragile stability today faces a new risk as the escalating US-Israeli war with Iran brings new tensions to their doorstep.
The South Caucasus states were already navigating a difficult security environment due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Now, the Iran war appears to be spreading beyond the Gulf region, raising serious concerns for them.
On March 5, drones struck near an airport and exploded close to a school in Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan exclave, which borders Iran. Azerbaijani authorities claimed the drones originated from Iran, while Tehran denied any involvement. In response, Baku announced it was withdrawing its diplomatic personnel from Iran and ordered its armed forces to full combat readiness, placing them at the highest level of mobilization.
The incident raised fears that it could spill over and turn into a broader regional confrontation.
Iran immediately moved to damage control mode. President Masoud Pezeshkian called his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, and emphasized that Iran was not involved in the Nakhchivan incident and that it was investigating the matter. Following this conversation, Aliyev announced plans to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran.
Azerbaijani authorities lifted the restrictions on cargo crossings that had been imposed on the day of the drone attack and trucks loaded with food, medicine, water and other essential supplies were dispatched from Baku. Turkish diplomacy also likely contributed to the easing of tensions, as Ankara is well aware that Iran is unlikely to open a new front in the South Caucasus.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that the war risks spreading to other regions, including the South Caucasus, and said Turkiye would take all necessary steps to deter the conflict from drawing in additional states.
Armenia also shares a border with Iran and maintains significant economic and energy ties with Tehran. A prolonged war would place Yerevan in a difficult position, as it faces similar risks from debris or misfires along its southern frontier. Like Azerbaijan, Armenia will be forced to navigate mounting pressure while trying to preserve a delicate diplomatic balance.
Following the Nakhchivan incident, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry posted on social media to thank several states for their support. In the post, Armenia’s flag was displayed among those of other states.
On the day of the incident, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan held a phone conversation with his Azerbaijani counterpart. Both ministries released statements on the discussion. The Armenian statement highlighted the ministers’ mutual concern and emphasized the importance of avoiding actions that could further escalate tensions. It added that the two ministers stressed the need to maintain regional stability and security and underscored the goal of achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani statement noted that the Nakhchivan incident had also been discussed, though this detail was absent from the Armenian statement.
The following day, Mirzoyan spoke to his Turkish counterpart. This call was significant because, when Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a peace framework last August, Turkiye was the most supportive state, seeing the deal as a potential boost to its own efforts to normalize relations with Yerevan. As a close ally of Azerbaijan, Turkiye has been pursuing a normalization process with Armenia, which is gradually progressing in a positive direction. For example, Turkish Airlines on Thursday launched its first direct flight service between Istanbul and Yerevan, although the two states still lack formal diplomatic relations.
Given these achievements in Armenia’s relations with both Turkiye and Azerbaijan, Ankara will try to avoid these dual peace processes being disrupted by the ongoing war. Ankara does not want to see Baku, Yerevan or itself drawn into the conflict. Historically, Azerbaijan has leaned closer to Israel and Armenia than to Iran, but recent statements indicate a strong desire to remain uninvolved in the war.
The war could even pave the way for closer relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. After decades of territorial disputes, the two neighbors last year agreed to end hostilities, normalize relations and respect each other’s territorial integrity. This agreement began to break a long-standing impasse in the South Caucasus and created an opportunity for a broader framework of regional cooperation, one that Turkiye, Armenia and Azerbaijan are keen to protect from the fallout of the war.
Therefore, it is possible that we may see closer coordination among Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkiye in response to the ongoing war. For the first time in their history, neither Turkiye and Armenia nor Armenia and Azerbaijan view each other as adversaries. All three states are prioritizing diplomacy over confrontation.
Although the process remains fragile, the commitment is visible in the diplomatic tone they have adopted toward one another and toward Iran. For instance, all three capitals have expressed condolences over the death of Iran’s supreme leader and have called for de-escalation near their borders. This was a significant attempt to signal their neutral position in the war.
However, concerns over the potential spillover of the war into the South Caucasus remain. To navigate the crisis and preserve regional stability, Ankara, Yerevan and Baku may need to move closer together, adopting cautious neutrality while working to prevent the conflict from spreading to their region.
Source: arabnews.com
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2636288
------
From ‘Victory’ to Shock: Hezbollah’s Unexpected Comeback
March 14, 2026
By Hassan Lafi
In a widely cited speech at the end of November 2024, the then-Israeli prime minister declared what he described as a decisive victory over Hezbollah. “We have set Hezbollah back decades; we killed Nasrallah and destroyed its infrastructure,” he said.
This assessment, based on intelligence estimates and analyses by the Israeli military, was widely accepted in Israeli media and among the public.
However, the developments that followed—particularly on the twelfth day of the war, when Hezbollah announced the launch of Operation “Eaten Straw”—revealed a significant gap between the reality on the ground and the official Israeli narrative. The contrast has placed Israel’s military and political establishment in the midst of a profound crisis of confidence regarding their ability to deal with Hezbollah’s capabilities and threats.
During the war, Hezbollah surprised the Israeli army with an unexpected level of military performance and coordination with Iran. Several key aspects of this development stood out.
First, the continued missile campaign. Hezbollah maintained continuous rocket barrages throughout the war. With the launch of Operation “Eaten Straw,” these attacks expanded to target all parts of Israeli territory in direct coordination with Iran. Israel had previously denied the existence of such coordination, making the development particularly significant and indicative of a high level of planning and operational flexibility.
Second, the use of the Fateh-106 precision missile. This missile carries a warhead weighing up to 370 kilograms and represents a qualitative shift in Hezbollah’s missile capabilities. Israeli estimates suggest that the group possesses hundreds of these missiles. The message conveyed by Hezbollah was clear: it has the ability to strike targets deep inside Israel.
Third, direct confrontations on the front line. Hezbollah’s Radwan Force demonstrated the ability to engage advancing Israeli troops within Lebanese territory, resulting in Israeli casualties. These engagements reflected a level of training and battlefield coordination that Israeli planners had not anticipated.
The course of the confrontation exposed several fundamental miscalculations by the Israeli military and government.
First, the threat to northern settlements has persisted, despite government assurances over the past year encouraging settlers to return, based on claims that Hezbollah no longer posed a serious threat.
Second, Hezbollah forces were not removed from southern Lebanon as Israeli officials had previously declared.
Third, the targeting of Hezbollah’s leadership did not disrupt the organization’s command structure. Leadership gaps were filled quickly and effectively.
Fourth, the rapid reconstruction carried out during the ceasefire period transformed what Israel had expected to be a period of attrition into an opportunity for Hezbollah to strengthen its capabilities and adjust its military and security tactics.
The crisis extended beyond the military sphere to the media and political analysis environment in Israel. Military correspondents and political commentators faced growing criticism from the public, who accused them of merely repeating the army’s narratives without offering independent analysis.
Among those criticized was commentator Amit Segal, who is considered close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Segal became the target of public ridicule for assessments he made only a month before the war, in which he predicted the collapse of Hezbollah and its missile capabilities.
This situation has resulted in several consequences:
The erosion of public trust in the military leadership.
A decline in the credibility of media analysts and commentators.
Increased pressure on political decision-makers, who now operate under heightened public and media scrutiny.
The current crisis of confidence recalls the failure surrounding the events of October 7, when a gap between intelligence information and operational readiness was exposed. Similar tensions are now emerging through leaks about disagreements within Israel’s military establishment.
Reports indicate disputes between military intelligence, the Northern Command, and the Home Front Command over responsibility for the failure to launch a preemptive strike against Hezbollah, despite the availability of intelligence suggesting the possibility of attacks on the Israeli interior.
These disputes have reinforced the public perception that Israel’s leadership is unable to ensure security, increasing pressure on senior officials to take stronger action against Hezbollah.
Although Israel had previously treated Hezbollah as a secondary front, the Lebanese arena has now become a central focus of military planning.
Israeli discussions increasingly revolve around several possible options.
One option involves expanding ground operations and establishing a security belt extending into southern Lebanon to a depth that would prevent Kornet anti-tank missiles and short-range rockets from reaching northern settlements.
Another possibility is a major air escalation, including potential strikes on Lebanese national infrastructure such as Rafik Hariri International Airport and other sensitive state facilities.
Yet Israel faces a fundamental dilemma. These plans contradict a long-standing Israeli strategy aimed at isolating Hezbollah from the Lebanese state and creating internal political pressure that would weaken the group and ultimately lead to the disarmament of its military wing.
Most importantly, the loss of public confidence in Israel’s military and political leadership has made the potential effectiveness of these plans uncertain even before they are implemented. A central question now dominates the public debate: what new strategy can the Israeli army adopt that differs from previous approaches, and how would it actually improve security along the northern front?
For its part, Hezbollah’s decision to participate in the war reflects an effort to reestablish the rules of engagement with Israel after Israeli leaders believed the group had been weakened and that its capabilities had significantly diminished. That perception created a sense of impunity for Israeli military operations against Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s actions can therefore be understood as a response to what it views as Israeli miscalculations, while simultaneously reinforcing its ability to impose a new balance of deterrence.
At the same time, the group is sending a message to the Lebanese public that it remains the only force capable of defending the country. This narrative has gained traction amid the absence of a clear role by other Lebanese institutions—including the army and the government—in protecting national security following the ceasefire agreement of November 2025.
In this sense, Hezbollah’s actions also highlight the continuing weakness of the Lebanese state in safeguarding its sovereignty and security.
As the twelfth week of the war came to an end, it became increasingly clear that the confrontation with Hezbollah could not be understood through the lens of previous Israeli assessments.
The group’s unexpected performance, its coordination with Iran, and its operational flexibility have made any clear prediction about the future trajectory of the conflict extremely difficult.
At the same time, internal Israeli challenges—including declining public trust in the political and military leadership, mounting pressure on the home front, and growing public anxiety—may play an important role in shaping Israel’s strategic decisions in the months ahead.
The central question remains: will Israel succeed in achieving what it failed to accomplish before the 2024 ceasefire, or will Hezbollah continue to reshape the rules of engagement and deterrence in the north?
Will the Lebanese front evolve into a central axis of the long conflict, or will the broader regional balance—particularly the ongoing war involving Iran—impose limits on escalation?
Current indicators suggest that the conflict along the northern front is unlikely to end quickly, and that any next step—whether military, political, or diplomatic—will be decisive in shaping the future of this complex confrontation.
Source: palestinechronicle.com
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/from-victory-to-shock-hezbollahs-unexpected-comeback/
------
Helen Zille’s Stance on South Africa-Iran Ties Raises False Alarm
March 14, 2026
By Iqbal Jassat
During a TV interview in September 2025, South African politician Helen Zille was asked if she believed Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. She responded: “Genocide is a very big word, and I haven’t been to Gaza, and I don’t know”.
Many critics pointed out that Zille’s remarks were not at all surprising. Her views were consistent with the DA’s pro-Israel stance, and in sharp contrast with the South African government’s legal campaign to charge Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
On the US-Israel’s unprovoked war on Iran, she’s pushed her “Genocide is a very big word” aside to yet again position herself in the corner of a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu.
How? By opposing South Africa’s opposition to the imposed war. Zille’s warning about South Africa’s relationship with Iran is cleverly couched in language
presented as a matter of economic prudence and diplomatic realism.
The truth is that her stance is sinister, for it reveals something far more familiar: the tyrannical policing of Global South independence whenever it strays beyond Western approval.
The criticism she faced at the time on her refusal to denounce the genocide is captured most succinctly by Aslam Fataar & Imraan Buccus:
“Colonial powers justified their rule through denial. They portrayed indigenous peoples as inferior and depicted conquest as the progress of civilisation, development and law. Beneath this rhetoric of progress, there were forced removals, violent massacres and, most starkly, the genocide committed in Namibia in the early 1900s against the Herero and Nama peoples.”
Hence, her current displeasure with the South African government’s position on Iran, must be viewed within the context of Zionist terrorism, neo-colonialism, expansionism, and US imperialism.
Her push to pressure severance of SA ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran does not emerge from neutral economic analysis but from a geopolitical order policed by Washington and its allies.
The same Western capitals demanding “balanced foreign policy” are currently underwriting Israel’s assault on Gaza while shielding it from accountability in international forums. Yet this glaring contradiction rarely enters the conversation.
Zille’s remarks echo a long-standing US-Zionist narrative that insists that countries of the Global South, including Iran, are permitted sovereignty only within limits defined by Western strategic interests.
In other words, when states such as South Africa pursue independent diplomacy through platforms such as BRICS or deepen relations with countries outside the Western orbit, the language of “dangerous alliances” suddenly appears.
The beneficiaries of this narrative are not difficult to identify. Western governments seeking to isolate Iran, media platforms aligned with Atlanticist foreign policy circles, and political actors inside South Africa who remain ideologically tethered to Western legitimacy structures all gain from portraying South Africa’s diplomacy as reckless.
What is conveniently omitted is that South Africa’s post apartheid foreign policy has historically aligned with anti-colonial struggles and multilateral independence. Engagement with Iran, China, Russia, and other Global South actors is not an aberration. It is part of a broader refusal to submit to a unipolar order.
The pattern is unmistakable. When Western allies wage wars, impose sanctions, or violate international law, the language of “strategic partnership” prevails. When countries outside that orbit pursue cooperation, it becomes “dangerous alignment.”
Zille is mistaken if she believes that the debate is solely about Iran. Indeed, it is about whether South Africa is expected to remain diplomatically subordinate to Western geopolitical priorities.
It is appropriate to quote Ziyad Motala who framed it profoundly in the following words:
Source: palestinechronicle.com
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/helen-zilles-stance-on-south-africa-iran-ties-raises-false-alarm/
-------
‘A Declaration of War’ — Closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque Raises Alarm During Ramadan
March 13, 2026
Ramadan Without Al-Aqsa
For nearly two weeks, Palestinians have been barred from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites, during the final and most spiritually significant days of Ramadan.
Israeli authorities closed the mosque compound shortly after the US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on February 28, citing emergency regulations and restrictions on public gatherings.
The decision has prevented thousands of Palestinians from attending prayers, including two consecutive Friday prayers and nightly Tarawih prayers, Palestinian officials say.
Maarouf al-Rifai, media advisor to the Jerusalem Governorate, said the closure represents a serious escalation.
“Israeli occupation authorities continue to close Al-Aqsa Mosque and prevent worshippers from praying there during the last days of Ramadan,” al-Rifai told Anadolu Agency.
“These measures represent a violation of freedom of worship and an escalation targeting the historical and legal status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque.”
Al-Rifai also warned that the closure prevents Palestinians from observing Laylat al-Qadr, the holiest night in Islam, when the mosque usually receives massive numbers of worshippers.
A Strategic Shift
Experts say the closure should not be viewed as a temporary security measure but rather as part of a broader political strategy.
Jerusalem affairs researcher Hisham Yaqub warned that closing the mosque effectively dismantles the historical arrangements governing the site.
The status quo, established during Ottoman rule and maintained through subsequent political agreements, recognizes the Islamic Waqf as the authority responsible for administering the mosque.
By closing the compound unilaterally, Yaqub said, Israel is signaling its intention to redefine that arrangement.
“The closure legally undermines the historical status quo,” Yaqub told Al Jazeera Arabic, noting that the decision asserts Israeli authority over the mosque’s administration.
Jordan has historically supervised the Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem. Its custodianship dates back to 1924, when Jerusalem’s religious leadership recognized Sharif Hussein bin Ali as guardian of the holy sites.
The arrangement was reaffirmed in the 1994 Wadi Araba treaty between Jordan and Israel and again in a 2013 agreement between Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Yet analysts warn that recent Israeli actions increasingly sideline the Waqf and challenge its authority.
Ramadan and Political Timing
The timing of the closure has raised particular concern among experts.
Ramadan traditionally represents the most sensitive period in Jerusalem, when the mosque compound becomes the focal point of religious and political activity.
Jerusalem affairs expert Hassan Khater described the closure as an unprecedented escalation.
Closing the mosque during the final days of Ramadan amounts to “a declaration of war,” Khater said.
Khater also noted that extremist settler groups have openly celebrated the closure on social media, framing it as a victory in their long campaign to assert Jewish control over the site.
At the same time, incursions by settlers into the compound had continued even before the closure, often under heavy Israeli police protection.
Experts say these developments form part of a broader effort by far-right groups to alter the religious and political character of the compound.
Long-Term Objectives
Israeli affairs analyst Imad Abu Awad argues that the closure must be understood within a long-term process that has unfolded over decades.
In the 1990s, settler incursions into the compound were rare.
Today, tens of thousands of settlers raid the site each year under Israeli military protection.
This shift reflects a gradual normalization of Israeli presence inside the compound.
According to Abu Awad, the next stage of this strategy may involve dividing the mosque complex.
Some settler organizations advocate allocating sections of the compound for Jewish prayer, similar to the division imposed on the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron after the 1994 massacre. Others go further.
Abu Awad warned that extremist groups openly discuss plans to demolish the Dome of the Rock and construct a Jewish temple in its place. “We are approaching a very dangerous moment,” Abu Awad told Al Jazeera Arabic.
Regional Context
The developments at Al-Aqsa are unfolding amid one of the most volatile regional crises in decades.
The closure of the mosque coincides with the ongoing US-Israeli aggression on Iran, as well as continued attacks on Gaza, and fighting in Lebanon.
For many Palestinians, this broader context reinforces fears that the crisis around Al-Aqsa could escalate rapidly.
The mosque has historically served as a flashpoint capable of triggering widespread unrest across the region.
Analysts say that by closing the compound during Ramadan, Israel risks inflaming tensions at a moment when the region is already on edge.
A Critical Moment
For Palestinians, Al-Aqsa is far more than a religious site.
The mosque symbolizes Palestinian political, religious, and national identity. Its courtyards are among the few spaces where Palestinians from Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and Palestinian communities inside Israel can gather around a shared cause.
In that sense, Al-Aqsa remains one of the most powerful unifying symbols of Palestinian life.
For Israel, that symbolism carries a different meaning.
Control over the mosque compound has increasingly become a display of political and military power. By restricting access or closing the site altogether, Israel signals its authority over one of the most sensitive centers of Palestinian life.
Many analysts say Israeli leaders believe that controlling Al-Aqsa allows them to assert dominance not only over a religious site, but over the broader political and cultural aspirations of Palestinians.
For Palestinians, however, the mosque represents something entirely different.
Al-Aqsa has repeatedly served as a focal point of collective resistance. Despite the fragmentation created by occupation, checkpoints, and political divisions, it remains one of the few places capable of bringing Palestinians together around a shared identity.
It is this profound symbolic weight that makes the current moment particularly dangerous.
Changes to the status quo at Al-Aqsa have historically triggered major political upheavals. Many analysts warn that attempts to impose new realities at the site could once again ignite a much wider confrontation.
Source: palestinechronicle.com
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-declaration-of-war-closure-of-al-aqsa-mosque-raises-alarm-during-ramadan/
------
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism