Middle East Press On: Pakistan Backed by China, US Iran Peace, Israel, US Israeli Order, US Adopts Israel's Gaza-Beirut, Iran Ceasefire, 09 April 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
09 April 2026
Islamabad talks: Pakistan, backed by China, leads US‑Iran peace
Will Israel be buried under the disaster it has created?
Seven Messages – Can Israel Survive Defeat without Setting the Region Ablaze?
After Iran: Is This the Unraveling of the US-Israeli Order?
Iran: US Adopts Israel’s Gaza-Beirut Obliteration Doctrine
Framing US-Israel War Against Iran as ‘Self-Defense’ Undermines Media Integrity
Will the Iran ceasefire hold for long or lead to conclusive peace?
-----
Islamabad talks: Pakistan, backed by China, leads US‑Iran peace
BY UMAIR PERVEZ KHAN
APR 08, 2026
The region has breathed a sigh of relief after the temporary cease-fire was brokered by Pakistan between Iran, the U.S. and the other parties.
It has been more than a month since the so-called operation “Epic Fury” was started by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Since then, Iran has been bombed numerous times, and its leadership has been decapitated, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The country has suffered severe infrastructure damage, and thousands of people have been killed and many injured. Despite all this, Iran is not surrendering and is constantly resisting the war inflicted on it. It has strategically struck the American bases in the region, specifically those hosted in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
On the other hand, the cost of the war for America and Israel has been increasing with every passing day. It’s not the economic cost alone, but something more than that. It is losing its allies, costing it its reputation and decline in the so-called liberal values that it once stood for.
In all this chaos, Pakistan has emerged as a key peace broker and mediator in the conflict. The parties have shown trust in Pakistan, and it has emerged as a key player in the regional and global politics.
As per the report, the “Islamabad dialogues” aimed at finding a permanent solution to the conflict will take place in the capital of Pakistan on Friday. Pakistan’s increasing role in geopolitics stems from its willingness to mediate the conflict for several reasons, including its geographical proximity to Iran, its relations with regional players and the U.S. China’s strong backing and partnership have also significantly contributed to its rise in the region.
Pakistan-China partnership
Last year, in May, Pakistan was engaged in a serious conflict with India, and a limited war was fought between the two rivals. The famous 59-minute dog fight in the skies turned the tables in favor of Pakistan, which proved itself as a superior and professional military power of the region. It destroyed several Indian Jets and shot down the celebrated Rafales as well. Moreover, it had been able to outclass India in the cyber domain and electronic warfare.
Despite the fact that Pakistan’s air force has been working on improving its cyber capabilities for the last decade, Chinese support and weapons have played a significant role in its success.
In the current scenario, Islamabad has taken the initiative to position itself as a negotiator in the Iran war, walking a tightrope to maintain the delicate balance required to earn the trust of all parties involved in this complex situation. It used its direct access to the U.S. and Iran’s leadership, along with other key players involved, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, to position itself as a balanced and neutral mediator.
In the continuation of this effort, Islamabad hosted foreign ministers of three important countries of the region, namely Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in its efforts for de-escalation of the Iran war.
After charting out the potential framework, Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited China. The visit is of utmost urgency and significance. As per the reports, China and Pakistan both agreed upon a five-point plan to ease the Iran crisis, including an immediate cease-fire, a halt to attacks on civilian and critical infrastructure, including energy, desalination and power facilities, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Pakistan has taken China into confidence regarding its ongoing mediation efforts and has sought to bring China’s diplomatic and economic weight to its side, which may further help Pakistan finalize a framework for de-escalation in the region.
China, in return, has shown its full support in favor of Pakistan as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang declared that “China is willing to work with Pakistan to overcome difficulties, eliminate interference, quell the conflict as soon as possible ... and open a window for peace talks,” and calling Pakistan an “all-weather strategic cooperative partner.”
This indicates China’s full trust in Pakistan, and Islamabad will be able to leverage this to convince the U.S. and other stakeholders in the Middle East, many of whom may be dependent on China for economic and other reasons. China’s role has also been acknowledged by U.S. President Donald Trump following the cease-fire.
China may also gain from backing up the negotiations, as it has pragmatic reasons to do so. This includes its need to secure its energy flow, opening of the Strait of Hormuz, securing the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and also to project itself as a responsible player who is on the side of peace rather than war. Moreover, it has also been able to quietly mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is a significant achievement for an emerging global player.
Moreover, reports have also confirmed China’s mediation efforts between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Its approach has centered on close communication, facilitating dialogue, and building conditions conducive to sustained negotiations. It engages parties at multiple levels and through multiple channels, producing slow but durable results.
These mediation efforts have not only increased China’s economic but also diplomatic footprint in the region. Its increasing role as a mediator positions China as a trusted player in the realm of diplomacy as compared to the U.S., which has been accused of disrupting the negotiation process twice under President Donald Trump’s administration. The U.S. has also faced criticism from its allies, including NATO, for not being able to take them into confidence before the start of the so-called operation against Iran.
In conclusion, the ultimate success of the mediation efforts between the U.S. and Iran will depend not only on Islamabad's ability to pursue the dialogues in a delicate manner, as has been manifested in the last month, but also on strong backing by China, which may be instrumental for the finalization of the possible "Islamabad Accords" to end the hostilities.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/islamabad-talks-pakistan-backed-by-china-leads-usiran-peace
-----
Will Israel be buried under the disaster it has created?
BY HAYDAR ORUÇ
APR 08, 2026
By attacking Iran again on Feb. 28 in an attempt to finish the job it had failed to complete during the 12-Day War last June, Israel has carried out its long-cherished plan to pit the United States against Iran. With the U.S. joining the war, Israel hoped to inflict significant damage on Iran, just as it did in Iraq, to stir up ethnic and sectarian divisions to plunge the country into a civil war and if possible, to fragment it into smaller pieces; at the very least, it hoped to see a pro-Israel government come to power in Iran, just as it had before 1979.
To make this possible, Israel has long been framing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs as a threat, arguing that the security architecture based on Iran’s proxy forces in the region is destabilizing the area, and pressuring the U.S. to join the war to eliminate them. However, as statements made after the war began indicate, Israel’s true objective was neither the nuclear program nor the ballistic missiles. It has become clear that all of these were merely pretexts, and the real goal was to change the regime in Iran.
However, after the war began, despite the superior firepower and technological capabilities possessed by the U.S. and Israel, the Iranian regime did not collapse easily. On the contrary, not only did the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backfire by uniting the public behind the regime, but the replacements for those killed adopted an even more hawkish stance, causing Israel’s plans to backfire. In fact, Iran recovered much more quickly than it did during the 12-Day War. By launching attacks on Israel and U.S. targets in the region using its stockpile of ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones, it expanded the conflict by attacking Gulf countries hosting U.S. bases on their territory and closed the Strait of Hormuz, thereby placing this war at the center of a global energy crisis.
In this study, regardless of the costs imposed on the U.S. by Iran’s strategy of escalating the war and closing the Strait of Hormuz, and regardless of the predicament faced by the U.S. administration both domestically and on the international stage, the focus will be on the Israeli front. The study will seek to examine how the social, military, and economic costs arising from the protracted war are being met by the Israeli public and military. But first, the study will examine whether Israel’s decision to go to war stemmed from a miscalculation or from Iran’s effective concealment of its own capabilities.
Did Israel miscalculate?
First and foremost, it must be noted that Israel initiated its conflict with Iran well before Feb. 28, starting on Oct. 7. During this period, not only was Gaza razed to the ground under the pretext of Hamas, but Iran’s proxy forces also began to be weakened. Consequently, Israel decided to confront Iran directly only after observing that Hezbollah had been neutralized, that Iran had withdrawn from Syria following the revolution there, and that the Houthis had retreated into their own strongholds after intense attacks. The first round of this confrontation took place during the 12-Day War, and Israel won the first round, albeit by a narrow margin.
However, Iran’s lack of resistance and weak retaliatory response during the 12-Day War led Israel to misjudge Iran. Furthermore, Israel, which had calculated that the U.S. involvement would completely shift the situation in its favor, was both surprised and caught off guard by Iran’s unexpectedly resilient stance and its strategy of spreading the war to the Gulf to exert pressure on the U.S. However, it remains unclear whether this was truly due to Israel’s misreading of Iran or whether Iran deliberately concealed its capabilities to lure Israel and the U.S. into a trap. This will only become clear as the war progresses or upon its conclusion.
Social cost
Despite all the promises of an easy victory, by the 40th day of the war – with the Iranian regime growing stronger rather than weaker, the opposition in Iran still failing to rise up against the government, and, most importantly, Iran’s offensive capabilities having yet to be neutralized despite intense attacks by the U.S. and Israel – the Israeli public has become deeply disheartened and weary.
In particular, the fact that the Israeli public has been forced to live in shelters, deprived of work, education and social life for such an extended period for the first time has led to scrutiny of the Netanyahu government. Indeed, while public support for the war stood at 83% at the outset, it has since dropped to 77% as the conflict dragged on without a swift victory and the Iron Dome system proved unable to provide adequate protection.
Furthermore, the fact that military exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students remain on the agenda despite the government’s decision to call up 400,000 reservists has exacerbated divisions within society. This is because granting special privileges to Haredi parties, which are government partners, at a time when the military is in greatest need, is seen as contrary to the principle of equality and is met with public backlash. In fact, some reservists are refusing to report for duty solely for this reason.
Military cost
With an active-duty force of around 175,000, the Israeli military is one of the smallest in the region. For this reason, it is not possible for it to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously and succeed on all of them. Nevertheless, Israel has been facing such a challenge, particularly since Oct. 7. In other words, despite its limited manpower, it is attempting to fight in Gaza on one front, in Lebanon on another, and now in Iran as well.
Despite its extensive intelligence network, advanced technology, sophisticated weaponry and unconditional support from the U.S., Israel is not on a par with a country like Iran, which possesses a vast and challenging territory as well as a powerful and ideologically driven military, and it is inevitable that it will pay a heavy military price.
This is precisely why, despite the 5,000 airstrikes and 15,000 targets struck by the U.S. and Israel to date, Iran’s capabilities have not been eliminated, its ballistic missiles have not been stopped, and it has not been prevented from continuing the war.
Although it is claimed that most of Iran’s missile stockpiles have been eliminated, it is also known that Israel is nearing a critical point in terms of both the munitions used in attacks and the air defense missiles used to intercept Iran’s missiles. Furthermore, the fact that Iranian missiles have begun to penetrate the Iron Dome has significantly shaken Israel’s security myth.
Furthermore, as Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has noted, the Israeli military is facing a severe manpower crisis. This is because the Israeli military has been engaged in the longest war in its history, which has been ongoing since Oct. 7, and is attempting to manage the situation through troop rotations. The war with Iran has further exacerbated this crisis and pushed it to a point of no return.
Economic cost
The cost of the ammunition and missiles expended by the Israeli military during the one-month war, along with the fuel costs for the aircraft and ships used and personnel expenses, amounted to approximately 30 billion shekels ($7.5 billion). Given the preparations to mobilize approximately 400,000 reservists, it is estimated that personnel expenses will continue to rise.
When you add the 10 billion shekels ($2.5 billion) loss resulting from production halted due to the war, the total cost rises to 40 billion shekels ($10 billion).
Also, approximately 15,000 claims for damaged homes have been filed so far, and it is estimated that this will cost the budget approximately 2-2.5 billion shekels ($500-600 million).
In addition to all this, the approval of an additional 45 billion shekels ($11.5 billion) in defense spending as part of the budget passed by the Israeli Knesset last week indicates that the government has revised its estimates regarding the duration of the war and that it will last longer than initially anticipated. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the economic cost of the war to Israel will continue to rise.
In conclusion, Israel launched the war, with the U.S. by its side. However, it appears that Israel either miscalculated the resilience of the Iranian regime and the loyalty of the Iranian people to it.
Rather, by spreading the war to Gulf countries and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian regime has at least imposed costs on the U.S. and is attempting to force the U.S. out of the war, thereby leaving Israel isolated in the conflict. By inflicting costs on Israel through ballistic missile attacks, Iran is also seeking to reduce the Israeli public support for the war among the Israeli people.
Although the cost to Israel may be sustainable for now, if Iran refuses to back down and continues the war, it does not appear likely that this unjust war can continue much longer. Otherwise, Israel will lose the war it started and will pay an even greater price, crushed under the weight of the disaster it has brought upon itself.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/will-israel-be-buried-under-the-disaster-it-has-created
------
Seven Messages – Can Israel Survive Defeat without Setting the Region Ablaze?
April 8, 2026
By Ramzy Baroud
The moment a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran was announced—brokered through Pakistani mediation on April 7—Iran declared that Lebanon was included in the arrangement. It was a clear message: the war could not be compartmentalized, and the fronts were linked.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to deny it. But the denial exposed more than it concealed. Lebanon and other resistance fronts were already embedded within Iran’s broader ten-point proposal—a framework the Trump administration had accepted as a workable basis for negotiations set to begin Friday.
Netanyahu was left politically and strategically exposed.
Iran was never just another battlefield. It was the culmination of a long campaign of perpetual war that Netanyahu has sustained for years—beginning with the genocide in Gaza, expanding into Lebanon, and stretching across multiple fronts whenever his political survival demanded escalation.
Each war served a purpose: to silence dissent within his coalition, to distract from collapsing approval ratings, to evade accountability in corruption trials. War became governance.
But the Iran gambit failed. And failure, for Netanyahu, is never an endpoint. It is a trigger. With no victory to claim and no strategic gains to present, he turned—once again—to Lebanon.
Dahiya Doctrine Revisited
On Wednesday, Israeli warplanes unleashed one of the most extensive bombardments of Lebanon in recent memory.
Beirut. Southern Lebanon. The Bekaa Valley. Mount Lebanon. And more. Within just two hours, approximately 150 airstrikes were carried out, according to Lebanese media.
The death toll continues to rise. Entire families buried under rubble. Rescue workers targeted. Funerals struck. Civilian infrastructure pulverized. This is not warfare. It is punishment.
But these attacks are not random. They follow a doctrine—one that Israel has refined and reapplied whenever it seeks to compensate for military failure.
Netanyahu is reinstating the Dahiya Doctrine—a strategy first articulated after the 2006 war against Lebanon.
The doctrine is simple and brutal: use overwhelming, disproportionate force against civilian infrastructure to collectively punish populations believed to support resistance movements.
Entire neighbourhoods are treated as military targets. The goal is not precision—it is devastation. The logic is coercion through destruction.
Today, Lebanon is once again its laboratory.
Seven Messages
This escalation is not chaos. It is communication.
First, Netanyahu is asserting that war and peace are his decisions alone. Not Iran’s. Not Washington’s. Not the region’s. The message is clear: no agreement binds him.
Second, he seeks to reimpose fear across the Middle East—at a moment when millions are celebrating what they see as a decisive Iranian victory against the combined power of the US, Israel, and their allies.
Third, he is attempting to fracture the resistance front by suggesting that Iran has abandoned its allies. The goal is to manufacture distrust where unity has just been strengthened.
Fourth, he is providing ammunition to his political allies in Lebanon—and to compliant Arab regimes—who argue that Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into catastrophe. This narrative is designed to intensify pressure for disarmament.
Fifth, he is distracting from his own failure. Both supporters and critics inside Israel are questioning the outcome of the war with Iran. Thus, Lebanon becomes the diversion.
Sixth, he is masking a military reality: Israel has failed to neutralize Hezbollah’s capabilities. Despite repeated claims, Hezbollah remains operational, resilient, and capable of disrupting Israeli plans along the border. The targeting of civilians is not a strength—it is an admission of limits.
Seventh, Netanyahu is raising the cost ahead of an inevitable settlement. He knows that he cannot defeat Hezbollah outright. By inflicting maximum damage now, he hopes to reshape the political terrain before negotiations he cannot avoid.
The Fragile Ceasefire
Yes, ending the war on Lebanon was embedded in Iran’s conditions for talks. But there are cracks.
Washington can—and likely will—argue that its agreement applies only to US actions, not to Israel, which it portrays as acting independently.
At the same time, Iran’s proposal was the basis for a temporary ceasefire—not a finalized framework for a permanent settlement.
This ambiguity is not accidental. It is the space in which Israel now operates.
Will Israel’s massacres be enough for Iran to declare that the US-Israeli camp has violated the ceasefire?
Or will negotiations proceed, despite the bloodshed in Lebanon?
The answer will shape the next phase of the war. But one lesson is already clear.
Since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza, a pattern has emerged: every time Netanyahu escalates in an attempt to regain the initiative, his adversaries respond in kind—and often with greater strategic effect.
Therefore, his escalation has not delivered victory. Instead, it has deepened Israel’s entanglement.
Lebanon may be burning today, but the war is far from decided. Netanyahu may believe that he is reshaping the battlefield.
History suggests otherwise, because the other side still holds its cards—and this time, at least for now, Washington is not stepping in to tilt the balance.
For they, too, have been forced to step back. And that, more than anything, is what makes this moment so dangerous.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/seven-messages-can-israel-survive-defeat-without-setting-the-region-ablaze/
------
After Iran: Is This the Unraveling of the US-Israeli Order?
April 8, 2026
By Ramzy Baroud
The knives are out—and this time, they are not aimed at Tehran, but at Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Even the ever morally flexible Chris Christie moved quickly. The former New Jersey governor and longtime Republican insider, speaking on CNN, did not merely criticize Trump; he used the moment to indict establishment Republicans for enabling him in the first place. What was once quiet discomfort has now hardened into open political distancing.
CNN, for its part, framed the outcome through a language of selective humanitarian concern—invoking the plight of the Iranian people as victims of their own government, even as it criticized Trump’s failure. The contradiction is telling: a posture of moral superiority that condemns mismanagement, yet stops short of rejecting the underlying logic of war itself. In this framing, aggression is not questioned—only its effectiveness.
Across the Arab world, particularly within Gulf establishment circles, the reaction has been sharper—and deeply revealing. The familiar charge of “cut and run” has returned, recalling the criticism directed at Barack Obama during the US withdrawal from Iraq and the pivot to Asia.
The contradiction is striking: many of the same voices that claimed to oppose the Iraq war were equally outraged when the United States withdrew from it. Then, as now, Washington is faulted not for war itself, but for failing to see it through to a decisive conclusion.
According to Axios, Trump’s decision to pursue a settlement with Iran was made in defiance of strong opposition from key regional allies. Netanyahu resisted. So did several Arab governments whose strategic calculations depended on the continuation—and success—of the war. The pressure was not marginal; it was central. Yet it was overridden.
Netanyahu’s anger is not merely emotional—it is strategic. He understands what is at stake. If this ceasefire holds, and especially if it matures into a permanent agreement between Washington and Tehran, then his long-constructed vision of a “new Middle East” does not simply stall—it collapses.
The conditions that made this war possible—its timing, its alignments, its assumptions—are unlikely to be recreated. This was not just another confrontation. It was a convergence of political opportunity, regional ambition, and ideological fixation. And that moment has now passed.
But this raises a more uncomfortable question: why are Arab governments not welcoming this outcome?
If the war ends, their oil infrastructure is safer. Their economies are more secure. The immediate risk of regional escalation diminishes. By all conventional metrics, this should be a relief.
And yet, it is not.
To understand why, one must look beyond the war itself and into the political architecture that has been taking shape in the region for years. A quiet but powerful convergence has defined Middle Eastern politics: an Israeli-Arab alignment built around the shared objective of containing—and ultimately eliminating—the perceived Iranian threat.
This was not rhetorical. It was financial, political, and strategic.
Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into Trump’s orbit from regional allies who viewed him as the leader willing to “finish the job.” These same actors deeply resented Barack Obama—not for his militarism, but for what they saw as his failure to go far enough against Iran.
Trump, in their view, represented correction, decisiveness, escalation, and resolution.
They elevated him accordingly, treating him less as a political leader and more as a guarantor of regional transformation. But internal chaos in Washington, followed by the transition to Joe Biden, changed the dynamics entirely.
Still, before leaving office, Trump—guided heavily by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner—engineered one of the most consequential shifts in modern Middle Eastern politics: normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states.
These agreements did more than normalize relations. They formalized an open alliance—not only against Iran, but also against the Palestinian people and their resistance. They reshaped the region’s political logic.
For a moment, expectations surged. A new Middle East seemed within reach—one aligned with Israeli strategic priorities, one that would position Netanyahu not just as Israel’s leader, but as a central architect of regional order.
Then came October 7.
The Palestinian operation—and the subsequent Israeli genocide in Gaza—did not simply disrupt this trajectory. It exposed its fragility. While the Israeli-Arab alignment did not collapse, its momentum stalled, its legitimacy was questioned, and its future became uncertain.
The Biden administration, along with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, attempted to salvage the framework. The strategy was clear: contain Israel’s battlefield failures while using limited concessions to reignite normalization.
Under Trump’s second administration, this effort intensified. Arab-backed UN initiatives on Gaza—most notably United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803—laid out a framework for post-war governance, including the establishment of the so-called “Board of Peace” as a transitional authority.
Crucially, the resolution also authorized the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), tasked with securing the territory, overseeing demilitarization, and effectively disarming Palestinian resistance. Together, these measures pointed to a renewed push to impose a regional order from above.
It was within this context that the US-Israeli war on Iran must be understood.
For Netanyahu—and for several Arab governments—it was not optional. It was necessary. As long as Iran remained intact, its network of regional alliances—the axis of resistance—would continue to obstruct the realization of this ‘new Middle East’.
Some Gulf states were initially cautious, not out of restraint, but because they believed they had already secured key strategic gains they could not afford to lose. Syria had been stabilized under a pro-US president. Hezbollah appeared weakened, entangled in internal Lebanese dynamics. Ansarallah was largely held at bay. Gaza, despite its pride and defiance, was being “managed.”
But war changes calculations.
When Iran responded decisively, raising the stakes across the region, the risks became immediate and undeniable. If the war ended without Iran’s defeat, the consequences would be profound: a more emboldened Iran, a recalibrated regional balance, and expectations of major change.
It was then that hesitation gave way to advocacy. Reluctant actors became proponents of escalation—often more so than Trump himself. For them, a ceasefire is not neutrality. It is defeat.
And then Trump unraveled the narrative.
Unable to justify the war, he escalated it—threatening to erase Iranian civilization overnight. This was not bluster but a dangerous extension of an already destructive campaign, invoking the logic of total annihilation and raising the specter of catastrophic escalation.
He boxed himself in with deadlines—issuing them, breaking them, then replacing them with new ones. Each cycle weakened his position further.
The longer the war dragged on, the clearer the reality became: this was not a controlled operation, but a deteriorating campaign.
When Trump escalated his language, he did not project strength—he revealed a loss of control. The illusion of a quick, decisive victory evaporated. In its place emerged a familiar pattern: prolonged conflict, strategic drift, and diminishing returns.
This is Iran’s terrain—not America’s.
Yet two actors ultimately proved decisive: the Iranian people and the American public.
Inside Iran, the anticipated internal collapse never materialized. Instead, society consolidated. Despite immense pressure and loss, public cohesion strengthened the state’s ability to endure. The expectation—shared by Washington and Tel Aviv—of internal unrest simply did not materialize.
At that point, Trump’s rhetoric shifted again—from claiming to “save” Iranians to threatening their annihilation. This was not strategy. It revealed a profound loss of judgment.
In the United States, the outcome was equally significant. At no point did the American public demonstrate sustained support for the war. Poll after poll failed to produce the desired shift. Opposition remained consistent—and deepened, particularly against any prospect of ground invasion.
This cannot be overstated. Without public backing, prolonged war becomes politically unsustainable.
Under these conditions, the question of who “won” is, at this stage, premature—and perhaps beside the point.
Iran did not initiate the war. It remained in a position of self-defense—and succeeded in preserving its territory, its people, and its resources.
The same cannot be said for Trump or Netanyahu.
For Netanyahu in particular, the stakes were existential. This was meant to be the decisive confrontation—the moment that would eliminate his strongest adversaries, secure Israeli supremacy, and give substance to his long-articulated vision of a “Greater Israel.”
That project is now under strain.
The coming days and weeks are decisive, for an outcome of this magnitude cannot pass without major geopolitical consequences—regionally and globally.
Israel and the US will attempt to reinterpret events to save face and revive their project of dominance. Arab media—particularly in the Gulf—will work to minimize what Iran sees as victory.
But in the final analysis, none of that will matter.
What will matter is what history records:
Israel and the US failed to defeat Iran.
They failed to achieve regime change.
They failed to destabilize the country from within.
They failed to fracture the axis of resistance.
They failed—even—to impose their will by force in the Strait of Hormuz.
The question that remains is unavoidable: will Arab governments continue to anchor themselves to a failing Israeli-American project?
Or will they recalibrate—before the region is reshaped without them, and a new Middle East emerges not as Netanyahu envisioned, but as defined by the endurance of its people—from Gaza to Beirut to Tehran, to Sanaa?
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/after-iran-is-this-the-unraveling-of-the-us-israeli-order/
------
Iran: US Adopts Israel’s Gaza-Beirut Obliteration Doctrine
April 8, 2026
By Dan Steinbock
In late March, President Trump threatened to “obliterate Iran’s energy grid” if a ceasefire was not reached. In his public post, Truth Social, he listed explicit targets, such as power plants, oil facilities, and desalination (water) infrastructure. This in addition to the already-massive regional costs and global losses.
On April 4, Trump gave a public ultimatum warning that “hell will rain down” if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. The statement featured direct threats to energy infrastructure and water systems.
A day later, on Easter Sunday of all days, Trump posted an expletive-laden warning to Iran, threatening to strike civilian infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened. The President set a deadline, stating that if a deal was not reached to “open the F—in’ Strait,” the country would be “living in Hell.”
The threats did not come out of the blue. They form a pattern. They have led over 100 international law experts to warn that the US strikes on Iran violate the UN Charter and may be war crimes.
Whether Trump will deliver his threat or not, the damage has occurred. The administration has set the stage for the normalization of mass atrocity crimes.
Obliteration Rhetoric as a Prelude to Mass Atrocities
What is notable about these statements by Trump, Defense Secretary Hegseth, and other members of the cabinet is that they are not just vague wartime rhetoric. They explicitly reference civilian infrastructure systems, including energy (electricity), water (desalination), and economy-wide assets. Presenting themselves as national security contingencies, they are a prelude to mass atrocities.
Since the onset of the Iran attacks, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that the US military has “literally obliterated” Iran’s military capabilities and leadership as part of the ongoing conflict.
Such statements are problematic because they strongly support allegations of war crimes, particularly targeting civilian infrastructure, collective punishment, and disproportionate warfare. Since they are not anomalous but systematic, they also appear to support crimes against humanity. Even independently, they seem to constitute unlawful threats of force
Here’s the bottom line: in international law, words by senior officials are not just political; they are evidentiary. And this applies particularly in situations when those words explicitly reference destroying civilian systems. As a result, they materially strengthen the legal case that ensuing actions were not accidental, but foreseeable, planned, or accepted.
What has been left unsaid is that the White House has embraced core aspects of the devastating military strategy that Israel developed in the early 2000s, tested in Dahiya, Beirut in 2006 and has executed broadly in Gaza’s genocide since fall 2023, as I showed in The Obliteration Doctrine (2025).
Tens of Thousands of Civilian Sites Damaged and Destroyed
The US government typically describes its strikes as targeted against military, infrastructure, or nuclear sites, and has not officially verified the scale of civilian damage reported by Iranian authorities.
Yet, based on reports from the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) and Iranian officials as of late March and early April 2026, Iran reports that over 90,000 civilian sites—including homes, medical facilities, and schools—have been damaged or destroyed in joint US-Israeli air strikes. That’s over 300 health and emergency facilities. The IRCS has characterized this damage as a deliberate campaign against civilian infrastructure.
These claims come amid a rapid escalation of conflict starting in late February 2026, which has resulted in up to 3.2 to 3.5 million people being displaced within Iran.
IRCS numbers are not independently verified totals. But they are directionally consistent with all other evidence streams.
If the figures reported by the IRCS and Iranian officials are even broadly accurate, the legal implications under international law are extremely serious, because the scale itself becomes legally probative.
With the US at war with Iran and embroiled in conflicts around the world, the Trump White House is asking Congress to approve about $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year. If enacted, that amount – a 40% increase to the current level – would set US military spending at its highest level in modern history.
It would also amount to a free license to export the Obliteration Doctrine worldwide.
Obliteration as Violation of International Law
As demonstrated in The Obliteration Doctrine, this doctrine prioritizes the total destruction of an enemy’s infrastructure and population over traditional military objectives. It relies on four old and brutal methods of devastation.
The scorched-earth policy is a longstanding military strategy of destroying everything that allows an enemy military force to fight a war, including the critical infrastructure, military and state institutions, buildings, crops, livestock, security and so on. Modern historical examples feature the American Civil War and American Indian Wars, and Nazi Germany’s war against the Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, the deployment of a scorched-earth policy against non-combatants is banned under the 1977 Geneva Conventions.
Since collective punishment targets individuals who are not responsible for the perpetrated acts, it undermines modern legal systems, which restrict criminal liability to individuals. Yet, it has been widely deployed through history, from late medieval Florence to the American Civil War and Nazi occupation of Poland and Yugoslavia, to postwar counter-insurgency campaigns.
Like the scorched-earth policy, collective punishment is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Civilian victimization is the purposeful use of violence against noncombatants in a conflict. In civilian victimization, violence is often deployed to foster civilian cooperation and isolate the military adversary by removing civilians from an area, as applied in the U.S. Strategic Hamlet program during the Vietnam War.
Like scorched-earth policy and collective punishment, civilian victimization is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
In its contemporary form, the Obliteration Doctrine accounts for the decimation of urban infrastructure and the genocidal atrocities in the Gaza Strip since 2023. It was first tested in 2006 in Dahiya, a Shia Muslim enclave in Beirut. The net effect has been genocide.
In The Obliteration Doctrine, I argued that Gaza is “most likely a prelude of worse to come.” Now it is spreading to Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Toward Algocides
Since the postwar era, these old sources of obliteration have been coupled with largely indiscriminate area bombardment. In Gaza, it set a historical precedent.
In principle, aerial warfare should comply with the laws of war, which regulate the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello). In particular, aerial operations should comply with the principles of humanitarian law: that is, of military necessity, objective, and proportionality.
Based on Article 51 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, carpet bombing has been considered a war crime since 1977, conveniently after the Vietnam War.
There is one more ingredient to the contemporary Obliteration Doctrine: Israel’s mass assassination factories deploying artificial intelligence for maximum devastation. After October 7, 2023 the Israeli military gave officers sweeping approval to embrace the kill lists of the Lavender program, knowing that the system made “errors” in about 10% of cases and occasionally targeted individuals who had no connection to militants.
For every Hamas operative marked by Lavender, it was permissible to kill up to 15-20 civilians. Backed with AI, the military purposely used “dumb bombs” to hit these homes. Algocide can be defined as a deliberate effort to use the algorithms of artificial intelligence in genocidal atrocities.
In the past weeks, Israel and the US have deployed AI-powered warfare in Iran and Lebanon, using advanced systems for intelligence analysis, target generation, and drone/missile tracking to accelerate the “kill chain”. Israel is using AI tools like “Lohem” and AI-driven data analysis for targeting in Lebanon, while the US relies on Pentagon AI program “Project Maven” to analyze data in the conflict with Iran.
Reports on Israeli AI deployment and US AI-warfare indicate these technologies have enhanced targeting speed while raising serious questions about deliberate civilian damage. These systems were largely matured in the Gaza.
The Rules-Based Order of Butchery
Here’s the problem: the interlocking core aspects of Obliteration Doctrine directly violate several fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of war:
Collective punishment is strictly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Customary IHL Rule 103;
Scorched earth tactics is illegal under Additional Protocol I, Article 54;
Indiscriminate bombing is prohibited by Article 51 of Protocol I;
Under Geneva Conventions, intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime (Principle of Distinction);
IHL prohibits attacks with excessive civilian loss (Principle of Proportionality).
Nonetheless, AI-enabled warfare does not exempt from these laws. If anything, using AI to facilitate “mass assassination” without human oversight is considered a violation of the obligation to prevent genocide.
The Obliteration Doctrine represents a shift from collateral damage to deliberate civilian victimization by the countries of the West in the Global South. It is now transforming “war” which is no longer war, and warfare which can no longer be called “warfare.”
The blatant destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure is not war. It is illegal destruction. Nor is it warfare. It is butchery by the mighty.
The world of brutal great power rivalry has a dark track record. It goes back to capitalist modernity and lethal colonialism in the 19th century. But the new variant is far more lethal and ambitious. It seeks to globalize obliteration.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/iran-us-adopts-israels-gaza-beirut-obliteration-doctrine/
------
Framing US-Israel War Against Iran as ‘Self-Defense’ Undermines Media Integrity
April 8, 2026
By Iqbal Jassat
If producers and hosts at @SAfmRadio hold the view that platforming persons allied to the settler colonial regime of apartheid Israel who “sanitise” the US-Israeli war in Iran will not escape public scrutiny, they are mistaken.
More importantly, while their choice may allow “guest” unchallenged freedom to propagate, advance and justify Netanyahu and Trump’s war in Iran, it strikes a hole in @SAfmRadio’s claim to be fair and unbiased.
With the changes in format at SAfmRadio having kicked off this morning, the country’s national radio station erred by hooking up with Benji Shulman, known for his anti-Iran views, to ironically discuss the US-Iran war on Iran.
Shulman’s Anti-Iran stance is public knowledge, yet it seems to have been ignored by host Joanne Joseph’s producers.
A quick dip into his publicly known views will reveal that not only is he opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, but he finds South Africa’s ties to it as a “troubling alignment”.
The argument Shulman makes against the SA-Iran links is no different from the Iranophobic position of the Netanyahu regime and Israel’s irrational lobby groups in South Africa and elsewhere.
For example, he argues that South Africa’s engagement with Iran “risks damaging its constitutional integrity and jeopardising trade with the US, where Iran is increasingly viewed as a hostile actor”.
Without a shred of evidence, Shulman repeats allegations of “ANC’s historical and financial ties to Iran, including alleged funding linked to South Africa’s International Court of Justice case against Israel, and MTN’s business interests in Iran’s cellular market”.
Alarmingly, he raises fear that if Iran gains a rare ally in the Global South, “the relationship may be less about diplomacy and more about the Ramaphosa government being part of a strategic alignment against Israel and the United States”.
I am thus not surprised that media activist Hassen Lorgat noted his reservations by pointing out that Shulman was simply introduced by Joseph as the Executive Director of the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI).
“It was not stated that he is also a board member of the South African Friends of Israel and has for many years served as Director of Public Policy at the South African Zionist Federation (it is believed he may have since stepped down)”.
In direct contrast to Zionism’s advocacy for the annihilation of Iran, pursued shamelessly by the US military, anti-apartheid veteran Reverend Frank Chikane has called on the world to take a stand against Trump.
His call becomes extremely urgent, for it comes after the US President posted an expletive-laden “Truth Social” threat against Iran.
“I am devastated about this. If you have a President of the United States use the type of language he is using against a country they attacked without any provocation, and uses a language nobody would use, except in the street. I think it’s shocking,” Chikane said.
Trump has threatened to blow the country back to the Stone Age and on Tuesday, he escalated that rhetoric further, warning that “a whole civilization will die tonight.”
South African media, especially national radio, must expect scrutiny and criticism if found to be platforming biased narratives.
Alert consumers and media critics have a responsibility to ensure that illegal wars are not “normalised”.
Reports and interviews that frame the US-Israeli war as “self defense” while labeling Iranian retaliatory responses as “provocation” undermine media integrity.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/framing-us-israel-war-against-iran-as-self-defense-undermines-media-integrity/
------
Will the Iran ceasefire hold for long or lead to conclusive peace?
DR. ABDEL AZIZ ALUWAISHEG
April 08, 2026
A catastrophe was averted on Tuesday night, when the US, Pakistan and Iran announced an agreement to stop the war for two weeks and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
It came just a few short hours before the deadline President Donald Trump had set for Iran to accept his peace proposals, or else “face hell,” asserting that the US had a plan under which every bridge and power plant in Iran could be destroyed. Adding pressure onto the Iranians and mediators, he said in an online post on Tuesday morning: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” if a deal was not reached.
Following the truce announcement, the US and Iran each issued separate statements claiming victory.
Trump said that subject to Iran’s agreeing to the “complete, immediate and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz,” he agreed to suspend the bombing for two weeks. One reason he accepted Pakistan’s mediation was that the US had “already met and exceeded all Military objectives,” while another was that the parties were “very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning long-term peace with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East.”
Despite the extensive loss of life and devastation of its military capabilities over the past 40 days, Iran’s statement was defiant. Speaking for the Supreme National Security Council, Foreign Minister Sayed Abbas Aragchi, said: “If attacks against Iran are halted, our powerful armed forces will cease their defensive operations. For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s armed forces and with consideration of technical limitations.”
The US and Iran credited Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief, with persuading them to reach the deal. China was also mentioned as working behind the scenes.
Sharif announced the “immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.” He added that negotiations for a “conclusive agreement to settle all disputes” were scheduled for Friday, April 10.
Prior to the announcement, the US had sent Iran a 15-point proposal through Pakistan, dealing with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and its regional proxies. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz was later added after Iran effectively closed it. Last week, Trump announced there had been “very good and productive” conversations with Iran. US officials said the progress made in the talks was due to their success in achieving important military goals of the war “ahead of schedule,” according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
After initially denying receiving the American proposal, Tehran later acknowledged it after Pakistan confirmed it had passed it along to Iran. On April 6 Tehran came up with its own 10-point proposal, which apparently included a set of maximalist demands so unrealistic that they appeared to be directed more at domestic audiences.
While the agreement is welcome, many question whether a “conclusive” accord can be reached during the two-week pause. The three Iranian interlocutors mentioned by Sharif may not be the ones calling the shots. Parliament speaker Ghalibaf is known to be close to the supreme leader and the IRGC, but he does not make the decisions. The IRGC has made it clear that President Pezeshkian and Aragchi do not either. Iran’s binary system of formal government versus the militias has frustrated negotiators before, but now the confusion is greater, as it may take time for the new supreme leader to assert control and keep the competing factions in check.
The other wild card is Israel, which is reportedly unhappy with the truce agreement and could break it at any moment. Immediately after the truce was announced, Israel disagreed on interpreting its terms.
“Israel supports President Trump’s decision to suspend strikes against Iran for two weeks, subject to Iran immediately opening the straits and stopping all attacks on the US, Israel and countries in the region,” it said. However, it added: “The two-weeks ceasefire does not include Lebanon” — but Iran and Pakistan thought it did.
And despite Pakistani prime minister’s assertion that the ceasefire was effective “immediately,” Iran continued to launch attacks against GCC countries, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
So, while the Americans are expected to adhere to the terms of the two-week truce, the other two parties are less likely to do so.
There is also a wide perception gap between the US and Iran. In the words of Iranian-American academic Karim Sajidpour: “One of the US government’s recurring mistakes about Iran has been to conflate the country’s national interests with regime interests. The two are opposites in many ways. What benefits the Iranian people — global economic reintegration, diplomatic recognition, investment, normalcy — threatens a regime that operates an extensive mafia and thrives in isolation. The carrots that America offers the nation are sticks to the men who rule it. And the sticks that America wields against the regime — isolation, conflict, and chaos — are carrots to men whose power depends on all three.” If this diagnosis is accurate, it may be impossible to motivate Iran to accept any compromise.
On the other hand, if you assume that the Iranian government will make rational decisions based on the interest of the country, there are reasons to believe that a deal is possible. For one, Iran has lost much of its conventional weapons, including its navy and air defense and was counting on two other defense mechanisms, which have also failed. Its “forward defense” strategy fell through when its regional proxies were severely weakened and when Syria regained its independence. Iran had hoped that its proxies would hold its enemies at bay far from its territory. Instead, this war was fought over Iran’s own territory.
The other pillar was reliance on missiles and drones to make up for its disadvantage when it came to conventional weapons, where its adversaries had a clear advantage. In this war, those missiles and drones were intercepted more than 90 percent of the time.
Because of these failures, Iran used the Strait of Hormuz for leverage, but that also could be neutralized by devising an international or regional scheme to run the waterway for the benefit of both littoral and user states, according to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.
Trump’s apocalyptic threat if a deal is not made should also figure in Iran’s calculations to favor a deal within this narrow window of opportunity.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2639226
-----
URL:
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