Middle East Press On: Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iran’s Missile Diplomacy, Regional War Against Us-Israeli, Israel’s Attack on Beirut, New Age Islam's Selection, 11 June 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
11 June 2026
L'Blue Homeland Law': A new framework for Türkiye's maritime order
Lebanon is the new Palestine: Israeli empire grows day by day
Between returning to Syria and staying in Türkiye
The Mladenov distraction: Behind the screen, Netanyahu is annexing Gaza ‘step-by-step’
Iran’s missile diplomacy and its collapse of credibility
A New Economic Front: Yemen’s Entrance to Regional War against US-Israeli Alliance
‘Erasing Anything Palestinian’: Amnesty Details Ethnic Cleansing of Bedouin Villages
Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer
------
'Blue Homeland Law': A new framework for Türkiye's maritime order
BY ALI FUAT GÖKÇE
JUN 11, 2026
Few countries occupy a maritime position as strategically significant as Türkiye. Situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East, the country lies in a region undergoing profound economic, political and social transformation. And in an era when roughly 90% of global trade moves by sea, Türkiye’s extensive coastline of more than 8,300 kilometers (5,160 miles) and its command of critical waterways make it not merely a bridge between continents, but a major actor in regional and global maritime affairs.
In an age when technological advancements and growing energy demands have exposed the limitations of land-based resource exploration, the seas and the resources that lie beneath them have become increasingly important, prompting states to define and assert their maritime zones. The first statement on this matter was included in a proclamation issued by U.S. President Harry S. Truman in 1945.
Legal status of Aegean Sea
Among Türkiye’s neighbors, Greece is the country with which it has a dispute over maritime jurisdiction areas. Greece’s unilateral initiatives concerning the continental shelf in the Aegean Sea, undertaken without regard for Türkiye’s rights and interests, have heightened tensions between the two countries. From Türkiye’s perspective, the dispute extends beyond the question of hydrocarbon resources. Greece’s claim that the numerous large and small islands and islets in the Aegean Sea generate maritime jurisdiction zones has evolved into an issue that, if fully realized, would geographically constrain Türkiye’s access to the surrounding seas. Consequently, the matter has come to be regarded by Türkiye as a question of sovereignty and vital national interests.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in 1982 and to which Türkiye is not a party, is consistent with Greece’s position that it is entitled to extend its territorial waters in the Aegean Sea to 12 nautical miles. In response, Türkiye has made clear the policy it would pursue should Greece implement such a decision. Through a resolution adopted by the Turkish Parliament, Türkiye declared that it would not accept such a fait accompli and would reserve the right to take all necessary measures, including the use of military force, to protect its interests.
The fundamental international agreement determining the legal status of the Aegean Sea between Türkiye and Greece is the Treaty of Lausanne. While the territorial waters were set at 3 miles under the treaty, Greece violated this status by extending its territorial waters to 6 miles in 1936. Türkiye, on the other hand, established its territorial waters as 6 miles in the Aegean Sea through a law enacted in 1964. Now, Türkiye does not wish for this agreement to be further undermined. However, Greece is attempting to impose the provisions of the UNCLOS upon Türkiye and to define the boundaries of its maritime jurisdiction upon Türkiye's EGAAYDAK – “Islands, Islets, and Rocks Not Transferred to Greece by the Treaties,” which total 152 in number and are referenced in the Lausanne and Paris Agreements – thereby claiming rights over these features.
ICJ's principle of proportionality
Given that the 1958 Geneva Conventions and the 1982 UNCLOS contain significant legal gaps and have led to disputes in a wide variety of cases, efforts have been made to fill these gaps through the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and ad hoc arbitration tribunals established by states. Greece’s argument is invalid in light of the “equitable principles” outlined in the decisions of the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
While equity is widely accepted as the basis for the delimitation of maritime zones, the case law of the ICJ is of particular importance in this regard. In ICJ jurisprudence, the body of fundamental rules governing equitable delimitation is commonly referred to as “equitable principles.” Because each maritime delimitation dispute arises from its own unique geographical and legal circumstances, the court has refrained from establishing rigid or definitive criteria for boundary delimitation. Instead, equitable principles function as an overarching framework guiding the entire delimitation process.
According to the ICJ, the application of equitable principles must lead to an equitable result. One of the key considerations addressed by the court in this context is the "principle of proportionality." Under this principle, there should be a reasonable relationship between the maritime areas allocated to coastal states through delimitation and the lengths of their respective coastlines. From Türkiye’s perspective, coastline length should be measured primarily on the basis of the mainland coast. Consequently, Türkiye argues that Greece’s reliance on its islands in determining maritime boundaries does not produce an equitable distribution of maritime jurisdiction areas.
Efforts to limit Türkiye
The Sevilla Map, which was prepared and promoted by Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, is regarded by Türkiye as lacking legal validity. By basing its maritime claims on islands rather than the mainland coastline, Greece would, according to the Turkish position, obtain extensive maritime areas in both the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Türkiye further argues that granting full maritime effect to the island of Meis (Kastellorizo), located approximately 580 kilometers from the Greek mainland but only about 2 kilometers from the Turkish coast, and thereby generating a continental shelf claim of roughly 40,000 square kilometers for Greece, would be inconsistent with the principles of equity reflected in international maritime law.
Tensions over maritime jurisdiction between Türkiye and Greece have not been confined to the Aegean Sea but have also intensified in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece’s efforts to limit Türkiye’s maritime activities, together with the Greek Cypriot administration’s 2003 agreement with Egypt, its unilateral declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and its accession to the European Union in 2004, have contributed to the emergence of both Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration as influential regional actors with reach extending into the Levant.
Blue Homeland Law as answer
All these developments have transformed the seas from being merely a matter of fishing, trade and transportation into a matter of sovereignty for Türkiye. The need has therefore arisen to base Türkiye’s policies, previously implemented through scattered legislation beyond its territorial waters, on a coherent framework that defines the principles governing the continental shelf, EEZ and territorial waters.
The Blue Homeland Law, which will be presented to Parliament in a few weeks, is an internal legal regulation, but it will also provide the basis for the effective exercise of sovereignty in the seas. With this law, Türkiye will transition from a strategy of defending the legitimacy of its rights within the boundaries it has defined and declared to a strategy of implementing them in practice.
The legal articulation of Türkiye’s rights in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean will make its sovereignty, jurisdiction and legal authority in these maritime areas more concrete and enduring. Within its maritime zones, Türkiye will have the authority to establish fishing and safety zones, grant hydrocarbon exploration licenses, impose taxes, conduct scientific research, and receive a share of revenues from pipelines passing through these zones. It will also have the authority to impose sanctions in the event of non-compliance.
While Türkiye has previously adopted a reactive policy against Greece’s actions, the institutionalization of Türkiye's maritime zones will enable it to exercise sovereignty within those boundaries. Türkiye will reinforce its military, political and social power in maritime zones through legal frameworks. The Blue Homeland maritime policy, which has been managed through scattered texts and decisions until now, will be consolidated under a single legal framework with this law.
With this law, Türkiye will strengthen its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, pave the way for a fair and legal division in the Aegean, and also resolve the issue of EGAYDAAK. At the same time, it will mark a development that guarantees the international rights of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). This step will solidify the sovereignty of both Türkiye and the TRNC in the Eastern Mediterranean.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/blue-homeland-law-a-new-framework-for-turkiyes-maritime-order
------
Lebanon is the new Palestine: Israeli empire grows day by day
BY AHMED ASMAR
JUN 11, 2026
The world watched Gaza literally burning for two years. It watched children pulled from rubble, hospitals turned into ruins, and entire families erased from civil records. And it did nothing. Now, with the same weapons, the same logic, and the same impunity, Israel has opened a new front, and Lebanon is paying the price for the world’s complicity, or at least, its unjustifiable inaction.
Between March 2 and early June 2026, Israel’s large-scale military offensive in Lebanon killed nearly 3,400 people, injured more than 10,000 others, and caused displacement to over a million civilians – exceeding 20% of Lebanon’s population according to official Lebanese figures. Villages and towns along the southern border have been systematically razed, their residents ordered to flee northward under heavy bombardment, with no safe corridors and no guarantee of return.
This is not a war of self-defense. It is a crystal-clear expansionist aggression designed not to neutralize a military threat as claimed by Israeli leaders, but to redraw the map of southern Lebanon by force, benefiting from the U.S. administration's cover and support, as well as from the weak global reaction.
Same script with new title
The parallels with Gaza are impossible to ignore, and entirely deliberate. In both theaters, Israel has employed the same playbook: indiscriminate bombing of densely populated civilian areas, forced displacement on a massive scale, systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, including the health facilities, and the deliberate silencing of journalists who dare to document the crimes.
On May 31, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to “expand the maneuver in Lebanon,” as Israeli forces seized the strategic Beaufort Castle in their deepest incursion into Lebanese territory in a quarter-century. The Israeli flag was raised above the ancient fortress, reflecting a colonial expansionism that Israeli leaders don’t hide.
This followed Netanyahu’s earlier vow to establish a “security buffer zone” across southern Lebanon, expelling civilians from their homes and rendering vast areas uninhabitable. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly ordered the destruction of civilian homes in depopulated areas and was more audacious in vowing to ethnically cleanse entire Shiite Lebanese communities from southern Lebanon.
This is not an accusation; Katz literally stated “ethnic cleansing” without shame or fear of consequence, as an objective of Israel’s aggression on Lebanon. Imagine if any other leader uttered such a word loudly and clearly.
Documented destruction
The evidence of systematic destruction is overwhelming and filmed by the soldiers themselves. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has described Israel’s actions as a “scorched-earth policy.” The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported that Israeli forces are using explosives and land clearing to level entire residential neighborhoods, infrastructure and key facilities, permanently altering the landscape to make these areas uninhabitable.
This is a punitive strategy, designed to prevent civilians from ever returning. Evacuation orders have been issued for more than 14% of Lebanese territory, covering over 125 villages, in what United Nations investigators say amounts to forced displacement.
The targeting of journalists has been equally systematic. Since October 2023, over 260 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israeli forces, including at least 210 in Gaza and 14 in Lebanon. On March 28, Israeli forces struck a car carrying three journalists in the Jezzine area, killing them while they were covering the Israeli aggression and while they were holding clear marks showing their profession. U.N. experts called these killings “an abominable push by Israel to silence reporting on war crimes committed, just as it did in Gaza.”
And all of this, every bomb, every displacement order, every demolished village, has been backed by the U.S., which continues to provide Israel with all the needed ammunition, intelligence and surveillance technology to continue its genocidal campaign, as well as the diplomatic cover at the U.N. Security Council, where it has vetoed resolutions demanding cease-fires.
Greenlight to kill
None of this would be possible without the world’s complicity, or at least the failure to take proper action that mounts to the chilling level of Israeli criminality and violations. The international community has responded to the Lebanon catastrophe with the same pattern of verbal condemnations that left Gaza to burn for two years.
Euro-Med Monitor has warned that the “global tendency to issue statements of concern and condemnation as mere platitudes, without implementing practical deterrent measures or accountability mechanisms, fosters a culture of systemic impunity.”
The numbers speak for themselves. Since a cease-fire was declared on April 16, brokered by the U.S., more than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli strikes in Lebanon. By May 31, Israel had launched its broadest ground offensive in decades, shattering the cease-fire entirely under the watch of the world.
Cease-fires mean nothing when the party that violates them faces no consequences. When you add to that reality a steady airlift of military support and a diplomatic greenlight to push further, there is no limit to how far Israel can go in its colonial expansionist plans, not only in Lebanon, but across the entire region. Especially when Israeli leaders have already abandoned all moral pretense, and there is no consequence to pay or be afraid of.
The Gaza genocide was a test of whether the international community’s commitment to international law, human rights and the protection of civilians was real or merely rhetorical. The world failed that test, and Lebanon is now paying the price.
What is unfolding in southern Lebanon is not a war of necessity. It is a war of expansion, driven by a revisionist ideology that treats the entire region as Israel’s birthright. The Israeli government is not even trying to hide its aims. They are doing everything blatantly, as they are openly discussing annexation, ethnic cleansing and the permanent displacement of millions of civilians.
The only thing that will stop this Israeli cycle of violence, that will prevent Lebanon from becoming a second Gaza, is real consequences for the perpetrators, such as an arms embargo, sanctions, suspension of trade agreements, and last but not least, referrals to the International Criminal Court. Until the international community is willing to impose those consequences, Israel will continue to escalate. And the next target or front is already being mapped.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/lebanon-is-the-new-palestine-israeli-empire-grows-day-by-day
-----
Between returning to Syria and staying in Türkiye
BY HACI MEHMET BOYRAZ
JUN 11, 2026
According to data from the Presidency of Migration Management (PMM), the number of Syrians under temporary protection in Türkiye was 14,237 in 2012. This number reached 1.5 million in 2014 and peaked at 3.7 million in 2021. However, with the return process that began after Dec.8, 2024, this number has started to decrease. According to the latest figures in 2026, the number of Syrians under temporary protection has fallen to 2.2 million. Despite this, according to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Türkiye is still the country hosting the largest number of Syrians.
There are also Syrians who entered Türkiye illegally. Türkiye has been resolutely fighting this group from day one. According to PMM data, 23,469 Syrian irregular migrants were apprehended in 2021, 45,909 in 2022, 58,621 in 2023, 50,641 in 2024, 22,515 in 2025, and 7,024 in the first five months of 2026. Consequently, Türkiye protects Syrians who have sought refuge legally, while not allowing those who enter the country illegally to pass through.
According to PMM data, the number of Syrians who have returned from Türkiye since 2016 is 1.4 million. This means that nearly 40% of the peak Syrian population in Türkiye in 2021 has returned to Syria. Specifically, the number of those who voluntarily returned after Dec. 8, 2024, is 667,565. If the current political atmosphere in Syria is maintained, it is expected that another 200,000-250,000 Syrians will leave Türkiye and return to their country by the end of this year.
Türkiye, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and within the framework of the government’s resolve, is carrying out the return of Syrians based on the principle of “voluntary, safe, dignified and orderly return.” In other words, contrary to the populist demands of those who use anti-Syrian rhetoric as an instrument, Türkiye has no intention of forcibly sending any Syrians back to their country en masse. Indeed, Erdoğan’s words most clearly reflect the government’s approach on this issue: “We will not make the mistake of forcibly sending anyone back. We will continue to support our Syrian brothers and sisters who wish to contribute to our country.”
Factors behind returns
As a researcher who lived for many years in Esenyurt, a district in Istanbul with a high concentration of Syrians, and had close contact with this community, I can confidently say that the vast majority of Syrians already had a desire to return to their homeland. For this desire to translate into actual return, the establishment of public order and security in Syria was necessary. Currently, it appears that public order and security have been largely re-established in many parts of Syria. Consequently, the main problem regarding return has been largely resolved. Syrians have already begun returning to their country in an environment where the war has ended, their security conditions have relatively improved, and daily life has returned to normal.
In addition to security factors, economic factors also play a decisive role in the return process. The ability of people to sustain their daily lives, along with factors such as housing conditions, job opportunities, local government services, and the vibrancy of the economy in the regions they plan to return to, directly influences their decisions to return. In other words, people want to establish a livable life when they return to their country.
The current Damascus administration is also encouraging the return of Syrians who fled the country due to the war to accelerate the reconstruction process. However, for returns to be sustainable and on a massive scale, it depends not only on political will but also on the permanent establishment of security conditions and the fulfillment of the basic needs of the returning population, such as housing, health, education and employment. The faster these expectations are met, the faster the return process of Syrians will proceed.
Furthermore, it is important not to overlook the fact that some Syrians have been living in Türkiye for a long time and have integrated into Turkish society to some extent. There is a large group of them who have established businesses, entered the workforce, married, formed social networks, and sent their children to school in Türkiye. Therefore, the course of the return process depends on the quality of social and economic life in Türkiye.
Voluntary, safe, dignified return
In the matter of sending Syrians back, it is necessary not to disregard fundamental principles of international law. As is known, Türkiye is among the countries that are parties to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. The principle of “non-refoulement” in the convention prohibits the forced return of people to areas where their lives or freedoms are at risk. This principle, which has become part of international customary law, concerns all foreigners who may face the risk of human rights violations. In addition to the convention, Article 4 of the Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, which has been in force since 2013, also prohibits the return of those who have sought refuge in Türkiye. Therefore, the mass and forced return of Syrians would raise serious legal concerns. For this reason, as mentioned above, Türkiye is striving for the voluntary return of Syrians to their country.
If the political and institutional transition in Syria becomes permanent, it is possible for the readmission agreement signed between Türkiye and Syria in 2001 to become operational again. For this to happen, the legal framework of the temporary protection regime in Türkiye needs to be restructured. Currently, as explained above, the mass repatriation of Syrians under temporary protection is not legally feasible. However, if the temporary protection status is gradually terminated or its scope is narrowed, some Syrians remaining in Türkiye may fall into the category of irregular migrants. In this case, reactivating the readmission mechanism and creating the legal infrastructure for the return of Syrians who have become irregular migrants to their country could theoretically become possible.
Syrian workforce needs
It is incorrect to assume that all Syrians in Türkiye will return for two reasons. First, some Syrians have already obtained Turkish citizenship. Contrary to disinformation campaigns claiming that “millions of Syrians have been granted citizenship,” the latest data from the Ministry of the Interior indicate that 238,768 Syrians have obtained Turkish citizenship while under temporary protection. Therefore, there is no legal obstacle preventing approximately 250,000 Syrians from remaining in Türkiye.
Second, there is a genuine need for Syrian labor in certain sectors in Türkiye. Syrians employed in the textile, construction, agriculture and low-cost manufacturing sectors, in particular, have become a factor that partially compensates for the shortage of low-skilled and semi-skilled labor that has existed in the labor market for many years. Indeed, some business representatives and sectoral organizations have explicitly stated that the sudden and mass departure of Syrians from the country could increase production costs, deepen the skilled labor crisis, and create labor shortages in certain areas. Given this reality, there is no logic in evaluating the situation of Syrians in Türkiye solely through the lens of migration and security or as a simple dichotomy of “they should leave” versus “they should stay.”
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/between-returning-to-syria-and-staying-in-turkiye
-----
The Mladenov distraction: Behind the screen, Netanyahu is annexing Gaza ‘step-by-step’
June 10, 2026
by Dr Ramzy Baroud
Gaza requires urgent international attention.
What is happening in the besieged and devastated Strip at the moment by far exceeds an unfolding humanitarian disaster; it is a calculated geopolitical reshaping. Israel is actively executing a plan to permanently occupy the vast majority of Gaza, with consequences that require little elaboration considering what we already know about the ongoing genocide.
Currently, much of the international debate centers on a single official: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov. The former United Nations Special Coordinator has been designated by the United States as the Executive Director of the Trump administration’s newly established ‘Board of Peace’—an international council founded to oversee the implementation of Washington’s 20-point Gaza roadmap.
Under the framework, the official transition to this second phase—which Trump and the Board of Peace declared to have begun in January 2026—demands sweeping, one-sided Palestinian concessions, most notably the total disarmament of armed factions.
This demand is a recipe for the failure of the entire project, especially given that Israel has completely failed to implement the most basic requirements of the agreement’s first phase. It has refused to halt its routine military incursions, has failed to withdraw its forces to the originally mandated ‘Yellow Line‘ demarcation, and continues to deny entry permits to the technocratic committee slated to assume civil governance of the Strip.
In reality, Mladenov holds no real cards; he is merely a cog in a larger machinery controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace roadmap, planning instead for the permanent, incremental takeover of Gaza.
Speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement on May 28, Netanyahu explained his strategy with total clarity, abandoning all diplomatic doublespeak: “We are currently squeezing Hamas; we now control 60% of the territory of the Strip—you know this. We were at 50, we moved to 60. My directive is to move to…” he said, pausing as an audience member shouted “100!”
Netanyahu smiled and responded: “Let’s go step by step. First of all, 70. Let’s start with that. We’re pressing them from all sides, we’ll deal with the remnants.”
This is the actual blueprint of the Israeli government, declared openly to domestic audiences. The admission was so brazen that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s candor. Testifying before Congress on June 2, Rubio remarked, “We have a plan—it doesn’t call for that,” referring to further Israeli territorial expansion.
Yet, Rubio quickly reverted to Washington’s standard line: “And at the end of the day, we understand that what we want, and I think what the Israelis would ultimately want, is a Gaza that is governed by a non-Hamas entity.”
While the immediate priority for Palestinians is not governance but life-saving food, clean water, medicine, and basic survival, Netanyahu and Rubio view the entire crisis through a political lens.
A rare, decisive answer came from United Nations spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, who summed up the UN position plainly: “One hundred percent of Gaza should be for the Palestinian people.” The problem, however, is that the UN’s rhetoric is backed by no real enforcement mechanisms.
The international community has walked directly into a trap, outsourcing the future of the Gaza Strip to the Trump administration and its Board of Peace. Even the designated technocratic committee has been rendered entirely irrelevant, excluded from a decision-making process left solely to diplomats beholden to the White House.
The situation on the ground remains catastrophic. Since the fragile, heavily compromised ceasefire took effect on October 10, regular Israeli violations and airstrikes have killed nearly 1,000 Palestinians and wounded thousands more—the vast majority women and children. When added to the horrific toll of the initial two years of war, the official number of Palestinians killed has surpassed 73,000, with over 173,000 injured.
Furthermore, credible epidemiological studies and medical journals have concluded that the true death toll is vastly higher.
With nearly the entire population of Gaza living in sub-standard tents and surviving on the meager rations permitted through Israeli checkpoints, it is the highest form of immorality to demand political concessions in exchange for basic sustenance.
Netanyahu’s “step-by-step” annexation does not hinge on what Palestinian factions decide to do; his expansionist timeline is shaped independently of Palestinian compliance.
Arab, Muslim, and allied nations must fundamentally shift their diplomatic strategy. They must firmly insist on completely delinking humanitarian aid from the future governance or demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.
The international community must remind Israel’s government that the survival of millions of Palestinians cannot be held hostage to the political ambitions of an extremist coalition.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260610-the-mladenov-distraction-behind-the-screen-netanyahu-is-annexing-gaza-step-by-step/
-----
Iran’s missile diplomacy and its collapse of credibility
HANI HAZAIMEH
June 10, 2026
As indirect negotiations between Iran and the US drift without any sign of a resolution, Tehran’s continued missile and drone strikes against Kuwait and Bahrain expose a pattern that is increasingly difficult to disguise as anything other than strategic failure. What is unfolding is not leverage or bargaining power. It is the erosion of diplomatic credibility disguised as regional aggression.
Iran appears to be operating under the illusion that pressure can be manufactured through the targeting of sovereign Arab states that have neither declared hostility nor sought confrontation. This approach is fundamentally self-defeating. Rather than strengthening its hand in negotiations, Tehran is undermining the conditions required for any sustainable agreement. The message it is sending is not one of deterrence but of unpredictability and coercion.
The idea that attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain could somehow translate into concessions from Washington reflects a deeply flawed reading of how diplomacy functions. Negotiations, particularly those of this magnitude, are not advanced through the punishment of third parties. They are advanced through restraint, reciprocity and political maturity. What Iran is demonstrating is the opposite: an escalating reliance on force as a substitute for coherent diplomatic strategy.
The Gulf Cooperation Council states have consistently made their position clear. They are not parties to the Iran-US confrontation and they have not sought to escalate it. On the contrary, the region has repeatedly expressed support for a political settlement that ends the cycle of escalation and restores stability. Yet Iran’s conduct deliberately drags these states into the line of fire, treating their sovereignty as expendable collateral in a broader geopolitical confrontation.
This is not strategy. It is strategic distortion.
The repeated violation of Kuwait and Bahrain’s sovereignty represents a dangerous precedent in regional security. It signals that internationally recognized borders and civilian infrastructure can be instrumentalized for external bargaining. That logic, if allowed to persist, does not create leverage — it destroys trust, deepens insecurity and guarantees long-term regional realignment against Iran’s interests.
More importantly, this approach reveals a narrowing of options in Tehran’s decision-making. States that rely on coercive escalation against nonbelligerents are rarely projecting strength; they are exposing constraint. Resorting to such tactics suggests that diplomatic channels are either insufficiently understood or insufficiently valued within Iran’s current strategic calculus.
However, the consequences of this approach will not be temporary. While crises in the Middle East often move through phases of escalation and partial stabilization, the political memory of direct attacks on national territory is far more enduring. Kuwait and Bahrain will not interpret these events as isolated incidents. They will be recorded as structural shifts in threat perception, shaping defense policies and alliances long after any temporary ceasefire is reached elsewhere.
This is the long-term cost Iran appears to be ignoring. Even if a political settlement is eventually achieved between Tehran and Washington, the regional environment will not reset to its previous state. Trust, once broken through repeated violations of sovereignty, is not easily restored. Security doctrines in the Gulf will evolve accordingly and Iran will find itself facing a more consolidated and cautious regional posture.
There is also a broader irony that cannot be overlooked. Iran frequently presents itself as a power resisting external domination and advocating regional independence. Yet its actions against neighboring Arab states contradict this narrative by reproducing the very logic of coercion it claims to oppose. Sovereignty, if it is to mean anything, cannot be selectively recognized depending on political convenience.
At its core, the current trajectory reflects a contradiction that cannot be sustained indefinitely: the simultaneous pursuit of negotiations with one hand and coercive escalation with the other. These are not complementary tools of statecraft. They are mutually destructive when applied against sovereign states that are not part of the negotiating equation.
The continued reliance on this dual-track approach risks isolating Iran not only from Western negotiating frameworks but also from the regional environment it depends on for long-term stability and economic integration. No state can indefinitely externalize its internal strategic pressures onto its neighbors without generating cumulative diplomatic costs.
If there is any path toward de-escalation, it will require abandoning the notion that regional stability can be manipulated as a bargaining chip. The Gulf is not an auxiliary theater for external negotiations. It is a region with its own security architecture, its own sovereignty and its own political thresholds.
Ultimately, Iran faces a narrowing strategic horizon. It can either recalibrate its approach toward genuine diplomacy grounded in respect for sovereignty or continue down a path on which each act of escalation further erodes its room for maneuver. What it cannot do is sustain both simultaneously.
Until that reality is acknowledged, the cycle will continue: talks without trust and escalation without restraint. And in that cycle, it is not only diplomacy that suffers — but also the credibility of any actor that confuses pressure with policy.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2646699
-----
A New Economic Front: Yemen’s Entrance to Regional War against US-Israeli Alliance
June 11, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh
During the Ramadan War earlier this year, Yemen’s Ansarallah’s role was notably limited – a move that is now turning out to have been strategic. The Yemeni Armed Forces now have the potential to tighten the noose of the global economy if the US-Israeli-UAE alliance seeks to escalate its war of aggression regionally.
When the Islamic Republic of Iran imposed a new equation by striking Israeli military targets in response to the bombing of southern Beirut, it did so with a carefully calibrated plan that continued after the initial 15-hour missile exchange. That is being done through the implementation of Yemen’s blockade in the Red Sea.
What has effectively just occurred is the re-imposition of the blockade in support of the Gaza Strip, which was in place until October 8, 2025. Originally, the closure of the consequential sea route – that passes through the Bab al-Mandab Strait and leads up to the Egyptian Suez Canal – was imposed on the Israelis alone. That was before the US and its European allies decided to launch naval campaigns in support of Tel Aviv.
In December of 2023, the US Biden administration launched the failed “Operation Prosperity Guardian”, which cost the American taxpayer roughly $600 million per month alone. Periodically, the intensity of the operations would increase, bringing on greater costs, yet the efforts were just an enormous waste of funds, achieving precisely nothing. During this period, Israel’s Eilat Port went bankrupt and economic strain destroyed countless Israeli businesses.
Fast forward to March of 2025, US President Donald Trump decided to step things up a notch and initiated “Operation Rough Rider” against Yemen. The Trump administration pledged to destroy Ansarallah, using B-2 Bombers to target sites believed to be storing missiles and drones – which failed to properly penetrate the bases. In the first three weeks alone, the US had spent a minimum of over $1 billion on the embarrassing operation, which was solely launched for Israeli interests. By the end of it, including equipment losses/damage, the cost was in the billions.
Yemen’s Ansarallah established an equation whereby they could strike Tel Aviv with ballistic missiles and drones, while maintaining the blockade, even preventing US ships from passing following their intervention, with the only response being airstrikes on civilian targets.
Due to a clear lack of intelligence information on the ground inside Yemen, Israel’s occasional strikes on Yemen eventually became too much of a logistical nightmare to continuously conduct. They had to accept that there was no way to stop the Yemeni Armed Forces.
Following the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, Ansarallah was expected to play a much larger role in the conflict than it did, only firing a handful of missiles towards Israeli targets. Tel Aviv didn’t even respond to these attacks, as they were overburdened already with fighting both Iran and Hezbollah simultaneously.
It could be argued that the Yemen card was never truly played during the hot war itself. Now that the card is on the table. The Strait of Hormuz has been on lockdown since the start of March, the economic fallout of which has not yet been truly felt, but is beginning to take effect. Through Ansarallah’s new step, reimposing its blockade on Israeli shipping, another lever has been turned.
If the war continues escalating, it will be simple for Ansarallah to completely close the Bab al-Mandab Strait, meaning that all trade will have to be conducted without the Suez Canal. In order for cargo to reach Europe, it will have to go all the way around the African continent instead. This will mean economic devastation if the situation is not quickly reversed.
What is perhaps the most troubling part for the US Trump administration and its allies is that there is absolutely nothing they can do about it militarily. On top of this, the entire world will be feeling the effects of a war launched entirely for Israeli interests, with no real game plan at all, and all because the man in the White House couldn’t summon the strength to tell the Israelis: No!
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-new-economic-front-yemens-entrance-to-regional-war-against-us-israeli-alliance/
------
‘Erasing Anything Palestinian’: Amnesty Details Ethnic Cleansing of Bedouin Villages
June 10, 2026
‘Erasing Anything Palestinian’
Amnesty International has accused Israel of carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Palestinian Bedouin and herding communities in the occupied West Bank, arguing that state-backed settler violence, forced displacement, settlement expansion and discriminatory policies form part of a deliberate strategy to annex large areas of Palestinian territory.
The findings are contained in a major new report titled “Erasing Anything Palestinian: Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing of West Bank Bedouin and Herding Communities,” which examines developments across ‘Area C’ of the occupied West Bank between January 2023 and April 2026.
According to Amnesty, the campaign has targeted some of the most vulnerable Palestinian communities in the occupied territory, particularly Bedouin and herding populations whose livelihoods depend on access to grazing lands and agricultural areas.
The report opens with testimony from Muntasir al-Maliki, a resident of Kufr Malik, who described the reality facing Palestinian communities under increasing settler pressure.
“What is happening right now is [the] erasure of humans, trees and stones, and anything that is Palestinian, by settlers under the support of the military,” he said.
Amnesty argues that what is taking place is not a series of isolated incidents but part of a coordinated effort aimed at permanently altering the demographic and geographic character of large parts of the occupied West Bank.
Not ‘Rogue Settlers’
One of the report’s central findings is the rejection of claims that settler violence is primarily the work of fringe groups or individual extremists.
“The report also demonstrates – contrary to what too many in the international community suggest – that the campaign is not the product of ‘rogue’ settlers, settlers’ organizations or ‘extremist’ government ministers,” Amnesty writes.
“In other words, settler violence is not an aberration but an integral part of an organized state policy.”
According to Amnesty’s findings, Israeli authorities have increasingly enabled settler violence through political support, financial backing, legal protection and direct cooperation between settlers and state institutions.
The organization argues that under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition government, settler violence has become a key mechanism for removing Palestinians from strategic areas while facilitating settlement expansion.
Amnesty says the process intensified dramatically after October 2023, when global attention shifted toward Gaza.
“While most global attention focused on Gaza,” the report states, “Israel intensified its abusive policies and practices against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with government officials openly encouraging and supporting settler attacks.”
A Record Number of Displacements
The report documents what Amnesty describes as an unprecedented wave of forced displacement.
According to data cited from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 117 predominantly Bedouin and herding communities experienced either full or partial displacement between January 2023 and April 2026.
In total, approximately 5,910 Palestinians were forced from their homes during that period.
Most of the affected communities are located in Area C, which comprises more than 60 percent of the occupied West Bank and remains under full Israeli military and administrative control.
Amnesty argues that these displacements did not occur spontaneously. Instead, it says, they were produced through a combination of settlement expansion, home demolitions, movement restrictions, denial of building permits, attacks on livelihoods and sustained settler violence.
The organization found that Palestinians who attempted to return to their lands often encountered renewed attacks, destroyed infrastructure or newly established settler outposts.
Annexation as Government Policy
A major portion of the report focuses on what Amnesty describes as Israel’s accelerating annexation agenda.
According to the organization, the formation of Netanyahu’s coalition government in December 2022 marked a turning point in both the speed and scale of annexation-oriented policies.
The report argues that the government openly embraced the ideological vision of “Greater Israel” and introduced a series of measures designed to consolidate Israeli control over Area C while reducing Palestinian presence.
Amnesty points to coalition agreements, legislative initiatives and public statements by senior officials as evidence of this strategy.
Among the most notable examples cited is a September 2025 statement by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who announced plans to annex 82 percent of the West Bank and said the guiding principle should be “maximum land, minimum Arab population.”
The report also highlights repeated declarations by senior Israeli officials asserting exclusive Jewish claims over the occupied territory and advocating expanded settlement construction.
According to Amnesty, these policies are not merely rhetorical but have been accompanied by sweeping institutional changes designed to accelerate annexation on the ground.
Settlement Expansion Surges
The report documents a dramatic increase in settlement activity under the current government.
Between 2023 and 2025, Israeli authorities promoted plans for 50,785 settlement housing units across the occupied West Bank.
In 2025 alone, nearly 28,000 units were approved, the highest annual figure ever recorded.
At the same time, Palestinian construction was effectively frozen.
According to Amnesty, no Palestinian housing plans were approved in Area C during 2023 or 2024, while permits were issued for only nine housing units.
Israeli authorities also demolished 3,407 Palestinian homes and structures between January 2023 and April 2026, displacing nearly 3,000 Palestinians.
Meanwhile, settlement outposts expanded at a historic pace.
By April 2026, Israeli settlers had established 363 outposts throughout the occupied West Bank.
Of those, 212 were created under the current government.
Amnesty notes that Israeli authorities retroactively legalized dozens of previously unauthorized outposts while creating a total of 102 new settlements—more than any previous Israeli government.
The Case of Zanuta
Amnesty uses several case studies to illustrate how displacement unfolds on the ground, with the village of Zanuta serving as its primary example.
For generations, residents of Zanuta relied on farming, herding and dairy production. Located in Area C, the community became increasingly surrounded by settlements and outposts.
The report focuses particularly on Meitarim Farm, an outpost established near the village in 2021.
According to Amnesty, settlers from the outpost launched a sustained campaign of intimidation and violence against residents.
The attacks included arson, physical assaults, destruction of homes and infrastructure, contamination of farmland, attacks on livestock and repeated threats demanding that villagers leave.
Residents repeatedly reported these incidents to Israeli authorities but said no meaningful action was taken.
The situation escalated further after October 2023 when settlers, accompanied by Israeli forces, allegedly threatened residents and warned them to leave.
The community eventually fled.
Although Israel’s Supreme Court later ordered authorities to facilitate the villagers’ return, Amnesty says those rulings were ignored.
When residents attempted to return, they encountered renewed violence and obstruction.
By 2025, Amnesty concluded, Zanuta had effectively ceased to exist as a functioning Palestinian community.
Violence Against Livelihoods
A recurring theme throughout the report is the systematic targeting of Palestinian livelihoods.
Amnesty says settlers routinely attack grazing areas, destroy crops, steal livestock and restrict access to water sources.
The organization documented numerous incidents in which settlers entered Palestinian agricultural land, damaged fields and prevented herders from reaching traditional grazing areas.
One particularly severe incident occurred in July 2025 when settlers reportedly stole between 180 and 200 sheep from a Palestinian community in the Jordan Valley and killed at least 120 of them.
The report argues that such attacks are designed not merely to intimidate residents but to make continued life in these communities impossible.
As access to land and water shrinks, many families are forced to abandon traditional livelihoods and ultimately leave their homes.
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
Amnesty’s legal conclusions are among the strongest in the report.
The organization states that the evidence demonstrates the commission of the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer, as well as the crime against humanity of forcible transfer or deportation.
It argues that the displacement campaign is part of a broader effort to remove Palestinian communities from strategic areas while facilitating settlement growth.
Although “ethnic cleansing” is not a standalone crime under international law, Amnesty says the term accurately describes a deliberate policy aimed at removing a population from specific geographic areas through violence, intimidation and coercion.
The organization further argues that these developments are taking place within the context of Israel’s system of apartheid and unlawful occupation.
Calls for International Action
The report concludes with a sharp criticism of international responses to date.
Amnesty argues that governments have largely failed to confront the structural nature of settler violence, instead treating incidents as isolated acts committed by a handful of extremists.
According to the organization, such approaches obscure what it describes as a state-backed project of displacement and annexation.
Amnesty is calling on governments to impose sanctions on individuals and entities involved in maintaining settlements, halt activities linked to the occupation, restrict trade connected to settlements and increase diplomatic protection for Palestinian communities at risk of displacement.
“The measures taken so far have mischaracterized settler violence as an aberration,” the report states, rather than recognizing it as “a central, state-sanctioned component of an ethnic cleansing campaign.”
For Amnesty, the findings leave little room for ambiguity.
The organization concludes that the removal of Palestinian Bedouin and herding communities from Area C is not an unintended consequence of conflict but a deliberate policy designed to reshape the occupied West Bank and entrench Israeli control over the territory.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/erasing-anything-palestinian-amnesty-report-details-ethnic-cleansing-of-bedouin-communities/
------
Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer
June 10, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh
Iran’s ballistic missile response to Israel’s attack on Beirut is a game-changer for the power dynamics of West Asian politics. The ‘Unity of Squares’ concept has officially led to a NATO-style defense pact developing between the members of the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to strike the southern suburbs of Beirut last Monday, the immediate threat issued by the leadership in Tehran forced him to take a step back. Ultimately, the US and Israel would delay the implementation of the decision to attack the Lebanese Capital, then suffering an overwhelming response that outperformed expectations.
The first detail to consider here is that the mere threat of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launching strikes on Israeli targets forced Tel Aviv and Washington to take a step back, meaning that both de facto admitted that Tehran maintains deterrence power. Then came the Israeli strike on the southern suburbs this Sunday, which was extremely limited and nothing of the nature of what Netanyahu had originally advertised.
A weak strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which had no actual impact on Hezbollah whatsoever, indicates that the US-Israeli alliance acted in order to save face, seeking to test Iran’s resolve, but also to leave space for it to retreat from all-out war.
Following Iran’s missile waves, which struck Ramat David Airbase – according to satellite imagery evidence – the Israelis decided to launch an attack on Iran. Although they did target at least three radar sites and a petrochemical company, amongst other targets, it was clear that the Israeli attack was lackluster; designed primarily to give them the veneer of having risen to confront the IRGC. No Iranians were killed in the Israeli attack, and the majority of the sites hit were previously struck during the 40-day war earlier this year.
It was clear that the IRGC had prepared for the Israeli counter-strike, not only unleashing an attack of its own on Israeli companies and military sites in response but also coordinating its retaliatory action with Yemen’s Ansarallah.
As the Israelis were playing catch-up, the Iranians were implementing a carefully calibrated phase two of their promised retaliation to Israel’s attack on Beirut– that being the inclusion of new fronts. The IRGC had previously warned Tel Aviv that the war would expand to other fronts; the Yemeni Armed Forces achieved precisely this.
Ansarallah has declared that the Bab al-Mandab Strait is now closed to Israeli shipping, returning to the equation imposed in support of Gaza until October of 2025, when the ceasefire was signed. Yemen then went a step further and vowed to totally close Bab al-Mandab, should the war escalate further. This would represent an enormous economic blow to the global economy, considering the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The concept of the ‘Unity of Squares’ was originally developed by former Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, and before him Iran’s former IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. In essence, it was the idea of linking all of the fronts of the Axis of Resistance so that none would stand alone. On October 8, 2023, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah put this into action by immediately intervening on the side of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Soon thereafter, Ansarallah would follow, and to a lesser extent, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.
Israel had long bragged that its assassination of Nasrallah had broken this Unity of Squares dynamic, because Hezbollah was forced into accepting a less-than-favorable ceasefire in late 2024. It was because of Nasrallah’s refusal to abandon Gaza “no matter where it takes the region”, that Tel Aviv had decided to kill him. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the former Hezbollah leader quite literally gave his life for Gaza.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s quest to achieve “total victory” in his 7-front war has not proven successful, but one major step towards that was managing to break the idea of the Unity of Squares. Through Iran’s actions this Sunday, that “success” was just undone.
The IRGC has also recently been insisting that Gaza be included in their ceasefire agreement, something that a number of statements released by Hamas also appear to be indicating will be the case. If the Islamic Republic does impose its will on the US-Israeli alliance by setting in stone the equation that an attack on one is an attack on all, the Unity of Squares equation will be imposed fully, as it was originally intended. In the past, it was never fully implemented because of Iran’s absence as a front that could easily open.
The implications of this equation coming to life are that the Iranian-led Axis will undoubtedly be the most powerful alliance in the region. Not because they necessarily possess the most firepower and capabilities, but because they will together be able to cut off key international chokepoints, while battering their adversaries in a way that can achieve strategic deterrence.
It should be noted that this is a direct result of the US-Israeli failure in their war of aggression to achieve any of their goals. Instead of weakening Tehran, their reckless aggression and arrogance may have just undone the tactical victories they previously achieved, pushing Iran into the position that many previously argued it should have assumed sooner after October 7, 2023. Unless Tel Aviv and Washington find a way to reverse this, this will represent a major historic shift in regional power dynamics.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/why-irans-retaliation-for-israels-attack-on-beirut-is-a-regional-game-changer/
------
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