Middle East Press On: Turkey, Trump's US-Israel War on Iran, Netanyahu's Hexagon, Who Is Alireza Arafi, Gaza to Minab, Israeli War on Children Expands, New Age Islam's Selection, 02 March 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
02 March 2026
On reactionary secularism in Türkiye
Trump and Netanyahu’s survival depends on this war
Trump’s US-Israel war on Iran is denounced abroad, unconstitutional at home
Netanyahu’s hexagon of alliances may remain a dream
What Happens If the War on Iran Drags On for a Month? – Analysis
PROFILE – Who Is Alireza Arafi, The Qom Cleric Guiding Iran’s Interim Leadership
From Gaza to Minab: The Israeli War on Children Expands
Day 2 of the US–Israeli War on Iran: Assassination and Aftermath
------
On reactionary secularism in Türkiye
BY NEBI MIŞ
MAR 02, 2026
Just before the month of Ramadan, a "secularism declaration" was published. The published text contained every form of expression oriented toward othering, hostilization and polarization, a continuation of the "reactionary secularist" mentality. There is no obstacle preventing those who published this declaration from doing whatever they wish in their social and individual lives in the public sphere. Nor is there any "religious pressure" threatening the lifestyles of those who signed the declaration.
Secularism has not regressed in Türkiye. But the exclusionary, Jacobin understanding of secularism has receded. The end of uniformist practices in the public sphere, the lifting of restrictions on the headscarf, and the normalization of religious education do not constitute a regression of secularism, as some would have it. This is the democratization of a genuine understanding of secularism.
What truly troubles those who initiated the secularism debate is not so much defending secularism, but rather the dismantling of the oppressive hegemony they had established over religious and conservative segments of society. In truth, they cannot tolerate the lifting of pressure on the broad conservative masses. They are furiously angry at the end of their privileges and at being equalized with conservative religious segments. They cannot get over this trauma of equalization. These circles long for the days when secularism was used as a tool of oppression and when they themselves were privileged. This is what underlies all their delirious nostalgia for the 1990s.
The circles supporting this declaration advocate concepts like freedom, justice and respect for lifestyles only for themselves. They have no appetite for the democratization of the political sphere, pluralism or the narrowing of the privileged classes' domains of privilege.
While on the one hand claiming that their lifestyles are under threat, they readily advocate the restriction of others' freedoms. For instance, while expressing concern that restrictions might be imposed on their own lifestyles, they oppose working in government with a headscarf, even in this era.
These circles had no tolerance not just for working in government, but even for receiving an education while wearing a headscarf. They still don't. Consequently, they love prohibitionism. If it is prohibitionist in practice, that is what "real secularism" means to them.
The purpose behind their launching of the secularism debate is political. They have never, from the past to the present, liked it when parties supported by nationalist, conservative and religious segments come to power. This is the best learned method of fighting against them. The regime and secularism debate is functional for them in this sense. In past Ramadan months as well, they always expressed these reactions with similar perspectives and hate speech. Therefore, there has been continuity for a very long time. There is nothing new. They find a way to display their anger toward conservative circles.
For example, their analysis regarding the Democrat Party (DP) government in the second half of the 1950s and former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, and his supporters goes like this: "Radio was used as the primary instrument of this exploitation. For 30 days, a program featuring the Quran, the call to prayer, and the reed flute was broadcast on the microphone. Mawlid ceremonies were transmitted from mosques. Some of these were mawlids organized by one or another branch of the DP. Naturally, once the state itself adopted this path and the radio loudspeaker was turned into a minaret loudspeaker, every bigot there went wild."
In other words, the aim is not to defend genuine secularism.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/on-reactionary-secularism-in-turkiye
------
Trump and Netanyahu’s survival depends on this war
BY HAKKI ÖCAL
MAR 01, 2026
Did you watch U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address? Actually, it was the "State of Trump" address, depicting a United States president spoiling for a fight, a fight not to get impeached and removed from office. It was pathetic.
He has been trying to save his neck from this political guillotine. Trump, seeking executive power over elections, has been urging his staff to find a way to declare an emergency to postpone the midterm elections. His goons say they are coordinating with the White House to draft an executive order that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.
But, at the expense of many innocent civilians’ and U.S. troops’ lives, he took the shortcut to create an emergency. Should the U.S. become the target of a nuclear assault and the infrastructure necessary to hold a fair and free election be totally demolished, then any president might rightfully postpone the election. But no! Trump’s push for election power to subvert the midterms needed a created reality.
For weeks, there were staged indirect talks with the Iranians. Before the talks began, Israeli Prime Minister and a wanted criminal Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to Washington and set the stage to create that necessary reality: Keep talking to the Iranians, and meanwhile stockpiling weapons enough to destroy not one, but several countries simultaneously.
Netanyahu also needs to postpone (or get a presidential pardon from) the court case about the indictment of accepting bribes and fraud. A war, real or phony, a war which could save him from court in that disgraceful offense case that will lead him to legally relinquish all political portfolios, including than prime minister. The Gaza war has been providing him that opportunity, but Trump’s so-called Peace Deal took it away. So, Trump and Netanyahu needed that nonexistent emergency, which could help Trump cancel the midterms, and Netanyahu to postpone his court date.
When a sick mind needs excuses for some sinister purpose, it tries to create them. In the gaming world, it is called “augmented reality,” also known as mixed reality, a form of 3D human-computer interaction that overlays real-time 3D-rendered computer graphics into the real world through a display, such as a handheld device or head-mounted display. You know, kids wear those googles while playing video games. But in the political game world, you cannot put googles on every citizen, but they depict a picture of the “threat from Iran” that doesn’t exist.
We (actually, French Sociologist Jean Baudrillard does) call such a situation “simulacrum,” a fake version of something real. With the help of Zionists, Trump created multiple mimeographs of "the enemy" like a wax museum full of simulacra of famous people, effigies, images of things that don’t exist in reality. He said Iran is about to have nuclear capability, a lie that Netanyahu has been repeating for more than three decades. He added another “simulacrum” to Netanyahu’s simulation of reality: Iran is about to have missiles capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.
Now, thanks to Netanyahu, Trump is about to save himself from a possible removal from the White House. He can have executive power over elections, he’ll declare an emergency, and cancel the midterms. Does this scenario sound realistic to you? French sociologist Jean Baudrillard invites our attention to the significations and symbolism of culture and media in our age. Those constructs are perceived as reality; our modern-time understanding of human life and shared existence makes them legible.
Please think of the representation of an America simulated by several individual images such as the Kennedy Center board voting to rename the center as The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, or the State Department’s announcement that the U.S. Peace institute had been renamed the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, or a banner featuring a photo of Trump and the words “Make America Safe Again” hung from the Justice Department building. That department had brought criminal charges against him to be impeached twice. Are those feisty simulacra created by such moves realistic or not?
There is no dictatorship in America in reality, yet, but the image is so real that in its 250th year, America, the land of immigration, is about to become a country of emigration. Since Trump took office for the second time, something that had not happened since the 1930s, the Great Depression years, happened: More American people moved out than immigrants moved in. The Trump administration has welcomed the negative net migration as its major achievement to “Make America Great Again.” The reality is not America becoming great again. American citizens are leaving that Great Country in record numbers.
Now, the U.S. military is beginning “major combat operations” against an enemy that “directly endangers the United States.” When you create your own facts, you don’t need truth. The difference between the high probability of agreement in the indirect talks in Geneva and the “potential U.S. casualties” which will be shipped in flag-draped caskets is the asymmetry between a simulacra and reality.
Jean Baudrillard refers to Disneyland as an example of hyperreality. Trump created “absolutely realistic” images, but they were just simulations of physical reality. But the thousands of innocent victims in Iran and other Middle East countries might not be simulation.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/trump-and-netanyahus-survival-depends-on-this-war
-----
Trump’s US-Israel war on Iran is denounced abroad, unconstitutional at home
March 1, 2026
By Wan Naim Wan Mansor
While President Trump cast the opening salvo against Iran as an act of defence—insisting the strikes were necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime”—the scale of what followed shattered any claim of limited protection.
The world awoke not only to the martyrdom of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but to a region in flames. Tehran stands scarred by smoke and fire. In retaliation for the US–Israeli assault, ballistic missiles and drones have crossed the Arabian Peninsula, striking across Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Air defenses have been activated over Doha and Abu Dhabi. Civil aviation has been disrupted. What was presented in Washington as defensive necessity has already metastasized into a widening Middle Eastern war.
Trump’s own language reveals the scale of ambition. He has vowed to “destroy their missiles,” “raze their missile industry to the ground,” and “annihilate the navy,” promising Iran’s military capacity will be “totally…obliterated.” That is not the vocabulary of neutralising a discrete threat. It is the language of dismantling a sovereign state’s strategic infrastructure.
Under American law, that distinction is decisive.
The American Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress. The president serves as commander in chief once war is authorized. The framers separated these roles deliberately. They understood how swiftly executive urgency can become executive war. By requiring legislative consent, they ensured that the gravest decision a republic can make would rest on collective judgment rather than unilateral resolve.
Obviously, a president may repel a sudden attack or respond to a truly imminent danger. But crippling another state’s missile forces, targeting its naval capacity and participating in the killing of its supreme leader is not a fleeting defensive manoeuvre. It is sustained hostilities and a deliberate act of war.
If Congress has not enacted a specific Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iran, then this campaign lacks constitutional grounding. The post-9/11 and Iraq-era authorizations were crafted for distinct enemies and distinct conflicts. To stretch them indefinitely into new theaters transforms them into permanent war licenses—precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Opposition in Washington reflects that concern. Senator Tim Kaine has called the strikes unconstitutional due to absence of congressional approval. Senator Chuck Schumer has demanded immediate clarification of the legal basis. Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have invoked the War Powers Resolution to restrict further escalation without legislative consent. The underlying principle is straightforward: no president may initiate a new war alone.
The measures affected more than $300 billion in imports and generated tens of billions in tariff revenue that businesses later challenged as unlawfully imposed. Portions were reversed. Refund claims followed. Constitutional error in trade policy proved costly and embarrassing—but it was financially reversible. War is not.
The consequences now unfolding across the Gulf cannot be recalculated on a balance sheet. Sovereign states that did not authorize this confrontation now find missiles crossing their skies. Energy corridors face instability. Regional escalation risks multiplying beyond original intent. Once hostilities spread, they acquire their own momentum.
If mediation efforts through Oman had indeed been advancing—as publicly affirmed by Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, who stated that a peace deal between Washington and Tehran was “within reach”—then the timing of this strike raises an even more troubling question. Was this truly about averting imminent danger to Americans, or was it a desperate attempt to cater to Israel’s strategic interests and the violent expansionist doctrine embraced by its most hardline leadership? An American president is not empowered to launch transformational war in service of another state’s ideological ambitions. In such circumstances, congressional authorization is not merely prudent; it is constitutionally indispensable.
The constitutional structure exists precisely because war is irreversible. Legislative debate forces clarity about objectives, limits and exit strategies. It compels public accountability. It binds the nation collectively to the costs that follow. When that step is bypassed, the decision to fight rests not with the republic but with a single office.
“Protection” is a powerful word. But in a constitutional republic, it does not grant one individual authority to determine when the nation enters war.
Those costs cannot be undone. That is why the Constitution requires Congress oversight before the bombs fall—not after.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260301-trumps-us-israel-war-on-iran-is-denounced-abroad-unconstitutional-at-home/
------
Netanyahu’s hexagon of alliances may remain a dream
DR. ABDEL AZIZ ALUWAISHEG
March 02, 2026
After months of dropping hints in the media, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week finally laid out his “vision” for a “hexagon of alliances” — six alliances with various permutations but with Israel at their center. He said that this hexagon would be directed at “the radical Shiite axis” and “the emerging radical Sunni axis.”
In remarks delivered on Feb. 22, he said: “We will create an entire system, essentially a ‘hexagon’ of alliances around or within the Middle East. This includes India, Arab nations, African nations, Mediterranean nations (Greece and Cyprus), and nations in Asia that I won't detail at the moment.” He added: “The intention here is to create an axis of nations that see eye-to-eye on the reality, challenges and goals against the radical axes, both the radical Shiite axis, which we have struck very hard, and the emerging radical Sunni axis.”
Netanyahu focused on the “special relationship” between Israel and India and between himself and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying: “We are personal friends; we speak frequently on the phone and visit one another.” He added: “The fabric of this relationship has grown tighter and he is coming here so we can tighten it further through a series of decisions related to strengthening cooperation between our governments and countries. This includes economic, diplomatic and security cooperation.”
During his visit to Israel last week, Modi was effusive in his praise of Tel Aviv and Netanyahu, but there was no mention of any alliance. He said: “India stands with Israel, firmly, with full conviction, in this moment and beyond,” in the context of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. He spoke several times about fighting terrorism and defense and security cooperation, but there was no reference to the security architecture Netanyahu had talked about.
Concerned that his remarks may be seen as abandoning India’s long history of support for the Palestinians, Modi said that “the Gaza peace initiative that was endorsed by the UN Security Council offers a pathway. India has expressed its firm support for the initiative. We believe that it holds the promise of a just and durable peace for all the people of the region, including by addressing the Palestine issue.” However, Modi did not meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during this visit, unlike on his previous visit.
India-Israel defense cooperation has been ongoing for decades, mostly shrouded in secrecy, but Modi made it public. He became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel in 2017. Israel is now the third-largest source of military hardware for India, after Russia and France. India accounted for 34 percent of Israeli military exports during 2020-2024, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In addition to India’s military imports from Israel, the two countries share intelligence and have joint production agreements and close cooperation on missile and drone technologies, cybersecurity and surveillance equipment.
Greece and Cyprus were the two other countries named by Netanyahu. They have in recent years coordinated closely with Israel on economic cooperation, defense and security, including counterterrorism and intelligence sharing. In 2016, they held their first trilateral summit and last year they held their 10th in Jerusalem. Earlier this year, they signed a trilateral military cooperation plan. As in the case with India, the US has strongly supported this trilateral cooperation.
Despite these growing security ties, Greece and Cyprus have consistently supported the Palestinians, including their support for an independent Palestinian state. Cyprus recognized Palestine as a state back in 1988 and Greece is considering doing so.
So, these security arrangements with India, Cyprus and Greece have been ongoing for some time, albeit not stressed or highlighted. However, it is not clear why Netanyahu chose to make them public and upgrade them to a formal mutual defense system as part of his vision of a regional web of alliances.
One reason for speaking about this new web of regional alliances now is likely an attempt to get out of the isolation Israel feels as a result of the war against Gaza. By giving the impression that Israel is at the heart of these alliances, Netanyahu hopes to reduce the siege mentality that the country feels and for which he is largely blamed. Another reason could be that a general election is expected to take place this year and Netanyahu hopes to improve his and his party’s standing in the polls.
By appearing to be part of a large network of alliances, Netanyahu hopes to blunt censure for his attacks on Iran, which he is determined to continue. This network may also be a hedging strategy. Israel’s declining popularity in the US could cause strains in their relations in the future. Due to public pressure, the Trump administration has rejected some of Israel’s extreme policies, such as the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and annexation of the West Bank. Future administration may be even less accommodating.
Finally, the trade argument. Israel is facing a mounting trade deficit, which grew to $29 billion last year, despite the striking of major deals during 2025, such as the $35 billion, 15-year natural gas deal with Egypt, the $32 billion acquisition of Israeli firm Wiz by Google, and a $6.5 billion defense contract with Germany.
Israel’s trade with the three countries Netanyahu mentioned is quite limited. Last year, two-way India-Israel trade stood at $3.6 billion, down from $10 billion in 2023. Israel’s trade with Greece and Cyprus is miniscule, at $1.3 and $1 billion, respectively.
But the fundamental problem with Netanyahu’s hexagon is that there does not seem to be much willingness to support it publicly because of the potential reputational damage that comes from an alliance with Israel — a rogue state that has become a pariah among nations, with declining popularity even among its closest friends due to its policies against the Palestinians. The fact that Netanyahu framed this new web of alliances as being directed against Muslims may also discourage many states from joining it.
There is massive potential economic loss should these countries form an alliance with Israel. Take India, for example. Its trade with Israel, currently at $3.6 billion, pales compared to its trade with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Trade with the GCC, India’s top trading partner, ahead of the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, reached $178 billion last year and is growing fast.
There is finally the potential legal entanglement if these countries join a formal alliance with Israel, which is accused of committing genocide in a case before the International Court of Justice, and its prime minister, who is being sought by the International Criminal Court. According to international humanitarian law, members of a formal military alliance could be held jointly accountable for actions taken by any member of the group.
So, Netanyahu’s hexagon of alliances may remain just a dream, at least for the foreseeable future.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2634934
------
What Happens If the War on Iran Drags On for a Month? – Analysis
March 2, 2026
From Market Shock to Structural Strain
In the first week of war, markets react emotionally. By the fourth week, they recalibrate structurally.
A full month of sustained conflict in and around Iran transforms temporary volatility into embedded risk. Investors no longer treat instability as a short-lived episode; they begin adjusting portfolios, supply chains, and long-term exposure.
Energy markets remain the most visible pressure point. If insecurity around the Strait of Hormuz persists, oil prices are likely to remain elevated rather than merely spike. Sustained high energy costs feed inflation globally and slow economic growth in energy-importing economies.
But beyond oil, the more serious damage lies in confidence. Trade routes remain vulnerable. Insurance costs stay high. Shipping is rerouted. Companies delay expansion plans. Governments expand defense budgets. These shifts alter economic expectations in ways that can last well beyond the war itself.
Iran: A Fragile Economy Under Intensified Pressure
Iran entered the war under heavy sanctions and economic strain. Inflation has remained persistently high in recent years, while the national currency has weakened significantly against major currencies. Economic growth has been uneven and heavily reliant on constrained oil exports.
A month of war compounds these weaknesses.
Oil exports may not collapse entirely, but even partial disruption or tanker hesitancy reduces revenue reliability. Higher insurance costs and geopolitical uncertainty limit Tehran’s ability to monetize its energy exports efficiently. At the same time, military expenditures increase.
Public finances tighten. Inflation accelerates if the currency weakens further. Households feel rising costs of imported goods and basic commodities. Social strain becomes more likely as purchasing power declines.
The longer conflict persists, the more Iran risks entering a deeper contraction cycle — one that is difficult to reverse quickly due to sanctions constraints and limited access to international capital markets.
Israel: The Accumulating Cost of Prolonged War
While much attention focuses on Iran’s vulnerabilities, Israel’s economy has already absorbed significant strain from sustained military operations, particularly following the war and genocide in Gaza.
The Gaza war has imposed extraordinarily high fiscal costs. Defense spending surged dramatically, with estimates running into tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect expenditures. These include:
Extended mobilization of reservists.
Military hardware replenishment.
Compensation payments to affected communities.
Infrastructure damage repair.
Security expansion across multiple fronts.
Prolonged conflict multiplies these costs. A month-long escalation involving Iran adds new layers of expenditure: missile defense systems, air operations, troop deployment, and heightened internal security.
As deficits widen, government borrowing increases. Higher borrowing costs could follow if credit markets reassess risk.
One of the most underreported economic consequences has been emigration and temporary relocation. Since the escalation of war in Gaza, reports indicate that a large number of Israelis — particularly highly skilled professionals — have left the country temporarily or permanently. This includes workers in technology, academia, and high-value service sectors.
Loss of skilled labor affects productivity and innovation capacity. Even temporary departures disrupt companies and research institutions.
Simultaneously, prolonged reservist mobilization removes a significant portion of the workforce from civilian economic activity. Small businesses, startups, and mid-sized firms are especially vulnerable when key personnel are absent for extended periods.
Over a month of expanded conflict, these labor distortions deepen.
Foreign investment into Israel, particularly in the technology and venture capital sectors, has shown signs of caution amid prolonged conflict. While the Israeli tech sector remains globally integrated, geopolitical risk raises investor sensitivity.
Prolonged war increases:
Risk premiums on Israeli assets.
Hesitation among multinational firms considering expansion.
Insurance and operational costs for businesses.
Volatility in currency and bond markets.
If war extends beyond a month, investors may begin reassessing longer-term exposure, not just short-term volatility.
Even when economic fundamentals remain relatively strong, persistent conflict can erode the perception of stability — a key driver of Israel’s growth model over the past two decades.
The US and the Broader Spillover
The United States is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in previous decades due to high domestic production. However, it remains exposed to global pricing dynamics.
A sustained month of elevated oil prices affects:
Consumer gasoline costs.
Transportation and manufacturing margins.
Inflation expectations.
Federal Reserve policy decisions.
If inflation reaccelerates, interest rate cuts may be delayed, tightening financial conditions. Politically, higher energy prices can intensify domestic dissatisfaction.
Globally, Asian economies heavily dependent on Gulf energy would face rising import bills. Europe, still sensitive to energy price shocks after previous crises, would encounter renewed inflationary pressure.
A month of elevated risk can shave growth across multiple economies simultaneously.
When Strategic Calculations Meet Economic Reality
Wars are often evaluated in military and political terms. But prolonged conflicts accumulate economic consequences that may outlast battlefield outcomes.
Iran faces intensified sanctions pressure and economic contraction risks. Israel confronts expanding fiscal deficits, labor dislocation, emigration, and investment hesitancy, layered on top of already enormous Gaza war costs. The United States risks renewed inflation and slower growth.
If the war lasts a full month — and especially if maritime insecurity persists — the economic costs could begin to outweigh perceived strategic gains.
Those who initiated escalation may discover that while military operations can be calibrated, economic repercussions compound unpredictably. Investor confidence, demographic shifts, fiscal sustainability, and global inflation are not easily reversed once damaged.
A thirty-day war does not merely extend a crisis. It reshapes economic expectations across the region — and potentially far beyond it.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/what-happens-if-the-war-on-iran-drags-on-for-a-month-analysis/
-----
PROFILE – Who Is Alireza Arafi, The Qom Cleric Guiding Iran’s Interim Leadership
March 2, 2026
From Meybod to the Center of Power
Sheikh Alireza Arafi was born in 1959 in Meybod, in Iran’s Yazd province, into a clerical family closely tied to the religious networks that shaped the Islamic Republic.
His father, Ayatollah Mohammad Ibrahim Arafi, was a respected preacher and scholar who maintained connections to the revolutionary clerical circles surrounding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Arafi moved to Qom at a young age to pursue religious studies. Qom is not merely a theological city; it is the intellectual and ideological engine of the Islamic Republic.
There, Arafi immersed himself in Islamic jurisprudence, philosophy and advanced religious sciences. Over time, he attained the rank of mujtahid, a senior jurist qualified to independently interpret Islamic law — a distinction that places him among the higher echelons of clerical authority.
Unlike some clerics whose influence rests primarily on public sermons or political charisma, Arafi built his career within institutions.
Friday Prayer Leader
Arafi’s prominence expanded significantly in the 1990s when he was appointed Friday prayer leader in his hometown — an important symbolic role often reserved for figures trusted by the leadership.
In 2015, he became Friday prayer leader in Qom itself, a position of far greater weight. Delivering the Friday sermon in Qom carries national religious and political significance, signaling recognition within the clerical hierarchy.
Beyond sermons, Arafi has shaped Iran’s religious education system. He served for years as president of Al-Mustafa International University, an institution that trains foreign seminarians and promotes Shi’a scholarship globally. His tenure there placed him at the center of Iran’s transnational religious outreach.
In 2016, he was appointed head of Iran’s nationwide seminary network, overseeing religious education across the country. That role further embedded him within the structural backbone of clerical authority.
His influence extends into constitutional governance. He serves as a jurist member of the Guardian Council, the powerful body that vets electoral candidates and reviews legislation for conformity with Islamic law and the constitution.
In 2022, he was elected to the Assembly of Experts, the body responsible for appointing and, if necessary, dismissing the Supreme Leader. In 2024, he rose to become Second Deputy Chairman of that assembly.
A Figure of Continuity
Following the assassination of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, Iran activated Article 111 of its constitution, forming a temporary leadership council composed of the president, the head of the judiciary and a jurist selected by the Expediency Discernment Council. That jurist is now Arafi.
His appointment signals continuity rather than rupture. He is not identified with factional populism or overt political maneuvering. Instead, he represents the embedded clerical establishment that has underpinned the Islamic Republic for decades.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/who-is-alireza-arafi-the-qom-cleric-guiding-irans-interim-leadership/
-----
From Gaza to Minab: The Israeli War on Children Expands
March 1, 2026
Fire and Rubble
Minab is not a remote military enclave. It is a populated coastal city in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province, east of Bandar Abbas and situated along routes that connect inland communities to the Strait of Hormuz. It is a place where fishermen return at dawn, where markets open early, and where children walk to school carrying notebooks and packed lunches.
On Saturday morning—Iran’s working week begins on Saturday—students were reportedly in class at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school when the strike hit. Witness accounts described an explosion followed by the collapse of sections of the building. Rescue crews arrived at scenes of shattered concrete and dust-choked corridors.
Images circulated rapidly. Schoolbags lay torn in the rubble. Pages from textbooks fluttered among broken masonry. Families gathered in shock outside what remained of the school gates, searching for daughters who had left home hours earlier.
The transformation was instant. A place of learning became a site of mass mourning.
Initial reports cited 148 killed and 95 wounded, attributed to local judicial officials in Minab. Hours later, Iranian sources reported that the number of deaths had risen to 165, most of them schoolgirls, along with teachers and staff.
The strike stands as one of the deadliest single incidents involving children in this war.
From Gaza to Minab
The horror unfolding in Minab cannot be separated from what has already taken place in Gaza.
Since the beginning of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, more than 21,000 Palestinian children have been killed, according to figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry and widely cited by United Nations agencies. Thousands more remain missing beneath rubble. The number of wounded children is even higher, many facing lifelong disabilities.
The destruction of educational infrastructure in Gaza has been systematic and catastrophic. According to UNESCO and UNRWA assessments, more than 70 percent of Gaza’s schools have been damaged or destroyed. Hundreds of school buildings are no longer usable. Entire educational districts have been flattened.
Universities have fared no better. The Islamic University of Gaza, Al-Azhar University, Al-Israa University and others have been severely damaged or destroyed. By early 2026, Palestinian education authorities reported that every university in Gaza had sustained major structural destruction, effectively collapsing higher education in the territory.
The result is visible in satellite imagery and casualty lists: classrooms reduced to craters, lecture halls to twisted metal, children and students among the dead.
Minab now joins that ledger.
The geography is different. The victims are not Palestinian. But the pattern—the destruction of spaces dedicated to learning—bears unmistakable resemblance.
Strategic Framing and Civilian Cost
Minab sits within Hormozgan province, a region whose proximity to the Strait of Hormuz gives it strategic weight in military planning. Roads, ports, administrative facilities and residential neighborhoods exist in proximity.
Yet strategic geography does not nullify civilian protection. The presence of infrastructure does not convert an elementary school into a legitimate military target.
In Gaza, entire neighborhoods were declared combat zones under the logic of eliminating resistance networks. In that process, schools were struck, shelters were hit, and universities were erased.
The extension of similar military reasoning into Iran raises urgent questions. When air campaigns expand beyond one theater, does the threshold for civilian harm expand with them?
The children in Minab were not combatants. They were attending school.
The Legal Line
International humanitarian law is explicit: civilians and civilian objects are protected. Schools are among the clearest examples of civilian objects.
Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, attacks must distinguish between military objectives and civilian structures. Even when a military objective is alleged, the principles of proportionality and precaution remain binding.
The proportionality rule requires that anticipated civilian harm not be excessive in relation to concrete and direct military advantage. When a strike results in more than one hundred schoolchildren killed, the proportionality calculus demands a transparent explanation.
In Gaza, repeated strikes on educational institutions have prompted legal filings, international investigations, and widespread condemnation. Yet the destruction continued.
Minab now stands as a test of whether those legal debates carry weight, especially after they failed in Gaza, and miserably so.
Iran’s UN envoy and Iranian officials have described the strike as part of a broader criminal Israel-US war pattern affecting civilian areas.
US Central Command acknowledged reports of civilian harm and stated that it was reviewing the incident. Similar language has followed high-casualty strikes in Gaza: awareness, assessment, internal review.
What often follows is a dispute. Narratives diverge. Legal questions remain unresolved.
In the meantime, funerals proceed.
A Pattern Without Boundaries
Minab’s tragedy is not an isolated wartime mishap. It reflects a broader erosion of the boundary between military targeting and civilian space.
In Gaza, more than 21,000 children have been killed. Hundreds of schools and all universities have been destroyed. Educational infrastructure has been dismantled at a scale unprecedented in recent decades.
Now, in southern Iran, a girls’ elementary school lies in ruins with 153 children and educators dead.
From Gaza to Minab, the identity of the victims remains constant: children inside classrooms.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/from-gaza-to-minab-the-war-on-children-expands/
-----
Day 2 of the US–Israeli War on Iran: Assassination and Aftermath
March 1, 2026
Assassination and Immediate Fallout
Day Two began with confirmation.
Iranian state television announced the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in US–Israeli airstrikes on Tehran. The strike reportedly targeted a high-level Defense Council meeting.
Among those killed, according to Iranian and US media:
Major General Mohammad Pakpour, IRGC Commander.
Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, Chief of Staff.
Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, Defense Minister.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Rezaeian, head of Police Intelligence.
US President Donald Trump confirmed Khamenei’s killing and warned that any further Iranian retaliation would be met with “unprecedented force.”
CBS News cited unnamed US sources claiming that around 40 senior Iranian officials have been killed since the war began.
Iran declared 40 days of national mourning and suspended government work for seven days.
The assassination marked a turning point. Not only militarily. Politically and symbolically.
Institutional Response: Continuity Under Article 111
Within hours, Iran activated Article 111 of its Constitution.
A temporary leadership council was formed. Its task:
Assume the Supreme Leader’s duties.
Maintain state continuity.
Prepare for selection of a new leader by the Assembly of Experts.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the killing as a grave violation of international law. He rejected claims that the political system would fracture.
“Absence or death of a leader does not alter the system,” he said.
Iranian officials framed the strike as an attempt at regime destabilization. They insisted it failed.
Tehran’s message was clear: the state remains intact. The chain of command remains operational. The war continues.
Iranian Retaliation: Successive Missile Waves
If Day One was dominated by US–Israeli airpower, Day Two was marked by Iranian missile saturation.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced expanded phases of Operation “True Promise 4.”
According to Iranian and Israeli sources:
Multiple missile waves targeted central and southern Israel.
Sirens sounded across Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Eilat.
Five missile barrages were launched within less than an hour.
In Beit Shemesh:
Four buildings collapsed.
Israeli public broadcasting reported eight fatalities.
Dozens were injured.
Search and rescue operations continued.
Israeli emergency services reported hundreds transferred to hospitals since the war began.
Iran also expanded its strikes beyond Israel.
The IRGC claimed it targeted:
Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
American facilities across the Gulf.
Tel Nof airbase and Israeli defense installations.
Iranian officials stated they are targeting American military presence, not the Gulf states themselves.
Gulf Shockwaves and Regional Spillover
Day Two made one reality unavoidable: the war is no longer confined to Iran and Israel.
Missiles and drones were intercepted over:
Jordan
Kuwait
Bahrain
The UAE
Saudi Arabia
In Dubai:
Explosions were reported.
Interception debris caused fires at Jebel Ali Port.
DP World suspended operations.
The UAE Ministry of Defense reported casualties following Iranian strikes. Kuwait’s Health Ministry confirmed injuries and one fatality. Saudi Arabia summoned the Iranian ambassador.
In Bahrain, a hotel in Manama was reportedly targeted, causing material damage.
The UK Defense Secretary said Iranian missiles and drones fell near British troops stationed in Bahrain.
Maritime security became a central concern:
An oil tanker was targeted near Musandam, Oman.
Hapag-Lloyd suspended traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Global energy markets reacted sharply.
Iranian officials stated there is currently no intention to close the Strait of Hormuz. But the strategic leverage remains.
Civilian Toll and Human Cost
The civilian impact deepened significantly.
In southern Iran, local officials reported that the death toll from a US–Israeli strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab has risen dramatically, with figures surpassing 100.
Iran’s envoy at the UN Security Council described the assault as:
Unjustified aggression
A violation of the UN Charter
A deliberate attack on civilian areas
Inside Israel:
Sirens continued throughout the day.
Injuries mounted from missile impacts and shelter stampedes.
Across the region:
Protests erupted in Baghdad near the Green Zone.
Demonstrations were reported in Shiraz.
Casualties occurred in Karachi after protesters stormed the US consulate.
The war is now generating social tremors far beyond the battlefield.
Strategic Narratives and Political Stakes
Israeli officials described the confrontation as an “existential battle.”
The US Defense Secretary stated that Washington would:
Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Destroy Iran’s naval capacity if necessary.
Yet strategic clarity remains limited.
The New York Times editorial board criticized Trump’s decision to launch the war without congressional authorization, calling it “reckless” and constitutionally dubious. It warned of echoes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Washington frames the campaign as preventing nuclear escalation.
Israel frames it as survival.
Tehran frames it as imposed aggression aimed at political submission.
Each side claims deterrence. Each side escalates.
The War After Day Two
By the end of Day Two, several facts stood out.
Iran’s leadership structure did not collapse.
Missile exchanges intensified rather than subsided.
Gulf states were drawn directly into the confrontation.
Airspace closures, evacuations, and emergency diplomatic meetings signaled fear of broader war.
Energy markets reacted. Shipping routes were disrupted. Regional alliances were tested.
The US–Israeli war on Iran has moved beyond a limited strike campaign.
It is now a multi-theater confrontation involving:
Assassinations
Sustained missile warfare
Gulf security
Maritime chokepoints
Global energy stability
The second day of war confirms one thing: this is no longer a contained confrontation. It is a regional rupture with global consequences.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/day-2-of-the-us-israeli-war-on-iran-assassination-and-aftermath/
------
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