Middle East Press On: Turkey, Greece, Israel, Iran, Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Americans Killed by Israelis, Syria, Strait of Hormuz, Iranian History, New Age Islam's Selection, 23 May 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
22 May 2026
Türkiye’s energy geopolitics and TPAO’s oil exploration activities
A risky alliance: Greece’s strategic turn toward Israel
The world cannot contain Iran forever outside the global order
Indonesia’s foreign minister didn’t defend the flotilla detainees. He defended Israel’s language
No justice for Americans killed by Israelis
Syria On A Knife’s Edge: Will the Country Implode?
Corsairs of the Mediterranean: Israel’s Latest Act of State Piracy Unmasks the Zionist Regime
The Strait of Hormuz: A Constant in Iranian History
------
Türkiye’s energy geopolitics and TPAO’s oil exploration activities
BY İHSAN AKTAŞ
MAY 22, 2026
Through a rational approach to governance, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) governments have sought to address the country’s requirements gradually, in their proper context and at the appropriate time. One of the most visible achievements of the AK Party era was the establishment of a broad transportation and logistics ecosystem – from highways and logistics corridors to ports and airports.
This was later expanded into sectors such as health care and education, as the government continued building Türkiye’s broader infrastructure ecosystem.
Another major achievement of the AK Party governments, despite ongoing political debate, has been the substantial investment directed toward Turkish cities. From infrastructure and water supply to modern housing and natural gas distribution, Türkiye’s urban centers were equipped with many of the essential services required by a growing society.
Focusing specifically on the energy ecosystem, Türkiye has long occupied a strategic position in transporting oil and natural gas from east to west through pipeline networks carrying resources from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Russia via routes such as Yumurtalık. At the same time, the essence of an energy ecosystem lies in ensuring the secure supply, distribution, and sustainability of the energy the country requires.
Indeed, one of the main reasons Türkiye has not been excessively alarmed during the recent Israel-U.S.-Iran crisis is the resilience of the energy ecosystem it has built over the years.
Fossil fuels endure
Globally, hydrocarbons – fossil fuels – still remain the primary source for meeting energy demand. Within this framework, Türkiye has taken significant steps to make the best possible use of hydrocarbon reserves located within its own territory.
During Berat Albayrak’s tenure as energy minister, notable progress was achieved in the exploration and production of mining resources, natural gas, and oil.
Today, Turkish Petroleum (TPAO), which is intensively extracting natural gas in the Black Sea, is simultaneously conducting oil and gas exploration and production activities in Gabar, Diyarbakır, Batman, Edirne and Tekirdağ onshore, while also operating offshore in the Mediterranean and Black Seas through the drilling and exploration vessels Fatih, Yavuz, Kanuni and Abdülhamid Han.
Global presence
Before the internal turmoil in Iraq and the Arab Spring, the Republic of Türkiye had also signed major agreements regarding the exploration and transportation of northern Iraqi oil to international markets. At the time, some of the world’s largest energy tenders were being conducted in the region. Although activity has since slowed, projects initiated in earlier years could resume whenever favourable conditions emerge again.
While Türkiye continues to search for oil and natural gas in certain basins of the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea, it has also launched drilling operations in Somalia following extensive seismic exploration. Likewise, as a result of the agreements it has signed with Libya, Türkiye is also conducting oil and natural gas exploration activities there.
At the same time, Türkiye signed strategic agreements in early 2026 with five major global energy companies – ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies – with plans to establish joint exploration and production partnerships both domestically and in offshore international fields.
Crossroads
Of course, Türkiye is not an oil state on the scale of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. Yet it remains geographically close to major energy regions, and the quality, purity, and production potential of the oil discovered in Gabar are considered highly significant.
In this context, the Turkish state is fully aware that it will not be able to meet all of its energy needs solely from domestic production. For this reason, while conducting joint operations in Syria, Libya and Somalia, Türkiye also continues exploring new routes and production opportunities alongside friendly and allied countries such as Pakistan and Azerbaijan.
If one were to ask what has defined the AK Party governments and their transformative agenda, it could be said that by addressing the country’s pressing needs in a timely, rational, and effective manner, they have simultaneously built entire ecosystems around those solutions.
Türkiye’s emergence as a country capable of establishing an energy ecosystem – one serving transit flows, domestic consumption, and international demand alike – is not something achieved overnight. It has been built through immense effort and long-term strategic planning. It appears likely that, in the coming years, both domestic oil and gas production and joint projects with allied states will allow Türkiye to meet a growing share of its energy needs.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/turkiyesenergygeopolitics-and-tpaosoilexplorationactivities
-------
A risky alliance: Greece’s strategic turn toward Israel
BY ORHAN SALI
MAY 22, 2026
For decades, Turkish-Greek relations have revolved around familiar fault lines: maritime jurisdiction disputes in the Aegean, airspace disagreements, the militarization of islands and above all, Cyprus.
Athens has long accused Türkiye of pursuing a “revisionist” foreign policy. Based on this narrative, successive Greek governments have attempted to construct their national security doctrine. Yet too often, realism has been replaced by domestic political rhetoric. The so-called “Turkish threat” has periodically been transformed into a convenient political instrument, especially during moments of economic instability or internal political pressure within Greece.
In reality, Ankara and Athens have maintained what could best be described as a controlled rivalry for decades.
Conflicts intensified from time to time. Harsh statements were exchanged. Military exercises were staged as political messages. Yet both sides understood the cost of direct confrontation. For that reason, disputes over Cyprus and the Aegean largely remained within the framework of controlled political crises rather than open conflict.
However, the regional balance of power has changed dramatically over the last decade.
Türkiye is no longer a country confined to the Aegean theater alone. It has emerged as a significant regional power with influence stretching from Syria to Libya, from the Caucasus to the Balkans and increasingly across Africa. Its growing defense industry, drone capabilities, energy diplomacy and expanding geopolitical footprint have fundamentally altered regional dynamics.
Athens has interpreted this transformation as a direct strategic threat.
Yet there is an important distinction that is often ignored: Despite its expanding regional influence, Ankara has not pursued an openly anti-Greek regional doctrine. On the contrary, Türkiye has consistently argued that disputes between the two neighbors should be resolved bilaterally, without the intervention of external actors. Turkish diplomacy has repeatedly emphasized dialogue, regional stability, and the principle of neighborly relations.
But now, the equation appears to be changing.
First, Greece sought to establish an anti-Türkiye axis in the Eastern Mediterranean through closer ties with Egypt. Later came deeper defense cooperation with France. Today, however, Athens is moving toward a far more consequential strategic alignment: Israel.
This is where the real danger begins.
From Türkiye’s perspective, the Israeli factor moves the Greek question beyond the traditional framework of bilateral disputes. If Ankara begins to see not only Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Athens, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic shadow as well, the long-standing model of controlled tensions could evolve into something far more unpredictable.
For Israel, Greece offers clear strategic advantages: military access points, diplomatic leverage within Europe and a useful geopolitical platform in the Eastern Mediterranean at a time when Tel Aviv faces growing regional isolation after Gaza.
Yet Athens may be overlooking a critical reality.
Israeli regional policy has always been deeply transactional and highly opportunistic. Tel Aviv’s primary concern is its own security architecture, not the long-term stability of its partners. Allies are valuable only insofar as they serve immediate strategic interests.
That is why an increasingly common assessment has emerged in recent months: Athens may be avoiding one problem only to face an even worse one. The deeper question is, how reliable is Israel as a long-term strategic partner for Greece?
Even within Europe, that question is now being asked more openly than before.
Without American political, military and economic backing, Israel’s ability to sustain its current regional posture would be severely constrained. This reality is widely understood in diplomatic circles. Consequently, some analysts now argue that Greece is placing excessive trust in what they describe as a “paper tiger,” a regional power whose strategic durability depends overwhelmingly on Washington’s support.
But the issue extends beyond geopolitics.
The rise of increasingly radical and religiously extremist rhetoric within Israel is no longer alarming only the Muslim world. Christians, too, have begun expressing serious concerns. In recent years, attacks against Orthodox clergy, vandalism targeting of churches and Christian symbols, and harassment of priests have drawn international attention. Even Western media outlets that once avoided such issues are now reporting them with growing frequency.
What was once considered fringe extremism has become far more visible within Israeli political life. In some cases, even Netanyahu’s government appears unable or unwilling to fully contain these radical elements.
Today, many Christians in Jerusalem openly admit they no longer feel safe walking freely through parts of the city.
This leaves Greece facing an increasingly uncomfortable reality: An insincere friend can sometimes become more dangerous than an honest adversary.
By opening nearly every strategic door to Israeli influence, from defense cooperation to energy and intelligence partnerships, the Mitsotakis government may be steering Greece toward an extremely fragile geopolitical edge.
According to Ankara, every new line of confrontation built in the Eastern Mediterranean may appear at first as a limited diplomatic dispute, but over time it can turn into an uncontrollable security risk.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/a-risky-alliance-greeces-strategic-turn-toward-israel
-------
The world cannot contain Iran forever outside the global order
May 22, 2026
by Peiman Salehi
For months the world has remained fixated on a single number: 450 kilograms.
That figure — referring to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium — has become the center of international negotiations, military threats, and diplomatic deadlock between Tehran, Washington, and Israel. American officials continue to insist that Iran must surrender or remove the material. Iran continues to refuse. The result is a dangerous equilibrium where neither side appears willing to retreat and where every ceasefire feels temporary.
But the deeper crisis exposed by the recent war is not simply nuclear. It is structural.
The war revealed something many governments were unwilling to publicly acknowledge for years: Iran can no longer be treated merely as a containable regional actor operating outside the architecture of global power.
This is precisely why the current ceasefire remains fragile.
Inside Iran the debate is no longer centered only on ideology or even sanctions. Increasingly the argument revolves around deterrence survival and legitimacy. Israeli and American strikes targeted senior commanders infrastructure nuclear facilities and military assets. Yet Iran neither collapsed nor capitulated. Instead it demonstrated an ability to sustain confrontation absorb pressure retaliate across the region and impose costs on the global economy through instability around the Strait of Hormuz. Even temporary disruptions around Hormuz proved enough to trigger worldwide anxiety over shipping routes energy prices supply chains and insurance costs.
This matters because it reveals a deeper contradiction within the current international system.
The post-1945 global order was designed around the distribution of power that existed after World War II. The permanent members of the UN Security Council were not chosen because they represented humanity equally or because they embodied universal legitimacy. They were chosen because they emerged from the war as decisive military powers capable of shaping global stability.
Nearly eighty years later however the structure remains largely frozen while the actual balance of geopolitical influence has dramatically evolved.
Germany and Japan became economic giants without permanent representation. India emerged as one of the world’s largest powers without a permanent seat. Brazil became indispensable to Latin America while remaining outside the core architecture of decision-making. Africa — a continent of more than a billion people — still lacks permanent representation entirely.
The Iran war may now be exposing a similar contradiction in the Middle East.
For decades the dominant assumption in Washington and parts of Europe was that Iran could eventually be weakened into strategic submission through sanctions diplomatic isolation covert operations or limited military pressure. But the war produced a far more uncomfortable outcome. Iran emerged economically damaged and militarily strained yet simultaneously more central to the global conversation about security order and deterrence.
This is why the uranium issue inside Iran is increasingly viewed through the lens of deterrence rather than purely nuclear ambition.
Contrary to many assumptions outside the country large parts of the Iranian political establishment do not necessarily view enriched uranium primarily as a pathway toward building a nuclear weapon. Rather many increasingly see it as part of a broader deterrence architecture in a world where they believe external military threats remain permanent.
From this perspective surrendering uranium without receiving structural security guarantees appears irrational. Iranian leaders look not only at sanctions but also at assassinations cyberattacks military strikes and repeated discussions of regime change in Western and Israeli political circles. Under such conditions deterrence becomes existential.
This explains why current negotiations appear trapped.
Neither side is truly negotiating over centrifuges anymore. They are negotiating over the future balance of power in the Middle East.
And this is where the question of representation becomes unavoidable.
Throughout modern history political systems that failed to integrate rising powers eventually confronted instability crisis or war. The political philosophy underlying the modern West itself was built around this principle.
John Locke argued that peace could only emerge through a mutually recognized political contract rather than permanent confrontation. The American founding generation including Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Franklin and George Washington attempted to create a constitutional structure precisely because they believed unchecked conflict eventually destroys political order itself.
After World War II the victorious powers built a new international architecture for the same reason: to prevent endless cycles of great-power war through institutional integration and balance.
But today that structure increasingly appears unable to accommodate the actual distribution of twenty-first century power.
Ironically the more excluded Iran becomes from recognized structures of global influence the more valuable unconventional leverage becomes strategically.
In Iran’s case that leverage increasingly revolves around the Strait of Hormuz asymmetric military capability regional escalation potential and strategic disruption of global energy flows.
This is why the current situation has become so dangerous. As long as Iran remains outside the structure of globally recognized power its deterrence mechanisms will continue developing outside that structure as well.
This is also why recent regional developments matter.
For years many Gulf states focused primarily on isolating Iran. Today however discussions increasingly revolve around coexistence de-escalation and regional balancing.
This shift matters because it suggests that even some of Iran’s traditional rivals may now recognize that permanent confrontation is becoming unsustainable.
At the same time China and Russia would likely view any structural increase in Iran’s international legitimacy favorably. The current Security Council configuration effectively leaves the Western bloc with three permanent powers — the United States Britain and France — while China and Russia remain comparatively isolated within the structure itself.
The broader issue therefore is no longer merely whether Iran should or should not possess enriched uranium. The real issue is whether the international system can continue managing emerging regional powers through exclusion alone while expecting long-term stability.
Recent events have already exposed the limits of that approach.
The United States launched military strikes against Iran without a clear Security Council mandate. Meanwhile the same international system that once endorsed the nuclear agreement later watched one of its principal signatories unilaterally withdraw from it. Such contradictions have increasingly weakened perceptions of institutional legitimacy across large parts of the Global South.
Whether Western governments wish to admit it or not the world is already entering a new geopolitical era.
From the growing alignment between China and Russia to the emergence of alternative regional structures and the increasing assertiveness of powers like Iran the international system is gradually moving away from the unipolar assumptions that defined the post-Cold War era.
The question now is whether that transition can occur politically — through adaptation reform and integration — or whether it will continue unfolding through recurring crises military escalation and economic disruption.
This does not mean Iran will suddenly receive a permanent seat on the UN Security Council tomorrow. Such a transformation would require historic restructuring unlikely to happen quickly.
But the conversation itself now matters.
Because for the first time in years the Iran war is forcing policymakers to confront a question once considered unthinkable: Can the post-1945 order continue functioning while refusing to adapt to the actual distribution of power in the twenty-first century?
The answer increasingly appears uncertain.
And unless the international system finds ways to politically integrate rising powers rather than merely contain them the world may discover that perpetual brinkmanship has become the new normal.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260522-the-world-cannot-contain-iran-forever-outside-the-global-order/
-------
Indonesia’s foreign minister didn’t defend the flotilla detainees. He defended Israel’s language
May 22, 2026
by Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat
For years, Indonesia has wrapped itself in the moral vocabulary of anti-colonialism and Palestinian solidarity. Its leaders lecture the world about justice, occupation and humanitarian principles. They speak as if Indonesia occupies a unique ethical position among nations — a Muslim-majority democracy supposedly unafraid to confront power on behalf of the oppressed.
Then nine Indonesians were detained by Israeli forces in international waters.
And Indonesia’s foreign minister chose to argue about semantics.
Following a meeting with Commission I of Parliament in Jakarta on May 20, Foreign Minister Sugiono insisted that the detention of Indonesian citizens aboard the Sumud flotilla should not be described as “kidnapping” or “hostage-taking.”
Nine Indonesians — four journalists and five activists — were detained by Israel.
And yet the Indonesian government’s first instinct was not outrage, not legal protest, not an uncompromising defense of its citizens, but the policing of language considered too harsh toward Israel.
It was disgraceful.
And by choosing the language of “prohibition,” Indonesia’s foreign minister effectively accepted the premise that Israel had the lawful right to stop civilian vessels and detain foreign nationals in the waters where the operation occurred.
But according to multiple international reports, the interception happened in international waters — not Israeli sovereign territory.
That changes everything.
On the high seas, states do not possess unlimited authority to conduct coercive enforcement operations against foreign civilian vessels. They certainly do not possess some unquestionable sovereign right to seize journalists and activists carrying humanitarian aid.
Which is precisely why many international observers and governments described Israel’s actions as unlawful and dangerously close to piracy.
But Indonesia’s foreign minister decided that the real problem was excessive criticism of Israel.
The cowardice of that choice cannot be overstated.
Instead, he publicly softened the characterization of actions taken against Indonesians by a foreign military.
It is difficult to imagine a more humiliating display of diplomatic weakness.
Even countries far closer to Israel than Indonesia issued stronger condemnations. Some demanded explanations. Others denounced the treatment of detainees outright. Yet Jakarta — a government that constantly boasts of its unwavering support for Palestine — suddenly became terrified of using language that might offend Israel.
This is the great fraud at the center of Indonesia’s foreign policy.
The gap between Indonesia’s rhetoric and its behavior has never looked wider.
What exactly is Indonesia defending here? International law? Humanitarian principles? Press freedom? National dignity?
Certainly not its citizens.
Four Indonesian journalists were detained by Israeli forces during a humanitarian mission. Any government with a functioning sense of national pride would have reacted with unmistakable anger. Any foreign minister worthy of the office would have made clear that the detention of Indonesian civilians in international waters was unacceptable.
Instead, Sugiono sounded like a spokesperson trying to reassure everyone that Israel’s actions should be understood in the proper context.
That is not diplomacy. That is submission disguised as moderation.
His defenders will argue that diplomacy requires caution, especially because Indonesia lacks formal relations with Israel. They will say inflammatory language could complicate negotiations for the detainees’ release.
But there is a difference between strategic caution and moral surrender.
Sugiono crossed that line the moment he prioritized correcting criticism of Israel over expressing outrage at the detention of Indonesians.
And Indonesians understood exactly what they were hearing.
Critics were right to condemn the minister’s “correction of terminology” — his effort to sanitize the incident through softer language. Because language matters. Once a government accepts the vocabulary of the stronger party, it begins accepting the logic behind the stronger party’s actions as well.
That is how injustice becomes normalized: not only through violence, but through euphemism.
The tragedy here is not merely that Indonesia sounded weak. Weak governments exist everywhere. The tragedy is the hypocrisy.
For decades, Indonesia has claimed the mantle of anti-colonial moral leadership. It portrays itself as a principled voice for the Global South and the Palestinian cause. But moral leadership means nothing if it evaporates the moment principles become politically inconvenient.
And that is what happened here.
When Indonesian citizens were detained by a foreign military in international waters, Indonesia’s foreign minister did not rise to defend them with clarity or conviction.
He rose to defend the terminology preferred by their captors.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260522-indonesias-foreign-minister-didnt-defend-the-flotilla-detainees-he-defended-israels-language/
------
No justice for Americans killed by Israelis
RAY HANANIA
May 22, 2026
Nine Americans who have been killed either by Israeli soldiers or radical Israeli settlers since 2022 have not received any form of justice. The victims — a journalist, a grandfather, women, several teenagers and an aid worker — were all American citizens.
Omar As’ad was a 78-year-old man who died in January 2022 after being detained and bound by Israeli forces at a checkpoint that only stops Christians and Muslims, not Jews.
Shireen Abu Akleh was a prominent Palestinian American journalist who was shot in the head by Israeli forces in the West Bank in May 2022 while covering a news story.
Tawfic Abdel Jabbar was a 17-year-old boy killed by gunfire in the West Bank in January 2024.
Mohammad Khdour, also 17, was fatally shot by Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank in February 2024.
Jacob Flickinger was a 33-year-old US-Canadian dual citizen and World Central Kitchen aid worker killed in an Israeli strike in an area of Gaza where civilians were lined up trying to get food in April 2024.
Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was a 26-year-old Turkish American activist who was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier during a protest in the West Bank in September 2024.
Sayfollah Musallet was a 20-year-old who was fatally beaten by Israeli settlers in the West Bank in July 2025.
Khamis Ayyad was a 40-year-old man who died of smoke inhalation after a fire was set by Israeli settlers in the West Bank in July 2025.
Nasrallah Abu Siyam was the most recent murder victim. He was a 19-year-old who was killed in the West Bank in February this year.
All were American citizens. None were ever charged with any crimes. All have been denied their rights.
Despite repeated requests for accountability from members of Congress, their murders have been pushed aside as America continues to strengthen its political bonds with Israel.
The Arab and Muslim victims are treated as if they lack any human rights. In contrast, Jewish Americans who are killed in Israel or the Occupied Territories are prioritized by America’s political elite and the mainstream news media. This bias is not just driven by politics but also racism and Islamophobia.
There is no doubt that Americans killed in Israel and the Occupied Territories are widely ignored if they are Arab and mourned if they are Jewish. This is the reality of an apartheid system in a country protected by a hypocritical US foreign policy.
How insignificant is the killing of an American when the perpetrators are Israeli soldiers, police or settlers? Very.
The US Senate has 100 members, yet only 31 agreed to sign a March 5 letter urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and Pam Bondi, who was attorney general at the time, to explain the circumstances of the murders and to assure other Americans that, when their loved ones are killed in Israel or the Occupied Territories, there will be accountability.
The letter, organized by Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland following Abu Siyam’s killing, has gone unanswered.
“We write with grave concern regarding the ongoing lack of accountability for the deaths of Americans in the West Bank,” it stated. “This is yet another example of the impunity afforded to extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank under the protection of the Israel Defense Forces. The US government must conduct a credible and independent investigation into Nasrallah’s killing and hold all perpetrators accountable.”
Despite public declarations by Rubio that the safety of American citizens is “our No. 1 priority” when it comes to the US’ military attacks on foreign nations like Venezuela and Iran, he has not addressed the killings of Americans by Israelis.
“At the Department of State, our No. 1 priority is the safety and security of American citizens everywhere in the world,” Rubio said shortly after the US launched its war on Iran. But the “safety and security of Americans” in foreign countries has always been little more than an excuse used by recent governments to justify conflict. It is rarely actually about citizens’ safety.
The failure of the US to take a strong stand on the killings of these nine Americans raises questions about the real purpose of its justifications for foreign military interventions and, more importantly, its relationship with Israel’s government.
When Israel’s government refuses to fully investigate and prosecute Jewish Israelis accused of killing Americans, it prompts serious doubts about how genuine Washington’s alliance with Tel Aviv really is.
Instead of telling Americans how important their “safety and security” is, political leaders should make it clear to the Israeli government that any killing of a US citizen will have serious consequences.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2644573
----
Syria On A Knife’s Edge: Will The Country Implode?
May 23, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh
Car bombs, angry protests, forgotten promises, economic strain, sectarian strife, and Israeli aggression are what have characterized Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in 2024, dragging the nation through a new phase of war that no longer has two distinct sides. A nation now dominated by Western interference is heading towards the unknown.
On Tuesday, a car bomb detonated in the Syrian capital, killing a soldier and injuring 18 others. The attack, which was not immediately claimed by any specific group, was carried out in front of the Defense Ministry building in Damascus. While Syrian security forces attempted to defuse a separate explosive device in the area, another suddenly went off inside a nearby vehicle.
Later that same day, comments made by Syrian leader Ahmed al-Shara’a’s father triggered a wave of protests against the leadership. The controversy kicked off after a video surfaced of Hussein al-Shara’a commenting on what he called the barbarity and intellectual inferiority of Syrians in the eastern Deir Ezzor province. Another clip would later surface of the Syrian leader’s father also stating the same of residents living on the outskirts of Damascus, arguing that the city people were more intelligent.
The anger that hit the streets ended up forcing Ahmed al-Shara’a to issue a public apology to the people of Deir Ezzor, which has been widely covered. A reason why this has been so heavily focused on is due to the clearly tense security predicament inside the country, which has led to a number of alleged assassination attempts against al-Shara’a himself, one of which reportedly lightly injured him.
An apology of this nature is rarely something that comes from the Syrian leadership, past and present, but it indicates that the possibility of more unrest is clearly bothering the authorities in Damascus.
Although the US-led regime change operation in Syria did not end up bearing fruit until after the war itself had all but ended, the aftermath has somewhat resembled the fallout from the toppling of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Sectarian warfare, open-air vendetta killings, US domination, poverty, corruption, and a strategy that clearly was not thought out before it was implemented.
In Iraq, the United States decided to construct a confessionalist system whereby the Shia majority would gain the most identity-based representation. In Syria, installed governments were assumed to have had genuine intentions; they would have been attempting to build a house on quicksand and are prohibited from taking the measures necessary to save a sinking ship.
Damascus now faces the growing threat that if it pushes too hard against groups within the Sunni majority, it could face an insurgency. Daesh (ISIS) is still lingering and carrying out sporadic ambush attacks, while other al-Qaeda aligned militias also kill regime-aligned forces. What makes this so dangerous is the ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Party, which the plethora of armed groups who have sided with it, was itself from the al-Qaeda and Daesh stock; both in terms of its rank and file, but also ideologically.
Take, for example, the issue of foreign fighters in Syria. Tens of thousands had entered the country and were armed to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, but are now left in limbo, lobbying for Syrian citizenship in a country that is attempting to push them out.
Ideologically, groups like Al-Qaeda, Daesh, and their affiliated splinter groups don’t care about national identity; instead, they believe in Sunni identity. Meaning that in a country now dominated by such groups and those who previously belonged to them, there is a large amount of sympathy for the cause of the foreign fighters. Enough support to ignite serious fighting if it is not dealt with carefully.
Economically, the country has not recovered, despite the sanctions being lifted and Damascus taking back ownership of its fertile agricultural lands and oil fields in the nation’s north-east. Countless promises were made to the population regarding foreign investments, infrastructure projects, and an overall improvement in living standards. Instead, there have been further government layoffs, ever-rising gas and energy prices, while the Syrian currency has not bounced back as was advertised.
Sectarian groups of the Salafist kind are able not only to march through religious minority neighborhoods to intimidate the local populations but are able to behave in reprehensible ways and even carry out attacks, with little pushback, if any. The sectarian killings on the coast against Alawites have not been replicated in such a way since, but there are still attacks that do happen. Attempts to bring in solutions for the governance of the Alawite areas, like using fighters from what was formerly the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), are yet to come to fruition.
Meanwhile, the Israelis are constantly agitating and demanding that Damascus disarm the south by force, not permitting it to transfer military equipment south of the Capital. Al-Shara’a does not push back against the Israelis at all, simply nodding and respecting their requests. The most the Syrian leader has done is to declare that Israeli goods cannot be traded inside Syria.
In Quneitra and Dara’a, the Israelis continue to construct more military sites, deepening their illegal occupation, with only local militias signaling their intent to oppose them, having been abandoned by the forces aligned with Damascus. The Israelis also continue to back their Druze separatist allies in the southern Sweida Province, directly coordinating with them and supplying arms. Illicit drug trafficking and trade inside the country have also continued, something that has drawn neighboring Jordan into confrontations with gangs.
Uniting the nation under one banner is simply too steep a task for someone like Ahmed al-Shara’a, who has been the face of sectarian killings against the minorities, meaning that there is simply no trust in anyone like him. But, for the groups who were congregating and building power for years in Idlib, prior to taking over Damascus, they would not allow a neutral leader to emerge.
In a way, the only thing preventing Syria from descending into all-out chaos is the fact that Ahmed al-Shara’a remains sitting on his throne; if he is to be assassinated or run out of power, a vacuum will exist that allows for a free-for-all. Which is why the Israelis have such tremendous power, as do the Americans, because launching an assassination strike would be very simple if al-Shara’a were to begin behaving even slightly outside of the guidelines they have set.
Unfortunately, the country has been captured by the US and Israel, with no real options in front of it, so long as it refuses to resist and fight for its sovereignty. Resistance would mean immense suffering, but it is the only way forward. Now that Bashar al-Assad is gone and the sanctions are lifted, there is no excuse that the supporters of the current regime have as to why the country shouldn’t be able to develop economically.
Which means that eventually reality has to be faced. The US and Israel now control Syria, because this was their goal all along. They were behind fueling the rabid sectarianism, just as occurred in Iraq, they sought to make southern Syria Israeli, whether through physical occupation or proxy, and wanted to install a government that was incapable of making decisions without their approval.
It is not impossible for this predicament to change, but the only real road towards this is a Syrian resistance emerging in the south, which could act in a similar way to how Hezbollah does in southern Lebanon. Historically, this is what the US does, like how it installed the Shah in Iran, or why it economically crushes Cuba, because it will not allow any country to achieve sovereignty.
A golden opportunity could end up emerging soon, for the Syrians to begin working towards the liberation of their country, one that they missed during the previous 40-day period, and that is the re-opening of the regional war between Iran and the US-Israeli alliance.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/syria-on-a-knifes-edge-will-the-country-implode/
------
Corsairs of the Mediterranean: Israel’s Latest Act of State Piracy Unmasks the Zionist Regime
May 23, 2026
By Michael Leonardi
This has been yet another week of raw Israeli extremism, broadcast live to the world. On May 18th and 19th, 2026, Israeli commandos carried out an act of state piracy in international waters near Cyprus — more than 250 nautical miles from Gaza.
They stormed vessels of the international flotillas, brutally detained unarmed humanitarian activists, destroyed equipment, and held dozens hostage. The Squid Game-like images of civilians forced to kneel, zip-tied, and humiliated have shocked the global conscience.
Wanted International war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu emerged from a military command bunker to triumphantly praise the raid, bragging that Israeli commandos had successfully stopped the unarmed humanitarian flotilla activists from “supporting Hamas.” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich — himself the subject of an active International Criminal Court arrest warrant — arrogantly dismissed international law, declaring that Israel would continue to act as it pleased regardless of “so-called” legal constraints.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir turned the assault into a sadistic public spectacle. On May 20, he paraded detainees, forcing many to lie face-down on the ground with their hands tightly chained or tied behind their backs, mocking them for the cameras in a grotesque display of fascist cruelty and arrogance.
Ben-Gvir, a convicted racist who has long advocated executing Palestinian prisoners by hanging, has repeatedly celebrated such imagery, including wearing a noose pin and posting videos fantasizing about mass executions. His behavior this week was not an aberration — it was the logical expression of a regime that views Palestinians as subhuman and international law as an inconvenience.
Some have aptly called the Mediterranean Israel’s own or God’s chosen swimming pool — a lawless expanse where the self-proclaimed chosen people believe divine right grants them total impunity to rampage across international waters, throwing basic humanity to the wind in service of their messianic delusions. So far, they have done exactly that, and with complete impunity.
The mission of the flotillas is both immediate and strategic: to break Israel’s illegal naval blockade of Gaza, deliver desperately needed aid, and shine an unrelenting spotlight on the ongoing genocide. Imposed in 2007 as collective punishment, the blockade has long been calibrated through the infamous “Red Lines” policy — allowing just enough food to keep 2.3 million Palestinians on the edge of starvation.
Since October 2023, it has helped enable a live-streamed extermination: hospitals systematically destroyed, children dying of malnutrition, entire families erased. With total impunity, backed by Washington and its European allies, Israel has turned Gaza into the most documented slaughter in modern history.
Three coordinated efforts — the Global Sumud Flotilla, the Thousand Madleens to Gaza, and the Freedom Flotilla Coalition — represent the largest civilian maritime challenge to this siege in history. Their deeper goal is to forge a durable, global network of solidarity, connecting ports, unions, cities, and movements in an unbreakable chain alongside the Palestinian people’s struggle for liberation.
In Italy, Freedom Flotilla Italia is playing a vital role. Its “100 Ports, 100 Cities” campaign, which departed from Taranto on May 2, combines the sailboat Ghassan Kanafani — named after the legendary Palestinian writer and revolutionary assassinated by Mossad in 1972 — with a mobile caravan that travels from port to inland towns.
As the organizers state, the mission is “to build a solid and lasting network to stand alongside the Palestinian people and put the liberation of Palestine at the forefront of the struggle against imperialism and the world powers that enrich themselves through war and unrestrained capitalism at the expense of all of us.” It is also raising essential funds for the besieged Al Awda Hospital, one of the last functioning medical facilities in Gaza.
The latest act of piracy has triggered widespread outrage. Saif Abu Keshek, recently released after his previous abduction, was in Rome this week, joining protests against this new assault. The courage of the Flotilla activists has only fueled the movement.
The story has dominated front pages in Italy and made international headlines, with global leaders, human rights organizations, and ordinary citizens denouncing Israel’s behavior as a flagrant violation of international law. Yet, as always, condemnation has not translated into concrete action.
This week’s events lay bare Zionism’s essence: a European settler-colonial project, an ethno-supremacist enclave built on stolen land and sustained by relentless violence. Palestinians are the indigenous Semitic people of the region. The European colonizers are not. “Make Israel Palestine Again” is not revenge — it is justice and decolonization.
The moral bankruptcy of the West stands fully exposed. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas offers empty rhetoric about supporting Palestine while the bloc continues weapons supplies and uninterrupted economic cooperation with Israel.
Italy under Meloni — whose government carries the living DNA of Italian fascism — and Germany — a country with Nazism still in its blood, now expressed through brutal repression of Palestinian solidarity activists and blind support for Zionism — were instrumental in blocking any serious EU sanctions on the Zionist entity. Their complicity is criminal.
Meanwhile, Trump’s grotesque “Board of Peace” — a cabal of Zionist speculators and evangelical extremists — fantasizes about turning Gaza’s ruins into a luxury Riviera while Palestinians still die under bombs and blockade. This is gangster capitalism at its most depraved.
Despite Israel’s hundreds of millions poured into hasbara propaganda, the mask has fallen. The sadistic reality of Zionism — apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide — is now visible to millions all around the world.
The more Israel lashes out in arrogance and brutality, the faster the global awakening spreads. People across the world are connecting the dots: this is not self-defense, but the death throes of a colonial project that can no longer hide its true nature.
The flotillas sail on, in body or in spirit. The resistance at sea continues. The resistance on land must intensify.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/corsairs-of-the-mediterranean-israels-latest-act-of-state-piracy-unmasks-the-zionist-regime/
-------
The Strait of Hormuz: A Constant in Iranian History
May 22, 2026
By Dr. M. Reza Behnam
The strategic and spiritual resonance of the Strait of Hormuz is deeply woven into Iran’s identity. It represents a profound geographic constant in Iranian history. This narrow waterway has served as a central artery for Persian political and economic power, historical consciousness, and culture across millennia.
Whether safeguarding Zoroastrian trade routes under the Sassanids, expelling European powers in the Safavid era, or commanding energy routes today, Iran’s geopolitical identity is fused with this narrow stretch of water. It is a physical manifestation of sovereignty, insuring that the “Passage of the Palm Groves” and its divine namesake “Ahura Mazda” remains a focal point of global history.
Linguists and historians trace the etymology of “Hormuz” to “Ohrmazd,” the Middle Persian derivation of “Ahura Mazda” (the supreme deity of Zoroastrianism). To ancient Persian monarchs, this body of water was more than a trade route; it was an extension of the imperial cosmic divine order.
In the ancient dialect of southern Iran, the name is believed to have evolved from “Hur-Mogh.” In the local tongue of Hormozgan, Hur means waterway, and Mogh refers to palm trees. For people who lived there for millennia, the strait was not a military chokepoint; it was simply “The Passage of the Palm Groves.”
The Strait of Hormuz presents a profound historical paradox. Its name honors the Zoroastrian source of cosmic harmony, Ahura Mazda. Yet today, this narrow chokepoint, whose foundational ethos, “humata, hukhta, and huvarshta” (good thoughts, good words, and good deeds), is now the epicenter of severe international geopolitical friction and trade instability.
Long before it became the jugular vein of the modern global economy, the Strait of Hormuz was the sacred and strategic maritime gateway to the Persian empire.
The Achaemenid Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, was the first imperial power to recognize the strait as a strategic artery to be owned. Its name is tied to the Sassanian dynasty (224-651 CE), the last great pre-Islamic Persian empire and initiator of Zoroastrianism as a state religion.
During the Sassanian era, its Zoroastrian rulers expanded outward from the Iranian plateau to dominate both the northern and southern shores of the strait.
By commanding the entrance to the Persian Gulf by constructing forts and coastal infrastructure, these ancient kings secured their control over the lucrative maritime trade routes, linking Mesopotamia, the Indian subcontinent and the broader world.
Control over the Strait of Hormuz —the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean—has long been a linchpin of imperial power in West Asia. Its control has shifted across empires, passing from Sassanian Persian rulers and the Abbasid Caliphate to the formidable Kingdom of Hormuz, and eventually into the hands of expanding European colonial powers.
When the Safavid Empire (1501-1736) recaptured the region from the Portuguese in the 17th century, the strait was reestablished as an Iranian geopolitical asset. In the modern era, the reality of the waterway has been magnified on a global scale due to the discovery of petroleum in Iran in 1908.
The impact of the Strait of Hormuz extends far beyond the physical movement of petroleum, liquified natural gas, and global commerce. Historically, this narrow sea passage became a natural crossroads connecting civilizations, diffusing and blending Persian, Arab, and Indian art, philosophy, and belief systems. Also, the prosperity generated by taxing trade through the chokepoint allowed for port cities like old Hormuz to build grand mosques and complex architecture.
In the modern era, particularly following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran’s political geography has become inextricably tied to the Strait’s unique topographical realities. Its main navigational corridors are incredibly constrained, forcing commercial and military vessels to travel through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman.
The once open international thoroughfare is now at the center of conflict because of the February 28, 2026, US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic of Iran. For Tehran, control of the natural chokepoint serves as an asymmetric strategy to counterbalance foreign military power. Iran has successfully relied on its geographical proximity, utilizing coastal missiles, fast-attack boats and strategic islands to assert control over the strait.
Today, the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly a fifth of the world’s daily energy sources flow, remains the ultimate trump card in Iranian political geography. The passage grants Iran undeniable economic and strategic leverage.
From the divine association of Zoroastrian antiquity to the modern age of energy diplomacy, the Strait of Hormuz remains a defining feature of Iranian political geography. It continues to be the narrow gate through the geopolitical ambitions, economic lifeline, and historic legacy of Iran intersecting with the wider world.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-strait-of-hormuz-a-constant-in-iranian-history/
------
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