Albi Arhó,

A valiant protester appeared on a local Lebanese television channel, agitated and incensed, demanding that the Lebanese state demonstrate solidarity and fulfill its duties toward Iran following the Israeli strikes. It was as if the government and its officials were awaiting his directives, needing his approval lest they be immediately accused of treason or collaboration with the Zionist enemy.

The resistance did not waver, even as Israel declared that it had launched its military operations from within Iranian territory, where Mossad agents roam freely and conduct strikes at will. This revelation suggests that collaborators and infiltrators within Iran far outnumber those within our own sphere.

With disturbing precision, they enabled Mossad’s espionage and military operations deep inside a country once proud of its supposed ability to “wipe Israel off the map in seven minutes” – boasts that are now exposed as delusions.

The furious resistance fighters were not stunned by the Iranian media’s silence or its careful avoidance of escalating the situation or even accusing the “Great Satan” of orchestrating this upheaval, despite the recent and very public conversation between US President Donald Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That dialogue took place not in secret, but out in the open, within earshot of the so-called brave resistance.

Iran’s government chose to keep the confrontation contained, opting to suspend negotiations, perhaps waiting for clarity before making its next move.

Smoke rises following an Israeli attack in Tehran, Iran, June 18, 2025. (credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA (WEST ASIA NEWS AGENCY) VIA REUTERS)
Smoke rises following an Israeli attack in Tehran, Iran, June 18, 2025. (credit: Albi)
The resistance movement, meanwhile, disregarded the glaring absence of any reference to Palestine or the resistance in Iran’s official narrative following the Israeli raids. It clung to the belief that Iran was being targeted solely for its alliance with the “steadfast resistance of southern Lebanon” and the Palestinian cause, rather than because Iran’s regional strategies had reached the end of their shelf life.

No one appears to have told this indignant defender that Iran’s expansionist project – the much-vaunted Shi’ite Crescent – now serves only the Zionist agenda, offering it historic openings to reshape the region.



Our impassioned friend refuses to acknowledge that these proxy arms, once bloated with power and drunk on the might of their patron, have been spent and sacrificed. They were penetrated from within and crumbled under the weight of repeated strategic failures.

He cannot admit that this was not the start of a regional war, as some suggest, but rather a precise, targeted strike – one that exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities without triggering broader conflict.

The illusion of mutual deterrence has collapsed, revealing itself to be a hollow doctrine that has left the region – especially the Shiite Crescent – Israeli domination, courtesy of the axis’s own failures and miscalculations.

The implications are sobering: this level of exposure raises urgent questions about the region’s balance of power. It is not merely the symbolic defeat of the axis’s leadership, but a blow to its operational arms throughout the Middle East, jeopardizing the leverage it has long relied upon in diplomatic negotiations.

The gravity of the Israeli strikes, compounded by Iran’s apparent inability to retaliate, transcends national humiliation or the disorientation of militant factions. It has shaken regional actors still attempting to negotiate for a Palestinian state in exchange for peace, as opposed to descending into transactional blackmail and theatrical posturing.

What comes next? – Sana Aljak

Trump’s summer of domestic challenges

Al-Ittihad, UAE, June 14

The long, hot summer in the United States has erupted around two political flashpoints that could define the Trump administration’s ability to implement its “Make America Great Again” agenda.

The first centers on the dramatic public fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

The second concerns Trump’s escalating efforts to fulfill his controversial campaign promise of mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Musk, who reportedly contributed at least $250 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign and played a pivotal role in securing Republican victories in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, was initially rewarded with a powerful post: head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He pledged to save billions and reverse a growing deficit that has plagued the federal government for decades. Despite the upheaval caused by his reforms, Trump showered him with praise, leading to speculation of an informal “co-chairmanship” of the administration.

But this alliance quickly unraveled. Tensions exploded when Musk clashed physically with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a heated argument over IRS reforms. Bessent ridiculed Musk for failing to deliver on his lofty promises of fiscal savings. The final rupture came when Musk publicly denounced Trump’s proposed tax legislation as a “disgusting, abhorrent piece of work” that worsened the deficit.

Meanwhile, Trump pressed forward with his pledge to carry out “the largest domestic deportation order in American history,” a promise that had electrified his base but proved far more complex and expensive to implement than anticipated.

As the pace of daily arrests lagged and media outlets reported missteps by immigration enforcement teams, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller met with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) leadership and ordered a sharp escalation: 3,000 apprehensions per day.

In Los Angeles, what began as small protests over immigration raids quickly devolved into violent clashes. Trump bypassed state leadership and deployed both the California National Guard and US Marines to the streets, despite fierce objections from Governor Gavin Newsom.

With tensions mounting, fears are growing that unrest could spread nationwide. Should violence escalate further, Trump may invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, a rarely used law allowing the president to deploy federal forces to quell domestic unrest.

But if governors refuse to comply or actively resist, the nation could find itself on the brink of a constitutional showdown. – Geoffrey Kemp

IDF strikes the nuclear reactor in Arak, Iran, June 19, 2025. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)
IDF strikes the nuclear reactor in Arak, Iran, June 19, 2025. (credit: Albi)

Half a victory in the Iran-Israel war

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, June 1

This war was long overdue; it had been anticipated for two decades but never materialized. Both Iran and Israel managed to avoid direct confrontation, instead relying on proxy conflicts that simmered without boiling over – until the October 7, 2023, attack changed the equation.

At that moment, Israel shifted its doctrine. No longer content to merely “mow the grass” and periodically degrade proxy threats, Israeli leadership chose to attack the head of the octopus rather than its arms.

The campaign began with Hamas, continued with the systematic dismantling of Hezbollah’s capabilities, exposed and isolated the Assad regime in Syria, and has now culminated in a full-blown war with Iran.

Iran’s growing nuclear and missile arsenal had begun to render Israel’s long-standing deterrence doctrine ineffective, making a large-scale confrontation inevitable to reestablish a favorable balance of power and restore strategic deterrence.

In the Israeli doctrine of deterrence, David Ben-Gurion famously declared, “A long war is not our option; deterrence is our true weapon,” while Moshe Dayan added, “We must frighten them with the idea of waging war, not just win it.”

This philosophy remains a cornerstone of Israeli military strategy: Deny adversaries the means to pose a credible threat. Yet a war between two militarily advanced and destructive states introduces grave risks. History has shown how regional conflicts can rapidly spiral into catastrophes.

Hassan Nasrallah never expected that launching a handful of rockets would put the survival of Hezbollah itself in question. Bashar Assad could not have foreseen that he would one day be a figurehead, politically irrelevant, holed up in a Moscow suburb. And Yahya Sinwar likely never imagined the level of devastation that Gaza would suffer as a result of his October 7, 2023 gambit.

Just days into this war, the cost has already been staggering. Iran has lost top commanders, and its nuclear and missile infrastructure has sustained severe damage. But Israel, too, is bleeding.

Israeli cities have suffered a level of destruction not seen since the 1948 war, hit by Iranian missiles that slipped through the Iron Dome, a system stretched beyond its limits by the scale and precision of the assault.

This is not a typical conflict where minor skirmishes shift borders or agendas. This is existential. The calculus of loss has fundamentally changed.

In the past, Israeli governments could collapse over the deaths of a few soldiers. Today, over 400 Israeli troops have been killed in Gaza alone, and the war continues.

What’s different is that both Israel and Iran are prepared to absorb heavy losses. They both see this war as decisive and defining, one that will shape their futures for decades.

Each side accuses the other of breaching red lines by targeting civilians, signaling a dangerous rhetorical escalation that may justify widening the war. This is reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq War, when missile strikes deliberately targeted cities to break national morale.

Israel’s defense minister has warned that “Tehran will burn” if Iranian attacks on civilian areas persist. That kind of rhetoric sets the stage for targeting political leadership figures who were deliberately avoided at the outset of the conflict.

Can the war be stopped within its first week?

Israeli officials claim early success in neutralizing Iranian missile defenses, command centers, and some strategic sites. But Iran’s full capabilities have not been destroyed, and critical infrastructure remains intact.

The question now is whether both sides are willing to accept a partial victory and agree to a ceasefire that brings them back to the nuclear negotiating table. Tehran may be open to this, if only to halt the immediate destruction, but Israel appears determined to finish the job and ensure Iran remains unable to threaten it for at least another generation.

Other stakeholders, particularly US President Donald Trump, are likely to push for de-escalation. But will Trump step in before the conflict spins further out of control? And if he does, what will that intervention look like?

The war in Ukraine began with two nations; now it involves Iranian drones, North Korean soldiers, and Western military advisers. The Middle East could be on the cusp of a similar expansion if diplomacy fails to take hold. – Abdulrahman Al-Rashed