Middle East Press On: Turkish Red Crescent, Netanyahu, US-Iran Deal, Strait of Hormuz, Armed Gaza Militias, Israel, Iran’s War Doctrine, New Age Islam's Selection, 23 June 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
23 June 2026
Turkish Red Crescent: Global leader in humanitarian aid
Netanyahu must be tamed for US-Iran deal to progress
Strait of Hormuz closure delivers tough lessons on energy security
Israeli Admission: Armed Gaza Militias Failed—And Could Turn Against Israel
Under a Tree in Gaza: Waiting for Death and Praying for Dawn
The Architecture of Endurance – Understanding Iran’s War Doctrine Beyond Western Narratives
--------
Turkish Red Crescent: Global leader in humanitarian aid
by Fatma Meriç Yılmaz
Jun 23, 2026
In recent years, the world has been going through a period marked by increasingly severe wars, disasters, migration, and humanitarian crises. In such times, the importance of institutions that represent the conscience of nations grows even more. With its 158-year legacy, the Turkish Red Crescent (Kızılay) continues its work as a powerful humanitarian aid movement that has become a beacon of hope for those in need, not only in our country but across the globe.
Today, the Turkish Red Crescent carries out its international aid efforts through 13 delegations across a wide geographical area, from Afghanistan to Yemen, from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Bangladesh, and from Azerbaijan to Somalia. These delegations are not merely aid distribution offices; they are humanitarian centers working for lasting impact and the protection of human dignity in the countries where they operate.
Through our traditional food and cash assistance programs during Ramadan and Eid al-Adha, we reach millions of people in need. Throughout the year, we make a meaningful difference in people’s lives through education, healthcare and social support initiatives. In times of disaster and crisis, our rapid response capacity ensures that aid sent from Türkiye reaches those in need as quickly as possible. For the Red Crescent, humanitarian aid is not merely a support activity but a responsibility toward the collective conscience of humanity.
This philosophy is also reflected in the international arena with tangible results. According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ (IFRC) 2025 report on international bilateral aid, the Turkish Red Crescent ranked first among all national societies worldwide, having delivered aid to 42 countries. In terms of the monetary value of the aid provided, it rose to second place.
More importantly, in 2025, the Turkish Red Crescent provided 119 million Swiss francs in international humanitarian assistance, about 26% of the total 451 million Swiss francs in international bilateral aid delivered that year by Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide. These figures demonstrate not only an institutional achievement but also our nation’s culture of sharing, compassion and determination to stand by the oppressed.
Our international aid efforts have long been centered on regions plagued by severe humanitarian crises. While the devastating effects of the war in Syria continue to impact the lives of millions, the Turkish Red Crescent alone accounted for 74% of the total international bilateral aid provided to that country by Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide. This percentage underscores the magnitude of the helping hand extended by the Turkish people to their neighbors and brothers.
However, the crisis that wounds our consciences the most today is the one in Gaza. Although a ceasefire has been established in the region, millions of people in Gaza continue to struggle to survive. Despite the most challenging conditions, the Turkish Red Crescent has never let go of its support for the people of Gaza.
In 2025, our aid to Palestine accounted for 48% of the total international bilateral aid provided to Palestine by Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide. In other words, approximately one out of every two units of aid delivered to Palestine by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was provided by the Turkish Red Crescent. In this regard, we are the organization that has delivered the most aid to Palestine among national societies worldwide. There is a much greater significance behind these figures. Every food box, every hygiene kit, every medical aid package, and every item of humanitarian aid delivered to Gaza is a testament to the fact that hope, brotherhood and humanity still stand strong.
The successes we have achieved today are not the work of a single institution alone; they are the result of a great movement for good that we have built together with our donors, volunteers, staff and all our citizens who offer their support. The Turkish Red Crescent draws its strength from the conscience of our nation and shares this strength with those in need across the globe.
On June 11, we celebrated the 158th anniversary of the Turkish Red Crescent with great pride and excitement, in the presence of our President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This deep-rooted legacy, spanning more than a century and a half, is the strongest guarantee of our journey of goodwill from the past to the present.
In the coming period, we will continue to bring hope to children living in the shadow of war, support communities striving to recover after disasters, and serve as a source of trust for people in need, wherever they are in the world. Because we know that kindness grows when shared, compassion has no limits, and humanity is strengthened only through solidarity.
*President of the Turkish Red Crescent
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/turkish-red-crescent-global-leader-in-humanitarian-aid
-------
Netanyahu must be tamed for US-Iran deal to progress
Chris Doyle
June 22, 2026
One leader must be tamed for the US-Iran deal to progress beyond the foothills of the shaky 60-day ceasefire. One leader needs to suffer from the sort of political bullying that he himself has specialized in for decades. This is, of course, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
And if he is the obstacle, the only leader who can do the bullying is President Donald Trump. Already, the last few weeks have seen unprecedented levels of criticism directed at the Israeli leadership from Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and other leading US officials. At last week’s G7 Summit, Trump described the Israeli attacks on Lebanon as “vicious” and “too much.”
Vance was clear: “What the president has grown frustrated with, at times, is that we seem to be right on the cusp of a major breakthrough in the agreement and then all of a sudden there’s a major explosion that goes off in a civilian population center in Beirut, and a lot of people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah lose their lives.”
It is some transformation in US talking points. Israel has pummeled Lebanese civilian targets for months. Nothing was said. Palestinians in Gaza might wonder how bad the genocide they are enduring has to get for such sentiments to be voiced in the White House. Israel has hit thousands of Palestinian buildings that had nothing to do with Hamas.
But Israel’s leaders are not backing off Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz said: “There has never been and there is currently no restriction on Israeli soldiers in Lebanon from acting to eliminate threats.” The word “threats” is a very permissive, catch-all term that commanders can interpret broadly.
Why, then, is Netanyahu being so obstinate? Israel has so much to lose if the relationship with Washington disintegrates, not least as it is also losing so many other allies. It requires weaponry, not least to replace all the antimissile system rounds defending the country from Iranian missile and drone barrages.
For Netanyahu, the war has been even more of a disaster than for Trump. A year ago, Netanyahu could credibly boast that Israel had dealt some stunning blows to Iranian power in the Middle East. The 12-day war on Iran had seemingly exposed Iran’s vulnerability. Its nuclear installations had been crippled. Hezbollah and Hamas had both been degraded significantly. But his arrogance was his undoing.
This war has reinforced the Iranian leadership, not weakened it. Iran barely needs a nuclear deterrent anymore as its control of the Strait of Hormuz and, conceivably, the Bab Al-Mandab Strait is deterrent enough, at least to the US if not Israel.
The excursion on Iran that Netanyahu seduced Trump into embarking on may cost him his job and arguably his personal liberty, owing to his corruption trial. Instead of a US-Iran deal negotiated from a position of American strength, Iran can dictate the terms as it holds the global economy in its grip courtesy of the Strait of Hormuz closure.
The Iranian leadership has made the survival of Hezbollah integral to its negotiating position. The Trump administration has conceded this but Netanyahu has not. Nominal ceasefire deals have been announced but never respected.
But Netanyahu has a point about the Iran deal, even if he is to blame for the transformation in Tehran’s fortunes. Firstly, he has only ever considered dealing with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas with total force. He has no political strategy for engaging with his foes. This puts him at odds with Trump, who went to war to achieve certain political goals, even if he failed.
Secondly, the Iran deal is weak as it stands. Many of the clauses are vague and open to interpretation. The Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon is not yet backed up by the necessary verification processes. Regional states, not just Israel, will be nervous at Iran’s retention of its significant ballistic missile and drone arsenals.
Netanyahu’s greater political dilemma is that, at home, the near-universal consensus is that the Iran war failed. In a poll last week, more than 92 percent of Israelis said they believe Iran has won the war and nearly the same number see Israel’s objectives as unachieved.
As polls go, that is wildly comprehensive. This is political wipeout territory just weeks or months away from the only poll that Netanyahu cares about: the Israeli elections, which must take place by the end of October.
So, what incentive has Netanyahu to back off Lebanon, to stop bombing, let alone withdraw from the territory it is occupying? To do so would invite devastating critiques from his electoral enemies.
Only Trump can change the equation. It will require a mix of threats — not least on US weapons to Israel — and incentives. The alarming bribe that Netanyahu could snatch from the American leader is a free hand in Palestine, to finish the Gaza genocide and ethnic cleansing, advance the doomsday settlement of E1 east of Jerusalem that will divide the West Bank, and even change the status quo on Al-Aqsa. As often is the case, the Palestinians may bear the brunt of US-Israeli failures on other fronts.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2648146
-------
Strait of Hormuz closure delivers tough lessons on energy security
Roberto Bocca
June 22, 2026
The recent disruption to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz sent shockwaves far beyond oil and gas markets. The effects quickly rippled through global shipping, industrial supply chains and household bills, while adding to inflationary and fiscal pressures.
But the crisis also reinforced an urgent reality: For many countries, the energy transition — the shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources — is as much about security and economic resilience as it is about sustainability.
For much of the past decade, the central question shaping the transition debate was whether clean technologies could scale quickly enough to compete with fossil fuels. In many sectors and regions, that question has been answered. In 2025, renewables and nuclear power generated 42 percent of global electricity usage, renewable generation grew by 9 percent, and global investment in clean energy reached a record $2.3 trillion.
The harder question now is whether countries can build diversified and secure energy systems that remain affordable, sustainable and resilient under stress.
New World Economic Forum research suggests that many countries are struggling to succeed on all three fronts at once. While global progress on clean energy deployment continued in the past year, the foundations that determine whether progress can last — investment, infrastructure, policy stability and innovation — came under pressure. Energy security showed the clearest signs of strain, as geopolitical tensions, infrastructure bottlenecks and supply-chain concentration grew more acute. The Strait of Hormuz crisis only accelerated this trend.
This vulnerability is increasingly shaping how governments think about the energy transition.
In the past, progress was measured largely by deployment: how quickly or affordably countries could build renewable capacity, scale electric vehicles or attract investment. Today, security has become a more important measure of success: the ability to maintain reliable and affordable energy systems amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.
The countries responding most effectively are reducing their exposure to external shocks by investing in domestic capacity and diversified energy sources.
China offers an example. While it continues to partially depend on imported fossil fuels and domestic coal, it is also accelerating electrification and grid expansion with fast and large-scale renewable deployment. Wind and solar now generate 22 percent of the nation’s electricity. The significance here is not only about pace and scale. It is the objective to reduce exposure to external shocks by building a more resilient and internally integrated energy system.
Europe is taking a different path toward a similar objective. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, investment in grids, storage, hydrogen, heat pumps and domestic clean technology manufacturing has become as much a strategic autonomy and competitiveness imperative as a climate one. A key goal is to reduce exposure to potentially volatile imports — though the impact of the Strait of Hormuz disruption has reinforced the scale of the challenge.
Brazil, meanwhile, shows what greater resilience can look like. Decades of investment in biofuels, combined with a relatively clean domestic power mix, have left the country less exposed to recent volatility than many of its peers. Renewed investments in ethanol, biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel are deepening that advantage. Together, these efforts help buffer the country from external shocks while advancing its decarbonization goals.
Japan points to another dimension of the resilience challenge: supply-chain security and innovation. Energy security increasingly extends beyond fuels to critical minerals, batteries, semiconductors and grid equipment. A national rare metals stockpiling system helps protect against overseas supply disruptions, while decades of gains in energy efficiency, sustainability and innovation show how security can be paired with industrial capability. The result is a model in which resilience supports competitiveness rather than simply guarding against risk.
Taken together, these examples underscore a shift in the competitive logic of the transition. Countries that can deliver reliable power from mixed sources, robust infrastructure and secure supply chains will be better placed to attract investment and strengthen industrial capacity. The ability to withstand disruption has become a strategic economic advantage.
For governments, this will mean focusing not only on deploying renewables but also building the grids, storage and investment frameworks that make systems more resilient. For companies, energy strategy will become inseparable from competitiveness strategy. Manufacturers, data centers and industrial firms are already exposed not just to energy prices but also to grid reliability, fuel supply disruptions and infrastructure constraints. These factors are set to play a growing role in investment decisions, as companies place greater value on certainty and continuity of supply.
The key lesson from the Strait of Hormuz disruption is not how vulnerable global markets remain to fossil fuel shocks — it is that energy security is not separate from the transition itself but increasingly one of the conditions on which it depends. Without secure and reliable energy, affordability becomes fragile and sustainability becomes harder to sustain.
The countries that emerge strongest from the next phase of the transition will be those with diversified energy systems that remain secure, affordable and sustainable in a more uncertain world.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2648144
------
Israeli Admission: Armed Gaza Militias Failed—And Could Turn Against Israel
June 22, 2026
For more than two years, Israel has quietly pursued what many officials hoped would become one of the central pillars of its genocide strategy in Gaza: the creation of locally armed Palestinian groups capable of challenging Hamas, administering territory, and eventually serving as an alternative governing force inside the Strip.
Today, according to an investigation published by the Israeli news outlet Zman Israel, even some of Israel’s own analysts, former intelligence officials, and security experts are openly questioning whether the entire project has failed.
Far from becoming a viable alternative to Hamas, the militias remain fragmented, geographically isolated, dependent on Israeli protection, and largely devoid of public legitimacy.
More alarmingly for Israel, experts now warn that the weapons, training, and capabilities provided to these groups could eventually be turned against the occupation itself.
The report reveals growing frustration inside Israeli policy circles as efforts to engineer a new political reality in Gaza continue to fall short.
A Project Built in Secrecy
According to Zman Israel, Israel has spent the past year supplying anti-Hamas armed groups with extensive support, including weapons, intelligence, food supplies, logistical assistance, air support, and medical treatment for wounded fighters inside Israel.
The investigation points to evidence suggesting that some groups may now be receiving increasingly sophisticated military equipment.
In May, one militia published footage showing one of its members operating what appeared to be a large military-grade drone, prompting fresh concerns among Israeli observers regarding the nature of the support being provided.
Yet despite the resources invested, much of the project remains shrouded in secrecy.
Israeli authorities have repeatedly refused to answer questions regarding the militias’ structure, funding, operational objectives, or long-term role in Gaza.
The Israeli military declined to comment on whether advanced equipment seen in militia videos originated from Israel, while the Prime Minister’s Office and Defense Ministry also avoided substantive responses.
The absence of transparency has become one of the central criticisms raised by Israeli experts themselves.
‘Capital of Israeli Fantasies’
Among the sharpest critics is Michael Milshtein, former head of Palestinian affairs in Israeli military intelligence and one of Israel’s most respected analysts on Palestinian society.
“Gaza has become the capital of Israeli fantasies, and that includes operating these militias,” Milshtein told Zman Israel.
His criticism extends far beyond questions of implementation. Milshtein argues that the underlying assumption—that Israel could manufacture a local Palestinian alternative to Hamas through armed proxies—was flawed from the outset.
According to the report, Israel initially attempted to cultivate alternative power structures through clans, influential families, and local figures beginning in early 2024. Those efforts largely collapsed after many families rejected cooperation, fearing both confrontation with Hamas and accusations of collaboration with the occupation.
Netanyahu later acknowledged that Israel had attempted to strengthen clans and local actors to replace Hamas rule, but the strategy produced few tangible results.
Hundreds of Fighters, Little Influence
The report paints a stark picture of the militias’ actual footprint inside Gaza.
Videos, social media posts, and public statements issued by the groups suggest that their combined strength amounts to only a few hundred fighters. Their activities consist primarily of sporadic clashes with Hamas, aid distribution campaigns, patrols in Israeli-controlled areas, and extensive social media efforts designed to project influence.
While some militia leaders claim to administer small enclaves free from Hamas control, the report notes that nearly all of Gaza’s population remains concentrated in areas where Hamas continues to exercise authority.
Researchers interviewed by the publication concluded that the militias have failed to meaningfully alter the balance of power inside the Strip.
Milshtein was particularly blunt. According to the report, he argued that the groups have had “very little significant influence” on Gaza beyond potentially harming Israeli interests.
Palestinians Deeply Skeptical
Perhaps the most damaging finding concerns public legitimacy. The investigation cites testimony from Gaza residents, researchers, and even some militia leaders themselves indicating that the groups have struggled to gain acceptance among Palestinians.
Residents interviewed by the publication reportedly described hostility toward the militias, while others rejected them as entities that do not represent Palestinian national interests.
Even Israeli researchers who support efforts to weaken Hamas acknowledged that the militias remain marginal actors with limited influence over civilian life.
A recurring criticism throughout the report is that none of the current militia leaders possessed significant standing within Palestinian society before the war. Some were reportedly associated with criminal activity, smuggling operations, or other controversial backgrounds.
Milshtein offered perhaps the most devastating assessment. “Clearly, we took the bottom layer of Palestinian society,” he said.
“People who are criminals, questionable figures, involved in terrorism against Israel—out of the belief that they could become an alternative to Hamas.”
Fears of Blowback
The report also reveals growing concern that the project could eventually backfire.
Milshtein warned that transferring advanced capabilities such as drones to militia groups carries serious risks.
“They will eventually turn to terrorism themselves, or Hamas will get hold of the drones and use them against us,” he warned.
Other concerns center on the possibility that weapons distributed to the militias could eventually fall into the hands of Palestinian resistance groups, creating a new security challenge for Israel.
The investigation further notes reports that some militias have participated in the displacement of civilians from areas targeted for expanded Israeli control, raising additional questions regarding their role on the ground.
No Strategy, No Accountability
Beyond questions of effectiveness, the report exposes what critics describe as a profound lack of strategic clarity.
After years of war, Israel still appears unable to answer a fundamental question: what role are these groups actually supposed to play?
The militias have not replaced Hamas. They have not established broad administrative authority. They have not secured meaningful public support.
And according to the report, there has been little serious evaluation of whether the project should continue at all.
Milshtein’s final assessment captures the growing frustration emerging within sections of Israel’s security establishment. “No one stops and asks where all this nonsense is going,” he said.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-admission-armed-gaza-militias-failed-and-could-turn-against-israel/
-------
Under a Tree in Gaza: Waiting for Death and Praying for Dawn
June 22, 2026
By Amr Hamdi Baroud
I used to think I knew what suffering was, until I truly experienced it.
What I discovered was different, strange, and painful.
How curious pain is. Despite its bitterness, despite our wishing to be as far from it as east is from west, there is, when it arrives, a certain sweetness to it.
Yes, sweetness.
For a long time, I believed that sweetness lay only in remembering pain after it had passed and faded away. But Gaza is a strange place in this world. Nothing resembles it. It is a fragment of this earth where every contradiction exists side by side beneath the same sky.
Yes, I felt a strange sweetness on the day I was wounded, on the day I saw death, and on the day I survived it.
I cannot fully explain how pain became something I could almost savor. Yet I have an imperfect attempt at understanding it. The war—and all the suffering it brought upon my people, suffering I witnessed in its finest and most devastating details, much like Handala himself—made me, without realizing it, long to understand what real pain truly means. To taste bitterness. To experience that genuine kind of suffering, not the kind we often convince ourselves we endure.
I believe a person cannot fully grasp the truth of something until they encounter its most extreme form. So it is with war.
Cursed be war. How I hate it. How I hate the fact that it happened and cannot be undone.
And yet, I cannot deny a hidden feeling of gratitude toward it for the mark it has left upon me—a mark I will never forget.
Isn’t that a paradox?
It was October 7—the third anniversary of October 7. It was a difficult day for my hometown of Al-Qarara, a town that had been emptied of its people.
I was heading there because I desperately needed a barrel of water stored at my aunt’s house. On the outskirts of town, one of my neighbors advised me not to go any farther.
“It’s October 7,” he said. “Not an ordinary day.”
But I was determined.
I was afraid, exhausted, and tempted by the thought of returning to my tent and resting. Yet I feared something else more: that I would later provoke myself with accusations of cowardice. So I chose risk over retreat.
I advanced a little farther but soon realized the situation truly was dangerous. I decided to turn back.
A few steps after turning around, the unforgettable moment arrived.
A sound and an image.
The image was a spray of blood—thick, red, streaked with white—bursting from my leg, followed by a cloud of dust.
The sound was that of a bullet coming from behind me, shattering the eerie silence that blanketed the area. Even when a bullet misses, its sound shakes the soul. What then when it strikes?
My leg was completely shattered.
I fell to the ground and let out a scream of terror I will never forget.
Within fractions of a second, I realized the shooter was behind me and that the next bullet might be the last. I threw myself to the left, dragging myself on my hands and knees toward a ruined house. Then I hurled my body onto the rubble and pressed myself against a crumbling wall for cover.
I looked at my foot and found it swollen to twice its normal size.
Holding my ankle with my right hand, I struggled to remove my shoe with my left. You cannot take a shoe off a leg broken in half without using both hands.
What a place.
What a scene.
The sun blazed overhead.
A minute of silence passed as I tried to understand what had happened and what was about to happen.
Then I spoke my first words after that minute: “I wish the bullet had killed me. I wish you had put it in my back.”
I said it because of the unbearable pain and because of the suffering I knew awaited me. There was no one here to save me.
No one.
As I sat there believing it was over, a small drone appeared overhead. It hovered motionless, staring down at me. I gestured toward it.
It’s over, I thought. Go away. What is left now?
But it remained.
Then another drone arrived. One glance at the second was enough for me to understand it carried death.
Its belly was swollen, and although I was no expert—and had seen these drones only rarely since the beginning of the war—I suspected that swelling could mean only one thing.
A bomb.
It moved directly above me, then it dropped it. I watched it fall toward me with terrifying clarity and overwhelming fear.
Had God not shown mercy, a gust of wind would not have pushed it slightly off course. The bomb struck the corner of the wall beside me and exploded behind it, leaving me unharmed.
For the second time, I launched myself forward with my heavy, dangling leg.
Through the dust of the explosion, I made my way toward the tree beneath which I would shelter for an entire day—a tree whose image I will carry in my mind and whose memory I will keep in my heart for as long as I live: The giant ficus tree.
When I later reflected on that moment, I remembered feeling deeply humiliated.
Perhaps because a human life is not meant to end that way. The wound itself was not the humiliation. The humiliation was the method.
If my enemy wanted to kill me, let him come and do it himself. Let him finish the matter face to face. Not by sending a machine to drop a bomb on me and be done with it.
I did not want that hideous creature to take my life.
Of course, I knew there were people behind it, people far uglier than the machine itself. Yet in that moment, it felt as though the drone alone wanted me dead.
And I hated that kind of death.
That was the prayer I whispered when I reached my tree and sat against its trunk.
When the ugly thing returned once more, I said:
“My God, I do not want to die in an explosion. I do not want to die disfigured, without even understanding the moment of my end. Let it be death by bleeding. Let it be quiet. Give me time before it comes.
“Give me time to revisit the memories of the war and the years before it. The memory of my mother, a physician who was killed in an airstrike for no crime at all.
“The memory of my father, a professor who disappeared at the beginning of the war and whose fate remains unknown to this day.
“The memory of our home, only two streets away, where the remnants of our childhood, our youth, and our beautiful past still cling to shattered walls.
“Give me time to remember my wife.
“My little son.
“Give me time to see their faces one last time before farewell.
“And let me ask You to have mercy on them and on me.”
I remained beneath that tree for more than twenty-four hours. After the first bomb, three more were dropped on me.
None of them hit.
My tree spread its branches wide and cast a generous shade. To kill me, the drone operator had to drop the bomb through the canopy while merely guessing my position beneath it.
Two bombs landed several meters away. The distance was enough to save me. The third was dropped directly above me, but it struck one of the branches and bounced away before exploding.
By midday on October 8, after a long and lonely night beneath a full moon, after waiting for certain death and losing a great deal of blood, my mind had entered a state somewhere between consciousness and delirium.
I thought the next stage would be unconsciousness. And then the end.
Suddenly, I heard footsteps.
I looked up and saw a man walking along the same road I had taken the day before. He was carrying firewood and had not noticed me.
I shouted, asking him for water.
The man seemed frightened. For a moment, I thought he had fled. But he returned. And with him came three others.
They hurried toward me, lifted me, and laid me on a cart pulled by an animal. Then they began carrying me across uneven ground strewn with stones.
My shattered leg swung from side to side; the pain was beyond description.
Yet beside the possibility of survival, it felt almost insignificant.
You are now reading a true story. If you think it was harsh, let me reassure you, dear reader: There are things far harsher, there are wounds far deeper.
These people have endured what no human being should have to endure—not in our age, nor in ages long past.
Mine is only one story among thousands that will continue to be told for years to come.
My story is precious to me: It is the story of my second birth, the story of emerging from the womb of death into the vastness of life.
A passage that made me cling more tightly to life—not to its material comforts, but to its honesty, companionship, warmth, hardship, and the peace that follows hardship.
I do not tell it for recognition, its value cannot be measured. I tell it only to ask a question: What difference does any of this make?
What is the point of it all? I write, you read. You may feel sorrow. Perhaps you will feel anger.
And then what?
I have told my story, many others will tell theirs. But what has changed?
Someone once tried to ease the darkness of my view of a world that had chosen to stand and watch.
“Do not be sad,” he said. “The world has witnessed horrors worse than this. History is full of oppression and killing, from ancient times until not so long ago. Yet humanity never lost its humanity. Good remained in people just as evil remained.”
“I do not disagree,”I replied. “But tell me—has history ever recorded a massacre that was broadcast live to the entire world, every single day, without interruption?”
“No,” he answered.
“Then how can today be the same as yesterday?”
They are not the same.
Just as the night seemed endless to the world, so too did the night seem endless beneath my tree. I thought it would never end.
But when dawn finally came, and sunlight began filtering through the leaves of the giant ficus, it felt as though the entire world was changing.
A new desire for life arose within me, a desire carried by the morning light. And I realized that dawn is not merely a symbol of beginnings. It is a hidden promise, a manifestation of one of God’s unchanging laws.
After darkness comes light; after hardship comes relief; after fear comes safety.
And even our darkest nights will one day become distant memories beneath a new sun.
So, dear reader, “Is not the morning near?”
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/under-a-tree-in-gaza-waiting-for-death-and-praying-for-dawn/
-----
The Architecture of Endurance – Understanding Iran’s War Doctrine Beyond Western Narratives
June 22, 2026
By Iqbal Jassat
Led by Israel and Zionist allied “think tanks”, Western political leaders, military planners, and media institutions have portrayed Iran as an “irrational actor” driven by ideological extremism and regional aggression.
This deceptive narrative has served a strategic purpose by obscuring a more uncomfortable reality: Iran’s military doctrine is not built around conquest, expansion, or conventional battlefield dominance. It is built around survival.
Absent from much of the public discourse is the fact that Iran’s entire military structure evolved in response to isolation, sanctions, encirclement and repeated threats of regime change.
Following Iran’s historic 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew a Western puppet and the devastating Western-imposed war by Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime on Iran, Tehran concluded that it could not compete directly with the overwhelming technological superiority of the United States and its allies. The result was the development of a doctrine focused on deterrence, endurance and resilience rather than conventional superiority.
What is routinely presented as aggression is often the visible component of a much broader strategy designed to impose costs on any adversary contemplating war. Iranian planners understand that they cannot defeat the United States or Israel in a traditional military confrontation. Their objective is therefore different. They seek to make military intervention so costly, prolonged and disruptive that political leaders in Washington or Tel Aviv reconsider the value of war itself.
While Western militaries often seek rapid, decisive victories through technological superiority and overwhelming firepower, Iran seeks to stretch conflict over time. The longer a conflict continues, the greater the financial, political and social burden imposed on its adversaries. Iranian strategists calculate that democratic societies possess lower tolerance for prolonged military and economic pain than Iran itself.
This explains Tehran’s enormous investment in missiles and drones.
The logic is simple. A relatively inexpensive drone can force an adversary to expend interceptor missiles costing many times more. The objective is not merely military damage. It is economic exhaustion. Every interception becomes a financial drain. Every wave of drones becomes a test of sustainability. The battlefield extends beyond military installations into budgets, supply chains and political patience.
This approach exposes a vulnerability rarely discussed in mainstream coverage. Advanced military technology often comes with extraordinary costs. Iran’s strategy seeks to weaponize that imbalance.
Another element routinely omitted from public discussion is the extent to which Iran has redefined the battlefield itself.
Through support for Hezbollah, Iraqi Resistance, the Houthis, and Palestinian liberation movements Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Iran has developed what it describes as an Axis of Resistance. Western governments portray these relationships exclusively through the language of proxy warfare. Yet from Tehran’s perspective, they represent strategic depth.
A conflict with Iran can thus no longer be confined to a single battlefield. It immediately becomes regional.
The beneficiaries of narratives that reduce these dynamics to simple “terrorism frameworks” are clear. Such framing eliminates historical context and removes discussion of broader regional security calculations. It simplifies a sophisticated deterrence architecture into a morality play that is easier to sell to domestic audiences.
Perhaps the most significant and least understood component of Iran’s doctrine is its decentralized command structure.
For decades, Western and Israeli military planning has relied heavily on leadership decapitation strategies. The assumption is straightforward. Remove key commanders and military organizations become ineffective.
Iran spent years studying the failures of Saddam Hussein’s military during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and concluded that centralized command structures were fatal vulnerabilities. The result was the development of the Mosaic Defense doctrine.
Under this model, Iran is divided into multiple semi-autonomous regional commands capable of functioning independently if central leadership is destroyed. Each command possesses local intelligence capabilities, logistics infrastructure, and operational authority. If communications collapse or senior leaders are eliminated, regional commanders are expected to continue fighting under preplanned directives.
If one commander is killed, another immediately assumes responsibility. The objective is simple: ensure that the military never stops functioning.
Iran’s military doctrine also treats geography as an active component of warfare.
Its mountainous terrain provides natural defensive barriers. Vast distances complicate any ground invasion. Underground missile complexes carved deep into mountains preserve critical assets from aerial bombardment.
Most importantly, Iran’s position alongside the Strait of Hormuz gives it leverage over one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
Western reporting frequently focuses on missile inventories and military hardware while giving far less attention to the strategic reality that geography itself remains one of Iran’s most powerful deterrents.
The ability to threaten disruptions to global energy markets transforms regional conflict into an international economic crisis. This expands the political costs of war far beyond the immediate participants.
And of course, modern warfare is fought through information as much as missiles.
Iran understands this reality and invests heavily in influence operations designed to shape domestic and international perceptions. State media networks, cyber capabilities and strategic messaging are deployed alongside conventional military assets. The goal is to ensure that Iranian actions are correctly framed as defensive responses while portraying adversaries as aggressors.
The United States, NATO members, Israel, Russia, and China all engage in similar information operations. Yet mainstream discussion often presents Western strategic communication as public diplomacy while framing Iranian messaging as propaganda. The distinction reflects power and narrative control more than objective analysis.
The most important lesson from Iran’s military doctrine is that it was never designed to produce a traditional military victory. Its purpose is deterrence and evidently has proven to be successful as we observe in how both the US and Israel have been pushed into a corner.
Iran’s planners have built a system designed to survive bombardment, absorb leadership losses, stretch conflicts over time and impose escalating economic and political costs on attackers.
This reality is frequently absent from public debate because it complicates prevailing narratives of “irrationality and aggression”.
It reveals a military doctrine shaped less by ambitions of conquest than by calculations of survival.
The evidence demonstrates that Iran’s strategic focus is not battlefield dominance but endurance. Its military architecture is designed to ensure that even if its leaders are killed, its cities attacked and its infrastructure damaged, the state remains capable of fighting.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-architecture-of-endurance-understanding-irans-war-doctrine-beyond-western-narratives/
--------
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