It is useful to lay out the chronological context of the events:
The signing of a ceasefire agreement in November 2024
The withdrawal of the Resistance from south of the Litani River
An Israeli advance and the occupation of positions south of the Litani
Ongoing Israeli attacks on the South, Beirut, the Bekaa, and the North
The Resistance handing over its weapons south of the Litani in accordance with the ceasefire agreement
The Lebanese state assigning the army to develop a plan to withdraw the Resistance’s weapons throughout Lebanon (even the Israeli side was surprised by the state’s adherence to its commitment)
The Lebanese state announcing its approval of civil negotiations with the enemy
The Lebanese state pledging to protect all Lebanese
The Lebanese state declaring the imposition of its full sovereignty over the country
Continued and escalating Israeli attacks (martyrs, wounded, and destroyed livelihoods)
The Resistance remaining inactive and giving the state the opportunity to carry out its duty
The attacks increasing, along with the number of martyrs
The Lebanese state failing to undertake any real diplomatic action to stop the attacks
The outbreak of the Iran war
Considering pressure on “Israel” as an opportunity that should be utilized, and therefore increasing pressure to achieve Lebanon’s interests
Finally, the Lebanese state deciding to confront the enemy—pardon me, I mean deciding to confront the Resistance
At the moment of confrontation, the government decided to ban the Resistance’s military activities
The Lebanese army withdrawing from south of the Litani at the moment of battle, while the enemy prepares for a ground operation
⬅️ This is the chronological context of the events. Read it carefully
To understand how the Lebanese state betrayed its people.
Dr. Mohammad Hassan Sweidan
The signing of a ceasefire agreement in November 2024
The withdrawal of the Resistance from south of the Litani River
An Israeli advance and the occupation of positions south of the Litani
Ongoing Israeli attacks on the South, Beirut, the Bekaa, and the North
The Resistance handing over its weapons south of the Litani in accordance with the ceasefire agreement
The Lebanese state assigning the army to develop a plan to withdraw the Resistance’s weapons throughout Lebanon (even the Israeli side was surprised by the state’s adherence to its commitment)
The Lebanese state announcing its approval of civil negotiations with the enemy
The Lebanese state pledging to protect all Lebanese
The Lebanese state declaring the imposition of its full sovereignty over the country
Continued and escalating Israeli attacks (martyrs, wounded, and destroyed livelihoods)
The Resistance remaining inactive and giving the state the opportunity to carry out its duty
The attacks increasing, along with the number of martyrs
The Lebanese state failing to undertake any real diplomatic action to stop the attacks
The outbreak of the Iran war
Considering pressure on “Israel” as an opportunity that should be utilized, and therefore increasing pressure to achieve Lebanon’s interests
Finally, the Lebanese state deciding to confront the enemy—pardon me, I mean deciding to confront the Resistance
At the moment of confrontation, the government decided to ban the Resistance’s military activities
The Lebanese army withdrawing from south of the Litani at the moment of battle, while the enemy prepares for a ground operation
⬅️ This is the chronological context of the events. Read it carefully
To understand how the Lebanese state betrayed its people.
Dr. Mohammad Hassan Sweidan
💯11❤2😢1
⚠️ ⚠️ A Very Important Article:
Down with the Rule of American Bayonets
By Ibrahim Al-Amin / Al-Akhbar Lebanese Newspaper
There is always something that distinguishes what a person would like to say from what they feel obliged to say. It is not so much a slip of the tongue that exposes this, but rather the glint in the eyes and the tone of voice. The problem arises when someone volunteers to speak what he desires while knowing deep down that he is incapable of it. For a moment, he appears grateful for the opportunity to voice his wishes, but he soon returns to his natural size… like a frown in the darkness that no one sees.
This is how Nawaf Salam appeared after leaving yesterday’s cabinet session, trying to elevate himself beyond his stature, having cast aside his tie as if imagining himself a warrior on a battlefield. He pushed the Minister of Information out of the frame to deliver his opening statement: I have decided to strip the legitimacy from the fighters resisting the occupation!
Of course, Joseph Aoun might have wished to be in the “bey’s” position at that moment—not out of envy for the task of appeasing the foreign powers that brought both of them to where they are today, but because he is experienced, a real general familiar with the rules of combat, and thus more suited to personally pronounce the ruling of casting the Resistance out of the fold and transforming the most honorable of people into the lowest, according to the lexicon of the ruler of the world and his followers.
In any case, the two were not alone in their enthusiasm over what was issued by the Council of Ministers yesterday—a decision that goes beyond an act of betrayal and borders on incitement to civil war, asking the poor of Lebanon who bear arms in the military and security forces to turn their weapons on their peers who, since their grandfathers’ days, have had no state to shield them from the most dangerous enemy in human history. All this unfolds amid a commotion led by the “realists” (read: the surrenderists), calling for submission to the demands of the “madman of the world,” Donald Trump, and the region’s bully, Benjamin Netanyahu.
In Lebanon, many believe this is the right moment to declare their rejection of everything said since the founding of this entity about quasi-men brought by colonialism to positions of power—loyal to it, submissive in its presence, eager to carry out its orders even at the expense of their own people. Among them, none is more explicit than Samir Geagea, who weeks ago asked Salam and Aoun to issue a government decision dissolving Hezbollah’s military and security apparatus and declaring them outlawed. This is a demand the Americans have pressed for at least forty years, testing their luck with various administrations and governments—yet there were always some in authority who retained enough reason to prevent madness.
How can men in power, stripped of will and imposed by the American occupation and the Saudi tail upon the Lebanese as presidents and ministers, believe they represent the people and go so far as to ignite civil war merely to satisfy the whims of their external patrons?
Did Aoun and Salam reflect, even briefly, before calling for civil war under the pretext of protecting Lebanon, while unable to condemn a massacre against a people or aggression that devastates entire countries?
What the government did yesterday can be described as nothing less than “an act of high treason.” Whoever calls for civil war is a criminal betraying his people and country; whoever seeks to implement the will of Lebanon’s enemy is a criminal and traitor; and whoever joyfully echoes the phrases of the world’s madmen is no less than a small madman himself—without a place on the map.
Down with the rule of American bayonets.
Down with the Rule of American Bayonets
By Ibrahim Al-Amin / Al-Akhbar Lebanese Newspaper
There is always something that distinguishes what a person would like to say from what they feel obliged to say. It is not so much a slip of the tongue that exposes this, but rather the glint in the eyes and the tone of voice. The problem arises when someone volunteers to speak what he desires while knowing deep down that he is incapable of it. For a moment, he appears grateful for the opportunity to voice his wishes, but he soon returns to his natural size… like a frown in the darkness that no one sees.
This is how Nawaf Salam appeared after leaving yesterday’s cabinet session, trying to elevate himself beyond his stature, having cast aside his tie as if imagining himself a warrior on a battlefield. He pushed the Minister of Information out of the frame to deliver his opening statement: I have decided to strip the legitimacy from the fighters resisting the occupation!
Of course, Joseph Aoun might have wished to be in the “bey’s” position at that moment—not out of envy for the task of appeasing the foreign powers that brought both of them to where they are today, but because he is experienced, a real general familiar with the rules of combat, and thus more suited to personally pronounce the ruling of casting the Resistance out of the fold and transforming the most honorable of people into the lowest, according to the lexicon of the ruler of the world and his followers.
In any case, the two were not alone in their enthusiasm over what was issued by the Council of Ministers yesterday—a decision that goes beyond an act of betrayal and borders on incitement to civil war, asking the poor of Lebanon who bear arms in the military and security forces to turn their weapons on their peers who, since their grandfathers’ days, have had no state to shield them from the most dangerous enemy in human history. All this unfolds amid a commotion led by the “realists” (read: the surrenderists), calling for submission to the demands of the “madman of the world,” Donald Trump, and the region’s bully, Benjamin Netanyahu.
In Lebanon, many believe this is the right moment to declare their rejection of everything said since the founding of this entity about quasi-men brought by colonialism to positions of power—loyal to it, submissive in its presence, eager to carry out its orders even at the expense of their own people. Among them, none is more explicit than Samir Geagea, who weeks ago asked Salam and Aoun to issue a government decision dissolving Hezbollah’s military and security apparatus and declaring them outlawed. This is a demand the Americans have pressed for at least forty years, testing their luck with various administrations and governments—yet there were always some in authority who retained enough reason to prevent madness.
How can men in power, stripped of will and imposed by the American occupation and the Saudi tail upon the Lebanese as presidents and ministers, believe they represent the people and go so far as to ignite civil war merely to satisfy the whims of their external patrons?
Did Aoun and Salam reflect, even briefly, before calling for civil war under the pretext of protecting Lebanon, while unable to condemn a massacre against a people or aggression that devastates entire countries?
What the government did yesterday can be described as nothing less than “an act of high treason.” Whoever calls for civil war is a criminal betraying his people and country; whoever seeks to implement the will of Lebanon’s enemy is a criminal and traitor; and whoever joyfully echoes the phrases of the world’s madmen is no less than a small madman himself—without a place on the map.
Down with the rule of American bayonets.
💯7
The Authority of Guardianship Stabs the Resistance… and Salam Is Unconcerned About Civil War: Aoun Instructs the Army Not to Engage the Enemy
Source: Al-Akhbar Lebanese Newspaper
What was bound to happen has happened: the Resistance has returned to the field at a time it deemed appropriate, after a year and a half of a policy by the authorities that confined itself to neutrality and providing cover for Israeli attacks which led to the سقوط of around 500 martyrs and left the country violated by land, sea, and air. Indeed, yesterday this authority went further in what the article describes as conspiring against the Resistance, as the “American guardianship government” issued a decision to “ban Hezbollah’s military activity,” disregarding the dangerous repercussions of this submission to dictates, which could reach the point of igniting a civil war.
While the enemy was launching airstrikes across Lebanon—from the South to the Bekaa, passing through the heart of the southern suburbs—Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, according to the article, unsheathed the dagger against the Resistance by announcing that Hezbollah’s military and security activity would be classified as “outside the law,” and by complying with external pressure to begin the second phase of what is termed the plan to confine weapons to the hands of the state.
Ministerial sources told Al-Akhbar that tension dominated the five-hour cabinet session, described as the most heated since the government’s formation. It was clear that the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister entered with a unified position that what the party was doing constituted “recklessness, adventurism, and dragging the country and its own popular base into a destructive war.” Ministers from the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb demanded a “clear and firm” decision rejecting “any military action outside the framework of the state,” with Justice Minister Adel Nassar going so far as to call for a complete ban on Hezbollah.
In contrast, the party’s two ministers, Rakan Nassereddine and Mohammad Haidar, placed responsibility on Israel and argued that the launching of rockets toward the entity came in response to ongoing Israeli attacks, not as support for Iran as some claim. Nassereddine questioned what diplomatic efforts had achieved over the past 15 months, noting that Hezbollah had handed over the entire area south of the Litani River, including facilities, tunnels, and warehouses, refrained from responding to attacks, while violations continued daily, about 500 martyrs fell, and Israel recently massed 100,000 soldiers on the Lebanese border.
A sharp exchange reportedly took place between the Prime Minister and Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal, who emphasized the necessity of coordination and understanding with Hezbollah. Salam appeared unconcerned even if bloodshed were to result. Haykal stated: “I cannot ask a soldier who earns $200 to fight in the north, east, and south, and to fight his own people,” to which Salam replied: “Security is not achieved by consensus.” When Haykal reiterated the lack of capabilities to implement the plan quickly and stressed coordination, Salam responded: “You are required to execute by all available means.”
Discussion also arose regarding a proposal that the army withdraw 15 kilometers inward, which Haykal rejected, asking how the army should deal with Israeli attacks. The article describes a “bombshell” from the President, who reportedly instructed the army commander not to engage Israeli forces in the event of an advance or ground incursion, justifying this by saying he was unwilling to risk soldiers’ lives because someone had decided to drag the country into war. Instead of confronting the attacks, the government announced “full readiness to resume negotiations, with civilian participation and international sponsorship,” signaling willingness to engage in any negotiating path Israel desired. Reports suggested this did not fully satisfy external actors, who preferred a clear designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
Source: Al-Akhbar Lebanese Newspaper
What was bound to happen has happened: the Resistance has returned to the field at a time it deemed appropriate, after a year and a half of a policy by the authorities that confined itself to neutrality and providing cover for Israeli attacks which led to the سقوط of around 500 martyrs and left the country violated by land, sea, and air. Indeed, yesterday this authority went further in what the article describes as conspiring against the Resistance, as the “American guardianship government” issued a decision to “ban Hezbollah’s military activity,” disregarding the dangerous repercussions of this submission to dictates, which could reach the point of igniting a civil war.
While the enemy was launching airstrikes across Lebanon—from the South to the Bekaa, passing through the heart of the southern suburbs—Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, according to the article, unsheathed the dagger against the Resistance by announcing that Hezbollah’s military and security activity would be classified as “outside the law,” and by complying with external pressure to begin the second phase of what is termed the plan to confine weapons to the hands of the state.
Ministerial sources told Al-Akhbar that tension dominated the five-hour cabinet session, described as the most heated since the government’s formation. It was clear that the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister entered with a unified position that what the party was doing constituted “recklessness, adventurism, and dragging the country and its own popular base into a destructive war.” Ministers from the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb demanded a “clear and firm” decision rejecting “any military action outside the framework of the state,” with Justice Minister Adel Nassar going so far as to call for a complete ban on Hezbollah.
In contrast, the party’s two ministers, Rakan Nassereddine and Mohammad Haidar, placed responsibility on Israel and argued that the launching of rockets toward the entity came in response to ongoing Israeli attacks, not as support for Iran as some claim. Nassereddine questioned what diplomatic efforts had achieved over the past 15 months, noting that Hezbollah had handed over the entire area south of the Litani River, including facilities, tunnels, and warehouses, refrained from responding to attacks, while violations continued daily, about 500 martyrs fell, and Israel recently massed 100,000 soldiers on the Lebanese border.
A sharp exchange reportedly took place between the Prime Minister and Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal, who emphasized the necessity of coordination and understanding with Hezbollah. Salam appeared unconcerned even if bloodshed were to result. Haykal stated: “I cannot ask a soldier who earns $200 to fight in the north, east, and south, and to fight his own people,” to which Salam replied: “Security is not achieved by consensus.” When Haykal reiterated the lack of capabilities to implement the plan quickly and stressed coordination, Salam responded: “You are required to execute by all available means.”
Discussion also arose regarding a proposal that the army withdraw 15 kilometers inward, which Haykal rejected, asking how the army should deal with Israeli attacks. The article describes a “bombshell” from the President, who reportedly instructed the army commander not to engage Israeli forces in the event of an advance or ground incursion, justifying this by saying he was unwilling to risk soldiers’ lives because someone had decided to drag the country into war. Instead of confronting the attacks, the government announced “full readiness to resume negotiations, with civilian participation and international sponsorship,” signaling willingness to engage in any negotiating path Israel desired. Reports suggested this did not fully satisfy external actors, who preferred a clear designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
❤3🤯1
Two additional factors accompanied this: a governmental divergence between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, whose ministers did not oppose the decision, and accusations by Cyprus that Hezbollah had sent reconnaissance drones toward British bases on the island—an issue expected to be used for further European pressure.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of a ground incursion increased as Israel called up tens of thousands of reservists and issued evacuation orders for dozens of southern villages, alongside statements by Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir that the war would not end before removing Hezbollah’s threat from Lebanon, affirming a shift from defense to offense and preparations for prolonged fighting.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of a ground incursion increased as Israel called up tens of thousands of reservists and issued evacuation orders for dozens of southern villages, alongside statements by Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir that the war would not end before removing Hezbollah’s threat from Lebanon, affirming a shift from defense to offense and preparations for prolonged fighting.
❤7🤯1
Dr. Moncer Hadhili wrote:
Iran is the last fortress of culture in this world, the final stronghold of meaning. The world is almost drowning in absurdity and nihilism, even if some forms of nihilism are portrayed as culture and absurdity is presented to fools in the guise of meaning. In Iran there is religion and faith; in Iran there is poetry and the arts; in Iran there is vibrant thought and a tremendous movement of minds. This fortress will not fall, God willing, nor will the stronghold be demolished. I remain steadfast in my long-held conviction that Iran will emerge victorious and will continue fulfilling its historical mission and playing its redemptive role to the fullest. Its honor—indeed its very special honor—is that all the evildoers of the world gather against it; and evils, as we see them gathering now, come together only to extinguish the light of goodness. It is natural for there to be a battle so that there may be victory, and it is natural to pay a price—and for the price to be heavy—in a context such as the one before us. This confrontation is greater than a military one, broader than politics, a nuclear program, or a position of influence in the region; it is a necessary and inevitable confrontation.
Iran is the last fortress of culture in this world, the final stronghold of meaning. The world is almost drowning in absurdity and nihilism, even if some forms of nihilism are portrayed as culture and absurdity is presented to fools in the guise of meaning. In Iran there is religion and faith; in Iran there is poetry and the arts; in Iran there is vibrant thought and a tremendous movement of minds. This fortress will not fall, God willing, nor will the stronghold be demolished. I remain steadfast in my long-held conviction that Iran will emerge victorious and will continue fulfilling its historical mission and playing its redemptive role to the fullest. Its honor—indeed its very special honor—is that all the evildoers of the world gather against it; and evils, as we see them gathering now, come together only to extinguish the light of goodness. It is natural for there to be a battle so that there may be victory, and it is natural to pay a price—and for the price to be heavy—in a context such as the one before us. This confrontation is greater than a military one, broader than politics, a nuclear program, or a position of influence in the region; it is a necessary and inevitable confrontation.
❤4👍2💯2
The Iraqi Prime Minister (another mangy puppy licking America's boots) barks:
"The state alone has the power to decide on war and peace, and we will stand against any party that tries to drag us into conflicts."
Damn you, one after the other..
"The state alone has the power to decide on war and peace, and we will stand against any party that tries to drag us into conflicts."
Damn you, one after the other..
👏7👀1
The Strategic Fallout of Sayyed Ali Khamenei’s Assassination
To understand the significance of Khamenei's assassination and why its such a catastrophic blunder for the US, consider this:
Iran has never had a martyred Supreme Leader. (Khomeini died of a heart attack.) For the leader of the Islamic Republic to be martyred by the Great Satan is 1000% on brand.
Furthermore, Khamenei was killed in Ramadan, the same month as Ali, the first imam of Shiism.
He was also killed with his family, which Shia view as parallel to the martyrdom of Husayn and his family in Karbala.
This takes Khamenei and the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic to record levels in the eyes of the Shia globally, and increasingly Sunnis.
Trump made this incredible blunder because he obeyed Netanyahu and adopted the Israeli strategy of kill everyone and everything.
To understand the significance of Khamenei's assassination and why its such a catastrophic blunder for the US, consider this:
Iran has never had a martyred Supreme Leader. (Khomeini died of a heart attack.) For the leader of the Islamic Republic to be martyred by the Great Satan is 1000% on brand.
Furthermore, Khamenei was killed in Ramadan, the same month as Ali, the first imam of Shiism.
He was also killed with his family, which Shia view as parallel to the martyrdom of Husayn and his family in Karbala.
This takes Khamenei and the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic to record levels in the eyes of the Shia globally, and increasingly Sunnis.
Trump made this incredible blunder because he obeyed Netanyahu and adopted the Israeli strategy of kill everyone and everything.
❤17
Why Iran’s Leader refused special protection, leading from the front until last breath
By Sheida Eslami
In the prevailing worldview of Western leaders, the life of a ruler is a strategic asset that must be preserved at any cost and by creating any possible distance from the people, especially when there is a direct, immediate, and open threat from a particular movement or authority, a hostile country, or an unavoidable natural danger.
This strategy, built on the principle of “absolute protection,” despite its advantages, turns the leader into a quasi-mythical figure who hides behind electronic walls, reinforced concrete, and complex layers of intelligence systems, remaining out of reach.
This approach, unconsciously, transmits a message of class superiority and unequal distribution of risk to the nation.
The martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, however, was the heir to a school of thought in which the leader’s role model status derives from his alignment with the suffering of the people.
This tradition began with the conduct of the founder of the Islamic Revolution Imam Khomeini during the eight-year imposed war of the Ba’ath regime of Iraq against Iran, when he, despite a clear threat to his life, remained in the bombarded and missile-targeted capital, living in his ordinary residence in Jamaran so that the people would understand that the leader is not willing to shelter himself in prearranged and unusual safe havens while his people do not have such an option.
This behavior was a simple yet telling message: a leader who does not place himself at the level of the weakest and least privileged members of society cannot claim awareness of the pain and suffering of different segments of society and therefore lacks the qualifications for leadership.
Iran’s martyred leader implemented this moral manifesto with full seriousness. While Iran’s security apparatus professionally and continuously managed intelligence threats, he insisted that his lifestyle must be in harmony with the people and at their level.
Ultra-secure shelters, highly secret movements, and complete isolation were all rejected by him, not because of neglecting danger or failing to adhere to conventional protection principles, but because of the understanding that unconventional protection would, in the long term, indirectly damage the legitimacy of leadership.
This was a constant struggle against becoming a ruler detached from the nation; a battle in which he preferred maintaining the spiritual bond with the ummah over mere comfort and security.
The sword of revenge and violation of human dignity
The Israeli and American military aggression targeting the Leader’s residence is a clear example of “state and non-state terrorism” that has no justification except the physical elimination of a dissenting voice in the international arena.
This action was not a military strike against power infrastructure, but a cowardly attempt to create a power vacuum through terror and mass killing.
When a government, in order to eliminate a political leader, resorts to killing members of his family, this is no longer merely a military operation. It reflects the terrifying fear of the enemy toward the aforementioned leader and the complete moral collapse of the enemy, which has crossed all boundaries of humanity.
This overt brutality reveals the West’s inability to confront a deeply rooted ideological discourse. Instead of engaging in the battlefield of ideas or politics, they resort to the ultimate tool of dictatorship: the physical elimination of a country’s top leader.
However, this blind act had the opposite effect. While the West sought “physical elimination,” it plunged itself deeper into isolation and public hatred, whereas Iran’s Leader, through martyrdom in his own trench, became an eternal symbol of resilience.
Divine guardianship versus the compulsion of arrogance
By Sheida Eslami
In the prevailing worldview of Western leaders, the life of a ruler is a strategic asset that must be preserved at any cost and by creating any possible distance from the people, especially when there is a direct, immediate, and open threat from a particular movement or authority, a hostile country, or an unavoidable natural danger.
This strategy, built on the principle of “absolute protection,” despite its advantages, turns the leader into a quasi-mythical figure who hides behind electronic walls, reinforced concrete, and complex layers of intelligence systems, remaining out of reach.
This approach, unconsciously, transmits a message of class superiority and unequal distribution of risk to the nation.
The martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, however, was the heir to a school of thought in which the leader’s role model status derives from his alignment with the suffering of the people.
This tradition began with the conduct of the founder of the Islamic Revolution Imam Khomeini during the eight-year imposed war of the Ba’ath regime of Iraq against Iran, when he, despite a clear threat to his life, remained in the bombarded and missile-targeted capital, living in his ordinary residence in Jamaran so that the people would understand that the leader is not willing to shelter himself in prearranged and unusual safe havens while his people do not have such an option.
This behavior was a simple yet telling message: a leader who does not place himself at the level of the weakest and least privileged members of society cannot claim awareness of the pain and suffering of different segments of society and therefore lacks the qualifications for leadership.
Iran’s martyred leader implemented this moral manifesto with full seriousness. While Iran’s security apparatus professionally and continuously managed intelligence threats, he insisted that his lifestyle must be in harmony with the people and at their level.
Ultra-secure shelters, highly secret movements, and complete isolation were all rejected by him, not because of neglecting danger or failing to adhere to conventional protection principles, but because of the understanding that unconventional protection would, in the long term, indirectly damage the legitimacy of leadership.
This was a constant struggle against becoming a ruler detached from the nation; a battle in which he preferred maintaining the spiritual bond with the ummah over mere comfort and security.
The sword of revenge and violation of human dignity
The Israeli and American military aggression targeting the Leader’s residence is a clear example of “state and non-state terrorism” that has no justification except the physical elimination of a dissenting voice in the international arena.
This action was not a military strike against power infrastructure, but a cowardly attempt to create a power vacuum through terror and mass killing.
When a government, in order to eliminate a political leader, resorts to killing members of his family, this is no longer merely a military operation. It reflects the terrifying fear of the enemy toward the aforementioned leader and the complete moral collapse of the enemy, which has crossed all boundaries of humanity.
This overt brutality reveals the West’s inability to confront a deeply rooted ideological discourse. Instead of engaging in the battlefield of ideas or politics, they resort to the ultimate tool of dictatorship: the physical elimination of a country’s top leader.
However, this blind act had the opposite effect. While the West sought “physical elimination,” it plunged itself deeper into isolation and public hatred, whereas Iran’s Leader, through martyrdom in his own trench, became an eternal symbol of resilience.
Divine guardianship versus the compulsion of arrogance
❤2🥰1
It must be understood that this decision to stand until the end also carried a profound jurisprudential argument: if the Supreme Jurist invites the people to sacrifice for preserving the foundations of the system, then in the event of danger, he must himself be at the forefront of this sacrifice.
This is an unwritten covenant with God, in which obedience to divine commands and preservation of the revolution’s existence take precedence over preserving the mortal body.
Martyrdom in the very place that was the embodiment of service and responsibility showed that the Leader of the Islamic Revolution was built not on military power, but on moral power.
By resisting demands for extraordinary protection, Ayatollah Khamenei charted a path for the future leadership of Iran, a path in which the leader must always remain accessible and live among the people in the most natural and unscripted state possible, guiding them effectively toward greater ideals.
This was a final declaration of stance: death in the path of duty is more honorable and glorious than a long life in isolation under layers of security measures that marginalize the nation.
The sacred blood of Ayatollah Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, as the most symbolic martyrdom, not only strengthened the bond between the people and leadership, but also permanently removed the mask of hypocrisy from those who claim to defend human dignity while in practice becoming its greatest violators.
It also removed the mask of lies, fabricated narratives, black propaganda, and character assassination from those who claimed that the Iranian leader had hidden himself in an impenetrable fortress, fled to Russia, or traveled to Venezuela, leaving the Iranian people alone at the height of external threats.
Jurisprudential-political analysis of Leader’s refusal of unconventional protection
Ayatollah Khamenei’s martyrdom, beyond its terrorist origin and political dimension, reveals a vital ideological dimension directly linked to the jurisprudential-political foundations of the Islamic Republic system and the concept of “Guardianship of the Jurist” as a progressive and dynamic principle of governance.
His firm refusal to accept extraordinary and “unconventional” security measures (which go beyond standard protocols and fundamentally alter lifestyle) was rooted in a deep jurisprudential-political argument that can be termed “commitment to moral parity.”
In the framework of Shiite political jurisprudence, the leader (supreme jurist) does not merely hold an executive position, but carries a duty-based responsibility whose legitimacy derives from full adherence to the very principles he calls upon the people to follow.
When the leader calls the nation to patience in hardship, resistance to sanctions, and preservation of an Islamic-revolutionary lifestyle against Western material temptations, any practical action that indicates a “lifestyle privilege” for preserving his own life fundamentally contradicts that message.
The underlying argument is that Guardianship of the Jurist, due to its guiding nature, is an unconditional commitment to piety and role modeling. If the supreme jurist shelters himself in protected spaces inaccessible to the general public, thereby imposing costs on society that contradict the public call for simplicity and steadfastness, this gradually creates an epistemological gap.
From a jurisprudential perspective, this gap may weaken the “capacity to understand and implement the ruling.” Would a leader who protects himself in an extraordinary fortified enclosure still be able to call the people to sacrifice and struggle?
Such action would practically overshadow moral legitimacy (and, according to some jurists, governmental legitimacy). Therefore, Ayatollah Khamenei’s refusal was a defensive decision to preserve the spiritual essence of Guardianship of the Jurist; a choice between bodily survival at the cost of losing the spirit of leadership, versus accepting the risk of physical annihilation in order to preserve the perfection of spiritual
This is an unwritten covenant with God, in which obedience to divine commands and preservation of the revolution’s existence take precedence over preserving the mortal body.
Martyrdom in the very place that was the embodiment of service and responsibility showed that the Leader of the Islamic Revolution was built not on military power, but on moral power.
By resisting demands for extraordinary protection, Ayatollah Khamenei charted a path for the future leadership of Iran, a path in which the leader must always remain accessible and live among the people in the most natural and unscripted state possible, guiding them effectively toward greater ideals.
This was a final declaration of stance: death in the path of duty is more honorable and glorious than a long life in isolation under layers of security measures that marginalize the nation.
The sacred blood of Ayatollah Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, as the most symbolic martyrdom, not only strengthened the bond between the people and leadership, but also permanently removed the mask of hypocrisy from those who claim to defend human dignity while in practice becoming its greatest violators.
It also removed the mask of lies, fabricated narratives, black propaganda, and character assassination from those who claimed that the Iranian leader had hidden himself in an impenetrable fortress, fled to Russia, or traveled to Venezuela, leaving the Iranian people alone at the height of external threats.
Jurisprudential-political analysis of Leader’s refusal of unconventional protection
Ayatollah Khamenei’s martyrdom, beyond its terrorist origin and political dimension, reveals a vital ideological dimension directly linked to the jurisprudential-political foundations of the Islamic Republic system and the concept of “Guardianship of the Jurist” as a progressive and dynamic principle of governance.
His firm refusal to accept extraordinary and “unconventional” security measures (which go beyond standard protocols and fundamentally alter lifestyle) was rooted in a deep jurisprudential-political argument that can be termed “commitment to moral parity.”
In the framework of Shiite political jurisprudence, the leader (supreme jurist) does not merely hold an executive position, but carries a duty-based responsibility whose legitimacy derives from full adherence to the very principles he calls upon the people to follow.
When the leader calls the nation to patience in hardship, resistance to sanctions, and preservation of an Islamic-revolutionary lifestyle against Western material temptations, any practical action that indicates a “lifestyle privilege” for preserving his own life fundamentally contradicts that message.
The underlying argument is that Guardianship of the Jurist, due to its guiding nature, is an unconditional commitment to piety and role modeling. If the supreme jurist shelters himself in protected spaces inaccessible to the general public, thereby imposing costs on society that contradict the public call for simplicity and steadfastness, this gradually creates an epistemological gap.
From a jurisprudential perspective, this gap may weaken the “capacity to understand and implement the ruling.” Would a leader who protects himself in an extraordinary fortified enclosure still be able to call the people to sacrifice and struggle?
Such action would practically overshadow moral legitimacy (and, according to some jurists, governmental legitimacy). Therefore, Ayatollah Khamenei’s refusal was a defensive decision to preserve the spiritual essence of Guardianship of the Jurist; a choice between bodily survival at the cost of losing the spirit of leadership, versus accepting the risk of physical annihilation in order to preserve the perfection of spiritual
❤4🙏1
leadership.
Eternal registration of the Revolution’s path through pure blood
Ayatollah Khamenei’s vision was never limited to day-to-day management or merely ensuring physical security against immediate threats; his horizon was always centered on “civilizational management of the Islamic Revolution.”
In this view, the Islamic Revolution is not merely a political establishment, but a historical project to present an alternative model to the world – a project requiring ideals, symbols, and tragic turning points for its continuity.
He fully understood that against enemies possessing superior material and military tools, one cannot achieve victory through defensive power alone. The only effective way of confrontation is sustained resistance and the creation of enduring symbols in the historical memory of the ummah.
Within this framework, martyrdom functions as the ultimate management tool. This was not an ordinary death; rather, the leader’s martyrdom in the trench of responsibility became a formula defining the future path for succeeding leaders.
This model sent a direct message to global powers: you may eliminate a leader with advanced missiles, but you cannot destroy an idea sealed with his blood. This blood, as the essence of the movement, will serve as an ideological compass for future generations of Iran and the region.
By this choice, he effectively transitioned from a leader limited to the span of natural life to a “civilizational architect,” securing a proud eternity for the ideals of the Revolution through the loss of his material existence.
This is the ultimate sacrifice in long-term strategy – a strategy that inscribed the path of true leadership, even through the offering of one’s own blood, onto the darkest and most difficult pages of world history, so that anyone in the future wishing to carry the flag of this revolution would know that its true cost is always higher than expected.
Eternal registration of the Revolution’s path through pure blood
Ayatollah Khamenei’s vision was never limited to day-to-day management or merely ensuring physical security against immediate threats; his horizon was always centered on “civilizational management of the Islamic Revolution.”
In this view, the Islamic Revolution is not merely a political establishment, but a historical project to present an alternative model to the world – a project requiring ideals, symbols, and tragic turning points for its continuity.
He fully understood that against enemies possessing superior material and military tools, one cannot achieve victory through defensive power alone. The only effective way of confrontation is sustained resistance and the creation of enduring symbols in the historical memory of the ummah.
Within this framework, martyrdom functions as the ultimate management tool. This was not an ordinary death; rather, the leader’s martyrdom in the trench of responsibility became a formula defining the future path for succeeding leaders.
This model sent a direct message to global powers: you may eliminate a leader with advanced missiles, but you cannot destroy an idea sealed with his blood. This blood, as the essence of the movement, will serve as an ideological compass for future generations of Iran and the region.
By this choice, he effectively transitioned from a leader limited to the span of natural life to a “civilizational architect,” securing a proud eternity for the ideals of the Revolution through the loss of his material existence.
This is the ultimate sacrifice in long-term strategy – a strategy that inscribed the path of true leadership, even through the offering of one’s own blood, onto the darkest and most difficult pages of world history, so that anyone in the future wishing to carry the flag of this revolution would know that its true cost is always higher than expected.
❤5
Why Did Hezbollah Enter the War Now?
By Dr. Ali Hariri
1. The battle that Hezbollah is fighting today is not a matter of convenience or choice; rather, it is a last resort — and “the last remedy is cauterization,” despite its harshness and pain — after all previous attempts at treatment through law and diplomacy have failed.
2. It is certain that this battle was inevitable at some point — if not today, then in a month, a year, or later. The only variable is its cost: The longer it is delayed, the higher the price; the more it is initiated at an appropriate moment, the lower its political and security costs.
■ Today, a set of circumstances converge that help reduce that cost:
Israeli military instability in the occupied positions,
The continued large-scale displacement from the southern border villages,
The absence of a launched reconstruction process,
And the lack of a finalized and solid political order locally, regionally, and internationally.
■ All these factors make this moment the most suitable to break the state of stagnation in the face of Israeli bullying, which grows more brazen and more brutal day after day.
■ Waiting without initiative is no longer merely waiting for the unknown, but waiting for a worse reality: a political and security phase in which any attempt becomes desperate and any initiative prohibitively costly — to the point of self-destruction.
♨️ The prudent, the vigilant, and the responsible do not wait for that moment; rather, they invest in the moment available.
3. The regional confrontation resulting from the American–Israeli aggression against Iran, and the direct and forceful Iranian response, has placed Israeli military capabilities — offensive, defensive, and intelligence — under significant strain and heavy engagement.
Intelligence focus, air defense systems, air force capabilities, media efforts, and even political decision-making are all consumed by the open front against Iran.
■ This multi-level strain creates sensitive operational gaps and narrows Israel’s margin of maneuver, providing more favorable conditions for the Resistance to choose this moment in an attempt to regain the initiative and improve the rules of engagement, which have clearly deteriorated in the enemy’s favor in recent times.
4. This battle is, before anything else, a practical and field-based demonstration that the will to fight among the Resistance and its people has neither weakened nor broken — proof through action, not slogans or media.
Who will put an end to Israel’s ambitions in Lebanon — not only in the south — if this will is broken?
Who will deter Netanyahu if he believes he is the only fighter in the arena?
The transformation of the will to fight from a latent force into an active force is not a luxury; it is an existential necessity and a guarantee of survival.
Without it, the fragmentation of Lebanon and its absorption before the Israeli project becomes the most likely scenario, with all that implies: loss of land, distortion of identity, and psychological and material destruction of society and the Lebanese state.
5. Despite the availability of objective conditions for waging this battle, the psychological transition into a state of war is not easy — neither for individuals nor for society as a whole, even if it is a resistant society… yes, even if it is a resistant society.
Human nature recoils from pain and fears loss. God Almighty has made this human reality clear in the verse:
“Fighting has been prescribed upon you, though it is hateful to you; but perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you, and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you.”
■ These are difficult and harsh days for us all, yet we hope that within them lies goodness for our worldly life and our Hereafter, and that they be days of patience followed by relief, and pain that opens the path to victory, God willing.
By Dr. Ali Hariri
1. The battle that Hezbollah is fighting today is not a matter of convenience or choice; rather, it is a last resort — and “the last remedy is cauterization,” despite its harshness and pain — after all previous attempts at treatment through law and diplomacy have failed.
2. It is certain that this battle was inevitable at some point — if not today, then in a month, a year, or later. The only variable is its cost: The longer it is delayed, the higher the price; the more it is initiated at an appropriate moment, the lower its political and security costs.
■ Today, a set of circumstances converge that help reduce that cost:
Israeli military instability in the occupied positions,
The continued large-scale displacement from the southern border villages,
The absence of a launched reconstruction process,
And the lack of a finalized and solid political order locally, regionally, and internationally.
■ All these factors make this moment the most suitable to break the state of stagnation in the face of Israeli bullying, which grows more brazen and more brutal day after day.
■ Waiting without initiative is no longer merely waiting for the unknown, but waiting for a worse reality: a political and security phase in which any attempt becomes desperate and any initiative prohibitively costly — to the point of self-destruction.
♨️ The prudent, the vigilant, and the responsible do not wait for that moment; rather, they invest in the moment available.
3. The regional confrontation resulting from the American–Israeli aggression against Iran, and the direct and forceful Iranian response, has placed Israeli military capabilities — offensive, defensive, and intelligence — under significant strain and heavy engagement.
Intelligence focus, air defense systems, air force capabilities, media efforts, and even political decision-making are all consumed by the open front against Iran.
■ This multi-level strain creates sensitive operational gaps and narrows Israel’s margin of maneuver, providing more favorable conditions for the Resistance to choose this moment in an attempt to regain the initiative and improve the rules of engagement, which have clearly deteriorated in the enemy’s favor in recent times.
4. This battle is, before anything else, a practical and field-based demonstration that the will to fight among the Resistance and its people has neither weakened nor broken — proof through action, not slogans or media.
Who will put an end to Israel’s ambitions in Lebanon — not only in the south — if this will is broken?
Who will deter Netanyahu if he believes he is the only fighter in the arena?
The transformation of the will to fight from a latent force into an active force is not a luxury; it is an existential necessity and a guarantee of survival.
Without it, the fragmentation of Lebanon and its absorption before the Israeli project becomes the most likely scenario, with all that implies: loss of land, distortion of identity, and psychological and material destruction of society and the Lebanese state.
5. Despite the availability of objective conditions for waging this battle, the psychological transition into a state of war is not easy — neither for individuals nor for society as a whole, even if it is a resistant society… yes, even if it is a resistant society.
Human nature recoils from pain and fears loss. God Almighty has made this human reality clear in the verse:
“Fighting has been prescribed upon you, though it is hateful to you; but perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you, and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you.”
■ These are difficult and harsh days for us all, yet we hope that within them lies goodness for our worldly life and our Hereafter, and that they be days of patience followed by relief, and pain that opens the path to victory, God willing.
❤6
Arguments for Urgent Engagement: A Perspective on the Resistance’s Role in Lebanon
By Dr. Bilal Al-Lakkis
For the following reasons, it is deemed imperative for the Resistance in Lebanon to engage urgently:
■ Because our culture does not allow us to live in a world dominated by a global Epstein-like order should America and Israel win the war. America and Netanyahu have not concealed their view that the region must submit to Zionist will without rival.
■ Because the decision to strike against us has already been taken by Israel and America. We will not be like the hyena that sleeps through prolonged blows until the hunter reaches it and the observer ambushes it.
■ Because experience has taught us that the best means of defense is not to wait.
■ Because this war represents the culmination of a series of rounds, the latest of which was the Al-Aqsa Flood, and it remains connected to it. Israel’s objectives have not yet been achieved thanks first to the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. Therefore, if we exhaust America and Israel and significantly raise the cost for them, this will affect the future of Palestine, our future as Lebanese, and that of the entire region.
■ Because global public opinion has become more understanding and engaged with our causes, and more divided regarding Israel and Trump. We believe that resistant action is grounded first in legitimacy, rights, the voice of peoples, and law — all of which are available today and have been increasingly revealed over time.
■ Because Trump declared it a religious war, stating his desire to overthrow the Islamic regime and kill the greatest symbol and role model for tens of millions of Muslims, particularly Shiites worldwide.
■ Because if Iran — with its resistant and Islamic faith-based dimension — falls, we will come under American authority. This is impossible within our values and principles, regardless of the consequences. Iran today is portrayed as the last line of defense for all, for our values, and for Islam.
■ Because Iran is described as a “formidable” state and the only one capable of confronting America in the region. We know firsthand its capabilities and the character of its people — their endurance, patience, and pride — and that it would fight for years, potentially drawing the world into conflict if it does not secure its rights.
■ Because our regimes are seen as complicit and not reflective of our pain or hopes, lacking a standard of sovereignty. It is claimed that the popular and democratic majority in Lebanon supports the Resistance (while acknowledging no unified vision among its opponents).
■ Because political culture in our states is considered absent — not only at the level of authority but also among parties. Official Lebanon and most of its parties condemned Iran’s response to Americans operating from Arab lands to strike Iran, yet did not condemn the American aggression against Iran — which is presented as evidence of sovereign emptiness and participation in undermining the culture of Resistance.
■ Because our states allegedly rely on external powers to eliminate us when they themselves cannot.
■ Because our Arab states and armies are described as functioning in one of three ways: as sandbags defending Americans and the West instead of their peoples; as royal armies rather than people’s armies preserving sovereignty; or, in the Lebanese case, limited largely to internal security — despite being portrayed as among the most capable and principled Arab armies if given the decision-making authority.
■ Because our states avoid the decision of war while gravitating toward peace with Israel, yet in internal conflicts they are forceful and uncompromising — strong against each other but weak before what is termed the Epstein order.
■ Because there is perceived to be a serious opportunity for victory at the end of this battle, with American objectives showing signs of failure, internal American divisions deepening, and the Resistance in Lebanon believing it holds significant and influential leverage.
By Dr. Bilal Al-Lakkis
For the following reasons, it is deemed imperative for the Resistance in Lebanon to engage urgently:
■ Because our culture does not allow us to live in a world dominated by a global Epstein-like order should America and Israel win the war. America and Netanyahu have not concealed their view that the region must submit to Zionist will without rival.
■ Because the decision to strike against us has already been taken by Israel and America. We will not be like the hyena that sleeps through prolonged blows until the hunter reaches it and the observer ambushes it.
■ Because experience has taught us that the best means of defense is not to wait.
■ Because this war represents the culmination of a series of rounds, the latest of which was the Al-Aqsa Flood, and it remains connected to it. Israel’s objectives have not yet been achieved thanks first to the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. Therefore, if we exhaust America and Israel and significantly raise the cost for them, this will affect the future of Palestine, our future as Lebanese, and that of the entire region.
■ Because global public opinion has become more understanding and engaged with our causes, and more divided regarding Israel and Trump. We believe that resistant action is grounded first in legitimacy, rights, the voice of peoples, and law — all of which are available today and have been increasingly revealed over time.
■ Because Trump declared it a religious war, stating his desire to overthrow the Islamic regime and kill the greatest symbol and role model for tens of millions of Muslims, particularly Shiites worldwide.
■ Because if Iran — with its resistant and Islamic faith-based dimension — falls, we will come under American authority. This is impossible within our values and principles, regardless of the consequences. Iran today is portrayed as the last line of defense for all, for our values, and for Islam.
■ Because Iran is described as a “formidable” state and the only one capable of confronting America in the region. We know firsthand its capabilities and the character of its people — their endurance, patience, and pride — and that it would fight for years, potentially drawing the world into conflict if it does not secure its rights.
■ Because our regimes are seen as complicit and not reflective of our pain or hopes, lacking a standard of sovereignty. It is claimed that the popular and democratic majority in Lebanon supports the Resistance (while acknowledging no unified vision among its opponents).
■ Because political culture in our states is considered absent — not only at the level of authority but also among parties. Official Lebanon and most of its parties condemned Iran’s response to Americans operating from Arab lands to strike Iran, yet did not condemn the American aggression against Iran — which is presented as evidence of sovereign emptiness and participation in undermining the culture of Resistance.
■ Because our states allegedly rely on external powers to eliminate us when they themselves cannot.
■ Because our Arab states and armies are described as functioning in one of three ways: as sandbags defending Americans and the West instead of their peoples; as royal armies rather than people’s armies preserving sovereignty; or, in the Lebanese case, limited largely to internal security — despite being portrayed as among the most capable and principled Arab armies if given the decision-making authority.
■ Because our states avoid the decision of war while gravitating toward peace with Israel, yet in internal conflicts they are forceful and uncompromising — strong against each other but weak before what is termed the Epstein order.
■ Because there is perceived to be a serious opportunity for victory at the end of this battle, with American objectives showing signs of failure, internal American divisions deepening, and the Resistance in Lebanon believing it holds significant and influential leverage.
■ Because the international context is viewed as favorable: Europe is preoccupied with Ukraine; Putin may exploit Western missteps; America cannot sustain a prolonged war; China awaits American overextension; and Israel is portrayed as structurally incapable of enduring long, multi-front wars. The belief expressed is that we are entering a post-American era.
■ Because there is a considerable possibility of geopolitical surprises. Many Arab regimes’ positions since the Al-Aqsa Flood are described as fragile and lacking legitimacy, increasingly seen as protectors of America rather than protected by it.
■ Because, it is argued, our land cannot be liberated unless we benefit from or participate in the prevailing equation, and that all non-resistant options have proven to be either crude deception or softened surrender framed as peace.
■ Because it is believed the enemy will ultimately have no option but a ground invasion, as air power alone cannot decide matters, particularly given the cohesion of the Resistance’s social base. Security for settlers, it is argued, can only come through a land invasion — which is described as the moment for historic retribution through direct confrontation.
■ Because the so-called neutrality advocated domestically is viewed as adherence to American agendas under the name of neutrality — which is rejected.
■ Because the state is described as seeking mediation with the very party accused of killing us, justifying weakness and submission as rationality.
■ Because the cost of piecemeal killing endured over more than a year of patience and waiting for the state to act — while it is accused only of managing concessions — alongside what is described as Zionist expansion in the south and systematic destruction of Lebanese villages, is said to be no less than, and perhaps greater than, the cost of open confrontation. The former is portrayed as advantageous to Israel, which reaps benefits without paying, and advantageous to parts of the Lebanese authority as well — both allegedly benefiting from pressure on Lebanon and on the Resistance to concede.
It is considered mistaken to think that Iran relies on us; rather, it is claimed that we rely on its strength to attain our rights.
To be continued…
Exclusively for @BasiraPress
■ Because there is a considerable possibility of geopolitical surprises. Many Arab regimes’ positions since the Al-Aqsa Flood are described as fragile and lacking legitimacy, increasingly seen as protectors of America rather than protected by it.
■ Because, it is argued, our land cannot be liberated unless we benefit from or participate in the prevailing equation, and that all non-resistant options have proven to be either crude deception or softened surrender framed as peace.
■ Because it is believed the enemy will ultimately have no option but a ground invasion, as air power alone cannot decide matters, particularly given the cohesion of the Resistance’s social base. Security for settlers, it is argued, can only come through a land invasion — which is described as the moment for historic retribution through direct confrontation.
■ Because the so-called neutrality advocated domestically is viewed as adherence to American agendas under the name of neutrality — which is rejected.
■ Because the state is described as seeking mediation with the very party accused of killing us, justifying weakness and submission as rationality.
■ Because the cost of piecemeal killing endured over more than a year of patience and waiting for the state to act — while it is accused only of managing concessions — alongside what is described as Zionist expansion in the south and systematic destruction of Lebanese villages, is said to be no less than, and perhaps greater than, the cost of open confrontation. The former is portrayed as advantageous to Israel, which reaps benefits without paying, and advantageous to parts of the Lebanese authority as well — both allegedly benefiting from pressure on Lebanon and on the Resistance to concede.
It is considered mistaken to think that Iran relies on us; rather, it is claimed that we rely on its strength to attain our rights.
To be continued…
Exclusively for @BasiraPress
❤7🙏1
Forwarded from Press TV
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
During a sermon at the Imam Raza Shrine in Mashhad, the elegy reciter routinely says, 'May Allah protect the Leader.' However, upon recalling that Ayatollah Khamenei has already been martyred, both he and the attendees are overcome with grief and begin to weep.
@PressTV
@PressTV
❤11💔6
This is not satire.
Here is a piece of news that may pass unnoticed, just as so many of our years have slipped by:
American commanders, speaking in official briefings across 30 U.S. bases, are reportedly telling their soldiers that the war on Iran is “part of a divine plan,” and that President Trump represents the signal flame of Armageddon and the Book of Revelation. Troops are being urged to approach this conflict as a sacred war — as if it were the end of days.
Consider this: within just 48 hours, more than 110 complaints from various units were submitted to the Pentagon, objecting to the use of religious language within the U.S. armed forces. Yet the Pentagon has declined to comment publicly or to take disciplinary action against the commanders involved.
These are the very same people who criticize the Shiites for their belief in Imam Mahdi.
Read the report:
https://jonathanlarsen.substack.com/p/us-troops-were-told-iran-war-is-for?utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwZnRzaAQTvKNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeRLr3cgu70JJ5qFUZhAkei-pGMHfC-ABwbdVQxwuWSLUcI0acYekR2Kl5lO4_aem_s2qbuuyU9kVxeYS-gFMFpw
Here is a piece of news that may pass unnoticed, just as so many of our years have slipped by:
American commanders, speaking in official briefings across 30 U.S. bases, are reportedly telling their soldiers that the war on Iran is “part of a divine plan,” and that President Trump represents the signal flame of Armageddon and the Book of Revelation. Troops are being urged to approach this conflict as a sacred war — as if it were the end of days.
Consider this: within just 48 hours, more than 110 complaints from various units were submitted to the Pentagon, objecting to the use of religious language within the U.S. armed forces. Yet the Pentagon has declined to comment publicly or to take disciplinary action against the commanders involved.
These are the very same people who criticize the Shiites for their belief in Imam Mahdi.
Read the report:
https://jonathanlarsen.substack.com/p/us-troops-were-told-iran-war-is-for?utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwZnRzaAQTvKNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeRLr3cgu70JJ5qFUZhAkei-pGMHfC-ABwbdVQxwuWSLUcI0acYekR2Kl5lO4_aem_s2qbuuyU9kVxeYS-gFMFpw
Substack
U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus
Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military
❤3👀1
According to Fars News Agency:
— The final vote to select the new leader is underway following the martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei in the American and Israeli attacks.
— Meetings are being held remotely and through a different voting mechanism. Sources indicate that the final stages are in progress and that the name may be announced soon.
— The Article 107 Committee had previously discussed potential indicators and options for leadership. Sources confirm that the current consultations are advancing rapidly, with some members speaking of a “very swift” selection of the next leader.
— The martyred leader did not designate any specific name and left the matter to the leadership experts, emphasizing criteria such as confronting arrogance, courage, integrity, justice, awareness of the times, and administrative capability.
— The constitutional mechanism is functioning at full capacity, and the official result is expected to be announced within hours or a few days.
— The final vote to select the new leader is underway following the martyrdom of Ayatollah Khamenei in the American and Israeli attacks.
— Meetings are being held remotely and through a different voting mechanism. Sources indicate that the final stages are in progress and that the name may be announced soon.
— The Article 107 Committee had previously discussed potential indicators and options for leadership. Sources confirm that the current consultations are advancing rapidly, with some members speaking of a “very swift” selection of the next leader.
— The martyred leader did not designate any specific name and left the matter to the leadership experts, emphasizing criteria such as confronting arrogance, courage, integrity, justice, awareness of the times, and administrative capability.
— The constitutional mechanism is functioning at full capacity, and the official result is expected to be announced within hours or a few days.
❤7🙏6
@BasiraPress
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
ولادت نور چشم عزیز زهرا، مهری، در ۲۸ آذر ۱۴۰۳، برابر با شانزدهم جمادیالثانی ۱۴۴۶.
سلامت، عافیت و خوشی این نوزاد زیبا را از خداوند متعال مسئلت میکنم.
عمرش دراز و عبادتش پایدار باد.
سید علی خامنهای
۱۰ / ۱۳ / ۱۴۰۳
Translation
In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
The birth of the dear light of Lady Zahra’s eyes, Mahri, on 28 Azar 1403 SH (December 18, 2024), corresponding to 16 Jumada al-Thani 1446 AH.
I ask God Almighty to grant this beautiful newborn health, well-being, and happiness.
May her life be long and her worship be constant and enduring.
Seyyed Ali Khamenei
10 / 13 / 1403 SH
@BasiraPress
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
ولادت نور چشم عزیز زهرا، مهری، در ۲۸ آذر ۱۴۰۳، برابر با شانزدهم جمادیالثانی ۱۴۴۶.
سلامت، عافیت و خوشی این نوزاد زیبا را از خداوند متعال مسئلت میکنم.
عمرش دراز و عبادتش پایدار باد.
سید علی خامنهای
۱۰ / ۱۳ / ۱۴۰۳
Translation
In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
The birth of the dear light of Lady Zahra’s eyes, Mahri, on 28 Azar 1403 SH (December 18, 2024), corresponding to 16 Jumada al-Thani 1446 AH.
I ask God Almighty to grant this beautiful newborn health, well-being, and happiness.
May her life be long and her worship be constant and enduring.
Seyyed Ali Khamenei
10 / 13 / 1403 SH
@BasiraPress
💔9❤6😢2
Ayatollah Bahjat (ra) was once asked:
Is it possible that the afflictions that descend upon a believer are not punishments nor mere expiation for sins, but rather elevations in rank — manifestations of the principle that tribulation is the mark of true loyalty?
He replied:
For the people of loyalty, the matter is self-evident.
Trials do not diminish them; they refine them.
The greater the test, the deeper their certitude.
Consider Maytham al-Tammar — suspended upon the palm tree, outwardly forsaken, yet inwardly ascending.
With every passing moment, his faith intensified and his serenity deepened, for he had been forewarned by them (peace be upon them).
Knowledge transformed suffering into reassurance; prophecy transmuted pain into presence.
Thus, tribulation, in the path of devotion, is not degradation but disclosure — unveiling the truth of the heart.
In this light, there has been repeated emphasis and insistence from Imam al-Mahdi (may God hasten his noble reappearance) upon abundant recitation of Du‘a al-Faraj in these times and for this very purpose:
that hearts remain anchored in hope, certainty, and steadfast anticipation amid the turbulence of the age.
Is it possible that the afflictions that descend upon a believer are not punishments nor mere expiation for sins, but rather elevations in rank — manifestations of the principle that tribulation is the mark of true loyalty?
He replied:
For the people of loyalty, the matter is self-evident.
Trials do not diminish them; they refine them.
The greater the test, the deeper their certitude.
Consider Maytham al-Tammar — suspended upon the palm tree, outwardly forsaken, yet inwardly ascending.
With every passing moment, his faith intensified and his serenity deepened, for he had been forewarned by them (peace be upon them).
Knowledge transformed suffering into reassurance; prophecy transmuted pain into presence.
Thus, tribulation, in the path of devotion, is not degradation but disclosure — unveiling the truth of the heart.
In this light, there has been repeated emphasis and insistence from Imam al-Mahdi (may God hasten his noble reappearance) upon abundant recitation of Du‘a al-Faraj in these times and for this very purpose:
that hearts remain anchored in hope, certainty, and steadfast anticipation amid the turbulence of the age.
❤3💯3
At the initiative of the Israeli government, special tours are being held in Israeli prisons to market violence against Palestinian prisoners
By Yoav Gonen / Haaretz
Are you looking for an idea for a pleasant and relaxing day out, after exhausting all the parks and tourist attractions?
How about trying a new, ideal Israeli experience: an interactive prison visit that includes a humiliating display of security detainees and a lavish lunch?
It may sound somewhat strange. Yet Roni Singer of the independent media outlet “Shomrim” recently revealed that the Commissioner of the Israel Prison Service, Kobi Yaakobi, accompanied a group of worshippers from a synagogue in Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim) in East Jerusalem on such a tour. A bus belonging to the Prison Service transported Yaakobi’s guests to Nitzan Prison, where they toured the wings for criminal offenders and the security wing holding security prisoners, including “elite militants” (from Hamas).
The prisoners were presented before the group “lying on the ground and shackled.” Afterwards, the visitors enjoyed a Torah lesson and a generous meal.
In their conversations, the worshippers expressed admiration for the hospitality, as reflected in their remarks during lunch.
One may wonder about the moral distortion that would describe such an event as “enjoyable.” Yet the reality is that spending a pleasant day at a Prison Service “resort” represents a new normal in Israel, a society in which death and violence have become spectacles. Executions are discussed as an exciting political possibility; the noose has become a fashionable accessory; shackled prisoners are displayed before the media and the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir; observation points have spread across the hills of the Negev to watch aircraft dropping bombs on Gaza’s residents; videos showing Palestinians being burned provoke reactions ranging from disgust to delight; and war is no longer perceived as a threat but as a national pastime.
Watching people in chains and humiliation as a form of entertainment is, in this view, a natural progression of these developments.
The French philosopher Michel Foucault describes in his work Discipline and Punish how public executions and torture in the pre-modern era functioned as ceremonial displays of sovereign power. Yet such theatrical events were dangerous and difficult to control.
Hence the emergence of prisons, where explosive violence was transformed into continuous supervision, and the spectacle of power moved from public squares into hidden cells.
As in many other areas, contemporary Israel, in this context as well, aspires to return to its roots and restore the scene of the gallows to the public square.
The state no longer uses violence solely in the name of public interest; it markets it as an organized tour or a spiritual experience. There is considerable demand. Judging from reactions to the article about the “fun day” at Nitzan Prison, many were not shocked by the event itself, but rather that it was not available to everyone and did not involve actual bloodshed.
One right-wing activist wrote on the platform X: “It’s a disgrace to take them on a tour of the elite instead of giving each person a baton and making sure none of the elite members remain alive within ten minutes.”
Others were mainly disturbed that the tour was reserved for insiders at taxpayers’ expense, as though the real problem were suspected corruption rather than moral corruption.
According to a report published last November by the organization Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, including torture, starvation, and denial of medical treatment. Instead of addressing the plight of the sick within this system, those responsible are, according to the article, turning that suffering into a tourist attraction and inviting members of their society to take pleasure in it.
By Yoav Gonen / Haaretz
Are you looking for an idea for a pleasant and relaxing day out, after exhausting all the parks and tourist attractions?
How about trying a new, ideal Israeli experience: an interactive prison visit that includes a humiliating display of security detainees and a lavish lunch?
It may sound somewhat strange. Yet Roni Singer of the independent media outlet “Shomrim” recently revealed that the Commissioner of the Israel Prison Service, Kobi Yaakobi, accompanied a group of worshippers from a synagogue in Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim) in East Jerusalem on such a tour. A bus belonging to the Prison Service transported Yaakobi’s guests to Nitzan Prison, where they toured the wings for criminal offenders and the security wing holding security prisoners, including “elite militants” (from Hamas).
The prisoners were presented before the group “lying on the ground and shackled.” Afterwards, the visitors enjoyed a Torah lesson and a generous meal.
In their conversations, the worshippers expressed admiration for the hospitality, as reflected in their remarks during lunch.
One may wonder about the moral distortion that would describe such an event as “enjoyable.” Yet the reality is that spending a pleasant day at a Prison Service “resort” represents a new normal in Israel, a society in which death and violence have become spectacles. Executions are discussed as an exciting political possibility; the noose has become a fashionable accessory; shackled prisoners are displayed before the media and the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir; observation points have spread across the hills of the Negev to watch aircraft dropping bombs on Gaza’s residents; videos showing Palestinians being burned provoke reactions ranging from disgust to delight; and war is no longer perceived as a threat but as a national pastime.
Watching people in chains and humiliation as a form of entertainment is, in this view, a natural progression of these developments.
The French philosopher Michel Foucault describes in his work Discipline and Punish how public executions and torture in the pre-modern era functioned as ceremonial displays of sovereign power. Yet such theatrical events were dangerous and difficult to control.
Hence the emergence of prisons, where explosive violence was transformed into continuous supervision, and the spectacle of power moved from public squares into hidden cells.
As in many other areas, contemporary Israel, in this context as well, aspires to return to its roots and restore the scene of the gallows to the public square.
The state no longer uses violence solely in the name of public interest; it markets it as an organized tour or a spiritual experience. There is considerable demand. Judging from reactions to the article about the “fun day” at Nitzan Prison, many were not shocked by the event itself, but rather that it was not available to everyone and did not involve actual bloodshed.
One right-wing activist wrote on the platform X: “It’s a disgrace to take them on a tour of the elite instead of giving each person a baton and making sure none of the elite members remain alive within ten minutes.”
Others were mainly disturbed that the tour was reserved for insiders at taxpayers’ expense, as though the real problem were suspected corruption rather than moral corruption.
According to a report published last November by the organization Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, including torture, starvation, and denial of medical treatment. Instead of addressing the plight of the sick within this system, those responsible are, according to the article, turning that suffering into a tourist attraction and inviting members of their society to take pleasure in it.
❤1🤯1
Predictions of Iran’s Victory in a War Against the United States
In a striking interview on the program Breaking Points, Professor Jiang predicts that the United States would lose a war against Iran and explains in detail how this could occur.
According to Jiang—who previously predicted Donald Trump’s victory in the elections and the outbreak of a war with Iran—Iran has been preparing for 20 years for a war of attrition through its allies, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah.
He emphasizes Iran’s advantage in using inexpensive drones compared to America’s costly interceptor missiles, which could lead to the depletion of U.S. resources.
He also anticipates the closure of the Strait of Hormuz without the need for a naval fleet, as well as attacks on desalination plants in the Persian Gulf, potentially triggering a water crisis.
Economically, he argues this could result in the collapse of the petrodollar recycling system and the bursting of the artificial intelligence investment bubble, thereby ending American hegemony and ushering in a multipolar global order.
This prediction is described as shocking and worth watching.
For those unfamiliar with Professor Jiang, he is a lecturer and the owner of the YouTube channel Predictive History (with over one million subscribers), where he analyzes history and geopolitics through a “predictive” structural approach and forecasts major events.
He predicted Trump’s victory in the 2024 elections.
He predicted a U.S.–Iran war (in a 2024 lecture titled The Iran Trap).
And in his latest interview on Breaking Points (March 2026), he states that America would lose such a war, outlining scenarios involving inexpensive drones, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, strikes on desalination facilities, and economic collapse.
In a striking interview on the program Breaking Points, Professor Jiang predicts that the United States would lose a war against Iran and explains in detail how this could occur.
According to Jiang—who previously predicted Donald Trump’s victory in the elections and the outbreak of a war with Iran—Iran has been preparing for 20 years for a war of attrition through its allies, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah.
He emphasizes Iran’s advantage in using inexpensive drones compared to America’s costly interceptor missiles, which could lead to the depletion of U.S. resources.
He also anticipates the closure of the Strait of Hormuz without the need for a naval fleet, as well as attacks on desalination plants in the Persian Gulf, potentially triggering a water crisis.
Economically, he argues this could result in the collapse of the petrodollar recycling system and the bursting of the artificial intelligence investment bubble, thereby ending American hegemony and ushering in a multipolar global order.
This prediction is described as shocking and worth watching.
For those unfamiliar with Professor Jiang, he is a lecturer and the owner of the YouTube channel Predictive History (with over one million subscribers), where he analyzes history and geopolitics through a “predictive” structural approach and forecasts major events.
He predicted Trump’s victory in the 2024 elections.
He predicted a U.S.–Iran war (in a 2024 lecture titled The Iran Trap).
And in his latest interview on Breaking Points (March 2026), he states that America would lose such a war, outlining scenarios involving inexpensive drones, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, strikes on desalination facilities, and economic collapse.
X (formerly Twitter)
Bricktop_NAFO (@Bricktop_NAFO) on X
🚨🚨🚨🚨IN A BOMBSHELL INTERVIEW PROFESSOR JIANG PREDICTS THE UNITED STATES WILL LOSE THE WAR AGAINST IRAN AND EXPLAINS EXACTLY HOW🚨🚨🚨🚨
After everything thats going on and watching Iran's methods of retaliation. This all makes sense.
🚨THIS IS A SHOCKING MUST…
After everything thats going on and watching Iran's methods of retaliation. This all makes sense.
🚨THIS IS A SHOCKING MUST…
👍11❤2🤯2