The Dar al-Fatwa Iftar:

The Dar al-Fatwa Iftar:

Protocols of Impotence and Proxy Wars

When political masks fall, "spiritual" banquets transform into arenas for petty score-settling. The Saudi Embassy's deployment of a security team to Dar al-Fatwa—solely to demarcate "seating boundaries" for Ambassador Waleed Bukhari to avoid Saad Hariri—is not a routine protocol. It is a blunt declaration of the collapse of Saudi "paternalism" over a leadership that no longer meets the criteria of the current regional era.

Strategic and Social Significance:

• Fragmentation of the Sunni Community: This spectacle reinforces the political "orphanhood" imposed on the Sunni community in Lebanon. While the "street" clings to Hariri as a symbol—despite the failures of the past—Riyadh insists on "disciplining" him through a humiliating isolation that transcends diplomacy into personal vendetta.

• The Leadership Vacuum: Saudi hostility toward "Political Harirism" offers no viable alternative. Instead, it leaves the Sunni arena vulnerable to fragmentation among minor projects (Makhzoumi, Saniora, etc.) that lack the weight to balance the national equation, ultimately weakening the community as a foundational partner in Lebanon's strategic settlements.

• Shift in Agency: The Embassy in Beirut has ceased to be a unifying "tent" and has become an "operations room" for screening and exclusion. This behavior validates the conviction of the Axis of Resistance: relying on foreign powers is nothing more than trading sovereignty for degrading subservience.

Historically, only those rooted in their own land with sovereign decisions have survived in Lebanon. Those waiting for signals from across the borders to sit or stand will find themselves excluded from the table altogether as history accelerates.

#Lebanon #DarAlFatwa #SaadHariri #AxisOfResistance #SaudiArabia

A Seismic Shift in Regional Engineering: Cairo and Tehran Break Decades of Constraint

At a moment when history is accelerating and the walls of isolation are crumbling, the resumption of full diplomatic relations between Tehran and Cairo arrives to re-engineer the balance of power in the Middle East. This is no mere "bureaucratic" exchange of ambassadors; it is the definitive collapse of the psychological remnants of "Camp David," which sought to sever Egypt from its regional depth and encircle Iran with an Arab barrier.

Strategic Dimensions of the Confrontation:

• Breaking the Siege: The Iranian-Egyptian rapprochement effectively buries the Zionist "Arab NATO" project. When the largest demographic and military power in Africa meets the spearhead of the Resistance in Asia, the security of global waterways—from the Strait of Hormuz to Bab al-Mandab and the Suez Canal—becomes a strictly regional affair, liberated from American tutelage.

• Sovereignty over Hegemony: Cairo’s successful mediation between Tehran and the IAEA, culminating in the "Cairo Agreement" (September 2025), proved that regional solutions are the historical alternative to Western domination.

• The Axis and the Sunni Depth: This convergence strips the carpet from beneath those who profit from sectarian strife. History teaches us that the power of regional resistance doubled when Cairo and Tehran moved in the same orbit during the 1960s. Today, history reproduces itself with deeper strategic awareness; Egypt recognizes that its national security is secured through understanding with rising powers, not through subservience to fading empires.

Jerusalem, Beirut, Sana'a, and Baghdad now witness a new reality: Cairo is no longer "out of the equation," and Tehran is no longer "contained."

#AxisOfResistance #Iran #Egypt #RegionalSovereignty #HistoryAccelerating

Voices of Apostasy: Mithal al-Alusi and the Spectacle of Zionist Impotence in Baghdad

In a fresh moral and national descent, the so-called "Mithal al-Alusi" appeared on Al-Rasheed TV to recycle the delusions of "peace" with a usurping entity gasping for strategic breath. His talk of a "single alliance" with the Zionists is not a mere political opinion; it is a documented crime under the "Criminalizing Normalization" law passed by the Iraqi Parliament in May 2022, which mandates penalties up to death or life imprisonment for anyone communicating with the occupation.

Facts and Strategic Analysis: • Defying Law and Sovereignty: Al-Alusi and his backers are betting on an illusory "American" protection, ignoring that Iraqi national consensus—both popular and institutional—has solidified Iraq's identity as an integral part of the Axis of Confrontation.

• Timing of Provocation: This statement comes while the Zionist entity drowns in its internal crises and the erosion of its deterrence against Resistance strikes. Attempting to "legitimize" the entity from Baghdad is a desperate effort to repair the shattered image of "Greater Israel" that crumbled beneath the boots of the fighters.

• The Failed Bet: Iraqi history has never shown mercy to those who throw themselves into the arms of the enemy. These figures are nothing but expired propaganda tools used to test the pulse of a street that has always responded: "No, No to Israel."

The Iraq that has spilled blood for Palestine will never be an "ally" to the killers of children. The sovereignty Al-Alusi speaks of is not achieved by kneeling before the Mossad, but by purging them from the region.

#Iraq #NoToNormalization #AxisOfResistance #IraqiSovereignty #Palestine

Reconstruction or Real Estate?

The “Board of Peace” and the Corporate Rebranding of Empire

WASHINGTON — American diplomacy has completed its metamorphosis. It no longer pretends to be multilateral. It now comes with a logo, a boardroom, and a chairman.

Donald Trump’s inaugural meeting of the so-called Board of Peace (BoP) was presented as the dawn of a “new era” for Gaza. The headline: a $10 billion U.S. pledge toward reconstruction.

For context: even if one accepts the numbers at face value, the Board’s total commitments — roughly $7 billion from nine participating countries plus the U.S. pledge — do not approach the estimated $70 billion required to rebuild Gaza’s destroyed infrastructure. The gap is not marginal. It is structural.

The language is humanitarian. The architecture is financial.

This is not reconstruction policy. It is asset reclassification.

I. The Legal Mirage

The $10 Billion That Does Not Exist

Under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress controls federal spending. No money leaves the Treasury without statutory appropriation.

Yet there is no publicly passed $10 billion allocation in the FY2026 budget for a “Board of Peace.” The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides approximately $5.4 billion for total international humanitarian assistance worldwide — not for a bespoke geopolitical experiment headquartered in Washington.

So what exactly was pledged?

• If congressional authorization exists, it has not been transparently presented. • If it does not exist, the pledge functions as political signaling — or as leverage for private capital mobilization. • If the funding is structured through executive authority or hybrid public-private vehicles, it tests the outer boundary of the Foreign Assistance Act.

The ambiguity is the point.

The Board has reportedly been convened at the renamed “Trump U.S. Institute of Peace” — a symbolic and administrative consolidation of state authority into personal branding. Whether Trump remains president or not becomes secondary. Chairmanship of a private or quasi-governmental board does not expire with an election cycle.

Presidencies end. Boards endure.

II. Multilateralism as Casualty

The Board of Peace is not positioned as complementary to the United Nations. It is framed as an alternative.

The United States contributes roughly 22–25% of the UN’s core budget. Withholding or delaying dues creates institutional fragility. Into that vacuum steps a streamlined “Board” promising efficiency and decisive action.

Efficiency is attractive. Accountability is slower.

The displacement of UNRWA and other UN-mandated agencies from the reconstruction equation is not procedural housekeeping. It is jurisdictional erasure. International law becomes optional; board resolutions become binding in practice if not in principle.

Membership in this architecture is reportedly tied to financial contribution levels. If permanent seats correlate with billion-dollar entry points, governance begins to resemble equity distribution.

In that model, sovereignty is not negotiated. It is subscribed.

III. The Riviera Doctrine

The rhetorical frame is rubble removal — approximately 70 million tonnes of debris to be cleared.

But debris is not neutral. It sits on land. Land has title. Title implies ownership.

The redevelopment proposals circulating within policy and advisory circles — luxury marinas, hotel corridors, high-rise residential complexes — are not simply urban planning exercises. They presume demographic reconfiguration.

Reconstruction traditionally restores. Redevelopment redesigns.

If Gaza becomes a securitized enclave — screened, disarmed, administratively managed — who defines residency? Who issues permits? Who decides which neighborhoods are “viable” and which are “non-strategic”?

The language of “New Rafah” and “redevelopment zones” already overlaps with Israeli security perimeters. Military control during construction phases easily evolves into permanent regulatory authority.

Displacement rarely announces itself as expulsion.