Analyses Archives - Page 2 of 31

Bint Jbeil: Town of Heroic Resistance

CrossFireArabia
April 16, 2026

By Mohammad Jaradat

Weaker than a spider’s web. This is a slogan used by the late martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, from here in Bint Jbeil that represents the crucible of southern Lebanese geography intertwined with a history of resistance from the last century against the French occupation, and the crown jewel of northern Palestine in the face of the British occupation. Here, some of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam’s men received their training and ammunition for the battlefield.

The Litani River, with its proud craned neck, peering from its geographical depression into the nearby hills, eastward towards Ainata and southward opposite Maroun al-Ras and Ain Ebel peers in fervor. Here, the Israeli occupation army finally declared its encirclement after 50 days of war and nearly a month of intermittent ground incursions by their two fully equipped divisions.

The 98th Division, with over 15,000 soldiers, advanced from the east, and the 162nd Division, with a similar strength, advanced from the west. The spokesperson of this “army” boasted that the sports stadium had been captured. It was here that the complex of “weaker than a spider’s web” took root in the Israeli psyche, beginning in 2000 with the victory speech by Nasrallah, then general secretary of Hezbollah, delivered in this very stadium. This complex solidified in 2006, becoming deeply ingrained in the Israeli psychological and political landscape and surfacing.

Today Bint Jbeil, a southern town with a population of 25,000 and an area exceeding 10 square kilometers, is besieged. The encirclement is now complete, and the Israeli army intends to storm it, as they did in 2006 for four weeks. Then, Brigadier General Gal Hirsch repeatedly announced its capture in three consecutive false claims. Israeli soldiers attempted a takeover 2024, but Bint Jbeil remained defiant against the invaders, even under the cover of the world’s most powerful air force and accompanied by the most advanced and sophisticated tanks.

Bint Jbeil sits peacefully in its low-lying geographical area, just 3 kilometers from the northern Palestinian border. Only Mount Maroun al-Ras separates it from this border, being fraught with tension and pride. This time the Israeli occupation army traversed its roads, advancing towards the outskirts of Bint Jbeil. Channel 14 of the Israeli entity, albeit through circuitous means, circumvented the military censor’s scissors to reveal the hell of war in Bint Jbeil, where the tank of the commander of Battalion 52 had just been blown up by an anti-tank missile.

The Israeli occupation army is pushing towards Bint Jbeil, fully aware of the symbolic and strategic importance of this town. It is the geographical neck that separates the eastern and western branches of the Litani River. Israel cannot claim to have complete control over the southern Litani without Bint Jbeil. However, its past experiences with the town have been bitter. While it may have studied its reality and learned from those experiences, its people and their resistance have surpassed even the lessons learned and the harshness of the confrontation.

The alleys and lanes of Bint Jbeil bear witness to the footsteps of dozens of resistance fighters and commanders who have fallen within its walls in previous battles. Dozens of Israeli soldiers and commanders have also fallen there. Today, in the Battle of Asif al-Ma’kul (Operation Protective Edge), Bint Jbeil opens its arms not to welcome invaders, but to shelter some of them as prisoners, after the promise made by today’s Secretary-General of the Resistance, Sheikh Naim Qassem. He, a man of action rather than oratory, and he would not have made such a vow unless the men of God, under his guidance, had prepared themselves for the present fight. There are resistance prisoners whom the November 2024 agreement left unfulfilled, and the resistance does not abandon its prisoners in prisons.

A picture of victory.

Through this, Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to market his empty slogans here, even at the cost of dozens of the lives of his soldiers. What he failed to achieve in his aggression against Iran, he now aims to accomplish here in Lebanon, even through direct negotiations with a government that represents only a small minority of subservient individuals. He arrogantly insists on negotiations under fire, hence his insistence that his Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, rush to Bint Jbeil, just as Ehud Olmert did previously when he insisted on his Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz, and persisted until some officers, according to Olmert’s later admissions, disobeyed orders and withdrew without permission from some of the areas they had seized in Bint Jbeil, leaving in a worse state than when they had entered.

The concentrated targeting of Bint Jbeil, amidst the rush to resolve the battle, even if only by attempting to stage a photo opportunity in some of its neighborhoods, points to several important aspects, most notably:

First: The quagmire of the Israeli army in southern Lebanon is becoming increasingly entrenched, especially as Israeli political ambitions have begun to outweigh its military achievements on the ground. This is due to the composure of the resistance leadership, its effective management, and its mobile control over key areas in southern Lebanon. It is also due to the pressure of Iranian steadfastness and the interconnectedness of the various fronts, which has driven Netanyahu to seek a preemptive escape by jumping into direct negotiations with the Lebanese government lead by Nawaf Salam in Washington.

Second: This serves to cover up the Israeli-American failure on the Iranian front. This failure, on the one hand, is what prompted the Israeli army to commit Wednesday’s massacres against hundreds of civilians. On the other hand, it indicates the frenzied behavior that gripped Netanyahu after the US agreed to the Iranian condition of halting the aggression against Lebanon, just as it halted the aggression against Iran—a condition that remains a thorn in Israel’s side.

Third: Exploiting the official Lebanese rush towards Israel through direct negotiations—negotiations devoid of any real possibility of agreement. The Lebanese government lacks the necessary realities and is negotiating to secure a ceasefire agreement, separate from any Iranian gains, in exchange for Israel’s insistence on disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s weapons are used to bombard Israeli settlements in northern Palestine day and night, and to destroy invading tanks and vehicles with alarming regularity.

Fourth: Attempting to resolve the stalemate on all fronts south of the Litani River through a decisive battle in Bint Jbeil. This battle is seen as capable of dismantling the entire stalemate. Herein lies the Israeli spirit of adventurism, which might sometimes suit the resistance forces. Israel would not lose much if its gamble failed. However, in the approach of conventional armies, such reckless actions break their backs and cause them to lose their overall balance. This is precisely the situation the occupation army might find itself in if its adventurism backfires on it at the gates of Bint Jbeil or within its shadowy environs.

It is no exaggeration to say that the state of enticement that the Israeli occupation army is pursuing in Bint Jbeil may decide the fate of the aggression against Lebanon as a whole, especially with the insistence of Netanyahu and his war minister Israel Katz and their exertions on the army commanders in the field, at which point continuing to run away since October 7, 2023 will not be of any use.

Mohammad Jaradat is a Palestinian researcher who contributed this article to Al Mayadeen and this article is presented in translation form and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

Analyses

Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

CrossFireArabia
March 16, 2026

By Retired Major-General Dr. Musa Al-Ajlouni

The Hormuz Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, through which approximately one-fifth of global oil trade passes. For this reason, the security of this strait has been a cornerstone of the strategic hegemony system established by the United States in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.

However, recent military and political developments indicate that this equation no longer operates and Washington’s ability to impose maritime security in the Gulf is no longer absolute as it once was.

Unconventional Warfare Confounds Naval Power

Iran’s military strategy for threatening navigation in the strait relies on a combination of asymmetric warfare tools, such as coastal missiles, drones, fast attack craft, and sea mines. These tools are relatively low-cost yet highly effective, making it difficult for any naval power—even the world’s most powerful—to provide complete protection for every ship transiting the Strait.

Over the past few years, Iran has also successfully developed what is known as the Anti-Access/Area Denial (AAD) strategy, a military doctrine aimed at making it extremely costly for large naval vessels to enter certain areas. In a relatively confined geographical environment like the Arabian Gulf, this strategy becomes even more effective because it reduces the room for maneuver for large fleets.

The challenge here is not Washington’s ability to respond militarily, but rather the impossibility of preventing every potential threat. A single missile or small drone may be sufficient to disrupt navigation or increase insurance and shipping costs, thus achieving the objective of strategic pressure without engaging in a large-scale conventional naval confrontation.

Redeployment of the aircraft carrier… an indicator of a changing equation

One of the most prominent military indicators of this shift is Washington’s own announcement of the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) aircraft carrier away from the waters near the Iranian coast. The carrier, considered one of the largest assets of the US Navy, is no longer operating in the immediate vicinity of the threat, as was the case in previous crises in the Gulf.

According to US statements, this move comes as part of a reorganization of naval forces to better suit the nature of current threats. However, many observers see this change as evidence that the tactical risk balance in the region has shifted significantly.

Tacit Admission of Incapacity

In this context, US President Donald Trump called on international partners to participate in protecting the Strait of Hormuz. He appealed to NATO countries and also called on major economic powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea to contribute to securing the waterway, arguing that Middle Eastern oil flows primarily to their economies, and therefore protecting this vital artery should be a shared responsibility.

This call implicitly acknowledges that the United States is no longer able—politically, militarily, or economically—to bear the burden of protecting global trade routes alone, as it did in past decades.

Limitations of War

This development also reveals another dimension related to assessing the potential outcomes of a war against Iran. Had this war truly succeeded in achieving its strategic objective of neutralizing Iran as an influential regional power, Tehran would no longer be able to threaten one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. Its continued ability to use missiles, drones, and other asymmetrical warfare tools to impact international maritime security indicates that the war, despite the damage it inflicted, failed to diminish Iran’s geopolitical role or remove it from the regional power equation.

Indeed, the current situation suggests that Iran still possesses strategic leverage that enables it to influence the global economy, which explains Washington’s efforts to garner broad international support to protect navigation in the Strait. Thus, the Strait itself becomes evidence that the strategic neutralization of Iran has not yet been achieved.

Attempt to Pressure Allies

Trump did not merely call on allies to participate; he also reminded European countries of their commitments within NATO, recalling the substantial military and financial support the United States provided to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian War.

Through this reminder, Trump is attempting to establish a political equation: Washington stood with Europe against Russia, and therefore Europeans should now stand with it in protecting global energy routes in the Gulf.

Expected European Reaction

However, the European response may be more cautious than Washington anticipates. European countries understand that direct military involvement in securing the Strait of Hormuz could place them at the heart of a regional confrontation with Iran, a scenario many capitals are trying to avoid.

Furthermore, past experiences in the Middle East, particularly after the Iraq War, have made European public opinion more hesitant to engage in US-led military operations. Therefore, the European role may be limited to logistical support or limited participation in maritime surveillance operations, without direct involvement in the conflict.

Calculations of Asian Powers

Asian powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea are the most dependent on Gulf oil, but they are also the most eager to avoid becoming embroiled in a military conflict in the region. China, for example, has economic and political ties with Iran and simultaneously seeks to present itself as an international balancing power, not a party to the conflict.

Therefore, these countries may be inclined to support limited security arrangements or international initiatives to guarantee freedom of navigation, without joining a broad US-led military coalition.

Strait of Hormuz: Mirror of the Shifting Balance of Power

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the protection of the Strait of Hormuz reveals a deeper shift in the structure of the international system.

The country that for decades was able to maintain security in strategic waterways now finds itself compelled to seek assistance from its allies and even some of its rivals.

At the same time, it appears that Iran still possesses sufficient tools to maintain its role as a strategic player in the region. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz, with all its importance to global energy, becomes a mirror reflecting the shifting balance of power in the Middle East and the world.

This article war written in Arabic for the JO24 website.

Analyses

Trump’s Advisor: Warns White House Against Escalation

CrossFireArabia
March 14, 2026

Trump adviser David Sacks warns that continued escalation with Iran could destabilize the region and strain Israel’s defenses.

Key Takeaways

David Sacks urged Washington to “declare victory and get out” of the war with Iran before escalation spirals further.
He warned Iran could target Gulf oil infrastructure and desalination plants, threatening water supplies for millions.
His remarks come amid growing divisions within the Trump administration over whether to escalate the conflict or seek an exit.

A Rare Warning

A senior adviser to Donald Trump has warned that Washington may already be approaching the limits of what it can safely achieve in its escalating war with Iran.

Speaking on the All-In Podcast, White House AI and cryptocurrency adviser David Sacks urged the United States to step back from the conflict before it spirals further across the Middle East.

“This is a good time to declare victory and get out,” Sacks said, arguing that Washington should seek a negotiated off-ramp rather than push toward deeper escalation.

“I agree that we should try to find the off-ramp,” he added.

His remarks are notable because they challenge the dominant narrative coming from the White House and many Republican figures who continue to frame the war as a decisive strategic success.

Instead, Sacks sounded a far more cautious note, suggesting that the longer the war continues, the more unpredictable its consequences may become.

‘Catastrophic’ Consequences

Sacks warned that Iran retains the capacity to retaliate in ways that could destabilize the entire region.

One of the scenarios he outlined involved strikes on Gulf oil infrastructure and desalination plants that supply drinking water across the Arabian Peninsula.

“I think it’s something like 100 million people on the Arabian Peninsula that get their water from desal,” Sacks said.

Damage to those facilities could have immediate humanitarian consequences across several Gulf states that depend heavily on desalinated water.

Sacks described such a scenario as “truly catastrophic.”

His comments reflect growing concern that Iran may respond asymmetrically, targeting infrastructure and economic systems rather than focusing solely on military confrontation.

Israel’s Position Under Strain

Sacks also warned that the war could create serious pressure on Israel if it continues to escalate.

During the podcast discussion, he noted that prolonged regional confrontation could test Israel’s air defense systems and expose the country to sustained missile pressure.

In the same conversation, Sacks described Iran as holding what he called a “dead man’s switch over the economic fate of the Gulf States.”

The phrase referred to Iran’s ability to disrupt key economic and energy infrastructure throughout the region if the war intensifies.

Reshaping the Region

The remarks came shortly before the United States launched a major bombing raid on Iran’s Kharg Island, a strategic terminal through which the vast majority of Iranian oil exports pass.

The strike highlighted how deeply the war has already penetrated the economic and strategic infrastructure of the region.

Energy markets have reacted nervously to the widening conflict, while Gulf states remain exposed to the risk of retaliatory strikes on oil facilities and shipping routes.

Meanwhile, Iran and allied groups have continued missile and drone attacks against Israel and other targets across the region, expanding the battlefield beyond the initial US-Israeli strikes.

The result is a conflict that now spans multiple fronts across West Asia.

Growing Debate

Sacks’ remarks highlight a widening divide within Washington over how far the United States should go in its confrontation with Iran.

Publicly, the Trump administration has continued to project confidence that the military campaign is weakening Tehran and reshaping the regional balance of power.

But behind that messaging, officials and political allies appear increasingly split over what the next step should be.

Some figures within the administration and the broader Republican Party are pushing for deeper escalation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly framed the strikes as part of a broader effort to weaken Iran’s regional influence and restore deterrence.

Trump himself has combined victory rhetoric with threats of further escalation. After announcing the bombing raid on Iran’s Kharg Island, he claimed US forces had “obliterated” key military targets while warning that Iranian oil infrastructure could also be struck if Tehran moves to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, a smaller but increasingly visible group within Trump’s orbit appears wary of a prolonged war.

Those voices argue that continued escalation could draw the United States into a wider regional conflict involving Iran’s network of allied forces across Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere.

Sacks’ call to “declare victory and get out” reflects that concern.

Rather than advocating additional military pressure, he suggested Washington should use the current moment to claim success and pursue a negotiated exit before the conflict expands further.

The contrast between those positions — escalation versus exit — is becoming one of the central political questions shaping Washington’s response to the war. – The Palestine Chronicle

Analyses Uncategorized

How Will Trump Get Out of This War?

CrossFireArabia
March 14, 2026

By Ismail Al Sharif

“We are in an advanced position, and we will decide when the war will end,” said Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister.

President Donald Trump, in coordination with the Zionist entity, is igniting a regional war with Iran which is an unprecedented event in the region. Analysis of the true motives behind this fateful decision vary. One school of thought believes the strategic objective lies in controlling Iranian oil wealth and containing growing Chinese influence. Another links this to the Epstein affair, based on claims of Zionist pressure threatening to expose him to sensitive information.

A third school believes that Trump is tied to political commitments made to Miriam Adelson, who generously funded his election campaign. Some go even further, alleging that Trump, known for his transactional negotiating style, received substantial financial compensation for engaging in this war. In a related context however, recent reports indicate that Trump himself has blamed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and several close advisors for instigating this latest military adventure.

Whatever the true motives behind igniting this war, one path seems almost certain to end it: Trump will hold a press conference declaring a unilateral and absolute victory. The precise timing of this declaration remains uncertain.

But the decision to cease hostilities does not rest with Trump alone; it is contingent upon the agreement of two other key parties: Tehran and Israel.

Israel shows no desire to end this war, as it is the primary beneficiary of its continuation. It systematically seeks to dismantle the structure of the Islamic Republic and sees no harm in the regime’s collapse leading to widespread chaos engulfing Iran and the entire region.

If Trump fails to restrain Netanyahu, the latter will not hesitate to continue his military operations even after any official American declaration of a ceasefire. This may explain why Trump declared that any settlement to end the conflict would only be possible with Netanyahu’s consent and explicit blessing.

However, the Zionist entity might feign acceptance of a ceasefire while its Mossad intelligence apparatus works behind the scenes to fuel separatist and rebellious sentiments among ethnic minorities within Iran, such as the Kurds and Balouchis, potentially threatening the cohesion of the Iranian state from within. In response, Tehran would have no choice but to continue targeting the entity, which would then retaliate swiftly, potentially drawing Trump back into a cycle of military confrontation.

Adding to Trump’s predicament is the possibility that he might ultimately declare a ceasefire unilaterally, without any fundamental change to the structure of the Iranian regime, and without extracting any genuine concessions from Tehran regarding halting uranium enrichment, dismantling its missile program, or severing its ties with regional allies—the very pretexts used to launch the war.

Even more dangerous is the fact that the Islamic Republic’s resilience and its emergence from this crisis with its system intact will make it a unique and exceptional model: The first country to challenge American hegemony and emerge unscathed. This could encourage other countries suffering under the weight of Trump’s policies or ambitions—such as Venezuela and Greenland—to adopt resistance as a path, even if they lack Iran’s military capabilities.

It seems to me that President Trump may be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush, when he famously declared victory in 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was then—as it is today—at the eye of the American military storm. It is worth recalling here that Bush’s speech was a highly symbolic and premature declaration, one that was quickly contradicted by events, as the war on Iraqi soil continued for nearly a decade afterward.

The war has exhausted Iran and burdened it with immense hardships, making it seriously seek a cessation of hostilities. However, it simultaneously finds itself in direct confrontation with American will. Iranian officials have made it clear that any agreement to a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations is contingent upon receiving firm guarantees from Washington and Tel Aviv that the aggression will not be repeated. Should Tehran manage to withstand and overcome this phase, it is likely to add to its list of demands one of which is the lifting of some of the sanctions imposed upon it.

Therefore, it appears that the Iranian strategy is essentially based on a policy of systematic attrition; simultaneously exhausting the United States and Israel by driving oil prices to high levels and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s vital energy artery. This would impose heavy economic burdens that might ultimately compel Washington to reconsider its calculations and agree to a ceasefire.

In short, Trump will not be in a position to deliver a victory speech in the next week or two, and any such declaration without genuine cooperation from Israel and Iran will amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of any real substance on the ground. There is no doubt that President Trump has put himself, his country, and the entire region in a very complex strategic predicament, from which the way out may not be as easy as those who made the decision to go to war imagine.

This analysis was originally written in Arabic and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

Analyses Opinion

‘This War is Not Hours’

CrossFireArabia
March 11, 2026

By Dr Hasan Al Dajah

Events in the Middle East are accelerating, foreshadowing a comprehensive regional explosion. However, a deeper reading of the situation transcends the traditional narrative that attempts to portray the conflict as an “Arab-Iranian” or sectarian one that transcends borders. The reality emerging today from the rubble of burning military bases and oil facilities is clear: this war is not ours; it is a major strategic war led by Washington with direct Israeli planning, aimed at reshaping the region to serve absolute Western hegemony, even if the price is turning Arab capitals into arenas of destruction and settling scores in which we have no stake.

For years, the United States promoted the concept of “deterrence” and providing protection to allied countries in exchange for billions of dollars in arms deals and a massive military presence. However, Operation “True Promise 5” and the subsequent precise Iranian strikes have stripped away the fig leaf from these claims. Field reports indicate that US bases, once described as “impregnable fortresses,” have become vulnerable targets themselves, requiring protection. At Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, damage to the AN/FPS-132 early warning radar and the AN/TPY-2 facility resulted in a near-total paralysis of surveillance capabilities.

In Bahrain, home to the Fifth Fleet, the destruction of satellite communications stations led to a loss of centralized control over naval vessels. In Kuwait and the UAE, the casualties and the destruction of F-15 fighter jets revealed that advanced US technology was incapable of countering waves of drones and missiles that disrupted even civilian air traffic and struck vital facilities at Jebel Ali Port, reducing military installations and oil depots to ashes.

This resounding failure raises a fundamental question about the viability of relying on a “security umbrella” that has failed to protect its own perimeter and has become a security burden, attracting attacks rather than repelling them. This is no longer mere political analysis; it has become a public admission emanating from the corridors of Washington. What Senator Lindsey Graham recently revealed represents the pinnacle of terrifying candor. He confirmed that the true agenda is not about spreading “democracy” or protecting allies, but rather about embroiling the Gulf States as the military front and human cannon fodder in a direct confrontation with Iran. This is a prelude to seizing oil wells and managing the region’s wealth for Washington’s benefit, thus paying the price for the American presence, while simultaneously imposing full normalization and strangling China’s energy lifeline.

The United States’ recent attempt to seek refuge in French bases in the UAE, such as Al Dhafra Air Base and Camp de la Paix, is nothing more than a desperate effort to spread losses and hide behind the European umbrella after the deterioration of the original American bases. However, even these shared bases have not been immune to attack.

The strikes have proven that any facility supporting Western operations is a legitimate target in this zero-sum confrontation. The effects of this war extend beyond the military arena, striking at the very heart of daily life. The threat to the Strait of Hormuz has triggered seismic repercussions in global markets. The price of a barrel of oil jumped to around $116, an increase of more than $38, while gas prices in Europe rose by more than €25, and oil shipping costs soared by over 90 per cent, foreshadowing an uncontrollable wave of global inflation.

The United States, which today expresses its “displeasure” at Israel exceeding expectations in striking Iranian fuel depots, is not acting out of a desire for peace, but rather out of fear that the economic game will backfire on it and on oil markets, which cannot withstand the loss of Gulf supplies, especially given the 11 per cent increase in gasoline prices in America and the 70 per cent increase in jet fuel prices. What is happening in Jebel Ali, Manama, Doha, and Kuwait is not a struggle to defend Arab sovereignty, but rather a settling of scores between major powers that want to use Arab land as a chessboard.

The American bases that are groaning today under the weight of the strikes have proven to be a “paper tiger” when it comes to protecting allies, and that their presence is nothing but a magnet for crises that drains Arab capabilities for the benefit of foreign agendas that do not take into account Arab national security.

Arab capitals must realize, before it’s too late, that the “illusion of protection” has completely evaporated under the weight of missiles and drones. To be drawn into Israel’s desire to destroy the region, and to accommodate American ambitions to seize energy resources to finance its expansionist policies, is strategic suicide by any measure.

This raging war is not our war, and staying out of the inferno of this manufactured conflict is the only way to ensure that our wealth and the future of our generations do not become fuel for the schemes of Netanyahu, Trump, and the war profiteers behind them.

The time has come to seriously seek a self-reliant regional security system, one that originates from within the continent and is based on the shared interests of the region’s countries, far removed from foreign bases that today lack even the most basic military effectiveness and have become a strategic burden that itself needs protection after its defensive vulnerabilities have been exposed.

False American promises only increase our subservience and dependence on a modern colonial project that sees Arabs as nothing more than insignificant figures on its debt list, or mere cheap tools in its proxy wars. The true protection of homelands begins today with disengaging from these destructive agendas, and with the explicit acknowledgment that bases that have failed to protect their own walls and platforms will never be a shield for others.

Hasan Al-Dajah, a Professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, is a columnist in the Jordan Times.