Analyses Archives - Page 3 of 31

Israel’s Next AI Solution to Gaza

CrossFireArabia
February 23, 2026

The Israeli and US plans aiming to transform the Gaza Strip into an economy lacking financial sovereignty are extremely concerning. The plans suggest abolishing cash currency and enforcing a transition to a digital economy managed by external entities aligned with Israel.

This would change access to money and basic transactions from a fundamental right into a revocable privilege, making food, medicine, and shelter dependent on security decisions and military assessments. It reflects a coercive restructuring of daily life aimed at pushing the population toward poverty and displacement, managed through technology.

After over two years of financial blockade, Liran Tancman, an Israeli businessman and former officer in Israeli Intelligence Unit 8200, who has been involved with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), said at an event in Washington that rebuilding Gaza depends on restoring its digital and economic connectivity. He outlined a vision for creating a “secure digital backbone” to support electronic payments, education, and financial services, alongside an “Amazon-like logistics system”. This approach aims to transition the economy from a rights-based framework to one focused on operational and security control.

Introducing digital wallets as a technical solution for reconstruction functions as a cover for a new phase of engineering control over the population and increasing economic reliance on Israel. This strategy transforms financial technology into a programmable instrument for collective regulation, enabling real-time monitoring, arbitrary restrictions, and selective freezing of funds amidst ongoing blockade and occupation, all while lacking Palestinian sovereignty over data, financial systems, operational conditions, or options to object.

Subjecting the right of access to financial resources to a security authority, whether directly or indirectly, undermines the core of economic and social rights. It damages the right to food and human dignity and breaches international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective punishment and criminalising the population. Additionally, it violates the prohibition on the use of starvation as a warfare tactic and conflicts with the fundamental obligation to protect civilians and guarantee their access to essential survival needs.

Any digital infrastructure established under occupation or international tutelage without full Palestinian sovereignty over data and financial systems risks becoming a tool for collective control and subjugation. Israel has frequently enforced arbitrary movement restrictions based on vague and non-appealable security reasons, raising fears that similar restrictions could extend to access to financial resources.

Euro-Med Monitor warns that creating a digital financial system under Israeli control could serve as a comprehensive coercion tool against Palestinians, especially journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. Digital wallets might be frozen based on a single decision, or individuals could be assigned broad security labels, resulting in the loss of access to funds without proper oversight, due process, or remedies. This situation risks making essential rights to food, medicine, and shelter dependent on unchecked security judgments.

Israel’s extensive security classification system for Palestinians, which designates hundreds of thousands as having political or national affiliations, could potentially be used as a financial weapon under such a framework to block access to their wallets and enable coercion. This situation is similar to the current restrictions on travel for medical care or movement freedom, often justified by “lack of security approval,” despite the lack of clear standards or real chances to contest these decisions.

The threat goes beyond simply denying funds; it involves turning the economy into a network of conditions and restrictions. Basic services would become dependent on political and security compliance, while aid, salaries, and trade could be used as tools for classification. People would be tracked through digital records that decide their access to essential needs. This method risks reinforcing arbitrary discrimination and could lead to collective punishment that affects both individuals and groups.

Restricting the development of advanced internet services to areas like the so-called “New Rafah,” combined with partial reconstruction efforts, raises concerns about using technology as a pressure tool to alter demographics and enforce coercive changes. Digital services risk becoming a privilege tied to geographic location rather than a universal public right, thereby weakening the principles of non-discrimination and equitable access to services.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises Tancman’s crucial role in the GHF, which is associated with contentious aid distribution methods amid the Gaza genocide. Field data indicate that the foundation’s policies helped engineer starvation in the enclave, resulting in about 1,200 civilian deaths and injuries to thousands more during food access efforts. He is also among those who suggested tying aid distribution to “biometric” checks, effectively turning relief efforts into mechanisms for data gathering, coercion, and security control.

Any digital or economic initiative that overlooks the occupation’s realities and provides the occupying power with more control tools over the population’s lives does not contribute to rebuilding Gaza or facilitating recovery. Instead, it solidifies an illegal system of domination and risks turning technology into a means to prolong violations and maintain the blockade in a “smart” manner. In this form, the blockade becomes programmable, with punishment that is swift and direct, serving as leverage to drive the population into poverty, displacement, and uprooting by limiting livelihoods and linking survival to security policies.

The reconstruction efforts and any transitional phase must be grounded in respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law, guarantee full Palestinian sovereignty over resources, systems, and data, and ensure the separation of humanitarian arrangements from security and intelligence functions.

Euro-Med Monitor underscores the prohibition on linking any financial services, humanitarian aid, or access to basic necessities to “biometric” verification, security classifications, or political conditions. It advocates adopting the principle of data minimisation and preventing the transfer or sharing of data with any third party, particularly security bodies or companies contracted with them.

Since October 2023, Israel has barred all cash entries into Gaza and enforced a strict financial blockade, resulting in the closure of all bank branches during the genocide. Although some branches later reopened partially, they were still not allowed to bring in cash, thereby preventing cash withdrawals.

Euro-Med Monitor urges rejection of any financial or digital arrangements imposed on Palestinians under occupation or made in their name without real Palestinian sovereignty, independent civil representation, and enforceable oversight and appeal processes. The idea of “consent” in the context of occupation lacks legitimacy as long as Palestinians do not control money and data.

Any system that does not guarantee full Palestinian sovereignty over data, infrastructure, standards, and governance, and that grants the occupying power or its agents the ability to access, disable, or freeze operations, remains an unlawful instrument of control, regardless of any humanitarian or developmental framing.

All digital systems should undergo regular independent audits focusing on privacy, cybersecurity, and human rights impacts, with the results openly published. Full transparency is required regarding funders, owners, operators, contractors, and contractual conditions. Euro-Med Monitor calls for safe non-digital alternatives and opposes making survival or access to services dependent on digital wallets, which could exclude vulnerable groups or those without connectivity or technical means.

The establishment of independent and effective appeal mechanisms with well-defined jurisdiction, competent judicial authority, and quick decision-making regarding asset freezes or transaction restrictions is crucial. These mechanisms should ensure transparency in operational standards and objection procedures and require that decisions be reasoned.

Euro-Med Monitor urges the establishment of an independent Palestinian civil authority to govern the financial and technological systems without interference from the occupation. It emphasises that genuine economic progress depends on lifting unlawful restrictions on crossings, cash flow, goods, and communications, rather than replacing a physical blockade with a “smart” digital one that increases dependency and perpetuates violations.

Analyses

Trump’s War Drums ‘Dampen’

CrossFireArabia
February 2, 2026

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial is written by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on 2 February 2026, on the eve of increasing US military presence sorrounding Iran.

The fact that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei appeared three times in open and public meetings, chatting to ordinary Iranians recently, sends a shocking message to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It shows Khamenei still has the first and final word in Iran, and is not hiding in an underground bunker for fear of assassination; he has not relinquished his leadership and spiritual powers, as some Arab and Western media outlets have promoted in deliberate leaks part of the psychological warfare against Iran, coinciding with the US military buildup in the region.

In contrast top Israeli politicians and military officials are rushing to Washington fearing that President Trump will back down from his aggression threats and replace the military option for a peaceful, negotiated one and reaching an accord that does not include Israeli demands and conditions. Israeli Chief of Staff General Eyal Zamir made a surprise visit to Washington recently and met with senior US military leaders, accompanied by his own top military commanders, including the Israeli Air Force Commander.

Frankly however Trump may have already lost this war, just as he lost face and credibility by failing to follow up on his threats and translate them into aggressive actions on Iranian soil as he has resorted to sending mediators, with the latest being his friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to reopen negotiations with Iran after realizing his naval buildup and aircraft carrier deployments is not yielding results, nor are they intimidating the Iranian leadership into surrendering. Thus, he may be defeated either way, whether he goes to war or resorts to a political and diplomatic solution to the cri

The key to understanding this confusion and perhaps American retreat, and the postponement of military strikes, lies in the threatening message sent by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Trump during his meetings with the numerous Iranians on the anniversary of the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s death. The most prominent point was his assertion that “Iran does not initiate wars, but if it is subjected to aggression, it will confront it with all its might and inflict devastating blows on the enemy.” More importantly, he stated “this war will be a broad regional conflict, it will not be swift, decisive, or short-lived,” nor “clean”— meaning, free of casualties.

A “regional war” means all countries, movements, and military factions aligned with the “axis of resistance” will participate, starting with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Ansar Allah in Yemen. American bases in the region, particularly on the Arabian side of the Gulf, will be legitimate targets, as will all the American soldiers stationed there and whose numbers exceed 70,000.

What terrifies Israel most is not only Trump’s failure to proceed with his aggression against Iran, but also the possibility of reaching an agreement that contradicts all three of Israel’s objectives:

First: Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, halting all Iranian uranium enrichment at high levels, and surrendering all its existing stockpile (480 kilograms) to a neutral country. Second: Halting the development and launch of Iranian missiles, and dismantling all long-range missiles, whether hypersonic or multiple-warhead, capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory, particularly Haifa and Tel Aviv, as demonstrated in the 12-day war last June.

Third: Completely ceasing all financial and missile support for resistance movements, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and its Iraqi counterpart, factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces such as Harakat al-Nujaba, and Ansar Allah in Yemen.

A Reminder

Everyone should be reminded the return of 5,000 American soldiers in coffins to Washington, killed by the Iraqi resistance after the 2003 invasion, forced the then-President Barack Obama to acknowledge defeat and withdraw 160,000 American troops from Iraq in November 2011. This was made to minimize losses. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that any aggression against Iran today would result in four times that number of American casualties, if not more, in the initial days of the attack. This is due to Iran’s resolve, advanced missiles and drones, and other secret weapons that might be the biggest surprises of this war, should it start.

Perhaps the decline in oil prices, the collapse of gold and silver prices, and the dollar’s shocking depreciation in global financial markets are among the most prominent indicators confirming what was stated above: The diminishing likelihood of war, Trump’s reluctant inclination towards diplomatic solutions and negotiations, and his initial admission of his failure to achieve a military victory to avoid losses and the protracted regional war threatened by the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Time will tell.

Analyses

Donald’s War Bells

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 2, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When talking about the stand off between the US and Iran, in fact, anything can happen on the kaleidoscope of endless talks to an endless war. Usually it is possible to predict the reaction of one collective or another with some knowledge, but impossible to predict the reaction of an individual no matter what knowledge is available.

This is especially the case if this individual is Donald Trump. He makes it his business to be unpredictable and depending who tells him what and whether he likes it or not; but at least we can attempt to drive some inference from the situation, a situation which finds the current American president who heavily criticized his predecessors for dragging the United States into protracted wars with dubious results.

In this sense, the operative term is a short and decisive war, which is unclear in terms of what duration in order to be decisive about what? From the term, short and decisive, President Trump seems to know what he wants, which we can pontificate on in a myriad of possibilities, however, and for all intents and purposes, it can only mean a campaign of targeting the current leadership, civilian, military and security, coupled with targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities.

Alternatively, for a leader obsessed with reality show image, he wishes to drag Iran to the negotiations table, which is not supposed to appear as a negotiations table, rather a table which will show a supposedly humiliated Iran, accepting the terms of the Washington administration: Those terms being a peaceful nuclear programme under close international supervision, no missile development programme, and stopping its support to its current regional proxies.

But the snag in all those plans,seems to be based on the reports indicating that the president has been told, that in order for the war to be decisive, it’s not likely to be a short one, which puts Trump in the conundrum of dragging the US into a protracted war on many other fronts, ranging from Iran to Iraq to Yemen. One is not saying at all that the US military cannot handle it, rather how costly will be the confrontation with Iran and its proxies be to achieve a decisive objective, which Trump desires to achieve in a short war?

In effect, if he does go to war at this point the objective has to change, and the meaning of decisive has also to change, meaning it would have to be regime change, knowing only too well, that there is no viable political alternative to the Mullahs except the Shah of Iran, which Trump doesn’t seem to be too keen on, and no one else in the region; for they are not much qualified to deal with day of regime change in Iran.

Also from an economic point of view: How long can a standing navy fleet stay on alert for war. The matter is not only psychological, but rather financial, as the moving of such a sizable war machine costs millions of dollars, now, if there are sponsors for this big operation and whom are willing to pay the expenses, then the US navy, similar to its Venezuelan operations, can encircle Iran and confiscate its oil shipments in the high seas , but if the US is paying for this big operation, then it won’t be long before we hear about a war breaking out.

Analyses

Gulf Escalation: A Blaze Awaits The Region

CrossFireArabia
January 29, 2026

By Dr Marwan Asmar

With the Abraham Lincoln destroyer entering Middle East waters, everyone is gearing up for another US–Israeli war on Iran—the second in less than eight months.

Anxiety is gripping the region from the Gulf to Iran and all the way to Israel. Foreign states are warning their citizens in these countries to leave, while some airlines have suspended flights to the region. Once again, the Middle East is on a war footing, with fears that a wide conflict could erupt at any moment.

With an additional 7,000 US troops moving to the region, along with jets and fighter planes, the buildup is being described as the biggest “get-ready” military move since 2003, when the US launched its major war on Iraq and reshaped the region. Today, Middle Eastern countries are jittery about the current situation and the possibility of looming instability.

US President Donald Trump is not helping matters. He says he is weighing all options but keeps everyone guessing about his next move. He has warned that if the Iranian government continues its iron-fisted crackdown on protesters, the US could intervene militarily and wage another war on Tehran—much to the delight of the Israeli government, which is reportedly playing a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging unrest in Iran.

Although Trump is raising the war tempo and increasingly saber-rattling through military entrenchment, he is also sending mixed signals. He is not as boisterous as he was when he launched US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. What he really wants is to push Iran back to the negotiating table and secure a lasting deal on its nuclear programme. He claims Iran’s facilities have been dealt a significant blow and may never recover, but this seems unrealistic, given how far Iran has advanced in nuclear enrichment.

While Trump describes Israel as a “role model” ally and urges Arab countries to follow suit—a claim many find laughable—Washington appears to be diverging from Tel Aviv over objectives on Iran and may even be at odds with it. Analysts say Israel wants strikes, even multiple ones, to change Iran’s regime and is less concerned about the chaos that could follow.

The United States, by contrast, appears more cautious. US officials do not necessarily want a new regime in Iran, uncertain of what might replace it. They prefer the logic of “the devil you know rather than the devil you don’t.” Washington wants a regime it can work with, despite ideological differences, notwithstanding Trump’s bombastic rhetoric, which Tehran may exploit if it chooses to play the “Mr Nice Guy.”

One analyst suggests Trump wants tangible gains from Iran, preferably access to its oil resources through US petroleum companies, but this may be a pipe dream.

If that fails, Trump is likely to push for a revamped nuclear deal to replace the 2015 agreement, which reached its term in September 2025 and is up for renewal. He wants a deal stamped with a distinctly “Trumpian” identity, even though many issues are already settled. Needless to say, Trump wants to claim credit for clinching the deal.

Today, the region stands on the edge of a precipice. It is touch-and-go. Many experts argue that a Middle East war is not imminent because it is neither politically nor economically feasible. Yet logic often takes a back seat in Trump’s world, especially with Israel pushing for a new wave of attacks on Iran, this time targeting its ballistic missile programme.

Iran, however, says it is ready. It has warned it will strike US bases in the region and beyond if it detects even a hint of an imminent attack. Iranian political and military leaders insist they will not remain sitting ducks for Washington or Tel Aviv. As a result, the region is caught in an escalating poker game.

While many believe Iran and its regional allies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have been significantly weakened over the past two years, neither the US nor Israel can be certain of Iran’s real capabilities. This uncertainty leaves them unsure about their next move—or Iran’s.

All this makes both Israel and the United States nervous about unpredictable scenarios across the region. Everyone is waiting, tapping their fingers, bracing for what may come next.

This article was originally published in Countercurrents.org

Analyses

Mideast on War Footing: Is US Strike on Iran Coming?

CrossFireArabia
January 29, 2026

As US military assets continue to move into the Middle East, analysts warn that Washington is edging closer to a possible confrontation with Iran, weighing options that range from intensified economic pressure and a naval blockade to direct military action.

Recent developments have heightened fears that a US-led escalation could be imminent.

“It’s looking increasingly likely that with this buildup of military assets, President Donald Trump – and probably the Israelis – are preparing for a military escalation against the Iranians,” Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at the RANE Network, told Anadolu.

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that a “massive armada” was heading toward Iran, expressing hope that Tehran would “come to the table” and negotiate with Washington. He warned that the fleet was prepared to “rapidly fulfill its mission with speed and violence, if necessary.”

Trump said the deployment was larger than the one previously sent toward Venezuela and confirmed that it is led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of the world’s largest aircraft carriers, which hosts electronic-warfare aircraft capable of disrupting Iranian radar systems.

The New York Times reported that the carrier strike group is accompanied by three warships equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles, capable of long-range precision strikes. The US has also reportedly deployed around a dozen additional F-15E attack planes, along with Patriot and THAAD air-defense systems to protect against potential Iranian retaliation.

Steffan Watkins, a consultant specializing in tracking military ships and aircraft, said the US is also shipping supplies and deploying additional surveillance aircraft. “Preparations for operations targeting Iran appear to be underway,” he wrote Thursday on the American social media platform X.

“Time is running out,” Trump warned Iran, threatening that any future attack “will be far worse” than last year’s US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Although the rhetoric comes in the wake of Iran’s crackdown on protests, Bohl said Washington’s broader objective appears to be forcing changes in Iran’s foreign and security policies.

The goal is to see “if they can get Iran’s government to change its foreign policies, to give up on its missile program and its nuclear energy program,” he said.

Limited and targeted strikes

Analysts say one of the most likely military options under consideration is a campaign of limited, precision strikes targeting Iran’s military, missile and nuclear infrastructure.

“They could go after the missile program again – strike drones and missiles and manufacturing. They can try to destroy launchers, remains of Iran’s air force, some infrastructure related to the military-industrial complex,” Bohl told Anadolu.

During the 12-day war with Israel last June, the US struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities – Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan – using bunker-buster bombs, claiming the attacks crippled Iran’s nuclear program.

Bohl said it remains unclear whether Washington would allow Israel to initiate a new round of strikes or whether a joint US-Israeli campaign would unfold.

Another option, he added, would involve phased strikes rather than a single, overwhelming attack.

“We could be seeing a version of what we saw in Iraq back in the 1990s, where the US would strike Iraq, wait to see if that would create a concession process for the Iraqis and then strike again to try to again shift the Iraqis’ behavior,” he said. “And that could take weeks, even months to unfold.”

Blockade and attacks on infrastructure

Experts also suggested that the US might try to impose naval and aerial blockade on Iran.

“Imposing a new blockade on the Iranians and trying to seize their tankers like they did in Venezuela is escalatory,” Bohl said.

He added that Washington could also attempt to restrict Iranian airspace, limiting civilian flights in a bid to inflict economic damage.

“They could enhance their cyber campaign to try to cripple Iran’s infrastructure, particularly during this time where there’s still a lingering protest movement after those major crackdowns earlier this month,” he said. “So, disrupting infrastructure would also be a choice.”

The USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group could also be used to intercept Iranian oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf, he added.

However, Scott Lucas, a professor of international politics at the Clinton Institute at University College Dublin, cautioned that a blockade and seizure of Iranian vessels could be challenging.

“I think it would be very risky for the US to do what it’s done with Venezuela, which is to seize Iranian oil tankers,” he said.

“I think the prospect of that setting off a regional crisis is much greater, especially since Iran has the capacity to close off the Strait of Hormuz, and about 20% of the world’s oil supply goes through that waterway.”

Broad escalation and strikes on leadership

Analysts also warned that Washington could opt for a broader military campaign aimed at severely degrading Iran’s leadership and command structure.

“We are seeing reports that President Trump wants something ‘decisive,’ which is more of a major campaign to probably attack as many targets as possible and increasingly consider assassinations of top Revolutionary Guards and even some of the leadership like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei,” said Bohl.

Such an approach could include attacks on senior commanders within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, political leadership nodes, and command-and-control infrastructure, analysts said.

Experts warned that efforts aimed at full regime change would almost certainly provoke retaliation against US forces and allies across the Middle East.

Bohl added that Trump believes Iran’s deterrence has comprehensively failed, as their missiles and drones have not stopped previous attacks.

“He (Trump) may believe that Iran isn’t able to carry out those sorts of comprehensive strikes on energy infrastructure,” he said. “That would encourage him to go on into a larger and more substantial campaign.”

Targeted assassinations and covert operations

A more limited alternative would involve targeted assassinations and covert operations rather than an overt large-scale war.

While analysts largely rule out a full US ground invasion of Iran, Bohl said Trump has demonstrated a preference for deploying special forces on high-risk missions.

“President Trump ran on a platform of avoiding another Iraq war, but he is very commando-happy and he likes to use his special forces,” said Bohl.

Such operations could include the destruction of high-value military targets or the assassination of individuals linked to Iran’s missile, drone or nuclear programs, analysts said.

“They have targeted Iranian leaders in the past. They assassinated the leader of the Quds Force … Gen. Qasem Soleimani at the start of 2020,” Lucas explained.

Bohl also pointed to US actions in Venezuela and North Korea as examples of attempts to apply pressure through targeted operations rather than regime-wide campaigns.

However, Bohl said that a repeat of Venezuela, where Washington reaches an understanding with the regime and takes out key leaders, does not appear to be a “viable option” in the case of Iran.

More economic pressure

Iran’s economy continues to be heavily constrained by sanctions. Earlier this month, the US announced an additional 25% tariff on countries trading with Tehran and imposed new sanctions on vessels and companies accused of transporting Iranian oil.

Bohl said Washington may seek to further destabilize Iran economically in hopes of forcing it back to negotiations.

The idea is to crack Iran’s politics by causing more economic damage and pushing them toward what are essentially surrender terms, he said.

Iran is already grappling with a severe economic crisis, marked by the rapid devaluation of the rial, which helped trigger nationwide protests late last December.

Lucas, however, argued that additional sanctions may have limited effect without broad international support.

“I think the Trump folks can bluster a bit, but they really can only tighten sanctions if they have international action on the sanctions,” he said, adding that countries such as Russia and China are unlikely to support further pressure.

What comes next

Analysts said several indicators could signal whether the US is moving closer to escalation.

Bohl said warning signs include commercial airlines avoiding Iranian airspace, the evacuation of foreign embassies, travel advisories urging civilians to leave Iran, and Israeli authorities placing the population on heightened alert.

He added that the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the US Central Command area of responsibility significantly shortens the timeline for potential action.

Given that Iran has already been struck in previous confrontations and that tensions remain extremely high, any move could rapidly spiral.

“Because it is kind of an undeclared war between the two sides already, it could really turn on a dime and begin sudden escalation,” Bohl warned.