Opinion Archives - CrossFireArarbia

World Cup, Wimbledon Kicks: Flags, Nepotism, Red Cards and a Watermelon!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 9, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

For a change I would like to give credit to President Trump’s, latest attempt to support the American team before facing off Belgium’s team on July 6, when the day before, and despite his tight and loaded schedule, he called “his friend” Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s President, and asked him for a second look at the punishment against the American striker Folarin Balogun, who made a foul against a Bosnia-Herzegovina player in the match they played earlier on July 2, and which the US won 2-0.

FIFA regulations stipulate that when a player gets a red card during a match for an offense he makes against the other team, he should be suspended from playing in the following match! Mr. Infantino obliged and lifted the ban against the American player. But the match against Belgium in which Balogun played was won by Belgium 4-1.

This intervention episode by Trump on behalf of the American national soccer squad did not end there and led to a controversy that would not be settled before the closing of the 32nd round of the current international tournament.

Infantino was criticized by many within and outside the FIFA body and was asked to resign his post as head of this huge powerful organization. In brief, this episode shows that behind the broad smiles and nice words, sits a huge monster of nepotism and even possible corruption!

Also it means that sports, as a human “noble” endeavor, is not immune from certain uncouth and loath viruses that can affect and may shatter the dreams of other less resourceful nations!

Then we have the phenomenon of waiving national flags when a team wins a match. This occasion is ceased by some staff of the winning teams and players to demonstrate their support for a certain political or human cause or admiration of a person. This is exactly what Hossam Hassan, head-coach of the Egyptian team did when his players defeated Australia on July 3 as they scored 4 goals against Australia which scored only 2 goals, in the final shootout play of the match.

Coach Hassan came down to the pitch and waived the Palestinian flag in a sign of support for the Palestinians in beleaguered Gaza, which celebrated Egyptian performance at the tournament. Israel protested this solidarity gesture with Palestinians and labeled it as anti-Semitic, but FIFA officials maintained that flags belonging to FIFA members, (including Palestine) are allowed to be waived on this occasion!

On the other side of the Atlantic, and in London to be precise, another major sports event is underway, known as the Wimbledon grand slam championship. Wimbledon is known for its strict rules starting with the must-wear white attire, by all players and staff!

On June 29, the Turkish Tennis player, Zeynep Sonmez, ranked 51 by WTA, defeated American player Ann Li 2-1. Sonmez wanted to waive a sign of support for the Palestinians, but could not and according to Jamie Baker, the Wimbledon Tournament Director: “Wimbledon rules do not allow political massaging from players”!

So, what does Ms. Zeynep Somez do?! She sticks a small rubber shock absorber to her racket in a shape of a watermelon composed of the four colors of red, white, black and green! To that subtle demonstration, the Wimbledon people could not raise a finger or blow a whistle!

In this regard, other sources insisted that some people among the audience waived the Israeli which was received by a blind eye!

So next time I attend an important tournament or watch it on TV, I will keep my eyes open on tactics and kicks of this sort, which actually might add to the fun of watching!

Opinion

New York: AIPAC Stranglehold No More !

CrossFireArabia
July 8, 2026

By James J. Zogby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory as a lesson for others. In last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

 AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions.  They’d visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson’s district to make the pitch.

They’d have local representatives offer to help write new candidates’ Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn’t.  AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel.  Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors.  Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”  

With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them.  After Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 electeds now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates to distribute funds to candidates.  Meanwhile, Israel’s behaviors alienate more voters. And the more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support.

This brings us to last week’s New York primaries, a turning point in US politics when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but also these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.  

A hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past campaign involvement was the lengths they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They’d raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for ads criticizing a candidate’s age or “radical agenda,” never mentioning the candidate’s position on Israel. In these NY contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment’s failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.   

In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that with the election’s results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring that the most prominent contest’s victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.   

The bottom line is that after a half-century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute  and contributed this article to The Jordan Times

Opinion

Netanyahu Has Lost Against Iran and He Knows it!

CrossFireArabia
July 5, 2026

By Abdel Bari Atwan

Benjamin Netanyahu must have been the most ardent observer, from a position of frustration, defeat, and helplessness—indeed, a sense of utter defeat—of the largest, longest, and most organized funeral procession for the martyred Imam Ali Khamenei. The assassination he had boasted about completely backfired.

Most notably, the Iranian regime emerged from the Israeli-American war of aggression stronger and more resilient, retaining its missiles, its nuclear program, and its stockpile. Even more importantly, more than one 100 international delegations participated in the funeral procession, in addition to tens of millions of Iranian citizens. Israel, along with the deceived and misled United States, had gambled on these millions joining a massive popular uprising in most Iranian cities to overthrow the ruling regime and install one subservient and loyal to the American-Israeli camp.

The fact that leading Iranian figures were at the forefront of the mourners on the first day, in an open space, with no aircraft in the sky and no tanks, armored vehicles, or missile launchers on the ground, confirms the falsehood claim of US President Donald Trump that he pledged to protect this funeral procession and prevent the Israeli occupation state from carrying out any assassination attempts against these figures, especially the two key negotiators, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Foreign Minister Dr. Abbas Araqchi.

The appearance of General Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Revolutionary Guard, at the forefront of the mourning procession for the first time, perhaps confirms that the decision was purely Iranian. The Iranian leadership has repeatedly affirmed, through numerous high-ranking officials, its complete distrust of its American adversary, and it is justified in this assessment. It possesses a long list of practical and on-the-ground evidence to support this, because the consequences of any attack on the funeral procession by Israel and the United States would be extremely costly—politically, militarily, and economically—and would drag the world and its security into a third world war, the course and end of which no one can predict.

Based on this logic, I am inclined to believe the denial issued by the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding a report published by The New York Times. The report stated that President Trump feared Israel might assassinate the Iranian negotiators Qalibaf and Araqchi, and therefore warned against such an action due to its repercussions on relations between the two countries.

The Israeli terrorist government, which specializes in assassinating Arab and Islamic political and military leaders—from the martyred Imam Ali Khamenei, through the martyred Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, to the third Sayyed, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, and dozens of Iranian, Lebanese, and Palestinian military leaders—cannot be transformed overnight into a docile lamb.

The undeniable truth is that Israel today is not the Israel of yesterday. Today’s Israel is terrified and defeated. All its plans have failed against the rock of Iranian steadfastness and resistance. Most, if not all, of its strategies have been exposed, its falsehoods revealed, the latest being its bet on dragging America, the superpower, into a war against Iran to completely destroy it and its missile and future nuclear capabilities.

Israel, for whom the incursion into Lebanese territory and the direct aggression against Iran with hundreds of aircraft and seen as a walk in the park, cannot these days bomb the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut with a single missile, because it knows full well that the direct response with hundreds of precision missiles and highly advanced drones to destroy Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Dimona would be immediate.

This process of change, currently taking shape in the region, reveals and confirms a radical shift in the balance of power in the “West Asia” region—not the Middle East, the odious colonial term—and it is thanks to two key leaders and a group of brilliant minds surrounding them:

First: The martyred Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the late Supreme Leader of Iran, who assumed leadership of the Iranian Revolution after the death of its founder, Ayatollah Khomeini. He combined the two best qualities: Political, military, and executive leadership, serving as president for many years, and spiritual leadership as the Supreme Leader and Ayatollah of the Islamic “Imamate.” He developed Iran’s nuclear capabilities, transforming it into a nuclear threshold power with a stockpile of 460 kg of highly enriched uranium.

He also established a missile power with hundreds of highly advanced missiles and drones. He was one of the most ardent supporters of the Palestinian cause, providing it and its resistance fighters with all the necessary weapons and equipment, and fostering unity among the various fronts. He firmly believed that America and Israel are the primary source of danger to the Islamic nation and must be confronted and defeated.

Second: The martyr Yahya Sinwar and his comrades, those geniuses who planned, engineered, and executed the 7 October, 2023, attack, or the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” which shattered the sanctity of Israeli cities and settlements. They breached the heavily fortified borders, equipped with cameras and electrified fences, in the largest military intelligence penetration operation in the region’s history, rivaled only by the Egyptian army’s storming of the Bar-Lev Line in Ramadan of October 1973.

***

Of course, I am not comparing the two men, nor of equating them. Rather, they are the sons of a single, integrated path, deeply-rooted in the faith and history of Islamic resistance and honor. This path leads to dignity and victory, and the second, deeper, and greater phase of resistance against colonialism. With it has begun the process of radical change that will redraw the maps of West Asia and Africa according to the Islamic and Arab vision.

As for Netanyahu, who was merely a figurehead when he threatened to undertake this task and vowed to establish Greater Israel just a few months ago, will be the first victim of this change and so will his entity, and he is currently searching for an “honorable” withdrawal without appearing defeated, but his fate is inevitably prison, if he survives… And time will tell.

Abdel Bari Atwan is the Chief Editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm Arabic website. He is a prolific writer and commentator on the Middle East political scene and has several books to his name including The Islamic State: The Digital Caliphate (2015).

Opinion

The Lebanese-Israeli Accord is War on The Resistance

CrossFireArabia
June 28, 2026

Dr. Nassib Hateit

The announcement of the Lebanese-Israeli agreement, sponsored by the United States, constitutes a dangerous turning point in the war against the Lebanese resistance and its people. It is intended to compensate for the occupation army’s field failures in achieving its objectives of disarming and eliminating the resistance, after suffering significant moral and military losses and realizing its inability to achieve these illegitimate goals on its own.

The enemy’s impotence has driven it to resort to using the Lebanese government, whose legitimacy and constitutionality are still guaranteed by the resistance forces (in the dual alliance). This provides the government with a constitutional—albeit immoral—cover for cooperating with the enemy and legitimizing a comprehensive war against the resistance. It also involves assembling a US-led military coalition that includes Arab and international (multinational) parties, mirroring the “Desert Storm” coalition led by the United States against Iraq.

The aim is to support a beleaguered Israel and eliminate the resistance in all its cultural, economic, social, and health-related aspects, not just its military ones. This agreement confirms the beginning of a new phase of confrontation following the end of the “Hundred Days’ War,” in which Israel failed to achieve its objectives, despite the resistance suffering approximately 20,000 martyrs and wounded, the destruction of tens of thousands of homes, and the destruction and occupation of more than 50 villages and towns.

This shifts the war from a confrontation between Israel and the Lebanese resistance to a war between the resistance and an international coalition led by Washington, with the participation of Israel and the Lebanese government and opens the door for the involvement of Arab and foreign armies, most notably the new Syrian regime army, which US President Trump announced he would task with eliminating the resistance.

This will be facilitated by the Lebanese government’s initiative to formally request the support of Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government for the Lebanese army and will force the resistance to fight on three fronts:

Against the Israeli enemy in the south

Against the US military, multinational forces, and the Lebanese army within Lebanon

Against the Syrian army and takfiri groups in the Bekaa Valley. The US has effectively nullified the first clause of the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran through the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Washington, placing the memorandum in a precarious position that threatens its collapse. According to its terms, violating the first clause invalidates the remaining clauses. This precariousness is further evidenced by the timing of the agreement’s announcement, coinciding with the US airstrikes in the Strait of Hormuz. It reinforces concerns that the 60-day period the US needs to reassess its position might be shortened or canceled, or that it could be exploited to forcibly separate the Lebanese and Iranian tracks through the Lebanese government. The aim would be to break the military and political alliance between the resistance and Tehran, and to further fragment the axis, isolating its members and preventing them from uniting their forces to compensate for the imbalance of power.

This agreement grants the Israeli enemy a clean bill of health by the Lebanese government, implicitly acknowledging that the invasion was a response to threats from the resistance. It also includes a pledge not to file any complaints or seek compensation before international institutions and courts—a clever preemptive move by the enemy to shield its military and political officials from accountability and represents a complete surrender by the Lebanese government, which has become something akin to the “12th Division” of the occupation army.

The initial response to this surrender document should be as follows:

Restraining this government and ceasing the sin of granting it legitimacy and constitutionality. It must abandon its hesitation, ambiguity, and incompetence in ministerial representation, the latest glaring example of which is passing the agreement’s presentation to the cabinet without objection from the resistance ministers, who merely issued a statement that condemns them more than it exonerates them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran should take the initiative to freeze the implementation of the MoU with the United States, given that Washington is responsible for this agreement, which contradicts the memorandum’s first clause. The Resistance Axis (Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen) has declared its complete readiness to engage in the new round of war, united and collectively, without delay, and to move from a state of “finger on trigger” to one of “fire.” Otherwise, the Axis’s fronts will fall one by one, as Israel and America plan.

The coming phase is the most dangerous since the outbreak of war in 2023 due to the expansion of the fronts and the multiplicity of parties participating against the Resistance. It comes after a war of attrition and exhaustion that has plagued the Resistance and its support base for three years, necessitating the formulation of a new defensive strategy. The Lebanese government must be considered an “unfriendly” entity, having made the Resistance a common enemy for itself and Israel. Participation in a government that collaborates with the enemy against the Resistance is unjustifiable, as experience has proven its futility.

We are not weak… the proof is the global mobilization against us, which cannot be countered with motorcycles and statements!

Manage the power you possess wisely! Take advantage of the enemy’s motto against you (kill first) and kill the government “politically” and bring it down to prevent it from carrying out its plans!

Dr Hateit is a Lebanese writer. An architect by training from Nabatieh in south of Lebanon he teaches at the Institute of Fine Arts in the Lebanese University and is a political columnist contributing to different Lebanese newspapers. This article is published in the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Opinion

The Story Behind The War on Iran

marwan
June 25, 2026

By Ismail Al-Sharif

Whenever the United States moved closer to improving relations with Iran, the war criminal [Benjamin] Netanyahu would call for a war, relying on repeated claims that Tehran was seeking to acquire a nuclear bomb to use against him. However, these claims were never supported by conclusive evidence. Iran consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, granted UN inspectors complete freedom to inspect its nuclear facilities, and its Supreme Leader issued a religious edict prohibiting the production of nuclear weapons.

Under President Obama, things seemed to be moving toward de-escalation. In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed, under which Iran committed to a framework for peaceful uranium enrichment, without any mention of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Germany and France were tasked with monitoring the Iranian nuclear program through established monitoring and verification mechanisms. In return, the economic sanctions imposed on Iran were supposed to be partially eased. However, this commitment was not fulfilled.

The sanctions continued to tighten their grip on the Iranian people, and the war criminal Netanyahu continued his intense pressure on Washington to withdraw from the agreement, while also continuing assassinations targeting Iranian scientists.

For years, the nuclear weapons narrative was used as a pretext for targeting Iran, while the real objective to seek regime change there because of Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Despite the widespread destruction inflicted on these two movements, attempts to eliminate them have failed.

The major shift came with Trump’s rise to power in 2017, when he tore up the nuclear agreement and reignited tensions. This move was accompanied by a broad media campaign against Iran that focused on internal issues, particularly women’s rights, and accusations of Mossad infiltration into Iran to instigate unrest similar to what occurred in Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia.

These movements became known as “color revolutions,” where the CIA encouraged affiliated organizations to adopt specific colors as symbols of protest; pink in Georgia and orange in Ukraine, in an attempt to replicate the same model in Iran. This strategy relies on exploiting genuine grievances to ignite unrest, then co-opting the protests, infiltrating their ranks, and pushing them toward escalation, so that they are met with government repression. The resulting public anger is then redirected toward a path aimed at overthrowing the government and installing one loyal to the United States.

With Biden assuming the presidency in 2021, succeeding Trump, the momentum toward a direct military confrontation with Iran diminished, but sanctions remained in place, and negotiations did not resume. Today, with Trump back on the scene, the Israeli entity sees the moment as opportune to reopen the issue.

The “maximum pressure” campaign led to a sharp decline in the Iranian economy, and thousands of impoverished people and students took to the streets to protest living conditions. With the intervention and support of Mossad and the CIA, some protests escalated into violent clashes, met with a harsh security response that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of protesters and police officers. These events were quickly used as a new pretext for escalating tensions with Iran.

Once the government regained control, the warmongers reverted to their initial argument: the claim of a military nuclear program, a scenario reminiscent of what happened in Iraq when allegations of weapons of mass destruction were used as justification for the invasion, before their non-existence was proven. Demands then intensified for halting the Iranian missile program, which, if implemented, would render Tehran unable to defend itself against Israel.

Israel does not tolerate the existence of a regional power challenging its hegemony. It seeks to expand its influence and topple any regime it perceives as a challenge. From this perspective, Iran is not the final target; attention is also turning to Türkiye. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett described Turkey as the “new Iran” during his address to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, calling for the weakening of other regional powers after Iran and asserting that defense alone is insufficient to guarantee protection, whether with or without European support.

His speech also included mentions of countries like Egypt, Qatar, and Pakistan as potential adversaries, within a strategy based on waging continuous wars. This approach aligns with what is described as the American expansionist approach, articulated by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference in clearly expansionist language and colonialist terms, aimed at consolidating the Israeli entity’s hegemony over the region within a broader distribution of roles in the global balance of power.

The war criminal Netanyahu has finally succeeded in dragging the United States into a confrontation with Iran. Just as the fall of Iraq constituted a turning point that disrupted the Arab-Israeli balance of power, opening the door to a wave of unrest and revolutions, and leading to the disintegration of the regional order and the escalation of sectarian conflicts; If Iran falls, it will not be a passing or isolated event, but a pivotal turning point leading to complete Zionist hegemony over the region, a hegemony that will not stop at the borders of Iran, but will later extend to other countries.

This opinion appeared in the Arabic Addustour newspaper.