A Middle East Whirlpool! View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Unlike the grey terrain of the Middle East, known for its harsh aridity and barren landscapes, the region’s still-unsettled, multi-front conflicts that erupted after the 7 October, 2023 surprise Palestinian assault on Israeli settlements around Gaza Strip, almost literally, become associated in the public imagination with the colour blue: The sea, its waves, its vessels and its strategic waterways.

The Palestinians called that watershed event Al-Aqsa Flood. Israel described 7 October as a second Holocaust. If the Palestinians deliberately chose the word flood for its religious and symbolic connotations, the Israeli way of describing it, indicated how serious and tough their losses and injuries were.

What followed was a succession of milestones and unprecedented developments across the Middle East. They continue to unfold dramatically, resembling the abrupt and unpredictable movements of hurricanes and tempests on the high seas.

Yet the side-conflicts and mini-wars that followed 7 October have neither followed a single pattern nor obeyed the same rules. Instead, events have moved in different, sometimes opposing directions — unlike the orderly circular motion of an actual whirlpool. It is almost as though every confrontation has chosen a course of its own: The predictable alongside the unpredictable, the rational alongside the seemingly illogical.

It therefore takes more than intelligent guesswork or clever political analysis to determine which direction these events will ultimately take, and which may prove more dangerous — not only to the region and its inhabitants, but also to the many international powers with interests at stake.

If we were to capture the current Middle Eastern scene in a single frame, we might portray it as an extraordinary, almost unbelievable collision of man-made tides, currents and sub-currents, all moving simultaneously through one increasingly turbulent sea.

Because the first shots fired on 7th October around Gaza strip, from a Palestinian point of view, came as a last desperate call and reminder of the injustice they are suffering, they soon found their echoes in the four corners surrounding it: In south Lebanon, Yemen to the south and Iraq and Iran to the east. Even to the west, there were international sailors who belonged to the Peace Flotilla, trying to bring medicine and food to the starving children of Gaza!

One of the most significant currents emerged on Israel’s northern front.

What initially appeared to be a relatively “controlled” confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah steadily intensified until September 2024, when Israel killed the party’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. Only a few months later came another geopolitical earthquake: The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus in December 2024.

Each development sent another powerful current through the already boiling waters of the wider Middle Eastern whirlpool.

Then came an even larger artificial wave.

In June 2025, the United States launched Operation Midnight Hammer, striking Iran’s three principal nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan while diplomatic efforts surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme were still underway.

Washington described the operation as an attempt to inflict decisive damage on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Tehran responded with retaliatory action against American military interests in the Gulf.

But that was not the end of the storm.

On 28 February, 2026, the world witnessed another major escalation when the United States and Israel launched coordinated, large-scale attacks against Iran. The two allies acted jointly but gave their military campaigns different names: Washington called its operation Epic Fury, while Israel called its campaign Roaring Lion.

The strikes hit Iranian military infrastructure and senior leadership and inflicted substantial damage. Yet they failed to produce one of the most far-reaching political outcomes sought by US-Israeli advocates of the military campaign: The toppling of the Iranian regime.

And so the whirlpool continued.

Iran responded not simply through missiles and military retaliation, but by shifting the struggle towards one of the most strategically sensitive waterways on earth: The Strait of Hormuz.

Through restrictions on shipping, attacks on vessels and increasingly assertive claims over the waterway, Tehran transformed Hormuz into another major front in the confrontation. The strait — through which a substantial share of the world’s energy supplies traditionally passes — became yet another current dragging regional powers and the wider international community deeper into the turbulence.

Here, the metaphor of the whirlpool becomes more than literary.

Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are no longer easily separable theatres. Each produces currents that flow into the others. A military strike in one location generates political pressure somewhere else; an assassination changes the balance of power hundreds of kilometres away; a blocked shipping lane reverberates through global markets thousands of kilometres beyond the Middle East.

And all the while, new currents are being created faster than old ones can disappear.

What begins on the shores of Gaza does not remain in Gaza. What happens in Beirut, Damascus, Tehran or the Strait of Hormuz does not remain there either.

The Middle Eastern whirlpool has become too wide, too violent and too interconnected to contain its turbulence within the region itself.

And as it keeps spinning, its waves will continue to splash far beyond the shores of the Middle East — reaching, sooner or later, virtually every corner of the globe.

Conclusion: As long as the waters surrounding the Middle East remain crowded with warships, missiles, blockades, retaliatory strikes and the debris of foreign intervention, the region’s old whirlpool will continue to spin.

Continue reading
Dr. Hassan Ahmadian: Trump Forced to Seek a Deal on Iran

Throughout the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, President Donald Trump has constantly flailed in his campaign to portray it as a historic success. The blunt reality is that what Trump announced as a quick and easy war of regime change rapidly transformed into a quagmire. For the past two months, Trump has struggled to find a way to declare victory, alternating between claims that Iran is begging him for a deal and threats to destroy Iranian civilization.

On Thursday morning, Trump threatened to hit Iran “very hard.” Later in the day, Trump claimed a deal was now at hand, suggesting it could be signed as early as this weekend. “Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved.”

Trump has made such claims more than three dozen times since the initial two-week ceasefire was signed on April 7, and behind the scenes, Iranian officials maintain they have stood firm in protecting their own red lines in any deal framework.

This time, however, the initial response from Tehran indicates that a deal may well take shape. According to Iranian officials and state-affiliated media outlets, a breakthrough occurred this week when Trump backed off a series of new demands and ultimatums and accepted a deal that would adhere to a framework ironed out in May in indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

On Friday morning, Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill spoke to one of the top Iran analysts, Dr. Hassan Ahmadian, Associate Professor of Middle East Studies at Tehran University. Since the war began, Ahmadian has become one of the most prominent Iranian commentators in the Islamic world because of his viral appearances on Al Jazeera Arabic.

“The United States has hit the hard rock of a formidable force that stopped its aggression and they have to deal with it,” said Ahmadian. “President Trump realized that he cannot change the failure, the military failure of the war into a diplomatic win.”

They discuss the events leading up to Trump’s announcement on Thursday, Iran’s red lines—including the unfreezing of assets and an end to the war on Lebanon—and how Israel will seek to sabotage a deal while continuing its overt and covert actions targeting Iran. They also discuss the economic impact on Iran and the domestic political situation.

Continue reading
Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of ​​a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading
Why is Iran’s FM in Oman?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Muscat, Oman’s capital, on Saturday evening, leading a diplomatic delegation, according to Tasnim news agency.

Araghchi is expected to meet with senior officials in Oman to discuss bilateral relations and exchange views on regional developments.

The visit follows his trip to Pakistan, where he said in a statement that he shared his country’s “position concerning a workable framework to permanently end the war on Iran,” without providing further details.

He also expressed skepticism about Washington’s intentions.

“Have yet to see if the U.S. is truly serious about diplomacy,” he said on the US social media company X.

Pakistan has been acting as an intermediary between Tehran and Washington amid ongoing tensions following recent military escalation.

Araghchi arrived in Pakistan late Friday and met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Islamabad on Saturday, amid efforts to revive stalled peace talks between the US and Iran to end their eight-week war.

The first round was held in Islamabad two weeks ago but failed to reach an agreement to end the conflict that began on Feb. 28 and engulfed the entire Middle East. Those talks came after Pakistan brokered a two-week ceasefire on April 8, which was later extended by US President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump on Saturday said that he has cancelled a planned trip to Pakistan by special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner.

“I’ve told my people a little while ago they were getting ready to leave, and I said, ‘Nope, you’re not making an 18 hour flight to go there. We have all the cards. They can call us anytime they want, but you’re not going to be making any more 18 hour flights to sit around talking about nothing’,” Trump told Fox News via phone.

Iran has refused to hold direct talks with the US and said observations would be conveyed to Pakistan.

Some of the sticking points are said to be the Strait of Hormuz, the US blockade of Iranian ports, and Iran’s enriched uranium. Anadolu

Continue reading
IRGC: US, Israeli Universities Legitimate Targets

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Sunday warned that US- and Israeli-linked universities in the region are now “legitimate targets” in retaliation for attacks on Iranian educational facilities.

In a statement carried by the semi-official Fars news agency, the IRGC accused the US and Israel of repeatedly bombing Iranian universities, including Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran.

“From now on, all universities of the occupying entity (Israel) and American universities in West Asia will be considered legitimate targets,” in response to the destruction of Iranian academic institutions, it said, calling on staff and students at US-linked universities in the region, as well as nearby residents, to stay at least one kilometer away from such facilities for their safety.

On Wednesday, the IRGC demanded that Washington condemn attacks on universities or face retaliatory attacks.

Iranian media reported several US and Israeli strikes on educational facilities, including Isfahan University of Technology and, Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran.

The US and Israel have maintained airstrikes on Iran since Feb. 28, killing so far over 1,340 people, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, along with Jordan, Iraq, and Gulf countries hosting US military assets, causing casualties and damage to infrastructure while disrupting global markets and aviation. Anadolu

Continue reading