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
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday that Iran did not start the current war with the US and Israel, defending his country’s right to respond to attacks by Washington and Tel Aviv against Tehran, as fighting between the warring rivals continues unabated.
In a statement on the US social media company X, Pezeshkian said he spoke over the phone with French President Emmanuel Macron.
“I emphasized that Iran did not begin this atrocious war. Defending against invasion is a natural right, in which we are good at,” he said.
“Using the American bases against Iran in the region, with the purpose of disturbing our relations with our neighbors, should be stopped.”
The Iranian president said regional peace and stability cannot be achieved while disregarding US-Israeli attacks on Iran.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran will not surrender to bullies,” Pezeshkian said.
“We expect the global community to condemn this invasion and convince invaders to respect international laws. Commencing a war in order to conquer, based on false information, is a medieval act in 21st century,” according to Anadolu.
Pezeshkian described calls for ending the war as “meaningless, until we ensure there will be no more attacks in our land in the future.”
Regional escalation has raged since the US and Israel launched a joint offensive on Iran since Feb. 28, killing so far around 1,200 people, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Tehran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, along with Jordan, Iraq, and Gulf countries, which it says are targeting “US military assets.” Some of these attacks have caused casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including airports, ports and buildings.
“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
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.
Iran’s State Television officially announced, Sunday early morning, that Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei was killed in American-Israeli strikes on the country. The television stated the leader of the Islamic revolution was martyred in the continuous US-Israeli attacks that begun on Saturday. He was working at his office on the early hours of Saturday morning. Iran media also stated his daughter, her husband and granddaughter were also killed in the attacks.
Iran has declared a mourning period of 40 days.
This is an extended profile on the late rule from Anadolu.
The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Saturday’s joint US-Israeli strikes marks a watershed moment for the Islamic Republic, removing the figure who for more than three decades was the country’s ultimate political, military and ideological authority.
The 86-year-old cleric wielded power that extended across Iran’s armed forces, judiciary and foreign policy apparatus, with his decisions overriding those of presidents and parliament alike.
Since assuming leadership in 1989 following the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei steered Iran through the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war, crippling Western sanctions, diplomatic isolation, recurring domestic unrest and intensifying confrontation with Washington and Tel Aviv.
To supporters, he was the steadfast defender of Iran’s sovereignty against foreign pressure. To critics, he symbolized an uncompromising political system resistant to reform and dissent.
As supreme leader, he served as head of state and commander-in-chief, retaining final authority over the armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Childhood, faith and early politics
Khamenei was born on April 19, 1939, in Mashhad in eastern Iran to a modest religious family. After completing primary education, he pursued Islamic studies at seminary in Mashhad before continuing with advanced theological training in Qom. He was also known for his deep interest in poetry and literature.
In the early 1960s, he joined Ayatollah Khomeini’s movement against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Beginning in 1963, he was repeatedly arrested by SAVAK, the Shah’s intelligence service, for organizing protests and distributing anti-regime literature, and spent several periods in exile.
As mass protests swept Iran in 1978-1979, weakening the monarchy, political prisoners and exiles returned to public life. Khamenei re-emerged in Mashhad and other cities, helping organize demonstrations and mobilize support for Khomeini’s revolutionary agenda.
Ascent and role as supreme leader
Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Khamenei joined the Revolutionary Council and quickly rose within the new political order. He served as deputy defense minister, Tehran’s Friday prayer leader, and a member of parliament.
In 1981, after the assassination of President Mohammad Ali Rajai, Khamenei was elected president, serving two consecutive terms until 1989. That same year, he survived an assassination attempt when a bomb hidden in a tape recorder exploded during a mosque speech, leaving his right arm permanently impaired.
After Khomeini’s death in June 1989, Iran’s Assembly of Experts appointed Khamenei as supreme leader, with constitutional revisions later formalizing the position at the apex of the political system.
Though initially viewed as a compromise choice, he gradually consolidated authority, strengthening the power of the supreme leader’s office over both executive and legislative branches. Under his leadership, Iran pursued a foreign policy centered on resisting US influence, expanding regional alliances and maintaining strategic deterrence.
Domestically, Iran’s politics moved between reformist and conservative currents. Reformist President Mohammad Khatami’s 1997 victory generated public optimism, but Khamenei constrained efforts to open Iran to the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency aligned more closely with conservative priorities, though the disputed 2009 election triggered mass protests.
Later administrations navigated a complex balance between pragmatism and ideological rigidity. President Hassan Rouhani pursued diplomatic engagement, including nuclear negotiations, while conservative President Ebrahim Raisi aligned closely with Khamenei’s policies.
Khamenei’s tenure also saw repeated waves of unrest. In 2022, the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody sparked nationwide protests that exposed deep social grievances.
Protests erupted again in late 2025, initially against economic hardships but later spiraling into mass anti-regime demonstrations. The protests saw violent clashes and a government crackdown, with Iranian authorities confirming over 3,100 deaths, including both civilians and security personnel.
Nuclear program and negotiations
Iran’s nuclear program became one of the defining issues of Khamenei’s rule. As tensions escalated with Western powers, sweeping sanctions severely strained Iran’s economy.
In 2015, Tehran reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), curbing nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Khamenei approved negotiations but remained deeply skeptical of Washington. The deal unraveled after the US under President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, prompting Iran to scale back compliance.
Khamenei’s death comes as Washington and Tehran were engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations. US demands reportedly included permanent restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and limits on enriched uranium stockpiles, while Iranian officials insisted they would not relinquish enrichment rights or ship stockpiles abroad and demanded sanctions relief.
Khamenei consistently framed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as peaceful while portraying sanctions as economic coercion. In one of his last social media posts on Feb. 17, he said nuclear energy is an “undeniable right” recognized under international guidelines and assailed US interference.
Palestine, regional alliances and the ‘Axis of Resistance’
Support for Palestinian statehood remained central to Khamenei’s worldview. Following Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, he intensified rhetoric against Israel and the US, urging countries to sever ties with Israel and calling for diplomatic isolation.
A key pillar of Iran’s strategy under Khamenei was backing regional allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups across Iraq and Yemen, as part of what Iranian officials describe as the “Axis of Resistance” — a network aligned against Israeli and US influence. The grouping also covers Palestinian factions including Hamas and the former Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Confrontation with US and Israel
Khamenei remained a long-standing critic of US and Israeli policies, frequently portraying them as Iran’s principal adversaries. Regional tensions escalated after Israeli airstrikes on Iranian sites last year prompted retaliatory attacks by Tehran.
He repeatedly vowed that Iran would respond to Israeli actions and refused the prospect of negotiations with Tel Aviv, warning that Tehran would continue to resist its aggression.
At the same time, US and Israeli officials in recent weeks had renewed calls for political change in Iran, underscoring the intensity of the confrontation that framed the final period of Khamenei’s rule.
In a statement announcing Khamenei’s death, Trump said he “was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.”
The US president also repeated his call for “the Iranian people to take back their Country.”
Khamenei’s death removes one of the most consequential figures in modern Middle Eastern politics — a leader who shaped Iran’s ideological identity, regional alliances and decades-long confrontation with the West.
The uncertainty now facing Tehran could prove as consequential as his rule, as Iran navigates leadership succession amid heightened regional tensions and fragile diplomatic efforts.
CrossFireArabia
