Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The world watched in shock as Israeli missiles struck the heart of Damascus on July 16, targeting the Ministry of Defense and other critical infrastructure. The timing, scale, and intent of the attack raised urgent questions. Officially, Israeli leaders claimed the strikes were a protective measure for the Druze community in southern Syria amid intensifying clashes with Bedouin tribes. But the broader picture tells a story not just of protection, but of preemptive aggression, regional dominance, and a disturbing disregard for international sovereignty.
This attack came on the heels of quiet diplomatic efforts between Israel and Syria—efforts that had sparked cautious optimism for a historic nonaggression pact. Yet, the Israeli strikes shattered that momentum. According to Israeli historian Itamar Rabinovich, who once led peace talks with Syria, the move reflects a bizarre blend of post-October 7 paranoia and newfound confidence following Israel’s military actions in Lebanon and against Iran.
Indeed, Israel’s military doctrine seems to have shifted dramatically since Hamas’s 2023 surprise assault. Instead of pursuing diplomacy, Israel has shown a clear preference for force—even at the cost of sabotaging peace overtures. Rabinovich aptly described it as “a very strange mixture of trauma and triumph.”
The immediate spark for the latest strikes was Syria’s deployment of troops to Suwayda, a southern province home to a large Druze population. Fighting had erupted there between Druze militias and Bedouin tribes, with Syria’s military intervening to restore order. For Israel, this raised two concerns: a potential threat near its border, and unrest among its own Druze citizens—an influential minority with deep ties to the Israeli state.
The Druze, an offshoot Islamic sect with a population of about one million, are spread across Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. In Israel, nearly 150,000 Druze live under its governance, including 20,000 in the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel in 1981. Unlike other Arab groups in Israel, the Druze serve in the Israeli military, often reaching high ranks. Their loyalty has forged a unique bond with the Jewish majority—one that Prime Minister Netanyahu could not afford to alienate.
This week, when disturbing footage of Druze men being humiliated by Islamist fighters circulated online, Israeli Druze reacted with fury. Protests erupted, roads were blocked, and around 1,000 Druze men reportedly crossed into Syria to defend their kin. Netanyahu, aware of the domestic political pressure, invoked a dual doctrine: “Demilitarization of the region south of Damascus” and “protection of the brothers of our brothers, the Druze.”
But while the justification was rooted in the protection of a minority, the execution was far from localized. Israel did not limit its action to Suwayda or the tribal conflict zone. Instead, it struck deep into Damascus—far from the scene of the clashes—leveling key government buildings including the Ministry of Defense. Footage aired live showed Syrian news anchors diving for cover as missiles hit the capital. At least three people were killed in these strikes.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who rose to power after the fall of Bashar al-Assad in an Islamist-led insurgency, faced a fateful choice: escalate into full-blown war or prioritize national unity and civilian protection. He chose the latter, declaring a ceasefire and ordering the military’s withdrawal from Suwayda. In a national address, he condemned Israel’s actions as a bid to “sow chaos” and “divide the Syrian people.”
A temporary truce was brokered with U.S. involvement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the Syria-Israel tensions as a “misunderstanding” and said Washington had mediated an agreement among all parties. The ceasefire terms included a halt to all military operations and the creation of a monitoring committee led by Druze leaders. Yet, the truce remains fragile. One prominent Druze cleric, Hikmat al-Hijri, rejected it outright and called for continued resistance.
From a regional perspective, Israel’s strike is not isolated. It mirrors a pattern: attacks on Iran, Lebanon, and Syria—often justified on national security grounds, yet executed with overwhelming force and scant regard for sovereignty. All of these assaults, while publicly condemned by the U.S. and its allies, are often carried out with tacit approval or coordination with American security and political leadership. Netanyahu’s close ties with Washington remain unshaken, bolstered by shared intelligence, joint military exercises, and mutual rhetoric.
During a recent meeting between Netanyahu and Rubio and Hegseth, both sides praised the strength of Israeli-American military cooperation. This alliance was vividly demonstrated during the joint Israeli-American strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear site earlier this year and the subsequent neutralization of Iranian missile defenses. These attacks, though illegal under international law, were framed as preemptive defense.
Syria, like Iran and Lebanon before it, opted not to retaliate militarily. Instead, it chose diplomacy, prioritizing civilian safety and national integrity. The restraint shown by Damascus highlights a troubling contrast: while Israel behaves with unchecked aggression, often shielded by U.S. support, its neighbors—no matter how bruised—seek de-escalation over escalation.
But this asymmetry cannot last forever. Israeli belligerence, once tolerated, is now under increasing global scrutiny. Countries that had normalized relations with Israel are beginning to reconsider. The international community, long silent, is finding its voice. From European capitals to U.N. chambers, criticism of Israel’s policies is mounting. Human rights organizations, media outlets, and civic movements have begun imposing informal sanctions—boycotts, divestments, and calls to isolate Israel diplomatically and economically.
Public opinion in the West, especially in the U.S. and Europe, has shifted dramatically. No longer is support for Israel unconditional. The atrocities in Gaza, the disregard for Syrian sovereignty, and the documented humiliation of civilians have eroded Israel’s moral standing. As these trends accelerate, it is increasingly ordinary Jewish citizens—not the political architects of war—who face the backlash.
That, perhaps, is the greatest tragedy of Netanyahu’s militaristic adventurism. In seeking to project power and assert dominance, his government has isolated Israel and endangered its people. A state that once sought peace and legitimacy is now seen by many as a pariah—a state that tears down rather than builds up.
Whether this path changes depends not only on Israel’s leadership but also on whether Washington continues to provide political and military cover. Until then, the region remains caught in a cycle of provocation, restraint, and unhealed wounds—each new strike a blow not just to buildings, but to the fragile hope of peace.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In a world suffocated by strategic deception and media filters, one conversation pierced through the fog. In a bold 28-minute interview with Tucker Carlson, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered a message so clear, calm, and compelling that it shattered decades of crafted misperception about Iran’s foreign policy, nuclear ambition, and regional posture. In doing so, Pezeshkian positioned himself as the face of reason — while exposing the reckless belligerence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose war-mongering agenda has long dictated U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Pezeshkian began with humility and conviction: “We did not start this war and we do not want this war to continue in any way.” His words echoed the constitutional stance of Iran’s post-revolution leadership — defensive, not expansionist; committed to sovereignty, not conquest. He emphasized that his administration is built on the twin pillars of “national unity inside the country” and “peace and friendship with neighboring countries and the rest of the world.”
This is not mere rhetoric. Pezeshkian substantiated this vision by recalling that Iran has “never invaded another country in 200 years.” At a time when regional militarism is disguised as security, this record is not only rare — it is disarming.
What, then, explains the decades of suspicion cast on Iran? Pezeshkian points squarely to Benjamin Netanyahu, who, since 1984, “has created this false mentality that Iran seeks a nuclear bomb,” embedding this narrative so deeply into the psyche of American leaders that even diplomacy itself became a threat to the status quo.
And yet, the president insisted: “We have never been after developing a nuclear bomb, not in the past, not presently, or in the future.” His reason was not strategic, but spiritual. “It is in contrast to the religious decree — the fatwa — issued by His Eminence, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is religiously forbidden for us to go after a nuclear bomb.”
This declaration alone upends the central justification for Israeli and American hostility. Iran’s nuclear program — routinely monitored by the IAEA — was never about weaponization. But it was Israel, Pezeshkian revealed, that sabotaged peace: “We were in the middle of talks with the United States… and Israel torpedoed the negotiating table.”
This act, far from being reactive, was strategic. Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was based not on verified intelligence, but a desire to kill diplomacy in its crib. “Unlawful attacks against our nuclear centers,” Pezeshkian said, “severely damaged our equipment. We can’t even verify what remains.” The IAEA, instead of condemning this violation of international law, issued a report that further inflamed tensions — and emboldened Tel Aviv.
Pezeshkian’s outrage was rooted in justice, not vengeance. When asked whether Iran would retaliate through proxy terror or sleeper cells, he responded with dignified defiance: “Have you ever seen an Iranian killing an American? Has any Iranian ever committed terrorism on your soil?” The answer, of course, is no. He clarified: “We don’t believe in sleeper cells. We don’t need them. We defend ourselves through diplomacy, and when forced, directly with our own hands.”
This moral clarity extended to the often-misunderstood chant of “Death to America.” The president dismantled its literal interpretation: “It doesn’t mean death to American people or officials. It means death to crimes, bullying, and atrocities.” In other words, it is a political condemnation — not a genocidal threat.
But even as Pezeshkian appealed for understanding, he drew a hard line: “If war is imposed on Iran, we will defend ourselves to the last drop of blood.” Yet again, this is defense, not aggression. “We put our trust in God and in the resilience of our people. We don’t need help from anyone — not Russia, not China. Iran will stand alone if it must.”
Contrast this with Netanyahu’s doctrine: forever war, regional hegemony, and a theologically-rooted belief in Israel’s divine entitlement to land and dominance. Netanyahu, Pezeshkian implied, has long used deception — whether about Iran’s nuclear program, sleeper cells, or fabricated assassination attempts — to manipulate American sentiment and force Washington into conflicts that serve Israeli, not American, interests.
The consequences have been catastrophic — not only for Palestinians and Iranians, but for the very fabric of international law and order. Pezeshkian recounted the assassination of Iranian scientists, the murder of off-duty commanders, and the slaughter of children and pregnant women in Israeli airstrikes. “Just to kill one person, they demolish an entire building,” he said. “And they call this security?”
Even more chilling was the attempted assassination of Pezeshkian himself. “Yes, they tried. But I’m not afraid to sacrifice my life for my country.” The irony? This act of terrorism — reportedly foiled by Iranian intelligence — was meant to prevent the very peace talks that could have stabilized the region.
Yet despite everything, Pezeshkian extended a remarkable offer: “We see no problem in re-entering negotiations with the United States.” He went further: “There is no limitation for U.S. investors to come to Iran — even now.” This invitation stands even as American sanctions, not Iranian policy, prevent such engagement.
And so, we arrive at the defining choice: Two narratives now confront the conscience of the international community.
One is Netanyahu’s — driven by a supremacist ideology, a fabricated threat matrix, and a relentless drive toward regional domination. It is a doctrine of perpetual war, waged under the pretext of self-defense, while enacting wholesale slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu has turned entire neighborhoods into rubble, hospitals into graves, and innocent civilians — including women and children — into nameless casualties of military “precision.” This isn’t security. It’s a slow-motion holocaust, unfolding with impunity.
The other narrative is Iran’s — a nation invoking religious fatwas against nuclear weapons, calling for diplomacy, and rejecting the logic of proxy terrorism and sleeper cells. Its leaders, from the Supreme Leader to the newly elected President Pezeshkian, argue not for conquest, but for sovereignty. Not for dominance, but dignity. Not for retaliation, but restraint. And yet, it is this very nation that remains under siege — economically, politically, and militarily.
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin once warned that “if peace is not restored in the Middle East, Europe and the United States will be held hostage by extremism.” That warning has come full circle.
But the ultimate irony — and tragedy — lies in the words of President Donald Trump himself, who in his campaign and inaugural promise declared that his would be a “government of common sense.” A government that would reject endless wars. That would put America First — not Tel Aviv first. That would protect innocent lives, not shield aggressors behind vetoes at the United Nations. That would respond not to genocidal allies, but to the cries of children dying beneath collapsed buildings in Gaza and Rafah.
Common sense dictates that when a nation turns refugee camps into graveyards, when it hunts down civilians with drones, when it assassinates scientists in their homes and bombs residential towers to kill one man — that nation is not defending itself. It is dismantling the very moral fabric of global civilization.
And if America continues to partner with that behavior — if it continues to treat Netanyahu as a statesman instead of a war criminal — then the United States is not just complicit. It is corrupted.
It is time for the American public, lawmakers, and leaders to make a choice grounded in facts — not fear; in law — not lobbying; in morality — not military-industrial deals. The truth is now on the table. Netanyahu’s war has been exposed. Pezeshkian’s peace has been declared. The next move belongs to Washington.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The Israel-Iran conflict has revealed a truth the Muslim world can no longer afford to ignore: Israel is not invincible. Without the shield of the United States, it is not the iron fortress it pretends to be—it is fragile, overstretched, and deeply dependent. But once wrapped in the diplomatic, military, and political embrace of Washington, Israel becomes a force few dare to challenge. It is not superior military strategy or moral high ground that sustains Israeli power—it is American sponsorship, bought and secured through decades of strategic manipulation.
No amount of resistance in Gaza, no fiery speech at the United Nations, no emotional outcry from the Muslim world will dismantle Israel’s machinery of oppression. Because that machine doesn’t run on Israeli fuel—it runs on Washington’s power grid: congressional endorsements, media narratives, think tanks, and corporate lobbying.
And Israel’s greatest tool to harness that power is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—a political juggernaut that does not merely influence U.S. policy, it engineers it. With over $100 million spent in the 2024 elections alone, AIPAC and its Super PACs didn’t just promote pro-Israel candidates—they systematically crushed dissent, targeting Muslims, progressives, and even Jewish critics of Israeli apartheid. Through campaign donations, policy drafting, media alignment, and think tank funding, AIPAC ensures that support for Israel is not just bipartisan—it’s mandatory.
The irony is staggering. The U.S. sends Israel $3.8 billion in military aid annually. Israel uses that money to fund lobbying infrastructure that then cycles back into American politics, shaping public opinion and buying silence. This is not foreign policy—it is political laundering.
And yet, there is an even darker undercurrent to this influence—one rooted not just in money, but blackmail and coercion. That shadowy underside came dangerously close to exposure with the saga of Jeffrey Epstein.
Though widely branded as a disgraced financier and sex offender, Epstein’s real role was far more sinister. Backed by vast, unexplained wealth and cloaked in luxury, Epstein constructed an elite trap—an opulent web of yachts, villas, and underage girls designed not for personal pleasure alone, but for surveillance and leverage. Powerful politicians, industrialists, scientists, and media figures were lured in, indulged, and secretly recorded. His guest list included former presidents, royalty, billionaires, and lawmakers—many now suspiciously silent.
According to multiple intelligence reports and leaked sources, Epstein was an operative tied to Mossad, Israel’s elite spy agency. The data gathered—videos, images, confidential conversations—formed a cache of blackmail so extensive and so damning that it could paralyze the upper echelons of American power. Epstein’s mysterious death in custody—whether suicide or assassination—is widely believed to have been an effort to prevent those secrets from ever seeing daylight. What remains is a chilling reality: those files still exist—and they’re being weaponized by Mossad to control, blackmail, and compromise the very people entrusted with U.S. policymaking.
This is why every resolution at the UN demanding accountability for Israel is vetoed. Why every bomb dropped on a school in Gaza is whitewashed. Why every massacre is met with the same script: “Israel has a right to defend itself,” “Hamas uses human shields,” “It’s complicated.” These aren’t diplomatic statements—they are the product of manipulated consensus created by fear, funding, and in some cases, deep compromise.
The Muslim world’s response to this has been, at best, symbolic. Protests erupt. Speeches are delivered. Hashtags trend. But the facts on the ground remain unchanged. Gaza still burns. Settlements still grow. Aid convoys are still bombed into oblivion. Because the real battlefield is not Gaza—it’s Washington, D.C. And unless Muslims engage there—with the same precision, professionalism, and persistence as Israel—nothing will change.
This is not a call for violence. This is a call for strategy.
Muslims have failed to build a lobbying apparatus to challenge AIPAC’s grip on American power. Yet the resources are not lacking. The Gulf States alone manage over $2 trillion in sovereign wealth. Even a fraction—just $1 billion annually—could fund an American-staffed, data-driven, secular Muslim PAC, built not on sermons, but on strategy. Former lawmakers, PR experts, constitutional lawyers, media consultants, and think tanks could be mobilized to reshape the American narrative from within.
This would not be “interference.” It would be participation in democracy—the very kind Israel has perfected. It would fund candidates who support justice, oppose apartheid, and understand that human rights cannot be selective. It would challenge biased media through ownership and oversight. It would publish studies, mobilize communities, organize town halls, and train the next generation of Muslim American leaders to speak in the language Washington understands—policy and power.
Some will recoil at the idea of using money and lobbying to influence governance. But this is how the American system works. Corporate America lobbies. The gun industry lobbies. Big Pharma lobbies. Christians, Jews, Armenians, Cubans, Taiwanese—all have professional lobbying infrastructure. The only group that continues to shout from the outside is Muslims—and that isolation is costing innocent lives.
Now, cracks are forming in Israel’s carefully choreographed illusion. Western academics like Judith Butler and Pankaj Mishra are labeling Israeli policies as genocidal. Editorials in CNN, BBC, and even the New York Times have begun questioning Israel’s brutality. European parliaments are debating sanctions. Youth protests across American campuses are echoing the cries of “Free Palestine.” Even Jewish activists are joining the calls. And yet, despite all this growing unrest, nothing changes—because Israel still owns the power centers of the United States.
More disturbingly, Israeli thinkers now justify conquest with colonial analogies—likening the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the U.S. treatment of Native Americans or the British colonization of Africa. This isn’t just immoral—it’s legally and philosophically bankrupt. If colonial conquest is acceptable, so too is resistance—as enshrined in international law, the UN Charter, and the Geneva Conventions.
Palestinians, like Afghans before them, have the right to resist occupation. But until the machine enabling that occupation is dismantled, resistance alone will not prevail.
That machine is AIPAC. It is Epstein’s tapes. It is Mossad’s silent hand. And it is America’s refusal to confront its own corruption.
So here lies the choice for the Muslim world: keep protesting, or start investing. Stop reacting—and start shaping. Replace symbolic outrage with strategic influence. Build a Muslim AIPAC. Fund campaigns. Draft bills. Support honest media. Train candidates. Influence education. Enter the boardroom. Make standing for Palestine profitable and political suicide to oppose it.
Only when the cost of supporting Israel outweighs the benefits will the tide turn. And only then will the Palestinians find what they’ve long deserved—not pity, but power. Not charity, but justice. Not slogans, but sovereignty.
Because the war for Palestine will never be won with rockets from Rafah—but with policies from Capitol Hill. And the blueprint for victory does not lie in ancient grievances—it lies in Washington, D.C.