Monitor

The Palestinian National Popular Action Committee have today issued a press statement strongly condemning the Israeli abduction of activists Saif Abu Khashk and Thiago Ávila in international waters near the island of Crete. “This act of maritime piracy,” the Committee said, “is part of a continuing pattern of violations of all international norms and laws.”  The statement said Israel’s cross-border lawlessness comes as no surprise from an occupation that systematically disregards international law. “We hold all those complicit in these crimes, including those who remain silent, fully responsible.” 

It added; “While we hold the occupation fully accountable for the safety of Saif and Thiago, we urgently call on the Governments of Spain and Brazil to intervene immediately to secure their safety and ensure their prompt release.”

The Committee expressed its appreciation and esteem to the two activists, Saif and Thiago, as well as to all participants in the “Sumud Flotilla” who confronted the occupation’s arrogance and piracy with their unarmed presence and firm determination. “These sacrifices reaffirm that the struggle for freedom and justice will continue,” it concluded.

READ: Israeli court extends detention of 2 Gaza-bound flotilla volunteers

US President Donald Trump on Thursday sharply criticized The New York Times and CNN over their coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran, describing CNN as “stupid” and claiming the newspaper’s reporting was “seditious,” Anadolu reports.

Trump said he had “militarily decapitated” Iran, speaking to reporters at an Oval Office event where he signed an executive order aimed at expanding workers’ access to retirement savings, while also criticizing Democratic efforts to limit his war powers.

“And every day, I read about how well they’re doing militarily,” he said. “They’ve got nothing left, they’re done. And yet I read in The New York Times, I see on stupid CNN — which I only watch because you have to watch a little bit of the enemy.”

READ: Pentagon says Iran still has part of naval fleet despite Trump claims

Trump also said coverage by the two outlets implied that Iran is “winning the war,” criticizing their reporting on the war.

“If you read The New York Times — it’s actually seditious, in my opinion,” he said. “You read some of these columnists, but it all starts with the top. It’s a terrible thing.”

He said he did not “care, and everybody knows the facts. We are decimating the country.”

Earlier, the New York Times editorial board suggested that the US military is “losing its edge” in the Iran war, arguing that tactical gains have not translated into overall victory and may weaken Washington’s position.

READ: American journalist Tucker Carlson feels ‘betrayed,’ criticizes Trump on Iran war: Report

UN experts said Wednesday that reconstruction in the Gaza Strip cannot succeed without ending Israel’s occupation and ensuring rebuilding efforts are rooted in human rights and Palestinian self-determination, Anadolu reports.

“The occupation must end, and the dispossession and discrimination against Palestinians must stop if rebuilding is to have any real chance of success,” the experts said in a statement.

Citing the Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, they said more than 371,000 housing units have been destroyed or damaged, 1.9 million people displaced, and over 60% of the population remains homeless, with reconstruction needs estimated at more than $71 billion.

“The data confirms a pattern of structural discrimination that reconstruction efforts must urgently correct rather than reproduce,” they said, warning that women, persons with disabilities and older people face disproportionate hardship.

The experts said reconstruction must be inclusive, participatory, transparent and accountable, with Palestinians shaping decisions in line with their right to self-determination under international law.

READ: Former US official accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza, says Washington is complicit

They raised questions about governance of the process, saying the assessment does not address who would oversee reconstruction or whether the proposed “Board of Peace” by US President Donald Trump is consistent with international law.

The experts are also concerned that the assessment does not sufficiently embed human rights principles, warning that an emphasis on financial needs and infrastructure could reduce housing to mere shelter provision rather than ensuring dignity, security and long-term sustainability.

They said reconstruction could become “a race for profits” without safeguards protecting vulnerable groups.

“Reconstruction is not only about rebuilding structures – it is about restoring rights, dignity and equality,” they said.

They urged states and donors to place human rights at the center of Gaza’s reconstruction, warning failure to do so “risks entrenching injustice and prolonging the suffering of Palestinians for generations.”

READ: Israeli court extends detention of Gaza hospital director Abu Safiya ‘without charges’

Canada on Wednesday announced $5 million in funding for international efforts aimed at identifying and eliminating chemical weapons remaining in Syria, Anadolu reports.

“Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced Canada’s contribution of $5 million to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) through Canada’s Weapons Threat Reduction Program,” the Global Affairs Canada said in a statement.

Noting that the OPCW will use the contribution to verify the scope of Syria’s former chemical weapons program, the readout added that the funding will also be used to investigate past uses of such weapons, and prepare for the safe destruction of remaining stockpiles, in line with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The statement said the work is considered critical to “Syria’s long-term stability,” advancing accountability and reducing the risk to civilians of any future chemical weapons use.

“This contribution is part of Canada’s long-standing support to the OPCW to uphold the global ban on chemical weapons and strengthen international accountability,” it added.

Hezbollah MP, Hassan Fadlallah said that Hezbollah will eliminate the “yellow line” declared by Israel in southern Lebanon, stressing that “no one will be able to disarm the party.”

In an interview with Agence France-Presse, Fadlallah said: “We will topple this yellow line through resistance, through our insistence on our legitimate right to defend ourselves and our country.”

He added: “The Israeli army’s attempt to establish a buffer zone, under the guise of a front line, a yellow line, and a green line—we will break all these lines. We will not accept any of them, and we will reach our villages on the internationally recognized borders, no matter the sacrifices, no matter the cost.”

“There will be no disarmament of the resistance, and no one in Lebanon or abroad will be able to disarm it”, he added.

He said that “it is in the interest of the President of the Republic to withdraw from the path of direct negotiations with Israel,” adding that Hezbollah wants the ceasefire to continue.

“It is in the interest of Lebanon, the President of the Republic, and the government to withdraw from the path of direct negotiations and return to a national consensus on the best option for Lebanon,” he said, describing the move toward direct negotiations as “a unilateral decision on a fateful matter related to Lebanon’s future.”

He added: “We will reject and confront any attempt to impose political prices on Lebanon through concessions offered to this Israeli enemy.”

Fadlallah added he wants the ceasefire to continue, alongside efforts to ensure the withdrawal of the occupation army, the return of displaced persons to their villages, the release of prisoners, and the launch of a reconstruction program.

The EU’s special representative for the Gulf said Saturday that any lasting solution for the Middle East must be led by countries in the region rather than imposed from outside, Anadolu reports.

Speaking at a panel during the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in southern Turkiye, Luigi Di Maio said the current crisis in the Gulf is another sign of the “further erosion of international law.”

“If we want to try to find a solution for avoiding again another crisis, like the ongoing crisis or a wider crisis, a farther spillover, we need to work all together,” he said.

Di Maio said the EU remains committed to multilateralism and international law, while stressing that Europe does not want to be “part of this war.”

At the same time, he said European countries are supporting Gulf partners in self-defense, including intercepting drones and missiles from Iran under bilateral agreements.

READ: US, Iran likely on Monday to hold 2nd round for technical talks in Islamabad: Sources

He also warned that instability in the Gulf affects the wider world, not only because of oil and gas, but also due to trade in fertilizer, helium for semiconductors and other goods moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

Di Maio said the collapse of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal showed the importance of involving regional countries in negotiations.

“Every solution for the Middle East has to be a region-led process,” he said.

He said stronger connectivity and defense cooperation can make the region more resilient to future crises, adding that “autonomy does not mean isolation.”

He praised mediation efforts by Turkiye, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, saying they had helped secure a ceasefire and could contribute to a broader agreement.

READ: French soldier killed in attack on UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon: Macron

The UNIFIL announced that an investigation has concluded that three Indonesian peacekeepers were killed by a shell fired from an Israeli tank.

According to UNIFIL, analysis of the impact site and recovered shrapnel confirmed that the projectile was a 120mm shell fired from an Israeli Merkava tank, launched from the east toward the town of Taybeh.

The mission noted that it had previously provided the Israeli army with the coordinates of all its positions and facilities on 6^th March and again on 22^nd March, as part of efforts to reduce risks to its personnel.

In a related incident, UNIFIL reported that the Israeli army detained one of its peacekeepers after intercepting a logistics convoy, before releasing him less than an hour later following urgent contacts by UN command.

The mission condemned the detention as a “flagrant violation of international law,” stressing that any obstruction of peacekeeping operations breaches UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which guarantees freedom of movement for UN forces in southern Lebanon.

Separately, UNIFIL confirmed that another peacekeeper was killed on 29^th March when a shell struck a UN position near Adshit al-Qusayr, with another seriously wounded. At the time, the source of the shell was unknown, prompting the investigation.

The findings come amid ongoing Israeli aggression on Lebanon and heightened risks facing UN peacekeeping forces operating in the area.

The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the opening phase of the US-Israeli war against Iran has generated a striking argument in strategic and theological circles alike: that the killing may have removed not merely a political leader but a normative brake on Iran’s possible march toward nuclear weapons. Reports indicate that Iranian decision-making has since hardened under intense military pressure and an increasingly securitised internal environment.

What gives Khamenei’s death a particular doctrinal significance is that he had, over more than two decades, publicly framed weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear and chemical weapons—as contrary to Islam. If that position represented a genuine religious constraint rather than mere diplomatic rhetoric, then his death may have removed more than a leader: it may have weakened the doctrinal restraint that helped keep Iran a threshold nuclear state.

What gives Khamenei’s death a particular doctrinal significance is that he had, over more than two decades, publicly framed weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear and chemical weapons—as contrary to Islam.

Islamic just war theory places moral constraints on indiscriminate violence, constraints that Khamenei appeared to project onto state policy. With that authority now gone, the central question is whether a moral tradition can discipline a state that increasingly experiences its insecurity as existential. Whether the next supreme leader can impose doctrinal restraint on a system drifting toward hard security logic.

The Islamic just war theory

The Islamic conception of war begins from a premise different from the caricatures often projected onto it. Classical Islamic thought does not treat war as an unbounded field of religious violence. Rather, it regulates warfare through a moral-legal framework derived from the Qur’an, the practice of the Prophet, and the juristic traditions that developed in subsequent centuries. The foundational Qur’anic injunction is taken from verse 2:190: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, God does not love transgressors.” The verse both permits fighting and limits it: war is accepted as a political reality, but not treated as morally autonomous.

The Islamic conception of war begins from a premise different from the caricatures often projected onto it. Classical Islamic thought does not treat war as an unbounded field of religious violence.

The duality of permission and restraint thus runs through the Islamic just war tradition. War may be legitimate in cases of defence, resistance to aggression, or protection of the community. But even a just cause does not license unlimited means. Islamic jurists emphasised proportionality, legitimate authority, fidelity to agreements, and the protection of non-combatants—including women, children, the elderly, monks, and peasants— developing a norm of discrimination that restricted violence to active combatants.

It is from this perspective that nuclear weapons become especially difficult to reconcile with Islamic ethics. A weapon whose essence is mass, uncontrolled devastation, sits uneasily with any tradition that treats non-combatant immunity as morally central. In Islamic terms, the problem is not simply the scale of destruction, but the very structure of the act: the means themselves are transgressive.

 The fatwa: Genuine constraint or strategic cover?

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s reputed opposition to chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War established an early precedent for this kind of doctrinal restraint. Iraq used chemical agents extensively, and Iran suffered enormously—some 20,000 Iranians were killed and over 100,000 severely injured. Yet the Islamic Republic did not respond in kind on a comparable scale. Whether that restraint was entirely theological or also strategic remains debated. Recent evidence suggests limited Iranian chemical weapons development during the war. Still, the episode reinforced the notion that certain weapons lay beyond the moral threshold that Iran’s clerical leadership was prepared to cross openly.

Khamenei extended this logic to the nuclear realm. He first issued an oral fatwa in October 2003 declaring nuclear weapons as forbidden (haram) in Islam, and repeated this position in an official statement at the emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in August 2005. Over subsequent years, Iranian officials repeatedly invoked his religious decree as evidence of the Islamic Republic’s peaceful nuclear intentions.

Khamenei extended this logic to the nuclear realm. He first issued an oral fatwa in October 2003 declaring nuclear weapons as forbidden (haram) in Islam, and repeated this position in an official statement at the emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in August 2005.

But the fatwa’s authenticity and legal weight have always been contested. Some have argued that no formal written fatwa was ever issued and that what Iran marketed as a religious ruling was, in origin, merely the closing paragraph of a message to a 2010 nuclear disarmament conference, later retroactively framed by Iranian diplomats as a fatwa. Others have documented that Khamenei’s pronouncements on nuclear weapons were inconsistent: at times he categorically forbade development, stockpiling, and use; at other times he appeared to permit development and stockpiling while forbidding use.

None of this entirely strips the fatwa of significance. In political systems where legitimacy is partly theological, a public prohibition articulated by the supreme jurist, even if ambiguous in its legal form, raises the political and doctrinal cost of reversal. As one scholar observes, such declarations make it costly for the Islamic Republic to overturn the publicly stated position even if they do not constitute binding juridical rulings in the formal sense.

Succession and the question of doctrinal inheritance

The critical question of whether Khamenei’s successor would inherit his political and moral authority looms large. On March 9, 2026, the Assembly of Experts named Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of Ali Khamenei as Iran’s third supreme leader. Whether he would inherit his father’s doctrinal commitments, especially on nuclear weapons, is far from clear. Not known as a jurist of comparable standing to his father, Mojtaba’s authority derives primarily from his revolutionary and security credentials rather than from the depth of his theological learning, a fact noted critically within Iran’s clerical establishment, which has historically resisted father-to-son succession as uncomfortably monarchical.

Khamenei’s nuclear prohibition carried weight because it came from the state’s highest religious authority. Mojtaba’s standing is far more contested, which means that any comparable prohibition would likely carry less doctrinal force—while any tacit relaxation would accelerate the erosion of the barrier his father maintained. The IRGC commanders who manoeuvred his appointment to power have long been among those pressing for a reassessment of Iran’s nuclear posture.

Islamic restraint vs strategic realism

This leads to the final and perhaps hardest question: would Iran, if acting as a pure realist state, pursue nuclear weapons regardless of the Islamic just war tradition? The realist answer is straightforward. States seek survival in an anarchic international system. When a state faces stronger adversaries, recurring coercion, and the credible prospect of regime-change violence, it has every incentive to pursue the ultimate deterrent. From this perspective, the logic of nuclear acquisition is not theological but strategic: a bomb would promise not battlefield utility but regime survival, deterrence, and insulation from future attack.

And yet Iran is not a pure realist state in the abstract. It is a political order where ideology, clerical authority, national security, and regime survival have long coexisted in uneasy combination. The more interesting possibility, therefore, is not that realism simply replaces theology, but that realism gradually colonises it. In that scenario, doctrine is not openly discarded; it is reinterpreted and subordinated to necessity, allowing the state to retain Islamic language while moving toward a posture that the older Khamenei publicly resisted.

The greater danger is that the Islamic Republic’s language of restraint may cease to anchor policy and instead begin to trail behind it. If so, Iran’s nuclear future will be decided not only in centrifuge halls or command bunkers, but in the struggle between theological limits and strategic fear.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen said on Wednesday that the US has “clearly made a mistake” in attacking Iran, Anadolu reports.

“What I see is that the United States clearly made a mistake, thinking the Iranian regime would fall within a few days. It has not fallen. The Iranian regime is extremely strong,” Le Pen, head of the National Rally (RN), told France Inter radio.

She said Trump’s war goals are “erratic” and questioned the ultimate objective of the conflict, adding that “no one knows” what he seeks to achieve.

Le Pen underscored that the war has affected several Gulf countries and caused a heavy imbalance in energy supplies.

READ: French president says US-Israel attacks on Iran ‘outside the framework of international law’

“Russia is Hungary’s energy supplier,” and “Ukraine hinders Russia’s oil supply to Hungary,” she added.

The National Rally leader described Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban as a “symbol of resistance” to the European Commission.

“It is perfectly natural that I come to support our allies during electoral situations,” she said, stressing that she does not interfere in Hungary’s internal affairs.

Regional escalation has continued to flare since the US and Israel launched a joint offensive on Iran on Feb. 28, killing so far over 1,300 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.

READ: Iran calls for urgent UN Human Rights Council meeting over school bombing

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened Iran with unprecedented military consequences if it had placed mines in the Strait of Hormuz and failed to remove them, Anadolu reports.

“If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

He added that removing the mines would be “a giant step in the right direction.”

Trump, however, also noted that US has “no reports of” Tehran putting out mines in the waterway.

The warning came after a CNN report that Iran has begun laying mines in the strait. Sources told the news outlet that only a few dozen had been placed so far, but Iran still had up to 90% of its small boats and mine-laying vessels intact, leaving it capable of deploying hundreds more.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, with around 20 million barrels of oil passing through it daily. Iran’s IRGC had previously announced the closure of the strait to transit following the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, pushing oil prices above and raising fears of a prolonged global energy disruption.

The escalation in the Middle East flared since Israel and the US launched a joint attack on Iran on Feb. 28, and to date killing more than 1,200 people, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was the supreme leader. At least eight US service members have been killed since the beginning of the campaign.

The armed wing of Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades, released a video message on Wednesday afternoon showing an Israeli captive currently held in Gaza, the Palestinian Information Centre has reported. The footage shows Omri Miran lighting a candle on what he described as his “second birthday” in captivity.

“This is my second birthday here. I can’t say I’m celebrating; it’s just another day in captivity,” said Miran. “I made this cake for the occasion, but there is no joy. It’s been a year and a half. I miss my daughters and my wife terribly.”

He addressed the Israeli public directly, including his family and friends. “Conditions here are extremely tough. Thank you to everyone demonstrating to bring us home safely.”

The captive also urged Israelis to stage a mass protest outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence. “Bring my daughters so I can see them on TV. Do everything you can now to get us home. Netanyahu’s supporters don’t care about us, they’d rather see us dead.”

Screengrab from footage shows Israeli captive Omri Miran

He asked captives released in previous prisoner exchange deals to protest and speak to the media. “Let the people know how bad it is for us. We live in constant fear of bombings. A deal must be reached soon before we return home in coffins.

Miran urged demonstrators to appeal to US President Donald Trump to put pressure on Netanyahu: “Do not believe Netanyahu. Military pressure is only killing us. A deal — only a deal — will bring us home. Turn to Trump. He seems to be the only powerful person in the world who could push Netanyahu to agree to a deal.”

He also mentioned the worsening humanitarian situation: “The captors told me the crossings are closed; no food or supplies are coming in. As a result, we’re receiving even less food than before.”

In conclusion, the captive sent a pointed message to the Israeli leadership: “Netanyahu, Dermer, Smotrich, Ben Gvir — you are the reason for 7 October. Because of you, I am here. Because of you, we’re all here. You’re bringing the state to collapse.”

READ: US synagogues close their doors to Israel MK Ben-Gvir