To achieve lasting cessation of hostilities, three core issues must be resolved – and resolved fully, not cosmetically.

Some of my friends keep asking me: “What’s going to happen this July and August?” And I tell them: guys, who do you think I am? A psychic? You think I’ve got a crystal ball stashed in my office?

No. I’m just a simple business owner based in the GCC. I don’t claim supernatural insight. But I do try to form slightly more informed opinions than the average person, mostly because I’ve been observing this region’s conflicts since I was nine years old. At this point, it’s practically an occupational hazard.

So here’s the breakdown:

The fundamentals for a permanent ceasefire in the region simply do not exist yet. And no, this isn’t just about Iran and Israel. This is about Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, the Iraqi militias, and the enormous American military buildup underway. You cannot solve the symptoms while the disease is metastasizing.

To achieve lasting cessation of hostilities, three core issues must be resolved – and resolved fully, not cosmetically.

1. Nuclear Enrichment Must Stop – On Iranian Soil

Even after suspected Israeli strikes crippled parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Tehran still retains: the knowledge, the will, and likely the determination to restart enrichment. That’s not speculation; that’s their posture.

Unless there’s a complete, verifiable, internationally inspected cessation of enrichment on Iranian soil, there’s no foundation for trust. No amount of diplomacy can paper over that risk.

2. Ballistic Missiles Must Be Dismantled

We’re not talking about short-range battlefield rockets.

We’re talking: MRBMs (Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles), IRBMs (Intermediate-Range), ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles)

These aren’t for defence – they’re for deterrence and leverage. And the regime is fiercely protective of them. But if these remain, no ceasefire will ever be permanent. Full dismantlement isn’t optional; it’s mandatory.

3. The Proxy Network Must Be Demobilized

This is the elephant in the room: Iran’s proxy ecosystem – roughly 700,000 fighters across 90+ militias.

The core pillars: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilization Forces and others in Iraq.

These groups are not just “regional influencers.” They are armed non-state actors that destabilize multiple sovereign countries. And Iran’s biggest mistake in recent years? Using the Houthis to interfere with global trade and Red Sea shipping.

That crossed a red line.

Local or regional disruption is one thing. Interfering with global supply chains triggered the wrath of far more powerful actors.

Right now, Iran’s posture on these three issues is clear: The nuclear issue? They’re playing games. The missile program? They’re playing hardball. The proxy militias? They’re playing deaf.

But time is running out.

According to sources, the deadline being floated to Tehran is July 15 – by which time they must commit, in principle and in writing, to addressing all three issues within 90 days of structured talks.

What happens if they don’t? Hostilities will resume. Sanctions will increase. Isolation will deepen.

And this time, the regime’s internal fractures may not survive the pressure.

So where are we now? We are in a pause, not peace. The upcoming Oslo backchannel talks may set the tone. EU/GCC might act as the broker. But resolve must replace deflection.

Until then, forgive me for being a bit jaded. After all these years, every time there’s a “breakthrough,” I find myself thinking: “Ah yes, another war. Meh. Seen this movie before.”

Let’s see if this one has a different ending.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The new battlefield is not only in Gaza or southern Lebanon or the Red Sea—it is in the human mind.

In the fog of war, there was once clarity. Now, even the fog is fabricated.

Few voices carry the gravitas of Aimen Dean — a man who has lived across the fault lines of war, finance, faith, and espionage. From the jihadist battlefields of Nangarhar to the polished boardrooms of global banking, and from the roar of Iraqi Scud missiles in Khobar to the intricate corridors of MI6, Dean has seen the anatomy of conflict from all angles. And yet, as he confesses in a searing reflection on today’s geopolitical chaos, he has “never encountered anything quite like the post-October 7 world.”

That day—October 7, 2023—marked the launch of Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel, igniting one of the most ferocious and emotionally charged wars in the modern Middle East. But what concerns Dean even more than the rockets and rubble is the war on truth that followed.

“Emotion has not just trumped reason,” Dean writes. “It has obliterated it.”

From the Trenches to Twitter

Dean’s journey is not abstract. He is not an academic pontificating from afar. He has walked where others write. His mother’s anguish in war-torn southern Lebanon, his own experiences as a young radical turned MI6 asset, and his later roles as a financial advisor and geopolitical analyst, offer a rare panoramic view of how narratives are weaponized.

In his previous encounters with war—whether in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen—Dean says there was always some degree of clarity. One could discern the agendas, the actors, and eventually the consequences. There were lies, yes, but also enough context and experience to “slice through the disinformation.”

But since October 7, he observes, the informational ecosystem itself has collapsed. Social media, once hailed as a democratizer of voices, now amplifies tribalism. Hashtags replace history. Slogans drown out nuance. What used to be propaganda, Dean warns, has evolved into performance art.

The Age of the Algorithm

The new battlefield is not only in Gaza or southern Lebanon or the Red Sea—it is in the human mind. According to Dean, most people have been “drafted” into this battlefield without knowing it.

This is no longer just about pro-Israel or pro-Palestine stances. It’s about how easily global audiences are manipulated into cheering for narratives without interrogating them. “What used to be journalism is now tribalism,” Dean remarks. “What used to be analysis is now algorithm.”

The algorithm—a word synonymous with social media manipulation—has replaced inquiry with impulse. Platforms now reward emotional outrage, not intellectual depth. Truth becomes the casualty, and the casualty count is rising.

The Noise Filter: Survival in the Age of Misinformation

Dean introduces a concept he calls the “noise filter.” It’s not born of cynicism, he stresses, but of survival—a mental shield forged through years of discerning patterns, lies, motives, and inconsistencies. It is a skill that enables one to see the real enemy—not the one dictated by groupthink or online tribalism.

And herein lies perhaps his most powerful insight: “Being a good analyst doesn’t mean staying neutral. That’s a myth. It means choosing sides wisely. Not all devils are equal.”

This stands in stark contrast to the popular—and sometimes cowardly—mantra of neutrality that permeates Western institutions and media, often under the guise of “balanced reporting.” Dean argues that neutrality in the face of blatant propaganda or aggression is not objectivity—it’s abdication.

A Crisis of Moral Discernment

Dean’s post is not just a lament; it’s a warning. The world is experiencing a crisis of moral discernment, accelerated by disinformation, emotional manipulation, and a digital culture that prizes identity over integrity.

The “loudest lie wins,” he notes, a chilling reminder of how far removed modern political discourse has become from facts. Many people no longer seek truth but affirmation. And when every corner of the internet offers custom-made truth, the very concept of objective reality becomes endangered.

For a man who has interrogated extremists, foiled plots, and navigated the underworld of global terrorism, this new reality—this collapse of truth—feels more threatening than any bomb or bullet.

Final Front: The Battle for the Mind

We often speak of kinetic warfare, of missile strikes and armed resistance. But Dean reminds us that the ultimate battle is for the mind. The frontlines have shifted from deserts to data centers, from refugee camps to recommendation algorithms.

In this war, no one is untouched. And those who fail to build their own noise filter will find one built for them—by regimes, influencers, bots, and ideologues—all charging a steep price: your soul.

This is the battlefield of our age. And as Aimen Dean makes painfully clear, truth is not only the first casualty—it’s now on life support.

Responding to escalating tensions and recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump hinting at military involvement against Iran, Marandi declared that if the United States were to enter into war with Iran, the governments of Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain “would not last more than a few days, or even a few hours.”

“It’s time to leave Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain immediately,” Marandi added ominously — a clear signal that Iran sees U.S. bases and partnerships in these countries as legitimate wartime targets. The statement comes amid increasing regional anxiety following Israeli strikes in Syria and Lebanon, and fears that a broader war involving Iran could engulf the Middle East.

Yet, what was more telling than Marandi’s threat was his silence on Saudi Arabia — the region’s heavyweight. This omission was not lost on analysts.

Aimen Dean, former MI6 spy inside Al-Qaeda and author of Nine Lives, pointed out the striking inconsistency. He wrote, “Iran’s Ariana News Agency just issued a threat that if the United States attacks Iran then it will retaliate against Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and UAE! No mention of Saudi Arabia, yet it’s all the same, as these countries are part of a mutual GCC defence treaty with Saudi.”

Strategic Messaging or Calculated Restraint?

Marandi’s threats appear designed to create fear and pressure among Gulf states that host American military assets, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. These are not empty words — they serve as psychological warfare aimed at dividing the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), deterring further cooperation with Washington, and shaking the confidence of local populations.

But the absence of Saudi Arabia in this threat matrix is intriguing. Some analysts believe it reflects Tehran’s ongoing efforts to preserve the fragile diplomatic thaw with Riyadh. Since the China-brokered rapprochement in 2023, Iran and Saudi Arabia have restored diplomatic ties and engaged in dialogue over Yemen, energy coordination, and regional security. Directly threatening Saudi Arabia now could reverse months of careful detente.

Others argue that Iran’s silence on Saudi Arabia is purely tactical. “Tehran knows that any overt threat to Riyadh would trigger a massive and unified GCC—and potentially wider Arab—response,” said a Gulf-based security expert. “It’s playing chess, not checkers.”

A Wider Conflict Looms?

As tensions soar between the United States and Iran, the Gulf region once again finds itself caught in the middle of a high-stakes confrontation. While Iran frames its threats as a response to potential aggression, its messaging exposes the vulnerability of smaller Gulf states and highlights their strategic importance to Washington’s military presence in the region.

The United States, for its part, has not publicly responded to Marandi’s threats. However, military readiness has increased in the region. Additional U.S. naval deployments to the Gulf and increased coordination with Israel signal that Washington is preparing for multiple scenarios.

Meanwhile, GCC member states are left to weigh the risks. The threat of being used as a battlefield in a confrontation between Washington and Tehran looms large. Yet, so does the cost of abandoning decades of military and economic cooperation with the United States.

To Dean, the implications are not just unrealistic, but dangerous.

In a compelling commentary that has stirred debate across diplomatic and analytical circles, Aimen Dean — former MI6 operative inside Al-Qaeda, author of Nine Lives, and now a respected political analyst and podcaster — has sounded the alarm over what he describes as Israel’s “Buffer Illusion” in southern Syria. His critique goes beyond routine regional analysis and touches upon a broader, deeply rooted issue: the dangerous confluence of fantasy-driven geopolitics and expansionist ambitions.

Dean, whose insider knowledge of Middle Eastern militancy and intelligence lends weight to his views, draws attention to a strategy being quietly nurtured within Israel’s far-right establishment — the idea of carving out a so-called “Druze Corridor” from southern Syria to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The plan, as he outlines, is riddled with strategic absurdities and moral hazards.

A Strategy of Buffers within Buffers

Dean begins with an explanation of the “buffer zone” concept — a long-standing tool of geopolitical defense. In its classical form, a buffer is a neutral or allied territory intended to serve as a cushion against external threats. But Dean argues that Israel’s ultra-right government has taken the idea to impractical extremes, creating a doctrine in which each buffer demands a buffer of its own, resulting in an endless nesting of expansionist outposts.

He describes this approach as “a game of strategic nesting dolls that soon loses all clarity.” The original objective of safeguarding national security becomes overshadowed by an increasingly untenable geographic ambition — one that defies not only logic but the basic realities of the land and its people.

The Druze Dilemma in Southern Syria

Nowhere is this “Buffer Illusion” more visible than in Israel’s covert interest in Suwayda, a Druze-majority province in southern Syria. With a population of roughly 380,000, Suwayda has historically remained on the fringes of Syria’s broader conflicts, maintaining a cautious distance from both government and opposition forces. Some factions within the Druze community — reportedly with Israeli encouragement — are now flirting with the idea of forming an independent Druze state.

To Dean, the implications are not just unrealistic, but dangerous. He warns that such aspirations are not merely about community self-determination but could be a front for creating a pro-Israel entity that ultimately seeks to physically link up with the Golan Heights — forming what he dubs the “Druze Corridor.”

But standing in the way of that ambition is a significant obstacle: the Sunni Arab-majority province of Daraa. Home to more than 1.3 million people, Daraa lies directly between Suwayda and the Golan, making the dream of a contiguous Druze corridor a demographic and geographic impossibility.

“You cannot simply leapfrog over a million people,” Dean writes, “many of whom are fiercely tied to their ancestral lands.” Any attempt to do so, he warns, would require forced displacement or large-scale violence — a move that could cost tens of thousands of Israeli lives and ignite a region-wide conflagration.

A Strategic Blunder in the Making

Dean sharply criticizes the lack of strategic foresight in entertaining such scenarios. He suggests that Israel’s current political leadership — emboldened by ideological rigidity and military confidence — is toying with plans that defy logic and disregard regional sensitivities.

He questions the endgame of such a policy: “Is it truly about security, or is it about reshaping Syria’s south to Israel’s liking under the guise of minority protection?” If so, he warns, the move could backfire disastrously by inflaming sectarian tensions and undermining Israel’s broader diplomatic standing.

Dean offers a hypothetical but thought-provoking counterstrategy for the Syrian government, now reportedly under President Farouq al-Shara’: grant Suwayda its independence, if that is what its people desire. The catch, however, is clear — such an entity would be landlocked, resource-poor, and wholly dependent on Damascus and Amman for basic sustenance and international recognition.

“If independence is what they demand, let them test the waters of sovereignty,” Dean states. “No blood need be shed. Let them go, not out of weakness, but out of strength and confidence.”

He argues that doing so would strip Israel of any pretext for military intervention and would reveal whether the Druze nationalist push is about genuine autonomy or strategic alignment with Israel.

No Corridor, No Fantasy

Dean’s analysis culminates in a stark warning: “There is no corridor. There never was.” Geography and demographics, he insists, are not variables that can be negotiated away. “No strategic imagination, no military maneuver, no political manipulation can erase geography or overwrite demographics.”

His commentary serves as a sobering reminder that policies rooted in wishful thinking — especially in the volatile Middle East — often lead to unintended consequences. In the case of the Druze Corridor fantasy, the cost of pursuing illusion over reality may prove far greater than any perceived security benefit.

As regional dynamics continue to shift, Dean’s words resonate as a cautionary tale against ideological overreach and the perils of ignoring the immutable truths of land and people.

We Christians in Syria are with the new state, with the heroes who expelled the criminal Bashar al-Assad. We are fine and everything written on social media is a lie

Amid ongoing conflict in Syria, contradictory narratives have emerged regarding the fate of Christian communities and the broader geopolitical landscape. Recent statements from analysts and insiders challenge widely circulated claims of sectarian massacres and ethnic cleansing, instead pointing to a complex web of military operations, disinformation campaigns, and geopolitical realignments.

Syrian Christians and the New State

Syrian Christian Dr. Laila recently dispelled claims of Christian persecution in the ongoing conflict, writing, “We Christians in Syria are with the new state, with the heroes who expelled the criminal Bashar al-Assad. We are fine and everything written on social media is a lie.” This counters allegations that Christians are being systematically targeted in the conflict.

Similarly, Washington-based Capitol Institute analyst Michael Arizanti stated, “There has been no slaughter of Christians—in fact, most Christian communities stand with Damascus against Assad loyalists.” This contradicts widely shared social media reports suggesting mass atrocities against Christian minorities.

Ex-MI6 Spy Aimen Dean’s Detailed Analysis of Syria’s Geopolitical Shifts

Aimen Dean has written a detailed analysis of the ongoing conflict in Syria. This is what he believes:

1. The Role of Ahmad al-Shar’a (Abu Muhammad al-Jolani)
   • Dean argues that al-Shar’a, despite his past ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has since shifted alliances, distancing himself from ISIS and collaborating with Western and Turkish intelligence in countering jihadist threats.
   • Since 2018, intelligence reports indicate that al-Shar’a provided crucial intelligence to Western agencies, including those of France and the United States, to combat ISIS.
   • Dean draws parallels between his own transformation and that of al-Shar’a, emphasizing the latter’s trajectory towards governance rather than ideological extremism.
2. The New Syrian Government vs. Assad’s Regime
   • Dean asserts that al-Shar’a’s administration offers a more viable future for Syria compared to Assad’s stagnant, socialist Arab nationalist rule.
   • Economically, regions under the new government—Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, and Sarmada—demonstrate progress, in contrast to the economic decline of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama.
   • He dismisses claims of an orchestrated ethnic cleansing campaign on the Syrian coast, instead describing military operations aimed at neutralizing remnants of Assad’s security forces.
3. Disinformation and Propaganda in the Syrian War
   • Dean warns that Iranian and Hezbollah-backed Assad loyalists are engaging in a coordinated disinformation campaign to frame the conflict as a sectarian genocide.
   • Many widely circulated atrocity videos are either fabrications or recycled footage from past conflicts, repurposed to manipulate international perceptions.
   • He stresses that while war crimes have occurred, the situation is far more complex than social media portrayals suggest.

A Call for Rational Analysis Over Emotional Reactions

Dean underscores that the Syrian conflict should be analyzed through a geopolitical lens rather than a sectarian one. He argues that Western audiences must avoid falling into the trap of propaganda designed to push Syria further into the Iranian-Russian-Chinese sphere of influence.

Rejecting accusations of jihadist sympathies, Dean states, “How could someone who opposed both Hamas and Hezbollah—a Sunni and a Shia militant group—be labeled as a jihadist sympathizer? My approach is based purely on geopolitical logic, not religious bias.” He urges the global community to support efforts aimed at stabilizing Syria and integrating it into Mediterranean and Gulf economic frameworks rather than allowing it to remain a battleground for foreign powers.

The narratives emerging from experts and insiders like Aimen Dean challenge the dominant portrayal of a sectarian war, instead highlighting the intricate geopolitical maneuvering at play. Moving forward, objective analysis and evidence-based reporting will be crucial in shaping an accurate understanding of Syria’s future.

Aimen Dean

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre.

In light of recent misinterpretations of my comments, I feel compelled to clarify my stance on several key issues. Some have accused me of supporting jihadist groups in Syria or endorsing acts of ethnic cleansing and massacres against the Alawite minority on the Syrian coast. These claims are entirely unfounded, and I want to set the record straight.

Consistent Principles on War and Self-Defense

From the very beginning, I have consistently supported the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression. In 2001, I fully backed the United States’ decision to retaliate against al-Qaeda and the Taliban following the 9/11 attacks because it was a justified response to an unprovoked act of war. However, I did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as Iraq posed no imminent threat at the time.

Similarly, when Hamas launched its attacks on October 7, 2023, I unequivocally supported Israel’s right to defend itself, just as I supported Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I recognize that war is never clean, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate and tragic reality. Anyone who believes in the possibility of a “clean war” is ignoring history and human nature. Even in the most “civilized” parts of the world, such as Europe, the 20th century bore witness to some of the worst massacres and genocides in history.

Modern warfare is fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of information. The manipulation of media, particularly through social media, has become a powerful tool. We saw this when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed hospitals and killed hundreds of civilians, claims that, upon closer inspection, were exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Propaganda is an inseparable part of war, and recognizing this is crucial in understanding modern conflicts.

The Syrian Conflict and My Perspective on Ahmad al-Shar’a

Much of the controversy surrounding my recent comments stems from my discussion of Ahmad al-Shar’a, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, and the ongoing conflict in Syria. To be clear: I do not view al-Shar’a as ISIS. While he was originally part of al-Qaeda in Iraq before it became the Islamic State of Iraq, he later split from the organization when he moved to Syria.

Since 2018, I have spoken with multiple intelligence officials who confirmed that al-Shar’a had been cooperating with Turkish intelligence as early as 2013 and later provided valuable intelligence to Western agencies, including those of France and the United States, in the fight against ISIS. His motivation may not have been purely altruistic, he saw ISIS as a rival, but his actions nonetheless contributed to the fight against one of the most brutal jihadist groups in history.

I have publicly acknowledged that I see elements of my own journey in his transformation. I, too, was once a committed jihadist until I saw the light and shifted my perspective to focus on geopolitical strategy rather than sectarian or ideological allegiances. Today, my positions are determined by strategic interests, not religious or sectarian affiliations.

Why I Support the Current Syrian Government Over Assad

Between al-Shar’a’s government and the Assad regime, I believe the former offers a better path forward for Syria. While al-Shar’a has a controversial past, his current trajectory suggests a willingness to reform. Unlike the Assad regime, which has kept Syria trapped in a failed socialist Arab nationalist system, his administration has demonstrated a commitment to economic modernization. The most developed areas in Syria today—Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, and Sarmada—show clear progress, in contrast to the stagnation of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama.

Critically, I reject the notion that what is happening on the Syrian coast is an organized ethnic cleansing campaign. Instead, it is a military operation aimed at dismantling remnants of the Assad regime, whose security forces have been targeting not only Sunni opposition members but also Alawites who are seen as traitors.

Reports indicate that some of the atrocities being widely shared on social media were, in fact, carried out by former regime officers—Alawites exacting revenge on their own community members for siding with the new government. Other reports suggest that Iranian and Hezbollah-backed Assad loyalists are fueling chaos to destabilize the current government. The Syrian government under al-Shar’a has deployed significant manpower to block roads and prevent large-scale sectarian revenge attacks, particularly from Sunni militants who see this as an opportunity for retaliation.

Propaganda and Disinformation in the Syrian Conflict

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre. Many of the images and videos circulating on social media are, in reality, old footage from ISIS-era Iraq and Syria. Claims that Christians are being systematically targeted are also false, there have been no reports of Christian casualties in this conflict.

Additionally, many of the “atrocity” videos currently being used to condemn the new government are actually recycled footage of massacres committed by the Assad regime itself. The goal of this propaganda is clear: to manipulate Western audiences into believing that Syria is descending into sectarian genocide, thereby pushing Syria further into the Iranian-Russian-Chinese geopolitical axis.

A Call for Justice and a Rational Perspective on Syria’s Future

I do not deny that war crimes and atrocities have occurred in the Syrian conflict. I call upon the government of President Ahmad al-Shar’a to ensure accountability and bring those responsible to justice. However, we must recognize that this is not a case of systematic ethnic cleansing. The reality on the ground is far more complex, with various factions—Sunni and Alawite alike—engaging in revenge killings and power struggles.

Western observers must avoid falling into the trap of Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. Syria has an opportunity to move away from the Russian-Iranian-Chinese sphere of influence and integrate into the Mediterranean and Gulf economic frameworks. It is in the best interest of Syria, the region, and the world that we support efforts to stabilize the country, promote economic recovery, and prevent it from becoming another puppet state for Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

A Geopolitical, Not Sectarian, Perspective

To those who accuse me of reverting to my “jihadi roots,” I ask: how could someone who opposed both Hamas and Hezbollah—a Sunni and a Shia militant group—be labeled as a jihadist sympathizer? My approach is based purely on geopolitical logic, not religious bias. I support what makes sense for the people of the Middle East, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sunni, or Shia, liberal or conservative.

What is happening in Syria is not a black-and-white sectarian war but a geopolitical realignment. We must approach it with rationality, not emotion, and recognize the broader stakes involved. Let us not allow misinformation and propaganda to cloud our understanding of the realities on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.