“The U.S. military hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran. Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants,” Trump wrote on social media, urging Iran’s leadership to act quickly in response to Washington’s demands.

In a televised address a day earlier, Trump said military operations could intensify over the coming weeks if Tehran did not comply, with possible strikes extending to energy and oil facilities. However, he did not provide a clear timeline for the end of the conflict.

The war, which began on February 28 with coordinated U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, has since expanded, with Tehran launching retaliatory strikes on Israel and Gulf states hosting U.S. military bases. The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and widespread displacement, while also driving up global oil prices and increasing volatility in financial markets.

Iranian media, including Fars News Agency, reported that regional infrastructure, including major bridges in neighboring countries, could also face risks following recent strikes.

The latest remarks have drawn scrutiny from legal experts. Dozens of international law specialists in the United States signed an open letter warning that attacks on infrastructure essential for civilian life could violate the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilian objects and require distinction between military and non-military assets during armed conflict.

Trump’s statements add to uncertainty surrounding U.S. strategy in the conflict, with shifting objectives and timelines contributing to concerns among analysts about the scope and duration of military operations.

Aoun said in a statement that the attack constituted a “blatant crime” and breached international humanitarian law, emphasizing that journalists are civilians performing professional duties and are entitled to protection under the laws of war.

The statement was released by the Lebanese presidency shortly after reports of the strike emerged.A Lebanese military source told AFP that three journalists were killed when their vehicle was targeted in the Jezzine area of southern Lebanon.

The victims included a correspondent affiliated with Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television and another journalist from Al-Mayadeen, a broadcaster seen as close to the Iran-backed group.

Al-Manar confirmed the death of its correspondent, identified as Al Shouaib, while Al-Mayadeen said its journalist, Fatima Fatouni, and her brother, who was working as a cameraman, were also killed in the strike.

The incident adds to mounting concerns over the safety of media personnel operating in conflict zones, particularly in areas experiencing intensified cross-border exchanges between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters.

Aoun’s statement framed the strike as part of a pattern of violations, asserting that it undermines established international norms governing armed conflict. No immediate response from Israeli authorities was included in the available information.

The strike occurred amid heightened tensions in Lebanon’s south region as spillover from the broader Iran-linked confrontation continues to draw in multiple actors across the Middle East.

Warning leaflets reportedly dropped in parts of Beirut and ongoing strikes in southern areas reflect an expanding operational environment, raising the risk to both civilians and media workers covering developments on the ground.

Umar Shareef

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack has once again tested the patience and resolve of the Indian nation. The aftermath has taken us to the brink of yet another war-like situation between India and Pakistan. In response to the brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians, the Indian government launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military strike aimed at dismantling Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

According to reports, the Indian Air Force targeted 14 locations, including the JeM camps in Bahawalpur—reportedly killing 13 individuals associated with the terror outfit, some of them family members of the group’s chief, Masood Azhar. This decisive retaliation is a reflection of India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism, particularly those sponsored or sheltered across the border.

But what followed was telling.

In retaliation, Pakistan shelled the border town of Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir. The victims were not military targets—they were civilians. Among the dead were Kashmiri Muslim children and women. These were our own people. This act by the Pakistani army reflects not strength, but a moral bankruptcy that has long plagued its strategic outlook. Instead of countering India’s military moves tactically, Pakistan chose to engage in indiscriminate shelling, targeting those who had no weapons, no uniforms, and no role in the military operations—just ordinary Indian Muslims.

This isn’t the first time Pakistan has committed such atrocities. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we’ve seen this script before. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the Pakistani army reportedly killed over 300,000 Bengalis, according to the Bangladesh Genocide Archive. Most were Muslims. Many women were raped. Entire villages were wiped out. And yet, Pakistan continues to cloak itself in the garb of Islamic righteousness while violating every ethical and humanitarian code Islam prescribes.

This duality is not just deceptive—it is dangerous.

To the leaders of the Islamic world, I pose some hard questions:

Is Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor consistent with Islamic ethics?

Can the killing of Muslim children in Poonch be justified under any circumstances?

Is this the conduct of an “Islamic Republic”?

As an Indian Muslim, I say this with clarity and conviction: India is my homeland. It is a sovereign, pluralistic, democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. Our Constitution protects us, and our armed forces include us.

I was deeply moved watching a recent press conference where Colonel Sophia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Ambassador Vikram Misri stood united, explaining the strategic aims of Operation Sindhoor. It was a portrait of unity: a Muslim woman in uniform, a Sikh diplomat, and a Hindu officer—this is the India we live in, and this is the India we love.

Let no one tell us we do not belong.

The Qur’an commands us clearly: “And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make peace between them. But if one oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah…” – Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9)

This is not a call to bloodshed—it is a call to justice. We fight oppression, not people. We fight terrorists, not civilians. And when peace is offered, Islam commands us to accept it. But if one side continues to shelter groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or The Resistance Front, who actively undermine regional stability, then standing by and doing nothing is not an option.

Yes, Operation Sindoor may have caused some collateral damage. No life lost is ever trivial. But the mission had a clear objective: dismantle terror networks—not harm civilians. India’s action was measured and targeted. Pakistan’s was indiscriminate and vengeful.

As Indian Muslims, we draw our strength from both faith and patriotism. We are heirs to the legacy of Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the “Lion of Nowshera,” who laid down his life defending Kashmir in 1948. We remember Captain Haneefuddin, who fought bravely in the 1999 Kargil War. These are our heroes, our martyrs—Muslims who defended India against Pakistani aggression.

It is critical to understand that Islam encourages peaceful coexistence. When the Prophet Mohammed established the state of Madinah, he created a pluralistic charter involving Muslims, Jews, and pagans. He taught that alliances with non-Muslims are not just permissible, but necessary in the cause of justice and societal harmony. The story of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, who sought refuge with the Christian King of Abyssinia, is a powerful reminder that justice transcends religion.

We Indian Muslims face many challenges—from Pakistani propaganda to the rise of far-right elements at home. Yet, we stand firm. We will not be pawns in foreign agendas. We will not be deceived by narratives that seek to divide us.

We say with dignity: Inqilab Zindabad. Hindustan Zindabad. Victory to India.

We may critique our government or hold differing political opinions, especially with regard to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is our democratic right. But our nation is not defined by any one party. India is defined by its people, its Constitution, and its unity in diversity.

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror. And peace cannot be preserved if Pakistan continues to target civilians and shelter jihadist outfits.

India reserves the right to protect itself. Under Public International Law, every sovereign nation has the right to eliminate threats to its people. That is what Operation Sindoor was about—and that is what justice demands.

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

The resolution, which calls for Syria’s new government to support inquiries into crimes committed during the conflict that started in 2011, passed without opposition at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday.

It indicates a shift in support by the 47 country members of the council toward Syria’s new government and its efforts to improve its rights record.

“Such international support serves as a strong incentive to continue the path of reform,” Syria’s ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Haydar Ali Ahmad, told the council.

Rebels led by the now president of the new transitional government, Ahmed al-Sharaa, seized the capital Damascus in December. Assad fled to Russia, following the 13 years of civil war that led to the disappearance of more than 100,000 people and the use of torture and chemical weapons by the regime.

Under pressure to show that it is turning a new page from the former regime, Syria’s new government welcomed the resolution on Friday.

“We are proud of Syria’s positive and constructive participation in drafting the resolution for the first time,” Syria Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani said in a statement posted on X.

Members of the council welcomed Syria’s engagement on Friday and urged it to uphold the resolution’s commitments, including the Commission of Inquiry into serious crimes since the start of the war.

British Ambassador to the U.N. Simon Manley said the killing of hundreds of Alwaite civilians – the minority sect from which toppled leader Bashir al-Assad hails – in March was a “chilling reminder of the deep wounds” from the conflict, and the need for justice and accountability.

The protests in Gaza are more than just a reaction to immediate hardships; they are a plea for recognition.

The recent public demonstrations in Gaza have surprised many observers worldwide. For over 16 months, Gazans have endured relentless Israeli airstrikes, devastation, and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe. Throughout this period, they have been lauded for their resilience and sacrifice. However, this week’s protests reveal a different side of Gaza’s reality—one that underscores the human need for dignity, justice, and relief from suffering.

The people of Gaza have become synonymous with resistance. Their ability to endure unspeakable hardship has turned them into symbols of perseverance. But as Daoud Kuttab, the award-winning Palestinian journalist, rightly points out, they are human, not superhuman. They feel pain, grieve for their loved ones, and grow frustrated when faced with endless injustice and global indifference. The latest protests are an expression of that frustration—a desperate call for attention to their plight.

The Breaking Point: Renewed Violence and Desperation

The situation in Gaza had seen a glimmer of hope in January when a long-overdue ceasefire was finally implemented. Displaced families began making their way back north, only to find their homes in ruins. With limited resources, they started clearing debris, hoping for the arrival of heavy machinery to remove the rubble and recover the bodies still trapped beneath. But just as they were attempting to rebuild their shattered lives, the ceasefire was abruptly shattered by an Israeli airstrike that killed 400 Palestinians, many of them women and children.

Israel justified the attack by claiming it targeted mid-level Hamas leaders. However, this massive escalation did more than eliminate specific individuals—it reignited a war that had already left Gaza on the brink of collapse. Many Palestinians had placed their faith in the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, expecting some degree of enforcement from the American administration. Instead, Washington chose silence, failing to hold Israel accountable for violating the agreement.

The attack was followed by an intensified blockade on humanitarian aid, leaving Gaza’s already-starving population in an even more dire situation. The Jordanian airdrops of food and medical supplies—though symbolic—failed to provide meaningful relief. As hunger and despair deepened, Gazans found themselves facing a cruel reality: neither the ceasefire nor the promises of humanitarian intervention could protect them.

A Response to Betrayal and Neglect

The frustration that erupted in the form of protests was not merely directed at Israel but also at Hamas. The people of Gaza expect their leaders to navigate crises with strategy and pragmatism, not just ideological steadfastness. In Beit Lahia, when Hamas fired a single symbolic rocket in response to Israeli violations, the Israeli military responded with overwhelming force, once again forcing civilians to evacuate their homes.

This cycle of suffering has tested the patience of even the most steadfast supporters of the resistance. For many Palestinians, the inability of Hamas to negotiate effectively or anticipate Israeli retaliations has become a source of anger. The protesters in Gaza were not only condemning Israeli aggression but also demanding that their leadership show better judgment in a conflict where the balance of power remains overwhelmingly against them.

Attempts to dismiss the protests as externally orchestrated—whether by Mohammed Dahlan’s faction or the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority—were quickly refuted by community leaders in Beit Lahia. These demonstrations were an organic expression of the people’s anger, not the result of political manipulation.

A Call for Immediate Action

Despite growing discontent with Hamas, the protests should not be misinterpreted as a rejection of Palestinian resistance. Rather, they reflect the urgency of a more strategic approach—one that recognizes the evolving geopolitical landscape. The recent shifts in Washington, Beirut, and beyond necessitate careful recalibration. While Palestinian resilience remains unshaken, the need for diplomatic maneuvering is becoming ever more apparent.

The ceasefire must be reinstated immediately. This is not just a demand for temporary relief but a necessity for survival. The ongoing blockade of food and medical supplies is a blatant war crime, and its continuation only serves to deepen Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. International law explicitly prohibits the use of starvation as a weapon of war, yet the global community has failed to enforce these laws when it comes to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A comprehensive political process must follow the ceasefire. The reconstruction of Gaza is essential, but it cannot happen in a vacuum. Any meaningful rebuilding effort must be accompanied by a serious peace initiative—one that includes the release of prisoners, restoration of basic human rights, and an end to the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Will the World Listen?

The protests in Gaza are more than just a reaction to immediate hardships; they are a plea for recognition. Palestinians are not just statistics in an ongoing conflict—they are human beings with emotions, aspirations, and the right to live in dignity. Their suffering has been met with indifference for far too long. It is time for the world to listen.

Arab nations must take a stronger stand. While public outrage in the region remains high, political action has been lacking. Diplomatic pressure on Israel must be increased, and unconditional support for its war policies must be challenged. The international community, too, must move beyond empty statements and push for tangible accountability.

The cries from Gaza should not be ignored. They serve as a stark reminder that this war is not just about military strategies or political power plays—it is about real lives being lost, real families being destroyed, and real suffering that must end. The time for action is now, before more innocent lives are lost to a conflict that has already claimed too many.

In his post, Al-Amari stated, “The Syrian army is supplying food and aid to Alawite families. This reflects the strength of the Syrian army. Syria belongs to everyone, and there should be no distinction between Sunni and Alawite. What truly matters is being a Syrian who loves their country”.

The video has sparked conversations about inclusivity in aid distribution, with many advocating for a fair allocation of resources to all affected communities, regardless of sectarian identity. While some view the move as a step toward strengthening social cohesion, others stress the need for aid to reach all displaced and war-affected Syrians.

This development comes amid President Ahmad Al-Shar’a’s recent address, in which he reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to justice and national unity.

“We will not tolerate the remnants of the Assad regime who have attacked civilians, hospitals, security forces, and security centers. The only option left for those remnants is to surrender to the law immediately”, President Al-Shar’a declared.

He further emphasized that accountability will be enforced without leniency for those involved in harming civilians, abusing power, or exploiting authority for personal gain.

“No one will be above the law. Anyone whose hands are stained with the blood of Syrians will face justice”, he affirmed.

The president also reiterated his stance on national unity, condemning any attempts to incite division.

“We criminalize any call or appeal that seeks to interfere in the affairs of our country or incite discord or division. Syria, with all its components, will remain united. We will not allow any party to undermine our national unity or disrupt civil peace”.

With both the journalist’s report and the president’s statement, the discourse on Syria’s path forward remains central. Observers highlight that fostering reconciliation and ensuring aid reaches all communities without bias will be key factors in Syria’s long-term stability and recovery.

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.