标签： Asia

After 40 consecutive days of cross-border strikes targeting Iranian industrial facilities, public infrastructure, educational institutions and healthcare facilities carried out by the United States and Israel, a landmark two-week ceasefire agreement reached between Tehran and Washington has triggered sharp internal backlash from Iran’s influential hardline principlist factions, who are demanding military operations continue rather than grant the opposing coalition time to recover. The deal, announced Tuesday, pauses all offensive military actions for 14 days to pave the way for a new round of diplomatic negotiations, but it has already faced fierce pushback from leading conservative voices in the country.

Hossein Shariatmadari, the high-profile conservative figure and editor-in-chief of hardline Iranian newspaper Kayhan, publicly condemned the ceasefire decision Wednesday, arguing it runs directly counter to core Iranian national interests. In his remarks, he argued that any pause in hostilities combined with new diplomatic talks would only serve as an unexpected opportunity for the US and Israel to regroup their military forces and replenish their supplies, calling the agreement nothing short of a strategic gift to Iran’s enemies. Shariatmadari also cast deep doubt on Washington’s willingness to honor any future deal, noting that even if the United States formally agrees to Iran’s negotiating terms, there is no enforceable guarantee the US side will follow through on its commitments. Pointing to on-the-ground conditions across battlefields, he added that current military indicators show the US-Israeli coalition is already overstretched and exhausted, while Iran holds a stronger strategic position. “We should not let the enemy go when it is out of breath,” Shariatmadari emphasized.

The divide over the ceasefire has spilled onto Iranian social media as well, where a pre-ceasefire interview clip broadcast on Iranian state television has gone viral across Persian-language platforms. In the footage, Mehdi Khanalizadeh, an international affairs analyst with close ties to principlist groups, criticized an earlier proposal for a 45-day ceasefire, warning that any extended pause would allow enemies that have pledged to target critical Iranian energy infrastructure to rebuild their military capacity and carry out devastating planned attacks.

While Iranian authorities have imposed restrictions on media coverage of the full scope of damage caused by the 40-day US-Israeli bombing campaign, independent domestic outlets have continued to publish on-the-ground accounts from rescue and relief teams working at strike sites. Reformist daily Shargh published harrowing firsthand testimony from rescue workers responding to air raids across the country. A Tehran-based rescue worker told the outlet the scenes of destruction were so devastating that he could not bring himself to describe the carnage to his own family, describing one particularly traumatic incident where only a partial human remains were recovered from rubble, leaving rescue workers to grapple with what the victim’s family would be forced to bury.

Another rescue worker described the grim recovery effort at a Minab primary school targeted in a so-called “double-tap” strike—an attack tactic where a second strike hits the same site shortly after the first, targeting first responders. That strike killed at least 165 people, the vast majority of whom were young schoolgirls between the ages of 7 and 12. Recounting the effort to recover a female teacher’s remains from the rubble, the worker told Shargh the body was so badly damaged it was unrecognizable, missing its head. “Everything was so unreal,” he said, adding that workers wrapped the remains in a classroom curtain pulled from the wreckage. The newspaper noted that the scale of destruction the team encountered was beyond what could be easily imagined.

Beyond internal Iranian political divisions, the conflict has sparked a high-profile embarrassment for pro-war Iranian exiles. A group of pro-monarchist Iranian exiles based in Canada, who were traveling to Washington DC to attend a pro-war rally supporting US military action against Iran, were denied entry to the United States by border officials. The group are supporters of Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s deposed Shah, who is openly backed by Israel and has repeatedly publicly supported US-led military strikes against the current Iranian government.

Canada-based pro-Pahlavi Persian-language magazine Kiosk first reported that US border agents turned away the majority of the traveling group on March 28. “Nine out of 12 buses carrying Iranians from Toronto, along with a large number of private cars heading to Washington, were unable to obtain entry permits. After hours of delays, they were turned back,” the magazine reported. The incident has triggered widespread mockery on Persian-language social media, where many pro-war exiles openly refer to US President Donald Trump as “Uncle Trump” for his anti-Iran government policies. One user wrote, “Their Uncle Trump did not receive them, despite all the praise they have given him during this time.” Another commenter added, “Those who betray their country for others will always be disgraced. A mercenary is a mercenary everywhere in the world.”

In a separate development, 320 Iranian political activists, civil society organizers, human rights advocates and university professors have signed an open letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee calling on the body to revoke the moral validity of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi. The signatories argue that Ebadi, a prominent Iranian lawyer and writer, has openly supported military action against Iran in recent years, including a pre-war letter she sent to President Trump explicitly calling for US military intervention in the country.

“The Nobel Foundation has always emphasised efforts for peace, human rights, coexistence and the rejection of violence,” the open letter reads. “However, in recent years, Shirin Ebadi’s positions have been in clear contradiction with these values.” The letter draws a parallel between Ebadi and former Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, who faced widespread international condemnation for her silence on the campaign of ethnic violence against the Rohingya minority. The letter notes that Ebadi herself previously criticized Aung San Suu Kyi for failing to condemn what she called ethnic cleansing, and urged the Myanmar leader to uphold the core values of the Nobel Peace Prize. “Today, Ebadi finds herself in a similar position, one that is even more concerning,” the letter concludes.

Hours after the United States brokered a tentative two-week ceasefire between Israel and Iran, the fragile agreement already faces imminent collapse, as competing interpretations of the deal’s terms and a devastating new wave of Israeli airstrikes have exposed deep cracks in the diplomatic process. In the 24 hours following the ceasefire announcement, hundreds of Lebanese civilians and combatants were killed in Israeli air raids across the country, a move that directly contradicts Iran’s core condition for the truce and raises urgent questions about whether the agreement can survive its first week.

The core dispute at the heart of the emerging crisis centers on Lebanon’s status in the deal. Iran has repeatedly demanded that an end to all hostilities in Lebanon be a non-negotiable component of the ceasefire, while Israel maintains that the truce only applies to the main open conflict between the two states and excludes military operations against Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. This disagreement is no trivial miscommunication: it cuts to the heart of decades of proxy conflict that has defined Israeli-Iranian tensions across the Middle East.

To understand why Lebanon has become the make-or-break issue for this ceasefire, it is necessary to unpack the long-running regional power dynamic that has shaped the conflict. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Iranian government has poured funding and weapons into anti-Israel armed movements across the region, building a network of proxy forces that include Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. For Israel, these proxies represent an ongoing existential security threat, positioned far closer to Israeli population centers than Iran’s formal military.

Over the course of its modern history, Israel has prioritized establishing expanded security buffer zones along its borders to neutralize these threats. Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in 2024, Israeli forces quickly moved into a demilitarized buffer zone in southwest Syria, extending their security footprint. Since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, Israel has launched intensive military campaigns against both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, treating the two proxy groups as equal threats to Israeli security. Though both groups have suffered heavy losses over the past two years of conflict, they remain operational, and the Netanyahu government has seized on the broader war with Iran to push for a permanent expanded buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Analysts widely agree that Netanyahu is highly unlikely to abandon this territorial and security goal, and it remains unclear whether U.S. President Donald Trump has any interest in or ability to pressure him to reverse course.

The current crisis, analysts argue, was largely inevitable given the Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. The White House has shown no willingness to address the deep-rooted intractable issues that lie at the core of Middle Eastern tensions, instead prioritizing a quick exit from a conflict that has become deeply unpopular with U.S. voters. With Trump’s approval ratings sitting at record lows, the administration has rushed to frame a messy partial truce as a diplomatic victory, even as it leaves the core status quo that sparked the war completely intact.

Unless the U.S. can force Israel to halt its operations in Lebanon and bring Netanyahu into compliance with Iran’s terms, the two-week ceasefire will almost certainly collapse within days. For Iran, a halt to fighting in Lebanon is not just a tactical concession: protecting its proxy network is central to the ideological identity of the regime, which has defined itself in opposition to Israel and U.S. influence in the region for decades. As negotiations begin for a potential long-term peace deal, Lebanon will remain the critical sticking point, and as long as the underlying antagonisms driving regional conflict remain unaddressed, there is little prospect of lasting stability.

The Trump administration’s exit strategy is fundamentally flawed, critics argue, because it ignores the core historical and political issues that have shaped the conflict. The president’s primary priority is not resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue or defusing long-running Israeli-Iranian tensions, but rather extricating the U.S. from a war that has dragged on longer than expected and become a major political liability at home. This shift in priorities explains why the administration has reversed course on Iran’s 10-point negotiating framework, which Trump previously dismissed as “not good enough” but now calls a “workable basis” for talks.

Even a cursory look at the terms of Iran’s proposal shows that it includes core demands that the U.S. could never reasonably accept, such as full Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s continued right to enrich uranium – a right that directly contradicts the stated core goal of the U.S.-led war: preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. By moving ahead with talks on this basis, the Trump administration is creating the illusion of progress to justify a hasty exit, rather than securing tangible concessions that would lead to real peace.

In practice, the U.S. has already ceded significant ground to Iran, which has shown no willingness to compromise on its core demands. While Iran’s conventional military capacity to project power across the region has been diminished by the war, its ideological commitment to opposing Israel and the U.S. remains unchanged. With the two-week ceasefire in place, the most likely outcome is that the U.S. will withdraw claiming victory, leaving a trail of destruction in the region and the same underlying tensions that sparked the conflict still in place, setting the stage for future rounds of tit-for-tat violence between Israel and Iran.

In a formal online press briefing held Thursday, China’s Ministry of National Defense has categorically denied unsubstantiated media claims that Chinese entities have provided chip manufacturing equipment and intelligence assistance to Iran’s military, labeling the assertions outright false information.

Spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang addressed the allegations during the briefing, which centered on two specific claims: first, that Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC) had supplied chipmaking gear to Iran’s armed forces, and second, that a Chinese commercial satellite firm had intentionally distributed imagery of United States military installations across the Middle East.

Zhang emphasized that Beijing maintains a firm stance against the circulation of speculative, insinuating, and factually incorrect content crafted to target China. He also pushed back against recent remarks from United States officials, who claimed they had detected coordinated efforts by both China and Russia to bolster Iran’s military capabilities and were prepared to take responsive measures if deemed necessary.

“China’s position on the Iran issue is open, aboveboard, and completely clear,” Zhang stated. “We have long maintained an objective and impartial stance, consistently working to advance peace negotiations and de-escalation, and we have never at any point added fuel to the fire of regional tensions.”

The spokesperson further pointed out that the international community has a clear-eyed view of which powers engage in duplicitous rhetoric versus action, and which actors have been the root cause of widespread war and conflict across the globe. The statement comes amid rising geopolitical scrutiny of major powers’ engagements in the Middle East, as Washington has repeatedly sought to level unsubstantiated accusations against Beijing regarding its regional activities.

Updated on April 9, 2026, the formal denial reaffirms China’s longstanding commitment to regional stability and diplomatic resolution of the ongoing tensions surrounding Iran.

One of Islam’s most sacred religious sites, Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem, has reopened its gates to Palestinian worshippers after an extraordinary 41-day closure ordered by Israeli authorities, a shutdown that spanned the major Muslim holidays of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr.

When the first dawn Fajr prayer was held on Thursday morning, more than 3,000 Palestinian worshippers gathered inside the mosque’s sprawling courtyards to worship for the first time since the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran began on February 28. Viral footage circulated on social media captured jubilant crowds streaming through the reopened gates, their relief and joy palpable after the weeks of forced exclusion. Preparations for the reopening had begun days earlier, with volunteer teams and mosque custodians working to clean and restore the site ahead of worshippers’ return.

Israeli officials have justified the total closure, which blocked all Palestinian Muslim access even for weekly Friday prayers, by citing security risks tied to the conflict with Iran. But Palestinian leaders and community members have openly questioned this justification, pointing out that Israeli authorities allowed large-scale gatherings for Jewish religious holidays were permitted to proceed elsewhere in the region throughout the closure. Many Palestinians argue Israel is using the war on Iran as a cover to tighten its unilateral control over the site, altering longstanding rules governing access, opening hours, and permitted religious activities.

Al-Aqsa Mosque, located within Jerusalem’s walled Old City, has been governed for decades by the international Status Quo agreement, a framework that explicitly recognizes the site’s Islamic identity and grants exclusive authority to Muslim religious bodies for all matters of access, worship, and site maintenance. However, this longstanding arrangement has been repeatedly eroded by Israeli actions, including frequent incursions and unauthorised prayer by ultranationalist Jewish groups, carried out under armed Israeli police protection. The international community almost universally considers Israel’s 1967 annexation and ongoing occupation of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as a violation of international law, which holds that occupying powers cannot claim sovereignty over captured territory and are barred from imposing permanent structural changes.

The developments following the mosque’s reopening have already raised fresh alarms about escalating Israeli changes to the site. Within hours of worshippers completing Thursday’s dawn prayer, Israeli authorities allowed a new expanded schedule of daily incursions by ultranationalist groups, extending the total daily duration of these visits. On the first day of reopening, dozens of ultranationalist visitors entered the site shortly after 6:30 a.m. local time, immediately after Palestinian worshippers were cleared from the area. Video footage shows the visitors conducting unauthorised prayers and dances inside the mosque compound, surrounded by a heavy detachment of armed Israeli police.

The practice of regular, guarded incursions traces back to 2003, during the Second Palestinian Intifada, and was formalized in 2008 when a limited morning visits of up to three hours were institutionalized. Over the following decades, both the number of participants and the duration of daily visits have grown steadily. Before the recent closure, incursions were split into two daily shifts on weekdays: 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Under a new schedule approved prior to the February assault on Iran, incursions now run from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., totaling six and a half hours of daily access for ultranationalist groups, a major expansion from prior arrangements.

The Jerusalem Governorate has condemned the extended incursion schedule as a dangerous escalation that further undermines the fragile Status Quo agreement. In an official statement following the reopening, the Governorate noted: “The extension reflects an acceleration in efforts to impose new realities at Al-Aqsa Mosque and entrench time-based division, particularly following its reopening after a 40-day closure.”

This report was originally published by independent outlet Middle East Eye, which specializes in original coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

In a recent official statement reported by China Daily on April 9, 2026, a spokesperson for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China has publicly called out Japan’s growing military ambitions, bringing long-simmering regional concerns about Tokyo’s shifting defense posture into the global spotlight.

Over the past decade, Japan has steadily eroded the constraints of its post-World War II pacifist constitution, expanding the scope and operational capacity of its self-defense forces beyond what regional stakeholders have long considered acceptable boundaries. Recent policy shifts, including significant increases in defense spending, plans to acquire long-range strike capabilities, and closer military integration with extra-regional powers, have accelerated this trajectory, raising alarms across East Asia.

The PLA spokesperson emphasized that these incremental moves are not, as Japanese officials have repeatedly claimed, simple adjustments to address modern security challenges. Instead, they represent a deliberate, long-term push to rewrite the post-war regional security order and rebuild a large-scale offensive military capability that threatens the sovereignty and security of neighboring countries. For nations that suffered from Japanese militarist expansion in the 20th century, the accelerating military buildup is seen as a dangerous departure from decades of pacifist policy that requires close and constant vigilance.

Regional analysts note that the public statement from the PLA spokesperson reflects a broad consensus within China that Tokyo’s military ambitions can no longer be downplayed. As Japan continues to push for greater military power projection beyond its own borders, the risk of miscalculation and heightened tension across the East Asian region is projected to grow, making transparent monitoring of its military policy shifts more critical than ever for regional peace and stability.