Operation Epic Fury - Déjà Vu

Operation Epic Fury - Déjà Vu

by Tyler Durden
Monday, Mar 09, 2026 - 10:45 AM


Authored by Martin A. Perryman via RealClearDefense,



In February, the Republican President, after conducting military operations against the government of a foreign power, appealed directly to the armed forces and to the citizens to rise and overthrow the regime. While this sounds ripped from Saturday’s headlines, it occurred in 1991, the President was George H. W. Bush, the foreign power was Iraq, and the encouragement was directed to the Kurdish population of the northern provinces.



The Kurds answered the call, believing the regime was ripe for change. In March and April, the uncoordinated uprising, consisting of several disgruntled factions, enjoyed initial success but failed to consolidate and organize. The regime, still formidable, rebounded and crushed the rebellion, leaving tens of thousands dead and nearly two million displaced. The U.S., after encouraging the uprising, stood quietly by.

While it is likely that the majority of U.S. citizens have long forgotten this incident, it is equally likely that the majority of the people in the Middle East have not.

This past weekend, President Trump, in coordination with Israel, ordered military strikes on military and leadership targets at multiple sites in Iran. Reports have confirmed that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed and there may be more leadership casualties in the wreckage. Like President Bush before him, he made a similar appeal to the Iranian military and people, once these initial strikes subside, to rise and overthrow the government.

This is unlikely to happen.

First, the Iranian regime is far from devastated. The 86-year-old Ayatollah most certainly had a succession plan in place, and the regime has a fairly deep bench. While the loss of critical leadership in its foreign proxies has dramatically limited its ability to conduct operations abroad, that does not hold true domestically. There are plenty of loyalists ready to fill any leadership gaps left by U.S. and Israeli strikes. While degraded, the regime will remain effective and solidly in power.

Second, the Iranian people have not forgotten the lesson learned by the Kurds, therefore an uprising is extremely unlikely. If it did take place, it would need logistical support, organization, and leadership to succeed. These appear to be in short supply. The U.S. is powerless to assist with more than token support.

This is because, unlike President Bush, who chose not to use the significant forces, to include ground forces available in the region, President Trump has limited forces and no ground forces available. He must rely on bluster and bombs. Air power, be it conventional, missiles, or drones, in isolation, has never achieved a strategic objective. The resulting mismatch in capabilities and objectives creates strategic over-reach.

This reality of geography helps explains several things. Iran is a large country, roughly the size of the U.S. state of Alaska. A sizable portion is mountainous. Those mountains define the borders of the country and help explain the longevity of political and cultural Persia across millennium. The territory is extremely difficult to invade and would be almost impossible to control for any amount of time. It is the reason this most recent incident will not expand into a larger regional war of any significance. It dramatically limits U.S. and Israeli strike options, and it precludes any significant external assistance to an internal insurgency.

The most likely scenario is a few more rounds of bombing back and forth. A few Americans serving in the region will die and so will many Iranians. Then the President will declare victory, rinse and repeat. There is no scenario where the U.S. will commit sufficient resources to a force a change in the internal dynamics of Iran. If those resources were to ever be sent for that purpose, recent history regarding Iraq and Afghanistan teaches us that it is most likely doomed to fail.

Martin A. Perryman, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, is a defense and foreign policy expert.

The Oil Island That Could Break Iran

The Oil Island That Could Break Iran

by Tyler Durden
Monday, Mar 09, 2026 - 11:55 AM


Authored by Scott Walden via E&E News,


One of President Donald Trump’s most potent moves for crippling the Iranian regime may involve seizing a tiny island where gazelles run free near oil infrastructure.



The 5-mile strip of land known as Kharg Island is home to Iran’s most important oil facility, an export terminal in the Persian Gulf that handles up to 90 percent of the nation’s crude. It’s a cornerstone of Iran’s economy and a major source of revenue for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a pillar of the regime that experts say could put down the kind of public uprising that Trump has called for.

If Trump intends to intensify pressure on Iran outside of missile strikes and bombings, seizing Kharg Island would deprive the regime of a key funding source for controlling the population, said Michael Rubin, a senior Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq in the George W. Bush administration. He said he has been communicating with White House officials about the strategic importance of the island.

“If they can’t sell their own oil, they can’t make payroll,” said Rubin, who is now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

“No matter how much we bomb, there’s not going to be regime change until we fracture the Revolutionary Guard, and if this can be a fairly nonviolent way of doing it, all the better,” he added.

Oil is the lifeblood of the Revolutionary Guard. About half of the nation’s $50 billion oil industry is controlled by the force, Reuters has reported. That includes a ghost fleet of oil tankers that take its sanctioned crude abroad, mostly to China.

Rubin, who has been in contact with administration officials about seizing Kharg, said his recommendations have been circulated within the National Security Council. He believes Trump is relying on a small circle of advisers, and it’s not clear if they’re aware of the island’s strategic importance, Rubin said.

“If they themselves aren’t familiar with Kharg, then it doesn’t matter what the State Department desk or the CIA knows about Iran,” he said. “It’s not going to percolate up.”

Neither the White House nor the National Security Council responded to requests for comment.

In the weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched their attacks, Iran ramped up oil production at Kharg.

The facility’s output was pushed to almost record levels, at about 4 million barrels per day, according to Kpler, an energy industry data firm. That marked an explosive increase from its baseline of about 1.5 million barrels a day. Iran hasn’t exported that much oil since 2018, when Trump reimposed nuclear sanctions on the country, the firm found.

American and Israeli forces have tried to avoid striking Iran’s oil infrastructure, according to a former Trump energy adviser who was granted anonymity to talk about current discussions.

“If the goal is to transition quickly to a new government, we would not want to destroy that infrastructure,” said the former official, who argued that seizing Kharg so early in the campaign carries risks to American forces.

“They are inflicting problems on themselves anyway,” the adviser said, referring to Iran.

“Once their missile and drone threats have been neutralized, then perhaps.”

Kharg Island has long been viewed by Iran’s opponents as a vulnerability for the regime.

During the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, then-President Jimmy Carter was advised that seizing Kharg could provide leverage against the regime. He chose not to act. His successor, President Ronald Reagan, destroyed other offshore export facilities in the 1980s when Iran mined the Straits of Hormuz. He left Kharg untouched. Then, the oil terminal was partially destroyed by Iraqi forces during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, but it was quickly rebuilt.

It’s unlikely that American or Israeli forces would intentionally damage Kharg, said Ellen Wald, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. She argued that it could trigger a wave of Iranian retaliation against energy infrastructure across the region, driving up oil prices worldwide.

“As long as Iran has the ability to get oil out, it’s not going to try to take that ability away from anyone else, because it knows that once it does that, its oil infrastructure will get destroyed,” Wald said. “It’s sort of this mutually assured destruction, so nobody will do anything.”

Chai made a 'wanted' man as Madani faces growing scrutiny over MACC

Chai made a 'wanted' man as Madani faces growing scrutiny over MACC

S Thayaparan
Published: Mar 9, 2026 10:04 AM
Updated: 1:04 PM



“However, the suggestion that Rafizi (Ramli) and his team derived personal gain from this deal is far-fetched. To equate the Arm (Holdings PLC) deal with 1MDB is like a ‘cerita dongeng’ - a fairy tale that no rational person could believe.”

- DAP’s Puchong MP Yeo Bee Yin

COMMENT | The state’s harassment of James Chai, a former aide to ex-economy minister Rafizi Ramli and a small cog in the bloated bureaucracy of Malaysia, is further evidence of Madani attempting to create a counter-narrative to the allegations facing MACC, specifically its head honcho, Azam Baki.

The MACC’s ludicrous explanation of why Chai has become a “wanted person”, supposedly because attempts to contact him on WhatsApp were blocked, is the kind of incompetent leadership that further deepens the public’s mistrust of the MACC.

Make no mistake, if the state was genuine in wanting to make contact with Chai, it has the methods and means to do so.

All we have to do is revisit what Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said in an interview with Sinar Harian more than a decade ago about the reach and influence of the state security apparatus.

“Jangan memandang rendah kepada kerajaan kerana mereka ada kuasa, ada televisyen, radio, duit, dan media. Mereka juga ada alat-alat risikan dan sebagainya.”

(Don’t look down on the government because they have power - they have the television, radio, money, and the media. They also have spy equipment and the like.)

Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

Hence, Madani, as the inheritor of the means and methods of how Umno sustained power, is in no position to claim that it is unaware of how to contact Chai.

Any rational person will understand that the intent of this “wanted person” notice was to intimidate and warn others of the pitfalls of going against state narratives.

The prime minister and various factotums of Madani have rebuffed allegations of the supposed “corporate mafia” because they are merely hearsay, but the MACC is quick to smear Chai’s name and a few others in police reports lodged.

The fact that DAP has said there needs to be a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) on these issues, and Bersih and other prominent longtime activists have argued the same, demonstrates that reformasi is not only dead but buried.

Chai wrote that Anwar made him believe in something. He is not the only one.

Anwar made many Malaysians, especially the non-Malay community, believe in something. And these were not lofty goals. These were baseline democratic norms and traditions, which were eroded after decades of Umno rule.


Other ministers must also face questioning

If this were a serious investigation, then perhaps we should pay attention to what Chai wrote, specifically this:

“On the first day of KL20, April 22, 2024, Arm Holdings’ team was urgently invited to see the prime minister at his office. I was not in that meeting, but from the photos I found on Instagram, several ministers like Gobind Singh Deo, Zambry Abdul Kadir, Fahmi Fadzil, ex-minister Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz, and other high-ranking government officials were present.”

What I want to know is, have all those people in that meeting been questioned by the MACC? After all, if you are going to investigate a former minister and his team, would it not be logical to question every other minister who was part of the proceedings of the Arm Holdings deal?

And we have to wonder why Fahmi, who was at that meeting, is keeping silent on this issue.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil


Investigating a former minister and his team is not something that a government should take lightly, but seeing as how this was instigated by a police report and the MACC takes such allegations deathly seriously, shouldn’t all ministers involved, either directly or indirectly with this deal, be questioned?


Or is this solely a Rafizi issue?

Keep in mind that this was a deal which was signed at a public event attended by the big cheeses of Madani. So this idea that this was some sort of backroom deal orchestrated by Rafizi and his team, for self-profit, is, as the Puchong MP Yeo Bee Yin said, a cerita dongeng (fairy tale) - much like reformasi, I suppose.


Racial and political bias

Another point to consider in all of this is the racial angle. Chai wrote of the “type-C is corrupt“ angle. Keep in mind that in the alleged corporate mafia, it was alleged that Azam was colluding with a cartel of Chinese businesspeople.

Folks have been sending me these screenshots and narratives on various social media platforms, of how a narrative is being formed that institutions are being corrupted by the Chinese monied class. This, of course, is typical ketuanan (supremacist) methodology.

And so is using government machinery and democratic processes to go after detractors. Anwar should know this, and so should DAP.

Remember in 2017 when the Umno state launched a witch hunt targeting former premier Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar for the forex losses.

From reportage:

“Yesterday, Anwar, who was the finance minister during that period, denied he had suggested the need to cover up the actual losses. Anwar refuted former Bank Negara assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalid’s claim that Anwar told him he would need to resign as finance minister if the figure was made public.”

Now I am sure Chai had his eyes opened in his brief time in the government. But I also know this - the state is targeting him because it is hoping he is a weak link. But I believe that he is made of sterner stuff.

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

Hamzah, gang urged to return to Umno

Hamzah, gang urged to return to Umno


Umno supreme council member Razlan Rafii has urged opposition chief Hamzah Zainudin and his supporters to return to the party instead of setting up a new one and further dividing Malays

Umno leader Razlan Rafii


"If we were to set up another Malay-based entity or party, it would not help unite the Malays... it just won't happen. Our objective in setting up the idea of 'Rumah Bangsa' is to invite as many as possible out there to come under Umno's umbrella.

"Not only Hamzah and the gang, others who are with smaller parties out there should also disband their parties and return to Umno, no problem," he told reporters after a breaking fast event in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

The call came as rumours were abuzz that Hamzah, who was recently sacked from Bersatu following an internal power struggle with party president Muhyiddin Yassin, was planning to either establish or join another political platform.

Reporting by Haspaizi Zain

Trump vows control over Iran leaders as officials seek to calm oil concerns

Trump vows control over Iran leaders as officials seek to calm oil concerns


Any new supreme leader in Iran will ‘not last long’ without US approval, Trump says; officials say oil disruptions ‘temporary’

United States President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listens while traveling aboard Air Force One [Mark Schiefelbein/The Associated Press]

By Al Jazeera Staff
Published On 8 Mar 2026


United States President Donald Trump has again promised to exert influence over who is selected as Iran’s next Supreme Leader, saying that, without Washington’s approval, whoever is picked for the role is “not going to last long”.

The statement on Sunday came just hours after a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts said the clerical body had selected the replacement for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the hours after the US and Israel launched the war with Iran on February 28.

“He’s going to have to get approval from us,” Trump told ABC News, referring to a new supreme leader. “If he doesn’t get approval from us, he’s not going to last long.”

Trump added that he didn’t want future administrations to have “to go back” in the years ahead, an apparent reference to future military action.

“I don’t want people to have to go back in five years and have to do the same thing again, or worse, let them have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Officials in Iran, which has launched retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, have repeatedly rejected the notion of Washington asserting influence over the selection.



Trump, Xi to hold high-stakes talks as US strikes on Iran test fragile US–China trade ties



How Iran’s ballistic missiles reach Israel despite advanced air defence systems



Who's in control in Iran and how will Gulf states react to attacks?


Earlier on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi again vowed “we will allow nobody to interfere in our domestic affairs”.

“This is up to the Iranian people to elect their new leader,” he said, adding that Iranians had elected the Assembly of Experts, which will select the next supreme leader.

Oman says nuclear talks were ‘making progress’

Trump’s comments came as the war entered its ninth day, with the death toll in Iran rising to 1,332, with at least 11 killed across the Gulf, 11 killed in Israel, and six US soldiers killed to date.

The US president has offered shifting justifications for the war, repeatedly pointing to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its ballistic missile programme, as well as the totality of Iran’s actions in the region since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Critics, including the majority of Democratic US lawmakers, have said Trump has provided scant evidence to prove Iran posed an immediate threat.



Trump threatens to expand attacks in Iran, claims Tehran's military capability 'wiped out'


On Sunday, Oman Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who had been overseeing indirect US-Iran talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, again rejected US officials’ claims that Tehran had not entered into the negotiations in good faith.

Speaking during a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, Albusaidi said diplomatic initiatives seeking a “fair and honourable solution were making progress” when the US-Israeli attacks began.

He further warned that the region is facing “a dangerous turning point” as fighting escalates.
‘Short-term disruption’

Attacks from both sides appeared to have widened, with the US and Israel for the first time striking oil storage and refining facilities in Tehran, and Iran launching more strikes across the Gulf, including a drone attack that caused material damage to a desalination plant in Bahrain.

Both Bloomberg and Axios news have reported that the US and Israel have considered a special ground operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium, with Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter telling CBS’s Face the Nation news programme that securing the nuclear fuel is “on our radar screen and we’re going to take care of it”.

For their part, top Trump administration officials spent Sunday seeking to alleviate concerns over the war’s knock-on effects on global oil and gas prices.

Rapidly rising prices represent a particular political vulnerability for Trump as his Republican Party faces legislative midterm elections in November.

Speaking to Fox News, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the administration was responding to what she called a “short-term disruption”.



US public approval of Iran war hits 27 percent, lower than Vietnam War


She said the administration was “tapping into our newfound market in Venezuela”, referring to access US companies had gained to the South American country’s oil industry in the wake of the January 3 US abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

Energy experts have said that rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry would likely be a multi-year process, and have questioned what immediate impact it could have in offsetting current shortages.

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, Energy Secretary Chris Wright also maintained that the war would not drag on and that any economic fallout would be fleeting.

Trump, who came into office vowing to end so-called “endless wars”, has said the operations against Iran could last “four to five weeks”, but he also said the conflict has “no time limit”.

Wright pointed to “a temporary period of elevated energy prices”, but denied there was an energy shortage “at all in the Western Hemisphere”.

He also underscored that the US has 400 million gallons of oil in the strategic oil reserves and the administration is “more than happy to use that if it’s needed”.

“What you want is emotional reactions and fear that this is a long-term war,” Wright said. “This is not a long-term war; it’s a temporary movement.”

***

The idiotic pedophile thinks he is Emperor of the World

Israel escalates attacks across Lebanon as two soldiers killed

Israel escalates attacks across Lebanon as two soldiers killed

Israeli military confirms first fatalities in Lebanon a week after fighting resumes with Hezbollah.

Smoke rises from an Israeli air strike on Dahiyeh, Beirut's southern suburbs [Hassan Ammar/AP]
By News Agencies

Published On 8 Mar 2026


Two Israeli soldiers have been killed in southern Lebanon, the country’s first fatalities since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah resumed last week.

The soldiers died on Sunday in combat, the Israeli military said.

“Master Sergeant Maher Khatar, aged 38, from Majdal Shams … fell during combat in southern Lebanon,” the military said, confirming that a second soldier died in the same incident.

The deaths came as Israel widened its military campaign in Lebanon, striking for the first time into the heart of Beirut, a significant escalation in a conflict that has killed 394 people in Lebanon in a week, including 83 children, 42 women and nine rescue workers, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.

Beirut targeted

Early on Sunday, an Israeli drone struck a hotel room in Raouche, a seafront neighbourhood of the Lebanese capital popular with tourists and, more recently, with thousands of displaced Lebanese who had fled fighting elsewhere.

At least four people were killed 10 were wounded, Lebanese health officials said.

Israel said the attack targeted senior commanders of Iran’s elite Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“The commanders of the Quds Force’s Lebanon Corps operated to advance terror attacks against the state of Israel,” the Israeli military said.

Raouche had been spared during Israel and Hezbollah’s last war, which ended with a ceasefire in November 2024 although Israel had engaged in near-daily violations of the agreement.

Lebanon was pulled back into war on Monday when Hezbollah fired rockets and drones into Israel in response to the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in joint Israeli-United States air strikes last month.

Israel responded with a ferocious air assault across the south, east and Beirut’s southern suburbs. Israeli ground forces, meanwhile, have been pushing into southern Lebanon, seizing hilltops near the border.

Tanks and armoured bulldozers have been massing at the frontier, fuelling fears of a full-scale Israeli invasion.

Hezbollah has continued launching rockets and drones into northern Israel daily, saying its forces were involved in clashes with Israeli troops near the border town of Aitaroun on Sunday.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah, said “there are now serious concerns being raised” in Israel about attacks being launched from Lebanon.

“There is no advanced notice for these northern communities. They have a few seconds to rush to the shelters, and there is now consideration of evacuating those northern communities.”

Hezbollah, Odeh said, has been able to target cities as far as Nahariya and Haifa as its forces battle Israel. “Haifa, that strategic city which has a lot of military and intelligence assets, is also being targeted by Hezbollah and Iran.”

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said, “Our country has been drawn into a devastating war that we did not seek and did not choose,” warning that the scale of displacement could produce “unprecedented” humanitarian and political consequences.

Israel said it has killed about 200 Hezbollah fighters since hostilities resumed.

The armed group has not published its own toll.

Final whistle: FAM's reputation in tatters after sports court defeat

Final whistle: FAM's reputation in tatters after sports court defeat

R Nadeswaran
Published: Mar 6, 2026 5:03 PM
Updated: 8:03 PM



COMMENT | The bravado, relentless declarations of defiance, assertions of innocence, invincibility, and unwavering confidence, have finally collapsed with a resounding thud.

For months, voices from within and outside the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) maintained a posture of bold resistance, dismissing any suggestion of wrongdoing. But yesterday, in Lausanne, Switzerland, that pretence was dismantled.

Over the past five months, millions of Malaysians watched with disbelief as the obvious signs of government collusion emerged. For many, it was the first time they had witnessed, up close, how the law could be bent - and, in some instances, broken - to serve the interests of a select few.

That spectacle came to an end yesterday when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld Fifa’s sanctions against FAM and seven naturalised players who had represented Harimau Malaya using false or forged documents.

Facundo Garces, Rodrigo Holgado, Imanol Machuca, Joao Figueiredo, Gabriel Palmero, Jon Irazabal, and Hector Hevel must now serve a 12-month suspension. Their only reprieve: they may continue training with their respective clubs.

When first sanctioned in September last year, Fifa’s Disciplinary Committee said FAM had submitted falsified documents to confirm the players’ eligibility, enabling them to feature for Malaysia in the third round of the 2027 Asian Cup Qualifiers against Vietnam on June 10.

The committee held: “Using fraudulent documentation to allow a player to compete constitutes, pure and simple, a form of cheating, which cannot in any way be condoned.

“Such conduct erodes trust in the fairness of competitions and jeopardises the very essence of football as an activity founded on honesty and transparency.”

The conclusion was that none of the grandparents of the players was born in Malaysia, as Fifa through their own investigations, had possession of the original certificates.


Not a mistake, but fraud

FAM put forward a defence of a “technical error” by its administrative staff. Its then-acting president, Yusoff Mahadi, stressed that all documentation and procedures had been submitted transparently in accordance with the prescribed guidelines.

However, the words used by the committee were telling enough to prompt Takiyuddin Hassan, the chief Parliament whip for the opposition Perikatan Nasional coalition, to state that the scandal went beyond “routine administrative errors”.

Football Association of Malaysia former acting president Yusoff Mahadi


“This is not a technical mistake, but a deliberate act of fraud,” he said.

Still defiant and proclaiming innocence, FAM appealed, but again, it was dismissed by Fifa’s Appeals Committee. Reaffirming the damning verdict from Fifa’s Disciplinary Committee - consigning the nation’s football administrators to the bottom of the heap and concluding that “Malaysia used forged documents”.

Former deputy law minister Hanipa Maidin said that if he were representing FAM, his advice would be straightforward - don’t waste time or money challenging the decision on the “heritage” players issue.

He made these observations after reviewing the full written judgment issued by the appeal committee, a detailed document spanning 64 pages and 304 paragraphs.

But what did they have to persuade CAS to overrule Fifa? Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

Entering battle with manufactured lies

Undeterred by calls to accept the decision, FAM was defiant, saying it would take its challenge to the CAS, and Yusoff described it as “a major war” to defend Malaysia’s footballing reputation, declaring that all resources would be used.

But what kind of war is this, when the generals march in empty-handed? The birth certificates of the players’ grandparents presented by FAM are forged. CAS will have access to the originals, and FAM will be left with egg - not honour - on their faces.

The curtain has finally fallen, and the fat lady will not sing. Staring down the firing squad is the institution that gambled its credibility on forged papers.

FAM marched into battle armed not with truth but with manufactured lies, and now the war they declared has ended not in triumph but in ridicule.

The irony is brutal: in trying to defend the nation’s pride, FAM has bartered it away for cheap tricks. CAS was not swayed by doctored documents, and when the originals surfaced, FAM was left naked before the world - egg dripping from its face, dignity shattered, reputation in tatters.

This was not football administration; it was the theatre of the absurd, staged by men who mistook forgery for strategy.

And so, the verdict echoes louder than any whistle blown on the pitch: Malaysia’s football crisis is not about talent, but about truth.

And the truth, unlike forged papers, cannot be hidden in a drawer. It will expose, it will shame, and it will demand accountability. The war FAM chose to fight was lost - not on the field, but in the courtroom of integrity.

In tennis parlance, it was game, set, and match to Fifa.



R NADESWARAN is an award-winning journalist whose journalistic career has spanned more than five decades. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com

***

I have been invincibly shocked by the brazenness, effrontery, insolence, shamelessness, rhino-hide thick face-skin, rudeness of FAM in appealing and then even going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to appeal against FIFA's decision to sanction FAM for fraud in the matter of the so-called "heritage players".

The final word in this very shameful episode for Malaysian sports is "WTF"!

Iran hits critical infrastructure across five Gulf states as regional war spirals into civilian crisis

Iran hits critical infrastructure across five Gulf states as regional war spirals into civilian crisis



This handout satellite image shows damage following a drone attack on a high-rise apartment building in Manama, Bahrain on March 2, 2026. — Vantor/AFP pic

Sunday, 08 Mar 2026 5:11 PM MYT


KUWAIT CITY, March 8 — Iran struck Gulf infrastructure on Sunday, hitting fuel tanks at Kuwait’s international airport and damaging a desalination plant in Bahrain as Tehran pressed its missile and drone campaign against its neighbours into a second week.

Two border guards were also killed “while performing their national duty”, Kuwait’s interior ministry said without elaborating on the circumstances.


Neighbouring countries have borne much of Tehran’s response after the US and Israel launched a massive air campaign against Iran, with 16 people, eight of them civilians, killed in the Gulf states since the war began, according to an AFP tally.

Iran President Massoud Pezeshkian warned Sunday that the Islamic republic “will be forced to respond” against neighbouring countries if their territory is used to attack it.


On Saturday the president had apologised to neighbouring countries hosting US military bases for attacks on their territory.


Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait all reported new attacks, after loud explosions were heard in Dubai and Bahrain’s Manama a day earlier.

Fuel tanks at Kuwait’s international airport were targeted in a drone attack, the military said.


The official Kuwait News Agency said a fire at the airport was brought under control, reporting no “significant injuries”.

The military called the drone attack “a direct targeting of vital infrastructure”.

A separate statement said “some civilian facilities sustained material damage as a result of falling fragments and debris from interception operations”.


‘Drone threats’

Kuwait’s national oil company announced a “precautionary” cut to its crude production, as the country’s military said Sunday that it had responded to several drone and missile attacks.

Authorities said Kuwait’s main building for social security was targeted, causing material damage, and that it would not receive visitors there on Sunday.

Bahrain’s interior ministry said Sunday that an Iranian drone attack damaged a water desalination plant, accusing Tehran of “randomly” targeting civilian infrastructure.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps said on Saturday that it had struck the United States’ Juffair base in Bahrain, adding it had been used to attack an Iranian desalination plant earlier in the day.

Bahrain’s national communication office later said the Iranian attack on a water desalination facility has had no impact on water supplies or network capacity.

Falling missile debris also injured three people and damaged a university building in the Muharraq area, the interior ministry said in a separate statement.

Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry said on Sunday that it intercepted 33 drones, adding there were no reports of damage or casualties from the attacks.

Among them was a drone targeting Riyadh’s diplomatic quarter, thwarted with no material damage or civilian injuries, the ministry’s spokesman said, adding the capital and surrounding areas were targeted by 26 drones.

One drone targeted the Shaybah oil field in the southeast of the country, according to the Saudi defence ministry.


‘At the disposal of the enemy’

The UAE said its air defences were responding to “incoming missile and drone threats from Iran”, while Qatar said 10 ballistic missiles and two cruise missiles fired from Iran the previous day were mostly intercepted without casualties.

Despite the Iranian president’s apology to the Gulf countries for earlier strikes, hours later its judiciary chief said strikes would continue on sites in Gulf countries that were “at the disposal of the enemy”.

UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said in a rare televised address that the Emirates were in “a period of war” and “will emerge stronger” from it.

Dubai authorities said Saturday that a Pakistani national had been killed by debris from an “aerial interception”.

Dubai briefly closed its main airport – the world’s busiest for international traffic – on Saturday after authorities said an unidentified object was intercepted nearby.

A witness told AFP of a loud explosion in the area followed by a cloud of smoke. Footage verified by AFP recorded the sound of a drone followed by a loud explosion and plumes of smoke close to an airport concourse.

The government said there had been “a minor incident resulting from the fall of debris after an interception”, without directly mentioning the airport. It said there were no injuries. — AFP

The demand for Iran’s unconditional surrender becomes a stupendous trap — Phar Kim Beng

 

The demand for Iran’s unconditional surrender becomes a stupendous trap — Phar Kim Beng


Saturday, 07 Mar 2026 8:01 PM MYT


MARCH 7 — The demand for unconditional surrender by President Donald Trump imposed upon Iran has introduced a rigid and uncompromising logic into the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Tehran.

While the language of total capitulation may resonate with the historical precedents of the Second World War, its application in the contemporary Middle East risks trapping Washington and Tel Aviv in a strategic dilemma of their own making.

Trump’s insistence that Iran must surrender without conditions — combined with his declaration that the United States will only accept Iranian leaders “we can work with” — effectively signals an intention not merely to defeat Iran militarily but to reshape its political leadership entirely. In diplomatic language, this implies regime engineering, if not outright regime change.

Yet such maximalist demands collide with the complex realities of Iranian political structure, historical memory, and civilizational identity.


Iran is not a political system that can be easily decapitated through a single strike or even a coordinated campaign of assassinations.

The Iranian state is built on multiple layers of leadership and authority, both formal and informal.

The Islamic Republic possesses at least three to four tiers of command. At the apex lies the Supreme Leadership and its religious institutions.


Below that operates the network of senior clerical councils and revolutionary bodies.

Parallel to these structures stands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a military and economic institution deeply embedded in Iranian governance.

Beyond them exists a broader nationalist elite comprising military commanders, technocrats, and political administrators.

Even if Operation Epic Fury — conducted jointly by the United States and Israel — has eliminated key figures within Iran’s leadership hierarchy, the architecture of the state is designed precisely to absorb such shocks.

Leadership succession mechanisms exist precisely because the Islamic Republic has long anticipated the possibility of external decapitation attempts.



US Air Force F-15E takes off in the Middle East in support of ‘Operation Epic Fury’, part of US and Israeli strikes on Iran that prompted missile retaliation by the Islamic Republic. — Picture from US Air Force/US Central Command Public Affairs via AFP


Thus, the demand for unconditional surrender collides with a fundamental political reality: there may be no Iranian authority capable of agreeing to such a surrender even if it wished to do so.

To concede unconditionally would be interpreted inside Iran as national humiliation and civilizational defeat.

For a country whose identity stretches back thousands of years — from the Achaemenid Empire through Safavid Persia to the modern Islamic Republic — such capitulation would not merely remove a government. It would shatter the legitimacy of the entire political class.

In this sense, Trump’s ultimatum may paradoxically strengthen Iranian resistance rather than weaken it. The problem is not merely ideological; it is also structural.

When the United States insists that Iran must be led by figures “Washington can work with”, the implication is unmistakable.

Any leadership acceptable under such terms would be widely perceived in Iran as puppets of foreign power, particularly Washington and its closest regional partner, Israel.

This perception alone would make such a government unsustainable domestically.

Even reformist or pragmatic Iranian factions would find it politically impossible to align themselves openly with such a settlement.

The result is a strategic paradox. Washington seeks to impose political conditions that make diplomatic compromise impossible.

At the same time, Tehran cannot accept surrender without risking total collapse of legitimacy.

Thus both sides become trapped in a conflict where victory conditions are politically unattainable.

The consequences of this dynamic extend beyond Iran itself.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are watching the unfolding war with profound anxiety.

While many GCC governments have historically viewed Iran as a strategic rival, they are equally wary of a regional order dominated exclusively by the United States and Israel.

If Iran were to collapse completely under military pressure, the resulting vacuum could produce one of two destabilising outcomes.

The first would be the fragmentation of Iran into competing ethnic and regional entities — Kurdish, Baluchi, Persian, and Azeri.

The second would be the installation of a leadership seen as externally imposed by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Neither outcome offers long-term stability for the Gulf.

A fragmented Iran could unleash decades of insurgency across West Asia.

A puppet government in Tehran, on the other hand, would transform the regional balance of power so dramatically that GCC states themselves might fear becoming overly dependent on external patrons.

In such a scenario, the Middle East could evolve into a geopolitical structure where regional autonomy disappears, replaced by external security domination.

Ironically, this outcome could destabilise the very alliances Washington relies upon.

Yet the greatest strategic trap lies in the historical analogy embedded within the demand for unconditional surrender.

Such demands historically occur only in wars of absolute destruction.

When the Allied powers demanded unconditional surrender from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during the Second World War, they did so after years of total war that had devastated entire societies.

Even then, the surrender of Japan in August 1945 required the use of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Today, the United States still possesses tactical nuclear weapons with yields comparable to the Hiroshima bomb, approximately fifteen kilotons.

The mere mention of unconditional surrender raises a troubling question.

If Iran refuses to capitulate, what level of military escalation would be required to compel compliance?

Would Washington and Tel Aviv be prepared to escalate toward tactical nuclear use?

Such a scenario remains highly unlikely, yet the rhetorical logic of unconditional surrender inevitably invites speculation about the extreme measures historically associated with such outcomes.

Even if nuclear weapons were never used, the perception that the United States might contemplate such escalation would carry enormous consequences.

The legitimacy of Washington’s leadership within the international system would be severely damaged.

The United States has long justified its global influence through the language of international law, rules-based order, and strategic restraint.

A war framed around unconditional surrender risks undermining those very principles.

Countries across the Global South — many of which already view international norms as unevenly applied — would interpret the conflict as evidence that great powers still operate according to raw coercion rather than law.

The Global North might also experience internal divisions.

European states already wary of escalation could distance themselves politically from such an uncompromising strategy.

Even America’s closest partners might find it difficult to defend a war aimed at total submission rather than negotiated settlement.

Israel would face similar reputational costs.

While Israel’s security concerns are widely acknowledged, participation in a campaign aimed at forcing unconditional surrender upon a major regional civilisation could deepen its diplomatic isolation.

Rather than weakening Iranian nationalism, such a campaign might elevate Tehran’s status as a symbol of resistance across parts of the Global South.

Thus the paradox becomes stark.

By demanding unconditional surrender, the United States and Israel risk transforming a regional conflict into a test of civilisational endurance.

Iran’s leadership may change, its infrastructure may suffer enormous damage, but the collective identity of the Iranian people — rooted in centuries of history — would likely harden rather than collapse.

In this sense, Washington and Tel Aviv may have boxed themselves into a strategic corner.

The more uncompromising their demands become, the fewer pathways remain for de-escalation.

Military escalation without a realistic political end state risks prolonging the war far beyond the four or five weeks suggested by President Trump.

History offers a clear lesson.

Wars that begin with maximalist objectives often end with reluctant compromise.

If diplomacy is excluded at the outset, it eventually returns under far worse circumstances.

The tragedy would be if such a lesson is only learned after immense destruction has already occurred.



* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies and director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University of Malaysia.

‘This isn’t my war’: Iraqi Kurdistan residents fear being dragged into regional conflict

‘This isn’t my war’: Iraqi Kurdistan residents fear being dragged into regional conflict



The Kurds, an ethnic minority with a distinct culture and language, are rooted in the mountainous region spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. — AFP pic

Sunday, 08 Mar 2026 9:00 PM MYT


SORAN, March 8 — On a deserted road not too far from the border between Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan, Satar Barsirini looked up at the sky, now streaked with jets and drones.

Iraq’s Kurdish region has found itself caught in the crossfire of a regional war triggered by US and Israeli attacks on the Islamic republic.

Dressed like the Kurdish fighters he once served alongside, Barsirini still wears the khaki shalwar, fitted jacket and scarf wrapped around his waist.

Though recently retired, he refuses to give up his peshmerga uniform as he tills his small plot of land.

The rumble of jets and hum of drones “come from everywhere. Especially at night”, he told AFP in the hamlet of Barsirini, dozens of kilometres from the border.


He described the “shiver in our flesh” as the drones hit the ground outside.

“I feel bad for the people, because we have paid a lot in blood to liberate Kurdistan... We just want to live.”


Erbil, the autonomous region’s capital, and the valleys leading to the border have been targeted by Tehran and the Iraqi armed groups it supports.

American bases there have come under fire, as have positions held by Iranian Kurdish parties—the same ones US President Donald Trump said it would be “wonderful” to see storm Iran.

But Iran warned on Friday it would target facilities in Iraqi Kurdistan if fighters crossed into its territory.

“This isn’t my war,” said 58-year-old Barsirini.

He recalled the brutal repression and flight into the snowy mountains after the 1991 Kurdish uprising that followed the first Gulf War.


Dangerous people

The uprising was repressed, leading to an exodus of two million Kurds to Iran and Turkey.

“When we fled the cities for our lives, we went to Iran. They helped us, they gave us shelter and food,” he said.

The Kurds would not forget that, Barsirini stressed, adding that they could not just “turn against them” now to support the US and Israel.

“I don’t trust (Americans). They are dangerous people,” he said.

The Kurds, an ethnic minority with a distinct culture and language, are rooted in the mountainous region spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

They have long fought for their own homeland, but for decades suffered defeats on the battlefield and massacres in their hometowns.

They make up one of Iran’s most important non-Persian ethnic minority groups.

A week of war has gripped daily life in Iraqi Kurdistan, residents told AFP.

“People are afraid,” said Nasr al-Din, a 42-year-old policeman who, as a child, lived through the 1991 exodus—“thrown on a donkey’s back with my sister”.

“This generation is different from the older ones” that have seen “seen fighting”.

Now, he said, you could be “sitting down in your home... and all of a sudden a drone hits your house”.

“We may have to go into town or somewhere safer,” said Issa Diayri, 31, a truck driver waiting in a roadside garage, his lorry idle for lack of deliveries from Iran.


Shouldn’t get involved

Soran, a small town of 3,000 people about 65 kilometres (40 miles) from the border, was hit Thursday by a drone that fell in the middle of a street.

There, baker Yussef Ramazan, 42, and his three apprentices, hurriedly made bread before breaking their fast.

But, living so close to the Iranian border, he said “people are afraid to come and buy it”.

He told AFP he did not think it was a good idea “for the Kurdish region to get involved in this war”.

“We are not even an independent country yet. We would like to become one, but we are nothing for now, so we shouldn’t get involved in these situations.”

Across the street, Hajji watched from his empty dry cleaning shop as the road cleared.

Before the war, the town was crowded as evening fell, he said, declining to give his full name.

“But after the drone explosion, no one was here. In five minutes, everyone left the street and no one was out.” — AFP

Military Watch:

U.S. Navy Dispatches Third Nuclear Powered Supercarrier to Support War Effort Against Iran

Middle East , Naval

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-7th-2026

---

E-2 AEW&C Lands on USS George H W Bush

The U.S. Navy Nimitz Class nuclear powered supercarrier USS George H. W. Bush has been dispatched to the Middle East, where it is expected to support the currently ongoing war effort against Iran. The George H. W. Bush is one of the Navy’s two newest carriers, with the only newer vessel, the USS Gerald Ford, having was arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean hours before the U.S. and Israeli initiated attacks on February 28. It is highly unusual for three carrier groups to operate in the same region simultaneously, with the deployment of a third supercarrier expected to help compensate for both the large scale destruction of U.S. bases in the Middle East by Iranian strikes, severe missile defence shortages, as well as the depletion of the missile arsenals of the existing carrier groups for both offensive and defensive duties.

EA-18G Electronic Attack Jet Launches AGM-88 Anti-Radiation Missile

The survivability of U.S. carrier groups in the Middle East remains highly uncertain, with a significant possibility remaining that Iran is capable of targeting them highly effectively using a considerable arsenal of anti-ship ballistic missiles. Iran’s demonstration of hypersonic glide vehicle strike capabilities for the first time during the conflict to destroy high value targets in Israel may be particularly problematic for carrier groups. Nevertheless, it is expected that causing critical damage to a carrier would mark a point of no return in the conflict, fuelling demand in the United States for a more total victory and ending the possibility of a negotiated settlement - a possibility which is currently seen by analysts to still remain. As Iran’s definition of victory may be limited to its survival, it may be deterred from striking carrier groups.

Arleigh Burke Flight III Class Destroyer

After having departed its home port at Naval Station Norfolk near the beginning of the year, the USS George H. W. Bush has been operating in the Western Atlantic Ocean, conducting training and readiness operations with its carrier strike group. The carrier usually deploys 40–44 F-18E/F fighters, five EA-18G electronic attack jets, 4–5 E-2D AEW&C systems, and a range of logistics aircraft and helicopters. The lack of modern F-35C fighters, or of larger numbers of EA-18Gs, remain a major constraint on its utility. A primary benefit of deployment the carrier group will be increasing the presence of Arleigh Burke class destroyers within range both to launch strikes with BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Iran, and to support both tactical strategic missile defence efforts using their SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 anti-ballistic missiles. The USS George H. W. Bush Carrier Strike Group typically sails with three to four Arleigh Burke class destroyers, a supply ship, a nuclear attack submarine, and at times a single Ticonderoga class cruiser.

***

Very unusual to have a 3rd aircraft carrier in any one theatre - could it be to REPLACE a destroyed aircraft carrier, eg Gerald Ford???

U.S. Withdrew 1000 Guided Munitions From Korea Before Iran War

Military Watch:

U.S. Withdrew 1000 Guided Munitions From Korea Before Iran War: Urgent Air Defence Withdrawals Under Discussion

Asia-Pacific , Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-7th-2026

---

U.S. Air Force B-1B Bomber Drops Bombs

South Korean sources revealed on March 5 that over 1,000 guided bomb kits were shipped to the U.S. mainland from military facilities in  Korea in mid-December 2025, as part of what analysts have widely interpreted as large scale preparations for the initiation of a large scale military assault against Iran. These kits consist of GPS or laser guidance devices and control wings, which can be attached to gravity bombs to allow them to strike targets with high levels of precision. Each kit costs $20,000-55,000 making them significantly less costly than other kinds of guided weapons. The utility of such bombs in operations against Iran, particularly in its early stages, is expected to remain limited, however, with the bombs requiring fighters or bombers to overfly their targets, which for the large majority of aircraft would pose very significant risks due to Iran’s deployment of advanced multi-layered air defences. This was highlighted when F-16 and F-35 fighters overflying Yemen were locked on to forced to take evasive action multiple times when flying to close to local air defence systems, despite defences there being far more limited than those over Iran.

U.S. Air Force F-16C/D Fighters at Kunsan Air base in South Korea

The confirmation of the withdrawal of a large number of bomb guidance kits from South Korea has occurred at a time when talks are actively underway to also withdraw MIM-104 Patriot long range air defence systems for redeployment to the Middle East. South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun on March 6 confirmed U.S. and South Korean militaries are discussing the possible redeployment of some U.S. Army MIM-104 Patriot long range air defence systems based in South Korea to be used in the war against Iran. U.S. Forces Korea declined to comment. Such redeployments would be far from unprecedented, with the U.S. Army between March and October 2025 having redeployed two MIM-104 Patriot long range air defence systems systems and approximately 500 personnel from South Korea to the Middle East. The U.S. was in January also confirmed to have withdrawn its fleet of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters from South Korea, causing considerable concern within the country.

AN/TPY-2 Radar From THAAD System Destroyed in Engagements with Iranian Forces

South Korean sources have widely reported that the United States Armed Forces are exploring contingencies for the withdrawal of high value long range air defence systems or redeployment to the Middle East, including not only Patriot, but also the more scarce and higher value THAAD system. South Korea is the only foreign country that hosts a permanent foreign deployment of U.S. Army THAAD systems, which were initiated in 2016. Although it is more likely that the U.S. Army will withdraw only interceptors for THAAD systems to replenish stockpiles in the Middle East, the confirmed destruction of radars, and possible destruction of command posts, or launchers by Iranian forces, could result in these being replaced by subsystems in South Korea. The U.S. Armed Forces field only eight THAAD systems worldwide, several of which have been concentrated in Israel and Jordan. 

North Korean Hwasong-11MA Short Range Hypersonic Ballistic Missile

The withdrawal of U.S. armaments has occurred as North Korea has continued to pursue comprehensive modernisation of its armed forces and defence sector capabilities at historically wholly unprecedented rates, with the capabilities of all parts of its forces, other than its fighter fleet, having been totally revolutionised. An assessment by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency in mid-2025 concluded that North Korea has reached its “strongest strategic position” in decades, elaborating that the country was confident in “possessing the military means to hold at risk U.S. forces and U.S. allies in Northeast Asia while continuing to improve its capability to threaten the U.S. homeland.” With the United States having initiated no comparable modernisation of its forces in Korea, the balance of power on the peninsula has become increasingly unfavourable for Washington’s interests. The withdrawals of equipment are also occurring at a time of renewed ties between South Korea and China following the landslide election of President Lee Jae-myung on June 3, 2025, who has repeatedly cautioned against tightly aligning with Washington against Beijing or Moscow, and previously criticised THAAD deployments in Korea for derailing ties with China.