“If the allegations prove accurate, they would reveal an intelligence strategy aimed not merely at influencing events inside Iran, but at shaping the country’s post-regime political landscape.”

A report published by The New York Times has ignited a political storm by alleging that Israel pursued a long-running covert effort to cultivate former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential leader for a post-Islamic Republic Iran. If accurate, the revelations would represent one of the most audacious intelligence operations ever attributed to Israel against its regional rival.

According to the report, Israeli intelligence agencies allegedly spent years attempting to establish contact with Ahmadinejad, viewing him as a possible figure capable of leading Iran in the event of a regime collapse. The newspaper claims that these efforts extended beyond intelligence gathering and evolved into a broader political strategy aimed at shaping Iran’s future leadership.

The report further alleges that Ahmadinejad has recently been placed under house arrest by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) after authorities uncovered what they describe as extensive clandestine contacts between the former president and Israeli operatives. Iranian officials have not publicly confirmed these allegations, and the claims remain unverified by independent sources.

Ahmadinejad, who served as Iran’s president from 2005 to 2013, has long occupied a unique and often unpredictable position in Iranian politics. Although once regarded as a staunch defender of the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary ideology, he has increasingly found himself at odds with sections of Iran’s political establishment in recent years. His repeated criticisms of senior officials and occasional challenges to the country’s ruling elite have fueled speculation about his political ambitions and his relationship with the state.

The New York Times investigation reportedly describes a multi-year intelligence effort in which Israeli officials explored whether Ahmadinejad could emerge as a viable political alternative should the Islamic Republic undergo dramatic political change. Rather than portraying him simply as a source of information, the report suggests Israeli planners allegedly viewed him as someone capable of stabilizing a transitional government while preserving enough nationalist credibility to gain public acceptance.

One of the report’s most striking claims concerns an alleged secret meeting in Hungary during 2024. The gathering reportedly took place under the cover of an academic conference, providing participants with plausible deniability. According to the newspaper, former Mossad chief David Barnea was among those who attended at least one of these meetings. The report suggests the discussions focused on Iran’s political future and the possibility of leadership transition following a hypothetical collapse of the current system.

Neither Israeli authorities nor Barnea have publicly commented on the allegations. Israel traditionally maintains a policy of refusing to confirm or deny intelligence operations attributed to Mossad.

The reported operation reflects the broader strategic rivalry that has defined relations between Israel and Iran for decades. Intelligence agencies on both sides have frequently been accused of cyber operations, sabotage, espionage, and covert action targeting military, nuclear, and political objectives. However, allegations involving the grooming of a former head of government as a future national leader would represent an unprecedented escalation in both ambition and political complexity.

Analysts caution that intelligence-related reports involving Iran are often difficult to independently verify due to the secrecy surrounding both Israeli and Iranian security institutions. While the New York Times cites unnamed sources familiar with the alleged operation, many aspects of the story remain beyond public confirmation.

Within Iran, Ahmadinejad’s political trajectory has become increasingly uncertain. Once celebrated by conservative factions, he later experienced repeated clashes with influential institutions and was barred from returning to the presidency despite several attempts. His outspoken criticism of certain state institutions has occasionally led observers to speculate about widening divisions within the political establishment.

The reported house arrest, if confirmed, would signal serious concern among Iranian authorities regarding Ahmadinejad’s activities. House arrest has historically been used in Iran against political figures viewed as posing a challenge to state stability without pursuing formal criminal proceedings.

International observers are likely to closely watch any official responses from Tehran or Jerusalem in the coming days. Should additional evidence emerge supporting the report, it could significantly influence perceptions of Israeli intelligence operations and deepen tensions between the two regional adversaries.

At present, the allegations remain exactly that—allegations. No official documents have been released publicly to substantiate the claims, and neither government has provided detailed comment. Nevertheless, the report has already generated widespread debate among analysts, journalists, and policymakers because of its extraordinary implications for Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Whether the story ultimately proves accurate, partially correct, or disputed, it underscores the extent to which intelligence competition has become intertwined with political succession and regional power struggles. The controversy surrounding Ahmadinejad’s alleged contacts with Israel is likely to remain a subject of intense scrutiny as further information emerges.

Sovereign Arab governments pursuing dialogue appeared, at least symbolically, to receive verses carrying rebuke or exhortation.

The Arab delegations arrived in Tehran expecting the solemn rituals that accompany the funeral of one of Imam Ali Khamenei. Instead, many left at the center of an unexpected controversy.

There were no public diplomatic snubs, no fiery speeches directed at visiting dignitaries, and no visible confrontations. The message came in a subtler form—through carefully chosen verses of the Qur’an.

As foreign delegations filed through the reception line at the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader, each was reportedly greeted with a different Qur’anic verse. But the selections were far from uniform.

While Iran-backed armed groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen’s Houthis were welcomed with verses praising sacrifice, steadfastness and divine honour, several Arab governments that have spent recent years repairing relations with Tehran were reportedly assigned verses interpreted by many as carrying warnings, admonitions or calls to repentance.

Whether intentional diplomatic messaging or ceremonial symbolism, the contrast was impossible to ignore. Across the Arab world, the footage quickly shifted attention away from the funeral itself and toward a larger question: what was Iran really trying to say?

A Tale of Two Messages

Videos circulating widely on social media, supported by regional media reports, indicate that Saudi Arabia’s delegation was associated with Qur’an 3:13, a verse describing the encounter between believers and disbelievers in battle. Saudi Arabia was indirectly termed as “disbelievers”.

Turkey reportedly received Qur’an 4:95, which elevates those who strive in battle above those who remain behind.

Lebanon’s delegation was linked to Qur’an 66:7—”Do not make excuses today”—while Qatar was reportedly greeted with Qur’an 66:8, calling for sincere repentance.

The symbolism became even more striking when compared with the verses reportedly assigned to Iran’s closest regional allies.

Hezbollah received Qur’an 3:139: “Do not lose heart or grieve; you shall have the upper hand if you are believers.”

Hamas was welcomed with Qur’an 33:23, honouring believers who fulfilled their covenant and those still waiting to do so.

Yemen’s Houthis were reportedly associated with Qur’an 3:146, praising believers who fought alongside prophets without weakening in the face of hardship.

Iran has not officially explained the reported selection of verses, nor has it published an official protocol assigning them to specific delegations. Yet in a region where religious symbolism is inseparable from politics, perception often carries as much weight as official clarification.

Diplomacy Overshadowed by Revolutionary Symbolism

The timing made the episode particularly sensitive.

Only three years ago, Saudi Arabia and Iran restored diplomatic relations after a Chinese-mediated breakthrough ended seven years of estrangement. Oman has consistently served as a trusted mediator between Tehran and its rivals, while Qatar has maintained channels of dialogue even during periods of heightened regional tension. Across the Gulf, the prevailing strategy has shifted from confrontation toward cautious engagement.

Against that backdrop, the reported ceremonial messaging appeared out of step with the diplomatic efforts that Arab capitals have invested in rebuilding trust.

Rather than emphasising reconciliation, the funeral protocol seemed to reinforce the ideological hierarchy that has long defined the Islamic Republic’s regional strategy.

Sovereign Arab governments pursuing dialogue appeared, at least symbolically, to receive verses carrying rebuke or exhortation. Meanwhile, non-state actors aligned with Tehran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance” were honoured with verses celebrating sacrifice and perseverance.

For many observers, the contrast reflected a familiar pattern in Iranian foreign policy: revolutionary allies continue to occupy a privileged place, even as Tehran simultaneously seeks improved relations with neighbouring governments.

Faith, Politics and Regional Perceptions

Iran’s state is built upon Twelver Shi’a Islam, although mainstream Twelver scholarship generally recognises Sunni Muslims as fellow Muslims and does not collectively declare them unbelievers. At the same time, critics have long argued that segments of Iran’s revolutionary establishment have adopted exclusionary religious rhetoric called as “Takfeer” toward political opponents, reinforcing sectarian divisions across the Middle East.

Whether the reported funeral verses were intended as theological statements, political signals or carefully crafted symbolism, their reception has mattered more than their explanation.

State funerals are meticulously choreographed affairs. Every image, every protocol and every gesture is designed to communicate something beyond the ceremony itself. In Tehran, the message many in the Arab world believed they saw was not one of regional reconciliation, but of ideological preference.

For governments that have extended diplomatic openings to Tehran—including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman—the images served as a reminder that while embassies may reopen and negotiations may resume, the Islamic Republic’s extremist narrative continues to place extraordinary emphasis on its network of allied militias.

The Interior Ministry said security raids conducted over the past two days in Daraa, Aleppo and Idlib resulted in the detention of several individuals wanted for alleged involvement in abuses and security violations during Assad’s rule.

According to a ministry source cited by the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), those arrested include a former commander of the First Corps, a former head of the security and military committee in southern Syria, a former officer in the Republican Guard and a former guard at Saydnaya prison, a facility long associated with allegations of torture and mistreatment of detainees.

The arrests form part of a broader campaign launched by the Syrian authorities to identify, detain and prosecute former regime figures accused of human rights violations, unlawful detentions and other offenses during more than a decade of conflict.

The latest operation follows the arrest earlier this week of Osama Mahmoud Hamouda, a former non-commissioned officer detained in the coastal province of Latakia.

Internal Security Forces said Hamouda was apprehended after an extensive surveillance operation while allegedly attempting to flee the country with assistance from criminal networks.

Authorities accuse Hamouda of supplying information to intelligence agencies, participating in arbitrary detention campaigns and engaging in financial extortion against civilians during the Assad era.

Brig. Gen. Abdul Aziz Hilal Al-Ahmad, head of Internal Security in Latakia, said investigators had been tracking Hamouda for an extended period before carrying out the arrest.

The detentions come amid broader efforts by Syria’s new authorities to establish a transitional justice framework following the collapse of the Assad government.

Attorney General Hassan Al-Turba said on Wednesday that pursuing individuals accused of major crimes was essential to restoring public trust in state institutions and advancing national reconciliation.

Speaking to SANA, Al-Turba said the Ministry of Justice was coordinating with the Interior Ministry, the National Commission for Transitional Justice and the National Commission for Missing Persons to document violations and bring suspects before the courts.

He said authorities had implemented measures to prevent wanted individuals from leaving Syria, including travel restrictions, arrest warrants issued in absentia and efforts to track fugitives through international legal mechanisms.

The attorney general added that Syrian authorities were seeking cooperation through Interpol, bilateral agreements and diplomatic channels to locate and return suspects believed to be outside the country.

Al-Turba also said witness-protection programs had been introduced to encourage testimony from victims and witnesses, while international organizations were providing technical support, training and institutional assistance to strengthen judicial processes.

“Prosecuting major criminals is not merely a judicial procedure,” Al-Turba said, describing accountability as a necessary component of transitional justice and long-term stability.

The latest arrests underscore the scale of the challenge facing Syria’s post-Assad administration as it seeks to address allegations of past abuses while balancing demands for justice, accountability and national reconciliation after years of conflict.

According to officials and analysts cited in a Reuters report, Iranian authorities are now attempting to manage heightened political and social tensions following the end of hostilities, with a memorandum expected to be signed later this week outlining an interim arrangement between Tehran and Washington.

The report said hard-line factions within Iran, including elements of the Revolutionary Guards and allied political groups, view the outcome of the confrontation as a strategic success and are pushing for continued military strengthening and a firm negotiating position in any future talks with the United States.

At the same time, Iranian citizens are described as facing severe economic hardship, including high inflation, currency depreciation and unemployment, with widespread expectations that any sanctions relief or access to frozen assets will be directed toward improving living standards and rebuilding infrastructure damaged during the conflict.

Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said the end of the war could intensify domestic challenges for the clerical leadership, noting that public expectations for economic improvement may rise sharply as military tensions ease.

Reuters also cited Iranian officials as saying that any financial relief under the interim arrangement would likely be allocated to economic stabilisation measures, including support for banking liquidity and reconstruction, while acknowledging risks of renewed public unrest if conditions do not improve.

The report said Iran’s leadership is aware of the potential for renewed protests, recalling previous large-scale demonstrations in 2022–2023, and that authorities have historically relied on strict security measures to suppress dissent during periods of instability.

Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian economist and political analyst, said Iran faces a limited window to stabilise internal conditions, while noting that broader sanctions relief tied to long-term economic recovery would depend on a more comprehensive agreement with the United States.

The report added that divisions within Iran’s political establishment persist over the direction of post-war policy, with some factions prioritising economic recovery and others advocating for continued confrontation and military expansion.

Analysts also noted that tensions between reformist and hard-line elements may shape the government’s ability to manage expectations, particularly as debates continue over Iran’s foreign policy direction and internal governance following the conflict.

Three loud blasts were heard in the Iraqi capital, according to an AFP reporter on the ground. A security source said the artillery fire was ceremonial and intended to mark the establishment of the new administration.

The celebratory firing came days after Iraq finalized the formation of a new government following extended political negotiations among rival factions.

Earlier on Friday, Antonio Guterres welcomed the creation of the new Iraqi government and reaffirmed the United Nations’ commitment to supporting the country’s economic and social development efforts.

The formation of the cabinet under Al-Zaidi is viewed as a key step in efforts to stabilize Iraq’s political landscape amid continuing economic challenges, regional tensions and security concerns.

In a statement issued by Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, Guterres said he looked forward to working with the new Iraqi administration to advance the aspirations of the Iraqi people.

The statement said the UN chief remained committed to supporting Iraq in its efforts toward development, governance and long-term stability.

The announcement follows the formation of a new Iraqi government after months of political negotiations and comes at a time when Baghdad faces economic challenges, reconstruction demands and regional security pressures.

The United Nations has maintained a long-standing political and humanitarian presence in Iraq, assisting with institutional development, humanitarian coordination and post-conflict recovery initiatives.

When Iranian student militants seized the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979, taking 66 Americans hostage, the crisis quickly evolved into one of the defining geopolitical confrontations of the late Cold War.

Yet among the most politically consequential decisions made during the 444-day standoff was Iran’s release of 13 hostages only 16 days after the embassy takeover, including 10 Black Americans and three white women.

The decision reflected a calculated effort by Iran’s revolutionary leadership to frame its conflict with Washington not as a dispute with the American people broadly, but as a struggle against U.S. imperialism and racial inequality. Iranian officials publicly argued at the time that Black Americans and women were themselves victims of oppression inside the United States and therefore should not be held responsible for American foreign policy.

Among those released was former U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. James Hughes, then a 30-year-old communications specialist stationed at the embassy. Hughes, now 76, recalled that the release was not voluntary and occurred under armed supervision after days of uncertainty inside the embassy compound.“I was handcuffed, under armed guard and taken out of the embassy to the airport,” Hughes said in remarks reflecting on the episode decades later.

“It wasn’t like I walked out of my own free will.”The embassy seizure began on Nov. 4, 1979, after Iranian students stormed the compound amid mounting anti-American sentiment following the Islamic Revolution that toppled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi earlier that year.

The United States had long backed the Shah, whose rule was associated with political repression and close alignment with Western strategic and oil interests.The immediate trigger for the embassy occupation was Washington’s decision to admit the Shah into the United States for medical treatment after he fled Iran. Revolutionary supporters viewed the move as evidence that Washington was preparing to restore him to power.

Iran’s new leadership under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini quickly transformed the hostage crisis into a broader ideological confrontation with the United States, which revolutionary leaders described as an imperial power responsible for decades of political interference across the Middle East.

Within that framework, Iranian officials sought to distinguish between the U.S. government and minority groups inside America. State media and revolutionary leaders frequently highlighted racial discrimination in the United States, drawing parallels between anti-colonial struggles abroad and the civil rights movement inside America.

Hughes, who grew up in segregated New Orleans during the Jim Crow era, said his life experiences shaped how he understood the political messaging surrounding the release. Before joining the Air Force, Hughes attended segregated schools and experienced institutional racism firsthand in the American South.

The release of Black hostages aligned with broader efforts by the Iranian revolutionary government to cultivate symbolic ties with Black political movements and anti-imperialist activists globally. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, some African American activists viewed the Iranian Revolution as part of a wider challenge to Western dominance and authoritarian political systems backed by the United States.

Political scientist Benjamin R. Young said the Islamic Republic initially attracted support from diverse ideological currents, including anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements.“The Islamic Republic in 1979 and even into the early 80s was kind of a Rorschach test,” Young said, describing how various activist groups projected their own political aspirations onto the revolution.

Iranian officials reinforced that messaging throughout the 1980s. In 1980, Iranian demonstrations were organized in solidarity with Black Americans after unrest erupted in Miami following the acquittal of police officers in the death of an unarmed Black man. In 1984, Iran issued a commemorative postage stamp honoring Malcolm X years before the United States issued its own official postal tribute.

Iran also attempted to position itself rhetorically as a defender of oppressed minorities globally. During overseas visits in the 1980s, future Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei promoted initiatives focused on racism and apartheid, although many such efforts remained largely symbolic.

Historians and analysts, however, note that Iran’s outreach to Black American causes often coincided with periods of intense geopolitical confrontation with Washington. Scholars argue that rival powers historically have used racial tensions inside the United States to counter American criticism of their own human rights records.

During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and Communist China highlighted segregation and racial violence in the United States in propaganda campaigns aimed at undermining Washington’s international image. Analysts say Iran adopted a similar strategy after the 1979 revolution.

At the same time, reactions among Black Americans to Iran’s actions were far from uniform. Some activists and religious leaders expressed solidarity with aspects of Iran’s anti-Western rhetoric, while others rejected attempts to portray the Islamic Republic as a legitimate ally in racial justice struggles.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, became one of the most prominent Black American figures to publicly support the Iranian government during later decades. But mainstream civil rights organizations often took different positions.

During the hostage crisis itself, Vernon Jordan, then president of the National Urban League, argued that Black hostages should have remained in captivity until all Americans were released, saying separate treatment risked dividing Americans along racial lines.Some of the freed hostages later faced criticism inside the United States.

Hughes said he received hostile mail accusing him of abandoning fellow captives despite having no control over the decision.The remaining 52 Americans stayed in captivity for another 14 months until negotiations mediated by Algerian diplomats produced the 1981 Algiers Accords.

The final hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, coinciding with the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.The differing treatment between the two hostage groups continued long after the crisis ended. Public celebrations and ticker-tape parades in Washington and New York focused largely on the 52 hostages held for the full 444 days.

Congress later approved compensation packages for the long-term hostages, with payments reaching millions of dollars per person under legislation passed decades later. Those released after 16 days, including Hughes, were excluded from those restitution measures.

Hughes also said recognition from the military arrived unevenly. Although Congress authorized prisoner-of-war medals for Iran hostages in 2003, Hughes said his own medal was delivered to his home years later without ceremony before state military officials later organized a formal recognition event.

Today, renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran have revived public discussion about the political symbolism of the early hostage release.

Analysts say the decision remains one of the clearest examples of how the Iranian revolutionary government attempted to exploit racial divisions inside the United States as part of a broader anti-American strategy during the opening years of the Islamic Republic.

According to state news agency WAM, the leaders described the attacks as violations of UAE sovereignty and threats to national stability, expressing solidarity with the country amid heightened regional tensions linked to the Iran conflict.

Among those who spoke with Sheikh Mohamed were Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Masrour Barzani, prime minister of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region.The leaders affirmed their backing for the UAE’s efforts to safeguard its security and ensure the protection of civilians, underscoring a coordinated regional response to the escalation.

The calls come as geopolitical tensions continue to rise across the Middle East, with recent incidents involving Iranian-linked actions drawing strong reactions from regional governments.

Officials said Dabbour was arrested late Tuesday shortly after landing in Beirut and is being questioned by a judge at the prosecutor’s office in the Lebanese capital. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.According to the officials, the detention was carried out based on a Red Notice issued by Interpol late last year following accusations linked to financial misconduct.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas removed Dabbour from his post as ambassador to Lebanon in 2025 after the Palestinian Authority accused him of corruption.Officials said the case involves allegations that Dabbour was involved in the sale of property in Lebanon owned by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which maintained a major presence in the country before Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon forced its leadership to relocate.

The properties were reportedly linked to assets held by the PLO during its years of political and military operations from Lebanon.No public statement has been issued by Dabbour or his legal representatives regarding the allegations.

The case comes amid broader anti-corruption efforts within Palestinian institutions and renewed scrutiny over financial management tied to overseas diplomatic and political assets.

The People’s Equality and Democracy Party, known as DEM, played a key role in facilitating renewed dialogue between the Turkish state and the PKK after jailed militant leader Abdullah Ocalan called in February 2025 for the group to lay down arms and pursue a political settlement.

Speaking to party lawmakers in parliament, DEM co-chair Tulay Hatimogullari said the government had failed to build on the momentum created by Ocalan’s appeal and was slowing progress toward a lasting resolution.

“While such a bright outlook lies ahead of us, and we should be moving at full speed toward the goal of peace, the government is acting in a hesitant, timid and stalling manner,” Hatimogullari said.

The PKK, designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union, halted attacks and announced in May 2025 that it had decided to disband and end its armed insurgency, which has killed more than 40,000 people since it began in 1984.

Ankara, however, has insisted that the group must take further concrete steps and that any disarmament must be independently verified before broader political or legal reforms can proceed.Government officials and Kurdish representatives have repeatedly traded blame over the pace of implementation, with tensions rising more than a year after expectations of a breakthrough first emerged.

In February, a Turkish parliamentary commission overwhelmingly approved a report outlining a roadmap for legal reforms to accompany the PKK’s disbandment, moving the peace process further into the legislative arena.

The conflict has destabilized Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish southeast for decades and has also spilled across borders into northern Iraq and Syria, where Kurdish militant networks remain active.Hatimogullari said prolonged hesitation risked weakening trust and damaging the broader political opening created by recent developments.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has not publicly responded to her latest remarks.