IMRA Middle East News Updates

Weekly Commentary: Why Wasn't Ali Larijani At The Quds Day Rally?

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:12:09 -0400

Weekly Commentary: Why Wasn't Ali Larijani At The Quds Day Rally?
Dr. Aaron Lerner 18 March 2026

Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (Iran's top
national security official), attended the Quds Day (aka "Death To Israel And
The USA" rally) in Tehran on 13 March, 2026, where he was prominently
featured marching with crowds, addressing participants, and speaking to
state media (dismissing nearby explosions as signs of "desperation").

We killed him later.

Among other potential targets at the rally were:

#1 Ahmad-Reza Radan, Commander-in-Chief of the National Police, who has
publicly threatened "lethal force" against any protests.

#2 Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, Head of the Judiciary / Chief Justice, the
legal arm of repression essential to the regime's ability to terrorize its
own population into silence.

The rally was broadcast live.

There was a lot of noise from the crowd as they chanted "Death To Israel"
and "Death to America".

So much noise that it is doubtful anyone would have heard Israel's platforms
for guided targeted killing before these and other deserving targets were
seen being dispatched live on Iranian television.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the television feed continued at least
part of the time as the crowd, which only moments before chanted "Death To
Israel" and "Death to America", began to trample each other as they sought
cover.

But we didn't do this.

In fact, we did some bombing nearby so that the broadcasts could show how
the leaders and their supporters were not deterred by bombings taking place
at a safe distance in the background.

Why didn't we do it?

Was this an Israeli decision?

In the past we declined to kill Palestinian terrorist leaders at a funeral
because of the presence of a child adorned with a fake bomb vest in the
crowd.

But the targeted platforms available today are so precise that this might
not be a concern.

Did the Americans warn us not to interfere with the rally?

If the American objection didn't come from President Trump did we decide
that it wasn't worth getting those officials annoyed by going over their
heads?

I doubt we will know in the coming days or weeks why this happened.

But an explanation will most certainly be interesting to follow when this
and many other incredible stories from this war are revealed.

________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Train ISF to GTHOW (Get The Hell Out of the Way) Before Gaza Deployment

Sat, 14 Mar 2026 19:17:23 -0400

ISF Needs GTHOW (Get The Hell Out of the Way) Training Before Gaza
Deployment
Dr. Aaron Lerner March 14, 2026

GTHOW - Get The Hell Out of the Way.

For Israel, mastering GTHOW should be the single most important feature of
the training that the large Indonesian contingent from the International
Stabilization Force (ISF) is slated to undergo shortly in Jordan.

ISF members must be able, at a moment's notice, to GTHOW in order to
facilitate Israeli operations against Hamas and other illicit armed forces.

There are two general scenarios:

#1. Israel detects the presence of Hamas (or other illicit) forces in close
proximity to ISF members and issues a GTHOW call, which includes clear
evacuation instructions.

#2. ISF members independently become aware of Hamas (or other illicit)
forces and simultaneously initiate a GTHOW while providing information to
Israel.

GTHOW training needs to be repeated extensively in Jordan to the point that
it becomes instinctive - drilled so thoroughly that there is instantaneous,
automatic execution without hesitation or deliberation.

Israel should insist on GTHOW training as a non-negotiable precondition.

GTHOW is possibly the only thing that can prevent the deployment of the ISF
in the Gaza Strip from turning into a disaster - for both Gazans and
Israelis alike.

The adoption of GTHOW for the ISF cuts through all the rhetoric, sending a
clear signal that President Trump's initiative isn't some half-baked fantasy
but a serious, realistic program.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

How to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open After the War

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:10:28 -0400

How to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open After the War
Dr. Aaron Lerner 13 March 2026

How can the Strait of Hormuz be secured in a durable way once the fighting
ends?

History suggests that relying solely on agreements with Tehran would be
foolhardy.

Past arrangements have often been followed by renewed tensions or
violations.

In the absence of a dramatic regime change, a unilateral arrangement is
required to ensure that Iran can never close this vital waterway again.

An arrangement which restricts activity both on the waterway and in a
limited coastal buffer zone.

A unilateral arrangement which relies on boots on the ground within the
coastal buffer zone would most definitely be a non-starter.

Boots on the ground would not be required for a no-tolerance approach which
destroys any equipment in violation of restrictions immediately upon
detection.

In an ideal world, this stringent arrangement could be achieved by a Chapter
VII United Nations Security Council Resolution not vetoed by China or
Russia.

We live in anything but an ideal world.

The workaround could be achieved, in the immediate aftermath of the war,
with a unilateral declaration by the United States (with allies like Israel
and GCC states) of a ceasefire or armistice imposing the security regime as
a condition for halting operations.

The zone would be designated as a temporary "post-conflict stabilization
measure" under customary law, similar to the Iraq no-fly zones (1991-2003),
which were imposed by the U.S., UK, and France without explicit UNSC
authorization but claimed as necessary to protect civilians and enforce
prior resolutions (e.g., UNSC Res. 688 on humanitarian crises).

In addition, any redeployment of prohibited systems (e.g., a vehicle
carrying missiles, drones or mines in the zone) would be treated a priori as
evidence of an imminent "armed attack" under UN Charter Article 51,
triggering anticipatory self-defense and justifying immediate standoff
destruction upon detection.

We all hope to witness a durable viable regime change in Iran in the coming
days.

It is crucial, however, to have solutions on the table which do not rely
either on regime change or the consent of the current Iranian regime.

________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Text: MAG Cancels Sde Teiman Affair Indictments

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:12:53 -0400

GROK translation of The Decision of the Military Advocate General to Order
the Cancellation of the Indictment in the "Sde Teiman" Affair issued 12
March 2026

Following a renewed examination of the evidence underlying the indictment in
the "Sde Teiman" affair, and due to significant developments that have
occurred since its filing, the Military Advocate General has decided today
(Thursday) to order the cancellation of the indictment against the five
defendants in the case.BackgroundOn July 29, 2024, an open investigation was
opened regarding several reserve soldiers who were part of "Force 100" and
served at the "Sde Teiman" camp. The reserve soldiers were arrested and
investigated on suspicion of committing serious offenses against a security
detainee. The arrest and the opening of the open investigation led to a
series of protests, some violent, including breaches into two military
bases.A few days after the opening of the open investigation, materials from
the investigation file were published in the media - a segment from the
security video that allegedly documented the incident, as well as the
results of polygraph tests of some of the suspects.The publication of the
materials from the investigation file sparked public outrage and sharp
criticism. In response, the previous Military Advocate General ordered a
preliminary examination headed by the Deputy Military Advocate General and
an assisting team, aimed at locating those responsible for the leak. On
August 11, 2024, the Military Advocate General appeared before the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and addressed the investigation,
including the publication of the materials.On October 17, 2024, petitions
were filed to the High Court of Justice against the Military Advocate
General's decision to suffice with the aforementioned preliminary
examination. In the petition, the petitioners sought to open a criminal
investigation regarding the leak, and at the very least to remove the
conduct of the preliminary examination from the hands of the Military
Advocate's Office and the Military Police Investigative Unit.In parallel,
the criminal proceedings continued. During the months of December 2024 and
January 2025, five of the reserve soldiers were summoned to hearings before
the Military Advocate General and the prosecution team, prior to the filing
of an indictment.

Meanwhile, on January 29, 2025, the Deputy Military Advocate General
appeared before the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and
addressed the actions taken in the framework of the examination to locate
the person responsible for leaking the materials.On February 19, 2025, the
Military Advocate General decided to file an indictment for violent offenses
against the five.In September 2025, the findings of the examination team
were presented to the High Court of Justice, and it was argued in them that
it is not possible to trace the entity responsible for the leak.On October
29, 2025, in light of new information received on the matter, an
investigation by the Israel Police was opened regarding the aforementioned
leak and the information provided about it in various frameworks, including
to the Knesset and the Supreme Court. In the framework of the ongoing
investigation, suspicions are attributed to officers in the Military
Advocate's Office, and in particular to the Military Advocate General, of
committing offenses related to the leak itself, to obstructing the
examination, and to providing information in the framework of the various
proceedings related to it.About two days later, the Military Advocate
General requested to end her tenure, while detailing in her resignation
letter that she was the one who ordered the leaking of the materials to a
media entity during the investigation. Following this, the Military Advocate
General, her deputy, and several additional officers in the Military
Advocate's Office were suspended from their positions.Concurrently, during
the month of October 2025, in the framework of the deal for the release of
the hostages, the security detainee was released and returned to the Gaza
Strip.On November 13, 2025, the defendants' attorneys argued in the
framework of a reminder hearing at the military court that the indictment
should be canceled and the charges withdrawn. The military court also
addressed this in its decision, noting that - "During the session, the
defense attorneys raised weighty arguments, which it is advisable that be
considered by the incoming Military Advocate General."Upon the entry of the
Military Advocate General into office, several discussions were held under
his leadership, in which the prosecution team headed by the new Chief
Military Prosecutor presented the case, including the various developments
that occurred in the proceedings since the filing of the indictment.
Subsequently, the defendants' attorneys requested to meet with the Military
Advocate General and present to him their arguments for canceling the
indictment, inter alia in light of the aforementioned developments. The
Military Advocate General agreed to this, and met with the attorneys during
the months of January and February 2026.Following the aforementioned
meetings, several discussions were held, in which the Military Advocate
General and the prosecution team were required to consider all the evidence
and circumstances, including the evidentiary basis at the current point in
time and the possibility of establishing the conviction of the defendants on
the basis of this basis; various legal arguments also relating to the
justification for continuing the proceedings; as well as difficulties in
managing the case that may arise along the way.

The Decision to Cancel the IndictmentAfter considering all the relevant
considerations, including the arguments raised before him, the existing
evidentiary material at the present time, the procedural aspects and the
chances of conviction, the Military Advocate General decided to order the
cancellation of the indictment filed in the matter of the five defendants in
the "Sde Teiman" affair.Due to the importance of the matter, and the public
interest in full transparency in decision-making on this matter, the reasons
underlying the decision will be presented below in summary.A. Evidentiary
BasisThe decision to file an indictment relied on several evidentiary
anchors - the testimony of the security detainee, the security video that
continuously documents the detention area at the time of the act and
afterward, and medical documents regarding the detainee's condition after
the incident.On one hand, the evidentiary material in the case presented a
serious and disturbing picture regarding the acts of the defendants. On the
other hand, on the evidentiary level, the evidentiary picture was complex
from the outset.The security video does not present an unequivocal picture
of the charges attributed to the defendants. The vast majority of the
defendants' actions are hidden by shields. The video alone, certainly in
combination with the defense arguments, does not clearly and irrefutably
present serious acts of violence at the level required for a criminal
conviction, and this as distinguished from the use of force against
resistance during a search.Indeed, the alleged charges could have received
reinforcement from the detainee's testimony, in combination with the medical
documents. However, the detainee's testimony was also not free of
difficulties since there were changes in his versions to the various parties
regarding the circumstances of his injury.However, in October 2025, the
security detainee was released to the Gaza Strip in the framework of the
outline for the release of the hostages. This new circumstance fundamentally
changes the evidentiary basis and makes it difficult to prove significant
parts of the indictment.

In the complex evidentiary circumstances of the case, and in the absence of
certainty regarding the ability to have the security detainee testify and
cross-examine him, there is also harm to the defendants' possibility of a
fair trial. This is because the defense arguments regarding his testimony,
which were raised by the defendants' attorneys, may not be properly
clarified.In these circumstances, the Military Advocate General and the
prosecution team believed that there is a significant difficulty in
establishing the charges in the case at the required criminal level, based
on the existing evidentiary basis. In addition, the combination of several
circumstances that will be detailed below justifies the cancellation of the
indictment.B. Defense from Justice ArgumentsIn addition to what has been
said so far regarding the evidentiary basis, it was found that in our case
there is a unique and exceptional cluster of circumstances that clearly
establishes arguments of the type "defense from justice". The purpose of
this defense is to prevent a situation in which filing an indictment or
conducting the criminal proceedings stands in substantial contradiction to
principles of justice and legal fairness, and it sometimes justifies,
according to the law, the cancellation of an indictment.The Supreme Court
has long held that conduct on the part of the authority that causes harm to
the sense of justice or legal fairness may justify the cancellation of an
indictment. This, whether done intentionally, whether negligently, whether
from malicious motives, and even if done from innocent motives.In May 2025,
a report on the affair was broadcast on the investigative program "Zman
Emet". In the framework of the program, a senior investigator who is part of
the investigation team was interviewed, and during it, he addressed
directly, in detail and explicitly, the evidence collected in the framework
of the investigation. The public and explicit publication of the evidence,
while the proceedings regarding the defendants are still pending,
substantially harms the defendants' right to a fair trial.Secondly, and as
mentioned above, in October 2025, a criminal investigation was opened by the
Israel Police regarding the leaking of investigation materials to the media,
regarding the obstruction of the examination to check the source of the
leak, and regarding the provision of information in the framework of the
various proceedings related to it, including the judicial proceedings at the
High Court of Justice. These acts were conducted in parallel to the conduct
of the hearings for the defendants and the decision to file the
indictment.These exceptional circumstances, which the Supreme Court also
noted their exceptionality and unprecedented nature (see the words of the
Honorable Deputy President Solberg in HCJ 74997-08-25, and the words of the
Honorable Justice Willner in HCJ 3545-11-25); constitute a significant
deviation from the standards expected of the law enforcement authorities in
the IDF, and certainly from those at their head.

Without addressing all aspects of the aforementioned acts, and with a
focused view on the conduct of the criminal proceedings in the matter of the
five defendants in the affair - these events have significantly harmed their
right to a fair trial and the sense of justice and fairness required to
underlie any criminal proceeding, in a manner that goes to the root of this
proceeding and justifies giving significant weight to arguments of the type
"defense from justice".C. The Level of Case ManagementIn addition, the
investigation of the leak and the events related to it may lead to the
prolongation of the proceedings also in this proceeding in a way that will
further harm the defendants' right to a fair trial.Although it is a separate
investigation conducted in the civilian enforcement system, the products of
the police investigation are expected to constitute relevant investigation
materials in the present case, and can establish legal and factual arguments
also in favor of the defendants.The matters were explicitly raised also in
the recent decision of the military court. In the framework of their request
to receive investigation materials, the defendants requested to review the
documents of the examination team headed by the previous Deputy Military
Advocate General.This request was submitted before the start of the
investigation regarding the Military Advocate General. When the military
court was required to address this request, in its decision of February 26,
2026, the President of the District Military Court held that:"Indeed, on the
face of it, the findings of the leak investigation touch the core of the
[defense from justice] argument, and may be relevant and assist the defense
in establishing the defense from justice claim. At this stage the
investigation has not yet been completed and the military prosecution,
naturally, is excluded from it. Accordingly, and for the time being, it is
not possible to hold a substantive discussion on the request."This decision
is certainly also true for the police investigation materials regarding the
Military Advocate General and the personnel of the Military Advocate's
Office.It has already been held in case law that expected prolongation of
proceedings, given the evidentiary harm that may arise and the harm to legal
arguments derived from it, should also be considered in relation to the
question of filing an indictment, all the more so in the decision on
continuing the conduct of judicial proceedings. Therefore, this procedural
consideration as well adds to the existing complexities in continuing the
conduct of the proceedings.

Summary of MattersIn light of the evidentiary developments since the filing
of the indictment and the exceptional circumstances as detailed above, it is
appropriate that the authority re-examine its position as required of it, in
view of the public interest in its broad sense and the right to a fair trial
of every person facing criminal charges.After examining all the
considerations, the evidence and the new circumstances, including - the
existing evidentiary basis and the release of the security detainee to Gaza;
the circumstances relating to the conduct of the enforcement authorities
throughout the proceedings; the publication of evidence in the framework of
a media interview; and the procedural difficulty to advance the proceedings
as created in the circumstances of the matter - the Military Advocate
General decided to order the cancellation of the indictment.And after these
words:The role of the Military Advocate's Office is to enable the IDF to
fulfill its missions, and alongside that to enforce the law against those
who act contrary to the law.All the personnel of the law enforcement system
in the IDF, in the Military Advocate's Office and in the Military Police
Investigative Unit, have done and will continue to do everything in their
power to fulfill this mission. As in routine, so also in emergency and in
the complex days of the war. They do this out of a sense of mission,
dedication and professionalism.The resilience of the IDF is based inter alia
on its commitment to act according to the law, and to handle events that
deviate from IDF values also with criminal tools where there is
justification for it.The Military Advocate's Office, under the leadership of
the Military Advocate General, will continue to do its work faithfully, for
the IDF and the State of Israel, and all this without fear of
non-substantive criticism and attacks against public servants, and out of a
sense of responsibility for the mission entrusted to it, with integrity,
objectivity and professionalism.

Weekly Commentary: Iranian Refineries a Good Target?

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 09:40:10 -0500

Weekly Commentary: Iranian Refineries a Good Target?
Dr. Aaron Lerner 6 March 2026

Iran exports crude oil.

Its refineries, however, almost exclusively serve the domestic market.

Iran is already on the edge.

It would take only a few days to take all of its refineries offline.

Such a move could dramatically accelerate regime change by severely limiting
the capabilities of fuel-restricted Iranian security forces while increasing
the economic pressure that drives people into the streets.

Yes, Iran could attack more of its neighbors' refineries.

But the impact would be short-lived.

Consider the Brent futures market. While the spot price is spiking with
passage through the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, Brent futures three
months out are only about $10 a barrel higher than pre-war levels.

There's more than enough refinery capacity outside of the Gulf region to
pick up the slack even in a worst-case scenario, in which Iran retaliates by
trying to damage even more of its neighbors' refineries.

So whatever happens in the coming days to Iran's refineries is unlikely to
materially affect what Americans pay for gasoline when they head to the
polls in November.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Shabbat War Rules - Raanana Rabbinate

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 07:18:54 -0500

The Religious Council
The Chief Rabbinate of Raanana
[Grok translation]
With the help of Heaven, on the eve of the holy Shabbat, Parashat Ki Tisa 5786
Guidelines for the Holy Shabbat Parashat Ki Tisa - Parah - Operation Lion’s Roar
To distribute the guidelines in anticipation of the upcoming holy Shabbat, in the midst of Operation Lion’s Roar.
Use of Elevator
• When there is one elevator in the building and residents of the upper floors need it to reach the shelter, it is recommended not to switch it to Shabbat mode this Shabbat.
• Permission to use the regular elevator is only for the purpose of going to the shelter and not for the purpose of praying in a minyan.
• After permission is given to leave the shelter, anyone who is able to climb the stairs to their home is permitted to use the regular elevator to return home, provided that the button is pressed in an altered manner - using a tool like a key or similar, and if none is available - even using the back of the finger.
Cell Phones
• It is permitted to carry a cell phone on Shabbat if it is required to prevent danger. Therefore, if a person leaves their home to a place where they will not be able to reach a protected space in time without hearing the early warning – they are permitted to take the phone with them for the purpose of the early alert.
• It is forbidden to press on the screen or the buttons to view messages on the screen.
• Pressing the button on the side of the screen on Shabbat is more severe than pressing the screen itself. Therefore, in a case of great need – such as needing to know if it is permitted to leave the protected space – one may press on the screen. In a case where the screen is off and there is a need to press the side button, and it is required for great need, press the side button in an altered manner.
• It is forbidden to disconnect the cell phone from the charger – even when the battery is full. It is possible to connect the charger in advance to a Shabbat clock and disconnect the cell phone when the Shabbat clock turns off. If there is concern that the battery will run out, it is also permitted to connect the cell phone to a charger connected to a Shabbat clock – when the Shabbat clock is off.
• It is recommended to charge a Shabbat phone to full battery.
Radio
• It is recommended to leave a radio / computer on in the protected room tuned to a quiet wave.
• It is permitted on Shabbat to increase or decrease the volume on the radio device (without turning it completely off), whether using a dial or buttons, provided that this action does not cause a light to turn on or off or a change in the device’s display.
• There is no permission to listen on Shabbat to news reports on radio or television except for instructions from the Home Front Command.
Light and Air Conditioner in the Protected Room
• It is recommended to leave a constant light on in the protected room using Shabbat switches. If forgotten and there is a need for lighting – it is permitted to turn on an incandescent bulb in an altered manner.
• It is recommended to prepare in the protected room emergency lighting with Shabbat switches that will turn on automatically in case of a power outage. If not prepared and there is a need for lighting – it is permitted to turn on a flashlight with an incandescent bulb in an altered manner.
• If available – it is recommended to leave a fan or air conditioner running in advance in the protected room. If not left on and the stay in the protected room is prolonged, and those sitting suffer from the heat – it is permitted to turn on a fan or air conditioner in an altered manner.

Alarm Between Kiddush and the Meal
• If they return to eat after staying in the protected room or shelter in a place where Kiddush was made – there is no need for an additional Kiddush, even if the shelter is outside the house.
• Preferably, one should not make Kiddush with the intention of eating in the protected room (such as when an alarm is expected) unless one can see the protected room from the place where Kiddush is made. In a time of pressing need, it is possible to rely on the protected room being in the same domain – even if it is not visible.
Alarm During Prayer
• During an alarm, one must immediately enter the protected space – according to the instructions of the Home Front Command – even if in the middle of the Amidah prayer. In this case, the best option – enter the protected space while walking and continue the prayer there. If one did not continue the prayer, since they stayed in the protected space longer than the time it takes to pray the Amidah from beginning to end, when leaving the protected room, they should restart the Amidah prayer anew.
• If they are in the repetition of the Amidah by the prayer leader and the prayer was interrupted for the entire stay in the protected space, then when they return to the synagogue, they should start the repetition of the Amidah anew. And if the Kohanim have already raised their hands the first time, then when the prayer leader repeats the prayer the second time, the Kohanim should not ascend again to raise their hands, but the prayer leader should say “Our God and God of our fathers….”
• If they are in any other place in the prayer, then when they return to the synagogue, they should continue from where they stopped.
• If they are in the Torah reading, they should stop the reading and cover the Torah scroll, and after returning, continue from where they stopped. If they stopped the reading after the blessing of the oleh before they managed to read: if the oleh did not interrupt speaking – they should start reading without the first blessing, and if they spoke even one word – they should repeat and bless.
Let us all pray for the success of our soldiers and all those engaged in the holy work of destroying the kingdom of evil, Let us thank the Holy One, Blessed be He, for the great miracles He performs for us, And let us increase prayer for great salvations and complete redemption Speedily in our days, Amen.
Shlomo Ishon Rabbi of Eastern Raanana