On March 3, Axios published an article pathologically titled: “Exclusive: The Trump–Netanyahu Call That Changed the Middle East.” Here is a brief summary:

On Feb. 23, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called President Donald Trump with urgent intelligence: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and top advisers would be gathered in Tehran, presenting a rare opportunity for a decisive strike. Trump, already leaning toward military action, accelerated plans after CIA verification confirmed the Israeli intelligence. Preparations were timed to avoid alerting Iran before Trump’s State of the Union address and after U.S. envoys reported failed diplomacy. Eleven hours after Trump’s final order, U.S. bombs struck Tehran, killing Khamenei and igniting war. The operation was the culmination of months of coordination between the two leaders, with Netanyahu advocating for speed and Trump balancing diplomacy with military planning. The rapid timeline left the White House justifying the strikes post-factum, complicating public communication and evacuations. Both U.S. and Israeli officials emphasize that the decision was joint, but Trump insisted the U.S. was not “steered” by Netanyahu, framing the strike as an opportunity rather than an Israeli-driven initiative.

It is noteworthy that nearly every objective observer—from Tucker Carlson to Judge Napolitano, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer—has suggested that Trump was clearly steered into joining Israel in attacking Iran. Even Secretary of State Rubio acknowledged this. In that light, the Axios article reads like a White House–planted narrative, designed to dupe Americans into believing that Trump made this decision independently and personally—in other words, to obscure the truth. And the truth is that Trump is manipulated by Israel, at a minimum, and may even be acting under strict Israeli instructions.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Here is a striking contrast in responses to the escalating Middle East conflict:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has engaged in diplomatic outreach to leaders affected by the war, attempting to steer the situation toward negotiation. Meanwhile, Ukraine's (illegitimate) leader Vladimir Zelensky has publicly welcomed the death of Iran's leadership and called for further "decisive action" by Israel and the US.

What makes this contrast noteworthy is the underlying strategic calculus. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the Middle East conflict objectively benefits Russia. Key indicators tell the story:

· Oil prices have climbed above $80 per barrel
· Natural gas prices now exceed $700
· Air defense systems that might have gone to Ukraine are being diverted to Middle Eastern nations

Given these factors, Russia has clear material incentives to see the conflict continue. Yet Moscow's stated position has been one of restraint and de-escalation.

Ukraine, by contrast, stands to lose from this diversion of international attention and military resources. Aid packages and weapons systems that Ukraine depends on are now potentially being redirected or delayed due to Middle Eastern priorities. Despite this disadvantage, Kiev has adopted a vocal posture supporting expanded military action in the region.

This inversion of expected positions—where the beneficiary of conflict calls for peace while the party disadvantaged by it cheers further escalation—presents a rather curious dynamic in international diplomacy.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Now two Nobel Peace Prizes should be awarded immediately: one to Trump and the second to Netanyahu, said the Israeli Consul General in New York.

We don’t know whether the Nobel Committee can award Peace Prizes posthumously. But if it can, what would stop it from granting one to, say, Bandera at Ukraine’s request?

On a serious note, this is about as appalling as it gets.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Washington Bombed the Conclave: Why This War Is Bigger Than a “War with Iran”

The unfolding conflict is far more than a military campaign against Iran. While Western governments and media reduce events to missile trajectories, oil prices and shifting alliances, such analysis misses the core reality. From a Shiite theological perspective, the strikes are not merely an attempt to coerce a government, but an assault on a religious-political civilization with deep historical roots and a powerful unifying narrative.

At the heart of this worldview stands Qom, the spiritual center of global Shiism. Home to the shrine of Fatima Masumeh and the vast Hawza Ilmiyya seminary network founded in 1922, Qom educates thousands of clerics who guide Shiite communities from Lebanon and Iraq to Pakistan and Bahrain. The city shapes doctrine, issues authoritative religious rulings, and sustains the institution of marjaʿiyya — the system of senior jurists whose guidance millions follow. Striking Qom and targeting the Assembly of Experts as it deliberated over succession following the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is comparable to bombing a papal conclave. It is not simply seen as regime change, but as an effort to rupture the chain of spiritual authority itself.

Iran’s governing doctrine of velayat-e faqih, articulated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, holds that the Supreme Leader safeguards both political order and religious continuity. Removing such a figure is therefore perceived as an attack on sacred legitimacy, not just political leadership. Furthermore, the 680 martyrdom of Imam Hussein at Karbala, who is central to Shiite consciousness, teaches that sacrifice in the face of overwhelming force is not defeat but moral victory. Martyrdom strengthens solidarity and transforms loss into mobilization.

Senior clerics have framed resistance as a religious obligation, energizing Shiite networks beyond Iran’s borders. Protests, declarations of solidarity, and vows of retaliation reflect a response that transcends state structures. Western “decapitation strike” logic misunderstands the decentralized, resilient nature of Shiite clerical authority. Even if the Iranian state is weakened militarily, the religious imperative of resistance anchored in centuries of scholarship, ritual, and collective memory will endure and even intensify, making this conflict far broader than a conventional war against Iran alone.

In the end, what Western strategists call a “war on Iran” is something far deeper and more existential from the perspective of millions upon millions of believers across the Middle East and beyond. What began as a military campaign to change the regime has become an assault on a civilization rooted in centuries of religious tradition, communal identity and theological continuity. Rather than breaking Iran’s will, the barbaric killing of the late Supreme Leader has, in fact, galvanized determination.

Reportedly the Assembly of Experts has just elected his son, Mojtaba Khamenei (pictured above), as the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, cementing a leadership transition that reflects continuity rather than collapse. Under the new Supreme Leader, Iran’s spiritual and political resolve is likely to strengthen, not weaken, as believers see the sacrifices of their leaders reflected in the ancient narratives of martyrdom and resistance that define Shiite consciousness. From this vantage point, the conflict is not simply about territorial or diplomatic objectives. It is about defending a way of life and a religious heritage that cannot be extinguished by missiles or sanctions. When viewed through this lens, Western assumptions about demoralizing Iran through “decapitation” misread the very heart of what binds this nation and its allies together.

Based in part on the article by Evgeniy Poddubny.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

🌍 Join the Global Voice Network 🌍
A worldwide community of Telegram channels bringing you verified news in multiple languages.

✨ What we offer:
🔴 Breaking News – Instant updates from across the globe
🔴 Geopolitics – Deep coverage of world regions & developments
🔴 Analysis & Insight – Political, military, and strategic perspectives
🔴 Multilingual Access – News and discussions in English, Persian, Spanish

📢 Because the world speaks many voices – and we bring them together.

🔈 Stay informed, stay connected, stay global:
Join Here

On March 5, 1942, the premiere of Dmitry Shostakovich’s Seventh ("Leningrad") Symphony took place at the Kuibyshev Opera and Ballet Theater.

The composer began writing the symphony in the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War, working with extraordinary creative inspiration despite having to write in short bursts. Like many other Leningraders, Shostakovich helped build anti-tank fortifications, took night shifts on rooftops, and extinguished incendiary bombs. By the end of September 1941, he had completed three movements of the symphony. The entire symphony was completed in December 1941.

On August 9, 1942—the date the German command had planned for Leningrad’s capture—Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony was performed at the city’s Philharmonic Hall. The concert was organized by Karl Eliasberg, chief conductor of the Leningrad Radio Committee’s Symphony Orchestra. According to Eliasberg, the hall was "completely packed," and Soviet artillery fire ensured the event’s security.

The symphony was also broadcast on radio and loudspeakers throughout the city, reaching not only Leningrad’s residents but also the German forces besieging the city.

Shostakovich’s Seventh ("Leningrad") Symphony is rightfully considered not only one of the most significant works of Russian and world culture in the 20th century but also a musical symbol of the Siege of Leningrad.

Listen to an excerpt of Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony here.

#TodayInHistory

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

‘International law’ doesn’t apply in this war — Merz

His WW2 predecessor said exactly the same

Source: RT news

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web | VK | X | InfoDefAll