I was born in Poonch (Kashmir) and now I live in Norway. I oppose war and violence and am a firm believer in the peaceful co-existence of all nations and peoples. In my academic work I have tried to espouse the cause of the weak and the oppressed in a world dominated by power politics, misleading propaganda and violations of basic human rights. I also believe that all conscious members of society have a moral duty to stand for and further the cause of peace and human rights throughout the world.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has entrusted Iran‘s
top national security official with the survival of the country in the
case of attacks or assassination, a report by The New York Times said.
According to the report published
on Sunday, several senior officials and members of the Revolutionary
Guard Corps told the daily that Khamenei has issued a series of
directives aimed at securing Tehran’s governance.
This includes four layers of succession
for military and government posts he appointed, alongside instructions
given to senior officials to name up to four replacements.
In the case that communication with him is
obstructed or he is killed, Khamenei has also delegated
responsibilities to a close-knit group of confidants, based on
information shared with the Times by senior officials, diplomats and
military commanders.
Ali Larijani is named in the article among
the handful of close political and military associates who will ensure
the survival of Iran in the event of US-Israel attacks or the assassination of Tehran’s top leadership.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The security chief was appointed in August
as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the body that
holds ultimate authority over the country’s security and foreign policy
decisions.
During the 12-day war with Israel in June, Khamenei named three candidates who would potentially succeed him.
While Larijani is almost certainly not
among the contenders for the title of Supreme Leader, as he is not a
senior Shia cleric which is necessary for the role, he is among the top
candidates for managing the country if Iran’s upper echelon is wiped
out, the report said.
Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliament
speaker, and former president Hassan Rouhani are also among those listed
by sources as possible leaders.
What Larijani’s return as security tsar reveals about Iran
The report also makes mention of contact between Washington and Tehran amid the unrest in Iran.
According to the Times, American envoy to
the region Steve Witkoff sought to reach the country’s foreign minister,
Abbas Araghchi, following US President Donald Trump’s threats to strike
Iran if it killed protesters.
Araghchi then asked President Masoud
Pezeshkian for authorisation to communicate back to Witkoff, but was
directed by Pezeshkian to get approval from Larijani instead,
underscoring his role.
The report indicates that the president appears resigned to deferring authority to Larijani.
Against this backdrop of US-Iran tensions,
speculation on Khamenei’s next moves comes amid growing tensions
despite diplomatic talks this week between the two countries.
The talks were a last-ditch attempt to
avert threatened military action by the US, with Khamenei warning Trump
on Tuesday he would not be able to “destroy” the Islamic Republic.
According to AFP, talks were being held
discreetly, with diplomatic police blocking the private access road to
Oman’s residence in the municipality of Cologny.
USS Gerald R. Ford [Photo: US Navy/Seaman Alyssa Joy]
The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford,
the largest warship ever built, transited the Strait of Gibraltar on
Friday and entered the Mediterranean, placing the United States within
days of having the military force in position for a massive illegal
assault on Iran.
Two US officials told Reuters on Friday
that military planning had reached “an advanced stage,” with options
including “targeting individuals” and “pursuing leadership change in
Tehran.” Asked whether he was considering a limited strike, US President
Donald Trump told reporters: “I guess I can say I am considering that.”
The New York Times reported
Tuesday that the buildup had “progressed to the point” that Trump could
take military action “as soon as this weekend.” More than 50 fighter
jets, two carrier strike groups and dozens of refueling tankers have
been deployed. B-2 bombers have been placed on higher alert.
The Wall Street Journal detailed
the hardware pouring into the region: F-35 and F-22 stealth fighters,
F-15Es, F-16s, EA-18G electronic warfare jets, nine destroyers armed
with Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the submarine USS Georgia. The
Associated Press called it “the largest force of American warships and
aircraft to the Middle East in decades.”
An attack on Iran would constitute a war
of aggression—the “supreme international crime”—as defined at the
Nuremberg trials. Iran has not attacked the United States. There is no
UN Security Council authorization. There is no congressional
authorization. Trump has made clear he regards none of this as a
constraint. “I don’t need international law,” he told the New York Times in January.
The threat of attack comes as Iran’s
government has been desperately appealing to the Trump administration to
negotiate. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that a
draft counterproposal would be ready “in the next two, three days”
following indirect talks in Geneva this week and that a deal could be
achieved “in a very short period of time.”
Iran’s diplomatic efforts will count for
nothing, because for the Trump administration “diplomacy” is merely a
pretext and cover for murder and extortion. Venezuelan President Nicolás
Maduro sought to negotiate with the Trump administration in the months
before the January raid that seized him and his wife, offering as late
as the day before to discuss a deal.
The same fraud was carried out against
Iran last year. The White House gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum. Five
rounds of talks were held. On June 8, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff sat in
a war-planning session at Camp David alongside the CIA director and
defense secretary. Five days later, Israel launched Operation Rising
Lion, bombing more than 100 targets and assassinating senior commanders
and nuclear scientists. On June 22, seven B-2 bombers launched Operation
Midnight Hammer, striking Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz
and Isfahan. Iran’s foreign minister told the UN: “We were attacked in
the midst of an ongoing diplomatic process.”
The White House demands total
capitulation—no uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, dismantling of the
ballistic missile program and abandonment of regional allies. US
officials say privately they see no prospect of Iran meeting these
terms. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that if Iran
refuses to comply after an “initial limited military strike,” “the US
would respond with a broad campaign against regime
facilities—potentially aimed at toppling the Tehran regime.”
The war against Iran is a component of the
eruption of American militarism all over the world. The carrier now
entering the Mediterranean to attack Iran was redeployed from the
Caribbean, where it took part in the seizure of Venezuelan President
Maduro. The attack on Venezuela, the threatened seizure of Greenland and
the Panama Canal, and the war against Iran are components of a single
strategy: the use of military power to control the world’s critical
resources and chokepoints in preparation for conflict with Russia and
China.
There is overwhelming opposition to war
with Iran. A Quinnipiac poll in January found 70 percent of voters
oppose military action. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 69 percent say the US
should not get involved in Middle East military action unless directly
threatened.
Despite this public opposition, the
Democratic Party has systematically enabled Trump’s war preparations,
because it speaks for the same constituency in the capitalist ruling
class, which sees the colonial subjugation of the whole world as a means
to prop up US global hegemony.
Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia
told MS NOW on February 14: “I think it’s appropriate the president has
all the options on the table.”
On Friday, Democratic Representative Josh
Gottheimer of New Jersey issued a bipartisan statement with Republican
Representative Mike Lawler of New York explicitly opposing a resolution
by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna that would prohibit the
use of military force against Iran without congressional authorization.
“This resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to
real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous
moment,” they wrote. “Congress must not limit our ability to protect
Americans and our allies.”
Democratic Senator John Fetterman of
Pennsylvania declared on Newsmax on February 11 his support for bombing
Iran, pledging to vote against any war powers resolution. “I absolutely
was fully supportive and was cheering for that Midnight Hammer,” he
said. “And, now, if that’s required for a second round, I’ll be the one
Democrat to absolutely say that’s entirely appropriate.”
On Friday, as the Ford entered the
Mediterranean and the administration announced plans for “leadership
change” and “targeting individuals,” neither House Minority Leader
Hakeem Jeffries, nor Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, nor the
leaders of the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party—Senator Bernie
Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who last weekend
at the Munich Security Conference repeated the administration’s regime
change talking points about Iran—issued any statement.
The Democrats have voted to fund every
weapon now being assembled for this attack. The $901 billion National
Defense Authorization Act passed the House 312-112 in December, with 115
Democrats voting yes. In the Senate, it passed 77-20 with the vast
majority of Democrats in favor. In January, 149 House Democrats voted
for $839 billion in defense appropriations.
Palestinian journalists detained by Israel
have described systematic torture, sexual violence and starvation
inside Israeli prisons, according to a report published on Thursday by
the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
The report, titled ‘We returned from hell’, draws on interviews with 59 Palestinian journalists jailed since October 2023.
All but one said they endured “torture, abuse or other forms of violence”.
Testimonies detail baton beatings, electroshocks and being forced
into prolonged stress positions, including being forced to stand under
sewage water. Two journalists said they were raped by their Israeli
captors.
Journalist Sami al-Sai recounted how soldiers stripped him and
penetrated him with a baton and other objects inside a small cell at
Megiddo prison, leaving him in a “severe psychological state”.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
“Descriptions of sexual violence appeared repeatedly in the
testimonies, with journalists describing assaults as intended to
humiliate, terrorise and permanently scar them,” the report states.
Two journalists said they were raped by their Israeli captors
Others described threats against their families, sleep deprivation
through the use of blaring music, and the denial of urgent medical care,
including treatment for broken bones and eye injuries.
“CPJ’s reporting shows a clear pattern in how Palestinian journalists
were treated in Israeli custody,” said the organisation's CEO Jodie
Ginsberg.
“The scale and consistency of these testimonies point to something far beyond isolated misconduct," she added.
"When dozens of journalists independently describe physical and
psychological abuse, the international community must take action."
'We will kill your family'
Journalist Amin Baraka said interrogators threatened his family because of his work with Al Jazeera.
“An Israeli soldier told me, word for word in Arabic, that Al Jazeera
correspondent Wael al-Dahdouh defied us and stayed in the Gaza Strip,
so we killed his family, and we will kill yours too,” he said.
Dahdouh, Al Jazeera Arabic’s Gaza bureau chief, lost his wife,
daughter, son and grandson in an Israeli air strike while they sheltered
in a relative’s home.
Israeli prisons 'begin preparations to apply death penalty' for Palestinians
Some detainees survived on “moldy bread and rotten food”, losing an average of 23 and a half kilograms each.
One journalist, Sami al-Sai, said soldiers targeted the site of his
recent kidney surgery despite him informing them of the operation.
“We returned from hell,” Imad Ifranji told CPJ, using the term
detainees used to describe a section at the notorious Israeli prison Sde
Teiman.
“These are not isolated incidents,” said CPJ regional director Sara Qudah.
“They expose a deliberate strategy to intimidate and silence journalists, and destroy their ability to bear witness.”
Nearly 300 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed
in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 2023 in what has been
desrcibed the deadliest place for journalists in the world.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks
during a working breakfast with governors in the State Dining Room at
the White House on February 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
One analyst predicted Iran would close the
Strait of Hormuz and attack oil installations “in the hope of driving
oil prices to record levels” should the US strike.
US President Donald Trump on Friday confirmed that he’s considering launching an unprovoked military strike against Iran.
According to the New York Times,
Trump was asked by reporters on Friday if he was considering attacking
Iran, and he replied, “I guess I can say I am considering that.”
The US has for weeks been sending fleets
of warships, including the world’s largest aircraft carrier, to the
Middle East in apparent preparation for a massive military operation
against Iran.
According to a Friday report from Al Jazeera, the buildup is the largest by the US Air Force in the region since the 2003 Iraq War,
and it includes deployments of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air
superiority jets, and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
Trump has not given any justification for launching such an attack, nor has he asked the US Congress to approve it, even though the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to declare war.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have been pushing for a vote in the US House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that would require Congress to debate and approve any act of war with Iran.
It is also not clear what goals the president would hope to achieve with the attack. A Thursday CNN report indicated
that Trump is now weighing several options ranging from “more targeted
strikes to sustained operations that could potentially last for weeks,”
including “plans to take out Tehran’s leaders.”
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote
in a Friday analysis of Trump’s reported attack plans that there is
little chance that the president will be able to achieve a quick victory
over Iran simply because the offers he has made to its government are
nonstarters.
“Since the US strategy… is to escalate until Tehran
caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians
are incentivized to strike back right away at the US,” explained Parsi.
“The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as
possible on the US, and hope that this causes Trump to back off or
accept a more equitable deal.”
Parsi acknowledged that there is no way
Iran can defeat the US militarily, but could “get close to destroying
Trump’s presidency before it loses the war” through a number of
maneuvers intended to spike the price of oil,
including “closing the Strait of Hormuz” and attacking “oil
installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record
levels and by that inflation in the US.”
“This is an extremely risky option for
Iran,” Parsi conceded, “but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the
capitulation ‘deal’ Trump is seeking to force on Iran.”
This year’s Berlin International Film
Festival (Berlinale) has witnessed a growing conflict between a layer of
artists determined to speak out against the genocide that has taken
place and continues until this day in Gaza, and the Berlin festival
management, together with its backers in the German government,
determined to keep genocide off the agenda.
Bae
Doona, left, and Jury president Wim Wenders attend the press conference
for the Jury of the International Film Festival, Berlinale, in Berlin,
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026. [AP Photo/Scott A Garfitt]
An open letter released February 17, and
now signed by more than 100 film artists, all of whom have attended
previous Berlinales, accuses the film festival of “censoring artists who
oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the
German state’s key role in enabling it.”
The signatories include Tilda Swinton,
Javier Bardem, Peter Mullan, Mike Leigh, Nan Goldin, Adam McKay, Alia
Shawkat, Brian Cox, Hany Abu Assad, Joshua Oppenheimer, Ken Loach, Mahdi
Fleifel, Mark Ruffalo, Saleh Bakri and Sarah Friedland.
The open letter raises a serious
allegation made by the Palestine Film Institute to the effect that the
festival has been “policing filmmakers alongside a continued commitment
to collaborate with Federal Police on their investigations.”
The letter refers to those filmmakers who
spoke out on behalf of Palestinians and their rights on the Berlinale
stage at the 2025 festival being aggressively reprimanded by senior
festival programmers. The letter cites one film worker who told Film
Workers for Palestine: “there was a feeling of paranoia in the air, of
not being protected and of being persecuted, which I had never felt
before at a film festival.”
The open letter also deplores the
statement made at the opening of the festival that artists should “stay
out of politics”: The artists write:
We fervently disagree with the statement
made by Berlinale 2026 jury president Wim Wenders that filmmaking is
“the opposite of politics”. You cannot separate one from the other. We
are deeply concerned that the German state-funded Berlinale is helping
put into practice what Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Expression and Opinion recently condemned as Germany’s misuse of
draconian legislation “to restrict advocacy for Palestinian rights,
chilling public participation and shrinking discourse in academia and
the arts.”
The letter quotes the Chinese artist and
dissident Ai Weiwei who described what was happening in Germany as
“doing what they did in the 1930s.”
The public appeal points to the joint role
of the US and German governments in supplying Israel with the weapons
(including internationally forbidden US-made thermal and thermobaric
weapons) it requires to continue its campaign of ethnic cleansing and
genocide.
Noting that previous Berlinales had
publicly condemned “atrocities carried out against people in Iran and
Ukraine,” the letter concludes:
We call on the Berlinale to fulfil its
moral duty and clearly state its opposition to Israel’s genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes against Palestinians, and completely
end its involvement in shielding Israel from criticism and calls for
accountability.
In another significant development, Kaouther Ben Hania, director of the award-winning film The Voice of Hind Rajab,
refused to accept the “Most Valuable Film” award handed out at the
Cinema for Peace ceremony in Berlin this week after an Israeli general
was recognized at the same gathering. Also in attendance at the “peace”
gathering was the former US Secretary of State and war criminal Hillary
Clinton.
The Voice of Hind Rajab
While Cinema for Peace is not officially a
part of the Berlinale, the gathering has been held since 2002 on a
yearly basis to run parallel to the film festival and attract the same
audience.
In refusing to take her award, Ben Hania
said: “The Israeli army killed Hind Rajab; killed her family; killed the
two paramedics who came to save her, with the complicity of the world’s
most powerful governments and institutions.”
“I refuse to let their deaths become a
backdrop for a polite speech about peace. Not while the structures that
enabled them remain untouched,” she continued.
Ben Hania added that the death of the
six-year-old Hind was “not an exception, it’s part of a genocide,” and
she criticized those who described large-scale civilian killings as
“self-defense” or “complex circumstances” while repressing all
opposition.
“Peace requires justice and accountability, not glossy slogans,” she concluded.
In response to the artists’ open letter
directed toward the Berlinale, its management and supporters in the
German media have gone into overdrive to defend the festival’s stance.
Festival director Tricia Tuttle issued a
statement, evasively declaring: “We are representing lots of people who
have different views, including lots of people who live in Germany who
want a more complex understanding of Israel’s positionality than maybe
the rest of the world has right now.”
In one short paragraph, Tuttle repeats the
phrase complex/complexity in relation to Israel three times—the very
same words Kaouther Ben Hania criticised in her award rejection speech!
What is Tuttle talking about! There is no “complexity” when it comes to taking sides on the issue of genocide.
On the one side, are the broad masses of
the world’s population who increasingly regard Israel as a pariah state
responsible for one of the worst acts of genocidal violence since the
Holocaust. This opposition, which has taken the form of numerous mass
protests, demonstrations and strikes, also extends to those countries
which are the closest allies of the state of Israel, the US, Germany,
Great Britain and France.
Basel Sadra (left) and Yuval Abraham in 2025. [AP Photo/Markus Schreiber]
On the other side, are the governments
listed above, together with bourgeois regimes and nominal opposition
parties all over the world that continue to aid and maintain relations
with the war criminals in Tel Aviv, thus making a continuation of the
genocide possible.
In Germany, it should be noted, it was a Green Party Culture Minister Claudia Roth who in 2024 denounced a Berlinale jury team as antisemitic for awarding a prize to the film No Other Land,
which documents the crimes of the Israeli army and government against
the Palestinian population in the West Bank. More recently, a leading
member of the Left Party, Andreas Büttner, raised false claims of
antisemitism to close down an art exhibition held in Potsdam defending the rights of Palestinians.
The stirrings of opposition among film
workers to the complicity of cultural institutions in supporting
genocide is to be welcomed. At the same time, those engaged in the
culture industry in Germany should take note. The comment made by a
Palestine film worker cited in the open letter, “there was a feeling of
paranoia in the air, of not being protected and of being persecuted,
which I had never felt before at a film festival,” recalls a similar
comment by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
A year ago, Albanese was prevented from
holding lectures in Germany on the situation in Gaza. Responding to the
threats and intimidation she had faced in Germany, Albanese commented:
“I have to admit that about 75 hours in this country have made me pretty
nervous and I cannot wait to get back to ‘peaceful’ Tunisia [where she
is a resident]. I have never felt this sense of lacking oxygen that I
feel here.”
This process is not restricted to Germany.
Across the globe, governments and a host of official institutions are
using police-state methods, recalling actions taken by fascist
governments in the 1930s, to arrest, intimidate, imprison without due
process and violently repress opposition to the mass slaughter in Gaza.
Genocide is being normalised by these forces in order to justify new
wars and new atrocities directed at the broadest layers of the world
population.
The report said that the base would take
up more than 350 acres of land in southern Gaza and is envisioned as a
future base for the international force that may deploy to the Strip
under President Trump’s plan for the Palestinian territory, though so
far, only Indonesia has announced plans to commit troops to the force.
A
photograph shows tents at a makeshift camp sheltering displaced
Palestinians in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City, on February 16,
2026. (Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto)
The Guardian said that the plans
it reviewed “call for the phased construction of a military outpost that
will eventually have a footprint of 1,400 metres by 1,100 metres,
ringed by 26 trailer-mounted armored watch towers, a small arms range,
bunkers, and a warehouse for military equipment for operations. The
entire base will be encircled with barbed wire.”
The contracting document includes protocol for what happens if construction teams come across human remains, since the bodies of at least 8,000 Palestinians are missing
under the rubble. “If suspected human remains or cultural artifacts are
discovered, all work in the immediate area must cease immediately, the
area must be secured, and the Contracting Officer must be notified
immediately for direction,” the document says.
It’s unclear how much the base would cost
to build, but earlier reports suggested the US was planning to construct
a major military facility on the Gaza border at a cost of between $500 million and $600 million.
Trump convened his first “Board of Peace”
meeting in Washington on Thursday, which came as Israel continues to
violate the ceasefire deal, killing more than 600 Palestinians in the
Strip since it was signed. At the event, Trump pledged that the US would contribute $10 billion to the board.
Under Trump’s plan for Gaza, the
international force is supposed to replace IDF soldiers, who continue to
occupy more than 50% of the Strip. But there’s no timeline on when that
would happen, and Israel is threatening to restart its full-scale
genocidal war if Hamas doesn’t disarm.
A Trump advisor told Axios that there’s a
90% chance the US launches an attack in the coming weeks, while Israeli
sources say it could happen within days
The Trump administration is close to
launching a major attack on Iran as it continues a massive buildup of
military forces in the Middle East, according to a report from Axios reporter Barak Ravid.
Sources told Ravid that the potential US
attack on Iran would likely be a massive multi-week operation, much
bigger than the US operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro. They said it would also be much broader in scope than the 12-day
US-Israeli war on Iran that was launched in June 2025. Reuters also recently reported that the US was preparing for a sustained, multi-week attack on Iran.
Israeli officials said that the Israeli
government, which is pushing for the US to pursue regime change in Iran,
is preparing for the possibility of the attack starting in the coming
days, and CNN later reported
that the US military is ready to start the war as soon as this weekend.
Other sources put the timeline a little later, saying the war would
likely start in a few weeks.
An
F/A-18F Super Hornet makes an arrested landing on the flight deck ofthe
aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea, January 30,
2026 (US Navy photo)
“The boss is getting fed up,” a Trump
adviser told Ravid. “Some people around him warn him against going to
war with Iran, but I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action in
the next few weeks.”
The Axios report noted that there
has been little public debate about the potential war amid the major US
military buildup and said that Americans will likely be surprised by
the scale of the coming attack.
All signs indicate that if the US bombs
Iran, Tehran will not hold back in its response and could target
multiple US bases and warships in the region, leaving open the
possibility that the war could result in hundreds or thousands of US
casualties. The conflict could also have a major impact on the global
economy, as Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 31% of seaborne crude oil shipments passed in 2025.
The US and Iran held talks on Tuesday, and
while the Iranian side said there was a “clear path” toward a deal, US
Vice President JD Vance said that Iran was not acknowledging President
Trump’s “red lines.”
Vance claimed the main US demand was that
Iran must not pursue a nuclear weapon, but for many months, the
administration had insisted the June 2025 US strikes on Iran
“obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities, and there’s no sign Tehran can
enrich uranium at the moment. Iran has also made clear it’s willing to
enter a deal that would involve a commitment to low enrichment levels,
and Iranian officials maintain they don’t seek a nuclear bomb.
The real goal of any US attack on Iran
will likely be regime change or taking out Iran’s ability to fire
missiles at Israel. President Trump said back in December,
when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his
Mar-a-lago resort in Florida, that he would support another Israeli
attack on Iran if the Islamic Republic “continued” its missile program.
