Israeli occupiers storm Al-Aqsa Mosque amid Palestinian warning of ‘Judaisation’
Israeli occupiers on Sunday stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied East Jerusalem under police protection, amid Palestinian warnings of “Judaisation” plans, Anadolu reports.
Omar Rajoub, director of the Media Department at the Jerusalem Governorate, told Anadolu that “raising the Israeli flag inside the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, along with performing provocative rituals, is part of a systematic and deliberate official Israeli policy led by the extremist occupation government.”
“These practices aim to impose new realities by force in occupied East Jerusalem and undermine the historical and legal status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” he added.
He warned that “occupiers’ actions inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque are part of an ongoing colonial plan targeting the spatial and temporal division of the mosque, the Judaization of the city to obliterate its religious and historical identity, and the alteration of its legal, cultural, and demographic character.”
Rajoub said the storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque by occupiers under police protection is “a clear violation of international law” and hurts the feelings of Palestinians and millions of believers around the world.”
He warned of the repercussions of these violations, describing them as “serious, repeated, and unacceptable,” and held “the Israeli government fully responsible for this dangerous escalation.”
He also called on “the international community and all countries to assume their legal and moral responsibilities and take immediate action to stop these ongoing violations against the Palestinian people and the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem.”
He emphasized that “the entire 144-dunam area of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims.”
Since 2003, Israeli police have unilaterally allowed the occupiers to enter the mosque daily during two periods—morning and afternoon prayers—except on Fridays and Saturdays.
Palestinians say Israel is intensifying efforts to Judaize East Jerusalem, including Al-Aqsa Mosque, and erase its Arab and Islamic identity.
The Palestinians regard East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, based on international resolutions that do not recognize Israel’s occupation of the city in 1967 or its annexation in 1980.
Zia’s ghost still haunts Bangladesh’s fragile power pact
For a country born out of a bloody partition from Pakistan in 1971, political transition in Bangladesh has rarely been a peaceful affair. The assassination of President Ziaur Rahman on May 30, 1981, at a government circuit house in the port city of Chattogram, followed a familiar, violent script.
Rahman, a decorated liberation war hero commonly known as Zia, who turned into a military strongman before civilianizing his rule as the founder of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), had survived at least 20 prior mutinies and coup attempts.
His final, fatal encounter with a faction of his own army ended a brief period of fragile stability, leaving behind a murder mystery that the state he helped shape has spent more than four decades systematically ignoring.
The official narrative of the assassination was constructed for institutional speed rather than historical accuracy, masking deep geopolitical and structural frictions.
Zia’s foreign policy shift, pivoting Bangladesh away from the Indo-Soviet orbit toward the West, China and the oil-rich Gulf states, had alienated powerful, highly politicized factions within the officer corps who remained fiercely loyal to the secular, socialist ideals of the 1971 revolution.
To contain this volatile rift, Lieutenant-General Hussain Muhammad Ershad, the army chief who would orchestrate his own coup less than a year later, immediately convened a highly secretive military tribunal.
The process took a mere 17 days. Armed with charges of mutiny rather than murder, the state deliberately chose to treat a profound political assassination as a mere breach of military discipline.
The tribunal ordered the hanging of 13 military officers in a rushed civilian execution process designed to foreclose deeper investigation. The alleged ringleader, Major-General Muhammad Abul Manzur, a highly “respected” commander who had fought alongside Zia in 1971, never made it to the stand.
Taken into military custody after the coup collapsed, Manzur was shot dead under highly suspicious circumstances inside the Chattogram cantonment, permanently silencing the only man who could have unmasked the wider conspiracy.
A parallel judicial inquiry committee also took testimony, yet its final report was buried by the state and never published.
This “calculated” amnesia set a dark, institutional precedent for Bangladeshi governance. It signaled to the top brass that violent political intervention carried no historical accountability, a realization that Ershad capitalized on just ten months later when he bloodlessly seized the presidency.
The political silence that followed is even more instructive than the rushed executions.
Despite holding power for multiple terms under Zia’s widow, Khaleda Zia, the BNP has consistently declined to form an independent commission of inquiry into its founder’s death, hiding behind the legal pretext that the 1981 court-martial closed the case permanently.
Critics see a deeper, cross-party consensus at play. For both the BNP and its rivals, a genuine forensic unraveling of the 1981 coup risks exposing the deep, factional rot of an army that spent its early decades acting as a political arbiter.
It was far safer for the political class to canonize Zia as a sanitized, convenient myth for electoral exploitation than to risk shaking the foundations of the garrison.
Yet, Zia’s practical legacy has proved far more durable than the state apparatus that failed to protect him. Stepping into the vacuum of the chaotic mid-1970s—following the 1975 assassination of the country’s founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—Zia dismantled the suffocating, one-party socialist experiment known as BAKSAL.
In its place, he introduced an early model of market liberalization. He pivoted the economy away from heavy state monopolies, legalized dissolved political entities across the spectrum, and laid the foundations for the three pillars that sustain modern Bangladesh.
Those are aggressive agricultural self-sufficiency through mass canal-digging irrigation programs, the deregulation that birthed the multi-billion-dollar ready-made garment export industry, and the formalization of migrant labor exports to the Gulf states, which still fills Dhaka’s central bank vaults with billions in remittances.
To anchor this economic shift, Zia engineered a distinct ideology— “Bangladeshi nationalism.”
This was a state-centric redefinition designed to expand the concept of national identity beyond narrow Bengali linguistic lines, offering a political umbrella to non-Bengali indigenous hill tribes and religious minorities, while simultaneously integrating Islamic identity into the constitutional fabric to balance the secular, pro-India alignment of his predecessors. It gave the center-right a permanent electoral anchor.
Forty-five years after his death, as his party observes yet another anniversary with an eight-day cycle of tightly choreographed memorials, the truth remains hostage to what might be dubbed as “an elite political compromise.”
The formal truth of who ordered the trigger pulled in Chattogram probably remains hidden in the archives of the cantonment, proving that in Bangladesh preserving the stability of the state machine will always triumph over historical truth.
Trump’s Abraham Accords push tangles Iran peace try
President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to end the war with Iran has taken an unexpected turn. Instead of focusing only on a ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program, Trump now appears to be linking any broader peace settlement to Arab and Muslim countries recognizing Israel through the Abraham Accords.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said he had spoken with leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain.
He reportedly urged them to sign onto the Abraham Accords, the 2020 agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reportedly not part of the call.
Trump’s demand is ambitious, but it also creates serious diplomatic complications. The Abraham Accords were one of Trump’s major foreign-policy achievements during his first term. Brokered in September 2020, they led the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to establish official diplomatic relations with Israel.
Sudan later agreed to normalize relations, though its ratification was delayed by civil war. Morocco joined in December 2020, while Kazakhstan, which already had diplomatic ties with Israel since the 1990s, joined the accords last November.
The regional response to Trump’s latest appeal is likely to be cautious, if not resistant. Pakistan has already rejected the idea out of hand. Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif told Samaa TV that joining such an agreement would clash with Pakistan’s fundamental ideologies.
Among the countries Trump named, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan do not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel. Egypt and Jordan already recognized Israel through separate peace agreements in 1979 and 1994. Turkey recognized Israel in 1949, although its relations with Israel have sharply deteriorated and bilateral trade was suspended over the Gaza war.
So far, no other country besides Pakistan has publicly responded to Trump’s demand. According to a US official cited by Axios, leaders on the call, especially those from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, appeared stunned. The official said there was silence on the line, prompting Trump to joke and ask whether they were still there.
Saudi Arabia’s position remains especially important. After the Israel-Hamas ceasefire last October, Trump again suggested that Riyadh join the accords.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman later said Saudi Arabia was open to joining, but only if there was a clear path toward Palestinian sovereignty. Israel’s far-right government, however, opposes both Palestinian sovereignty and a two-state solution.
Trump has failed to force Iran’s unconditional surrender and is now trying to tie regional peace to a fragile diplomatic process that does not address the root causes of the conflict.
The challenge is also linked to Israel’s position. Israel supported the Abraham Accords in 2020, but it has been critical of reported progress toward a peace deal with Iran. Israeli officials insist that Tehran must dismantle its nuclear program to end the war.
Iran, meanwhile, maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and has resisted demands to abandon its enriched uranium stockpile. Netanyahu recently posted an AI-generated image of himself and Trump with the message that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
Washington wants Iran to give up enriched uranium. Iranian state-linked media says nuclear issues should be handled in later talks, while Tehran wants frozen assets released and US sanctions lifted. Iran also says the Strait of Hormuz will remain under its management.
The bigger risk is that regional military activity could undermine diplomacy. Netanyahu has announced intensified strikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah despite a nominal cease-fire. Iran has said any peace agreement must also include Lebanon.
If Israel continues operations there, Iran may see little reason to accept a US-backed agreement, especially without firm guarantees against further Israeli attacks.
Trump appears to hope that the promise of wider normalization and economic cooperation can stabilize the region and bring Israel into a longer-lasting peace arrangement. Yet his approach also risks overloading an already fragile negotiation.
By tying the Iran deal to recognition of Israel, he is asking countries with deep political, ideological and public-opinion constraints to make a major concession at a moment of war, anger and uncertainty.
The result is a high-risk diplomatic gamble. Trump wants a historic settlement that links Iran, Israel and the wider Muslim world into one grand bargain. But without addressing the Palestinian question, Iran’s security concerns, Israel’s military posture and regional public sentiment, the plan may deepen resistance rather than produce peace.
In practical terms, Trump’s approach may limit Pakistan’s ability to openly associate itself with any US-Iran deal if the Abraham Accords remain attached to it.
Islamabad can support de-escalation, mediation and ceasefire efforts, but formal participation in a deal tied to Israeli recognition would be politically impossible. This could narrow Washington’s diplomatic room and make regional consensus harder to achieve.
If Washington wants wider regional support, it will need to separate the Iran peace process from the Abraham Accords or address the Palestinian issue directly.
Ultimately, Pakistan’s stance reflects both principle and political reality. Islamabad cannot join the Abraham Accords under current conditions, but it can still support peace, stability and dialogue in the Middle East.
The implication is simple: a sustainable regional settlement must include de-escalation with Iran, protection of Gulf security and a serious pathway for Palestinian rights.
Without that balance, Trump’s grand bargain is unlikely to gain meaningful support from Pakistan or the wider Muslim world.
Tofeeque Ahmed is a freelancer and media activist, writes on political developments and security issues with special focus regional affairs.
Muslim Delegation Makes Israel Day Parade Debut as Mamdani Skips Event and Knesset Boosts Representation
Democratic leaders, Jewish community figures and Israeli lawmakers gathered in New York City on Sunday for the annual Israel Day Parade, where speakers voiced support for Israel as the event drew tens of thousands of attendees under the theme “Proud Americans, Proud Zionists.”
Among those addressing the crowd were Rep. Dan Goldman, Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Rep. Mike Lawler and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“The Jewish people have yearned for a state of Israel, whilst experiencing the constant anxiety of knowing the place where they live could violently expel them at any moment, as happened again and again,” Schumer said. “We cannot, we must not go back to that era. I believe in the State of Israel. I support the State of Israel.”
Anila Ali, board chair of the American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council. (Wikimedia Commons)
The parade also marked the first time in its 61-year history that a Muslim delegation took part. The group was led by Anila Ali, board chair of the American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council, and marched alongside Jewish organizations despite online backlash and threats.
The Israeli Knesset sent a sizable delegation to the parade, including MK Afif Abed of Likud, MK Meir Cohen of Yesh Atid and MK Oded Forer of Yisrael Beytenu. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu and Negev, Galilee, and National Resilience Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf of Otzma Yehudit also joined the march.
Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana sharply criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for not attending the event, referring to anti-Israel statements Mamdani had made in the past.
Ohana accused Mamdani of “despicably fueling the flames of hatred in the city against Israel and its Jewish residents.”
“You will not intimidate us. The attempt to uproot our connection to this space through lies and violence will not succeed and will be met here and everywhere with a powerful, united Zionist fist,” Ohana said.
According to the Knesset, Mamdani’s absence led Ohana to expand the size of the delegation and attend personally in order to “express complete and uncompromising unity in Israel’s strength against its enemies at home and abroad.”
Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, Negev, Galilee, and National Resilience Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf, and Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana take part in the annual Israel Day Parade in New York City, May 31, 2026. (Noam Moskowitz/ Office of the Knesset Spokesperson)
Mamdani is the first New York City mayor not to attend the Israel Day Parade since 1964.
The annual parade is organized by the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council.
Foster Sylvers, the former child star whose smooth voice helped power one of the biggest R&B family groups of the 1970s, has died at 64 after a battle with pancreatic cancer.
Sylvers, best known as a member of The Sylvers, the family band behind the disco-era smash “Boogie Fever,” died while in hospice care, his brother Leon Sylvers III told TMZ.
The Memphis-born singer was already a star before most kids his age were even thinking about a career.
Born on February 25, 1962, Foster Sylvers broke into the music world as a child sensation. He was just 11 years old when he released his self-titled debut album in 1973.
That album included “Misdemeanor,” the funky hit that helped make him one of the standout young voices of the era. It also featured tracks such as “I’m Your Puppet,” giving the young performer an early taste of success.
But his fame would grow even bigger when he joined forces with his siblings in The Sylvers, the soul and R&B group that became a fixture of the 1970s music scene.
The family act included several of the Sylvers siblings and became known for tight harmonies, catchy grooves, and polished performances that helped define the sound of the decade.
Foster played bass on the group’s 1975 album “Showdown,” which featured their most famous hit, “Boogie Fever.”
The song became a disco-era classic and remains the track most closely tied to The Sylvers’ name. With its infectious hook and dance-floor energy, “Boogie Fever” helped cement the group’s place in pop and R&B history.
At the height of their fame, The Sylvers were photographed and celebrated as one of music’s glamorous family groups, drawing comparisons to other sibling acts that dominated the charts during that period.
But as the 1980s arrived, the group’s commercial success began to fade.
Foster later shifted into other projects, working with artists including Dynasty and Evelyn “Champagne” King. He also continued pursuing solo music as he tried to carve out a new chapter after his childhood and family-band stardom.
His later years, however, were shadowed by serious legal trouble.
In 1994, Sylvers was convicted of a sex offense involving the sexual assault of an unconscious woman. As a result, he was required to register as a sex offender in California.
News of his death marks the end of a complicated life that began with early fame, bright lights, and chart-topping success, but later included personal struggles and controversy.
Could Iran’s new air defence system be a game changer?
The doctrine of absolute air dominance, long regarded as an unassailable pillar of Western military strategy, is facing an unexpected test over the skies of the Persian Gulf. For decades, American air superiority has been viewed as an almost impenetrable shield, allowing Washington to shape conflicts on its own terms. Yet a series of dramatic events during the first half of 2026 around the Strait of Hormuz has forced strategists in the Pentagon to reconsider some of the core assumptions underpinning modern warfare.
When a frontline U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle was reportedly shot down over southwestern Iran in April 2026, followed by the loss of multiple MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones worth tens of millions of dollars, Tehran delivered a powerful geopolitical message: the era of uncontested foreign air operations in the Middle East may be drawing to a close.
This marks a striking departure from Iran’s traditional air defense posture before the conflict. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Tehran’s air-defense architecture was widely viewed as rigid, vulnerable, and relatively easy to map. It relied heavily on expensive centralized systems such as the Russian-made S-300PMU-2 batteries delivered in 2016, alongside indigenous platforms including the Bavar-373 and Khordad-15. For a country spanning 1.6 million square kilometers, the deployment of only four S-300 batteries left vast surveillance gaps across its territory.
Its most significant structural weakness was its dependence on active high-frequency radar emissions, which could be readily detected and targeted by Western electronic warfare systems. Israeli and American air forces had spent years studying the vulnerabilities of the S-300 through tactical simulations involving similar systems operated by Greece. Consequently, coalition suppression campaigns in 2026 reportedly neutralized key targeting radars with relative ease, rendering some of Iran’s most sophisticated missile batteries effectively blind.
From Centralized Defense to Asymmetric Denial
Ironically, the destruction of Iran’s conventional air-defense network appears to have accelerated the development of a far more resilient and potentially dangerous doctrine.
Recognizing that it could not match Western air power in a conventional contest, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shifted toward a distributed defense model built around small, highly mobile, low-cost, and largely passive units. The effectiveness of this approach became increasingly visible throughout 2026. Its most notable moment came in April, when an F-15E Strike Eagle operating at roughly 7,000 feet was reportedly brought down by a man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS), believed to be either a Chinese FN-6 variant or its Iranian derivative, the Misagh-3.
The incident shocked military planners in Washington. Pressure intensified further on May 25, 2026, when clashes near Qeshm Island followed the sinking of an Iranian mine-laying vessel. During the confrontation, an Iranian air-defense unit reportedly shot down an MQ-9 Reaper using a previously unknown system called Arash-e Kamangir, marking its combat debut and potentially altering the economics of modern attrition warfare. Named after the legendary Persian archer Arash, who in mythology defined the borders of Iran, the system embodies the concept of low-cost air denial. Defense analysts believe it may be an advanced evolution of the loitering surface-to-air missile known in Western intelligence circles as Project 358 or SA-67.
The hybrid weapon combines characteristics of both surveillance drones and surface-to-air missiles. Launched from a simple inclined rail mounted on commercial trucks, it uses a solid-fuel booster before transitioning to a micro turbojet engine.
Flying at roughly Mach 0.6 with an operational radius of up to 100 kilometers, it can remain airborne for extended periods while autonomously searching for targets.
Unlike traditional systems, it relies on passive infrared imaging sensors rather than active radar emissions, allowing it to remain largely undetected by enemy early-warning systems. Once a target such as an MQ-9 is identified, the missile enters an autonomous pursuit phase and detonates its fragmentation warhead using an array of laser proximity sensors. The result is a highly favorable cost-exchange ratio: an interceptor costing tens of thousands of dollars can destroy a surveillance asset valued at approximately $30 million.
China’s Invisible Hand in Iran’s Air Defense Evolution
Yet these asymmetric systems would likely not have achieved their current effectiveness without external technological support, particularly from China. Behind Tehran’s rhetoric of defense self-sufficiency lies what appears to be a sophisticated integration of Sino-Iranian sensing and targeting capabilities. On the ground, China is reported to have supplied YLC-8B three-dimensional tactical radar systems operating in the ultra-high-frequency (UHF) spectrum. Because of their longer wavelengths, UHF radars are often better suited to detecting stealth aircraft than conventional radar bands. This capability potentially allows them to identify fifth-generation platforms such as the F-35A Lightning II at distances exceeding 200 kilometers.
China’s contribution extends beyond radar technology. Through military-civilian satellite operators such as Chang Guang Satellite Technology, which manages the Jilin-1 constellation, and MinoSpace Technology, Beijing has reportedly enabled a steady flow of real-time geospatial intelligence. Targeting data is believed to be transmitted through China’s BeiDou navigation system, providing a communications architecture less vulnerable to GPS-jamming tactics. Together, these capabilities form a highly effective multi-domain kill chain. Space-based targeting information has reportedly enhanced the accuracy of Iranian drone and missile strikes against strategic U.S. support infrastructure across the region, including early-warning radar installations, communications facilities, and aerial refueling assets.
Faced with this reality, the Pentagon has been forced to adjust both tactical and operational planning in the Persian Gulf. Traditional suppression strategies centered on AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles are becoming less effective against systems that emit little or no radar signature. U.S. aircraft have increasingly shifted their patrol routes farther from Iran’s southern coastline while relying more heavily on expensive stand-off munitions. Meanwhile, U.S. Cyber Command has reportedly intensified efforts to disrupt BeiDou-linked communications networks and identify Iranian ground-control infrastructure. At the same time, Washington has expanded technology restrictions targeting Chinese satellite companies and critical microelectronics supply chains.
A New Balance of Power or a More Dangerous Stalemate?
The central question is whether this growing collection of asymmetric capabilities will make Washington think twice before launching future military operations against Iran. The answer is increasingly likely to be yes.
The political risks associated with the loss of additional manned aircraft, or the capture of American pilots on Iranian territory, represent a powerful deterrent.
Such scenarios could impose substantial domestic and international costs on any U.S. administration, creating stronger incentives to pursue negotiation rather than escalation.
This evolving balance of power has already contributed to diplomatic openings. A proposed 60-day ceasefire framework, reportedly facilitated by Pakistan and China, reflects how Iran’s strengthened defensive position may be translating into greater leverage at the negotiating table. President Masoud Pezeshkian now appears better positioned to advocate what Tehran describes as a “dignified framework” for future negotiations.
The competing demands remain formidable. Washington reportedly seeks guarantees that Iran will refrain from imposing transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, clear maritime mines within a specified timeframe, and transfer highly enriched uranium stockpiles to a third party. Tehran, meanwhile, insists on the release of frozen assets, relief from oil sanctions, and recognition of its administrative oversight role along the vital waterway.
The battlefield success of Arash-e Kamangir has also strengthened confidence among hardline factions within Iran. Rather than encouraging moderation, these developments may embolden Tehran to pursue a more assertive maritime posture in the Strait of Hormuz. Some analysts even foresee efforts to integrate regional shipping payments into renminbi-based settlement mechanisms as part of a broader strategic alignment with Beijing. The result is a fragile strategic deadlock, one resembling a high-stakes game of chicken at the edge of a cliff.
While Iran’s emerging asymmetric air-defense architecture may have reduced the threat of direct military intervention, it has simultaneously generated new sources of geopolitical friction.
As Oman attempts to broker compromises over the management of Strait of Hormuz transit arrangements, escalating rhetoric from Washington underscores the volatility of the situation. Over the coming weeks, the stability of global energy markets may hinge on whether diplomacy can bridge these fundamental differences or whether Tehran’s newfound confidence and Washington’s red lines ultimately drive the region toward a far more destructive confrontation.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
You are here: Home/All RECIPES/ Dynamite Chicken Buns – Crispy, Spicy & Irresistibly Cheesy
If you’re searching for the ultimate crowd-pleasing snack, these Dynamite Chicken Buns are exactly what you need. Soft, fluffy homemade buns are stuffed with flavorful spicy chicken, coated in a crispy seasoned crust, and finished with a creamy dynamite sauce that delivers the perfect balance of heat and richness.
Whether you’re preparing a game-day appetizer, party snack, lunchbox treat, or fun weekend meal, these buns never disappoint. Every bite is packed with juicy chicken, bold spices, crispy texture, and cheesy goodness that will have everyone reaching for seconds.
Why You’ll Love These Dynamite Chicken Buns
Crispy Outside, Soft Inside
The homemade dough bakes up beautifully soft and fluffy while the seasoned coating adds a delicious crunch.
Packed with Flavor
The chicken filling is marinated with spices, soy sauce, and sambal oelek for maximum flavor in every bite.
Perfect Party Food
These handheld buns are easy to serve and always disappear fast at gatherings.
Make-Ahead Friendly
Prepare the dough and marinate the chicken ahead of time for easy assembly.
Better Than Takeout
Freshly made at home with quality ingredients and customizable spice levels.
What Are Dynamite Chicken Buns?
Dynamite Chicken Buns are soft bread rolls filled with spicy seasoned chicken and topped with a creamy chili-based sauce. Inspired by the famous dynamite-style flavor combination found in many Asian fusion dishes, these buns combine heat, crunch, creaminess, and savory goodness into one unforgettable snack.
Ingredients You’ll Need
For the Dough
Lukewarm water
Lukewarm milk
Honey
Instant yeast
Egg
Sunflower oil
All-purpose flour
Salt
Unsalted butter
For the Chicken Filling
Chicken fillets
Salt
Onion powder
Garlic powder
Cayenne pepper
Black pepper
Sambal oelek
Soy sauce
Egg
For the Crispy Coating
Cornstarch
Salt
Black pepper
Onion powder
For the Parmesan Topping
Parmesan cheese
Cayenne powder
Onion powder
Black pepper
For the Dynamite Sauce
Mayonnaise
Chili sauce
Sambal oelek
How to Make Dynamite Chicken Buns
Step 1: Prepare the Dough
In a large mixing bowl, combine the lukewarm water, lukewarm milk, honey, and yeast.
Mix well and allow it to sit for about 5 minutes until slightly foamy.
Add the beaten egg and sunflower oil.
Mix until combined.
Add the flour, salt, and softened butter.
Knead for 10 to 12 minutes until the dough becomes smooth, soft, and elastic.
Cover the bowl and allow the dough to rise in a warm place for approximately 1 hour or until doubled in size.
Step 2: Prepare the Parmesan Topping
In a small bowl, combine:
Parmesan cheese
Cayenne powder
Onion powder
Black pepper
Mix well and set aside.
Step 3: Marinate the Chicken
Cut the chicken into small bite-sized pieces.
Place in a bowl and season with:
Salt
Onion powder
Garlic powder
Cayenne pepper
Black pepper
Sambal oelek
Soy sauce
Egg
Mix thoroughly until the chicken is evenly coated.
Cover and refrigerate for at least 1 hour. Overnight marination provides even more flavor.
Step 4: Coat and Cook the Chicken
In a separate bowl, combine:
Cornstarch
Salt
Black pepper
Onion powder
Toss the marinated chicken pieces in the cornstarch mixture until fully coated.
Heat oil to 175°C (350°F).
Fry the chicken in batches until golden brown, crispy, and fully cooked.
Transfer to a paper towel-lined plate to drain excess oil.
Step 5: Make the Dynamite Sauce
In a bowl, whisk together:
Mayonnaise
Chili sauce
Sambal oelek
Mix until smooth and creamy.
Adjust the spice level to your preference.
Step 6: Shape the Buns
Once the dough has doubled in size, punch it down gently.
Divide into 14 equal portions.
Flatten each piece into a small circle.
Place a spoonful of crispy chicken in the center.
Seal the dough around the filling and shape into smooth buns.
Place on a parchment-lined baking tray.
Cover and let rise for another 20 to 30 minutes.
Step 7: Bake
Brush the tops with milk.
Sprinkle generously with the Parmesan seasoning mixture.
Bake in a preheated oven at 180°C (350°F) for 18 to 22 minutes or until golden brown.
Step 8: Finish and Serve
Allow the buns to cool slightly.
Drizzle with dynamite sauce or serve it on the side for dipping.
Garnish with fresh parsley or sliced green onions if desired.
Serve warm and enjoy.
Expert Tips
Use Warm, Not Hot Milk
The ideal temperature is between 37°C and 40°C. Hot milk can kill the yeast and prevent proper rising.
Marinate Overnight
The longer the chicken marinates, the more flavorful the filling becomes.
Fry in Small Batches
Overcrowding lowers the oil temperature and prevents the chicken from becoming crispy.
Seal the Dough Well
Make sure there are no openings so the filling stays inside during baking.
Adjust the Heat Level
Add more or less sambal depending on your spice preference.
Serving Suggestions
These Dynamite Chicken Buns pair perfectly with:
Garlic mayo
Ranch dressing
Sweet chili sauce
Sriracha mayo
Fresh salad
French fries
Coleslaw
Storage Instructions
Refrigerator
Store leftovers in an airtight container for up to 3 days.
Freezer
Freeze baked buns for up to 2 months.
Reheating
Warm in the oven at 170°C (340°F) for 8-10 minutes until heated through.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I make the dough ahead of time?
Yes. Refrigerate the dough overnight after the first rise and use the next day.
Can I use chicken thighs?
Absolutely. Chicken thighs are juicy and work wonderfully in this recipe.
Can I air fry the chicken?
Yes. Air fry at 200°C (400°F) for approximately 12-15 minutes, turning halfway through.
Are these buns very spicy?
They have a moderate kick. Simply reduce the sambal and cayenne for a milder version.
Final Thoughts
These Dynamite Chicken Buns are everything you could want in a homemade snack: soft, fluffy bread, crispy spicy chicken, cheesy seasoning, and a creamy dynamite sauce that ties everything together. Perfect for parties, family gatherings, meal prep, or satisfying a craving, this recipe is guaranteed to become a favorite.
Pinterest Description
🔥🍗 These Dynamite Chicken Buns are loaded with crispy spicy chicken, fluffy homemade bread, cheesy Parmesan seasoning, and creamy dynamite sauce! Perfect for parties, snacks, game day, or an unforgettable dinner. Soft, crispy, cheesy, and packed with flavor in every bite!
Pezeshkian Submits Resignation as Iran’s President Citing IRGC Power Grab – Report
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has submitted a resignation letter to the Office of the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, citing his exclusion from key decision-making processes and the growing role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in governing the country, according to a report by Iran International.
The report said Pezeshkian requested to step down immediately, arguing that he could no longer effectively lead the government or fulfill his legal responsibilities because major decisions were being made outside his administration.
The claim has not been confirmed by Iranian authorities or major international wire services, and there was no immediate indication that the resignation had been accepted.
According to Iran International, Pezeshkian stated that the IRGC had assumed control over critical areas of governance while sidelining the civilian government. The outlet reported that the transfer of authority had left the president’s administration unable to advance diplomatic negotiations or implement planned changes to the cabinet structure.
Iran International previously reported that the IRGC had gradually curtailed presidential powers and taken control of key parts of the government. The outlet said informed sources described a political and executive deadlock that had limited the administration’s ability to carry out policy initiatives.
The report also said that key decision-making authority had shifted from the civilian government to senior IRGC figures and the Supreme Leader, resulting in blocked executive decisions and diplomatic efforts being pushed aside.
According to The Jerusalem Post, the IRGC controls an estimated 20% to 40% of Iran’s economy. The newspaper reported that the organization bypasses international sanctions through “dark fleet” oil tankers and smuggling networks and commands the majority of the country’s oil exports, directing revenue into its military-industrial complex.
The Council on Foreign Relations has reported that the IRGC operates an internal security and intelligence network that includes the Basij militia. According to the organization, the force monitors dissent and plays a role in ensuring that only candidates aligned with the IRGC are permitted to hold significant political power.
It remains unclear whether Mojtaba Khamenei will accept Pezeshkian’s reported resignation.
Commodores Co-Founder Dead at 75 After Sudden Medical Emergency
Ronald LaPread, the original bassist and co-founder of the legendary soul group the Commodores, has died. He was 75.
The heartbreaking news was confirmed Saturday by his daughter, music producer Soraya LaPread, who shared the announcement on social media. She did not reveal a cause of death.
According to the NZ Herald, LaPread died in Auckland, New Zealand, after suffering what was described as a “sudden medical event.” He had lived in New Zealand since the 1980s.
TMZ reported that it reached out to both Soraya and the Commodores for comment, but had not yet heard back.
LaPread’s death marks the loss of another key figure from one of Motown’s most successful and beloved groups.
Born in Alabama, LaPread helped launch the Commodores in 1968 alongside Lionel Richie, Walter “Clyde” Orange, William “WAK” King, Milan Williams and Thomas McClary. The group formed while the men were students at Tuskegee Institute.
Before becoming the Commodores, they originally performed under the name The Mystics.
LaPread went on to play bass on 11 of the group’s albums and helped shape the sound behind some of their most unforgettable hits, including “Brick House,” “Three Times a Lady” and “Easy.”
With their smooth harmonies, funk grooves and soul ballads, the Commodores became one of the biggest acts of the 1970s and 1980s. The group sold more than 70 million albums worldwide and became a defining name in the Motown era.
Their success, however, came with plenty of behind-the-scenes turmoil.
The band went through a major shakeup in the early 1980s when Lionel Richie left to launch his massively successful solo career. The departure changed the future of the group, but the Commodores continued performing and remained a major name in soul and R&B history.
LaPread, who had long since relocated to New Zealand, still reunited with the group on occasion over the years. He joined them for concerts in New Zealand and most recently performed with the band during their 2025 tour.
His death comes just days after the Commodores made headlines for a very different reason.
This week, the group announced they were pulling out of Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair, an event tied to the celebration of America’s 250th birthday. The Commodores were among several acts that withdrew from the event over its political connections.
Now, fans are mourning LaPread not only as a founding member of the Commodores, but as one of the musicians who helped give the group its signature heartbeat.
For generations of fans, his bass lines were part of the soundtrack of their lives.
Could Iran’s New Air Defense System Be a Game Changer?
The doctrine of absolute air dominance, long regarded as an unassailable pillar of Western military strategy, is facing an unexpected test over the skies of the Persian Gulf. For decades, American air superiority has been viewed as an almost impenetrable shield, allowing Washington to shape conflicts on its own terms. Yet a series of dramatic events during the first half of 2026 around the Strait of Hormuz has forced strategists in the Pentagon to reconsider some of the core assumptions underpinning modern warfare.
When a frontline U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle was reportedly shot down over southwestern Iran in April 2026, followed by the loss of multiple MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones worth tens of millions of dollars, Tehran delivered a powerful geopolitical message: the era of uncontested foreign air operations in the Middle East may be drawing to a close.
This marks a striking departure from Iran’s traditional air defense posture before the conflict. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Tehran’s air-defense architecture was widely viewed as rigid, vulnerable, and relatively easy to map. It relied heavily on expensive centralized systems such as the Russian-made S-300PMU-2 batteries delivered in 2016, alongside indigenous platforms including the Bavar-373 and Khordad-15. For a country spanning 1.6 million square kilometers, the deployment of only four S-300 batteries left vast surveillance gaps across its territory.
Its most significant structural weakness was its dependence on active high-frequency radar emissions, which could be readily detected and targeted by Western electronic warfare systems. Israeli and American air forces had spent years studying the vulnerabilities of the S-300 through tactical simulations involving similar systems operated by Greece. Consequently, coalition suppression campaigns in 2026 reportedly neutralized key targeting radars with relative ease, rendering some of Iran’s most sophisticated missile batteries effectively blind.
From Centralized Defense to Asymmetric Denial
Ironically, the destruction of Iran’s conventional air-defense network appears to have accelerated the development of a far more resilient and potentially dangerous doctrine.
Recognizing that it could not match Western air power in a conventional contest, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shifted toward a distributed defense model built around small, highly mobile, low-cost, and largely passive units. The effectiveness of this approach became increasingly visible throughout 2026. Its most notable moment came in April, when an F-15E Strike Eagle operating at roughly 7,000 feet was reportedly brought down by a man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS), believed to be either a Chinese FN-6 variant or its Iranian derivative, the Misagh-3.
The incident shocked military planners in Washington. Pressure intensified further on May 25, 2026, when clashes near Qeshm Island followed the sinking of an Iranian mine-laying vessel. During the confrontation, an Iranian air-defense unit reportedly shot down an MQ-9 Reaper using a previously unknown system called Arash-e Kamangir, marking its combat debut and potentially altering the economics of modern attrition warfare. Named after the legendary Persian archer Arash, who in mythology defined the borders of Iran, the system embodies the concept of low-cost air denial. Defense analysts believe it may be an advanced evolution of the loitering surface-to-air missile known in Western intelligence circles as Project 358 or SA-67.
The hybrid weapon combines characteristics of both surveillance drones and surface-to-air missiles. Launched from a simple inclined rail mounted on commercial trucks, it uses a solid-fuel booster before transitioning to a micro turbojet engine.
Flying at roughly Mach 0.6 with an operational radius of up to 100 kilometers, it can remain airborne for extended periods while autonomously searching for targets.
Unlike traditional systems, it relies on passive infrared imaging sensors rather than active radar emissions, allowing it to remain largely undetected by enemy early-warning systems. Once a target such as an MQ-9 is identified, the missile enters an autonomous pursuit phase and detonates its fragmentation warhead using an array of laser proximity sensors. The result is a highly favorable cost-exchange ratio: an interceptor costing tens of thousands of dollars can destroy a surveillance asset valued at approximately $30 million.
China’s Invisible Hand in Iran’s Air Defense Evolution
Yet these asymmetric systems would likely not have achieved their current effectiveness without external technological support, particularly from China. Behind Tehran’s rhetoric of defense self-sufficiency lies what appears to be a sophisticated integration of Sino-Iranian sensing and targeting capabilities. On the ground, China is reported to have supplied YLC-8B three-dimensional tactical radar systems operating in the ultra-high-frequency (UHF) spectrum. Because of their longer wavelengths, UHF radars are often better suited to detecting stealth aircraft than conventional radar bands. This capability potentially allows them to identify fifth-generation platforms such as the F-35A Lightning II at distances exceeding 200 kilometers.
China’s contribution extends beyond radar technology. Through military-civilian satellite operators such as Chang Guang Satellite Technology, which manages the Jilin-1 constellation, and MinoSpace Technology, Beijing has reportedly enabled a steady flow of real-time geospatial intelligence. Targeting data is believed to be transmitted through China’s BeiDou navigation system, providing a communications architecture less vulnerable to GPS-jamming tactics. Together, these capabilities form a highly effective multi-domain kill chain. Space-based targeting information has reportedly enhanced the accuracy of Iranian drone and missile strikes against strategic U.S. support infrastructure across the region, including early-warning radar installations, communications facilities, and aerial refueling assets.
Faced with this reality, the Pentagon has been forced to adjust both tactical and operational planning in the Persian Gulf. Traditional suppression strategies centered on AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles are becoming less effective against systems that emit little or no radar signature. U.S. aircraft have increasingly shifted their patrol routes farther from Iran’s southern coastline while relying more heavily on expensive stand-off munitions. Meanwhile, U.S. Cyber Command has reportedly intensified efforts to disrupt BeiDou-linked communications networks and identify Iranian ground-control infrastructure. At the same time, Washington has expanded technology restrictions targeting Chinese satellite companies and critical microelectronics supply chains.
A New Balance of Power or a More Dangerous Stalemate?
The central question is whether this growing collection of asymmetric capabilities will make Washington think twice before launching future military operations against Iran. The answer is increasingly likely to be yes.
The political risks associated with the loss of additional manned aircraft, or the capture of American pilots on Iranian territory, represent a powerful deterrent.
Such scenarios could impose substantial domestic and international costs on any U.S. administration, creating stronger incentives to pursue negotiation rather than escalation.
This evolving balance of power has already contributed to diplomatic openings. A proposed 60-day ceasefire framework, reportedly facilitated by Pakistan and China, reflects how Iran’s strengthened defensive position may be translating into greater leverage at the negotiating table. President Masoud Pezeshkian now appears better positioned to advocate what Tehran describes as a “dignified framework” for future negotiations.
The competing demands remain formidable. Washington reportedly seeks guarantees that Iran will refrain from imposing transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, clear maritime mines within a specified timeframe, and transfer highly enriched uranium stockpiles to a third party. Tehran, meanwhile, insists on the release of frozen assets, relief from oil sanctions, and recognition of its administrative oversight role along the vital waterway.
The battlefield success of Arash-e Kamangir has also strengthened confidence among hardline factions within Iran. Rather than encouraging moderation, these developments may embolden Tehran to pursue a more assertive maritime posture in the Strait of Hormuz. Some analysts even foresee efforts to integrate regional shipping payments into renminbi-based settlement mechanisms as part of a broader strategic alignment with Beijing. The result is a fragile strategic deadlock, one resembling a high-stakes game of chicken at the edge of a cliff.
While Iran’s emerging asymmetric air-defense architecture may have reduced the threat of direct military intervention, it has simultaneously generated new sources of geopolitical friction.
As Oman attempts to broker compromises over the management of Strait of Hormuz transit arrangements, escalating rhetoric from Washington underscores the volatility of the situation. Over the coming weeks, the stability of global energy markets may hinge on whether diplomacy can bridge these fundamental differences or whether Tehran’s newfound confidence and Washington’s red lines ultimately drive the region toward a far more destructive confrontation.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
