First of all, the Daily Mail is in no way a reliable source; I truly believe that the moment someone uses it in any kind of debate or argument they immediately lose (I’m not referring to you, justsomeoneouthere). The Daily Mail holds the sad record of being the first source to be ever banned on Wikipedia; like, they just straight up filtered it, mind you these are not my words but Wikipedia’s:
In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication”. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a “ban” on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.
Also, the entire thing is way too vague and criptic to even represent any kind of claim: “it’s somewhere in the Middle East”, if this kinds of standards were to be accepted, then we would all be Sherlock Holmes.