Author: Caracal

  • Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    In the Middle East, there are a lot of Islamic militant groups working in almost every country. To be free from the risk they offer, you need to be rich and an ally of the US. Qatar is one of them; it is rich and a US ally. But This Gulf country is more strict on Islamic laws, a demand of many militant groups in the region. They even follow Islamic way of labor practices that some critics liken to a form of slavery. Qatar’s fondness for Islamic rule has allowed various terrorist organizations to establish offices within its territory, including Hamas, the group that caused the ongoing war of Israel in Gaza. While most Western and Arab countries have shown little interest in supporting the Iran-backed militia, Qatar has often provided a haven for Hamas.

    While Hamas conducted a brutal terrorist attack in Israel and captured many hostages, Many political analysts believed that Qatar could help Hamas negotiate with Israel with the lives of hostages. However, as Israel prioritized war over negotiations, Qatar’s role in brokering a resolution favoring Hamas has diminished. Qatar tried for over a year to save Hamas. And now, after a year, it looks like they are getting out from the side of Hamas. This shift, coupled with Qatar’s realization that its controversial support for Hamas, has threatened its international image, which it built through massive investments, including bribes for securing the World Cup.

    Qatar has decided to step back from its mediation efforts and allow other parties to take over. The Qatari government informed the U.S., Israel, Hamas officials, and Egypt that it would no longer facilitate negotiations to halt the Gaza conflict, citing a lack of good faith among the parties involved. According to The Guardian, This decision followed a recent visit by a U.S. delegation, including CIA Director Bill Burns, for meetings in Doha that ended without progress.

    Qatar concluded that both sides seemed more focused on political optics than on achieving genuine security solutions. This decision is a significant setback to mediation efforts, which had produced minimal results since a temporary ceasefire and limited hostage release deal nearly a year ago.

    Many believe Qatar is engaging in a strategic power play to raise its regional profile and bolster its importance in the eyes of the United States. With upcoming president Donald Trump expected to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar seems uneasy with Saudi dominance in the region, despite the official reconciliation between the two countries.

    Though Israel shows little interest in ending the war,  Trump may eventually pursue negotiations, which could necessitate indirect talks with Hamas. Given Iran’s support for Hamas, it cannot serve as an impartial mediator, and it’s uncertain whether Turkey or Egypt would step into that role. In this context, Qatar could reemerge as the “Rescuer,” promoting itself as a responsible mediator. Al Jazeera, Qatar’s influential media outlet, could showcase Qatar’s efforts, reinforcing its image as a “Good Muslim Ally.”

    With a new U.S. administration set to take office in a couple of months, Qatar has indicated to American contacts that it would be open to resuming mediation if both sides demonstrate genuine interest in reaching a deal. Qatar tried a similar approach months ago, though it fell short of producing any results. This marks the second time Qatar has publicly warned it will not support stalled talks indefinitely.

    The Hamas office in Doha, established in 2012, has served as a critical communication channel  for over a decade, including during last year’s negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire and the release of more than 100 hostages. However, the October 7th attack by Hamas has severely damaged its reputation, and Qatar has faced growing criticism from Israel and segments of the U.S. political establishment for hosting the group.

    As a close U.S. ally that hosts a major American military base, Qatar has previously maintained a positive diplomatic relationship with Donald Trump during his first term. However, its perceived “double game” on terrorism and concerns over its human rights record have made Qatar increasingly unpopular among U.S. senators. Last Friday, a group of Republican senators urged Washington to seek the extradition of Hamas officials from Qatar and freeze their assets.

    These criticisms, especially regarding an initiative that Qatar launched at the U.S.’s request, have caused friction in Doha and influenced Qatar’s decision to distance itself from Hamas and mediation efforts. U.S. officials have reportedly briefed American media that Washington requested the closure of the Hamas office, although the Biden administration has not yet commented publicly on the matter.

    However, some Western and regional diplomats argue for keeping the Hamas office in Qatar, warning that pushing Hamas out would limit engagement with figures potentially open to compromise. Yet, Qatar’s continued support arguably empowers Hamas rather than encourages moderation. For Hamas, there is hope that Qatar might broker a deal with Israel, leveraging hostages, including women and children, to meet its demands. But Qatar has struggled to engage Israel effectively or include other mediators in negotiations, and it now appears uncertain about risking its international reputation for an organization closely tied to Iran.

    Meanwhile, with many key Hamas leaders lost, Hamas itself may be reconsidering its reliance on Qatar and is reportedly more inclined to look to long-standing allies like Turkey, who could be more effective in brokering a truce. Qatar’s wealth may have helped to uplift them in football, but they failed in the game of geopolitics in the Middle East they craved to win.

  • How Would Trump’s Second Term Affect Asia?

    How Would Trump’s Second Term Affect Asia?

    Donald Trump has been confirmed as the next U.S. president, defeating incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. As the 47th president, he will take office next year, though his return to the post after a defeat is already resonating worldwide. The U.S. president’s role extends beyond national borders, shaping global direction and policy. Asia, the world’s focal point this century, is preparing for Trump’s return, and he is likely to focus more on the region in his second term compared to his predecessors, who primarily concentrated on Europe and Latin America.

    In his last term, which ended four years ago, Trump clearly demonstrated his approach as a businessman-turned-politician. While the Biden administration has since reshaped the global landscape, Trump is expected to resume his previous style, promoting closer ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, taming Russia and Iran, shifting U.S. alliances from Pakistan toward India, challenging China, and reinforcing U.S. relations with East Asia.

    The war-ridden Middle East anticipates Trump’s immediate attention. Many Arab Americans expressed anger over the Democratic Party’s failure to address regional issues, which contributed to their loss. Trump is expected to be more reactive in the region than Biden. He has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has built strong ties with Israel and its Prime Minister Netanyahu, while Democrats, especially Kamala Harris, have advocated for a two-state solution and support for Palestine. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, and encouraged allies to follow suit. During his previous tenure, he also proposed a peace plan that, while heavily favoring Israel, was still somewhat workable.

    Trump’s pro-Israel approach led many to fear it would deteriorate relations with Muslim states. However, while openly supporting Israel, he also established a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince, despite heavy criticism from human rights watchdogs and significant opposition both within the U.S. and abroad. His efforts resulted in closer ties between several Muslim nations and Israel, with Saudi Arabia nearly formalizing relations. Some Republicans even nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for these actions, and many believe Saudi Arabia would have formalized relations with Israel had Trump won a second term four years before instead of Biden.

    During Biden’s term, Saudi Arabia became increasingly distant and pursued other alliances, including with Russia. Many believe Trump can fix this and could persuade Netanyahu to negotiate a ceasefire. However, regarding Iran, Trump is expected to maintain a hardline stance against the regime, and a closer U.S.-Israel alignment could further pressure Iran, potentially fueling internal unrest. Conflicts in Syria and Iraq will likely persist, with additional U.S. support expected for the Kurds. Turkey, under Erdogan’s vision of Ottoman revival, may continue a balanced approach rather than adopting a more assertive role.

    Central Asia and Russia are also likely to remain in Trump’s focus. Given his alleged close ties with Putin, many believe he may work to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. As a seasoned negotiator, Trump might aim to broker an agreement between both sides. During his campaign, Trump acknowledged American frustration over spending on Ukraine, suggesting a resolution may be near. In exchange for potential cooperation with Russia, Trump might reduce U.S. involvement in Russia’s sphere of influence in Central Asia, an area where Biden sought to weaken Moscow’s control.

    In South Asia, Trump’s interest in the Indian market was evident during his previous term. He cultivated a strong relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and both view each other as close allies. However, as nationalists, they often balance competing interests. Nonetheless, the mutual reliance between the U.S. and India—both in terms of American production needs and the Indian market, and vice versa—suggests that major deals may soon follow. Despite her Indian heritage, Kamala Harris is often seen by Indian media as opposing Modi due to her stance on certain policies. It was also clear that Indian media endorsed Trump during the campaigns. This alignment creates room for more significant developments between the U.S. and India, while Islamic nations in the region, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, may face challenges due to Trump’s pro-India and pro-Hindu stance.

    In East Asia, Trump’s relationship with China is likely to worsen as he opposes any economic growth in China that might threaten U.S. market dominance. Trump initiated the ongoing trade wars, and further actions against Chinese products are expected. His push to revitalize American manufacturing will likely intensify pressure on China. By framing China as an adversary, Trump’s strategy may drive more countries away from China’s business, which could significantly impact China and escalate tensions between the U.S. and China. This economic friction may heighten tensions in the South China Sea, especially if China loses market influence.

    Trump’s search for alternatives to China could benefit Southeast Asian countries, particularly Vietnam, Indonesia, and possibly Malaysia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will likely draw closer to the U.S., as Trump seeks to strengthen alliances to counter China. His previous engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un also showcased his diplomatic flexibility.

    Asia is sure to see more eventful days during Trump’s second term. Israel and Russia, both seeking an end to ongoing conflicts, appear uncertain about how to resolve them and may be hoping for an intervention. Donald Trump is likely to step in, aiming to position himself as a hero. Optimists believe a resolution could happen within months, as he has discussed these issues multiple times and has strong relationships with key parties, along with a desire to save American money.

    However, while Trump may strengthen some alliances, many believe his approach could strain relationships with other regional actors, such as Iran, China and  nuclear-armed Pakistan. As tensions between the U.S. and China continue, there is a risk of increased instability in the eastern region. Yet, with Trump’s focus on economic growth and business, it’s expected that global attention will shift back to economic matters, setting aside other issues currently in the spotlight.

  • Will Singapore’s PM Wong Reform PAP Before the General Election?

    Will Singapore’s PM Wong Reform PAP Before the General Election?

    Singapore’s PAP has long been synonymous with the country’s politics, and the city-state’s political landscape is deeply intertwined with this grand old party. Since the first general election in 1963, PAP candidates have consistently won in an almost monopolistic manner, maintaining their hold on the prime minister’s position since the country’s founding. However, recent elections have shown signs of change. Although the PAP remains strong, the opposition is gaining ground, and the leadership transition to the new Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, for the first time since 2006 brings new challenges. Wong, an outsider from the country’s established political dynasty, will be tested in the upcoming general election scheduled for 2025. Even if the party wins, a poor performance would be a significant setback for him. As a result, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong now faces mounting pressure to reform the city-state’s ruling party in order to retain his position and maintain the party’s grip on the populace, especially in light of the Iswaran scandal and other issues that have negatively impacted the party.

    In November, the People’s Action Party (PAP) will renew its Central Executive Committee members as their two-year term ends, potentially paving the way for Wong’s ascension. This transition would position 51-year-old Wong at the helm of the party, ready to lead its campaign for the general election that Singapore must hold by November 2025. Despite Wong’s historic appointment as prime minister in May, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, continues to serve as the party’s secretary-general, its highest-ranking position. Wong has held the role of deputy secretary-general since 2022, and traditionally, the party head and the prime minister are the same person. Political analysts emphasize that the PAP does not have any rules requiring the prime minister to also serve as secretary-general, allowing Lee Hsien Loong to maintain his position as long as the party desires. However, this arrangement could create dual centers of power and foster public perceptions that the lack of a leadership transition within the party reflects limited confidence in Wong’s leadership among PAP members.

    Prime Minister Wong, a member of the newest generation of PAP leaders, is pushing for reform in every sector. In late August, he attended a conference as the guest of honor to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the PAP Women’s Wing and advocated for advancing gender equality in Singapore. In his speech, Wong addressed the historical male dominance within the PAP and promised to promote greater gender inclusivity. He committed to including more women candidates in the upcoming election. Currently, his slate includes only 3 women out of 19 membered cabinet, a notably low number in a country where women are highly educated and active in the workforce. Although Singapore is modern in many aspects, it still adheres to traditional customs that can appear outdated in today’s world. Speaking about gender equality in this context can seem revolutionary.

    Critics often view the PAP as an elite group disconnected from ordinary citizens, partly because its members earn substantial salaries that far exceed the wages of most Singaporeans. While Wong has not directly addressed this criticism, he expressed his intention to strengthen connections with the public and emphasized the importance of greater transparency in governance. He stated that promoting accountability and transparency, openly discussing policy decisions, clearly explaining them, and taking responsibility for outcomes can help counter perceptions of arrogance. PAP leaders have defended high salaries for political officeholders as necessary to attract talent and prevent corruption. However, the party’s commitment to clean governance has faced scrutiny following a bribery scandal involving S. Iswaran, the former transport minister, who was charged and sentenced to a year in prison in October.

    As winning the general election is no longer as straightforward as before, Prime Minister Wong will likely implement more changes within the party to regain public support. The unconventional Wong, who is adept at using social media, is expected to tighten his control over the party while working to present a more approachable image. With Singapore’s election drawing closer, Prime Minister Wong called for a major policy reset during the National Day Rally in August, an event considered the prime political platform for outlining his vision for the country. This reset is essential for Wong and the PAP, as their prolonged time in power has diminished their ability to effectively mobilize grassroots support.

  • Georgia Stays Committed to Russia

    Georgia Stays Committed to Russia

    Georgia, facing serious geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, has chosen to support the ruling party, Georgian Dream, and its soft Euroscepticism in the parliamentary election held on October 26. This election and the subsequent incidents have attracted significant global media attention due to ongoing regional power struggles and large-scale participation in anti-government protests. The landslide victory of Georgian Dream is undeniably remarkable. The ruling Georgian Dream party, which has been in power since 2012, secured more than 50% of the vote and won 89 of the 150 parliamentary seats.

    However, the opposition, along with Europe and the U.S., has rejected the results, calling the election illegitimate and fraudulent, and accusing the ruling party of malpractice. While these election results reflect a clear direction, pro-European sentiment dominates the capital, whereas residents in villages and smaller cities continue to support the conservative, Orthodox-aligned Georgian Dream party and maintain pro-Russian sentiments.

    While the opposition takes a tougher stance after the disappointing election—such as boycotting the new parliament and receiving support from Western media—the published results feature a significant win for the Georgian Dream party under the leadership of newly appointed Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. The party, which mimics Russian politics and caters to Orthodox interests, presents challenges for the country’s strategic direction as it drives its campaign. They have promised to fully pass the Protection of Family Values and Minors bill, which they previously initiated in the Georgian Parliament. The bill, intended to ban LGBT propaganda, has been justified by the ruling party as necessary to prevent the spread of pseudo-liberal ideology from outside Georgia.

    Georgian Dream accuses the opposition of being puppets of the West. They frame the opposition within a narrative of war versus peace, traditional values versus moral degradation, and subservience to external powers versus an independent and sovereign state. The Georgian Dream party pledged to ban the former ruling United National Movement party upon winning office, accusing it of various crimes against the Georgian people during its rule, including pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008 and attempting to embroil Georgia in a second front of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A narrative Europe doesn’t like and Russia loves. 

    While the opposition accuses the election and its results of being unfair, there were a lot of setbacks on their side as well. First of all, they were largely split and could not initiate a common drive, and they were poorly connected to rural areas. The opposition coalition, such as Unity – National Movement (U-NM), comprising the United National Movement, Strategy Agmashenebeli, and European Georgia, and the Coalition for Change (CC), which includes Ahali, Girchi – More Freedom, Droa, the Republican Party, For Georgia (FG), and Strong Georgia (SG)—all advocating for pro-Europeanism—could not agree on a common minimum program before the election. The split vote and changing coalition instabilities rewarded victory for the ruling Georgian Dream alliance.

    In the capital, Georgian Dream received 42% of the vote, while the four major opposition coalitions combined received 46%, plus an additional 5.3% from the libertarian Girchi party. This split indicates that the opposition, despite having a clear upper hand, failed to capitalize on their support. According to the current results, the Coalition for Change (CC) came in second, increasing their 2020 election tally from 2 to 19 seats. Unity – National Movement suffered a significant loss, dropping almost 23 seats to reach a total of 16. The Strong Georgia alliance came fourth with 14 seats, while Gakharia For Georgia secured fifth place, winning 12 seats in their first election. All other parties and alliances that had representation in the previous parliament, such as the Georgian Labour Party, lost their representation entirely.

    The future of Georgia looks troubled, particularly after the parliamentary election. The country is deeply divided between conservatives with Orthodox foundations and strong connections to Russia, and Europhiles who are deeply irritated by the ruling party’s Rusophilia. The country will witness more protests against the government, at least in Tbilisi. The choice of the Georgian Dream party will align the country with Russia’s orbit and free it from further trouble with the Kremlin. Georgia appears to benefit from the Russia-Ukraine war, as capital and manpower flow from Russia. It seems that the government and businesses in the country are choosing to capitalize on this opportunity, and the divided opposition is certainly helping the government achieve this.

  • Japan Enters a Phase of Political Uncertainty

    Japan Enters a Phase of Political Uncertainty

    While Japan struggles economically and demographically, its politicians steer the country into another round of instability. Last month, a new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, took office but quickly decided to hold an election to solidify his position and introduce a fresh government distinct from that of his predecessor, Fumio Kishida, who stepped down amid low approval ratings and scandals. However, Ishiba’s strategy backfired as voters dealt a significant blow to both his party and its coalition partner, resulting in their lowest combined seat count since 2009. Intriguingly, for the first time since 1955, no single party surpassed the 200-seat mark in the 465-member parliament. Now, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) must secure new allies from opposition groups as they prepare to face a formidable opposition bloc in parliament, complicating the path forward for the conservative yet nominally liberal Liberal Democratic Party.

    On October 27, Japan held its 50th general election for the House of Representatives following Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s decision to dissolve the lower house. Voters cast their ballots for 465 assembly seats, including both single-member constituencies and proportional representation seats. In the previous assembly, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) maintained a clear majority with 259 out of 465 seats. However, Ishiba’s gamble on early elections ended in disappointment. The LDP, recognized as Japan’s ‘grand old party’ and a proponent of nationalism and conservatism, suffered a major setback, losing 68 seats and falling to 191—45 seats short of a majority.

    The LDP’s ally and the fourth-largest party, the Buddhist-nationalist Komeito, also saw its seat count drop from 32 to 24. Meanwhile, the main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), led by Yoshihiko Noda, rose significantly from 96 to 149 seats. This substantial gain reflects the prevailing anti-LDP sentiment and other factors, yet the CDP could not surpass the LDP’s total seat count. The right-wing populist and economically liberal Nippon Ishin no Kai secured 38 seats, becoming the third-largest party. Another notable outcome emerged as the conservative Democratic Party for the People (DPP) climbed to fourth place by winning 28 seats, an increase of 17 from the previous election, displacing Komeito.

    The LDP and Komeito alliance needs 18 seats to form the government. Eleven political parties won seats in the parliament, along with 12 independent candidates. Even if all the independents supported the government, the LDP coalition would still fall short by 6 seats. Therefore, they need the support of political parties. Analysts expect that the LDP will talk with other conservative parties in the parliament to form a multi-party government aligned with common minimum programs. Both the DPP and Ishin have ruled out joining an LDP-Komeito government for now because they understand the public’s discontent with the current administration. However, many believe they will eventually agree to a coalition. The chances for the CDP, the main opposition party, to form a government are slim, as they cannot create a coalition with other parties that hold very different views, many of which are conservative. The number of communist and liberal parties is also very low. 

    Major newspapers in Japan, including Sankei Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, and Asahi Shimbun, all ran editorials in their morning editions calling for Ishiba to step down as prime minister, emphasizing the need to understand the people’s mandate. Nevertheless, he insists that he will continue. So it is clear that Shigeru Ishiba and the LDP will form a government with compromises.

    Many political and economic analysts believe that the downfall of Japan results from its politics as well. Each term filled itself with incidents. Besides Shinzo Abe, Japan has not had any strong government or leadership recently. After Abe, the country witnessed more turmoil in Japanese politics, and now Ishiba’s gamble creates even more chances for political upheaval. However, he is experienced, and optimists expect that increasing tensions with North Korea and China will lead to cooperation among politicians.

    The upcoming Ishiba government will face numerous internal problems too, from the need for corruption-free governance to deep demographic challenges, presenting a host of issues for the administration. It will be interesting to see how he leads the country through these issues with the coalition government.

  • What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    Over the past year, Israel’s conflict with Hamas has escalated into a broader confrontation with Iran. The Jewish state and the Islamic Republic have exchanged missiles and now trading hostile rhetoric. While many fear an all-out war involving multiple states, In reality, it looks like Israel and Iran show little genuine interest in such a conflict. Instead, both countries prefer maintaining tension and inflicting sporadic casualties without escalating to a full-scale war. They each appear very interested in the ‘game’ they’re playing.

    This ongoing rivalry—the geopolitical game between the two countries—dates back to Iran’s establishment as an Islamic Republic, a theocratic state with a declared intent to eliminate Israel. Iran views this as a holy duty, waging what it considers a sacred war through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The struggle has been perpetuated, with death seen as a martyr’s reward. Meanwhile, Israel does not consider itself safe as long as Iran remains strong. While the tensions between these two countries have always been present, they avoided direct conflicts. However, over the past year, they have begun to engage in fighting directly against each other.

    Many across the globe, especially those with peaceful intentions, struggle to comprehend this intense conflict, which is far from an ordinary territorial or independence dispute. For Iran and its allies, it is a matter intertwined with faith, divinity, and existential beliefs. Meanwhile, Israel’s supporters advocate for survival and security. In the latest development, Israel launched fresh waves of missiles toward Iran. This move, in response to Iran’s barrage on Israel, was carefully measured to avoid severe escalation or interference with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. 

    The direct strikes in between Israel and Iran, avoiding proxies, began on April 1st when Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in the deaths of Iranian officials. In response, Iran launched missiles on April 13th, though most were intercepted by Israel’s defense system, which has become quite effective. Israel further humiliated Iran by killing Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31st, followed by the assassination of Iran’s leader’s closest ally and chief of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

    Iran felt compelled to retaliate to maintain its standing in the Islamic world, and on October 2nd, the International Day of Non-Violence, it launched missiles at Israeli cities, some of which breached Israel’s famous Iron Dome defense system, stunning Israeli forces. But On October 25th, Israeli missiles flew toward Iran.

    Interestingly, although there is always fear that missile exchanges could lead to heavy casualties and escalate tensions to the brink of World War III, as noted by X pundits, nothing has happened. Business continues as usual, which raises suspicions of a conspiracy suggesting that there may be some understanding between the two countries, despite the geographical distance and potential U.S. interference to de-escalate tensions.

    There are reasons to believe that there may be a covert understanding between Israel and Iran, as both states appear to benefit significantly from the ongoing tensions. Israel’s government was on the brink of collapse, with key political figures facing corruption trials, while Iran faced a severe internal political crisis between Islamic conservatives and Persians. Initially, the war between Israel and Hamas, and now Israel and Iran, has effectively prevented the collapse of Netanyahu’s government. Hamas’s brutal attack served to unify a deeply divided Israeli society, restoring the country’s prominence on the international stage—a space it had almost faded from as Saudi Arabia rose to prominence in the region.

    Iran, too, has gained from this conflict. The country has managed to unite its deeply divided populace through anti-Israel sentiment, seen by many within the Muslim community as a religious obligation. Across the Islamic world, Iran is perceived as a strong supporter of Gaza and Palestine, bolstering its regional standing. By demonstrating an ability to counter Israel’s missiles, Iran projects itself as a powerful force. Notably, Gulf countries seem more inclined toward cooperation with Iran, as recent statements from the Gulf countries express solidarity with Iran’s territorial integrity following missile attacks. Given that both countries appear to derive considerable benefits from the conflict, the likelihood of de-escalation in the Middle East seems increasingly slim.

    While both Israel and Iran seem to be playing a deadly game that appears to bring them close to open conflict, with missiles flying between them yet causing minimal real harm, several neighboring countries are bearing the brunt—such as Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iraq in the future. These countries, which lack the influence or capability to mount any resistance, are the true casualties in this conflict. If it escalates into a full-scale war, as some pundits predict, these nations will suffer the most. Meanwhile, the U.S. as a ‘referee’ and the U.N. as a ‘sideline referee’ seem ineffective. Worldwide onlookers, watching this heated game, divide themselves between supporters from the global left and Muslim communities on one side and right-wing factions on the other. Both sides eagerly cheer on social media, voicing their support with rage.

  • Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    The United Nations is often portrayed in textbooks as a powerful coalition of states backed by global superpowers and a forum for peaceful conflict resolution, upholding its charter to maintain peace and security. But in reality, It’s not!! It’s neither powerful nor an effective forum. From its inception, its limitations have been evident: the UN struggles to influence superpowers and is often relegated to dealing with smaller states, those with restricted influence. Today, as we face heightened global tensions after the Gulf War, the UN’s failures are increasingly visible—in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and many other regions.

    This tough phase of the UN is taken as an opportunity by the countries who want to humiliate the Institute. Israel, backed by the United States and right-wing allies, and Palestine, supported by the left and the global Muslim community, including over 57 Muslim-majority countries, are entrenched in a high-stakes standoff that the UN appears powerless to mediate effectively. Unlike the 1940s and 1950s, when Israel abided by certain UN resolutions while Muslim countries were largely disengaged, Israel now disregards UN resolutions and breaches charter principles with apparent impunity, escalating tensions and challenging the UN’s authority. The ongoing Israel-UN tensions underscore a profound humiliation for the UN, as it struggles to assert influence in this protracted conflict, and even UN-affiliated people get targeted.

    UN peacekeepers and UN-affiliated UNRWA workers in Gaza and Lebanon who are refusing to evacuate despite official orders are increasingly under attack, and sustaining injuries. The Guardian, the British left media reported recently that the Israel Defense Forces forced entry into a UN base and repeatedly targeted their positions, wounding five personnel. In Gaza, nearly 230 UNRWA aid workers, who are also part of different Palestinian organizations, have been killed. The UN is confused in this matter while Israel looks assertive. Earlier this month, Israel declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata, and in May, its outgoing ambassador to the UN publicly shredded a copy of the UN Charter.

    The UNRWA, short for “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,” is committed to delivering assistance and promoting the human development of Palestinian refugees. UNRWA’s mandate covers Palestinians who fled or were displaced during the 1948 Nakba and subsequent conflicts, along with their descendants, including legally adopted children. As one of the few non-Islamic organizations dedicated to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA registers over 5 million Palestinians. Amid rising Israel-UN tensions, the agency has drawn particular attention with its action on the battlefield. Israel has long opposed UNRWA’s recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right of return, recently going as far as attempting to classify it as a terrorist organization, despite the agency’s lack of advocacy for violence besides the alleged affiliations with groups like Hamas. However, it does not formally endorse such organizations. But the UN has previously acknowledged that nine of the agency’s 13,000 employees in Gaza might have been involved in Hamas’s October 7 attack—findings that have damaged the agency’s reputation, and that’s enough for Israel to take revenge on the UNRWA.

    Israel is concerned with UNRWA’s great influence and their effort to keep alive Palestinian dreams, and often become a shelter for the terrorists. They also worrying increasing the voice of Muslim states in the UN general assembly and they are concerned about the UN bodies supporting the Palestinian version over even a neutral one. And a country like Israel surrounded by threats can’t neglect the Palestanization of the UN. So they started to target the UN and its agencies, and humiliating them is the way Israel found out.

    The UN is now a beleaguered institution. Its structure, its operation, its works, its opinions everything is getting questioned. The Security Council is questioned now by almost everyone including the countries within it. And has repeatedly been deadlocked, with the US, the UK, and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.  And it’s easy now for Israel to undermine the intuition. While social media and the internet are now well circulating the Israeli version of the conflict,  the UN’s attempt to push the Palestinian version will further collapse belief in the UN.

    The UN, several European countries, and the Islamic world condemn the actions of Israel against UN peacekeepers. They believe because a few people from UNRWA participated in the October 7th attack, and the frequent rising of voices for Palestine, Israel is finding revenge on the UN. But it must be said that the UN can’t do anything; everything will remain on paper. This old man is expecting a death he has long wished for, and Israel enjoys the complaints from him.

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.

  • Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Israel has finally killed Yahya Sinwar, the man behind the notorious October 7th attack that stunned both Israel and the world. This attack triggered Israel’s war of revenge, resulting in the deaths of thousands in Gaza and extending into Lebanon and Syria. It also allowed Israel to spread its version of the story worldwide—a success for Sinwar. Israel ensured the targeted elimination of Hamas leaders, even those who sought refuge in safe havens. One by one, Israel eliminated their targets, and by the end of the year, no prominent figures remained on their early hit list. With Israel proving its dominance in the region and its opponents greatly weakened, is it time to end the war?

    Following the deadly attack on October 7th, Israel initiated a counteroffensive with the goal of eliminating threats from Hamas and the Gaza Strip, specifically targeting those responsible for the attack that killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians. However, as now Israel killed  higher numbers than those inflicted by Hamas. Some Palestinian sources estimate the death toll to be around 40,000, although Israel contests this figure. And Over the past year, Hamas has significantly weakened in the Gaza Strip. Its network of tunnels—which once gave it an advantage—is being destroyed, and most of its major leaders have been killed. No one believes Hamas is capable of mounting a serious threat now, but Israel is not ready to stop.

    Given the religious dimensions of this conflict, both Israel and the Axis of Resistance—comprising the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—consider it their duty to continue fighting and eliminating one another. However, amid this ongoing warfare, countless innocent lives are impacted, becoming collateral damage in what is often described as a holy rivalry.

    Israel is now escalating its response to secure a safer northern border by targeting Hezbollah, another key member of the Axis of Resistance and a major ally of Iran in the region. Several missile strikes have continued even after the confirmed killing of Hamas leaders. It is clear that Israel is now targeting the entire Axis of Resistance. In addition to Hezbollah’s base in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are considered potential targets for Israel’s immediate strikes. Iran’s infamous October 1 missile response is still anticipated.

    Israel has a reason to show the world that they are not safe unless they eliminate the threats. The October 7th attack by Hamas demonstrated this vulnerability to the world. Israel has also realized that the Arab world is unlikely to unite against them, and Hamas’ actions have generated considerable pro-Israel sentiment in the West, despite some opposition from left-wing and Islamist groups. Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have received a significant boost from the war, recovering from last year’s political struggles, even though Netanyahu still faces corruption charges.

    So, the answer to the question is clear: if Israel is benefiting from the war, why would they stop the process now?

    But the pressure is high from Western leaders. U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister, and the French President, all calling for the death of Sinwar to be converted into an opportunity to seize the war. The mood is similar in the Arab world as well, and within Israel, reports indicate that there are protests urging an end to the war to save the hostages held by Hamas. However, Netanyahu has said No. Israel has its reasons for this stance. Any pause in Israel’s actions would help Hezbollah and other groups, including Iran, to structurally rebuild their organizations and prepare for the next attack. They have all united for this goal: to eliminate the Jewish state.

    It cannot be denied that Hamas may even rise again from the ashes of Gaza with the help of Iran, as they view it as a global Muslim duty. They can easily recruit and continue their efforts. The last video of Sinwar portraying him as a martyr has attracted many Muslim youths around the world.

    So for Israel and the Israeli government, it would be a blunder to stop the war based on the demands of Western states, and they are now in a position where it is not easy to do so. Everyone knows that even a break would only set the stage for the next war.

    For Iran, stopping the war could be beneficial, but it would also reopen existing problems within the state. They cannot bind their people with hatred toward Israel forever. Therefore, the likelihood of the continuation of the war is higher than that of a ceasefire. The war could potentially stretch for more years, ultimately concluding with the end of one state—either Israel or the Islamic Republic. The chance of ending the second one seems greater.

  • Canada-India Relations Reach a Boiling Point

    Canada-India Relations Reach a Boiling Point

    On a geopolitical level, India’s biggest concern now is Canada, a country far from its borders but a dream destination for Indian youth seeking education, jobs, and migration. Thousands of Indians migrate to Canada every year to settle there. However, for the Indian government, this outflow of Indians—often occurring without the government’s notice and through illegal means—has become a source of threat and is creating a crisis between the two states. Indian-origin separatists, extremists, and anti-India propagandists have found a home in Canada, using the hassle-free immigration system to obtain Canadian citizenship and launch attacks against India.

    In the past, the Indian government largely ignored extreme rhetoric coming from Canada. However, since Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi came to power, these extremists have become targets of coordinated operations, raising alarm within the Canadian government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, known for his fondness for the Sikh diaspora—particularly the community leading separatist movements in India—has grown increasingly concerned. 

    Over the past year, tensions between Canada and India have intensified in the wake of the shooting of Sikh extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was born in India and later became a Canadian citizen. He was killed outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia. Nijjar had advocated for the establishment of an independent Sikh nation, known as Khalistan, to be carved out of India’s Punjab state. Supporters of this cause have faced accusations from the Indian government regarding their involvement in serial killings and various terrorist attacks. As a prominent leader and advocate for extreme Khalistan movements, Nijjar was wanted by Indian authorities and had been designated a terrorist in July 2020 for his alleged involvement in Khalistani-related violence. It is widely believed that his killing was orchestrated by India’s secret service agency, RAW.

    Nijjar is not the only Khalistani activist abroad thought to have been targeted by the Indian government. Last November, U.S. investigators reported foiling an attempt by an Indian official to murder Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a fiery Sikh separatist and dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, known for calling for attacks on Indians and Hindus living overseas. Other prominent Sikh Khalistani activists in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., who spread anti-Hindu and anti-India rhetoric, have also reported receiving warnings of threats to their lives.

    It is a humiliation for Canada that one of its citizens was killed by a foreign country on its own soil. Given that the Sikh population in Canada is an important voting bloc and Khalistan supporters have influence among Canadian politicians, the Canadian government cannot ignore the issue. In September, Prime Minister Trudeau took the unusual step of publicly stating that there was credible information linking Indian government agents to Nijjar’s murder. Canada responded by taking tough action against Indian diplomats. Now, Canadian police have accused Indian diplomats of carrying out criminal activities in Canada, including planned homicide, extortion, intimidation, coercion, and harassment. In a subsequent press conference, Trudeau reinforced the accusations, stating that Canada now had clear and compelling evidence that agents of the Indian government had engaged in, and continued to engage in, activities posing a significant threat to public safety.

    As a follow-up, Canada expelled six Indian diplomats, including India’s high commissioner to Canada, accusing them of involvement in threatening behavior. India retaliated by expelling six senior Canadian diplomats. On Monday night, India announced that it was withdrawing six senior diplomats from Canada over safety concerns. However, Canadian officials who briefed several news outlets stated that Canada had expelled the Indian diplomats first.

    Canada now has the highest population of Sikhs outside their home state of Punjab. The growing Sikh population in Canada shows an affinity for the Khalistan movement, seeking to establish a Sikh nation in South Asia, similar to how Muslims formed Pakistan. The Canadian government appears to be supportive of this, even as there are concerns about threats to the Hindu population in the country. Canada also seems eager to escalate the situation to the international level.

    Canada has stated that its investigation into the Nijjar killing and the alleged broader campaign of violence by India is ongoing, and it is collaborating with the Five Eyes, an intelligence-sharing alliance comprising the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. This situation could have significant geopolitical implications. India is viewed as a rising superpower and has become an important security and economic ally for Western countries such as the U.S., the U.K., France, and Italy. However, Canada remains significant to these countries, while India still maintains a strong relationship with Russia. If the West continues to escalate the issue, it may push India to strengthen its ties with its long-time ally and reliable partner, Russia.