Category: Opinion

Is Support for Hasina on the Rise in Bangladesh?

Bangladesh has been in deep political turmoil for the past six months, marked by the ousting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in mass protests led by students and Islamists. These demonstrations escalated into violent attacks on Hasina’s supporters and minorities. Even after Hasina fled the state and her official residence was vandalized and looted—down to her personal belongings—the unrest did not subside. Despite Western-backed Yunus Khan assuming the role of interim leader and promising imminent elections, even at the cost of constitutional changes, the situation remains unstable. After six months of chaos, the country’s deepening economic troubles and worsening living conditions have led many to lose hope and many to shift their support back to Hasina. Her party is witnessing a revival, and pro-Hasina hashtags are resurfacing on social media, fueling fears of further political turmoil in the days ahead.

The country is now sharply divided into two factions. On one side are the forces that led the mass protests that ousted Sheikh Hasina—students, leftists, Islamists, and anti-India groups—who not only oppose Hasina but also reject the legacy of the nation’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the Awami League, along with any historical ties to India.

On the other side are Awami League supporters and those disillusioned with the interim government’s rule. This group remained largely silent over the past six months due to intense crackdowns, but they are slowly resurfacing. As part of this resurgence, Sheikh Hasina, now in exile in India, addressed her supporters, sparking widespread outrage. In response, violent attacks erupted against symbols of her legacy, including her family home and institutions built during her tenure in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh police have arrested over 1,500 people since Saturday amid reports of mob violence and a sweeping security crackdown. The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, called for calm following the attack on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s residence. Hours later, members of the student-led movement that ousted Hasina were attacked in Gazipur, near Dhaka, prompting students to demand action.

The police crackdown, dubbed Operation Devil Hunt, is a joint effort between the army and police to suppress groups involved in recent violent incidents, targeting both supporters and opponents of the ousted premier. As Islamist factions gain ground, liberals and minorities who were once safeguarded under Hasina’s rule are increasingly becoming targets. On Monday, police placed publisher Shatabdi Bhaba under protective custody after a group of enraged Islamist students surrounded his stall at the Amar Ekushey Book Fair in Dhaka, where works by exiled feminist author Taslima Nasrin were on display.

The interim government, grappling with instability, fears Sheikh Hasina’s return as the nation’s identity remains closely tied to the Awami League, which still commands a loyal and sizable support base. Alarmed by the party’s potential resurgence, the government is reportedly considering a constitutional ban to curb its influence. On Monday, Bangladesh National Party (BNP) Secretary-General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir met with interim leader Muhammad Yunus to voice concerns over the escalating unrest, according to AFP.

Global perceptions of the Bangladesh riots that erupted in August have shifted in recent months. India appears to be leaning toward supporting Sheikh Hasina, wary of the prospect of Islamist rule on its eastern border. The viral image of Bangladeshi students desecrating Indian and Israeli flags circulated widely in India and the West, shaping opinions on the interim government.

Western governments have also voiced serious concerns over the rise in extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh. In early February, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), a Bangladeshi human rights organization monitoring attacks on minority communities, reported that 17 people had died in law enforcement custody during the interim government’s first five months, including a BNP leader. The report highlights an alarming increase in extrajudicial killings, fueling international criticism of human rights violations.

Despite this, support for Hasina and the Awami League appears to be growing. Even as party offices and homes of Awami League leaders were targeted—attacks spanning 35 districts, including the residence of A.K.M. Mozammel Haque, Minister for Liberation War Affairs—Hasina’s leadership continues to command significant backing. Both the interim government and Islamist factions remain wary of the Awami League. If constitutional changes are not implemented and elections are further delayed, support for Hasina will likely continue to surge, raising the possibility of yet another political upheaval. Bangladesh has a long history of mass mobilization, and the prospect of a new uprising looms large.

February 12, 2025
Is Everything Set for Trump’s Real Estate Project in Gaza?

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul-turned-president, is pushing forward with a controversial plan backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and championed by Israeli conservatives. First floated by his son-in-law Jared Kushner during Trump’s initial administration, the proposal calls for relocating Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring Arab countries and transforming the enclave into a luxury coastal destination.

With its Mediterranean shoreline and strategic location, Gaza is being positioned for U.S. control, with American investment poised to turn the war-ravaged territory into a lucrative real estate asset. Israel’s sweeping military response to Hamas’s October 7 attack has left Gaza in ruins, paving the way for this vision. For Netanyahu’s government, U.S. control offers a crucial security buffer, preventing displaced Palestinians from returning and potentially reviving Hamas or other Islamist militant groups.

Trump’s proposal has ignited a global backlash, drawing outrage from Gazans, the broader Islamic world, and European leaders alike. While some have floated the idea of resettlement with U.S. financial backing as a means to ease Gaza’s crushing humanitarian crisis, resistance remains formidable. For much of the Muslim world, Gaza is more than just territory—it is a symbol of Islamic solidarity, and its depopulation is viewed as an assault on both religious and political identity. In Europe, officials warn that Trump’s plan—particularly the forced relocation of Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan—could deal a final, irreparable blow to the already fragile prospects of a two-state solution.

The idea of “cleaning out” Palestinians to turn a profit in real estate has long united Israel’s settler movement and certain figures in Donald Trump’s orbit of U.S. developers. For decades, state-backed settlers have laid claim to Palestinian land, using concrete and steel not just to build towns but to cement political realities, ensuring that Palestinians are permanently displaced.

This approach resonated with key figures in Trump’s first administration—not only because it was stacked with apocalyptic evangelicals who see Jewish control of the Holy Land as a biblical prerequisite for the Second Coming, but also because it aligned with the real estate instincts of Trump’s inner circle. No one embodied this more than Jared Kushner, the driving force behind a 2020 Middle East “Peace” plan that never materialized but was strikingly focused on investment rather than sovereignty.

Trump has now taken the idea to its most extreme conclusion, pushing for the U.S. to seize control of Gaza and forcibly remove its two million residents. His plan envisions development on land flattened by Israeli airstrikes. He has made clear that the U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and reshape it entirely, asserting full ownership. Last month, he dismissed concerns about Gaza’s population, describing the situation as a matter of clearing out more than a million and a half people.

Israel has long proposed various economic plans for Gaza, all while maintaining a strict siege and insisting on ultimate control over the region. One such proposal, to build an artificial island off Gaza’s coast to host a seaport and airport, was revived last year by Israel’s former foreign minister in an effort to address the frustration of EU diplomats seeking a political resolution. Trump’s plan echoes this proposal, with the president envisioning Gaza as a new “Riviera of the Middle East.” Steven Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, has backed the idea of relocating Palestinians, asserting that a better life doesn’t have to be tied to the physical space in which one resides.

Meanwhile, Israeli settler groups that were evacuated from Gaza under the 2005 disengagement plan are eager to return. In December, the real estate agency Harey Zahav, which caters to settlers, released an image of new buildings rising amid the rubble of Gaza, accompanied by the message that owning a house on the beach is a tangible dream. It remains unclear how these settler ambitions, or those of the Israeli government, will align with Trump’s takeover plan, though there is a history of collaboration between the two.

The Trump administration’s plan for Gaza appears to be nearing fruition. With the territory now under Israeli control, a formal handover to the U.S. seems increasingly likely, offering Israel a way to rid itself of the blame tied to this contentious piece of land. However, such a move would effectively mark the end of Palestine, a prospect long advocated against by much of the international community. The West Bank, now nearly fully under Israeli control, shows no signs of returning to Palestinian hands. Losing Gaza to U.S. control, with an eventual handover to Israel, would be the final blow to the Palestinian cause. And it is none other than the calculating real estate magnate, Donald Trump, who has set this entire project in motion, orchestrating the threats, talks, and calls that have propelled it forward.

February 7, 2025
Trump, Gaza, and the Politics of Departure: A Policy or a Punchline?

Donald Trump has again urged Palestinians to leave Gaza for Egypt or Jordan. To outsiders, this might seem like a practical solution—why endure relentless Israeli bombardment, militant rule, and a collapsing infrastructure when they could escape? But Gazans and many Muslims see Gaza as more than just land; it embodies global solidarity and a generational struggle against Israel. They view their suffering as a sacrifice that deepens their commitment to the cause. They refuse to leave, whether by personal conviction or pressure from their supporters. Meanwhile, Israel, seeking territorial expansion, particularly in the West Bank, finds a willing ally in the United States, whose leaders take pride in making “great deals.” Some believe a relocation plan could work. With strong Muslim allies in the region, Trump, in theory, could try to broker such an agreement.

Trump’s comment on Gaza has dominated headlines amid growing uncertainty over the territory’s future. While involved parties insist that any resolution will be tied to a ceasefire agreement, one outcome is certain—Israel will never allow Hamas or any other Islamist group to govern Gaza, even if elected. European and Arab states are pressing for the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, to take over. Meanwhile, another plan, long favored by Israel’s right wing, is quietly resurfacing: annexing Gaza and relocating its population to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan. Trump’s remarks have added momentum to this idea, and Netanyahu, backed by Israel’s right, might see it as a viable option. Yet for many Gazans, deeply connected to their land, religion, and Palestinian identity, forced relocation remains unthinkable.

Aboard Air Force One on Monday night, the U.S. president faced questions about his weekend remarks on “cleaning out” the Gaza Strip, whether temporarily or long-term. Trump reinforced his stance, saying he wanted Palestinians from Gaza to live in an area where they would not face constant disruption, revolution, and violence. He described Gaza as a place that had been in turmoil for many years, emphasizing that various civilizations had occupied the strip over thousands of years, always marked by violence. He suggested that people could be relocated to areas that were safer, possibly better, and more comfortable.

Trump said he would visit Netanyahu and had spoken with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah on Sunday, insisting that both leaders would support the plan. On Monday, Abdullah also spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, though the State Department’s statement on the call did not mention the issue. Trump expressed confidence that Sisi would accept some Palestinians, emphasizing that the U.S. had provided substantial aid to Egypt and that he considered Sisi a friend. He acknowledged Egypt’s challenging geopolitical position but insisted that both Sisi and King Abdullah would cooperate.

However, both Amman and Cairo have firmly rejected the idea, making it clear that Trump’s proposal is not an option. Yet, if Trump were to apply pressure through tariffs and tougher measures, and if he acted adamantly, Egypt and Jordan—perhaps even Saudi Arabia—might eventually follow his lead.

Gaza’s dire conditions further bolster the case for relocation. Fifteen months of war have devastated 70% of its infrastructure, pushing 2.3 million residents into a deep humanitarian crisis. Before a ceasefire took effect earlier this month, more than 47,000 people had been killed, and nearly 90% of the population had been displaced—many multiple times—according to Palestinian support sources. Rebuilding remains an immense challenge, especially as aid organizations like UNRWA face scrutiny from Israel.Even before the war, Gaza relied heavily on aid, and the worsening conditions have led many to consider leaving. This option could become more feasible if the United States and Arab countries provide support.

Mediators have begun preliminary work on the second phase of ceasefire negotiations, expected to take effect in early March. Under this phase, Israel is supposed to fully withdraw from Gaza, while Hamas is expected to disarm. However, the Israeli government will likely align with Trump’s plan and engage with neighboring Arab countries, potentially paving the way for a broader deal shaped by continued U.S. involvement.

January 30, 2025
A Return to Tradition? Iraq Legalizes Child Marriages

Iraq, a parliamentary republic in the Middle East, has long distinguished itself from theocratic regimes like Iran or Afghanistan, where strict Sharia laws and conservative Islamic customs dominate. Unlike these nations, Iraq’s multi-ethnic society encompasses diverse beliefs and traditions, reflected in its post-2005 constitutional framework that allows political parties and communities a degree of autonomy to interpret and practice their customs, even if not directly restricted by federal laws.

One of the most contentious issues in the Islamic world—child marriage—has now entered the spotlight in Iraq. While the country’s official legal framework sets the marriage age at 18, adopting principles rooted in modern Egyptian law influenced by French legal traditions, many communities have continued to practice child marriage. These informal practices are now being formally legitimized under the influence of the Sadrist Movement, an Iraqi Shi’a Islamic nationalist political force led by Muqtada al-Sadr.

With the government’s decision to legalize child marriages, Iraq appears to be moving closer to adopting a model resembling that of Iran’s Islamic Republic, where traditional and religious codes overshadow modern legal frameworks. This shift raises concerns about Iraq’s trajectory, signaling a potential alignment with stricter interpretations of Sharia law and marking a significant transformation in its societal and political fabric.

Although Iraq has prohibited marriage for those under 18 since the 1950s, with judicial approval required for those aged 15 to 17, a UN survey found that 28% of girls in Iraq are married before adulthood. Many girls are either coerced or pressured into marriage, often dropping out of school to do so.

Instead of strengthening laws to prevent underage marriage or providing support for girls from disadvantaged backgrounds to finish their education, recent amendments to Iraq’s Personal Status Law could have the opposite effect. The new law, passed by parliament, would allow girls as young as nine to marry and shift authority over family matters—including marriage, divorce, and child custody—to religious bodies. Critics argue that these amendments effectively legalize child marriage, deepening concerns about the protection of girls’ rights in Iraq.

The amendments have sparked widespread outrage among Iraqi MPs and women’s rights advocates, who argue that the law represents a significant setback. Many warn that it effectively legitimizes child exploitation, with activists condemning it as “Legalizing Child Rape.” This controversial shift has drawn intense criticism, with concerns that it will undermine the rights and futures of young girls in Iraq. Critics—including activists and opposing lawmakers—caution that, if enacted, the changes would likely lead to a rise in underage marriages, further jeopardizing the well-being and opportunities of young girls throughout the country.

Activists argue that the push to legalize child marriage is a calculated attack on women’s rights and freedoms, driven by the prominent role young women played in Iraq’s 2019 anti-government protests. The mass demonstrations, primarily led by youth, emphasized the growing empowerment of women in Iraqi society. In the aftermath, political and religious factions viewed feminist movements, women’s organizations, and activist networks as direct challenges to their power and authority. As a result, these groups were seen as threats, prompting efforts to suppress and restrict them.

Proponents of the amendments, largely supported by conservative Shia lawmakers, argue that the changes are necessary to align Iraq’s laws with Islamic principles and to shield the country from perceived Western cultural influence. However, critics see this as an attempt to tether Iraq more closely to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which views the West as an adversary and frames its policies as a defense of Islamic values. As Iran’s influence wanes in Syria and Lebanon, Iraq has become a key battleground for asserting regional dominance. By bolstering the Shia government’s control in Iraq, Iran aims to strengthen its grip on the country and pull it further into the fold of the Islamic Republic.

January 28, 2025
Can the Philippines be found on Trump’s Map of Ambitions?

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul-turned-politician, returned to the U.S. presidency after a four-year break, setting a record as the oldest president ever to hold office. Back in power, his focus has shifted to expanding the nation’s influence by acquiring new territories, beginning with Greenland, which he views as strategically vital due to its location and rich natural resources. He has also proposed the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state, stressing the potential benefits for both nations. Meanwhile, rumors circulating on social media suggest that Trump may target other regions, including Panama, the Gulf of Mexico, and even the Philippines, a former U.S. colony. While some dismiss these ambitions as mere fantasy, Trump remains resolute, driven by his bold vision and relentless pursuit of new opportunities.

Greenland and Canada have long been strategically important due to their proximity to Russia and their access to the emerging trans-Arctic trade route. However, the war in Ukraine has revealed a shift in global power dynamics, with Russia’s influence waning and China emerging as a more significant threat to the U.S. This prompts a crucial question: Is Trump eyeing territories closer to China? While the U.S. already maintains strong alliances with nations like Japan and South Korea, Trump’s continued interest in Greenland and Canada suggests his ambitions may go beyond just security, seeking broader strategic objectives. Trump’s strategy seems to revolve around securing regions that provide both strategic advantages and increased global influence for the U.S. As part of this broader vision, he may turn his attention to territories closer to China. Enter the Philippines: strategically positioned in the Asia-Pacific and just off China’s shores, it remains one of the most Americanized countries in the region due to its history as a former U.S. colony. The Philippines could play a significant role in Trump’s long-term plans.

Filipinos hold the distinction of being the oldest Asian ethnic group in the Americas, a legacy shaped by their arrival on North American shores more than four centuries ago. Filipino sailors, who made their way across the vast Pacific, were the first Asians to step onto what is now U.S. territory, reaching Morro Bay, California, as early as 1587. In 1763, a group of Filipinos established the first permanent settlement in Louisiana, giving rise to the Manilamen, a community whose members would later distinguish themselves in one of the most pivotal moments in American history. During the War of 1812, they fought alongside Americans in the Battle of New Orleans, their contributions a quiet but significant part of the nation’s struggle against the British Empire.

The American state of Texas, once part of Spanish territory, was once christened “New Philippines” by the Spanish themselves. This name was not born of affection but of ambition—a vision of replicating the prosperity they had fostered in the Philippines on this side of the world. In 1898, the Philippine Revolution, inspired by the ideals of the French and American revolutions, reverberated with a demand for independence from Spanish rule. What followed was the United States’ acquisition of the Philippines through the Treaty of Paris, an act that set in motion not just the purchase, but the military invasion that would dismantle the nascent First Philippine Republic. The subsequent Philippine–American War would see the dissolution of Filipino sovereignty, and for all but a brief period of Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945, the archipelago would remain under U.S. governance until 1946.

Since the Philippines gained independence, the relationship between the country and the United States has remained strong, with deep ties across almost every sector. As one of the U.S.’s oldest partners in Asia and a crucial non-NATO ally, the Philippines holds significant strategic value. Unlike many former colonies, the Philippines has consistently maintained a positive view of the U.S., with surveys showing strong support over the years. This enduring favorability positions the Philippines as both a valuable ally and a potentially appealing candidate for annexation under Trump’s strategy.

While the two nations share many cultural and historical connections, the idea of merging them would not be easily accepted by all. Though one could argue that such a move could lead to a stronger economy, better infrastructure, and more efficient governance, the political realities make this unlikely. The Philippines has one of the most corrupt political landscapes, dominated by powerful dynasties, where fair democratic processes often struggle. Therefore, Philippine politics would most likely reject any attempt to join the United States.

A move to annex the Philippines would undoubtedly strengthen the U.S.’s influence in Asia, with a developed Philippines potentially playing a more prominent role in regional affairs. However, unlike Greenland and Canada, the Philippines lacks substantial natural resources, and its much larger population presents distinct challenges. Additionally, such a significant shift could attract accusations of recolonization, making it unpopular globally. While the possibility remains unlikely, it is not entirely out of the question—Donald Trump has a history of pursuing unconventional moves.

January 21, 2025
Can Yemen’s Crisis Find a Resolution, Like Syria’s?

The Arab Spring, fueled by Islamist populist movements advocating for Islamic rule and opposing dictatorial regimes, plunged many nations into chaos. This upheaval fractured several countries, leaving them embroiled in civil wars that have lasted over 13 years. Despite numerous peace talks over this period, most efforts ended in stalemates. Meanwhile, several global powers exploited these conflicts, strengthening their influence. Iran, in particular, expanded its regional power by funding and directing proxy groups involved in civil wars across various nations.

However, The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran is helping various factions in war to break long-standing deadlocks. Syria offers a key example. Despite significant risks, Israel-backed forces successfully challenged Iran-aligned factions, collaborating with allies like Turkey to oust the Iran-backed regime and ultimately reach a resolution. A similar shift appears to be unfolding in Yemen, where Israel’s growing focus on the region has sparked renewed optimism that a resolution to the prolonged conflict may finally be within sight.

Yemen, with its strategic geopolitical location, once served as a vital trade hub between the East and West. For much of its history, Yemeni cities were among the wealthiest in the Arabian Peninsula, flourishing along key trade routes. However, its strategic importance made Yemen vulnerable to superpowers, and it eventually fell under the control of Islamic kingdoms and European powers. The modern state of Yemen, as we know it today, was established in 1990 following the unification of the previously divided South and North. Yet, foreign influence and interests did not diminish. Saudi Arabia and the United States continued to pursue their agendas in Yemen—Saudi Arabia aiming to create a Shia-free region, while the U.S. sought to maintain control over this vital geopolitical location.

Ali Abdullah Saleh, the leader who unified Yemen, soon began treating the country as his personal fiefdom. However, his failure to build strong state institutions hampered Yemen’s development into a stable nation. Instead, Yemen’s political landscape became defined by a fragile form of collaborative governance, where competing tribal, regional, religious, and political interests coexisted through an unspoken arrangement. This informal structure was underpinned by a power-sharing agreement among three key figures: President Saleh, who controlled the state; Major General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who commanded the majority of Yemen’s armed forces; and Abdullah ibn Husayn al-Ahmar, the leader of the Islamist al-Islah party, who served as a Saudi-appointed broker overseeing transnational patronage payments to various political factions, including influential tribal leaders.

Misgovernance, internal divisions, and deteriorating living conditions in Yemen created a fertile environment for terrorism, turning the country into a recruitment hub for various Islamic organizations. Despite the worsening situation, Saleh managed to hold on to power through fraudulent elections. During the Arab Spring, multiple groups united in opposition to him, sparking a new wave of civil war. However, the opposition quickly fragmented, and as various factions seized control of different regions, each pursuing its own agenda, Yemen was pushed further into crisis, edging closer to collapse.

Like in Syria, Iran plays a significant role in Yemen by backing the Houthis, a group of militants advocating for the implementation of Shia Islamic law. The Houthis are notorious for their attacks on maritime shipping routes, as well as for their strikes on Saudi oil refineries and their solidarity with Hamas and Iran in their opposition to Israel. They control a large portion of Yemen, primarily in the former northern part of the country. For years, international watchdogs and superpowers largely avoided engaging with the Houthis or seeking resolutions in Yemen. However, as the Houthis continue their attacks on Israel, it’s increasingly likely that Israel will retaliate. Israel may follow a strategy similar to the one it used in Syria, which could bring hope for Yemen. In Syria, Israel successfully targeted Hezbollah fighters, aligned with Iran, forcing them to collapse and paving the way for forces backed by the United States ally Turkey to topple the Iran-supported regime, ultimately bringing an end to the civil war.

In Yemen, Israel may target the Houthis with the support of its intelligence agencies, while Saudi-backed troops, potentially bolstered by U.S. assistance, could attempt to seize control of Sanaa. However, Yemen presents a unique challenge for Israel due to its geographical distance and the significant cultural and social differences from Syria.

Yemen is now fragmented into at least six parts, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States playing key roles within the country. While Iran and its Houthi allies remain entrenched, other factions could unite in the conflict. If Israel were to target the Houthis, opposing groups or their coalition partners could likely execute a relatively straightforward mission. This would involve a surgical strike strategy and targeted attacks similar to those that severely weakened Hezbollah by eliminating key leaders. If successful, the Houthis would be significantly diminished, reducing their threat. Although the timeline for such an outcome remains uncertain, if the Houthis persist in their missile attacks against Israel, a resolution will eventually emerge. This could provide an opportunity for opposition groups in Yemen to retake the capital and reunify the nation.

January 7, 2025
A Drift or Another Drama? What’s Happening Between Azerbaijan and Russia?

Azerbaijan and Russia share a strong and multifaceted relationship, characterized by cooperation in various sectors, from business to politics. They consistently support each other’s interests. Despite Russia’s political turmoil—fueled by its prolonged war and increasing sanctions, with many nations distancing themselves and turning to the West—Azerbaijan remains steadfast in its loyalty to Russia. This enduring commitment has brought Azerbaijan significant benefits, including Russia’s support in reclaiming territories once held by Armenia. As a result, Azerbaijan and its president have become prominent figures, not only in the region but also across the broader Islamic world, earning recognition comparable to that of Vladimir Putin.

Envy often accompanies the sight of seemingly perfect couples, and similarly, some political observers are growing skeptical of the relationship between Azerbaijan and Russia. They question the true strength of their bond. On the surface, the two countries appear to maintain a strong alliance. However, some believe Azerbaijan may shift its allegiances when the time is right, strengthening ties with Turkey and other influential actors to move closer to the West. Despite this potential shift, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s close relationship with Vladimir Putin has left little doubt.

The recent tragic incident, in which a Russian defense system reportedly shot down an Azerbaijani Airlines civilian plane, resulted in the deaths of 38 people, including Azerbaijani citizens, sparking widespread outrage and prompting sharp criticism of the Kremlin from President Ilham Aliyev. Aliyev stated that the plane was struck by ground fire over Russian territory and made uncontrollable by electronic warfare, before criticizing Moscow for attempting to conceal the incident for several days. He expressed disappointment with Russia’s handling of the situation and accused the country of suppressing the truth, describing his reaction as upset and surprised by the initial explanations provided by Russian officials. Aliyev pointed out that for the first three days, Russia offered only absurd versions of the events.

Aliyev stated that Azerbaijan had made three demands to Russia regarding the crash. The first was for Russia to apologize to Azerbaijan; the second, for Russia to admit its guilt; and the third, to punish those responsible, hold them criminally accountable, and provide compensation to both the Azerbaijani state and the injured passengers and crew members. Aliyev noted that the first demand had already been fulfilled when Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an apology on Saturday, referring to the crash as a “tragic incident,” though he did not acknowledge Moscow’s responsibility. Putin mentioned that an investigation was ongoing and the final version of events would be revealed once the black boxes were opened. Aliyev also emphasized that Azerbaijan had always supported the involvement of international experts in the investigation. He pointed out that Azerbaijan had “Categorically Refused” Russia’s suggestion to allow the Interstate Aviation Committee, which governs civil aviation within the Commonwealth of Independent States, to handle the inquiry. Aliyev argued that the committee, made up largely of Russian officials and led by Russian citizens, could not ensure the necessary objectivity.

Under normal circumstances, Azerbaijan would not have had the courage to present these demands to Russia. This shift may stem from recognizing Russia’s weakened position, or it could be an effort to placate public anger. Both Aliyev and Putin are adept at directing such drama.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov informed Russian state media on Sunday that President Putin had spoken with Azerbaijani President Aliyev again over the phone, though he did not disclose any details of the conversation. The Kremlin also announced that a joint investigation involving Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan was underway at the crash site near Aktau, Kazakhstan. The plane, which was traveling from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Grozny, Chechnya, unexpectedly veered off course toward Kazakhstan, hundreds of miles across the Caspian Sea, and crashed while attempting to land. Dmitry Yadrov, head of Russia’s civil aviation authority, Rosaviatsia, explained that as the plane was preparing to land in Grozny amid thick fog, Ukrainian drones were reportedly targeting the city, prompting authorities to close the area to air traffic. Passengers and crew who survived the crash later told Azerbaijani media that they heard loud noises aboard the plane as it circled over Grozny.

This airplane crash and the subsequent incidents highlight Russia’s growing weaknesses, and Azerbaijan is sensing this shift. The country may seize the opportunity to seek out other allies. However, Aliyev understands that, unlike Zelensky, Azerbaijan cannot afford to distance itself too much from Russia. Most likely, Azerbaijan will maintain its relationship with Moscow, but it now has valid reasons to open discussions with the West.

December 31, 2024
How Long Can South Korea’s Suspended President Cling On?

Yoon Yuk-Seoul, still clinging to his role as South Korea’s president, defies persistent calls for his resignation despite being impeached by parliament. Massive protests forced him to retract his abrupt declaration of martial law, and his humiliation deepened when members of his own party joined the opposition in voting for his removal. Yet, Yoon refuses to step down, undeterred by parliament’s decision to strip him of all powers and duties. The nation now turns its attention to the Constitutional Court, tasked with deciding Yoon’s political future. The court must determine whether to remove him from office permanently or restore his authority. Deliberations are underway, but concerns about the court’s impartiality persist, as critics question its alleged ties to the disgraced president. A single favorable ruling could allow Yoon to retain his tenuous grip on power. Beyond the legal and political battles, the streets of South Korea are witnessing an extraordinary display of civic resistance, with protesters demanding not only Yoon’s resignation but also his imprisonment.

On Saturday, thousands of South Koreans poured into central Seoul, amplifying their calls for the removal of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol. This surge in protest came just one day after parliament’s vote to impeach Han Duck-soo, Yoon’s acting replacement, adding yet another twist to the nation’s spiraling political crisis. Han’s impeachment, driven by his refusal to appoint three judges to the Constitutional Court—the very body tasked with deciding Yoon’s fate—highlighted the chaos engulfing South Korea’s leadership. Neither the people nor the opposition are willing to wait for the Constitutional Court’s decision on Yoon’s impeachment, which must come within its 180-day deadline and looms over the country like a storm cloud. The court’s ruling hinges on critical judicial appointments. If new justices replace the three who stepped down in October at the end of their terms, Yoon’s chances of being found guilty of violating the constitution through his martial law declaration and related actions could rise significantly. However, if the decision is left to the current six judges, the stakes increase dramatically. A unanimous verdict would be required to uphold his impeachment; one dissenting judge would reinstate Yoon

Undeterred by freezing temperatures, South Koreans continue to flood the streets to save their democracy. The protests, which have steadily grown since Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed declaration of martial law on December 3, have transformed Seoul’s historic Gwanghwamun area into a vibrant display of civic engagement. The rallies, blending youthful energy with political urgency, feature protesters carrying K-pop light sticks and banners from civil society groups. Organizers reported that over 500,000 people participated in the latest demonstration, which unfolded under heavy police presence. Marchers called for Yoon Suk Yeol’s imprisonment as they moved from Gyeongbokgung Palace to the busy Myeongdong shopping district, singing along to K-pop music blasting from speaker trucks. The atmosphere, a mix of celebratory fervor and serious political messaging, drew opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, who joined protesters on the ground in a gesture of solidarity. Despite the enormous crowd, the rally remained peaceful and well-organized.

The court building itself has been barricaded by police buses and heavily guarded. Hundreds of flower wreaths, sent by Yoon’s supporters, line the barriers, each bearing messages of support for the suspended president. About a kilometer away from the main demonstration, a large counterprotest led by far-right evangelical Christian groups gathered to oppose the impeachment. Comprising mostly elderly individuals, their tone was hostile as they denounced the parliamentary impeachment votes as invalid and called for Yoon’s reinstatement. Despite this, recent polls show that a majority of South Koreans support Yoon’s removal from office following his attempt to impose martial law earlier this month.

With parliament having done its part, the focus now shifts back to the Constitutional Court. Under normal circumstances, six of the court’s nine justices must approve parliament’s impeachment vote for Yoon to be removed from office, triggering an election to be held within 60 days of their ruling. Han, the impeached acting president who previously served as prime minister under Yoon, steps aside to make way for a temporary successor, finance minister Choi Sang-mok, as parliament moves further down the pecking order to fill the country’s leadership vacuum. Choi, the new acting president, announced on Friday that the government had ordered the military to heighten vigilance and prepare to prevent North Korea from miscalculating the situation and launching provocations.

While the ruling party believes it can extend Yoon’s time in office until the Constitutional Court delivers its verdict, the evolving political landscape has become increasingly unfavorable to both the party and President Yoon. Though they hope to delay the process as public sentiment lightens, the reality is that the situation worsens day by day, with rising anger toward the president and his party, sparking more protests and increasing pressure on Yoon. Nonetheless, he clings to power at any cost, desperately holding onto the presidency. It is clear that the opposition will not allow any further time, with a parliamentary majority ready to oust him. The political crisis will persist until a new presidential election is held, and Yoon is likely to hold on, struggling to maintain his position until then.

December 29, 2024
Does Israel Want To Expand?

Israel is often seen as having no expansion plans beyond the territories of the former British Mandate. Its actions following the Six-Day War support this perception, as it briefly held Gaza and returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, both gained during the conflict. Similarly, Israel reclaimed areas under the British Mandate from Jordan, specifically the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which were previously under Jordanian control. After regaining these territories, Israel negotiated agreements with neighboring countries, promoting mutual respect for borders and significantly reducing regional tensions.

The territories reclaimed from Egypt and Jordan are now recognized by international authorities as part of the Palestinian state. However, Israel expanded its Jewish population in these areas through planned settlement growth, transforming arid deserts into fertile land, and relocating more people to these regions. Numerous reports, even before the renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas on October 7, 2022, point to Israel’s de facto annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, Israel has made fewer efforts to establish settlements in Gaza, and the situation has largely remained stable since the withdrawal of settlements in 2005. However, following the October 7 attacks, it is now clear that Israel will likely follow the strategies it used in the West Bank, leading to further encroachment on what some view as the future state of an independent Palestine.

Israel’s recent actions have raised further doubts, as its expansion plans now appear to extend beyond the former British Mandate. In addition to these territories, Israel continues to control the Golan Heights, which was not part of the British Mandate and which the international community still recognizes as part of Syria, and which it has not returned through peace negotiations. As Israel shifts its military operations toward its borders with Lebanon and Syria, and with Gaza no longer posing an immediate threat from the south, the country seems to be intensifying its focus on the Golan Heights. Israel is following the same strategies used in the West Bank. The Israeli government has approved a plan to invest over $11 million in the occupied Golan Heights, aiming to double the region’s population. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the initiative an important response to the evolving “New Front” with Syria, emphasizing that strengthening the Golan Heights is essential for strengthening Israel at this time. Netanyahu reiterated the government’s intent to retain the area, promote its development, and expand settlements there.

Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Israel established a buffer zone by stationing troops on the Syrian side of the border, arguing that previous ceasefire agreements had collapsed due to changes in Damascus. Reports suggest that Israeli troops have extended their presence beyond this buffer zone in several areas. The Golan Heights is home to over 50,000 people, including Jewish Israelis and members of the Druze and Alawite religious minorities. As the Jewish population grows and Syria maintains stable governance, the Muslim population may move towards Syria, which will likely lead to undisputed Israeli control of the Golan Heights. There are now more than 30 Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, housing around 20,000 people. Netanyahu stated that Israel would continue to hold onto the territory, make it flourish, and expand settlements there. This announcement followed a day after Syria’s new de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, criticized Israel for its ongoing strikes on military targets in Syria, reportedly targeting military facilities.

As Netanyahu maintains a cruise mode, he is likely to adopt a more aggressive approach. The Golan Heights, surrounding areas, Lebanon, and even Yemen hold historical significance for the Jewish people, with a once-thriving Jewish population that was displaced by Arabs. Given this, Netanyahu may plan to re-establish settlements in these regions to serve Jewish interests. It may seem like an exaggeration, but by observing these trends, it is clear that Israel seeks expansion, citing security as the justification. This pattern is evident in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Lebanon, and potentially Aden. The Jewish people have a deep connection to their history.

December 23, 2024
The Impeachment That Saved South Korea from Shame

For decades, South Korea has held itself up as a beacon of democracy, emerging from the shadows of authoritarianism to embody the principles of freedom and justice on a divided peninsula. But under President Yoon Suk Yeol, that proud narrative began to unravel. By declaring martial law, dissolving parliament, and clinging to power with an iron-fisted resolve, Yoon thrust the nation into a crisis that sent shockwaves through both allies and adversaries alike.

The backlash was swift and relentless, sweeping through the streets and digital platforms. Protesters took to the streets, while online voices drew troubling comparisons between Yoon’s South Korea and its northern neighbor, eroding the country’s hard-won status as a democratic model. What had taken years to build was on the verge of collapse.

As public outrage grew, a fractured parliament made its first attempt at impeachment. Yoon stood firm, refusing to resign. Only after a second, decisive vote did his impeachment succeed. In that moment, South Korea glimpsed hope at the end of a prolonged political crisis and further humiliation.

On Saturday, South Korea’s National Assembly made the historic move, passing an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol just days after his controversial declaration of martial law—an act overturned within hours. Yet, Yoon’s fate now lies not in the hands of legislators, but with the Constitutional Court, which must determine whether the impeachment is valid. The stakes are high: the court has up to 180 days to deliberate, and its decision could reinstate Yoon, cement his removal, or leave the nation in further uncertainty.

Precedents loom large in the minds of the South Korean public. In 2004, the court rejected the impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun, allowing him to resume his presidency. Conversely, in 2017, it upheld the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, permanently removing her from office in a landmark ruling.

If the impeachment is upheld, a general election must follow within two months, setting the stage for further drama. While the case against Yoon appears compelling, the outcome is far from assured. The Constitutional Court holds the authority to decide Yoon’s fate, but even a single dissenting vote among the judges could nullify the motion. With Yoon having appointed three of the court’s members, the possibility of a reversal looms over the process, casting doubt on its impartiality.

In the aftermath of Yoon’s suspension, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo has assumed the role of acting president, steering a government mired in political chaos. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) teeters on the brink of collapse, with its leader, Han Dong-hoon, stepping down after a failed bid to unite the party against the impeachment vote. His resignation, citing the disintegration of the party’s Supreme Council, has left the PPP leaderless and vulnerable.

Meanwhile, the opposition Democratic Party senses an opportunity in the disorder. Armed with public outrage over Yoon’s actions, they are seizing the moment to press for an early general election. Such a move, they argue, would help restore South Korea’s dignity, renew public faith in its democracy, and offer the nation a chance at fresh leadership capable of undoing the damage to its global reputation.

The National Assembly’s members rose to meet a pivotal moment, understanding the weight of damage the nation was burdened with and the urgency of decisive action. On December 14th, they cast their votes in an impeachment process that South Koreans overwhelmingly supported, with over 70 percent of the public demanding Yoon’s removal. For the opposition Democratic Party, led by Lee Jae-myung, this political turmoil has paved a clear path to power. Yet Lee himself carries legal baggage, complicating his ascent.

For now, the opposition’s focus remains squarely on the presidency. The Democratic Party has vowed not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo or other Cabinet members, citing the need to maintain a functioning government amid the political upheaval. Yet, analysts warn this restraint may be fleeting. Should Acting President Han fail to align with the Democratic Party’s agenda, Democratic leader Lee Jae-myung could reverse course, plunging the government into paralysis as political gridlock prevents key decisions from being made or implemented.

Yoon’s impeachment does not signify the end of South Korea’s political turbulence, nor the dawn of its resolution. Rather, it serves to close a shameful chapter in the nation’s democratic story. The true reckoning, however, will come with the election of a new president, one that promises further drama in a country already scarred by a crisis that has tarnished its reputation and weakened its hard-won soft power. For years, South Korea has worked to project its democratic ideals and cultural influence, but now it confronts the stark fragility of both. This moment of reckoning threatens not only its national identity but its standing on the global stage.

December 18, 2024