Category: World

  • In the Shadow of Tariffs, Xi Makes His Rounds—But ASEAN Still Pins Its Hopes on the US

    In the Shadow of Tariffs, Xi Makes His Rounds—But ASEAN Still Pins Its Hopes on the US

    Southeast Asia, a region home to some of the world’s fastest-growing economies and crucial manufacturing hubs, has long been heavily reliant on the U.S. market. But in the last few weeks, the sweeping tariffs introduced by the Trump administration have created significant challenges for countries in the region, leaving businesses in trouble and governments facing growing economic instability.

    Amid this backdrop, President Xi Jinping arrived in Vietnam on Monday, marking the beginning of a diplomatic tour through Southeast Asia that will also take him to Malaysia and Cambodia. Chinese officials have marked the visit as being of major importance, reflecting Beijing’s desire to cement its influence in the region.

    Although China may not have the capacity to fully replace the U.S. in business, it is positioning itself as a more stable and reliable economic partner. Xi’s visit aims to reinforce this perception, portraying China as a dependable force aligned with the region’s development priorities. While ASEAN nations (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) deepen ties with Beijing, they continue to seek business relations with the U.S. and are open to compromise by fostering more dialogue and addressing trade imbalances, making the diplomatic talks in the region particularly interesting to watch.

    China: A Stable Partner

    Vietnam, a manufacturing hub, and Cambodia, where the garment and footwear industries are vital to the economy, were hit hard by U.S. tariffs—set at 46% and 49%, respectively—chosen by Xi for his visit. Washington’s approach has raised concerns in these countries. During Xi Jinping’s visit, China is expected to position itself as a stable and reliable partner, deliberately contrasting itself with the U.S., which has imposed—and then suspended—punitive tariffs. On Monday, China is likely to sign numerous agreements with Vietnam, including potential investments and cooperation on developing the country’s railway infrastructure, emphasizing a partnership built on worth and trust.

    Throughout Xi’s tour, China will likely present itself as the responsible guardian of a rules-based trade system, portraying the United States as an unpredictable force undermining established trade ties. While the meetings may not result in significant, tangible agreements, their symbolic weight is expected to be substantial

    Troubles with China

    Many experts argue that Southeast Asia’s businesses need to diversify and expand their trade relations with major economies like China, Europe, and India, as a way to mitigate the effects of U.S. trade policies from the Trump era. While these economies may not fully replace the U.S. market, the shift is vital for businesses that are heavily reliant on exports and have small, vulnerable domestic markets. Gaining access to larger economies provides a necessary lifeline for sustaining growth.

    However, turning toward China and other major economies presents its own set of challenges. Southeast Asian nations find themselves not only competing with China for market access and production opportunities but also grappling with complex geopolitical tensions. The South China Sea, in particular, remains a flashpoint, with several ASEAN countries embroiled in territorial disputes with China. For nations like Vietnam, which have been outspoken in their opposition to China’s actions in the region, balancing the pursuit of economic ties with the need to safeguard national interests adds a layer of diplomatic complexity.

    While confusion persists about U.S. trade policies, there are growing concerns in Southeast Asia that the 145% U.S. tariff on Chinese goods could lead to a flood of inexpensive Chinese exports into neighboring countries, jeopardizing local industries. According to Chinese customs data, ASEAN countries were the largest recipients of Chinese exports last year. Vietnam, which competes with and often mirrors China in various industries, could struggle if Chinese products flood the market. With U.S. exports accounting for 30% of Vietnam’s GDP, Hanoi needs them and is keen to avoid antagonizing Washington by aligning with China, particularly as it seeks relief from a new 46% tariff. As a result, the likelihood of Vietnam aligning closely with China following Xi Jinping’s visit has diminished.

    In a bid to mend relations and eliminate tariffs, Vietnam sent Deputy Prime Minister Ho Duc Phoc to Washington, offered to remove tariffs on U.S. imports, and pledged to purchase more American goods, including in defense. Simultaneously, Vietnam is tightening export controls, cracking down on Chinese goods funneled through its territory, and limiting sensitive exports to China, particularly dual-use items like semiconductors. Vietnam remains hopeful that the U.S. will respond positively.

    What happens next?

    For most ASEAN nations, preserving strong economic ties with the United States remains a central priority, prompting many to actively pursue relief from mounting tariff pressures. In this context, Xi Jinping’s regional tour marks a calculated bid by Beijing to blunt Washington’s expanding influence—particularly through arms deals and trade negotiations aimed at easing tariff penalties tied to trade imbalances.

    Xi is expected to extend offers of strategic partnerships, backed by infrastructure investments and deeper political engagement, presenting China as a stable and dependable counterweight to the U.S. In return, Beijing seeks to safeguard its access to Southeast Asian markets and cultivate diplomatic goodwill that could translate into increased backing in international forums. At its core, China’s strategy is to prevent ASEAN states from becoming strategic adversaries—and ideally, to draw them more firmly into its geopolitical orbit.

  • A Return to the Table: The US and Iran Test the Waters of Diplomacy

    A Return to the Table: The US and Iran Test the Waters of Diplomacy

    When Donald Trump started his second term, it seemed like tensions with Iran were bound to escalate. His strong ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia—two of Iran’s biggest rivals—suggested a hardline approach was inevitable. But just a few months in, things have taken an unexpected turn.

    Trump now appears focused on striking a deal with Tehran. In a surprising development, the United States and Iran have wrapped up their first round of nuclear talks in Oman. These discussions are the first substantial talks between the two nations since 2018, when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the original nuclear deal, promising to secure a better one. After years of stalled diplomacy, these renewed talks signal real progress toward a potential agreement—one that could not only change the Middle East but also reshape global geopolitics.

    Optimism Grows After Positive Talks

    The United States and Iran have both described their recent nuclear talks as constructive. The two-and-a-half-hour meeting was brief but respectful, laying the groundwork for further negotiations.

    Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, spoke favorably about the discussions, noting they occurred in a calm and respectful setting without the use of inflammatory language. This tone suggests the U.S. delegation, led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, avoided repeating earlier threats of military action.

    Although the meeting was considered a success, it unfolded in an unusual format, with both delegations stationed in separate rooms and communicating through Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi. While it stopped short of a full face-to-face dialogue, Araghchi and Witkoff briefly spoke in Busaidi’s presence—a modest but symbolically significant gesture. Aware of political sensitivities at home, Iran downplayed the interaction and withheld any photographs.

    Following the talks, the White House described the discussions as highly positive. Witkoff emphasized that he had been directed to pursue diplomacy and dialogue to resolve long-standing differences. The administration acknowledged the complexity of the issues but considered Witkoff’s direct communication a meaningful step toward a mutually beneficial outcome. Araghchi had earlier stated that Iran was committed to securing a fair agreement, while the U.S. reaffirmed the value of direct engagement as essential to reaching a possible deal.

    Second Round Set for Next Week

    A second round of nuclear talks is set for Saturday, marking progress toward a possible agreement. While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi noted the next round may not be held in Oman, he confirmed that Oman would continue to mediate.

    Both sides seem increasingly willing to engage, with the upcoming talks expected to build on momentum from President Trump’s recent letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Sent via the United Arab Emirates, the letter expressed Trump’s desire to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avoid potential U.S. or Israeli military action.

    Trump disclosed the ongoing negotiations during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Monday. Netanyahu later stated that both leaders agreed Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. He also proposed a “Libya-style” disarmament model—complete dismantlement of weapons programs—which Iran has firmly rejected.

    Iran is instead seeking a deal that limits, but does not eliminate, its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian officials continue to assert the peaceful nature of their program and insist that negotiations will focus solely on nuclear issues, excluding the country’s ballistic missile and broader defense capabilities.

    What happens next? 

    Uncertainty still surrounds whether the talks will lead to a favorable agreement, as both sides remain firmly committed to their core demands. Experts widely agree that both Iran and the United States need a deal, but any major compromise could trigger political backlash at home.

    As it continues to pose a significant security concern for two of America’s closest allies in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—making it unlikely that the U.S. would support any deal that fails to address their concerns.

    At the same time, analysts believe Iran has limited options. The country faces deep economic troubles, and its leaders are under growing pressure from a dissatisfied population. In recent years, Iran’s influence in the region has declined, especially in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and parts of Yemen. These losses have weakened Iran’s regional standing and challenged its image as a leader of the Islamic world—posing real risks to the future of the Islamic Republic.

    For Iran, a nuclear deal could provide a crucial lifeline—offering relief from sanctions and easing domestic unrest. For the United States, it presents a chance to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check. As a result, talks are expected to continue.

  • In Trump’s Expanding Trade War, China Is in No Hurry to Flinch

    In Trump’s Expanding Trade War, China Is in No Hurry to Flinch

    The trade war between the United States and China has cast aside any remaining illusion of measured diplomacy. What began as a calculated exchange of economic pressure has devolved into a bare-knuckled standoff—a battle of wills between two superpowers, neither prepared to retreat, both pushing toward a brink that threatens to destabilize the very architecture of global trade.

    Just hours after President Trump unveiled a sweeping 145 percent tariff increase on Chinese imports, Beijing retaliated with its own salvo: 125 percent tariffs on American goods, coupled with warnings that further reprisals were on the horizon. Chinese state media wasted no time in framing Trump’s tactics as doomed, dismissing the escalation as both futile and provocative—a declaration that China would not yield to economic pressure, no matter how intense.

    While Trump temporarily eased tariffs on several countries—capping them at 10 percent for a 90-day period—China was pointedly excluded. The message was unmistakable: this was no longer a dispute over trade imbalances or intellectual property, but a deeper ideological clash, rooted in national pride and rival visions of global dominance.

    What is unfolding now transcends economic policy; it is a confrontation of political identities. As the world’s manufacturing powerhouse and its most voracious consumer lock into a cycle of retaliatory measures, the ripple effects have pulled the global economy into the turbulence. Supply chains fracture, markets quiver, and the already fragile post–Cold War trade order teeters on collapse.

    In this high-stakes deadlock, compromise feels increasingly remote. Instead, we witness the slow constriction of a geopolitical vise—one that promises to reshape the foundations of the global economic order for generations to come.

    China doesn’t compromise

    President Trump continues to portray himself as a reluctant warrior in an escalating economic conflict, claiming that countries are “crying” for trade talks. Yet from Beijing’s perspective, the narrative looks far different—marked by rising defiance, not desperation. While Trump appears increasingly frustrated, China seems prepared for a drawn-out fight.

    On Thursday, China’s foreign ministry issued a pointed response. Spokesperson Lin Jian emphasized that although China does not seek confrontation, it will not back down if provoked. He made clear that Beijing would not be intimidated by U.S. threats, and predicted that Washington’s strategy would ultimately backfire.

    The Chinese commerce ministry adopted a more restrained tone, expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue. Still, it stressed the importance of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and cooperation built on shared benefit. At the same time, an editorial in the state-run China Daily removed any ambiguity—China would not yield to American pressure.

    For the first time since tensions reignited, President Xi Jinping addressed the dispute publicly. During a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, Xi stressed that trade wars benefit no one and that rejecting international norms would only lead to isolation. Still, he expressed confidence in China’s ability to withstand the pressure, stating that no matter the external challenges, the country would remain focused, steady, and committed to strengthening its domestic resilience.

    Global trade is bound to suffer

    WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala warned on Wednesday that the intensifying U.S.-China tariff war could reduce trade between the two countries by up to 80 percent. As their bilateral exchange represents around 3 percent of global trade, such a sharp decline could have serious consequences for the broader world economy.

    Chinese companies selling on Amazon are already preparing for sharp price increases in the U.S. market—or even a full withdrawal—due to the unprecedented effects of the tariffs, according to the head of China’s trade association. The fallout could reverberate globally, as any contraction in Chinese exports to the U.S. is likely to disrupt supply chains and reshape market dynamics around the world.

    Although China has reduced its dependency on the U.S. market over the years, the relationship remains economically significant. In 2024 alone, China exported nearly $440 billion worth of goods to the United States. Conversely, China is also a major destination for American exports, particularly agricultural commodities like soybeans and pork, as well as high-tech products.

    Whether a full economic decoupling between the two powers occurs will depend on how long the tit-for-tat tariff exchanges persist and whether the escalation remains confined to bilateral measures. In the meantime, some goods may be rerouted through third-party countries before reaching their intended markets in either China or the U.S., further complicating trade flows.

    Beijing, however, holds one key advantage: the U.S. is more reliant on Chinese imports than China is on U.S. exports. American imports from China are dominated by consumer products such as smartphones, computers, and toys. Analysts at Rosenblatt Securities predict that Trump’s tariffs—then standing at 54 percent—could raise the price of the cheapest iPhone in the U.S. from $799 to $1,142. Economist Diana Choyleva notes that Trump may struggle to shift blame to China for such cost increases.

    On the flip side, China’s imports from the U.S. are primarily industrial and manufacturing inputs, including fossil fuels, soybeans, and jet engines. These are less likely to affect Chinese consumers directly, as price increases in such sectors tend to be absorbed further upstream. However, any imbalance in global supply and demand for these commodities may still ripple across international markets, affecting everyday life in other countries.

    What happens next? 

    As neither side appears willing to act with restraint, both the U.S. and China seem to be seeking alliances elsewhere. While the U.S. may attract countries aligned with its economic interests, China is actively working to expand its trade relationships beyond the American sphere of influence—particularly with nations also affected by Trump’s tariffs.

    In talks with his Malaysian counterpart, China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao stressed Beijing’s commitment to strengthening cooperation within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He also met with the European Union’s trade and security commissioner on Tuesday, reaffirming China’s intent to deepen trade, investment, and industrial ties. Notably, China and the EU agreed to immediately resume talks on electric vehicle cooperation.

    What began as a bilateral trade dispute is now evolving into a sprawling global standoff, entangling international trade and politics in increasingly complex ways.

  • Knesset Pushes Through Law to Rein in Judiciary

    Knesset Pushes Through Law to Rein in Judiciary

    As tensions between Netanyahu’s government and Israel’s judiciary simmered, even before the ongoing war in Gaza, the scales now seem to tip decisively in the government’s favor. In a move that has provoked both outrage and concern, Israel’s parliament passed a law expanding the authority of elected officials to appoint judges—a step long pursued by Netanyahu despite years of vocal opposition to his proposed judicial reforms.

    Opposition parties argue that the law will further entrench political influence over the judiciary, undermining its independence. The law’s passage comes at a particularly fraught moment, as Netanyahu’s government remains locked in a contentious standoff with the Supreme Court, which has blocked his attempts to dismiss key figures, including Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and Ronen Bar, the head of the internal security agency.

    Law to “Restore Balance”

    Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who sponsored the bill, stated that the measure aims to restore balance between the legislative and judicial branches. Currently, judges in Israel, including Supreme Court justices, are selected by a nine-member committee consisting of judges and lawmakers, operating under the justice minister’s supervision.

    The new law, set to take effect at the start of the next legislative term, would increase political influence over judicial appointments. While the committee would still have nine members, its composition would change: three Supreme Court judges, the justice minister and another minister, one coalition lawmaker, one opposition lawmaker, and two public representatives—one appointed by the majority and the other by the opposition.

    Opposition parties, which have filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the vote, issued a joint statement condemning the legislation. They argued that the government is undermining the foundations of democracy and vowed to stand united against any attempt to turn Israel into a dictatorship.

    A Climax of a Long Fight

    In his closing remarks before the vote, Levin criticized the Supreme Court, accusing it of undermining the Knesset’s authority. He argued that the court had assumed the power to overturn both regular and fundamental laws, calling this an unprecedented move in any democracy. His comments underscored the ongoing conflict between the government and the judiciary. Netanyahu has made several attempts to curb the judiciary’s influence, and the current push for new laws is aimed at further solidifying his position.

    In 2023, Netanyahu’s proposed changes to the judiciary sparked one of the largest protest movements in Israel’s history. The passage of this new bill comes at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court has blocked Netanyahu’s attempts to dismiss Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet intelligence agency, who has been investigating Netanyahu’s associates for alleged national security violations, including leaking classified information to foreign media and accepting money from Qatar, which has provided significant financial aid to Hamas. Additionally, Netanyahu is seeking to remove Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who ruled that he could not dismiss Bar until her office had reviewed the justification for such a move.

    Netanyahu Wants More Power?

    Removing Ronen Bar, the head of the intelligence agency, may be viewed as a routine action by the government, particularly after his failure to prevent the Hamas terrorist attack. However, the move against the Attorney General has sparked growing concern. Critics argue that Netanyahu is positioning himself as a totalitarian leader, intent on silencing any opposition to his rule. In a historic decision on Sunday, Netanyahu’s cabinet passed a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, marking the latest in a series of efforts to oust officials deemed hostile to his government. As Netanyahu believes the Supreme Court is obstructing his actions, this may signal further moves against the judiciary.

    Following the announcement of the new bill, protests erupted once again in major cities. On  Wednesday, thousands took to the streets to oppose the bill before it was passed in parliament. Yet, these demonstrations have become almost routine, with Netanyahu seemingly undeterred by the growing opposition.

  • A Nation’s Resistance: Confronting Erdoğan’s Hunger for Power

    A Nation’s Resistance: Confronting Erdoğan’s Hunger for Power

    After consolidating power for decades, the Turkish president faces one of the most critical moments of his rule—not since the failed coup attempt, but in a new era where public opposition against him is stronger than ever. The tens of thousands who have taken to the streets in the past week are not merely supporters of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the imprisoned political rival of Erdoğan. Their outrage stems from a deeper concern: they see İmamoğlu’s arrest as a tipping point, accelerating Turkey’s shift from an authoritarian democracy to outright autocracy. Moreover, Erdoğan is seeking another term, despite it being constitutionally not allowed.

    Autocrat Erdoğan?

    Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a Turkish leader with deep Ottoman sympathies and a staunchly conservative ideology, has held power in various roles since 1998. He first gained prominence as the mayor of Istanbul—an influential political post—before serving as prime minister from 2003 to 2014. Since then, he has ruled as Turkey’s 12th and current president, systematically taking control of institutions, including the media.

    With his Justice and Development Party (AKP) dominating Turkish politics for decades, Erdoğan has maintained an unyielding hold on power despite mounting economic and political crises. He has allowed no serious challenger to emerge.

    At last, the opposition has found a formidable leader in Ekrem İmamoğlu, whose victory in Istanbul’s mayoral race directly challenged Erdoğan’s grip on the city. Now a central figure in the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the main opposition to the AKP, İmamoğlu has been propelled to the forefront of the 2028 presidential race after his party’s decisive win in the last local elections. Unsurprisingly, Erdoğan views him as a serious threat. And like any autocrat intolerant of dissent, he has acted to neutralize him—İmamoğlu has been arrested.

    Escalating protests

    But İmamoğlu’s recent arrest, widely seen as politically motivated, has sparked nationwide outrage, igniting protests across the country. In response, authorities have detained more than 1,400 demonstrators, including photojournalists and international correspondents, many of whom have been deported. The government has taken a hardline stance, tightening its grip on media coverage, while Erdoğan has dismissed the movement as “Evil.”

    Yet, for many, the legitimacy of the charges against İmamoğlu is irrelevant. Their anger is not just about one man—it is a rebellion against a system they see as increasingly oppressive. What began as opposition to İmamoğlu’s arrest is rapidly transforming into a broader uprising, driven by years of political repression and an ever-deepening economic crisis.

    Erdoğan wants it one more time

    Resentment toward Erdoğan is mounting, but he shows no intention of stepping aside. Although the constitution bars him from running again in 2028 due to term limits, speculation is growing that he may attempt to circumvent these restrictions—either by amending the constitution or calling early elections. Many believe the opposition will be weakened long before then, as opposition figures, including İmamoğlu, have consistently faced political roadblocks both before and after elections, fueling concerns that Erdoğan will not permit a fair contest.

    Yet securing another term will be no simple feat. Public frustration is intensifying amid soaring inflation, forcing the government to spend as much as $25 billion in a desperate bid to stabilize the lira—an economic crisis of its own making. Meanwhile, İmamoğlu’s affable and pragmatic image has broadened his appeal, even among conservative voters traditionally wary of the CHP. Erdoğan, however, appears to be banking on economic recovery and a fading sense of public outrage before the next election. At the same time, signs of political maneuvering are becoming increasingly apparent. A recent statement from jailed PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan, calling on fighters to lay down their arms, has fueled speculation that the government is seeking support from pro-Kurdish factions.

    Although the next presidential election is still years away, İmamoğlu’s arrest on corruption and terror-related allegations suggests that Erdoğan sees him as a serious threat. Ultimately charged only with corruption, his detention came at a highly strategic moment—just days before the Republican People’s Party (CHP) was set to nominate him for the presidency. The controversy deepened further when Istanbul University annulled his diploma the night before his arrest, effectively barring him from the race. Both moves have been widely condemned as politically motivated. In response, an estimated 13 million people joined the 1.7 million CHP members in backing İmamoğlu’s candidacy, underscoring the resilience of opposition to Erdoğan’s tightening grip on power.

    What happens next?

    İmamoğlu’s arrest is, for many, a historical echo. Erdoğan himself once served as Istanbul’s mayor before being jailed—only to reemerge politically stronger. But that was in a far less consolidated political landscape. History has shown that Istanbul’s mayorship can be a stepping stone to Ankara, and İmamoğlu’s arrest has only invigorated the CHP.

    Domestically, the party has shifted from street protests to alternative forms of resistance, including economic boycotts. Yet the demonstrations have forged an unusual alliance between formal opposition figures and politically disillusioned youth, each bringing their own strategies and grievances. This coalition remains fragile and could splinter under internal tensions. However, for now, their differences have fostered a dynamic movement—one that may prove more spontaneous, unpredictable, and ultimately formidable than Erdoğan anticipates.

  • The Yemen Question: Will the U.S. Ever Call It Done?

    The Yemen Question: Will the U.S. Ever Call It Done?

    Yemen now stands as the last remaining stronghold of the “Axis of Resistance”. Syria is under a pro-Turkey government, while Iraq and Lebanon have seen their pro-Iranian factions weakened. However, Yemen’s Houthi-led government continues to pose a significant challenge to both the U.S. and Israel.

    Positioned along critical international trade routes, Yemen’s instability threatens not only U.S. and Israeli interests but also global commerce. Adding to these concerns, the Houthis—now the only group openly confronting Israel—could attract broader support across the global Muslim community, a prospect that would deeply unsettle Riyadh, Washington’s most significant partner in the Muslim world.

    Under the Trump administration, Yemen has become an increasingly central focus for the U.S. Washington appears to be taking the conflict more seriously, raising the likelihood of a more aggressive military response—one that could escalate the situation to an entirely new level.

    Missiles Keep Flying

    In recent days, the United States has intensified its airstrike campaign against Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, targeting key strongholds. According to Houthi sources, the strikes in the capital, Sanaa, and the northwestern city of Saada have resulted in over 50 deaths, including civilians. In response, the Houthis—designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and acting as Yemen’s de facto government—have escalated their attacks, launching ballistic missiles at Israel’s international airport and targeting U.S. ships in the Red Sea.

    Unyielding Houthi Troubles

    This escalation could signal the beginning of a prolonged conflict. While the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy appears to be advancing, the Houthis remain a strong force, even as reports suggest that Iran has scaled back its direct support. The group has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to withstand sustained military pressure—first from Saudi Arabia during Yemen’s civil war, which began in 2014 and was largely halted by a fragile ceasefire in 2022, and more recently from U.S. and U.K. airstrikes. Their resilience suggests that further escalation is likely.

    After Hamas’ brutal raid on  Israel, and the war in Gaza d, the Houthis launched missiles at Israel and targeted international shipping lanes in the Red Sea, claiming to act in solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinian cause. Their actions strengthened their recognition and support within Yemen and across parts of the Arab world.

    During the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas earlier this year, the Houthis temporarily halted their attacks. However, with the resumption of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, they renewed their missile strikes on Israel, prompting U.S. retaliatory strikes on Yemen. As a result, the conflict has returned to its previous intensity.

    Will Trump Finish It?

    The Houthi-controlled part of Yemen is no match for the military power of the United States and Israel, nor does it compare to Saudi Arabia’s forces. However, engaging the Houthis on their home terrain presents significant challenges, similar to the difficulties the U.S. faced in Afghanistan. This has made Washington hesitant to commit ground forces. Still, the ongoing Houthi threat has become an increasing burden for two of America’s key regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, making it harder to ignore.

    Earlier this week, former U.S. President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, asserting that the Houthis would be completely annihilated. For the Trump administration, striking the Houthis offers a chance to project American military strength. However, whether airstrikes alone can effectively weaken the Houthis remains uncertain.

    Trump also issued a warning to Iran, demanding that it halt the supply of weapons to the Houthis and making it clear that Tehran would be held accountable for any attacks carried out by the group. In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, he called for an immediate end to Iran’s military support for the Houthis.

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied on Friday that Tehran directly controls proxy forces in the region, insisting that the groups it supports operate independently. Analysts argue that while Iran may not dictate Houthi decision-making, its support has significantly bolstered the group’s military capabilities. Iran maintains that the Houthis act autonomously, and to some extent, experts concur. However, Iran and the Houthis share strategic interests, coordinate policies, and exchange intelligence, even if Tehran does not issue direct orders.

    What happens next?

    The Houthis continue to draw widespread support across the Islamic world, but they have tightened their grip on Yemen through increasing repression. As living conditions worsen, more Yemenis are demanding their removal.

    For over a decade, the United Nations has labeled Yemen one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The crisis deepened this year when former U.S. President Donald Trump reinstated the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, citing their attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes and Israel. This designation, along with new sanctions, has severely restricted humanitarian aid.

    The United States may respond by adopting a strategy similar to its approach in Syria. Just as it relied on Turkey to counterbalance forces there, Washington could support a rival faction through Saudi Arabia or the UAE to weaken Houthi control. If Iran, like Russia in Syria, scales back its support, this strategy could enable the U.S. to neutralize the Houthi threat without direct military intervention. A full-scale invasion remains unlikely, as Washington seeks to avoid another costly conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan. However, Trump—a businessman with an eye for strategic assets—may view Yemen’s geopolitical significance differently.

  • The Truce Collapses: Hostage Crisis or Government in Crisis?

    The Truce Collapses: Hostage Crisis or Government in Crisis?

    Israel and the Arabs—entangled in a conflict waged in the name of God—now seem beyond the reach of diplomacy. Despite countless negotiations and high-profile interventions, a resolution remained elusive. Newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump made significant efforts to broker a ceasefire, and for a moment, it held. But doubts lingered: Would it last? Hostages and prisoners became bargaining chips in a grim exchange, where humiliation tainted every deal.

    Then, the inevitable happened. Israel shattered the truce, launching strikes across Gaza. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made Israel’s stance clear: the offensive would persist until Hamas released all hostages and threats to southern Israel were eliminated. Yet, many see a deeper political calculation at play—an effort by Netanyahu to shore up his fragile coalition and stave off the prospect of immediate elections.

    The ceasefire is over. After a fleeting pause, the military action resumed.

    What’s happening in Gaza?

    Israel has launched one of its most intense assaults on Gaza in a single day, with an offensive that was both unexpected and devastating. The military has ordered evacuations in Beit Hanoun and several eastern communities, signaling the potential for imminent ground operations.

    The escalation follows a wave of Israeli airstrikes that killed more than 400 people, abruptly ending a fragile ceasefire that had held since mid-January. Palestinian health officials reported 404 deaths and over 600 injuries, while Israeli military sources claimed the strikes targeted Hamas commanders and political figures. Throughout the day and into the evening, airstrikes and artillery fire continued, leaving widespread destruction.

    Aid groups described a desperate situation, as hundreds—possibly thousands—fled in response to evacuation orders. Strikes were reported across northern Gaza and in the central cities of Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis. In Rafah, an airstrike wiped out 17 members of a single family, including five children and their parents. Another strike in Abasan al-Kabira, east of Khan Younis, killed 13 people.

    Israel needs all hostages back

    Israel justified breaking the ceasefire by citing Hamas’s delays in releasing hostages and its use of negotiations to prolong the crisis. During a visit to an airbase, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz stated that Hamas must recognize the rules of engagement had changed. He warned that if the remaining hostages were not freed, Israel would respond with overwhelming military force across air, sea, and land.

    Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesperson, explained that Israel launched strikes after uncovering Hamas’s plans to conduct new raids aimed at capturing or killing Israeli civilians and soldiers. He also pointed to Hamas’s refusal to release more of the 59 hostages still held in Gaza, describing it as a violation of the ceasefire agreement established in January. According to Shoshani, Hamas had the option to release all the hostages but instead chose to continue its campaign of terror and warfare.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated that Hamas had rejected proposals from Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, for an extension of the pause in hostilities. The statement emphasized that Israel would now escalate its military operations against Hamas with increasing force.

    The Politics behind Israel’s move

    While Israel frames the hostage crisis as justification for breaking the ceasefire, critics argue that Netanyahu is using the war to secure his political survival rather than prioritizing national security. He faces mounting pressure from far-right factions within his coalition, particularly Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who opposed the ceasefire from the beginning and repeatedly threatened to resign if military operations did not resume. Netanyahu must also navigate a crucial vote this month, as failure to pass the overdue 2025 budget by March 31 would automatically dissolve the government, forcing early elections.

    Netanyahu’s refusal to authorize a state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7 has only heightened public anger. He decided to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet internal security service, who conducted the inquiry, sparking protests and accusations of authoritarianism. If elections take place, they may not secure his political future. Meanwhile, the renewed military action immediately benefited him. Within hours of the strikes, far-right leader Itamar Ben-Gvir, who resigned from the cabinet in January over the ceasefire, rejoined the government.

    Netanyahu has repeatedly dismissed accusations of political maneuvering, maintaining that military pressure is the only viable strategy to secure the hostages’ release. He insists that the complete destruction of Hamas is essential for Israel’s long-term security. His office squarely placed responsibility for the ceasefire’s breakdown on Hamas, citing its continued refusal to release hostages and its rejection of proposals from U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, leaving Israel with no alternative but to resume strikes.

    What happens next?

    Whether the objective is genuinely to secure hostages and protect national security or merely to sustain his government, one thing is undeniable—this conflict has no easy resolution. Israel seeks to assert control over Gaza, while Hamas leverages the situation to portray itself as a victim and galvanize global Muslim solidarity. As the war drags on, Netanyahu is poised to deepen his support among the right wing, using the conflict as a means to solidify his hold on power. For now, no resolution is in sight.

  • A New Power Broker? Saudi Arabia’s Rise in Global Diplomacy

    A New Power Broker? Saudi Arabia’s Rise in Global Diplomacy

    Saudi Arabia refuses to play second to its Gulf rivals. Once trailing behind the UAE and Qatar in tourism, global events, and soft power diplomacy, the kingdom—under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—now takes the lead, rewriting the script on its own terms.

    From building the world’s tallest tower to hosting mega sporting events, Riyadh is making fascinating moves. But beyond spectacle and grandeur, it is eyeing something even more influential: global diplomacy. For years, Qatar carved out a niche as the go-to mediator in international conflicts, leveraging its strategic neutrality and deep-pocketed diplomacy. Now, Saudi Arabia wants in.

    With its vast wealth, growing influence, and a leadership eager to reshape its global image, Riyadh is positioning itself as a high-stakes negotiator—not just in the Islamic world, but on the world stage. From hosting crucial Russia-Ukraine talks to brokering regional peace efforts, Saudi Arabia is signaling that its ambitions extend far beyond oil and opulence. It aspires to be the power nations turn to in crises—a formidable force in diplomacy, exuding influence and prestige.

    Mediator in the Russia-Ukraine War

    On Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, aiming to repair strained ties with the United States and negotiate a favorable resolution to the war with Russia. Following their discussions, Zelensky described the meeting as productive, praising the Saudi leader’s broad grasp of global affairs and support for Ukraine. He emphasized that hearing confidence in Ukraine’s future was particularly meaningful.

    The meeting set the stage for high-stakes talks on Tuesday between Ukrainian and U.S. officials in the oil-rich Gulf state—their first in-person negotiations since the tense exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump and Zelensky at the White House in late February. Holding these discussions in Saudi Arabia, rather than Europe, underscores the kingdom’s growing role in global diplomacy.

    Zelensky and his delegation appeared well received in Riyadh, while bin Salman projected the confidence of a leader eager to shape geopolitical outcomes. His diplomatic finesse, some observers suggest, surpasses Trump’s in navigating complex international negotiations.

    The Strategic Neutrality

    Despite being a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has maintained strong ties with Russia and China. While media narratives often highlight the relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), a similar connection can be seen between MBS and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The kingdom has deliberately remained neutral, refraining from aligning with Western criticism and sanctions against Russia while keeping open channels of communication with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    This strategic balancing act allows Saudi Arabia to position itself as both a neutral power and a trusted U.S. partner, making it a preferred venue for high-level diplomatic negotiations. Central to its foreign policy is the ability to engage with all sides, ensuring open channels of communication with parties involved in the conflicts it seeks to mediate.

    Beyond its role in facilitating negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, Riyadh has also emerged as a key venue for Arab League summits addressing the conflict in Sudan and the future of Palestinians in Gaza.  In 2024, Riyadh facilitated a landmark prisoner exchange between Russia and the United States. The following month, it hosted U.S.-Russia talks, bringing senior officials from Washington and Moscow together to discuss normalizing relations and seeking an end to the war in Ukraine. Speculation is also mounting that Saudi Arabia will host a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin—their first since Trump’s return to office earlier this year.

    The Leader of the Muslim World

    Saudi Arabia, once withdrawn from global politics and overshadowed by smaller neighbors, has now stepped forward to assert itself as a regional leader. By expanding its diplomatic influence, the kingdom is positioning itself as the dominant power in the Gulf and the broader Muslim world. With Iran weakened, Turkey struggling to find its footing, and Egypt facing economic turmoil, Saudi Arabia stands as the strongest contender for regional dominance.

  • Trump’s Talks Proposal: A Lifeline for Iran or a Political Trap?

    Trump’s Talks Proposal: A Lifeline for Iran or a Political Trap?

    Iran is grappling with a worsening political and economic crisis. Over the past year, international setbacks have eroded its influence in the Middle East, while divisions between reformists and conservatives have sharpened. The economy is in turmoil, and growing public discontent poses an increasing challenge to the regime’s authority.

    The election of moderate-reformist Masoud Pezeshkian after the death of Ebrahim Raisi was a major blow to conservatives, who have struggled to accept the outcome. From the start, the new government was on unstable footing, and tensions have now reached a breaking point. With no clear path forward, the country stands on the brink of deeper instability.

    Amid this turmoil, Iran’s strongest adversary has made a dramatic move. In a surprising turn, U.S. President Donald Trump claims to have sent a letter to Iran’s leadership, proposing to restart nuclear negotiations. The move is especially striking given Trump’s own role in worsening Iran’s crisis during his first term—pulling out of the nuclear deal and imposing harsh sanctions that continue to strangle the economy. Now, as Iran struggles with internal and external pressure, Trump’s offer is widely seen as a calculated attempt to exploit Tehran’s vulnerabilities.

    Political Crisis in Iran

    Over the past month, Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament has flexed its power against the reformist-leaning administration, removing key figures from the government. It impeached and dismissed Abdolnaser Hemmati, the experienced economy minister, and forced out Mohammad Javad Zarif, the vice president and the most prominent reformist in the administration.

    Both moves were clear challenges to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s authority. Yet, with the economy struggling under the weight of U.S. sanctions, the 85-year-old supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has shown no intention of stepping in to support Pezeshkian.

    Emboldened, the parliament is now summoning 11 more ministers for questioning, demanding answers to 49 inquiries about their performance—an apparent effort to further pressure and weaken Pezeshkian’s government.

    Pezeshkian to Step Down?

    Speculation is mounting that Masoud Pezeshkian, known for his emotional temperament and strong sense of integrity, may soon resign. If he does, his departure would serve as confirmation that Iran’s deep state—what some refer to as the shadow government—will not tolerate any shift in power.

    Pezeshkian has made it clear whom he holds responsible for his predicament. In a remarkably candid speech, he finally asserted himself, revealing that he had advocated for negotiations with the West, only to be overruled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He admitted that the matter was settled and that no further discussions would take place.

    He emphasized that his stance had always been in favor of negotiations, but now he had to follow the framework set by the supreme leader. He acknowledged that once the supreme leader determined a course of action, it was necessary to adapt to it and find a way forward.

    Since taking office, Pezeshkian noted, his government has faced severe shortages in energy, water, and electricity, along with massive debts to the agricultural sector for wheat, the healthcare system, and pension payments. His efforts to ease pressure on women regarding the hijab have also met constant resistance. On Saturday, he issued yet another apology for ongoing energy shortages.

    Trump’s Letter

    While economic mismanagement and poverty dominate much of Iran’s political discourse, the deeper struggle remains its stance toward the West. Conservatives continue to see Trump and his ally, Israel, as not only untrustworthy but actively working toward regime change in Tehran. Just a week ago, there was little doubt that Trump had no intention of cooperating with Iran—he had repeatedly vowed harsher measures against the country and maintained a staunchly pro-Saudi Arabia and pro-Israel stance, dashing any hopes reformists had of engagement. But suddenly, a letter from Trump emerged, seeking talks—a move that raised hopes among reformists while stoking fears among conservatives that it could shift political momentum in their rivals’ favor.

    If Trump’s letter imposes strict conditions for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, conservatives will argue that Washington’s demands are far too excessive. Yet, if Tehran rejects the offer outright, it risks escalating tensions to the point where an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites becomes increasingly likely. Meanwhile, greater economic sanctions would further devastate the lives of ordinary Iranians, potentially triggering mass protests against the regime—protests that could grow to a level capable of toppling the already unpopular Islamic Republic.

    A Lifeline and a Trap

    For reformists, however, the letter represents a lifeline—perhaps the only chance to rescue Iran’s ailing economy. They view negotiations as essential and believe they, rather than conservatives, are better suited to lead such talks. This means Trump’s move is not just about diplomacy; it is a direct challenge to Iran’s internal political balance, exacerbating the divide between reformists and conservatives.

    Many in Iran see the letter as a calculated act of psychological warfare—an attempt to corner Tehran into either accepting difficult terms or rejecting talks entirely, further deepening domestic fractures and accelerating the crisis between Iran and the West. A well-laid trap, courtesy of Donald Trump.

  • As Chipmaking Shifts, Is Taiwan Losing Its Leverage?

    As Chipmaking Shifts, Is Taiwan Losing Its Leverage?

    For Donald Trump, everything has a price. He saw Ukraine’s value in its rare earth minerals, while Taiwan’s significance lies in its semiconductor industry. Setting politics, geopolitics, and strategic importance aside—for Trump, every deal is a business deal. Ukraine has held its ground, but Taiwan has either conceded or been forced to.

    As China reaffirms its claim over Taiwan, most recently in its Two Sessions meetings, Taipei finds itself unable to push back against U.S. demands. More purchases, more contracts, and in return, more security—that defines the current U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Yet, the push to shift semiconductor production to the U.S. has unsettled Taiwan’s opposition. They fear that if chip manufacturing moves, Taiwan’s significance to Washington will fade. And will its “Silicon Shield,” which protects it from China, break if the U.S. no longer sees it as essential?

    TSMC Deal

    For decades, Taiwan’s chip industry has remained anchored on the island, with government regulations limiting companies from moving production overseas. Then came the Trump effect.

    TSMC, Taiwan’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, is departing from tradition by relocating part of its production to the U.S. under American pressure, committing to a substantial investment. However, the deal still hinges on approval from the Taiwanese government—a barrier that has stalled similar efforts in the past. Yet, with Trump’s influence, there is optimism that this time will be different.

    On Monday, TSMC’s chief executive, C.C. Wei, stood alongside Donald Trump at the White House, proudly announcing what he called the largest foreign direct investment on U.S. soil in history. The company, which manufactures the world’s most advanced semiconductors, plans to expand its existing $65 billion U.S. operations with an additional $100 billion investment.

    For TSMC, the deal offers a way to bypass the heavy tariffs Trump has threatened on the global chip industry. For the U.S., it promises tens of thousands of construction jobs and ensures that crucial semiconductor technology is developed domestically—shielded from Chinese control should Beijing attempt to annex Taiwan.

    Taiwanese law requires government approval for any foreign investment exceeding $1.5 billion—a mere fraction of this deal’s scale. President Lai Ching-te has stated that the government will review the agreement with Taiwan’s “national interests” in mind, though approval is expected to be a mere formality.

    Loss of the Infinity Stone

    For Taiwan, losing its semiconductor industry is akin to surrendering an Infinity Stone. Taiwan’s semiconductor industry—anchored by TSMC, its largest and most advanced firm—contributes up to 15% of the nation’s GDP. Often referred to as Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield,” it serves as a strategic asset, ensuring that global stakeholders remain invested in keeping both Taiwan and the world’s chip supply beyond China’s grasp. With Donald Trump signaling a waning personal commitment to Taiwan’s defense, this leverage has only become more critical.

    Opposition figures from the Kuomintang (KMT) argue that shifting semiconductor production to the U.S. could weaken Taiwan’s geo political standing. They caution that as TSMC increases its U.S. operations, Taiwan’s importance to Washington may decline, reducing America’s incentive to support the island in the future.

    What the Government Says 

    Lai’s office has assured that TSMC will keep its most advanced manufacturing processes in Taiwan. However, this statement appears to contradict remarks made by TSMC CEO C.C. Wei and Donald Trump at the White House. Wei stated that the deal would enable the production of the most advanced chips on U.S. soil, while Trump emphasized that the world’s most powerful AI chips would be manufactured in America.

    Despite these concerns, the Ministry of Economic Affairs remains confident, highlighting Taiwan’s semiconductor workforce as its greatest strength. The ministry pointed to the country’s well-established STEM training-to-employment pipeline as a key factor in sustaining its chip industry’s success. According to officials, Taiwan’s semiconductor sector depends on its highly skilled workforce—an advantage that other nations would struggle to replicate.

    However, public concerns over the potential weakening of Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” continue to grow, putting pressure on the Lai administration to provide clearer answers. In response, President Lai and Wei held a press conference on Thursday. Reflecting on a tense few days of meetings with two presidents, Wei suggested that Lai had urged him to address the media, recognizing their responsibility to explain the situation to the public.

    Will the Deal Strengthen Relations?

    The TSMC-U.S. deal is a strategic move to strengthen Taiwan-U.S. relations. Lai hailed it as a historic milestone, while he and Wei reassured the public that the investment would not undermine TSMC’s domestic operations. Both leaders emphasized that the decision was driven by increasing U.S. customer demand rather than political pressure from Washington.

    This shift can be seen as an effort to curb China’s influence in the global semiconductor supply chain by expanding Taiwan’s production, particularly in the U.S. However, without Taiwan’s highly skilled workforce, the U.S. may find it difficult to surpass China’s chip industry. Even if manufacturing relocates, Taiwan’s expertise will remain critical, making a complete transfer of semiconductor dominance to the U.S. unlikely. Taiwan will continue to be important to the U.S.