Tag: United States

  • 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.

  • Can East Asia Set Aside Old Rivalries to Forge a New Economic Order?

    Can East Asia Set Aside Old Rivalries to Forge a New Economic Order?

    While East Asia remains divided into two camps—one aligned with the U.S. and the other with China—recent developments have sparked speculation about a striking possibility: that the region’s economic giants—China, Japan, and South Korea—could set aside their long-standing rivalries to forge a new economic order. Such an alliance could emerge as a formidable force in Asia, challenging the U.S.-led global system and reshaping the balance of power.

    This idea gained traction after reports from China, initially shared by a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media and later picked up by major outlets like DW, captured widespread interest. As the world focuses on Trump’s escalating tariff threats, East Asian nations—long dependent on trade with the U.S. and deeply embedded in global production and innovation networks—find themselves particularly exposed.

    Despite historical tensions and political differences, Trump’s tariff war is increasingly seen as a common economic challenge. His policies, which make no distinction between allies and adversaries, aim to restore manufacturing to the U.S. or at least rebalance trade—a strategy that threatens to further slow growth in these East Asian economies.

    Amid this uncertainty, diplomatic engagements among these nations have taken on greater significance. Meetings that might have once drawn routine attention are now closely scrutinized, with Chinese reports of closer cooperation between these states gaining widespread recognition.

    The meeting in Seoul

    While the world was waiting for Trump’s Liberation Day announcements on new tariff rates, a pivotal meeting took place in Seoul. China, Japan, and South Korea came together to strengthen trade cooperation, bringing together South Korean Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun, Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Yoji Muto, and Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao.

    In a joint statement released after the meeting, the three trade ministers committed to advancing comprehensive and high-level negotiations on a South Korea-Japan-China free trade agreement, aiming to bolster both regional and global trade, as reported by DW.

    South Korean Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun emphasized the need to reinforce the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), in which all three nations participate. He also highlighted the importance of creating a framework to expand trade cooperation through Korea-China-Japan FTA negotiations.

    The countries further pledged to foster a stable and predictable trade and investment environment. Ahn pointed to the increasing fragmentation of the global economic landscape, stressing the necessity of collective efforts to tackle shared challenges.

    As part of their ongoing collaboration, the ministers agreed to hold their next meeting in Japan.

    Trump’s tariffs

    As Donald Trump announced new tariffs on Wednesday, East Asia is set to bear the brunt of the economic repercussions. A base tariff of 10% has been introduced, and in a bid to rebalance trade, China, Japan, and South Korea will face even steeper taxes, with no exceptions made for U.S. allies.

    Chinese imports will now be subject to a total tariff of 54%, combining a newly imposed 34% tariff with the existing 20%. Key U.S. partners have not been spared—South Korea will be hit with a 26% tariff, while Japan will face a 24% rate. The base tariffs will take effect on April 5, with the higher reciprocal rates coming into force on April 9.

    Adding to the economic strain, new tariffs on automobiles and auto parts have been introduced, delivering a heavy blow to the manufacturing sectors of China, Japan, and South Korea. As home to some of the world’s largest automakers, these nations rely heavily on their automotive industries, making the new trade barriers a serious threat to their economic stability.

    Obstacles outweigh potential?

    While the economic benefits of closer cooperation are real, the challenges outweigh the advantages. Generational animosity between these nations remains strong, and domestic politics in each country often thrives on such rivalries. Closer collaboration could destabilize the already fragile political landscapes of Japan and South Korea, both of which face significant internal challenges. Additionally, the ideological divide between China’s communist government and Japan and South Korea’s democracies raises further concerns about compatibility.

    Another major obstacle is the deep-rooted geopolitical ties—Japan and South Korea’s strong alliances with the U.S. contrast sharply with North Korea’s alignment with China. Both Tokyo and Seoul receive substantial economic and security support from Washington, and any shift toward deeper cooperation with China could put them in a difficult position. Trump, known for his retaliatory economic policies, could respond unfavorably to such a move.

    Amid these complexities, a report from a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media on Monday claimed that China, Japan, and South Korea had agreed on a joint response to U.S. tariffs. However, Seoul dismissed the claim as exaggerated, and Tokyo outright denied that such discussions took place. A spokesperson for South Korea’s trade ministry stated that the assertion was overstated and pointed to the official text of the countries’ joint statement.

    At a press conference on Tuesday, Japan’s Trade Minister Yoji Muto acknowledged that the trade ministers had met over the weekend but clarified that no such discussions had occurred. He described the meeting as a general exchange of views rather than a coordinated economic response. Yes, the fear is real.

    What if major economies join forces?

    According to the IMF, China is the world’s second-largest economy at $20 trillion, followed by Japan at $4 trillion and South Korea at $2 trillion. Together, they form a $26 trillion economy—larger than the European Union’s nominal GDP and nearing the $30 trillion U.S. economy. However, uniting these economic powerhouses remains a daunting challenge, despite their strong trade ties.

    Japan and South Korea depend on China for semiconductor raw materials, while China imports advanced chip products from both nations. Acknowledging this interdependence, all three countries have pledged to strengthen supply chain cooperation and expand discussions on export controls.

    At the Seoul meeting, trade ministers from China, Japan, and South Korea committed to expediting negotiations for a trilateral free trade agreement aimed at strengthening regional and global trade. A spokesperson for South Korea’s trade ministry stated that all three nations acknowledged evolving global trade dynamics and reaffirmed their dedication to ongoing economic cooperation.

    Some analysts speculate about the potential formation of an Asian economic bloc that includes ASEAN and India, creating a formidable economic force. However, deep-seated rivalries, competing strategic interests, and the ambitions of some leaders to establish an “Asian NATO” pose significant challenges, making full economic integration uncertain.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Iran’s Reformist VP Ousted: A Door Closes to the West

    Iran’s Reformist VP Ousted: A Door Closes to the West

    Iran’s reformist government has suffered a significant setback with the forced resignation of Mohammad Javad Zarif, its most prominent reformist figure. Zarif, who served as vice president for strategic affairs, stated that he had been ordered to step down by an unnamed senior official. While he refrained from directly mentioning Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his remarks strongly implied the decision had Khamenei’s approval.

    His removal follows the recent impeachment of Economy Minister Abdolnaser Hemmati, as Iran’s conservative factions escalate their efforts to weaken President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration. Hardliners, long hostile to Pezeshkian’s reformist agenda, have used the country’s worsening economic crisis—particularly the sharp decline of the currency—to push for a shift in policy.

    Although many of Iran’s economic troubles predate Pezeshkian’s presidency, conservatives have placed the blame squarely on his government for failing to halt the downturn. The consecutive dismissals have only deepened uncertainty, triggering further stock market losses as businesses grow increasingly wary of a political climate that appears to be shutting the door to the West.

    Who is Mohammad Javad Zarif?

    Mohammad Javad Zarif, a career diplomat and Iran’s most prominent reformist, has been the country’s most articulate voice in presenting its foreign policy to Western audiences. Serving as foreign minister from 2013 to 2021 under moderate President Hassan Rouhani, he was instrumental in shaping Iran’s international engagements and played a key role in Pezeshkian’s presidential campaign, effectively running as his closest ally.

    Zarif is widely recognized for his role in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which eased Western sanctions in exchange for independent UN inspections to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained strictly civilian. Throughout his career, he has advocated for a stronger role for the foreign ministry in shaping Iran’s international policy, challenging the dominance of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in foreign affairs.

    Throughout his career, he has been a frequent target of hardliners, particularly over allegations that his American-born children hold dual Iranian-US citizenship. Opponents, many of whom reject negotiations with the US, argue that his appointment violated a 2022 law barring individuals with Western ties from holding senior government positions. Concerns over his children’s nationality, stemming from his tenure as a diplomat in the US, were among the reasons he initially attempted to resign from Pezeshkian’s administration in August 2024.

    His appointment as vice president for strategic affairs—a role created largely to accommodate him—was widely seen as an effort by the reformist government to restore ties with the US and Europe and to ease Iran’s economic struggles under severe sanctions. However, this strategy now faces significant obstacles, as President Donald Trump—who withdrew the US from the nuclear deal in 2018 and reinstated crippling sanctions—has adopted an even more hardline approach toward Iran, leaving little room for diplomatic maneuvering.

    Conservatives Tighten Grip

    In his resignation note, Zarif suggested that his departure was not voluntary, highlighting the growing influence of conservatives over reformists within the administration and fueling internal discontent. A high-ranking official had reportedly instructed Pezeshkian to dismiss him and send him back to academia. Pezeshkian refused, instead insisting that the directive be delivered to Zarif directly.

    Pezeshkian himself appears uneasy with the conservative push to sideline Zarif and other reformists. With Donald Trump expected to take a more confrontational stance in the coming days, reformists are likely to face increasing pressure, as his administration is unlikely to engage meaningfully with Iran. This shift could further reinforce conservative claims that diplomacy with the West is futile.

    Trump’s push to reinstate maximum economic sanctions has already weakened reformists advocating for a new global agreement on nuclear oversight. A deepening economic crisis could provide conservatives with a pretext to tighten their grip on power, potentially leading to further crackdowns on reformist elements within the government. Meanwhile, conservatives have cited Trump’s recent Oval Office humiliation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a cautionary tale for those in Iran who still believe negotiations with the U.S. president are possible.

    What Happens Next?

    The Islamic Republic of Iran is facing mounting pressure, not only from external forces but also from its own citizens. Protests against the regime are becoming increasingly visible, amplified by social media, where pre-Islamic Persian sentiments are resurging. Amid this unrest, Iran’s economy continues to deteriorate, and Trump’s sanctions are likely to accelerate its decline, further fueling public discontent toward the regime.

    In this context, the regime may seek to shift blame onto the reformist government while allowing conservatives to reclaim control in an effort to preserve the Islamic Republic. Recent developments suggest that the regime, which initially attempted to negotiate a path forward with Pezeshkian and Zarif, is now reasserting control. 

  • As the U.S. Withdraws, Can China Take the Helm?

    As the U.S. Withdraws, Can China Take the Helm?

    Donald Trump’s policies—cutting aid, imposing tough tariffs, downsizing alliances, and publicly humiliating leaders—have significantly damaged the United States’ global reputation. The humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a shock to the Western world and marked a major setback in U.S. foreign relations. Many now believe that by the end of Trump’s second term, America’s international standing could erode even further.

    While the U.S. economy and the dollar remain dominant, even its closest allies are questioning whether promoting a second global power is inevitable. But if not the United States, then who?

    The traditional European powers—Britain, France, and others—once led the world but are now weakened. Even if the European Union consolidated its economic strength, reaching a GDP of $18 trillion, it would still trail the U.S. Moreover, Europe remains a fragmented bloc, deeply divided by political conflicts between the left and right, making a unified challenge to U.S. dominance unlikely. Militarily and technologically, Europe also lags far behind.

    Russia, once the United States’ great rival under the Soviet Union, has proven itself a diminished force. Its war in Ukraine has exposed deep military and economic weaknesses, making it clear that Moscow is no longer a serious contender for global leadership.

    That leaves China as the only nation truly positioned to rival the U.S. With a $19 trillion economy—just $10 trillion behind America’s—an increasingly sophisticated military under centralized command, and technological advancements that have even caught Washington off guard, China has both the ambition and the capacity to assert itself on the world stage. The question is: Can it seize the moment?

    U.S. Step-Back

    To safeguard its interests, the United States is increasingly withdrawing from international institutions. It has already pulled out of the World Health Organization, and under Trump, there is even the possibility of an exit from the United Nations or NATO—the very alliance that anchors Western Europe to the U.S. Cuts to security funding and demands for increased financial contributions from NATO allies have been viewed as humiliating by many member-state politicians.

    Trump is also shifting away from traditional alliances with strategically located partners. In 2024, he suggested that Taiwan should pay the U.S. for its defense, despite the self-governing island already spending billions on American arms. This year alone, Taiwan is reportedly considering an additional $7–10 billion in military purchases to maintain favor with the Trump administration—a strategy that other nations may attempt but cannot all afford.

    At the same time, cuts to U.S. foreign aid could weaken ties with many countries that rely heavily on American financial support. Numerous political parties and organizations worldwide operate with U.S. funding, and if those resources dry up, they may easily shift their allegiances to new backers.

    Ambitious China 

    China’s ambition for global dominance extends far beyond Communist Party meetings and nationalist action films. As the United States retreats from international commitments, it creates a power vacuum that China is eager to fill. Despite its authoritarian governance and poor human rights record, global institutions have done little to challenge Beijing. By funding these organizations, China can subtly influence international agendas in its favor.

    The rise of trade wars and economic protectionism may further push nations to decouple from the U.S., creating opportunities for Chinese products to dominate global markets. Meanwhile, China’s extensive infrastructure investments have already forged deep ties with many countries. As the U.S. cuts foreign aid, China is well-positioned to step in, offering financial lifelines and strengthening its influence.

    Many nations seek investment but fear U.S. retaliation. However, if Washington intensifies economic punishments, these countries may increasingly turn to China as an alternative partner. Additionally, the U.S.’s handling of Taiwan presents another potential opening for Beijing. Should Washington waver in its commitment to defend the island, China could swiftly assert control over Taiwan and expand its dominance across the South China Sea. Such a move would significantly advance China’s strategic influence, further positioning it as a central force in global politics.

    Is China Capable?

    Over the past decade, many news outlets predicted that China would overtake the United States, citing its rapid GDP growth, technological advancements, and large-scale infrastructure projects. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, strict lockdown measures, trade restrictions, and a real estate crisis—coupled with a declining population—slowed China’s momentum. While the West anticipated a complete economic collapse, China managed to withstand these challenges and is now showing signs of renewed growth, expanding its influence in Central Asia and other regions. China is asserting itself in global affairs.

    However, China’s ascent to global leadership still hinges on its relationship with the West. While Trump’s policies have strained U.S.-China ties, many liberal democracies maintain economic partnerships with Beijing. A key uncertainty remains China’s military preparedness—unlike the U.S., its forces lack combat experience, casting doubt on their operational effectiveness. Nevertheless, Beijing continues to strengthen its position, steadily advancing toward its long-held ambition of global dominance.

    What Happens Next?

    Political experts strongly believe that despite disruptions and diplomatic humiliations, the West will remain firmly aligned with the United States. Without breaking Western unity or expanding its influence in the Middle East, China cannot achieve true global dominance.

    Although Ursula von der Leyen envisions a stronger and more independent Europe, the continent remains deeply tied to Washington—willing to endure tariffs and occasional setbacks rather than sever ties. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern leaders, driven by economic interests, are likely to maintain their alignment with the U.S., as will India. This leaves Russia as China’s only major strategic ally.

    Analysts suggest that Washington is now seeking an  opportunity to weaken the Russia-China partnership. If Moscow were to distance itself from Beijing, China could find itself increasingly isolated on the global stage.

    However, if Russia remains firmly aligned with China and Europe drifts away from its close relationship with the U.S., the balance of power could shift significantly. If China also manages to strengthen ties with India, its global influence would be further solidified.

    For years, Beijing has aspired to global leadership but has struggled to fully realize that ambition. Ironically, the evolving geopolitical landscape—largely shaped by U.S. actions—may become the very force that propels China to the forefront.

  • With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    With Netanyahu’s Backing, Is Trump’s Plan Closer to Reality?

    What began as an offhand suggestion from Jared Kushner—turning Gaza into a luxury enclave—has steadily evolved into a serious proposal, now fully endorsed by Donald Trump as a solution to what he calls Israel’s “Gaza problem.” Trump’s plan to place Gaza under U.S. control and transform its coastline into a high-end development has gained traction among Israeli leaders and the political establishment, who view Gaza as a persistent security threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly supported a post-war arrangement that aligns with Trump’s plan. He has been unequivocal: once the war ends, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will govern the enclave. Instead, he has embraced Trump’s vision of fundamentally reshaping Gaza, presenting it as the most viable solution to the region’s ongoing tensions.

    Many Arab states and European nations, including key U.S. allies, had expected Gaza to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognized governing body of the West Bank. Hamas, the terrorist organization that controlled Gaza, also signaled its willingness to cede power to its West Bank-based rival. However, these plans remain in limbo as Trump’s unexpected proposal for the U.S. to take control of Gaza and relocate its 2.3 million residents to countries such as Egypt and Jordan gains momentum in Israel.

    The second phase of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is set to begin in early March and is expected to include the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, effectively ending the war. This would be followed by a third phase, which aims to address the exchange of bodies, a reconstruction plan for Gaza, and discussions on its future governance. However, significant uncertainty remains about whether the plan will proceed as intended.

    Israeli media reports that Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionism party, which opposed the ceasefire, continues to threaten Netanyahu’s coalition, insisting that Israel must resume military operations once the initial truce expires. At the same time, Trump’s proposal for U.S. control over Gaza has gained traction within Netanyahu’s government, not only as a strategic alternative but also as a lifeline for Netanyahu’s political survival. Aware that the plan could help secure his political standing, Netanyahu has consistently supported Trump’s vision of turning Gaza’s coastline into a luxury enclave. During a Sunday visit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he reiterated that his government is actively coordinating with Washington to advance the initiative. The next day, Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the creation of a new agency to oversee the mass relocation of Palestinians from Gaza, signaling Israel’s firm commitment to the plan.

    Yet, Trump’s plan for Gaza faces outright rejection from both Gazans and the broader Arab world, which is now scrambling to devise alternatives. Gaza carries immense symbolic weight in global Muslim solidarity, and any move to strip it from Palestinian governance would trigger significant backlash across the Muslim world and Europe. Still, Arab states remain unwilling to assume control, as ruling over a deeply hostile population under another nation’s authority is not only impractical but also politically untenable—particularly given the entrenched hostility toward Israel.

    This leaves the United States as the only feasible option. Trump, a seasoned negotiator, has the ability to refine and elaborate on his plan, outlining where Gazans would be resettled, what benefits the host countries would receive, and how Gaza itself would be governed under this new arrangement. As a result, his proposal, once dismissed as improbable, is now emerging as one of the more realistic options for Gaza’s future.