Gaza War: Russia and China Look Indifferent

At first glance, Russia and China seem unmoved by the relentless bloodshed in Gaza. Their silence is often mistaken for apathy. But in reality, both are pursuing a deliberate and ruthless calculation — letting the United States drown in a moral crisis of its own making.

Moscow and Beijing see Gaza not as a regional conflict but as the ultimate exposure of Western hypocrisy. For decades, Washington lectured the world on human rights while funding Israel’s occupation machinery. Now, as civilian deaths pile up, the United States finds itself stripped of credibility. Russia and China see no reason to save America from the consequences of its double standards.

At the United Nations, their diplomacy is coldly efficient. Both talk of peace but avoid taking any direct lead, knowing well that every American veto on a ceasefire resolution is another self-inflicted wound for Washington. Why intervene when your rival insists on showcasing its moral bankruptcy before the world?

For Russia, already locked in the Ukraine war, Gaza is an unexpected advantage — a distraction that diverts Western attention and resources.

For China, the war exposes America’s declining global authority, strengthening Beijing’s narrative of a fairer, multipolar world. Both understand that the longer Gaza burns, the weaker US influence becomes in the Global South.

Neither Moscow nor Beijing wants to be entangled in Middle Eastern chaos. They prefer to appear detached while quietly cultivating Arab trust and sympathy. Their silence is not a void — it is strategy, precision, and patience rolled into one.

The West calls it indifference. In truth, it is the art of letting a rival crumble under the weight of its own contradictions.

The opponents of Russia and China say these countries are not neutral; they are opportunistic. And in Gaza’s tragedy, they have found a powerful stage on which America’s self-proclaimed moral leadership is collapsing — in full view of a watching world.

Two Years of War in Gaza, Israel Gains Nothing

Two years of unrelenting war on Gaza, and Israel still stands where it began — trapped in a cycle of destruction, denial, and diplomatic decay. What was marketed as a mission to “eliminate Hamas” has turned into a grim display of state violence that has neither secured Israel nor silenced its critics. If anything, Israel has lost far more than it has gained — morally, politically, and strategically.

Israel’s military might has flattened Gaza, but not Hamas. The resistance remains alive, its ideology more entrenched than ever among Palestinians who have nothing left to lose. Israel’s massive bombardment of homes, hospitals, and schools has not eradicated militancy — it has multiplied it.

The claim of “self-defense” now rings hollow in a world that has seen unarmed civilians buried under rubble and children starved by blockades. The war has exposed not strength, but Israel’s insecurity and moral bankruptcy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, clinging to power through fear and militarism, has turned Israel into a pariah. Once viewed as a “democracy under threat,” Israel is now increasingly seen as an occupying force addicted to impunity.

Western governments still offer rhetorical support, but their streets tell a different story — millions protesting against Israel’s brutality and questioning their leaders’ complicity.

The regional fallout is equally severe. The Abraham Accords lie in political ruins, Arab regimes have distanced themselves, and Iran’s proxies have gained renewed legitimacy. Instead of isolating Hamas, Israel has isolated itself. The Arab world, once divided, now finds a common cause again — Palestine.

Economically, the war has drained Israel’s resources, scared away investors, and dented its global tech-driven image. The cost of perpetual war is beginning to show on Israel’s economy and psyche alike.

Two years on, Israel has neither peace nor security — only international condemnation and deep moral scars. Its military triumphs have yielded strategic emptiness.

Gaza lies in ruins, but Israel’s reputation lies beside it — shattered and unredeemable. In the long run, a state cannot bomb its way to legitimacy.

Israel’s real existential dilemma is not Hamas, but its own refusal to accept that lasting security can only be built on justice, not occupation.

 

Germany involved in Israeli attacks on Iran

In June, Germany was one of the few countries to back Israeli strikes on Iran’s civilian, nuclear, and military sites, and arguably the most vocal among them. The German Chancellor angered both Iranians and Germans during the conflict when he defended Israel’s aggression, stating that it was doing "dirty work" for Western states.

Friedrich Merz also stated that he had been notified of the attacks in advance, adding that not attacking Iranians was not an "option" for Israelis, who, he claimed, had the right to "defend themselves." Israel carried out the attacks, killing over 1000 Iranians in the process, claiming they were intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found no evidence that Iran was moving toward nuclear weapons—a fact most recently reiterated by the UN nuclear watchdog’s Director-General, Rafael Grossi, last week. Israel's decision to launch an all-out war against Iran brought the region to the brink of a conflagration that, had it not been contained, would have had long-lasting reverberations not only for West Asia but also for the Western world, a fact Germany was fully aware of when it backed the action.

New information obtained by the Tehran Times reveals that Germany’s support for Israel during the 12-day war extended beyond political and diplomatic statements. Berlin, in fact, played an active role in helping Israel achieve its war goals by deploying troops to the occupied territories.

A member of the Israeli army with knowledge of the matter has told Iranian intelligence that a group of German military forces was stationed in Israel at the request of the regime during the 12-day war. They participated in military operations, under an agreement that required Israel to keep Germany’s involvement a secret. The agreement was made in confidentiality between German and Israeli commanders, but it has been obtained by Iranians.   

Germany’s aid to Israel marks the second time it has joined an aggressor against Iran. Berlin also supplied Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, which he used during his invasion of Iran in the 1980s.

The Tehran Times understands that German troops were financially compensated for their service to Israel but chose to leave the occupied territories immediately after the war ended despite their initial promises. As the conflict escalated and Iran targeted several military and sensitive sites, the Israelis discovered that the German forces were reluctant to continue their involvement.

According to a leaked Israeli assessment, the German forces’ departure unnerved the regime. Zionists were content with how France participated in the war on Israel’s behalf. 

It remains unclear whether the German parliament approved the deployment. The German government is constitutionally prohibited from sending troops to a foreign war on its own initiative and is legally required to seek a majority vote in the Bundestag first. This system was deliberately established after World War II to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally initiating war.

The Tehran Times has been informed that details regarding the names of the German personnel involved, the nature of the collaboration, and supporting documentation have been made available to Iran.

The revelation comes as Israel grapples with what Hebrew media calls a "spy crisis." According to a report by Israel's Internal Security Agency (SHINBET), espionage cases in Israel increased by approximately 400 percent in 2024. That figure is expected to have risen further in the first half of 2025.

Several Israelis have been arrested on espionage charges in recent months, with the regime linking almost all of them to Iran.

Iran’s Intelligence Minister Esmaeil Khatib has stated that a large number of Israelis collaborate with Iran either for money or out of hatred towards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

Gold surpasses US$4,000/oz for first time

Gold price surpassed US$4,000 an ounce for the first time on Wednesday as investors piled into a historic rally in the safe-haven asset to hedge against global economic and geopolitical uncertainties, while also betting on US interest rate cuts.

Spot gold was up 1.3% at US$4,034.73 per ounce by 1110 GMT. US gold futures for December delivery gained 1.3% to US$4,056.80.

Traditionally, gold is seen as a store of value during times of instability. Spot gold is up about 54% year-to-date, after gaining 27% in 2024. It is one of the best-performing assets of 2025, outpacing advances in global equity markets and bitcoin and losses for the US dollar and crude oil.

The rally has been driven by a cocktail of factors, including expectations of interest rate cuts, ongoing political and economic uncertainty, solid central bank buying, inflows into gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and a weak dollar.

"Background factors are much the same as before, in terms of geopolitical uncertainty, with the added spice of the government shutdown," StoneX analyst Rhona O'Connell said.

"The latter is not impeding strong equities but nonetheless there will be a degree of risk mitigation via bullion."

The ongoing US government shutdown, into its eighth day on Wednesday, has delayed the release of key economic data, forcing investors to rely on non-government sources to assess the timing and scope of Fed rate cuts.

 

Who Suffers More from Falling Oil Prices? OPEC Members or United States

The recent slide in global oil prices has once again stirred a debate, who suffers more — the oil-exporting giants of OPEC or the United States, now a major producer itself? The answer, as always, lies in the economics of dependence and the politics of energy.

OPEC countries, particularly in the Gulf, rely overwhelmingly on oil revenues to finance their national budgets, social programs, and development plans. For economies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, crude exports still account for more than two-thirds of total income.

When oil prices tumble below US$70 a barrel, their fiscal positions come under pressure. Budget deficits widen, subsidies become unsustainable, and ambitious diversification drives, like Saudi Vision 2030, face funding gaps.

For smaller OPEC producers such as Nigeria or Angola, the pain is even sharper — lower prices mean currency depreciation, inflation, and social unrest.

In contrast, the United States, despite being the world’s largest oil producer, experiences a more nuanced impact. Lower prices hurt shale producers in Texas and North Dakota, where high extraction costs make many wells unprofitable when crude dips below US$60.

Bankruptcies, layoffs, and reduced drilling activity follow swiftly. Yet the broader US economy benefits - cheaper gasoline boosts consumer spending, cuts transport costs, and eases inflationary pressure — all positives for growth and household budgets.

While US oil companies may bleed, the country’s economy as a whole absorbs the shock better than most OPEC states can.

The fiscal and social dependence of OPEC members on oil revenues magnifies their vulnerability. As against this, the United States — with its diversified economy, flexible markets, and domestic consumption — ultimately gains from lower energy costs.

In short, the current oil price decline hurts OPEC far more deeply. For Washington, it is a mixed blessing; for Riyadh and its peers, a financial headache.

Unless OPEC recalibrates its dependence on hydrocarbons, every fall in crude prices will continue to expose the fragility of their oil-driven prosperity.

 

Iran's rise to regional powerhouse rattles friends and foes alike

Iran’s steady emergence as a regional powerhouse is reshaping the Middle East’s strategic landscape — and not everyone is comfortable with it. What makes Tehran’s ascent intriguing is that it unsettles both adversaries and allies, blurring traditional fault lines and forcing recalculations from Riyadh to Washington, and from Moscow to Beijing.

For decades, Iran was viewed through the prism of sanctions, isolation, and revolutionary zeal. Despite economic constraints and diplomatic pressure, it has built robust influence through a mix of ideology, resilience, and strategic alliances. Its regional proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — once dismissed as militant networks — now form a formidable web of influence, capable of shaping outcomes from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

Iran’s growing clout has not only alarmed its foes. Even its supposed friends find Tehran’s assertiveness unnerving. The Gulf states, after years of rivalry, cautiously reopened diplomatic channels, realizing that confrontation is costly. Yet normalization is driven more by necessity than trust.

Saudi Arabia’s rapprochement, brokered by China, underscores this pragmatic shift — acknowledging Iran’s influence while seeking to contain it through diplomacy rather than confrontation.

The United States, meanwhile, remains entangled in a paradox. Washington cannot ignore Iran’s expanding regional reach, but its policy of maximum pressure has yielded minimal results.

The European powers, too, find themselves frustrated — wanting engagement on nuclear and energy fronts but constrained by American sanctions.

Russia and China, while cultivating ties with Tehran, remain wary of an overconfident Iran that might complicate their own regional interests.

Domestically, Iran’s leadership is projecting its defiance as strength — a message that resonates in a region weary of Western intervention. Yet, its economy remains fragile, and social unrest continues to simmer beneath the surface.

Iran’s rise is not just about military might or regional leverage; it is a reminder that power in today’s Middle East comes with contradictions.

Tehran’s growing assertiveness has turned it into both a symbol of resistance and a source of regional anxiety — a paradoxical power that leaves neither friends nor foes at ease.

 

Two Years of Israeli War on Gaza

Two years into Israeli war on Gaza, the region stands devastated — physically, morally, and strategically. What began as a campaign of “self-defense” has turned into a prolonged assault that has razed cities, erased families, and rewritten the moral code of modern warfare. Israel may claim tactical victories, but the strategic outcome is a quagmire that even its staunchest allies struggle to justify.

Gaza today is a graveyard of statistics — tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and almost the entire population dependent on aid. The relentless bombardment has not uprooted Hamas; it has only deepened the political and emotional trench dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Far from eliminating militancy, Israeli campaign has turned Gaza into a permanent symbol of resistance and despair — a living wound in the conscience of the Middle East.

The Israeli leadership sells this war as a quest for security. Yet, two years on, Israel is less secure, not more. Its borders remain tense, international isolation grows, and domestic protests simmer under the surface of official triumphalism.

The myth of “precision warfare” has collapsed under the rubble of homes, schools, and hospitals. Even Washington, Israel’s diplomatic shield, is beginning to show fatigue — forced to defend the indefensible in every international forum.

Meanwhile, the Arab world’s silence has been deafening. Once vocal capitals have turned pragmatic, their outrage replaced by quiet normalization. The Palestinians, once betrayed by borders, are now betrayed by indifference.

Israel’s war on Gaza is no longer about eliminating Hamas — it is about maintaining an illusion that military dominance can substitute for political vision. But wars end; occupations linger; and history has a ruthless memory.

Two years later, Israel may have won battles, but it is losing the narrative — and with it, the moral ground that once set it apart from those it condemns.

Gaza’s ruins are not only a testament to Palestinian suffering but also to Israel’s strategic and moral decay. The war may still rage, but the victory, if ever claimed, will be hollow.