US “armada” heading towards Middle East

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday a naval “armada” was heading toward the Middle East, as he renewed warnings to Tehran against killing protesters or restarting its nuclear program.

“We’re watching Iran,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday as he flew back from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“We have a big force going towards Iran,” Trump said.

“I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely,” he said.

Trump’s announcement on the US naval buildup comes after he appeared to back-pedal last week on his threats of military action against Iran.

US officials said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and other assets would arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.

One official said additional air-defense systems were also being eyed for the Middle East, which could be critical to guard against any Iranian strike on US bases in the region.

The warships started moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions between Iran and the United States soared following a severe crackdown on protests across Iran in recent months.

Trump had repeatedly threatened to intervene against Iran over the recent killings of protesters there but protests dwindled last week. The president backed away from his toughest rhetoric last week, claiming he had stopped executions of prisoners.

He repeated that claim on Thursday, saying Iran canceled nearly 840 hangings after his warnings.

"I said: 'If you hang those people, you're going to be hit harder than you've ever been hit. It'll make what we did to your Iran nuclear (program) look like peanuts,'" Trump said.

"At an hour before this horrible thing was going to take place, they canceled it," he said, calling it "a good sign."

The US military has in the past periodically surged forces to the Middle East at times of heightened tensions, moves that were often defensive.

However, the US military staged a major buildup last year ahead of its June strikes against Iran's nuclear program.

China’s muted response to US threats to attack Iran

China’s restrained reaction to fresh US threats against Iran is not a sign of indifference, weakness, or quiet acquiescence. Rather, it reflects a deliberate strategic calculation shaped by energy security, diplomatic doctrine, and Beijing’s evolving view of its role in the Middle East.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent phone call with his Iranian counterpart captured this posture succinctly. By opposing the “use or threat of force” and reaffirming dialogue over coercion, Beijing restated principles it has upheld for decades. What stood out was what China chose not to do: no sharp condemnation of Washington, no announcement of countermeasures, and no promise of tangible intervention.

This muted response is consistent with China’s long-standing policy of non-interference. Beijing has historically avoided entanglement in the internal politics of partner states, whether governed by hardliners or reformists. For China, regime type is secondary to sovereignty, stability, and continuity of cooperation. Iran is no exception.

Economic realities reinforce this caution. China buys over 80 percent of Iran’s oil exports and remains the world’s largest crude importer. Yet Beijing is acutely aware that overt political or security involvement could invite harsher Western sanctions at a time when it is already under pressure from Washington. Restraint, therefore, is not passivity but risk management.

Crucially, China has spent decades diversifying its energy sources precisely to reduce overdependence on politically volatile suppliers. As long as Iranian instability does not escalate into a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or a collapse of Iran’s oil infrastructure, Beijing can absorb the shock. Iran’s reliance on shadow fleets and grey-zone trade has so far kept energy flows intact.

Beijing also appears relaxed about Iran’s internal political trajectory. A more pragmatic or even West-leaning leadership in Tehran would not necessarily undermine Chinese interests. Iran’s economic needs and China’s market size ensure a continued relationship, even if discounted oil disappears.

At a broader level, China is recalibrating its Middle East strategy. While its economic footprint is expanding amid a relative decline in US influence, Beijing remains unwilling to assume security responsibilities or confront Washington head-on. Verbal opposition, strategic ambiguity, and economic engagement remain its preferred tools.

In short, China is playing the long game. Its silence is not absence, but a calculated choice to protect interests without escalation — a reminder that in geopolitics, restraint can be as strategic as confrontation.

Japan a victim of US military industrial game

It is an uncomfortable but undeniable reality that a major driver of the US economy is the global sale of military hardware. Packaged as “security cooperation,” this system increasingly functions as a mechanism of dependency that serves America’s military industrial complex more than the security needs of its allies. A recent Nikkei Asia investigation into Japan’s undelivered US weapons orders exposes this imbalance with unusual clarity.

According to the report, Japan has placed 118 orders for US military equipment worth over US$7 billion that remain undelivered more than five years after contracts were signed. In several cases, the delays have forced Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to rely on aging platforms—the very problem these purchases were meant to address. This is not a bureaucratic mishap but a structural flaw in the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

Under FMS rules, buyers must pay in advance, while prices and delivery schedules remain estimates. Washington retains the right to prioritize its own military needs, a reality that has become more pronounced since the war in Ukraine. Weapons already paid for by allies can be diverted elsewhere, while client states are expected to wait patiently. The refund of surplus funds, often cited as evidence of fairness, does little to compensate for years of strategic uncertainty.

This arrangement increasingly resembles economic coercion. Countries are encouraged to replace “obsolete” systems even when existing hardware remains functional. The logic of modernization often aligns more closely with US defense contractors’ production cycles than with genuine threat assessments. The buyer’s ability—or even need—to deploy advanced systems becomes secondary.

Japan’s experience is particularly instructive. As a technologically advanced nation and a key US ally, Tokyo should, in theory, enjoy priority treatment. Its difficulties raise serious questions about the position of smaller or less influential buyers, for whom arms purchases can become sunk costs with limited security returns.

The Nikkei Asia findings should serve as a warning. Dependence on a single supplier whose economy is deeply tied to militarization carries inherent risks. Paying upfront for weapons that arrive late—or not at all—undermines both security and sovereignty. Japan’s US$7 billion backlog is not merely a logistical failure; it is a lesson in the real economics of buying American security.

Revoking Araghchi’s Davos invitation highlights blatant double standards

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has slammed the World Economic Forum (WEF) for revoking an invitation to the annual meeting in Davos over his country’s crackdown on recent protests, accusing the forum of applying “blatant double standards” and succumbing to political pressure from Israel.

The WEF confirmed that Araghchi will not attend this year’s summit, running until January 23, saying that “although he was invited last fall, the tragic loss of lives of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks means that it is not right for the Iranian government to be represented at Davos this year.”

Araghchi said in a post on X on Monday night that the decision was made by WEF “on the basis of lies and political pressure from Israel and its US-based proxies and apologists.”

Araghchi had been scheduled to speak on Tuesday during the summit at the Swiss ski resort town.

The Iranian minister criticized what he called the WEF’s “blatant double standards” for keeping an invitation open to Israel’s President Isaac Herzog despite international accusations of genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Araghchi said the forum’s decision came even though “Israel's genocide of Palestinians and mass slaughter of 71,000 innocent people did not compel it to cancel any invitation extended to Israeli officials whatsoever.”

The WEF's decision comes as stability has been restored across Iran following a period of foreign-instigated unrest.

What began as peaceful protests late last month gradually turned violent, as rioters rampaged through cities across the country, killing security forces and attacking public infrastructure.

The foreign minister stressed that the Iranian government had to defend the people against “armed terrorists and ISIS-style killings" openly backed by the Israeli spy agency Mossad.

The US and Israel have acknowledged their direct involvement on the ground, with former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting, "Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them."

Germany, one of the United States' closest and strongest allies in Europe, also stated its opposition to extending an invitation to Iranian officials.

The Munich Security Conference on Friday said it was also withdrawing an invitation to Araghchi. 

 

Davos: Where Rich Perfect Art of Making Poor Poorer

Every January, Davos becomes the moral capital of the global elite. Wrapped in snow, security, and self-congratulation, presidents, billionaires, CEOs, and financiers gather to discuss the fate of a world they rarely experience firsthand. The World Economic Forum presents this annual ritual as a platform for global problem-solving. In truth, Davos has evolved into a carefully managed performance—where concern is expressed, responsibility is deferred, and power remains untouched.

The language of Davos is polished and predictable. “Inclusive growth,” “stakeholder capitalism,” “climate action,” and “global resilience” dominate the agenda. Yet behind this vocabulary lies a stubborn reality - inequality is not shrinking, poverty is not disappearing, and wealth is concentrating at a historic pace. If Davos were effective, the results would speak for themselves, which do not.

What Davos offers is not solutions but comfort—comfort to those who already control capital, technology, and policy access. It is a space where elites reassure one another that the system is flawed but fundamentally sound, that disruption must be managed rather than allowed, and that reform should never threaten ownership or privilege. The poor are omnipresent in speeches and PowerPoint slides, but conspicuously absent from decision-making tables.

The real conversations happen away from the cameras. While developing countries are advised to embrace austerity, fiscal discipline, and structural reforms, multinational corporations negotiate tax privileges, regulatory flexibility, and public subsidies. Workers are told to reskill endlessly, while capital moves freely across borders, protected by legal regimes it helped design. Climate change is acknowledged, yet fossil fuel interests remain deeply embedded in the very forum that claims to champion sustainability.

The return of Donald Trump to global relevance this year did not disrupt Davos—it exposed it. Trump’s blunt nationalism and transactional worldview are often portrayed as an aberration, these are not. He merely articulates openly what Davos practices quietly - power first, profit always, and principles only when convenient. Trump is not the enemy of the Davos mindset; he is its unfiltered expression.

For the Global South, Davos has long been a lecture hall. Countries facing debt, inflation, and political instability are prescribed reforms that protect creditors and investors, rarely citizens. Poverty is treated as a technical problem rather than a political outcome. Inequality is acknowledged, but redistribution remains taboo.

Davos survives because it offers the illusion of responsibility without the cost of change. It turns global suffering into a networking opportunity and moral concern into a branding exercise. Dialogue replaces action; panels replace policy.

The uncomfortable conclusion is unavoidable: In Davos, the rich do not seriously debate how to uplift the poor. They refine strategies to manage inequality in ways that preserve their dominance—making the poor poorer not by conspiracy, but by design.

Donald Trump Was Obvious — America’s Failure Was Not

For many outside the United States, Donald Trump was never a mystery. He was not a political riddle, nor an accident of history. He was obvious. What remains difficult to comprehend is how Americans—armed with vast media, institutions, and self-proclaimed democratic wisdom—failed so spectacularly to read a man who telegraphed his intentions from day one.

Trump did not corrupt American politics; he exposed it. His vulgar language, narcissism, and open contempt for norms were treated as shocking deviations, when in reality they stripped away the hypocrisy that had long defined the American political class. Previous presidents were better spoken, better groomed, and far more dangerous. Trump merely said aloud what others executed quietly.

America loves to boast of its wealth, power, and moral leadership. Yet it ranks poorly on almost every measure of social well-being among developed nations. Its middle class is shrinking, its prisons are full, its cities decay behind corporate skyscrapers, and its wars have left entire regions in ruins. Trump did not create this decay; he became its loudest symptom.

From South Asia and the Middle East, Trump’s worldview was instantly recognizable. We have seen strongmen before—men who confuse volume with authority and cruelty with strength. His Islamophobic travel bans, diplomatic bullying, and transactional foreign policy were predictable, not surprising. What was astonishing was America’s theatrical outrage, as if this behavior had no roots in its own imperial history.

The American establishment preferred to obsess over Trump’s manners rather than confront its own crimes. It was easier to mock his vocabulary than to admit that earlier administrations destroyed Libya, destabilized the Middle East, enriched corporations, and abandoned their own citizens—all while maintaining respectable language.

I could read Donald Trump because I was never seduced by the American myth. Many Americans were. Trump shattered that illusion, and instead of facing the mirror, they blamed the reflection.

That Donald Trump became president is troubling. That America still refuses to accept what he revealed about itself is far worse.

Trump's unenforceable red line with Iran

US President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran once again exposes a familiar pattern: aggressive rhetoric followed by strategic hesitation. By publicly assuring Iranian protesters that “help is coming,” Trump drew a red line that was emotionally charged but strategically hollow. As events unfold, it is becoming evident that this red line is unenforceable—not because of a lack of military power, but because of the absence of political clarity and regional consensus.

Having openly aligned himself with anti-government demonstrators, Trump boxed his administration into a dilemma. Either act militarily and risk a wider regional conflagration, or step back and invite accusations of weakness. Analysts rightly argue that this corner was self-created. Grand declarations, made without an executable plan, rarely translate into sustainable policy—especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East.

While the White House insists that “all options remain on the table,” reality suggests otherwise. The dispatch of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is more symbolic than operational in the immediate term. By the Pentagon’s own assessments, the United States is not positioned for a sustained campaign against Iran anytime soon. Military capability, though abundant, does not automatically equate to political will or strategic wisdom.

More telling is the diplomatic activity behind the scenes. Key regional allies—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman—are reportedly urging restraint, fully aware that a strike on Iran could ignite a multinational conflict with unpredictable consequences. Even Israel, often portrayed as hawkish, appears cautious about escalation without a clear endgame. Trump’s assertion that he “convinced himself” to pause action only reinforces the perception of impulsive decision-making rather than coordinated strategy.

Crucially, Middle East experts remain skeptical that limited military strikes would achieve Washington’s stated objective of regime change. Iran’s clerical establishment has historically thrived under external pressure, using sanctions and threats to consolidate internal control. Economic hardship has not fractured the regime; it has hardened it.

In the final analysis, Trump’s Iran policy reflects a dangerous imbalance—maximum rhetoric paired with minimum foresight. Red lines that cannot be enforced weaken credibility, embolden adversaries, and unsettle allies. In geopolitics, restraint backed by strategy is strength; noise without direction is not.

PSX benchmark index up 0.4%WoW despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) experienced volatility throughout the week, driven by geopolitical tensions. However, a positive momentum prevailed as geopolitical dust settled along with news of defence export deals with multiple regional partners and encouraging macro developments. The benchmark Index witnessed a weekly gain of 689 points or 0.4%WoW to close at 185,099 points on Friday January 16, 2026.

Market participation declined by 24.5%WoW with average daily trading slipping to 1.2 billion shares, from 1.6 billion shares in the prior week.

On the macroeconomic front, LSM index increased by 10.4%YoY in November 2025 while posting growth of 6%YoY during 5MFY26.

In the latest PIB auction, yields declined on all the tenors.

Fertilizer sector marked the highest ever annual urea sales in CY25.

Auto sales reported at 17,000 units in December 2025, down 6%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$16 million to US$16.1 billion as of January 09, 2025.

PKR appreciated against the greenback during the week to 279.95 PKR/ US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Turkey confirms talks on defence pact with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, 2) Petrol, diesel prices to remain unchanged for next fortnight due to the increase in Petroleum Levy, 3) Pakistan announces plan to develop Port Qasim into climate-resilient industrial complex 4) Pakistan, Saudi Arabia eye joint mining investments at Future Minerals Forum, and 5) Government announces plan 6,000 acre Export Processing Zone on Pakistan Steel Mills land.

Transport, Paper & Board, Oil & Gas Exploration Companies, Property, Automobile Parts & Accessories were amongst the top performers, while Synthetic & Rayon, Jute, Miscellaneous, Textile Weaving, and Textile Spinning were amongst the laggards.

During the week, major buying was recorded by Individuals and Mutual Funds with a net buy of US$16.1 million and US$12.8 million, respectively. Banks and Insurance Companies were major sellers with net sell of US$23.5 million and US$15.8 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: ATLH, AKBL, LOTHCEM, OGDC, and JVDC, while laggards included IBFL, SAZEW, AICL, PABC, and YOUW.

AKD Securities foresees the positive momentum at PSX to continue due to further monetary easing driven by improving external account position and continuous focus on reforms amid political stability.

The brokerage house forecast the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

 

 

 

 

Pentagon moving carrier strike group toward Middle East

According to The Hill, the Pentagon on Thursday said it is moving a carrier strike group from the South China Sea toward the Middle East as tensions between the US and Iran continue to rise. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group were spotted moving west away from the Indo-Pacific region. The movement of the carrier strike group — which includes fighter jets, guided missile destroyers and at least one attack submarine — is expected to take about a week. 

This movement comes as tensions between Washington and Tehran have spiked amid unrest in Iran over its economy and questions about whether President Trump will strike the country to aid mass protests challenging the autocratic regime.

Trump earlier this week encouraged Iranian protesters to continue pressuring the regime and vowed that “help is on the way,” signaling potential US intervention. But Tehran has pushed back with its own threats.

The president so far has held off on any strikes in Iran, continuing to monitor the situation in the country. He was also advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to topple the regime and could instead set off a wider conflict.

Advisers informed Trump that the US military would need more troops and equipment in the Middle East to launch any large-scale strike while still protecting American forces in the region from potential retaliation, according to the Journal.

A senior US official also told The New York Times that Trump is waiting to see Iran’s next move as he considers striking such targets as ballistic missile sites and Iran’s domestic security apparatus, and that any attack “is at least several days away.”

Protests have escalated in Iran since late December in response to declining economic conditions. It’s not clear exactly how many people have died in the protests because of the Iranian government’s internet blackout across the country, but the Human Rights Activists News Agency said more than 2,600 people have been killed and more than 184,000 have been detained. 

Iran has largely been restricting information in and out of the country, and Wednesday it issued a “Notice to Air Missions,” or NOTAM, that flights in and out of Tehran have been restricted.

The US administration on Thursday also announced new sanctions against “the architects of the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators” and the “shadow banking networks” alleged to be helping wealthy Iranians divert funds generated by the country’s natural resources.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed since late November, after it departed San Diego with no Pentagon announcement for where it would be sent. 

 

Why Trump Refuses to Accept Failure in Iran

Once again, Iran has moved to the center of global headlines, accompanied by renewed threats from US President Donald Trump and fresh speculation about regime change. The language may sound forceful, but the strategic reality is far less dramatic. Nearly five decades after the 1979 revolution, the world’s most powerful country has failed to dismantle Iran’s clerical system. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record. What remains puzzling is Washington’s persistent refusal to accept this failure.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the United States has employed every conceivable pressure tactic—crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyber warfare and sustained political hostility through regional allies. If the objective was to topple the “Mullah regime,” the outcome is self-evident. The system remains intact, resilient and, in some respects, more consolidated than before.

Ironically, sanctions—long projected as a non-military means of forcing political change—have produced results opposite to those promised. Instead of empowering reformist forces, they have weakened Iran’s middle class, historically the most potent driver of political evolution. At the same time, state-linked institutions, particularly those associated with security and defence, have expanded their influence over the economy. External pressure has also enabled the ruling establishment to frame dissent as foreign-sponsored, thereby justifying tighter internal control.

Washington’s reluctance to admit strategic failure is understandable, though not defensible. Acknowledging defeat would challenge the credibility of sanctions as a global policy tool and expose the limits of American coercive power. Yet denial comes at a heavy cost. Persisting with a failed approach deepens instability, prolongs economic suffering and increases the risk of miscalculation—without delivering political transformation.

Even more alarming is the absence of any credible post-clerical roadmap. History offers sobering lessons. Iraq, Libya and Syria demonstrate what happens when regimes are dismantled without a viable alternative governance structure. Iran’s opposition remains fragmented—divided ideologically, geographically and socially, with much of its leadership disconnected from realities on the ground. There is no unified transitional plan, no agreed security framework and no consensus on state reconstruction.

In this context, calls to arm “rebels” or encourage violent uprising are deeply troubling. The militarization of dissent has repeatedly produced chaos rather than peace. From Syria to Libya, weapons fractured societies, empowered militias and destroyed state institutions. Iran, with its dense urban population and complex social fabric, would be particularly vulnerable. Street violence may dismantle authority, but it cannot build a stable political order.

If peace and stability are genuinely desired, policy must shift from illusion to realism. Political change cannot be imposed through threats or sanctions alone. Gradual economic engagement, calibrated sanctions relief and regional dialogue offer more sustainable pathways. Strengthening economic normalcy and civil society may not yield immediate results, but they create conditions under which internal evolution becomes possible.

The lesson is clear. Pressure has failed, and force will fail again. Peace in Iran—and across the region—will not emerge from regime-change fantasies, but from strategies grounded in historical experience, restraint and political realism.

Gulf states warn Trump against sending help to Iranian protesters

Arab Gulf states have been warning the Trump administration not to strike Iran after Trump and White House officials stated on Tuesday that military action was more likely than not, according to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report. According to the WSJ, Iran's rival Gulf states have largely avoided addressing the protests that have spread across Iran since late December, leaving thousands dead.

Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar informed the White House that even attempting to overthrow the current Iranian regime would destabilize the global oil market and ultimately hurt the American economy, according to WSJ.

A White House official told the WSJ that Trump was unlikely to heed these warnings outright, saying, “the President listens to a host of opinions on any given issue, but ultimately makes the decision he feels is best."

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump said that "help is on its way" to Iran and asked Iranians to keep protesting against the Islamic Republic regime.

"Iranian Patriots, keep protesting - take over your institutions! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price," Trump shared on Truth Social. "I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. Help is on its way. MIGA!" he assured.

Trump's comments come as he is expected to convene senior administration officials on Tuesday to discuss possible courses of action regarding Iran. The meeting will be "significant," several US officials told The Jerusalem Post.

Around 3,000 people have been killed in Iran amid the ongoing protests, an Iranian official told The New York Times on Tuesday.

An additional source, speaking to Reuters, blamed “terrorists” for the deaths of civilians and security personnel.

In addition, UN human rights chief Volker Türk said on Tuesday that he was “horrified” by mounting violence by Iran’s security forces against peaceful protesters.

Meanwhile, sources have told The Jerusalem Post that in the western Iranian provinces of West Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, and Ilam, entrances to many cities have been blocked, and numerous checkpoints have been set up.

According to the sources, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps security forces are stopping vehicles, searching them, and, in some cases, forcing citizens to unlock their mobile phones.

With the complete shutdown of the internet and telephone services, the only means of accessing news and information for many Iranians is currently satellite television, which is subject to heavy jamming in most cities. There have also been reports of security officials house-checking in cities such as Tehran and confiscating civilians’ satellite dishes.

The protests, which began on December 28, 2025 continue despite the communications restrictions and rising casualties.

 

Dishonest Western Media

I started this blog in June 2012 and the focus has remained on Geopolitics in South Asia and MENA. Over the years my conviction has got stronger that western media is dishonest. Since media is supported by conglomerates, especially ‘Military Complexes’ the focus remains on creating conflicts that can lead to proxy wars and ultimately sale of arms. Referring to two mantras: Presence of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Iraq building weapons of mass destruction (WMD) may help the readers understand my assertion.

On Monday, 30 October 2023, I listed titles of some of my blogs and their links with a request to readers to spend a few minutes in reading these blogs and then decide does the western media publishes/ airs real stories or these are tweaked to achieve their ultimate objective of selling lethal arms to facilitate their military complexes working at the best capacity utilization.

To read details click the following links:

Ten dumbest things propagandists want people to believe

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2023/10/ten-dumbest-things-propagandists-want.html

Dishonest western media not reporting correct situation of oil market

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2022/07/dishonest-western-media-not-reporting.html

Media in United States in the grip of intelligence agents

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/10/media-in-united-states-in-grip-of.html

Time to mend Saudi-Iranian relationship

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/08/time-to-mend-saudi-iranian-relationship.html

Trump acts touching insanity

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/06/trump-acts-touching-insanity.html

As world faces Armageddon, west seems leaderless

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/06/as-world-faces-armageddon-western-world.html

Western Media is Key to Syria Deception

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/05/western-media-is-key-to-syria-deception.html

Syria planning another chemical attack, another hoax call by the US

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2017/06/syria-planning-another-chemical-attack.html

Anti Iran stance of western media

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2017/01/anti-iran-stance-of-western-media.html

What are the motives behind alleging Russia of hacking US election?

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2016/12/what-are-motives-behind-alleging-russia.html

The Long History of Lies about Iran

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-long-history-of-lies-about-iran.html

 

Trump urges Iranians to keep protesting, help is on its way

US President Donald Trump urged Iranians on Tuesday to keep protesting and said help was on the way, without giving details, as Iran's clerical establishment pressed its crackdown against the biggest demonstrations in years.

"Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, adding he had canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the "senseless killing" of protesters stopped.

The unrest, sparked by dire economic conditions, has posed the biggest internal challenge to Iran's rulers for at least three years and has come at a time of intensifying international pressure after Israeli and US strikes last year.

An Iranian official said earlier on Tuesday that about 2,000 people had been killed in the protests, the first-time authorities have acknowledged the high death toll from more than two weeks of nationwide unrest.

The official, speaking to Reuters, said that people he called terrorists were behind the deaths of both protesters and security personnel. The official, who declined to be named, did not give a breakdown of who had been killed.

On Monday evening, Trump announced 25% import tariffs on products from any country doing business with Iran - a major oil exporter. Trump has also said more military action is among options he is weighing to punish Iran over the crackdown.

Tehran has not yet responded publicly to Trump's announcement of the tariffs, but it was swiftly criticized by China. Iran, already under heavy US sanctions, exports much of its oil to China, with Turkey, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and India among its other top trading partners.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Al Jazeera on Monday that he had continued to communicate with US special envoy Steve Witkoff during the protests and that Tehran was studying ideas proposed by Washington.

Iranian authorities have accused the US and Israel of fomenting the unrest.

Russia condemned what it described as "subversive external interference" in Iran's internal politics, saying that US.threats of new military strikes against the country were "categorically unacceptable."

"Those who plan to use externally inspired unrest as a pretext for repeating the aggression against Iran committed in June 2025 must be aware of the disastrous consequences of such actions for the situation in the Middle East and global international security," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Despite the protests, which come at a particularly vulnerable moment for authorities given the scale of economic problems, and years of external pressure, there are as yet no signs of fracture in the security elite that could bring an end to the clerical system in power since a 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Britain, France, Germany and Italy all summoned Iranian ambassadors in protest over the crackdown.

"The brutal actions of the Iranian regime against its own people are shocking," the German Foreign Ministry said on social media platform X.

Item 1 of 4 Iranian demonstrators gather in a street during a protest over the collapse of the currency's value, in Tehran, Iran, January 8, 2026. Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Underscoring international uncertainty over what comes next in Iran, which has been one of the dominant powers across the Middle East for decades, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he believed the government would fall.

"I assume that we are now witnessing the final days and weeks of this regime," he said, adding that if it had to maintain power through violence, "it is effectively at its end".

Araqchi dismissed Merz's criticisms, accusing Berlin of double standards and saying he had "obliterated any shred of credibility".

The protests began on December 28, 2025 over the fall in value of the currency and have grown into wider demonstrations and calls for the fall of the clerical establishment.

Hengaw, an Iranian Kurdish rights group, has reported that a 26-year-old man, Erfan Soltani, arrested in connection with protests in the city of Karaj, will be executed on Wednesday. Authorities had told the family that the death sentence was final, Hengaw reported, citing a source close to the family.

"The rushed and non-transparent handling of this case has heightened concerns over the use of the death penalty as a tool to suppress public protests," Hengaw said on Monday.

Parliament member Mohammadreza Sabaghian, who represents an area in Yazd, in central Iran, said the government needed to resolve people's dissatisfaction, otherwise "the same events will occur with greater intensity".

 

 

 

Iranian Foreign Minister claims situation under control

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Monday that the situation in Iran is “under control” with “many terrorist operatives” arrested.

He told foreign diplomats in a televised meeting that “confessions will be released soon” and said there is “substantial evidence of foreign involvement.”

He also said Iran is ready to negotiate with the US based on “mutual respect and interests.”

“As I have said repeatedly, we are also ready for negotiations — but fair and dignified negotiations, from an equal position, with mutual respect and based on mutual interests,” Araghchi said.

The foreign minister’s statements came after US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that Iran had “called to negotiate,” as his administration weighs potential military options for intervention against Tehran following the demonstrations.

The Iranian government has stated its readiness to negotiate several times in previous months.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the communication channel between Araghchi and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff “remains open” and “whenever necessary, messages are exchanged through that channel.” He added that “certain points and ideas have been presented by the other side,” referring to the US.

Large crowds of people have gathered in various Iranian cities in support of the country’s regime, according to video broadcast by state media.

People can be seen carrying images of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holding up copies of the Qur'an and waving Islamic Republic flags in demonstrations in cities including Kerman and Zahedan.

Iranian state agencies had called for nationwide marches on Monday in support of the regime which has faced down more than two weeks of growing protests fueled by spiraling anger over the economy, authoritarian rule and a deadly crackdown on demonstrators.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization said all flights are “operating normally and without problems” and airport services are fully functioning.

Majid Akhavan, spokesman for the organization, said travelers concerned about the status of flights because of recent internet-related issues “can obtain up-to-date information directly from airport sources”, the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.

Iran's president said Sunday that his government is determined to address Iran’s economic problems amid ongoing protests in several parts of the country.

Iran’s “enemies are seeking to sow chaos and instability” following the country’s 12-day war last June with Israel, Masoud Pezeshkian told the state television.

His remarks were the first since protests that began last month over worsening economic conditions and the record depreciation of the national currency, the rial, turned violent last week.

Pezeshkian condemned recent attacks on public places, including mosques, in Tehran and other Iranian cities, blaming the US and Israel for the violence.

There are no official casualty figures, but some NGOs outside Iran estimate the death toll at 116, including both security forces and protesters, with over 1,000 injured.

Iranian officials have accused Washington and Tel Aviv of backing the increasingly violent protests, particularly in Tehran, where government buildings, banks, buses, and mosques have been set ablaze by armed protesters in recent days.

Internet connectivity has also been suspended across the country.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of “training certain groups” inside and outside the country and bringing “terrorists from abroad” to set mosques, markets, and public places on fire.

“They have killed some with weapons, burned others, and beheaded some. Truly, these crimes are beyond our people’s nature. These are not our people. They do not belong to this country. If someone protests for this country, we listen and address their concerns,” he said.

The Iranian president said his government admits to “shortcomings and problems” and is working hard to alleviate the people’s concerns, especially regarding the economy.

“Where in the world are such protests and behaviors accepted as protests? If this happened in the US, would Americans allow it? Would Europeans allow it? If someone attacked a military base or city center, would they say, ‘Go ahead and loot it’,” he said.

He insisted that those attacking public property are not protesters, but rioters, adding that the government is willing to meet with and listen to those who have legitimate concerns.

Pezeshkian said the US and Israel tried to bring Iranians “to their knees” during the 12-day war in June but failed, and now seek to do the same through “riots.”

“We will build this country with the people’s help and stand firmly against the external conspiracies and riots, with the help of producers and merchants. We will stop them with power,” he said, offering condolences to those who have died in the ongoing protests.

Before the protests turned violent on Thursday night, US President Trump tweeted that the US would “come to the rescue” of Iranian protesters if the government used lethal force against them.

His remarks drew sharp criticism from top Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, security chief Ali Larijani, and Foreign Minister Araghchi.

Pezeshkian accused the US and Israel of instigating Iranian youth.

“The same people who destroyed this country and killed our youth and children now instruct these rioters to destroy more.”

He reassured the public that his government will work to solve their problems and urged families “not to let their youth mix with rioters and terrorists who kill and behead.”

“Protest if you must; we will listen and solve your concerns. Let us work together to solve problems. But worsening the country’s economic situation through chaos serves no one,” he said.

Courtesy: Saudi Gazette

 

Iran: Don’t Impose Another Persian Dictator

As Iran edges closer to possible collapse amid renewed nationwide protests – particularly in Awdanan, Malekshahi (Ilam), Kirmashan, and Luristan in Eastern Kurdistan – international conversations are turning to what might replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Western powers – especially the United States and Europe – fear a power vacuum reminiscent of post-Saddam Iraq or post-occupation Afghanistan. But in their rush to prevent chaos, some think tanks and mainstream media risk endorsing another failed model - a centralized, Persian-centered state structure under a new name that has already proven repressive and unsustainable.

Since 1979, Iran has been governed through a Perso-Shi’ite ideological system. But the marginalization of non-Persian nations within its borders predates the Islamic Republic. The 1935 renaming of “Persia” to “Iran” was more than cosmetic – it was an assertion of a false, homogenized national identity. That change marked the beginning of a modern imperial strategy aimed at erasing the country’s multinational reality under the illusion of unity. It initiated a long-standing policy of suppression, executions, and forced assimilation, denying national, ethnic, and religious groups their cultural and political rights.

From the Pahlavi monarchy to the current theocracy, Persians have monopolized power, the military, and economic institutions while suppressing minorities seeking recognition, language rights, and political autonomy. Farsi was imposed as the sole official language. Shi’a Islam became the ideological foundation of the state. National and ethnic groups – including Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmens, Qashqais, Armenians, Gilakis, Tabaris, and Talyshis – as well as religious minorities such as Christians, Jews, and Baha’is, were excluded, persecuted, or violently repressed. The Islamic Republic did not break with Pahlavi chauvinism; it perfected it. The current regime has extended and even refined the ethno-nationalist policies of Reza Shah, and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The west cannot continue to treat Iran as synonymous with “Persian.” Iran is a state composed of many nations and ethnic groups, each with its own language, culture, and political will. Yet Western policymakers – along with much of the Iranian diaspora – default to a Persian-centric framework. Exiled elites often self-identify as “Persian” abroad, but when confronted with questions about Kurdish or Baloch rights, they invoke the slogan “We are all Iranian.” This is not a call for unity; it is a rhetorical sleight of hand that conceals decades of domination and cultural erasure.

Proposals to restore the monarchy through Reza Pahlavi are not solutions; these are a return to failure. During the 2022–2023 Jina uprising, Pahlavi failed to lead or inspire, particularly among non-Persian groups. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly highlighted reported ties between Pahlavi’s supporters and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, further damaging his credibility. Even at its peak, the Vekalat Midaham (“I give my mandate”) campaign barely exceeded 400,000 signatures. Though recently reactivated, it underscores his political irrelevance.

Pahlavi is not a unifying figure, but remains a symbol of exclusion. A spent force, he is irrelevant to Iran’s future and unqualified to lead.

A meaningful transition after the Islamic Republic cannot default to Persian nationalism under a new label. Doing so would merely perpetuate the very systems that fueled decades of unrest. Stability will not come from resurrecting the past. It must come from a framework grounded in decentralization and inclusion, recognizing the rights of Iran’s nations to self-determination – including territorial autonomy or independence where demanded. These rights must be part of the post-Islamic Republic roadmap and order.

The illusion of national unity has cost Iran its future. Kurdish, Baloch, Ahwazi Arab, and other movements have long advocated democratic solutions grounded in local governance, cultural rights, and international engagement. Their voices must not be sidelined again in the name of imposed “stability.”

The international community must understand a fundamental reality - Iran is not a nation-state. It is a state of many nations and ethnicities – a nations-state. What is needed now is not the restoration of monarchy, but recognition of difference. The West must not trade one dictatorship for another, nor repeat the mistake of prioritizing top-down control over justice. Stability will not come from resurrecting a failed, British-imposed, Persian-dominated system.

Despite strong nationalist movements, non-Persian peoples were historically denied any path to self-determination, as Britain prioritized the territorial integrity of Persia – later Iran – under the Anglo-Persian Treaty of August 9, 1919, to secure control over land, customs, and oil resources. That legacy of imposed unity continues to haunt the present.

Supporting a truly inclusive post-regime vision requires abandoning the myth of a unified Persian Iran and embracing self-determination, justice, and the country’s multinational reality. Only then can any future government earn legitimacy among its peoples.

The Middle East must move forward – not backward – by rejecting imposed solutions that ignore realities on the ground.

Courtesy: The Jerusalem Post

Iran: Myth of Regime Engineering

Nearly half a century after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, one uncomfortable truth remains intact- the United States has failed to toppling Iran’s clergy-dominated political system. From covert operations to overt pressure, from sanctions to sabotage, Washington’s arsenal has been vast—but its outcomes limited. This reality challenges a deeply entrenched belief in Western policymaking circles that sustained external pressure can reengineer sovereign political systems.

The US–Iran confrontation began with high drama. The failed 1980 rescue mission to free American embassy staff in Tehran was an early signal that Iran would not bend easily. Since then, the playbook has expanded—economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, cyber warfare, targeted killings, and strikes on strategic installations. Each tactic was presented as decisive; none proved so. Even with Israel’s fullest political, intelligence, and military backing, the objective of dismantling Iran’s clerical power structure remains unmet.

Washington’s current emphasis on internal unrest follows a familiar pattern. Protests in Iran—whether driven by economic hardship, social restrictions, or political frustration—are quickly framed as precursors to regime collapse. Yet history offers little evidence that externally encouraged demonstrations can dismantle a deeply entrenched ideological state. On the contrary, such pressure often consolidates power by allowing the ruling elite to externalize blame and tighten internal control.

The comparison—explicit or implied—with Venezuela is particularly flawed. The assumption that methods used against Caracas can be replicated in Tehran ignores fundamental differences. Iran is not an oil-dependent, institutionally hollow state with fractured elite consensus. It possesses ideological cohesion, parallel power structures, and decades of experience in surviving siege conditions. The belief that eliminating a leadership figure—or fueling street unrest—can unravel this system reflects strategic illusion rather than informed assessment.

That said, dismissing Iran’s internal weaknesses would be equally misleading. Economic mismanagement, corruption allegations, demographic pressure, and social discontent are real and persistent. Sanctions have undeniably deepened hardship, but domestic policy failures have magnified their impact. Iran’s ruling establishment has often responded to dissent with rigidity rather than reform, narrowing its own margin for legitimacy. These internal contradictions—not foreign intervention—pose the most credible long-term challenge to clerical dominance.

The paradox is stark - US pressure has hurt Iranian society more than it has weakened the state, while simultaneously validating the regime’s narrative of perpetual external threat. Each failed attempt at coercion reinforces Tehran’s claim that resistance, not accommodation, ensures survival.

The lesson from five decades of confrontation is neither ideological nor moral—it is strategic. Regimes are rarely dismantled from the outside, especially those forged in revolution and sustained through resistance. Iran’s future will be shaped primarily by its own political evolution, not by foreign-engineered upheaval. Any policy that ignores this reality is destined to repeat past failures—at great human and geopolitical cost.

 

Trump’s Iran Threats and America’s ICE Reality

President Donald Trump’s reported warning to Iran — that Washington may attack if Tehran’s clergy-led regime cracks down on demonstrators — would carry moral weight if it were not so deeply undermined by events unfolding inside the United States itself. The contradiction is stark, uncomfortable, and revealing.

Over the weekend, tens of thousands marched through Minneapolis to protest the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. The protest was not an isolated outburst. It was part of more than 1,000 coordinated rallies nationwide against what the federal government calls a “deportation drive,” but what many Americans now see as state violence carried out under the cover of immigration enforcement.

Demonstrators chanted “Abolish ICE” and “No justice, no peace — get ICE off our streets,” slogans born not of ideology alone but of lived experience. Bystander video, cited by Minnesota officials, reportedly shows Good’s car turning away as the agent fired. The Department of Homeland Security insists the agent acted in self-defense, claiming the vehicle was “weaponized.” This language has become routine — and troublingly convenient.

Within days, a similar incident occurred in Portland, Oregon, where a Border Patrol agent shot and wounded two people during a vehicle stop, again citing an alleged attempt to run over agents. Two shootings, two cities, identical justifications. The pattern is hard to ignore.

What makes this moment particularly jarring is timing. These shootings followed the deployment of nearly 2,000 federal officers to the Minneapolis–St. Paul area in what DHS described as its largest operation ever. When a heavily armed state expands its enforcement footprint and civilians end up dead, the moral high ground becomes difficult to claim — especially while lecturing other nations on restraint.

Trump’s threats against Iran are framed as a defense of human rights. Yet at home, protestors braving freezing winds speak of heartbreak, anger, and devastation after witnessing a fellow citizen killed by a federal agent. The administration dismisses outrage as political noise while portraying force as necessity.

This is the duality of Trump’s America - intolerance for repression abroad, justification for it at home; outrage over demonstrators elsewhere, suspicion of demonstrators on its own streets. Until Washington reconciles this contradiction, its warnings to Tehran will sound less like principled diplomacy and more like selective morality wrapped in power.

US seizes fifth Venezuela linked oil tanker

According to The Hill, the US early on Friday seized a fifth oil tanker linked to Venezuela in its campaign to control oil experts from the South American country.

The Olina was seized in international waters east of the Caribbean Sea by the US Coast Guard in coordination with the Defense Department, State Department and Justice Department, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed in a post on the social platform X.

Noem added that the “ghost fleet” ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil had “departed Venezuela attempting to evade US forces.” 

US Southern Command (Southcom) also confirmed the seizure in a post online, saying the predawn operation involved Marines and sailors launched from the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier that apprehended the Olina without incident.

“Once again, our joint interagency forces sent a clear message this morning: ‘there is no safe haven for criminals,'” Southcom added.

Public maritime database companies have identified the Olina as falsely registered and flying the flag of Timor-Leste.

The ship was last tracked near Venezuela 52 days ago, British maritime risk management company Vanguard said.

The seizure follows the taking of two other vessels in the region Wednesday, the Sophia and the Bella-1, the latter of which was a Russian-flagged tanker the US had chased for weeks.

Washington has now taken a total of five tankers as part of its stepped-up efforts to curb Venezuela oil exports. 

The Olina has been under US-imposed sanctions since January of last year, when it was named the Minerva M, for what Washington claimed was being part of the shadow fleet — ships that sail with little regulation or known insurance and help fuel Russia’s economy, according to Reuters.

The Olina’s seizure could further inflame tensions between the US and the Kremlin, which has accused Washington of a “disproportionate” focus on the Bella-1, previously named the Marinera, after it was initially chased by the Coast Guard off the coast of Venezuela last month.

PSX benchmark index up 3.0%WoW

The Pakistan Stock Exchange moved upwards sharply during the week, with the benchmark index advancing 5,375 points, up 3.0%WoW to close at 184,410 points. Market participation also strengthened by 25%WoW, with average daily trading volume rising to 1.6 billion shares, as compared to 1.3 billion shares in the prior week.

Momentum was driven by positive sentiments due to favorable macroeconomic indicators alongside improved relations and news of potential military equipment deals with multiple countries including Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and Azerbaijan.

Moreover, positive meetings with China to strengthen coordination at bilateral and multilateral forums and towards CPEC phase II further helped improve the sentiment.

Remittances for December 2025 rose to US$3.6 billion, up 17%YoY, totaling to US$19.7 billion for 1HFY26, up 11%YoY).

The Central government debt fell by PKR345 billion in 5MFY26 to PKR77.5 trillion. T-bill yields declined on all the tenors, on first auction following declining inflation.

Cement offtakes grew by 1.5%YoY during December 2025, due to higher local dispatches.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$141 million to US$16.1 billion as of January 02, 2025.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Gas circular debt swells to PKR3.2 trillion, 2) Govt mulls PKR5/ ltr levy on MS and Diesel to aid gas sector, 3) OGRA moves to scrap fixed returns in gas pricing, and 4) Pakistan cuts national average power tariff for CY26.

Sector-wise, Transport, Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Refinery, Leather & Tanneries were amongst the top performers, while Textile Spinning, Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Jute, Miscellaneous, and Close-End Mutual Funds were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds and Companies with a net buy of US$71.5 million and US$35.5 million. Banks and Foreigners were major sellers with net sell of US$56.3 million and US$42.5 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: AICL, MCB, ABOT, HALEON, and SAZEW, while laggards included PSEL, SSOM, GHGL, DHPL, and ISL.

The brokerage house foresees the positive momentum in the benchmark index to continue due to further monetary easing driven by improving external account position and continuous focus on reforms amid political stability.

The brokerage house forecasts the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by December 2026.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

The top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

 

 

Trump will kill Khamenei if Iranian regime continues murdering protesters

As headlines from The Jerusalem Post scream warnings of extreme US retaliation — including provocative assertions that Donald Trump might kill Ayatollah Khamenei should Tehran continue its violent suppression of protesters — it is easy to dismiss such rhetoric as hawkish posturing. Yet these headlines reflect a deeper strategic shift in US foreign policy that vindicates concerns I outlined in recent blogs that Washington’s punitive sanctions and coercive diplomacy have crafted the miseries inside Iran, and could now be laying the groundwork for external confrontation rather than domestic reform.

Iran is convulsed by one of its largest protest movements in years, driven not by some abstract ideological rebellion, but by grinding economic hardship — a direct consequence of tightening sanctions and economic isolation that have decimated ordinary livelihoods. These sanctions are widely opposed by international human rights actors because they disproportionately punish the populace rather than the political elite, exacerbating inflation and scarcity while eroding the state’s capacity to address domestic grievances.

Into this tinderbox enters a U.S. administration increasingly willing to ‘lock and load’ at the first sign of violent repression. Statements from US officials threatening lethal force against Iranian leadership if protests continue to be crushed are not isolated soundbites — they are symptomatic of a broader policy framework that conflates authoritarian repression with existential threat. The arrest of Venezuela’s president and the subdued global response appear to have emboldened hardliners in Washington who now see regime decapitation as a plausible extension of coercive diplomacy.

This is not to romanticize theocratic rule in Tehran. But conflating internal unrest rooted in economic despair with a casus belli against the Iranian state risks legitimizing harsher US interventions that increasingly look directed not at human rights but at regime change itself. The deeper injustice lies not just in Iran’s domestic repression, but in the US foreign policy calculus that has, through sanctions and threat of force, nurtured the very suffering it now claims to oppose.

Iran: US Crafts Miseries and Blames Clergy

Washington continues to promote a convenient narrative that Iran’s clergy-led political system alone is responsible for the economic suffering of its people. Recent street protests—driven by inflation, unemployment, and a weakening currency—are being projected as evidence of regime failure. What remains largely unspoken is the decisive role the United States has played in shaping Iran’s economic distress.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has lived under successive waves of US-led sanctions. These measures were neither symbolic nor limited. These systematically targeted banking channels, energy exports, trade flows, and foreign investment, effectively isolating Iran from the global economy. The consequences are visible: a battered currency, chronic inflation, supply shortages, and restricted access to essential imports. Blaming the clergy while ignoring decades of economic strangulation is a selective reading of reality.

The sanctions regime has been justified primarily by allegations that Iran is developing an atomic bomb. Yet these claims remain unproven. Iran has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, and international inspections conducted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) found no evidence of active weaponization before the agreement was unilaterally abandoned by Washington in 2018. The parallel with Iraq is difficult to ignore. There, too, unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction were treated as established facts, with disastrous consequences.

Pressure on Iran has also extended beyond economics. Cyberattacks, sabotages operations, and strikes on strategic installations—widely attributed to the United States and Israel—suggest a shift from coercion to destabilization. Such actions have not altered Iran’s strategic behavior; instead, these have increased regional volatility and reduced space for diplomacy.

If concern for the Iranian people were genuine, sanctions relief would be the starting point. Economic normalization offers a more credible path to internal reform than perpetual punishment. Five decades of pressure have neither collapsed the state nor moderated policy, but these have deepened public suffering.

The recent attempt to externally reshape Venezuela’s political order has further fueled fears in Tehran. Many now worry that Iran’s leadership could face similar tactics—arrest, assassination, or engineered collapse.

History offers a blunt lesson: sanctions punish societies, not regimes. Until this reality is acknowledged, the misery of ordinary Iranians will continue to be manufactured abroad and misattributed at home.

Who Appointed US World’s Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

I started this blog in June 2012 believing that sustained engagement with history and facts would clarify how the world’s largest democracy conducts itself on the global stage. Over time, that clarity has led less to reassurance and more to unease.

Modern history reveals a series of conflicts in which the United States played a decisive role—sometimes directly, often indirectly. From the atomic bombings of Japan to the enduring division of the Korean Peninsula, from Cold War entanglements in Lebanon to decades-long sanctions on Iran, the pattern is difficult to dismiss. Iraq stands out most starkly: first drawn into nearly a ten-year war with Iran, then subjected to crippling sanctions, and finally invaded on claims that were later proven unfounded. The humanitarian cost was immense, while accountability remained elusive.

The Ukraine conflict must also be viewed in a broader strategic context. Russia’s military action warrants criticism, yet it did not emerge in isolation. NATO’s steady eastward expansion and Washington’s deepening involvement in Eastern Europe contributed to an environment of confrontation. Sanctions on Russia, prepared well in advance, suggest that the crisis was embedded in a wider geopolitical rivalry rather than being purely reactive.

Venezuela further complicates the narrative of a rules-based international order. Years of sanctions, open support for regime change, and sustained economic pressure were justified in the name of democracy. Yet Venezuela’s vast oil reserves inevitably raise questions about the balance between principles and interests. Sovereignty, in this case, appears negotiable.

Equally striking is the restrained response from other major powers. Russia and China voice objections cautiously. Britain, France, and Germany express concern while largely aligning with Washington. India opts for strategic restraint. This reflects less global consensus and more the realities of power asymmetry.

The central issue, therefore, is not the US influence itself, but its limits. Who defines the rules, who enforces them, and who is held accountable when they are breached? Until these questions are addressed, the international order will continue to appear selective—and increasingly fragile.

Capture of Venezuelan President: Return of Colonial Seizure Politics

If reports of the capture and removal of Venezuela’s sitting president are even partially accurate, then what is unfolding is not a crisis of governance or an overdue act of justice. It is the unambiguous return of colonial seizure politics—the doctrine that powerful states may confiscate sovereignty itself when defiance becomes inconvenient.

This is not regime change as an accidental by-product of policy failure. It is regime removal as method. The familiar language of democracy, legality, and human rights is little more than ornamental cover. Strip it away and the operating logic is brutally clear: discipline the non-compliant, seize control, and reorder ownership. This is not the breakdown of the international system; it is the system functioning precisely as intended.

Venezuela was effectively subdued long before this moment. Years of sanctions did not merely “pressure” the state; they systematically dismantled its economic sovereignty. Revenues were strangled, institutions hollowed out, and governance rendered structurally unworkable. This was not unintended harm. It was preparation. Economic suffocation created the conditions in which intervention could later be marketed as inevitable rather than chosen.

When sanctions failed to produce surrender, political fiction followed. The US-engineered experiment of Juan Guaidó was not diplomacy but theater—an attempt to outsource sovereignty without tanks. When even that farce collapsed, escalation became the only remaining option. Empires do not retreat when resisted; they recalibrate.

The capture of a sitting president is not law enforcement—it is a declaration of ownership. By asserting jurisdiction over a foreign head of state, Washington is not upholding justice; it is asserting hierarchy. Venezuela is no longer treated as a sovereign political subject but as a managed space—its leadership provisional, its future externally arbitrated. This is not international law stretched beyond recognition. It is international law discarded outright.

Oil is not the subtext of this intervention; it is the text. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Governments that privatize resources on Western terms are tolerated regardless of repression. Governments that insist on national control are destabilized regardless of elections. This is not hypocrisy. It is imperial consistency.

Dismissing Latin American resistance as “anti-Americanism” is willful blindness. From Guatemala and Chile to Panama and Nicaragua, the pattern is consistent: sanctions, destabilization, leadership removal, resource realignment. Venezuela fits perfectly—except this time, the mask is off.

This moment should not be personalized. Trump is not the cause; he is the instrument. The architecture of sanctions, energy interests, and bipartisan hostility to Venezuelan sovereignty predates him and will outlast him.

What is being normalized is more dangerous than Venezuela’s immediate devastation: the idea that sovereignty exists only by imperial permission, that sanctions are preparatory weapons, and that leaders may be seized rather than negotiated with. This is colonialism without occupation—domination without apology.