Dichotomy of Western Media

The Western media’s claim of being the custodian of truth and free expression has long lost its moral weight. What remains is a sophisticated machinery of selective storytelling that serves political convenience rather than journalistic integrity. The recent contrast between the “royal welcome” headlines of Donald Trump’s visit to Japan and the near-total blackout of mass demonstrations against him during the ASEAN summit speaks volumes about this duplicity.

When Trump landed in Tokyo, Western networks and newspapers competed to romanticize his reception — highlighting ceremonial gestures, lavish banquets, and supposed diplomatic warmth. Yet, when he visited Southeast Asia shortly after, facing widespread protests and public outrage, the same media either looked away or buried the story in a few inconspicuous lines. The silence was not accidental; it was calculated.

This pattern exposes the deep bias embedded in Western media — a bias not of ideology alone but of power. Stories that reinforce Western dominance are amplified, while narratives that challenge its legitimacy are suppressed. Such editorial selectivity does not merely distort facts; it shapes public consciousness and global opinion in favor of Western interests. It turns journalism from a public service into an instrument of geopolitical influence.

The hypocrisy is glaring. Western outlets spare no opportunity to lecture developing nations on press freedom and transparency, yet they themselves censor, filter, and manipulate when the truth threatens to unsettle their political comfort. They spotlight dissent in non-Western capitals but turn blind when protests erupt against their own leaders or allies.

In the age of digital information, this arrogance is being exposed. Independent media from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are challenging the monopoly of Western narratives, revealing what global audiences were never meant to see. The supposed guardians of democracy in media now stand accused of practicing the very propaganda they denounce elsewhere.

Until the Western media learns to report with honesty — not through the lens of self-interest — its sermons on “press freedom” will continue to sound hollow, and its credibility will keep eroding. The world no longer accepts selective truth as journalism.

Trump and world leaders sign Gaza peace accord

According to the media reports, US President Donald Trump joined more than 20 world leaders in Sharm El-Sheikh on Monday for high level talks on Gaza’s future as the first phase of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement took effect. The exact contents of the agreement have not yet been made public by the White House.

Noticeably absent from the signing ceremony and discussions in Egypt were representatives of Israel and Hamas, whose ceasefire—brokered by the United States—formally began last week after two years of war in Gaza.

Among those attending the Gaza Peace Summit were Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Qatari Emir Shiekh Tamim bin Hamad, Turkish President Erdogan, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.

The leaders posed for a group photo in front of a backdrop reading “Peace 2025” before a formal signing ceremony tied to the ceasefire deal.

Trump, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani signed the document on behalf of the participating nations, with world leaders seated behind them.

“This took 3,000 years to get to this point. Can you believe it? And it’s going to hold up too. It’s going to hold up,” Trump said as he signed the document.

In his remarks, Trump called the signing “a turning point for the region,” describing it as the culmination of months of diplomacy.

“This is the day that people across this region and around the world have been working, striving, hoping, and praying for,” he said.

“With the historic agreement we have just signed, those prayers of millions have finally been answered.”

 

Neither Trump nor Machado Deserves Praise

Both Donald Trump and María Corina Machado thrive on the politics of illusion. Trump promises to “make America great again,” while Machado vows to “liberate Venezuela.” Behind these slogans lies a familiar playbook — inflame divisions, exploit public despair, and crown oneself the only redeemer of a corrupted state.

Trump’s brand of populism is less about patriotism and more about personal vengeance. His contempt for institutions, judiciary, and even allies is legendary. He has converted grievance into a political doctrine and chaos into an electoral strategy. To his followers, this looks like courage; to the rest of the world, it looks like narcissism on steroids.

Machado, meanwhile, is being hailed by the Western media as the “face of freedom.” But her freedom narrative is selective. She belongs to the same Venezuelan elite that squandered the nation’s oil wealth long before Hugo Chávez arrived. Her sudden rediscovery of democracy sounds less like conviction and more like nostalgia for lost privilege.

In a country battered by sanctions, corruption, and poverty, her promise to “rebuild Venezuela” rings hollow without a plan beyond regime change.

Washington, as usual, has learned nothing. It once sold dictators as “pro-West reformers”; now it packages every anti-Maduro voice as a democrat. In reality, Machado’s politics is no less polarizing than Maduro’s — only more polished in presentation.

Populism, whether draped in Trump’s flag or Machado’s rhetoric, remains a dangerous narcotic. It feeds on resentment, not reason. It dismantles institutions in the name of saving them.

Democracy cannot be rescued by those who believe they alone embody the will of the people. Both Trump and Machado thrive on division and deliver little more than slogans. Their rise exposes not their genius but our collective fatigue with genuine leadership.

Neither deserves praise — because both are reflections of societies that have mistaken noise for change.

 

Hamas succumbs to US Pressure as Arab Support Evaporates

After months of defiance, Hamas is quietly edging toward concessions under mounting US pressure — not because Washington’s diplomacy suddenly turned persuasive, but because the Arab world has walked away.

In earlier conflicts, Hamas could rely on a chorus of Arab solidarity — fiery statements, emergency summits, and token aid. This time, the silence is deafening.

Arab capitals are fatigued, divided, and increasingly indifferent to Hamas’s political theatrics. The group that once claimed to embody the Arab street now finds itself isolated, cornered, and expendable.

Behind the scenes, Washington’s pressure has been relentless. Aid leverage, regional diplomacy, and quiet coordination with Egypt and Qatar have created an environment where Hamas has little room to maneuver. Even its traditional allies — Doha and Ankara — are urging pragmatism over defiance. The message is clear - yield or face total annihilation.

Arab governments, meanwhile, have recalibrated their priorities. Stability, trade, and relations with the West outweigh emotional appeals to Palestinian militancy.

The Abraham Accords, quiet intelligence links, and economic realignments show where the region’s real interests now lie.

For Hamas, this shift is existential — its political survival depends on Arab sympathy, and that sympathy has run out.

Critics say, Hamas’s own strategy hastened this moment. By aligning with Iran, alienating Arab governments, and launching attacks that invited catastrophic retaliation, Hamas burned the very bridges it now desperately needs. Even street protests across Arab cities have failed to translate into meaningful state action.

As US pressure mounts, Hamas’s bravado is giving way to backdoor bargaining. The Arab world’s silence has become Washington’s strongest weapon.

Hamas may yet sign a ceasefire, not as a victor of resistance, but as a movement abandoned by its own region.

For Gaza, this is not just political defeat — it is a painful reminder that Arab solidarity ends where national interest begins.

 

 

Donald Trump: Loose Bull or Fearless Leader

Donald Trump is no longer just a political figure — he has emerged as a major force of disruption. To his critics, he’s a loose bull, to his loyalists, he’s a fearless fighter standing alone. Both sides may be right, that makes him dangerous.

The general impression is that Trump doesn’t follow rules; he tramples them. He doesn’t debate ideas; he dominates the stage. Every insult, every indictment, every scandal seems to fuel his sense of destiny. For millions of disillusioned Americans, he’s not the problem — he’s the rebellion.

A rebellion without restraint easily turns into wreckage. Trump’s politics are built on grievance, not governance. He thrives on outrage, feeds on division, and weaponizes mistrust. His rallies ignite passion but also paranoia; his promises stir hope but sow hostility. Underneath the red caps and roaring crowds lies a country tearing itself apart.

His defenders say he speaks truth to power. May be yes, but he also speaks poison to democracy. The media is “the enemy,” the courts are “corrupt,” and the system — unless it serves him — is “rigged.” It’s not leadership; it is demolition disguised as defiance.

The tragedy is that Trump didn’t create America’s anger — he merely harnessed it. He turned frustration into a political movement and chaos into a campaign strategy. That’s his genius, and his curse.

Trump may call himself the voice of the forgotten, but in truth, he’s the echo of a broken democracy shouting at itself.

Whether the United States can survive another round of his rampage — or finally find the courage to tame its loose bull — will decide not just an election, but the future of its republic.

 

US double standards: Calling Hamas Terrorists, Negotiating Anyway

The United States loves to preach moral clarity - we do not negotiate with terrorists. Hamas, Washington insists, is a terrorist outfit responsible for bloodshed and chaos. Yet when the fighting in Gaza escalates and pressure mounts, the very same US administration finds itself scrambling for ceasefires—talking, directly or through intermediaries, to the very group it vilifies.

This is not strategy; it is double standards dressed up as pragmatism. US labels Hamas terrorists when it wants to project toughness at home, but when hostages are in danger, when civilian deaths spark global outrage, or when Arab allies threaten to break ranks, suddenly those “terrorists” become indispensable negotiating partners. The moral line evaporates the moment US interests are at stake.

The hypocrisy runs deep. The US slammed the Taliban for decades, only to sit across the table with them in Doha. It demonized Iraqi insurgents, then quietly cut deals to protect its own troops. It threatens “rogue states” like North Korea, then rushes into summits when the nuclear rhetoric escalates. With Hamas, the pattern is the same - condemnation in speeches, cooperation in practice.

This duplicity has consequences. By insisting Hamas is illegitimate yet negotiating with it whenever convenient, Washington undermines its own credibility. The message is clear: terrorism is a negotiable label, applied or ignored depending on political expediency. For people in the Middle East, this only confirms what they already suspect—that US policy is not about principles, but about protecting its own interests and Israel’s dominance.

If the US truly believes Hamas is a terrorist organization, then it should be consistent and refuse talks, no matter the cost. If, on the other hand, it recognizes that Hamas is an unavoidable political actor, then it should drop the pretense and admit it. Straddling both positions—condemnation in rhetoric, negotiation in reality—is not statesmanship. It is hypocrisy.

Trump-Netanyahu Peace Plan: Ceasefire or Trap

The Trump–Netanyahu meeting in New York was staged as a diplomatic triumph. Cameras clicked, statements flowed, and a so-called historic deal was announced. Israel has formally endorsed Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, but beneath the fanfare lies a script written as much for domestic politics as for genuine peace.

At the heart of the plan are four pillars: 1) an immediate ceasefire if accepted, 2) release of hostages within 72 hours, 3) a phased Israeli withdrawal, and 4) disarmament of Hamas. On paper, this sounds like a path out of a devastating war. In reality, it looks more like an ultimatum dressed as diplomacy.

The governance structure proposed is even more telling. Gaza would not return to the Palestinians in any meaningful sense but be handed over to a technocratic committee under international oversight. A “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump—flanked by international figures like Tony Blair—would supervise the transition. Hamas, the very power broker in Gaza, is not only excluded but delegitimized entirely. This is less a peace plan than a regime-change blueprint.

The Trump–Netanyahu warning was clear, Hamas must accept the plan “the easy way,” or Israel—with full American backing—will impose “the hard way.” This is not mediation; it is coercion.

For Netanyahu, who faces political vulnerability at home, US cover for renewed aggression is a golden ticket. For Trump, the deal enhances his image as a global dealmaker ahead of a bruising election cycle.

Yet the glaring omission remains Palestinian statehood. By skirting this fundamental issue, the plan buys short-term tactical gains but undermines any sustainable settlement.

Arab capitals, from Cairo to Doha, understand that without Hamas’ consent, the blueprint collapses under its own weight. No technocratic committee or international board can govern Gaza in defiance of its most powerful actor.

Trump and Netanyahu call this peace. In truth, it is a gamble - either Hamas yields, or Gaza is marched toward another round of bloodshed under international applause.

Far from solving the conflict, the deal risks deepening it. A plan that sidelines one side while empowering the other is not peace—it is merely the pause before the storm.

MAGA and Nazism: A Disturbing Comparison

Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan has, for millions of Americans, become a rallying cry for patriotism, pride, and national revival. But peel back the red caps, the rallies, and the rhetoric, and one cannot help but be reminded of the echoes of Hitler’s National Socialism (Nazism) in 1930s Germany. While history never repeats itself in the same form, it often rhymes. MAGA and Nazism may be separated by geography, time, and context, yet the patterns of politics of resentment, identity, and exclusion are hauntingly similar.

Is MAGA just politics, or is it an early verse in a dangerous rhyme of history?

Both Trump and Hitler rose from discontent. Hitler exploited post–World War I humiliation, economic despair, and national insecurity; Trump harnessed the frustration of a middle America alienated by globalization, immigration, and cultural liberalism. Both channeled that anger not toward solutions, but toward scapegoats — Jews and minorities in Nazi Germany, immigrants, Muslims, and “global elites” in Trump’s America.

The rhetoric of victimhood is another striking parallel. Hitler constantly reminded Germans they were betrayed by “traitors” and cheated by the world. Trump, in turn, insists that America has been “stabbed in the back” by foreign nations, immigrants, and even domestic institutions — media, courts, and his political opponents. The cry of “America First” is less about revival than about us-versus-them tribalism.

Though, MAGA has not built concentration camps or embarked on genocide. But the infrastructure of hate is disturbingly familiar - demonization of minorities, delegitimization of institutions, glorification of strongman rule, and calls to suppress dissent. Nazism began not with gas chambers but with words, slogans, and rallies that normalized extremism — precisely where MAGA thrives today.

Critics may argue that comparing Trump to Hitler is alarmist. Yet democracies don’t collapse overnight; they are chipped away, one “movement” at a time. MAGA, like Nazism, cloaks itself in the flag, promises restoration of greatness, and scapegoats the vulnerable. The lesson of history is clear: when leaders weaponize nationalism and fear, the road to authoritarianism is short and perilous.

Donald Trump Wants to Be "Caesar of 2025"

The prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025 has provoked widespread debate over the resilience of American democracy. Beyond the policy agenda he promotes, Trump’s political project increasingly resembles what political theorists describe as Caesarism: the concentration of power in a single leader who claims legitimacy through personal charisma, mass support, and the promise of restoring order to a faltering republic. 

The analogy with Julius Caesar is not merely rhetorical. It highlights structural weaknesses in the American political system, the erosion of institutional checks, and the dangers posed when democratic populism shades into authoritarianism.

The term Caesarism has been used in political thought from Max Weber to Antonio Gramsci to describe moments when parliamentary systems are unable to govern effectively, allowing a charismatic figure to rise above institutions. Such leaders do not necessarily abolish democracy outright but hollow it out by subordinating legal frameworks and representative bodies to their own authority. In ancient Rome, Julius Caesar capitalized on decades of institutional dysfunction, elite corruption, and popular disillusionment to establish personal rule. Similarly, Trump situates himself as the only figure capable of resolving America’s political polarization and institutional “gridlock.”

Cult of Personality

Trump’s political strength lies less in coherent policy proposals than in the loyalty of his supporters. This is reminiscent of the shift in Rome from loyalty to the res publica to loyalty to individual generals. Trump frames his struggles with the judiciary, Congress, and the press not as legal or political matters, but as evidence of systemic betrayal of the people’s will. In this framework, Trump becomes the sole authentic interpreter of popular sovereignty—an attribute central to Caesarist leadership.

Elite Complicity

American democracy, like the late Roman Republic, is experiencing a crisis of institutional legitimacy. Repeated constitutional confrontations, the politicization of the judiciary, and hyper-partisan gridlock in Congress have eroded public trust. In such an environment, many elites, particularly within the Republican Party, have aligned with Trump either out of calculation or fear of alienating his base. This dynamic mirrors the Roman Senate’s oscillation between resistance and acquiescence to Caesar, ultimately hastening the republic’s collapse.

Authoritarian Temptation

Both Caesar and Trump have framed their leadership in restorative terms. Caesar promised to restore stability to Rome after decades of civil war and corruption; Trump pledges to “restore American greatness” in the face of cultural fragmentation, economic dislocation, and geopolitical uncertainty. Yet restoration is often a rhetorical cover for consolidation of power. The risk in 2025 is that Trump’s project of national renewal may require undermining constitutional safeguards, subordinating independent institutions, and weakening democratic accountability.

The comparison between Trump and Caesar is not an exercise in historical exaggeration but a warning grounded in political theory. Republics often fall not because they are violently overthrown but because they erode from within, hollowed out by charismatic leaders and complicit elites.

If Trump seeks to become the Caesar of 2025, the United States faces a critical test: whether its institutions and citizenry can resist the allure of strongman politics, or whether it will follow Rome’s trajectory from republic to empire.

Xi rolls out carpet for Ukraine war aggressors, sidelining Trump

I am disgusted by reading the headline and the wordings of opening paragraph of a news report by Reuters on the meeting of presidents of China and Russia. I also invite the readers to register their like or dislike to the way of reporting by western media, which I term, “dishonest”.  

Reuters reports, “In a show of solidarity with the aggressors in Europe's worst war in 80 years, China's Xi Jinping will convene with his Russian and North Korean counterparts for the first time as Donald Trump and other Western leaders watch from afar”.

It continues, “Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un's visit to Beijing for a massive military parade this week underscore the Chinese president's influence over authoritarian regimes intent on redefining the Western-led global order, while Trump's isolationist stance strains long-standing US alliances”.

It says, “The gathering of what Western analysts have dubbed the 'Axis of Upheaval' could build on a mutual defence pact signed by Russia and North Korea in June 2024, and a similar alliance between Beijing and Pyongyang, an outcome that may alter the military calculus in the Asia-Pacific region”.

Kim crossed into China early on Tuesday aboard his special train, en route to the capital Beijing. Xi and Putin, meanwhile, gathered at the Great Hall of the People for a meeting with Mongolia's leader expected to touch on a vast gas pipeline project and bilateral talks.

Putin thanked his "dear friend" Xi for the warm welcome and said the close communication showed Russia's relations with China were at an "unprecedentedly high level", according to a video of the talks posted on the Kremlin's official Telegram messaging app.

"We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics," Xi told a gathering of more than 20 leaders of non-Western countries at a summit on Monday, a thinly veiled swipe at his geopolitical rival across the Pacific Ocean.

Xi also held talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, resetting strained bilateral ties, as Trump ratcheted up trade pressure on New Delhi over its purchases of Russian oil.

Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday called the summit "performative" and accused China and India of being "bad actors" by fueling Russia's three-and-a-half-year war with Ukraine.

At a time when Trump is touting his peacemaking credentials, any new concentration of military power in the East that includes Russia will ring alarm bells for the West.

"Trilateral military exercises between Russia, China and North Korea seem nearly inevitable," wrote Youngjun Kim, an analyst at the US-based National Bureau of Asian Research, in March, citing how the conflict in Ukraine has pushed Moscow and Pyongyang closer together.

"Until a few years ago, China and Russia were important partners in imposing international sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear and missile tests... (they) are now potential military partners of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea during a crisis on the Korean peninsula," he added, using the diplomatically isolated country's official name.

Kim is an important stakeholder in the conflict in Ukraine: the North Korean leader has supplied over 15,000 troops to support Putin's war.

In 2024, he also hosted the Russian leader in Pyongyang - the first summit of its kind in 24 years - in a move widely interpreted as a snub to Xi and an attempt to ease his pariah status by reducing North Korea's dependence on China.

About 600 North Korean soldiers have died fighting for Russia in the Kursk region, according to South Korea's intelligence agency, which believes Pyongyang is planning another deployment.

Putin also told the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin that a "fair balance in the security sphere" must be restored, shorthand for Russia's criticism of the eastward expansion of NATO and European Security.

 

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.

Riviera of Middle East to Trump economic zone

In a report on August 21, Axios revealed part of the US President Donald Trump’s ambition in South Lebanon according to which the region will be transformed into an investment zone. The plan, called “Trump economic zone”, would be part of a greater project extending from Gaza and the West Bank, through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf.

The “Trump economic zone” was revealed after Axios, quoting two informed sources, said in its report headlined “US asks Israel to scale down Lebanon strikes after decision to disarm Hezbollah”.

According to Axios, the Lebanese cabinet's unprecedented decision to prepare to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025 came at the urging of the US, but many in the region doubt the government will be able to carry it out.

Trump’s vision for South Lebanon is a practical application of his “economic realism” with which he approaches West Asian issues.

Obviously, the controversial US President believes that the conflict with the Israeli occupation entity can be simplified and resolved through investments.

However, the “Trump economic zone” is nothing but dreams and illusions.

Trump believes that the Lebanese strip adjacent to the border with the occupied Palestine will automatically put an end to the resistance. He is deluded that peace and prosperity will prevail once the project is implemented.

This delusion is similar to his dream of turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” which would drown the Gazans in a supposed prosperity, making them forget their resistance to the Israeli occupation!

Trump and those around him delude themselves that the popular base of the Resistance is unaware of the seriousness of what is being plotted against them.

Economic temptation may be an effective tool to confront the resistance project, but previous experiences and the occupation regime’s false peace projects no longer fool anyone.

Despite their small number and modest capabilities, resistance, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, is not merely a tactical option but rather the foundation of their sacred ideological identity, which cannot be abandoned, no matter the sacrifices and costs.

It is clear that the American empire has never ceased to treat other peoples as cheap tools for its factories. Our people believe that any Western economic initiative is nothing more than an attempt to buy people’s loyalty and turn them into slaves and mercenaries.

Last December, Israel Hayom reported that dozens of members of Ori Tzafon, also known as the Movement for Settlement in South Lebanon, had invaded the skirts of Maroun al-Ras to lay the foundation stone for a settlement called Mei Marom.

“Maroun al-Ras was an ancient Hebrew land where priests lived. We will return to all the places where Jews lived in Lebanon,” they claimed.

The Lebanese government, of course, remained silent, just as it did when Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir toured occupied Lebanese territory two weeks ago, threatening that his occupying entity “will not go back and will not allow threats to grow again.”

The government also remained silent as an Israeli prisoner in Lebanon was released unconditionally.

Meanwhile, US deputy envoy Morgan Ortagus is expected to return to Beirut early next week along with a congressional delegation that comprises hardline Zionist Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

The visit will take place as Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani made a notable statement. He affirmed Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah, which he described as “Lebanon’s strategic capital.”

 

Trump Era: A Retribution Presidency

Back in the days when George W. Bush was president, the appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador the United Nations triggered an uproar among Democrats and even a few Republicans who viewed him as a less-than-diplomatic hawk and loose cannon. He resurfaced a decade later in the first Trump administration as a national security adviser, but soon ran into trouble over disagreements with his new boss.

Then he wrote a book about it. In it, he excoriated Trump as an alleged conspiracy theorist with little understanding of foreign policy or government. More recently, Bolton has said the 79-year-old president’s renewed interest in a Russia-Ukraine peace deal is because he wants the Nobel Peace Prize.

For years, Trump has slammed the book and Bolton, alleging the book revealed classified information despite Bolton’s contention it had been cleared by the government.

On Friday, it all escalated. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under director Kash Patel—a Trump loyalist who has alluded to retaliation against political opponents—searched Bolton’s home and office, a raid said to be tied to classified documents. 

In the early days of his second term, Trump pulled the security details protecting Bolton and several other former officials. Bolton had been targeted by Iran for his role in the 2020 American assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani, a strike ordered by Trump.

In a recent interview with ABC News, Bolton was asked if he feared Trump might go after him. Bolton said he had already done so. “He’s already come after me and several others in withdrawing the protection that we had,” Bolton said. He called Trump’s leadership “a retribution presidency.”

 

US-Pakistan strategic cooperation

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington looked forward to exploring cooperation with Pakistan on critical minerals and hydrocarbons, with his comments coming in a statement issued by the State Department on Pakistan's Independence Day.

Washington and Islamabad hailed a trade deal last month, which Pakistan said would result in lower tariffs and increased investment.

Pakistan's Commerce Minister Jam Kamal has said Islamabad will offer US businesses opportunities to invest in mining projects primarily in the southwestern Baluchistan province through joint ventures with local companies, providing concessions such as lease grants.

The province is home to key mining projects, including Reko Diq, run by mining firm Barrick Gold and believed to be one of the world's largest gold and copper mines.

"We look forward to exploring new areas of economic cooperation, including critical minerals and hydrocarbons, and fostering dynamic business partnerships," Rubio said late on Wednesday.

"The United States deeply appreciates Pakistan's engagement on counterterrorism and trade."

Before President Donald Trump's administration, Islamabad's relationship with Washington had cooled in recent years, as the US drew closer to Pakistan's traditional adversary India to counter China's rise, among other factors.

Washington also resented Islamabad over Afghanistan, especially under former President Joe Biden's administration, which oversaw a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the takeover of the country by the Taliban insurgency that Washington accused Islamabad of backing. Pakistan denied the charge.

In recent months, Washington's ties with Islamabad have improved. Trump took credit for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the Asian neighbors engaged in hostilities in May following an April attack in India-administered Kashmir.

Pakistan praised Trump while India maintained that New Delhi and Islamabad should resolve their issues directly without outside involvement.

The US and Pakistan held the latest round of counterterrorism talks in Islamabad on Tuesday. Washington has designated separatist militant group Baluchistan Liberation Army as a "foreign terrorist organization."

"The US-Pakistan counterterrorism dialogue joint statement is one of the most positive and effusive I've seen from these two countries on CT for quite a few years," Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based South Asia analyst and writer for Foreign Policy magazine, said.

 

India: Calls to boycott US goods

From McDonald's and Coca-Cola to Amazon and Apple, US-based multinationals are facing calls for a boycott in India as business executives and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's supporters stoke anti-American sentiment to protest against US tariffs, reports Reuters.

India, the world's most populous nation, is a key market for American brands that have rapidly expanded to target a growing base of affluent consumers, many of whom remain infatuated with international labels seen as symbols of moving up in life.

India, for example, is the biggest market by users for Meta's WhatsApp and Domino's has more restaurants than any other brand in the country. Beverages like Pepsi and Coca-Cola often dominate store shelves, and people still queue up when a new Apple store opens or a Starbucks cafe doles out discounts.

Although there was no immediate indication of sales being hit, there's a growing chorus both on social media and offline to buy local and ditch American products after Donald Trump imposed a 50% tariff on goods from India, rattling exporters and damaging ties between New Delhi and Washington.

Manish Chowdhary, co-founder of India's Wow Skin Science, took to LinkedIn with a video message urging support for farmers and startups to make "Made in India" a "global obsession," and to learn from South Korea whose food and beauty products are famous worldwide.

"We have lined up for products from thousands of miles away. We have proudly spent on brands that we don't own, while our own makers fight for attention in their own country," he said.

Rahm Shastry, CEO of India's DriveU, which provides a car driver on call service, wrote on LinkedIn: "India should have its own home-grown Twitter/ Google/ YouTube/ WhatsApp/ FB -- like China has."

To be fair, Indian retail companies give foreign brands like Starbucks stiff competition in the domestic market, but going global has been a challenge.

Indian IT services firms, however, have become deeply entrenched in the global economy, with the likes of TCS and Infosys providing software solutions to clients world over.

On Sunday, Modi made a "special appeal" for becoming self-reliant, telling a gathering in Bengaluru that Indian technology companies made products for the world but "now is the time for us to give more priority to India's needs."

 

 

 

 

 

Trump threats to India may prove hoax calls

The crude oil market's rather sanguine reaction to the US threats to India over its continued purchases of Russian oil is effectively a bet that very little will actually happen, reports Reuters.

President Donald Trump cited India's imports of Russian crude when imposing an additional 25% tariff on imports from India on August 06, which is due to take effect on August 28.

If the new tariff rate does come into place, it will take the rate for some Indian goods to as much as 50%, a level high enough to effectively end US imports from India, which totalled nearly US$87 billion in 2024.

As with everything related to Trump, it pays to be cautious given his track record of backflips and pivots.

It's also not exactly clear what Trump is ultimately seeking, although it does seem that in the short term he wants to increase his leverage with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of their planned meeting in Alaska this week, and he's using India to achieve this.

Whether Trump follows through on his additional tariffs on India remains uncertain, although the chances of a peace deal in Ukraine seem remote, which means the best path for India to avoid the tariffs would be to acquiesce and stop buying Russian oil.

But this is an outcome that simply isn't being reflected in current crude oil prices.

Global benchmark Brent futures have weakened since Trump's announcement of higher tariffs on India, dropping as low as US$65.81 a barrel in early Asian trade on Monday, the lowest level in two months.

This is a price that entirely discounts any threat to global supplies, and assumes that India will either continue buying Russian crude at current volumes, or be able to easily source suitable replacements without tightening the global market.

The track record of the crude oil market is somewhat remarkable in that it quickly adapts to new geopolitical realities and any price spikes tend to be short-lived.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sent crude prices hurtling toward US$150 a barrel as European and other Western countries pulled back from buying Russian crude.

But what Trump is proposing now is somewhat different. It appears he wants to cut Russian barrels out of the market in order to put financial pressure on Moscow to cut a deal over Ukraine.

There are effectively only two major buyers for Russian crude, India and China.

China, the world's biggest crude importer, has more leverage with Trump given US and Western reliance on its refined critical and other minerals, and therefore is less able to be coerced into ending its imports of Russian oil.

India is in a less strong position, especially private refiners like Reliance Industries which will want to keep business relationships and access to Western economies.

India imported about 1.8 million barrels per day of Russian crude in the first half of the year, or about 37% of its total, according to data compiled by commodity analysts Kpler.

About 90% of its Russian imports came from Russia's European ports and was mainly Urals grade.

This is a medium sour crude and it would raise challenges for Indian refiners if they sought to replace all their Urals imports with similar grades from other suppliers.

There are some Middle Eastern grades of similar quality, such as Saudi Arabia's Arab Light and Iraq's Basrah Light, but it would likely boost prices if India were to seek more of these crudes.

If Chinese refiners were able to take the bulk of Russian crude given up by India, it may allow for a re-shuffling of flows, but that would not appear to be what Trump wants.

Trump and his advisers may believe there is enough spare crude production capacity in the United States and elsewhere to handle the loss of up to 2 million bpd of Russian supplies.

But testing that theory may well lead to higher prices, especially for certain types of medium crudes which would be in short supply.

It's simplistic to say that higher US output can supply India's refiners, as this would mean those refiners would have to be willing to accept a different mix of refined products, including producing less diesel, as US light crudes tend to make more products such as gasoline.

For now the crude oil market is assuming that the Trump/ India/ Russia situation will end as another TACO, the acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out.

But the reality is likely to be slightly messier, as some Indian refiners pull back from importing from Russia, some Chinese refiners may buy more and once again the oil market goes on a geopolitical merry-go-round.

  

Netanyahu says decision made for full occupation of Gaza

According to media reports, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed that a decision has been made for the full occupation of the Gaza Strip, including military operations in areas where hostages are believed to be held.

"We're committing to free Gaza from the tyranny of these terrorists," Netanyahu said in a video address posted on X. "Many Gazans come to us and they say 'Help us be free. Help us be free of Hamas.' and that's what we will do."

The Prime Minister's Office also said in a message to the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, "If this does not suit you, then you should resign."

Netanyahu and Zamir have been at odds with the way the war in Gaza is being fought, with those tensions "having reached their peak" on Monday, according to a report on Israeli Army Radio.

Netanyahu's announcement comes after months of faltering talks in Qatar between Israel and Hamas as mediators scramble to overcome hurdles from both sides and reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal as the humanitarian situation in the Strip deteriorates.

That proposal, in the form of a 32-page academic paper titled "Gaza Security and Recovery Program, How Should The Day After Look Like," was authored by the Israel Defence and Security Forum, a group of over 35,000 Israeli security force reservists and the think tank Jerusalem Centre for Security and Foreign Affairs.

The study was presented to the Israeli government at an unknown date and represents one of the future options currently under consideration by Israel for the Gaza Strip.

The proposal entails economic reconstruction, building infrastructure and, as the authors of the study say, "uprooting a murderous ideology," also labelled as a process of "de-Nazification."

"In order to prepare for the new state of affairs, even though the results of the military operation have not yet been achieved, it is necessary to prepare an orderly plan for the control of the Gaza Strip after the fall of Hamas," the document reads.

The plan explicitly excludes the sovereignty of Palestine, or more specifically the Palestinian Authority (PA), or the presence of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a source for humanitarian aid.

"No less serious is the foolhardy idea of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza," the document reads.

However, it is not said in the document whether Israel intends to annex the Strip, although it is clearly stated that Israeli military (IDF) wants to have a greater say in the overall administration of Gaza's affairs.

Netanyahu's comments on Monday contradict those of Israel's Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa'ar, who told Euronews last month that Israel doesn’t have "any intention" of controlling Gaza long term.

"We don't have any intention to do so," Sa’ar said. "With regard to the Gaza Strip, we have only security concerns."

"We will implement President Trump's plan, it is a good plan and makes a difference, and it means something very simple, that the residents of Gaza who want to leave can leave," Netanyahu said, referring to a proposal floated by Trump of resettling all of Gaza's population in other countries.

The plan was met with horror by regional countries and international humanitarian groups, who said the forced resettlement of the population would be a violation of international law.

Trump said he had plans to re-develop Gaza in the "Riviera of the Middle East" with upmarket resort hotels and shopping malls.

Trump has turned US into a rogue and pariah state

The United States under the leadership of Donald Trump is almost at odds with all countries except Israel. The Trump administration is also defying established international institutions, such as UNESCO and the International Criminal Court.

Trump’s repeated and reckless remarks that Canada should be the 51st state of the United States and that his country may take over Greenland by force if necessary, his proposal to own the Gaza Strip, his reversal of any decision or step to rein in on the climate change, and his illusion that all countries are taking advantage of the US have made Trump to look outlandish.

His tactless withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has now turned into a global security headache as his administration and Israel launched military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

The strikes, which are an act of aggression and illegal under international law, could have led to environmental catastrophes, even though some experts still don’t rule out the possibility of nuclear disasters.

Speaking at a forum at the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran about 18 years ago, Germany’s Joseph Joschka said the world would descend into chaos without the United States. However, the United States itself is now pushing the world toward anarchy and lawlessness.

In his term as president, he started defying international rules and regulations. He recognized Jerusalem (al-Quds) as Israel’s capital, moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the city, and recognized the Syrian Golan Heights as Israel’s territory, pulled out of the JCPOA, the Paris climate agreement, and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

His recognition of occupied Jerusalem as Israel’s capital took place while the international community was and is still working, of course with a lesser hope, on establishing a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In his first term, it was thought that Trump was inexperienced and was living in his dreams because he had not served in top managerial posts such as a mayor, governor, or served in Senate before being catapulted to the powerful post of president. Yet, he began his second presidency after a four-year hiatus with more thoughtless remarks and actions.

On the first day of his presidency in the second term, Trump signed an executive order to again withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement that the country had joined in during the Joe Biden presidency. In his announcement, Trump stated that “as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the Paris agreement.”

His remarks that Canada should join the US were first taken as a joke. However, after repetition it become clear that he was serious in his statements. In his newest remarks, Trump told Fox News, "Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state, okay? It really should, because Canada relies entirely on the United States. We don't rely on Canada."

His threat of annexing Greenland, that caused transatlantic division, caused shivers in the bones of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen prompting her to visit Berlin, Paris, and Brussels in late January with a focus on fostering "European unity". In Brussels, she met with former NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The Trump administration also introduced sanctions on the UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese for Palestine as an outspoken critic of Israel's military offensive in Gaza. Intolerant of Albanese’s criticism of companies such as arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin for selling weapons, and tech firms Alphabet, IBM, Microsoft and Amazon for providing technology which allows Israel to track and target Palestinians, provoked the US to resort to the repetitive old policy of accusing the UN official of being ant-Semitic.

On July 21, in his latest rash decision, Trump pulled the US out of the UN culture and education agency UNESCO, repeating a move he had already ordered during his first term, which had also been reversed under Biden.  Trump justified the decision by claiming that the UN body is anti-Semitic.

All these moves are portraying the United States as a bully, rogue and pariah state that will make countries, even American friends, to rethink the quality of their relations with Washington.

 

Trump tariffs wreaking havoc in Brazilian citrus belt

According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump's plan to impose a new 50% tariff on all Brazilian products from August 01, 2025 could devastate the South American nation's citrus belt, as factories scale back production and orange farmers consider leaving fruit to rot amid a sharp drop in prices.

"You are not going to spend money to harvest and not have anyone to sell to," said grower Fabricio Vidal, from his farm in Formoso, in the state of Minas Gerais.

The new tariffs could make it impossible for his fruit to enter the United States, which buys 42% of the orange juice exported from Brazil, a trade worth around US$1.31 billion in the season ending last June.

This month, orange prices in Brazil dropped to 44 reais (US$8) a box, almost half of what they were a year ago, according to the widely followed Cepea index from the University of Sao Paulo, illustrating how Trump's disruptive trade policies can sow chaos even before enacted.

"As the day approaches in which tariffs will come into effect, anxiety increases about what might happen," Ibiapaba Netto, the head of orange juice exporter lobby CitrusBR, told Reuters in an interview.

US orange juice production dropped to its lowest level in half a century in the 2024/25 harvest, with output estimated at 108.3 million gallons, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture cited by Cepea, which shows imports will represent 90% of US supplies through September.

US consumers will bear the brunt along with Brazilian farmers. An astounding half of the orange juice Americans drink comes from Brazil under household brands such as Tropicana, Minute Maid and Simply Orange.

Brazil, which produces 80% of the world's orange juice, will be hard to replace, too.

The US has become more dependent on orange juice imports in recent years due to the "citrus greening" crop disease, hurricanes and spells of freezing temperatures.

But the new tariff on Brazilian imports represents a 533% increase over the US$415 per ton duty levied on the country's juice now.

Last Friday, Johanna Foods, a New Jersey-based producer and distributor of fruit juices, challenged in court the proposed tariffs on Brazilian orange juice, claiming they would cause "significant and direct financial harm" to the company and US consumers.

The tariffs may also spell trouble for Coca Cola and Pepsi, which account for some 60% of the orange juice sold in the United States, Netto said.

Brazil won't find it easy to replace American consumers, some of the most avid orange juice drinkers in the world.

Typically, higher-income countries import orange juice, limiting Brazil's potential reach into new markets. Brazilian orange juice is only sold to some 40 nations – representing about a third of the destinations that buy Brazilian meat, for example, according to trade data.

CitrusBR's Netto noted that hefty duties in markets such as India and South Korea, as well as low household income in China, have hampered trade with Brazil.

The European Union, in turn, already buys some 52% of Brazil's total exports, making it unlikely that countries there will make up for lost business with the US.

One would be to export Brazilian orange juice through Costa Rica, which some companies already do to avoid the current duties, said Arlindo de Salvo, an independent orange consultant. But it is unclear whether exporters will be able to pull it off once the new levy starts being enforced.

As companies struggle to find new paths to consumers, farmers in Formoso fear the worst. Prices have already dropped to about a third of what growers were paid at this time last year, farmers said, making the cost of picking oranges hardly worth the trouble.

Grower Ederson Kogler said that the only solution would be to find other markets. But, he added, "These are things that don't happen overnight."

Gaza ceasefire tests Trump-Netanyahu bond

US President Donald Trump's push for a ceasefire in Gaza is testing his bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That relationship was on full display this week during the Israeli leader’s third visit to Washington this year, reports The Hill.

Even when Trump and Netanyahu have diverged in private, they have usually remained publicly in lockstep — apart from Trump dropping a bomb last month during the shaky start of the Israel-Iran ceasefire.

As Trump turns his attention to ending the fighting in Gaza, Netanyahu risks drawing the president’s ire once again. 

“The president gets frustrated because he wants this victory of having brought peace,” said Elliott Abrams, US special representative for Iran during Trump’s first term. 

“I think when it comes to Gaza, he recognizes that the problem is Hamas. So, it’s frustrating to him that he can’t get the hostages out and get a ceasefire, but he’s not blaming Netanyahu.”

Trump and his top envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, say a deal is close. 

“There’s nothing definite about war, Gaza and all the other places, there’s a very good chance of a settlement, an agreement this week, maybe next week if not,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday when asked about the progress of his talks with Netanyahu. 

Witkoff said Tuesday the two sides were now in “proximity talks,” having whittled their disagreements down to one point.

A Palestinian source told the BBC that talks in Doha have stalled over disagreements on the delivery of humanitarian aid and Israeli military withdrawal.  

It’s not clear whether Trump will respect Netanyahu’s red lines — getting Hamas out of Gaza and Israel retaining freedom of military operation — or push the Israeli leader to accept a deal that would infuriate his right-wing allies and risk toppling his governing coalition.

Trump has repeatedly broken with Netanyahu’s desires in the Middle East, as demonstrated by his dropping sanctions on Syria’s new government and engaging in direct talks with Iran. Yet this week the president was notably deferential to his Israeli counterpart on questions about the future of Gaza. 

“Trump is the only US president who in his first 6 months has both sidelined Israel and made it central to his successes and policies,” Aaron David Miller, a veteran Middle East negotiator and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote Monday on the social platform X.

“The Trump-Netanyahu bromance will last until it doesn’t.”