Netanyahu’s Washington Visit: Strategy, Sponsorship, and Shared Responsibility

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is being portrayed as routine strategic coordination. In reality, it reflects a deeper convergence in which Washington is no longer a distant mediator but a principal enabler of Israel’s expanding regional agenda. The visit highlights not only Israeli ambitions, but also America’s sustained military, intelligence, and diplomatic sponsorship.

At the center of discussions lies Iran. Israel’s objective has clearly shifted from containment to systematic degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities—nuclear latency, missile production, drones, and proxy networks. This transition would be impossible without continued US arms supplies, intelligence sharing, and political cover. While Washington publicly warns against escalation, its steady flow of advanced weaponry and repeated shielding of Israel at international forums effectively signal consent rather than restraint.

Regime change in Iran remains a sensitive phrase in Washington, but prolonged destabilization appears to be the preferred substitute. Cyber operations, economic pressure, and covert actions designed to exploit Iran’s internal vulnerabilities fit comfortably within a grey-zone strategy that allows plausible deniability. Western intelligence agencies may not openly own such operations, but coordination and silence often speak louder than formal declarations.

Saudi normalization remains another Israeli objective, though the Gaza war has made recognition politically costly for Riyadh. Netanyahu’s calculation is that the United States can again absorb the pressure—offering security guarantees and strategic incentives to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In doing so, Washington risks further eroding its credibility across the Arab and Muslim world by prioritizing geopolitical bargains over public sentiment.

In Syria, Israel already enjoys near-unrestricted freedom of action, facilitated by US political backing and Russia’s strategic distraction. The goal now is to institutionalize strategic denial—preventing Iranian re-entrenchment and treating Syrian sovereignty as expendable in the pursuit of regional dominance.

Lebanon presents a similar pattern. Israel’s posture toward Hezbollah appears to be shifting from deterrence to attrition, with Washington focused on managing escalation rather than preventing it. Proposals to revise UNIFIL’s mandate or force Hezbollah north of the Litani risk dragging Lebanon into another devastating cycle.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s visit is less about crisis management than about reaffirming a permissive American environment—one that allows Israel to act forcefully while the United States absorbs diplomatic costs. As Washington continues to arm, shield, and enable Israel, it also assumes responsibility for the instability that follows.

Israel to Seek US Help in Another Round of War with Iran

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Mar-a-Lago to meet US President Donald Trump, reports suggest the visit is less about diplomacy and more about reigniting confrontation with Iran. Despite growing friction between Netanyahu and Trump’s advisers, the Israeli leader is expected to press Washington to support, or directly participate in, another round of military escalation.

According to NBC News, Netanyahu plans to argue that Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program presents an urgent threat requiring swift action. He is expected to present Trump with options for US involvement in potential military operations. Analysts, however, view this shift in emphasis with skepticism. Sina Toossi of the Center for International Policy notes that Netanyahu’s focus on missiles appears to be an attempt to manufacture a new casus belli after the collapse of the nuclear argument.

This inconsistency has drawn criticism even within Israel. Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s center-left Democrats party, questioned how Netanyahu could declare a “historic victory” last June—claiming Iran’s nuclear threat and missile capabilities had been neutralized—only to return months later seeking US approval to strike Iran again.

Iran will not be the only issue on the agenda. Israeli officials indicate Netanyahu will also push Trump to harden his stance on Gaza, demanding Hamas’s disarmament before any further Israeli troop withdrawals under the second phase of Trump’s peace plan. This comes amid mounting US frustration over Israel’s repeated violations of the October ceasefire.

While Trump has sought to cultivate a peacemaker image, Israel’s actions on the ground have complicated that narrative. Near-daily Israeli strikes have reportedly killed over 400 Palestinians, while a sustained blockade has left hundreds of thousands displaced, exposed to winter conditions, and deprived of adequate food, fuel, and medicine.

Trump’s advisers, according to Axios, increasingly fear Netanyahu is deliberately undermining the peace process to keep the conflict alive. Beyond Gaza, Netanyahu is also expected to seek continued US backing for Israel’s territorial expansion in Syria and renewed latitude to escalate against Hezbollah in Lebanon—both areas where Israeli actions have already strained US policy objectives.

As Toossi argues, Netanyahu’s visit reflects not a strategy to resolve crises but to defer accountability. The meeting’s outcome will test whether Washington continues to underwrite open-ended escalation—or begins to draw clearer limits around Israel’s regional ambitions.

From Superpowers to a Super Syndicate

This writeup discusses a proposition that may appear unconventional but is rooted in long-term observation. After more than a decade of writing on geopolitics in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, it has become increasingly evident that the traditional concept of regional and global superpowers no longer adequately explains contemporary international politics. Power today is exercised less through overt state rivalry and more through a coordinated, transnational arrangement that may best be described as a Super Syndicate.

This emerging order is not ideological in nature. It is driven by strategic convergence among states possessing advanced intelligence capabilities and sustained by powerful economic interests. The principal beneficiaries include the global military-industrial complex, energy exploration and production companies, major financial institutions, and international shipping networks. These actors provide the financial backbone, while intelligence agencies of aligned states facilitate operational coordination, risk management, and narrative control.

Unlike the bipolar or unipolar systems of the past, the Super Syndicate does not thrive on direct confrontation among its members. Instead, it functions through a tacit division of strategic space. Countries and regions are assigned defined spheres of influence, minimizing direct competition while maximizing collective gain. Conflicts, when they occur, are managed rather than resolved, ensuring continuity rather than closure.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict illustrates this dynamic. While Ukraine has suffered extensive human and infrastructural losses and Europe has faced economic and security disruptions, the broader global system remains intact. Arms manufacturers have recorded unprecedented growth, energy markets have been restructured, and financial systems have adjusted without systemic shock. The conflict persists not because resolution is unattainable, but because prolonged instability serves entrenched interests.

The situation in Gaza further exposes the asymmetries of this order. Israel’s military campaign has continued despite widespread international criticism and humanitarian concern. Yet institutional accountability has remained elusive. This is not merely a failure of diplomacy; it reflects a structural imbalance in which certain actors operate with effective immunity due to their strategic positioning within the broader system.

Iran’s experience offers additional insight. Despite its aspirations for regional influence, Tehran has remained constrained by prolonged economic sanctions. The recent escalation involving Israel revealed a notable regional alignment. Several Middle Eastern states, while publicly maintaining neutrality, actively supported Israel through intelligence cooperation and defensive measures. The episode underscored the limitations faced by states attempting to operate outside the prevailing strategic framework.

For Pakistan and other developing states, these trends carry important implications. Sovereignty in the contemporary international system is increasingly conditional, shaped by economic leverage, intelligence alignment, and narrative positioning rather than formal equality among states. Moral appeals and legal arguments, while important, rarely translate into decisive outcomes without strategic backing.

The conclusion is not conspiratorial but analytical - global power is no longer exercised solely through identifiable superpowers. It is mediated through a coordinated network of state and non-state actors whose interests converge across military, financial, and strategic domains. Recognizing this reality is essential for policymakers, analysts, and scholars seeking to navigate an international order that is less visible, more complex, and increasingly resistant to traditional frameworks of analysis.

Trump Keen on Turning Gaza into His Personal Property

Nothing has been more destructive for Gaza over the past two years than the bombs dropped with unwavering Western backing. Yet nothing has been more cynical than Donald Trump’s repeated appearances promoting his so-called “peace plan” for the besieged Strip. Wrapped in the language of diplomacy, Trump’s proposal reeks not of reconciliation but of ownership—an attempt to treat Gaza as a geopolitical asset to be managed, traded, and reshaped according to American convenience.

While Trump speaks of calm and reconstruction, Israeli aggression continues almost daily, violating ceasefire understandings with impunity. Washington, far from being an honest broker, remains the principal enabler—arming, financing, and diplomatically shielding Israel while performing concern for Palestinian suffering. Trump’s rhetoric cannot conceal this contradiction. Peace cannot be brokered by those underwriting the war.

As large-scale bombing subsided, a new phase of pressure emerged. Gaza became the subject of maps, crossings, donor conferences, and discussions about “the day after.” Central to this discourse is the idea of a “peace council,” international forces, and a transitional governing arrangement imposed from outside. These proposals move slowly because they are designed not to end occupation, but to recycle Western control while avoiding a frank admission of failure.

Trump’s plan—Israeli withdrawal in exchange for Hamas’s removal, followed by an internationally supervised administration—lays bare a colonial mindset. Gaza is reduced to a problem to be solved, not a people with rights. Palestinians are expected to accept a future negotiated in Washington, as if sovereignty were a favor Trump can dispense. The voices of those who endured siege and destruction are conspicuously absent.

What drives Trump’s sudden peace enthusiasm is not compassion but damage control. After a prolonged and devastating war, Israel failed to impose its will militarily, exposing the limits of US-backed force. The myth of invincibility collapsed, and global opinion shifted sharply. Trump now seeks to repackage defeat as diplomacy, positioning himself as a peacemaker while rescuing a deeply tarnished ally.

Reconstruction, under this framework, becomes another weapon. Aid is offered conditionally, tied to disarmament and political submission. This transactional logic—treating freedom as a commodity—has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Gazans refuse to be reduced to property or a bargaining chip. Their resistance has transformed from a marginal humanitarian case into a global symbol exposing Western hypocrisy. Trump may imagine himself redesigning the region, but Gaza stands as a reminder that peace imposed through power, money, or arrogance is not peace at all.

When Arms Thrive - Humanity Pays Price

As missiles streak across skies from Gaza to Ukraine, another explosion is happening far from the battlefield — an explosion of profits. The global arms industry has just booked its highest revenue ever recorded, turning geopolitical turmoil into an unprecedented financial windfall.

According to the latest Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report, the world’s top 100 arms manufacturers earned a staggering US$679 billion in 2024 — the highest figure in more than 35 years of monitoring. The trend is unmistakable - the more insecure the world becomes, the richer the military-industrial complex grows.

SIPRI notes that rising geopolitical tensions, nuclear weapons modernization, and sustained conflicts drove the bulk of the increase. A remarkable 77 of the Top 100 companies boosted their revenues, and 42 recorded double-digit growth.

For the first time since 2018, all five of the largest defence companies — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and General Dynamics — expanded their earnings simultaneously, raking in a combined US$215 billion. Four of these giants are American; the fifth is British.

Europe and North America led the surge, but increases were registered across almost all regions — except Asia and Oceania, where Chinese industry struggles dragged totals down.

One of the most troubling profit spikes came from the Gaza war. Israel’s leading arms producers — Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems — collectively increased revenues by 16% to US$16.2 billion, as the assault on the enclave killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and flattened civilian infrastructure. The numbers expose a stark reality - war zones are becoming revenue streams.

In the United States — responsible for nearly half of all global arms revenue — a new entrant emerged. SpaceX, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, entered the Top 100 for the first time, more than doubling its arms revenue to US$1.8 billion. Musk’s deep alignment with US political power, including major donations to Donald Trump and Republican candidates, underscores how closely defence profits now intertwine with political influence.

The SIPRI figures raise a sobering question, when conflict becomes profitable, who is truly invested in peace?

Gazans Being Buried Under Broken Promises

At times, one gets a chilling feeling that Gazans have been buried alive under the rubbles—not only of their shattered homes, but of the world’s broken promises. The Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was marketed as a bold diplomatic breakthrough, complete with plans for an interim administrative setup backed by a handful of states. But what followed was not diplomacy—it was a carefully choreographed deception.

The promised administrative structure, which was supposed to stabilize governance and allow humanitarian breathing space, has never moved beyond press statements and political theatrics. Nothing substantial has been established. No credible mechanism has been deployed. The so-called “international support” evaporated the moment cameras were switched off. The agreement now stands as an empty shell, useful only for speeches and selective justification.

Meanwhile, Israel has shown absolute contempt for the spirit and substance of the ceasefire. The killings have not stopped; on the contrary these have intensified. Entire blocks have been vaporized. Families have vanished under collapsed concrete. The word “ceasefire” has become a cruel joke—a hollow term used to mask a campaign that continues with alarming impunity.

Even more disturbing is Israel’s pursuit of an anti-Hamas armed group inside Gaza. Instead of honoring the agreement, Israel appears determined to reengineer Gaza’s internal dynamics through coercion and proxy militias. This is not conflict resolution; it is social engineering under the guise of security.

For Gazans—already trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—the message is brutally clear: no agreement will protect them, no international promise will be honored, and no external actor will intervene before the next bombardment begins. The world watches, counts casualties, and moves on.

What remains today is not just rubble, but a moral collapse. A ceasefire that exists only on paper, an international community performing selective outrage, and a population slowly erased from global consciousness.

Gaza does not need more signatures. It needs protection. It needs enforcement. And above all, it needs a world willing to acknowledge that “ceasefire” cannot coexist with continued annihilation.

Two state solution requires a clear and serious path, says MBS

Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday reiterated the importance of establishing a clear and credible path toward a two-state solution, stressing the need for a defined plan to resolve the Palestinian issue.

Speaking at a joint press conference with US President Donald Trump at the White House, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia seeks peace for Palestinians, Israelis, and the wider region, noting that there is a lot of work underway with the United States.

He praised President Trump’s efforts to advance peace and underscored the vitality of the Saudi-US relationship, saying Riyadh will continue to work closely with Washington.

He added that while some had attempted to undermine ties between the two countries, Saudi Arabia remains committed to strengthening the relationship.

The Crown Prince described the partnership as deep and enduring saying. “We have worked together for many decades, and today marks a historic day for the future of our relationship.”

He also emphasized the importance of investing with the United States, calling it an important nation with a strong economy.

On economic cooperation, the Crown Prince announced that Saudi investments in the United States will rise to nearly US$1 trillion, saying the agreements signed on Tuesday represent the largest investment expansion in the history of the bilateral relationship.

He noted the strong demand to support and empower key sectors, adding that the Kingdom’s investments span multiple areas that connect Saudi Arabia with the United States.

Addressing regional issues, the Crown Prince said it would be positive for the region to reach a peace agreement with Iran.

He also highlighted the Kingdom’s long-term vision in adopting advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.

For his part, President Trump welcomed the Crown Prince, describing him as a close friend and “an impressive man on every level” who enjoys great respect at the White House.

Trump also praised Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman, saying he had told the monarch that your son is truly exceptional.

Trump thanked Saudi Arabia for investing US$600 billion in the United States and expressed hope that the figure would reach US$1 trillion.

He said cooperation with the Kingdom would create new job opportunities and described the Saudi-US alliance as great and strategic.

Trump also announced that the United States will sell F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, calling the Kingdom a strong and important ally.

He added that the Crown Prince had played a significant role in strengthening ties with Syria and said he sees potential for a civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia.

“The relationship with Saudi Arabia is at its best,” Trump said, adding, “I love the Kingdom, and they love America. Saudi Arabia is a partner that believes in America’s success.”

 

A Careful Moment for US–Saudi Diplomacy

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s upcoming visit to Washington promises to be one of the most closely watched diplomatic engagements of the year. President Donald Trump has already framed the event as an occasion to “honor Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince,” signalling both warmth and strategic intent. The White House is preparing pageantry normally reserved for a full state visit—an unmistakable sign of the value Washington places on Riyadh. Yet amid the ceremony and high-level meetings, a measure of prudence will serve both sides well.

The Crown Prince’s itinerary reflects the depth of the US–Saudi partnership. Tuesday begins with a formal welcome on the South Lawn, followed by an Oval Office meeting and the signing of important economic and defense agreements. A high-profile dinner in the East Room and a major US-Saudi Business Council gathering the following day underscore the widening scope of cooperation. President Trump has repeatedly spoken of his “very special relationship” with Prince Mohammed, calling him an “incredible man” and even a friend. That message alone sets a favourable tone for the visit.

However, American political culture is uniquely sensitive to past controversies—particularly those amplified by the media. The tragic killing of a Saudi journalist several years ago generated intense debate in Washington, some of which still lingers in parts of the political class. Although the matter has long been addressed at the state level, it has not entirely faded from public memory. In such an environment, even the most ceremonial visits can attract renewed scrutiny.

It is in this context that a gentle reminder becomes relevant - diplomatic engagements at this level benefit immensely from careful messaging, coordinated outreach, and an awareness of how quickly narratives can be revived. Such caution is not a criticism of either leader; rather, it is a recognition of the complexities of contemporary geopolitics.

Ultimately, the Crown Prince’s visit offers a valuable opportunity to reaffirm a partnership that remains central to Gulf stability and global economic cooperation. By keeping the focus on shared goals and forward-looking dialogue, both Riyadh and Washington can ensure that the visit strengthens ties, reinforces mutual respect, and avoids distractions that serve neither side.

Trump’s Admission Strengthens Iranian Case Against US

Donald Trump’s casual admission that he personally oversaw Israel’s strikes on Iran has reopened a legal and diplomatic front Washington had been trying hard to keep shut. What the administration denied in real time, Trump confirmed with ease — turning a boastful remark into potential evidence. In a region where narratives matter and legal battles increasingly shape geopolitical outcomes, Trump’s words have handed Tehran an unexpected opening.

Trump’s claim that he was “very much in charge” of the Israeli attacks carries serious implications. In the US, suspects are routinely warned that anything they say can be used against them. Yet some assume this principle does not apply to those in power. There was a reason the administration initially distanced itself from the June 13 strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted Israel had acted “unilaterally” and that the US was not involved. But Trump, seeking to inflate his own role, publicly claimed responsibility in early November, ignoring the consequences.

Tehran reacted immediately. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said it had always been clear the US participated in what Iran called Israel’s “crime of aggression.” The 12-day campaign ended on June 24, leaving more than 1,100 Iranians dead, including military commanders, scientists and civilians. Key nuclear, military and civilian sites were hit.

Analysts believe the offensive stopped only after Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes caused significant damage in Israel and hit a US airbase in Qatar. Without that response, they argue the strikes could have continued until Iran was destabilized.

Iran quickly escalated the matter to the United Nations. Its ambassador urged the Security Council to hold Washington accountable. Days later, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, calling the strikes violations of the UN Charter, IAEA resolutions and Security Council Resolution 487.

He said responsibility rests with Israel and the US, “which – in line with Trump’s admission – directed and controlled the aggression.” Iran formally demanded full reparation for material and moral damages.

International law expert Dr. Hesamuddin Boroumand said Trump’s admission amounts to acknowledgment, giving Iran grounds to pursue compensation through UN mechanisms. He added that Iran could also approach the UN Human Rights Council, as attacks on civilian sites violated the Geneva Conventions and the fundamental right to life, creating criminal responsibility for US officials involved.

A recent precedent exists: in South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ, statements by Israeli officials were used as evidence. The ICC later cited some of those remarks when issuing arrest warrants, including for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Trump’s words, offered casually, may now carry weight far beyond domestic politics — potentially reviving Iran’s case against the United States on the global stage.

Hamas Is Still Alive — and Waiting for Everyone Else to Catch Up

The assumption in many Western and regional capitals that Hamas has been politically or administratively dismantled in Gaza is proving premature. If anything, the prolonged delays in implementing the so-called Trump plan have created the very vacuum in which Hamas thrives. As one analyst put it, “the longer the international community waits, the more entrenched Hamas becomes.” And Gaza today is a textbook example of how power fills empty spaces faster than diplomacy does.

Washington insists there is “progress” toward forming a multinational force and a new governing arrangement for Gaza. A US State Department spokesperson even framed Hamas’ alleged taxation and fee collection as proof that “Hamas cannot and will not govern Gaza.” Yet on the ground, the opposite appears to be unfolding. Hamas is not only governing but quietly reassembling the skeleton of its pre-war administration.

The Palestinian Authority, eager for a return to relevancy, wants a formal role in Gaza’s next chapter. Israel wants no such thing. Fatah and Hamas, meanwhile, cannot even agree on what the “next chapter” should look like. In this fog of indecision, Hamas behaves like the only actor with a plan — even if that plan is merely survival until everyone else stops arguing.

Local dynamics tell an even clearer story. Hamas continues to monitor goods entering the enclave, operates checkpoints, questions truck drivers, and fines price manipulators. While this is far from the full taxation regime it once imposed, it signals something crucial, administrative muscle memory. Even a senior Gaza food importer noted that Hamas “sees and records everything,” a polite way of saying that the movement’s bureaucratic instincts remain intact.

Financially, Hamas has kept its payroll alive — standardizing salaries at 1,500 shekels per month and drawing, diplomats say, on stockpiled cash reserves. It has replaced killed regional governors and filled the seats of 11 politburo members who died in the war. Thousands of its employees, including police, remain ready to work under any “new administration,” a phrase that increasingly sounds theoretical.

On the Israeli-controlled side, small Palestinian factions opposing Hamas have emerged, but their presence is symbolic rather than structural. They are irritants, not alternatives.

Gaza’s civilians continue to bear the brunt of this unresolved power struggle. Aid flows have improved since the ceasefire, but daily life remains harsh, prices remain punishing, and income has evaporated. In such conditions, the governing force that remains visible — even minimally — begins to look like the only functioning authority.

Gaza activist Mustafa Ibrahim summed up the situation with brutal clarity, Hamas is exploiting delays “to bolster its rule.” The unanswered question is whether anyone can prevent that. The more realistic question may be whether anyone is even ready to try.

For now, one conclusion is unavoidable - Hamas is still alive — politically, administratively, and strategically. And unless an alternative emerges with both legitimacy and capacity, Hamas will remain exactly where it has always been — filling the void left by others’ hesitation.

US Anti-Hezbollah Campaign Can Backfire in Lebanon

Washington’s renewed intrusion into Lebanon’s internal affairs exposes once again its misplaced confidence in engineering political outcomes abroad. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the United States is attempting to redraw Lebanon’s power map — an effort as unrealistic as it is destabilizing.

A high-level US delegation’s visit to Beirut, led by senior counterterrorism officials, carried a familiar ultimatum: Lebanon’s progress depends on disarming Hezbollah and cutting its ties with Iran. The message was cloaked in diplomatic niceties about freedom and prosperity, but the intent was blunt coercion. For a country still grappling with economic collapse and political paralysis, Washington’s prescriptions sound less like support and more like dictates.

Hezbollah has made its position unmistakably clear. Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared that Israel’s aggression “cannot persist” and that his movement “will not abandon its weapons.”

The statement, echoed across Lebanese media, was not mere rhetoric — it was a reminder that Hezbollah remains deeply rooted in Lebanon’s social, political, and security landscape. Any attempt to uproot it through sanctions or external pressure will only strengthen its defiance.

Meanwhile, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s reassurances to visiting American officials about tackling terrorism financing seem less a policy commitment and more a gesture of survival under duress. Washington’s sanctions on Hezbollah members came not as part of constructive diplomacy but as punitive leverage — reinforcing the perception that the US seeks submission, not partnership.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. From Iraq to Syria, Washington’s self-assigned role as regional architect has left behind fractured states and festering resentment. Lebanon risks becoming the next stage for this failed experiment.

If the US truly seeks stability, it must abandon its obsession with remolding sovereign nations to suit its strategic comfort. Otherwise, its anti-Hezbollah campaign may end up backfiring — deepening Lebanon’s divisions and pushing the region toward another preventable crisis.

Washington’s Quiet Takeover of Lebanon

Lebanon’s sovereignty stands increasingly compromised as Washington tightens its grip over Beirut’s political, financial, and diplomatic spheres. What once appeared as partnership has evolved into direct supervision, with US envoys and Treasury officials dictating the contours of national policy under the pretext of reform and stability.

Officially, American engagement is framed as an effort to “restore order” and “strengthen governance.” In practice, it serves two unmistakable objectives: 1) to pressure Lebanon into negotiations with Israel and 2) to curtail Hezbollah’s role in domestic and regional affairs. Each diplomatic visit or statement reinforces this dual agenda, reshaping the country’s internal balance of power and deepening dependency on external approval.

The economic dimension of this influence is the most visible. Sanctions, once narrowly targeted, now encompass a widening circle of politicians, business figures, and institutions loosely associated with Hezbollah. Lebanese banks, fearing repercussions, have adopted extreme caution—freezing accounts, delaying payments, and denying access to funds even without formal sanctions. Such overcompliance has crippled the banking system, obstructed humanitarian flows, and effectively transformed financial policy into a tool of political coercion.

Equally strategic is Washington’s control of the narrative. The US embassy’s steady messaging over recent years has portrayed Hezbollah as the core obstacle to Lebanon’s recovery. Statements describing sanctions as acts of “solidarity with the Lebanese people” create a moral veneer for what is, in essence, a sustained campaign of political engineering. The repetition of this framing fosters public fatigue and normalizes interference under the guise of protection.

Lebanon now finds itself navigating an uneasy dependence—its economic recovery and political stability tied to compliance with Washington’s directives. The danger lies not only in foreign dominance but in the gradual erosion of national will. Unless Lebanon rebuilds autonomous financial institutions and reasserts control over its policymaking, its sovereignty risks becoming symbolic—acknowledged in name, but directed from abroad.

 

Partnership Between Two Occupiers

The newly signed India–Israel defense treaty is not just a strategic agreement; it is a declaration of shared ideology between two occupying powers. It symbolizes the convergence of two nations that have built their modern identities through control, suppression, and justification of domination — one in Palestine, the other in Kashmir.

This alliance comes at a time when Israel stands accused of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Global outrage is mounting, yet India has chosen this moment to embrace Tel Aviv more openly than ever. The message is clear: New Delhi now values military advantage and strategic visibility over moral credibility.

Once, India’s foreign policy drew strength from its anti-colonial roots and its historic commitment to freedom struggles. It stood with the oppressed — from African liberation movements to the Palestinian cause. That era is gone. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s diplomacy has shed moral caution for ideological affinity. The new partnership formalizes years of covert cooperation in defense, intelligence, and cyberwarfare — all underpinned by a common political psychology.

Zionism and Hindutva, though born in different contexts, share a majoritarian worldview: both cast national identity in religious terms, both view minorities as internal adversaries, and both justify occupation as self-defense. The defense treaty, therefore, is not just about weapons and technology; it is a public endorsement of this shared ideological DNA.

Regionally, the implications are grave. Pakistan will interpret it as an existential provocation. Bangladesh will face a diplomatic dilemma, caught between public sympathy for Palestine and dependence on India. South Asia’s post-colonial spirit of solidarity is eroding, replaced by an era of militarized rivalry and ideological segregation.

Inside India, the pact sends a chilling message to nearly 200 million Muslims. For decades, India’s symbolic support for Palestine offered reassurance of secular balance. That pretense has now vanished. The new India appears comfortable aligning with those who mirror its own majoritarian instincts.

In the end, the India–Israel alliance binds together two occupiers — one subjugating a people under siege, the other suppressing dissent at home. Power may win them weapons and allies, but it cannot cleanse the moral stain of occupation. Nations that mistake domination for destiny often discover that empires fall not from weakness, but from the weight of their own injustice

 

World Has Become Partner in Killing of Gazans

This writeup examines how global inaction, diplomatic protection, and delayed humanitarian mechanisms have contributed to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. It questions whether the world, intentionally or by default, has become a passive partner in the tragedy.

The war in Gaza is not unfolding in isolation. It is taking place within a global system where major powers supply weapons, veto ceasefire resolutions, and delay the creation of any independent administrative or security mechanism for Gaza.

This does not mean every nation is actively supporting the killings, but the combination of strategic silence, diplomatic protection, and ineffective humanitarian enforcement creates the impression that the world, by action or inaction, has become a partner in allowing the destruction to continue.

The United States and several European governments remain Israel’s principal military and diplomatic supporters. Arms transfers, intelligence sharing, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council have blocked ceasefire initiatives or international investigations.

Although discussions were held about a transitional authority or peacekeeping force for post-conflict Gaza, no structure has been implemented. As a result, Israel continues to control borders, airspace, and aid oversight.

Humanitarian aid pledges from international donors rarely translate into consistent delivery. Bureaucratic inspections, restricted crossings, and lack of secure corridors delay supplies.

Arab and Muslim governments issue statements but refrain from economic sanctions, diplomatic withdrawal, or coordinated action through the OIC or Arab League. Their responses remain political, not operational.

However, describing the entire world as a partner overlooks visible resistance. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have openly condemned Israeli actions. South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. Humanitarian agencies — UNRWA, WHO, Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières — continue to work despite operational hazards and loss of staff.

Public resistance is also significant, with widespread protests across Europe, the U.S., and Muslim-majority countries, including from Jewish and academic groups. Some regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan provide aid or mediate negotiations, although within limited parameters.

Therefore, global behavior reflects neither full complicity nor decisive opposition. It is a landscape of selective engagement, geopolitical caution, and lack of enforcement. The failure is not of words, but of action.

 

No One Is Talking About Gaza

The world seems to have forgotten Gaza. The much-trumpeted ceasefire was never peace—it was merely a pause, a calculated silence that allowed Israel to continue its assault under softer headlines. Killings, raids, and blockades persist, but the outrage has vanished. Western media, once overflowing with images of destruction, now devotes its front pages to Trump’s political theatrics and market gossip. This apathy is not accidental; it reflects selective morality and political convenience. When Ukraine suffers, it’s front-page news; when Gaza bleeds, it disappears. The ceasefire was not an end to violence but a rebranding of it—acceptable to Western capitals and ignored by global media. Gaza remains trapped between occupation and silence, its tragedy erased by those who claim to defend human rights.

When the so-called Gaza ceasefire was announced, the world sighed in relief. On October 16, 2026, I wrote “Gaza: Ceasefire Brings Pause, Not Peace.” Sadly, that assessment has proved accurate. What was projected as a humanitarian breakthrough has merely given Israel a quieter stage to continue its aggression—less visible, but equally lethal.

Killings, arrests, and systematic strangulation of Gaza’s population have not stopped. Reports by independent observers describe continued night raids, targeted assassinations, and a tightening blockade that deprives millions of food, medicine, and fuel. Yet, the international community acts as if peace has returned. It hasn’t. What returned is complacency—disguised as relief.

The Western media, once saturated with vivid images of destruction, has conveniently moved on. Its focus has shifted to Trump’s political drama, Wall Street turbulence, and AI-driven optimism. The suffering of Gaza has simply fallen off the editorial map. This silence is not a lapse; it is a choice. It reflects a hierarchy of human lives—a moral framework where victims matter only if their suffering fits Western narratives.

The tragedy is not only Israel’s continued impunity but also the media’s complicity in erasing it. The same outlets that once counted every missile strike now seem allergic to truth when it no longer serves their political comfort. When Ukraine bleeds, headlines multiply; when Gaza starves, the world looks away.

This selective blindness reveals a deeper sickness in global conscience. Human rights, it appears, are not universal—they are conditional, determined by who the victim is and who the perpetrator happens to be. Western capitals that preach democracy and humanitarian values have reduced Palestine to a talking point, not a principle.

Silence is not neutrality; it is endorsement. Every unreported killing, every censored image, every muted appeal strengthens the aggressor’s hand. Israel understands this perfectly. A quiet Gaza allows it to deepen occupation policies without scrutiny. And the world, addicted to short attention spans, gives it exactly that space.

International organizations remain trapped between bureaucratic inertia and political pressure. The so-called peace architects, who engineered the fragile ceasefire, have vanished from the scene. For them, “mission accomplished” meant restoring calm, not justice.

The truth is harsh: Gaza has been abandoned again—this time not under bombs, but under silence. Western media’s shift of focus from genocide to gossip exposes the moral decay of an information system guided by profit and politics, not by conscience.

Until the world admits that a ceasefire without accountability is merely an intermission between massacres, Gaza will remain a scar on the world’s conscience—a living reminder of how easily human suffering can be ignored when it is politically inconvenient.

 

 

 

 

Does Hamas Still Have Muscles to Violate Ceasefire?

After nearly 800 days of relentless Israeli bombardment, Gaza stands shattered — its people displaced, cities flattened, and infrastructure destroyed. Yet Israel continues to accuse Hamas of violating ceasefire terms. The question naturally arises: does Hamas, after such devastation, still possess the means to breach a truce, or is this accusation yet another attempt to justify continued aggression?

Since the beginning, Tel Aviv has framed its military operations as “defensive,” aimed at dismantling Hamas. But the scale and duration of the campaign tell another story — one of collective punishment rather than defense. Civilian areas, hospitals, and refugee camps have been repeatedly struck, erasing the line between combatant and non-combatant.

The power imbalance is stark. Israel, equipped with one of the world’s most advanced militaries, faces a besieged enclave surviving under blockade. In such a context, claims of Hamas violating ceasefires seem less credible and more like political cover for ongoing strikes. Each new round of violence devastates Gaza further while bolstering Israel’s domestic narrative of self-defense.

Globally, the reaction remains divided. Western powers still defend Israel’s “right to protect itself,” while UN bodies and human rights organizations warn of violations of international law. The destruction of civilian infrastructure, denial of humanitarian aid, and use of starvation as a weapon have drawn growing condemnation — yet no serious accountability follows.

Ironically, despite the prolonged war, Israel’s strategic goals remain unfulfilled. Hamas has not been eradicated; instead, its symbolic strength has grown amid Gaza’s suffering. Meanwhile, Israel’s moral and diplomatic standing continues to erode.

By insisting that Hamas alone violates the ceasefire, Israel attempts to retain moral high ground. But after 800 days of devastation, that claim sounds increasingly hollow. The real question is not whether Hamas still has the strength to fight — but whether Israel has the courage to stop a war that has already lost its purpose.

Why Trump Took So Long to End Israeli Killing in Gaza?

As Gaza bled, Washington watched. For weeks, bombs rained on civilians while the so-called champion of “peace through strength” stayed silent. Donald Trump, quick to boast of brokering deals, turned hesitant when the cost of morality threatened his politics. His long silence over Israel’s brutality was not confusion — it was complicity.

Trump’s trademark swagger vanished when Gaza burned. The self-proclaimed deal-maker watched from the sidelines as Israel’s relentless bombing turned a crowded strip into a graveyard. His hesitation wasn’t diplomacy — it was political calculation dressed as caution.

He delayed action because he feared offending the Israel lobby and evangelical base that bankroll and bolster his politics. Their loyalty mattered more than the lives lost under Israeli bombs.

Washington’s silence was not indecision; it was endorsement. By refusing to restrain Tel Aviv, Trump aligned moral blindness with political convenience.

Behind the scenes, his advisers argued that Israel remains America’s indispensable proxy in the Middle East, and any pressure might embolden Iran or upset Gulf partners.

In truth, Trump was unwilling to challenge a policy that defines US dominance in the region — where stability is measured by arms sales, not peace. Gaza’s children simply did not fit into that equation.

But the cost of silence mounted fast. The world watched in horror, and even US allies began questioning Washington’s humanity.

When images of famine and flattened hospitals flooded global screens, Trump finally called for restraint — a gesture too late to cleanse the blood on American hands.

His eventual push for ceasefire wasn’t moral awakening; it was damage control. The U.S. was losing global credibility, and Trump’s “America First” mantra was turning into “Morality Last.”

For all his talk of strength, Trump blinked when leadership demanded courage. Gaza will remain the chapter where his silence spoke louder than his slogans.

Hamas Agreeing to Ceasefire: Victory or Defeat

This ceasefire is not the end of war. It is merely the pause between two tragedies.

After months of destruction, displacement, and despair, Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire. Its supporters call it a “strategic pause,” but in truth, it reflects exhaustion — political, military, and moral. When resistance drifts from purpose to performance, it loses the essence of struggle and becomes an exercise in survival.

Hamas overestimated its resilience and underestimated the duplicity of the Arab world. The self-proclaimed defenders of Palestine turned spectators, mouthing empty slogans while doing business with Tel Aviv.

The Western champions of democracy and human rights proved, once again, that these values have geographical limits. In this moral vacuum, Hamas found itself fighting alone — a resistance without reinforcements.

The ceasefire may silence the guns, but it cannot disguise the catastrophe. Gaza stands in ruins — its governance crippled, its population scattered, its children scarred.

Israel may not have destroyed Hamas, but it has devastated everything around it. The resistance lives, but the society it claimed to protect lies in ashes.

Yet Israel’s so-called “victory” is equally hollow. Two years of relentless war have brought neither peace nor security. Instead, Israel finds itself morally isolated and diplomatically cornered. The global sympathy it once commanded has turned to disgust. Even among its traditional allies, questions are being asked: how long can “self-defense” justify collective punishment?

To conclude, is this ceasefire a victory or a defeat?

For Hamas, it is survival without success; for Israel, dominance without dignity. Both sides are trapped in a cycle of destruction that yields no justice, only rubble and resentment.

The true defeat lies with the international community — which has normalized occupation, tolerated brutality, and renamed surrender as “peace.”

 

کون بنے گا غزہ کا بادشاہ

غزہ جل رہا ہے، مگر تخت خالی نہیں۔ ہر کوئی بادشاہ بننے کو بے چین ہے — کوئی بندوق لے کر، کوئی قرارداد اٹھا کر، کوئی انسان کے آنسو بیچ کر۔ یہ وہ بادشاہت ہے جس کے محل ملبے میں دفن ہیں، اور رعایا مٹی میں۔

عرب دنیا اب صرف بیانات کی بادشاہت چلاتی ہے۔ کوئی قطر میں کانفرنس بلاتا ہے، کوئی ریاض میں “امن” کے تسبیح دانے گنتا ہے۔ ہر کوئی سمجھتا ہے کہ اس کی خاموشی ہی دانش مندی ہے۔ غزہ میں خون بہے یا بچوں کے لاشے بکھریں، اصل مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ فوٹو سیشن میں کون اگلی صف میں بیٹھے گا۔ بادشاہت کے خواب اب تسبیح کے دانوں سے نہیں، “لائکس” اور “ڈالرز” سے گنے جاتے ہیں۔

مغربی دنیا بھی کم تماشائی نہیں۔ کوئی آزادیِ اظہار کے پرچم تلے جلتے گھروں کی تصویریں چھاپتا ہے، اور کوئی “دہشت گرد” کا لیبل لگا کر قبر کی مٹی ہلکی کر دیتا ہے۔ جنہوں نے فلسطینیوں کو تاریخ کا سب سے بڑا سبق دینے کا وعدہ کیا تھا، وہ اب جغرافیہ بھی ان سے چھین چکے ہیں۔

اور حماس؟ وہ بھی بادشاہت کی دوڑ میں پیچھے نہیں۔ تخت بچانے کے لیے رعایا قربان، عزت بچانے کے لیے لاشیں گنی جا رہی ہیں۔ مزاحمت کا نعرہ اب زندہ رہنے کی نہیں، اقتدار بچانے کی علامت بن چکا ہے۔

غزہ میں بادشاہت کا تاج اب خون میں بھیگا ہوا ہے — مگر دعوے دار سب مسکراتے ہیں۔ کوئی اسرائیل کی طرف دیکھتا ہے، کوئی واشنگٹن کی، کوئی تہران کی۔ سب جانتے ہیں، جو بادشاہ بنے گا، وہ رعایا کے خون سے نہیں، خاموشی سے حکومت کرے گا۔

اور رعایا؟ وہ اب صرف ملبے کے نیچے رہ گئی ہے، جہاں بادشاہت کے تمام خواب دفن ہو چکے ہیں۔
آخر میں صرف ایک سوال باقی ہے —
غزہ کا بادشاہ کون بنے گا؟
جو سب کو مار چکا ہے، یا جو اب بھی زندہ رہنے کی سزا بھگت رہا ہے؟

Gaza War: Russia and China Look Indifferent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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