Can China and Russia end US hegemony?

Ever since Donald Trump has taken over as President of United States, started trade war with China and European allies take custody of Gaza, China and Russia are not only perturbed, but also considering plan to cause dent to the US hegemony in the Middle East and North Africa, to begin with.

We are of the opinion that China and Russia may be serious in ending the US hegemony, but achieving the target is highly unlikely in the near term.

No one can deny that the United States still Holds a strong Position because of:

Military Presence

The US maintains major military bases and alliances in the region (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and others).

Energy Security Ties

Despite shifting energy priorities, US influence over global oil markets via relationships with Gulf states remains strong.

Diplomatic Leverage

The US plays a key role in peace negotiations, arms deals, and counterterrorism efforts.

Soft Power

US culture, education, and tech continue to have significant appeal in parts of the region.

Growing Role of China and Russia

China

Economic Influence

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has deepened economic ties, particularly through infrastructure investment and oil imports from Gulf states and Iran.

Diplomacy

Recently brokered the Saudi-Iran détente (2023), signaling growing diplomatic credibility.

Non-Interference Model

Appeals to regimes wary of Western pressure on human rights or democratization.

Russia

Military Intervention

Russia has demonstrated staying power in Syria and maintains naval bases in the eastern Mediterranean.

Arms Sales and Security Cooperation

Offers military support without political conditions.

Energy Deals

Competes with and collaborates on energy projects, particularly in gas.

Challenges to Ending US Hegemony

Use of US dollar in international trade

The single largest point that gives the United States unequivocal strength is use of Greenback in international trade and its absolute control over payment and settlement system.

Lack of Unified Strategy

China and Russia do not have a cohesive alliance or unified vision for the region.

Regional Dependence on US

Many MENA states still rely on US military support and arms.

Distrust Toward Russia and China

Some countries remain skeptical of long-term Chinese or Russian motives.

Way Forward

Though, China and Russia are eroding US dominance through economic, diplomatic, and military inroads, but the US retains deep-rooted strategic advantages. A complete end to US hegemony requires a far greater realignment of regional security and political interests.

Unless China and Russia are able to come up with an alternative currency and payment/ settlement system, they just can not cause dent to the US hegemony in any significant manner.

Xi-Putin pledge to stand together against US

Chinese President Xi Jinping told Russia's Vladimir Putin on Thursday their two countries should be "friends of steel", as they pledged to raise cooperation to a new level and "decisively" counter the influence of the United States.

At talks in the Kremlin, the two leaders cast themselves as defenders of a new world order no longer dominated by the US.

In a lengthy joint statement, they said they would deepen relations in all areas, including military ties, and "strengthen coordination in order to decisively counter Washington's course of 'dual containment' of Russia and China.

The two countries said the Ukraine conflict could only be settled by removing its "root causes" - a phrase that Russia has frequently used when arguing that it was forced to go to war to prevent the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine and its Western allies say that was a false pretext for what they call an imperial-style invasion.

Xi is the most powerful of more than two dozen foreign leaders who are visiting Moscow this week to mark Thursday's 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two - a celebration of huge significance for Putin.

Xi's participation - and the joint statement aligning China with Russia's view of the conflict - provide Putin with an important boost as Russia comes under pressure from the United States to end the war.

Russia says it wants to repair relations with Washington, which sank to post-Cold War lows because of the conflict in Ukraine, and that it sees the potential for lucrative business deals. But talks have failed to produce a ceasefire and President Donald Trump has threatened to walk away, unless there is clear progress.

Xi, whose country is currently engaged in a tariff war launched by Trump, said China and Russia should solidify the foundations of their cooperation and "eliminate external interference".

The two countries should "be true friends of steel that have been through a hundred trials by fire", he told Putin.

In another implied reference to the US, Xi said Russia and China would work together to counter "unilateralism and bullying".

Xi and Putin have met dozens of times and signed a "no limits" strategic partnership in February 2022, less than three weeks before Putin sent his army into Ukraine. China is Russia's biggest trading partner and has thrown Moscow an economic lifeline that has helped it navigate Western sanctions.

 

Is Saudi Arabia Letting Oil Crash, On Purpose?

Traders often say that OPEC’s primary role is to support oil prices. That’s been the dominant narrative for decades. However, this week told a very different story — one that has raised eyebrows across the global energy market.

Brent crude plunged by 8%, a significant drop by any standard, yet Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s de facto leader and most influential member, showed almost no visible concern. There was no emergency meeting, no surprise production cut, and no immediate attempt to stabilize the market. It’s a silence that speaks volumes.

At first glance, most headlines pointed to the familiar explanation, questions around OPEC discipline, compliance, and coordination. But when one looks at the numbers and the timing of key decisions, it becomes increasingly clear that something far more strategic may be unfolding behind the scenes.

Crude oil is now trading at levels not seen in four years, and OPEC’s upcoming meeting — one that could potentially shift the trajectory of global oil markets — has been rescheduled for May 03. Notably, the day many major markets will be closed or have limited activity due to global holidays. The timing feels less like coincidence and more like tactical maneuvering.

In this week’s Global Energy Alert, its analysts take a deep dive into the broader implications of Saudi Arabia’s recent moves. It examines what Riyadh’s evolving production strategy truly signals about its underlying priorities.

Is this part of a long-term play to accommodate the anticipated return of Iranian oil exports?

Or perhaps a quiet recalibration in response to Russia’s unpredictable role in OPEC+?

Analysts also explore the lesser-known geopolitical undercurrents — including ongoing US–Saudi discussions around defense cooperation and civilian nuclear development, both of which may carry hidden oil-related stakes.

OPEC’s next decision could mark a turning point. The market may be lulled into complacency, but the pieces are being set for a potentially dramatic reset. If you’re not paying close attention, you might just miss the most important setup of the year.

 

 

 

 

=================================

Traders often say OPEC’s job is to support prices. But this week, Brent crude dropped 8% — and Saudi Arabia barely blinked.

The headlines say it’s about OPEC discipline. But the numbers — and the timing — suggest something bigger is unfolding.

And now, oil is trading at four-year lows just as the group’s meeting shifts to May 3, conveniently when markets are closed.

In this week’s Global Energy Alert, our analysts break down:

What Riyadh’s production strategy signals about its real priorities

How Saudi Arabia could be prepping for Iran’s return — and hedging its bets on Russia

The hidden stakes in U.S.–Saudi defense and nuclear talks tied to oil

OPEC’s next move could reset the market — and if you're not watching closely, you'll miss the setup.

 

Trump’s First 100 Days: Good, Bad, and Ugly

I posted my review of first 100 says of Donald Trump as President of United States. Many may have ignored it knowing that I am not a US citizen. Today, I am sharing excerpts from an article by *Christopher Calton. He has talked about Trump’s early actions on trade, education, immigration, and more, offering a clear-eyed analysis of what Americans can expect in the years ahead.

On the first day of his second term, Trump issued a record-breaking 26 executive orders, and in the weeks that followed, he added more than 100 additional orders alongside other memorandums and proclamations. Some have been entirely positive, while others have been downright eyeroll-inducing, such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico and declaring the day the order was signed a national holiday.

The trillion-dollar military budget seems consistent with Trump’s hawkish foreign policy. Both of Trump’s electoral victories reflected a mandate to finally stop subsidizing foreign conflicts and end America’s forever wars. Trump has, at least, withheld funding for Ukraine, though his approach seems more an effort to cater to Putin than to achieve peace.

Elsewhere, the president has doubled down on America’s support for Israel’s destruction of Gaza, has threatened war with Iran, and has commenced a horrible bombing campaign against Yemen. Just as in his first term, when he neglected to fulfill his promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Trump is again proving to be a war-happy commander in chief.

President Trump’s second term threatens to be even more of a disaster than his first in many arenas, particularly trade and foreign policy. His immigration measures are consistent with his campaign promises, but his lack of concern for due process and rule of law should be concerning to even the most ardent supporters of border security.

Trump’s approach to spending seems an improvement over his first term, but is nonetheless disappointing after what appeared to be a promising start with DOGE.

The silver lining to Trump’s first 100 days is that he is providing a positive counterweight to the left’s growing radicalism in the culture wars, as demonstrated by his education policies. 

*Christopher J. Calton is the Research Fellow in Housing and Homelessness at the Independent Institute.

 

How high could gold price go?

Gold prices have been on an upward trajectory in 2025, recently reaching a record high of US$3,244.60 per ounce. Now a question is being asked, how high could gold price go. Several key factors are contributing to this surge, these include:

Geopolitical Tensions

The introduction of sweeping tariffs by President Donald Trump, especially those targeting China with rates up to 145%, created upheaval in global financial markets. These policies have led investors to question the reliability of traditional safe assets like US Treasuries and the dollar, prompting a shift towards gold as a more stable alternative.

Economic Uncertainty

Concerns about a potential US recession have intensified, with Goldman Sachs estimating a 45% probability of such an event within the next year. This economic uncertainty enhances gold’s appeal as a hedge against downturns, contributing to its rising demand and price.

Purchases by Central Banks

Central banks worldwide are increasing their gold reserves, partly as a strategy to reduce reliance on the US dollar. This trend of de-dollarization supports higher gold prices, as nations seek to diversify their holdings amid shifting global economic dynamics.

Currency Depreciation

Persistent inflation is eroding the value of paper currencies, prompting investors to turn to gold as a means of preserving purchasing power. As the US dollar weakens, gold's role as a hedge against inflation becomes increasingly significant.

Safe-Haven Demand

The volatility in global markets, exacerbated by trade tensions and economic uncertainties, has led investors to seek refuge in gold. Its status as a safe-haven asset during turbulent times further drives its demand and price upward.

Way Forward

Analysts remain bullish on gold prospects, with forecasts suggesting prices could touch US$3,500 by June end 2025, US$ 4,000 by end December 2025 and US$5,000 by end December 2026. However, a point to remember is that if the trade war intensifies, the price may rise at a faster pace.

A more disturbing fact is that confidence of people around the world in the US administration – as a trustworthy friend and US$ as a dependable currency is eroding. The talk about an alternate currency to replace US dollar is getting louder.

Iran: Tangled nuclear dispute with the West

Iran and the United States are scheduled to hold talks on Saturday on Iran's nuclear program, with US President Donald Trump having threatened military action if they cannot agree a deal. Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of a long dispute between it and Western countries that fear it wants to build an atomic bomb, which Tehran denies. Here is a timeline of the dispute:

1957 - Iran and United States signed a nuclear cooperation deal and the United States delivers a research reactor to Iran a decade later.

1970 - Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), giving it the right to a civilian nuclear program but barring it from seeking an atomic bomb.

1979 - Iran's Islamic revolution upended its ties to major powers, turning former ally the United States into its main foe.

1995 - Russia agreed to finish construction of Iran's planned nuclear power plant at Bushehr, originally started by Germany and shelved after the revolution.

2003 - The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), alleged Iran has not complied with NPT after the revelation it has secretly built a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant for plutonium at Arak.

Both can be used to make fuel for nuclear power but they can also be used in atomic warheads.

Iran accepted European proposals for more transparency in its nuclear program including snap IAEA inspections.

2004 - The IAEA said Iran did not provided the transparency it promised. Iran said it would not suspend uranium enrichment activity.

2005 - Russia offered to supply Iran with fuel for Bushehr to stop it developing its own fuel by making enriched uranium or plutonium.

IAEA said Iran was not in compliance with agreements and EU countries halted negotiations.

2006 - Iran resumed work at Natanz, said in April it had enriched uranium for the first time to about 3.5%, far short of the 90% needed for a warhead.

World powers the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - later known collectively as the P5+1 offered Iran incentives to halt enrichment.

The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran over its enrichment.

2009 - Western countries alleged Iran was building another secret uranium enrichment facility under a mountain at Fordow near Qom.

2010 - Iran started making 20% enriched uranium. The UN Security Council expanded sanctions including an embargo on major weapons systems, as the US and EU tighten their own sanctions.

A computer virus - Stuxnet - deployed aimed at paralyzing the Natanz plant, the start of direct operations against Iranian facilities that Tehran blames on Israel.

2011 - Bushehr nuclear plant started operations. Iran said it was using more advanced centrifuges to expand its 20% enrichment program.

2013 - Former nuclear negotiator Hassan Rouhani was elected Iranian president offering new proposals. He and US President Barack Obama hold a first call between leaders of the countries since 1979.

Iran-P5+1 talks in Geneva resulted in a Joint Plan of Action with steps required by both sides including reducing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, more IAEA access and some sanctions relief.

2014 - Negotiations on a final deal continued through the year, with Iran halting uranium enrichment to 20% and work at Arak and getting access to oil revenue frozen by sanctions.

US allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, repeatedly cautioned Washington against a deal, saying Iran could not be trusted and citing its growing sway in the region.

2015 - Iran and the P5+1 agreed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal that limits Iran's nuclear work, allowing more inspections and a loosening of sanctions.

2016 - IAEA said Iran had met its commitments under the JCPOA, leading to UN sanctions tied to the nuclear program being lifted.

However, Iran's long-range ballistic missile tests prompt unease despite Tehran saying they could not carry nuclear warheads.

2017 - New US President Donald Trump declared the JCPOA was the "worst deal ever" and unilaterally pulled out. Despite Trump promising a better deal there have been no new talks.

2018 - The US reimposed on Iran.

2019 - With ties between Iran and the West deteriorating, a string of attacks on Gulf oil tankers and other regional energy facilities were blamed by the US on Iran.

2020 - A blast rocks Iran's Natanz plant and a nuclear scientist is assassinated near Tehran with Iran blaming both incidents on Israel.

2021 - With Trump out of the White House, the US and Iran resumed indirect talks but there was little progress.

Iran started enriching uranium to 60% - not too far from 90% needed for a bomb.

There were attacks on Iran's Natanz and a centrifuge factory in Karaj.

2022 - The IAEA accused Iran did not answer questions over uranium traces found at more sites. Iran stopped IAEA inspections and installed more new centrifuges at Natanz.

2025 - Trump returns to the White House and declared Iran must agree to a nuclear deal or there will be bombing.

 

Who is responsible for the killing of Gazans?

The question of who is responsible for the killing of Gazans is complex and deeply tied to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Responsibility depends on the context, perspective, and the specific events being referred to. In this post an attempt is being made to understand the present situation and propose a plausible solution:

Humanitarian perspective:

The Israeli military is often held responsible for a significant number of civilian casualties in Gaza, especially during major military operations. Israel says it targets Hamas and other militant groups, but these operations have resulted in many civilian deaths due to the densely populated nature of Gaza

Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza are also accused for operating from within civilian areas, use human shields, or launch rockets indiscriminately into Israeli territory, provoking retaliatory strikes and contributing to the cycle of violence.

International perspective:

International organizations, like the United Nations and human rights groups ‑ Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ‑ accuse both Israel and Palestinian armed groups for the lingering conflict resulting in huge loss of human lives, particularly women and children.

Israel often accused of disproportionate use of force and blockade policies that severely impact civilians.

Palestinian groups are condemned for indiscriminate rocket attacks and operating in ways that endanger Israeli civilians.

Structural and political responsibility:

Long-term occupation, blockade, and lack of a viable peace process can be termed as structural causes of repeated violence.

Israel controls most of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and resources, while Hamas governs internally but with limited capacity.

International actors, including the United States, Egypt, Iran, and others, also play roles through military aid, political backing, or indirect support.

Crux of the Matter:

Direct military actions causing deaths are typically attributed to the Israeli military or Palestinian armed groups, depending on perspective of on lookers. Broader responsibility lies with political leaders, ongoing occupation, militant governance, and an international community that has often failed to resolve the underlying issues.

Way Forward:

Israel, now fully supported by US President Donald Trump wants complete cleansing/ exit of Gazans. During the ongoing conflict nearly 100,000 Gazans, mostly women and children have been killed. However, Gazans resolve has sustained are they are not ready to desert their homeland.

The other and more civilized option is creation of two states, Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries support this.

United States also initiated Abraham Accords paving way for the recognition of Israel. However, many supporters of this initiative want Israel to go back to its original borders and let the Palestinians manage their own state.

Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East'

Now the real stumbling block is US President Trump's plan to make Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East' which requires all the 2.2 million residents to vacate the strip. This vision involved the United States taking control of Gaza, relocating its approximately two million Palestinian residents to neighboring countries, and redeveloping the area into a luxury resort destination. Trump suggested that Gaza's coastal location could make it "better than Monaco" if redeveloped appropriately.

This proposal received strong support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, who viewed it as a means to disarm Hamas and alter the region's dynamics. However, it faced significant criticism internationally. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres labeled the plan as "ethnic cleansing," emphasizing that forcibly transferring populations violates international law. Arab nations, including Jordan, also rejected the proposal, with Jordan's King Abdullah II expressing firm opposition to the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

The plan also sparked debate within the United States, with bipartisan concerns about its feasibility and ethical implications. Critics argued that it misread the interests of Arab partners and could destabilize the region further. Facing mounting opposition, President Trump later stated that he would "recommend" but not enforce the plan, indicating a step back from the initial proposal.

 

 

 

 

Pakistan: Navigating an Uncertain Global Order

The world is undergoing a profound shift toward protectionism and unpredictability. Global institutions are weakening, long-standing norms are eroding, and power dynamics are replacing cooperative frameworks. In this volatile environment, Pakistan must stay alert and prepare for the challenges ahead.

This transformation is already in motion. US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs signaled a move away from multilateralism. The shift toward unilateralism and economic nationalism has been ushered in. The rules-based global order, which once promoted free trade and transparency, is on the decline.

For decades, the US championed institutions like the WTO, enabling developing countries, including Pakistan, to engage in global trade under shared rules. Now, the rise of "reciprocal tariffs" and deal-making based on narrow self-interest marks a rejection of that system. In such an environment, even close allies are vulnerable.

This shift is especially alarming for countries like Pakistan. Larger powers may use economic tools or coercion to advance their agendas, sidelining smaller economies. A coordinated international backlash to protectionist policies is likely. While Pakistan may avoid retaliation, others might not, raising the specter of a global trade war.

Trade wars have historically led to severe economic disruptions. Pakistan, with low foreign exchange reserves and heavy reliance on institutions like the IMF, lacks the resilience to absorb such shocks. Unlike wealthier nations, it cannot offer major stimulus measures or safety nets.

Thus, Pakistani policymakers must proactively engage with global powers, diversify trade relationships, and strengthen internal governance. Strategic partnerships with like-minded nations and regional initiatives like CPEC are essential, but overreliance on any one partner is risky. A multi-vector foreign policy is key.

Domestically, political stability and unity are crucial. A fragmented leadership weakens Pakistan’s ability to respond to global shifts. The world order we knew is unlikely to return soon. Only countries that are agile, united, and forward-looking will succeed.

Pakistan must not be passive. With vigilance, decisive leadership, and strategic focus, it can navigate this turbulent global landscape and secure a stable future.

US dollar faces crisis of confidence

In times of market panic investors tend to rush to the safety of greenback, but when stocks swooned in response to US tariffs this week, they ran away from it. Investors say it's a sign that the greenback’s global standing may be eroding.

There is perception that greenback has an inherent competitive advantage. It's backed by the world's largest economy, the deepest capital markets and an established rule of law. There is no real alternative in the near term. However, after the trade war initiated by Donald Trump the creation of an alternative currency seems certain.

The dollar, for decades a safe haven, on Thursday fell about 1.7% in its biggest daily drop since November 2022, after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports at levels not seen since the early 1900s. Stock markets also tanked, as tariffs ignited recession worries.

In interviews and published markets commentaries, many investors and analysts pointed to the Trump administration for the anomaly. Its protectionist policies, upending of the global economic order in place since World War II, and a growing US debt pile have been chipping away at the dollar's appeal, they say. Left unchecked, a crisis of confidence in the dollar could also undermine its position as the world's reserve currency, they added.

"What we're seeing today is a further indication that the structure and nature of the US dollar’s relationship to global markets has changed," said Thierry Wizman, global foreign exchange and rates strategist at Macquarie in New York.

"There's an underlying basis for this, which is the changing role of the US in the world."

Any erosion of the dollar's standing as a safe-haven is bad news for investors and policymakers - at least in the near term.

For investors, who have piled trillions of dollars into buoyant US markets in recent decades, a sharp dollar fall could result in higher interest rates for longer. That's because price pressures at home could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

A rapid strengthening of currencies against the dollar is a headache for other central banks navigating a weaker economic outlook, as it makes their exports more expensive and potentially harder for them to revive growth. The euro, for example, just had its best day against the greenback in more than two years.

The recent depreciation in the dollar showed that concerns about the currency's status had "left footprints in financial markets already," Sweden's central bank deputy governor Per Jansson said at an event in London on Tuesday.

"If the dollar's status would change, that would be a big change for the world economy ... and would basically create a mess," he told Reuters afterwards. "I really do not hope the US goes there."

 

 

OPEC+ agree to ramp up output in May

According to the Saudi Gazette, Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other OPEC+ countries, agreed on Thursday to boost oil supply in May 2025. The OPEC+ countries, which also include Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, agreed to raise production by 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) in May.

The OPEC+ countries had been scheduled to raise output by 135,000 bpd in May as part of a plan to gradually unwind their most recent layer of output cuts. But after a meeting of the eight countries held virtually on Thursday, the group announced it would boost output by 411,000 bpd in May. OPEC attributed this to continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook.

The group emphasized that these gradual increases could be paused or reversed depending on market conditions, with the flexibility intended to help stabilize oil prices. "This comprises the increment originally planned for May in addition to two monthly increments," OPEC said in a statement referring to the volume. "The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions," it said.

The OPEC+ meeting on Thursday reviewed global market conditions and outlook. "In view of the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook, and in accordance with the decision agreed upon on December 05, 2024, and subsequently reaffirmed on March 03, 2025, to start a gradual and flexible return of the 2.2 million barrels per day voluntary adjustments starting from April 01, 2025, the eight countries will implement a production adjustment of 411000 bpd, equivalent to three monthly increments, in May 2025," the statement said.

"The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions, and this flexibility will allow the group to continue to support oil market stability. The eight OPEC+ countries also noted that this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation," the statement noted.

The OPEC+ countries reaffirmed their commitment to the voluntary production adjustments agreed at the 53rd JMMC meeting on April 03, 2024. They also confirmed their intention to fully compensate any overproduced volume since January 2024 and to submit updated front-loaded compensation plans to the OPEC Secretariat by April 15, 2025.

China and Russia reject US maximum pressure

Lately, China, Iran, and Russia held talks in Beijing, urging diplomacy over “pressure and threats” and calling for an end to “illegal unilateral sanctions” on Iran.

The meeting, led by deputy foreign ministers from the three nations, comes as China positions itself as a key player in resolving Iran’s nuclear issue.

This follows US President Donald Trump’s statement that Iran faces two options: a deal or military action.

China’s Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu emphasized eliminating the root causes of the crisis, rejecting sanctions and force.

The joint statement called for avoiding escalation and fostering a diplomatic resolution. The urgency grows as the UN nuclear watchdog warns of Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile, though Iran maintains its program is peaceful.

Beijing opposes US sanctions and the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which began after the US withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The deal’s looming October deadline could trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions unless a new agreement is reached.

China, alongside European powers, hopes to salvage the JCPOA or craft a new deal. Trump remains open to negotiation but maintains pressure through sanctions, while Iran’s leadership rejects talks under US duress.

China’s diplomatic push aligns with its goal of emerging as a global leader, especially as Trump’s "America First" policy shifts US foreign strategies. The Beijing meeting also showcased non-Western approaches to global issues.

For Iran, the talks offered a chance to reinforce ties with China and Russia — key allies amid Western sanctions. Tehran and Moscow have deepened cooperation, particularly through military support in Ukraine, while China remains a vital economic and diplomatic partner.

China seeks to balance its relationships across the Middle East, including ties with Saudi Arabia, and mitigate potential risks to its businesses from US pressure on Iran.

Analysts note that China’s limited experience in Middle Eastern diplomacy and Iran’s independent stance could restrict its role as a deal broker. Despite this, China’s efforts signal growing influence and alignment with Russia and Iran against Western pressure.

West Asia can ensure its security, claims Iranian commander

Iran's Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani, stated that countries in West Asia are capable of handling their own security and urged external actors to rethink their involvement in the region. 

Speaking to Al Jazeera, he emphasized that regional nations are no longer as vulnerable as they once were and possess the means to protect themselves.

“The region is no longer what it used to be, and its countries are equipped to ensure their safety; therefore, foes must change their policies and respect regional nations,” The commander stressed.

Admiral Irani also asserted that Iran rejects isolation and will operate within international legal frameworks.

“The behavior of Iranians, particularly in the current regional context, aligns with international laws,” he noted. 

“Regional instability will harm the global economy,” Admiral Iravani said, adding that Iran is offering expertise to West Asian regional countries. 

The statement came as Iran, Russia, and China wrapped up a joint maritime exercise dubbed “Maritime Security Belt 2025” in the Indian Ocean on Wednesday, alongside observers from several other nations.

In related remarks on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi congratulated Admiral Irani on the successful execution of the exercises, emphasizing the Navy's strength and international dominance.

The top diplomat said the drills, beginning on March 10, demonstrated the Navy's decisive attitude and global operational capabilities.

He also stressed the importance of an assertive presence in expansive oceanic areas for maritime security and development.

“Iran has an unwavering determination to maintain and enhance the security of the strategic and sensitive Persian Gulf region, the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz within it, the Sea of Oman, and beyond. These exercises were a reflection of that resolve.” Araghchi noted. 

 

Iran showcases prowess with China and Russia

Iran has reaffirmed its pivotal role in regional security by leading the seventh iteration of the Maritime Security Belt-2025 joint naval exercises alongside China and Russia, being held March 10–13 near the strategic port of Chabahar, reports the Tehran Times.

The drills, marked by advanced tactical operations and aerial maneuvers, underscored Tehran’s commitment to safeguarding vital maritime routes while strengthening alliances with global powers in the face of shifting geopolitical dynamics.  

The exercises featured synchronized day and night aerial target shooting, tactical formations, mock rescue missions, and a grand naval parade, demonstrating heightened interoperability among the three nations.

Rear Admiral Mostafa Tajeddini, deputy operations commander of Iran’s Navy, hailed the drills as a testament to Iran’s technical sophistication and leadership.

“The execution of these operations demands precise coordination and step-by-step orders,” he stated, emphasizing the seamless integration of the Iranian Navy and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy with Chinese and Russian fleets.

Notably, this year’s drills expanded operational scope, deploying helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft in deeper waters—a strategic leap from prior iterations.

Tajeddini underscored the significance of such advancements, describing them as critical to countering “external threats” and ensuring regional stability.

Rear Admiral Tajeddini also reiterated Iran’s uncompromising stance: “We will not tolerate any threats or incursions into the nation’s maritime borders.”

“Unity at sea today ensures stability onshore tomorrow,” he added.

Since their inception in 2019, the Maritime Security Belt drills have evolved in scale and complexity, mirroring Iran’s geopolitical ambitions.

The 2025 edition coincides with heightened tensions in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea, where Western-led coalitions have increased patrols.

By contrast, Iran’s collaboration with Beijing and Moscow offers an alternative security framework, prioritizing regional sovereignty over external intervention.

The choice of Chabahar as the drills’ focal point highlights its unparalleled strategic value. Situated on the Gulf of Oman, Iran’s sole oceanic port bypasses the congested Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil transits.

Chabahar’s direct access to the Indian Ocean positions it as a gateway for the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-km trade artery linking India to Central Asia and Europe via Iran.  

Historically, US sanctions somewhat complicated Chabahar’s development, yet partnerships with Eastern allies have helped improve its outlook.

India’s initial investments in the port’s infrastructure, aimed at accessing Afghanistan and Central Asia, have been complemented by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), weaving Chabahar into broader Eurasian connectivity projects.

The port now serves as a military and economic nexus, enabling Iran to project influence while mitigating reliance on Western-dominated trade routes.

The 2025 drills signal a deepening alignment among Iran, China, and Russia, reflecting shared opposition to unilateralism.

Analysts note that the exercises, occurring near the Strait of Hormuz and Chabahar, symbolize a collective resolve to secure energy corridors and trade lanes critical to the Global South.

Some experts view these exercises as more than just defensive actions; they are seen as opportunities to create a unified vision for maritime security.

This partnership also counters Western isolation efforts. By anchoring military cooperation in the Indian Ocean, 
Furthermore, the inclusion of aerial units and night operations—a first in the tripartite drills—signals Iran’s growing confidence in asymmetric warfare capabilities, crucial in deterring adversarial naval presence.

 

Iran, Russia and China to participate in naval drill in Indian Ocean

Iran, Russia, and China are set to conduct a large-scale joint naval exercise in the northern Indian Ocean, focusing on maritime security operations and strategic military coordination.

The drill, named Security Belt-2025, will take place in early and mid-March near Iran’s southeastern Chabahar Port, involving various branches of the three nations' naval forces.  

The Chinese Defense Ministry announced the exercise on Sunday via its official Weibo account, detailing that the drill will include multiple training operations such as maritime target strikes, VBSS (visit, board, search, and seizure), damage control, and joint search and rescue missions.  

According to the ministry, the primary goal of Security Belt-2025 is to enhance military trust and strengthen practical cooperation between the participating forces. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy is set to deploy a destroyer and a replenishment ship for the exercise.  

A Chinese military analyst emphasized that the drill will contribute to safeguarding security in a strategically critical region, particularly one that serves as a key transit route for global energy shipments.  

Security Belt-2025 marks the fifth joint naval exercise between Iran, China, and Russia since 2019.

Over the past few years, the three nations have conducted multiple military drills to reinforce regional maritime stability and safeguard international trade routes.  

In addition to countering piracy and maritime terrorism, these exercises have facilitated intelligence sharing on naval rescue operations and the exchange of tactical and operational expertise.  

In March 2024, the Iranian Navy, along with Chinese and Russian naval and airborne units, participated in the Maritime Security Belt-2024 drills.

Observers from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, and South Africa attended the exercises, reflecting the growing interest in multilateral maritime cooperation.  

The joint maneuvers were designed to strengthen maritime security, bolster international trade protection, combat piracy, and enhance operational coordination among naval forces.

The drills also served as a demonstration of the participants' collective commitment to global peace and stability at sea.  

As part of the upcoming exercises, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) will deploy two advanced vessels: the Shahid Nazeri and the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi.  

Commissioned into the IRGC Navy in September 2016, the Shahid Nazeri is a high-speed patrol and reconnaissance vessel designed for extended operational reach. With a length of 55 meters, a width of 14 meters, and a height of 13 meters, the vessel significantly enhances the IRGCN’s maritime capabilities, extending its operational range up to 10,000 kilometers.  

The Shahid Nazeri features a specialized twin-hull (SWATH – Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) design, providing enhanced stability in high-speed operations and rough seas. Its design ensures that it remains steady even at high speeds, reducing the risk of capsizing.  

Equipped with a helicopter landing pad, the vessel can conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions across various maritime zones, making it a valuable asset for intelligence gathering and patrol operations.  

The Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is a newly commissioned stealth warship from the Shahid Soleimani class, officially joining the IRGC Navy in February 2024. This catamaran-style ocean-going vessel is designed for high-speed operations, with a maximum speed of 45 knots.  

Armed with a wide array of offensive and defensive missile systems, the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is equipped with vertical-launch Nawab air defense missiles and Sayyad cruise missiles with a strike range of 700 kilometers.  

With a length of 67 meters, a width of 20 meters, and a displacement of 600 tons, the vessel is powered by four engines, enabling long-distance operations. It has an operational range of 5,500 nautical miles and is capable of carrying three missile-launching fast attack boats along with an armed combat helicopter.  

 

What gives the US authority to impose sanctions on other countries?

It is believed that the United States has the legal authority to impose sanctions based on a combination of constitutional powers, legislative acts, executive orders, and national security considerations. Sanctions can be imposed for a range of reasons, from counterterrorism efforts to enforcing international law or responding to violations of human rights or international norms. However, the time has come to reject these power, which cause difficulties for the nations the US does not like.

Sanctions are often imposed for reasons related to US national security. This could include targeting foreign governments or groups that support terrorism, are involved in weapons proliferation, or engage in activities that harm US foreign policy objectives.

While US sanctions are often unilateral, they can also be part of multilateral efforts. The US may align its sanctions with those of international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, especially when it comes to issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and human rights violations. In this context, sanctions are seen as part of broader international diplomatic efforts.

The President has the authority to issue executive orders to implement sanctions without needing Congressional approval. These orders often cite national security concerns, international obligations, or the need to enforce specific laws (like the IEEPA) to restrict economic relations with certain countries or individuals.

 

Here's a breakdown of the key legal and institutional bases for US sanctions:

1. US Constitution

• Executive Powers (Article II): The President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to conduct foreign policy and engage in international relations. This includes the power to implement sanctions as a tool of diplomacy and national security.
• Congressional Powers (Article I): Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and declare war. This allows it to pass laws that authorize sanctions, and the executive branch often implements those laws.

2. Specific Legislation

Several US laws grant the authority to impose sanctions, including:

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (1977): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate international trade and economic transactions in response to national emergencies. Under this act, the President can block financial transactions, freeze assets, and prohibit trade with foreign governments or entities that pose a threat to U.S. interests.
• Trading with the Enemy Act (1917): Initially passed during World War I, this law allows the President to regulate or prohibit trade with foreign nations deemed enemies during wartime or national emergencies.
• The USA PATRIOT Act (2001): This law expanded the President's powers to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorist activities, enabling sanctions targeting individuals and entities linked to terrorism.
• Magnitsky Act (2012): This law allows the U.S. government to impose sanctions on individuals involved in human rights violations and corruption, even if they are not from countries officially designated as threats to U.S. security.
• Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) (2017): This law specifically targets countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, providing a legal framework for imposing sanctions against foreign governments and individuals involved in activities that threaten U.S. security or foreign policy.

 

 

United States destroying world order

Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former armed forces chief and current ambassador to Britain, said on Thursday that the United States was destroying the current world order, reports Reuters,

The popular general, who led Ukraine's defence in the first two years of Moscow's full-scale invasion, spoke as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy sought to mend fences with Washington after a fiery White House row with President Donald Trump.

Zaluzhnyi said Ukraine had held onto its independence despite "animus and threats coming even from friends".

His sharp remarks, made at London's Chatham House think tank, came after Trump froze military aid and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv in moves to push Zelenskiy into peace talks with Russia, while refusing to offer Kyiv security guarantees.

"It's obvious the White House has questioned the unity of the whole Western world," Zaluzhnyi said, "Because we see that it's not just the axis of evil and Russia trying to revise the world order, but the US is finally destroying this order."

European leaders on Thursday said they would stand by Ukraine - and boost defence spending - to enable them to stand up to Russia. But the US has been a key backer, and its intelligence, equipment and financial support have been crucial for Kyiv.

Zaluzhnyi is broadly popular in Ukraine and is seen as a potential challenger to Zelenskiy when Ukraine holds elections, although he has voiced no clear ambitions to run for office.

Elections are currently prohibited by the declaration of martial law after Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Zelenskiy replaced Zaluzhnyi as army chief last year following battlefield setbacks. Russian forces now hold about 20% of Ukraine and have been gradually advancing in the country's east.

Zaluzhnyi added that Ukraine should receive security guarantees and "should avoid the role of bargaining chip in any negotiations".

 

US mulls plan to disrupt Iranian oil movement

President Donald Trump's administration is considering a plan to stop and inspect Iranian oil tankers at sea under an international accord aimed at countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Trump has vowed to restore a "maximum pressure" campaign to isolate Iran from the global economy and drive its oil exports to zero, in order to stop the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Trump hit Iran with two waves of fresh sanctions in the first weeks of his second-term, targeting companies and the so-called shadow fleet of ageing oil tankers that sail without Western insurance and transport crude from sanctioned countries.

Those moves have largely been in line with the limited measures implemented during former President Joe Biden's administration, during which Iran succeeded in ramping up oil exports through complex smuggling networks.

Trump officials are now looking at ways for allied countries to stop and inspect ships sailing through critical chokepoints such as the Malacca Strait in Asia and other sea lanes.

Previous attempts to seize Iranian oil cargoes have triggered retaliation by Iran.

The US tried to interdict at least two cargoes of Iranian oil in 2023, under Biden. This prompted Iran to seize foreign ships - including one chartered by Chevron Corp, which sent crude prices higher.

The current low oil price environment gives Trump more options to block Iranian oil flows, from sanctions on tanker companies to seizing ships, according to Ben Cahill, an energy analyst at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems at the University of Texas.

"I think if prices stay below US$75 a barrel, the White House has more latitude to look at sanctions that would affect, you know, supply from Iran and other countries. It would be much harder to do this in a US$92 per barrel environment," Cahill said.

Aggressive US action could cut Iran exports by some 750,000 barrels per day in the short term, he said, but the longer the sanctions are in place, the less effective they are as Iran and buyers figure out ways around them.

A speedy resumption of oil exports from Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region would help offset any fall in Iranian exports.

Reuters previously reported that the White House is piling pressure on Iraq to allow Kurdish oil exports to restart or face sanctions alongside Iran.

Despite US sanctions in recent years, Tehran's oil exports brought in US$53 billion in 2023 and US$54 billion a year earlier, largely in trades with China, according to US Energy Information Administration estimates.

Iran relies on oil exports to China for vital revenue. Russia, which faces restrictions on oil exports and broader Western sanctions, is similarly focused on shipping oil to buyers in China and India.

Finland and other Nordic countries have warned in recent months of the dangers of ships sailing close to their shores and the environmental risks they pose to their shores in oil spills if there is an accident.

While European countries have spoken about inspections of ships transporting Russian oil suspected of not having valid insurance, little action has been taken and none mooted for vessels hauling Iranian oil.

 

Five Takeaways from Trump-Vance-Zelensky meeting

An astonishing scene played out in the Oval Office on Friday as President Trump and Vice President Vance got into a shouting match with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reports The Hill.

Amid angry crosstalk, Trump told Zelensky “without us, you don’t have any cards” and “you’re gambling with World War III.” Vance, for his part, accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful.”

Zelensky had taken issue with Trump’s depiction of him as having so much “hatred” for Russian President Vladimir Putin that it made it hard to end the conflict.

The Ukrainian president also pushed back on Vance’s suggestion that diplomacy could end the war — insisting that his nation had previously adopted that approach after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, only for Putin to launch a full-scale invasion in 2022.

The clash derailed the proposed signing of a deal granting the United States some rights over Ukraine’s mineral deposits. A news conference between Trump and Zelensky that had been scheduled was abruptly canceled, and Zelensky left the White House without further comment.

Here are five big takeaways:

A row heard around the world

It’s hard to exaggerate the seismic shock created by the squabble in the Oval Office.

The political world, in the US and internationally, was instantly aflame over what had taken place. On cable news, usually loquacious anchors were left struggling for words.

It’s been years, if ever, since such a spectacle was seen on public display at the White House.

Inevitably, the shock spurred fevered speculation. One big question was whether Trump and Vance had intentionally provoked Zelensky, whom Trump recently dubbed a “dictator,” into a confrontation.

The other was whether the Ukrainian leader had reacted too intemperately in the moment, to the detriment of his national interests.

Certainly, Trump’s initial comments about Zelensky’s “hatred” for Putin carried a disparaging tone that it is hard to imagine being expressed toward any other US ally who was trying to repel an invasion. 

Likewise, Vance’s role will be closely dissected, especially his reference to Zelensky being “disrespectful” and his demands that the Ukrainian president say “thank you” for US aid.

But Zelensky’s volleys back made it clear he was not going to adopt the mollifying tone used by the week’s other high-profile visitors to the White House, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The White House has seemed to celebrate the encounter.

Meanwhile, a photo posted by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins of the Ukrainian ambassador to the US with her head in her hands during the encounter told its own story.

Now what?

The big question is where things go from here.

The minerals deal was presented, at least in some quarters, as a way to reimburse the US for future assistance to Ukraine, but Trump had been conspicuously vague on the key point of whether Washington would offer firm security guarantees in return.

Now, with that deal presumably shelved for the foreseeable future, nobody honestly knows what happens.

Zelensky could lean more heavily on Europe for both military and diplomatic support. Macron and Starmer have far more pro-Ukrainian viewpoints than does Trump. 

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has more of a Trump-like worldview, called on Friday for an immediate summit between the US and European nations to discuss Ukraine.

If the spigot of US aid is to be choked off and a piqued Trump is now fully embittered against Zelensky, the future looks bleak from a Ukrainian perspective.

It’s also worth noting that neither the US nor its European allies are willing to put boots on the ground during the war itself, for fear of being drawn into their own war with Russia

The suggestion so far is that the Europeans might help shore up a peace agreement — if one is reached.

Democrats, Trump critics blast Trump for helping Putin

Prominent Democrats blasted Trump and Vance for how they conducted the meeting with Zelensky, and some other Trump foes joined in.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on social media accused Trump and Vance of “doing Putin’s dirty work” and pledged that “Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for freedom and democracy.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren contended that it was “shameful and dangerous” for Trump to engage, as she saw it, in “treating the destruction of a democracy as a political show — throwing Ukraine to the wolves and doing a favor for Putin.” 

Meanwhile, former Republican congresswoman and leading Trump critic Liz Cheney said on social media that Trump and Vance had “attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine.”

Cheney added, “History will remember this day— when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”

Trump loyalists wear such disapproval as a badge of honor, of course. But there is no mistaking how deep the dismay runs on the other side.

Republicans counter that Trump stood up for American interests

GOP voices rushed to acclaim Trump — and often bash Zelensky — for the way the Oval Office drama went down.

Broadly, the chorus of Republican approval viewed Trump as standing up for American interests and cast Zelensky as an ingrate.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg that the Ukrainian president “chose to let things go into a downward spiral on worldwide television.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had “never been more proud” of Trump and blamed Zelensky for a “disrespectful” display.

“I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelensky again,” Graham said.

Sen. Bill Hagerty, alluding to the contrast with the Biden presidency, wrote on social media, “The United States of America will no longer be taken for granted. The contrast between the last four years and now could not be clearer. Thank you, Mr. President.” 

The White House Office of Communications collated many such responses and sent them out in an email with the subject line, “Support Pours in for President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength.”

Happiest of all: Russia

For all the delight expressed by some of Trump’s domestic allies, the real gloating seemed to come from Moscow.

Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev, who served as Russia’s president more than a decade ago, celebrated on social media that “the insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”

Medvedev also endorsed Trump’s view that Zelensky was gambling with World War Three. 

The Associated Press (AP) quoted a Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, as describing the outcome of the meeting as “a brilliant result.”

Klishas, per the AP, wrote on Telegram that Zelensky had “played his role of a ‘president’ poorly in the White House and was thrown out for bad behavior and disrespect towards the US.”

Whatever Trump’s intentions, the current picture could hardly look rosier from the Kremlin’s perspective. 

Russia has been advancing on the battlefield, Ukraine is now starkly at odds with its chief benefactor and it’s not at all clear Trump will press Putin for major concessions in any peace deal.

 

Trump policy rattles European allies

Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday made separate speeches that rattled European leaders. US officials said Europeans cannot expect American troops to be on the continent forever.

Speaking at a press conference in Warsaw, Poland, Hegseth said that US force levels in Europe are important but must be scrutinized.

"What happens five, 10, 15 years from now is part of a larger discussion that reflects the threat level, America’s posture, our needs around the globe, but most importantly the capability of European countries to step up," he said.

"That’s why our message is so stark to our European allies — now is the time to invest because you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever."

His comments come on the end of a week-long trip through Europe that included stops in Germany to visit US Africa Command and Brussels for a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers. While at the alliance headquarters, he hinted that Europeans would have to step up conventional deterrence against Russia.

Hegseth also sparked fears as to whether the US would largely abandon investment in NATO moving forward after he expressed “that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

No decision has yet been made on changing US force presence in Europe, though the Trump administration has said it is reviewing where it puts troops globally.

Vance, meanwhile, in remarks at the Munich Security Conference, argued the biggest threats facing Europe were not China or Russia, but the issue of mass migration and laws that restrict free speech.

“While the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine … the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor,” Vance said.

“And what I worry about is the threat from within,” he continued. “The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”

Vance’s remarks did not delve into the conflict in Ukraine, where the Trump administration is pushing for a ceasefire negotiation, nor did he discuss at length President Trump’s desire for Europe to commit more to defense spending.

Instead, Vance accused European officials of using laws meant to minimize misinformation and disinformation to marginalize populist voices and voters, which garnered a tepid reception in the room.