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.

Trump-Mamdani Meeting: An Unexpected but Constructive Moment

In an unusually cordial Oval Office meeting, President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani set aside months of mutual criticism to explore areas of cooperation. The encounter between two ideologically opposite figures was striking not only for its substance but for its tone. Gone were the harsh labels and charged rhetoric. Instead, both men emphasized affordability, shared responsibility, and their mutual interest in seeing New York City thrive.

Trump, who had previously characterized Mamdani in stark ideological terms, repeatedly stepped in to shield the mayor-elect from adversarial questions. The president even joked about photo angles and urged reporters to acknowledge areas of agreement. Mamdani, for his part, maintained his positions while stressing that ideological differences should not impede work on the city’s urgent economic challenges.

For the 34-year-old mayor-elect, the meeting was politically advantageous. He demonstrated a willingness to engage constructively with the president without compromising on principle. Trump’s warm remarks — including saying he would feel comfortable living in New York under Mamdani — undercut months of attempts by critics to paint the mayor-elect as a radical threat. The optics alone blunted a central Republican attack line heading into the midterms.

Trump also gained from the interaction. By surprising observers with an affable, conciliatory tone, he created a media moment that highlighted his ability to find common ground across ideological lines. His focus on affordability resonated with voters who have long cited economic pressures as their top concern, and he capitalized on the contrast between expectations of conflict and the reality of cooperation.

The sharpest blow fell on GOP strategists and media voices who had sought to build a sustained anti-Mamdani narrative. Trump’s own comments deflated that effort in minutes, raising questions about the future viability of that messaging. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s media critics found their lines of attack weakened as Trump dismissed hostile framing during the press exchange.

Beyond the political theater, the meeting holds meaningful implications for New York. Trump’s earlier signals about potentially withholding federal funds now seem remote, and the prospects for coordination on affordability have improved. If both leaders maintain this pragmatic tone, New York City stands to benefit from a rare moment of cooperation at the highest levels.

In a polarized era, the encounter offered a refreshing reminder that dialogue — even between unlikely partners — can still yield positive outcomes for all involved.

Different Narratives on MBS Visit to the US

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the United States should have been a major diplomatic moment. Washington is reportedly seeking up to one trillion dollars in Saudi investment and is pushing to secure large-scale defence deals—developments that would ordinarily draw substantial media attention. Yet the muted coverage reveals a deeper divergence in narratives, shaped by political interests, historical biases, and selective framing within the US media.

American media reporting on the visit was surprisingly limited, and when it did appear, it was often filtered through familiar lenses. One reason lies in the highly polarized nature of US media, where influential lobbies and advocacy groups help shape editorial priorities.

Coverage of Middle Eastern leaders—especially from the Muslim world—tends to be influenced by domestic political calculations and long-standing geopolitical alliances. The result is not necessarily overt hostility but selective emphasis. In the case of the Crown Prince, this has meant that past allegations continue to overshadow the strategic dynamics of the visit.

A second dimension is the recurring focus on old controversies. Even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Riyadh have evolved substantially, parts of the US press remain firmly tied to earlier narratives.

Over the past several years, both countries have recalibrated their relationship, recognizing shared interests in energy stability, defence cooperation, and regional security. The Biden administration’s strategic engagement with Riyadh—especially in the face of global competition and shifting economic centers—underscores this recalibration. Yet certain media outlets still prioritize revisiting past accusations rather than analyzing the present-day stakes.

A third narrative thread centers on the Abraham Accords. Much of the American media continues to portray Saudi Arabia as the “missing link” in the normalization framework, framing Riyadh as hesitant or resistant. However, such portrayals often overlook the Kingdom’s stated position - normalization cannot move meaningfully forward without addressing Palestinian rights and a credible path to peace. This is not a rejectionist stance but one rooted in longstanding regional consensus. Oversimplifying it into reluctance ignores the political and moral considerations shaping Saudi policy.

What the muted media response fails to capture is the broader significance of the visit. The U.S. push for extensive Saudi investment—at a time of domestic economic uncertainty—reflects both economic urgency and geopolitical necessity. Saudi Arabia’s global profile is expanding, backed by deep financial reserves, ambitious economic reforms, and growing ties with China, South Asia, and emerging markets. For the U.S., maintaining strong ties with the world’s largest energy exporter remains strategically vital. For Saudi Arabia, diversifying partnerships does not mean distancing itself from Washington; rather, it reflects a more assertive, multi-vector foreign policy.

Ultimately, the contrasting narratives surrounding the Crown Prince’s visit say more about American media dynamics than about the visit itself. The gap between U.S. foreign-policy priorities and media portrayals highlights a persistent misalignment: domestic political framing often eclipses strategic realities. In this instance, the real story lies not in how the visit was covered—but in how much was left uncovered.

 

Trump-BBC Rift: A Test of Ego, Power, and Media Credibility

The rift between US President, Donald Trump and the BBC should have been resolved the moment the broadcaster apologized for the flawed edit of his January 06, 2021, speech. The program was not aired in the United States, was not accessible to American voters, and the BBC openly acknowledged the mistake. Any leader genuinely focused on governance would have accepted the apology and moved on. But Trump, driven by a familiar high-handedness, has chosen confrontation over closure.

This is not new territory. Trump has repeatedly used legal threats as political tools, often presenting himself as a victim of vast conspiracies. His latest threat—to sue the BBC for up to US$5 billion—feels less like a quest for justice and more like an extension of his personalized politics, where grievances are amplified and institutions are pressured to bend to his narrative. It is, in many ways, a performance of power.

For the BBC this is no mere drama. As a publicly funded British institution, its credibility directly affects British reputation. Retreating in the face of Trump’s aggressive posture would undermine both its journalistic independence and the trust of licence-fee payers. In an era when media houses worldwide are accused—sometimes rightly—of serving political agendas, the BBC cannot afford to appear intimidated by any leader, foreign or domestic.

The Reuters report makes the legal landscape even clearer. Trump intends to sue in Florida, bypassing the UK where limitations have expired, yet he faces the far tougher American defamation standard. The BBC is expected to argue convincingly that the program was inaccessible to US voters and carried no malicious intent. His claim of reputational harm is further diluted by the fact that he ultimately won the 2024 election.

In broader geopolitical terms, major powers have long used media as instruments of influence—Washington through the CIA, London through MI5 and MI6. If US agencies can leverage media for strategic messaging, British ones cannot stand idle while a national broadcaster’s integrity is questioned on questionable grounds.

Ultimately, this episode reveals more about Trump’s inflated sense of entitlement than about the BBC’s misstep. A leader secure in legitimacy would have accepted the apology. Instead, Trump has once again elevated ego above statesmanship.

US–Riyadh Dialogue Enters a New Phase

The meeting between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and US President Donald Trump signals not just a diplomatic engagement but a recalibration of one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in modern geopolitics. Both sides arrive with clear agendas, yet the regional landscape they must navigate has changed dramatically. As Washington pushes for investments, defence arrangements, and normalization with Israel, Riyadh appears more cautious, more self-assured, and far less willing to accept old formulas.

For Trump, the objectives are straightforward: 1) secure a massive US$500 billion Saudi investment, 2) persuade the Kingdom to join the Abraham Accords, and 3) lock in lucrative arms deals. His administration is presenting the visit as an opportunity to “broaden ties,” spanning commerce, technology, and even nuclear cooperation.

It is MBS’s first US trip since Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in 2018 — an event that caused global outrage but has now been diplomatically “moved past” in Washington’s narrative. Trump is expected to again sidestep human rights concerns, focusing instead on transactional gains.

Saudi investment on the scale of half a trillion dollars carries inherent risks for the Kingdom. Such deep financial exposure would place Riyadh firmly within Washington’s strategic orbit, making it vulnerable to political pressure from the US and, by extension, from Israel. The Kingdom knows that once its capital becomes entrenched in the American economy, it loses critical room for maneuver in foreign policy.

The second US priority — coaxing Riyadh into the Abraham Accords — remains far more complex. Saudi Arabia has outlined clear conditions for recognizing Israel, yet Trump’s approach relies more on pressuring Riyadh than moderating Israeli policies. MBS is acutely aware of the domestic, religious, and geopolitical sensitivities tied to formal ties with Israel. Entering the Accords without significant concessions from Tel Aviv would carry unpredictable consequences at home and across the Muslim world.

Washington’s third objective, securing large defence deals, is no longer guaranteed. The longstanding US narrative portraying Iran as the Kingdom’s chief threat justified decades of American arms sales. But with Riyadh and Tehran now engaged in détente — shifting from “foes” to “friends” — the rationale for massive weapons purchases has eroded. The Kingdom today sees no imminent adversary that requires US arsenals.

The old oil-for-security arrangement has weakened. Saudi Arabia now seeks more — a formal defence pact ratified by Congress, nuclear cooperation, and access to advanced AI technologies central to its Vision 2030 aspirations. Washington may instead offer a limited executive-order commitment, far from the ironclad guarantee Riyadh desires.

MBS arrives United States with ambition but also clarity. Trump may push hard, but the Kingdom is no longer willing to operate under outdated assumptions. The Washington–Riyadh dialogue is indeed entering a new phase — one defined not by dependence, but by negotiation, recalibration, and a shifting balance of power.

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.

Pak–Afghan trade standoff: Self-Inflicted Losses for Both Sides

The Pakistan–Afghanistan trade standoff is fast turning from a political dispute into an economic disaster. Both sides claim victory, yet both are bleeding revenue, jobs, and regional influence — while Iran and Central Asia quietly collect the gains.

The disruption in Pak–Afghan transit trade has become a contest of blame and bravado, but beneath the rhetoric lies a shared economic loss. Both countries are paying the price for political posturing.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has termed the situation a “blessing in disguise,” arguing that reduced cross-border movement will curb smuggling, terrorism, and market distortion. Yet, the security argument offers little comfort to exporters whose businesses now stand still.

Since mid-October, border crossings have remained closed, leaving thousands of trucks stranded and trade worth over US$45 million in limbo. Exporters of cement, textiles, footwear, fruits, and food items in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh are bearing the brunt. With more than 60 percent of Afghan imports already diverted to Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey, Pakistan risks losing both the Afghan and Central Asian markets.

For Afghanistan, Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar’s call to find alternate routes may project defiance and independence, but the costs are real. Afghan traders rely on Pakistan’s ports and goods, especially for food and medicines. Turning to Iran or Central Asia will lengthen routes and raise costs, pushing prices higher for Afghan consumers.

Meanwhile, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan quietly emerge as the real beneficiaries. Their ports and overland routes are gaining traction as Afghanistan diversifies its trade options.

In the end, neither Islamabad nor Kabul wins. The prolonged standoff damages trade, jobs, and investor confidence on both sides. What could have been a bridge of mutual economic gain has turned into another front of economic self-destruction.

The message is clear: political posturing may please leaders, but it impoverishes nations.

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.

 

US Double Standards on Display Again

By boycotting the G-20 summit in South Africa, President Trump exposes the US habit of preaching human rights while protecting violators — a hypocrisy the world no longer buys.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that no US official will attend the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa exposes the glaring double standards that define American foreign policy. Citing alleged “human rights abuses” against white Afrikaners, Trump conveniently overlooks the far more serious violations that the United States has enabled and justified elsewhere — particularly in Gaza.

By accusing South Africa of persecution, Trump attempts to claim moral ground that Washington has long forfeited. The United States continues to supply lethal weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used in relentless bombardments of civilian populations. At the same time, it has repeatedly vetoed United Nations resolutions calling for ceasefire or accountability. To preach “human rights” while enabling systematic destruction in Gaza reflects an extraordinary level of hypocrisy.

Pretoria has rightly called Trump’s statements “regrettable” and “unsubstantiated.” South Africa, with its painful legacy of apartheid, understands the meaning of oppression better than most nations. Its willingness to take Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges demonstrates moral consistency — a quality increasingly absent in Washington’s diplomacy. Trump’s boycott of the G-20 appears less about ethics and more about punishing South Africa for standing with the oppressed.

This episode once again highlights America’s tendency to divide the world into allies and adversaries, applying one set of principles to itself and another to others. When convenient, Washington invokes democracy and rights; when inconvenient, it dismisses or undermines them. The decision to skip Johannesburg, while proudly preparing to host the 2026 summit in Miami, symbolizes this duplicity.

In a changing global order, such selective morality only erodes US credibility. The world is no longer willing to accept Washington’s self-appointed role as the arbiter of virtue. True leadership demands courage to face criticism, not avoidance of it. Trump’s refusal to attend the G-20 is not a statement of principle — it is an admission of moral weakness.

The First Casualty of Trump’s Stubbornness Is His Own Voters

The longest US government shutdown has exposed a painful irony — those most hurt by political rigidity are the very people who supported it. When governance becomes hostage to pride, it is citizens, not opponents, who pay first.

From federal paychecks to public benefits, the ongoing US government shutdown—the longest in American history—has disrupted daily life across the country. Ironically, many of those hit hardest are the very voters who helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

At the center of this standoff lies the administration’s refusal to compromise on the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies. What began as a fiscal debate has turned into an economic blockade. As Reuters reports, many Trump supporters now face halted incomes, cancelled contracts, and delayed benefits, yet continue to defend him—loyal even as their own livelihoods deteriorate.

This crisis is less about partisan politics and more about consequence. When governance becomes a test of endurance rather than judgment, it punishes the very citizens it is meant to protect. The small business owner in Florida losing contracts, the federal worker in Washington without pay, and the retiree in Arizona waiting for reimbursement—all stand as reminders that political rigidity carries real-world costs.

True leadership demands a balance between conviction and flexibility. By mistaking obstinacy for strength, the administration risks eroding not only economic stability but also the trust of its most loyal supporters. Each passing week of paralysis deepens uncertainty, weakens household confidence, and damages America’s broader economic reputation.

Defiance may be a political strategy, but governance requires adaptability. When pride replaces prudence, it is not opponents who suffer first—it is supporters. Trump’s base, once convinced that his unbending will serve their interests, now bears the burden of that same inflexibility.

In essence, this shutdown offers a sobering lesson in political consequence: stubbornness in power can inflict deeper wounds on one’s own camp than on any rival. The first casualty of Trump’s stubbornness is, indeed, his own voters.

Fall of Three US Indexes: A Clear Warning

I do not claim to possess a “crystal ball,” yet only yesterday I cautioned that the “Tariff Fassad initiated by Trump may trigger a global meltdown.” Unfortunately, the first signs are already emerging. On Thursday, all three major US stock indices closed in negative territory, extending the tech-led selloff that began earlier in the week. Investor sentiment has turned fragile, weighed down by economic uncertainty and overstretched valuations, particularly in artificial intelligence-driven stocks.

Global supply chains are distorted, input costs are rising, and export-oriented economies are under strain. From Chinese manufacturing hubs to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Trade volumes are shrinking, and markets across continents are responding with anxiety.

While technology giants continue to post record earnings and soaring valuations, this momentum rests on a precariously thin foundation. Analysts are increasingly calling it a “tech bubble.”

When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately, it distorts the entire financial ecosystem. Banks, small businesses, and industrial shares begin to absorb the pressure. This is not sustainable growth—it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are losing ground, consumer demand is softening, yet Big Tech is being priced as though the global economy is booming. This is speculation dressed as optimism.

Banks—the backbone of every financial system—are also showing early signs of stress. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-exposed industries are beginning to surface in their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is gradually eroding. Smaller financial institutions appear particularly vulnerable as their exposure to fragile industries grows unchecked. This may not resemble the sudden collapse of Lehman Brothers; rather, it could be a slow suffocation, where trust quietly seeps out of the system.

For investors in Pakistan—many of whom still carry the scars of 2008—caution is imperative. This is not the time for adventurism. Those holding fundamentally strong stocks should not be swayed by daily market volatility. Day traders must operate strictly within their risk tolerance. Those trading with borrowed money should consider stepping aside until the situation stabilizes.

Nancy Pelosi — A Woman Who Stayed When Others Stepped Back

For more than four decades, Nancy Pelosi has been more than a political figure to me — she has been a quiet lesson in resilience. In a world where power often wore a man’s face, she stepped into Congress not with noise, but with purpose. She didn’t just become the first female Speaker of the House — she became proof that patience, discipline, and conviction can move even the heaviest walls.

Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to serve as the powerful speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Thursday that she will not run for reelection to Congress in 2026, ending the four-decade career of a progressive Democratic icon often vilified by the right. The 85 year old congresswoman, first elected in 1987, made her announcement two days after voters in California overwhelmingly approved "Proposition 50," a state redistricting effort aimed at flipping five House seats to Democrats in next year's midterm elections.

 What I admire most is this, when moments demanded courage, she did not step back. Whether it was passing the Affordable Care Act or defending democratic institutions in deeply divided times, Pelosi stood steady. She was not flawless — no leader is — but she held her ground when others hesitated, and sometimes that is the rarest form of strength.

Yet, her story is not without its shadows. In her commitment to stability and institutional respect, she sometimes slowed the push for bold reform. Younger voices wanted disruption; she chose caution. Was it restraint, or wisdom? Perhaps it was both — the burden of someone who knows just how fragile power can be.

At her side, though rarely in the spotlight, has stood Paul Pelosi — her husband, her confidant. Their partnership reminds us that even the strongest public figures are still human hearts, seeking comfort after the cameras are gone.

And that is why she matters to me. Nancy Pelosi did not simply make history — she endured it. She stayed when many would have walked away. And in doing so, she taught us that true leadership is not about applause — but about staying long enough to make a difference.

 

“Tariff Fassad” Initiated by Trump May Trigger Global Meltdown

The global economy today resembles a pressure cooker — silently building steam, waiting for the smallest policy misstep to explode. The “Tariff Fassad” initiated by US president, Donald Trump during is not an isolated episode but the beginning of a dangerous shift toward economic nationalism. Its aftershocks are now resurfacing as governments across continents flirt with protectionism, weaponized trade, and retaliatory tariffs. If not checked, this confrontation could unleash consequences far worse than “Subprime Loan Crisis of 2008”.

Unlike 2008 — which was rooted in irresponsible lending and Wall Street malpractice — this crisis is being fueled by deliberate political choices. Tariffs have distorted supply chains, raised input costs, and crippled export-oriented economies. From Chinese manufacturers to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Global trade volumes are shrinking, and markets are reacting nervously.

The irony is striking, while tech giants continue to report record profits and soaring valuations, this growth stands on a very fragile foundation. Analysts are calling it a “Tech Bubble”, and not without reason. When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately banks, small businesses, and industrial shares come under pressure, it is not growth — it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are bleeding, consumer demand is weakening, and yet Big Tech is being priced as if the world economy is booming. This is speculation masquerading as optimism.

Banks, the backbone of any financial system, are showing worrying signs. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-dependent industries have started to appear on their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is eroding. Smaller financial institutions are especially at risk as their exposure to fragile sectors grows unchecked. This may not be a sudden collapse like Lehman Brothers — it could be a gradual suffocation, where trust quietly disappears from the system.

Emerging economies are caught in a chokehold. Currencies are under pressure, foreign exchange reserves are being depleted to manage imports, and inflation is creeping upward. For countries dependent on exports or imported raw materials, Trump-style tariff aggression has become an economic nightmare. Meanwhile, global institutions like the WTO and IMF remain spectators — issuing statements rather than solutions.

Markets do not collapse only due to bad economics; they collapse when confidence dies. Tariff wars, geopolitical brinkmanship, and speculative bubbles are collectively eroding that confidence. The threat today is not of a market crash alone — it is of a systemic disintegration of trust, credit, and cooperation.

The world must realize that economic wars have no winners. If this tariff-driven arrogance continues, the global economy will not fall off a cliff — it will slide slowly into chaos. Policymakers still have time to act, but the clock is ticking fast.

 

Mamdani Victory Signals Political Shift

The election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City represents more than a personal milestone—it signals a broader shift in civic and political sensibility. In choosing a candidate who openly challenged entrenched alliances tied to Wall Street, the oil-and-gas industry and the military-industrial complex, New Yorkers have sent a message: we want governance that prioritizes people over power, communities over cronies.

Mamdani’s victory is historic. He becomes the city’s first Muslim and first South-Asian mayor, and one of its youngest. Yet the significance goes deeper: his campaign was grounded in grassroots mobilization, small-donor financing, and an agenda built on affordability, public transit, housing justice and social inclusion. In doing so, it rejected the status quo of big money and big influence.

For those of us who hope to see the next generation of senators and congress-members break from the usual patronage of oil companies, Wall Street and military contractors, this election offers a template. It confirms that voters are not powerless; they can elect leaders who owe their mandate to citizens, not to corporate-political machines. The challenge now is to extend that mindset beyond city hall to state houses and Capitol Hill.

Yet caveats abound. Victory in a campaign is one thing; governing effectively is another. New York is mired in debt, facing infrastructure decay, deep inequality and institutional inertia. Mamdani must now translate bold rhetoric into concrete delivery. Housing affordability, free or cheap transit, meaningful reforms—all these will test whether the electoral surge becomes sustainable policy.

Equally important is governing for the whole city. If a leader emerges as a polarizer, the mandate risks fracturing. To hold together a diverse coalition, Mamdani will need to build bridges across boroughs, racial and economic divides, ethnic and religious communities. A commitment to social justice does not exempt one from the need for pragmatic consensus-building.

In short, congratulations, Mayor-elect Mamdani. Your win matters. It matters because it signals a possible turning point—a moment when voters said yes to different leadership, yes to accountability, yes to a politics less beholden to big-money interests. For those watching across the country, prepare for the next phase: not simply new names in the Senate or House, but new models of representation. Replace the old cronies with leaders purely accountable to the public. That is the promise. Now comes the work to fulfil it.

 

Trump’s Belligerence Toward Venezuela

US Representative Ro Khanna has called for urgent congressional action to prevent “another endless, regime-change war,” following reports that President Donald Trump is considering military strikes against Venezuela. Khanna warned such actions would be “blatantly unconstitutional,” emphasizing that no president has the authority to launch attacks without Congress’ approval.

Reports from the Miami Herald claimed the Trump administration has decided to strike Venezuelan military installations, while the Wall Street Journal reported that potential targets—mainly military facilities allegedly used for drug smuggling—have been identified, though Trump has not made a final decision. According to unnamed officials, the goal of these strikes would be to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

While the White House denies any finalized plans, Trump said aboard Air Force One that he believes he has the authority to act without congressional approval. Last week, he suggested land strikes could follow recent unauthorized and deadly attacks on boats in waters near Central and South America.

Despite growing concerns about a possible unauthorized military escalation, only a handful of lawmakers have voiced strong opposition. Senators Tim Kaine, Rand Paul, and Adam Schiff have backed a resolution to block Trump from launching strikes without congressional authorization. Other lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Ruben Gallego, have condemned Trump’s aggressive posture.

Sanders argued Trump is “illegally threatening war with Venezuela,” stressing that only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war. Public opposition is also evident; Dylan Williams from the Center for International Policy noted that most Americans oppose forcibly overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

Williams urged citizens to contact their senators and support S.J.Res.90, a resolution to block unauthorized military action. In the House, a similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow has gained over 30 cosponsors. Representative Joe Neguse, who supports the measure, said Trump “does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without specific authorization by Congress,” calling any unilateral action reckless and unconstitutional.

Neguse added that the American public does not want another endless war and that constitutional norms require congressional deliberation—period.

Why Pak-Afghan Conflict Remains Unresolved?

The conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains unresolved because it is rooted in a mix of historical disputes, mutual mistrust, and competing security interests that have persisted for decades. Despite cultural, religious, and economic linkages, both nations continue to view each other with suspicion rather than cooperation.

At the heart of the problem lies the Durand Line, drawn by the British in 1893 and inherited by Pakistan after independence. Afghanistan has never formally recognized it as an international border, claiming it divides the Pashtun population. Pakistan, however, considers the frontier legally settled. This disagreement has become a symbol of deeper political and ethnic tensions.

The Pashtun question adds another layer of complexity. The tribes on both sides share linguistic and familial ties, but political narratives have often turned these affinities into instruments of rivalry. Pakistan fears Afghan nationalism could spill over its borders, while Kabul perceives Pakistan’s involvement as interference in its internal affairs.

Security concerns have long overshadowed diplomacy. Since the Soviet invasion of 1979, Pakistan has played a key role in Afghan affairs, hosting millions of refugees and supporting various political factions. Yet, both sides accuse each other of harboring hostile groups — Pakistan blames Afghanistan for sheltering the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), while Kabul accuses Islamabad of backing insurgents. This cycle of allegations has eroded trust.

The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 initially raised hopes for stability, but their refusal to recognize the Durand Line and restrain TTP activities has renewed friction. Meanwhile, regional players — including India, Iran, China, and the United States — continue to shape dynamics that complicate bilateral understanding.

For lasting peace, both countries must shift from blame to dialogue, strengthen border management, and build economic interdependence through trade and connectivity. The Pak-Afghan relationship should not remain hostage to history; instead, it should evolve into a partnership anchored in mutual respect and regional stability.

Only through sustained diplomacy, trust-building, and shared development goals can Pakistan and Afghanistan transform a troubled past into a cooperative future.

 

 

Billionaires vs. Mamdani: Democracy for Sale

The billionaire class is spending millions to block Zohran Mamdani’s rise — not because he threatens New York City’s stability, but because he threatens their supremacy. Mamdani’s agenda of taxing the ultra-rich to fund housing, public transit, and child care strikes at the heart of a system that lets the few profit while the many struggle. His opponents — hedge-fund moguls, property tycoons, and Wall Street donors — are pouring unprecedented sums into super PACs to drown out a movement built on ordinary citizens.

This isn’t about protecting the economy; it’s about protecting privilege. The same billionaires who hoard wealth offshore suddenly claim to care about fiscal discipline. Their fear is ideological — that Mamdani’s victory will prove that grassroots politics can defeat corporate cash. They see democracy not as a marketplace of ideas, but as an asset they can buy, trade, and hedge against.

By weaponizing money to silence dissenting voices, they expose the fragility of American democracy. A candidate advocating fairness is branded a threat, while those funding inequality are hailed as “defenders of growth.” The irony is suffocating.

Mamdani’s campaign is more than a local contest — it’s a referendum on whether voters or billionaires rule America. Every dollar spent against him is a vote against equality, against the idea that power should serve the people, not purchase them. If billionaires succeed in crushing his candidacy, it will not be a victory for democracy — it will be its price tag.