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.

Asia Pacific leaders meeting in South Korea

Leaders from 21 Pacific Rim economies will gather this week in Gyeongju, South Korea, for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, forum.

Meetings have begun on Monday and will run through Saturday. Talks are expected to be overshadowed by US President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs and high-stakes trade standoffs with China and other nations.

Trump will arrive on Wednesday but is scheduled to depart before the APEC leaders' summit itself. He is expected to see Chinese President Xi Jinping for their first in-person meeting of Trump's second term, as the two countries seek to dial down trade tensions.

The following are facts about the APEC meeting:

APEC, which was founded in 1989, has 21 members that represent more than 50% of global GDP and are home to some 2.7 billion people, or 40% of the world's population. China, Russia and the United States are three of the group's largest members. The APEC region generated 70% of the world's economic growth during its first 10 years of existence.

Leaders of the countries meet annually. The last gathering was in November 2024 in Peru, dominated by worries over the incoming Trump administration's vows to enact tariffs and reverse course on issues like climate change.

The economic club aims to encourage cooperation and reduce trade and investment barriers, though decisions made at meetings are non-binding and consensus has been increasingly difficult. South Korea says it wants to use this year's forum to discuss supply chains, the World Trade Organization's role in fostering a free and fair-trade environment, as well as advancing the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, an agreement designed to eventually include all APEC members.

The agenda also includes topics like adapting to digital change, harnessing artificial intelligence, sustainable energy, food supplies, responding to demographic shifts and increasing opportunities for women and people with disabilities.

South Korea is hosting Trump and Xi for state visits and it is hoping to make progress on a trade deal with the US President, Lee Jae Myung has suggested Trump use the visit to engage with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but it is unclear whether a meeting will happen.

Have All Abandoned Hamas?

The question of whether Hamas has been completely abandoned by its allies deserves a nuanced answer. While the militant-political organization is under unprecedented isolation and financial strain, it has not been left entirely friendless. What has changed is not the existence of support, but the depth and nature of it. The few remaining backers are more pragmatic and cautious than ideological.

Iran remains the most steadfast supporter of Hamas, but even Tehran’s approach has shifted from enthusiasm to calculation. The Islamic Republic continues to provide limited training, intelligence, and weapons through its network that includes Hezbollah and the IRGC. Yet, Hamas no longer occupies the central role it once did in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” Tehran’s strategic priority today is containing Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintaining deterrence in Syria and Iraq. In that equation, Hamas has become an auxiliary, not a frontline force.

Qatar, long seen as Hamas’s financial lifeline, has also recalibrated its policy. The unmonitored cash deliveries to Gaza that sustained Hamas’s governance structure are now being rerouted through the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Doha seeks to retain its role as a mediator rather than an outright patron. That shift leaves Hamas with a smaller and more conditional stream of funds — insufficient to maintain administrative control in a war-torn enclave.

Turkey’s support, meanwhile, has settled into the realm of rhetoric. President Erdoğan continues to speak forcefully for Palestinian rights, but Ankara avoids concrete steps that could jeopardize its economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Turkey’s relationship with Hamas has become largely symbolic — a political shield rather than a material one.

Across the Arab world, the mood has changed dramatically. Egypt views Hamas as a destabilizing factor on its Sinai frontier; Jordan and the Gulf monarchies see it as a residue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and Saudi Arabia, pursuing strategic normalization with Israel, has little appetite for association. The UAE, a key Arab power, treats Hamas as a security threat rather than a liberation movement. This new regional consensus marks a profound isolation for the group.

Yet, Hamas is not entirely defeated. It continues to command thousands of fighters, retains limited weapons stockpiles, and still projects control over parts of Gaza. More importantly, popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the Muslim world remains deeply rooted. But sympathy does not translate into resources. Without substantial state sponsorship, Hamas is now sustained mainly by resilience, underground networks, and a sense of defiance rather than structured external support.

In essence, Hamas stands at a crossroads. Its godfathers have not fully abandoned it, but their backing has turned conditional and cautious. The movement survives, but in a diminished, more isolated form — powerful enough to persist, yet too constrained to dominate. The age of ideological patronage is ending; what remains is a movement fighting for relevance amid the ruins it once ruled.

 

US War on Drugs or Control of Trade?

The United States has long waged wars with shifting names — “War on Terror,” “War on Drugs,” “War for Freedom.” Yet, behind every noble slogan lies a trail of power politics. The latest episode — dispatching an aircraft carrier to intercept drug boats — sounds more like a geopolitical maneuver than a humanitarian mission.

The US has once again deployed an aircraft carrier — not to confront a rival navy, but to chase down drug smugglers. The declared mission is to curb narcotics trafficking, yet the use of such massive military hardware for a policing task invites skepticism. Why send a carrier strike group — costing billions — to do what coast guards and drug enforcement units are meant to handle?

When Washington turns a military operation into a “war on drugs,” it often signals a wider agenda. The US Navy’s global reach conveniently allows it to assert presence in any region — from the Caribbean to the Pacific — under the noble banner of counter-narcotics. What appears to be law enforcement frequently doubles as strategic positioning. In a world where power projection is wrapped in moral language, fighting drug traffickers becomes a useful excuse for extending surveillance and influence.

There’s also a darker interpretation that refuses to fade. Could these “anti-drug” operations actually be a cover for controlling the lucrative narcotics trade itself? History does not absolve Washington. The Iran-Contra affair and recurring allegations of CIA-linked drug networks in Central America showed how the lines between enforcement and exploitation can blur. When tons of seized drugs disappear from transparency and accountability, suspicion fills the vacuum.

The global drug economy, valued at over half a trillion dollars annually, offers enormous leverage to whoever controls its routes and flows. By interdicting shipments, deciding which networks survive, and which are dismantled, the US effectively regulates the trade — if not overtly, then subtly.

The aircraft carrier, in this context, is not just chasing smugglers — it is asserting dominance. Washington’s “war on drugs” has become a convenient façade for strategic reach. After all, in America’s global playbook, every mission — even one draped in moral intent — is ultimately about control. In this war, purity may just be another commodity.

 

Trump’s Tariffs: Open Defiance of WTO Rules

“The WTO’s silence in the face of US defiance marks the slow death of multilateralism.”

When power tramples principle, the rulebook becomes meaningless. The United States, once the architect of global trade discipline, now stands as its most brazen violator. President Trump’s tariff crusade has reduced the WTO’s founding ideals to diplomatic theatre.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, it was supposed to end the era of arbitrary trade wars. Countries pledged to respect the Most-Favored-Nation principle — no discrimination, no selective punishment. Yet today, that rulebook lies in tatters, largely because the United States, the self-proclaimed guardian of free trade, has chosen to ignore it.

President Donald Trump’s latest wave of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports is nothing short of a declaration of defiance. Cloaked in the language of “national security,” these measures are neither lawful nor justified under WTO norms. These are pure economic bullying — a tactic to reassert American dominance under the guise of protecting domestic jobs.

Let’s be clear, the WTO’s Article XXI, which allows exceptions for national security, was never meant to give license for economic intimidation. Trump’s use of it is a cynical distortion, designed not to protect US borders but to weaponize trade policy. It exposes the hypocrisy of Washington preaching free markets abroad while practicing protectionism at home.

WTO panels have already ruled against such tariffs, but the US has paralyzed the system by blocking the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body — effectively ensuring no verdict can ever be enforced. This deliberate sabotage turns the WTO into a toothless watchdog, helpless against the very member it was meant to discipline.

The tragedy is not merely in Washington’s defiance but in the world’s silence. Each unjustified tariff erodes another layer of global trust, while the WTO watches from the sidelines, stripped of authority. If the international community fails to challenge US economic unilateralism now, the collapse of the multilateral trading order will not be a distant fear — it will be a fait accompli.

 

Fighting Without Fighting: Super Powers Wage War by Other Means

Wars are no longer fought only on battlefields. The twenty-first century has transformed the nature of conflict: the weapons are now economic sanctions, cyberattacks, and proxy alliances, while the targets are national economies and public perceptions. The art of modern warfare lies not in destroying armies but in destabilizing societies. This is the new face of power — fighting without fighting.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union perfected the strategy of indirect confrontation. They waged proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, where others fought on their behalf. That same philosophy now defines global politics once again. Today’s superpowers — primarily the United States, China, and Russia — prefer to engage through economic blockades, digital espionage, and information manipulation rather than direct military confrontation. The logic is simple, global integration makes total war too costly to win and too dangerous to survive.

Economic warfare has become the preferred tool. The United States uses financial sanctions and trade restrictions as strategic weapons. Russia, in turn, employs energy supplies as instruments of coercion. China manipulates market access and technology exports to shape global alignments. In this arena, a single executive order or export ban can inflict more damage than a missile strike. The global financial system has become a silent battlefield, where currencies, commodities, and credit replace tanks and artillery.

Cyber warfare adds another invisible dimension. State-backed hackers can paralyze banking systems, shut down power grids, or steal sensitive data — all without firing a shot.

The 2022–24 conflict in Ukraine, for instance, has shown how digital attacks and disinformation can amplify physical wars. The battlefield now includes social media platforms and data networks, where narratives are manufactured and public opinion is weaponized.

Meanwhile, proxy conflicts continue to shape regional politics — in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. These low-intensity wars allow great powers to test new technologies, weaken rivals, and expand influence without bearing the political cost of direct involvement. The blood is local, but the strategy is global.

The danger is that “war without war” is harder to detect and even harder to end. Economic sanctions, once imposed, linger for years; cyber weapons, once unleashed, spread uncontrollably. The absence of visible warfare creates a dangerous illusion of peace while societies quietly erode from within.

In this new world order, victory is no longer measured by territory captured but by systems disrupted, economies weakened, and narratives controlled. The future of conflict will not be marked by explosions but by silence — the silence of power grids failing, economies collapsing, and truths being rewritten.

The War That Will Never Be Fought — But Never End

The United States and the Soviet Union never fought a direct war, and their modern successors — Washington and Moscow — are unlikely ever to do so. Both possess nuclear arsenals capable of ending human civilization within hours, a reality that forces restraint even in the fiercest confrontations. Yet, the absence of direct warfare does not mean peace. From Korea to Ukraine, the two powers have fought shadow wars through proxies, sanctions, and propaganda — proving that while a nuclear world discourages combat, it encourages competition without limits.

The Cold War, which dominated the second half of the twentieth century, was essentially a struggle for global dominance without direct confrontation. The US and USSR armed their allies, financed revolutions, and competed for ideological influence from Asia to Latin America. Conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan became testing grounds for superpower ambitions. Each side bled indirectly, ensuring that nuclear deterrence remained intact while smaller nations paid the human cost.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many believed the Cold War had ended for good. But three decades later, the same strategic rivalry re-emerged — this time between the US and Russia. The Ukraine war has become the modern version of a Cold War battlefield. The US supplies advanced weapons, intelligence, and economic support to Kyiv, while Russia frames the conflict as a defensive war against NATO encirclement. Both powers fight fiercely, but indirectly, ensuring no direct clash between American and Russian troops.

The logic remains the same - nuclear deterrence equals survival. Direct war would mean destruction for both, leaving only proxy wars, cyber battles, and economic coercion as tools of power. Each side tests the other’s limits without crossing the line of mutual annihilation. The contest has moved from ideology to influence — from red flags and capitalism to control over energy routes, technology, and global alliances.

Even hawkish voices in Washington calling for tougher action against Moscow know the line that cannot be crossed. Sanctions may strangle economies; drones and missiles may change the battlefield; but a direct strike remains unthinkable. Moscow, too, understands this calculus. The nuclear shadow keeps both in check — unwilling to yield, yet unable to attack.

In truth, the Cold War never died; it simply evolved. The battlegrounds have changed, but the mindset remains: weaken the rival, avoid direct war, and dominate the narrative. Proxy adventurism — from Eastern Europe to cyberspace — will persist as the preferred weapon of choice. The world’s two great powers may never face each other openly, but their shadow duel ensures the war that will never be fought will also never end.

Trump’s America: Angrier, Divided, and Diminished

Donald Trump has left an indelible mark on American politics — and not necessarily for the better. As anti-Trump demonstrations re-emerge across major cities, the United States stands at a moral and institutional crossroads. The man who promised to “Make America Great Again” may have, in fact, made it angrier, more divided, and dangerously unpredictable.

Trump entered politics as an outsider, a businessman who vowed to drain the Washington “swamp.” Instead, he deepened the very rot he claimed to fight. His tenure blurred the line between governance and self-promotion. Policy became theatre, and truth became negotiable. America’s traditional allies were alienated, global agreements torn up, and diplomacy reduced to Twitter outbursts. Under the banner of “America First,” the United States often stood alone.

Economically, Trump’s initial years delivered the illusion of prosperity — rising markets, corporate tax cuts, and record-low unemployment. But beneath that glitter lay unsustainable deficits, widened inequality, and a fragile economy that crumbled under the first major shock of COVID-19. His pandemic response was chaotic, driven by denial and blame rather than science or empathy. The cost was measured not only in lives lost but in the erosion of public trust.

Perhaps Trump’s most lasting legacy is the deep polarization he cultivated. He thrived on division — turning neighbors into adversaries and truth into casualty. His relentless attacks on media, judiciary, and federal institutions weakened the very foundations that once made America resilient. The January 6th attack on the Capitol was not an aberration; it was the logical culmination of years of incitement and contempt for democratic norms.

Internationally, Trump diminished America’s moral authority. He cozied up to autocrats, undermined multilateralism, and reduced global leadership to transactional bargaining. Even where he scored diplomatic points — such as Middle East normalization deals — the motivation seemed less about peace and more about personal legacy. The result: a world less trusting of American commitments and more skeptical of its leadership.

Today’s protests are not just about Trump’s politics — these are about what America has become under his shadow. A nation once admired for its democratic strength now struggles with internal distrust, misinformation, and fear of its own divisions. Trump did not create America’s anger, but he weaponized it — and that will remain his most enduring contribution.

Let us explore, has Trump made the United States better or worse? The evidence is painfully clear. He has exposed America’s vulnerabilities, exploited its divisions, and left behind a democracy that feels more fragile than ever. The real question is whether America can recover from the politics of resentment he unleashed — or whether Trump’s version of greatness has permanently altered the American soul.

 

Media reports rarely tell truth about crude oil dynamics

Crude oil is produced in many countries, but mostly traded at United States and European exchanges. The producers are often cheated through “cash-settled contracts,” where traders make or lose money without ever taking physical delivery. The real beneficiaries are traders and brokers, while producers are conveniently blamed for rise or fall in production.

The global oil market thrives on numbers — and the manipulation of those numbers. In recent months, a wave of contradictory reports about production, inventories, and demand forecasts has left analysts scratching their heads. This confusion is not the result of poor data collection; it is often a calculated strategy to influence markets, politics, and perceptions.

OPEC Plus producers have long mastered the art of “strategic opacity.” By understating their actual output, they create the illusion of compliance with agreed production cuts and keep prices artificially firm.

At the same time, major consumers — particularly the United States and China — have their own reasons to talk down prices by projecting excess supply or slowing demand. The numbers they release, or the ones they emphasize, are shaped not by accuracy but by advantage.

Even institutions with global credibility — the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) — frequently publish forecasts that seem less about data science and more about timing. Their revisions often coincide with key policy announcements or diplomatic shifts.

When oil prices rise too fast, one report warns of “demand destruction.” When prices fall, another quickly highlights “tight supply.” Such contradictions do not reflect improved understanding; they reflect managed narratives.

Private analytics firms and trading houses add another layer of distortion. In a market driven by algorithmic trading and speculative bets, even a single misleading headline can trigger billions in movements. The ambiguity surrounding real supply-demand dynamics benefits those who can manipulate sentiment faster than facts can catch up. For import-dependent nations like Pakistan, this fog of misinformation results in erratic import costs, unpredictable subsidies, and fiscal strain.

The fundamental problem is that oil data remains under the control of those with vested interests. Despite advances in satellite tracking and tanker monitoring, governments and cartels still decide what to disclose — and when. Transparency is talked about endlessly, but practiced sparingly.

Oil has always been more than just an energy commodity; it is a weapon of economic control. The constant release of conflicting numbers is part of a broader game — one where perception, not reality, drives policy and profit. Until the world moves toward truly independent and verifiable reporting of global oil flows, the “truth” about crude will remain flexible, convenient, and profitable — for a select few.

In the end, the market is not confused by accident. It is kept confused — deliberately.

Trump’s Dirty War in the Caribbean

Washington’s addiction to regime change has found a new victim — Venezuela

When power turns lawless, the result is not policy but brutality. The latest revelation that Donald Trump secretly authorized the CIA to conduct lethal operations in Venezuela exposes the United States’ old imperial reflex — to destroy what it cannot control. Cloaked in the language of “national security,” Washington is once again exporting death under the banner of democracy.

According to The New York Times, Trump’s inner circle — led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe — gave the agency sweeping authority to target Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, with or without military coordination. This covert license coincides with Trump’s deadly boat bombings in the Caribbean that have already claimed civilian lives. What began as a “war on drugs” now reeks of a war for oil and geopolitical dominance.

The much-hyped “America First” doctrine has mutated into an unapologetic form of gunboat diplomacy. History is repeating itself — coups in Guatemala, Chile, and Nicaragua are being replayed in a new theater. By designating drug cartels as “terrorist organizations,” Trump has arrogated to himself the right to kill without consequence, erasing the last boundaries between law and lawlessness.

Human rights groups call it what it is — murder. Even Colombian President Gustavo Petro warns that a new war zone has opened in the Caribbean, a tragic reminder that Washington’s militarism remains as indiscriminate as ever. The Caribbean, once a symbol of trade and culture, risks becoming another testing ground for American aggression.

Trump’s Venezuela campaign is not a policy — it is a crime unfolding in real time. Behind the patriotic slogans lies the same old formula: destabilize, divide, and dominate.

Empires do not collapse when they are challenged — they collapse when they mistake impunity for strength. Trump’s dirty war in the Caribbean may well be remembered as that fatal arrogance, when America’s moral compass finally sank beneath its own waves.

Pakistan-IMF: Partnership Built on Dependence

In my recent reflections on Pakistan’s economic dilemmas, one truth stands out — our relationship with the IMF has never been economic, it has always been political. What began as assistance for growth soon turned into a calculated trap of dependency. The IMF didn’t reform Pakistan’s economy; it reprogrammed its sovereignty.

Pakistan’s long association with the IMF has never truly been about stability; it has been about control. What started in the name of “support” evolved into a vicious cycle of borrowing, serving both foreign powers and the ruling elite at home.

During the Cold War, IMF lending was less about economics and more about strategy. Pakistan’s geography made it a convenient pawn in Washington’s global game of containment. Loans came with neatly crafted “conditionalities,” but the real aim was to keep Pakistan’s economy tethered to Western influence.

The much-advertised structural reforms were cosmetic. Land reforms never touched the feudal elite, tax reforms spared the powerful, and privatization transferred wealth to cronies. Instead of fostering industrial growth, policies promoted consumer industries — assembling fast-moving consumer goods rather than producing capital or export goods. The result: an illusion of progress built on imports and consumption.

With every bailout, the dependency mindset grew stronger. The IMF was always available, and policymakers were always willing. A belief took root — that salvation lies in foreign help, not self-reliance.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s, Pakistan was declared a “frontline ally.” The US poured in funds and influence, effectively turning Pakistan’s economy into a Cold War instrument. IMF support neatly aligned with Washington’s geopolitical interests, ensuring compliance rather than reform.

Over the decades, this external control merged with internal manipulation. Regime changes — military or civilian — often bore foreign fingerprints. Today, the IMF stands not as a partner in reform but as a symbol of economic subservience — proof that Pakistan’s journey from aid to autonomy remains unfinished.

Trump and world leaders sign Gaza peace accord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Pakistani Policies Turning Taliban Foe

The unraveling Pakistan–Taliban relationship highlights the limits of old security doctrines in a changing regional order.

When the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021, Pakistan hoped for a friendly neighbor and a stable frontier. Four years later, that optimism has faded. Relations have soured, trust has eroded, and the Taliban’s growing warmth toward India signals how far Islamabad’s Afghan policy has drifted from reality.

Pakistan’s once-comfortable relationship with the Taliban is deteriorating — not because of ideology, but because of Islamabad’s own policy. What was once hailed as “strategic depth” is now fast becoming a strategic setback.

For decades, Pakistan believed that supporting the Taliban would ensure border security and limit Indian influence. But since the group’s return to power, those assumptions have collapsed.

Instead of cooperation, Pakistan now faces increasing hostility - frequent border clashes, defiant statements from Kabul, and a resurgent Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) operating from Afghan soil.

The Taliban’s visible tilt toward India is a symptom of Islamabad’s stance. Pakistan has chosen pressure over diplomacy — closing key crossings, threatening to expel Afghan refugees, and publicly accusing Kabul of harboring militants.

These measures have not subdued the Taliban; they have driven them closer to New Delhi, which offers humanitarian aid and political legitimacy without direct interference.

The irony is stark. Pakistan, once the Taliban’s strongest backer, now finds itself isolated, while India — long regarded as an adversary in Afghan affairs — is quietly re-establishing presence in Kabul. The Taliban, in turn, are using this outreach to project independence and resist external dictates.

Islamabad’s Afghan policy remains trapped in outdated security thinking, viewing Kabul solely through the prism of control.

Unless Pakistan recalibrates its approach — replacing coercion with constructive engagement — it risks losing whatever influence it still retains. The “strategic depth” doctrine that once shaped policy has now turned dangerously shallow.