Trump Pushing China Towards Confrontation

Just before departing for China, US President Donald Trump imposed another round of sanctions targeting the movement of Iranian oil to China. Officially, Washington presents the move as part of its pressure campaign against Iran. In reality, the sanctions expose a far bigger strategic objective - tightening America’s economic grip around China.

This is not an isolated policy decision. Since returning to power, Trump has aggressively revived tariff wars, expanded restrictions on Chinese technology, intensified pressure on supply chains, and openly challenged Beijing’s growing influence across Asia and the Middle East. The latest sanctions simply add energy security to Washington’s expanding list of pressure tactics.

China’s economic machine depends heavily on uninterrupted energy imports. Iranian crude, often available at discounted prices, has remained an important component of China’s energy strategy despite Western sanctions. By attempting to choke these supplies, Washington is effectively signaling that no sector of the Chinese economy will remain outside the reach of American coercive power.

The message becomes even more provocative when discussions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are taken into account. Any blockade or disruption in this critical maritime corridor would severely impact Chinese industry, exports, and economic stability. Whether openly stated or not, the strategic implication is unmistakable - the United States is demonstrating its capacity to threaten the economic lifelines of its principal global rival.

Washington may be dangerously misreading Beijing’s patience. Today, China is not a weak, inward-looking economy of the 1990s. It is a global economic giant, a technological competitor, and an emerging military power increasingly unwilling to bow before American pressure. Every new tariff, sanction, or strategic threat deepens Chinese mistrust and accelerates Beijing’s efforts to reduce dependence on Western-controlled financial and trade systems.

From a geopolitical perspective, Trump appears convinced that sustained pressure will force China into strategic compromise. Yet history often produces the opposite result. Major powers rarely surrender under humiliation; they retaliate when they conclude that confrontation has become unavoidable.

The danger is that Washington’s relentless pressure campaign may gradually transform economic rivalry into open geopolitical hostility. If that happens, the consequences will extend far beyond China and America, shaking global trade, energy markets, and already fragile international stability.

Significance of Upcoming Trump-Xi Summit

Since former US President Richard Nixon landed in Beijing in 1972 and redefined US-China relations, no countries have done as well as these two. Since then the US has generated more than US$23 trillion in additional GDP, while China lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty, accounting for three-quarters of all global poverty reduction in the period. 

In 1990, China accounted for just 1.6% of global GDP; today it accounts for nearly 18%, meaning the two together now represent 44% of the world economy, up from 28% when globalization began in earnest.

A dollar invested in the S&P 500 the year Nixon landed in Beijing is worth over US$270 today. China, which had negligible industrial capacity in 1972, now produces more manufactured goods than the next nine countries combined.

This is not to say that the fruits of globalization were enjoyed equally within either economy. The CCP’s cultural genocide of the Uighurs and the slow-motion death of the US industrial heartland are the receipts: ruthless consolidation in China, hollowed-out communities, and rising inequality in America. But this was the deal both sides made.

The US told itself fairy tales about economic liberalization leading to a more democratic China; in fact, both populations simply got significantly richer than the rest of the world. And to quote the bard, therein lies the rub—in a US-China trade war, neither can win against the other. 

Victory in a US-China trade war is a competition about who can lose the least. The true winners are the countries that can stay out of the trade war, a difficult feat in a global economy so dominated by Washington and Beijing.

It’s easy to assign President Trump’s first term as the starting gun of the US-China trade conflict, since he ran on being tough on China back in 2015. But the fight began in 2009 when the Obama administration slapped a 35% tariff on tires from China.

Geopolitical forces were already well at work before Trump and Xi came to power. Trump speed things up, but his pressure was always in service of “the art of the deal.”

Then the pandemic hit. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that Beijing’s stubbornness made it much harder for the world to control the virus.

The pandemic threw US-China relations off course and likely helped Biden win in 2020—and Biden had no interest in making a deal with China.

Instead, he doubled down on Trump 1.0’s tough talk. Trump 2.0 prefers to pick up where he left off. His administration has threatened, cajoled, and tariffed China to no end, but it was clear even on the campaign trail that President Trump does not ultimately want to fight with China; he wants to deal with China.

In the then-candidate’s own words in August 2024, “If they want to build a plant in Michigan, in Ohio, in South Carolina, they can—using American workers, they can.”

This is one of President Trump’s most maverick policy choices. The US national security establishment and the rest of the “swamp” are China hawks.

They see China as the next great peer competition to US power in the world… and the most serious threat the US has ever faced. In terms of sheer size, power, and wealth, they are correct.

Moreover, the hawks aim to use Trump’s threats, which Trump needs as leverage in his negotiations, to realize their own goals in blocking the rise of Chinese power.

China would also rather avoid a fight—the US is its single largest export market, and exports make up roughly 20% of China’s GDP. When Trump 2.0 tariffs hit in 2025, bilateral trade fell 29%, yet the US remained China’s top export destination.

China produces 28% of global manufactured goods but can’t absorb them domestically, making the US the key buyer keeping its factories running. Still, China is ready to fight if needed, knowing a nationalist dictatorship can weather economic pain better than a liberal democracy.

It is evident that while the US and China have been negotiating, China rolled out new trade rules that lay the legal groundwork for punishing foreign companies that seek to shift their sourcing away from China.

Over the weekend, China told five domestic refiners linked to Iranian oil trade to ignore explicit US sanctions based on a 2021 Chinese law.

 

US remains an uninvited guest in Persian Gulf

I am pleased to share one of my blogs posted on May 06, 2020, nearly six years ago, arguing that the United States has no legitimate role in the Persian Gulf and is effectively an “uninvited guest.”

A key theme is historical legitimacy. Iranian officials draw parallels with past foreign powers such as Britain and Portugal, noting that they eventually left the region, implying the United States will also have to withdraw.

The Persian Gulf is framed not only as a strategic waterway but as part of Iran’s identity, with claims that it has been protected by Iranians for thousands of years.

The blog also highlights Iran’s emphasis on military readiness. Rouhani and others stress that Iran’s armed forces—including the Revolutionary Guards, army, and associated units—are fully capable of securing the region.

Iranian officials describe the US presence as a source of instability, tension, and insecurity, insisting that regional security should be handled by neighboring countries.

Overall, the blog reflects a coherent narrative aimed at delegitimizing US presence while asserting Iran’s dominance and responsibility in the Persian Gulf.

To read details please click https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2020/05/united-states-uninvited-guest-in.html

SeaLead operated vessel transits through Strait of Hormuz

According to Seatrade Maritimes News, the Antigua-Barbuda flagged container ship Paya Lebar has traded both into and back out of the Arabian Gulf between April 13-28.

The SeaLead Shipping operated and owned Paya Lebar transited westbound through the Strait of Hormuz westbound into the Gulf on April 13 having been at anchor in Nhava Sheva, India since late March.

While in the Gulf the vessel called at Jebel Ali and Khalifa ports in the UAE and Hamad in Qatar.

The Paya Lebar crossed the Strait of Hormuz eastbound on April 29 - passing the approximate location of the US naval blockade in the Arabian Sea as it heads back to Nhava Sheva.

The movements of the Paya Lebar would imply a change in policy by SeaLead which said on March 02 in customer advisory it had halted all transits through the Strait of Hormuz for the safety of its crews, ships, and cargoes.

In July last year the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned 16 container ships the company had on charter over links with Iran. SeaLead acted to quickly terminate the charters on the 16 vessels and denied it had ties with Iran.

However, in March this year the US Department of Justice filed civil forfeiture complaints seeking to seize US$2.4 million in funds allegedly intended for SeaLead Shipping and its Indian subsidiary, as part of a broader action targeting more than US$15.3 million tied to a sanctions-evasion network linked to Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, the son of a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader.

 

 

 

Who holds the cards?

Having departed Pakistan on Saturday just as the US was preparing to send emissaries to discuss the war, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi eventually popped up for talks with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where he said Tehran is committed to strengthening its partnership with Moscow, reports Bloomberg.

Araghchi’s geopolitical chess move came after a dissonant weekend of potential feints and false starts in the effort to end the US-Israel war with Iran. As news broke that the Iranian official was leaving Islamabad, Trump announced he was canceling the trip by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, in part because the US “has all the cards.”

Iran has told Pakistan, which is operating as an intermediary, that it would cease obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz if the US ended its naval blockade of Iranian shipping. Under its plan, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research would be dealt with later, Axios reported.

While the White House said it hasn’t changed its position on “red lines” associated with Iran’s atomic program, the administration said it was nevertheless discussing the Iranian proposal.

None of this back and forth sat well with energy markets Monday, the eve of the war’s two-month anniversary. Brent crude prices rose for a sixth straight session to settle above US$108 a barrel. And at least one European leader angered by the high energy prices the continent is paying thanks to the conflict was less than diplomatic in his assessment.

The US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday, adding he didn’t see “what strategic exit the Americans are now choosing.” Tehran’s negotiators, the German leader said, are proceeding “very skillfully—or indeed very skillfully not negotiating.”

Security Scare at the White House

An alleged gunfire scare at the White House during a journalists’ dinner has triggered concern—but even more than concern, it has triggered doubt. In a place defined by airtight security, such an episode is either a serious breach or a serious failure of explanation. Both are equally damaging.

Let us begin with the obvious, the White House is among the most secure facilities in the world. Layers of intelligence, screening, and armed protection are designed precisely to prevent such scenarios. The suggestion that a weapon could be carried anywhere near a high-profile gathering strains belief. If this happened, it signals an alarming breakdown. If it did not happen as suggested, then clarity is being sacrificed.

The next line of failure lies in the vetting of invitees. Events involving journalists and senior officials are subject to rigorous checks. Entry is not casual; it is controlled, verified, and monitored. Any lapse here is not minor—it reflects systemic weakness in procedures that are assumed to be foolproof.

The communication surrounding the incident adds another layer of concern. The role of the Press Secretary is to provide facts with clarity. Yet the presentation of this episode appears carefully shaped, raising a legitimate concern that perception is being managed as much as information is being shared. In sensitive situations, even a hint of narrative control undermines trust.

Equally disappointing is the media’s response. Instead of interrogating inconsistencies, parts of the press seem content to amplify the spectacle. A potential security lapse should provoke scrutiny, not serve as a ratings opportunity. When journalism drifts toward dramatization, public confidence erodes further.

Finally, the silence of the educated elite stands out. Incidents of this magnitude demand questioning, debate, and accountability. The absence of critical engagement suggests a worrying complacency among those expected to challenge official narratives.

Whether this was a genuine breach or an exaggerated scare, the larger issue is credibility. Institutions weaken not only through failure, but through unanswered questions—and the unwillingness to confront them.

Chinese Deployment in South China Sea

According to media reports, China has deployed vessels and installed floating barriers at the entrance to the South China Sea, where it is engaged in a maritime territorial dispute with the Philippines. This move comes as the United States, which is at war with Iran, has positioned three aircraft carriers in the Middle East and withdrawn military assets and personnel from the Indo-Pacific region. In the past, when US carriers left the area, Beijing often tested the level of external pressure against it through various channels.

According to reports vessels presumed to be Chinese Navy or Coast Guard patrol ships, fishing boats, and floating barriers crossing the reef were detected near the Scarborough Shoal lately. The Scarborough Shoal is one of the most fiercely contested maritime territories in the Indo-Pacific, where Chinese Coast Guard ships frequently ram and spray water cannons at Philippine maritime patrol vessels.

In 2023, China had installed floating barriers in the waters around the Scarborough Shoal to block Philippine fishing boats, leading to a conflict when Philippine Coast Guard divers were dispatched to remove them.

China claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea under its self-defined "nine-dash line," but the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled in 2016 that this claim has no basis under international law. Despite this, Beijing has continued to dispatch patrol ships to the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), prolonging the dispute.

The US has pressured China since 2015 by conducting "Freedom of Navigation" operations in the South China Sea. Allies and partner nations advocating for a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) have also participated in these exercises. However, a significant portion of US naval forces is currently deployed near Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Washington Post has reported last month that the USS George H.W. Bush, which departed from the Norfolk base in Virginia, is expected to arrive in the Middle East around the April 21, 2026. This marks the third aircraft carrier to be deployed to the region, following the USS Abraham Lincoln, previously stationed in the South China Sea, and the USS Gerald R. Ford, which was deployed in the Caribbean Sea.

Additionally, part of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a key component in South Korea’s defense against North Korean nuclear and missile threats, has been withdrawn, and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, typically the first to respond to contingencies on the Korean Peninsula, has been redeployed from Japan to the Middle East.

 

China slams US blockade of Iranian ports

China has slammed the US blockade of Iranian ports as dangerous and irresponsible, calling for an immediate and full ceasefire and for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

Foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters at a daily briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that the US action would only “inflame tensions, escalate the situation and undermine an already fragile ceasefire”, and that would further jeopardize the safety of navigation in the strait.

“We urge all parties to abide by the ceasefire arrangement, focus on the broader direction of dialogue and negotiations, take concrete actions to de-escalate the regional situation and restore normal navigation in the strait at an early date,” Guo said.

He added that the situation in the region was “at a critical stage” and said China would continue to work with the international community to promote peace talks and to strive for peace and stability in the Middle East.

The US began a naval blockade of Iranian ports on Monday after its marathon peace talks with Iran in Pakistan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz failed over the weekend.

The US Central Command on Monday issued a formal notice to seafarers outlining enforcement measures in waters around the strait, saying that not all maritime traffic would be halted. The blockade “will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations”, it said.

Iran has warned of retaliation, vowing that “no port in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman will be safe”.

 

Trump faces fate worse than Bush faced in Iraq

On March 17, 2026, I posted a blog titled “Washington’s Miscalculation: War It Can't Win”. Its opening paragraph was, I quote “Since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has pursued not coexistence with Iran, but its submission. Nearly five decades of sanctions, covert operations, and proxy confrontations have produced results Washington resists admitting - Iran has not weakened — it has adapted, and in many respects, hardened”. Today, March 21, 2026 Reuters ran a story with a caption “How Trump's stated reasons, goals and timeline for Iran war have shifted”.

 According to the report, President Donald Trump and his top officials have offered shifting objectives and reasons for the US-Israeli war on Iran, which critics say shows a lack of planning for the conflict and its aftermath.

Stated objectives and expected timeline have varied, including toppling Iran's government, weakening Iran's military, security and nuclear capabilities and its regional influence, as well as supporting Israeli interests.

Here is how Trump described his ​war goals and timeline:

FEBRUARY 28: CALLS FOR IRANIANS TO TOPPLE THEIR GOVERNMENT

The Iranian people should "take over" governance of their country, Trump said in a video on ‌social media as the US and Israel launched their attacks. "It will be yours to take," he added. "This will be probably your only chance for generations."

Trump described the attacks as "major combat operations."

FEBRUARY 28: WEAKEN IRAN'S MILITARY, INFLUENCE

Trump said Washington would deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon, although Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Iran does not have nuclear weapons while the United States does. Israel is also widely believed to ​be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.

Trump insisted he would end what he described as Tehran's ballistic missile threat. "We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile ​industry to the ground," he said. "We're going to annihilate their navy."

Trump claimed Iran's long range missiles "can now threaten our very good friends and allies ⁠in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland."

His remarks echoed the case of President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, which had false claims. Neither experts nor ​US intelligence support Trump's assertions and both assess that Iran's ballistic missile program was years from threatening the US homeland.

MARCH 2: SHIFTING TIMELINE

Trump said the war was projected to last four to five ​weeks but could go on longer.

"We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes," Trump said at the White House. In a social media post, Trump said there was a "virtually unlimited supply" of US munitions and that "wars can be fought 'forever,' and very successfully, using just these supplies."

In a notification to Congress, Trump provided no timeline. Trump earlier told the Daily Mail the war could take "four weeks, ​or less," then told The New York Times four to five weeks and subsequently said it could take longer.

MARCH 2: RUBIO SAYS US ATTACKED IRAN BECAUSE ISRAEL DID

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told ​reporters Israel's determination to attack Iran forced Washington to strike.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if ‌we didn't preemptively ⁠go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said.

MARCH 3: TRUMP CONTRADICTS RUBIO

Trump said he ordered US forces to join Israel's attack on Iran because he believed Iran was about to strike first.

"I might have forced their (Israel's) hand," Trump said. "If we didn't do it, they (Iran) were going to attack first."

MARCH 04: CALL TO 'DESTROY' SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the goal was to "destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure."

MARCH 06: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' CALL

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER," Trump wrote on social ​media.

MARCH 8-11: JUST THE START BUT ALSO 'PRETTY MUCH ​COMPLETE'

Hegseth told CBS News in an interview aired ⁠March 08 strikes on Iran were "only just the beginning."

A day later, Trump told the same network "I think the war is very complete, pretty much."

"We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough," Trump told reporters later on the same day. When asked if the war was beginning ​or complete, he said: "Well, I think you could say both."

On March 11, Trump again said he thought the US had won but: "We've got ​to finish the job."

MARCH 13: ⁠SOFTENS CALL FOR INTERNAL UPRISING

In a March 13 interview, Trump told Fox News the war will end "when I feel it in my bones."

Trump softened his call for Iranians to topple their government. "So I really think that's a big hurdle to climb for people that don't have weapons," Trump said.

MARCH 19: HEGSETH SAYS NO TIME FRAME

Hegseth said Washington was not setting a time frame for the war and Trump would ⁠decide when to ​stop.

"We wouldn't want to set a definitive time frame," the Pentagon chief said. "It will be at the president's choosing, ​ultimately, where we say, 'Hey, we've achieved what we need to.'"

MARCH 20: TRUMP CONSIDERS WINDING DOWN BUT NO CEASEFIRE

Trump posted on Truth Social, "we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts" in ​the Iran war. Earlier in the day, Trump told reporters "I don't want to do a ceasefire" when asked about the war.

 

Riyadh Returns to Iran Threat Narrative

In the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States recalibrated its regional strategy, increasingly presenting Tehran as the principal source of instability in the Middle East. Over time, this framing found resonance in several Arab capitals, particularly in Saudi Arabia, shaping a security outlook that continues to influence regional policy choices.

This perception was reinforced through tangible measures. The expansion of US military infrastructure across the Gulf—most prominently in Qatar—was justified largely on the premise of countering Iranian influence. Simultaneously, Washington sustained economic pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program, despite Iran’s status as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in contrast to Israel’s longstanding ambiguity.

Historical episodes added further complexity. The Iran-Iraq war entrenched regional rivalries, while later diplomatic efforts—including the nuclear agreement under President Barack Obama and the China-brokered rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran—offered brief openings for recalibration. Yet such initiatives have struggled to overcome deeply embedded mistrust, particularly amid shifting US policies and competing geopolitical interests.

Recent remarks by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan reflect a return to a more cautious, if not hardened, posture. His assertion that trust in Iran has been “completely shattered,” alongside allegations of destabilizing activities across the region, underscores Riyadh’s growing concerns about security and sovereignty. These claims are rooted in reported attacks on energy infrastructure and maritime navigation, which Saudi Arabia and its partners attribute to Iran.

Tehran, however, has consistently rejected such accusations, framing its actions as defensive and, at times, suggesting that regional escalations are shaped by broader geopolitical contestation. Independent verification of specific incidents remains contested, contributing to a narrative environment marked as much by perception as by provable fact.

What emerges is not merely a dispute over actions, but over interpretation. Saudi Arabia’s current stance appears closely aligned with a long-standing US strategic framing that positions Iran as the central regional threat. While this perspective reflects genuine security concerns, it also risks narrowing the analytical lens through which complex regional dynamics are understood.

The persistence of this narrative suggests that, despite episodic diplomacy and shifting alliances, foundational perceptions remain largely intact. In effect, Riyadh’s position today echoes a familiar refrain—one shaped over decades—where Iran continues to be viewed as the primary challenge to regional stability.

Time Is on Iran’s Side

Despite the overwhelming military might of the United States and Israel, time may ultimately favor Iran in the ongoing conflict, as mounting political and economic pressures strain the Trump administration.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury, US forces have reportedly struck some 6,000 Iranian targets, damaging naval vessels, missile launch sites, and other military infrastructure. The US Central Command says more than 90 Iranian vessels have been neutralized. Experts argue that Iran anticipated such attacks and structured its defense around confronting conventionally superior foes.

Analysts note that Iran is deliberately prolonging the conflict, betting it can endure military pressure longer than the US can withstand domestic political fallout. Rising oil prices, disruptions in global energy markets, and attacks on US allies in the Gulf have intensified the economic and diplomatic costs of the war. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil prices near US$100 per barrel, adding further pressure on the global economy.

Military analysts suggest that Iran’s definition of victory is simple - survival. Removing the current leadership in Tehran would require far greater military commitment than the United States has so far deployed. Pentagon officials reported that the war cost over $11.3 billion in just the first six days. The conflict has also taken a human toll - seven American service members have died, and roughly 140 have been wounded.

In his first statement as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and continue military pressure on regional adversaries. The US is considering naval escorts for oil tankers through the waterway. Analysts warn that as the conflict drags on, rising economic costs, political divisions in Washington, and potential casualties could erode domestic support for what some critics describe as an “optional war.”

While US and Israeli forces dominate tactically, Iran’s endurance strategy could make the political and economic cost of the conflict unsustainable for the United States, leaving the regime in Tehran intact and the strategic balance in the Gulf uncertain.

Who Is Benefiting From War on Iran?

As the conflict involving United States and Israel against Iran intensifies, the humanitarian cost has understandably dominated headlines. Yet wars are rarely judged only by the destruction they cause. Equally important is a harder question: who ultimately benefits from the economic and geopolitical consequences of war?

Daily Brief: PSX and Global Markets

Pakistan’s equity market ended almost flat on Wednesday, while trading in silver contracts remained suspended at the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX). Meanwhile, Asian equities declined on Thursday as oil prices surged. Both crude benchmarks jumped about 9%, the safe-haven US dollar hovered near its strongest levels of the year, and gold prices held broadly steady. US stocks also closed lower on Wednesday. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/capital-market-review-49/

Early estimates suggest Washington may be spending close to a billion dollars a day on military operations. While the figure appears staggering, such expenditures often circulate within the American economy itself. The vast defense ecosystem surrounding the United States Department of Defense thrives during prolonged military engagements. Demand rises for missiles, air defense systems, surveillance equipment and logistical support produced by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. In that sense, war can act as a powerful economic multiplier for the military-industrial complex.

Energy markets provide another revealing dimension. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, carries nearly one-fifth of global crude supplies. Any disruption or closure immediately pushes oil prices higher. Ironically, such instability may strengthen the position of the United States, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading oil and liquefied natural gas exporters. Higher global prices make American energy exports more profitable while opening opportunities to capture market share in Europe and Asia.

For Gulf producers, the situation is more complex. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar depend heavily on secure maritime routes to ship oil and gas to global markets. If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, export volumes could decline even while prices surge. In such a scenario, higher prices may not fully offset reduced shipments.

Geopolitical instability may also reinforce the dominance of the United States Dollar in global energy trade. Efforts by emerging economies to establish alternative settlement mechanisms often lose momentum when markets retreat toward the perceived safety of dollar-based transactions.

Meanwhile, elevated oil prices could still deliver additional fiscal space for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, helping finance ambitious transformation initiatives such as NEOM and other development plans.

None of this proves that economic gain is the sole driver of conflict. But history repeatedly shows that wars reshape markets and redistribute advantages. When the guns fall silent, the question will remain: was this merely a geopolitical confrontation, or a conflict whose economic dividends were quietly anticipated from the start?

Time to impeach US president Donald Trump

When the President of the United States casually describes a war as an “excursion,” it inevitably raises questions about judgment and responsibility. Speaking at a press conference in Miami, Donald Trump referred to the ongoing war against Iran as “just an excursion into something that had to be done.” Such a characterization is strikingly detached from the human and geopolitical costs already unfolding.

Wars are never excursions. They bring destruction, loss of life, and long-term instability. Reports indicate that nearly 1,500 Iranians—many of them women and children—have already been killed since the conflict began. The situation escalated further when extensive air operations by Israel reportedly led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The event alone was sufficient to transform an already volatile confrontation into a crisis with far-reaching regional implications.

Equally troubling is the timing of the military escalation. The United States and Iran were reportedly engaged in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, and by several accounts those discussions were moving in a constructive direction. Launching large-scale military action during such negotiations has inevitably raised doubts about whether diplomacy was given a genuine opportunity to succeed.

The consequences are already visible beyond the battlefield. Oil prices have surged toward US$100 per barrel, heightening economic uncertainty worldwide. Regional tensions have intensified as Iran signals readiness for a prolonged confrontation, raising the possibility that the conflict could draw in additional actors across the Middle East.

At the same time, the objectives articulated by Washington appear expansive and shifting. Statements from the US administration have referenced preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling military capabilities, and even influencing the country’s political future. History offers ample evidence—from interventions in Iraq and Libya—that attempts to reshape political orders through military force rarely produce stable outcomes.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect is the rhetoric surrounding the war itself. When a conflict that has already taken thousands of lives is described as an “excursion,” it risks trivializing the gravity of military action and undermining the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the international community.

For these reasons, serious questions must now be asked in Washington. If presidential conduct has indeed inflicted lasting damage on the global image of the United States, then the constitutional mechanisms of accountability cannot be ignored. Initiating impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump may therefore become not merely a political debate, but a necessary test of democratic responsibility and institutional integrity.

Only Time Will Tell Who Survives? Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader marks a dramatic turning point in the region’s already volatile geopolitics. Coming in the aftermath of the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, during recent strikes against Iran, the succession signals continuity rather than change within the Islamic Republic’s power structure. Yet the broader question now emerging is not simply about leadership transition in Tehran, but about the intensifying confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The powerful Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, announced Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment after what it described as a decisive vote. For years, Mojtaba had been viewed as a leading contender due to his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment, security institutions and the vast economic networks that developed under his father’s long rule. His elevation therefore suggests that Iran’s hardline establishment remains firmly in control despite the shock caused by the assassination of its previous leader.

The geopolitical temperature rose further after remarks by Donald Trump, who declared that Washington should have a say in Iran’s leadership transition. The US president warned that the new leader might not “last long” without American approval. Such statements are unusual in diplomatic practice, as leadership succession is traditionally regarded as an internal matter of sovereign states.

At the same time, Israel had reportedly warned that whoever succeeded Ali Khamenei could become a target. These developments transform what might have remained an internal political transition into a potentially dangerous regional confrontation involving multiple actors.

History suggests that external pressure often produces unintended consequences in Iran. Rather than weakening the ruling establishment, foreign threats frequently reinforce internal cohesion and strengthen the narrative of resistance promoted by the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, geopolitical contests are rarely decided by bold statements or threats alone. Political survival depends on domestic legitimacy, strategic endurance and the unpredictable shifts of international power.

As tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, one reality remains clear - history, not rhetoric, determines political longevity. Only time will tell who ultimately survives this unfolding confrontation — Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

US Lust for Oil Reserves of Venezuela and Iran

Venezuela and Iran possess the largest and third-largest energy reserves in the world, respectively. Both nations have long faced persistent pressure from United States in the form of sanctions, political isolation, and attempts at regime change. While access to vast hydrocarbon wealth is an obvious factor, the issue goes beyond mere economics. Control over global energy flows remains central to sustaining geopolitical dominance, a principle reflected in Washington’s long-standing strategic doctrines emphasizing “energy dominance” and global power projection.

The contest surrounding Venezuela and Iran reflects a broader struggle between great-power dominance and national sovereignty. While temporary accommodations may emerge, the geopolitical rivalry over energy resources, political independence, and global influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

For both Venezuela and Iran, sovereign control over their hydrocarbon resources is essential for maintaining even a limited degree of political independence. Historically, both countries challenged Western dominance of their energy sectors. In Iran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951, triggering a CIA-backed coup that removed him from power. Venezuela followed a similar path when it consolidated its oil industry under the state company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., a process later reinforced during the presidency of Hugo Chávez. As founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), both countries sought to strengthen collective leverage against Western oil dominance.

Their resistance to the US-led international order also shaped their broader foreign policies. Iran emerged as a central actor in regional resistance movements and a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Venezuela similarly backed Palestinian self-determination and severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009, while maintaining strong relations with Cuba and other governments critical of US foreign policy.

Washington’s response has largely taken the form of sanctions and political pressure. In 2015, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” to US national security, opening the door for unilateral coercive measures. These pressures were intensified under Donald Trump, whose administration pursued “maximum pressure” campaigns against both Caracas and Tehran. Targeted killings, including that of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, further demonstrated Washington’s willingness to employ force to advance its strategic objectives.

Energy markets also play a role in shaping geopolitical timing. Escalation with Iran has frequently coincided with concerns about global oil supply, particularly the vulnerability of shipments passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In such circumstances, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are often viewed as a potential buffer capable of stabilizing global supply if disruptions occur in the Middle East.

Despite years of sanctions and pressure, Venezuela has demonstrated notable political resilience. Even amid attempts to isolate the government of President Nicolás Maduro, leadership continuity under Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has helped maintain state authority. Diplomatic engagement between Washington and Caracas has intermittently resumed, reflecting the reality that even adversaries must sometimes negotiate.

Six Uncomfortable Questions the World Avoids Answering

It is often alleged that Western media is dishonest, it tows foreign policy agenda of United States. A term Embedded Journalists is used. As the US-Iran war continues, I tried to find replies to pertinent/ select questions through AI. These questions may not have simple answers, but asking them is essential. In international politics, narratives are often shaped by power, alliances, and media influence. An informed public must therefore examine facts carefully and remain willing to question prevailing assumptions.

Who is the aggressor — the United States or Iran?
From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has carried out military interventions across several continents. Iran’s actions, though controversial, have largely remained confined to the Middle East.

Who is the terrorist — Israel or Iran?
Washington labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for supporting armed groups. Critics argue Israel’s military actions in Palestinian territories resemble state terrorism.

Who has killed the most people — the United States, Israel, or Iran?
The wars involving the United States have resulted in far greater casualties than those linked to conflicts involving Israel or Iran.

Who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains nuclear ambiguity. Iran, however, is a signatory and legally bound by the treaty.

Who is fooling Arabs the most — Israel or Iran?
Some analysts argue Israel benefits from divisions within the Arab world. Others believe Iran uses the Palestinian cause to expand its regional influence.

Why are U.S. military bases located in GCC countries?
Officially they exist to defend Gulf states and secure energy routes. Strategically, they also reinforce a regional security structure that indirectly protects Israel.

Five-Things One Must Know About US-Iran War

Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, the Trump administration is the aggressor in this illegal war.

The Trump administration has joined Israel in launching large-scale attacks across Iran. The strikes mark the beginning of ​“major combat operations,” according to President Trump, and in response Tehran has reportedly launched retaliatory attacks in Middle Eastern countries that host US military bases.

With the death toll mounting and the war threatening to spiral out of control, here are five-things Americans need to know.

1: Trump says he’s trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it’s the United States and its allies that are the greatest nuclear threat

The United States, not Iran, is the country setting the worst example in promoting nuclear weapons in the world today.

It was Trump who pulled out of the US-Iran nuclear deal during his first term — even though the UN certified that Iran was in compliance — and resumed harsh sanctions, deployed more troops to the region, and even assassinated an Iranian general.

Trump’s hostility despite Iran’s earlier compliance only bolsters the claim of Iranian leaders who believe the country needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against aggression.

Meanwhile, Trump just let the last existing nuclear agreement between the US and Russia, the two countries with the most warheads, expire. Trump is also giving unconditional backing to Israel — the only country in the Middle East that actually has nuclear weapons — and is now supporting the launch of a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia.

2: Trump is contributing to the suffering of ordinary Iranians, not rescuing them

The Iranian government recently carried out a brutal crackdown on protesters and critics. Trump has claimed that the US is ​“coming to the rescue” of Iranians who’ve challenged their government.

But in reality, his actions have put countless Iranians in harm’s way. Over 1,000 civilians have already been killed in the strikes so far — including 165 in an appalling strike on a girl’s school.

Even before the latest violence, US sanctions had devastated Iran’s population — especially women, children, the sick, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable people — leading to countless preventable deaths.

3: The United States is an unreliable negotiator

How could Iran — or any country — now take the US seriously at the negotiating table after Trump blew up the Iran nuclear deal?

Even if they did, US demands keep changing. In recent negotiations, the US kept moving the goal posts, going from the demand that Iran not develop nuclear weapons to saying that the country’s civilian nuclear program, its treatment of dissidents, its relationship with regional allies, and its ballistic missile arsenal would all be on the negotiating table.

As Trump put it bizarrely on FOX News, the deal he wants should have ​“no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that, all the different things that you want.”

4: The United States has been threatening Iran, not the other way around

Even before the war, US military bases across the region surrounded Iran with troops and weapons. But there are no Iranian troops or military assets anywhere near the United States.

There is also no question that the most aggressive Middle Eastern power at the moment is Washington’s ally Israel — which continues its genocide in Gaza and attacked six other countries in the last year alone — all enabled through military assistance, arms transfers, and political protection by the United States.

5: Trump’s war with Iran — and his aggressive foreign policy generally — are unpopular with Americans

The majority of Americans — 61 percent — disapprove of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy in general. And in a recent Reuters poll, just one quarter said they approved of Trump’s decision to strike Iran — and that was before the announcement that US servicemembers had been killed.

Attacking Iran is not popular, and Trump does not have a mandate to do it. Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, they do not justify this illegal war.

Foreign Policy or Political Insanity?

In international relations, powerful nations often attempt to influence developments beyond their borders. Yet a fundamental principle of the global order remains the sovereignty of states. When foreign policy begins to challenge that principle too openly, it risks appearing less like strategy and more like political recklessness.

Recent remarks by Donald Trump have revived this debate. In an interview with Axios, Trump asserted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next Supreme Leader following the death of Ali Khamenei. Dismissing the potential succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as “unacceptable,” the US president suggested Washington should help determine Iran’s future leadership to ensure “harmony and peace.”

Such a proposition is extraordinary even in the hard realities of power politics. Leadership transitions are among the most sensitive internal matters of any nation. A foreign leader openly claiming a role in deciding another country’s highest authority inevitably raises questions about respect for sovereignty and the norms that underpin international diplomacy.

The statement also resonates strongly in historical context. Iran’s modern political memory already carries the imprint of external intervention, particularly the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. That episode continues to shape Iranian perceptions of Western intentions.

Critics argue that Trump’s remarks reflect a broader pattern in his approach to global affairs. His presidency has witnessed sweeping punitive tariffs against trading partners, a reliance on executive orders to push policy objectives, and military intervention in Venezuela that led to the removal of Nicolás Maduro and the emergence of Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s leader.

Whether one views these actions as decisive leadership or excessive unilateralism, the implications are significant. Attempting to influence leadership outcomes in a country as politically and religiously complex as Iran risks inflaming nationalist sentiment and prolonging geopolitical tensions rather than resolving them.

Ultimately, the question confronting the international community is stark - when powerful states begin asserting the right to shape the leadership of other nations, does foreign policy remain diplomacy—or does it begin to resemble political insanity?

Is Larijani Trump’s Likely Choice to Rule Iran?

The reported assassination of Ali Khamenei has pushed Iran into a moment of deep uncertainty. As Washington reassesses its objectives following joint US–Israeli strikes, speculation is mounting over whether the United States would quietly favor a particular figure to stabilize Tehran. Among the names circulating in policy discussions is Ali Larijani — a seasoned insider with deep roots in Iran’s national security establishment.

Larijani is no outsider. A former speaker of parliament, veteran nuclear negotiator and long-time power broker, he has operated at the heart of the Islamic Republic for decades. In the weeks before Khamenei’s death, he was reportedly entrusted with broader strategic responsibilities, reinforcing his standing within the system. That positioning makes him one of the few figures capable of navigating Iran’s complex factional landscape.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals about Washington’s ultimate aims — oscillating between suggestions of regime change and more limited objectives focused on missiles, nuclear capability and regional proxies. Such ambiguity may be deliberate, allowing room for negotiation if outright systemic collapse proves too costly or destabilizing.

In that context, Larijani’s profile presents both opportunity and risk. Critics describe him as deeply embedded in the regime’s hard power structure, including close interaction with security institutions. Supporters argue that precisely because of his establishment credentials, he could command trust across competing factions — a prerequisite for any controlled transition.

Still, Iran’s constitutional framework cannot be ignored. The Assembly of Experts retains authority to select the next Supreme Leader, and any interim arrangement would remain internally driven. External influence, however significant, has limits.

The central question is not whether Washington can “pick” Iran’s ruler — it cannot. Rather, it is whether US policymakers would prefer dealing with a pragmatic insider capable of negotiation over a fractured and unpredictable power vacuum. If stability and containment become the priority, Larijani may appear to some in Washington as a workable, if imperfect, interlocutor.

In geopolitics, choices are rarely ideal, these are calculated.

Israel launches attack against Iran

According to Reuters report, Israel has launched attack against Iran on Saturday, pushing the Middle East into a renewed military confrontation and further dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's long-running nuclear dispute with the West.

The New York Times, citing a US official, reported that US strikes on Iran were underway. A source told Reuters that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not in Tehran and had been transferred to a secure location.

The attack, coming after Israel and Iran engaged in a 12-day air war in June, follows repeated U.S.-Israeli warnings that they would strike again if Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"The State of Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran to remove threats to the State of Israel," Defence Minister Israel Katz said.

Explosions were heard in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian media reported.

The US and Iran renewed negotiations in February in a bid to resolve the decades-long dispute through diplomacy and avert the threat of a military confrontation that could destabilize the region.

Israel, however, insisted that any US deal with Iran must include the dismantling of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure, not just stopping the enrichment process, and lobbied Washington to include restrictions on Iran's missile program in the talks.

Iran said it was prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions but ruled out linking the issue to missiles.

Tehran also said it would defend itself against any attack.

It warned neighbouring countries hosting US troops that it would retaliate against American bases if Washington struck Iran.

In June last year, the US joined an Israeli military campaign against Iranian nuclear installations, in the most direct American military action ever against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran retaliated by launching missiles toward the US Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East.

Western powers have warned that Iran's ballistic missile project threatens regional stability and could deliver nuclear weapons if developed. Tehran denies seeking atomic bombs.