Pentagon moving carrier strike group toward Middle East

According to The Hill, the Pentagon on Thursday said it is moving a carrier strike group from the South China Sea toward the Middle East as tensions between the US and Iran continue to rise. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group were spotted moving west away from the Indo-Pacific region. The movement of the carrier strike group — which includes fighter jets, guided missile destroyers and at least one attack submarine — is expected to take about a week. 

This movement comes as tensions between Washington and Tehran have spiked amid unrest in Iran over its economy and questions about whether President Trump will strike the country to aid mass protests challenging the autocratic regime.

Trump earlier this week encouraged Iranian protesters to continue pressuring the regime and vowed that “help is on the way,” signaling potential US intervention. But Tehran has pushed back with its own threats.

The president so far has held off on any strikes in Iran, continuing to monitor the situation in the country. He was also advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to topple the regime and could instead set off a wider conflict.

Advisers informed Trump that the US military would need more troops and equipment in the Middle East to launch any large-scale strike while still protecting American forces in the region from potential retaliation, according to the Journal.

A senior US official also told The New York Times that Trump is waiting to see Iran’s next move as he considers striking such targets as ballistic missile sites and Iran’s domestic security apparatus, and that any attack “is at least several days away.”

Protests have escalated in Iran since late December in response to declining economic conditions. It’s not clear exactly how many people have died in the protests because of the Iranian government’s internet blackout across the country, but the Human Rights Activists News Agency said more than 2,600 people have been killed and more than 184,000 have been detained. 

Iran has largely been restricting information in and out of the country, and Wednesday it issued a “Notice to Air Missions,” or NOTAM, that flights in and out of Tehran have been restricted.

The US administration on Thursday also announced new sanctions against “the architects of the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators” and the “shadow banking networks” alleged to be helping wealthy Iranians divert funds generated by the country’s natural resources.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed since late November, after it departed San Diego with no Pentagon announcement for where it would be sent. 

 

Why Trump Refuses to Accept Failure in Iran

Once again, Iran has moved to the center of global headlines, accompanied by renewed threats from US President Donald Trump and fresh speculation about regime change. The language may sound forceful, but the strategic reality is far less dramatic. Nearly five decades after the 1979 revolution, the world’s most powerful country has failed to dismantle Iran’s clerical system. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record. What remains puzzling is Washington’s persistent refusal to accept this failure.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the United States has employed every conceivable pressure tactic—crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyber warfare and sustained political hostility through regional allies. If the objective was to topple the “Mullah regime,” the outcome is self-evident. The system remains intact, resilient and, in some respects, more consolidated than before.

Ironically, sanctions—long projected as a non-military means of forcing political change—have produced results opposite to those promised. Instead of empowering reformist forces, they have weakened Iran’s middle class, historically the most potent driver of political evolution. At the same time, state-linked institutions, particularly those associated with security and defence, have expanded their influence over the economy. External pressure has also enabled the ruling establishment to frame dissent as foreign-sponsored, thereby justifying tighter internal control.

Washington’s reluctance to admit strategic failure is understandable, though not defensible. Acknowledging defeat would challenge the credibility of sanctions as a global policy tool and expose the limits of American coercive power. Yet denial comes at a heavy cost. Persisting with a failed approach deepens instability, prolongs economic suffering and increases the risk of miscalculation—without delivering political transformation.

Even more alarming is the absence of any credible post-clerical roadmap. History offers sobering lessons. Iraq, Libya and Syria demonstrate what happens when regimes are dismantled without a viable alternative governance structure. Iran’s opposition remains fragmented—divided ideologically, geographically and socially, with much of its leadership disconnected from realities on the ground. There is no unified transitional plan, no agreed security framework and no consensus on state reconstruction.

In this context, calls to arm “rebels” or encourage violent uprising are deeply troubling. The militarization of dissent has repeatedly produced chaos rather than peace. From Syria to Libya, weapons fractured societies, empowered militias and destroyed state institutions. Iran, with its dense urban population and complex social fabric, would be particularly vulnerable. Street violence may dismantle authority, but it cannot build a stable political order.

If peace and stability are genuinely desired, policy must shift from illusion to realism. Political change cannot be imposed through threats or sanctions alone. Gradual economic engagement, calibrated sanctions relief and regional dialogue offer more sustainable pathways. Strengthening economic normalcy and civil society may not yield immediate results, but they create conditions under which internal evolution becomes possible.

The lesson is clear. Pressure has failed, and force will fail again. Peace in Iran—and across the region—will not emerge from regime-change fantasies, but from strategies grounded in historical experience, restraint and political realism.

Gulf states warn Trump against sending help to Iranian protesters

Arab Gulf states have been warning the Trump administration not to strike Iran after Trump and White House officials stated on Tuesday that military action was more likely than not, according to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report. According to the WSJ, Iran's rival Gulf states have largely avoided addressing the protests that have spread across Iran since late December, leaving thousands dead.

Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar informed the White House that even attempting to overthrow the current Iranian regime would destabilize the global oil market and ultimately hurt the American economy, according to WSJ.

A White House official told the WSJ that Trump was unlikely to heed these warnings outright, saying, “the President listens to a host of opinions on any given issue, but ultimately makes the decision he feels is best."

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump said that "help is on its way" to Iran and asked Iranians to keep protesting against the Islamic Republic regime.

"Iranian Patriots, keep protesting - take over your institutions! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price," Trump shared on Truth Social. "I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. Help is on its way. MIGA!" he assured.

Trump's comments come as he is expected to convene senior administration officials on Tuesday to discuss possible courses of action regarding Iran. The meeting will be "significant," several US officials told The Jerusalem Post.

Around 3,000 people have been killed in Iran amid the ongoing protests, an Iranian official told The New York Times on Tuesday.

An additional source, speaking to Reuters, blamed “terrorists” for the deaths of civilians and security personnel.

In addition, UN human rights chief Volker Türk said on Tuesday that he was “horrified” by mounting violence by Iran’s security forces against peaceful protesters.

Meanwhile, sources have told The Jerusalem Post that in the western Iranian provinces of West Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, and Ilam, entrances to many cities have been blocked, and numerous checkpoints have been set up.

According to the sources, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps security forces are stopping vehicles, searching them, and, in some cases, forcing citizens to unlock their mobile phones.

With the complete shutdown of the internet and telephone services, the only means of accessing news and information for many Iranians is currently satellite television, which is subject to heavy jamming in most cities. There have also been reports of security officials house-checking in cities such as Tehran and confiscating civilians’ satellite dishes.

The protests, which began on December 28, 2025 continue despite the communications restrictions and rising casualties.

 

Iran: Myth of Regime Engineering

Nearly half a century after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, one uncomfortable truth remains intact- the United States has failed to toppling Iran’s clergy-dominated political system. From covert operations to overt pressure, from sanctions to sabotage, Washington’s arsenal has been vast—but its outcomes limited. This reality challenges a deeply entrenched belief in Western policymaking circles that sustained external pressure can reengineer sovereign political systems.

The US–Iran confrontation began with high drama. The failed 1980 rescue mission to free American embassy staff in Tehran was an early signal that Iran would not bend easily. Since then, the playbook has expanded—economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, cyber warfare, targeted killings, and strikes on strategic installations. Each tactic was presented as decisive; none proved so. Even with Israel’s fullest political, intelligence, and military backing, the objective of dismantling Iran’s clerical power structure remains unmet.

Washington’s current emphasis on internal unrest follows a familiar pattern. Protests in Iran—whether driven by economic hardship, social restrictions, or political frustration—are quickly framed as precursors to regime collapse. Yet history offers little evidence that externally encouraged demonstrations can dismantle a deeply entrenched ideological state. On the contrary, such pressure often consolidates power by allowing the ruling elite to externalize blame and tighten internal control.

The comparison—explicit or implied—with Venezuela is particularly flawed. The assumption that methods used against Caracas can be replicated in Tehran ignores fundamental differences. Iran is not an oil-dependent, institutionally hollow state with fractured elite consensus. It possesses ideological cohesion, parallel power structures, and decades of experience in surviving siege conditions. The belief that eliminating a leadership figure—or fueling street unrest—can unravel this system reflects strategic illusion rather than informed assessment.

That said, dismissing Iran’s internal weaknesses would be equally misleading. Economic mismanagement, corruption allegations, demographic pressure, and social discontent are real and persistent. Sanctions have undeniably deepened hardship, but domestic policy failures have magnified their impact. Iran’s ruling establishment has often responded to dissent with rigidity rather than reform, narrowing its own margin for legitimacy. These internal contradictions—not foreign intervention—pose the most credible long-term challenge to clerical dominance.

The paradox is stark - US pressure has hurt Iranian society more than it has weakened the state, while simultaneously validating the regime’s narrative of perpetual external threat. Each failed attempt at coercion reinforces Tehran’s claim that resistance, not accommodation, ensures survival.

The lesson from five decades of confrontation is neither ideological nor moral—it is strategic. Regimes are rarely dismantled from the outside, especially those forged in revolution and sustained through resistance. Iran’s future will be shaped primarily by its own political evolution, not by foreign-engineered upheaval. Any policy that ignores this reality is destined to repeat past failures—at great human and geopolitical cost.

 

Trump’s Iran Threats and America’s ICE Reality

President Donald Trump’s reported warning to Iran — that Washington may attack if Tehran’s clergy-led regime cracks down on demonstrators — would carry moral weight if it were not so deeply undermined by events unfolding inside the United States itself. The contradiction is stark, uncomfortable, and revealing.

Over the weekend, tens of thousands marched through Minneapolis to protest the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. The protest was not an isolated outburst. It was part of more than 1,000 coordinated rallies nationwide against what the federal government calls a “deportation drive,” but what many Americans now see as state violence carried out under the cover of immigration enforcement.

Demonstrators chanted “Abolish ICE” and “No justice, no peace — get ICE off our streets,” slogans born not of ideology alone but of lived experience. Bystander video, cited by Minnesota officials, reportedly shows Good’s car turning away as the agent fired. The Department of Homeland Security insists the agent acted in self-defense, claiming the vehicle was “weaponized.” This language has become routine — and troublingly convenient.

Within days, a similar incident occurred in Portland, Oregon, where a Border Patrol agent shot and wounded two people during a vehicle stop, again citing an alleged attempt to run over agents. Two shootings, two cities, identical justifications. The pattern is hard to ignore.

What makes this moment particularly jarring is timing. These shootings followed the deployment of nearly 2,000 federal officers to the Minneapolis–St. Paul area in what DHS described as its largest operation ever. When a heavily armed state expands its enforcement footprint and civilians end up dead, the moral high ground becomes difficult to claim — especially while lecturing other nations on restraint.

Trump’s threats against Iran are framed as a defense of human rights. Yet at home, protestors braving freezing winds speak of heartbreak, anger, and devastation after witnessing a fellow citizen killed by a federal agent. The administration dismisses outrage as political noise while portraying force as necessity.

This is the duality of Trump’s America - intolerance for repression abroad, justification for it at home; outrage over demonstrators elsewhere, suspicion of demonstrators on its own streets. Until Washington reconciles this contradiction, its warnings to Tehran will sound less like principled diplomacy and more like selective morality wrapped in power.

US seizes fifth Venezuela linked oil tanker

According to The Hill, the US early on Friday seized a fifth oil tanker linked to Venezuela in its campaign to control oil experts from the South American country.

The Olina was seized in international waters east of the Caribbean Sea by the US Coast Guard in coordination with the Defense Department, State Department and Justice Department, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed in a post on the social platform X.

Noem added that the “ghost fleet” ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil had “departed Venezuela attempting to evade US forces.” 

US Southern Command (Southcom) also confirmed the seizure in a post online, saying the predawn operation involved Marines and sailors launched from the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier that apprehended the Olina without incident.

“Once again, our joint interagency forces sent a clear message this morning: ‘there is no safe haven for criminals,'” Southcom added.

Public maritime database companies have identified the Olina as falsely registered and flying the flag of Timor-Leste.

The ship was last tracked near Venezuela 52 days ago, British maritime risk management company Vanguard said.

The seizure follows the taking of two other vessels in the region Wednesday, the Sophia and the Bella-1, the latter of which was a Russian-flagged tanker the US had chased for weeks.

Washington has now taken a total of five tankers as part of its stepped-up efforts to curb Venezuela oil exports. 

The Olina has been under US-imposed sanctions since January of last year, when it was named the Minerva M, for what Washington claimed was being part of the shadow fleet — ships that sail with little regulation or known insurance and help fuel Russia’s economy, according to Reuters.

The Olina’s seizure could further inflame tensions between the US and the Kremlin, which has accused Washington of a “disproportionate” focus on the Bella-1, previously named the Marinera, after it was initially chased by the Coast Guard off the coast of Venezuela last month.

Trump will kill Khamenei if Iranian regime continues murdering protesters

As headlines from The Jerusalem Post scream warnings of extreme US retaliation — including provocative assertions that Donald Trump might kill Ayatollah Khamenei should Tehran continue its violent suppression of protesters — it is easy to dismiss such rhetoric as hawkish posturing. Yet these headlines reflect a deeper strategic shift in US foreign policy that vindicates concerns I outlined in recent blogs that Washington’s punitive sanctions and coercive diplomacy have crafted the miseries inside Iran, and could now be laying the groundwork for external confrontation rather than domestic reform.

Iran is convulsed by one of its largest protest movements in years, driven not by some abstract ideological rebellion, but by grinding economic hardship — a direct consequence of tightening sanctions and economic isolation that have decimated ordinary livelihoods. These sanctions are widely opposed by international human rights actors because they disproportionately punish the populace rather than the political elite, exacerbating inflation and scarcity while eroding the state’s capacity to address domestic grievances.

Into this tinderbox enters a U.S. administration increasingly willing to ‘lock and load’ at the first sign of violent repression. Statements from US officials threatening lethal force against Iranian leadership if protests continue to be crushed are not isolated soundbites — they are symptomatic of a broader policy framework that conflates authoritarian repression with existential threat. The arrest of Venezuela’s president and the subdued global response appear to have emboldened hardliners in Washington who now see regime decapitation as a plausible extension of coercive diplomacy.

This is not to romanticize theocratic rule in Tehran. But conflating internal unrest rooted in economic despair with a casus belli against the Iranian state risks legitimizing harsher US interventions that increasingly look directed not at human rights but at regime change itself. The deeper injustice lies not just in Iran’s domestic repression, but in the US foreign policy calculus that has, through sanctions and threat of force, nurtured the very suffering it now claims to oppose.

Capture of Venezuelan President: Return of Colonial Seizure Politics

If reports of the capture and removal of Venezuela’s sitting president are even partially accurate, then what is unfolding is not a crisis of governance or an overdue act of justice. It is the unambiguous return of colonial seizure politics—the doctrine that powerful states may confiscate sovereignty itself when defiance becomes inconvenient.

This is not regime change as an accidental by-product of policy failure. It is regime removal as method. The familiar language of democracy, legality, and human rights is little more than ornamental cover. Strip it away and the operating logic is brutally clear: discipline the non-compliant, seize control, and reorder ownership. This is not the breakdown of the international system; it is the system functioning precisely as intended.

Venezuela was effectively subdued long before this moment. Years of sanctions did not merely “pressure” the state; they systematically dismantled its economic sovereignty. Revenues were strangled, institutions hollowed out, and governance rendered structurally unworkable. This was not unintended harm. It was preparation. Economic suffocation created the conditions in which intervention could later be marketed as inevitable rather than chosen.

When sanctions failed to produce surrender, political fiction followed. The US-engineered experiment of Juan Guaidó was not diplomacy but theater—an attempt to outsource sovereignty without tanks. When even that farce collapsed, escalation became the only remaining option. Empires do not retreat when resisted; they recalibrate.

The capture of a sitting president is not law enforcement—it is a declaration of ownership. By asserting jurisdiction over a foreign head of state, Washington is not upholding justice; it is asserting hierarchy. Venezuela is no longer treated as a sovereign political subject but as a managed space—its leadership provisional, its future externally arbitrated. This is not international law stretched beyond recognition. It is international law discarded outright.

Oil is not the subtext of this intervention; it is the text. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Governments that privatize resources on Western terms are tolerated regardless of repression. Governments that insist on national control are destabilized regardless of elections. This is not hypocrisy. It is imperial consistency.

Dismissing Latin American resistance as “anti-Americanism” is willful blindness. From Guatemala and Chile to Panama and Nicaragua, the pattern is consistent: sanctions, destabilization, leadership removal, resource realignment. Venezuela fits perfectly—except this time, the mask is off.

This moment should not be personalized. Trump is not the cause; he is the instrument. The architecture of sanctions, energy interests, and bipartisan hostility to Venezuelan sovereignty predates him and will outlast him.

What is being normalized is more dangerous than Venezuela’s immediate devastation: the idea that sovereignty exists only by imperial permission, that sanctions are preparatory weapons, and that leaders may be seized rather than negotiated with. This is colonialism without occupation—domination without apology.

Venezuela: Delcy Rodriguez Interim President

The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela's Supreme Court ordered on Saturday that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assume the role of acting president of the country in the absence of Nicolás Maduro, who was detained early Saturday morning in an operation by US forces.

The court ruling said that Rodríguez would assume "the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defense of the Nation."

The ruling added that the court will debate the matter in order to "determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic."

 

Will Iran Be the Next Target?

The reported capture of Venezuela’s president should not be seen as an isolated incident. It resembles a full-dress rehearsal—a live demonstration of how far the United States is willing to go to impose political outcomes beyond its borders. For those still clinging to the illusion of sovereign immunity in the international system, this episode should serve as a sobering wake-up call.

Washington has a long record of attempting regime change in Venezuela through sanctions, covert operations, and diplomatic isolation. These efforts largely failed to unseat the government, but they steadily weakened the country’s economy and institutions. When economic strangulation did not deliver political submission, escalation appeared inevitable. The capture of a sitting president marks a dangerous new threshold, one that blurs the line between foreign policy and outright coercion.

History offers unsettling parallels. One may recall the failed attempt by the US in 1980 to free its embassy staff held hostage in Iran. Though framed as a rescue mission, it underscored Washington’s readiness to violate sovereign territory when strategic or political pressure mounts.

More recently, Sheikh Hasina’s transfer to India can be viewed through a similar prism: political outcomes shaped not by domestic consensus but by external facilitation. Different contexts, same method—power over process.

Labeling such actions as “state terrorism” may sound provocative, but the term merits serious consideration. When a powerful state uses fear, coercion, and force to compel political change in weaker nations, the distinction between counterterrorism and terror itself becomes dangerously thin.

The irony is striking, the very actor positioning itself as the global guardian of democracy increasingly relies on methods that undermine international law.

Iran inevitably enters this conversation. Long under sanctions, diplomatically cornered, and persistently portrayed as a threat, Tehran fits the familiar profile. If Venezuela was the rehearsal, Iran could well be the main act. The lesson is stark - resistance invites escalation; sovereignty offers no guarantee.

The world must condemn the US actions unequivocally. Silence today signals consent tomorrow. If such precedents stand unchallenged, no regime—friend or foe—can consider itself safe. The erosion of international norms does not stop with adversaries; it eventually consumes the system itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Superpowers to a Super Syndicate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh becoming “Panipat ka maidan”

Despite formidable odds, Bangladesh managed to script an enviable economic story over the past decade. Consistent GDP growth, export-led industrialization anchored by the ready-made garments sector, improving social indicators, and relative macroeconomic stability placed the country among Asia’s fastest emerging economies. Ironically, this very success appears to have turned Bangladesh into a theatre for competing global and regional ambitions.

Much like Panipat in South Asian history—where decisive battles were repeatedly fought by rival powers—Bangladesh is increasingly being reduced to a battleground for influence rather than a partner in prosperity. India, the United States, China and Russia have all attempted to secure strategic leverage in Dhaka. Each power has pursued its own interests, but none has prioritized long-term economic stability for the country itself.

The United States’ regime-change initiative ultimately succeeded. However, Washington’s engagement has remained narrowly political. Unlike past global interventions that at least carried economic reconstruction frameworks, there is no visible recovery plan, stabilization package or trade-driven agenda for Bangladesh. Regime change, without an accompanying economic roadmap, has only amplified uncertainty.

India continues to view Bangladesh largely through a strategic and security lens, while China’s engagement remains infrastructure-focused, tied to connectivity and supply chains. Russia’s role is limited and transactional. Yet none of these actors has articulated a comprehensive, people-centric recovery strategy for a nation now facing political paralysis.

The recent killing of a student leader has pushed the country into a state of standstill. Historically, student movements have been central to Bangladesh’s political evolution. Today, unrest is unfolding amid intense geopolitical rivalry risks prolonged instability. Investor confidence is weakening, export momentum is under pressure, and economic continuity is increasingly fragile.

The irony is unmistakable. Every power eager to influence Bangladesh shows little willingness to assume responsibility for economic recovery. Bangladesh does not need to become another Panipat—where outcomes are dictated by external forces and costs borne by the local population. Without a credible recovery plan rooted in stability and economic continuity, this power contest will exact a heavy price from the Bangladeshi people.

Trump Keen on Turning Gaza into His Personal Property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela: US Regime Change Obsession

The seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers by the United States is not an isolated enforcement action; it is the logical extension of a failed regime-change project. Having been unable to dislodge the Maduro government through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and political engineering, Washington has doubled down on economic warfare—this time by targeting Venezuela’s sole economic artery.

Venezuela is not a diversified economy. Oil exports generate the bulk of its foreign exchange, fund public services, and pay for essential imports. Intercepting tankers is therefore not about legal compliance; it is about choking the economy into submission. When financial strangulation is designed to produce political collapse, it crosses from diplomacy into coercion—what many rightly describe as economic terrorism.

The justification offered by Washington is familiar - sanctions are portrayed as tools to restore democracy and punish alleged wrongdoing. Yet the outcomes tell a different story. Years of sanctions have neither produced regime change nor improved governance. Instead, they have devastated living standards, disrupted fuel supplies, and weakened healthcare and food security. Political elites adapt; ordinary citizens absorb the shock.

More troubling is the international silence. The seizure of commercial shipments bound for third countries raises serious questions under international law, yet few Western capitals have voiced concern. This selective outrage exposes a deeper truth, rules-based order often bends when great power interests are involved. Actions condemned as piracy if undertaken by rivals are quietly normalized when executed by Washington.

There is also a broader pattern at play. From Iran to Venezuela, energy-producing states that resist US strategic preferences face sanctions, asset freezes, and trade blockades. The message is unmistakable - control over energy flows remains central to geopolitical power. Democracy rhetoric provides cover, but energy dominance appears to be the underlying driver.

Ironically, such pressure often entrenches the very systems it claims to oppose. Economic siege fuels nationalism, strengthens hardliners, and closes political space. It also pushes targeted states toward alternative trading networks, accelerating the fragmentation of the global economic order—an outcome that ultimately weakens US influence rather than consolidates it.

For Venezuela, continued economic suffocation offers no path to stability or reform. For the world, accepting unilateral seizures as normal practice sets a dangerous precedent. If regime change pursued through economic destruction becomes an accepted tool of statecraft, global trade itself becomes hostage to power politics.

History suggests a simple lesson: coercion may punish, but it rarely persuades.

Why Trump Is Edging Toward a Serious Conflict with Venezuela?

US President Donald Trump has significantly escalated pressure on Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro through sanctions, military action, and economic measures, raising concerns about a potential serious conflict. The latest flashpoint was the US seizure of a sanctioned oil tanker en route to Cuba, part of a broader campaign targeting Maduro’s government, which Washington labels illegitimate and accuses of leading a drug-trafficking network.

Trump has justified his actions on multiple fronts. Migration is a central issue, with the president frequently blaming Maduro for sending criminals, gang members, and former prisoners into the United States. While Venezuelans now number around 770,000 in the United States as of 2023, they represent less than 2 percent of the immigrant population. Most Venezuelan migrants—over 80 percent—remain in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nonetheless, the issue has gained urgency after a Supreme Court ruling led to more than 250,000 Venezuelans losing Temporary Protected Status following the program’s expiration.

Drug trafficking is another pillar of Trump’s campaign. The administration accuses the Maduro regime of facilitating narcotics flows into the US, citing this as justification for lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela. Since September, US forces have carried out at least 22 maritime strikes, killing dozens of alleged traffickers. These actions have sparked political controversy, particularly after reports that survivors of one strike were killed. While the administration claims these operations have sharply reduced maritime drug trafficking, lawmakers note that the vessels were believed to be carrying cocaine, not fentanyl, and that Colombia remains the region’s top cocaine producer.

Economic pressure, especially targeting oil, has intensified tensions. Oil accounts for nearly 90 percent of Venezuela’s export revenues. The seized tanker reportedly carried over one million barrels of oil, and analysts warn that continued seizures could amount to a de facto naval blockade, crippling Venezuela’s economy and limiting its ability to import food, weapons, and fuel.

Finally, regime change remains an underlying concern. Trump has said Maduro’s days are “numbered” and has deployed an unprecedented US military presence in the region, though he has not ruled out negotiations. Senior officials deny seeking regime change outright, but skepticism remains over whether any agreement with Maduro could be enforced.

Deteriorating US-Venezuela relations: From Reliable Crude Supplier to Adversary

For decades, Venezuela was among the most dependable suppliers of crude oil to the United States. The relationship was commercially stable and strategically important. Venezuelan heavy crude suited US Gulf Coast refineries, and American demand guaranteed steady revenues for Caracas.

The shift began with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1999, which marked the start of a new ideological era. His government moved sharply away from the earlier market-aligned policies and adopted a confrontational posture toward Washington. This included expropriating foreign oil assets, reorganizing PDVSA under political control, and forging alliances with Cuba, Russia, Iran, and later China. These steps weakened commercial ties and deepened political tensions.

Venezuela’s oil sector also deteriorated due to nationalization, mismanagement, and underinvestment. Production, once above 3 million barrels per day, fell sharply over the next two decades. As quality and reliability declined, US refiners increasingly turned to Canada, Mexico, and domestic shale producers.

Washington responded to Venezuela’s political trajectory—especially under Nicolás Maduro—by imposing sanctions targeting individuals, the oil sector, and financial transactions. These sanctions further reduced the scope for commercial cooperation and pushed Venezuela to redirect crude flows toward China and other alternative buyers. The result is a relationship now defined by distrust rather than the interdependence of earlier decades.

A parallel concern for the United States has been narcotics trafficking in the region. While Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer, it has become a significant transit route between Colombia and global markets.

US agencies have accused certain Venezuelan officials of collusion with organized crime groups. At the same time, the United States faces a domestic drug crisis driven by opioids, fentanyl, and synthetic narcotics entering through regional networks. This has elevated drug trafficking to a major political issue.

Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump’s emphasis on securing access to strategic crude supplies and cracking down on narcotics networks reflects a broader domestic and geopolitical agenda.

Energy security, border control, and regional influence remain high-priority themes in US politics. Venezuela, given its oil reserves and its role in regional trafficking routes, has become central to these debates, turning a once-pragmatic partnership into a deeply strained relationship.

When Arms Thrive - Humanity Pays Price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Second Term Is Damaging US Image

As Donald Trump settles further into his second term, concerns are mounting among observers who expected the United States to restore steadiness in its global leadership. Many Americans who voted for him again may have hoped for economic revival or decisive action, yet the outcomes so far have been uneven at best and deeply troubling at worst. His first term already raised questions about the quality of decision-making in Washington, but the second term has amplified those doubts.

To be fair, no US president operates in isolation. The power centres of oil conglomerates, the military-industrial complex, and Wall Street—longstanding financiers of electoral campaigns—shape the contours of policymaking. This is not unique to Trump; it reflects a broader structural reality embedded in the American political system. Likewise, administrative norms in any government impose limits, compelling leaders to follow certain procedures irrespective of personal preference.

What distinguishes Trump, is his persistent disregard for these constraints. Many of his executive actions—whether aggressive tariff regimes, abrupt withdrawal from international agreements, or confrontational moves in international waters—reflect a governing style marked by impulsiveness rather than foresight. These decisions have often produced more disruption than strategic advantage, leaving allies unsettled and adversaries emboldened.

The United States continues to project itself as the world’s largest and most resilient democracy, yet Trump’s leadership is testing that claim. His tendency to bypass institutional checks and frame governance as a personal mandate creates the perception of a leader more interested in consolidating authority than strengthening democratic norms. While he may not be a “king” in the literal sense, some of his actions signal an uncomfortable tilt toward unilateralism.

The cost of this approach is increasingly visible on the global stage. Instead of enhancing America’s influence, it has chipped away at its credibility. Partner nations now question Washington’s consistency, while global institutions struggle to anticipate US positions on critical issues. For a country that built its reputation on predictability and democratic stewardship, this erosion is significant.

If the United States wishes to reclaim moral authority and strategic stability, its leadership must demonstrate that democracy is anchored in institutions—not in the whims of an individual.