Pakistan: Navigating an Uncertain Global Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US dollar faces crisis of confidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Iranian warning to Donald Trump

A high-ranking commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) warned on Monday that the US forces in the region are sitting in a “glass house” and should avoid “throwing stones at others.”

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Division, made the remarks on the sidelines of ceremonies to celebrate Eid al-Fitr.

“The Americans have 10 military bases in the region, particularly around Iran and 50,000 troops” are deployed in these based, Hajizadeh said, according to Press TV.

“This means they are sitting in a glass house; and when one sits in a glass house, he does not throw stones at others.”

The top IRGC’s comment come after threats by US President Donald Trump to bomb Iran if it refuses to reach "a new deal" on its nuclear program.

On Sunday, Trump said Iran will be bombed if it does not make a deal with the United States.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said in an interview with NBC News. He also threatened to punish Iran with what he called “secondary tariffs.”

In a post on his X account on Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Trump’s open threat of “bombing” the country is an affront to global peace and security.

“An open threat of ‘bombing’ by a Head of State against Iran is a shocking – affront ‑ to the very essence of International Peace and Security,” Baghaei wrote.

 

 

Bloodied and Bruised US Markets

According to Bloomberg, Jan-Mar 2025 quarter was full of disappointments due to the plunging indices. While the markets are under pressure, the bigger threat is weakening dollar, making other currencies safe heavens.

The S&P 500 ended the quarter down 4.6%, its worst performance in three years. The Nasdaq 100 posted its worst quarter in nearly three years, down 8.3%, after a pair of warnings last week fanned anxieties about a possible pullback in the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into data center infrastructure. 

Making matters worse for the United States, the dollar hasn’t been behaving as normal, raising fears that America’s radical policy turns are opening the door for rival currencies to become havens.

Trump’s trade war continues to fuel concern the US economy could stall. Most economists still don’t anticipate America will fall into recession in the next year, but they do say the chance of a contraction has increased.

While many economists have spent the past three years being wrong on recession calls, another worry is the risk that a slowdown in growth will occur alongside accelerating inflation, the dreaded scenario known as stagflation.

Garnering the least support in the Associated Press-NORC poll was Trump’s signature initiative so far—tariffs. Some 60% of Americans disapprove of his trade tactics while 58% disapprove of his handling of the economy in general.

 

 

 

 

Political Swings in the Middle East in 2025

I am inclined to refer to an article by Robin Wright and Peyton Dashiel of Wilson Center. I consider it more like a US narrative. I suggest the readers to read the content dispassionately to understand how situation is likely to unfold in the near future.

In 2025, power dynamics in the Middle East shifted significantly. Sunni factions gained influence while Shiite groups tied to Iran weakened. Political turmoil, economic struggles, and escalating conflicts—especially between Israel and Iran—exacerbated regional instability, hampering diplomacy, development, and prospects for long-term peace.

Regional Shifts and Rising Conflicts

The region faced an unprecedented level of crises, with violence escalating in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. The Sunni resurgence saw Islamist parties gaining political ground in Jordan and Syria, where a military coup toppled the Assad regime. Iran’s influence waned, with its proxy militias suffering major losses due to Israeli and US airstrikes. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia bolstered its regional dominance, hosting US-Russia talks on Ukraine and offering to mediate US-Iran negotiations.

Conflicts in Gaza and the Red Sea intensified. Israel’s war with Hamas continued, with peace efforts stalling. Hostilities between Israel and Iran escalated, with both nations engaging in direct attacks. Houthi rebels in Yemen disrupted international shipping in the Red Sea, causing a sharp decline in Suez Canal traffic.

Internal Political Shifts

In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost major local elections in 2024, signaling a shift in public sentiment. The government’s arrest of opposition figure Ekrem İmamoğlu in March 2025 further fueled tensions.

In Iran, reformist Masoud Pezeshkian won the presidency, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with theocratic rule.

Tunisian President Kais Saied intensified crackdowns on opposition, extending the prison sentence of Ennahdha leader Rachid Ghannouchi.

Syria’s Assad regime collapsed after more than 70 years in power. Sunni militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized control, igniting sectarian clashes with Alawites. While Iran distanced itself from its traditional proxies, its Supreme Leader insisted Tehran did not rely on foreign militias.

Economic and Diplomatic Fallout

Economic crises deepened, with the World Bank warning of long-term stagnation. Diplomatic efforts faltered as regional rivalries intensified, particularly between Israel and Iran. With increasing violence and political upheaval, the path to stability in the Middle East remained highly uncertain.

Arabs do not go beyond lip service to Gazans

The issue of why many Arab governments seem to offer only "lip service" in support of Gaza is complex and rooted in a mix of political, economic, and geopolitical factors. Let us explore the likely reasons.

Geopolitical Constraints

US Influence:

Many Arab nations, especially those with close ties to the West (like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan), rely heavily on the US support that include aid, security, and diplomatic backing. Directly confronting Israel — a key US ally — risks straining these relationships.

Normalization Deals:

Countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have signed normalization agreements with Israel (the Abraham Accords). These agreements are tied to economic and strategic benefits, making it costly to take aggressive action against Israel.

Iran Factor:

Some Arab governments, especially Sunni-majority have been brain washed to see Iran — which supports Hamas and Hezbollah — as a bigger regional threat than Israel. This complicates their stance on Gaza.

Mutual Interests

Economic Dependence:

Many Arab economies are tightly integrated with Western financial systems or rely on international trade and investments that could suffer if they provoke Israel’s allies.

Internal Stability:

Countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon — which have large Palestinian refugee populations — are already facing economic hardship. Escalating tensions could lead to social unrest, which their governments are eager to avoid.

Regime Survival

Authoritarian Control:

Many Arab leaders prioritize regime survival over regional solidarity. Supporting Gaza too aggressively could embolden opposition groups within their own countries — especially Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, which many Arab governments suppress.

Government Policy:

While Arab populations broadly support Palestine, authoritarian governments often control protests, media narratives, and activism to prevent mass uprisings. They may issue strong statements to appease the public but avoid substantive actions.

Egypt-Gaza Dynamic

Rafah Border:

Egypt controls the only non-Israeli border with Gaza. While Egypt has expressed solidarity, it's wary of fully opening the Rafah crossing due to: 1) security concerns (fear of extremist infiltration), 2) pressure from Israel and the US to control the flow of people and goods and 3) Hamas ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt’s government opposes.

Breaking Status quo

For Arab governments to go beyond rhetoric, they need: 1) stronger, unified regional leadership — which is currently fractured, 2) a major shift in global alliances, reduced US influence or developing better and dependable relations with other super powers like China and Russia and 3) internal pressures that become uncontainable — widespread, sustained protests or leadership changes driven by popular demands.

 

Drawing a parallel between US supplying arms to Israel and Iran supplying arms to Houthis

This morning I sat down to explore a parallel between US supplying arms to Israel and Iran supplying arms to Houthis. My gut feeling is, though the situations are complex and have key differences, the outcome depends on the analyst if he/ she is a friend of United States.

The Parallel:

Proxy Support:
The Western analysts, without any hesitation say both Iranian support for the Houthis and the US support for Israel involve supplying advanced weapons to allied groups or nations engaged in regional conflicts. Over the years Western analysis have been saying, Iran backs the Houthis to extend its influence against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, while the US supports Israel as a key strategic ally in the Middle East.

Strategic Goals:
The mantra of Western analysts is, Iran aims to challenge Western-aligned powers (like Saudi Arabia and Israel), while the US supports Israel to maintain a balance of power favorable to its interests in the region.

Impact on Conflicts:
They also say, both arms supplies prolong conflicts. Iranian weapons bolster Houthi resilience in Yemen’s civil war, while US arms help Israel maintain its military edge in Gaza and against regional threats like Hezbollah.

Key Differences:

Legitimacy and International Recognition:
God Fathers of genocide in Gaza say, Israel is a recognized sovereign state, whereas the Houthis are a rebel group (though they control significant territory in Yemen). This affects how international law and diplomacy perceive the arms transfers.

Military Capabilities:
The reality is, the US arms to Israel include advanced fighter jets, missile defense systems, and intelligence support — a level of military aid far beyond the drones, missiles, and small arms Iran provides to the Houthis.

Transparency and Alliances:
The funniest argument is, the US military aid to Israel is largely public, subject to congressional oversight, and part of formal agreements. Iran’s support for the Houthis is clandestine, violating UN arms embargoes.

Global Perception:
The dishonest Western media go to the extent of saying, the US positions its support as aiding a democracy for self-defense, while Iran’s aid to the Houthis is widely seen as destabilizing and fueling a humanitarian crisis.

 

US lifts bounties on senior Taliban figures

According to various media reports, the United States has lifted bounties on three senior Taliban officials, including Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, who also leads the Haqqani network, a group long blamed for deadly attacks against Afghanistan’s former Western-backed government.

Haqqani, who previously admitted to orchestrating the 2008 attack on Kabul’s Serena Hotel that killed six people, including American citizen Thor David Hesla, no longer appears on the US State Department’s Rewards for Justice Website.

According to Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Mateen Qani, the US government revoked the bounties on Sirajuddin Haqqani, Abdul Aziz Haqqani, and Yahya Haqqani. “These three individuals are two brothers and one paternal cousin,” he told The Associated Press.

The Haqqani network, originally founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, rose to prominence as one of the most lethal arms of the Taliban following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The group has been linked to a series of high-profile attacks on the Indian and US embassies, the Afghan presidency, and other targets, and has also been accused of engaging in extortion, kidnappings, and other criminal activities.

Zakir Jalaly, a Foreign Ministry official in Kabul, said the US decision to lift the bounties — coming just days after the release of American prisoner George Glezmann — signaled a thaw in bilateral relations.

“Both sides are moving beyond the effects of the wartime phase and taking constructive steps to pave the way for progress,” Jalaly said. “The recent developments in Afghanistan-US relations are a good example of pragmatic and realistic engagement.”

Shafi Azam, another official, welcomed the move as the beginning of normalization, noting the Taliban’s recent assertion of control over Afghanistan’s embassy in Norway as further evidence of diplomatic progress.

Since taking power in August 2021, the Taliban have struggled with global isolation, worsened by their sweeping restrictions on women and girls.

Only a few countries, including China and Qatar, have formally or informally engaged with the Taliban diplomatically. The US has also maintained indirect channels of communication.

Despite being under United Nations sanctions since 2007, Sirajuddin Haqqani has traveled internationally in the past year. These trips, made with UN clearance, were his first abroad since the Taliban’s return to power.

Haqqani has also voiced rare public criticism of the Taliban’s decision-making process, highlighting internal divisions within the group’s leadership.

 

United States No Exit from Pakistan

"No Exit from Pakistan" by Daniel S. Markey offers an in-depth analysis of the complex and often turbulent relationship between the United States and Pakistan. Markey, drawing on his extensive experience in South Asian affairs, explores the multifaceted nature of Pakistan and the challenges it presents to US foreign policy.​

Complex Pakistani Identity:

Markey portrays Pakistan as a nation with multiple identities: an elite-dominated society, a military-centric state, a breeding ground for terrorism, and a country with a youthful, idealistic population. This diversity complicates both internal governance and external relations.

US-Pakistan Relations:

The book traces the historical oscillations in US-Pakistan relations, highlighting periods of close military cooperation during Pakistan's military regimes and strained ties during its democratic transitions.

Anti-US Sentiment:

Markey delves into the roots of anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, noting that both conservative and liberal factions harbor distrust towards the US, albeit for different reasons. Conservatives view the US as untrustworthy, while liberals criticize US support for military dictatorships over democratic institutions.

The author presents three strategic options for the US:

Defensive Insulation:

Minimizing engagement with Pakistan while protecting US interests through intelligence and military means.

Military-First Cooperation:

Focusing on strengthening ties with Pakistan's military to achieve security objectives.

Comprehensive Cooperation:

Engaging with both civilian and military sectors to promote democratic institutions, economic development, and counter-terrorism efforts.

Markey emphasizes that there is "no exit" from Pakistan for the United States, underscoring the necessity of a nuanced and sustained engagement to navigate this intricate bilateral relationship.

 

Iran Nuclear Program: West’s Double Standards

The ongoing debate over Iran’s nuclear program has resurfaced, with a Wall Street Journal piece urging Iran’s complete nuclear disarmament. It likens Iran to South Africa’s voluntary disarmament and Libya’s renouncement of nuclear ambitions, arguing that only pressure — sanctions, military threats, and economic isolation — can force compliance. However, this argument overlooks historical context, Western double standards, and the consequences of past interference in West Asia.

Hypocrisy in Disarmament Demands

Comparing Iran to South Africa and Libya is misleading. South Africa dismantled its program during a peaceful transition from apartheid, not under external pressure. Libya abandoned its efforts after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 — a move that didn’t prevent Libya’s eventual collapse under Western intervention. Iran, aware of this history, has little reason to believe unilateral disarmament would ensure its security.

Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), allows International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. In contrast, Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, hasn’t signed the NPT or permitted inspections — yet faces no calls to disarm. If non-proliferation were truly the goal, the same standards would apply to all nations, not just US adversaries.

Broken Agreements and Misleading Narratives

Iran adhered to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), verified by the IAEA, until the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2018, reimposing sanctions. Iran continued compliance, hoping European nations would uphold the deal, reducing commitments only after it became clear sanctions would persist. The portrayal of Iran as the party breaking agreements is a distortion of events.

Sanctions: Economic Warfare, Not Diplomacy

Sanctions have hurt ordinary Iranians without forcing government collapse or nuclear abandonment. Iran’s economy, despite hardships, has adapted through domestic industries and alliances with China and Russia. Economic warfare often fuels national resilience, not surrender.

Real Source of Instability

The issue isn’t Iran’s nuclear program — it’s Western intervention and support for authoritarian regimes to maintain US-Israeli military dominance. Iran remains open to dialogue but not likely to accept one-sided deals demanding surrender. True diplomacy requires mutual respect, not coercion — the only path to a fair, lasting peace.

Trump gives Iran deadline to reach new nuclear deal

US President Donald Trump, in a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing negotiations on a new nuclear deal, made clear that Iran has a two-month deadline to reach an agreement, a source familiar with the letter’s contents told CNN.

The directive comes as Trump has said he would like to reach a deal with Iran to gain more control over their nuclear capabilities.

Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff delivered the letter to the president of the United Arab Emirates Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan while he was in Abu Dhabi last week, the source said. The UAE later gave the letter to the Iranians.

“President Trump made it clear to Ayatollah Khamenei that he wanted to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically – and very soon – and if this was not possible, there would be other ways to resolve the dispute,” a spokesman for the National Security Council Brian Hughes said in a statement to CNN.

Axios was the first to report on the contents of the letter.

Trump also discussed a potential nuclear deal with Iran during his phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, according to a White House readout of the call.

The readout stated that Trump and Putin “spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts. They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application.”

“The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel,” the readout continued.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News that there “are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran.”

“I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate, because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran,’ and I think they want to get that letter – the alternative is we have to do something, because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump added.

It is unclear how the US would respond if Iran fails to enter direct talks regarding its nuclear program. However, senior US officials have not ruled out potential military action, whether through the US or Israel, on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the future.

During his first term in office, Trump withdrew from the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran and ordered a US-led strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, leading to further backlash from Tehran.

Trump, in his second term, has returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, in an effort to isolate the country economically and diplomatically.

Khamenei recently said calls for negotiations by “bully states” are aimed at dominating others, not resolving issues.

“The insistence on the part of some bully states on negotiations is not to resolve issues, but to dominate and impose their own expectations,” Khamenei said this month, as cited by Iranian state media outlets.

Backed by Trump, Israel Kills 400 Gazans

According to Reuters, Israeli airstrikes pounded Gaza and killed more than 400 people on Tuesday, ending weeks of relative calm after talks to secure a permanent ceasefire stalled.

Israel and Hamas each accused the other of breaching the truce, which had broadly held since January, offering respite from war for the 2 million inhabitants of Gaza, where most buildings have been reduced to rubble.

Hamas, which still holds 59 of the 250 or so hostages Israel says the group seized in its October 7, 2023 attack, accused Israel of jeopardising efforts by mediators to negotiate a permanent deal to end the fighting, but the group made no threat of retaliation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he ordered strikes because Hamas had rejected proposals to secure a ceasefire extension during faltering talks.

"Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength," the prime minister's office said in a statement.

The strikes hit houses and tent encampments from the north to the south of the Gaza Strip, and Israeli tanks shelled from across the border line, witnesses said.

"It was a night of hell. It felt like the first days of the war," said Rabiha Jamal, 65, a mother of five from Gaza City.

Israel's sudden onslaught overwhelmed Gaza hospitals already reeling from weeks of an aid blockade, medics said, as ambulances ferried in hundreds of badly injured survivors.

Families in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip and eastern areas of Khan Younis in the south fled their homes, some on foot, others in cars or rickshaws, carrying some of their belongings after the Israeli military issued evacuation orders warning the areas were "dangerous combat zones".

Hours after the IDF renewed the strikes, Hamas hasn't managed to fire a single rocket into Israel.

"This return to violence does not come as a surprise, however," said Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of the US-based advocacy group Win Without War.

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, from the beginning, signaled his intention to abandon the cease-fire process before it could become a lasting peace. From before his first day in office,

President Trump has endorsed the Netanyahu government's return to war. Indeed, we fear that Trump's vile plan for ethnic cleansing in Gaza, so welcomed by the far-right members of Netanyahu's government, will become the blueprint for the war as it goes forward."

 

Iran to be held responsible for attacks by Houthis

US President Donald Trump said on Monday he would hold Iran responsible for any attacks carried out by the Houthi group that it backs in Yemen, as his administration expanded the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since Trump returned to the White House, reports Reuters.

Responding to the Houthi movement's threats to international shipping, the US launched a new wave of airstrikes on Saturday. On Monday, the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah and Al Jawf governorate north of the capital Sanaa were targeted, Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said.

"Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!" Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

The White House said that Trump's message to Iran was to take the United States seriously.

The Pentagon said it had struck over 30 sites so far and would use overwhelming lethal force against the Houthis until the group stopped attacks. The Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said the goal was not regime change.

Lieutenant General Alex Grynkewich, director of operations at the Joint Staff, said the latest campaign against the Houthis was different to the one under former President Joe Biden because the range of targets was broader and included senior Houthi drone experts.

Grynkewich said dozens of Houthi members were killed in the strike. The Biden administration is not believed to have targeted senior Houthi leaders.

The Houthi-run health ministry said on Sunday that at least 53 people have been killed in the attacks. Five children and two women were among the victims and 98 have been hurt, it said. Reuters could not independently verify those casualty numbers.

One US official told Reuters the strikes might continue for weeks. Washington has also ramped up sanctions pressure on Iran while trying to bring it to the negotiating table over its nuclear program.

The Houthis say their attacks, which have forced companies to re-route ships to longer and more expensive journeys around southern Africa, are in solidarity with Palestinians as Israel strikes Gaza.

Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said on Sunday the militants would target US ships in the Red Sea as long as the US continues attacks on Yemen.

Under the direction of al-Houthi, who is in his 40s, the ragtag group has become an army of tens of thousands of fighters and acquired an arsenal of armed drones and ballistic missiles.

While Iran champions the Houthis, the Houthis deny being puppets of Tehran, and experts on Yemen say they are motivated primarily by a domestic agenda.

The Houthis' military spokesman, without providing evidence, said in a televised statement early on Monday that the group had launched a second attack against the US aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

 

Houthis ban US vessels from entering Red Sea

According the Seatrade Maritime News, Houthis have banned the entry of the US vessels from navigation of the southern Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Gulf Aden, and that it will target US Navy ships in response to US airstrikes on Yemen.

US attacks on Yemen on March 15 have claimed 53 lives, according to the Houthis, as US President Trump increased military action to reopen the Red Sea to commercial shipping.

Posting on Truth Social, the US President said, “The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of the most important Waterways of the World, grinding vast swaths of Global Commerce to a halt, and attacking the core principle of Freedom of Navigation upon which International Trade and Commerce depends.”

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the US would continue to target the Houthis until their threats to shipping were withdrawn.

The White House posted an article listing Houthi attacks on international shipping and their impact on world trade, including the drop in Red Sea and Suez Canal transits.

Ships continue to avoid the southern Red Sea due to the risk of escalation at short notice in the region, although no Houthi attacks on merchant ships have been reported this year.

The announcement of the Houthis’ ‘ban’ on US vessels follows a statement issued by the group last week that it was resuming a ‘ban’ on Israeli vessels in the Red and Arabian Seas, Bab al-Mandeb strait and the Gulf of Aden until Israel allows aid to flow into Gaza.

In January this year, the Houthis lifted its ‘ban’ on international shipping transiting the Red Sea as the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas progressed, but warned that aggression against its forces in Yemen by the US or Britain would make the nations’ vessels subject to attack once again.

A further signal of progress was seen in January when the crew of car carrier Galaxy Leader were released after 14 months in Houthis captivity.

The US strikes and Houthi response are in line with expectations when the Israel-Hamas ceasefire was announced - security experts said at the time that the region remained volatile, the ceasefire was fragile, escalation could happen quickly, and Israeli, US and UK ships were particularly at threat.

Since November 2023, there have been 112 incidents recorded in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, including six serious incidents, 42 minor incidents, 46 attempted attacks, and four hijackings, according to the Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC).

Four mariners have been killed and two seriously injured in Houthi attacks on merchant ships.

 

United States: The True Godfather of Terrorism

Once again, Washington plays its old game: accusing others of terrorism while fueling it to serve its interests. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent statements in Al-Quds with Benjamin Netanyahu are part of a longstanding American policy aimed at hiding its role in destabilizing West Asia through support for terrorist groups.

This isn’t just an accusation from US rivals—it’s a reality acknowledged by American officials. In 2016, Donald Trump declared, “Obama is the founder of ISIS, and Clinton is his co-founder,” a statement backed by evidence.

During the Syrian crisis, the CIA funneled financial and logistical aid to extremist groups under the pretext of supporting “moderate opposition.” Reports from The Washington Post repeatedly exposed this strategy. John Kerry, in a leaked recording, admitted the US allowed ISIS to grow in Syria, hoping to pressure Damascus into concessions.

In 2019, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard revealed the US was directly arming al-Qaeda in Syria. Former Senator Richard Black recently reaffirmed this, exposing continued US backing of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. United Nations reports over the last decade confirm US support for Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch) via Turkey and Qatar to overthrow Assad.

Rubio talks about Syrian “instability” while ignoring US backing for Abu Mohammed al-Julani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra). Once on America’s terrorist list, al-Julani now controls Syria’s northwest with American support, rebranded as a "moderate opposition leader."

US media, like PBS, have even given him a platform, whitewashing his extremist history. A RAND Corporation report exposed that Washington considers him a “potential partner” — a shocking display of double standards. Al-Julani, now known as Ahmad al-Sharaa, orchestrated massacres of over 22,000 Alawites along Syria’s coast. Instead of facing justice, he receives political and media backing from the US, ensuring Syria remains unstable and under Western influence.

Rubio’s remarks can’t be separated from unwavering US support for Israel, which engages in daily state terrorism. Since the latest Gaza aggression began, Israeli forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians, including children, while destroying hospitals and schools — all with Washington’s cover.

The US shields Israel in the UN, using its veto to block resolutions condemning war crimes, making it complicit. Washington labels groups resisting Zionist occupation as “terrorists” while backing extremist factions in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, revealing its hypocrisy.

The US narrative — branding Iran a “terror sponsor” for supporting Palestinian and Lebanese resistance — is bankrupt. Is defending one’s homeland terrorism? Washington’s twisted equation labels those who fight occupation as “terrorists” and those enabling occupation as “defenders of democracy.”

This propaganda no longer fools the world. The Zionist entity’s crimes are broadcast live, and America’s ties to the terrorists it claims to fight are increasingly exposed.

If Rubio seeks the “greatest source of instability,” he needn’t look far — Washington itself fuels terrorism while pretending to oppose it. History won’t forget who created terrorism, nor will people forget who stood for justice and who conspired against them.

China and Russia reject US maximum pressure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Asia can ensure its security, claims Iranian commander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Lebanon told to normalize relations with Israel

Following her previous provocative statement in Beirut that Hezbollah should have no share in the government, Morgan Ortagus, the deputy presidential special envoy to the Middle East, has said the outcome of current events is ultimately a “peace” agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

In an exclusive interview with the Lebanese Al-Jadeed TV channel, Ortagus said the current goal is limited to launching diplomatic negotiations between three diplomatic working groups.

According to Ortagus, the goal of these negotiations is to address pressing issues such as the release of Lebanese prisoners, determining the fate of sites occupied by Israel, and demarcating the land border, which do not require diplomatic working groups and can be secured by the Supervisory Committee for the Implementation of Resolution 1701.

Regarding the Lebanese prisoners kidnapped by the Israeli enemy, there is no point in negotiation, as Lebanon has no Israeli prisoners to negotiate over.

Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's special envoy, had previously noted Washington’s urgency in launching peace negotiations with both Lebanon and Syria. He had also expressed optimism about the possibility of Riyadh joining Abraham Accords.

Wittkoff firmly stated that the political transformations in the region could extend to Lebanon.

Prior to the election of Lebanon’s president and in the midst of the US-led Israeli aggression on Lebanon during September and November, the American “surveillance den” (embassy) in Beirut had interrogated several candidates regarding their positions on normalization with the Israeli occupation regime and weapons in possession of the Hezbollah resistance movement.

Lisa Johnson, the US ambassador to Beirut, informed prominent Lebanese figures that they must be prepared to secure a comprehensive and permanent solution with Tel Aviv.

The American witch frequently claimed that Hezbollah had – militarily and politically – collapsed and was barely able to manage its own affairs, and would therefore be unable to rebuild what her hostile country had destroyed.

As Washington is quite sure that there are just a few independent Lebanese officials who would reject American dictates, the White House will relentlessly go ahead with its imperialist and racist agenda.

Obviously, Washington has limited the mandate of the UN’s five-member committee to monitor Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, while the committee repeatedly claims that Israeli procedures are in response to the violations by Hezbollah, which has not handed over its military arsenal or the coordinates of its military installations!

Accordingly, the shameful silence of Lebanon has made it easier for Washington to immediately jump to the stage of forming diplomatic working groups, as it claims.

These diplomatic working groups require violating the Lebanese constitution, which criminalizes any direct meeting between Lebanese diplomats and those from the Israeli colonial entity!

Naturally, the Lebanese leaders in power today must learn a lesson from the disastrous consequences of normalization for Egypt, Jordan, and even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. At the very least, they must learn a lesson from what is happening in neighboring Syria.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

Qatar calls for US-Iran agreement

According to media reports, Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani has emphasized the urgent need for a diplomatic agreement between the United States and Iran, reaffirming that Qatar would not support any military escalation in the region.

“There is no way that Qatar would support any kind of military step in that region. We will not give up until we see a diplomatic solution between the United States and Iran. This needs to reach an agreement,” Al-Thani said, as quoted by Al Jazeera.

His remarks came shortly after US President Donald Trump hinted on Friday at the possibility of a "peace agreement" with Iran.

In a televised interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, Al-Thani underscored regional concerns over potential military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, stressing that Iran is “our next-door neighbor, and we have to maintain good relations with all our neighbors... It is in the interest of the region to have a better relationship with Iran.”

He also highlighted "huge progress" in relations between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Iran in recent years. While acknowledging policy differences with Tehran, he asserted that these had not negatively impacted diplomatic ties with Gulf states.

Trump, speaking on Friday, stated that interesting days lay ahead in US-Iran relations as he sought either to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Tehran or consider "the other option," an apparent reference to military action.

In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi dismissed direct negotiations with Washington, stating that as long as the US policy of maximum pressure and threats continues, we will not enter into direct negotiations with the US.

Discussing Qatar's involvement in mediating the Gaza ceasefire, Al-Thani noted that Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani had consistently prioritized humanitarian efforts, stating, “If we are able to save a single life, it is worth everything.”

He acknowledged that Qatar had faced significant criticism throughout the 15-month conflict in Gaza.

“We’ve been under significant attacks for 15 months during this war on Gaza, something unbelievable, no one would handle such an attack,” he said.

Despite the challenges, he emphasized Qatar’s tireless efforts in brokering a ceasefire, stating that seeing celebrations in both Gaza and Israel upon announcing the deal had made the hardships worthwhile.

Al-Thani credited the successful agreement to joint efforts by Qatar, the US, and other partners, singling out US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff for playing a key role in pushing negotiations forward.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

1. US Constitution

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

2. Specific Legislation

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

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