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.

Why Another Attempt by Trump to Term Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Outfit?

US President Donald Trump has once again moved to classify select branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. This has reopened an old debate - is this a necessity or a politically motivated classification aimed at reshaping US engagement with the outfit.

Trump’s push reflects both a strategic calculation and a political impulse. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a sprawling and diverse movement that mixes religious activism, social services, and political participation.

Over nearly a century, it has evolved into a constellation of national chapters, each shaped by its own environment. Some branches participate peacefully in politics; others have drifted into confrontation or splintered into militancy. This complexity is precisely what makes blanket designations controversial.

Trump’s argument is straightforward: certain Brotherhood factions — particularly in Egypt, the Levant, and parts of North Africa — engage in or enable violence, undermine regional stability, and maintain ideological ties with militant groups such as Hamas. His camp sees the Brotherhood as the “mother ship” of modern political Islam, capable of inspiring radicalism even if a given chapter claims to operate peacefully.

For Trump, the designation strengthens counterterrorism posture and aligns the US with governments that have long viewed the Brotherhood as an existential threat.

But critics warn that the move is far riskier than it appears. The Brotherhood is not a single command-and-control structure. Lumping all its branches together under a terrorism label ignores the internal diversity and may end up targeting groups that operate legally, contest elections, or run social welfare networks. Such a sweeping designation risks criminalizing civil society, shutting down charities, or ensnaring individuals with loose associations — all without improving security.

There is also the geopolitical cost. Many US partners in the Middle East suppress the Brotherhood not because of terrorism, but because it challenges entrenched power structures. By echoing these regimes uncritically, Washington may be empowering authoritarianism rather than isolating true extremists. The move could also fuel anti-US sentiment by portraying America as hostile to political Islam in all its forms.

Trump’s latest attempt is therefore less about clarity and more about convenience. It may satisfy a political constituency, but it blurs the line between legitimate security concerns and ideological overreach — a distinction the US can’t afford to ignore.

 

Israel kills Hezbollah military leader Tabtabai

According to Reuters, Israel killed militant group Hezbollah's top military official in an airstrike on a southern suburb of Beirut on Sunday, the Israeli military said, despite a US-brokered truce a year ago.

The strike, the first on the outskirts of the Lebanese capital in months, targeted Iran-backed Hezbollah's acting chief of staff, Ali Tabtabai, the military said in a statement.

Israel's strike crossed a "red line", Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qmati said as he stood near the bombed-out building in the Haret Hreik suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold.

Hezbollah's leadership would decide on whether and how the group would respond, he added.

Lebanon's health ministry said the strike killed five people and wounded 28 more. It hit a multi-story building, sending debris crashing into cars on the main road below.

People rushed out of their apartment buildings, fearing further bombardment, a Reuters reporter said.

The United States imposed sanctions on Tabtabai in 2016, identifying him as a key Hezbollah leader and offering a reward of up to US$5 million for information on him.

The Israeli military statement said Tabtabai "commanded most of Hezbollah's units and worked hard to restore them to readiness for war with Israel".

In a short-televised statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its forces and that he expected the Lebanese government "to fulfill its obligation to disarm Hezbollah."

 

 

 

Gazans Being Buried Under Broken Promises

At times, one gets a chilling feeling that Gazans have been buried alive under the rubbles—not only of their shattered homes, but of the world’s broken promises. The Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was marketed as a bold diplomatic breakthrough, complete with plans for an interim administrative setup backed by a handful of states. But what followed was not diplomacy—it was a carefully choreographed deception.

The promised administrative structure, which was supposed to stabilize governance and allow humanitarian breathing space, has never moved beyond press statements and political theatrics. Nothing substantial has been established. No credible mechanism has been deployed. The so-called “international support” evaporated the moment cameras were switched off. The agreement now stands as an empty shell, useful only for speeches and selective justification.

Meanwhile, Israel has shown absolute contempt for the spirit and substance of the ceasefire. The killings have not stopped; on the contrary these have intensified. Entire blocks have been vaporized. Families have vanished under collapsed concrete. The word “ceasefire” has become a cruel joke—a hollow term used to mask a campaign that continues with alarming impunity.

Even more disturbing is Israel’s pursuit of an anti-Hamas armed group inside Gaza. Instead of honoring the agreement, Israel appears determined to reengineer Gaza’s internal dynamics through coercion and proxy militias. This is not conflict resolution; it is social engineering under the guise of security.

For Gazans—already trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—the message is brutally clear: no agreement will protect them, no international promise will be honored, and no external actor will intervene before the next bombardment begins. The world watches, counts casualties, and moves on.

What remains today is not just rubble, but a moral collapse. A ceasefire that exists only on paper, an international community performing selective outrage, and a population slowly erased from global consciousness.

Gaza does not need more signatures. It needs protection. It needs enforcement. And above all, it needs a world willing to acknowledge that “ceasefire” cannot coexist with continued annihilation.

Trump-Mamdani Meeting: An Unexpected but Constructive Moment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different Narratives on MBS Visit to the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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