Xi rolls out carpet for Ukraine war aggressors, sidelining Trump

I am disgusted by reading the headline and the wordings of opening paragraph of a news report by Reuters on the meeting of presidents of China and Russia. I also invite the readers to register their like or dislike to the way of reporting by western media, which I term, “dishonest”.  

Reuters reports, “In a show of solidarity with the aggressors in Europe's worst war in 80 years, China's Xi Jinping will convene with his Russian and North Korean counterparts for the first time as Donald Trump and other Western leaders watch from afar”.

It continues, “Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un's visit to Beijing for a massive military parade this week underscore the Chinese president's influence over authoritarian regimes intent on redefining the Western-led global order, while Trump's isolationist stance strains long-standing US alliances”.

It says, “The gathering of what Western analysts have dubbed the 'Axis of Upheaval' could build on a mutual defence pact signed by Russia and North Korea in June 2024, and a similar alliance between Beijing and Pyongyang, an outcome that may alter the military calculus in the Asia-Pacific region”.

Kim crossed into China early on Tuesday aboard his special train, en route to the capital Beijing. Xi and Putin, meanwhile, gathered at the Great Hall of the People for a meeting with Mongolia's leader expected to touch on a vast gas pipeline project and bilateral talks.

Putin thanked his "dear friend" Xi for the warm welcome and said the close communication showed Russia's relations with China were at an "unprecedentedly high level", according to a video of the talks posted on the Kremlin's official Telegram messaging app.

"We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics," Xi told a gathering of more than 20 leaders of non-Western countries at a summit on Monday, a thinly veiled swipe at his geopolitical rival across the Pacific Ocean.

Xi also held talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, resetting strained bilateral ties, as Trump ratcheted up trade pressure on New Delhi over its purchases of Russian oil.

Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday called the summit "performative" and accused China and India of being "bad actors" by fueling Russia's three-and-a-half-year war with Ukraine.

At a time when Trump is touting his peacemaking credentials, any new concentration of military power in the East that includes Russia will ring alarm bells for the West.

"Trilateral military exercises between Russia, China and North Korea seem nearly inevitable," wrote Youngjun Kim, an analyst at the US-based National Bureau of Asian Research, in March, citing how the conflict in Ukraine has pushed Moscow and Pyongyang closer together.

"Until a few years ago, China and Russia were important partners in imposing international sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear and missile tests... (they) are now potential military partners of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea during a crisis on the Korean peninsula," he added, using the diplomatically isolated country's official name.

Kim is an important stakeholder in the conflict in Ukraine: the North Korean leader has supplied over 15,000 troops to support Putin's war.

In 2024, he also hosted the Russian leader in Pyongyang - the first summit of its kind in 24 years - in a move widely interpreted as a snub to Xi and an attempt to ease his pariah status by reducing North Korea's dependence on China.

About 600 North Korean soldiers have died fighting for Russia in the Kursk region, according to South Korea's intelligence agency, which believes Pyongyang is planning another deployment.

Putin also told the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin that a "fair balance in the security sphere" must be restored, shorthand for Russia's criticism of the eastward expansion of NATO and European Security.

 

China and Russia reject European move to restore sanctions on Iran

UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia backed Iran on Monday in rejecting a move by European countries to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran loosened a decade ago under a nuclear agreement, reports Reuters.

A letter signed by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian foreign ministers said a move by Britain, France and Germany to automatically restore the sanctions under a so-called "snapback mechanism" was "legally and procedurally flawed".

China and Russia were signatories to Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, along with the three European countries, known as the E3. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in his first term in 2018.

The Europeans launched the "snapback mechanism" last week, accusing Iran of violating the deal, which had provided relief from international financial sanctions in return for curbs to Iran's nuclear program.

The letter published by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in a post on X on Monday said that the course taken by Britain, France, and Germany "abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council".

Iran has long since broken through the limits on uranium production set under the 2015 deal, arguing that it is justified in doing so as a consequence of Washington having pulled out of the agreement. The deal expires in October this year, and the snapback mechanism would allow sanctions that were lifted under it to take effect again.

Iran and the E3 held talks aimed at a new nuclear agreement after Israel and the US bombed Iran's nuclear installations in mid-June. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva last week did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.

"Our joint letter with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin, reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke snapback is legally baseless and politically destructive", Iran's foreign minister said in his post on X.

 

 

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.

Houthis threat to kill Netanyahu

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are primarily a Yemeni movement with their base of power in northern part of the country. More recently, its main conflict has been with the United States and its allies, particularly because of Red Sea shipping disruptions.

After the killing of the prime minister of Yemen's Houthi-run government and several other ministers, Houthis have expressed their intentions to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Can this be taken as a real threat to the life of Netanyahu?

In all the probability, the Houthis do not have the capability to directly target Netanyahu inside Israel. Their missile and drone reach has extended toward Israel during the Gaza war (some were intercepted by Israel, US, and allied forces), but striking the Israeli Prime Minister personally is far beyond their operational reach.

However, they can increase pressure on Israel by: 1) targeting Israeli linked ships and shipping lanes in the Red Sea, 2) launching long-range missiles or drones toward Israeli territory, and 3) deepening Israel’s regional isolation by linking the Gaza conflict with Yemen.

In reality, Netanyahu faces greater personal risk from inside Israel (domestic unrest, Palestinian militant groups) or from major regional actors (Hezbollah or Iran) rather than from the Houthis themselves.

While, it may be concluded that the Houthis are not a direct threat to Netanyahu, but they contribute to the overall regional security pressure on Israel that indirectly undermines his political standing and safety.

External threats to Netanyahu

Let us examine the structured hierarchy of external threats to Netanyahu’s life and political survival, ranked from most serious to least:

Hezbollah – Highest Direct Threat

The group has the capability, being the largest, most experienced armed group on Israel’s borders. It has tens of thousands of rockets, advanced drones, precision missiles. Its biggest advantage is proximity, right on Israel’s northern border. It may be said that the threat level to Netanyahu is very high – Hezbollah could, in theory, target Israeli leadership.

Iran – Indirect Threat

Iran enjoys capability, being the regional power with ballistic missiles, drones, cyber operations. While Iran may not directly target Netanyahu, it can facilitate proxies (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq/ Syria, and Houthis).

Palestinian Militants

Hamas, PIJ, and West Bank groups have the capability, having short-to-medium range rockets, cross-border raids, suicide missions. On top of all they enjoy proximity. Most of the resistance group consider Netanyahu directly responsible for Gaza destruction. Analysts believe it is difficult for them to reach him personally due to Israel’s heavy security.

Houthis (Yemen)

Houthis enjoy certain advantages like long-range drones and ballistic missiles, some have reached Israel’s southern airspace, others intercepted. Houthis position themselves as part of “Axis of Resistance” with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Target Israel-linked shipping and occasionally Israel itself. Their threat level is low, as they cannot realistically strike Netanyahu personally, but can harass Israel economically and militarily.

Other Regional Militias

Groups based in Iraq and Syria enjoy certain capabilities, rockets and drones, but usually confined to US or Israeli targets in Syria/ Iraq. Therefore, the real threat level to Netanyahu’s life may be low to moderate, but nuisance attacks are possible, though unlikely to reach Israeli leadership.

Mahmoud Abbas Becomes Redundant

The Trump administration announced Friday it would deny and revoke visas for about 80 senior Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas, ahead of the UN General Assembly in New York in September. The move, unprecedented in scope, would bar most of the Palestinian delegation from one of their few global platforms.

The State Department justified the measure by citing the Palestinian Authority’s appeals to international courts, its alleged refusal to condemn the October 07 attacks, and its pursuit of unilateral recognition. Yet the decision violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obliges Washington, as host state, to admit all delegations. International law, like diplomacy, is treated in Washington as a tool bent to Israel’s interests.

Contrary to US assertions that Abbas has not condemned the Hamas October 07 operation, in a letter sent in early June 2025 to French President Emmanuel Macron — and also to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — Abbas wrote that what Hamas did, “in killing and taking civilians hostage, is unacceptable and condemnable.” He further called for the immediate release of all hostages, the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, and its removal from power in Gaza.

The ban is striking because the Palestinian Authority has long served as a subcontractor for Israel’s occupation. Rather than a liberation movement, Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah became administrators of an imposed status quo.

The so-called PA “security forces” have worked closely with Israel to suppress resistance—arresting fighters, dispersing protests, and keeping order while settlements expanded. The Authority collected taxes, ran services, and projected a façade of sovereignty as Israel tightened control.

Again and again, Abbas bent to US and Israeli demands: endless “peace talks” without peace, restraining international campaigns against Israel, and managing a bureaucracy designed more to pacify than to resist.

His rhetoric echoed Washington’s ostensible preference for negotiations over confrontation. Yet the moment he pursued even mild accountability—seeking prosecutions in The Hague, he and his entourage were punished like enemies.

The lesson is clear. Compliance has not protected Abbas. Obedience has not earned favor. By banning the delegation, Washington has shown that subservience guarantees nothing. The PA’s decades of compromise have delivered only humiliation, proving that trading resistance for hollow promises is a bargain with no reward.

Washington claims its decision safeguards peace, but hypocrisy is obvious. In 1988, it denied Yasser Arafat a visa, forcing the UN to relocate to Geneva so he could speak.

In 2013, it barred Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir over his ICC indictment. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu—himself wanted by the ICC for Gaza crimes—will address the Assembly without issue. Law is wielded selectively; principle turned into a cudgel.

Timing also reveals intent. France, the UK, and Canada are preparing to recognize Palestine, joining nearly 150 countries that already do. Washington fears Abbas might use the UN podium to press for independence, and so silences him preemptively. This is not diplomacy but sabotage—an effort to erase Palestinians from the global conversation just as momentum builds for recognition.

Even so, Europe’s recognition drive is riddled with contradictions. Recognition without sovereignty is little more than a flag on paper. A Palestinian “state” lacking borders, airspace, water, and an economy would be a phantom. The Western vision is one of management, not liberation: Abbas — or a hand-picked successor in his mold — presiding over fractured enclaves while Israel sets the terms.

Yet even this empty gesture alarms Washington and Tel Aviv, who move to crush it before it gathers force. The visa ban is more than bureaucracy—it is an assault on Palestinian representation itself. Once again, the US proves not a mediator but Israel’s enforcer, binding its credibility to permanent occupation.

For those who believed collaboration would yield liberation, the lesson could not be sharper. Decades of compliance, of abandoning armed struggle for negotiations and coordinating security with an occupier, have yielded nothing but betrayal.

The moment Abbas sought accountability, he was discarded like a tool no longer useful. You cannot compromise your way to freedom; bargaining with those determined to erase you leads only to erasure.

In silencing Abbas, Washington has not just humiliated a pliant Authority. It has broadcast contempt for international law, the UN system, and Palestinian voices.

The US poses as the champion of democracy and human rights, but this is the behavior of an authoritarian bully afraid of losing control. And though the Palestinian delegation may be barred from September’s Assembly, their absence will speak louder than any speech—reminding the world that a people erased from the chamber are not erased from history.

 

Iran arrests suspects having links with Mossad

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday they had arrested eight people suspected of trying to transmit the coordinates of sensitive sites and details about senior military figures to Israel's Mossad, reports Iranian state media.

They are accused of having provided the information to the Mossad spy agency during Israel's air war on Iran in June, when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders as well as civilians in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

Iran retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites, infrastructure and cities. The United States entered the war on June 22 with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

A Guard’s statement alleged that the suspects had received specialized training from Mossad via online platforms. It said they were apprehended in northeastern Iran before carrying out their plans, and that materials for making launchers, bombs, explosives and booby traps had been seized.

State media reported earlier this month that Iranian police had arrested as many as 21,000 "suspects" during the 12-day war with Israel, though they did not say what these people had been suspected of doing.

Security forces conducted a campaign of widespread arrests and also stepped up their street presence during the brief war that ended in a US-brokered ceasefire.

Iran has executed at least eight people in recent months, including nuclear scientist Rouzbeh Vadi, hanged on August 9 for passing information to Israel about another scientist killed in Israeli airstrikes.

Human rights groups say Iran uses espionage charges and fast tracked executions as tools for broader political repression.

 

Duality of standards for Iran and Israel

Many readers like me are unable to understand why the United States, Britain, France and Germany are adamant at imposing sanction on Iran, but are not asking Israel to stop bombarding Gaza?

The apparent contradiction reflects how strategic interests, alliances, and global optics intersect in United States and Britain, France and Germany foreign policy. Let me break it down:

Iran Nuclear Program

The United States, Britain France and Germany have long opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, seeing it as a path to nuclear weapons. Sanctions are their primary leverage tool.

Regional Rivalries

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and other groups hostile to Israel and the West makes it a “destabilizer” in their eyes.

Alliance Pressures

Many Gulf Arab states are partners of Israel, US, Britain, France and Germany and they view Iran as a strategic threat, pushing Western powers to maintain maximum pressure.

Domestic Politics

In Washington and Europe, appearing “soft on Iran” is politically costly. Sanctions serve as a signal of toughness.

Israeli attacks on Gaza

Israel’s strikes in Gaza have caused massive civilian deaths. Western governments face pressure from international institutions (UN, ICC), NGOs, and their own publics.

The US, Britain France and Germany consider themselves defenders of international law. Unchecked Israeli bombing undermines their stance on Ukraine, human rights, and global order.

Escalation in Gaza risks dragging in Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iran—threatening oil supplies and broader Middle East stability, which Europe especially fears.

In the US and Europe, large pro-Palestinian movements, especially among younger voters and immigrant communities are creating political pressure to rein in Israel.

Core Contradiction

On Iran, the West uses sanctions as a pressure tool because Iran is seen as an adversary.

On Israel, despite being an ally, the West uses diplomatic urging rather than sanctions—because Israel is a strategic partner, but its Gaza actions are politically damaging to the West’s global image.

In essence, Iran is a strategic opponent and super powers use sanctions as pressure

They consider Israel a strategic ally and want to save it from any external pressure, the statements are rhetoric only.

This double standard is being viewed in non-Western capitals (Beijing, Moscow, Global and South) as dual standard and Western stance weakens their credibility globally.

The non-Western world views this double standard of sanctions on Iran but “restraint pleas” for Israel.

China points out that the US, Britain, France and Germany are punishing Iran harshly for alleged destabilizing actions, but shield Israel diplomatically despite Gaza bombings.

By calling for ceasefires and humanitarian aid, China portrays itself as a “responsible global mediator,” contrasting with the West’s selective morality.

Iran is a vital energy partner for China under its Belt and Road Initiative. Sanctions make Tehran more dependent on Beijing, strengthening Chinese influence.

Russia

Russia terms the West’s “rules-based order” biased. They argue: “If bombing cities in Ukraine is a war crime, why not Gaza?”

Iran is often accused of supplying drones and partnering with Russia under sanctions, so Moscow benefits from Tehran’s isolation.

Russia frames itself as standing with the oppressed (Palestinians) against Western-backed aggression, resonating in Arab and African states.

Colonial Echoes

Many see the West’s defense of Israel and punishment of Iran as a continuation of imperial “divide and rule.”

Western claims about human rights and international law are viewed as selective—undermining their authority when they criticize others (African leaders, Asian governments).

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa amplify calls for accountability against Israel, while trading more with Iran outside the dollar system.

Strategic Impact

The West’s inconsistency weakens its moral standing globally.

Non-Western powers gain diplomatic and economic space by filling the “justice gap.”

Iran, despite sanctions, finds sympathy in many Global South societies as a victim of Western double standards—while Israel risks becoming diplomatically isolated outside the Western bloc.

Moral of the story

The contradictory stances of US, Britain France and Germany may preserve short-term alliances, but they’re eroding their credibility in the long run, especially in the Global South.