Gold surpasses US$4,000/oz for first time

Gold price surpassed US$4,000 an ounce for the first time on Wednesday as investors piled into a historic rally in the safe-haven asset to hedge against global economic and geopolitical uncertainties, while also betting on US interest rate cuts.

Spot gold was up 1.3% at US$4,034.73 per ounce by 1110 GMT. US gold futures for December delivery gained 1.3% to US$4,056.80.

Traditionally, gold is seen as a store of value during times of instability. Spot gold is up about 54% year-to-date, after gaining 27% in 2024. It is one of the best-performing assets of 2025, outpacing advances in global equity markets and bitcoin and losses for the US dollar and crude oil.

The rally has been driven by a cocktail of factors, including expectations of interest rate cuts, ongoing political and economic uncertainty, solid central bank buying, inflows into gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and a weak dollar.

"Background factors are much the same as before, in terms of geopolitical uncertainty, with the added spice of the government shutdown," StoneX analyst Rhona O'Connell said.

"The latter is not impeding strong equities but nonetheless there will be a degree of risk mitigation via bullion."

The ongoing US government shutdown, into its eighth day on Wednesday, has delayed the release of key economic data, forcing investors to rely on non-government sources to assess the timing and scope of Fed rate cuts.

 

Who Suffers More from Falling Oil Prices? OPEC Members or United States

The recent slide in global oil prices has once again stirred a debate, who suffers more — the oil-exporting giants of OPEC or the United States, now a major producer itself? The answer, as always, lies in the economics of dependence and the politics of energy.

OPEC countries, particularly in the Gulf, rely overwhelmingly on oil revenues to finance their national budgets, social programs, and development plans. For economies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, crude exports still account for more than two-thirds of total income.

When oil prices tumble below US$70 a barrel, their fiscal positions come under pressure. Budget deficits widen, subsidies become unsustainable, and ambitious diversification drives, like Saudi Vision 2030, face funding gaps.

For smaller OPEC producers such as Nigeria or Angola, the pain is even sharper — lower prices mean currency depreciation, inflation, and social unrest.

In contrast, the United States, despite being the world’s largest oil producer, experiences a more nuanced impact. Lower prices hurt shale producers in Texas and North Dakota, where high extraction costs make many wells unprofitable when crude dips below US$60.

Bankruptcies, layoffs, and reduced drilling activity follow swiftly. Yet the broader US economy benefits - cheaper gasoline boosts consumer spending, cuts transport costs, and eases inflationary pressure — all positives for growth and household budgets.

While US oil companies may bleed, the country’s economy as a whole absorbs the shock better than most OPEC states can.

The fiscal and social dependence of OPEC members on oil revenues magnifies their vulnerability. As against this, the United States — with its diversified economy, flexible markets, and domestic consumption — ultimately gains from lower energy costs.

In short, the current oil price decline hurts OPEC far more deeply. For Washington, it is a mixed blessing; for Riyadh and its peers, a financial headache.

Unless OPEC recalibrates its dependence on hydrocarbons, every fall in crude prices will continue to expose the fragility of their oil-driven prosperity.

 

Iran's rise to regional powerhouse rattles friends and foes alike

Iran’s steady emergence as a regional powerhouse is reshaping the Middle East’s strategic landscape — and not everyone is comfortable with it. What makes Tehran’s ascent intriguing is that it unsettles both adversaries and allies, blurring traditional fault lines and forcing recalculations from Riyadh to Washington, and from Moscow to Beijing.

For decades, Iran was viewed through the prism of sanctions, isolation, and revolutionary zeal. Despite economic constraints and diplomatic pressure, it has built robust influence through a mix of ideology, resilience, and strategic alliances. Its regional proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — once dismissed as militant networks — now form a formidable web of influence, capable of shaping outcomes from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

Iran’s growing clout has not only alarmed its foes. Even its supposed friends find Tehran’s assertiveness unnerving. The Gulf states, after years of rivalry, cautiously reopened diplomatic channels, realizing that confrontation is costly. Yet normalization is driven more by necessity than trust.

Saudi Arabia’s rapprochement, brokered by China, underscores this pragmatic shift — acknowledging Iran’s influence while seeking to contain it through diplomacy rather than confrontation.

The United States, meanwhile, remains entangled in a paradox. Washington cannot ignore Iran’s expanding regional reach, but its policy of maximum pressure has yielded minimal results.

The European powers, too, find themselves frustrated — wanting engagement on nuclear and energy fronts but constrained by American sanctions.

Russia and China, while cultivating ties with Tehran, remain wary of an overconfident Iran that might complicate their own regional interests.

Domestically, Iran’s leadership is projecting its defiance as strength — a message that resonates in a region weary of Western intervention. Yet, its economy remains fragile, and social unrest continues to simmer beneath the surface.

Iran’s rise is not just about military might or regional leverage; it is a reminder that power in today’s Middle East comes with contradictions.

Tehran’s growing assertiveness has turned it into both a symbol of resistance and a source of regional anxiety — a paradoxical power that leaves neither friends nor foes at ease.

 

Two Years of Israeli War on Gaza

Two years into Israeli war on Gaza, the region stands devastated — physically, morally, and strategically. What began as a campaign of “self-defense” has turned into a prolonged assault that has razed cities, erased families, and rewritten the moral code of modern warfare. Israel may claim tactical victories, but the strategic outcome is a quagmire that even its staunchest allies struggle to justify.

Gaza today is a graveyard of statistics — tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and almost the entire population dependent on aid. The relentless bombardment has not uprooted Hamas; it has only deepened the political and emotional trench dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Far from eliminating militancy, Israeli campaign has turned Gaza into a permanent symbol of resistance and despair — a living wound in the conscience of the Middle East.

The Israeli leadership sells this war as a quest for security. Yet, two years on, Israel is less secure, not more. Its borders remain tense, international isolation grows, and domestic protests simmer under the surface of official triumphalism.

The myth of “precision warfare” has collapsed under the rubble of homes, schools, and hospitals. Even Washington, Israel’s diplomatic shield, is beginning to show fatigue — forced to defend the indefensible in every international forum.

Meanwhile, the Arab world’s silence has been deafening. Once vocal capitals have turned pragmatic, their outrage replaced by quiet normalization. The Palestinians, once betrayed by borders, are now betrayed by indifference.

Israel’s war on Gaza is no longer about eliminating Hamas — it is about maintaining an illusion that military dominance can substitute for political vision. But wars end; occupations linger; and history has a ruthless memory.

Two years later, Israel may have won battles, but it is losing the narrative — and with it, the moral ground that once set it apart from those it condemns.

Gaza’s ruins are not only a testament to Palestinian suffering but also to Israel’s strategic and moral decay. The war may still rage, but the victory, if ever claimed, will be hollow.

 

Palestinian Experience: Cycles of Betrayal

The Palestinian question remains one of the most enduring and unresolved issues of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. From the early days of British colonial involvement to the present-day geopolitical maneuvering, Palestinians have repeatedly found themselves at the intersection of promises made and promises broken — victims of a cycle of disappointment perpetuated by global powers and regional actors alike.

The first major turning point came with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain simultaneously pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine while assuring Arabs that their political rights would not be compromised. The contradiction proved devastating, the Mandate period institutionalized inequality, laying the foundation for future conflict.

The Nakba of 1948 further deepened Palestinian displacement and dispossession, as hundreds of thousands were uprooted without meaningful international intervention. Subsequent decades brought renewed hopes — and renewed betrayals.

The 1967 war not only expanded Israeli occupation but also exposed Arab regimes’ hollow rhetoric of liberation.

The Oslo Accords of the 1990s, once hailed as a breakthrough, devolved into a mechanism for managing rather than resolving occupation.

International mediators, notably the United States, often acted less as neutral brokers and more as enablers of the status quo.

Even in recent years, Palestinians continue to confront shifting alliances and selective morality.

The Abraham Accords normalized ties between Israel and several Arab states, effectively sidelining the Palestinian cause.

Each diplomatic milestone elsewhere in the region has come at the expense of Palestinian aspirations for sovereignty and justice.

The persistence of this pattern underscores a grim reality - for over a century, Palestinians have been entangled in a geopolitical web that values stability over justice and negotiation over equity.

Until the cycle of symbolic commitments and political abandonment is broken, the Palestinian experience will remain defined by unfulfilled promises — a history not of reconciliation, but of recurring disappointment.

 

Hamas succumbs to US Pressure as Arab Support Evaporates

After months of defiance, Hamas is quietly edging toward concessions under mounting US pressure — not because Washington’s diplomacy suddenly turned persuasive, but because the Arab world has walked away.

In earlier conflicts, Hamas could rely on a chorus of Arab solidarity — fiery statements, emergency summits, and token aid. This time, the silence is deafening.

Arab capitals are fatigued, divided, and increasingly indifferent to Hamas’s political theatrics. The group that once claimed to embody the Arab street now finds itself isolated, cornered, and expendable.

Behind the scenes, Washington’s pressure has been relentless. Aid leverage, regional diplomacy, and quiet coordination with Egypt and Qatar have created an environment where Hamas has little room to maneuver. Even its traditional allies — Doha and Ankara — are urging pragmatism over defiance. The message is clear - yield or face total annihilation.

Arab governments, meanwhile, have recalibrated their priorities. Stability, trade, and relations with the West outweigh emotional appeals to Palestinian militancy.

The Abraham Accords, quiet intelligence links, and economic realignments show where the region’s real interests now lie.

For Hamas, this shift is existential — its political survival depends on Arab sympathy, and that sympathy has run out.

Critics say, Hamas’s own strategy hastened this moment. By aligning with Iran, alienating Arab governments, and launching attacks that invited catastrophic retaliation, Hamas burned the very bridges it now desperately needs. Even street protests across Arab cities have failed to translate into meaningful state action.

As US pressure mounts, Hamas’s bravado is giving way to backdoor bargaining. The Arab world’s silence has become Washington’s strongest weapon.

Hamas may yet sign a ceasefire, not as a victor of resistance, but as a movement abandoned by its own region.

For Gaza, this is not just political defeat — it is a painful reminder that Arab solidarity ends where national interest begins.

 

 

Donald Trump: Loose Bull or Fearless Leader

Donald Trump is no longer just a political figure — he has emerged as a major force of disruption. To his critics, he’s a loose bull, to his loyalists, he’s a fearless fighter standing alone. Both sides may be right, that makes him dangerous.

The general impression is that Trump doesn’t follow rules; he tramples them. He doesn’t debate ideas; he dominates the stage. Every insult, every indictment, every scandal seems to fuel his sense of destiny. For millions of disillusioned Americans, he’s not the problem — he’s the rebellion.

A rebellion without restraint easily turns into wreckage. Trump’s politics are built on grievance, not governance. He thrives on outrage, feeds on division, and weaponizes mistrust. His rallies ignite passion but also paranoia; his promises stir hope but sow hostility. Underneath the red caps and roaring crowds lies a country tearing itself apart.

His defenders say he speaks truth to power. May be yes, but he also speaks poison to democracy. The media is “the enemy,” the courts are “corrupt,” and the system — unless it serves him — is “rigged.” It’s not leadership; it is demolition disguised as defiance.

The tragedy is that Trump didn’t create America’s anger — he merely harnessed it. He turned frustration into a political movement and chaos into a campaign strategy. That’s his genius, and his curse.

Trump may call himself the voice of the forgotten, but in truth, he’s the echo of a broken democracy shouting at itself.

Whether the United States can survive another round of his rampage — or finally find the courage to tame its loose bull — will decide not just an election, but the future of its republic.