US Anti-Hezbollah Campaign Can Backfire in Lebanon

Washington’s renewed intrusion into Lebanon’s internal affairs exposes once again its misplaced confidence in engineering political outcomes abroad. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the United States is attempting to redraw Lebanon’s power map — an effort as unrealistic as it is destabilizing.

A high-level US delegation’s visit to Beirut, led by senior counterterrorism officials, carried a familiar ultimatum: Lebanon’s progress depends on disarming Hezbollah and cutting its ties with Iran. The message was cloaked in diplomatic niceties about freedom and prosperity, but the intent was blunt coercion. For a country still grappling with economic collapse and political paralysis, Washington’s prescriptions sound less like support and more like dictates.

Hezbollah has made its position unmistakably clear. Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared that Israel’s aggression “cannot persist” and that his movement “will not abandon its weapons.”

The statement, echoed across Lebanese media, was not mere rhetoric — it was a reminder that Hezbollah remains deeply rooted in Lebanon’s social, political, and security landscape. Any attempt to uproot it through sanctions or external pressure will only strengthen its defiance.

Meanwhile, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s reassurances to visiting American officials about tackling terrorism financing seem less a policy commitment and more a gesture of survival under duress. Washington’s sanctions on Hezbollah members came not as part of constructive diplomacy but as punitive leverage — reinforcing the perception that the US seeks submission, not partnership.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. From Iraq to Syria, Washington’s self-assigned role as regional architect has left behind fractured states and festering resentment. Lebanon risks becoming the next stage for this failed experiment.

If the US truly seeks stability, it must abandon its obsession with remolding sovereign nations to suit its strategic comfort. Otherwise, its anti-Hezbollah campaign may end up backfiring — deepening Lebanon’s divisions and pushing the region toward another preventable crisis.

Trump’s War on Truth: The King Who Cannot Be Questioned

Donald Trump’s threat to sue the BBC for US$1 billion over an allegedly “deceptively edited” documentary once again exposes his deep hostility toward criticism. Like a self-crowned king, he sees disagreement as defiance and journalism as treachery.

The controversy stems from a Panorama episode that spliced parts of his January 06 speech, implying he urged the Capitol attack. The BBC admitted an editing lapse, apologized, and saw senior resignations—proof of institutional accountability. Trump has turned it into political theater, vowing legal revenge in Florida, where the BBC neither broadcasts nor operates.

This isn’t about defamation—it’s about domination. For years, Trump has branded journalists “enemies of the people.” Now, he uses litigation to muzzle them. His strategy is simple: bully the messenger, rewrite the narrative, and play the victim.

The BBC’s error was human; Trump’s reaction is calculated. The broadcaster remains a pillar of global credibility, its transparency a stark contrast to Trump’s refusal ever to admit fault.

Trump’s narrative fits that of a ruler who cannot bear dissent, intolerant of criticism and allergic to accountability. His attack on the BBC isn’t about protecting truth, but about owning it. The BBC may have faltered—but it cannot be disgraced.

Twin Blasts, One Message: Terror Strikes India and Pakistan on Same Day

The recent terrorist attacks in both India and Pakistan on the same day have once again exposed how terrorism in South Asia is not just a domestic issue but a geopolitical tool. The eerie similarity in timing, targets, and messaging hints at a coordinated design — possibly the work of a single network or external orchestrator seeking to inflame regional tensions.

In Pakistan, militants struck security personnel and civilians alike, highlighting the persistent threat of regrouped extremist factions that exploit porous borders and instability in Afghanistan. For ordinary citizens already burdened by inflation and political disarray, such attacks deepen despair and erode confidence in the state’s security apparatus.

Across the border, India too was hit by near-simultaneous blasts, swiftly followed by political rhetoric blaming Pakistan. Yet the mirrored nature of both attacks raises unsettling questions. Are regional spoilers deliberately staging violence to keep Islamabad and New Delhi locked in hostility? Are unseen actors manipulating both nations for broader strategic gains?

Both countries have long traded accusations, but the uncomfortable truth is that terrorism has become an instrument in regional power games — sustained by ideological indoctrination, foreign funding, and political opportunism. Whenever prospects for dialogue or trade improvement appear, a major terror incident resets the equation, serving those who profit from perpetual enmity.

The victims are the same — ordinary citizens on both sides. Each attack reinforces division and fear, allowing extremists and opportunists to thrive. South Asia cannot afford to remain hostage to these cycles of violence and suspicion.

It is time for India and Pakistan to approach such tragedies with restraint and wisdom. A cooperative, fact-based investigation into the coordinated nature of these attacks could help expose the true perpetrators and prevent further bloodshed. Only through calm dialogue and shared resolve can both nations hope to deny terrorism the political space it continues to exploit.

Washington’s Quiet Takeover of Lebanon

Lebanon’s sovereignty stands increasingly compromised as Washington tightens its grip over Beirut’s political, financial, and diplomatic spheres. What once appeared as partnership has evolved into direct supervision, with US envoys and Treasury officials dictating the contours of national policy under the pretext of reform and stability.

Officially, American engagement is framed as an effort to “restore order” and “strengthen governance.” In practice, it serves two unmistakable objectives: 1) to pressure Lebanon into negotiations with Israel and 2) to curtail Hezbollah’s role in domestic and regional affairs. Each diplomatic visit or statement reinforces this dual agenda, reshaping the country’s internal balance of power and deepening dependency on external approval.

The economic dimension of this influence is the most visible. Sanctions, once narrowly targeted, now encompass a widening circle of politicians, business figures, and institutions loosely associated with Hezbollah. Lebanese banks, fearing repercussions, have adopted extreme caution—freezing accounts, delaying payments, and denying access to funds even without formal sanctions. Such overcompliance has crippled the banking system, obstructed humanitarian flows, and effectively transformed financial policy into a tool of political coercion.

Equally strategic is Washington’s control of the narrative. The US embassy’s steady messaging over recent years has portrayed Hezbollah as the core obstacle to Lebanon’s recovery. Statements describing sanctions as acts of “solidarity with the Lebanese people” create a moral veneer for what is, in essence, a sustained campaign of political engineering. The repetition of this framing fosters public fatigue and normalizes interference under the guise of protection.

Lebanon now finds itself navigating an uneasy dependence—its economic recovery and political stability tied to compliance with Washington’s directives. The danger lies not only in foreign dominance but in the gradual erosion of national will. Unless Lebanon rebuilds autonomous financial institutions and reasserts control over its policymaking, its sovereignty risks becoming symbolic—acknowledged in name, but directed from abroad.

 

US Double Standards on Display Again

By boycotting the G-20 summit in South Africa, President Trump exposes the US habit of preaching human rights while protecting violators — a hypocrisy the world no longer buys.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that no US official will attend the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa exposes the glaring double standards that define American foreign policy. Citing alleged “human rights abuses” against white Afrikaners, Trump conveniently overlooks the far more serious violations that the United States has enabled and justified elsewhere — particularly in Gaza.

By accusing South Africa of persecution, Trump attempts to claim moral ground that Washington has long forfeited. The United States continues to supply lethal weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used in relentless bombardments of civilian populations. At the same time, it has repeatedly vetoed United Nations resolutions calling for ceasefire or accountability. To preach “human rights” while enabling systematic destruction in Gaza reflects an extraordinary level of hypocrisy.

Pretoria has rightly called Trump’s statements “regrettable” and “unsubstantiated.” South Africa, with its painful legacy of apartheid, understands the meaning of oppression better than most nations. Its willingness to take Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges demonstrates moral consistency — a quality increasingly absent in Washington’s diplomacy. Trump’s boycott of the G-20 appears less about ethics and more about punishing South Africa for standing with the oppressed.

This episode once again highlights America’s tendency to divide the world into allies and adversaries, applying one set of principles to itself and another to others. When convenient, Washington invokes democracy and rights; when inconvenient, it dismisses or undermines them. The decision to skip Johannesburg, while proudly preparing to host the 2026 summit in Miami, symbolizes this duplicity.

In a changing global order, such selective morality only erodes US credibility. The world is no longer willing to accept Washington’s self-appointed role as the arbiter of virtue. True leadership demands courage to face criticism, not avoidance of it. Trump’s refusal to attend the G-20 is not a statement of principle — it is an admission of moral weakness.

The First Casualty of Trump’s Stubbornness Is His Own Voters

The longest US government shutdown has exposed a painful irony — those most hurt by political rigidity are the very people who supported it. When governance becomes hostage to pride, it is citizens, not opponents, who pay first.

From federal paychecks to public benefits, the ongoing US government shutdown—the longest in American history—has disrupted daily life across the country. Ironically, many of those hit hardest are the very voters who helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

At the center of this standoff lies the administration’s refusal to compromise on the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies. What began as a fiscal debate has turned into an economic blockade. As Reuters reports, many Trump supporters now face halted incomes, cancelled contracts, and delayed benefits, yet continue to defend him—loyal even as their own livelihoods deteriorate.

This crisis is less about partisan politics and more about consequence. When governance becomes a test of endurance rather than judgment, it punishes the very citizens it is meant to protect. The small business owner in Florida losing contracts, the federal worker in Washington without pay, and the retiree in Arizona waiting for reimbursement—all stand as reminders that political rigidity carries real-world costs.

True leadership demands a balance between conviction and flexibility. By mistaking obstinacy for strength, the administration risks eroding not only economic stability but also the trust of its most loyal supporters. Each passing week of paralysis deepens uncertainty, weakens household confidence, and damages America’s broader economic reputation.

Defiance may be a political strategy, but governance requires adaptability. When pride replaces prudence, it is not opponents who suffer first—it is supporters. Trump’s base, once convinced that his unbending will serve their interests, now bears the burden of that same inflexibility.

In essence, this shutdown offers a sobering lesson in political consequence: stubbornness in power can inflict deeper wounds on one’s own camp than on any rival. The first casualty of Trump’s stubbornness is, indeed, his own voters.

Partnership Between Two Occupiers

The newly signed India–Israel defense treaty is not just a strategic agreement; it is a declaration of shared ideology between two occupying powers. It symbolizes the convergence of two nations that have built their modern identities through control, suppression, and justification of domination — one in Palestine, the other in Kashmir.

This alliance comes at a time when Israel stands accused of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Global outrage is mounting, yet India has chosen this moment to embrace Tel Aviv more openly than ever. The message is clear: New Delhi now values military advantage and strategic visibility over moral credibility.

Once, India’s foreign policy drew strength from its anti-colonial roots and its historic commitment to freedom struggles. It stood with the oppressed — from African liberation movements to the Palestinian cause. That era is gone. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s diplomacy has shed moral caution for ideological affinity. The new partnership formalizes years of covert cooperation in defense, intelligence, and cyberwarfare — all underpinned by a common political psychology.

Zionism and Hindutva, though born in different contexts, share a majoritarian worldview: both cast national identity in religious terms, both view minorities as internal adversaries, and both justify occupation as self-defense. The defense treaty, therefore, is not just about weapons and technology; it is a public endorsement of this shared ideological DNA.

Regionally, the implications are grave. Pakistan will interpret it as an existential provocation. Bangladesh will face a diplomatic dilemma, caught between public sympathy for Palestine and dependence on India. South Asia’s post-colonial spirit of solidarity is eroding, replaced by an era of militarized rivalry and ideological segregation.

Inside India, the pact sends a chilling message to nearly 200 million Muslims. For decades, India’s symbolic support for Palestine offered reassurance of secular balance. That pretense has now vanished. The new India appears comfortable aligning with those who mirror its own majoritarian instincts.

In the end, the India–Israel alliance binds together two occupiers — one subjugating a people under siege, the other suppressing dissent at home. Power may win them weapons and allies, but it cannot cleanse the moral stain of occupation. Nations that mistake domination for destiny often discover that empires fall not from weakness, but from the weight of their own injustice