Hamas Is Still Alive — and Waiting for Everyone Else to Catch Up

The assumption in many Western and regional capitals that Hamas has been politically or administratively dismantled in Gaza is proving premature. If anything, the prolonged delays in implementing the so-called Trump plan have created the very vacuum in which Hamas thrives. As one analyst put it, “the longer the international community waits, the more entrenched Hamas becomes.” And Gaza today is a textbook example of how power fills empty spaces faster than diplomacy does.

Washington insists there is “progress” toward forming a multinational force and a new governing arrangement for Gaza. A US State Department spokesperson even framed Hamas’ alleged taxation and fee collection as proof that “Hamas cannot and will not govern Gaza.” Yet on the ground, the opposite appears to be unfolding. Hamas is not only governing but quietly reassembling the skeleton of its pre-war administration.

The Palestinian Authority, eager for a return to relevancy, wants a formal role in Gaza’s next chapter. Israel wants no such thing. Fatah and Hamas, meanwhile, cannot even agree on what the “next chapter” should look like. In this fog of indecision, Hamas behaves like the only actor with a plan — even if that plan is merely survival until everyone else stops arguing.

Local dynamics tell an even clearer story. Hamas continues to monitor goods entering the enclave, operates checkpoints, questions truck drivers, and fines price manipulators. While this is far from the full taxation regime it once imposed, it signals something crucial, administrative muscle memory. Even a senior Gaza food importer noted that Hamas “sees and records everything,” a polite way of saying that the movement’s bureaucratic instincts remain intact.

Financially, Hamas has kept its payroll alive — standardizing salaries at 1,500 shekels per month and drawing, diplomats say, on stockpiled cash reserves. It has replaced killed regional governors and filled the seats of 11 politburo members who died in the war. Thousands of its employees, including police, remain ready to work under any “new administration,” a phrase that increasingly sounds theoretical.

On the Israeli-controlled side, small Palestinian factions opposing Hamas have emerged, but their presence is symbolic rather than structural. They are irritants, not alternatives.

Gaza’s civilians continue to bear the brunt of this unresolved power struggle. Aid flows have improved since the ceasefire, but daily life remains harsh, prices remain punishing, and income has evaporated. In such conditions, the governing force that remains visible — even minimally — begins to look like the only functioning authority.

Gaza activist Mustafa Ibrahim summed up the situation with brutal clarity, Hamas is exploiting delays “to bolster its rule.” The unanswered question is whether anyone can prevent that. The more realistic question may be whether anyone is even ready to try.

For now, one conclusion is unavoidable - Hamas is still alive — politically, administratively, and strategically. And unless an alternative emerges with both legitimacy and capacity, Hamas will remain exactly where it has always been — filling the void left by others’ hesitation.

Pak–Afghan trade standoff: Self-Inflicted Losses for Both Sides

The Pakistan–Afghanistan trade standoff is fast turning from a political dispute into an economic disaster. Both sides claim victory, yet both are bleeding revenue, jobs, and regional influence — while Iran and Central Asia quietly collect the gains.

The disruption in Pak–Afghan transit trade has become a contest of blame and bravado, but beneath the rhetoric lies a shared economic loss. Both countries are paying the price for political posturing.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has termed the situation a “blessing in disguise,” arguing that reduced cross-border movement will curb smuggling, terrorism, and market distortion. Yet, the security argument offers little comfort to exporters whose businesses now stand still.

Since mid-October, border crossings have remained closed, leaving thousands of trucks stranded and trade worth over US$45 million in limbo. Exporters of cement, textiles, footwear, fruits, and food items in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh are bearing the brunt. With more than 60 percent of Afghan imports already diverted to Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey, Pakistan risks losing both the Afghan and Central Asian markets.

For Afghanistan, Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar’s call to find alternate routes may project defiance and independence, but the costs are real. Afghan traders rely on Pakistan’s ports and goods, especially for food and medicines. Turning to Iran or Central Asia will lengthen routes and raise costs, pushing prices higher for Afghan consumers.

Meanwhile, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan quietly emerge as the real beneficiaries. Their ports and overland routes are gaining traction as Afghanistan diversifies its trade options.

In the end, neither Islamabad nor Kabul wins. The prolonged standoff damages trade, jobs, and investor confidence on both sides. What could have been a bridge of mutual economic gain has turned into another front of economic self-destruction.

The message is clear: political posturing may please leaders, but it impoverishes nations.

Growing Perception: US Is a Bankrupt Country

The United States projects itself as the unshakable center of global power — militarily unmatched, technologically advanced, and economically dominant. Yet beneath this grand image lies a fundamental contradiction: America is increasingly living on borrowed time, borrowed money, and borrowed global credibility. Its bankruptcy, though not yet declared on financial ledgers, is visible in the erosion of fiscal discipline, social priorities, and political purpose.

The US economy, long admired for innovation and dynamism, now moves more on hype than on hard production. Wall Street rises and falls on corporate storytelling rather than real growth. Speculation, not substance, drives asset prices, and the financial sector has grown far more influential than the industrial base that once defined American prosperity. The gap between finance and reality has become a structural weakness — a fragility disguised as success.

At the heart of this illusion lies a debt crisis that Washington refuses to confront. The national debt has surpassed US$35 trillion, over 120 percent of GDP. The US government borrows incessantly, financing deficits through Treasury Bills and an endless stream of freshly printed dollars. For now, this is sustainable because the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency — the unit of global trade and finance. But this privilege, often taken for granted, is not eternal. As emerging economies diversify their reserves and experiment with alternative payment systems, confidence in the dollar-centric order will inevitably weaken.

Equally troubling is the American addiction to war and global dominance. With more than 700 military bases in over 80 countries, the US spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined. Yet back home, its infrastructure crumbles, its healthcare system remains unaffordable, and its citizens face widening income inequality. The contrast between its external ambition and internal neglect reflects a deeper moral and strategic exhaustion.

The recent government shutdown again exposed this contradiction. The political elite could not agree on basic governance but remained united in approving billions for military aid abroad. This is not patriotism — it is paralysis. It reveals a political class more committed to confrontation than correction.

America’s bankruptcy is therefore multidimensional. Financially, it depends on debt; politically, it depends on division; and morally, it depends on militarism. The United States can print dollars, but it cannot print trust, social cohesion, or global respect. Unless it redirects its resources from war-making to nation-building, its decline will not be a distant forecast — it will be a lived reality.

The world still looks to Washington for leadership, but leadership built on debt and deception is unsustainable. True strength lies not in weapons or markets but in the welfare of citizens and the integrity of governance. On both counts, America today stands dangerously overdrawn

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.