NEWS

Africa’s leaders have no one to blame but themselves if they cannot reach equitable trade deals with the United States, argues the former representative of the African Union to the US, Arikana Chihombori-Quao.

Chihombori-Quao tells host Steve Clemons that US President Donald Trump’s “trade, not aid” policy opens up “an opportunity that African leaders were not awarded by the colonisers, the European nations, when they set out to exploit the continent of Africa”.

She adds that African leaders should not allow themselves to be bullied by Trump, “because he has what you need, you also have what he wants”.

Six-time MotoGP world champ continues his supreme 2025 season, becoming first Ducati rider to win five consecutive GPs.

Marc Marquez has won the Czech MotoGP for his eighth victory in 12 races this season and his fifth in a row, extending his commanding lead in the world championship.

The factory Ducati rider beat Marco Bezzecchi on an Aprilia by almost two seconds on Sunday while Pedro Acosta on a KTM came in third in his first podium finish of the season.

Marquez had a fifth straight perfect weekend, winning both the sprint on Saturday and Sunday’s race.

The 32-year-old Spaniard now leads the world championship with 381 points, 120 ahead of his younger brother, Alex, who crashed, and 168 ahead of Ducati teammate Francesco Bagnaia.

“It has been a super first part of the season and especially these last races,” Marc Marquez said.

“I feel better and better, and I’m riding super good,” he added.

Marquez outpaces his rivals

Bagnaia started from pole on a sunny Sunday at Brno but retained the lead only until the second lap when Bezzecchi eased past him, and Marc Marquez followed suit soon afterwards.

Acosta did the same to settle down in third after getting a boost from a third-place finish in Saturday’s sprint.

Marquez glided past Bezzecchi on lap eight as the runaway trio kept building up their lead and, as so often this season, kept widening the gap comfortably.

The three stayed put until the finish line although fourth-placed Bagnaia gave Acosta a hard time, pressing from behind.

“The first lap was unbelievable,” Bezzecchi said.

“I had so much fun in the first half of the race, but unfortunately, when Marc passed me, I immediately saw that he had something more.”

“I tried to attack, but he was strong. Anyway, I made a fantastic performance. I’m very, very happy,” the Italian added.

Reigning world champion Jorge Martin collected his first points after finishing seventh in the first race he has completed this year.

Martin sat out the first three races after two preseason crashes, and when he returned at Qatar in April, he crashed heavily again and missed the next seven events.

Brno returns faster than ever

Marc Marquez took 40 minutes 04.628 seconds to complete the 21 laps on the resurfaced 5.4km (3.4-mile) Brno circuit, which returned to the MotoGP calendar after a five-year break due to financial woes.

The enhanced on-track results of the Brno resurfacing were evident with lap times this year several seconds under the previous lap record.

Bezzecchi crossed the line 1.753 seconds adrift of Marquez, while Acosta trailed the six-time MotoGP champion by 3.366 seconds.

Almost 220,000 fans were in the stands for the weekend as Marquez recorded his fourth MotoGP win at Brno after victories in 2013, 2017 and 2019.

Alex Marquez retired after crashing on lap two to leave Brno without a point after a disappointing 17th spot in the sprint race.

He took out Joan Mir, who also walked away from the gravel safety area, just like Enea Bastianini a lap later.

Japan’s Takaaki Nakagami was ruled out of the race after suffering a knee injury in a crash in Saturday’s sprint.

The MotoGP circus will now take a break and resume with the Austrian GP on August 15-17.

“Now it’s the summer break but still 10 races to go. Time to relax, but in Austria I [will] keep the same mentality with the same intensity,” Marc Marquez said.

He is eyeing his seventh MotoGP world title – and first since 2019 – which would put him level with Valentino Rossi and one behind the legendary Giacomo Agostini.

Exit polls from an election in Japan project the ruling coalition is set to lose its majority, putting the country’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba under immense political pressure.

Voters headed to the polls earlier on Sunday for the tightly-contested upper house election, being held amid public frustration over rising prices and the threat of US tariffs.

Having already lost its majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house, defeat for the coalition in the upper house would critically undermine its influence over policymaking and could prompt Ishiba to quit less than a year after he was elected.

The coalition needs 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber – with an exit poll from public broadcaster NHK projecting them to win between 32 and 51.

Earlier polls had indicated that Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its junior partner Komeito were at risk of losing their majority, having already lost their majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house.

On Sunday, NHK projected it “may be difficult for the ruling coalition to maintain their majority”.

Despite the projection his coalition would lose the upper house, Ishiba told a news conference at his party’s headquarters in Tokyo that he intended to remain as prime minister.

“We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States…we must never ruin these negotiations,” he said.

Half of the seats in the upper chamber were being voted on in Sunday’s election, with members elected for six-year terms.

If the coalition takes home less than 46 seats, it would mark its worst performance since it was formed in 1999.

Ishiba’s centre-right party has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.

The expected result underscores voters’ frustration with Ishiba, who has struggled to inspire confidence as Japan struggles against economic headwinds, a cost-of-living crisis and trade negotiations with the United States.

Many are also unhappy about inflation – particularly the price of rice – and a string of political scandals that have beleaguered the LDP in recent years.

The last three LDP premiers who lost a majority in the upper house stepped down within two months, and analysts had predicted that a significant loss in this election would yield a similar outcome.

This would open the field for a potential run at the leadership by other notable LDP members, including Sanae Takaichi, who finished second to Ishiba in last year’s general election; Takayuki Kobayashi, a former economic security minister; and Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

In any case, a change of leadership within the ruling party would almost certainly unleash political drama and destabilise Japan’s government at a pivotal moment in US-Japan trade negotiations.

Support for the ruling coalition appears to have been eroded by candidates from the small, right-leaning Sanseito party, which drew conservative votes with its “Japanese First”, anti-immigration rhetoric.

Sanseito first gained prominence on YouTube during the Covid-19 pandemic, spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites.

The fringe party’s nativist rhetoric widened its appeal ahead of Sunday’s vote, as policies regarding foreign residents and immigration became a focal point of many parties’ campaigns.

Going off the NHK exit polls, it is on course to win seven seats.

Famous for its isolationist culture and strict immigration policies, the island nation has experienced a record surge in both tourists and foreign residents in recent years.

The influx has further driven up prices for Japanese people and fuelled a sentiment among some that foreigners are taking advantage of the country, aggravating discontent.

Against that same backdrop, Ishiba last week launched a task force aimed at tackling “crimes or nuisance behaviours committed by some foreign nationals”, including those relating to immigration, land acquisitions and unpaid social insurance.

Japan’s ruling coalition is likely to lose its majority in the upper house, according to an exit poll by local media, potentially fuelling political instability in the world’s fourth largest economy.

Voters in Japan cast their ballots on Sunday in an upper house election which was seen as a test of the popularity of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and his ruling coalition.

Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito needed 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats are up for grabs.

They are forecast to secure 32 to 51 seats, the exit poll by public broadcaster NHK showed on Sunday.

While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba’s shaky minority government falls, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more-powerful lower house in October.

Ishiba’s poor performance does not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader. However, Ishiba could now face calls from within the LDP to resign or to find another coalition partner.

Polling stations opened nationwide at 7am on Sunday (22:00 GMT, Saturday) and voted continued until 8pm (11:00 GMT, Sunday) in most places, according to NHK.

The rising cost of living, especially for the staple food of rice, is a key issue for many voters, with population decline and foreign policy also on the agenda, NHK reported.

Opinion polls earlier also suggested smaller opposition parties pushing for tax cuts and increased public spending were set to gain.

These parties include right-wing Sanseito, which has promised to curb immigration, oppose foreign capital inflows and reverse gender equality moves. The exit poll projected the party has made strong gains.

“I am attending graduate school, but there are no Japanese [people] around me. All of them are foreigners,” said Yu Nagai, a 25-year-old student who said he voted for Sanseito.

“When I look at the way compensation and money are spent on foreigners, I think that Japanese people are a bit disrespected,” Nagai told the Reuters news agency.

Other voters, meanwhile, voiced concern about escalating xenophobia.

Yuko Tsuji, a 43-year-old consultant, who came to a polling station inside a downtown Tokyo gymnasium with her husband, said they support the LDP for stability and unity and voted “for candidates who won’t fuel division”.

“If the ruling party doesn’t govern properly, the conservative base will drift toward extremes. So I voted with the hope that the ruling party would tighten things up,” she told The Associated Press news agency.

Self-employed Daiichi Nasu, 57, said he hopes for a change towards a more inclusive and diverse society, with more open immigration and gender policies such as allowing married couples to keep separate surnames. “That’s why I voted for the CDPJ,” he said, referring to the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. “I want to see progress on those fronts.”

More than 20 percent of registered voters, some 21 million people, voted early, significantly more than three years ago, NHK reported.

Ishiba, 68, a self-avowed defence “geek” and train enthusiast, became prime minister on his fifth attempt last September before immediately calling snap elections for late October.

Those polls marked a significant defeat for the new prime minister’s ruling coalition, which won just 209 seats in the lower house of parliament, down from the 279 it previously held.

In April, Ishiba announced emergency economic measures to alleviate any impact on industries and households affected by new tariffs imposed by the United States on Japanese exports.

The country is still frantically seeking to secure a reprieve from US President Donald Trump’s proposed 25 percent tariffs before a new August 1 deadline touted by Washington.

Ishiba’s centre-right LDP has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.

He is the third prime minister to lead the country since former leader Shinzo Abe resigned in September 2020.

Abe was assassinated two years later, leading to revelations and public outrage about ties between the former prime minister, his LDP and the Unification Church.

Three earthquakes, one with a magnitude of 7.4, recorded near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, capital of Russia’s Kamchatka region.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) says there is no longer a danger of tsunami waves on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula after three earthquakes – the larger with a magnitude of 7.4 – struck in the sea nearby.

The warning was issued earlier on Sunday after the quakes were recorded off the Pacific coast of Russia, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

The epicentres of a series of earthquakes – the others measuring 6.7 and 5 – on Sunday were about 140km (87 miles) east of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, capital of Russia’s Kamchatka region, which has a population of more than 160,000.

According to the USGS, the quakes hit the same area off the coast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky within 32 minutes.

The magnitude 7.4 earthquake was at a depth of 20km (12 miles). There were no immediate reports of casualties.

The PTWC initially said there was a danger of major tsunami waves but later downgraded its warning before finally saying the danger had passed.

Russia’s Emergencies Ministry also issued a tsunami warning following the second quake, urging residents of coastal settlements to stay away from the shore.

A separate tsunami watch issued for the state of Hawaii was later lifted.

Germany’s GFZ monitor also confirmed that at least one magnitude 6.7 earthquake was recorded off the east of Kamchatka region on Sunday. GFZ later updated it to magnitude 7.4.

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is located in the Kamchatka region, facing the Pacific, northeast of Japan and west of the US state of Alaska, across the Bering Sea.

The Kamchatka Peninsula is the meeting point of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates, making it a seismic hot zone. Since 1900, seven major earthquakes of magnitude 8.3 or higher have struck the area.

On November 4, 1952, a magnitude 9 earthquake in Kamchatka caused damage, but no deaths were reported despite setting off 9.1-metre (30-foot) waves in Hawaii.

On July 4, United States President Donald Trump signed into law his so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will reduce taxes for the rich, punish the poor, and otherwise propel American plutocracy to ever more noxious heights.

Just days earlier, Trump’s Vice President JD Vance took to X to underline the key component of the legislation: “Everything else — the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy — is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions.”

Indeed, the bill allocates the unprecedentedly ludicrous sum of $175bn to anti-immigration efforts, approximately $30bn of which will go directly to the notorious federal law enforcement agency ICE, known in long form as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Another $45bn is earmarked for the construction of new immigration detention centres, which, as the American Immigration Council notes, “represents a 265 percent annual budget increase to ICE’s current detention budget”.

Thanks to these budgetary machinations, ICE now occupies the position of the largest US federal law enforcement agency in history, with more money at its annual disposal than the military of any country in the world apart from the US and China.

Given that ICE agents have as of late made a name for themselves running around in masks and kidnapping people, however, one would be forgiven for seeing this sudden windfall to the agency as something less than, um, “beautiful”.

Of course, the fanatical increase in ICE funding is no surprise coming from a president whose obsession with the idea of deporting millions of people has not prompted him to contemplate how, precisely, a US economy fundamentally dependent on undocumented labour will continue to function in the absence of said labourers.

Anyway, the arrangement means big bucks for the detention-industrial complex, including detention companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic that are contracted by ICE. A July 4 Washington Post article on ICE’s impending “detention blitz” reported that each company coincidentally happened to donate half a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration in January.

The Post article also provided other clues as to how US “democracy” really works: “On calls with Wall Street analysts this year, Geo Group executives have primed shareholders for a government contract bonanza that could boost annual revenue by more than 40 percent and profits by more than 60 percent.”

But since the government cannot come right out and say this is all about money, it has to invent other narratives, such as that ICE is protecting the US from “vicious criminal illegal aliens”. Never mind that the vast majority of those detained by the agency have no criminal record whatsoever.

Among ICE’s ever-growing list of victims is a six-year-old Honduran boy with leukaemia, who was arrested in late May at the Los Angeles immigration courthouse where he had come with his family for a scheduled asylum hearing. This month, massive ICE raids on two California farms resulted in more than 360 arrests and the death of 57-year-old Jaime Alanis, a Mexican farmworker who fell from a greenhouse roof during the upheaval.

Nor are all of ICE’s detainees undocumented; after all, it is hard to be discerning when you are scrambling to meet detention quotas, and when you are well aware of the fact that you are totally above the law. One of the detainees from the farm raids was 25-year-old security guard George Retes, a US Army veteran, no less, who was pepper-sprayed and then jailed for three days, missing his three-year-old daughter’s birthday party. He was released with no explanation.

Now imagine the landscape with an additional $175bn in “ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions”, to borrow Vance’s words.

As if manic and arbitrary detention operations and the elimination of due process were not cause enough for concern, ICE is also being utilised as a force for political repression and the criminalisation of dissent. This was seen in the recent spate of abductions of international scholars opposed to the ongoing US-backed Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, including 30-year-old Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student focusing on childhood development at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

En route to an iftar dinner in March, Ozturk was surrounded by masked agents, forced into an unmarked vehicle, and disappeared to an ICE detention centre in Louisiana administered by GEO Group – all because she had co-authored an article for the university newspaper the previous year expressing solidarity with Palestinians.

In a new essay for Vanity Fair, Ozturk reflects on her 45-day detention in appalling conditions that were only made bearable thanks to the solidarity of her fellow female detainees, hailing from an array of nations. Ozturk writes: “One time, an officer came and took away all the cookie boxes, claiming we would use them to make weapons. Another time, we were shocked to witness an officer physically push two women in the kitchen.”

When Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, recently had the nerve to refer to ICE as “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo”, the US Department of Homeland Security threw a tantrum over his “dangerous rhetoric”, and issued a press release asserting that, “while politicians like Gov. Walz fight to protect criminal illegal aliens, ICE officers will continue risking their lives to arrest murderers, kidnappers, and pedophiles”.

This was itself “dangerous rhetoric”, no doubt, coming from the folks who are kidnapping doctoral students, six-year-old leukaemia patients, army veterans, and so on.

Although undocumented workers might be the most immediate and visible victims of the super-funding of ICE stipulated by the One Big Beautiful Bill, the consequences for US society as a whole cannot be understated. At the end of the day, a rogue agency snatching people off the street while entire communities live in fear does not denote a “land of the free”, particularly when the president appears to view anyone who disagrees with him as potentially eligible for criminal punishment.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, has observed that “you don’t build the mass deportation machine without building the police state first”. And if we consider the Cambridge dictionary entry for police state – “a country in which the government uses the police to severely limit people’s freedom” – it seems the US already fits the definition to a big beautiful T.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The 46-year old’s comeback bid for 13th world title falls short with a draw against WBC welterweight champion Mario Barrios.

Manny Pacquiao’s bid to become the oldest welterweight champion in boxing history fell short as he failed to beat Mario Barrios at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.

But he did not lose, either.

Instead, the 46-year-old Pacquiao and the 30-year-old Barrios fought to a majority draw on Saturday, with one judge giving Barrios a 115-113 win and the other two judges scoring it a 114-114 draw.

The result allowed Barrios (29-2-2, 18 knockouts) to retain his WBC welterweight belt.

“I thought I won the fight,” Pacquiao said afterwards.

“I mean, it was a close fight. My opponent was very tough. It was a wonderful fight. It was good.”

Pacquiao (62-8-3, 39 KOs) already holds the record for the oldest welterweight champion, winning the belt via split-decision over Keith Thurman in 2019.

The Filipino legend was enshrined in the International Boxing Hall of Fame last month. Pacquiao dominated Saturday’s fight early on, showing energy against his younger foe.

Ultimately, though, CompuBox stats had Barrios landing more punches (120-101) and more jabs (45-20), though Pacquiao landed 81 power punches to Barrios’s 75.

Pacquiao held the lead on all three cards after 10 rounds, but Barrios took all three rounds on all three scorecards to avoid the upset. Age and stamina were definitely on Pacquiao’s mind after the fight.

“I need to continue my training for longer going into a championship fight,” said Pacquiao, who lost his senatorial bid in the Philippines in May. “Because of the election, I started late, but it’s OK. Of course, I’d like a rematch. I want to leave a legacy and make the Filipino people proud.

“Don’t tell that to Barrios.

“His stamina is crazy,” the champion said. “He’s still strong as hell, and his timing is real. He’s still a very awkward fighter to try to figure out.”

As for a rematch, Barrios is ready.

“I’ll do the rematch. Absolutely. This was huge for boxing. I’d love to do it again.”

If we are going to make an overview of what is going on now through the lens of the so-called dangerous opportunity, we can list some challenges and opportunities that Iran and China both face through this tension. I will try to name challenges and opportunities.

Challenges

The first challenge is that the United States of America is in a big competition and rivalry against China, which is the main actor trying to compete against the Western order. The US tries to create a “burned land” within the Middle East by using the major strategy of balkanization. In this strategy, the United States attempts to create a weak, failed, chaotic space for China throughout the region to actually block any attempts to initiate the Belt and Road Initiative and land corridors from China to the western part of the world. You can see a clear idea of balkanization throughout the region, and of course, we can see this example in Syria. The main role that Israel and the United States try to duplicate in different parts of the region may be seen in Yemen, Iraq, and even Afghanistan. The challenge is that we will have a burnt land in the Middle East that actually makes it impossible to follow initiatives like the Belt and Road.

The second challenge could be an energy crisis in the Middle East. We know that China tries its best to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran to secure regional security and stability, and of course, energy stability within the Middle East and at the global scale. This crisis and tension, which Israel initiated through unprovoked actions, could lead to a worldwide energy crisis because Iran and Tehran have mentioned multiple times that there are different options available for Iran to affect the whole region if there is more tension or further attacks from any foreign actors, especially the United States or Israel.

The third challenge we can name is the corridor blockade or dead-end. We can name different initiatives and corridors made and created by the United States, such as I2U2, Quad, AUKUS, and of course IMEC, as initiatives to create a kind of blockade for China through maritime corridors. If the United States and Israel follow through with their goals in the current tension, there would be a kind of corridor blockade from the East to the West.

Another challenge we can name is about the Abraham Accords. China and Beijing should understand that this kind of alliance is not really just about Palestine or normalization with the Zionist regime; it is a big alliance and outsourcing of the regional order from Washington to Tel Aviv. In this regional order, which is totally supported and facilitated by Washington, the Middle East—or better said, Southwest Asia—would be a total ally of the United States. This could strongly affect the national interests of Beijing.

Last but not least, a challenge after the current tension between Iran and Israel is the possibility of initiating the next big conflict. Currently, we have two big open wounds from previous years: the Ukraine crisis and Palestine. The result and balance of power around these two hot zones will create a balance of power around a third hot zone, which is Taiwan. Therefore, the outcomes of Ukraine and Palestine will directly affect the Taiwan situation in the upcoming months and years.

Opportunities

The Chinese letter for crisis shows us that there is an opportunity in this kind of crisis. If we can name them:

The first opportunity is that supporting policy, especially for the nations of the region and the Global South, is simply being on the right side of history. Every actor who supports Palestine gains favorability within nations, especially in the Global South. As you can see, Iran has gained much soft power within the current tension with Israel in the region. This is a real comeback from the Arab Spring for Iran’s image in the eyes of the Middle Eastern people. Actually, China may understand that in the region there is a deep real desire to resist Israel. Every actor who stands against the operations of Israel will gain and has gained much favorability in the region and even the world. This is the big, big side of the resistance idea.

The second opportunity during this kind of conflict is that Iran can show and test its military capability against the Western alliances. It is not a clear and accurate vision if you consider the current situation and tension as a simple war between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Tehran, in the current 12-day war, stands and fights against Washington, the whole NATO, and some regional actors. Iran has not only avoided defeat in this situation but also tried to push the whole Israel and Western alliances to a ceasefire point.

The third opportunity is the chance and moment for almost all old actors in the region to shift their ideas towards a strong region without the US. It seems that even countries like Saudi Arabia and other regional states are thinking about a region without the presence of the United States. The good news is that if Iran and its allies can play a good role during the conflict and upcoming tension, there could be a regional order emerging from the regional actors, and there would be no vacuum of power.

The next opportunity I want to mention, after the experience of this war, is really important for Beijing nowadays and the current situation of the international order. China could not find any other strategy or reliable partner within the region with the capability of military, social soft power, enormous energy resources, and favorable geography other than Iran.

Conclusion

It seems that the fundamental strategy of the United States during the Trump administration for the Middle East, called “peace through strength,” is just a choice between two options: surrender or war. Surrender would mean a regional order controlled by Tel Aviv. Iran, as it seems, is trying to prepare itself for full-scale war. As mentioned in the early stage of this note, during the tension, this is a period of rebalancing of actors’ powers. Therefore, the ability and will of order-writers like China to play a role in this conflict will determine the upcoming role of this actor in the new world order.

If the world is asked in a random exercise to name leaders who have weaponized nationalism, crises, and emotional triggers in world history, the textbook examples will always consist of three defining figures in international politics: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini. Nonetheless, there are other highly famous political characters as well that mastered the art of political manipulation, realpolitik, and conflict engineering. One of them, like the previous crisis constructors, was not only an ideologue or a demagogue but also a strategic architect of German unification and realpolitik, Otto Von Bismarck.From orchestrating wars to rallying political crises, applying ruthless pragmatism to tapping the public’s pulse for unification, and operating narratives to politically alienating adversaries, the pattern of urgency, manipulation, and crisis manufacturing for peace in Europe continues to synchronize with the coursebook that conflict agitators follow in the 21st century.

From Trump to Modi, using conflicts as a unifier in domestic politics and a reinforcer for global overlordship, or regional dominion, has been the coursebook that has set a solid ground for performative crisis politics to take center stage. The national or global urgency engineered around military operations, internal threats, and the adventures of geopolitical adversaries gives a cogent justification model for crisis exaggeration. The use of national security as a justified political tool to wage war has been a mainstay for regional security and strategic stability to thrive in a world of permacrisis. The adventures from perilous military maneuvers, Operation Midnight Hammer to Operation Sindoor, both act as textbook examples of how populist leaders weaponize crises and geopolitical tensions to gauge the international reaction. The political maneuvering that encircles the psychological urgency, which is constructed around a tense war climate, helps to update the scorecards for the states losing their diplomatic traction. Even if Trump continues to use tariffs and geopolitical crises to flex America’s Goliath-like posture in international politics, the looming reactive outbursts that will emanate from the staggering public debt of America might become its political doomsday. Therefore, as long as the self-proclamation of Nobel Prize seeking continues, crisis termination dynamics will remain complex, transitory, and inflamed as Bismarckian practices continue to juggle regional adversaries. Public debt, economic protectionism, coercive diplomacy, and realpolitik continue to redirect conflict agitators and Trump’s diplomatic canvas in global politics, but fracturing de-dollarization adventures frequently maim America’s global dominion.

The persistence of the world to engage in perpetual low-level conflicts with diplomatic stalemates, all while trying to avoid full-scale wars but also achieve strategic complacency, has caused an overlap of concepts in international security. From deterrence theories to compellence tactics and securitization to preventive or preemptive strikes, the world has engaged in a cyclical discourse where compellence has emerged as a dominating force to calculate the adversary’s response and outmaneuver them in psychological scorecards. The constantly pushed incremental pressure and false dilemma create a risk-prone environment for regional rivals to engage in a miscalculated scenario of multiple escalation dynamics, which Bismarck did in the Franco-Prussian War. These manipulative practices to provoke adversaries while creating urgency and using prestige politics to ignite a chain reaction of desperate political moves across the border have constructed new political strategies, marked with political aggression, to cogently engage in warmongering exercises. With Modi following similar models to consistently push Pakistan towards strategic miscalculations by incrementing national pressure, the illusion of choice offered by him to follow a predetermined pathway of peace approaches has become an outdated doctrine for South Asia, especially for Pakistan. The political overspill of Bismarckian diagrams drawn by Modi and the international reluctance to grant a ‘win’ to India both display that urgency and crisis politics, with victimhood populism and political desperation to delegitimize opponents, have lost substantial ground. Following the same model, Trump seems to be lingering at his electoral promises of terminating conflicts around the globe and reviving the abstract idea of Pax Americana for international politics, portraying America’s influence as an urgent necessity for global regulation and recalibration. The ashes of dysfunctionalities after settling conflicts through coercive diplomatic and military endeavors are a grim feature of Trump’s diplomatic and ideological doctrinal moves. From transactional diplomacy for the Gulf to a reverse Kissingerian model for the Russia-China alliance, Trump’s diplomatic model seems to be more instinctive than consistent with ideological lexicons.

The Bismarck model of using political timing, psychology, and provocation—all three strategies—designed a cogent and adept method of foreign policy of weaponizing crisis and creating urgency to shroud political cognition, which Modi seems to be institutionalizing as an accepted practice against Pakistan on domestic grounds. The political instrumentalization of regular clashes and crises in South Asia to create a justification model for counteroffensive maneuvers and warmongering narratives revolves around important political events. From electoral needs to domestic diversions, or regional dominations to international tabbing of adversaries as regional disturbances, Modi appears to desperately wrap Pakistan in a diplomatic cloak of isolation. With the Bismarckian pointer of manipulative outlines, Modi would perilously engineer another crisis to conceal national failures post-Balakot-Sindoor. If Modi follows a similar pattern of crisis construction, just like Bismarck did, the launchpad for such military and political maneuvers would be the northern areas of Pakistan, particularly Gilgit-Baltistan. Despite the previous retaliation patterns of Pakistan, creating a risk-prone conflict with reactive outcomes, Modi will invite a berserk amount of regional pressure and escalation. Theoretically and practically, igniting a conflict with new external and domestic spectacles, Modi appears to be in a desperate cycle of reviving electoral domination and regional prestige. The retaliatory approach from Islamabad and Beijing would trap the conflict from two opposite sides, with Beijing’s militaristic adventures in the northern disputed territories. Even if proxies or informants engineer something like Pulwama or Pahalgam, India would still be in a high-risk gambit that could meet unimaginable results if the Bismarckian urgency and crisis weaponizing playbook gets mishandled and cloaks foreign policy objectives with electoral overlordship gambles.

Sectarian clashes have continued in southern Syria despite an “immediate ceasefire” announced by the country’s president.

Reports say that Druze fighters on Saturday pushed out Bedouin gunmen from the city of Suweida – but fighting continued in other parts of the province. This has not been verified by the BBC.

Government forces deployed earlier this week by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa were blamed for joining in attacks on the Druze. More than 900 people are reported to have been killed in the past week. All sides are accused of atrocities.

The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, demanded an end to “the rape and slaughter of innocent people” in Syria, in a post on X on Saturday.

Rubio wrote: “If authorities in Damascus want to preserve any chance of achieving a unified, inclusive and peaceful Syria free of ISIS [Islamic State] and of Iranian control they must help end this calamity by using their security forces to prevent ISIS and any other violent jihadists from entering the area and carrying out massacres.

“And they must hold accountable and bring to justice anyone guilty of atrocities including those in their own ranks,” the top US diplomat added.

On Saturday evening, the Syrian interior ministry said clashes in Suweida had been halted after the intervention of its forces in the city.

Reuters news agency reported that fighting persisted in other parts of Suweida province.

Earlier this week, Israel declared support for the Druze and intervened, hitting government forces and the defence ministry in the capital Damascus.

Sharaa announced a ceasefire on Saturday as Syrian security forces were deployed to Suweida to end the clashes. The deal included a halt to Israeli military strikes and was approved by Israel as part of a US-brokered pact, as long as the Druze citizens were protected.

Government troops have been setting up checkpoints to try to prevent more people joining the fighting. But gunfire was reported inside Suweida earlier on Saturday.

A correspondent for AFP news agency said they had seen armed men looting shops and setting fire to them.

Also on Saturday, Israel’s foreign minister cast doubt on the renewed pledge by the president to protect minorities and all Syrians.

Suweida’s Druze community follows a secretive, unique faith derived from Shia Islam, and distrusts the current government in Damascus. They are a minority in Syria, as well as in neighbouring Israel and Lebanon.

In a social media post, Gideon Saar said it was “very dangerous” to be part of a minority in Syria, and “this has been proven time and again over the past six months”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to prevent harm to the Druze in Syria because of their ties to those living in Israel.

Watch: How a day of bombing unfolded in Damascus

Long-running tensions between Druze and Bedouin tribes in Suweida erupted into deadly sectarian clashes last Sunday, following the abduction of a Druze merchant on the highway to Damascus.

According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR), 940 people have been killed since then.

The ceasefire between Israel and Syria on Friday was announced by US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack on Friday.

“We call upon Druze, Bedouins, and Sunnis to put down their weapons and together with other minorities build a new and united Syrian identity in peace and prosperity with its neighbours,” he said.

The BBC’s Middle East correspondent Lina Sinjab, reporting from Syria, said violence towards the Druze has been spreading across the country.

Earlier this week, UN human rights chief Volker Türk said his office had received credible reports indicating widespread violations and abuses during clashes, including summary executions and arbitrary killings in Suweida.

Among the alleged perpetrators were members of the security forces and individuals affiliated with the interim government, as well as local Druze and Bedouin armed elements, Türk said in a statement.

“This bloodshed and the violence must stop,” he warned, adding that “those responsible must be held to account”.

In his comments on Saturday morning, the Syrian leader said that his government “is committed to protecting all minorities and sects in the country and is proceeding to hold all violators accountable from any party. No-one will escape accountability.”

Additional reporting by Jack Burgess

The history between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been marked with suspicion, lack of equality, and missed potential, especially in recent history. It is in diplomacy, as in life, that there are occasions in which the sound of a gesture carries its message above the sound of the past. Such an opportunity is provided by the recent expression of the Deputy Spokesperson of the Islamic Emirate, Hamdullah Fitrat. The fact that he promises that the Afghan soil would not be used against Pak and asks that both neighbouring countries work together economically and in the field of diplomacy shows that things are getting on the better side and both need to respect and coexist. In a world that has long found itself in reactive security positions, the language of restraint and responsibility holds the prospect of a more reflective world.

Of course words are not in themselves an end. However, when said clearly and with intention, as Fitrat did speak, they may pave the way toward another type of relationship. There was a kind of political ease in his tones, such as crowds of today do not have. Such a developing dialogue can potentially assist the two countries to do away with such zero-sum logic that has been a dominant feature of their interaction all along. The bonds of trust that have been damaged by war and proxy politics need to be re-established cautiously, and lighting shouldn’t further be established on sentimentality but on sustained interaction based on mutualistic interests. The readiness of Kabul to reinstate ambassadorial-level relations with Islamabad is a good indication of good intention. It will be a reversion to formal diplomacy and architecture, which can substitute on a more permanent basis episodic contact with persistent dialogue. Although such measures appear technical at face value, they play critical roles in the creation of atmospheres of trust. A dialogue at this level facilitates a constant exchange of ideas, grievances, and solutions, and both countries find it easier to work out the misunderstandings before they toughen into grievances. During diplomacy, the big moves are seldom as successful as the small moves that are made regularly and highlight long-term success.

Even a new focus on regional economic connectivity, especially on such projects as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, introduces a strategic depth into the changing alliance. Development corridors are not mere energy and trade routes; rather, they consist of architectures of common fate. By supporting such initiatives, Kabul accepts the vision of interdependence under which prosperity rather than suspicion characterizes relationships within the region. This indicates a pragmatism that is familiar to Pakistan as the longing to perceive an economic integration as the stabilizing factor in South Asia.

Similarly important is the fact that Afghanistan is aware of the role played by Pakistan in making it possible to trade with the rest of the world. This kind of recognition shows a coming of age of the need that geography and goodwill must be compounded. Trade, as trust, is established on unblocked channels—physical, political, and psychological. It will be important to foster this interdependence by establishing effective policy models and simple communication to help turn transactions into strategic partnerships. The positive edge that Kabul has taken on in complicated humanitarian issues, especially the refugee issue, is perhaps the most promising. For a long time, displacement politics has been a contentious affair. It is important to note that when treated together, it will turn into the venue of institutional collaboration. Collective action is needed in the nature of managing refugees, beyond policy based on reactions, but a compassionate and progressive construction that treats human beings at the centre of all boundaries as deserving of dignity. As the two countries can testify, the plight of refugees generally reflects the sense of right or wrong the state carries.

Goodwill will have to be accompanied by action. History can provide us with a sufficiency of instances of lost opportunities for organization or dissimulation. The actual challenge of these new overtures will be in the translation to the ground realities, particularly solving the much-desired security concerns of Pakistan about the cross-border militancy. Provided the efforts of Afghanistan are followed through on a regular basis, and further provided that Pakistan acts with restraint and in the vein of positive diplomacy, there is a chance of a new era of cooperation in the region.

Pakistan, on its part, is also dedicated to the relation, which is founded on mutual respect and equality of sovereigns. The voice of Kabul can give an unusual chance to formulate the shape of this relationship, not in the reflections of the past wars but in the image of peace and development. The world will be looking on, but in the end it will be the latter that will determine how this story should be written with bravewisdom by both Kabul and Islamabad. In geopolitics there are times when history turns softly, without tumult but by the turning of a phrase of expression, a change of one word and phrase. This can turn out to be one of such instances. It extends an opportunity to the two countries to shed off the gravitational force of their history and, gradually and together, step forward towards a future anchored on trust. In the fragile structure of peace, truth and imperturbability are more powerful than power and the ultimate position of judgment wisdom, which man swiftly restrains himself with regard to another.

Pop star Charli XCX has confirmed her marriage to George Daniel, drummer of band The 1975, after a video snapped by a passer-by sparked online speculation of a wedding.

The pair were spotted posing on the steps of Hackney Town Hall on Saturday afternoon – Daniel in suit and tie and the ‘brat’ idol in white.

A TikTok post from the singer several hours later confirmed the nuptials, racking up 3.9m views and thousands of congratulatory comments for “Mr and Mrs XCX”.

Charli XCX’s album, Brat, became a global cultural phenomenon on its release last year. Filling social media feeds with viral videos and receiving critical acclaim, its success saw her perform a headline slot at Glastonbury in June.

The singer confirmed the news while dressed in an off-the-shoulder white dress and her signature dark wraparound sunglasses.

She stomped away from the camera – pretending to be annoyed – on a video beneath text that read, “When George isn’t crying when he sees me walking down the aisle.”

But “Luckily he did xx” was the accompanying caption.

A later post, which included shots of Daniel wearing Charli’s veil, gave “bridal party energy”, according to XCX.

The footage from outside Hackney Town Hall suggests the couple had an intimate ceremony.

The two have been public about their relationship for several years and shared engagement photos in 2023.

They have also worked together multiple times, first collaborating on Charli’s song Spinning and then on Brat, with Daniel named as co-producer and co-writer of two songs.

He also took part in the viral “Apple dance” at one of Charli’s London shows, appearing on the concert’s screens in front of thousands of fans.

His band The 1975 is fronted by singer Matty Healy and are well known for their song Chocolate. Daniel has released several tracks as a solo artist in recent years.

The world of online investing is full of opportunities—but also hidden pitfalls. Many newcomers seeking quick gains end up falling victim to unscrupulous brokers. Losing capital may seem devastating, but in reality, it’s just the start of a fight for justice. And in that battle, Verida AFI steps in to help—this legal firm specializes in protecting investors and recovering lost funds.

Verida AFI isn’t just a law firm—it’s a team of professionals dedicated every day to safeguarding clients’ interests. Based in the UK and operating globally, their experts cover financial law, corporate ethics, and digital security. Their mission is to restore both the victims’ funds and their confidence in justice.

Reviews of Verida AFI

Feedback about Verida AFI appears on popular forums, blogs, and social media platforms—ranging from HackMD and Medium to GitHub. What they have in common is sincere gratitude toward the firm and its staff.

Clients share stories of seeming hopelessness: deposits vanished, brokers disappeared, and authorities wouldn’t accept complaints. But after reaching out to Verida AFI, things changed. Victims report that the firm immediately:

• initiated rapid evidence gathering;
                
• took concrete steps to retrieve funds;
                
• offered fair cooperation terms—no upfront fees;
                
• demonstrated high success rates.
                

This proves that even after losing money to fraudulent brokers, you shouldn’t give up.

How Broker Scams Work

Stages of Working with Verida AFI

Fair Pricing

International Reach

Other Cases They Handle

Conclusion: Justice Is Worth Fighting For

Getty Images

Getty Images

What are nicotine pouches?

Kent Trading Standards

Sintija Miļuna-Meldere

There are moments in world affairs so brazen, so jaw-droppingly cynical, that satire simply gives up and goes home. One such moment has arrived: the unlikeliest of duos—Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Pakistan’s General Asim Munir—have found common cause in nominating Donald J. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s right. A warmonger-in-chief being heralded by a military autocrat and a genocidal demagogue as the global symbol of peace. George Orwell, meet your latest footnote.

But let’s not be misled by the absurdity. This is not a comedy of errors. It’s a political ritual of allegiance, where power is flattered, imperialism is decorated, and peace is contorted into a mockery of itself. That Netanyahu and Munir are Trump’s cheerleaders for this grotesque honor tells us everything we need to know about the rotting soul of contemporary global politics.

Netanyahu’s blood-soaked nomination

Let’s begin with the easier case: Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a man who has overseen the sustained, merciless and genocidal bombardment of Gaza; the violent settlement expansion in the West Bank; and the systematic erosion of Palestinian life, liberty, and land. Under his leadership, Israel has dropped any pretense of coexistence and charged headlong into what can only be described as concentration and death camps bolstered by high-tech siege craft.

And yet, here he is, nominating Trump for a peace prize.

Why? Because Trump gave Netanyahu exactly what he wanted: recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the erasure of Palestinian claims to sovereignty, carte blanche for Israeli aggression, and a diplomatic coup in the form of the Abraham Accords—normalization deals signed not in the interest of peace, but in the currency of arms sales, surveillance tech, and shared contempt for popular resistance.

Trump’s presidency was a golden age for Israeli impunity. For Netanyahu, nominating Trump is not an act of admiration—it’s a political thank-you note written in the language of strategic reward. You gave us what we wanted, especially and most importantly now with supporting war and terror against Iran. Now we give you this nomination. A ceremonial trinket, perhaps, but one that helps sanctify violence under the banner of “diplomatic achievement.”

Munir’s machinations in khaki

But Netanyahu’s motives, however odious, are at least straightforward. General Asim Munir’s are a little murkier—and no less disturbing.

As Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Munir has proven himself less a guardian of national defence and more a loyal executor of imperial interests, both foreign and domestic. Having presided over a brutal crackdown on dissent, the forced disappearance of political activists, and the wholesale dismantling of civilian democratic forces, Munir now fancies himself not just a general, but a statesman—a khaki kingmaker courting Washington.

So, when Munir praises Trump’s “role” in easing tensions between Pakistan and India, he’s not being sincere—he’s being strategic. He knows Trump couldn’t care less about South Asian peace. This nomination is a calculated overture to Trump’s ego, an attempt to ingratiate himself with a man who may once again hold the keys to American patronage.

In nominating Trump, Munir isn’t rewarding peace. He’s buying leverage. He wants to be seen as Washington’s man in Islamabad, a reliable custodian of regional “stability”—that is, a suppressor of democratic uprisings and an enabler of foreign agendas. And Trump, who has always admired a good strongman, is exactly the kind of figure Munir wants to impress. After all, what better way to ensure the longevity of your tenure than to align yourself with the most powerful demagogue on the world stage?

Trump: Mascot of manufactured peace

The man at the center of this surreal circus is, of course, Donald Trump—a figure whose relationship with peace is about as authentic as his tan.

Here is a man who tore up the Iran nuclear deal, brought the world to the brink of war with Tehran, cozied up to autocrats in the Gulf, fanned the flames of Hindu nationalism by celebrating Modi’s aggression in Kashmir, and normalized apartheid and genocide in Palestine. This is the man whom Netanyahu and Munir, in their infinite moral flexibility, have chosen to rebrand as a modern-day peacemaker.

Trump’s foreign policy was never about peace—it was about transaction. Peace, for him, was a product for sale: to be exchanged for oil, weapons contracts, or political favors. The Abraham Accords, often touted as his crowning foreign policy achievement, were nothing more than a regional alliance of autocracies built on the graves of Palestinian aspirations. It was diplomacy for despots, a backroom deal between monarchies and militaries, dressed up as progress.

That Trump now stands poised to be lauded by two of the most repressive figures in modern geopolitics is not just ironic—it’s obscene. The Nobel Peace Prize, already sullied by past embarrassments, would collapse entirely into farce if it ever landed in his tiny, clammy hands.

READ: Netanyahu nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize

The prize as political currency

It’s worth asking: why the Nobel Peace Prize? Why this prize, of all things, when none of these men has the faintest interest in actual peace?

Because in this world, the prize has become political currency. A symbolic tool to confer legitimacy, to rebrand tyranny as leadership, and to whitewash war crimes with the bleach of diplomacy.

Netanyahu wants Trump’s continued favor, perhaps even cover for Israel’s next phase of ethnic cleansing. Munir wants Trump’s blessing to secure his own position at home and elevate his stature abroad. And Trump wants a trophy—any trophy—that proves he’s not just a loser with multiple indictments and a failed coup on his résumé.

So, they trade endorsements like mob bosses exchanging favors. You nominate me, I protect you. You praise me, I ignore your crimes. You flatter me, and I’ll look the other way when you crush your people.

This is not geopolitics. It’s gangsterism with better suits. 

Collateral damage: Democracy and dignity

And what of those caught in the crossfire of this grotesque performance?

In Pakistan, the democratic process lies in shambles. Civilian leaders, other than the generals’ kleptocratic sycophants, have been sidelined, exiled, or imprisoned. Imran Khan, the country’s most popular politician, remains behind bars while the military consolidates its grip under the guise of national security. His crime? Challenging the authority of the uniformed elite and trying to build a just and sovereign Pakistan. Munir’s message to Washington is clear: I’ll keep the chaos contained—just keep the aid flowing and the praise coming.

In Palestine, resistance is bombed, starved, and erased from diplomatic memory. The very people who most deserve global solidarity have been airbrushed out of “peace deals” that trade their rights for regional arms partnerships. Netanyahu’s peace is paved with rubble and barbed wire.

In both cases, the real casualties of this Nobel nomination charade are truth, justice, and any genuine hope for self-determination. The spectacle distracts from the suffering. The prize, in this case, is a mask for the violence

The final insult

At its best, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a flawed but meaningful recognition of efforts to resolve conflict and advance human dignity. At its worst, it has been handed to war criminals in tuxedos. What Netanyahu and Munir propose is something beyond the pale. They are not simply nominating a man unworthy of peace—they are redefining peace itself to mean its opposite.

This is not just hypocrisy. This is humiliation. It is the ritual humiliation of oppressed peoples everywhere—Palestinians, Kashmiris, Pakistanis—who are told that their suffering is not only invisible, but irrelevant to the charade playing out on the global stage.

A reckoning is due

What does all this mean for the rest of us—those who still believe peace is more than a marketing slogan?

It means we must reject the pageantry of power and return to the substance of justice. It means we must see through the performance and recognize who truly pays the price when tyrants give each other medals. It means building solidarity between those fighting military rule in Pakistan, apartheid and genocide in Palestine, and demagoguery in America. Because these struggles are not isolated—they are interconnected.

When the generals and the occupiers and the aspiring emperors unite to award each other, it’s a sign not of strength but of desperation. They know the people are watching. They know legitimacy can’t be manufactured forever. And they know that no peace prize can silence the thunder of an awakened people demanding their dignity back.

So let them nominate whom they wish. Let them applaud each other in gilded rooms. Let them mistake flattery for immortality. History will remember not the ceremonies—but the crimes.

And one day, when peace is reclaimed from the hands of tyrants and returned to the people, we’ll look back at this moment for what it was: the last gasp of a dying order trying to sanctify its sins with a golden plaque.

OPINION: The BRICS declaration may be a breakthrough on Palestine — but action must follow

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.