news

We finally have something else to call General Atomics’ Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) by other than its formal YFQ-42A designation: Dark Merlin

Dark Merlin is one of two designs that the USAF has officially chosen for development and flight testing under the first increment of its CCA program, which intends to give fighter aircraft a ‘loyal wingman’ uncrewed companion.

General Atomics gives its reasoning for the naming as such:

“Dark merlins, deadly falcons known for their black feathers and devouring of other falcons as prey, often collaborate in groups for maximum effect against their targets. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology describes the merlin as a “small, fierce falcon that uses surprise attacks” to bring down its prey in flight. The dark merlin is native to the Pacific Northwest of the United States, often migrating into southern California, where bird spotters routinely report seeing them near the YFQ-42A’s manufacturing home in San Diego.”

The 1962 book “Profiles of the Future” imagined global technological marvels yet to change the world, offering that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” It’s no coincidence that the Dark Merlin name also reflects the wizardry of Merlin from
Arthurian legend, paying homage to the somewhat supernatural new era of semi-autonomous
air combat.

“Dark merlins are hunting machines, built for speed and aerodynamics,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “They harass other falcons for fun, and they eat what they kill. The name sums up our new uncrewed fighter perfectly.”

The name is a very welcome development. We have discussed internally in our newsroom on multiple occasions that the designations for the CCAs, the other being Anduril’s YFQ-44A, which goes by the nickname Fury, carried over from its roots as a ‘red air’ training drone, are a bit hard for the public to follow. Now, with General Atomics giving their ‘fighter drone’ a unique nickname, referring to them as Dark Merlin and Fury will be a bit easier.

Both aircraft are currently in flight testing, and General Atomics has already put Dark Merlin, which is based on the firm’s Gambit chassis-centric family of combat drones concept, into production. This is ahead of the USAF making a decision on which Increment 1 CCA, or both, it wants to buy in larger numbers.

The naming also comes after it was announced that the Marines will use Dark Merlin as a testing surrogate for its own CCA program, which could possibly open the door to the Corps purchasing the ‘drone fighters’ for operational use.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Remarks from Ministry of Foreign Affairs come after Trump says he is considering an attack if a nuclear deal is not reached.

As a new round of talks between the United States and Iran is scheduled to take place in Geneva, Tehran has reiterated that it wants to find a diplomatic solution with the US on its nuclear programme but will defend itself if Washington resorts to military action.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that any US attack, including limited strikes, would be considered an “act of aggression” that would precipitate a response after US President Donald Trump said he was considering a limited strike on Iran.

“An act of aggression would be regarded as an act of aggression. Period. And any state would react to an act of aggression as part of its inherent right of self-defence ferociously, so that’s what we would do,” Baghaei said during a media briefing.

Trump said on Friday that he was considering a limited strike if Tehran did not reach a deal with the US. “I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said in reply to a question from a reporter.

On Sunday, ⁠Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said nuclear talks with the US have produced “encouraging signals” but warned that Tehran is prepared for any scenario in advance of another round of negotiations set for Thursday.

“Iran is committed to peace and stability in the region,” Pezeshkian wrote on X.

The two countries concluded a second round of indirect talks in Switzerland on Tuesday under Omani mediation against the backdrop of the largest US military build-up in the region since the 2003 Iraq war. They resumed talks in Oman this month.

A third round of indirect talks is scheduled for Thursday in Geneva, but the US has yet to confirm. Oman said on Sunday that the talks are set “with a positive push to go the extra mile towards finalising the deal”.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been leading the negotiations for Iran while the US is represented by envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

‘Iranians had never capitulated’

Baghaei dismissed any claim that a temporary agreement had been reached with Washington, adding that speculation on the nuclear talks is not uncommon.

“We do not confirm any of the speculation. The details of any negotiation process are discussed in the negotiating room. The speculation raised about an interim agreement has no basis.”

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, said there was a “mixture of optimism and pessimism” in Iran’s capital.

“Let’s call it a pragmatically calibrated cautiousness that we see when it comes to Iran’s statements over the past few weeks, specifically following the major military build-up by the Americans in the region,” he said.

He said Iran is considering both scenarios “on the basis of readiness for diplomatic engagement on the one hand and regional confrontation on the other hand”.

The Trump administration said it has been intensifying its build-up of an array of military assets in the Middle East during the talks with Iran. In an interview with the Fox News TV channel on Sunday, Witkoff said Trump was wondering why Iran has not “capitulated” in the face of the military deployment.

Baghaei on Monday stressed that Iranians had never capitulated at any point in their history.

“This is not the first time we have encountered contradictory claims,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

“We leave the judgement to the discerning people of Iran and the country’s political elites to decide about Iran’s negotiating approach and, in turn, the negotiating approach of the United States,” he added.

“No negotiation that begins with an imposed burden and prejudgement will naturally reach a result,” the official said.

He also stressed that Iran’s positions on its nuclear programme and sanctions relief are clear-cut.

“Any negotiation process requires joint action, and there is hope for results if there is goodwill and seriousness on both sides,” Baghaei said.

After two years of a grinding war, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are observing the holy month of Ramadan during an unabating economic catastrophe as Israel continues to impose restrictions on the entry of food and other supplies despite a “ceasefire” reached in October.

For most families, the daily struggle to secure a mere loaf of bread has replaced the traditional festive atmosphere before the war. An analysis by Al Jazeera, based on official data, reveals that skyrocketing prices for basic commodities have made a complete iftar meal to break the daily fast a distant dream for the vast majority of the population.

Skyrocketing costs

During periods when Israel tightened its siege or completely closed the crossings into Gaza, food prices spiked by more than 700 percent. While prices have retreated slightly since the “ceasefire” began in October, they remain significantly higher than pre-war levels.

According to Mohammed Barbakh, director general of policy and planning at the Ministry of Economy in Gaza, official data tracking prices from before the war began on October 7, 2023, to the first days of this Ramadan show staggering increases.

Al Jazeera’s analysis of the ministry’s price data reveals the following hikes:

• Chicken: Prices rose from 14 shekels ($4.49) to 25 shekels ($8.01) per kilogramme (2.2lb), an 80 percent increase.
• Frozen fish: Prices jumped from 8 shekels ($2.56) to 23 shekels ($7.37) per kilo, a 190 percent increase.
• Frozen red meat: Prices rose from 23 shekels ($7.37) to 40 shekels ($12.82) per kilo, a 75 percent difference.
• Eggs: A tray of 30 eggs now costs 35 shekels ($11.22) compared with 13 shekels ($4.17), a 170 percent increase.

Vegetables, a staple of the Palestinian diet, have also seen dramatic surges. Tomatoes have doubled in price while cucumbers have jumped by 300 percent, rising from 3 shekels ($0.96) per kilo to 12 shekels ($3.85). Cheese prices have increased by up to 110 percent, directly impacting the cost of suhoor, the predawn meal before the daily fasting during Ramadan begins.

The cost of a meal

Based on data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Al Jazeera estimated the cost of a basic iftar for a family of six. The meal includes two chickens, rice, salad, appetisers, a soft drink, cooking gas and oil.

The price of the meal has risen to about 150 shekels ($48), up from 79 shekels ($25.32) before the war, an increase of 90 percent.

For suhoor, a simple meal of cheese, hummus, falafel and bread now costs 31.5 shekels ($10.10), compared with 18.6 shekels ($5.96) previously.

The combined daily cost to feed a medium-sized family now stands at 181.5 shekels ($58.17), an 88 percent jump from pre-war figures.

Economic obliteration

These price hikes coincide with a collapse in purchasing power. A United Nations report released in late 2025 indicated that the annual per capita income in Gaza plummeted to $161 (503 shekels) in 2024, down from $1,250 (3,900 shekels) in 2022.

The labour market has essentially vanished. In a statement issued in October, Sami al-Amsi, head of the General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions, said unemployment stood then at more than 95 percent as workshops, farmland and fishing fleets were destroyed.

“The worker is no longer looking for a job because there is no work at all,” al-Amsi said. “Today, the Palestinian worker is looking for a food parcel to survive.”

Blockade and monopoly

Economic researcher Ahmed Abu Qamar attributed the inflation to Israel’s restrictive entry policies and “coordination fees” imposed on trucks.

“The humanitarian protocol stipulates the entry of 600 trucks daily, yet the Israeli occupation effectively allows only between 200 and 250 trucks,” Abu Qamar told Al Jazeera, noting that the Strip actually requires 1,000 trucks daily to meet minimum demand.

He also highlighted a monopoly system under which only about 10 merchants are authorised to import goods through four Israeli companies, restricting competition and keeping prices artificially high. He called for a return to a free market system and the full opening of crossings to alleviate the burden on a population already crushed by conflict.

The Winter Olympics ended as the twin flames in host cities Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo were extinguished during a closing ceremony at the ancient Verona Arena, roughly mid-distance between the far-flung mountain, valley and city venues that made these the most spread-out Winter Games ever.

In declaring the 2026 Games over on Sunday, International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry told local organisers that they “delivered a new kind of Winter Games and you set a new, very high standard for the future”.

The next Winter Games will be held in neighbouring France, which received the Olympic flag in the official handover earlier in the ceremony. Following the same spread-out model, the 2030 Winter Games will stage events in the Alps and Nice, on the Mediterranean Sea, while speed skating will be held either in Italy or the Netherlands.

A total of 116 medal events were held in eight Olympic sports across 16 disciplines, including the debut of ski mountaineering this year, over the course of 17 days of competition. With the final events wrapping up just hours before the ceremony, the 50km mass start men’s and women’s cross-country medals were awarded by Coventry inside the arena.

Hosts Italy won their highest Winter Olympic tally of 30 medals, including 10 gold and six silver, surpassing the previous record of 20 medals, set at the Lillehammer Olympics in 1994.

The closing ceremony paid tribute to Italian dance and music, from lyric opera to Italian pop of the 20th century to the DJ beat of Gabry Ponte, who got the 1,500 athletes on their feet and dancing while colourful confetti exploded on stage. Italian artist Achille Lauro delivered the last word with the song “Incoscienti Giovani”, or “reckless young people”, just before athletes who had so aptly harnessed their youthful energy for these games filed out.

The Milano Cortina Winter Olympics spanned an area of 22,000sq km (8,500sq miles), from ice sports in Milan to biathlon in Anterselva on the Austrian border, snowboarding and men’s downhill in Valtellina on the Swiss border, cross-country skiing in the Val di Fiemme north of Verona, and women’s downhill, curling and sliding sports in Cortina d’Ampezzo.

The closing ceremony concluded with the Olympic flames extinguished at the unprecedented two cauldrons in Milan and Cortina, viewed in Verona via videolink. A light show substituted for fireworks, which are not allowed in Verona to protect animals from being disturbed.

The Milan Cortina Paralympics’ opening ceremony will also take place in the Verona Arena, on March 6, and the games will run until March 15.

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump has long been fixated on how voting in the United States is administered, claiming without evidence that his 2020 presidential election loss was the result of malfeasance.

Fast forward more than five years, and Trump is set to be in office for one of the most consequential midterm races in recent times.

It is unclear how the US president might involve himself in the midterms, which will determine whether his Republican Party maintains control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The results will decide whether Trump can continue to enact his agenda with relative ease or if he will face congressional pushback at every turn.

The Republican leader’s approach so far appears to be twofold, according to Michael Traugott, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

On one hand, Trump has embarked on a messaging campaign to cast doubt on any results that seem unfavourable.

“Part of what the Trump administration is doing is trying to create the impression of fraud and mismanagement in local elections so that they can argue eventually that some outcomes are not legitimate or real or should be discounted,” Traugott told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, Trump also appears to be conducting a stress test of pre-existing election law, to see how much the federal government can intervene.

“There are actions that he could take or try to take, which would likely be stopped in the courts,” Traugott said.

“The behaviour in the Trump administration is to appeal, appeal, appeal, until it gets to the Supreme Court,” he added. “I imagine that would be their strategy.”

Calls to ‘nationalise’ election administration

Trump has been explicit about his desire to assert more federal control over the election, saying in early February that “Republicans ought to nationalise the voting”.

He pointed to what he described as “horrible corruption on elections” in some parts of the US.

The US Constitution assigns states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections for federal office.

Congress, meanwhile, has the ability to “make or alter” rules related to voting through legislation or, in extreme cases, constitutional amendments.

“It’s important to remember that, in the United States, we don’t really have national elections. We have a series of state and local elections that are held more or less on the same day,” Traugott explained.

The president, meanwhile, has no constitutional role in how elections are administered, beyond signing any legislation Congress passes.

Still, it is possible for a president to leverage executive branch agencies that interact with state election administration. Trump too has explicitly blurred the lines between federal and state power.

In the Oval Office on February 3, he told reporters, “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

His statements were swiftly condemned by voting rights groups.

The League of Women Voters, a voting rights group founded in 1920, called Trump’s remarks a “calculated effort to dismantle the integrity of the electoral system as we know it”.

“Time and again, the President’s claims of widespread fraud have been disproven by nonpartisan election officials, the courts, and the Department of Justice,” it added.

Despite Trump’s claims, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US, and any isolated instances typically have little effect on election outcomes.

Even the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind the Trump-aligned Project 2025, has documented an inconsequential rate of voter fraud in its catalogue of cases running back to 1982.

An analysis from the centre-left Brookings Institution found that fraudulent votes failed to amount to one ten-thousandth of a percentage point of the ballots cast in states where elections tend to be the closest.

For example, Arizona is a perennial battleground in presidential elections, but it has seen just 36 reported cases of voter fraud since 1982, out of more than 42 million ballots cast. That put the percentage of fraud at 0.0000845, according to the analysis.

Department of Justice pushes boundaries

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on the Department of Justice to increase its probes into alleged voter fraud.

The attorney general has demanded that 47 states and Washington, DC, a federal district, hand over their complete voter registration lists, according to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy group.

Eleven states have complied or agreed to comply. The Trump administration has launched lawsuits against the 20 others that refused.

The Department of Justice has also stepped up its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security to identify non-citizen voters.

Some critics have even accused the Justice Department of deploying coercive tactics to fulfil its demands for state voter information.

On January 24, for instance, US Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz suggesting three “common sense solutions” to “restore the rule of law” in the state.

One of those proposals was to allow the Justice Department to “access voter rolls”.

Bondi’s remarks came after a federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota had turned deadly, resulting in two on-camera shootings of US citizens.

While her letter did not directly offer a quid pro quo – access to the rolls in exchange for ending the crackdown – critics said the message it sent was clear. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, for instance, called the letter tantamount to “blackmail”.

But four days later, on January 28, the Justice Department went even further, seizing voting records and ballots in a raid on an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia.

The state has been a sore point for Trump: Georgia voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in more than two decades during the 2020 race.

At the time, Trump infamously pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find more votes” following his loss. He has spread rumours about fraud in Georgia’s election system ever since.

Local officials condemned the January raid as a “flagrant constitutional violation”, saying in a lawsuit that an affidavit submitted by the FBI to obtain a search warrant relied on hypotheticals.

In other words, it failed to establish probable cause that any crime had occurred, Fulton County officials argued.

That affidavit also revealed the investigation was the direct result of a referral from Kurt Olsen, who was appointed to a White House role as Trump’s head of election security in October.

Before entering the White House, Olsen led unsuccessful legal challenges to the 2020 election results, in what Trump dubbed the “Stop the Steal” campaign.

Fulton County officials noted “multiple courts have sanctioned Olsen for his unsubstantiated, speculative claims about elections”.

What is Tulsi Gabbard’s role?

The apparent role of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in the election investigations has also raised questions.

Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid, with Trump later telling reporters that she was “working very hard on trying to keep the election safe”.

Who authorised her presence, however, was the subject of contradictory statements from the Trump administration.

Gabbard said she had been sent on behalf of Trump, even though the president attempted to distance himself from the raid. The Justice Department later said Bondi had requested Gabbard’s presence. Gabbard finally said both Trump and Bondi had asked her to attend.

Whatever the case, Traugott, the political scientist, said that her presence at the scene was highly unusual.

“The director of national intelligence has been associated with observation and information gathering from foreign countries, not from domestic entities,” Traugott explained. “So historically, this is without precedent”.

In a statement, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said he was concerned that Gabbard had exceeded the powers of her office. He said the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he is vice chairman, had not been briefed on any “foreign intelligence nexus” related to the Fulton County raid.

Either Gabbard was flouting her responsibility to keep the committee informed, Warner said, or she is “injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy”.

Gabbard, who is expected to testify before the Senate committee in March, responded in early February that she had been acting under her “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyse intelligence related to election security”.

She maintained her office would “not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments concerning foreign or other malign interference in US elections”.

Voter ID law

But it’s not just executive agencies like the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pushing Trump’s agenda for the midterm races.

Experts say Trump has been angling to use the Republican majorities in Congress to pass restrictive voter laws ahead of November’s election.

Trump has supported a bill, dubbed the SAVE Act, which would require citizens to provide more documentation – such as a passport or a birth certificate – when registering to vote, as well as photo identification when casting a ballot.

Rights groups have long argued that such requirements would disenfranchise some voters who lack access to such materials. As of 2023, the US State Department reported that only 48 percent of US citizens had a valid passport.

The bill would also require states to provide voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security to identify and remove non-citizens, raising concerns about voter privacy.

The legislation, which has been passed by the House, is likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

Even without the legislation, though, Trump has threatened to sign an executive order requiring local election organisers to require voter identification before distributing ballots.

Trump already signed a similar order last March seeking to impose new rules on elections, including voter ID requirements, reviews of electronic voting machines and restrictions on how long votes can be counted.

Nearly all of the provisions have since been blocked by federal judges. The most recent ruling by US District Judge John Chun related to restrictions like tying federal election funding to “proof of citizenship” requirements.

“In granting this relief,” Chun wrote in his decision, “the Court seeks to restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

Afghan officials deny claims, as they accuse Pakistan of targeting civilians and violating its sovereignty in Sunday’s border air raids.

A senior Pakistani government official has claimed that its military killed at least 70 fighters in air raids along the border with Afghanistan, claims Kabul has denied, amid escalating tensions between the two South Asian neighbours.

Talal Chaudhry, Pakistan’s deputy interior minister, offered no evidence for his claim in an interview with Geo News on Sunday evening that at least 70 rebels were killed in the attack. Pakistan’s state media reported that the death toll had jumped to 80; however, there was no official confirmation.

Pakistan’s military carried out the air raids early on Sunday, targeting what it called “camps and hideouts” belonging to armed groups behind a spate of recent attacks, including a deadly suicide bombing at a Shia mosque in the capital, Islamabad.

The country’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar wrote on X that the military conducted “intelligence-based, selective operations” against seven camps belonging to the Pakistan Taliban group, known by the acronym TTP, and its affiliates.

Tarar said Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region”, but added that the safety and security of Pakistani citizens remained a top priority.

President Asif Ali Zardari said late on Sunday that Pakistan’s recent attacks along the Afghan border were “rooted in [its] inherent right to defend its people against terrorism” after repeated warnings to Kabul went unheeded.

The attacks threaten a fragile ceasefire between the South Asian neighbours, negotiated following deadly border clashes that killed dozens of soldiers, civilians and suspected fighters in October last year.

Pakistan said it has repeatedly urged Afghanistan’s Taliban government to take action to prevent armed groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks, but that Kabul has failed to “undertake any substantive action”.

Afghanistan has rejected Pakistani allegations that its territory is used by armed groups linked to attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan denies claims

The Afghan Ministry of Defence said in a statement that “various civilian areas” in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika were hit, including a religious school and several homes. The statement called the attacks a violation of Afghanistan’s airspace and sovereignty.

Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said “people’s homes have been destroyed, they have targeted civilians, they have committed this criminal act” with the bombardment of the two eastern provinces.

Residents from around the remote Bihsud district in Nangarhar joined searchers to look for bodies under the rubble using shovels and a digger, the AFP news agency reported.

“People here are ordinary people. The residents of this village are our relatives. When the bombing happened, one person who survived was shouting for help,” resident Amin Gul Amin, 37, told AFP.

Spokesperson Mujahid also said Pakistan’s claim of killing 70 fighters was “inaccurate”.

Mawlawi Fazl Rahman Fayyaz, the provincial director of the Afghan Red Crescent Society in Nangarhar province, said 18 people were killed and several others were wounded.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Pakistan’s ambassador in Kabul to protest against the attacks.

In a statement, the ministry said protecting Afghanistan’s territory is its “Sharia responsibility”, warning that Pakistan would be held responsible for the consequences of such attacks.

South Korea and Brazil have agreed to significantly deepen cooperation across key minerals, trade, technology and security, as President Lee Jae Myung hosted Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Seoul for the first Brazilian state visit in more than two decades. The summit, held at the Blue House, marked a symbolic reset in bilateral ties and produced an ambitious roadmap aimed at elevating relations to a strategic partnership.

The two leaders endorsed a four-year action plan designed to anchor cooperation in strategic minerals, advanced manufacturing, defence, space industries and food security. They also oversaw the signing of 10 memorandums of understanding covering trade and industrial policy, rare earths and other critical minerals, the digital economy including artificial intelligence, biotechnology and health, agricultural collaboration, small-business exchanges, and joint efforts to combat cybercrime and narcotics trafficking.

Critical Minerals at the Core

At the heart of the agreement lies a shared recognition of the growing geopolitical importance of critical minerals. Brazil holds significant reserves of rare earth elements and nickel, both essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and high-tech manufacturing. South Korea, a manufacturing powerhouse heavily reliant on imported raw materials, is seeking to diversify supply chains amid intensifying global competition for resource security.

For Seoul, closer ties with Brasília offer an opportunity to secure stable access to strategic inputs while reducing exposure to concentrated supply routes. For Brazil, the partnership represents a chance to attract South Korean investment into mining, processing and downstream industries, potentially moving up the value chain rather than remaining primarily a raw-material exporter.

Trade Expansion and Industrial Policy Alignment

Brazil is South Korea’s largest trading partner in South America, and both governments signaled an intent to broaden the scope of commerce beyond traditional commodity flows. Industrial policy coordination featured prominently in the discussions, suggesting a shift toward co-development in sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and green technologies.

The emphasis on the digital economy and artificial intelligence reflects a convergence of economic strategies. South Korea’s advanced technological ecosystem complements Brazil’s expanding digital market, creating potential for joint ventures and technology transfers. Cooperation in biotech and health also indicates a recognition of demographic and public health challenges that transcend borders.

Security, Stability and Shared Democratic Narratives

Beyond economics, the leaders framed their partnership within a broader narrative of stability and democratic resilience. Lee emphasized support for peace on the Korean Peninsula, while Lula underscored Brazil’s interest in a balanced and rules-based international order.

Their personal rapport, shaped by shared experiences of early-life factory work and social mobility, added a human dimension to the diplomacy. Lee publicly praised Lula’s life story as emblematic of democratic progress, reinforcing a symbolic alignment that may help sustain political goodwill between the two administrations.

The inclusion of joint policing initiatives against cybercrime and transnational threats signals that the partnership extends into non-traditional security domains. As digital connectivity deepens, cyber resilience and coordinated law enforcement become integral to safeguarding economic integration.

Strategic Diversification in a Fragmented World

The timing of the summit is notable. As global trade faces renewed uncertainty and supply chains continue to recalibrate, middle powers such as South Korea and Brazil are seeking to hedge against volatility by strengthening bilateral and regional ties. By formalizing cooperation in minerals, technology and defence, both governments aim to insulate their economies from external shocks while positioning themselves within emerging industrial ecosystems.

The ceremonial elements of the visit including a state banquet blending Korean and Brazilian cultural traditions underscored the leaders’ intent to broaden engagement beyond transactional trade. Whether the newly signed agreements translate into measurable investment flows and industrial integration will depend on sustained political commitment and private-sector participation. Yet the framework established in Seoul suggests that both countries see strategic partnership not as a symbolic upgrade, but as a practical response to an increasingly fragmented global landscape.

With information from Reuters.

From what one should eat to what one should say, AI chatbots on your phone have the final say. The choice of bots, though, is totally in your hands, but what choice you will make with it is barely in your hands. Are you by any chance handing your decision-making power to bots, which you assume makes your life easy? If yes, then let’s consider a few things before your next chatbot conversation. First, understand the dual system model by Daniel Kahneman. According to that, there are two types of systems in the human brain. System 1 is associated with fast, intuitive, emotional, and automatic thinking. System 2 is associated with analytical, slow, effortful, and deliberate thinking. The majority of the technology that is available for the general masses urges individuals to use system 1, as it does not require much effort. Decision-making needs system 2 and is complex and requires time and effort, though this is something that people tend to avoid at all costs. Machines were built to reduce human effort, and artificial intelligence is there to reduce the decision-making efforts, something that differentiated the individual from the technology or innovation earlier.

Now at the state level, artificial intelligence is being integrated; take the example of the United States National Defense Strategy of 2022, where the inclusion of artificial intelligence in decision-making processes was of prime importance. At the systematic level, unfortunately, until now, there have not been concrete efforts towards establishing rules regarding artificial intelligence, except for the Bletchley Declaration, which was a landmark international agreement on AI safety. Though at the individual level, rather than being careful, people are playing with and handing over their decision-making power. As was reported by the BBC, in an interview, Megan Garcia, the mother of a 14-year-old, said that an AI chatbot encouraged her son to commit suicide. Another case involving a young Ukrainian woman with poor mental health received suicide advice from an AI chatbot. Another report by Vice of a person who committed suicide after having multiple conversations with a chatbot over environmental issues. AI chatbots that run on algorithms have been taken as emotional support beings, which they are not.

They are given different names to grab the attention of the user, such as “your goth friend,” “your possessive girlfriend,” and several others. They are targeting the emotional side, or System 1, of the user, and they have been quite successful in that. Everyone today almost has an AI chatbot with whom they have a conversation at least once a day. According to Chabot’s 2025 statistics, more than 987 million people use AI chatbots today. ChatGPT dominates the AI chatbot market share with 81.85%, using it globally, followed by OpenAI’s GPT-4, Microsoft Co-Pilot, Google Gemini, Claude, and DeepSeek with 11.05%, 3.07%, 2.97%, 1.05%, and 0.01%, respectively. With that, it is becoming dangerous and needs to be handled with more care and caution. The responsibility lies on individuals as much as it lies on the state and the international organizations.

Technology has been advancing for decades, and it has been creating ease and comfort for its users. Artificial intelligence, being one such technology, is beneficial too, but it should be used to enhance the mental capabilities and not hand over one’s control over things. AI is expanding and advancing at an immeasurable speed, and it will not wait for people to wake up and make better decisions for themselves. Social media platforms will not adjust themselves to the needs of the time, as they are markets, and all they care about is what is bought, which is the thing that should be sold. If people are buying the emotional support AI, then there will be multiple chatbots with attention-grabbing titles.

An individual might take it as a joke or play with it for fun, but what they do not realize is that they are providing their personal and sensitive information to a machine whose data can be sabotaged. People nowadays, without realizing, would jump on the ongoing trends without realizing what it will do to their data. The trend of Ghibli-style photos, where photos were being generated to the extent that it led to the melting of OpenAI’s servers, prompted the company to temporarily implement rate limits. In addition to that, it resulted in an intellectual property issue involving Studio Ghibli centers. As it mimicked the iconic style of Studio Ghibli, which has been working for decades, AI stole the art, and there was no genuine accountability. This is how dangerous it gets: stealing someone’s work and then getting away with it without being charged or held accountable. This intellectual property theft by AI resulted in Hollywood writers’ protest, leading to the establishment of the 2023 WGA AI contract. WGA (Writers Guild of America) led to AI not being treated as a writer and prevented it from getting any credit or being considered “literary material.” Where the threat is so imminent, laws are not efficient, control is lost, and profit is being generated, would you really let bots decide what you will do in your life?

The offbeat thriller has won six BAFTAs, including best film and best director for Paul Thomas Anderson.

The dark comedy One Battle After Another has swept the United Kingdom’s top film honours, picking up six BAFTA awards, including best film and best director for Paul Thomas Anderson.

The film beat the Shakespearean family tragedy Hamnet, and the vampire thriller Sinners, to take the top prizes at Sunday evening’s ceremony.

The UK prizes, officially called the EE BAFTA Film Awards, often provide hints about who will win at Hollywood’s Academy Awards, held this year on March 15.

One Battle After Another, an explosive film about a group of revolutionaries in chaotic conflict with the state, won awards for directing, adapted screenplay, cinematography, and editing, as well as for Sean Penn’s supporting performance as an obsessed military officer.

“This is very overwhelming and wonderful,” Anderson said as he accepted the directing prize. “We have a line from Nina Simone that we used in our film: ‘I know what freedom is: It’s no fear’,” the director said. “Let’s keep making things without fear. It’s a good idea.”

Sinners, which has a record 16 Oscar nods, won best original screenplay for writer and director Ryan Coogler, best supporting actress for Wunmi Mosaku, and best original score.

The gothic horror story Frankenstein won three awards each, while Hamnet won two, including best British film.

The documentary about Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, The Voice of Hind Rajab, was among the top contenders for BAFTA’s best director and non-English language film categories. But the film Sentimental Value won in the non-English language category.

The biggest surprise of the night was Robert Aramayo winning the best actor category for his performance in I Swear, a fact-based British indie drama about a campaigner for people with Tourette syndrome.

The 33-year-old British actor beat Timothee Chalamet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael B Jordan, Ethan Hawke and Jesse Plemons for the honour.

“I absolutely can’t believe this,” he said. “Everyone in this category blows me away.”

Jessie Buckley won best actress for playing Agnes, the wife of William Shakespeare, in Hamnet, based on the novel by Maggie O’Farrell and directed by previous Oscar winner Chloe Zhao.

The best documentary prize went to Mr Nobody Against Putin, about a Russian teacher who documented the propaganda imposed on Russian schools after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

The film’s American director, David Borenstein, said that teacher Pavel Talankin had shown that “whether it’s in Russia or the streets of Minneapolis, we always face a moral choice”, referring to the protests against US immigration enforcement in Minnesota.

“We need more Mr Nobodies,” he said.

It beat documentaries including Mstyslav Chernov’s harrowing Ukraine war portrait, 2000 Meters to Andriivka, co-produced by The Associated Press and Frontline PBS.

The guests of honour at the awards were Prince William and Princess Kate. The event, hosted by Alan Cumming, was the first joint engagement for the pair since William’s uncle, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on Thursday.

William, the president of the film academy, presented the BAFTA Fellowship to Donna Langley, studio head at NBC Universal.

Mérida, February 23, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly passed the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence on Thursday, January 19. 

The government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, immediately enacted the legislation and presented it as a step toward “peace and tolerance.”

The law establishes mechanisms that aim to promote political reconciliation through a blanket amnesty for crimes or offenses committed in the context of political violence between 1999 and 2026. The final document explicitly lists high-profile contexts, including the 2002 coup against then-President Hugo Chávez, the 2014 and 2017 opposition-led violent “guarimba” street protests, and the unrest following the July 2024 presidential elections.

“This law is guided by principles of freedom, justice, equality, […] the primacy of human rights, and political diversity,” article 3 reads.

Article 7 of the amnesty bill defines the ethical and constitutional scope of the pardon, expressly excluding those who have participated in serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, in accordance with Article 29 of the Venezuelan Constitution.

The legislation also excludes those prosecuted for or convicted of homicide, corruption offenses while in public office, and drug trafficking with sentences exceeding nine years.

During a press conference at the National Assembly, the head of parliament Jorge Rodríguez stated that the new law represents “a step forward to avoid the mistakes of the past.” 

“I believe that this law recognizes the victims in its articles and represents a step toward avoiding the mistakes of the past,” he told reporters. “This sends a powerful message that we can live, work, and grow politically within the framework established by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

During the Thursday session, opposition Deputy Henry Falcón from the Democratic Alliance affirmed that “amnesty is an opportunity that the state offers to forget. We cannot cling to past differences in the face of a higher interest: the country itself.”

After twenty days of consultations and debates and three two legislative debates, Jorge Rodríguez presented the final text that was unanimously endorsed by all 277 deputies. He also announced the creation of a Special Monitoring Commission, chaired by Jorge Arreaza (United Socialist Party of Venezuela, PSUV) and Nora Bracho (A New Era, UNT). This commission is responsible for ensuring the law’s implementation and addressing requests for release.

At a special ceremony held at Miraflores Palace on Thursday evening, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez formally received the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence following approval by the legislature and called for national reconciliation.

“This amnesty law opens an extraordinary door for Venezuela to come together again, to learn to live together democratically and peacefully, and to rid itself of hatred and intolerance,” she expressed. “ 

Regarding the exclusions contemplated, Rodríguez asked the Commission for the Judicial Revolution, chaired by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, to review cases not covered by the amnesty and formulate recommendations to “heal wounds.”

The president of the legislature’s special commission, Jorge Arreaza, stated on a televised interview that the first 379 amnesty applications had been processed, primarily in Caracas.

“Both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s Office have received 379 requests for amnesty,” he explained. “These individuals should be released in the coming hours. This process will continue in the coming days.”

Parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez said on Saturday that there are a further 1,500 cases being revised.

Meanwhile, Ernesto Villegas, minister of culture and coordinator of the Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence, reported on his Telegram channel a meeting with campesino, tenant, and labor organizations to discuss cases of activists facing legal proceedings due to social struggles over land, housing, and employment. These groups were not explicitly contemplated among the direct beneficiaries of the law.

The grassroots collectives denounced the criminalization of their social demands and provided concrete information that will be forwarded to the relevant authorities in coordination with the National Assembly’s special commission.

The meeting hosted by Villegas also saw relatives of individuals imprisoned for alleged corruption in the public sector criticize the penal system and advocate for their loved ones’ rights.

The Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence promised to promptly send the complaints to the relevant bodies and encourage corrective actions.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Iran signed a secret missile agreement worth approximately €500 million (approximately $589 million) with Russia in order to rebuild its air defense system, the Financial Times claimed in a report published on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

An agreement was signed between Iran and Russia in Moscow in Dec. 2025, according to information obtained by the newspaper.

Under the agreement, Russia is expected to deliver 500 Verba portable launch units and 2,500 9M336-type missiles to Iran within three years.

As part of the roughly €500 million deal, the missiles are planned to be delivered to Iran in three separate phases between 2027 and 2029.

Some sources indicated that certain systems may have been delivered to Iran earlier than the scheduled timeline, according to the daily.

Following the attacks carried out by Israel and the US against Iran in June 2025 and the 12-day war that ensued, it was claimed that the Tehran administration formally requested these defense systems from Russia in July 2025.

Iran made this request in order to boost its defense capacity and protect its strategic facilities following the attacks.

The Verba is known as one of Russia’s most modern air defense systems.

The system can be used effectively against cruise missiles and low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

While Kim has remained at the top of North Korean leadership, the party congress’s presidium – its executive committee – has been reshuffled since the last meeting in 2021. More than half of its 39 members have been replaced, according to state media.

India were bowled out for 111 chasing 188-run target and must now win their next two games to qualify for the semifinals.

India have been handed a 76-run defeat by South Africa in their first cricket match of the Super Eight stage of the T20 World Cup and now must win their next two games to have a chance of reaching the semifinals.

The defending champions were bowled out for 111 in 18.5 overs while chasing a target of 188 at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, India on Sunday.

It was the cohosts’ first loss of the tournament and also ended their 12-match winning streak in the T20 World Cup that they had carried on from their title-winning run in 2024.

South Africa’s bowlers put on a near-perfect display against a strong Indian batting lineup, and were backed by their fielders to leave the pre-tournament favourites reeling.

India lost their in-form opener Ishan Kishan on the fourth ball of the innings to the offspin bowling of South Africa’s captain Aiden Markram while trying to hit against the spin.

One-down batter Tilak Varma was the next to fall as he was caught behind off the first ball of Marco Jansen’s over.

India’s captain Suryakumar Yadav and out-of-form star batter Abhishek Sharma tried to rebuild their innings until Sharma fell in the fifth over after scoring 15 runs off 12 deliveries.

Incoming batter Washington Sundar and Yadav were the next two wickets to fall as India failed to build a big partnership in front of a large home crowd.

A 35-run partnership between all-rounders Hardik Pandya and Shivam Dube lifted the Indian run chase briefly, but South Africa’s disciplined bowling and near-faultless fielding resulted in regular dismissals for the home side.

When Dube fell for 42 off 37, India’s fate was sealed.

Jansen’s superb bowling earned him four wickets for 22 runs off 3.5 overs , while left-arm spin bowler Keshav Maharaj took three for 24 in his four overs.

All of South Africa’s bowlers were economical, with Lungi Ngidi leading the way by conceding only 15 runs in his four wicketless overs.

Earlier, player of the match David Miller’s crucial innings of 63 runs off 35 balls stabilised South Africa’s innings after they were reduced to 20-3 in four overs.

He shared a 97-run partnership with Dewald Brevis, who scored 45 off 29 balls, as the pair resurrected the Proteas after Markram decided to bat first after winning the toss in the first Super Eight match in Group 1.

Despite Miller’s dismissal in the 16th over, South Africa were able to post a formidable total of 187-7, thanks to a 24-ball 44 not out by Tristan Stubbs at the end of the innings.

Jasprit Bumrah picked up 3-15 off his four overs.

The loss propels South Africa to the top of Group 1 in the Super Eight stage, with India at the bottom with a net run rate of -3.80.

The defending champions must win their remaining two games to have a chance of qualifying for the semifinals.

West Indies and Zimbabwe are the other two teams in their group and will face each other on Monday.

South Africa face the West Indies on Thursday, while India play Zimbabwe on Friday.

The Afghanistan crisis is generally spoken of as a crisis of the hour in terms of the Taliban, outside power intervention, or an unsuccessful election season. Such framing is not as profound as the problem. The state and province conquests, bargaining, and coercion united Afghanistan, the state, but not a civic transaction between peoples. Although the significance of an actual national flag was yet to arrive, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, and minorities occupied different regions, related to regional leaders, tribal councils, and local trade routes. The power was not national but local and individual. The contemporary state emerged later, and at the inception of its emergence, it was naturally skewed in a manner that remained to fulfil the definition of politics.

The birth of Ahmad Shah Abdali, recalled as Ahmad Shah Durrani in the middle of the eighteenth century, could be recalled as one of the foundational legends. It was also when the military alliance of one community had become the core of the state’s strength. The shell of a state was built by Ahmad Shah through warfare, and the coalition of Pashtun tribes consolidated the territory and gained more lands, with the foundation of a heterogeneous and broad territory. The logic, however, was not inclusion. It was piety, preference, and blackmail. Peripheral territories like the non-Pashtun were to be ruled as they were expected to submit, pay, or surrender when the center was strong and to ignore when it was weak. That model had never killed with Ahmad Shah. It was a practice that has been emulated by other leaders who have come after and tried to play a stage of unity without building institutions that can be regarded as belonging to all groups.

The trend was established following the demise of Ahmad Shah. Kabul was rarely what it purported to be. Power moved around among leaders, but the leadership was generally stopped at metropolises, armies, and major highways. Large areas were something like semi-autonomous states, which cooperated with the state, fought it, or alternated in each of the seasons. When they say that Afghanistan has never had full rule of its own land, people are not hurting the country; they are saying a structural truth, which is that the center has never had sovereignty and has never received legitimacy on the full map. The actual authority was left to the ethnic groups, strongmen, clerics, and commanders. In that perspective, any change in Kabul became existential to the non-residents of the city, as the state was no competition referee but a prize.

Even the geography and the demography make this worse. Pashtuns have been estimated to be approximately 42 percent, Tajiks approximately 27 percent, and Hazaras and Uzbeks approximately 9 percent, and the rest are made up of Turkmen, Baloch, and others. Two official languages exist: Pashto and Dari, but the status of any language could never be a purely cultural one since it was always a political one. Even the name of the country, Afghanistan, is perceived by most Afghans as a loaded word, and that practice is tied to the Pashtun identity and leadership even when they are being applied as a national one. People are angry because of the gap between the way the label instructs us to feel and the way that people feel. Pleas of togetherness are empty when the name of a state is doubted even in real life.

The south, northeast, and many of the cities are then the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara distributions, respectively. These areas are not eliminated by violent migration, displacement in war, or careful political manipulation. Rather, the blurring would contribute to some new fault lines, and communities would need to be pushed into the interspace of their neighbors without an established system of solving disagreements without favoritism. The cross-border relationships include the Tajiks and Tajikistan, Uzbeks and Uzbekistan, and Pashtuns and Pakistan, and there is a stable tug-of-war that the neighbors and patrons can make use of. A low external and high center connection is a formula for continued disintegration.

This is the sphere where the aspect of security cannot be neglected. The decades of controversial control and open borders have transformed parts of Afghanistan into an attractive location for militants that occupy uncontrolled space. When the state cannot provide some kind of protection over territory, the armed networks take its position and deliver protection, taxation, ideology, and logistics. These networks do not have a localization. Training, financing, and planning have border-crossing characteristics, subjecting the region to an environment of a shared threat. At that, the question is not only a moral or historical one, but one of expediency: what are the political structures that may be implemented to make sure that Afghanistan will no longer remain a jihadist temptation to armed groups that can break the peace of its neighbors?

The solution is suggested in a provocative manner, and that is the territorial restructuring, a peaceful partitioning of the state along ethnic and regional lines: Uzbek majority areas become Uzbekistan, Tajik majority areas become Tajikistan, Pashtun majority areas become Pakistan, another separate state is established called Hazaras, etc. The appeal is obvious. It will eliminate the sovereignty of a group, a distinct line of power, and smaller political units, which might be more efficient to govern. It also tries to compare borders to lives in stating that when people believe that the state is an extension of them and not the rulers of the state, then stability is achieved.

Authors: Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi*

At the Davos World Economic Forum, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, shared his thoughts on the hegemonic and subservient world order. When integration turns into a source of subordination, one cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit in the midst of a collapsing global order. The trading communities appear to have a hegemonic and subservient relationship as a result of the dollar’s adoption as the world’s reserve currency. Furthermore, the competing global order between the US and China appears to be caving in to Chinese modus operandi without investigating the reasons for US authoritarian dominance, which could result in the acceptance of Chinese domination. The recognition of the US dollar as the worldwide currency and its dominance over oil, one of the most traded commodities, have put the US in leadership of the world trading regime. Furthermore, it appears that China’s monopoly over rare earth elements (REEs) is giving the Chinese yuan the same reserve currency power. Therefore, the globe might witness a change of control from the US to China, thus jeopardizing the world trading system to the whims and fancies of the country holding the reserve currency.

:

According to this essay, the dollar’s reserve currency status is the true cause of the world order’s disintegration, which equates to allowing the US to take the only seat at the table. It contends that a multipolar currency is essential for a multipolar world order. This understanding is necessary to prevent the rule of any country based on currency supremacy. Diversifying the currency basket for trade transactions is encouraged. To show how the currency dominance of a reserve currency would rise to currency imperialism, this article looks into the petrodollar problem and the duality of reserve currency and trade deficit to delegitimize the necessity of the dollar as a reserve currency. Any currency in question is subject to the same reasoning. Thus, a multi-currency trading framework is advocated in this article.

Geoeconomics of the Petrodollar Crisis’s Spiral

The dollar controls trade, payments, and reserves. About 96 percent of trade in the Americas, 74 percent in the Asia-Pacific area, and 79 percent in the rest of the world is denominated in the currency. About 60 percent of international and foreign currency claims (mainly loans) and liabilities (mostly deposits) are in US dollars. Its proportion of foreign exchange transactions is roughly 90 percent. Approximately 60% of the world’s official foreign reserves are in US dollars. Furthermore, in Q1 2025, the US dollar’s percentage of global foreign exchange reserves dropped to 53.6%. Additionally, the 50-year security agreement with Saudi Arabia to price oil only in dollars and invest surpluses in U.S. Treasury bonds in exchange for military protection expired in 2024. This could result in a shift toward accepting different currencies, albeit it won’t happen right away. Additionally, countries like Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using non-dollar currencies for energy trade, aiming to reduce reliance on Western financial networks.

To achieve its geoeconomic goals, US authorities have attempted to preserve the dollar’s reserve currency status in several ways, compensating for economic weaknesses such as a lack of competitiveness in particular. The US appears to be addressing the growing trade deficit by maintaining the dollar as the world’s currency and matching China’s hegemony over rare earth elements. The US’s current dominance over the trade regime is largely due to dollar-based trade. The oil trade in dollars gives the US significant influence to shape geopolitics globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as oil holds a premier position in the international trading landscape.One commodity (oil) and one currency (the US dollar) have the power to both destabilise and stabilise the global price system. Its “as good as gold” quality can only be maintained in a world where the dominant currency is no longer associated with gold if it is associated with oil, that is, if wealthy people have faith that oil prices won’t continue to rise relative to the US dollar. The US gains influence over the oil trade by controlling the petro-dollar trade.

The globe is essentially on an “oil-dollar standard” during the post-Bretton Woods system, when currencies are meant to be “floating.” The US is under pressure to control oil sources, which it does through coercion or persuasion, to maintain wealth-holders’ faith in the value of the dollar, without which the global economy will experience severe financial turmoil, particularly given the ongoing US current account deficit. In a nutshell, war is a result of today’s necessity to preserve US financial stability. It does, however, produce a spiral effect. To control a significant oil source for financial stability, the US attacked oil-rich Iraq and, more recently, Venezuela. However, as a result of the opposition this strike provoked, oil prices skyrocketed, increasing the threat to financial stability and the temptation to wage war on other oil-rich nations like Iran. Additionally, the US would experience the same spiral consequences in a much more severe form if it decided to go to war with Iran.

The Reserve Currency and Trade Deficit “Trade-off”

Trade deficit and reserve currency operate in a trade-off scenario wherein a nation whose currency serves as the world’s reserve currency must maintain a trade deficit. It is based on two fundamental ideas. The first is the ‘policy trilemma’ or ‘impossible trinity’ thesis of economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. It contends that an economy cannot sustain unrestricted capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and an autonomous monetary policy at the same time. The second paradox bears the name of Robert Triffin, an economist. This states that where their money works as the global reserve currency, a nation must run huge trade deficits to meet the demand for reserves. Any candidate for a new global reserve currency position must run significant current account deficits and risk an intolerable loss of economic control.

However, trade imbalances are thought to be self-correcting. A nation’s currency is predicted to lose value when it has a trade imbalance. Exports will then rise, while imports will fall, resulting in a reduction in the trade deficit. However, as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, this idea does not apply to the US economy. A large portion of a country’s foreign exchange reserves is invested in US government securities. As a result, the dollar is overpriced. A chronic trade deficit results from higher imports and lower exports due to an overpriced dollar. Therefore, the US has a trade deficit not because it imports more goods, but rather because it supplies the world’s reserve currency.

In the face of “unfair” trade and an overpriced currency, how can the US bring manufacturing back and lower the country’s trade deficit? Enter duties on imports. Tariffs will decrease imports and increase their cost, lowering the trade imbalance. By shielding American manufacturers from import competition, they will promote domestic production. However, the US’s return to a more protectionist policy through tariffs has led to increased bilateral commerce in non-dollar currency. For instance, India-Russia oil trade and China’s increasing use of bilateral currency swaps with its trading partners have caused major concern for the US reserve currency supremacy. Moreover, it caused a spiral effect. For example, the reserve currency of the central banks has become less dollarized as a result of the recent US policy of reciprocal tariffs to safeguard trade transactions in dollars. It promotes asking about options for a reserve currency basket and the possibility of de-dollarization. Trump has made no secret about retaining the US dollar’s global supremacy, even threatening the BRICS nations with 100% additional tax should they move forward with a unified currency to “degenerate” and “destroy” the dollar. After all, de-dollarization has the potential to tip the scales against the United States and reduce its capacity to influence international financial markets and the global economy. Furthermore, to protect dollar dominance from the assault of renewable energy, the US withdrawal from India’s solar alliance must be considered.

Economists fear that tariffs go against the concept of economic efficiency. Tariffs, they warn, will imply greater expenses for American consumers, an increase in the inflation rate, and an inefficient manufacturing sector. Moreover, tariffs will encourage nations to undermine the dollar’s standing as a reserve currency by making imports more expensive. It will portend the trading of multiple currencies. Even when Trump managed the inevitability of a trade deficit because of having a reserve currency, the US was still faced with two additional problems: the increasing bilateral trade in member countries’ currencies and China’s control over modern-era gold, ‘rare earth minerals’ critical for key industries. China’s hegemony over REEs and chip production challenges the US dollar’s hegemony.

Conclusion

It reflects that the actual geo-economic strength of the US lies in the acceptability of its currency as a global reserve and its hold over one of the most traded commodities, oil. The rise of China and the evolving structure of international trade are changing the dynamics of this area, even though the US dollar continues to be the most important reserve currency. However, there wouldn’t be any surpluses to invest or deficits to finance if trade were more bilaterally balanced over time, which would lessen the demand for a reserve currency like dollars. The world looks to be headed towards a multi-currency structure for harmonious commercial ties. By encouraging alternate payment methods among trading nations and choosing the currency used for the IMF’s reserve holdings, for instance, it is necessary to end the US monopoly on currency arrangements. The structure can be extended to incorporate trading blocs, where imbalances net out amongst members when aggregated. It suggests a world with several reserve and trade currencies.

This bilateral or multilateral currency autarky might unleash the potential to trade freely as well as to obtain investment capital for emerging economies. Moreover, this strategy is embedded in the evolving industrial structure driven by economic sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US’s capacity to finance its ongoing budget and trade deficits would be impacted by the dollar’s declining value. Dollar interest rates may have to climb, and the currency may depreciate. The role of its capital markets and financial institutions would shrink. It would give more space for the formation of a multipolar currency regime.

*Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya. She has obtained her PhD from the Centre for South Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi has confirmed that further talks between the United States and Iran will take place on Thursday amid spiralling tensions between the two countries.

“Pleased to confirm US-Iran negotiations are now set for Geneva this Thursday, with a positive push to go the extra mile towards finalizing the deal,” Albusaidi said in a social media post on Sunday.

The announcement comes as the US continues to amass military assets in the Middle East, raising concerns about an all-out war against Iran.

Hours before Oman’s announcement, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran was ready to put in place a “full monitoring mechanism” to guarantee the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme and ease tensions.

Asked by Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan why Iran would want to pursue enrichment on its soil rather than buy enriched uranium from abroad, given the US military build-up and risk of an escalation, Araghchi said the issue was a matter of “dignity and pride” for Iranians.

“We have developed this technology by ourselves, by our scientists, and it is very dear to us because we have created it – we have paid a huge expense for that,” he said.

Araghchi cited among the costs two decades of US sanctions, the targeted killings of Iranian scientists, and US-Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities in June.

“We’re not going to give [our nuclear programme] up; there is no legal reason to do that while everything is peaceful and safeguarded” by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Araghchi said.

As a “committed member” of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear-weapon states not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons, Iran is “ready to cooperate with the agency in full”, Araghchi added.

But he stressed that under the treaty, Tehran also has “every right to enjoy a peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment”.

“Enrichment is a sensitive part of our negotiations. The American team knows about our position, and we know their position. We have already exchanged our concerns, and I think a solution is achievable,” the minister noted.

Enrichment is the process of isolating and garnering a rare variant, or isotope, of uranium that can produce nuclear fission. At low levels, enriched uranium can power electric plants. If enriched to approximately 90 percent, it can be used for nuclear weapons.

US officials, including President Donald Trump, have previously suggested that Washington is seeking “zero enrichment” by Tehran.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said any deal with Iran would need to include agreements on ballistic missiles and support for its allies in the region.

Araghchi, however, said on Sunday that Iran was “negotiating only nuclear” at the present time.

“There is no other subject,” he told CBS News, adding that he was optimistic that a deal could be reached.

The second round of nuclear talks concluded in Geneva on February 17. The US and Iran also held indirect talks in Oman earlier this month.

The Iranian delegation is working ahead of the meeting to present a draft that includes “elements which can accommodate both sides’ concerns and interests” to reach a “fast deal”, Araghchi said.

The top Iranian diplomat added the agreement would likely be “better” than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by former US President Barack Obama in 2015.

“There are elements that could be much better than the previous deal,” he said, without elaborating. “Right now, there is no need for too much detail. But we can agree on our nuclear programme to remain peaceful forever and at the same time, for more sanctions [to be] lifted.”

Some observers were less optimistic about the chances of striking a deal. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, told Al Jazeera that Iran is likely to put forward a proposal that goes beyond anything they ever offered, but even that may not be enough.

“Trump has been sold a narrative by the Israelis that portrays Iran far, far weaker than it actually is. As a result, he’s adopting maximalist capitulation positions that are simply unrealistic based on how the power reality actually looks,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

“Unless this gets corrected, even if the Iranians put forward a very far-leaning proposal that is extremely attractive to the US, Trump may still say no because he’s under the false belief that he can get something even better.”

Lula says he wants to tell US President Trump that Brazil wishes for all countries to be treated ‘equally’.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says his country does not want a “new Cold War”, ahead of his visit to the United States.

“I want to tell the US President Donald Trump that we don’t want a new Cold War. We don’t want interference in any other country; we want all countries to be treated equally,” Lula told a news conference at the end of his three-day trip to India on Sunday.

The Brazilian president has refused to comment on Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, which struck down many of Trump’s tariffs on goods entering the US. In response to the Supreme Court decision, Trump said that 15 percent levies would replace it under a different law.

Still, Lula said he is “convinced that Brazil-US relations will go back to normalcy after our conversation”, adding that Brazil has only wanted to “live in peace, generate jobs, and improve [the] lives of our people”.

“The world doesn’t need more turbulence; it needs peace,” he added.

Lula said he expects to meet Trump during the first week of March, and his agenda will include trade, immigration, and investment.

While Lula has differed with Trump on issues such as tariffs, Israel’s war on Gaza, the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and Trump’s Board of Peace – a group of nations assembled to plan Gaza’s future – US and Brazil ties appear to be mending.

In November, for instance, Trump’s administration exempted key Brazilian exports from the 40 percent tariffs that had been imposed on the country.

Brazil-India

On Saturday, Lula met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the Brazilian leader arrived in New Delhi on Wednesday to attend a summit on AI.

The two leaders agreed to boost cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, looking to diversify their trade.

Lula and Modi agreed on a non-binding memorandum of understanding on rare earths, which establishes a framework for cooperation, focusing on reciprocal investment, exploration, mining and other issues.

They also agreed on legal frameworks and other topics, including entrepreneurship, health, scientific research and education.

Mexican security forces have killed Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, the notorious drug lord widely known as “El Mencho”, in a major military operation, the country’s Secretariat of National Defence confirmed.

The Mexican government said that seven members of Oseguera’s Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) were killed in the raid in Tapalpa on Sunday.

Reports of road blocking and violence by drug cartels emerged in Jalisco and other states after news of the operation became public.

“At this time, elements of the Mexican National Guard and Mexican Army troops from the centre of the country and states neighbouring Jalisco are mobilising to reinforce the security of this state,” the Defence Secretariat said in a statement.

“With these actions, the Secretariat of National Defence reaffirms its commitment to contributing to the strengthening of Mexico’s security.”

Oseguera, the leader of the powerful CJNG, one of Mexico’s most violent and dominant criminal organisations, spent decades evading justice.

Washington, which had a $15m reward for information leading to Oseguera’s arrest, was quick to laud the raid.

“I’ve just been informed that Mexican security forces have killed ‘El Mencho,’ one of the bloodiest and most ruthless drug kingpins,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said in a post on X, calling the operation “a great development for Mexico, the US, Latin America, and the world”.

Of the seven cartel members killed on Sunday, four had been injured but later succumbed to their wounds. Three others were arrested, according to the Secretariat of National Defence.

Three military personnel were wounded during the operation and hospitalised, according to the statement.

As news of the killing spread, cartel-linked violence erupted in response, with reports of roadblocks, burning vehicles, and other acts of intimidation in Jalisco and surrounding areas – tactics the CJNG has used in the past to disrupt security operations.

President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government was responding to the unrest, stressing that in the “vast majority of the national territory, activities are proceeding with complete normality”.

“There is absolute coordination with the governments of all states; we must remain informed and calm,” Sheinbaum wrote on X.

According to The New York Times, the violence erupted in at least five Mexican states, and
the Spanish newspaper El Pais also reported “blockades” in central Mexico.

An Al Jazeera witness shared photos of a burned-out bus on a major highway in Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco, which will host several matches in the upcoming FIFA World Cup.

The US Embassy in Mexico warned American citizens in Jalisco and other central states to stay at home until further notice due “to ongoing security operations, associated roadblocks and related criminal activity”.

Landau, the US diplomat, also expressed concern about the events. “It’s not surprising that the bad guys are responding with terror. But we must never lose our nerve,” he said.

While airports across Mexico remain operational, the US embassy later noted that “some domestic and international flights cancelled” in Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta, a coastal city in Jalisco.

The Reuters news agency reported that several major airlines, including Air Canada and United, have temporarily halted flights to Puerto Vallarta.

Oseguera’s fall was a priority target for the US, and is the biggest blow to drug trafficking in recent years.

Oseguera had built an aura of mystery around himself, drawing on the overwhelming power of the CJNG and his limited media presence: All photos of him were decades old, according to Al Pais.

Oseguera crossed over the border in the US several times in the late 80s, and lived illegally in San Francisco.

At the age of 19, he was arrested for the first time by local police for stolen property and carrying a loaded gun.

In 1989, he was arrested again and deported to Mexico. But he re-entered the US and was again arrested on drug charges in 1992 . He was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty.

After spending three years in a federal US prison, El Mencho was released on parole and deported to Mexico, where he joined the local police.

A former police officer and avocado farmer, he rose through the ranks of the Milenio Cartel before founding the CJNG.

The FBI has described him as one of the most wanted fugitives in Mexico, and the CJNG as one of the most violent cartels in the country.

“It has been assessed to have the highest cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine trafficking capacity in Mexico, and over the past few years, includes the trafficking of fentanyl into the United States,” the FBI said in a 2024 statement.

“Under Oseguera Cervantes’ leadership, CJNG has been responsible for many homicides against rival trafficking groups and Mexican law enforcement officers.”

US President Donald Trump has announced a 15 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports.

The move comes just a day after he set tariffs at 10 percent, enraged by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of his tariff regime.

Governments across the world, including those that already struck tariff deals with the United States, will be analysing the new policy.

What will the implications be for them? And how is the global economy reacting to Trump’s latest decision?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Deborah Elms – head of trade policy, Hinrich Foundation

Rebecca Christie – senior fellow, Bruegel think tank

Garima Kapoor – deputy head of research, Elara Securities