Peace

Vladimir Putin has presented multiple proposals to mediate the conflict in Iran, according to the Kremlin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that the proposals are “still on the table,” emphasizing Russia’s readiness to help reduce tensions.

Peskov noted that any diplomatic solution requires coordination across multiple parties and agreements, signaling that Moscow intends to play a careful, measured role rather than rushing into mediation. This framing underscores Russia’s attempt to position itself as a credible intermediary while retaining influence over the conflict’s trajectory.

Recent Putin-Trump Contact

The remarks came after a phone call between Putin and Donald Trump on Monday, in which Putin reportedly offered options to end the Iran war quickly. Trump publicly said that Putin “wants to be helpful,” but added that resolving the Ukraine conflict would be an even more useful contribution.

The exchange highlights how Russia’s involvement in Iran is intertwined with its broader geopolitical interests, particularly in Europe and the Middle East. Moscow’s dual focus on positioning as a mediator and protecting its strategic priorities in Ukraine illustrates its careful diplomatic balancing act.

Russia-Iran Relations and Strategic Calculations

Russia maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, which provides it leverage in regional energy and security affairs. While Moscow has condemned U.S. and Israel military actions against Iran, it has also economically benefited from the resulting surge in oil prices.

Reports that Russia may have shared targeting intelligence with Tehran have drawn scrutiny, although Peskov declined to confirm or deny them. By avoiding direct comment, Russia preserves operational flexibility and manages international perceptions, allowing it to maintain influence with Iran while publicly projecting a mediating stance.

Analytical Perspective: Mediation Amid Strategic Interests

Russia’s position reflects a calculated effort to balance diplomacy and national interest. Keeping mediation proposals publicly “on the table” serves several purposes:

1. Diplomatic Leverage: By signaling willingness to mediate, Russia positions itself as a necessary interlocutor for any resolution, increasing its bargaining power with both the U.S. and Iran.
2. Strategic Buffering: Moscow preserves its ties with Tehran, protecting a partner in the Middle East while benefiting from higher oil prices amid global supply shocks.
3. Geopolitical Messaging: The Kremlin is communicating to the West that Russia can influence outcomes in the Middle East, reinforcing its image as a global power capable of shaping crises beyond its immediate borders.

This approach highlights a broader Russian strategy: maintain engagement in multiple theaters simultaneously Ukraine, Iran, and energy markets while avoiding overt entanglement that could provoke direct confrontation with the U.S. or NATO.

Conclusion: Patient Diplomacy as a Strategic Tool

Moscow’s emphasis on patience and coordination indicates that Russia is playing the long game, using mediation as a tool to expand influence rather than as a purely humanitarian effort. Analysts suggest that this approach allows Russia to extract maximum strategic advantage, balancing its regional partnerships, energy interests, and global standing, while leaving room to maneuver depending on how the Iran conflict evolves.

Russia’s dual role as both potential mediator and strategic partner to Tehran exemplifies the complex interplay of diplomacy, energy politics, and military calculation in the Middle East.

With information from Reuters.

Iran on Monday named Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader following the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, in strikes on the first day of the current war. The move signals that Iran’s ruling establishment intends to maintain its hardline course despite the dramatic loss of the country’s most powerful figure.

Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old Shi’ite cleric with strong connections to Iran’s security apparatus, was quickly endorsed by political leaders, military bodies and religious institutions. Public ceremonies and declarations of loyalty were organised across the country, reflecting a rapid effort by the political system to demonstrate continuity and stability at a moment of intense external pressure.

The appointment is widely seen as closing off any near-term possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict that has engulfed the region. With a figure closely aligned with Iran’s powerful security institutions now leading the state, analysts expect Tehran to maintain a confrontational stance rather than seek quick concessions.

Consolidation of power within the system

Iran’s political and military leadership rallied quickly behind the new leader. Statements from the defence establishment pledged unwavering loyalty to Mojtaba Khamenei, describing him as commander-in-chief and promising to follow him “until the last drop of our blood.”

The swift consolidation of authority highlights the enduring strength of the Islamic Republic’s institutional framework. The supreme leader sits at the top of Iran’s political hierarchy, exercising ultimate control over the military, judiciary and key elements of the state.

Supporters of the government described the succession as a demonstration that the system could withstand even the killing of its long-serving leader. Some Iranians interviewed by media outlets expressed pride and relief that the leadership transition had occurred quickly during wartime, viewing it as a sign of national resilience.

Others, however, reacted with disappointment or anxiety. Many critics of the government had hoped that the death of the elder Khamenei might open the door to political change. Instead, the elevation of his son long considered close to the security establishment suggests continuity rather than reform.

Divided reactions inside Iran

Public reactions within Iran have reflected the country’s deep political divisions. Supporters of the authorities praised Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment as a defiant response to foreign pressure and an affirmation that the Islamic Republic remains intact.

Critics, however, say the change offers little hope for political liberalisation. Many opposition figures and activists have remained quiet, in part because of fears of repression during wartime. The government recently suppressed widespread protests, and security forces maintain a strong presence across major cities.

Observers note that Iran’s powerful security institutions including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps retain extensive resources and influence. The Guard and associated networks also control major sectors of the economy, reinforcing the system’s ability to maintain power even during crises.

International pressure and escalating conflict

The leadership change comes amid escalating hostilities involving Israel and the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender and has suggested Washington should have influence over the selection of Iran’s supreme leader.

Trump has previously warned that any successor to Ali Khamenei could face the same fate if Iran continued what he described as hostile policies. Israeli officials have also indicated that senior Iranian leaders could remain targets unless Tehran abandons its military programmes and regional alliances.

Israel’s stated war aims include dismantling Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, and some officials have also spoken of ending the country’s clerical system of rule. Washington’s position initially focused on military capabilities but has hardened during the conflict.

Meanwhile, Israeli operations have expanded across the region, including strikes in Beirut and other areas linked to Iranian-backed groups such as Hezbollah. Fighting and airstrikes have resulted in significant casualties in Iran, Lebanon and Israel.

Energy shock and global economic impact

The war has triggered one of the most severe energy disruptions in decades. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway near Iran’s coast through which roughly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, has been effectively halted.

With tankers unable to move for more than a week, producers have faced storage shortages and in some cases have been forced to halt pumping. The supply shock sent Brent crude prices surging sharply, briefly approaching $120 per barrel before settling above $100.

The surge has rattled financial markets worldwide, pushing stock indexes in Asia and Europe sharply lower and raising fears of inflationary pressure in major economies. Rising fuel costs also carry political implications in the United States, where gasoline prices are closely watched by voters ahead of upcoming elections.

Regional fighting intensifies

Military operations have continued across multiple fronts. Israeli forces have struck targets in central Iran and carried out attacks on infrastructure, including an oil refinery that sent thick black smoke rising over the capital, Tehran.

At the same time, Iranian-aligned forces have launched attacks elsewhere in the region. A refinery in Bahrain was damaged in a strike that forced the national oil company to declare force majeure, further highlighting the widening scope of the conflict.

Casualties have mounted rapidly. Iranian officials say more than 1,300 civilians have been killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes, while deaths have also been reported in Lebanon and Israel. Israeli authorities confirmed fatalities from Iranian missile attacks, and several soldiers have been killed in fighting along the Lebanese border.

Iran’s system of rule

The role of supreme leader was created following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which established the Islamic Republic under clerical leadership. The position combines religious authority with ultimate political power.

Ali Khamenei held the office for more than three decades, shaping Iran’s foreign policy and domestic governance during periods of sanctions, regional conflict and diplomatic negotiations with world powers. His death in wartime marked one of the most dramatic moments in the country’s modern political history.

Mojtaba Khamenei has long been viewed as an influential figure behind the scenes, particularly within security institutions. Though less publicly prominent than other clerics, he has been widely considered close to the Revolutionary Guard and to key power brokers within the political establishment.

Analysis: Hardline continuity and a longer war

The rapid elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei suggests that Iran’s ruling system is prioritising continuity and cohesion over reform or compromise. By choosing a figure closely aligned with the security establishment, the leadership appears determined to project strength during wartime.

This choice reduces the likelihood of immediate diplomatic concessions that might have opened a path to de-escalation. A leader closely tied to Iran’s military institutions is more likely to emphasise resistance and national defence rather than negotiation under pressure.

At the same time, the succession demonstrates the resilience of Iran’s political structure. Despite the loss of its long-time leader and ongoing military attacks, the state apparatus has moved quickly to stabilise authority and present a unified front.

For the wider region and the global economy, the implications are significant. If Iran continues to pursue a confrontational strategy under its new leader, the conflict could become prolonged, keeping energy markets volatile and increasing the risk of further escalation across the Middle East.

With information from Reuters.

SEOUL, March 6 (UPI) — South Korea’s Unification Ministry called Friday for pursuing a declaration formally ending the Korean War, describing it as a step toward restarting dialogue with North Korea and easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The ministry outlined the proposal in a policy report presented to the National Assembly’s foreign affairs and unification committee and shared with reporters, as part of President Lee Jae Myung’s broader effort to stabilize inter-Korean relations after years of heightened tensions.

Seoul “will promote a ‘peace declaration’ reflecting the political will to end the Korean War and initiate discussions on establishing a peace regime, including the signing of a peace treaty,” the report said.

North and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice rather than a peace agreement.

The ministry said the declaration could serve as an initial step toward transforming the armistice system into a lasting peace framework and helping institutionalize what it described as a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the two Koreas.

The report comes amid mixed signals from North Korea following its recent Workers’ Party congress, where leader Kim Jong Un said there was “no reason” Pyongyang could not improve relations with the United States if Washington abandons what he called its hostile policy.

Kim maintained his dismissive stance toward South Korea, however, calling it “the most hostile entity.” The Lee administration has pursued a series of confidence-building steps aimed at lowering tensions — efforts Kim described as “a clumsy deceptive farce.”

Lee has said South Korea aims to act as a “pacemaker” for renewed diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang, working with regional partners to create conditions for dialogue between the United States and North Korea.

The ministry’s report noted that U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed willingness to address the unresolved wartime status of the Korean Peninsula and said Washington has reaffirmed its openness to talks with Pyongyang without preconditions.

Seoul said it will also seek the appointment of a U.S. special envoy for North Korea and expand coordination with neighboring countries to encourage the North to return to negotiations.

Despite those efforts, tensions could rise again soon.

South Korea and the United States are scheduled to begin their large-scale springtime military exercise, Freedom Shield, on Monday. Pyongyang routinely condemns the allies’ joint drills as rehearsals for an invasion, and the report noted that North Korea may respond with statements or military provocations.

“I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
— Donald Trump, in his victory speech Nov. 6, 2024

It’s bad enough that President Trump has broken that oft-repeated pledge and unilaterally started a war, without engaging either Congress or the American public. And that, by his war of choice against Iran, he has in the most perilous way to date betrayed his signature “America First” standard, at least as longtime proponents Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and others mean it, and as many people thought he did too.

What’s even worse than Trump’s mendacity about stopping foreign wars is the broader truth that his war on Iran underscores: In the major theaters of U.S. foreign policy — the Mideast, Europe and Asia — he is essentially letting foreigners set his course, America’s course. And to state the obvious: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping do not have America’s interests at heart.

It has long been a defining contradiction of Trump that the wannabe strongman repeatedly shows himself to be in thrall to the world’s actual strongmen. His affinity for them has for years puzzled observers in this country and abroad. Trump strikes a pose — say, on negotiating with Iran about its nukes program, promising peace in Ukraine, hitting China with tariffs — only to crumple after a phone call, a meeting or a slap back from his opposite number.

It’s always hard for a person without a strong core to maintain a stand.

Obviously different factors are at play in Trump’s relationships with Israel, a U.S. ally, with longtime adversaries Russia and China and, more specifically, with each nation’s leaders. But all three cases reflect a personalization of foreign policy that is dangerously unique to Trump. For him, it’s less “what’s good for my country” than “what’s good for me” and “who likes me.” Time and again, he’s been explicit about that.

For all Trump’s cosplaying as a strongman, he shows his weakness as a national leader when he lets foreign counterparts share the wheel with him. As a consequence, he’s driving America erratically at best. At worst, he’s steering into another costly, bloody “forever war” of the sort he railed against for decades.

He’s gone in a direction in the Middle East that, polls show, pluralities or even majorities of Americans didn’t want to go. Trump has received none of the initial rally ’round support that past presidents enjoyed after initiating military operations. That’s a hazardous place to be domestically. Most Republicans are behind Trump on the war, but not by the usual high numbers. After all, it was disgust with forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that sent many people flocking to Trump’s “America First” banner to begin with.

For years he warned that other presidents and presidential candidates would start a war in Iran, World War III even. Yet here we are. And after days of what Kelly derided on air as the “10,000 different explanations” that Trump has given for attacking Iran and killing its top political and military leaders, on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphatically provided just one: Because Israel was going to strike Iran first, the United States had to join the attack to protect U.S. personnel and assets in the region from Iran’s retaliation.

Cue the blowback in MAGA world: “He’s flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand,” MAGA pundit Matt Walsh lashed out online. And then Trump contradicted his secretary of State on the rationale for the attacks. Yet Rubio wasn’t the only one citing Israel’s plans as the war’s predicate. So did House Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson. On Tuesday, Trump himself said he had to act fast because the Iranians “were getting ready to attack Israel.”

As Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded, “If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.”

Similarly, in June, Trump ordered a devastating one-off strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to support Israel’s 12-day war against Iran. For months after, Netanyahu hounded Trump to stop the subsequent peace talks with Iran and go back on offense with Israel. So now Trump has complied, striking even as negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the once respected Republican from South Carolina, offered his sycophantic spin: “Bibi and Trump are the modern Roosevelt-Churchill combination.”

The latters’ grave sites surely trembled.

As for Asia, Trump talks a good game against China, and, yes, he’s imposed big tariffs. But just as often he’s backtracked, often after talking with Xi. Trump’s admiration of the Chinese autocrat and his eagerness to please him is palpable. In fact, in dealing with Xi, Trump in both of his terms has violated his own words in “The Art of the Deal”: “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”

No one is more worried about Trump’s regard for Xi than the Taiwanese, living under threat from China. Just recently Trump delayed arms sales to Taiwan approved by Congress lest he upset Xi ahead of their Beijing meeting in April.

In Europe, meanwhile, Trump continues to be played by Putin at the “peace” table to end Russia’s war in Ukraine — the war that candidate Trump said he’d settle in a day. More than a year later, he continues to harangue Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to make concessions to the invader, never demanding anything from Putin.

Most heinously, Trump’s 28-point “peace” plan last November incorporated everything that Putin/Russia dreamed of extracting from Ukraine, and for good reason: The proposal came from Moscow, passed from Putin’s flunky to Trump’s. That followed Trump’s humiliating summit with Putin last August in Alaska, giving the globally reviled Russian an American stage and pageantry and serving no purpose for the United States, only for Trump the showman. All the while, Russia continued ravaging Ukraine.

So much for Trump’s election promise. He doesn’t stop wars (his repeated claims to the contrary). But he does start them.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work.

Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months.

“A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added.

There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”.

“This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said.

Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”.

Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.”

“We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said.

“But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added.

The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”.

“They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said.

Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”.

The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations.

Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis” is a grand mass for large orchestra, chorus and four vocal soloists that lasts around 80 minutes. It was written near the end of Beethoven’s life and is his most ambitious work musically and spiritually. “Coming from the heart, may it go to the heart,” he wrote on the first page of the score.

The Beethoven biographer Jan Swafford put it this way: “ ‘Missa Solemnis’ is Beethoven talking to God, man to man. And what they talked about is peace. Creation was for Beethoven’s the magnificence in the world which we inhabit; ‘Missa Solemnis’ is meant to keep it thus.”

Yet among Beethoven’s major works, “Missa Solemnis” is, by far, the least performed, and not merely because of the need for large forces. Conductors struggle to get a handle on its mysteries and intricacies. Upon turning 70 last year, Simon Rattle contended “Missa Solemnis” remains beyond him. Upon his reaching 70, Michael Tilson Thomas made a momentous meal of “Missa Solemnis” 11 years ago with a staged performance with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Gustavo Dudamel, who has been conducting Beethoven since he was a teen, waited until he passed his 45th birthday last month. His first “Missa Solemnis” performances over the weekend at Disney were the centerpiece of his month-long L.A. Phil focus on Beethoven.

That venture began a week earlier with a political statement. Beethoven’s incidental music to Goethe’s drama of liberation, “Egmont,” was updated with a new text that served as an urgent call for protest in our own era of authoritarianism and militarism. Here, Beethoven exerts a compulsion for triumphant glory.

The glory in “Missa Solemnis” is that of stupefaction. By this point in his life, Beethoven has had it with weapons, the drumbeat of soldiers, the addictive emotion of trumpet calls to action. His man-to-man with God is celestial diplomacy. There is no compromise. We either care, at all costs, for our magnificent world or nothing matters.

Dudamel clearly cares. He conducted the massive mass from memory. And costs be damned. He imported from Spain two spectacular choruses — Orfeó Català and Cor de Cambra del Palau de la Música Catalana — a total of some 130 singers who sounded like they had rehearsed for months under their impressive director, Xavier Puig. The four soloists — soprano Pretty Yende, mezzo-soprano Sarah Saturnino, tenor SeokJong Baek and bass Nicholas Brownlee — were needfully robust and powerful. They were placed mid-orchestra, behind the violas and bravely in front of the timpani.

“Missa Solemnis” follows the standard mass text but doesn’t necessarily follow the liturgical narrative. It is a work of theater, dramatizing feelings, as the earlier Disney staging attempted. Director Peter Sellars and conductor Teodor Currentzis have also been promising a major staged “Missa Solemnis” for many years.

The Kyrie opens with a strong D-major chord in the large orchestra that seems an obvious downbeat but turns out to be an upbeat. Down is up. Eighty or more minutes later at the end of the Agnus Dei, when the great plea for peace reaches its ultimate transcendence, up becomes, in one of the most profoundly unsettling moments in all music, down again. We never fully know where we stand in “Missa Solemnis.” Every expectation is thwarted. Beethovenian peace is a nearly superhuman endeavor.

Gustavo Dudamel conducts L.A. Phil, vocal soloists and Catalan choruses in Beethoven’s ‘Missa Solemnis’ at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Dudamel‘s approach is to attempt the all-encompassing. He conducted without a baton but with his body. His arms were often open and wide as if embracing the musician masses on the stage, holding the whole world in his hands. Tidiness wasn’t necessarily the issue. Grandeur was. Molding sound was. And, of course, awe.

Throughout his career, Beethoven was the overwhelming master of awe. In “Missa Solemnis,” he out-glories the Gloria. His fugues are a draftsman’s rendering of heavenly splendor. Such awe asks for the superhuman from singers, especially in this ensemble from their ravishing high notes.

But Beethoven also questions every sentiment in the Mass. Grandeur can so suddenly turn solemn that it feels almost a ceremonial sleight of hand. In the Sanctus, a solo violin sails in from nowhere (“descending like a dove from heaven,” Hugh MacDonald nicely puts it in the program note), and suddenly we’re in a violin concerto with vocal soloists of transcendent allure.

The Agnus Dei begins in glum realization that there may be no compensation for humanity’s great sins when, again astonishingly without expectation, one of Beethoven’s uniquely wondrous melodies takes over. Saber-rattling trumpet and timpani intrude and are shushed away as worthless. Peace returns but just as it is about to climax it weakens. There is no grand Beethoven ending. “Missa Solemnis” just stops.

Dudamel’s approach was not, as his Beethoven has generally become, filled with fervent intensity in the moment. That may happen as he gains more experience with Beethoven’s most exigent score. The big moments were still huge, especially with the help of his fabulous chorus. The somber moments were well of the heart. There was eloquent solo playing in the orchestra, and extravagance from the solo singers.

Most unusual was the violin solo. The L.A. Phil is in a concertmaster search, and Alan Snow, the associate concertmaster of the Minnesota Symphony, sat in. He brought silken “descending dove” tone to his solo playing, but at low tone becoming more a voice from afar than soloist. Whether that is simply his sound or what Dudamel was after is, like so much in the “Missa Solemnis,” up to question. Still, its quiet exemplified the elusive essence of peace.

When Dudamel first walked on stage, he got, as he always does and especially in his last season as music director, a strong ovation. At the end of “Missa Solemnis,” the reaction was a respectful standing ovation, unlike the de rigueur rapturous reception he always earns with Beethoven.

Dudamel earned something far more rewarding. It wasn’t a moment for cheering but reflection. True peace in “Missa Solemnis” comes not from winning but from ending conflict, be it between nations, nature or among ourselves. We have as yet too little to celebrate.

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.

Recreational activities combined with yoga in Gaza help children recover a sense of normalcy despite war, teacher says.

Gaza City – In northern Gaza, a Palestinian teacher has transformed a tent into a small space for yoga classes, offering children moments of peace from the hardships of daily life in the besieged enclave.

The idea to bring the practice to Gaza City came from Hadeel al-Gharbawi, who has been working on finding ways to help children cope with trauma. Through simple movements and breathing, the class offers moments of calm, safety and joy.

Children sit cross-legged on a thick mat, eyes shut. Some concentrate, while others fight back shy smiles, sneaking sideways glances to see whether their classmates are following the teacher’s instructions, amused by the unfamiliar exercise.

“I wanted to expand the activities I do with children beyond drawing and colouring. I searched online and discovered that yoga can help children recover from trauma,” al-Gharbawi told Al Jazeera.

“Since yoga isn’t widely available here in Gaza, I decided to learn online and practice it with the children. Through yoga, they can release stress and cope with the difficult life around them.”

Children in Gaza have been exposed to continuous cycles of violence and trauma, profoundly affecting their mental health, according to a report by the World Health Organization.

The constant bombing, displacement, loss of family members and physical pain of Israel’s two-year war on Gaza have caused emotional distress, social withdrawal and grief, among other symptoms, the report says.

International organisations have been warning that the conflict will leave a long-lasting impact.

“All children in Gaza require mental health, and psychosocial support services after two years of horrific war, displacement, and exposure to traumatic events,” the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said earlier this month.

This is why yoga classes are more than physical exercise in Gaza; they allow children to step away from fear, release emotions, and feel in control, even for a few minutes, the participants say.

“We come here to do yoga, to learn and to do art,” Suwar, a displaced student, told Al Jazeera. “These activities allow us to forget, even for a short time, the war, the harsh weather and the queues for water. Yoga, in particular, gives us a moment of calm and helps us feel safe and happy.”

Alongside yoga, the tent offers educational and recreational programmes that al-Gharbawi said aim to activate the children’s imaginations.

“Combining learning with playful and therapeutic activities helps the children deal with trauma and regain a sense of normalcy,” al-Gharbawi said.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

Ukraine expressed frustration with its ongoing peace talks with Russia and the United States this week, saying US pressure was too one-sided against it.

“As of today, we cannot say that the outcome is sufficient,” Zelenskyy told Ukrainians in a Wednesday evening video address.

Before Wednesday’s talks in Geneva had begun, Zelenskyy told Axios news service that ceding the remaining one-fifth of the eastern Donetsk region that Russia doesn’t control, as Moscow has demanded, would not be accepted by Ukrainians.

“Emotionally, people will never forgive this. Never. They will not forgive … me, they will not forgive [the US],” Zelenskyy said, adding that Ukrainians “can’t understand why” they would be asked to give up additional land.

Russia currently controls about 19 percent of Ukraine, down from 26 percent in March 2022.

Last month, 54 percent of surveyed Ukrainians told the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology they categorically reject transferring the whole of the Donetsk region to Russian control, even in return for strong security guarantees, with only 39 percent accepting the proposal.

Two-thirds of respondents also said they did not believe the current US-sponsored peace negotiations would lead to lasting peace.

Instead of ceding land now, Zelenskyy favours freezing the current line of contact as a pretext for a ceasefire and territorial negotiations.

“I think that if we will put in the document … that we stay where we stay on the contact line, I think that people will support this [in a] referendum. That is my opinion,” he told Axios.

Blaming Ukraine

US President Donald Trump told Reuters last month that Ukraine, not Russia, was holding up a peace deal.

But Zelenskyy said it was “not fair” that Trump was putting public pressure on Ukraine to accept Russian terms, adding, “I hope it is just his tactics.”

US senators visiting Odesa last week agreed with him, saying they want their government to put more pressure on Russia.

“Nobody, literally nobody, believes that Russia is acting in good faith in the negotiations with our government and with the Ukrainians. And so pressure becomes the key,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Russia unleashed a barrage of 396 attack drones and 29 missiles on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure on the day of the Geneva talks, its second large-scale blow in six days. On February 12, another attack had left 100,000 families without electricity, and 3,500 apartment buildings without heat in Kyiv alone.

“Russia greets with a strike even the very day new formats begin in Geneva – trilateral and bilateral with the United States,” said Zelenskyy in a video address. “This very clearly shows what Russia wants and what it is truly intent on.”

Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked Western allies to stop Russian energy sales that circumvent sanctions, and to stop exporting components to third countries, which re-export them to Russia’s armaments industry.

Russia is believed to be using a shadow fleet estimated at between 400 and 1,000 oil tankers to carry and sell its crude oil. France has seized two of those tankers, and the US seized a second tanker on Monday.

The US Senate has held off voting on a sanctions bill that has 85 percent support because of opposition from Trump. The bill would impose secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil – notably India and China.

Can Russia take Donetsk anyway?

Russia has fought since 2014 to seize the two eastern regions of Ukraine, which triggered its invasion – Luhansk and Donetsk – where it claimed a Russian-speaking population was being persecuted by the government in Kyiv.

Late last year, Russia managed to seize all of Luhansk, but analysts believe it is doubtful that it could take the remainder of Donetsk without serious losses, because Ukraine has heavily fortified a series of cities in the western part of the region.

That task has now become even harder, according to observers, since Russia this month lost access to Starlink terminals, which helped it communicate, fly its drones and coordinate accurate counter-battery fire.

As Russian ground assaults have faltered, Ukraine has seized the initiative to make gains in Dnipropetrovsk, said Ukrainian military observer Konstantyn Mashovets.

Ukrainian forces gained 201sq km of territory from Russian occupation forces between February 11 and 15, according to observers, reportedly their fastest advance since a 2023 counteroffensive.

Russia has been trying to replace Starlink using stratospheric balloons, reported Ukrainian Defence Ministry adviser Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov.

Russia would likely take six months to replace Starlink, said a Ukrainian unmanned systems commander, offering Ukrainian forces a window to roll back Russian advances.

It also suffered 31,680 casualties in January, estimated Ukraine’s General Staff – a sustainable number given Russian recruitment levels of about 40,000 a month. But those numbers would rise in the event of a major assault on the remainder of Donetsk, experts say.

“Our goal is to have at least 50,000 confirmed enemy losses every month,” said Ukrainian Minister of Defence Mykhailo Fedorov on February 12, echoing a goal set by Zelenskyy last month.

Fedorov has set out to increase the production of remote-control FPV drones used on the front lines, which Ukraine says are now responsible for 60 percent of all Russian casualties.

As part of that effort, joint drone production facilities are planned in several European countries. The first started operating on February 13 in Germany, Zelenskyy told the Munich Security Conference, and nine more are planned.

In addition, Ukraine’s European allies pledged 38 billion euros ($44.7bn) in military aid this year during a Ramstein format meeting – the alliance of more than 50 countries which plans military aid for Ukraine – including 2.5 billion euros ($2.9bn) for Ukrainian drones – “one of the most successful ‘Ramsteins’,” Fedorov said.

The European Union has additionally voted to borrow 90 billion euros ($106bn) to give to Ukraine in financial aid this year and next.

The US stopped being a donor of military and financial aid to Ukraine after Trump was sworn in as president in January 2025.

Against Trump’s wishes, the US Senate voted to spend $400m in each of the next two years as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which pays US companies for weapons for Ukraine’s military. Europeans have pledged to spend at least 5 billion euros ($5.8bn) on US weapons this year.

Europe would also be the main contributor to a “reassurance force” policing the line of contact after a ceasefire, and on Ukraine’s insistence, US representatives also met with British, French, German, Italian and Swiss representatives before the talks in Geneva.

Qatar has pledged $1 billion to support the Board of Peace’s mission in Gaza, with Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani backing Donald Trump’s 20-point plan and reaffirming support for Palestinian statehood and Israeli security.

“Another gateway to the occupation of Palestine.” Many Palestinians in Gaza reacted to the inaugural meeting of Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” with deep scepticism, seeing it as a way to further Israel’s illegal occupation of the territory.

Donald Trump announces pledges to a Gaza reconstruction fund during the first meeting of his Board of Peace.

Donald Trump has told the first meeting of his Board of Peace that nine member nations have pledged $7bn to a reconstruction fund for the Gaza Strip, with five countries agreeing to deploy troops to an international stabilisation force for the Palestinian territory.

Addressing the board in a meeting in Washington, DC, on Thursday, the United States president said the US will make a contribution of $10bn to the Board of Peace, although he didn’t specify what the money will be used for.

Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kuwait have raised an initial down payment for Gaza reconstruction, Trump said.

“Every dollar spent is an investment in stability and the hope of a new and harmonious [region],” said Trump. He added, “The Board of Peace is showing how a better future can be built right here in this room.”

The funds pledged, while significant, represent a fraction of the estimated $70bn needed to rebuild the Palestinian territory that has been decimated after more than two years of Israel’s genocidal war.

Proposed stabilisation force

Meanwhile, Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania have pledged to send troops for the Gaza stabilisation force, part of Trump’s 20-point plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza. Egypt and Jordan have committed to training police officers.

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto announced his country would contribute up to 8,000 troops to the proposed force “to make this peace work”.

The force, led by a US general with an Indonesian deputy, will start in the Israeli-controlled city of Rafah and train a new police force, eventually aiming to prepare 12,000 police and have 20,000 troops.

While the disarmament of Hamas was a part of Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza, the group has been reluctant to hand over weaponry as Israel continues to carry out daily attacks on Gaza.

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said any international force must “monitor the ceasefire and prevent the [Israeli] occupation from continuing its aggression.” Disarmament could be discussed, he said, without directly committing to it.

Trump first proposed the board last September as part of his plan to end the war. But since the October “ceasefire”, Trump’s vision for the board has morphed, and he wants it to have an even more ambitious remit to tackle other conflicts worldwide.

The board has faced criticism for including Israeli representatives but not Palestinians.

Reporting from Gaza City, Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud said that Palestinians want to see concrete solutions rather than pledges.

“Past experiences with conferences, with regard to reconstruction, with regard to the peace process, all ended up with large needs for funding that were delayed or [plans] that were not implemented,” he said.

“Palestinians don’t want to see this again; they don’t want to see the Board of Peace as another international body that falls into the category of crisis management rather than finding a tangible solution to this longstanding problem, the Palestinian problem,” Mahmoud noted.

More than 40 countries and the European Union confirmed they were sending officials to Thursday’s meeting. Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are among more than a dozen countries that have not joined the board, but are taking part as observers.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump is set to hold his first “Board of Peace” summit in Washington, DC, an event where the US leader likely hopes to prove the recently launched panel can overcome scepticism – even from those who signed on in support – in the face of months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Gaza.

The summit on Thursday comes nearly three months to the day since the UN Security Council approved a US-backed “ceasefire” plan amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which included a two-year mandate for the Board of Peace to oversee the devastated Palestinian enclave’s reconstruction and the launch of a so-called International Stabilization Force.

Disquiet has surrounded the board since the November security council vote, with many traditional Western allies wary of the US administration’s apparent wider ambitions, which some have viewed as an attempt to rival the United Nations in a Trump-dominated format.

Others, including countries that have already signed on as members, have raised concerns about the board’s fitness to effect meaningful change in Gaza. Several regional Middle East powers have joined the board, with Israel becoming a late, and to some, disconcerting addition in early February.

As of Thursday’s meeting, the board still has no Palestinian representation, which many observers see as a major obstacle to finding a lasting path forward.

“What exactly does Trump want to get out of this meeting?” Yousef Munayyer, the head of the Israel-Palestine programme at the Arab Center Washington DC, questioned.

“I think he wants to be able to say that people are participating, that people believe in his project and in his vision and in his ability to move things forward,” he told Al Jazeera.

“But I don’t think that you’re going to see any major commitments until there are clearer resolutions to the key political questions that so far remain outstanding.”

‘Only game in town’

To be sure, the Board of Peace currently remains the “only game in town” for parties interested in bettering the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, Munayyer explained, while simultaneously remaining “extremely and intimately tied to the persona of Donald Trump”.

That raises serious doubts over the board’s longevity in what is likely to be a decades-long response to the crisis.

“Regional players that have a serious concern over the future of the region and concern over the genocide have no choice but to really hope that their participation in this Board of Peace allows them to have some leverage and some direction over the future of Gaza in the next several years,” Munayyer said.

He assessed the greatest opportunity for member states who “understand the challenges and understand the context” would be to focus on “what realistically can be achieved in the time period … to focus on the immediate needs and address them aggressively”. That includes health infrastructure, freedom of movement, making sure that people have shelter, pushing for an end to ceasefire violations, to name a few, he said.

At least 72,063 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, with 603 killed since the October 11, 2025, “ceasefire” went into effect. Nearly the entire population of 2.1 million has been displaced, with more than 80 percent of buildings destroyed.

For his part, Trump, who has previously envisioned turning Gaza into a “Middle East Riviera”, struck a positive tone ahead of the meeting. In a post on his Truth Social account on Sunday, Trump touted the “unlimited potential” of the board, which he said would prove to be the “most consequential International Body in History”.

Trump also said that $5bn in funding pledges would be announced “toward the Gaza Humanitarian and Reconstruction efforts” and that member states “have committed thousands of personnel to the International Stabilization Force and Local Police to maintain Security and Peace for Gazans”.

He did not provide further details.

Meanwhile, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is a member of the panel’s so-called “Gaza executive board”, unveiled the clearest vision yet of Washington’s “master plan” for Gaza in January.

The plan, assembled without any input from Palestinians in Gaza, outlined gleaming residential towers, data centres, seaside resorts, parks, and sports facilities, predicated on the erasure of the enclave’s urban fabric.

At the time, Kushner did not say how the reconstruction plan would be funded. He said it would begin following full disarmament by Hamas and the withdrawal of the Israeli military, both issues that remain unresolved.

Pressure on Israel?

As the US administration stargazes over sweeping construction plans, it is likely to face a starker reality when it meets with a collection of the 25 countries that have signed on as members, as well as several others that are sending observers to the meeting, according to Annelle Sheline, a research fellow in the Middle East programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Any progress to show the board’s “proof of concept” would all-but-surely require asserting unilateral pressure on Israel, she noted.

“Trump is hoping to have countries back up his claim about the $5bn, to get actual commitments on paper,” Sheline told Al Jazeera.

“This is probably going to be challenging, because – especially the Gulf countries – have been very clear that they’re not interested in financing another reconstruction that’s just going to be destroyed again in a few years.”

Israel’s decision to join the board, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had initially opposed, has piqued concerns about further influence over US policy. An act of good faith by the US to advance a more lasting peace could be the inclusion of a Palestinian official on the board, Sheline added.

She proposed widely popular Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti, who is continuing to serve consecutive life sentences in Israel, as a possible candidate. His release, she said, could be an example of an area where Washington could use its leverage to immediate effect.

In the shorter term, “[interested member states] are largely waiting for the security situation to resolve. Israel violates the ceasefire daily and moves the yellow line”, Sheline said, referring to the demarcation in Gaza behind which Israel’s military was required to withdraw as part of the first phase of the “ceasefire” agreement.

Indonesia’s government has said it is preparing to commit 1,000 troops to a stabilisation force, which could eventually grow to 8,000. But any deployment would likely remain delayed without better ceasefire guarantees, she said.

“It’s still an active warzone,” Sheline added. “So it’s very understandable that even Indonesia, which has hypothetically said it would contribute troops to the stabilisation force, is likely going to say we’re not actually going to do that until the situation is stable.”

An opportunity?

Ensuring an actual ceasefire is enforced – including creating accountability mechanisms for violations – remained “by far the most critical” task for the board’s inaugural meeting, according to Laurie Nathan, the director of the mediation programme at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Trump’s Board of Peace is “not going to be able to play a meaningful reconstruction role in the absence of stability in Gaza, and stability requires adherence to the ceasefire”, he told Al Jazeera.

The next key step – and a major development that could come from Thursday’s meeting – would be a commitment of troops, although Nathan noted any deployment would still likely be deadlocked until a voluntary Hamas disarmament agreement is reached.

On the face of the situation, Trump would appear increasingly incentivised to use Washington’s considerable leverage over Israel to foster a stability in Gaza that the president has closely aligned with his own self-image.

After all, Trump and his allies have regularly portrayed the US president as the “peacemaker-in-chief”, repeatedly touting his success in conflict resolution, even if facts on the ground undermine the claims. Trump has been vocal in his belief that he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, “Trump’s motivation is multifold,” Nathan explained.

“Does he care about peace? I think he does. Does he want to be a peace broker? Yes. Does he genuinely want the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes.”

“On the other hand, he is performative … it’s never quite clear how much of it is serious for him,” he added. “The further problem is that personal interests are always involved when Trump is doing these things.”

Wider ambitions?

Both Washington’s Western allies and experts in conflict resolution have scrutinised what appears to be the yawning scope of the Board of Peace, far beyond the Gaza purview approved by the UN Security Council last year.

A widely reported founding “charter” sent to invited countries did not directly reference Gaza as it took digs at pre-existing approaches to peace-building that “foster perpetual dependency and institutionalise crisis rather than leading people beyond it”. Instead, it envisioned a “more nimble and effective international peace-building body”.

Critics have further questioned Trump’s singular and indefinite role as “chairman” and sole veto-holder, which largely undermines the principles of multilateralism intended to be enshrined in organisations such as the UN. They have argued that the structure fosters a transactional approach both in dealings with the US government and Trump as an individual.

Richard Gowan, the programme director of global issues and institutions at International Crisis Group, said those concerns are unlikely to subside any time soon. Still, he did not see that precluding European countries from supporting the board’s effort if it is able to make meaningful progress.

“I think, in practical terms, you will see other countries trying to support what the board is doing in the Gaza case, while continuing to keep it at arm’s length over other issues,” he said.

Thursday’s meeting could indicate the Board of Peace’s dynamic and tone going forward.

“If Trump uses his authority under the charter to order everyone around, block any proposals he doesn’t like, and run this in a completely personalistic fashion,” Gowan said, “I think even countries that want to make nice with Trump will wonder what they’re getting into.”

“If Trump shows his mellower side. If he’s actually willing to listen, in particular to the Arab group and what they’re saying about what Gaza needs, if it looks like a genuine conversation in a genuine contact group,” he added, “that won’t erase all the questions about the board’s future, but it will at least suggest that it can be a serious sort of diplomatic framework.”

Feb. 18 (UPI) — U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff early Wednesday reported “meaningful progress” in tri-lateral U.S.-Russian-Ukraine talks in Switzerland on ending the war.

Crediting U.S. President Donald Trump‘s “success in bringing both sides of this war together” to enable the progress to be made in the U.S.-moderated talks in Geneva, Witkoff provided no details of what had been achieved.

“Both parties agreed to update their respective leaders and continue working towards a deal,” he wrote X.

The accounts of Russia and Ukraine of Tuesday’s talks, which lasted six hours, were less positive with Russia’s state-run TASS news agency reporting they were “very tense” while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said they were “difficult” and accused Moscow of playing for time.

“Yesterday’s meetings were indeed difficult, and we can state that Russia is trying to drag out the negotiations, which could already have moved to the final stage. We are grateful to the American side for their attention to detail and patience in talks with the current Russian representatives,” said Zelensky in a post on X.

A source in the Russian delegation told TASS that all sides had, however, agreed to continue the talks on Wednesday.

The negotiations are being held against the backdrop of the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, with no sign of any let up in hostilities.

At least two people were killed and 25 injured in strikes across five eastern, southern and central Ukrainian provinces overnight after Russian forces launched 126 drones and one ballistic missile, according to a Ukrainian Air Force update on social media.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said one person was injured in the city of Cheboksary, 440 miles east of Moscow, after Ukraine launched a large-scale airborne assault into Russian territory overnight using attack drones. The defense ministry said air defenses downed 43 of the drones.

Two previous rounds of talks, in Abu Dhabi in January and earlier this month, were unable to gain traction in overcoming the main stumbling blocks of Russia’s demand that Ukraine cede territory and Ukraine’s insistence on cast-iron Western security guarantees.

The negotiations are based on a heavily revised version of a 28-point plan, first drawn up by Witkoff’s team and Russian officials in November, under which Ukraine would give up Luhansk and Donetsk, including areas its forces still control, in exchange for security guarantees.

Kyiv has ruled out giving up territory it still occupies but the Americans are pushing a compromise solution that would see those areas become a demilitarized “special economic” buffer zone.

However, the security guarantees remain the potentially most intractable issue with Moscow adamant they cannot involve Western boots on the ground — something Ukraine believes must be permissable for any guarantee to be credible.

Colombia’s largest criminal group paused talks after President Gustavo Petro pledged to target its leader, Chiquito Malo.

Colombia’s government has announced it will resume peace talks with the powerful Gulf Clan, also known as the Gaitanist Self-Defence Forces (ECG), after the criminal group expressed concern about a recent deal with the United States.

Tuesday’s announcement addresses a temporary suspension the Gulf Clan announced earlier this month, in the wake of a meeting between Colombian President Gustavo Petro and his US counterpart, Donald Trump.

Faced with US pressure to crack down on drug cartels, Petro agreed to prioritise three “kingpins” his government considered “high-level targets”.

One of those targets was the leader of the Gulf Clan, Jobanis de Jesus Avila Villadiego, known as Chiquito Malo.

The Gulf Clan responded by pausing talks with the Petro government until it received clarity on the scope of the government’s actions.

In a joint statement on Tuesday, the two parties said they had “overcome” any hurdles to the talks.

They also explained that the ongoing talks would be mediated by the Catholic Church and the governments of Qatar, Spain, Norway and Switzerland.

The Gulf Clan is one of several armed groups that have jostled for control of territory as part of Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict, which has pitted criminal groups, left-wing rebels, government forces and right-wing paramilitaries against each other.

With approximately 9,000 fighters, the Gulf Clan is considered one of the country’s largest cartels. The US designated it a “foreign terrorist organisation” in December.

Trump has pushed the Petro government to take more aggressive action against drug trafficking overall. In January, he even threatened to attack Colombia, saying that Petro needed to “watch his a**”.

But relations between the two leaders have warmed in recent weeks, particularly since Petro’s visit to the White House on February 3.

Previously, Colombian governments had taken a more militarised approach to addressing the country’s internal conflict. Colombia has long been considered a top ally in the US’s worldwide “war on drugs”.

But upon taking office in 2022, Petro sought to take a different approach, bringing armed groups and criminal networks to the table for negotiations under a programme called “Total Peace”.

The peace talks, however, have faced a series of setbacks, particularly in the wake of new bursts of violence.

In January, for example, Petro granted himself emergency powers following an outbreak of violence near the border with Venezuela between various armed groups, including the National Liberation Army (ELN).

That violence resulted in the suspension of peace talks with the ELN.

Petro, the country’s first left-wing president, has also faced pressure from the right to assure justice is carried out on behalf of the victims of drug trafficking.

His government has repeatedly rejected allegations that it has not done enough to stem drug trafficking in Colombia, which has historically been the world’s largest producer of cocaine.

Petro has pointed to historic drug busts, including one in November that resulted in the seizure of 14 tonnes of cocaine, as evidence of his government’s efficacy.

Criminal networks and other groups have long jostled to gain control of drug-trafficking routes.

Those clashes saw a spike after a peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a leftist rebel group that agreed to disarm in 2016.

The group’s dissolution left a power vacuum that other drug-trafficking organisations have sought to fill.

How to address Colombia’s ongoing internal conflict is set to be a major election issue in May, when the country chooses a new president. Petro is limited by law to a single consecutive term and will therefore not be on the ballot.

Delegations from Russia and Ukraine are set to meet for another round of peace talks in Geneva, as United States President Donald Trump pushes for an end to Europe’s biggest conflict since World War II.

The two-day talks, which begin on Tuesday, are likely to focus on the issue of territory and come just days before the fourth anniversary, on February 24, of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Trump is pressing Moscow and Kyiv to reach a deal soon, though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has complained that his country is facing the greatest pressure from Washington to make concessions.

Russia ⁠is demanding that Kyiv cede the remaining 20 percent of the eastern region of Donetsk that Moscow has failed to capture – something Kyiv refuses to do.

Trump again increased the pressure on Ukraine late on Monday.

When asked about the talks on board Air Force One, he described the negotiations as “big” and said, “Ukraine better come to the table, fast.” He did not elaborate further, saying, “That’s all I am telling you.”

The talks, which the Kremlin said will be held behind closed doors and with no media present, come after two earlier rounds held this year in Abu Dhabi. Those talks did not yield a breakthrough.

“This time, the idea is to discuss a broader range of issues, including, in fact, the main ones,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Monday. “The main issues concern both the territories and everything else related to the demands we have put forward,” he said.

Ukraine, meanwhile, said Russia was unwilling to compromise and wants to keep fighting.

“Even on the eve of the trilateral meetings in Geneva, the Russian army has no orders other than to continue striking Ukraine. This speaks volumes about how Russia regards the partners’ diplomatic efforts,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post on Monday.

“Only with sufficient pressure on Russia and clear security guarantees for Ukraine can this war realistically be brought to an end,” he added.

‘Serious’ intentions

The Russia-Ukraine war has spiralled into Europe’s deadliest conflict since 1945, with tens of thousands killed, millions forced to flee their homes and many Ukrainian cities, towns and villages devastated by the fighting.

Russia occupies about one-fifth of Ukraine, including Crimea and parts of the eastern Donbas region seized before the 2022 invasion. It wants Ukrainian troops to withdraw from swaths of heavily fortified and strategic territory as part of any peace deal. Kyiv has rejected the demand, which would be politically and militarily fraught, and has instead demanded robust security guarantees from the West.

The Kremlin said the Russian delegation would be led by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to President Vladimir Putin.

However, the fact that Ukrainian negotiators have accused Medinsky in the past of lecturing them about history as an excuse for Russia’s invasion ⁠has further lowered expectations for any significant breakthrough in Geneva.

Military intelligence chief Igor Kostyukov will also take part in the talks, while Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev will be part of a separate ⁠working group on economic issues.

Vladmir Sotnikov, a political scientist based in Moscow, said the Russian team will consist of about 20 people, many more than delegations in previous rounds of talks.

“I think the Russian intentions are serious. Because you know, the situation here in Russia is that ordinary people are just tired of this war,” he told Al Jazeera.

Kyiv’s delegation will be led by Rustem Umerov, the secretary of Ukraine’s national security and defence council, and Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Kyrylo Budanov. Senior presidential aide Serhiy Kyslytsya will ‌also be present.

Before the delegation left for Geneva, Umerov said Ukraine’s goal of “a sustainable and lasting peace” remained unchanged.

As well as land, Russia and Ukraine also remain far apart on issues such as who should control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the ‌possible ‌role of Western troops in post-war Ukraine.

US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will represent the Trump administration at the talks, according to the Reuters news agency. They are also attending talks in Geneva this week with Iran.

New US court documents reveal ties between a key figure behind the Oslo Accords and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including financial links and visa favours. The revelations have sparked political fallout in Norway and renewed scrutiny of the Palestinian peace process’s legacy. Al Jazeera’s Nour Hegazy explains.

Feb. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said member states of his newly created Board of Peace have pledged more than $5 billion toward rebuilding Gaza and thousands of personnel to maintain security in the Palestinian enclave.

Trump said in a post on his Truth Social media platform on Sunday that the pledge will be officially announced on Thursday during the inaugural meeting of the board at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C.

“The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential International Body in History, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman,” Trump said.

Specifics such as how much and what each member state pledged were not made public.

More than 20 countries have joined the board, which Trump formally launched last month on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The board is tied to a U.N.-backed Gaza stabilization and reconstruction plan, but questions about its scope have grown because the board’s charter does not mention the Palestinian enclave and critics worry that the initiative might undermine the United Nations.

Scrutiny has also focused on its membership, which includes Belarus, which aided Russia in its war against Ukraine, and Israel, whose leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued in November 2024 alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

More than 50 nations reportedly received invitations to join, but many U.S. and Western allies have declined. Trump said he rescinded an invitation to Canada as relations between Ottawa and Washington have deteriorated during Trump’s second term.

Much of the Palestinian enclave has been damaged or destroyed since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel.

United Nations estimates state that more than 81% of all buildings and structures in Gaza have been either damaged or destroyed.

U.N. agencies have said that around $70 billion is needed to reconstruct the enclave, which measures about 25.4 miles long and between 3.7 and 7.5 miles wide along the Mediterranean.