security

Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad says Qatar will ‘not hesitate’ to ensure its stability as US-Israeli war on Iran continues.

Qatar’s Interior Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad has said the situation in the Gulf country is “stable” amid Iranian drone and missile attacks launched across the Middle East in response to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

In an interview with Qatar Television on Friday, Sheikh Khalifa said the Qatari government had a plan in place to deal with the prospect of more Iranian attacks amid a regional war.

“The security situation in the country is stable, and we will not hesitate to take any measure that ensures the stability of our nation,” he said.

The interior minister said Qatar’s early warning system has been effective as authorities responded to reports of falling missile fragments at more than 600 sites across the country.

He added that Qatar has enough water to last for several months, as well as food reserves that will cover the nation’s needs for a year and a half.

Sheikh Khalifa’s remarks come as Qatar and other countries in the Gulf region have faced a barrage of Iranian attacks since the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28.

While Iran has said it is targeting US and Israeli military interests in the wider Middle East, the strikes have hit civilian infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities.

That has prompted a slowdown in regional energy production, which – coupled with Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key Gulf waterway – has raised concerns around the war’s effects on global economies.

Earlier this week, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution denouncing the Iranian attacks on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

Sheikha Alya Ahmed bin Saif Al Thani, Qatar’s ambassador to the UN, had condemned the firings as “a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter”.

The attacks, she told reporters in New York on Wednesday, “impacts deeply the foundation of understanding upon which bilateral relations between our countries have been built”.

WASHINGTON — Republican and Democratic senators vented their frustrations with the lack of progress in funding the Department of Homeland Security, which is resulting in more Americans enduring long lines at airports around the country. It’s a problem that is expected to intensify as the impasse enters its fourth week.

Democrats stressed they were willing to fund some of Homeland Security, but not Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, without changes in their operations. Republicans made clear that some of the Democratic demands were a non-starter. The result was that each party blocked the other’s proposal for temporarily resolving the standoff during an hours-long debate Wednesday on the Senate floor.

The stark divide over a shutdown that began on Feb. 14 was acknowledged by members on both sides of the political aisle.

“We are in a negotiation. However, we are not close,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said at one point. “You may think this is some issue that we think we’re going to turn to our political advantage, but I promise you, when we saw Renee Good and Alex Pretti killed, this became an issue that was beyond politics.”

“And there are a lot of us who are not going to provide resources to this agency that is acting in such a ways that makes citizens of the United States so unsafe.”

Some Republicans were just as adamant that they oppose some of the changes Democrats are seeking to make.

“Let me be clear, we are going to do nothing — nothing — that kneecaps ICE’s ability to enforce our immigration laws,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.).

Following the longest federal shutdown in the country’s history last year, Congress completed work on 11 of this year’s 12 appropriations bills. Only the bill for Homeland Security remains outstanding.

Democrats are seeking several changes at the department that include prohibiting ICE enforcement operations at sensitive locations like schools and churches, allowing independent investigations into alleged wrongdoing, requiring warrants to be signed by judges before federal agents can forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent, and requiring agents to wear identification and remove their masks.

A push for more talks

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said his side has made repeated overtures to Democrats on a funding bill. He said the last offer on Homeland Security funding came from the White House nearly two weeks ago and there has been no response from the Democrats.

“Usually, around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a negotiation where the two sides sit down together,” Thune said. “And my understanding is that has been completely rebuffed by the senator from Washington.”

The senator Thune was referring to, Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she’s continued to talk with Republican colleagues, but those aren’t “real negotiations.” The White House needs to be at the table for that to occur. She said she needed assurance that Stephen Miller, the influential White House deputy chief of staff, would not upend any agreements that senators reach.

“I am willing to talk to people, but I’m not willing to sit in a room, have coffee, give away a few things and have Stephen Miller override whatever we all agree to,” Murray said. “ … We need to know the White House is serious.”

Homeland Security has been central to President Trump’s sweeping changes in immigration enforcement. Under Trump, the number of people ICE arrests and detains each month has climbed dramatically. The tactics that ICE has employed have generated alarm among Democrats, and some Republicans have also called for a more “strategic” approach.

During bipartisan negotiations earlier this year, appropriators agreed to a Homeland Security funding bill that did include more resources for de-escalation training and $20 million to outfit immigration enforcement agents with body-worn cameras. But that deal unraveled after the Pretti shooting in Minneapolis.

“My side was not going to stand down and say, ‘oh well, nothing happened,’” Murray said.

For the second time in two weeks, Murray offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security except for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but Republicans objected.

Similarly, Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security for two weeks so that federal workers could get paid and government operations could continue while the two sides negotiate their differences on immigration enforcement. This time, Democrats objected.

The result was the standoff continues, but lawmakers were at least talking to each other, perhaps one small sign of progress.

Shutdown strains air travel

The large majority of the more than 260,000 employees at Homeland Security continue to work but are going unpaid. It’s the second time in recent months they’ve had to work without pay after last fall’s record, 43-day shutdown. The most visible sign of the shutdown has been a shortage of Transportation Security Administration screeners at airports.

Houston’s secondary airport weathered the worst problems, with lines consistently lasting over three hours for much of Sunday and Monday. Passengers also had to wait more than an hour to get through security at several other airports, including in New Orleans and Atlanta.

Homeland Security in a social media post Wednesday blamed Democrats for a shutdown that “has led to HOURS long security lines at airports across the country, leading Americans to miss their spring break flights.”

Trade groups are also worried about the economic impact of the travel delays. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on Congress to quickly approve a funding bill and end the department’s shutdown.

“Blocking operational funding and paychecks for those who help us travel safely is wrong and strains the air travel system,” said Neil Bradley, the business group’s executive vice president and chief policy officer.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

The surge in oil prices triggered by the war in Iran is increasingly becoming a major concern for global central banks, which are closely monitoring the potential economic and financial consequences of the shock.

More than a week of conflict in the Middle East has disrupted energy supply routes and pushed crude prices sharply higher, raising fresh fears about inflation. For policymakers already grappling with fragile economic conditions, the oil spike presents a complex policy dilemma.

Historically, oil shocks have posed a difficult challenge for central banks. Rising energy prices can drive inflation higher while simultaneously weakening consumer spending and business activity by raising costs. In such circumstances, policymakers face an uncomfortable choice: tighten policy to control inflation or ease financial conditions to support economic growth and employment.

The current situation could potentially produce both outcomes at once, creating a scenario where inflation rises even as economic demand weakens a combination that complicates monetary policy decisions.

Inflation Versus Economic Growth

Central banks traditionally respond to inflationary pressures by raising interest rates or maintaining tighter monetary policy. Some policymakers argue that responding quickly to inflation triggered by an oil shock can prevent inflation expectations from becoming entrenched and reduce longer-term economic damage.

Others, however, advocate “looking through” temporary energy-driven price spikes, arguing that aggressive tightening could unnecessarily damage economic growth. This approach gained prominence after the pandemic, when many central banks initially viewed inflation as temporary a judgment widely criticised in hindsight.

The decision facing policymakers now depends on several uncertainties, including how long the conflict lasts, how severely energy supplies are disrupted, and whether governments intervene with subsidies or price caps to protect consumers.

Given these unknowns, many central banks may prefer to adopt a cautious approach, waiting to see how markets and economic conditions evolve before making significant policy adjustments.

Financial Stability Risks Enter the Picture

Beyond inflation and growth concerns, central banks must also consider a third responsibility that has gained prominence since the global financial crisis: financial stability.

Senior policymakers worry that the oil shock could expose vulnerabilities that have been building in global financial markets for years. A large macroeconomic disturbance involving energy prices, inflation, interest rates and currency volatility could trigger a broader financial stress event.

Much of the concern centres on the growing role of “shadow banking” institutions, financial intermediaries operating outside traditional banking regulation. These entities have become increasingly important providers of credit to companies and governments.

One major area of focus is the rapid expansion of private credit funds, which now manage more than $3 trillion globally. These funds allow asset managers to lend directly to businesses, often outside the scrutiny of public markets or traditional banking standards.

Regulators worry that during a major shock, investors could rapidly withdraw funds from these vehicles, potentially creating liquidity problems for borrowers and spillover risks for banks that help finance or manage the funds.

Pressure in Bond and Repo Markets

Another major source of concern lies in government bond markets, where highly leveraged hedge funds have become increasingly active. Many of these funds use repurchase agreements, or “repo” markets, to borrow money and finance large trades involving government bonds.

These strategies often rely on exploiting small price differences between cash bonds and futures contracts, but they involve substantial leverage. While such activity can help smooth government financing, it can also create systemic vulnerabilities during periods of market stress.

The Financial Stability Board, which monitors risks to the global financial system for the G20, warned earlier this year that sudden deleveraging in repo markets could disrupt sovereign bond markets.

More than $16 trillion in repo transactions backed by government bonds were outstanding last year, with about 60% concentrated in the United States. A sudden withdrawal of leveraged investors could therefore have significant ripple effects across global financial markets.

New Fragilities: Stablecoins and Technology Stocks

Regulators are also monitoring emerging risks linked to digital finance. Stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar have grown rapidly and are increasingly investing reserves in government bonds.

With the stablecoin market now worth roughly $300 billion and expanding, any loss of confidence in these assets could trigger large-scale sales of the bonds that back them. Such an event could add stress to already volatile financial markets.

At the same time, some investors remain concerned about high valuations and heavy market concentration in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence sector, which could amplify market volatility during periods of economic uncertainty.

Analysis: Oil Shock Could Trigger Wider Financial Stress

The Iran war oil shock illustrates how geopolitical crises can interact with financial vulnerabilities to create broader economic risks.

Higher energy prices directly increase inflation and strain household finances. At the same time, they can force central banks to reconsider interest-rate policies, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs and greater volatility in financial markets.

Such conditions could expose weaknesses in highly leveraged sectors of the financial system, particularly in shadow banking, hedge funds and digital financial markets.

Although previous shocks including the economic turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not ultimately trigger a major financial crisis, policymakers remain cautious. The brief turmoil in the U.S. regional banking sector in 2023 demonstrated how quickly financial stress can emerge when economic conditions shift.

If oil prices remain elevated and central banks are forced to respond aggressively, the resulting tightening of financial conditions could amplify existing vulnerabilities across markets.

For now, the disturbances appear manageable. But the combination of geopolitical conflict, energy market disruption and financial fragility ensures that central banks will continue to watch the situation with increasing concern.

With information from Reuters.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution put forward by Gulf Cooperation Council members calling on Iran to halt its attacks on Gulf countries. The measure was adopted with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions, while no member states voted against it.

Global currency and commodity markets stabilised slightly on Tuesday after a volatile start to the week triggered by the war involving Iran, United States and Israel. The U.S. dollar steadied against major currencies after earlier declines, following remarks from U.S. President Donald Trump that the conflict could end “very soon.”

Financial markets had been thrown into turmoil a day earlier amid fears that a prolonged war could trigger a major global energy shock. The conflict has disrupted oil and gas exports through the critical Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route for global energy supplies.

Although markets calmed somewhat after Trump’s comments, the broader environment remains highly uncertain as investors continue to assess the potential economic fallout from the conflict.

Dollar Holds Ground as Oil Prices Ease

In Asian trading, the U.S. dollar was largely steady against other major currencies after retreating from the highs reached during Monday’s market turbulence.

The currency traded at around 157.73 yen against the Japanese yen and about $1.1632 against the euro, reflecting a stabilisation following the sharp movements seen earlier.

Meanwhile, oil prices remained elevated but declined from the dramatic peaks reached at the start of the week. Brent crude traded at roughly $93 per barrel, still significantly higher than levels before the outbreak of the war but well below Monday’s surge toward $120.

The pullback in oil prices helped ease immediate concerns about a severe energy shock, although analysts caution that volatility could continue if the conflict escalates again.

Investors Remain Cautious

Despite the relative calm in currency markets, analysts say investors are far from convinced that the crisis is nearing resolution.

Rodrigo Catril, a currency strategist at National Australia Bank, warned that markets could continue to experience sudden shifts in sentiment as geopolitical developments unfold.

According to Catril, it remains unclear whether the Iranian leadership would be willing to pursue de-escalation, suggesting that the risk of renewed market volatility remains high.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran dismissed Trump’s suggestion that the conflict could end quickly, describing the remarks as “nonsense.”

Risk-Sensitive Currencies Under Pressure

Currencies closely linked to global economic sentiment weakened as investors remained cautious.

The Australian dollar slipped to around $0.7063, while the New Zealand dollar fell to roughly $0.5912. These currencies often decline during periods of geopolitical uncertainty or when investors shift toward safer assets.

The dollar, by contrast, has benefited from its traditional role as a safe-haven currency during times of crisis. The escalation of the conflict and disruption to energy markets prompted investors to move funds into U.S. assets, supporting the currency.

The British pound recovered from losses earlier in the week to trade around $1.3434.

Energy Prices and Global Growth Concerns

Investors remain concerned that sustained high energy prices could slow global economic growth. Rising oil costs increase expenses for businesses and households, effectively acting as a tax on economic activity.

At the same time, higher energy prices could complicate monetary policy by pushing inflation upward and making it harder for central banks to lower interest rates.

Analysts at Deutsche Bank noted that a broader market sell-off in risk assets would likely require several conditions to occur simultaneously: persistently high oil prices, a shift in central bank policy expectations and clear evidence of a slowing global economy.

Strategist Henry Allen said markets are now significantly closer to those thresholds than they were just a week ago, though the full conditions for a major downturn have not yet materialised.

Analysis: Markets Brace for Prolonged Volatility

The market reaction to the Iran war underscores how closely global financial conditions are tied to geopolitical developments in the Middle East.

While Trump’s comments about a possible quick end to the conflict helped stabilise markets temporarily, the underlying risks remain substantial. The disruption of energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz continues to threaten global oil flows and could trigger renewed price spikes if the conflict intensifies.

For investors, the situation presents a delicate balance. On one hand, hopes for de-escalation could stabilise energy prices and reduce pressure on financial markets. On the other, continued fighting or further disruptions to oil shipments could quickly reignite volatility across currencies, commodities and equities.

Until there is clearer evidence of either de-escalation or escalation, markets are likely to remain highly sensitive to political developments, with the dollar continuing to benefit from its role as a global safe haven.

With information from Reuters.

The war involving Iran, United States and Israel is increasingly affecting energy supplies far beyond the Middle East, with Bangladesh now scrambling to secure fuel imports after disruptions to regional shipping routes.

Bangladeshi officials say the country has begun receiving diesel shipments from suppliers including China and India, allowing authorities to secure enough fuel to meet roughly one month of national demand. Arrangements are also being made to secure supplies for an additional month.

The South Asian nation of about 175 million people depends heavily on imported energy, with roughly 95% of its fuel requirements sourced from abroad. The disruption of Middle Eastern oil flows following the war has therefore exposed Bangladesh to severe supply risks.

Fuel Rationing and Economic Disruptions

To manage the supply shortage, authorities have introduced emergency measures including fuel rationing for vehicles, restrictions on diesel sales and the temporary closure of universities.

Energy shortages are also affecting Bangladesh’s critical export industries. The country is the world’s second-largest clothing exporter after China, and many garment factories rely on diesel-powered generators during power outages.

Industry leaders say the situation has worsened since the conflict began in late February. Power cuts have doubled to as much as five hours per day, forcing factories to rely more heavily on backup generators.

Mahmud Hasan Khan, president of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, said many companies are struggling to obtain sufficient diesel to keep their operations running during electricity outages.

The shortages threaten to disrupt production in one of Bangladesh’s most important economic sectors, which accounts for the majority of the country’s export earnings.

Emergency Diesel Shipments Arrive

To stabilise supplies, the state-run Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation (BPC) has arranged diesel shipments from international traders.

Energy officials say around 60,000 metric tons of diesel are currently being delivered by three trading companies, with another 90,000 metric tons expected to arrive later this month.

A cargo of approximately 27,000 metric tons from PetroChina has already arrived at Chittagong Port, while another shipment of roughly 28,000 metric tons from Vitol is waiting at the port’s outer anchorage.

Additional supplies are also arriving through a cross-border pipeline from India’s Numaligarh Refinery, which is currently providing about 5,000 metric tons of diesel. Officials said negotiations are underway to secure a further 30,000 metric tons from Indian Oil Corporation.

Bangladesh typically consumes about 380,000 metric tons of diesel each month. However, officials estimate that rationing measures have reduced current demand to around 270,000 metric tons per month.

Oil Imports Threatened by Hormuz Disruptions

While refined diesel cargoes have continued to arrive, Bangladesh faces greater risks in securing crude oil shipments for its domestic refineries.

The country imports about 1.4 million metric tons of crude oil annually under long-term supply agreements with Saudi Aramco and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

However, shipments from these suppliers must travel through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, which has been heavily disrupted by the war. Officials say at least one cargo of around 100,000 tons from Saudi Aramco has already been delayed in the Gulf due to the ongoing crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy transit routes, and any prolonged disruption could have far-reaching consequences for countries heavily dependent on imported fuel.

Gas Shortages Add to Energy Crisis

Bangladesh’s energy difficulties extend beyond diesel shortages. Severe natural gas shortages have already forced the closure of four of the country’s five state-run fertiliser factories.

Authorities have redirected the available gas supply toward electricity generation in an effort to stabilise power production during the crisis.

The combination of diesel shortages, disrupted oil imports and limited gas supplies is placing growing pressure on Bangladesh’s energy system at a time when global fuel markets are already experiencing heightened volatility.

Analysis: Energy Dependence Exposes Economic Vulnerability

Bangladesh’s struggle to secure diesel supplies illustrates how the war involving Iran is affecting energy-importing economies far beyond the immediate conflict zone.

Countries that rely heavily on imported fuel are particularly vulnerable to disruptions in global energy shipping routes, especially those linked to the Strait of Hormuz. Even temporary interruptions can lead to fuel shortages, higher prices and broader economic disruption.

For Bangladesh, the situation highlights the structural risks created by its dependence on imported energy. Industries such as garments, which rely on stable electricity supplies and backup diesel generators, are especially exposed to supply shocks.

Although emergency shipments from China and India have temporarily stabilised supplies, the situation remains fragile. If the conflict in the Middle East continues to disrupt oil shipments or drive up prices, Bangladesh could face prolonged energy shortages with significant implications for its economy and export industries.

With information from Reuters.

Israel believes it is progressing faster than expected in achieving its objectives in the war against Iran, according to Israel’s ambassador to France.

Ambassador Joshua Zarka said the military campaign, which Israel initially predicted would last several weeks, is moving ahead of schedule in meeting its strategic goals.

Speaking to BFM TV, Zarka said Israel’s objectives extend beyond dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme. He said the broader aim is to weaken Iran’s leadership so that it can no longer project power beyond its borders and so that the Iranian population can determine its own political future.

Israel’s Broader Strategic Objectives

According to Zarka, Israel’s campaign is designed not only to limit Iran’s military capabilities but also to significantly weaken the country’s ruling authorities.

The ambassador said that reducing the government’s ability to operate abroad would help prevent attacks against Israel and its allies, while also creating conditions in which Iranians could “take their fate into their own hands.”

His comments reflect a broader strategic message from Israel that the war is intended to reshape Iran’s regional role, rather than simply eliminate specific military programmes.

Zarka, who previously served as Israel’s lead diplomat dealing with Iran, suggested that Israel’s military progress is exceeding initial expectations.

Warning Over New Iranian Leadership

Zarka also commented on the recent appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new supreme leader following the death of his father, Ali Khamenei.

He said that if Mojtaba Khamenei follows the same policies as his predecessor, he could become a potential target for Israel.

The remark underscores the increasingly confrontational rhetoric surrounding the conflict and signals that Israel sees Iran’s leadership itself as central to the confrontation.

Conflict Expands to Lebanon

At the same time, Israel has intensified military operations against Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group based in Lebanon, after cross-border attacks on Israeli territory.

The Lebanese government has said it would like to hold direct talks with Israel to stop the fighting. However, Zarka dismissed the possibility of negotiations at this stage.

Instead, he argued that the war would end only if Hezbollah is disarmed a step he said depends on decisions taken by the Lebanese government.

Analysis: Israel Signals No Immediate Path to Negotiations

Zarka’s comments suggest Israel believes the current military campaign is producing results and therefore sees little incentive to pursue negotiations in the near term.

By framing the war’s goals around weakening Iran’s leadership and limiting its regional influence, Israeli officials are signalling that the conflict is about more than just nuclear or missile capabilities.

The remarks also highlight Israel’s strategy of confronting Iran’s regional network of allied groups, including Hezbollah, which it views as a key extension of Tehran’s power.

Taken together, the statements indicate that Israel intends to continue military pressure until it believes Iran’s ability to project influence across the region has been significantly reduced.

With information from Reuters.

March 11 (UPI) — The United States resumed Global Entry, a program that allows trusted travelers to quickly get through U.S. customs, on Wednesday after a short break.

The service began again at 5 a.m. EDT Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security said.

“We are working hard to alleviate the disruptions to travelers caused by the Democrats’ shutdown,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement.

The program was suspended to preserve staff and resources during the partial government shutdown that began Jan. 31. When it was announced, the department said it would also suspend TSA PreCheck, which allows low-risk travelers to speed through Transportation Security Administration checkpoints, but quickly reversed course on that decision.

Geoff Freeman, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, said the organization was pleased with the decision.

“Over the last two weeks, the travel industry has been clear about the role programs like Global Entry and TSA PreCheck play in both security and efficiency,” Freeman said in a statement. “Through outreach to members of Congress and administration officials, collaboration across the travel sector and strong public engagement, we highlighted a simple reality: Trusted Traveler Programs enhance security while keeping travel moving.”

Travelers at airports have seen long lines for TSA checkpoints, some lasting several hours with lines stretching out onto sidewalks.

The DHS, which includes TSA, is shut down because Congress couldn’t agree on a funding bill for the department. Democrats don’t want to fund it until guardrails are put on the agency, and Republicans haven’t agreed to Democrats’ demands.

Because of this, TSA workers got a partial paycheck on Feb. 28 and will miss their first full check Saturday. There have been more work absences while staff are not getting paid, which slows the TSA lines at major airports.

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.

Hezbollah reported on Monday that its fighters engaged Israeli troops in eastern Lebanon during an overnight airborne raid, marking the second such operation in the area in recent days. The conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed group has drawn Lebanon deeper into the regional war, which began after Hezbollah opened fire to avenge the killing of Iran’s former supreme leader.

The Israeli military has not immediately commented on the latest Hezbollah claim. In previous operations, the military carried out airstrikes across Hezbollah-controlled southern Beirut, including targeting financial institutions like Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Lebanese authorities report nearly 400 people have been killed in the country since March 2, including 83 children and 42 women, though the toll does not distinguish combatants from civilians. Israel confirmed two soldier deaths in southern Lebanon—the first Israeli military casualties since the outbreak of hostilities.

Expanding Operations

Hezbollah stated that around 15 Israeli helicopters flew over eastern Lebanon after midnight, deploying troops observed approaching Lebanese territory from Syria. The region, the Bekaa Valley, is a stronghold of Hezbollah’s political and security apparatus. This follows a similar Israeli raid near Nabi Chit on March 2–3, which Lebanese officials said killed 41 people. Israel described that previous operation as an attempt to recover the remains of Ron Arad, a navigator missing since 1986.

Civilian Displacement and Urban Strikes

The war has prompted mass displacement, with hundreds of thousands fleeing southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh. Israeli strikes have also hit locations outside Hezbollah strongholds. On Sunday, a drone strike in Beirut’s Rouche seafront district reportedly killed five senior commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, illustrating the widening geographic and operational scope of the conflict.

Strategic Posturing

Israel has reinforced its military presence in southern Lebanon, establishing forward defensive positions in anticipation of potential Hezbollah attacks into Israel. The military maintains troops at five positions in the region, a posture originating from the 2024 war with Hezbollah.

Analysis: Escalation Risks

The repeated incursions and airstrikes signal a deepening and increasingly unpredictable phase of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Hezbollah’s engagement of Israeli forces in eastern Lebanon demonstrates its capacity to operate beyond the southern front, potentially broadening the battlefield.

For Israel, the operations appear aimed at both tactical objectives such as neutralizing high-value targets—and broader deterrence, signaling its intent to strike Hezbollah assets and Iranian-linked operatives throughout Lebanon. For Lebanese civilians, however, the widening conflict exacerbates humanitarian pressures, including casualties, mass displacement, and infrastructure destruction.

The situation underscores the risk of further regional escalation, with Syria and Iran-linked actors already drawn into the conflict, raising the possibility of a protracted war with extensive human and geopolitical costs.

With information from Reuters.

The ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran has sent oil prices soaring, rattling global financial markets and prompting governments to implement urgent measures to protect their economies and citizens from energy shortages and rising costs. As the war disrupts critical supply routes through the Strait of Hormuz, countries heavily reliant on oil imports are scrambling to stabilize domestic fuel supplies and mitigate inflationary pressures.

South Korea Caps Fuel Prices

In a historic move, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung announced that the government would cap domestic fuel prices for the first time in nearly 30 years. Authorities are also seeking alternative energy sources beyond shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. To support the measure, a 100 trillion won ($67 billion) market-stabilization program may be expanded if necessary, reflecting the severity of the supply shock.

Japan Prepares Strategic Oil Reserves

Japan has instructed a national oil reserve storage facility to prepare for a possible release of crude oil, according to opposition party lawmaker Akira Nagatsuma. While precise details and timing remain unclear, this measure underscores Japan’s reliance on strategic reserves to manage sudden spikes in global energy prices.

Vietnam Removes Fuel Import Tariffs

Vietnam is temporarily eliminating import tariffs on fuels to ensure continued domestic supply amidst global disruptions. The government expects this measure to remain in effect until the end of April, aiming to reduce cost pressures on both businesses and consumers.

Indonesia Boosts Fuel Subsidies and Biodiesel Plans

Indonesia is increasing budget allocations for fuel subsidies, currently totaling 381.3 trillion rupiah ($22.5 billion), to offset rising energy costs and maintain affordable electricity and fuel prices. The government may also revive plans to expand the B50 biodiesel program, blending 50% palm oil-based biodiesel with conventional diesel, as a longer-term strategy to reduce dependency on imported oil.

China Halts Fuel Exports

China has directed refiners to suspend new fuel export contracts and attempt to cancel previously committed shipments. This policy excludes jet fuel for international flights, bonded bunkering, and supplies to Hong Kong or Macau. The move is designed to secure domestic fuel availability amid soaring global prices.

Bangladesh Closes Universities and Rations Fuel

Bangladesh, which depends on imports for 95% of its energy, has implemented emergency measures including university closures and rationing fuel sales to conserve electricity and fuel. Daily fuel sale limits were imposed after panic buying and stockpiling, highlighting the country’s vulnerability to regional energy disruptions.

Analysis: A Coordinated Global Response

These measures illustrate the unprecedented economic ripple effects of the Middle East conflict. Countries with high import dependency are balancing immediate crisis management such as subsidies, price caps, and rationing with longer-term energy strategies, including strategic reserve releases and alternative fuel initiatives.

The rapid policy responses also underscore the fragility of global energy markets in the face of geopolitical conflicts. Central banks and governments must navigate a complex trade-off: containing inflation while ensuring sufficient energy supply to prevent industrial slowdowns and social unrest.

As the conflict persists, global energy markets remain highly volatile, and governments may need to continue adjusting policy tools to stabilize domestic economies, with potential implications for trade, inflation, and energy security worldwide.

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.

A SOUTHWEST Airlines flight has been diverted and forced to do an emergency landing after a mid-air security threat.

Flight 2094 from Nashville to Fort Lauderdale was forced to cut the journey short and land at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport at 9:06pm on Friday night.

While thousands of feet in the air, a security threat was reported which saw tactical cops storm the aircraft upon landing and detain a passenger.

A video allegedly taken on board the flight showed the moment a man was dragged off the flight by the Atlanta Police Department.

The clip shared on X showed terrified passengers with their hands raised above their heads as cops cuffed a passenger and took him off the aircraft.

The text on the clip claimed that there had been a bomb threat but this has not been commented on by the airline or police.

In a statement, Southwest said the diversion came due to a “possible security matter.”

“We appreciate the professionalism of our flight crew and sincerely apologize to our customers for the significant delay,” the spokesperson said.

“Nothing is more important to Southwest than the safety of its customers and employees.”

The Atlanta Police Department confirmed it worked with federal partners to attend to “last night’s incident” at the airport.

The nature of the security threat and if the passenger removed will face any charges remains unclear.

It is not known if the passenger is still in police detention.

Officials have not commented if any dangerous items were found onboard.

After the police activity, all passengers boarded another plane and continued their journey to Fort Lauderdale where they arrived safely just before 3:30am.

The airline has apologized to all affected passengers.

It comes as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains on shutdown over funding disagreements which former Security Secretary Kristi Noem said is “endangering national security.”

The DHS has been shut down since February 14 which Noem said has negatively impacted and put huge pressure on TSA and border patrol.

In addition to this, Republicans have warned that the country is under an increased domestic terror threat due to the recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

“Now is the time to be vigilant at home and to ensure that all of our doors are locked, so to speak,” Speaker Mike Johnson, warned on Wednesday as he discussed the continued shutdown.

“Senate needs to fund the TSA. They’ve had them the Coast Guard, FEMA and Cybersecurity CISA on shut down for 3 weeks. We will surely see more of this,” one viewer of the footage from the diverted aircraft said.

“Unfortunately there’s going to be a lot more of this coming,” another said.

WASHINGTON — In a major shakeup of the agency at the center of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, President Trump announced Thursday that he was replacing embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who will step down at the end of the month.

Trump said on Truth Social that he will nominate Sen. Markwayne Millin (R-Okla.) to take over the job, two days after Noem was grilled on Capitol Hill by Democrats and some Republicans.

Trump said Noem will become a “Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas,” a new security initiative that he said would focus on the Western Hemisphere.

Noem, the former South Dakota governor, is the first Cabinet secretary to leave during Trump’s second term as president. Her departure comes amid intense scrutiny over immigration enforcement tactics since last year that intensified after the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis by immigration agents.

Those killings led to demands for more accountability within the agency, and disagreement over how to rein in the tactics deployed by federal immigration agents, have led to a weeks-long standoff over the agency’s funding.

Since the shutdown, lawmakers from both parties have used a series of contentious oversight hearings to question Noem’s management of the agency. During a hearing Tuesday, the criticism from Republicans was particularly blunt.

“We are an exceptional nation, and one of the reasons we are exceptional is because we expect exceptional leadership, and you’ve demonstrated anything but that,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told Noem.

When Trump announced the shakeup on social media, Noem was speaking at a conference in Nashville. She answered questions from local law enforcement organizations, and did not offer hints that she knew her departure was imminent. She was not asked about her firing during the event.

After the conference ended, Noem thanked Trump for her special envoy appointment, a diplomatic position she said will have her working to curb drugs from coming into the United States.

“I am super excited about this opportunity. It came at not a complete surprise, but it came at a little bit of a surprise,” Mullin told reporters outside the Capitol.

Mullin said he was not expecting the call Thursday, but that he is “ready to get started” and will work to “earn everybody’s vote,” regardless of party affiliation.

“When I go into this position, yes, I am a Republican, yes I am conservative, but the Department of Homeland Security is to keep everybody — regardless of whether you support me , if you don’t support me, regardless of what your thoughts are — I am here to enforce the policies that Congress passed,” Mullin said.

Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but under federal law is allowed to serve as acting Homeland Security secretary while his nomination is pending.

When the news broke, Republican senators appeared to be congratulating Mullin on the Senate floor as the chamber was conducting business. Meanwhile, Democratic senators applauded the decision to fire Noem but lamented that she will continue to serve in public office.

“The atrocities she oversaw, the falsehoods she peddled, & the corruption she committed — all richly deserve her discharge,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote on X. “President Trump should have made it explicit, rather than disguising it with another position of public trust.”

Noem was also criticized over how her department spent billions of dollars allocated by Congress.

In the congressional hearings this week, lawmakers questioned her on a $200-million ad campaign she oversaw that urged anyone in the U.S. illegally to deport voluntarily.

Noem told the Senate panel on Tuesday that the president approved the campaign, which the White House denied to NBC News.

Early criticism of Noem came last June, as DHS was scaling up raids throughout Los Angeles. During a news conference at the Westwood federal building, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forced to the ground and handcuffed by federal agents after he interrupted Noem to ask her a question.

“If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,” Padilla said later. “I can only imagine what they’re doing to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.”

Padilla reacted to Noem’s ouster as evidence of public pressure working to hold her to account.

“This is why we don’t give up,” he said.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, said Noem’s departure was long overdue.

“Her tenure, as two congressional hearings this week clearly showed, was defined by chaos, cruelty, corruption, and a refusal to take responsibility for the abuses carried out by federal agents under her watch,” she said. “For immigrant communities across the country, her leadership represented a dangerous escalation of policies that treated families and workers as targets rather than as human beings who contribute to and strengthen this nation.”

Salas said the new Homeland Security secretary must ensure transparency, respect the Constitution and treat immigrants with dignity.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will replace Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin.

In a social media post on Thursday, Trump explained that he had reassigned Noem to be a special envoy for a new security initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere, dubbed the “Shield of the Americas”.

The staffing change, he added, will take effect starting March 31. It marks the first major cabinet-level shake-up of Trump’s second term so far.

Trump praised Noem upon her departure from the cabinet-level post, writing that she “has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!)”

But Noem has played a prominent role in some of the administration’s most controversial immigration policies, and her tenure at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has spurred questions about government spending and conflicts of interest.

The announcement that she would be leaving her post comes a day after she faced a grilling from Democrats during congressional hearings this week, with several politicians called for her resignation.

“DHS is supposed to be protecting our residents and upholding constitutional protections. But you’ve turned that on the head. You have actually turned the United States government against its own residents,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat, said during Wednesday’s hearing.

“Yours is a case of failed leadership. Secretary, you need to resign, be fired or be impeached because you don’t have the right to lead this agency.”

The announcement of Noem’s removal also comes as DHS continues to weather a partial government shutdown.

Democrats have opposed approving new funding for the department in response to deadly shootings involving immigration agents under Noem’s leadership.

Those shootings were brought up again this week during Noem’s appearances before judiciary committees in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, for instance, repeatedly accused Noem of launching a “smear campaign” against two US citizens shot dead during interactions with immigration agents: Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

“There have been three homicides in Minneapolis in 2026, and your agents committed two of them,” Raskin told Noem.

He also highlighted comments Noem made calling Good and Pretti “domestic terrorists“, despite evidence undercutting the administration’s depiction of the events leading to their deaths.

“Rather than work with state and local authorities to solve these homicides, you barred Minnesota’s investigators from the crime scenes,” Raskin said.

“It smells like a coverup, and it makes me wonder who the real domestic terrorists are.”

Noem, formerly the Republican governor of South Dakota, has also been scrutinised for a $220m advertising campaign promoting border security.

The advertising campaign shows Noem riding a horse near Mount Rushmore, a well-known national memorial in her home state.

The news outlet ProPublica previously reported that a government contract for the campaign went to a Republican consulting firm with ties to senior DHS officials.

Noem has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the bidding process was “competitive” and that the contract was “all done correctly, all done legally”.

On Thursday, before announcing the staffing change, Trump denied any connection to the advertising campaign, telling the news service Reuters that he “never knew anything about it”.

Noem played a key role in the administration’s mass deportation push, and she has frequently used rhetoric that vilified immigrants as dangerous and violent.

Though DHS’s mandate focuses on domestic security, Noem has made several international trips over the last year, including visits to Ecuador in July and November.

Trump has called a “Shield of the Americas” summit at his Mar-a-Lago estate this weekend, inviting world leaders from multiple countries to discuss regional security and combatting Chinese influence in Latin America.

Noem’s replacement as DHS head, Mullin, has served as a US senator since 2023. He was a representative in the House for a decade before that, representing Oklahoma.

Trump highlighted his membership in the Cherokee Nation, writing that Mullin would be a “fantastic advocate for our incredible Tribal Communities” as DHS leader.

“Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN,” Trump said on Thursday.

Across advanced and emerging economies, central bankers are confronting an increasingly assertive political class. Populist leaders and fiscally strained governments are pressing for lower interest rates, easier financing and, in some cases, greater influence over monetary authorities themselves.

The response from central banks has been firm but not without risk. In defending their independence, they risk appearing political, blurring the very boundary they are trying to protect.

The U.S.: Digging In at the Federal Reserve

In the United States, the confrontation has been direct. Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism from President Donald Trump over interest rates, with Trump arguing that tighter policy undermines economic growth.

Rather than soften its stance, the Federal Reserve has emphasized its legal independence and data-driven approach. Powell has repeatedly stressed that decisions will be based on inflation and employment data, not political preference.

The stakes are high. With U.S. federal debt at $36 trillion and large refinancing needs ahead, pressure to keep borrowing costs low is intensifying. Any perception that the Fed is yielding to political demands could unsettle bond markets and erode confidence in its anti-inflation mandate.

Europe: Pre-Emptive Exits and Institutional Defense

In Europe, resistance has taken a subtler form. François Villeroy de Galhau is stepping down from the Bank of France months before elections that polls suggest could benefit the far right. Though officially described as a personal decision, the move is widely seen as an attempt to preserve institutional continuity before a potential political shift.

Similarly, Christine Lagarde has not ruled out the possibility of leaving the European Central Bank before completing her term, even while stating her baseline intention is to stay.

Such pre-emptive departures highlight a paradox: central banks are trying to shield themselves from politicization, yet early resignations can themselves be interpreted as political maneuvers. Critics argue this risks undermining the perception of neutrality.

European institutions are legally insulated by treaties, but they are not immune to democratic pressures particularly as high debt levels in countries such as France and Italy fuel debates over whether central banks should help finance public spending.

Japan: Market Discipline as a Shield

At the Bank of Japan, the dynamic is slightly different. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi appointed dovish economists to the board, a move seen by some as an effort to temper rate hikes.

Yet the BOJ has maintained its commitment to policy normalization. In Japan’s case, currency markets have provided reinforcement. A weakening yen during earlier periods of ultra-loose policy heightened political sensitivity to inflation risks. Market volatility effectively strengthened the central bank’s hand, illustrating how investor reactions can discipline governments as well as monetary authorities.

Why Independence Matters

The battle is about more than institutional pride. Central bank independence emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the inflationary spirals of the 1970s. Countries that subordinated monetary policy to political cycles often experienced runaway prices and capital flight.

More recent examples underscore the danger. In countries such as Turkey and Argentina, political interference in rate-setting has coincided with surging inflation and currency instability.

For advanced economies now grappling with record sovereign debt and rising defense spending, the temptation to lean on central banks is clear. Lower rates ease fiscal pressure. But if investors believe policy is being distorted for political convenience, borrowing costs may ultimately rise rather than fall.

The Blurred Line Between Mandate and Mission Creep

The past decade has complicated the picture. Massive bond-buying programs during the global financial crisis and the pandemic pulled central banks deeper into fiscal territory. In Europe and Britain, limited climate-related initiatives sparked accusations of overreach.

Critics argue that such expansions of mandate have made central banks more politically visible and therefore more vulnerable.

This creates a delicate trade-off. Remaining silent in the face of political pressure may preserve appearances but risk policy distortion. Publicly resisting may safeguard inflation credibility but invite accusations of entering the political arena.

Markets as Final Arbiter

Ultimately, financial markets may determine how much room politicians have to maneuver. Governments can pressure central banks, but they cannot easily compel investors to finance deficits at artificially low rates.

If markets sense that independence is eroding, they may demand higher yields, weaken currencies or pull capital outcomes that raise inflation and undermine growth. In that sense, investor discipline can reinforce central bank autonomy more effectively than legal protections alone.

A Costly Defense

Central bankers today face a more hostile and fragmented political landscape than their predecessors. The old assumption that technocrats could quietly manage inflation while politicians handled everything else no longer holds.

By fighting back, they defend hard-won credibility. But in doing so, they risk appearing as participants in political struggles rather than neutral arbiters of economic stability.

The challenge is no longer simply setting interest rates. It is preserving trust in institutions designed to stand above politics at a time when politics increasingly refuses to stand aside.

With information from Reuters.

As tensions between Israel and Iran periodically escalate, Israel has developed one of the world’s most sophisticated multi-layered air defence networks to counter ballistic missiles, drones, rockets, and cruise missiles. The system is designed to intercept threats at different ranges and altitudes, creating overlapping layers of protection against attacks from state actors and non-state groups.

The architecture reflects decades of missile threats from regional adversaries and has been refined through repeated real-world use. It combines domestically developed systems with U.S.-supported technology and integrated radar, command, and interception capabilities.

Long-Range Interception: Arrow System

The Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 systems form Israel’s top defensive layer against long-range ballistic missiles. Arrow-2 intercepts incoming missiles in the upper atmosphere, while Arrow-3 is designed to destroy threats in space before re-entry.

Developed primarily by Israel Aerospace Industries with support from Boeing, the Arrow program is tailored to counter high-altitude missile threats and allows for the safe dispersal of potential non-conventional warheads away from populated areas.

Mid-Range Shield: David’s Sling

David’s Sling targets medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles fired from roughly 100 to 200 km away. It also intercepts aircraft and drones.

The system was jointly developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and RTX Corporation and fills the operational gap between long-range Arrow interceptors and the short-range Iron Dome.

Short-Range Defence: Iron Dome

The Iron Dome system is designed to intercept short-range rockets, mortars, and drones. Operational since 2011, it uses radar tracking to determine whether an incoming rocket threatens a populated area. If the projectile is projected to land harmlessly, the system conserves interceptors by not engaging.

Originally designed to counter rockets with ranges of 4–70 km, analysts say its effective coverage has expanded. A naval variant deployed in 2017 protects maritime assets.

Directed Energy Layer: Iron Beam

Declared fully operational in late 2025, Iron Beam is a ground-based high-energy laser system designed to neutralize small aerial threats such as UAVs and mortar rounds. Instead of firing interceptors, the laser superheats targets until they fail mid-air.

Because it uses directed energy rather than missiles, Iron Beam is expected to dramatically reduce interception costs and provide rapid response against swarms of low-cost threats.

U.S. Support: THAAD Deployment

The United States deployed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system to Israel in 2024 to strengthen protection against ballistic missiles during heightened regional tensions. THAAD intercepts missiles in their terminal phase of flight and is a key component of U.S. strategic missile defence.

U.S. naval assets and ground-based systems have also assisted in intercepting missiles during previous attacks, highlighting close defence coordination between the two allies.

Air-to-Air Interception Capability

Beyond ground systems, Israeli fighter jets and attack helicopters have used air-to-air missiles to destroy incoming drones before they enter Israeli airspace. This adds flexibility and an additional interception layer, particularly against slow-moving aerial threats.

Analysis: A Layered Shield for a Complex Threat Environment

Israel’s defence network is built on the principle of layered interception, ensuring that if one system fails or is overwhelmed, another layer can engage the threat. This redundancy is crucial given Iran’s missile arsenal and the increasing use of drones and precision-guided munitions by regional actors.

The integration of Arrow, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, Iron Beam, and U.S. systems creates a comprehensive defence umbrella capable of engaging threats from space to low altitude. The addition of directed-energy weapons reflects a shift toward countering mass drone attacks and reducing the financial burden of interceptor missiles.

However, even sophisticated systems face challenges. Large-scale salvos could strain interceptor inventories, while evolving missile technologies and swarm tactics may test response capacity. As regional tensions fluctuate, Israel’s layered defence remains both a technological achievement and a critical strategic necessity.

With information from Reuters.

Economists are cautiously optimistic that advances in artificial intelligence could boost productivity across major economies, potentially helping governments manage soaring debt. Debt levels in most rich nations already exceed 100% of GDP and are projected to rise further due to ageing populations, higher defence spending, climate commitments, and rising interest payments.

U.S. policymakers, in particular, see AI as a potential driver to lift post-2008 productivity and free workers for higher-value tasks. Yet experts warn that even a strong AI-driven growth surge would not fully offset the structural pressures on public finances.

AI’s Potential Impact on Public Debt

The OECD and economists working with Reuters estimate that a productivity boost from AI could lower projected debt in OECD countries by up to 10 percentage points by 2036. That would reduce the expected rise from roughly 150% of GDP to around 140%, still sharply higher than current levels of approximately 110%.

In the U.S., best-case scenarios suggest debt could rise to 120% of GDP over the next decade instead of 100%, with one economist projecting little change. The key variables include whether AI creates more jobs than it displaces, whether firms pass productivity gains to workers via wages, and how governments manage spending.

Demographics and Limits

Demographics remain a central constraint. Ageing populations and entitlements tied to them are the root causes of long-term debt growth. Economists note that even with a productivity surge, labour shortages and slower immigration could offset AI gains. Countries like Italy and Japan may see smaller benefits from AI due to lower adoption rates and smaller sectors that can leverage the technology.

Fiscal Uncertainty

AI could raise government revenues through higher productivity and wages, but the effect is uncertain. If automation primarily benefits profits and capital rather than labour, fiscal gains could be limited. Additionally, public spending may rise alongside growth, dampening potential debt relief. Social security and other entitlement programs, indexed to wages, will continue to pressure budgets regardless of AI-driven efficiency.

Interest rates and debt servicing costs add another layer of uncertainty. Economists warn that recessions or financial shocks could prevent AI-driven productivity gains from providing timely relief.

Analysis

AI offers a potential “breathing room” for overstretched economies, buying time for governments to tackle structural deficits. Even if growth rises to 3% in the U.S. through 2040 above Federal Reserve expectations it will not solve fundamental fiscal challenges.

Economists stress that AI is a supplement, not a replacement, for fiscal reform. Rising productivity may help governments manage debt growth more sustainably, but without structural policy adjustments addressing demographics, entitlement programs, and spending priorities, the debt trajectory remains precarious.

Ultimately, while AI could improve efficiency and output, it is unlikely to carry the heavy lifting required to stabilize public finances on its own.

With information from Reuters.

For decades, Pakistan was the Afghan Taliban’s closest supporter. Islamabad helped the Taliban rise in the early 1990s, seeking “strategic depth” in its rivalry with India. Pakistan welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, with then-Prime Minister Imran Khan describing it as Afghans “breaking the shackles of slavery.”

However, the alliance soon frayed. Islamabad found the Taliban less cooperative than anticipated, particularly regarding insurgent groups that targeted Pakistani territory. Border clashes, insurgent attacks, and fragile ceasefires have repeatedly disrupted trade, security, and civilian life along the rugged frontier.

Escalating Tensions: From Ceasefires to “Open War”

Tensions have been mounting since late 2025, following deadly cross-border clashes in October that killed dozens of soldiers. Ceasefires mediated by Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia temporarily eased the situation, but attacks persisted.

The latest escalation came after Pakistan cited “irrefutable evidence” that Afghan-based militants were behind recent attacks and suicide bombings targeting Pakistani forces. Air and ground strikes targeted Taliban posts, headquarters, and ammunition depots in multiple sectors, with both sides reporting heavy losses. Pakistan’s defence minister labeled the situation an “open war.”

The Trigger: Attacks by Afghan-Based Militants

Pakistani security sources linked several recent attacks to militants operating from Afghan territory. These include seven incidents since late 2024, the most deadly being the Bajaur district attack that killed 11 security personnel and two civilians, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad argues that Taliban inaction allowed the TTP and Baloch insurgents to operate freely, while Kabul denies the allegations.

Who Are the Pakistani Taliban?

The TTP, formed in 2007, is a coalition of militant groups mainly active in northwest Pakistan. It has carried out attacks on markets, mosques, airports, military bases, and police stations, occasionally gaining territory along the Afghan border and deep inside Pakistan. Its most notorious act was the 2012 attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, who later received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The TTP has historically fought alongside the Afghan Taliban against U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan and used Pakistani territory as a base for operations. Pakistan’s previous military offensives against the group, including the 2016 operation, temporarily reduced attacks but did not eliminate the threat.

Diverging Interests: Pakistan vs. Afghan Taliban

Historically, Pakistan’s support for the Taliban was based on shared strategic interests. Today, those interests are diverging:

• Pakistan’s Perspective: Taliban inaction against TTP and Baloch insurgents threatens Pakistan’s internal security. The continued use of Afghan territory as a safe haven fuels Islamabad’s justification for strikes.
• Afghan Taliban Perspective: Pakistan allegedly harbors fighters from Islamic State

Analysis

Pakistan’s sudden escalation against the Afghan Taliban is a striking example of how strategic calculations can shift dramatically when security threats directly affect domestic stability. Historically, Islamabad viewed the Taliban as a partner a way to secure influence in Afghanistan and counterbalance India. Today, that calculation has reversed: the Taliban are now seen as enabling militants who attack Pakistani territory, undermining the very national security Pakistan sought to protect.

From my perspective, this is as much about perception as capability. Pakistan’s frustration reflects not just the TTP threat, but the Taliban’s unwillingness or inability to control insurgent groups. Even if the Taliban are technically powerless to fully rein in these groups, Islamabad interprets every attack as a breach of trust, eroding decades of strategic alignment.

Another important dimension is geography and asymmetric warfare. Despite Pakistan’s overwhelming conventional advantage its larger military, air force, and nuclear arsenal the border region’s terrain favors smaller, agile forces like the Taliban. History shows that superior firepower does not always translate into quick resolutions in insurgency-heavy zones, and repeated airstrikes may inflame, rather than contain, cross-border tensions.

This conflict also signals that Pakistan’s security calculus is increasingly domestic-focused. While in the past its Afghan strategy prioritized influence over immediate risk management, the TTP’s growing attacks within Pakistan have shifted the priority toward internal stability. From this angle, the strikes are a defensive measure designed to project strength and send a warning to the Taliban that safe havens for insurgents will no longer be tolerated.

Finally, the regional implications are worrying. Repeated clashes threaten civilian populations, disrupt trade, and could destabilize Afghanistan’s already fragile governance structures. Mediation by third parties may temporarily ease hostilities, but without long-term mechanisms to hold both sides accountable, the cycle of violence is likely to continue.

In short, Pakistan’s attack reflects the intersection of historical strategy, modern security threats, and the practical limits of alliances. It highlights that even long-standing partnerships are fragile when domestic security imperatives collide with regional politics—and that conventional power advantages may not guarantee quick solutions in border conflicts dominated by asymmetric warfare.

With information from Reuters.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly touted the U.S. economy as “roaring” and declared inflation “defeated” since returning to office in January 2025. In his recent State of the Union address, he called it “the golden age of America,” claiming unprecedented economic prosperity.

However, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that most Americans across party lines do not share that view. The poll, conducted online with 4,638 adults and a two-point margin of error, finds that 68% of respondents disagree with the statement that “the U.S. economy is booming.” Even among Republicans, who form Trump’s political base, opinion is sharply divided: 56% agree the economy is booming, while 43% disagree.

Cost of Living Remains Top Concern

Americans interviewed cited rising costs as their primary worry. In Tennessee, manufacturing worker Marcus Tripp said: “Even as a two-income household, we are struggling… I am worried more about how much my rent and everything is going up than I am about whether the guy down the street has citizenship documents or not.”

Poll respondents overwhelmingly rejected Trump’s claim that inflation has been defeated. Only 16% agreed with the statement that “there is hardly any inflation in the U.S.,” while 82% of independents and 72% of Republicans disagreed. Democrats were even more skeptical, with a strong majority rejecting the notion of a booming economy.

Awareness of Trump’s Economic Policies

The poll also revealed limited public knowledge of Trump’s specific proposals:

• 44% had never heard of the plan to restrict large investors from buying single-family homes.
• 48% were unaware of the proposed cap on credit card interest rates at 10%.
• By contrast, 78% were aware of tariff increases on imported goods, with many expecting the tariffs to raise the cost of living 54% overall, including 69% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans.

Some voters expressed frustration that policies emphasizing tariffs may not address the issues they feel most acutely. Independent voter Tiffany Ritchie of Corpus Christi said, “We’re not going to tariff our way out of this.”

Political Implications Ahead of Midterms

The poll’s results are a warning for Trump and the Republican Party as they head into the November 3 midterms, defending majorities in both the House and Senate. Cost-of-living concerns are emerging as a decisive factor for voters, potentially outweighing immigration and other campaign issues that Trump has emphasized.

Primaries are already underway in states such as Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas, with both parties beginning to select candidates for the midterms. Economists predict modest growth this year, but few expect the kind of “booming” economy Trump describes.

Analysis

From my perspective, the poll highlights a growing disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the lived experience of many Americans. While the administration touts economic successes, households are still struggling with rising rents, groceries, and energy costs.

The division among Republicans is also notable. While Trump’s base remains partially supportive of his economic claims, nearly half of the party’s voters see little evidence of a boom. This split could weaken the Republican message in key battleground districts, especially where cost-of-living pressures are most acute.

Moreover, the limited public awareness of some Trump policies suggests that policy communication is lagging. Tariffs are well-known, but policies targeting housing and credit remain obscure, potentially limiting their political impact.

In short, while Trump frames the U.S. economy as a “golden age,” the reality for many voters is very different. Rising living costs, skepticism among independents, and division within his own party suggest that economic messaging alone may not be enough to secure midterm victories.

With information from Reuters.

The latest tranche of documents released by the United States Department of Justice on the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein has caused an uproar and a slew of resignations by senior officials and businesspeople across the US and Europe.

In Africa, the more than three million emails, photos, and videos released on January 23 are also causing some aftershocks as they reveal the extent of Epstein’s connections with prominent African figures, though appearing in the Epstein files does not automatically indicate a crime or wrongdoing.

According to the documents, Epstein had ties with former South African President Jacob Zuma; Karim Wade, a politician and son of Senegal’s ex-president Abdoulaye Wade; and deceased Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

The new files also shed more light on Epstein’s connections to a relative of Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, who appeared to connect the two men. This connection reportedly opened the door for a friend of Epstein’s, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, to propose a mass surveillance system to Ouattara that would work in the West African country. It is unclear if such a system is in place now.

Epstein’s possible fixing role culminated in a formal 2014 security deal between the two countries, although the details of it are scant.

The revelations, in general, underscore the range of Epstein’s influence on powerful figures across continents.

Epstein, who was first convicted in 2008 on charges of sex trafficking, was found dead by suicide in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting a trial on sex trafficking charges. His ex-girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted and sentenced in 2021.

Here’s what we know about the Ivory Coast deal and his ties to Africa’s political elite:

Israel and Ivory Coast: The context

Discussions between Ouattara and Barak appeared to start in mid-2012, after the Ivorian president travelled to Jerusalem for talks with Israeli leaders, presumably in hopes of striking a security agreement. Ouattara met Barak, who was then the Israeli defence minister, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Five days before the trip, on June 12, 2012, exiled military officials linked to the Ivory Coast’s former president had attempted to overthrow Ouattara’s government.

Ouattara’s predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, had refused to hand over power to Ouattara, and a civil war that killed at least 3,000 people ensued. The fighting had only ended about a year before when UN and French forces intervened and arrested Gbagbo.

Ouattara’s son, Dramane, and niece, Nina Keita, also met Epstein in New York on the same day, according to the Epstein files. It’s unclear what the parties discussed.

Keita, a former model, was friends with Epstein and travelled regularly on his private jet, according to the documents. She appeared to have connected Epstein with her uncle, as well as other highly placed Ivorian politicians, according to the documents.

The files showed that on September 12, three months after Epstein met Ouattara’s son, he again met Keita in New York.

He met Barak immediately after in a private meeting at the Regency Hotel in New York, according to a schedule published in the files. It’s not known what was discussed.

In November, Drop Site News reported that Epstein referred to a trip to the Ivory Coast, Angola and Senegal in a note to his assistant, but that there are no flight records to confirm the travels.

What did Israel propose to Ouattara?

A month after Ouattara’s travel to Jerusalem, an Israeli delegation visited Abidjan.

At the meetings, Ouattara reportedly asked about Israeli defence systems to overhaul security in his country, according to reporting by Calcalist, an Israeli publication that covered the exchanges at the time.

In late 2012, Ivorian Interior Minister Hamed Bakayoko travelled to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Barak, where they discussed a cybersecurity deal, Drop Site News found.

Then, in spring 2013, Barak, who had now left office as defence minister, travelled to Abidjan himself to converse with Ouattara in what would be their second meeting.

Barak presented an expensive security defence plan to the president, Calcalist reported. The $150m proposal encompassed border security, army training, and strategic military consulting, the publication said.

Drop Site News, in an investigation in November, added that the proposal included a mobile and internet surveillance centre, as well as a video monitoring centre.

The publication cited two sets of documents: an archive of leaked emails released by the Handala hacking group and hosted by nonprofit whistleblower site, Distributed Denial of Secrets, as well as earlier Epstein-linked documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in October 2025.

Barak’s surveillance centre was to be developed by the French-Israeli private security company, MF-Group, which specialises in surveillance systems, and was to be located in Abidjan, Drop Site News reported.

Email logs showed Epstein introduced Barak to Ouattara’s chief of staff later in September 2013, and planned a meeting in New York where the two men met.

Although Ouattara was pleased with the plan, he ultimately did not sign the deal because of the price tag, Calcalist reported.

Barak, in a response to Calcalist at the time, denied that he offered to build the Ivory Coast an intelligence apparatus. “The claims about establishing an intelligence apparatus and price offers are incorrect. These are private conversations, and the public has no interest in them,” he was quoted as saying.

What was the final agreement?

Although the plan appeared to be rejected, both countries continued to forge friendly ties.

In June 2014, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was welcomed in Abidjan on a state visit.

Liberman had travelled to the country along with 50 Israeli businesspeople who were interested in investing in the Ivory Coast.

In a news release at the time, the Ivorian government said two agreements were signed: “One concerning regular consultations between the two countries and the other on defence and internal security.”

No details were provided. It is not known if Abidjan is using Israeli surveillance security systems.

Nevertheless, the Israeli-Ivorian security relationship has continued, with the latter buying military vessels, aircraft, and armoured tanks from Israeli weapons companies.

In 2016, a United Nations report found that Israeli firm Troya Tech Defence had sold weapons and night vision goggles to Ivory Coast in 2015, violating a UN arms embargo that was in place at the time.

In 2018, an investigation into Israeli spyware Pegasus, developed by the NSO Group, revealed that the malware had targeted journalists’ phones in the Ivory Coast. Pegasus, believed to be used by governments, was found to be operating in 45 countries.

In March 2023, privately owned Israel Shipyards, which builds naval vessels, delivered two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to Abidjan.

Critics of President Ouattara say the Ivory Coast has slid further from democracy under his rule and point to incidents like the Pegasus scandal, among other issues.

Did Epstein and Barak strategise about other African countries?

Barak also tried to leverage the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria for a security deal, according to Drop Site News, citing the new documents.

Epstein was aware of Barak’s business deals and advised him on doing business in Nigeria between 2013 and 2020, according to email exchanges.

Both saw the escalating violence in the West African nation not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a business opportunity, the publication found.

In June 2013, Barak attended a cybersecurity conference in Abuja, which organisers said privately was a pretext to meet Nigeria’s then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

It came after Nigeria awarded Israeli firm, Elbit Systems, a controversial contract to surveil digital communications in the country. Public outrage caused Jonathan to consider cancelling the project, but the government never announced that it was withdrawn.

Barak continued leveraging his access in Nigeria to promote Israeli products and services. In 2015, he facilitated the sale of Israeli biometric surveillance equipment to a private Christian university in Nigeria, Drop Site News found. The university, in a statement, denied the sale.

In 2020, the World Bank selected Barak’s intelligence firm, Toka, and the Israeli National Cyber Directorate to advise Nigeria on designing its national cyber-infrastructure.

Epstein, meanwhile, also facilitated high-level access for Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, ex-chairman of the Emirati firm DP World. In 2018, Epstein connected bin Sulayem with Jide Zeitlin, then-chair of Nigeria’s sovereign investment fund, for discussions on securing port ownerships in Lagos and Badagry.

Bin Sulayem, last March, visited Nigeria and proposed that DP World establish industrial parks at Nigerian ports. The proposal has not been approved.

Which other African leaders had links to Epstein?

Jacob Zuma

The new files revealed that Epstein had some relations with former South African President Jacob Zuma, who led the country from 2009 until 2018.

Epstein appeared to arrange a “small dinner” on behalf of Zuma in March 2010 at the Ritz Hotel in London.

It’s unclear what the purpose of the dinner was, but emails released as part of the Epstein files seemed to show that a Russian model was invited. The model was told her presence would “add some real glamour to the occasion”, according to emails sent by Epstein’s planner, whose name was redacted in the files.

In a different email, Epstein appeared to share that information with British politician Peter Mandelson, who is now under investigation for his links to Epstein. A host, whose name was redacted “is having dinner for zuma tomorrow night at the ritz„ i have invited a beautiful russina named (redacted) to attend,” he wrote.

It’s unclear if Mandelson responded.

After the dinner appeared to have taken place, one email sender whose name was redacted wrote to Epstein: “(Redacted name) was a delight last night and enchanted all those she met…By the way, Jacob Zuma was much more impressive and engaging than I thought he would be!”

Karim Wade

Politician and son of Senegal’s ex-President Abdoulaye Wade, Karim Wade’s name appeared 504 times in the released files.

Wade, under his father, was a minister with an open-ended portfolio, and was so powerful that he was nicknamed “minister of heaven and earth”.

His relationship with Epstein began in 2010, according to an investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which cited the newly released files.

In an email to an unnamed contact in November of that year, Epstein wrote: “the President of Senegal is sending his son to see me in paris,” the publication noted. Over the years, they planned trips in Africa along with Emirati businessman, bin Sulayem. They also discussed business ideas, the files showed.

In 2015, after Wade was convicted on corruption charges by a new administration, records show Epstein approaching Norwegian leader of the Council of Europe, Thorborn Jagland, to ask about possibly filing an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Wade’s lawyers regularly updated Epstein on efforts to free him, according to OCCRP.

Senegal pardoned Wade in 2016, after which he went into exile in Qatar. Keita, niece to Ivory Coast’s President Ouattara, who appeared to play some role in the efforts to free Wade, texted Epstein: “Thank you for everything you have done for him!!!!”

Robert Mugabe

The Epstein documents revealed that the sex trafficker planned to meet then-President Mugabe to propose a new currency for Zimbabwe amid that country’s hyperinflation crisis.

In email exchanges back in 2015, Japanese financier Joi Ito recommended to Epstein that they both approach Mugabe to discuss the currency after the Zimbabwean dollar lost its value. It’s unclear if the meeting ever took place.

Released along with the emails were FBI documents from 2017, which appeared to show unverified testimony from a “confidential source” who said Epstein was a wealth manager for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Mugabe.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, six frigates, three light warships, and approximately thirty fighter jets and support aircraft have entered the Middle East by order of Donald Trump who, by repeatedly touting the slogan “I have ended six/seven/eight wars,” has considered (and continues to consider) himself deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. What objective do all these tensions that the U.S. administration has generated in the region actually pursue? The weakening of Iran, or the overthrow of the incumbent government? Whatever his and his administration’s aim may be, it appears that—within the cost–benefit calculations of his trader’s mindset—he has yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to what kind of blow, and at what scale, could deliver the desired outcome. His recent military posturing around Iran and his increasingly threatening rhetoric against the Islamic Republic have placed him in a no-win situation whose end few can predict.

Why a no-win situation for Trump?

First Strike Doubt: Trump and the constellation of officials currently in the White House—who, notably, are far from unified or aligned on how to approach Iran—have reached no certainty regarding the effectiveness of a first strike against Iran or the likelihood of achieving their desired results. It is evident to all that the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither Venezuela, nor Libya, nor Syria, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor anything akin to the historical cases in which the United States has intervened militarily in the name of democracy verbally and in pursuit of its own interests operationally. This very reality has, thus far, prevented Trump from issuing the order to “open fire” on Iran up to now.

On the other side, there is no sign of the flexibility or concession sought by the United States in the behavior or rhetoric of Iranian officials—a fact acknowledged by American officials themselves. This indicates that pressure, intimidation, and threats have thus far yielded no results. The reason is clear: the Islamic Republic views any potential confrontation as an existential war and is unwilling to grant any concessions. Trump, however—who seeks to manufacture achievements out of even the smallest events and whose penchant for exaggeration is among his defining traits—perceives such circumstances as detrimental to his personal prestige and standing.

Iran’s Resilience: The experience of the Israeli attack and the hybrid war launched against Iran in June 2025, with direct assistance from the United States and indirect support from so many others, demonstrated that the instability they sought within the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and even the internal social fragmentation and rifts that had been cultivated for years through various media tools did not materialize. Despite the blows inflicted on Iran, none of the long-term strategic objectives of the United States and Israel were achieved. Likewise, the unrest and riots of January 8 and 9, despite the violence and damage they caused to the public and the state, were ultimately brought under control and culminated in a multi-million-person rally on January 12 condemning the unrest and supporting the central government of the Islamic Republic.

High costs and Persian Gulf Worries: Operationalizing a military threat would impose heavy costs on the United States and its allies. The Islamic Republic has explicitly declared that any military action against its territory, at any scale, would be regarded as all-out war, and that, consequently, the entire region—as well as U.S. interests wherever they may be—would fall within range of Iran’s retaliatory strikes. This serious warning has also prompted Persian Gulf states to mobilize their capacities to dissuade Trump from attacking Iran. The strikes on U.S. bases at Ayn al-Asad and Al-Udeid entrenched the perception that the Islamic Republic does not shy away from responding to foreign aggression, even if large segments of the world regard the attacking state as a “superpower.”

Global Energy Risks: The ignition of war in the Persian Gulf would amount to a grave threat to global energy supply routes. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of liquefied natural gas are supplied by Persian Gulf countries, and 20–25 percent of global crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz. Any aggressive action by the United States would jeopardize the security of one-fifth of the world’s fuel and profoundly affect the global economy.

Although the U.S. National Security Strategy does not place the Middle East among America’s top strategic priorities, the same document states that: “We (the United States) want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the forever wars”, which shows Persian Gulf oil is still of high importance for Washington.

Tilting Power Balance: In addition, heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf would endanger China’s economic interests, and any large-scale military confrontation would likely lead to a more pronounced military-security presence by Russia and China in the Gulf—tilting the balance in favor of America’s rivals.

And finally?

The embers beneath the region’s ashes today could be ignited by the slightest breeze, engulfing a vast area. Israel, while likely the first target of Iran’s retaliatory response in the event of a U.S. attack, is nevertheless eager to initiate confrontation based on the calculation that a war waged with the full might of the United States could ultimately erode the very existence of the Islamic Republic or weaken it to the point of capitulation. In this context, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the disclosure of new documents and details concerning Trump’s links to the notorious Epstein case and his mysterious island may have been driven by the Mossad, as such revelations could compel the U.S. president to undertake an irrational action to divert attention elsewhere.

Today, Trump is acting more than ever in contradiction to his own professed principles—from trampling on his signature MAGA slogan and morphing it into MIGA (Make Israel Great Again), to undermining his administration’s efforts to reduce unnecessary international expenditures; from his paradoxical pride in having ended “eight wars” to the strategy of off-shore balancing the Middle East. Should a war of this magnitude and consequence erupt, no country involved—whether through direct action or geographic proximity—would be spared its consequences. Regarding these circumstances, it appears that the only desirable scenario for Trump, the region, and the world at large is the opening of a genuine dialogue, free from the shadow of threats, intimidation, and American bullying.