Global Pulse

博客

  • Iran war fuel crisis forces Pakistan to close schools, take austerity measures

    Iran war fuel crisis forces Pakistan to close schools, take austerity measures

    Pakistan has initiated severe austerity measures in response to the escalating conflict between the US-Israel alliance and Iran, which has severely disrupted global energy markets and threatened the nation’s economic stability. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the closure of all schools until month-end and mandated remote work for university students and half of the national workforce, excluding essential services.

    The government’s comprehensive austerity package includes a 20% reduction in official expenditures, prohibition of major purchases, and significant cuts to official vehicle usage and fuel allowances. High-earning government officials face two-month salary deductions, while federal cabinet members will forfeit their salaries entirely during this period. Parliament members will see a 25% reduction in wages, and all foreign travel for lawmakers has been prohibited. The measures extend to social events, with official Ramadan iftars and government parties banned indefinitely.

    These drastic steps come as the US-Israel military campaign against Iran enters its second week, with Iran retaliating by targeting Gulf energy infrastructure and effectively blocking the Strait of Hormuz—a critical passage for 20% of global petroleum shipments. Pakistan relies overwhelmingly on Gulf energy imports, with Qatar and the UAE supplying 99% of its liquefied natural gas needs.

    The conflict has driven oil prices to their highest levels since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Brent crude reaching $119 per barrel. Pakistan’s economy, already struggling with high inflation, substantial debt, and dwindling foreign exchange reserves, faces additional pressure from regional security challenges, including border tensions with Afghanistan and historical conflicts with India.

    Prime Minister Sharif has condemned both the attacks on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory measures while offering Pakistan’s services as a mediator to de-escalate the rapidly worsening conflict.

  • Lindsey Graham threatens Saudi Arabia if they do not join war on Iran

    Lindsey Graham threatens Saudi Arabia if they do not join war on Iran

    US Senator Lindsey Graham has issued a stark warning to Gulf allies, threatening ‘consequences’ for their refusal to participate in military operations against Iran. In a series of public statements, the senator criticized Saudi Arabia specifically for denying US forces access to its bases for offensive maneuvers and for its unwillingness to deploy its military against what he termed ‘the barbaric and terrorist Iranian regime.’

    The confrontational rhetoric comes as the conflict between the US-Israeli coalition and Iran enters its second week, with Gulf states experiencing significant collateral damage. Despite being among the hardest hit by Iranian drone and missile attacks, regional powers including the UAE have explicitly stated they will not permit their territories to be used for offensive operations against Tehran.

    Background context reveals that Graham’s recent diplomatic mission to Saudi Arabia was explicitly aimed at persuading Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to support military action—a fact the senator confirmed to The Wall Street Journal. This effort follows earlier revelations that Riyadh had prevented US access to its bases for offensive operations.

    The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states had previously lobbied President Trump against military escalation, fearing precisely the type of attacks that are now devastating their energy infrastructure and civilian facilities. Regional ambassadors have expressed frustration that their security concerns were disregarded in US planning, with the UAE’s UN representative Jamal al-Musharakh stating they are ‘being targeted in a very unwarranted manner’ despite their diplomatic efforts.

    Military analysts note that Iran has demonstrated sophisticated strike capabilities, targeting critical infrastructure including water desalination plants and energy facilities across multiple Gulf nations. The conflict has already claimed the lives of seven American service personnel, with the latest casualty reported from injuries sustained in a March 1st attack on Prince Sultan Air Base.

    The political landscape within Iran appears to be consolidating rather than fracturing under pressure, with the Assembly of Experts appointing Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader—a direct rejection of US demands for regime change. This development, coupled with the Gulf states’ reluctance to engage militarily, suggests the conflict may be entering a protracted phase with significant implications for US regional influence and security architecture.

  • End Iran war before Trump-Xi summit or encourage a hedgehog world

    End Iran war before Trump-Xi summit or encourage a hedgehog world

    The geopolitical landscape surrounding Iran remains in a state of suspended animation as Tehran appears to be delaying substantive concessions to US demands until after the critical March 31 summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. This strategic pause allows Iranian leadership to assess the summit’s outcomes and potentially secure China’s backing—a calculated risk that may present more favorable prospects than immediate capitulation.

    The upcoming presidential meeting carries significant implications for how China will perceive American power projection—whether strengthened or diminished—which in turn will influence Beijing’s positioning toward Iran. Multiple variables could sway China’s assessment, including potential market volatility, oil price fluctuations, Russian intervention, wavering Gulf state commitments, and shifting Israeli and American strategic confidence.

    Should events unfold along this trajectory, Iranian hardliners could potentially regain political dominance within a month, regardless of the summit’s results. This scenario might prompt heightened resistance and potentially trigger miscalculations from a frustrated Trump administration. The escalating situation underscores the urgency for the United States to achieve a swift resolution—declaring victory within one to two weeks while allowing the Iranian situation to evolve organically.

    Iran currently faces a significant power vacuum, with its defensive and nuclear capabilities potentially degradable within a brief timeframe. A strategic pause by the United States could alter the conflict’s trajectory substantially. While theoretical control might be maintained for 30-90 days, the overall situation remains highly volatile, with Iran representing a fundamentally different challenge than previous conflicts in Gaza or Ukraine.

    The temptation of Iran’s complete surrender must be balanced against realistic timelines and costs, particularly considering the wild cards represented by Russian and Chinese involvement. A victory achieved solely through military force without political resolution risks reinforcing dangerous international perceptions that raw power represents the only solution to geopolitical problems.

    This approach potentially catalyzes a multipolar nuclear arms race, with North Korea’s paranoid realpolitik becoming the diplomatic standard rather than liberal global norms. The emerging multipolar world order has abandoned collective governance in favor of narrowly defined national interests, creating significant gaps in global stability management.

    The conflict’s prolongation risks transforming Iran into a failed state, creating a geopolitical void spanning Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan that could destabilize Central Asia, Pakistan, Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Gulf region. This disruption of post-World War II international rules establishes a paradigm where “the law of force has replaced the force of law,” according to Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s acute observation.

    China approaches this complex situation with characteristically cautious strategy, unlike the expansionist Soviet model. Beijing’s hedgehog doctrine—extending quills that remain connected to the core but can be severed if problematic—reflects a pragmatic focus on systemic survival rather than ideological export. China maintains significant advantages in industrial capacity, rare earth dominance, and manufacturing efficiency, potentially positioning it for medium-to-long-term competition with the United States.

    However, Beijing may be miscalculating the strategic landscape. America’s efforts to reduce industrial reliance on China and widen technological gaps mean time may not necessarily favor China. Even with US attention diverted to the Middle East, Japan and regional allies are preparing coordinated resistance against Chinese expansion. Paradoxically, a weaker America might complicate rather than simplify China’s regional position.

    If global chaos intensifies, the United States might retreat into hedgehog isolationism, potentially triggering opposition that requires escalating force to contain. This could transform the world into a field of defensive hedgehogs where even the most powerful nation might ultimately falter.

  • Trump says he’s ‘nowhere near’ ordering US ground troops into Iran

    Trump says he’s ‘nowhere near’ ordering US ground troops into Iran

    President Donald Trump has explicitly stated that the United States is not considering the deployment of ground troops to Iran to secure nuclear facilities in Isfahan. In a recent phone interview with the New York Post on Monday, Trump emphasized that such military action remains far from imminent, declaring, “We haven’t made any decision on that. We’re nowhere near it.”

    The President’s comments come amid escalating tensions following joint U.S.-Israel airstrikes on February 28th that targeted Tehran and multiple Iranian cities. These operations resulted in the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with dozens of senior officials, military commanders, and hundreds of civilians.

    Trump also expressed strong disapproval of Mojtaba Khamenei’s ascension as Iran’s new supreme leader, indicating his dissatisfaction with the leadership transition. During a separate interview with ABC News on Sunday, the President made controversial remarks suggesting the new leader would require American approval to maintain power, stating, “He’s going to have to get approval from us. If he doesn’t get approval from us he’s not going to last long.”

    The situation remains volatile as the international community monitors nuclear security concerns in the region and the political vacuum created by the recent targeted strikes. Smoke rising from explosion sites in Tehran, documented in recent photographs, underscores the ongoing instability in the region following the military operations.

  • ‘Sharp spike’ in anti-Muslim posts on X since US-Israel war on Iran, study shows

    ‘Sharp spike’ in anti-Muslim posts on X since US-Israel war on Iran, study shows

    A dramatic escalation in anti-Muslim content has flooded Elon Musk’s X platform following the commencement of joint US-Israel military operations against Iran on February 28th, according to a comprehensive study by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH). The Washington DC-based research organization documented an alarming tripling of explicitly dehumanizing, exclusionary, and violence-inciting posts targeting American Muslims, soaring from approximately 2,000 daily instances to over 6,000 immediately after the conflict initiation.

    The comprehensive monitoring, conducted between January 1st and March 5th, revealed that despite a subsequent decline in volume by early March, the underlying conditions fueling this digital hatred remain persistently active. The research specifically examined US-originating content targeting domestic Muslim communities, excluding international sources to focus on domestic hate patterns.

    Perhaps most disturbingly, the analysis demonstrated the viral amplification mechanics of digital hatred. When accounting for reposts and shares, the total visibility of Islamophobic content reached 279,417 instances—representing an eleven-fold multiplication beyond the original hate posts. This massive dissemination network allowed harmful content to transcend its original sources, reaching audiences far beyond the initial hate circles.

    The content spectrum ranged from personal vitriol to organized political advocacy, including calls for legislative measures such as a proposed ‘Muslim Exclusion Act’ and mass deportation initiatives. Particularly alarming was the normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric describing Muslims as ‘rats,’ ‘pests,’ ‘vermin,’ and ‘parasites’—linguistic patterns that historically precede extreme violence against targeted communities.

    The report identified concerning parallels with genocidal rhetoric, noting how calls for violence were frequently framed as matters of ‘self-defense’ or ‘civilizational survival,’ thereby granting perpetrators a false veneer of patriotic justification. This narrative construction effectively weaponizes nationalist sentiment against religious minorities.

    Platform enforcement mechanisms proved woefully inadequate. When CSOH reported 30 explicit violations under X’s own ‘Violent Speech’ and ‘Hate, Abuse or Harassment’ policies, only 11 were removed, with 19 remaining publicly accessible as of March 9th. This enforcement gap highlights critical disconnects between platform policies and their practical implementation, particularly regarding protections for Muslim communities.

    The report concludes with urgent recommendations, including establishing ‘Trusted Flagger status’ for Muslim civil rights organizations, creating dedicated reporting channels for mass incitement content, and enhancing monitoring capabilities for community organizations. Additionally, it calls for political accountability regarding rhetoric that conflates military conflicts with religious or civilizational struggles, noting how such language dangerously inflames domestic hostility toward minority communities.

  • Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu in shouting match with judge as trial begins

    Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu in shouting match with judge as trial begins

    The sprawling corruption trial of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu commenced under intense scrutiny at the Silivri courthouse complex, marking the beginning of what could become Turkey’s most politically significant judicial proceeding in years. The suspended mayor, facing over 140 criminal charges alongside 406 co-defendants, immediately challenged the court’s procedures as supporters rallied outside the massive courtroom designed to accommodate approximately 1,000 attendees.

    Proceedings opened with dramatic confrontations as presiding judges denied Imamoglu’s request to address his supporters and subsequently cut his microphone when he attempted to speak from the defendant’s bench. ‘Starting the trial in this way is very wrong,’ Imamoglu declared. ‘People who have been victimized here must be able to defend themselves.’

    The trial’s scale presents unprecedented logistical challenges, with court officials estimating that merely verifying the identities of all defendants and legal representatives could consume two full days. Among the 407 defendants, 107 remain in pre-trial detention while nearly 300 have been released pending judicial proceedings.

    Defense attorneys immediately raised multiple procedural objections, alleging limited access to evidence, judicial bias, and fundamental irregularities in trial management. Lawyers revealed that nearly 100 pages of the indictment were missing from the electronic system, while detainees struggle to review tens of thousands of pages of evidence with only two hours of weekly computer access—a situation one attorney described as requiring ‘a titanic effort’ for adequate defense preparation.

    Further controversy emerged when defense teams discovered that the witness list had apparently been leaked to pro-government media outlet Yeni Safak before being formally shared with legal representatives. The court additionally rejected defense motions seeking prosecutor recusal and live broadcast of hearings.

    The prosecution seeks staggering prison terms ranging from 849 to 2,430 years against Imamoglu on charges including criminal organization establishment, bribery, extortion, asset laundering, and bid rigging. The mayor and his Republican People’s Party (CHP) maintain their innocence, characterizing the case as politically motivated.

    The trial carries profound implications for Turkey’s political landscape, potentially eliminating a leading opposition figure widely considered President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s most formidable potential challenger. Imamoglu has been under arrest since March 2025 and already suffered a setback to his presidential ambitions when a court previously invalidated his university degree—a mandatory qualification for presidential candidates.

    With parliamentary and presidential elections not formally scheduled until 2028, the trial’s outcome could significantly influence Turkey’s political trajectory, particularly if Erdogan seeks constitutional changes to pursue a third term or calls early elections in 2027.

  • Huge crude oil spike and Asia plummet: How the Iran war hit the markets

    Huge crude oil spike and Asia plummet: How the Iran war hit the markets

    Financial markets worldwide experienced significant turbulence at the week’s opening following escalated military actions between Israel and Iran over the weekend. The conflict reached new intensity when Israeli forces targeted more than thirty Iranian oil depots across Tehran and Karaj, exceeding previously communicated operational scope according to Axios reports.

    In retaliation, Iran launched offensive operations against energy infrastructure throughout the Gulf region, with confirmed attacks impacting facilities within the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. This exchange has substantially heightened geopolitical risks within global energy markets, particularly affecting crude oil transportation through the critically important Strait of Hormuz.

    Energy markets witnessed extraordinary price movements, with Brent crude futures surging to $119 per barrel – the highest valuation since 2022 – before moderating to approximately $105 following announcements of potential coordinated petroleum reserve releases by G7 nations through the International Energy Agency. The price volatility reflected market uncertainty regarding supply continuity from the region.

    The conflict’s impact extended beyond energy markets, creating widespread equity market declines across Asian, European, and American trading sessions. Japan’s Nikkei 225 and South Korea’s KOSPI experienced particularly severe contractions, declining 5.2% and 6.2% respectively during Monday’s session, reflecting these nations’ substantial dependence on Middle Eastern energy exports.

    European markets mirrored this negative trend, with London’s FTSE 100 dropping to its lowest level since mid-January while Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC both declined approximately 2.4%. The U.S. dollar strengthened notably amid revised inflation expectations and anticipations that the Federal Reserve might maintain higher interest rates for longer.

    Industrial and agricultural commodities demonstrated varied responses, with aluminum reaching four-year highs due to supply concerns while precious metals including gold experienced unexpected declines. Agricultural commodities, particularly palm oil and soybean oil, recorded substantial gains linked to broader energy market movements.

    Market analysts attribute the sustained volatility to concerns regarding conflict prolongation, particularly following Iran’s appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader and continued regional military operations. The situation remains highly fluid with traders monitoring diplomatic developments and potential supply disruptions.

  • Iran’s Jews feeling fear and heartbreak as US-Israeli strikes rain down

    Iran’s Jews feeling fear and heartbreak as US-Israeli strikes rain down

    Amidst escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, the nation’s dwindling Jewish population finds itself caught in a complex web of identity, politics, and survival. With fewer than 10,000 Jews remaining in the country of 90 million, community members express diverse perspectives on the conflict while navigating daily security concerns.

    Yosef, an Iranian Jewish historian, draws a sharp distinction between his religious identity and political Zionism. “Zionism has damaged Israel’s reputation globally,” he asserts, noting the absence of influential left-wing movements in contemporary Israeli politics. Like many in his community, Yosef shelters from aerial strikes originating from Israel—a nation he’s expected to feel affinity toward but criticizes for its role in regional destabilization.

    The ongoing warfare presents profound personal dilemmas for Iranian Jews who watch conflicts between their homeland and the Jewish state. Sara, a 46-year-old businesswoman from Shiraz, directs her anger toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom she describes as a “charlatan” using military escalation to divert attention from domestic corruption charges. Despite her Jewish faith, she maintains: “I cannot see the country where I was born and raised as my enemy.”

    Historical context reveals a dramatic demographic shift: Iran’s Jewish population has declined from approximately 70,000-100,000 before the 1979 Islamic Revolution to just over 9,000 according to the 2016 census. This transformation occurred alongside the severing of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Jerusalem.

    Daniel, a 52-year-old Tehran jeweler, expresses dual sorrow witnessing missiles strike Israeli cities while Israeli and American warplanes fly over his own home. “The explosions keep us awake at night,” he confesses, reflecting the anxiety many feel about speaking openly during wartime.

    Contrary to expectations, some community members report improved attitudes toward Jews within Iran. Arash, a 71-year-old restaurant owner, observes: “The level of anger toward the Islamic Republic is so high that many Iranians today see Jews as friends.” However, he quickly affirms his primary identity as Iranian and laments governmental policies that have brought the country to its current situation.

    As the conflict enters its second week with strikes targeting Tehran’s oil infrastructure, the community’s deepest fear extends beyond immediate violence to concerns about Iran’s future. Yosef articulates this apprehension: “What I fear most is that the final result of this war will destroy the country I love,” capturing the profound tension between national loyalty and religious identity that defines the experience of Iran’s Jewish minority.

  • UAE tycoon rules out Abu Dhabi joining Iran war in scathing attack on US

    UAE tycoon rules out Abu Dhabi joining Iran war in scathing attack on US

    In a remarkable public denouncement, prominent Emirati billionaire Khalaf al-Habtoor has explicitly rejected American appeals for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations to join a military campaign against Iran. Through a sharply worded statement on social media platform X, the Dubai-based magnate accused the United States of elevating Israel’s security interests above both American regional allies and its own citizens.

    The criticism came in direct response to recent statements by US Senator Lindsey Graham, who had publicly urged GCC countries to align militarily with the US and Israel against Iran. Habtoor, whose business conglomerate maintains close ties to UAE ruling circles, delivered an unusually frank assessment of regional geopolitics despite the UAE’s typically restrained diplomatic discourse.

    “We recognize precisely why we face regional threats and exactly which power precipitated this dangerous escalation without consulting those it labels ‘allies’,” Habtoor asserted. While acknowledging Iran’s destabilizing regional influence and expressing Abu Dhabi’s distrust of Tehran, the billionaire condemned what he characterized as a “dirty game” where global powers pursue their interests at the Gulf’s expense.

    The businessman emphatically stated the UAE would not become embroiled in conflict to serve external interests, declaring: “We refuse to sacrifice our sons in an avoidable conflict that should be resolved through diplomatic channels.” He contrasted this stance with American leadership, noting pointedly that if US politicians wished to “risk American lives for Israel’s interests, that represents their choice.”

    The statement gained particular significance following Israeli media reports—subsequently denied by Emirati officials—claiming UAE involvement in a strike on an Iranian desalination facility. The UAE foreign ministry clarified that while operating in a “defensive posture” against Iranian threats, the nation “does not seek escalation or conflict entanglement.”

    Habtoor further challenged Senator Graham’s assertion that Arab nations require American protection, retorting: “We need no protection—only that you keep your hands off our region.” He characterized US weapons sales to the UAE as commercial transactions rather than strategic favors, noting Abu Dhabi’s substantial investments in its own security apparatus.

    The billionaire referenced Graham’s comments on Fox News regarding oil reserves, suggesting this revealed America’s true motivation: “Only then does the picture become clear. Only then do we understand why they want this war.” He concluded by accusing Graham of defending Israeli interests more vigorously than American ones, suggesting the senator sounded like “a member of the Israeli Knesset.”

    The critique carries exceptional weight given Habtoor’s previous support for Trump-brokered normalization agreements with Israel. His Al Habtoor Group was among the first Emirati entities to pursue Israeli partnerships following the Abraham Accords, making his condemnation of US policy particularly noteworthy.

  • Renowned Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi dies aged 100

    Renowned Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi dies aged 100

    Walid Khalidi, the preeminent Palestinian historian whose seminal scholarship documented the displacement and historical narrative of the Palestinian people, has passed away at the age of 100. His death was confirmed by the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), the Beirut-based research center he co-founded in 1963, which announced he died on Sunday in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Khalidi’s life’s work was dedicated to meticulously chronicling Palestinian society before and after the Nakba—the ‘catastrophe’ of 1948 that saw the violent displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to facilitate the creation of the state of Israel. He earned the moniker ‘the historian of the Palestinian cause’ through his rigorous academic contributions, which included translating and analyzing the diaries of key Israeli figures like first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett.

    Under his stewardship, the IPS became an indispensable resource, producing critical studies and translations between Hebrew, Arabic, and English. Among its most significant publications was a detailed examination of the Haganah, the Zionist paramilitary force central to the 1948 events. Khalidi’s research was instrumental in bringing to light previously concealed strategic plans, such as Plan Dalet, which outlined the systematic occupation and depopulation of Palestinian villages.

    His encyclopedic collections, including the photographic archive ‘Before Their Diaspora’ and the comprehensive volume ‘All That Remains,’ serve as rare visual and historical records of a vanished pre-1948 Palestine. Born into an academic family in Jerusalem in 1925, Khalidi’s own career was distinguished. He taught at the University of Oxford until resigning in protest over the 1956 Suez Crisis, later becoming a professor at the American University of Beirut until 1982, and finally a research fellow at Harvard University.

    Blending scholarship with political advocacy, Khalidi maintained associations with several Palestinian political movements and formally represented Palestinian interests on the international stage, including in the Arab League and at the 1991 Middle East peace talks in Washington. A lifelong proponent of a two-state solution, he articulated it in a 1988 Foreign Affairs article as the only viable framework for a historical compromise in the enduring conflict.