分类: politics

  • Kenyan politicians trade accusations of ‘goonism’ as political violence rises ahead of 2027 election

    Kenyan politicians trade accusations of ‘goonism’ as political violence rises ahead of 2027 election

    In the East African nation of Kenya, political tensions are hitting a fever pitch 12 months out from the 2025 general election, and a new term has come to dominate public discourse: ‘goonism.’ Coined by national leaders to criticize the growing trend of violent, intimidating gangs targeting opposing political groups, the phrase has revealed deep divides between President William Ruto’s administration and the country’s opposition, as the competition for power grows increasingly hostile and dangerous.

    Ruto, who first swept into office in a tight 2022 race after campaigning as a devout born-again Christian promising to build a pious, peaceful nation centered on working-class Kenyans, now faces widespread accusations of breaking the values he once championed. Once nicknamed ‘Nabii’ – the Swahili word for prophet – for his public piety, Ruto framed his 2022 campaign as a rebellion against long-standing political dynasties, arguing his rise to power came solely through God’s grace rather than elite privilege. But many of his one-time supporters say a dramatic shift occurred immediately after his inauguration.

    While Ruto still attends Sunday church services, critics note he no longer carries a Bible or quotes scripture regularly. Controversial decisions, from demolishing a small chapel on the Statehouse compound to build a newer facility to rolling out aggressive income tax hikes just months after taking office, have reinforced claims of betrayal. The tax proposals sparked mass protests by thousands of young Kenyans across the capital Nairobi that forced partial rollbacks, but failed to ease public anger. Later, additional unrest erupted after a popular blogger died in police custody, and a 2024 protest that saw demonstrators storm the parliamentary building left Ruto’s political standing damaged – and the president increasingly determined to project hardline strength. In a fiery response to anti-government protests where demonstrators carried signs demanding his resignation, Ruto infamously instructed police to ‘break’ protesters’ limbs, drawing widespread condemnation that framed the comment as a veiled threat against political dissent.

    Today, both ruling and opposition figures decry goonism, but each side blames the other for the surge in political violence. Opposition leaders claim the gangs that disrupt their rallies and intimidate their supporters are directly state-sponsored. ‘We must say no, collectively, to the new specter, the new norm, of goonism,’ prominent opposition leader Kalonzo Musyoka told local media, rejecting government claims that opposition groups are behind the violence. Even ruling party allies have acknowledged the threat the trend poses to Kenya’s democracy: National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, a close Ruto ally, recently stated that ‘the culture of goonism has no place in a democratic society.’ Interior Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has also pledged to crack down on unauthorized armed gang activity targeting political gatherings.

    The violence has already spilled into everyday public life: Last month, opposition Senator Godfrey Osotsi was violently assaulted by a group of men at a western Kenyan restaurant over his political views, leaving him with injuries serious enough to require hospitalization. The attack sparked local protests and drew widespread condemnation from religious leaders across the country.

    Religious leaders have emerged as some of the most vocal critics of Ruto’s shift away from his stated Christian values, with one prominent megachurch pastor delivering a viral sermon that implicitly condemned the president’s ties to political violence. ‘Everyone who wants to rule this country by that kind of thing, I speak as a prophet of God: You shall fall,’ megachurch pastor Wilfred Lai, based in the coastal city of Mombasa, told his congregation during a recent Sunday service. ‘You can’t use goons and you are telling us that you are taking us into a better place. You are a liar and the truth is not in you.’ Though Lai never mentioned Ruto by name, the widely shared clip of the sermon left little doubt among Kenyans who he was targeting. Lai was one of multiple evangelical leaders who publicly supported Ruto during his 2022 campaign, making his rebuke all the more significant.

    Public anger has been further stoked by a bitter, venomous public feud between Ruto and his former deputy Rigathi Gachagua, who was impeached earlier this year after falling out with the president. Gachagua now leads the ‘Wantam’ movement, which is pushing to limit Ruto to a single term. The pair have traded increasingly vulgar insults: In March, Gachagua called Ruto a thief who would ‘steal a funeral home,’ prompting Ruto to label Gachagua a ‘cold-blooded pig’ who stole from his own brother. The public spectacle drew a rare rebuke from Kenya’s top Catholic leadership. ‘Disagreement is OK, but insulting each other in public is a disgrace,’ said Archbishop Maurice Muhatia, head of the local Catholic bishops conference, at a recent gathering. ‘Give us a break.’

    Political scholars and analysts warn that if both sides do not de-escalate tensions immediately, the 2025 election could be one of the most violent in Kenya’s modern history. Kenya has a long history of fractious, election-related violence – most notably the deadly 2007 post-election unrest that saw the criminal gang Mungiki play a major role in targeted attacks. Analysts say the current context is far more volatile than past elections, with Ruto’s uncompromising leadership style stoking fears of a shift toward authoritarianism, a break from past Kenyan presidents who were more open to accommodating opposition. ‘Goonism’ is ‘a product of gangster theology’ of which Ruto is the high priest, said Nairobi-based independent writer Christine Mungai, arguing the president has mastered ‘how to perform public piety’ while working ‘to make life harder for everyone.’

    Karuti Kanyinga, a Kenyan development scholar and visiting professor at South Africa’s Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, warned that if hostile rhetoric and gang activity continue, the 2025 election will devolve into widespread bloodshed. ‘If Ruto and opposition figures don’t tone down the rhetoric the election is going to be very bloody,’ Kanyinga said, adding that by next year, ‘everyone will have their own protection gangs.’

    As the election draws closer, Ruto continues to court influential church leaders, who hold massive social and political sway across Kenyan communities. But with growing numbers of religious leaders turning against him, and opposition groups gaining traction amid widespread public anger, Ruto’s path to a second term remains uncertain. Though his position is precarious, adversaries acknowledge the president remains a cunning, formidable opponent who will be difficult to unseat in next year’s vote.

  • Britons set to punish Starmer’s Labour in local polls

    Britons set to punish Starmer’s Labour in local polls

    Polling stations opened across England, Scotland and Wales at 7 a.m. GMT on Thursday for what is poised to be the most high-stakes electoral test for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government since the party’s landslide 2024 general election victory that ended 14 years of Conservative rule.

    Nearly two years into Starmer’s premiership, pre-election opinion polls point to a grim outcome for the ruling party, with losses large enough to reignite long-simmering tensions over his leadership and amplify growing calls for his resignation or an official leadership challenge. Widespread public disillusionment with the traditional major parties has created a power vacuum that two populist factions — Nigel Farage’s right-wing anti-immigration Reform UK and the left-wing Green Party led by self-described eco-populist Zack Polanski — are projected to fill as their main beneficiaries.

    Around 5,000 of the UK’s 16,000 local council seats in England are up for grabs in this vote, while voters in Scotland and Wales are also choosing new members for their respective devolved legislatures. Polls will close at 10 p.m. Thursday, with partial results expected overnight and the full bulk of vote counts set to be released Friday.

    Starmer campaigned on a platform of transformative national change after 14 years of Conservative governance marked by austerity measures, Brexit-driven political chaos, and the 2022 economic crash under former Prime Minister Liz Truss. But critics argue his tenure has been defined by a string of unforced policy missteps and controversies, most notably a high-profile scandal tied to his former close ally Peter Mandelson, the ex-UK envoy to the U.S. who was fired over his ties to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    Most damaging for Starmer’s approval ratings has been the government’s failure to deliver on its core campaign promise of jumpstarting sustained economic growth. British households continue to grapple with a prolonged cost-of-living crisis driven by soaring energy prices and stagnant wages, leaving many voters frustrated that the change they voted for has yet to materialize. As University College London associate politics professor Melanie Garson put it: “The change hasn’t been delivered, or change that has been delivered has been negative.”

    Garson noted that this election marks an unprecedented turning point for UK politics, noting “for the first time, significant pressure on the main political parties across every single council.” She described the vote as “a huge barometer for how the country is feeling about this political establishment.”

    Ahead of voting, Starmer framed the election as a binary choice between national unity and division, “progress versus the politics of anger.” Labour has also sought to stem losses by highlighting problematic comments from opposition candidates, unearthing racist remarks from some Reform contenders and antisemitic statements from several Green candidates.

    Pre-election projections paint a dire picture for Labour across all regions. Polling suggests the party will lose control of the devolved Welsh government for the first time since the Welsh parliament was established 27 years ago, with a recent More in Common poll placing Reform neck-and-neck with pro-independence Plaid Cymru in Labour’s traditional Welsh heartlands.

    In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) is projected to extend its 19-year hold on the Edinburgh devolved parliament, with YouGov data forecasting that Reform could even push Labour into third place in the region. In London, the Greens are on track to seize seats from Labour by courting disaffected left-wing voters with a pro-Gaza policy platform.

    Leading pollster Robert Hayward projects that Labour could lose as many as 1,850 of the roughly 2,550 local council seats it is currently defending. Hayward predicts Reform will gain 1,550 seats from both Labour and the Conservatives, mostly in majority white working-class communities that have long been traditional strongholds for the major parties. The Conservatives, who have been out of national power since 2024, are also bracing for heavy losses of their own traditional heartland seats.

    Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch framed the shift as a definitive end to the UK’s traditional two-party system, telling PA Media: “The two-party era has moved into a multi-party era. But the fact is none of these new parties or Labour have a plan for the country.”

    Farage, for his part, expressed confidence in Reform’s prospects Thursday: “The message is clear: if you want real change, you’d better vote for it, and we go into tomorrow feeling pretty optimistic about our prospects.”

    Following the expected poor results, UK media is rife with speculation that senior Labour figures could move to oust Starmer. Names frequently cited as potential challengers include former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner and current Health Secretary Wes Streeting. However, neither contender commands universal support within the parliamentary Labour party, and a leadership challenge requires the backing of at least 20 percent of Labour MPs to move forward. Some backbench lawmakers are also reportedly planning to demand that Starmer announce a timeline for stepping down, despite his repeated public commitments to leading the party into the next general election scheduled for 2029.

  • China says ties with US remain stable ahead of Trump visit despite ‘disruptions’

    China says ties with US remain stable ahead of Trump visit despite ‘disruptions’

    BEIJING – One week ahead of a highly anticipated bilateral summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, senior diplomatic and political leaders from both nations have issued public statements emphasizing a commitment to preserving overall stable bilateral relations, even amid acknowledged ongoing disruptions. On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, China’s highest-ranking diplomatic official, addressed a visiting bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Steve Daines, a Montana Republican and prominent ally of President Trump.

    Wang opened the discussion by framing the trajectory of China-U.S. ties over the preceding year, noting that while the relationship has navigated significant twists and unplanned disruptions, it has remained anchored in overall stability. He specifically credited both President Xi Jinping and President Trump for providing critical directional guidance to the bilateral relationship at key inflection points, and called on both nations to collaborate on a shared path forward that advances global peace and security.

    Senator Daines echoed Wang’s call for stability, reiterating that Washington’s priority lies in de-escalating existing tensions rather than pursuing full economic decoupling from the world’s second-largest economy. “I strongly believe that we want to de-escalate, not decouple. We want stability, we want mutual respect,” Daines stated during the meeting.

    The Republican senator also highlighted economic opportunities that could emerge from next week’s summit, suggesting that a successful meeting could clear the way for additional Chinese purchases of Boeing commercial aircraft, a outcome that would benefit the U.S. aviation manufacturing sector. Beyond trade and economic cooperation, Daines praised China’s recent diplomatic efforts to ease rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly its work to facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a strategic chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s global oil supplies transits. He pointed to Wang Yi’s Wednesday meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as tangible evidence of China’s constructive diplomatic engagement in the region. This aligns with longstanding U.S. pressure on Beijing to leverage its economic and political influence with Iran to keep the critical waterway open, ahead of Trump’s scheduled May 14-15 visit to China.

    This trip marks Daines’ second visit to China since President Trump took office, following an earlier trip in March 2025. That earlier visit took place at a moment of heightened bilateral friction, with both sides locked in disagreements over trade tariffs and cooperation to curb the illegal cross-border fentanyl trade.

  • Polls open in UK local elections seen as a verdict on Keir Starmer’s leadership

    Polls open in UK local elections seen as a verdict on Keir Starmer’s leadership

    Polling stations have opened across England, Scotland and Wales on Thursday for critical midterm local and regional elections, a vote that is widely seen as a potential knockout blow for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his embattled Labour government.

    Voters are casting ballots to fill roughly 5,000 local council seats, multiple mayoral positions, and all seats in the devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales. Polls began welcoming voters at 7 a.m. UK time and will close at 10 p.m. While a small number of local authorities will complete vote counting overnight, the vast majority of full results are not expected to be made public until Friday afternoon.

    Though local elections in the UK traditionally center on hyper-local issues such as waste collection, neighborhood graffiti, and road maintenance, Starmer’s political opponents have successfully framed Thursday’s contest as a public referendum on his premiership less than two years after he led Labour to victory in national elections.

    A severe defeat for Labour in this vote is widely expected to spark immediate moves from discontented backbench Labour lawmakers to remove Starmer from office. Even if the prime minister manages to weather the immediate political storm, most independent political analysts question whether he will still lead the party into the next mandatory general election, scheduled to take place no later than 2029.

    Starmer’s public approval ratings have plummeted sharply since he took office as prime minister in July 2024, dragged down by a string of high-profile policy and political missteps. His government has failed to deliver on key campaign promises, including boosting sustained economic growth, repairing chronically underfunded and strained public services, and easing the ongoing cost-of-living crisis that has hit working- and middle-class households across the UK. These domestic challenges have been compounded by escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, as the conflict between the U.S.-Israeli bloc and Iran has disrupted global oil supplies via the Strait of Hormuz, driving up energy prices for UK consumers.

    Starmer’s political standing has suffered further damage from his widely criticized decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, a veteran party figure with longstanding ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. The appointment already triggered a major party crisis in February, when multiple Labour lawmakers — including the party’s leader in Scotland — publicly called on Starmer to resign over the controversy. He survived that challenge, but internal party discontent has not abated.

    Currently, Labour holds roughly 2,500 seats on English local councils that are up for re-election this cycle, and rank-and-file party members have openly expressed anxiety that the party could lose a large share of these seats. Political analysts warn a landslide loss could force an immediate leadership contest or intensify behind-the-scenes pressure on Starmer to step down voluntarily.

    Luke Tryl, a senior analyst at leading UK pollster More in Common, argues that this election cycle could mark a historic turning point for British politics, saying the contest is on track to trigger the “total collapse of the traditional two-party system” that dominated UK politics for generations, which previously centered on Labour and the Conservative Party.

    The biggest beneficiary of this political shift is projected to be Reform UK, the hard-right populist party led by veteran nationalist campaigner Nigel Farage. Reform UK has targeted working-class communities that were once traditional Labour strongholds in northern England and outer London, running on an anti-establishment, anti-immigration platform that has resonated with disaffected voters. The left-leaning Green Party is also expected to make major gains, picking up hundreds of council seats across urban centers and university towns.

    The main opposition Conservative Party, which lost national power to Starmer in 2024, is also projected to lose seats in this election, while the centrist Liberal Democrats are expected to pick up a smaller number of seats in suburban and southern English constituencies.

    In his final pre-election message to voters, Starmer notably did not even mention the Conservatives, framing the election instead as a clear choice between “progress and a better future” under a Labour government, and what he described as “the anger and division offered up by Reform or empty promises from the Greens.”

    On the eve of the vote, Farage struck a confident tone, saying that a strong showing for Reform would mean Starmer is “gone by the middle of summer.”

    Reform UK is also targeting potential breakthroughs in Scotland and Wales, though polling still indicates that pro-independence nationalist parties the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru are on track to retain enough support to form the next devolved governments in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively.

    Tony Travers, a professor of government at the London School of Economics and one of the UK’s leading experts on local elections, summed up Labour’s difficult position: “Labour’s going to lose to Reform in some places, Greens in others, and here and there they’ll lose one or two seats to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives as well. They’re fighting on four fronts in England — five in Wales and Scotland.”

  • Rubio arrives for audience with Pope Leo XIV to ease tensions after Trump’s criticism over Iran

    Rubio arrives for audience with Pope Leo XIV to ease tensions after Trump’s criticism over Iran

    On Thursday, May 7, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio touched down in Rome to kick off a high-stakes fence-mending visit to the Vatican and Italy, a trip upended by repeated public attacks from President Donald Trump against Pope Leo XIV that have plunged U.S.-Holy See relations into one of their deepest rifts in recent memory.

    A devout practicing Catholic, Rubio was scheduled to hold a formal audience with the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV later that day, a meeting that nearly fell apart after Trump launched another last-minute broadside against the pontiff, twisting his public stances on the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and nuclear non-proliferation. The pope has forcefully pushed back against Trump’s misrepresentations, clarifying that his repeated calls for dialogue over conflict align with centuries of Catholic teaching on peace and the Gospel message, not softness on security threats.

    The friction between the American president and the head of the Catholic Church stretches back to last month, when Trump launched a social media tirade against Leo, criticizing the pontiff’s comments on U.S. immigration policy, mass deportations, and the ongoing military campaign in Iran. The clash escalated after Leo stated that God does not hear the prayers of those who choose to wage aggressive war. Tensions spiked further when Trump shared a social media graphic that appeared to compare himself to Jesus Christ; the post was removed after widespread public backlash, and Trump has refused to apologize, later claiming he thought the image depicted him as a physician.

    Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin waded into the dispute on the eve of Rubio’s visit, issuing a carefully worded but firm rebuke of Trump’s attacks. “Attacking him like that or criticizing what he does seems a bit strange to me, to say the least,” Parolin said Wednesday.

    In his scheduled meetings, Rubio is also set to hold talks with Parolin, before traveling to Rome on Friday to meet Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. That meeting is expected to be equally tense: both Italian leaders have publicly defended Pope Leo and labeled the U.S.-Israeli invasion of Iran illegal, drawing sharp criticism from Trump in return.

    Rubio pushed back against suggestions this trip was hastily arranged to repair broken ties, telling reporters at the White House earlier this week that the visit had been planned for months, while acknowledging “obviously we had some stuff that happened.” He also attempted to frame Trump’s repeated criticisms of the pope as rooted in legitimate security concerns, arguing that Trump opposes any pathway for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons — a stance he says is shared by most of the international community.

    Pope Leo has repeatedly refuted Trump’s false claim that he accepts Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. In comments Tuesday night, the pontiff noted the Catholic Church has opposed all nuclear weapons for decades, emphasizing that his mission is simply to spread the Gospel message of peace. “If someone wants to criticize me for announcing the Gospel, let him do it with the truth,” he said. Leo also clarified his position: the Church upholds the just war tradition and recognizes the right of nations to self-defense, but the advent of nuclear weapons requires a fundamental reevaluation of armed conflict in the modern era. “I always believe that it’s much better to enter into dialogue than to look for arms,” he added.

    This is not the first time Rubio has been called upon to de-escalate tensions and soften the edge of Trump’s unorthodox rhetoric. Trump has also turned his criticism on other NATO allies over their lack of support for the Iran war, recently announcing plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Germany in the coming months.

    Vatican observers note that the Holy See’s decision not to cancel the scheduled audience with Rubio signals a clear willingness to maintain open diplomatic channels, even amid the public acrimony. But many analysts question what substantive progress Rubio can achieve on this trip. Former ANSA news agency chief Giampiero Gramaglia argued that Rubio is as motivated by his own political future as he is by repairing U.S.-Vatican relations, ahead of upcoming midterm congressional elections and the 2028 presidential race. As a prominent Catholic Republican, Gramiglia told the Foreign Press Association in Rome, “I doubt Rubio has the role of conciliator for Trump. I have the perception that Rubio’s mission is more about himself.”

    Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary of the Vatican’s culture office, wrote this week that Rubio’s visit is less about convincing the pope to adopt Trump’s position on Iran, and more about a quiet recognition from Washington that Leo’s global voice carries significant influence that cannot be simply dismissed. “The situation created by President Trump’s remarks required a high-level, direct intervention, conducted in the proper language of diplomacy: a semantic corrective to a narrative of frontal conflict with the church,” Spadaro noted.

    For Italy’s government, the path forward is far more complicated, even if Vatican relations can be partially smoothed. Italian public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the Iran war, and Prime Minister Meloni’s balancing act — maintaining the U.S.-Italian alliance while criticizing Trump’s policies — is becoming increasingly unsustainable, prominent Italian journalist Massimo Franco wrote in the Corriere della Sera.

    Beyond the tit-for-tat over Iran and the Trump-Leo clash, Cuba is also expected to feature prominently in Rubio’s talks with Vatican officials. The Holy See has raised sharp concerns over the Trump administration’s repeated threats of military action against Cuba, which came after the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January. Trump has repeatedly stated that Cuba could be “next” for regime change, even suggesting that U.S. naval assets deployed to the Middle East for the Iran war could stop in Cuba on their way back to the United States once the conflict concludes.

    Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and a longstanding hardliner on U.S. policy toward Havana, noted that the U.S. has provided $6 million in humanitarian aid to Cuba, but the Cuban government has blocked official distribution. So far, aid has been distributed through the Catholic Church, and Rubio said Washington hopes to expand that cooperation.

  • Paraguay’s president visits Taiwan as pressure from China grows

    Paraguay’s president visits Taiwan as pressure from China grows

    In a move that reaffirms Paraguay’s long-standing diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, Paraguayan President Santiago Peña touched down in Taipei Thursday for his inaugural visit to the self-governing island, which Beijing continues to claim as an inalienable part of its territory.

    Paraguay stands as the last remaining South American nation and one of only 12 countries globally that maintains formal diplomatic ties with Taipei. Over the past several years, Beijing has waged an increasingly aggressive diplomatic campaign to poach Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic allies, and has never ruled out the use of military force to annex the island. Notably, Paraguay maintains robust bilateral trade ties with mainland China even as it continues to uphold its diplomatic commitment to Taipei.

    According to Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peña’s visit, which runs through Sunday, includes a delegation of business leaders from key sectors such as agriculture and finance. On Friday, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te is scheduled to welcome Peña with full military honors.

    This high-profile diplomatic meeting unfolds against a backdrop of intensifying pressure from Beijing on Taiwan’s democratically elected government. In recent months, Beijing has ramped up military coercion, deploying warplanes and naval vessels to areas surrounding Taiwan on an almost daily basis.

    Taipei, for its part, has pushed back to preserve and expand its international space, a goal highlighted by Lai’s recent trip to Eswatini, Taiwan’s last remaining diplomatic ally in Africa. Lai’s visit was originally delayed after multiple countries denied overflight permission to Lai’s plane, a move widely attributed to diplomatic pressure from Beijing.

    Beijing has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations of coercing those nations to block the trip, but has publicly expressed “high appreciation” for countries that abide by its so-called “one China principle,” which enshrines Beijing’s territorial claim to Taiwan.

    The cross-Taiwan Strait split dates back to 1949, at the end of the Chinese Civil War. After the Communist Party seized control of mainland China, defeated Nationalist Party forces retreated to Taiwan. The island has since evolved from decades of martial law into a fully functioning multi-party democracy, separate from the communist political system in Beijing.

  • China has played key role in Iran war and will continue to do so

    China has played key role in Iran war and will continue to do so

    Just days after announcing “Project Freedom”—a U.S. military initiative designed to reestablish safe commercial navigation through the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz—former U.S. President Donald Trump announced a halt to the operation. In a social media statement, Trump explained the pause was intended to create space for U.S. diplomatic teams to negotiate a conflict-ending agreement with Iran.

    Iran’s state-run media quickly framed the suspension of the U.S. mission as a clear setback for Washington. This development comes on the heels of repeated Iranian threats to target any commercial or military vessels attempting to transit the waterway, followed by a series of missile and drone strikes against civilian commercial ships and targets in the United Arab Emirates. Today, the future trajectory of the conflict remains deeply uncertain, but one factor is widely agreed upon by global observers: China will play a decisive role in any eventual outcome.

    Over the opening two months of the ongoing conflict, China has served as the primary pillar sustaining Iran’s struggling economy. Even before the outbreak of hostilities, China absorbed as much as 90% of Iran’s total crude oil exports, purchasing more than one million barrels of Iranian oil daily. That steady flow of crude continued uninterrupted in the conflict’s early stages: CNBC data confirms that at least 11.7 million barrels of Iranian oil were shipped to Chinese buyers between February 28 and March 10.

    To bypass harsh U.S.-led Western sanctions that block Iran from accessing the U.S.-dominated SWIFT global payment network, payments for Iranian crude are processed through Chinese financial infrastructure, including Bank of Kunlun and China’s Cross-border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). These platforms allow for oil trade transactions to be settled in Chinese yuan, effectively keeping Iranian oil revenues beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury Department and enabling Tehran to continue earning critical foreign currency despite international pressure.

    While the volume of Iranian oil flowing to China has declined since mid-April, when the U.S. enforced a naval blockade around Iranian export ports, China still maintains a limited but critical revenue lifeline for the Iranian government moving forward. On May 2, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued an official order directing Chinese companies not to comply with newly imposed U.S. sanctions targeting five Chinese refiners linked to the Iranian oil trade. This ruling allows these refiners to continue processing Iranian crude that arrives via overland rail routes or that was already stored in facilities outside the U.S. blockade zone. As of April 21, industry estimates indicate roughly 160 million barrels of Iranian crude were already in transit or held in floating storage at sea, much of it bound for Chinese markets.

    China’s sustained economic support for Iran has emerged as a major new point of diplomatic friction between Washington and Beijing, just ahead of a scheduled high-stakes summit between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. During a May 4 interview with Fox News, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent characterized China’s continued purchases of Iranian oil as equivalent to “funding global terrorism.”

    Despite rising U.S. criticism, China’s outsized economic influence over Iran also grants Beijing significant diplomatic leverage over Tehran, and available evidence suggests a negotiated end to the conflict aligns with China’s core strategic interests. Global energy price spikes triggered by the Hormuz disruption have already started to put downward pressure on China’s domestic economy, and brokering a peaceful resolution would also bolster Beijing’s goal of positioning itself as a responsible global power on the international stage.

    China has already played a substantial behind-the-scenes diplomatic role in de-escalating tensions. While Pakistan has served as an official public mediator between the U.S. and Iran, many independent analysts credit China as the primary driving force behind the temporary ceasefire reached in April. During that period, Iranian officials confirmed that China had publicly called on Tehran to demonstrate flexibility and work to reduce confrontational tensions.

    Beijing has continued its diplomatic push for negotiations in the weeks following the ceasefire. Mere hours after Trump announced the pause on Project Freedom, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to Beijing for talks with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi—marking the first visit by Iran’s top diplomat to China since the conflict began. In an official statement released after the May 6 meeting, China’s foreign ministry reiterated that “a complete cessation of fighting must be achieved without delay … and that continuing to negotiate remains essential.” For his part, Araghchi confirmed Iran would defend its “legitimate rights and interests in the negotiations” while signaling openness to “accept a fair and comprehensive agreement.”

    At the same time, there are clear signs that China is hedging its strategic bets to account for multiple possible outcomes. A prolonged, draining conflict that ties down substantial U.S. military resources in the Middle East offers clear strategic benefits for China, most notably by diverting Washington’s attention and military assets away from the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. intelligence assessments indicate Beijing has actively considered providing direct military support to Iran if open hostilities resume. Multiple outlets, including CNN, reported in April that China has weighed transferring shoulder-fired anti-air missiles (Manpads) to Iran, potentially routing shipments through third countries to obscure Beijing’s direct involvement. China has repeatedly denied these claims, stating it “has never provided weapons to any party to the conflict.”

    Beyond potential arms transfers, Chinese technical assistance has already improved the operational capacity of Iran’s military since the conflict began. Since 2021, Iran has gradually integrated China’s BeiDou satellite navigation system, an alternative to the U.S.-run Global Positioning System (GPS). BeiDou has assisted in guiding Iranian missile strikes during the conflict and enabled more consistent monitoring of U.S. military deployments across the region.

    From the conflict’s opening weeks to the current diplomatic impasse, China has shaped the trajectory of hostilities in meaningful ways. Given its unique combination of economic, diplomatic and limited military influence over Iran, Beijing will remain a core determinant of whether the crisis moves toward a lasting negotiated settlement or reignites into open, large-scale conflict.

  • South Korean court reduces prison sentence for ex-prime minister in martial law case

    South Korean court reduces prison sentence for ex-prime minister in martial law case

    In a high-stakes legal ruling that caps another chapter of South Korea’s post-2024 political upheaval, the Seoul High Court has slashed the prison sentence of former prime minister Han Duck-soo, a key figure in ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed December 2024 martial law declaration that ultimately toppled Yoon’s administration.

    Han, a 76-year-old veteran career bureaucrat hand-picked by Yoon, originally received a 23-year prison term from a lower Seoul district court in January over his conviction on rebellion charges tied to the unconstitutional power grab. Yoon himself was sentenced to life in prison on the same rebellion charges just one month after Han’s initial conviction.

    Handing down its decision Thursday, the appellate court upheld nearly all of the guilty verdicts against Han, but adjusted his total sentence to 15 years behind bars. The ruling reaffirmed all core charges against the former prime minister, including that he took intentional steps to lend an air of legitimacy to Yoon’s illegal martial law decree by securing the measure’s endorsement at a formal Cabinet meeting. The court also upheld findings that Han participated in discussions to cut water and electricity access to major South Korean media outlets, falsified official documents related to the martial proclamation, ordered the original document destroyed, and committed perjury during investigation proceedings.

    In its ruling statement, the Seoul High Court emphasized the extreme severity of Han’s offenses, noting that as the second-highest ranking official in the Yoon administration, he betrayed the enormous public trust placed in his position and actively collaborated in the rebellion against South Korea’s constitutional order.

    Park SungBae, a prominent South Korean criminal law specialist, noted that both the lower district court and the appellate court have consistently framed Han’s crimes as exceptionally serious. Park explained that the revised 15-year sentence aligns with the broader sentencing pattern for other senior officials convicted in connection with the martial law plot: for example, Yoon’s former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min received a seven-year prison term for his role, a benchmark the appellate court likely considered when adjusting Han’s sentence.

    Park added that the special prosecutor handling the case actually requested a 15-year sentence for Han during the original trial at Seoul Central District Court. While the 23-year initial sentence handed down by the lower court was harsher than many legal observers anticipated, it still fell within the standard sentencing range for the gravity of Han’s crimes, Park noted.

    Both legal teams for Han and the office of the special prosecutor now have a seven-day window to file a further appeal to South Korea’s Supreme Court, the nation’s highest judicial body.

    A seasoned public servant with a four-decade career in government, Han has held the post of prime minister twice: first under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008, and again under conservative Yoon starting in 2022. After Yoon was suspended from office following his martial law attempt, Han served as one of three interim caretaker leaders before the formal impeachment process concluded.

    The chain of events triggered by Yoon’s martial law declaration ultimately ended in his removal from power: South Korea’s National Assembly impeached Yoon, and the Constitutional Court formally ordered his permanent removal from office in April 2025. Liberal opposition leader Lee Jae Myung won a subsequent snap presidential election to succeed Yoon as the country’s head of state.

  • Iran will control Strait of Hormuz ‘forever’, former senior US official says

    Iran will control Strait of Hormuz ‘forever’, former senior US official says

    On Tuesday, a former high-ranking US official made a stark prediction about long-term control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, arguing that Iran will retain dominance of the critical waterway indefinitely—no matter what provisions any eventual US-Iran peace deal includes. This outlook, he says, is already pushing vulnerable Gulf Arab states to accelerate the construction of alternative oil and gas export infrastructure to escape Iran’s strategic chokehold over the world’s most important energy chokepoint.

    Amos Hochstein, who served as a senior energy and Middle East policy advisor to former US President Joe Biden, laid out his assessment in an interview with Bloomberg. When asked about ongoing negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran aimed at ending the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic Republic, Hochstein left little room for ambiguity: “The Strait of Hormuz is under Iranian control forever — basically for the foreseeable future. Nobody in the market should look at what the deal says eventually and believe it on [the] straits. Iran will control the straits.”

    Hochstein noted that while political leaders in Washington may accept any language about reopening the strait in a final agreement, regional Gulf states understand full well that Iran will hold de facto power over access to the waterway moving forward. “Everybody in Washington will believe it. Nobody in the Gulf,” he said. “They know the Iranians are now going to control this.”

    The strategic waterway has emerged as the central sticking point in the current US-Iran peace negotiations, with both sides imposing blockades to assert territorial and military control. Iran has been blocked from moving its own oil tankers out of the Strait of Hormuz and the adjacent Gulf of Oman, but Tehran has in turn blocked exports from neighboring Gulf Arab states through the waterway. Tensions have escalated sharply in recent days: earlier this week, Iran announced it had struck a US warship that attempted to breach its blockade, and also launched drone and missile attacks targeting the United Arab Emirates, in what was widely interpreted as a response to US naval activity in the region.

    Following the Trump administration’s rejection of an Iranian proposal to reopen the strait in exchange for a ceasefire and a delay to negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, Iran confirmed Wednesday it is reviewing a new peace proposal put forward by the US. For his part, Trump said Wednesday he believes a final agreement with Iran is “very possible,” but issued a blunt threat to resume large-scale bombardment of the country if talks collapse, adding that the US will only accept nothing less than Iran’s “surrender.”

    Against this backdrop of uncertainty, Hochstein says Gulf states have already begun moving forward to build new pipeline infrastructure that bypasses the Strait entirely. Smaller Gulf nations including Kuwait and Bahrain have been completely cut off from their traditional export routes through the waterway, and Qatar’s liquefied natural gas exports have been brought to a complete halt, forcing the country to extend force majeure on LNG shipments through June.

    Larger regional players that already had partial bypass infrastructure in place have fared far better. Saudi Arabia, for example, continues to export roughly five million barrels of crude per day via its East-West Pipeline, which moves oil from Gulf production fields to the Red Sea for export. The UAE operates a pipeline to the Indian Ocean port of Fujairah, allowing it to maintain exports at roughly half of pre-war levels. Iraq, another major oil exporter heavily reliant on the Strait, is also rushing to develop alternative routes: this week, Baghdad launched its first crude oil exports via the al-Yarubiya-Rabia border crossing with Syria, with 70 tanker trucks carrying crude north for export out of Mediterranean ports. Iraq is also working to expand the capacity of an existing oil pipeline running north to Turkey to boost alternative exports.

    Far from being a prohibitive investment, Hochstein argued that the cost of new bypass infrastructure is relatively modest given the scale of energy exports from the region: “It’s not even that expensive. A few billion dollars. But a few billion dollars in what we’re talking about doesn’t cost very much.”

    Beyond the geopolitical shift, the disruption to Strait of Hormuz shipping has already created massive dislocations in global energy pricing, with huge gaps between benchmark futures prices and the actual physical cost of crude. Hochstein pointed out that benchmark prices quoted on global markets do not reflect actual trading costs, noting: “$110 of Brent oil is only available on a Bloomberg terminal. You can’t buy that barrel. That barrel of Brent oil is selling for $150. $145 some days, $155, even $170.”

    This discrepancy is not new: HSBC CEO Georges Elhedery noted last month that extreme price disparities exist across different markets, with the most severe impacts hitting energy-importing low-income nations with no domestic oil production. Elhedery reported that spot crude prices have reached as high as $286 per barrel in Sri Lanka. Hochstein warned that this supply shortage will not stay confined to vulnerable low-income countries: “We have physical shortage already, but it’s just in countries we don’t care about. But then it will go to middle-income countries, like Vietnam and Thailand, then it goes to Japan and Korea, and then it comes here.”

  • Victory in Iran is nothing short of finishing it off

    Victory in Iran is nothing short of finishing it off

    In the volatile geopolitical landscape of the Middle East centered on Iran, there is an old, unwritten rule: if you have to publicly explain that you have achieved victory, you have already suffered a quiet defeat. That unforgiving standard now applies to President Donald Trump’s stunning last-minute reversal: just one day after launching Operation Freedom, a U.S. Navy escort initiative for commercial cargo transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the president announced he was putting the mission on hold. The sudden policy shift has left observers baffled, as has Trump’s claim that a breakthrough peace deal with Tehran’s ruling regime is within close reach.

    It is worth noting that fixating on the president’s frequent policy shifts can quickly become disorienting. No external observer has access to the full scope of classified intelligence that Trump reviews daily; only the president himself knows his ultimate strategic objectives and the path he intends to take to reach them. That said, retired U.S. Marine Colonel Grant Newsham, author of *When China Attacks: A Warning to America*, draws a parallel between this moment and several landmark missteps in recent U.S. foreign policy history—ones that have echoed through global security for decades.

    Newsham compares the early halt to the Hormuz mission to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush ended the first Gulf War just 72 hours too soon, leaving Saddam Hussein’s regime intact and setting the stage for decades of conflict and a second U.S. invasion a dozen years later. The same ominous feeling arose in 2001, when President George W. Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan rather than closing the net and eliminating the al-Qaeda leader. A similar missed opportunity played out in the 1990s, when the U.S. had a clear opening to halt the Kim family regime’s nuclear weapons program in North Korea, but President Bill Clinton declined to act—with backing from former President Jimmy Carter, who infamously declared Kim Il Sung “a good man we can do business with.”

    More recently, Newsham points to missteps during Trump’s first term that fit the same pattern. When Chinese telecommunications giants Huawei and ZTE—widely accused of functioning as arms of Beijing’s intelligence apparatus—were on the brink of collapse from U.S. sanctions, Trump stepped in to relieve pressure and allow the firms to rebuild. The same goes for TikTok, the popular short-video app repeatedly flagged as a continuous Chinese intelligence collection and influence operation, which the first Trump administration ultimately failed to ban or force a sale of.

    Across these cases, Newsham argues, American leaders have lost the ability to follow through on defeating adversaries, instead choosing to redefine “victory” to match incomplete, half-finished policy outcomes.

    A particularly troubling element of the current shift, Newsham notes, is the Trump administration’s reported willingness to allow Pakistan to mediate any future deal with Iran. Pakistan, he argues, has long been firmly aligned with Beijing, taking strategic direction from China on key regional issues. This dynamic is analogous to the Biden administration relying on Russia to mediate U.S.-Iran talks—a move that ignores basic geopolitical realities: it is critical to correctly identify which nations are genuine allies and which are not.

    Pakistan has a long track record of double-dealing that undermines U.S. interests, from its duplicitous behavior throughout the 20-year U.S. campaign in Afghanistan to its decade-long hosting of Osama bin Laden after his 2001 escape. Islamabad has also waged a sustained terror campaign against India for years, a campaign that rivals the destructive activities of Iran’s Quds Force. Newsham questions why a nation with this track record would be trusted to mediate a deal critical to U.S. national security.

    To be fair, Newsham acknowledges that the president has access to intelligence that outside commentators do not, and there could be sound justifications for pausing Operation Freedom. Perhaps the U.S. is facing a shortage of interceptor missiles, and leaders fear Iranian strikes on critical desalination plants operated by Gulf Cooperation Council nations. Maybe the United Arab Emirates, which has already suffered Iranian attacks on its oil infrastructure, intervened to request a hold on military escalation.

    Even so, the sudden about-face defies explanation: less than 12 hours before the pause, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Michael Cain publicly announced plans for a multi-layered defense “Red, White and Blue Dome” to protect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. That proposal was abruptly pulled off the table within a single day.

    Another possible explanation is that Trump believes he can reach a favorable deal with self-identified “moderates” within the Iranian regime. But Newsham pushes back on this: nearly 50 years of dealing with the Islamic Republic should have taught U.S. leaders that genuine moderates do not hold power in Tehran—most Iranians who favor liberalization live in exile abroad. The ruling regime that just brutally suppressed domestic unrest, killing an estimated 40,000 protestors, has not changed its core ideological or strategic goals.

    Geopolitical windows of opportunity do not stay open forever, Newsham warns, and this moment to neutralize Iran’s nuclear and regional threat may be closing—closing at the hands of the U.S. itself. Even if a deal is reached, Tehran has a long track record of breaking its international commitments. The regime will almost certainly rebuild its military capabilities, continue its push for a nuclear weapon, reactivate its network of regional proxy militant groups, and brutally eliminate all domestic opposition—the same opposition that Trump publicly promised “help is on the way.”

    The regional and global ripple effects of this reversal are already taking shape, Newsham argues. Chinese leader Xi Jinping had been thrown off balance by the strong U.S. military display and demonstrated political will during recent operations in Venezuela and the opening stages of the Iran conflict. Now, Xi will have little reason to fear U.S. resolve. He will learn that the U.S. rarely follows through on its threats, and that Beijing only needs to hold out and outwait American political will.

    For U.S. allies across the Middle East and Indo-Pacific that counted on Washington to see the mission through and confront aggressive regional powers, this reversal will sow deep uncertainty and mistrust. In the end, Newsham concludes, it will not take long for the outcome of this policy shift to become clear. If the Trump administration finds itself having to convince the world that it won in Iran, that old unwritten rule still holds: the explanation itself is proof of defeat.