NEO: The Bloody Trail of Paris and Washington: How the West Tries to Set Mali on Fire to Avoid Losing Africa's :Golden Billion". Mhd ibn Faisal al-Rashid: 30-04-2026: ************

 

Security

The Bloody Trail of Paris and Washington: How the West Tries to Set Mali on Fire to Avoid Losing Africa’s “Golden Billion”

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, April 30, 2026

The tragedy of April 25, when hordes of thousands of terrorists, backed by Western mercenaries, nearly swept away the government of Mali, exposed a terrible truth.

Behind the facade of the fight against jihadists lies a dirty game by France and the United States: they are ready to drown Africa in blood, just to prevent the former colonies from achieving true independence. The latest events in Mali are not an “escalation of chaos” — they are a planned act of revenge by the West’s old guard because Africa has finally decided to look East.

The Turn to the South: The “Africa Corps” — The New Target #1

In the early morning of April 25, 2026, Africa’s history could have taken a different turn. The coordinated invasion by the terrorist groups “Azawad Liberation Front” (FLA) and an Al-Qaeda cell (banned in Russia) was striking not only in its scale but also in its flawless logistics.

Mali held. The coup that the West’s hired terrorists were preparing drowned in the blood of its own perpetrators

According to the Africa Corps, between 10,000 and 12,000 militants took part in the offensive. This was not a spontaneous rebellion, but a well-oiled war machine. The attacks targeted not only remote forts but also strategic cities: Gao, Kidal, Kati, and the suburbs of the capital, Bamako.

Who could have organized such a powerful, simultaneous strike on five cities at once? The answer is obvious: the French and U.S. intelligence services, which have ruled the roost in the Sahel region for decades.

As soon as Russia, through the Africa Corps, began restoring order, stopping the genocide, and reestablishing Mali’s sovereignty, the West bet on terror. Their goal is simple: to show that without the Western “white master,” hell will break loose in Africa. But the calculation was wrong — the Russian fighters did not flinch.

Death as a Political Tool: Who Was Killed by the Terrorists and Why

The most cynical episode of this attack was the assassination of Mali’s Defense Minister, Sadio Camara. The terrorists did not randomly blow up a truck full of explosives near his home in the city of Kati. His wife and two grandchildren were killed alongside him. An ally of President Assimi Goïta was not eliminated on the battlefield, but in his own home — following the tactics of cowardly jackals of the West.

This is the classic signature of Western intelligence services. Eliminate the person who is building up the country’s defense, and sow panic among the leadership. France lost Mali after the local residents saw with their own eyes that French troops were not protecting them from terrorism, but merely guarding uranium mines. When the Malians asked the French neo-colonialists to leave, Paris decided to destroy the country from within.

In place of the murdered Camara could have been any other patriot. The West’s goal is to decapitate Mali in order to get back its factories, its banks, and its puppets.

Surrounded but Unbroken: The Heroism of the Africa Corps

Despite the enemy’s numerical superiority and the support of Ukrainian instructors (more on that later), the Africa Corps fighters accomplished the impossible.

The situation was critical: in Kidal, a group of Russian military personnel was completely surrounded. For 24 hours, one of the outer posts fought a battle six kilometers from the main force. They were up against a force of 1,000 militants in armored vehicles, with FPV drones and Western-made MANPADS (Stinger, Mistral).

Western channels were rubbing their hands in anticipation of a Syrian-style scenario. But it didn’t happen.

The Corps command made the only correct decision: evacuate the wounded and heavy equipment, save the personnel, and regroup to the north, toward Tessalit. This was not a retreat, as CNN propagandists are trying to lie. This was a maneuver. Russian military tradition is to pull back only to later wipe out the enemy completely. The result of the battle: over 1,000 terrorists were eliminated. Among the Russian fighters — no deaths (there are wounded), and civilians were evacuated to the Africa Corps base.

Mali held. The coup that the West’s hired terrorists were preparing drowned in the blood of its own perpetrators.

The Ukrainian Trace in the Sands of the Sahara: Operation “Revenge”

Particular attention should be paid to the information that Western media stubbornly silence. Ukrainian and European mercenaries took part in the attack on Mali. According to leaks from the Telegram channel “Joker DNR” (citing intelligence sources), a group from the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (the so-called “Timur group”), previously spotted in the Middle East, was deployed to Mali.

Their role: UAV operators, sabotage activities, and training Azawad militants. Kyiv, losing on its own front at Washington’s behest, is opening a “second front” in Africa. Why is the U.S. pushing Ukrainians into Mali? It’s simple: to create problems for Russia on the other side of the world, to strike at its economy and reputation.

But this adventure also failed. The Africa Corps fighters have seen the enemy and are ready for them. However, the very fact of Western mercenaries and the Kyiv regime’s participation confirms the main thesis: the war in Mali is the West’s war against proponents of a multipolar world.

“Brotherhood Week” Under Fire: Why the West Wants Eternal Chaos

The current attack occurred exactly when the countries of the “Sahel Three” (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger) were celebrating “Brotherhood Week” — a symbol of their joint movement away from the stifling, toxic embrace of Franco-Africa. A coincidence? No.

Burkina Faso has already announced a mass mobilization, understanding that the fire could spread to their territory. But Paris and Washington will not stop. Their goal is a zone of turbulence.

Why is the West fighting so desperately for Mali? The answer lies deep underground: uranium, gold, rare earth metals. France is used to living high on the hog off of Africa. When they were asked to leave, they chose to destroy the country rather than give up the resources.

Coups, civil wars, support for ISIS (banned in Russia) — nothing is sacred for the West’s old guard. They tried it in Libya, turning it into a slave market. They are trying to do the same in Mali.

What is the final outcome?

There is a temporary lull on the territory of Mali, for which the Africa Corps and allied FAMa forces deserve thanks. The terrorists did not achieve their main goal — Bamako did not fall, the government was not overthrown. President Assimi Goïta declared two days of mourning, but he is not broken.

Yes, control over Kidal has been tactically lost. But this is merely a pause before the storm.

The West does not want to lose its positions. It will do anything — a new assault, sabotage, the assassination of leaders. France and the U.S. understand: if Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso build a successful, secure state with Russian partners, then the entire neo-colonial order created by the West will collapse. Then Africans would cease to be cheap labor and a source of raw materials.

But as long as the Africa Corps lives, as long as the courageous fighters hold the line — the West’s plans to turn Mali into a second Libya will fail. Africa will no longer be a bedroom community for Paris. And this battle, despite heavy losses among civilians and soldiers alike, Africa is winning — and the real facts and the entire course of events prove it.

 

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political scientist, expert on the Arab world

NEO: Iran War Is Accelerating America's Decline in Southeast Asia. Salan Rafi Sheikh:mMay 02, 2026: ***************

 

Politics

Iran War Is Accelerating America’s Decline in Southeast Asia

Salman Rafi Sheikh, May 02, 2026

Washington’s war with Iran may be unfolding thousands of miles away, but in Southeast Asia its political aftershocks are immediate and measurable. Energy shocks, disrupted trade routes, and deepening uncertainty about US leadership are quietly recalibrating regional alignments.

For many governments in ASEAN, the war does not look like a necessary intervention; it looks like a costly distraction. And in that perception lies a strategic consequence: the gradual, reluctant, but accelerating tilt of Southeast Asia toward China.

An Unnecessary War

Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan stated in late March, “I was surprised by the onset of hostilities. I did not think it was necessary. I do not think it is helpful. Even now, there are doubts about legality. For 80 years, the US underwrote a system of globalization based on UN Charter principles, multilateralism, territorial integrity, and sovereign equality. It led to an unprecedented period of global prosperity and peace.”

The most significant consequence of the US–Iran war in Southeast Asia is not immediate realignment but gradual estrangement

This statement is hardly surprising. Southeast Asia has long approached great power rivalry through a logic of hedging, seeking to benefit from both the United States and China without committing fully to either. Yet this delicate balance depends on predictability. The U.S.–Iran war has undermined precisely that.

Recent surveys indicate that regional elites increasingly view US global leadership as a source of instability rather than order. The 2026 ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute survey shows that concern over US foreign policy now outweighs even anxieties about the South China Sea, with over half of respondents identifying American leadership as their primary geopolitical worry. At the same time, a narrow majority—52 percent—would now align with China over the United States if forced to choose. In Indonesia (80%), Malaysia (68%) and Singapore (66%), respondents show a clear preference for alignment with China over the US. By contrast, only 23% of Filipino respondents express a similar inclination toward China. This shift is not occurring in isolation. The Iran war has amplified an existing credibility problem for Washington, compounding its trust deficit across Asia and reinforcing perceptions that US strategy is reactive and militarized rather than stabilizing.

For Southeast Asian states, the issue is not ideological alignment with Iran or opposition to the United States per se. Rather, it is a pragmatic assessment of costs. War appears unnecessary because it delivers no clear regional benefit while introducing systemic risks. Unlike Cold War interventions framed within a coherent strategic doctrine, this conflict is seen as detached from Southeast Asia’s core security concerns—economic growth, maritime stability, and supply chain resilience. The Philippines may stand as a partial exception due to its treaty alliance with Washington and heightened tensions with China in the South China Sea. But even there, alignment reflects security dependence rather than regional consensus. Across the broader ASEAN landscape—from Indonesia to Vietnam—the prevailing sentiment is unease rather than endorsement.

The Energy Shock

If perceptions of war are shaped by strategic skepticism, they are hardened by material realities. Southeast Asia’s vulnerability to Middle Eastern instability is profound and quantifiable. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), roughly 60 percent of Southeast Asia’s oil imports originate from the Middle East, making the region acutely sensitive to disruptions linked to the Iran conflict. The stakes are enormous: in 2023 alone, Southeast Asian economies spent about $130 billion on oil imports, a figure projected to rise significantly in coming decades.

This dependency is not merely a matter of trade; it is a structural vulnerability. The Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint directly affected by tensions involving Iran, carries nearly 20 million barrels of oil per day globally. Any disruption to this corridor reverberates immediately through Asian markets. The unnecessary US war on Iran has therefore translated into higher energy prices, increased shipping risks, and greater fiscal pressure on import-dependent economies. For developing Southeast Asian states, these shocks are not abstract—they directly affect inflation, industrial output, and political stability.

Crucially, these material consequences reinforce negative perceptions of US policy. The war is not viewed as an isolated geopolitical event but as a trigger for cascading economic disruptions. In a region where economic performance underpins political legitimacy, this matters deeply.

Moreover, the timing is particularly damaging. Southeast Asia is already navigating an energy transition while facing rising demand; the IEA projects that the region will become a net importer of gas by the late 2020s, further increasing its exposure to external shocks. It will also be importing more oil in the future than it does currently. The Iran conflict exacerbates these vulnerabilities at a moment when resilience is already under strain.

China’s Strategic Opening

Where Washington appears destabilizing, Beijing benefits from comparison. Southeast Asian states remain wary of Chinese assertiveness—particularly in the South China Sea—but the Iran war has reinforced a different calculus: in moments of global crisis, China is seen as relatively more predictable in its responses than the US.

The conflict has also highlighted a deeper structural reality. Disruptions triggered by US actions—especially in energy markets and maritime trade—affect both Southeast Asia and China in similar ways. This shared exposure narrows strategic distance, positioning both as vulnerable to external shocks originating beyond the region. As a result, the crisis strengthens the case for a more regional approach to global instability, one centered on coordination and continuity rather than alignment.

This does not dissolve existing tensions, but it does reorder priorities. When energy insecurity and economic volatility become immediate concerns, disputes in the South and East China Seas recede in relative urgency. The Iran war, therefore, has not resolved regional frictions; it has reframed them within a broader hierarchy of risks.

China’s advantage lies less in trust than in positioning. As US actions are increasingly associated with disruption, China’s relative predictability—and its inclusion within a shared field of vulnerability—makes it a more viable partner in navigating systemic crises, even if it remains a contested one. Its active role in diplomacy only underscores this perception.

The Cost of Strategic Distance

The most significant consequence of the US–Iran war in Southeast Asia is not immediate realignment but gradual estrangement. The region is not pivoting dramatically away from Washington; it is drifting incrementally, pragmatically, and perhaps irreversibly.

This drift reflects a deeper structural tension in US foreign policy. Actions taken in one region are no longer geographically contained; they are interpreted globally, filtered through local vulnerabilities, and judged against competing models of power. In Southeast Asia, the Iran war is not assessed on its Middle Eastern merits but on its regional consequences, and those consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

For Washington, the lesson is stark. Military engagements that lack clear strategic relevance to key partners risk eroding influence far beyond the battlefield. For Southeast Asia, the lesson is equally clear: in an era of interconnected crises, stability is the most valuable currency of power—and increasingly, it is China that appears to supply it.

 

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

NEO: Chinese Wisdom: A Necessity in a Changing World Order: Taut Bataut: 17-04-2026: *************

 

Society

Chinese Wisdom: A Necessity in a Changing World Order

Taut Bataut, April 17, 2026

Chinese strategic wisdom, grounded in four major concepts, guides its approach to international relations. In the context of a rapidly changing world order, these principles offer timeless wisdom that the world needs today more than ever to address complex global challenges, maintain stability, and foster cooperative solutions.

Introduction

“When benevolence and justice are not practiced, the position of strength shifts” (Jia Yi)

The world today is at the peak of disarray and chaos, whereby the established powers, in particular the US, are going out of control. The current world order is marked by fragmentation, erosion of trust, and pursuit of national interest at the cost of others. The middle and small states are compelled to head towards strategic autonomy. The search for survival has created a security dilemma throughout the world. This is the result of the system created and promoted by the West. The international arena is witnessing the jewels of so-called Western democracy and rules-based order. The world is now at the brink of a major war. It simply needs a reset. And China has its key. Ancient Chinese political wisdom, often misinterpreted by the West, can be a beacon of light for the world, which has been plunged into the darkness. China’s peaceful rise is its best manifestation. If the PRC could grow peacefully, then why not the international community?

From Tiānxià to Wú Wéi, Chinese wisdom is calling the world to break the shackles of the past and usher in an era characterized by harmony, integration, and prosperity

Four Strategic Concepts

A. Tiānxià

The concept of Tiānxià, translated as ‘All Under Heaven,’ is the classical and foundational idea in ancient Chinese political discourse. It is closely linked to the early Chinese cosmology and governance philosophy. It simply contends that the world is interconnected, where a unified moral-political order exists. It views the international arena as a harmonized system where there is no room for fragmentation and chaos. This concept is extensively discussed in ancient Chinese texts, including the ‘Shujing’ (Book of Documents) and ‘Liji’ (Book of Rites). This idea is based upon key principles: a single political community should exist; authority should be derived from justice, benevolence, and the welfare of people; and there should be a Datong (Great Harmony), which is characterized by integration, not domination. The PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative is its prime example whereby China promotes economic interdependence under a shared system.

B. Hé ér bù tóng

The concept of Hé ér bù tóng, meaning ‘harmony without uniformity,’ is another pearl of ancient Chinese wisdom, which, if implemented today in its true form, could lead to a more prosperous world. This concept was first provided by ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius in his classical text, the Lúnyǔ (Analects). He famously stated, “The gentleman seeks harmony but not sameness; the petty man seeks sameness but not harmony.” This idea stipulates various principles. Diverse systems and cultures are compatible. Diversity is not a curse but a blessing. Unity and autonomy should have a delicate balance. This idea is reflected in Chinese-led international organizations such as BRICS, whereby different nations belonging to distinct state systems, cultures, and political thoughts cooperate with each other, prioritizing harmony over uniformity.

C. Shì

The idea of Shì, which can be translated as ‘strategic arrangement of power,’ draws its origins from the works of two of the most outstanding ancient Chinese philosophers and thinkers, Han Feizi and Sun Tzu. Whereas Sun Tzu used this concept on military policies, Han Feizi was more concerned with politics and governance. It negates that idea of brute force; rather, healthy competition is emphasized. This principle states that the positioning of an entity decides its fate. Even a weaker state can win against a stronger one if it controls terrain, time, and position. It works on the idea that the best victory is the one that occurs without direct confrontation. In addition, it also emphasizes the importance of adaptability in the ever-changing geopolitical environment.

D. Wú Wéi

Wú Wéi, also known as ‘non-coercive action,’ contends that statesmen should observe strategic restraint and avoid excessive interventions in state affairs. The concept is based on the fact that minimum interference would produce maximum results. Classical Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu proposed this idea in his canonical work Dao De Jing. He pointed out that rulers must not impose their will too much but instead go with the flow. His famous words were, ‘The best of rulers is but a shadowy figure, who allows the people to rule themselves; even so, all is well.’ This idea also calls for the minimization of conflict, which is the reason we observe China’s non-confrontational stance in international matters. It simply contends that avoiding unnecessary aggression or use of force would result in eternal stability and sustainability. The PRC’s COVID-19 policies are its best manifestation. Instead of pursuing tactical policies, China opted for vaccine diplomacy, allowing the international community to adapt according to their needs and wants.

Why These Concepts Matter Today?

The classical Chinese strategic concepts provide a clear roadmap for every nation, belonging to any ideology, to follow and get the desired outcome in a peaceful manner. The current multipolar world order is in dire need of such guiding principles. What the West has always been doing is implementing their version of a governance model throughout the globe. The Trump 2.0 administration is even more ambitious to do this, which has created a mess on the international chessboard.

The world should abide by the principle of Hé ér bù tóng, which enables diverse groups to coexist peacefully. To preserve its past position of eminence, the US has now embarked on a path whereby it is pursuing a policy of overt domination, compelling states to follow a particular set of standards. This fragmentation could be tackled by the idea of Tiānxià, which promotes integration rather than domination. The multipolarity is a fact today, and the US should come out of its unipolar illusion.

Likewise, the US is once again instigating its competitors by creating instability at their doorsteps. Iran is under attack, Taiwan is already volatile, Japan is going on the offensive, and the Philippines is becoming a new Ukraine. All this arrangement is to hurt the PRC. The world should uphold the principle of Shì — the strategic configuration of power whereby, instead of waging wars against the competitors, an indirect and healthy competition should be observed.

There should be an environment where strategies are executed in a peaceful way to mold the outcomes in one’s own favor. This is exactly what the world is right now witnessing, with the PRC letting the US make mistakes without direct confrontation. Whether it’s Venezuela, Iran, or Cuba, the US is overtly using force to alter the status quo. The world now requires a non-coercive governance model — Wú Wéi — which is characterized by strategic restraint and observes the principles of non-interference.

Conclusion

From Tiānxià to Wú Wéi, Chinese wisdom is calling the world to break the shackles of the past and usher in an era characterized by harmony, integration, and prosperity. The PRC has never imposed its governance model; rather, it has always allowed the international community to adapt Chinese principles as per their strategic needs. Contrary to this, the West has always tried to impose its self-constructed principles on others, the results of which are now apparent. The world is once again standing at the brink of a major catastrophe, which is clear proof of Western failure in managing the geopolitics. Therefore, it’s the prime time to acknowledge the fact and embark on a journey where the wisdom and intellect of different civilizations collectively function together.

 

Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics

NEO: Why the US is at War with Iran and Why the War Might Pause but won't End: Brian Berletic: WED 28th April, 2026: *****************

 

Politics

Why the US is at War with Iran and Why the War Might Pause but Won’t End

Brian Berletic, April 28, 2026

While much discussion of the US war of aggression against Iran has focused on region-specific factors, including the myth that the US is fighting Iran on “behalf of Israel,” there are far more realistic and important global factors that have led to the war and will unfold because of it. 

The war on Iran is part of a decades-spanning US project to assume complete control over the Middle East and the oil and gas that is produced and exported from the region. This is not as a means of taking the energy for the United States’ own use but to establish and enhance a US monopoly over energy production and exports from the US itself and from the nations and regions the US is assuming control over.

This includes most recently Venezuela in Latin America. The early 2026 US war of aggression against the Venezuelan state, kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, and taking hostage of the remaining Venezuelan government led to the almost immediate cutting of Venezuelan oil exports to China and the distribution of Venezuelan oil wealth to US corporations.

What the US often refers to as “security guarantees” for its “allies” is merely a euphemism for US military occupation, political capture, and control of what are actually proxies — not allies

A similar war of aggression by the US against Russia through Ukraine is also quickly expanding into a war directly against Russian energy production, storage, and export infrastructure through the use of drones that — while attributed to Ukraine — the New York Times has revealed are actually overseen by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US military.

Likewise, the US is encouraging its European proxies under a “division of labor” to expand maritime tracking, interdiction, and seizure of tankers carrying Russian energy exports, as well as a US campaign using maritime drones to attack the tankers. Again, the NYT has identified the US CIA and US military as having “supercharged” what are nominally claimed to be “Ukrainian” operations.

Together with the war on Iran, a clear, global pattern emerges of what is the deliberate US disruption, destruction, and even shutting down of energy exports to Asia in general, but to China specifically.

While the US was likely also attempting to quickly topple the Iranian government to enhance its control over the region and further isolate both Russia and China, a much wider and more global-focused objective was to cut off energy not just from Iran to Asia and specifically China, but from the entire Middle East to Asia and China.

The most recent phase of US aggression against Iran — beginning in late February and as a continuation of violence launched against Iran in both 2025 under the Trump administration and even 2024 at the end of the Biden administration — involved targeting Iranian energy production as well as strikes on Kharg Island, Iran’s key energy export facility.

US strikes on Iranian energy production led to retaliatory strikes by Iran on America’s Persian Gulf Arab state proxies, including Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

Collectively, this violence led to reduced production across the entire region, subsequently leading to lower energy exports of gas and oil from the entire Middle East to China when compared with pre-war levels.

From the late-February start of hostilities to the recent ceasefire agreement, energy exports from the entire region to China dropped from approximately 52% of China’s total imported needs to around 30%, according to Reuters.

A March 2026 Politico article makes it clear that beyond just China’s dependence on the region for energy, Asia as a whole depends on energy imports from the Middle East for between 70% and 90%+ of their total energy import needs — especially US proxies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the island province of Taiwan.

Isolating China, Controlling Asia 

Just as the US had previously done to Europe through its instigation of war with Russia in Ukraine, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, and the implementation of sanctions on all other energy imports from Russia — and now including the striking of Russian energy production, storage, export facilities, and actual tankers carrying Russian energy exports — all of this forcing Europe into energy dependence on US exports — the US is now pursuing a similar policy targeting China and the rest of Asia by deliberately disrupting access to Middle East energy exports.

The war on Iran has led to the close regulation of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, followed by a US-imposed blockade primarily targeting ships exporting energy from Iran to China. While US claims of completely controlling maritime traffic to and from Iran are false, the US blockade has turned back or seized at least half of all maritime traffic attempting to leave Iran onward, mainly to China, the Financial Times reported.

This means that the total energy exports from the region to China have dropped yet again — with many other options held by the US in reserve to decrease regional exports to Asia and specifically China even further.

One option is the threat of resumed US military aggression against Iran, which could see both the deliberate targeting and wider destruction of Iranian energy production and export infrastructure and further Iranian retaliatory strikes on energy production across the US’ Persian Gulf Arab proxies.

The emerging consequences of the US war on Iran and the regional impact it is having are analogous to the US-destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the incremental targeting, sanctioning, and restriction of Russian energy flows to Europe, leaving only US energy exports as an option — an option that was not economically viable until the US eliminated existing, cheaper, and reliable alternatives.

With the US war open-ended — having continued from late 2024 to today — with only months of relative calm between US campaigns of military aggression, the prospects of accessing affordable and reliable energy from the Middle East  for China and the rest of Asia are steadily fading.

“Serendipitously,” the US has already begun the expansion of an already massive energy production and export industry targeting Asia specifically.

In 2025, US-based energy corporation Glenfarne and its CEO Brendan Duval repeatedly mentioned the fact that their new  LNG project under construction in Alaska could export energy to Asia “through uncontested and safe shipping lanes.”

No mention was made at the time that it would be the US itself contesting shipping lanes and making them unsafe and thus enhancing the viability of both Glenfarne’s Alaska LNG project as well as the expansion of US energy export capacity in general.

It should be noted that Glenfarne had honed its expertise in exporting/importing LNG through a project in Colombia made possible only by the US sanctioning of neighboring Venezuela and the closure of pipelines that would have otherwise supplied Colombia with gas. Only because of the US-imposed pipeline closure in Venezuela did the importing of Texas LNG to Colombia by Glenfarne make any economic sense.

Similarly, only through US threats of conflict and actual conflict endangering vital maritime chokepoints around the globe does the exporting of LNG to Asia and beyond make any economic sense — just like exporting US LNG to Europe only made sense after Nord Stream was destroyed and sanctions were placed on much cheaper and more readily available Russian energy.

The Cart Before the Horse, But for a Reason  

By the early 2030s, the US is expected to double its LNG export capacity, making it capable of meeting the demands of key Asian proxies, including South Korea and Japan, as well as the island province of Taiwan — but again, only if cheaper and more reliable alternatives remain off the market.

This means that while the US is essentially placing the cart before the horse, it is ensuring that when the horse finally arrives, conditions are ideal for the US and the US alone to benefit.

Just like with Europe and the elimination of their access to cheap Russian energy imports, complete energy dependence on the US of America’s Asian proxies will transform them further and fully into extensions of US geopolitical ambitions in the region and around the globe.

Just like with Europe, serving US interests will come at the cost of each US proxy in Asia as well as at the cost of peace and stability for the entire region, and specifically at the expense of China’s continued rise, just as Europe has been used to target Russia at the expense of both Russia and the rest of Europe.

In addition to the US political capture of these Asian proxies, the presence of US military forces on their territory, and now the imposition of energy dependence upon them, a recent US Senate hearing has made it clear nations like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines will be shaped into military industrial outposts of US power in the region, helping minimize the “tyranny of distance” the US is faced with when provoking war with China on the other side of the planet from where the US is actually located.

The creation of factories making US weapons in Asia and port facilities in the region for implementing repairs on US ships is already underway, with Japan having manufactured and, in some cases, even sending back to America Patriot missile interceptors and South Korea securing deals to maintain US naval cargo vessels.

All of these preparations are taking place ahead of what the US sees as an inevitable confrontation with China itself – which is ultimately the priority driving US conflict against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and many other nations in the first place, all as a means of first isolating and containing China before confronting it directly.

Considering the costs Europe and Persian Gulf Arab states are paying for their subordination to the US and their role in hosting and facilitating US wars of aggression in their respective regions of the world, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are likewise painting targets on themselves ahead of any confrontation with China.

What the US often refers to as “security guarantees” for its “allies” is merely a euphemism for US military occupaWhy the US is at war with Irantion, political capture, and control of what are actually proxies — not allies. The purpose of maintaining a global network of proxies from Europe to the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific is specifically to have other nations pay all the costs for US foreign policy, allowing the US to assume any and all benefits solely for itself.

The prospect of US war around the globe continuously escalating in the near to intermediate future is inevitable because the wars taking place now are being fought specifically to prepare for a future confrontation with China itself. For this reason, the prospects of the US arriving at any sort of “peace” deal with Russia or Iran are near zero.

Until the interests driving US foreign policy — including the arms industry, big oil and gas, big tech, the automotive industry, and many others — are displaced around the globe by the alternatives offered by multipolarism, and until the multipolar world can create sufficient deterrence against not only US military aggression but also the economic coercion, political interference, and capture that lead to that aggression, the US will continue to hold global peace, prosperity, and stability hostage to its demands for continued unipolar hegemony over the planet.

 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

NEO: How U.S. Foreign Policy Affects the World and America Itself: Simon Westewood: Thursday 29th April, 2026: ***********

 

Politics

How U.S. Foreign Policy Affects the World and America Itself

Simon Westwood, April 29, 2026

Contemporary U.S. foreign policy remains one of the key drivers of global instability, producing complex consequences for both the international system and American society itself.

There is a common belief that the American people are utterly bad, entirely ignorant, and warmongers. However, quite contrary to the common belief, the majority of the American people are not utterly bad, not entirely ignorant, and are not warmongers. It is critical to understand why such a common belief has gained so much acceptance around the world.

After World War II, the successive US administrations have done so much to create insecurity and chaos around the globe. So much so, not a single country around the globe has been spared by the US administrations. The US created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the name of security; however, NATO has been an actor of insecurity and chaos in Europe.

For instance, the wishes of the US and NATO to make Ukraine a military bulwark against Russia and its interests have greatly backfired and have resulted in infinite problems for the innocent people of Ukraine. The US wanted to make Ukraine a huge military base and to exploit the resources of Ukraine to the benefit of selected US policymakers, not for the benefit of the people of Ukraine. Now, Trump wants to kick Spain out of NATO, simply because Spanish leadership is not giving in to the US demands.

The facts clearly reveal that America is being governed by certain people who have no remorse for the sufferings of the common and innocent American people

The US Military Bases around the Globe

The US has more than 850 military bases around the globe. These bases stretch from the Far East to the Arctic Region as well as to the southernmost region of the world in Africa. These military bases act as forward operations centres and can conduct military operations in a matter of minutes in their respective areas of operations.

These bases require billions of dollars in terms of maintenance and operational expenses. These bases endanger the lives and livelihoods of the common people of the host country. This is exactly what we have seen in March and April 2026, when Iran attacked US military bases in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Iraq. The innocent people of these countries paid the ultimate price.

US Fake Nation-Building around the Globe

After the 9/11 attacks in September 2001, the US illegally invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and launched another illegal attack against the de jure government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in March 2003. The American leaders, who were comprised predominantly of the Neo Conservatives or Neocons, lobbied for wars and military operations around the globe that started the Global War on Terror. The dominant lot of the terrorists were Afghan and Arab Mujahedeen who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. This is how America paid back its loyal mercenaries.

According to one of the leading and pioneer American research universities, i.e., Brown University, until 2025, the US has spent a total of 8 trillion USD on the Global War on Terror. The study was unveiled in 2021, and since that time onwards, the spending could have increased significantly. Also, this global war resulted in the deaths of almost 900,000 people, mostly innocent people who had nothing to do with any terrorist activity or organization. In another study conducted by the American think tank Stimson Centre in 2018, the US peaked its military spending on counterterrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria at almost 260 billion USD.

The Worsening Situation of US Veterans

On the other hand, it is also very eye opening that the US military personnel and veterans who actually fought those illegal wars are completely neglected by the US administrations. For instance, the Trump administration has cut 30% of federal jobs for veterans, which resulted in the loss of 62,000 federal jobs. These jobs were previously done by US military veterans. These observations were made by the think tank known as the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As per the latest report by American Psychological Association published in March 2026, the US Department of Veteran Affairs is severely suffering from budget cuts and shortages, which has resulted in severe undermining of the agency’s ability to provide health care and mental health care to veterans.

This situation is generating the tendency of committing suicide among the US veterans. In a 2025 report by the American RAND Research Organization, in the year 2022 alone, a total of 6,407 American veterans died by committing suicide. We can well imagine this tendency is growing, and with the budget cuts and lack of opportunities, the rate of suicide among US veterans could grow monumentally.

The US created ISIS* and Terrorism

In a 2014 article published in the New York Times by American scholars Andrew Thompson and Jeremi Suri, the article was titled “How America Helped ISIS.” Mr. Jeremi Suri is a distinguished American scholar, and Mr. Andrew Thompson is a US military veteran who took part in military operations in Iraq. The authors argued that the US used “large detention facilities that group together violent radicals and moderate detainees in the same space, only creating the seeds for further radicalization and violence.” The American think tank Strauss Centre also noted the same, citing the same authors.

Conclusion

The American people need to look inwards for their problems and the problems their country is facing. The time has come that the American people must open their eyes and remove the war-mongering elements from within their government. The facts clearly reveal that America is being governed by certain people who have no remorse for the sufferings of the common and innocent American people. The American policymakers and politicians are completely indifferent about the miserable lives of the American people, and they are only busy making profits by waging illegal and immoral wars against pseudo-enemies and sometimes self-created enemies.

Former US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson said that Trump turned the US Army into the Trump Militia. It is very alarming that the US policymakers, politicians, military generals, and lobbyists helped award the defence contracts to their favourite people and made billions of USD in terms of kickbacks and bribes.

*-banned in Russia

 

Simon Westwood is a master’s student at Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland. He is also a research assistant at DCU’s Department of History

NEO: NEO: The Failure of Trump's Iran PolicyL Bad Luck or Happenstance ? Henry Kamens: 29th April, 2026. ***********

 

The Failure of Trump’s Iran Policy: ‘Bad Luck,’ Design, or Happenstance?

Henry Kamens, April 29, 2026

The Trump administration’s policy toward Iran — accompanied by mixed signals and increased pressure — is leading to a diplomatic deadlock, raising the risk of a large-scale conflict, and undermining confidence in American diplomacy.

WASHINGTON / ISLAMABAD — if you think Trump’s foreign policy has been rocky so far, imagine sending US ground troops into Iran. Like the captive in the Soviet film White Sun of the Desert—he was asked whether he prefers a quick death or prolonged torture — Washington seems to be choosing the slow, humiliating option.

Mixed messages, grandiose public claims, and a naval blockade that undercuts talks have turned peaceful diplomacy into a farce. The result: US credibility is shredded, negotiations are stalled, and a fragile cease-fire is teetering on the brink of collapse—exactly the kind of mess that could make a short war drag into a strategic disaster.

“Bad So Far” vs. “Worse to Come”

This approach ignores the principles of effective negotiation outlined in Getting to Yes, a staple in diplomatic training

Applying this to Trump’s foreign policy regarding Iran, especially the prospect of introducing ground troops, the analogy suggests that facing “death” in the movie scenario could be framed as a devastating regional conflict, immense human suffering, and a significant blow to US strategic interests and global stability, mirroring the inevitability and severity of the movie character’s fate, but on a geopolitical scale

The “worse to come” option exposes the potential for a full-scale ground war, followed by the crash of the world’s economy. Foreign wars have historically not worked out well for the United States. The option of “declaring victory and leaving with Trump’s proverbial tail between his legs” may be the best option for the world in general and the US in particular.

Even if a US military victory could be achieved, it would be nominal or fleeting, followed either by a difficult withdrawal, or a prolonged guerilla war, much like the Russian character in the movie who was facing either a quick death or prolonged torture.

Here are just some of Trump’s failures so far, domestic ones too:

1) A failed trade war with China

2) Annexation threats towards Greenland that reaped only indignation and ended in backtracking

3) Pressure on Canada that led to Mark Carney’s victory and brought Ottawa closer to Beijing

4) Congress’s decision to limit the White House’s ability to withdraw troops from Europe

5) The Supreme Court ruling that overturned the tariff war

6) His humiliation in ‘I’ ran, and it is growing!

7) And of course – the Epstein files

8) Relations with NATO being strained to the point of breaking

If history is any indication of things to come, the combination of bad timing, mixed messages, and coercive measures has so far sabotaged prospects for meaningful US–Iran talks in Pakistan and increased the danger the ceasefire will collapse—and by design!

Meanwhile, Trump is crashing and burning not only in terms of foreign policy, but now has fired another woman from his cabinet, on the domestic front. The first to go, on March 5, was ex-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Then, less than a month later, Trump ousted former Attorney General Pam Bondi. Today, April 21, 2026, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer announced her resignation. The knives also seem out for Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence.

Never Ending War as a GREAT Distraction

So now he needs a great distraction, if not a victory in Iran, perhaps one in Cuba or some even greater distraction, to dial down the heat. The failure to negotiate without any desire for a good outcome, in at least to go through the motions, is most revealing. As of April 21, all efforts to negotiate face-to-face peace between the US and Iran remained unclear amid confusion over the US negotiators’ plans and uncertainty over whether Tehran would agree to take part.

Iran, with good justification, questions the good faith and real intentions of the US to come to the table with any actual intention of ending the war, as the US only wants to show to a domestic audience that it is the “shifty Iranians” who are spoiling a fair a and lasting deal.

Finger Pointing but the truth is clear!

Despite repeated public claims of progress, US-led efforts to broker a ceasefire and broader peace talks have so far failed to produce a durable breakthrough, or any breakthrough at all. Both sides continue to accuse each other of violating the fragile truce, while fundamental disagreements remain unresolved. If diplomacy continues to stall, that alone will stand as a significant policy failure, regardless of how either side seeks to frame it politically.

Crying Uncle!

It does not help with Trump making public statements of no compromise until a “deal” with the Iranians is about to happen, and how the Iranians are begging to negotiate does not help, which undermines trust and any semblance of legitimate leverage in the process.

It is almost certain that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are involved in any official negotiations for the purpose of making sure that no deals are made. They are most certainly Israeli assets and know who is buttering their bread.

Steve Witkoff | U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East

Witkoff is the quintessential Trump’s “closest buddy”—a billionaire real estate developer with zero prior diplomatic experience but too close for comfort to the President. Now he is tasked with handling the most radioactive files in the administration, including the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Iran nuclear standoff. The fact that he is the face of “deal-making” is nothing but a sick joke. In his world, a negotiation is only successful if the other side folds completely.

Jared Kushner | Special Envoy for Peace Missions

Perhaps one of the few, if not the only, close members of the family that Trump can trust, he has played a shadow-diplomacy role for years; Kushner was officially named Special Envoy earlier this year. Having brokered the Abraham Accords, he is the administration’s ideological anchor in the region. His role in the Islamabad talks is to ensure that any potential “breakthrough” aligns with the administration’s broader vision—one that prioritizes strategic alignment with traditional allies, demands of donors, and this leaves little room for Tehran’s current red lines. In other words, he is there to do Netanyahu’s bidding.

To the administration’s detractors, these two aren’t negotiators so much as “enforcers” and Israeli assets. They have extensive private business ties to the region, and see eye to eye with Trump, and everything has a payoff. It is clear, and even Trump has signaled that the purpose of the Islamabad talks isn’t to find a middle ground but to dictate the terms of surrender. If their goal is to ensure “no deals are made” unless they are entirely on Washington’s terms, they are the perfect hitmen for the job.

It is a similar situation to the Trump administration’s approach to the so-called peace talks regarding Ukraine, where the losing side seems to think it can dictate terms to the side that is winning.

Diplomatic optimism fades

Any veneer of optimism around U.S.-led peace efforts with Iran is quickly washing away. Progress has given way to entrenched gridlock, by design, and the fragile, frequently violated ceasefire looks less like a path to peace than a temporary pause in conflict.

Islamabad demonstrates the divide between Tehran and Washington is widening, and with JD Vance just walking away. Disputes over Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz have hardened into non-negotiable positions. Tehran refuses to negotiate under a U.S. naval blockade, blackmail, while President Donald Trump insists he faces “no pressure whatsoever” to ease sanctions—further undermining incentives for compromise.

The result is a volatile mix of mixed messaging and saber-rattling, pointing to a broader breakdown in negotiations. With the ceasefire fraying—including in Lebanon—and Islamabad talks weighed down by unrealistic preconditions, renewed conflict appears increasingly likely. What the administration frames as resolve instead reflects stagnation, raising the risk of wider instability and economic fallout.

Getting to Yes!

Critics argue this approach ignores the principles of effective negotiation outlined in Getting to Yes, a staple in diplomatic training. Its focus on mutual gains, trust, and interests over rigid positions stands in stark contrast to current U.S. strategy—one that appears to prioritize pressure over progress.

Trump and his backers want to keep up the “maximum pressure,” and without clear off-ramps. Thus, Washington has engineered conditions for assured failure and painted itself into a corner. The result is a chaotic, fatal cocktail of mixed messaging and saber-rattling that shows a total breakdown in diplomacy.

What Donald Trump and his team, including the official US State Department, are practicing under the guise of diplomacy falls face flat in terms of making a win-win deal and does not even come anywhere close to leading down the proverbial road of good intentions.

 

Henry Kamens, columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus