Christian Zionism’s Unholy Alliance: Biblical Mandate or Political Convenience Amid Regional Bloodshed?

The contradictory relationship between Christian Zionism and the modern political alliance between the United States and Israel raises questions about the theological, moral, and political foundations of unconditional support for Israeli policies among some American Christians.

Jeffrey Silverman

Christians and Jews have maintained a complex and often fraught relationship throughout history, a love-hate relationship, one further complicated by the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew who observed Jewish religious law. The figure revered as the Son of God in Christianity might scarcely recognize many versions of the faith that developed in his name and could well distance himself from many of the actions undertaken in his name and especially from those taking those actions.

Gott Mit Uns!

The close alignment between modern American Christians—especially evangelicals—and the State of Israel is concerning. This partnership, while characterized by strong expressions of political support, can be better portrayed as a bad marriage of convenience rather than a deep or enduring bond. Such unconditional backing, blind faith, which typically extends to Israeli policies “right or wrong,” represents a development that, in the view of this journalist, ought never to have emerged at all.

Identifying as Jewish through culture or religion has nothing to do with endorsing every policy of the modern State of Israel. Zionism itself, as a political project, stands in tension with significant strands of traditional Jewish teaching

Such an alliance serves pragmatic and vested interests more than shared conviction. While many Christian Zionists cite biblical promises and prophetic interpretations to justify their stance, detractors such as myself question the sincerity and long-term stability of the relationship.

For instance, Senator Ted Cruz claims that unconditional support of Israel is a biblical mandate for Christians based on Genesis 12:3, stating that “those who bless Israel will be blessed.” In a June 2025 interview, he expressed that he believes this applies to the nation of Israel and its people, aiming to be on the “blessing side of things.”

But what does Israel really mean? For Zionists, it is either the modern state or the concept of the Jewish people, and sometimes both. But all that is a moot point when the same Zionist Christians turn a blind eye to the destruction of Christians among the Palestinians and in neighboring Arab countries, with outright mass murder, and the destruction of Churches and entire villages, as is the case with Christians murdered in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon by the Israeli military (IDF).

Because the Bible Says So!

In a June 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Cruz invoked Genesis 12:3, stating: “As a Christian, growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. I want to be on the blessed side of things.”

Cruz clarified that the verse, in his view, applies to the nation and people of Israel rather than solely to any specific government. While many Christian Zionists emphasize unwavering political and military support for the modern State of Israel based on such scriptural interpretations, they appear— to overlook or minimize the suffering of Christian communities in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.

In Syria, the fall of the Assad government in late 2024 led to increased instability, with extremist elements exploiting power vacuums to target Christians through violence and intimidation. Similar pressures have affected Christian villages in southern Lebanon amid cross-border hostilities.

Opponents argue that this selective emphasis — strong advocacy for Israel paired with relative silence on the persecution of fellow Christians by various actors in the region — undermines the moral and theological consistency of the “blessing” doctrine.

It also specifically runs counter to the words of the Apostles, who universally describe “Israel” not as an ethnic group, or a nation-state, but as those who do God’s will, which, from the perspective of the Apostles, would be the Christians, most of whom initially were Jews who recognised Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

Contradictions into Perspective

There are double standards and notable tensions among Christian Zionism:

The promise in Genesis 12:3 was originally directed at Abraham (then Abram) and his descendants. Christian Zionists like Senator Cruz interpret this as extending to the Jewish people and the modern State of Israel established in 1948. However, he does not want to take into account the subsequent ethnic cleansing, mass murder of Palestinians in the wake of the establishment of the State of Israel by the UN within the borders of the Jewish State.

Hence, equating the ancient covenant with contemporary geopolitical support for a nation-state represents a theological leap (into a chasm, no less), particularly when the New Testament reinterprets themes of covenant, blessing, and God’s people through the person of Jesus Christ.

Unconditional Political Support vs. Universal Christian Solidarity

Palestinian Christians, who trace their roots to the earliest days of the faith, and are generally descendants of Old Testament Jews who became Christians, have seen their numbers dwindle over decades due to emigration driven by conflict, economic hardship, and, in some cases, social pressures from both Muslim-majority environments and Israeli policies (such as settlement expansion and movement restrictions). In Syria and parts of Lebanon, persecution stems primarily from Islamist extremists and general wartime chaos rather than Israeli actions.

The critique suggests a potential inconsistency: if Christians are called to “bless” Israel to receive blessing, does this obligation extend to defending vulnerable Christian minorities caught in regional conflicts? But what about the Christian suffering in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria (where persecution rose sharply after 2024), and Lebanon? It often receives less vocal advocacy from prominent Christian Zionist voices compared to their robust defense of Israeli security interests.

More outrage has been expressed towards the IDF because of its soldiers destroying Christian symbols than the loss of lives and property of Christians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Southern Lebanon at the hands of the IDF and settler movement,

The mentioned passage portrays Christian Zionist theology as creating a hierarchy of concern that places the modern State of Israel at the apex, almost always at the perceived expense of empathy toward Arab Christians enduring real hardship and persecution. This raises broader questions about how ancient biblical promises should inform 21st-century foreign policy and interfaith ethics.

A thorough understanding of this nexus requires examining both the biblical texts in context and the complex, multifaceted causes of Christian decline in the Middle East.

The Whole Unholy Mess Boils Down to Cold, Hard Cash

Let’s cut the sanctimonious nonsense. The purported Son of God would probably stare in disbelief at the Evangelical-Zionist “religion” now operating under his name. Jesus, who lived as a Jew under Jewish law, would almost certainly distance himself from the spectacle being staged in his honor — and he’d be downright furious about the money changing hands.

What we are witnessing isn’t some profound theological love affair between American Christians and Israel. It’s a tawdry arranged marriage of convenience and a bad one at that. Israel has been welcomed into a comfortable political ménage à trois with the American political class — mostly Christians, some Zionist Jews, and with the Europeans playing a supporting role.

Democrats and Republicans alike stay nicely replenished, in their campaign funds, thanks to Christian Zionist donors and Israeli and pro-Israel lobbying muscle. Much of the base of support for Donald Trump is from this cult.

One need not be Jewish to be a Zionist, and identifying as Jewish through culture or religion has nothing to do with endorsing every policy of the modern State of Israel. Zionism itself, as a political project, stands in tension with significant strands of traditional Jewish teaching. Yet these nuances get conveniently ignored when the donations keep rolling in.

How long would this “marriage from hell” survive if the campaign contributions from Christian Zionists suddenly dried up and UN resolutions were actually honored? The answer is as obvious as it is uncomfortable — not very long. Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about divine mandate or spiritual solidarity. It’s about power, access, and the almighty dollar.

The rest is mostly theatrical piety!

Looking back, growing up among Christian Zionists in the Southern United States as a boy with a Jewish father gave me a front-row seat of how theology and blind faith shaped political outlooks. Born again teachings centered on the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming—drawn from the Book of Revelation and popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible—framed unwavering support for Israel.

Jews were to be treated with particular respect, seen as central to the end-times narrative in which they would finally come around and embrace Christianity. Religious printed materials from that era, such as heavily annotated Bibles passed between generations, reflect the depth of these beliefs. Today, they serve as reminders of a period when faith, identity, and geopolitics were closely intertwined, often leaving little room for alternative perspectives and the need to face reality.

You can’t be a Christian and a Zionist at the same time.

Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union

The African century begins with unity – or it does not begin. Part 1: The land without borders – the single passport to return Africa to Africans

Africa is the richest continent in the world, yet inhabited by some of the poorest people. This paradox is not inevitable. It is a two-pronged form of organized crime, the first pillar of which is addressed by the unique geographical area.

Mohamed Lamine KABA 

There is a cruel irony in African geography. The largest inhabited continent in the world – 30.4 million square kilometers, 54 sovereign states, more than 1.4 billion people – is also the one where an African has the most difficulty moving about in their own country. A Senegalese person in Lagos is a foreigner. A Congolese person in Nairobi is a suspect. A Burkinabe or a Beninese person in Libreville is a consular case. A Nigerian or a Botswanan person is a victim of xenophobia in Pretoria. This absurdity is not a matter of chance. It is the meticulously maintained legacy of a colonial architecture designed not to unite, but to divide. Not to uplift, but to subjugate.

The current African borders are not borders. They are wounds. Drawn in Berlin in 1884-1885, at the Conference that sanctioned the criminal partitioning of the continent among European powers – without the presence of a single African, without consulting a single king, a single chief, a single people – they carved up civilizations as if slicing a cake. The Fulani do not belong to any state. They belong to a space that France, England, Portugal, and their accomplices have slashed with a ruler and a straight edge. Neither do the Mandinka. Nor do the Hausa. These artificial borders have a precise, enduring, and deliberate function: to maintain political entities too small to have any influence, too divided to resist, too dependent to refuse.

Africa must unite – not out of romanticism, but out of cold, clear-sighted, and urgent geopolitical calculation

Kwame Nkrumah

Sixty years after formal independence – those sham sovereignty granted with one hand while the other kept the resources, military bases, and currencies – the results are damning. Freedom of movement between African countries is often more complicated than between Paris and Warsaw, or between New York and Mexico City. A European citizen can travel through 27 countries with a single document. An African citizen needs, on average, visas to access 48 out of 54 countries. The African Union – which had solemnly promised an African passport for all by 2020 – has produced only a symbolic prototype, distributed with great ceremony to a few heads of state and, with the exception of some diplomats and senior officials of the African Union and its institutions. The people are still waiting. The people have always waited.

This is not a question of technical will. It is a question of political will that has been sabotaged from the outside, methodically, for decades.

The West is fragmenting Africa for its own sordid interests.

Let us therefore ask the fundamental question that Western governments refuse to hear: who benefits from the geographical fragmentation of Africa? Certainly not Africans. It benefits multinational corporations that negotiate country by country, law by law, and corruption by corruption, exploiting the fact that no isolated African state has the necessary leverage to impose its conditions. It benefits France – yes, let’s name it – which maintains a plethora of embassies in underfunded capitals, sprawling intelligence networks throughout Françafrique, and draconian defense agreements signed in the early days of independence, under duress or manipulation; as Robert Bourgi so aptly demonstrates in “They Know I Know Everything: My Life in Françafrique,” published in September 2024 by Max Milo. It benefits Belgium, whose brutality in the Congo left 10 million dead under Leopold II – a crime against humanity never prosecuted, never remedied, barely acknowledged. It benefits the United Kingdom, which has perfected the art of the Commonwealth: a superficial cooperation that preserves British interests under the guise of post-colonial friendship.

Although the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has offered a protocol on free movement since 1979, forty-five years later, informal roadblocks, corrupt border guards, and bureaucratic red tape transform every journey into a Kafkaesque labyrinth. This isn’t because the protocol is flawed, but because external actors have an economic and strategic interest in maintaining these obstacles. These are the same actors who fund both the “good governance” programs and the networks of influence that undermine them. These are the same actors who preach African integration in international forums while quietly sabotaging it in the corridors of power.

Paradoxically, intra-African trade represents only 15 to 18% of the continent’s total trade – compared to 67% in Europe and 59% in Asia. This statistic is an indictment. Not against Africans. Against the system that surrounds them. The main reason for this commercial stagnation is not a lack of products, nor a lack of entrepreneurs, nor a lack of creativity. It is the structural impossibility of moving freely with goods, human capital, and ideas. Every visa refusal is a failed transaction. Every customs barrier inherited from the colonial period is a deliberate obstacle to industrialization. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which came into effect in 2021 – this landmark treaty that creates the world’s largest single market in terms of the number of participating countries – can only be effective if men and women can physically move. Trade follows people. Investment follows confidence. Confidence is built through movement.

Then the Russian question arises – the one that Paris, Brussels, and Washington are dodging with a nervousness that is as revealing as it is pathetic.

Russia is the guest of honor of the African people

The Russian presence in the Sahel – in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and the Central African Republic – is portrayed in Western media as a new form of colonization, a threat to democracy, and unacceptable interference. The narrative is well-rehearsed, polished, and repeated in unison by newspapers receiving French public funding, by think tanks fueled by European Union subsidies, and by political leaders who, for sixty years, believed they could treat Africa as their dynastic backyard. But for African public opinion, Russia did not come to plunder Africa, but to awaken patriotic consciences.

Let us recall a few facts that these same voices carefully omit. Since 1960, France has intervened militarily on the African continent more than fifty times. Fifty. In civil wars, coups d’état, and the repression of popular uprisings. It has maintained or overthrown presidents according to its economic interests, protected corrupt dictators as long as they signed the right contracts, and humiliated heads of state in front of their own people. Operations Serval (2013), Barkhane (2014), and Takuba (2020), deployed with great fanfare as bulwarks against terrorism, cost billions of euros, lost “French soldiers,” and did not secure an additional square meter of the Sahel. Nine years of massive military presence for zero results – or worse, for increased destabilization. Terrorist groups disseminated through their networks and ripple effects.

This is to say that the African people did not expel Operation Barkhane out of ingratitude. They expelled it because they know how to count. Nine years. Zero results. Zero dignity.

Russia did not arrive with defense agreements imposed as a condition of independence. It did not arrive with the CFA franc – that colonial currency maintained under the control of the French Treasury since 1945, precisely following the method of German monetary Nazism in France from 1940 to 1944. It did not arrive by assassinating Thomas Sankara, destabilizing Gaddafi’s Libya to transform the Sahel into a lawless zone, or covering up the atrocities in Rwanda in 1994. Russia arrived where it was invited. It was invited precisely because those who came before had resolved nothing – or had actively maintained the disorder that justified their presence.

What Moscow has understood – and what the West refuses to admit – is that African peoples do not suffer from a lack of foreign aid. They suffer from a chronic excess of foreign control. Russia acts here as a chemical revealer: it highlights, by contrast, sixty years of French interference presented as cooperation, sixty years of plunder presented as partnership, sixty years of humiliation presented as solidarity.

The single African passport is the structural response to this historical dependency. A space that moves freely within its own borders needs no external permission to develop. It builds its roads, its pan-African railways, its economic corridors from Cape Town to Cairo. It creates its own standards, generates its own jurisprudence, defines its own priorities. Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed it as early as 1963 : Africa must unite – not out of romanticism, but out of cold, clear-sighted, and urgent geopolitical calculation. A continent of more than 1.4 billion inhabitants in 2023 – soon to reach 2.5 billion in 2050 – represents the greatest demographic force in human history. But dispersed across 54 dwarfed markets, 54 paper sovereignties, 54 postures of begging before the Bretton Woods institutions designed in Washington to serve Washington, this force dissolves into insignificance.

It is therefore important to note that a single African passport is not an administrative matter. It is an act of civilizational reconquest. And those who oppose it – openly or behind the scenes – thereby reveal the extent of what they stand to lose in an Africa finally free to move about.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

The Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz Is Bleeding Africa Dry – And What Africa Pays for the U.S. Bombing of Iran

When American and Israeli missiles rained down on Iranian infrastructure in late February 2026, the echo of the explosions reverberated far beyond Tehran.

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid

It rolled like a tolling bell across the vast expanse of the Sahara, the jungles of the Congo, and the portside slums of Lagos. For Africa – caught between a debt crisis and climate chaos – the new war unleashed by the U.S. and Israel against Iran was a low blow. The narrow Strait of Hormuz, just 33 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, has cut off the African continent’s oxygen supply. And now, while global powers tally up their geopolitical dividends, one and a half billion Africans are paying a bloody price for teetering on the brink of World War III.

African leaders have realized: if the strait can be shut down at America’s whim at any moment, then they can only rely on their own hands

The Price Tag: $10 Billion a Year for the Right to Survive

The importance of Hormuz to Africa cannot be overstated – it is literally the artery feeding the continent’s economy. Twenty percent of the world’s seaborne oil and gas exports pass through this strait. But Africa is in a uniquely vulnerable position. The paradox of this resource-rich continent is that 80% of its imported oil and half of its refined petroleum products come precisely from the Persian Gulf region.

The numbers since the start of the aggression are staggering. According to estimates, Africa’s annual additional fuel import costs have jumped by $7–10 billion. This isn’t just statistics. Every extra dollar means a school not built in Mozambique, medicine not bought for children in the Sahel, or a harvest lost because there’s no fuel for tractors.

The economies of sub-Saharan Africa, barely recovered from the pandemic, are now going into reverse. The World Bank has already slashed its 2026 growth forecast from 4.4% to 4.1%. And that’s the optimistic scenario. If the conflict drags on for even six months, the loss will be another 0.2% of GDP growth. For countries where every percentage point of growth means a million lives saved from poverty, this is a catastrophe.

The Hunger Equator: Why Fertilizer Hurts More Than Rockets

The blow to the energy market is just the tip of the iceberg. Africa is now facing a silent hunger driven by chemistry. One-third of global fertilizer trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf countries dominate the ammonia and urea market. When ships stopped leaving the Gulf, fertilizer prices went through the roof – the cost of urea alone jumped from $475 to $680 per ton.

For Africa, which imports 5–6 million tons of fertilizer annually, that means an extra bill of $1–1.2 billion. But the scarier part is the timing. The planting season in East and Southern Africa fell right in March–May – the height of the fighting. Shipping delays hit farmers at the most critical moment.

Imagine: a Kenyan farmer, barely making ends meet, can’t afford urea this season. The harvest will be half of what it should be. Which means six months from now, bread and corn will become more expensive across the entire continent. This isn’t just inflation. It’s a recipe for social explosion.

10,000 Extra Miles: South Africa’s Logistical Nightmare

Physical geography has also turned against Africa. With the Red Sea and Persian Gulf effectively closed, global shipping is being forced to take a 6,000–9,000-kilometer detour around the Cape of Good Hope. You’d think this would be a goldmine for South African ports – Cape Town and Durban. But reality has been cruel.

The influx of ships has become a tsunami for port infrastructure. Cape Town saw an additional 112% of ships that previously used the Suez Canal. Freight costs for cargo owners have risen 20–40%. Tankers and container ships are burning hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra fuel per voyage.

Gridlock at the ports of Durban and Cape Town has become routine. Ships are waiting at anchor for weeks. Africa, which had hoped to cash in on the transit, has instead gotten a logistical collapse. Everything is getting more expensive, from Chinese smartphones to European medicines.

But as often happens, crisis also brings opportunity. Foreign Affairs writes that Africa has finally woken up. While the rest of the world looks for someone to blame, the continent is starting to build its own path to survival.

Plan B: The Pan-African Juggernaut

The first thing African leaders are doing is trying to calm the conflict. The African Union welcomed the two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan and Oman in April 2026. But everyone understands: this is just a breather. While America and Israel threaten Tehran with new strikes, Africa is preparing its own trump cards. And the biggest one is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

This agreement, uniting 54 countries with a combined GDP of over $3 trillion, is transforming from a legal fiction into a survival tool. The idea is simple and brilliant: Africa must stop exporting raw resources to the rest of the world only to buy back finished goods. It needs to manufacture its own.

The bet here is on natural gas. Nigeria’s Minister of Oil, Ekperpe Ekpo, has declared that his country will become the continent’s gas engine. Nigerian gas should not go to Europe for export but to factories in neighboring Benin, Togo, and Ghana. That would make it possible to produce fertilizer, fuel, and plastic right in Africa. “Africa is no longer just an export platform,” declared Engjai Ayuk, chairman of the African Energy Chamber. “It is becoming a self-sufficient energy market.”

Pipelines Instead of Straits: Energy Independence

The second pillar of survival is linking up power grids. The African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) has launched a ten-year plan to connect five regional power pools into a single network.

Imagine a single power line running from Ethiopia’s hydroelectric dams to South Africa’s mines. Or a gas pipeline from Mozambique to factory floors in Zimbabwe. The plan, requiring $19 billion in investment, is designed to make the African economy stop depending on who controls Hormuz. Lights should turn on using Africa’s own coal, gas, and sun.

There is a catch, though. All of this takes money. And that, as luck would have it, is precisely what’s lacking. The war itself has crushed investment flows from the Persian Gulf – the very same UAE and Saudi Arabia that have been putting money into African real estate and ports in recent years.

The Return of Realism

The world isn’t naive. Africa won’t turn into an economic dragon in a single year. Thirty African currencies are devalued, and half the countries on the continent are either in a debt crisis or on its doorstep.

Beautiful plans for building out infrastructure are shattered by the simple lack of fiscal space. The World Bank’s Director for Africa, Andrew Dabalen, sums up the situation bluntly: “They just don’t have any room to maneuver.”

But precisely now, when the Western world has shown its unreliability, Africa has a historic opportunity. The paradox is that American bombs falling on Iran have given birth to “forced protectionism” in Africa. The continent is sick of being a hostage. Sick of paying for other people’s wars. Sick of watching the Cape of Good Hope turn into a dump for overloaded container ships while fields dry up for lack of fertilizer.

The bottom line: The Strait of Hormuz is bitter medicine for Africa. It has bankrupted budgets, driven up the price of bread, and unleashed a wave of logistical chaos. But it has also awakened the political will to unify. African leaders have realized: if the strait can be shut down at America’s whim at any moment, then they can only rely on their own hands. And their own vast continent. $3 trillion in internal market, 1.4 billion working hands – that’s no joke. That’s an argument you can’t block with U.S. aircraft carriers in Hormuz.

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

Xi snubbed Trump by not receiving him at Beijing airport

Crescent International

Chinese President Xi Jinping snubbed Trump by not receiving him at the airport (Image ChatGPT)

Contrary to protocol, Chinese President Xi Jinping did not receive US president Donald Trump as he arrived at Beijing International airport on May 13.

Instead, Chinese Vice President Han Zheng and the Executive Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs (Executive Vice Foreign Minister) Ma Zhaoxu, greeted the American president.

It must have been painful for a narcissist like Trump who likes to be in the limelight and enjoys pomp and ceremony.

The Chinese wanted to deliver a clear message.

Beijing will no longer tolerate US bullying in trade or diplomacy whether directed against China or Iran.

Further, the world has changed. The US does not call the shots anymore.

Xi had already instructed Chinese companies to not comply with Trump’s imposition of sanctions on Iranian oil.

Nor did China agree to restrict buying oil from Iran, its largest supplier, saying Beijing will not allow others to dictate its trade policies.

Flying out of Beijing, Trump said he was considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies buying Iranian oil.

While Trump wanted to improve trade relations, soured by his own short-sighted tariffs policy, Beijing made clear that the Taiwan issue remained “a very important issue in China-US relations.”

The Chinese president warned that if the Taiwan issue is handled incorrectly, it could trigger conflict between Beijing and Washington and lead to a serious deterioration in bilateral ties.

He further stressed that what he described as “Taiwan independence” is incompatible with peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

Beijing and Washington should “cooperate and be partners, not adversaries,” Xi told Trump arguing that mutual cooperation could pave the way for “proper interaction between major powers in the new era.”

In trying to make amends following his erratic behaviour, Trump repeatedly praised Xi during the meeting and expressed optimism about the future of China-US relations.

“You’re a great leader. I say it to everybody,” Trump told Xi.

With a bemused expression, the Chinese leader looked on at Trump’s hypocritical friendship claims.

He is a convicted felon, sex predator, fraud and a compulsive liar.

Xi was not taken in by Trump’s praise.

He knew the American president was trapped in a crisis of his own making, first with the tariffs war that he imposed on Chinese goods, some as high as 145%, and then with the disastrous war on Iran.

China retaliated by restricting the supply of rare earths to the US.

This has had a major impact on critical components in global industrial supply chains and US military technology, leading some US factories to halt operations.

That is why Trump was sucking up to Xi in such a debased manner.

“It’s an honor to be with you. It’s an honor to be your friend, and the relationship between China and the USA is going to be better than ever before,” Trump said.

In the end, apart from expressions of improving relations, nothing concrete was achieved.

Xi, however, warned against falling into the ‘Thucydides trap’ in US-China relations.

It was a reference to Athens fearing the rise of Sparta as a rival power in the 5th century BC that led to war and the eclipse of Athens as a great power.

Scolding Trump for his erratic behaviour, Xi stressed the importance of maintaining stable relations between Beijing and Washington during talks with him.

In a pointed reference to US tariffs, Xi said “there are no winners in trade wars,” adding that “the essence of China-US trade and economic relations is mutual benefit.”

He also emphasized that amid “disagreements and frictions,” consultations conducted “on an equal basis are the only right choice” for resolving trade and economic disputes between the two countries.

This was another slap on Trump’s face.

The Chinese, with thousands of years of civilization, were not going to take insults from an ill-mannered, uncouth American.

Trump’s visit was delayed by two months after he launched the illegal war of aggression against Iran.

The trip was shortened to just two days (May 13-15) but even so little specific was achieved.

The path to the Xi–Trump summit was shaped during a meeting in Busan, South Korea last October.

They agreed to a temporary truce in the trade war launched by Trump.

Washington had accused Beijing of carrying out “industrial-scale” campaigns to steal US artificial intelligence technology.

China retaliated by instructing companies not to comply with US sanctions on Iranian oil.

As the mid-term elections in November loom, Trump is desperate for some good news.

Xi refused to help in opening the Strait of Hormuz.

It was open before the US-zionist illegal war on Iran.

Tankers carrying oil to China can pass through without hindrance.

BeijingDonald TrumpUS war crimesXi JinpingUS-China relationsTrump snubbedUS tariffsStrait of Hormuz

Pakistan–Iran–Central Asia: a new transport corridor is changing the geo-economy of Eurasia

The launch of the Pakistan–Iran–Central Asia transport corridor opens new opportunities for regional trade, energy cooperation, and the development of alternative logistical routes across Eurasia.

Samyar Rostami

The international transport corridor is a collection of main transport systems that connect the parties and enable the international transport of goods and passengers.

A new transit corridor originating in southern Pakistan and connecting to Central Asia via southern and eastern Iran has recently become operational. The first export consignment was dispatched from Karachi Port to Uzbekistan through this route. The corridor enters Iranian territory via the Gabd–Rimdan border crossing before extending onward to Central Asia.

The convergence between Tehran and Islamabad can contribute to the integration of the CPEC and INSTC corridors in regional transit and help turn Gwadar and southeastern Iran into more important international logistics hubs

In the broader context of Tehran–Islamabad relations, various practical measures are being considered to enhance road transport and transit efficiency, with the aim of reducing operational expenses. These measures also include logistical and institutional solutions to accelerate the movement of goods, particularly in emergency situations. In fact, under the agreement, goods from Pakistan are transported to Central Asia via Gwadar Port and Iranian territory using cargo trucks.

Opportunities of the Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia Corridor

The new corridor operates under the international transit system and will pass through border crossings with sealed trucks and minimal inspection procedures. The objective is to transform it into a fast, practical, and commercially efficient route by reducing both transit time and transportation expenses.

It also represents the operationalization of a corridor directly connecting South Asia to the 70-million-strong markets of Central Asia and the development of regional trade. The new corridor also connects Gwadar, via Iran, with broader regional development plans, including its integration with China and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), as well as related regional connectivity initiatives.

It is also possible to transport cargo from Zahedan to Central Asian countries via the rail network. In fact, border crossings and transit points along the corridor have been activated under the TIR Convention procedure, with administrative and customs processes also coordinated to facilitate cargo transportation.

Pakistan’s Approach

Pakistan borders the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea in the south, Iran in the west, and China in the northeast. Previously, Pakistan routed a significant portion of its exports to Central Asia through Afghanistan. However, following border tensions between Pakistan and the Taliban and the subsequent closure of key border crossings, exports to Central Asian markets have increasingly been redirected through Iran.

The new corridor represents a strategic alternative for Pakistan to access Central Asian markets, which have a combined population of nearly 70 million. Another key outcome of this corridor is the increased cargo handling capacity at the ports of Karachi and Gwadar.

In this approach, Pakistan reduces its reliance on traditional trade routes while working to expand exports and increase the volume of trade exchanges with the region. Furthermore, goods can be transported from Pakistan’s ports to Afghanistan via Iran. Current geopolitical and geo-economic shifts, and internal reasons have prompted Islamabad to consider the Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor more seriously. By joining the Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor, Islamabad can diversify its logistical routes, establish multipolar trade relations, and enhance its economic resilience. Pakistan’s trade with Central Asian countries has significant potential due to mutual interests. The annual trade volume remains low. Projects like the Trans-Afghan Corridor, which would connect Pakistan and Central Asia through Afghanistan, remain uncertain.

The completion of the Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor chain and serious pursuit of projects like the Chabahar-Zahedan railway in Iran could benefit Pakistan as well. The Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor offers Pakistan opportunities in energy security, multilateral energy import and cooperation centered around Iran and Russia, and expanding trade with China. The Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor can serve Pakistan’s economy, economic diplomacy, and trade with the Eurasian Economic Union.

Iran’s Approach

Iran’s irreplaceable role as a secure, stable, and strategic communication bridge between South Asia and the heart of Eurasia is underscored by its privileged geopolitical position and extensive road and rail infrastructure. Tehran tries to be a connecting pole between ECO, ASEAN, EAEU, India, Central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. With the existence of more than 14 thousand kilometers of railways in Iran, the “Special Plan for the Development of Makran” is part of Iran’s plan to become a regional transit hub.

The Chabahar-Zahedan railway has progressed more than 90%. Furthermore, Iran will be able to play a stronger role in the Pakistan-Iran-Central Asia corridor by completing the Zahedan-Sarakhs railway line. Relying on its strong infrastructure and strategic geographic location, Iran recorded nearly 20 million tons of transit cargo last year by developing a robust, indigenous transit system.

Recently, Iran has developed and operationalized ten transit corridors along various routes, including connections to Central Asia, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq, in order to provide alternative options should naval trade routes in the southern part of the country be disrupted or blocked.

That means if naval routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Sea are blocked or experience disruptions or delays for any reason—such as sanctions or security challenges—Iran can rely on alternative transit corridors, including those connecting to Pakistan.

By highlighting the concept of a potential “naval blockade” of Iran, it becomes possible to mitigate part of the economic pressure arising from maritime threats by strengthening rail and land-based trade through the North–South and East–West corridors. In fact, the deeper Iran’s economic ties with Russia, Central Asia, and Pakistan become, the more the effectiveness of sanctions and naval blockade diminishes.

In redesigning Iran’s logistics network, the aim is to reduce dependence on any single bottleneck and enhance route diversification in terms of both origins and destinations. This approach also provides alternative transit options, such as the Pakistan–Iran–Central Asia corridor, thereby strengthening regional connectivity and resilience.

Vision

The necessary transport infrastructure and the current condition of the roads along the route from Gwadar to Quetta and Zahedan are not yet in place for mass-scale transportation, and the capacity for truck transit remains limited. Security and logistical challenges in certain areas of Pakistan currently limit the safe and large-scale movement of container shipments. The success of the corridor still depends on facilitating and accelerating customs procedures, as well as harmonizing regulatory processes.

Although the Pakistan–Central Asia corridor has become operational, it must overcome extensive technical, political, and economic obstacles to achieve its goals. However, the convergence between Tehran and Islamabad can contribute to the integration of the CPEC and INSTC corridors in regional transit and help turn Gwadar and southeastern Iran into more important international logistics hubs. Broader cooperation among members can help enhance connectivity within and between the Eurasian continents.

Samyar Rostami, а political observer and senior researcher in international relations

“Peace at any cost – Israeli style”: Why Netanyahu is pushing Trump toward war with Iran

It was Israel that called the shots at the failed talks in Pakistan.

Muhammad Hamid ad-Din

While diplomats in Islamabad were trying to save the region from the brink, a clear signal came from Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem: the war must go on. For the Israeli prime minister, a ceasefire isn’t a respite – it’s a death sentence. And Donald Trump, surrounded by a family with deep roots in the Zionist movement, appears to have become a pawn in someone else’s game, the goal of which is to destroy Iran at any cost to satisfy Netanyahu.

The talks between the U.S. and Iran in Islamabad, which lasted more than 21 hours, have hit a dead end. Vice President J.D. Vance left Pakistan, claiming to have presented a “best and final offer” that Tehran rejected. Iran, in its turn, accuses the U.S. of bad faith. But who is the real beneficiary of this collapse? The answer lies in Tel Aviv.

The talks in Pakistan didn’t fail by accident. They were buried by those for whom chaos is as vital as oxygen. Those who pray for destruction, not creation

The Octopus and the Judge: Netanyahu’s survival instincts

On April 11, 2026, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a scandalous yet brutally candid statement. Ankara declared outright that Benjamin Netanyahu’s current goal is to derail the peace talks at any cost. The reason is simple and cynical: the moment the guns fall silent, the Israeli prime minister will find himself in the dock.

Netanyahu is trapped in a vice of legal troubles. Israel’s judicial system is waiting for him on corruption charges, and only a state of emergency – only the status of a “wartime leader” – allows him to keep pushing back the defendant’s bench. As experts note, “As long as the war continues, he stays afloat.”

In a recent address to the nation, Netanyahu effectively admitted that his policy is one of eternal conflict. He declared: “They (Iran) wanted to choke us to death, but we are the ones choking them. They threatened us with annihilation, but now they’re the ones fighting for survival.” But this is more than just defensive rhetoric. It is a program for the total destruction of a regional rival in order to avoid his own political collapse – at the expense of Israeli suffering. Netanyahu doesn’t care. Cornered like a criminal, he will spare no one, and the Israeli people are his last line of defense.

The Triangle of Fire: Lebanon, Syria, and the “New Middle East”

Netanyahu makes no secret of his expansionist plans. While the entire world is demanding de-escalation, Israeli aircraft continue to bomb southern Lebanon. On April 12, 2026, dozens of fatalities were reported, continuing a policy first articulated back in 2024.

During a speech at the U.N., Netanyahu displayed a map dividing countries into “blessed” and “cursed,” with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon painted black. Today, he is bringing that map to life. Humanity is experiencing a case of déjà vu from its own European history in the 1930s and ’40s.

What does Netanyahu say about the future of Israel’s Arab neighbors?

1. Lebanon: “We have created security zones 8–10 km deep… Lebanon has approached us several times over the past month to start direct peace talks… We want Hezbollah to be disarmed.” In political parlance, this means occupying southern Lebanon and forcing regime change in Beirut.
2. Syria: Despite the fall of the Assad regime, Netanyahu refuses to see the new Syria as a partner. Israel continues to hold Mount Hermon and, according to analysts, is preventing Damascus from consolidating power. As The Jerusalem Post has noted, for Israel’s leadership, “Syria is still colored red” on the map of enemies, even though there are no longer any objective reasons for this.

Netanyahu isn’t waging war for security – he’s waging it for a “Greater Israel,” seizing territories weakened by civil wars.

The “Tents of Zion”: How Kushner and Boulos rule the world

Now for the key question: why is the Trump administration, which came to power on promises of ending wars, so blindly following the course set by Netanyahu’s interests? The answer lies in the president’s inner circle.

Analysts and even documents leaked to the press from the FBI (as part of the declassified Epstein files) indicate that Donald Trump is seriously compromised by the Israeli lobby. An FBI report explicitly claims that Trump was “compromised” by Israel.

Today, Kushner’s influence has only waned slightly because a new player has entered the scene – Massad Boulos, father of Tiffany Trump’s husband. Boulos, a Lebanese billionaire, has been appointed senior advisor on the Middle East. Although he is a Christian, his appointment and his regional connections are being used to legitimize a hard line against the Arab world.

Trump claims he is “fully armed and ready,” threatening to “finish off” Iran at the “right moment.” He is bluffing in negotiations, blockading the Strait of Hormuz (triggering a global energy crisis), and doing this not so much for America’s sake as to save Netanyahu from prison.

The Israeli-American “peace” is a war to destroy an entire civilization

No more illusions. No more diplomatic niceties. Time to face the truth: the world is no longer standing on the brink – it has already lifted its leg over the abyss of a major war with Iran. The talks in Pakistan didn’t fail by accident. They were buried by those for whom chaos is as vital as oxygen. Those who pray for destruction, not creation.

Netanyahu is openly sabotaging every step toward peace. Because for him, peace is a verdict. Peace is prison. Peace is the loss of power, freedom, and immunity. He needs a fire to burn the evidence. And the fact that people are dying – women, the elderly, children – doesn’t bother him one bit.

Trump is no longer a leader. He’s a hostage to his own clan. He has lost not just his sovereignty – he has lost his conscience. His White House speaks only the language of ultimatums and airstrikes.

Together, they are the apocalypse tandem. One is saving himself from justice; the other is saving his dynasty from oblivion. But they aren’t the ones paying the price. While Israel is wiping Lebanon and Syria off the map, quarter by quarter, while the Pentagon is handing out “licenses to kill,” ordinary people – mothers, doctors, children – are once again being ground into dust on the altar of other people’s ambitions.

This isn’t politics. It’s madness. This isn’t defense. It’s arson on a global scale.

The world must shout this louder than the roar of their fighter jets. Because tomorrow may be too late. Today is the last day we can say “stop.” Tomorrow, we’ll just be counting the dead.

Muhammad Hamid ad-Din, prominent Palestinian journalist

“Greater Israel”: How Netanyahu and Trump Are Burying the Jewish State Alive

The pursuit of biblical mirages and tactical deals with conscience are leading Israel to total international isolation, economic strangulation, and a real threat to its existence.

Muhammad Hamid ad-Din

Lies by the Numbers: 19,850 Sq. Km of Stolen Land

Beneath the patriotic slogans of a “Greater Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is carrying out the most aggressive annexation of Arab and Palestinian territories in half a century. While the world is distracted by economic crises and wars in other parts of the planet, Israel is methodically, brick by brick, redrawing the map of the Middle East, returning to tactics many considered a relic of the colonial era.

The numbers, provided by the Israeli military itself, read like an indictment that leaves no room for diplomatic demagoguery. To date, the Jewish state is illegally occupying approximately 19,850 square kilometers beyond its recognized borders. This is not “disputed territory” as understood under international law, not “buffer zones,” and not “temporary security measures,” as Netanyahu’s propaganda machine hypocritically claims. This is outright land theft, seasoned with war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and cynical legal nihilism.

When Benjamin Netanyahu finally leaves politics, he will leave behind not a “Greater Israel” from the Euphrates to the Nile, but a scorched ruin where there was once hope for peace

Here is the map of Israeli atrocities:

– Lebanon: A 10-kilometer “Yellow Line” that cuts off over 55 villages from the outside world. Tens of thousands of Lebanese—Shiites, Christians, Druze—have been driven from their homes, which Israeli bulldozers have systematically razed to the ground. What the Israeli army cynically calls an “advanced defense zone” is, in reality, classic ethnic cleansing, mixed with infrastructure looting. This “Yellow Line” effectively nullifies the UN’s “Blue Line” established in 2000, which was an international symbol of troop withdrawal. Netanyahu, one of the lead negotiators with Lebanon, states with undisguised cynicism: “This is a 10-km deep security belt. We are here, and we are not leaving.”

– Syria: Permanent military control over approximately 14,000 sq. km under the pretext of a “temporary” buffer zone. The seizure of the Golan Heights, declared illegal back in 1981, has now been expanded with new territories following the fall of the Assad regime. Netanyahu, smelling weakness in Damascus, instantly shifted his rhetoric: the “temporary defensive measure” has turned into “plans for settlement and construction.” And the world, exhausted by crises, once again stayed silent.

– West Bank: Creeping annexation of 60% of the territory beyond the 1949 “Green Line,” accompanied by terror from armed settlers. Netanyahu’s government not only turns a blind eye to the violence—it legalizes, sponsors, and encourages it. Hundreds of illegal outposts receive retroactive “legal” status. Palestinians are being squeezed off their land, turning life on the West Bank into a hell of incessant raids.

– Gaza Strip: 60% of the enclave’s territory is cordoned off by the same “Yellow Line.” Israeli troops are digging trenches to physically separate the occupied lands from what remains of Gaza. This isn’t security—it is the systematic strangulation of 2.1 million people, turned into hostages of a ruined strip of land.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose political weight is growing in direct proportion to the radicalization of society, has already openly declared: all of this is merely the “final stage” of the “Greater Israel” project, from the Litani River in the north to Mount Hermon in the east, including full control over Gaza. And Netanyahu, trying to hold onto power at any cost, doesn’t even flinch when he hears these revelations. What’s more, he is solidifying the occupation, acting on a well-learned logic: every new “color line” (Green, Blue, Yellow) is drawn with brute force, and the absence of immediate international retaliation serves as a signal to draw the next one.

The Suicidal Alliance: How Trump Unleashed the Executioner

If Netanyahu is the crude fist delivering blow after blow, then Donald Trump is the brain (however afflicted by narcissism) that sanctioned full impunity. The “Deal of the Century,” the idiotic move of the embassy to Jerusalem, the trampling of the Iranian nuclear deal, the silent blessing of settlements, the war against Iran to please Netanyahu—every step by the U.S. president was a kick in the gut to international law and a stab in the back of any Middle East diplomacy.

It was Trump, in his endless thirst for short-term “achievements” to show his evangelical base and pro-Israel lobby, who instilled in Netanyahu a deadly dangerous illusion: that an ally across the ocean would swallow absolutely everything, including a war on three fronts. We are seeing the result of this criminal friendship live on air. United by their shared recklessness and contempt for the “weak” rules of the world, this tandem has turned the Middle East from a turbulent but predictable zone into a real volcano, where diplomacy died under the rubble of bombs, and military force became the only thing left of any argument.

But in an irony of fate (which Trump, knowing no history, will never understand), it is he, the “genius dealmaker,” who helped Israel dig its own grave. Because today in Washington, a frightening realization is maturing: the tail is wagging the dog. Netanyahu’s extremist, eschatology-obsessed government is using American money and American weapons not for defense, but to implement its own insane far-right agenda, dragging the U.S. into endless, hopeless, and destructive regional conflicts. This is no longer an alliance—it is hostage-taking.

A Boycott of Allies: Europe and America Turn Away, and the Numbers Lie (What Else Is New?)

Netanyahu, a tactician with a poisonous thirst for power but a shortsighted strategist, is leading Israel to political collapse, crossing every conceivable and inconceivable red line. He has placed Israelis face-to-face with a growing, avalanche-like hatred not only from enemies but also from former friends. Sociological data today reads like a verdict on his 30-year career.

In Europe, which once out of pangs of conscience (and guilt over the Holocaust) supported the Jewish state, Israel’s favorability ratings have crashed into embarrassing negative territory. According to a YouGov poll, in Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, and Spain, the net favorability level ranges from -44 to -55. Even conservative governments, traditionally loyal to Netanyahu, no longer want to be accomplices to his crimes.

– Italy has suspended its defense agreement with Israel, citing the “current situation”—a diplomatic euphemism for the horrors of war.

– France and Germany are imposing arms embargoes, tearing up old contracts.

– The International Court of Justice in 2024 unequivocally declared the Israeli occupation illegal and all settlements subject to immediate demolition. Netanyahu simply threw the court’s ruling in the trash, spitting in the face of the international community and revealing the true face of a regime to whom rules are foreign.

But the most crushing, punishing blow is coming from where it was least expected—from across the Atlantic. In the United States, the last bastion of unconditional support, the ice has cracked. A Pew Research Center poll showed that 60% of Americans today view Israel unfavorably, up from 53% in just a year. Most importantly, 59% of U.S. citizens do not trust Netanyahu personally on international affairs. And that number is nearly the same among both Democrats and Republicans (41% of the latter don’t trust him either).

The historical irony is unbearable: the man who bragged he understood America better than any Israeli politician has destroyed Israel’s moral capital in the U.S. in a single decade. Even Senator Bernie Sanders’s attempts to block arms deliveries, though formally failing, received unprecedented public support—unthinkable just five years ago. The image of the “heroic underdog” building democracy in a hostile environment is dead. Today, Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership is perceived in the world exactly as it deserves: as an aggressor state that has embarked on a path of blatant apartheid, militarism, and authoritarianism, where biblical slogans merely cover up the banal looting of land.

The Abyss: What Netanyahu Will Leave Behind

When Benjamin Netanyahu finally leaves politics (and judging by his pathological obsession with power, the corruption cases trailing him like a shadow, and the endless political crises, it won’t be an honorable resignation but a dirty, shameful flight), he will leave behind not a “Greater Israel” from the Euphrates to the Nile, but a scorched ruin where there was once hope for peace.

He will leave strained, frozen relations with the closest allies, who have never been hated in Israel as much as they are now—and that hatred is mutual. He will leave a crippled economy, gasping under the weight of sanctions, boycotts, and soaring military spending. He will leave a generation of Israelis who grew up not in the atmosphere of a “blooming garden” in the desert, but in an atmosphere of total international hatred, which he personally provoked and nurtured.

He, being merely a clever tactician with a toxic need for political survival but an utterly worthless national strategist, sacrificed the country’s long-term security for his own short-term grip on the prime minister’s chair. His alliance with Trump, his playing with fire in Lebanon, his provocations in Syria, his bullying of the Palestinians—none of it was defense; it was a suicide pact for the nation.

The painstaking, multi-year work of healing Israeli society, of restoring trust and relations with the world, will begin only when this political corpse finally leaves the stage, taking its messianic rhetoric with it. The only question is whether it will be too late by then. Will Israel, blinded by the imperial delirium of a “Greater” kingdom, turn into yet another destroyed, unloved, and unwanted state on the map of the Middle East—a region that Netanyahu and Trump, with their reckless hands, have turned into a never-ending hell where there is no room for wisdom, mercy, or common sense?

Muhammad Hamid al-Din, a renowned Palestinian journalist