Wednesday, August 05, 2026

The Red Sea Security Coalition: A Saudi Initiative

Saudi Arabia and 13 partner countries have announced the establishment of the Red Sea Maritime Defense Coalition. The initiative aims to ensure uninterrupted maritime traffic in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.

Simon Westwood

The unprovoked American and Israeli aggression against Iran on February 28, 2026, killed its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and its top leadership, which has jolted the entire world. The United States and Israel did not just attack Iran, but indeed they attacked an innocent member of the free world and an important pillar of the multipolar world. It is to be noted here that Iran is the member of the BRICS coalition that simply aims to save the world from the evil clutches of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is the basic sin committed by the Iranian regime that it has openly defied to bow down to the West and to accept the American hegemony. For this sole crime, the Iranian people have been suffering death and destruction for the past five months or so.

The US and NATO allies want to divide and rule the Middle East by sowing the seeds of hatred and mistrust among the Middle Eastern nations

The Iranian retaliation against the United States and Israel, along with the US military bases in the Middle East, has attested that the world is multipolar and the US can no longer pick and choose to destroy nations and states as the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and many other nations. Iran’s moral and psychological strength to fight the US and Israel comes from its membership in the BRICS organization.

The US and Israeli attack has severely affected the lives of the people around the globe. But these illegal attacks against Iran have awoken the new pillars of the multipolar world, which are now offering resistance to the Western-led world order.

The Houthis of Yemen

The Houthis of Yemen are native people of Yemen, and they only want to safeguard their territory and prevent its capture by the Western imperial powers. The Yemeni Houthis are a reality, and attempts to suppress their voices should be avoided. It is true that Houthis are backed by Iran, but it is also true that Houthis are preventing Yemen from becoming another US military base.

Why Saudi Arabia has established the Maritime Defence Coalition for the Red Sea Region

Saudi Arabia is a responsible player in the Gulf region, and like any other nation, it intends to protect its national interests. It has good foreign relations with Russia as well as China and is also a member of the BRICS organization. And, China brokered a diplomatic deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to have diplomatic ties in March 2023. But the problem is that the US has had its military bases in Saudi Arabia since the days of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm during 1991-92. These military bases in Saudi Arabia are causing anxiety among the people of the free world, including Iran and its allies.

The Houthis have time and again demanded that Saudi Arabia abandon the US and ask them to leave the Saudi territory. However, the Saudi leadership has allowed the Americans to stay on its soil and have military presence. Though, Saudi Arabia forbade the US to use its soil to launch attacks against Iran.

The Saudi leadership believes that the Red Sea region and the Bab el Mandeb strait should remain fully functional for large international vessels. And, for that purpose, it invited 41 nations to join the Maritime Defence Coalition for the Red Sea region. So far, a total of 14 nations have agreed to become a part of the coalition. It was reported that “Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, EgyptSudan, Djibouti, Somalia, and Bangladesh are among the signatories and will actively take part in the coalition, but Oman and the United Arab Emirates did not sign.

Conclusion

In the multipolar world, the nations of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, must realise that the main problem behind the confrontation and hostile relations in the region is the US and Israel and the presence of huge US military bases. These military bases are always busy conducting clandestine and secret military operations against the regional countries so that they maintain mutually hostile relations. For instance, the drone attack on Damietta Port of Egypt on 29 July 2026, was denied by the Yemeni Houthis, and it could have been done by the US or Israel. It is very strange that the European Union’s Naval Force (EUNAVFOR) ASPIDES is also posted in the Red Sea since 19 February 2024 with the same mission to ensure the safety of civilian vessels. In other words, the US and NATO allies want to divide and rule the Middle East by sowing the seeds of hatred and mistrust among the Middle Eastern nations.

The Saudi-led Maritime Defence Coalition for the Red Sea region should also include Iran for confidence building, and it should also invite Russia, China, India, and others to take an active part in monitoring the free flow of civilian vessels from the Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb strait.

If the Saudi military attacks Houthis or the Houthis attack Saudi infrastructure, in both cases the innocent people of the Middle East will perish, and ultimately the US, NATO, and Israel would be the primary beneficiaries of such attacks.

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

Greed, Supremacism, and Hero Syndrome: Why Washington Cannot End Its War of Choice Against Iran

Washington’s machinations, designed to gain control of the Strait of Hormuz and other strategic resources, drive escalation.

Simon Chege Ndiritu

Supremacist View

On July 17, 2026, the US had continuously bombed Iran for 6 nights and had targeted civilian infrastructure, including bridges, train stations, and airports. As of writing, there was no end in sight for the US-Iran war as the Persian country was retaliating by bombing US installations across the region using missiles and drones. Washington resumed bombing of Iran on July 8, 2026, after it tried to guide vessels through the Omani side of the Strait against Iran’s interpretation of a previously signed MOU that all vessels needed to coordinate their transit with Persian Gulf power. While Iran attacked vessels transiting without coordinating with it in early July, vessels had freely transited the Strait of Hormuz until the US and Israel decided to launch a war of choice on Iran based on unreasonable demands in late February, 2026. In the face of Washington’s efforts to gain control of the Strait of Hormuz through a blockade and renewed bombing campaigns, this paper explores America’s tendency to claim and grab other people’s resources as a practice rooted in greed, perception of supremacy, and hero syndrome. This toxic cocktail of factors will keep the current war going and can lead to another.

Clearly, Washington does not believe that it should positively contribute to the world, but wants to create crises and extort the world through them

Insatiable Greed

One demand that Donald Trump has been emphasizing is gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz (which is located over 11000 kilometers away from the US). Trump has also hinted at a desire to charge other countries a transit fee of 20% of the value of their cargo as a reimbursement to the US, a dream he has held since the late 1980s. With Trump’s proposal to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, which the US may attempt to implement in future, Washington will not only benefit from the problem it has created but will also appear like it launched the ongoing war to gain control of the Strait from the regional countries. Trump, who recently claimed that he is not guided by any law but his own morals, follows a supremacist attitude adopted by the US leaders, including Barack Obama, that the country is exempt from laws and standards that apply to others as it is “exceptional.”

In one and a half years of Trump’s second term, the flamboyant president has threatened to annex Canada, Greenland, and Gaza through military conquests, purchases, and concessions. Also, he announced to Congress that he had started the process of wresting control of the Panama Canal back to the US in 2025. No other country has displayed this level of greed. As if that wasn’t enough, in early 2026, he claimed oil resources and infrastructure in Venezuela before conducting a military operation that killed around 100 people and led to the kidnapping of president Nicholas Maduro. Afterwards, Trump gloated that he was in control of the Venezuelans’ oil resources and their sales, the proceeds of which he directed to a private bank account in Qatar. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the US believes that all resources globally belong to Washington, and that other sovereign countries that protect their wealth for their citizens are an inconvenience that must be overcome by the US military. This mentality is driving the ongoing escalation around the Strait of Hormuz.

Hero Syndrome

The Washington establishment believes it should be creating problems and forcing the rest of the world to pay for solutions in a style tantamount to charging other countries rent for existing. As early as 1987, Trump was featured lamenting that countries such as Japan were not paying the US for what he described as protecting oil from the Persian Gulf, which went to power their economies. Trump’s claim showed how some in the US believe that every successful country should be paying to exist. Surprisingly, the US deployment in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s was due to its own strategic myopia of attempting to use Iraq to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had recently deposed the Western puppet regime of Reza Pahlavi. Surprisingly, voices in the US still wanted countries to pay Washington for purporting to solve a crisis it had created. Despite Washington’s comprehensive assistance to Iraq, the Iranian side stood its ground against all odds, resulting in a strategic impasse with each side attacking the other’s oil tankers, in what was described as Tanker Wars. The US was supporting Iraq while posing as if it was only securing the flow of energy, and Trump’s demand that countries needed to pay shows serious Hero Syndrome. Further, Trump argued that Kuwait should have given up to 25% of its oil revenue to the US because of the assistance it received in selling oil, which could only be admissible if the US had not caused the crisis altogether.

Trump’s July 13, 2026 view that countries should reimburse the US with 20% of the value of their goods transiting through the Strait of Hormuz is reminiscent of the statements he made in 1987, seen earlier. It not only reveals the mafia-style thought running US foreign relations, but also exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling class that has refused to evolve past the 1980s. Clearly, Washington does not believe that it should positively contribute to the world, but wants to create crises and extort the world through them. It is unbelievable that arguments proposed in 1987 should be attempted today, nearly 40 years later, as if the world has been static. No country should pay a dime to Washington for the crises it created. Instead, Washington should be paying other countries for launching a war of choice that has restricted the global flow of energy and adversely affected other economies.

Facing Consequences of Greed and Myopia

Iran is progressing well in imposing costs on Washington’s murderous adventure. Iran’s innovation and resilience have made Washington end up directly participating in this aggression and facing some costs rather than hiding behind Israel, which would be its ideal. In the 1980s, Washington was able to significantly ravage Iran by acting through Iraq. Also, as opposed to the 1980s, where it could bomb Iran’s navy during the Tanker War and still managed to play the hero by escorting oil exports in the Persian Gulf, the US today has been shut out of the strategic chokepoint altogether. Washington, and its regional hostages (previously allies), have been unable to unblock the Iranian blockade, calling into question the protection it has sold them in numerous defense agreements and weapon purchases. Also, the Persian Gulf monarchies that prop up the US currency are teetering around economic recession due to disruption in their oil exports. Washington is hard-pressed to explain to these allies why it started this war, or to justify why it should continue acting as a security guarantor while it cannot protect its military bases.

Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

The Impact of the Iranian Factor on the Stability and Development Prospects of BRICS

It is not only the Iranian factor which determines the prospects of BRICS; however, the current situation surrounding the Islamic Republic of Iran can, without exaggeration, be regarded as a genuine stress test for this format of cooperation.

Vlad Markin

Iran as a Strategic Asset of the Association

Iran’s accession to BRICS in January 2024 did not mean merely a formal enlargement of the club, but rather the acquisition of a significant asset for the emerging architecture of the Global South. The country occupies a unique position at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean basin, controlling strategic maritime routes, above all the Strait of Hormuz. According to data from the International Energy Agency, approximately 20% of global seaborne crude oil exports pass through this waterway, and roughly 20% of global trade in liquefied natural gas is conducted via the same route.

Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran plays a considerable role within the developing International North–South Transport Corridor. This artery will connect Indian ports with Russia and onwards to Europe via Iranian territory. In doing so, delivery times for goods should be reduced several-fold compared with the traditional route through the Suez Canal. Without a stable Iran that is integrated into international transport flows, the project will remain only partially implemented.

The main risk is that geopolitical turbulence may put paid to practical cooperation. This challenge can be overcome by consciously distinguishing between political declarations and the working agenda

Beyond logistics, Iran possesses the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas deposits. In terms of the ongoing reconfiguration of energy markets and BRICS’ aspiration to create its own mechanisms for ensuring energy security, Iranian hydrocarbons will be difficult to compensate for within the collective balance. Hence, the economic viability of the association, at least in its logistical and energy dimensions, is directly linked to the level of stability surrounding Iran and its engagement in joint infrastructure projects.

Disagreements without Conflict – The New Reality of BRICS

The recent upsurge in confrontation around Iran has exposed what had already been a reality: within the expanded BRICS, there are fundamentally divergent views on security and foreign policy. The member states have their own, often competing, regional interests and varying types of relations with the United States, Israel, and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Since the decision-making process among the participating countries is carried out predominantly on the basis of consensus, direct confrontation between member states or their close partners complicates the making of a common political position.

Many critics have been prompt to label this as a failure, but such an assessment is incorrect. The BRICS format was never conceived of as a military-political alliance, nor should it become one. Its true value lies in creating a unique dialogue platform where countries with drastically different political systems, civilisational foundations, and geopolitical orientations are able to find common ground in economics, development, and the reform of international institutions. This is precisely what makes the association attractive to the countries of the Global South.

A Stress Test for BRICS: How to Preserve Practical Cooperation

The main risk the association is facing today is that geopolitical turbulence may put paid to practical cooperation. This challenge can be overcome by consciously distinguishing between political declarations and the working agenda. The absence of consensus on statements regarding the status of the nuclear deal or the inadmissibility of strikes on critical infrastructure should not serve as a pretext for freezing negotiations on the interoperability of payment systems, the harmonisation of technical standards for transport corridors, or support for development-finance projects. It is necessary to develop immunity to external crises by concentrating on specific economic tracks where the benefits of cooperation are obvious to all the participants. Failing that, there is a risk of the association becoming hostage to any conflict arising along the perimeter of its extensive borders.

From Declarations to Ensuring the Protection of the Global South

Prolonged escalation of the conflict around Iran is detrimental to BRICS, as it leads to economic upheaval and deepens political disagreements within the association. By contrast, de-escalation would make it possible to fully incorporate Iran into the regional agenda, relieve pressure on energy markets, and safeguard transport routes.

In this regard, BRICS must advocate for diplomacy, international law, and the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The strength of the format should be manifested not in choosing one side, but in its capacity to maintain dialogue and protect the economic interests of the Global South.

Vlad Markin, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the NEO

Is Ceuta a U.S. and Israel Revenge on Spain? Weaponising Migration as a Proxy War

The sudden mass crossing into Spain’s North African enclave raises questions that Europe cannot afford to dismiss as merely another migration crisis. The timing, Morocco’s behavior, and the growing strategic alignment between Rabat, Washington, and Tel Aviv point to something potentially more consequential: the weaponization of migration as an instrument of geopolitical pressure against Spain — and, by extension, against the European Union itself. In the end, it resulted in a political crisis within the EU.

Ricardo Martins

What happened in Ceuta — and why the numbers matter

What happened in Ceuta, and to a lesser extent in Melilla, was not a conventional migration surge. It was an extraordinary, almost instantaneous mobilisation helped by the algorithms and some invisible hands, or not so invisible.

Within roughly 24 hours, tens of thousands of people entered the Spanish enclave, with estimates ranging from around 50,000 according to Spanish authorities to approximately 60,000 in reports cited by the international press. Given Ceuta’s population of roughly 87,000, the influx represented an extraordinary shock to a territory of its size. The Spanish government deployed military personnel and armoured vehicles as local security forces struggled to contain the situation.

Morocco’s role cannot be separated from the transformation of its relationship with Israel and the United States, nor from the turbulent triangle linking Rabat, Madrid, and Algiers

The most revealing statistics, however, came afterwards. Within roughly a day, more than 48,000 people had already returned to Morocco. Many migrants themselves said they had discovered that there was little or nothing waiting for them in Ceuta: no accommodation, food, work, or realistic route into continental Spain.

This is precisely what makes the episode so unusual. A spontaneous migration movement normally develops over time, driven by economic distress, conflict, or established smuggling routes. Here, thousands appeared to converge almost simultaneously after rumours spread through social media that the border was effectively open.

Several migrants told journalists that Moroccan police had encouraged them to cross. One described officers allegedly telling people to “enter Spain.” Other testimonies suggested that the border suddenly became permissive before Moroccan forces later re-established control. Morocco denies deliberately facilitating the movement, and Madrid itself has not formally accused Rabat of orchestrating it.

But that leaves the central question unanswered: how does a heavily fortified border suddenly cease functioning?

From migration crisis to geopolitical weapon

The timing is impossible to ignore.

Over the past two years, Pedro Sánchez’s government has become one of Europe’s most outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Spain recognised Palestine, recalled its ambassador to Israel, imposed measures targeting Israeli settlement activity, and moved towards a permanent arms embargo. Madrid also refused to facilitate certain U.S. military operations connected with Israel and, more recently, connected with the confrontation with Iran, including denying access to Spanish military facilities for operations it considered incompatible with its position.

The political confrontation with Washington has likewise intensified. U.S. officials and Trump himself have attacked Madrid over defence spending, NATO commitments, and Sánchez’s foreign-policy choices. At the same time, Washington was beginning to question Spain’s sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla. In April, Republican Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart, a close ally of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, publicly argued that the two enclaves were geographically part of Morocco rather than Spain. Days later, a U.S. House Appropriations Committee report described them as being “in Moroccan territory” under Spanish administration and urged Rubio to help negotiate their future status.

Israel, meanwhile, has openly objected to Spain’s diplomatic pressure. Israeli officials have warned that countries conducting what Benjamin Netanyahu described as a “diplomatic war” against Israel would pay a price. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations even seized upon the Ceuta crisis to question Spain’s moral authority. Prior to this, on 25 May 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair Netanyahu tweeted: “Dear Arabs and Muslims. Want to free occupied Arab Islamic lands? Here’s a good start!” Following this, a map highlighted Ceuta and Melilla.

None of this proves that Washington or Tel Aviv ordered a migration operation against Spain, but geopolitics does not always operate through written orders. Influence can be exercised through incentives, diplomatic signalling, algorithm manipulation, strategic partnerships, funding opposition NGOs, and the creation of permissive environments; sometimes all means are valid.

That is where Morocco becomes crucial.

Morocco, the Abraham Accords, and an old colonial dispute

Morocco’s role cannot be separated from the transformation of its relationship with Israel and the United States, nor from the turbulent triangle linking Rabat, Madrid, and Algiers. Spain’s relations with Morocco have repeatedly oscillated between strategic cooperation and diplomatic confrontation, with the Western Sahara dispute at their core. At the same time, Algeria — Morocco’s main regional rival, particularly over Western Sahara and competing visions of Maghreb leadership — has become increasingly important to Spain as an energy and strategic partner. Algeria is Spain’s leading supplier of natural gas in 2026, while Madrid and Algiers are now working to expand gas supplies and broader energy cooperation, as discussed in Sánchez’s visit to Algiers a few days ago.

For Morocco, closer Spanish-Algerian ties risk strengthening its principal regional rival at a time when Rabat is seeking to establish itself as the dominant economic and strategic hub of the Maghreb.

Madrid’s renewed rapprochement with Algiers therefore has consequences well beyond the energy market: in the zero-sum geopolitics of the Maghreb, closer Spanish-Algerian ties inevitably affect Morocco’s strategic calculations.

Morocco’s role cannot be separated from the transformation of its relationship with Israel and the United States, and its ups-and-downs relations with Spain.

Since joining the Abraham Accords in 2020, Rabat has moved from a discreet interlocutor with Israel to an increasingly important, formalised defence cooperation and security partner. Intelligence and military cooperation have expanded: the 2021 Israel–Morocco defence memorandum established a framework for cooperation in intelligence, military training, and defence industries, followed by growing Israeli arms and surveillance-technology sales. In parallel, Washington intensely strengthened Morocco’s strategic position by formally recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in December 2020.

This creates a new strategic triangle: Washington–Tel Aviv–Rabat.

Ceuta and Melilla sit directly inside this geopolitical equation. Morocco considers both territories to be occupied Moroccan land, while Spain regards them as integral parts of the Spanish state. Ceuta has been under Spanish rule since 1580, and before that, it was a Portuguese colony; the dispute is therefore deeply rooted in the historical legacy of European colonialism in North Africa.

Migration can consequently become more than migration. It can become a form of coercive diplomacy.

The 2021 Ceuta crisis already demonstrated the possibility. More than 10,000 migrants entered the enclave after a diplomatic dispute between Madrid and Rabat over Spain’s medical treatment of Polisario Front leader Brahim Ghali. The current episode is vastly larger. Trump and Netanyahu made clear that Spain’s defiance would have consequences.

The question is not whether Morocco has an interest in keeping the Ceuta question alive. It plainly does. The question is whether the post-Abraham Accords alignment has created an environment in which Moroccan pressure against Spain can indirectly serve wider American and Israeli strategic objectives.

Europe’s shame: when an attack on Spain becomes Europe’s problem — but Spain stands alone

Morocco’s role cannot be separated from the transformation of its relationship with Israel and the United States, nor from the turbulent triangle linking Rabat, Madrid, and Algiers. Spain’s relations with Morocco have repeatedly oscillated between strategic cooperation and diplomatic confrontation, with the Western Sahara dispute at their core. At the same time, Algeria — Morocco’s main regional rival, particularly over Western Sahara and competing visions of Maghreb leadership — has become increasingly important to Spain as an energy and strategic partner. Algeria is Spain’s leading supplier of natural gas in 2026, while Madrid and Algiers are now working to expand gas supplies and broader energy cooperation, as discussed in Sánchez’s visit to Algiers a few days ago.

For Morocco, closer Spanish-Algerian ties risk strengthening its principal regional rival at a time when Rabat is seeking to establish itself as the dominant economic and strategic hub of the Maghreb.

Madrid’s renewed rapprochement with Algiers therefore has consequences well beyond the energy market: in the zero-sum geopolitics of the Maghreb, closer Spanish-Algerian ties inevitably affect Morocco’s strategic calculations.

Morocco’s role cannot be separated from the transformation of its relationship with Israel and the United States, and its ups-and-downs relations with Spain.

Since joining the Abraham Accords in 2020, Rabat has moved from a discreet interlocutor with Israel to an increasingly important, formalised defence cooperation and security partner. Intelligence and military cooperation have expanded: the 2021 Israel–Morocco defence memorandum established a framework for cooperation in intelligence, military training, and defence industries, followed by growing Israeli arms and surveillance-technology sales. In parallel, Washington intensely strengthened Morocco’s strategic position by formally recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in December 2020.

Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics

Trump’s Last-Minute Halt: Strategy, Caution, or Capitulation?

Trump’s repeated threats followed by last-minute retreats risk turning American deterrence into a paper tiger, encouraging adversaries to test Washington’s resolve. Pulling back from the brink may avert war today, but inconsistency could prove costlier tomorrow.

Taut Bataut

If not exaggerated, it’s almost 1000 times that President Trump has ordered and then halted strikes against Iran. Since February 28, 2026, both the US and Israel have been striking Iran harshly. Yet, the Iranian nation stands still and retaliates in the same manner. Recently, after the violation of the ceasefire, both the US and Iran came at odds with each other again.

Once again, President Trump warned Iran of heavy strikes, and in the same manner, he once again halted those strikes, stating that he doesn’t want to kill people and that Iranians are eager to make a deal. The move, which came after a period of mounting threats and build-ups, posed an immediate basic question: was this an instance of strategic restraint, or another in a long line of American inconsistency?

Why Did US-Iran Tensions Flare Up Again?

“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” (Ronald Reagan)

 The regional countries must take greater responsibility for their defense, breaking the shackles of American monopoly and creating a novel regional strategic architecture

The recent hype in tensions between the US and Iran is based on various events and developments that have occurred in the past few weeks. First of all, the suspension of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (IMoU), which was the only hope for any permanent peace deal in the near future, messed up all the situations. And of course, its credit goes to the US and Israel. Likewise, the Yemen-Saudi rift further exacerbated the situation, whereby the Houthis have announced the blockade of the Bab el Mandeb Strait, targeting Saudi-linked shipments.

On the 20th of July, 2026, Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarea said that “The Saudi regime had imposed an oppressive and unjust siege on our dear people for almost 12 years, looting our natural resources and imposing a total blockade on our ports and airports via land, sea, and air.” Following which he revealed the decision taken by the group regarding its response to this blockade in the form of “a maritime embargo on the criminal Saudi enemy according to an eye-for-an-eye formula. Any foolish move made by the reckless Saudi enemy via all escalation will be replied to with a full-scale escalation.”

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, alongside the US, struck Iran-based militias in Iraq on the charge of attacking oil facilities located in the Eastern and Riyadh provinces of Saudi Arabia with drones. This resulted in retaliatory attacks from Iran against the US bases in Jordan and also, as per some official reports, the US-linked cargo at the Egyptian port as well.

The ‘Biggest Strike’ That Never Happened

Napoleon Bonaparte once noted, “In war, the moral is to the material as three is to one.” On 31st July 2026, President Trump was determined to intensify his military operations against the regime to bring it to the negotiating table. “We will be hitting them very hard,” Trump said Friday at a televised cabinet meeting at Camp David. “And you know at some point, they’re going to say, ‘We just can’t take it anymore.’” However, as usual, when the time came, Trump chickened out. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he had been asked by Iran and other countries in the Middle East to “hold off” on any attack as the “parameters” of a deal had been agreed.

Here is the fundamental paradox. While the United States continually indicates that it does not wish to use force under almost any conditions, Tehran can perceive that time is on its side. On the other hand, if the U.S. had truly wanted to negotiate, then perhaps its threats were not necessary and increased regional tension. You cannot simply have your cake and eat it too. The danger in issuing a warning and not following through is that the United States may come off as crying “wolf.” As a superpower, consistency is just as vital as the ability to follow through.

Why Were the Strikes Halted? Strategy or Necessity?

President Trump claimed that Iran and other Gulf nations asked him to give a chance to diplomacy, but the reality behind it is something else. Yes, to be honest, Gulf countries might have requested Trump to do so. This is due to the fact that these countries are defenseless in front of Iran. If the US planned to strike Iran massively, then Iran’s retaliation against the Gulf would be imminent. This fear forced Gulf countries to avoid any further military escalation in the region. According to Axios, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke to President Trump and expressed concern over his plans for massive new strikes against Iran. This could be one of the reasons.

Another important reason would be the shortage of interceptors for the US forces stationed in the Middle East. As Iran has already warned the US that in case of any massive strikes by the US, it has a clear plan of heavily targeting the American presence in the region. Thus, after measuring pros and cons, the US was then forced to halt strikes against Iran. Last but not least, the US general has also warned the Pentagon that he lacks sufficient forces to protect Israel. The shortage of manpower has forced President Trump to back down from his words. If Iran retaliates against Israel, the US would not be able to protect Israelis. Thus, all these factors lead to the halt of strikes against Iran, and the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is once again in the limelight.

Conclusion

Not only Iran, but also the entire world, is now fed up with Trump’s chickening-out behavior and then repeating the same script of why he did so. Avoiding the temptation to pull the trigger might have spared us from yet another war in the Middle East, but unless Washington demonstrates its clarity of strategy along with restraint, yesterday’s hesitation may turn out to be tomorrow’s precedent of reduced deterrence capability. Thus, the regional countries must take greater responsibility for their defense, breaking the shackles of American monopoly and creating a novel regional strategic architecture that suits best to the multipolar world order.

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

Western Europe Muddies Relationship with the Mediterranean

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western European countries actively sought to turn the southern coast of the Mediterranean into their own sphere of influence, continuing, as before, to exploit the states on the African and Asian shores.

Mohammed Amer

To achieve this goal, two large-scale projects were launched. The first, initiated in 1995 after a widely publicized conference in Barcelona, was called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and brought together the 15 EU member states of that time and 10 countries of the Southern Mediterranean. The second project, launched in 2008 under the name of the Union for the Mediterranean, united all 27 EU countries and 16 states of North Africa and the Middle East. Both projects, however, failed completely.

Despite many statements about equal cooperation and harmony of interests between the North and the South, as well as dozens of books and thousands of articles designed to conceal the true motives, the main driving force behind the EU remained greed. The European Union sought to subordinate the Mediterranean countries to its own interests to continue exploiting their resources and using cheap labor.

These promises remained only on paper, and today, the inhabitants of the European Union are suffering from heat waves coming from Africa, thanks to the selfishness of their own politicians

Contemporary initiatives concerning this region confirm that European interests have barely changed. Energy security has gradually supplanted dependence on oil, curbing migration has become as strategically important as military presence once was, and financial mechanisms are gradually replacing direct political control. As Arab News noted on July 25, “Neocolonial paternalism may have seemingly vanished, but the architecture governing the relations still places Brussels in the position of rule-maker and North Africa in the position of rule-taker.”

This is particularly evident in trade. In 2024, trade between the EU and Africa exceeded €355 billion; European imports amounted to about €190 billion, while exports were just over €165 billion. At the same time, the structure of goods is far more important than their total volume. More than half of European imports consist of mineral fuels and raw materials, whereas over a third of exports to the southern countries are machinery, transport equipment, and industrial goods. This pattern of exchange has survived surprisingly well since decolonization: Africa exports resources, Europe exports high-value-added goods.

European manufacturers gain privileged access to regional consumers, while North African producers remain constrained by low-skilled assembly work, agricultural quotas, and commodity production. Market access is still carefully calibrated to preserve Europe’s competitiveness, and full participation in the EU market always remains out of reach (Moroccans even suspended negotiations on a comprehensive free trade area, realizing that harmonizing rules without corresponding market access would impose unfavorable standards on Moroccan firms).

An Unequal Exchange

Western European countries use every possible means to maintain access to North African markets, while at the same time restricting the freedom of Maghreb companies through quotas, burdensome requirements, and complex regulatory barriers. In other words, behind the endless rhetoric about partnership lies a harsh restriction on agricultural exports from North Africa and the imposition of unfavorable conditions for competitive struggle.

A clear example is Italy, which is loudly promoting the allocation of €5.5 billion for various North African projects, while the Italian energy giant Eni alone plans to invest €26 billion over four years in energy projects in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria.

Virtually every European initiative revolves around the usual priorities, including ensuring energy security, reducing migration, protecting supply chains, expanding markets, and limiting geopolitical competition. At the same time, the old imperialist principle of divide and conquer is clearly maintained.

EU states have successfully torpedoed the unification of the Arab Maghreb Union. Today, they actively encourage the continuation of the conflict between Algeria and Morocco. For example, discussions are currently underway regarding gas pipeline projects from Nigeria to the Mediterranean. The first, stretching 4,000 km, would directly connect Nigeria with Algeria – 1,000km through Nigerian territory, 800 km through Niger, and 2,300 km through Algeria. Its preliminary cost is estimated at $10–12 billion. Meanwhile, many Western media outlets are heavily promoting another pipeline, namely Nigeria–Morocco, which would pass through 13 countries along Africa’s western coast. This project is presented as a crucial corridor linking Europe, Africa, and the Atlantic basin. It is underscored that American companies are also interested in financing this project, although preliminary estimates put the pipeline’s cost at €25 billion and its length at 6,900 km, combining both offshore and onshore sections. The emphasis is placed on the fact that many African countries would benefit from the pipeline’s economic impact.

France – a former colonial power – continues to play on the disagreements between Morocco and Algeria. In 2024, President Macron endorsed Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara and called Morocco’s autonomy proposal the basis for a resolution. This decision helped end a prolonged period of tension between Paris and Rabat but immediately provoked a crisis in relations with Algeria, which recalled its ambassador. France’s relations with Algeria had already been overshadowed by disputes over colonial history, migration, and security.

The current massive wildfires in Italy and France, which have injured dozens and forced nearly 300,000 people to evacuate, are the most telling example of the European Union’s greed. In the late 1990s, EU figures talked a big game about new, wonderful cooperative relations and mutual understanding with the countries of the southern Mediterranean coast. Among their many promises was the idea of creating a forest belt in North Africa to limit the impact of dry winds on the European continent’s climate. These promises remained only on paper, and today, the inhabitants of the European Union are suffering from heat waves coming from Africa, thanks to the selfishness of their own politicians.

Mohammed Amer, Syrian publicist, expert on current issues of global and regional politics

Tuesday, August 04, 2026

Tariffs by Other Means: When Law Defines US Grand Strategy

America’s latest tariffs are not a story about forced labour; they show how domestic constitutional constraints are reshaping US geopolitical power.

Salman Rafi Sheikh

The Constitution Has Entered America’s Trade War

For much of the post-Cold War era, Washington projected economic power with remarkable executive discretion. Tariffs, sanctions, export controls, and investment restrictions increasingly became instruments of grand strategy, allowing successive administrations to pursue geopolitical objectives without always deploying military force. That assumption was shaken on February 20, 2026, when the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs at all. Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion turned on statutory text—the law lets the president “regulate” imports, not tax them—but three of the six justices in the majority went further, invoking the major questions doctrine to hold that a power this consequential requires unambiguous authorization from Congress. The ruling did not just strike down one set of duties; it unwound the legal premise of tariffs that had touched nearly every US trading partner. The decision forced the White House to rethink not its strategic ambitions but the legal foundations upon which they rested.

A superpower that keeps finding new laws to justify the same pressure on its allies may still win each individual tariff fight. But it risks teaching the rest of the world not to trust the terms it offers

The administration’s response has been swift and revealing, and it came in two stages rather than one. Within hours of the ruling, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—a narrower authority that permits a president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for balance-of-payments purposes, but only for 150 days unless Congress affirmatively extends them. That statutory clock was itself a concession to Congress’s taxing power, and it was always a stopgap. As it approached expiry, the administration reached for a sturdier vehicle: Section 301 of the same 1974 Act, which allows tariffs in response to “unreasonable” or discriminatory foreign trade practices found through a formal USTR (United States Trade Representative) investigation. Following an inquiry launched in March, proposed in June, and finalized this July after two rounds of hearings and more than 2,100 public comments, USTR imposed new tariffs of 10 to 12.5 percent on sixty economies—representing roughly 99 percent of US imports—replacing the expiring Section 122 duties. This time, however, the justification is no longer trade deficits or economic emergencies. It is forced labour. USTR’s finding was blunt: every one of the sixty economies, from major allies to the European Union itself, was judged to have either no ban on forced-labour imports or one that goes unenforced, creating what the agency called an unfair burden on American producers.

This legal pivot deserves far more attention than the tariff rates themselves. The Supreme Court did not end Washington’s use of economic coercion. Instead, it compelled the executive branch to repackage geopolitical strategy in a legally sustainable and morally compelling form—and to do so twice in five months, first through a time-limited emergency statute and then through a slower, evidence-based unfair-trade-practice statute built for durability rather than speed. In doing so, America’s constitutional order has begun to shape the language—and perhaps the future—of US grand strategy. That shift is profound. Domestic law is no longer merely constraining foreign policy; it is actively redesigning it.

From Economic Nationalism to Moralized Geoeconomics

The new tariffs illustrate an important evolution in American statecraft. The strategic objective remains familiar: protecting domestic industry, restructuring global supply chains, and preserving US economic leverage amid intensifying geopolitical competition. In short, ‘America First’ agenda remains alive. What has changed is the legal and normative vocabulary used to justify these goals.

USTR’s investigations concluded that the failure of sixty economies to prohibit or effectively enforce restrictions on goods produced with forced labour constitutes an “unreasonable” practice that burdens US commerce—a finding that, notably, drew no meaningful distinction between adversaries and treaty allies. Of the sixty, fourteen (including Canada, Mexico, India, Bangladesh, and the United Kingdom, alongside a mixed-rate tier covering the European Union, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan) qualified for the lower 10 percent rate because they maintain some prohibition, partial regime, or reciprocal trade commitment on forced labour; the remaining forty-six, a group that includes China but also numerous smaller developing economies, face the full 12.5 percent.

Whether these distinctions accurately capture global labour practices is almost beside the point. The more significant development is that human rights have become the primary legal architecture through which Washington now exercises economic power.

This reflects a broader transformation in international politics. Economic coercion increasingly relies on normative claims rather than purely commercial ones. The United States already employs sanctions to punish corruption and human rights abuses, export controls to safeguard national security, and investment restrictions to limit technological diffusion. Labour rights now join this expanding toolkit. However, unlike IEEPA’s emergency powers, Section 301 comes with an evidentiary record, a comment period, and prior precedent surviving judicial review, which makes it a far more litigation-resistant instrument than the one the Court just dismantled.

Therefore, the real innovation of the Trump administration lies in the convergence of constitutional law and geopolitical necessity. Having lost one legal instrument, the administration found another that could survive judicial scrutiny while preserving strategic flexibility. This is not simply protectionism with a new label. It is moralized geoeconomics, the fusion of legal legitimacy, ethical language, and geopolitical competition.

The Cost of Lost Predictability

International observers often analyse US foreign policy through the lens of China, industrial competition, or shifting alliances. They should also watch what these tariffs are doing to the trust that holds those alliances together.

The forced-labour tariffs fall hardest on countries that are not adversaries but allies. Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, and the United Kingdom—partners with long-standing legal and enforcement regimes against forced labour — are taxed at rates close to those imposed on economies with no such regime at all. To these governments, the substance of the policy will register less than the pattern behind it: a partner whose market access can be redefined within months, under whichever statute survives the last court challenge, regardless of how much a country has already done to meet Washington’s stated concern.

That pattern corrodes trust in a way that outlasts any single tariff. Alliances function on the assumption that commitments made in good faith will be honored in kind and that market access, once negotiated, will not be re-litigated under a new legal theory every time a court closes the last one. When allies see the US cycle through IEEPA, then Section 122, then Section 301 to preserve the same tariffs on the same countries, they learn that the legal justification is negotiable, but the outcome is not. It is a lesson that makes American commitments harder to rely on, not easier.

The cost of that lesson will not show up immediately. It will show up in how allies move away from the US over time, i.e., by diversifying supply chains away from US-dependent routes, striking trade agreements that do not run through Washington, and treating future American assurances with the caveat that they hold only until the next legal workaround. A superpower that keeps finding new laws to justify the same pressure on its allies may still win each individual tariff fight. But it risks teaching the rest of the world not to trust the terms it offers.

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