Beyond the New Cold War: The Rise of Competing Power Corridors

 The emerging global order is not evolving into a new Cold War of two rigid blocs, but into a fluid competition between rival strategic networks, with middle powers increasingly shaping the balance of power by refusing to align permanently with either side.

Abbas Hashemite

The New Geography of Global Power

Many assume that the new Cold War may begin with a declaration of an all-out war. On the contrary, this may emerge quietly, through escalating tensions in the Middle East, the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula, deepening Russia-North Korea-China cooperation, escalating tensions between Russia and Japan, deepening US-Israel partnership, emergence of new security alliances, and an intensifying crisis in the Indo-Pacific region. Although these developments appear geographically distant, they have profound strategic significance.

The international system is rapidly entering a period of volatility and uncertainty. The world is now witnessing an intensifying competition between major global powers, such as Russia, China, and the United States. Beijing is challenging Washington militarily, economically, and technologically. Moscow is also confronting the Western security order. North Korea is also rapidly expanding its nuclear assets. Iran, on its part, continues to pursue an independent regional architecture while deepening its strategic ties with the new global superpowers, Russia and China.

The US has involved itself in numerous strategic theaters simultaneously, providing China an opportunity to defeat Washington without any military conflict

Beyond Two Rigid Blocs

However, considering this a new Cold War would be an oversimplification. The emerging global order is not like two opposing military blocs; it is like two competing spheres of influence. The US-led security bloc includes South Korea, Japan, Israel, and Taiwan, backed by numerous European and Indo-Pacific partners. In comparison, the China-centered strategic network includes cooperating nations such as North Korea, Russia, and Iran, as well as numerous middle powers.

Nonetheless, unlike NATO, these countries are not members of a particular single military alliance. All these states have different strategic priorities and interests. This distinction matters because contemporary geopolitical competition is shaped less by ideological cohesion than by converging strategic interests. In the contemporary world, geopolitical competition is increasingly shaped by competing interests, strategic influence, deterrence, technological advantage, economic ties, military capabilities, and control over critical geographic spaces.

Taiwan, Japan, and the Expanding Security Front

The Taiwan issue appears to be the most perilous intersection of these competing interests, as Beijing considers it an integral part of its territory and has been increasing military pressure on the island for decades. Meanwhile, Taiwan is steadily strengthening its capability to deter a potential military assault or naval blockade. The significance of a potential conflict between China and the island extends beyond the Taiwan Strait, as it could draw the United States and Japan into the conflict, disrupt global semiconductor supply chains and trade, and significantly alter the Indo-Pacific balance of power. Therefore, the actual question regarding this conflict is whether deterrence could persuade China that the potential costs of the conflict would outweigh its strategic gains.

Japan’s illegitimate claim over the Southern Kuril Islands is another major issue between the two blocs. As an outcome of the Second World War, Russia gained sovereignty over these islands. Japan’s irredentist claim over these islands has become a major source of tension between the two sides. Moscow has an uncompromising stance on the issue. For Japan, its strategic options have narrowed as cooperation among Russia, China, and North Korea has deepened. Although these two are distinct issues, their unified impact is creating a broader security threat.

The Middle Powers May Decide the Outcome

The Middle Eastern theater also impacts contemporary geopolitical and geostrategic realities. US strategic commitments and its credibility as a security provider. The Iran war has exposed the reality behind US military presence in different Gulf countries, which was actually to protect the US and Israeli regional interests. This war also demonstrates the strategic overstretch of the United States. Washington has to simultaneously manage challenges involving different regional rivals, including Israel and Iran; support its European partners amid the Ukraine war; maintain security commitments towards South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan; and deter China in the Indo-Pacific region.

This implies that the US has involved itself in numerous strategic theaters simultaneously, providing China an opportunity to defeat Washington without any military conflict. Beijing’s increasing infrastructure investment, diplomatic partnerships, economic relations, and military collaborations with several countries could gradually reshape the international balance. The role of middle powers, including Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, ASEAN, and Gulf countries, will be instrumental in deciding the future trajectory of this competition. All these states seek strategic autonomy. Therefore, they do not permanently align with any single power. They seek Chinese investment, Russian energy, Western markets, regional alliances, and US technology – without becoming a permanent member of any geopolitical bloc, making the term “two blocs” inadequate.

The Strategic Middle Holds the Key

Therefore, it would be apt to hold that the world may be witnessing two competing power corridors rather than two formal blocs, with middle powers seeking to maintain relations with both sides. This makes the contemporary geopolitical environment more volatile and unpredictable than the Cold War 1.0. During the Cold War, the division between the two blocs was comparatively clear. However, today, states cooperate and compete with each other in different domains, making the divisions comparatively blurred.

Hence, the real competition in contemporary geopolitics is not simply between China, Russia, and the US; it is a constant struggle for dominance in alliances, supply chains, security architecture, and technologies of the 21^st century. Although the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine are distinct theatres, developments across them are increasingly interconnected and have far-reaching implications for global security; the greatest ambiguity is not who the new major powers are, but which side the middle powers will choose.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

America: Superpower of the Depleted Arsenal

 The world’s richest and so-called “most powerful” military power is running out of the missiles it would need to fight the wars it claims it is ready for.

Salman Rafi Sheikh

A Superpower Living Off Its Reserves

The United States spends more on defense than the next ten countries combined, yet for months the story of its thinning stockpiles has been fought over in the shadows of leaked documents and think-tank estimates rather than acknowledged from the podium. A CSIS analysis found that during the 39-day US-Israeli air campaign against Iran, the Pentagon burned through roughly US$24 billion in major munitions in just seven weeks, expending nearly half its Precision Strike Missile inventory and half its stock of THAAD interceptors. By mid-summer, CNN reported that Patriot interceptor stockpiles — the backbone of American and allied missile defense — had fallen by two-thirds, and ABC News quoted a US official calling both Patriot and THAAD inventories “extremely low.”

Allied confidence is not built on American press statements; it is built on watching what Washington actually does when a partner asks for help and the cupboard turns out to be barer than advertised

The Trump administration’s response to this reporting has been furious denial. The president has dismissed the coverage as “fake news,” insisted the country has “massive amounts of munitions,” and ordered investigations to hunt down the officials suspected of leaking readiness data, calling their disclosures “treasonous”.

But rhetoric is cheap, and policy is not. In July, meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Trump was asked directly whether the United States would send Ukraine more Patriot interceptors. His answer undercut weeks of public reassurance in a single sentence: “We have Patriots, but we don’t have that many. We need them for ourselves too,” he said, according to The Hill. Instead of missiles, Trump offered Kyiv a license to manufacture its own.

That single exchange is worth more than any leaked memo. Governments can spin a story; they cannot as easily spin a decision made in real time, in front of cameras, to an ally. If the arsenal really were as deep as the administration claims, there was no reason to withhold interceptors from a partner serving a Western agenda. The refusal is the confession the denials were designed to prevent.

Two Clocks, Running Toward the Same Hour

The reason this matters beyond Ukraine is timing. CSIS estimates that restoring pre-war levels of the four most critical munitions will take at least two years, and for some systems, more than three. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly conceded that replenishment will take “months and years… depending on the weapon system.” That is the first clock: how long it takes Washington to refill its magazines.

The second clock belongs to Beijing, and nobody in Washington controls it. China’s own planning window for a potential move on Taiwan is the subject of persistent, if imprecise, debate inside the Pentagon and Congress, but there is little dispute that it exists, and that Chinese planners study American vulnerabilities as carefully as American analysts study Chinese ones. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, CSIS’s Seth Jones warned that US bases across the Pacific — Japan, Guam, South Korea — are exposed to a Chinese missile and drone arsenal considerably larger and more sophisticated than Iran’s, and that the same interceptors now running low in the Middle East are the ones meant to defend them.

The danger is not that either clock alone is disqualifying. It is what happens if they converge — if the American rebuild window overlaps with a Chinese assessment that Washington’s magazines, and its political attention, are stretched thinnest. Deterrence has always rested as much on an adversary’s calculation of timing as on any static count of interceptors. A depleted stockpile that will be refilled in six months is a manageable embarrassment. A depleted stockpile that will refill in three years, sitting exposed for the entirety of a period when Beijing’s own capabilities are still expanding, is a strategic invitation.

This is not an abstraction for Washington’s Pacific allies. South Korea’s own strike doctrine leans on American-supplied precision munitions to hold North Korean artillery and missile sites at risk near the DMZ, and Taipei’s confidence in a US backstop rest on the assumption that Washington’s magazines will not already be empty when the moment comes. Neither government has the luxury of waiting two or three years to find out whether that assumption holds. Rebuilding the arsenal is also not simply a matter of writing a bigger check. Key interceptor components come from a handful of specialized production lines, and the seeker and propulsion systems that go into a single Patriot missile can take upward of two years to manufacture and integrate even once a contract is signed. Congress can accelerate funding, but it cannot compress physics or retool a factory floor overnight, which is exactly why the rebuild clock CSIS describes is measured in years rather than months, no matter how much political urgency now surrounds it.

The Cost of Managing the Story Instead of the Shortfall

This is where the administration’s instinct to suppress the story, rather than address the underlying math, becomes its own liability. Deterrence depends on adversaries and allies alike being able to calculate risk with some confidence. When a government responds to inventory concerns with subpoenas and treason threats instead of a credible accounting, it does not remove the uncertainty, it just relocates it. Beijing does not need an American leak to know how many Patriot interceptors were fired over Israel and the Gulf this spring; it has its own intelligence services for that. What Washington’s reaction actually broadcasts is that the political system is more comfortable managing a narrative than confronting a production problem.

There is also a quieter cost closer to home. Seoul and Tokyo do not need CSIS’s spreadsheets to notice that the same interceptor pool now thin in the Middle East is the one Washington has promised to draw on in a Korean or Taiwanese contingency, or that the administration’s public denials sit awkwardly next to its private decision to withhold interceptors from Ukraine. Allied confidence is not built on American press statements; it is built on watching what Washington actually does when a partner asks for help and the cupboard turns out to be barer than advertised.

None of this means the United States is defenseless, or that China’s own arsenal and industrial base are absolutely free of comparable strains. But great-power competition is rarely decided by who has the largest inventory on the first day of a crisis. It is decided by who can sustain production, credibility, and alliance confidence through the years it takes to refill what a lesser war has already spent. The Iran campaign was the smaller test. Washington’s answer to it — deny in public, ration in private — suggests it has not yet reckoned with what a larger one would demand, and adversaries watching the gap between the president’s words and his decisions have every reason to start their own clocks now.

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

A Hectic Period Has Overcome the World

 The global crisis of international law and the degradation of the world order, provoked by the aggressive policy of the US and Israel, are forcing Middle Eastern states to seek new ways of guaranteeing their security among growing chaos and diminishing trust in Washington.

Mohammed Amer

In our time, a vast number of crises have converged in an unprecedented manner, and at times it is difficult to identify the main trends. Indeed, the war in Ukraine has lasted longer than World War I, and as for Iran, one needs to check the news every hour to find out whether the war has ended or resumed.

Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev partly attributes this phenomenon to the dizzying actions of President Trump; in the first year of his return to the White House, prevailing political winds helped him seize the initiative. He acted so quickly that he left others in a state of complete disorientation. The Iranian situation showed that Trump fell victim to “his own time zone.” Constantly shifting positions leads to political impotence, and markets – as well as allies and enemies – have begun to ignore the president’s statements.

All of this coincides with the objective end of the 500-year era of Western dominance in relations with the rest of humanity.

The Middle East, home to hundreds of millions of people, is entering a period of heightened turbulence approaching chaos due to the policies of the United States and Israel

Human civilization has reached a new understanding of itself and its ability to manage nature, which is leading to confusion and state-level aggression, as well as an inability to cope with a number of problems such as water scarcity and rising temperatures in many regions of the globe.

These processes are particularly pronounced in the Middle East, where the unlawful actions of the United States and Israel are becoming almost the norm, even though they flagrantly contradict the tenets of international law. The assassination of leaders of independent sovereign states not only fails to become a subject of universal condemnation, but most countries prefer to ignore them. The Americans even take credit for the abduction of the legitimate president of Venezuela.

The degradation of the general principles of interstate relations, which is particularly visible in the decline of global organizations such as the UN, continues to gain momentum, although it is criticized by some figures. The radicalism and scale of what is happening lie precisely in the fact that it touches upon the very foundations of social life.

Israel, which places itself above all other states, is essentially a projection of American interests and a product of Washington’s global strategy. The fact that the Jewish state has in recent years been on a desperate rampage is a consequence of deep insecurity in its own capabilities amid shrinking American power. A notable piece of August news was a lively debate over the construction of a moat around Israel’s largest prison. The water-filled moat is reportedly to be stocked with hungry crocodiles. All of this resembles stories about medieval castles and cinema villains’ lairs.

However, it would be wrong to reduce the essence of the problem to the specifics of any one state; we see how Western public opinion reacts to the boundaries of what is permissible being pushed on Ukrainian soil. In the same vein lie European ideas about building “migrant camps” in neighboring countries and Trump’s construction of walls on the border with Mexico.

Three Powerful Sunni States Unite Defense Capabilities

On August 7, an agreement on a joint military bloc between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan was signed. These countries do not share a single common major enemy, but they face an array of regional threats. Since the United States has failed to ensure the security of shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, failed to rein in its overreaching ally Israel, and is incapable of dealing even with regional non-state actors (such as the Houthis, Iraqi militias, and others), the three regional powers are attempting to secure the area on their own. The three most influential states of the Muslim world are coming together at a time of heightened uncertainty to coordinate their actions on security matters.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Turks were quick to announce that the trilateral pact is not directed against Iran. At the same time, many regional media outlets interpreted the pact as a weakening of US positions in that part of the world. The influential Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat concluded that the consequences of the deal between Tehran and Washington would not be limited to Iran or the balance of power within the United States; the Arab states of the Persian Gulf would be among the first to pay the price. According to the publication, the war has already exhausted the Gulf monarchies, which have expended extremely costly stocks of interceptor missiles, air defense systems, and counter-drone measures to protect their territories and infrastructure. Replenishing these stocks requires billions of dollars, most of which is spent on American systems. Washington, which decided to start the war without the Arab states, also benefits from its partners’ rearmament.

The cost goes beyond military expenditures, as money redirected to restoring military potential is yanked away from socio-economic projects in the Gulf states. Thus, the burden is both material and long-term in nature.

The Middle East, home to hundreds of millions of people, is entering a period of heightened turbulence approaching chaos due to the policies of the United States and Israel. This thought was articulated particularly clearly on August 10 by the Al-Ahram newspaper, which emphasized the erosion of trust in Washington and its diminishing ability to shape the behavior of regional players, both allies and adversaries.

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

How Washington disguises as defense what it has always practiced as aggression

US foreign policy, built on military intervention, sanctions, applying double standards, and making use of proxy conflicts, is not bolstering America’s global influence but is instead accelerating the emergence of alternative alliances, uniting countries opposed to Western dominance.

Mohamed Lamine KABA

After so bravely throwing Ukraine under the bus – while carefully avoiding getting its hands dirty – Washington thought it was playing the tough guy until it was methodically trampled, scattered, and wiped out by the Revolutionary Guards and the Houthis in the Middle East. There, it received a monumental thrashing and packed up its belongings in a hurry, tail between its legs, forced to flee the region with its mouth full of shame.

Since June 2025, Trump and Netanyahu have been bombing Iran. Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan: the names are paraded like war trophies, recited during triumphant press conferences. And yet, with each strike, the same refrain is repeated by American and European officials: Russia is arming Tehran, China is financing it, North Korea is supplying it with missiles. A de facto recycled “axis of evil,” they say in the West, dusted off like an old suit that no longer fits, but worn anyway, for lack of anything better, to disguise a war of choice as a war of necessity.

For Washington, this humiliation, added to so many others, is deeply ingrained, stemming from the accumulated lies since Maidan, the sanctions that isolate the isolator, and the alliances that tighten around Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing as Washington pushes them toward one another

No one in Washington utters the word Maidan. No one dares to trace the thread back to the place where it all began, where Western interference disguised itself as a spontaneous color revolution.

Ukraine thought it was playing the hero; but Washington has paradoxically reduced it to a military dumping ground. NATO, that colossus with feet of clay, thought it could suffocate Moscow with incantations and self-destructive sanctions, but the reality on the front lines has shattered its bureaucratic illusions. As for the European Union, a servile extra, it is ruining its citizens to fuel a proxy war it doesn’t even control, using self-destructive sanctions as its weapon. Between Western generals lacking strategy and arms deliveries trickling in, the mirage of “total victory” is collapsing. The tragic drama is drawing to a close: the Kyiv puppet is sinking, abandoned by cynical patrons already preoccupied with other matters.

Maidan, the spark that was silenced

In February 2014, Independence Square in Kyiv erupted in flames. Washington applauded, the European Union provided funding, and NATO moved in. Since then, the twenty-seven European members of the Alliance, plus the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, and, to some extent, Turkey, have been arming, training, and financing Ukraine against Russia. Thirty-two nations against one. And then people are surprised that Moscow, in turn, seeks allies wherever it can: in Tehran, Pyongyang, and Beijing. Africa, Asia, and Latin America are even condemned for not having condemned Moscow, their natural ally, in order to align themselves with the collective West, their sworn common enemy.

In April 2008 in Bucharest, NATO curiously promised Ukraine and Georgia that they would one day join the Alliance. Moscow warned, with supporting diplomatic documents, that a red line had been crossed. But Washington shrugged it off. Fourteen years later, war broke out openly, and surprise was feigned.

NATO, a one-way policeman

The Western argument can be summed up in one sentence: Russia supports Iran, therefore, Iran is a global threat. But what about Taiwan, armed to the teeth by Washington against Beijing? What about Japan, which has doubled its military budget since 2022 under American pressure, in a barely veiled violation of its pacifist Article 9? What about South Korea, an advanced arsenal against Pyongyang, which has hosted American troops since 1953?

The double standard is not a mere anecdote. It’s a doctrine. Since 1945, every American sphere of influence has armed itself under the pretext of deterrence; conversely, every rival sphere of influence has armed itself accordingly under the pretext of aggression. The semantics change; the tanks, however, remain the same.

Kyiv receives Abrams tanks, Himars missiles, F-16s, and over $175 billion in US aid since February 2022, according to the Kiel Institute. Seoul receives nuclear submarines during port calls, THAAD systems, and a neighboring AUKUS pact that worries all of Northeast Asia. Taipei receives Harpoon missiles, Himars missiles, drones, and a visit from Nancy Pelosi in August 2022, which Beijing rightly calls a deliberate provocation. And when Moscow, Beijing, or Pyongyang retaliate by supporting Tehran, the Western press speaks of a global conspiracy. Never a mirror image. Never an acknowledged symmetry.

Tehran, the target that repeats history

Iran is repeating the Ukrainian scenario, with Washington playing a leading role. In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Vienna agreement, signed in 2015 by five world powers plus the European Union. He reimposed sanctions. He stifled the Iranian economy for seven years. Then, in 2025, he bombed the very sites that this agreement had frozen under IAEA control.

In other words: Washington first destroys the diplomatic compromise, then strikes militarily at the threat it itself allowed to fester. The same mechanism played out in Ukraine: broken promises of accession, sabotaged Minsk agreements, then feigned surprise at the Russian special military operation.

The humiliation recorded in the numbers

The facts speak for themselves. The dollar is declining in global reserves, from 71% in 2000 to less than 58% in 2025, according to the IMF. The expanded BRICS now represent more GDP in purchasing power parity than the G7. Russia, under ten thousand Western sanctions, is projected to grow faster than Germany in 2024. Iran, isolated since 1979, still holds, and will continue to hold, Washington and Tel Aviv in check.

Every American proxy war since 1945 has left the same mark: Korea in 1953, without victory; Vietnam in 1975, a debacle; Afghanistan in 2021, a hasty retreat from Kabul, helicopters on the embassy roof just like in Saigon in 1975. America wins the media battles, never the protracted wars against peoples who refuse to submit. The pattern repeats itself with almost mechanical regularity: intervention justified by an exaggerated threat, quagmire, shameful withdrawal, then collective amnesia until the next war.

The price of one war too many

Striking Iran will not destroy its program. It will radicalize it. Tehran will strengthen its ties with Moscow and Beijing, accelerate its rapprochement with the BRICS, and could, in the long run, cross the nuclear threshold it had thus far avoided through diplomatic calculation. The history of proliferation teaches a stubborn lesson: every regime bombed without being overthrown accelerates its pursuit of ultimate deterrence. North Korea, humiliated by decades of American threats, is living proof of this.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, remains vulnerable to an Iranian closure. In Yemen, the Houthis have entered the scene and closed the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Prices are soaring, and already fragile US inflation is plunging the country back into the recession that the Federal Reserve has been fearing since 2023.

And above all: the world is watching. Every capital of the Global South, from Brasilia to Jakarta, from Pretoria to New Delhi, is observing an empire that preaches international law while trampling it at every opportunity. Iran is being bombed to destroy its nuclear program. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program is being supported and financed with billions of dollars. Washington’s moral standing, already damaged by Iraq in 2003 and Gaza since 2023, will not survive a third war of choice imposed on the region.

For Washington, this humiliation, added to so many others, is deeply ingrained, stemming from the accumulated lies since Maidan, the sanctions that isolate the isolator, and the alliances that tighten around Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing as Washington pushes them toward one another. Each aircraft carrier sent to the Gulf further convinces the Global South that power no longer replaces legitimacy. Each sanction further undermines the dollar, each strike recruits more allies to those it purported to isolate.

Trump gesticulates, bombs, threatens. But history never negotiates with arrogance. It waits patiently for its moment, as it waited for Rome, for London, for all empires convinced of their eternity. And it always seizes it.

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

Asghar Farhadi receives Honorary Heart of Sarajevo

TEHRAN- Acclaimed Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi has received the Honorary Heart of Sarajevo at the 32nd Sarajevo Film Festival in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the art of cinema.

The award was presented to the two-time Academy Award-winning director at the National Theatre of Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on Thursday, August 20, with Jovan Marjanović, director of the Sarajevo Film Festival, honoring Farhadi as one of Iran’s most acclaimed filmmakers.

In his remarks at the ceremony, Marjanović praised Farhadi’s distinctive approach to filmmaking, saying the Iranian director finds extraordinary drama within ordinary life.

“There are filmmakers who build their cinema around extraordinary events. Asghar Farhadi does something that may be even more difficult. He finds extraordinary drama within ordinary life,” Marjanović said.

He pointed to the everyday situations that form the basis of Farhadi’s films, including marriages, families, misunderstandings and seemingly small decisions that can lead characters into situations where every choice has consequences.

“His films are incredibly precise. They begin with people and their everyday lives and gradually expand into much larger questions about truth, responsibility, dignity, family and the choices we make when there is no perfect choice,” he added.

Marjanović also highlighted the international reach of Farhadi’s cinema, saying his films have crossed languages, cultures and borders while remaining deeply rooted in the lives and societies from which they emerged.

“Your very distinctive way of filmmaking has made you one of the defining filmmakers of contemporary world cinema,” he told Farhadi.

The festival director also recalled Farhadi’s previous connection with the Sarajevo Film Festival. In 2018, the Iranian filmmaker served as president of the jury of the Feature Film Competition, while his film “Everybody Knows” was screened in the Open Air program.

“This year, through the ‘Tribute To’ program, we have had the privilege of looking at this remarkable body of work with you here in Sarajevo,” Marjanović said, before presenting Farhadi with the honorary award.

Accepting the award, Farhadi described the recognition as a significant moment in his career and expressed his appreciation for the Sarajevo Film Festival and its audience.

“Receiving this award, a lifetime achievement award, is a big moment for me. This is a meaningful award and I thank the Sarajevo Film Festival for presenting it to me,” he said.

Farhadi noted that this was his second visit to Sarajevo and recalled his previous experience as a member of the festival jury.

“I like the whole atmosphere of this city. Tonight I want to mention that a large number of audiences come here. I had a screening here and thousands of people watched my film,” he said.

Expressing his admiration for the festival’s development, Farhadi added, “I was very happy to discover this festival and I am happy to see how the Sarajevo Film Festival has developed over the years. It has a special cinematic identity.”

Farhadi was also scheduled to hold a masterclass at the festival’s main venue, the Bosnian Cultural Center on Friday, as part of this year’s program.

The filmmaker was honored through the festival’s “Tribute To” program, which included a special presentation of his work. The program concluded with a screening of “A Separation,” Farhadi’s acclaimed 2011 drama, which is regarded as one of his most celebrated and internationally awarded films.

“A Separation” brought Farhadi his first Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, making him the first Iranian filmmaker to win the Oscar in the category. He received his second Academy Award for “The Salesman” in 2017. His “A Hero” also won the Grand Prix at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival.

Farhadi’s latest film, “Parallel Tales,” shot in France, was screened at the 2026 Cannes Film Festival.

The 32nd Sarajevo Film Festival was held from August 14 to 21, bringing together filmmakers and cinema professionals from around the world.

Tags

• Asghar Farhadi
• Honorary Heart of Sarajevo
• 32nd Sarajevo Film Festival

Iran quagmire: Trump’s failed strategy and its heavy cost

TEHRAN- Six months into the war with Iran, the Trump administration finds itself trapped in a catastrophic quagmire of its own making. What began as a show of force has devolved into a textbook case of strategic failure, with Americans paying the price at the pump and on the world stage.

The evidence is damning. The administration has been forced into a humiliating retreat from its original war aims. The initial objective—forcing Iranian surrender, regime change, and permanently denying Tehran nuclear weapons—has been quietly shelved. Now, according to Vice President Vance, America’s primary goal is simply ensuring “low-cost oil and gas for Americans”. This is not strategy; it is survival.

The Americans won lost strategically. Tehran holds the stronger hand, leveraging its control over the Strait of Hormuz to force Washington into an impossible position. The administration’s reactive, impulsive decision-making—launching war without congressional approval, proper planning, or even informing allies—has left it with no viable options.

Trump now threatens an “economic D-Day” against any nation aiding Iran, hoping sanctions will force compliance. But this is desperation, not policy. Analysts warn that such measures will backfire, driving up global oil prices and further punishing American consumers. Meanwhile, U.S. military stockpiles are depleted, missile inventories are critically low, and support at home has cratered. With Trump’s approval rating dipping below 35 percent and midterm elections looming, the political calculus has become a death spiral.

The world is not facing an oil shortage, as the New York Times noted; it faces a refining capacity crisis. But Trump’s war has compounded this problem, disrupting global supply chains while offering no coherent exit strategy. “The United States has no usable cards left,” analysts conclude.

Trump inherited challenges. He has instead created a catastrophe—one that weakens America, strengthens Iran, and leaves the region more volatile than before. This is not leadership. It is incompetence on a grand scale.

Tags

• Iran quagmire for Trump
• Iran war
• dangerous failure

Iran ranks first in key scientific output among Islamic countries

TEHRAN - Iran ranks first among Islamic nations in key fields of scientific output such as quantum science, cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and advanced materials, the head of the Presidential Affairs Office at the Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC) has announced.

The country is in close competition with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in these fields, IRNA quoted Saeed Bakhtiari as saying.

He made the remarks in a press briefing on Monday, noting that the development of science in these fields has also been emphasized in national development plans.

Based on the reputable Web of Science database, Iran ranks first among Islamic countries in scientific output in some of these fields, while placing second or third in others. Overall, however, Iran holds the top position, he said.

Bakhtiari noted that in advanced materials—a multidisciplinary field spanning physics, chemistry, mechanics and materials science—Iran ranks second among Islamic countries and ninth worldwide.

He added that Iran ranks third in artificial intelligence, behind Saudi Arabia and Turkey, while in quantum science it ranks second, after Saudi Arabia.

The ISC official further said that Iran holds the top position among Islamic countries in scientific output in cognitive sciences and ranks first overall.

According to Web of Science (WoS) data, over a five-year period (from 2021 to 2025), Iran (with 32 documents) ranks first in cognitive sciences among Islamic countries.

Turkey, with 23 documents, and Saudi Arabia, with 22 documents, are placed second and third, respectively, IRNA reported.

From 2014 to 2023, Iran ranked either first or second in most fields of cognitive sciences among Islamic countries. Over the course of the decade, the country ranked first in cognitive neuroscience, cognitive rehabilitation, and cognitive linguistics with 387, 156, and 30 documents, respectively.

It ranked second in cognitive psychology (124 documents), cognitive education (561 documents), philosophy of mind (34 documents), and cognitive evaluation (898 documents). The country’s best ranking globally was in cognitive neuroscience; it ranked 15.

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, with 73 documents, University of Tehran, with 39 documents, and Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, with 32 documents, ranked first to third in cognitive neuroscience. In cognitive psychology, University of Tehran(10 documents ), Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (7 documents), and Allameh Tabatabai University (6 documents) were the top three universities.

In cognitive linguistics, University of Tehran (with 3 documents), Al-Zahra University (3 documents), Allameh Tabatabei University (2 documents ) ranked first to third. In cognitive education, Tehran University of  Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences were placed first to third, respectively.

In cognitive rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (21 documents), University of Tehran (16 documents), and Iran University of Medical Sciences (12 documents) ranked first to third. The best three universities in philosophy of mind were University of Tehran, Isfahan University, and Amirkabir University of Technology.

In cognitive evaluation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences ranked first with 196 documents. Iran University of Medical Sciences (105 documents) and Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (91 documents) ranked second and third.

The country is placed second in quantum (with 216 documents) and advanced materials (with 5975 documents), after Saudi Arabia, with 283 and 6160 documents in quantum and advanced materials. Malaysia (with 154 documents) and Egypt (with 3151 documents) are placed third in quantum and advanced materials, respectively.

Despite illegal sanctions, Iran secures first place in cognitive sciences among Islamic nations and ranks ninth globally in advanced materials. Numerous prestigious Iranian universities and institutions are included in international rankings. These accomplishments underscore the country’s scientific capabilities, IRIB quoted Science Minister Hossein Simaei-Sarraf as saying, addressing the 7th Turkey Educational Technologies Summit (known as TETZ 2026), held in Istanbul from June 26 to 28.

Iran serves as a great opportunity to invest in higher education and modern technologies. The country has one of the largest higher education systems in the region, with more than three million students and over seventy thousand faculty members and researchers.

Highlighting that the rapid development of emerging technologies, including AI, is fundamentally transforming human relationships and higher education systems around the world at an unprecedented pace, Simaei-Sarraf said that effective use of smart technologies requires the establishment of a system based on algorithmic transparency, educational justice, accountability, protection of learners’ rights, and responsible data governance.

According to science minister, cultural and social requirements need to be institutionalized in the design and deployment of these technologies, which will help pave the way to promote social trust, facilitate the use of smart education, and its acceptance without posing data governance risks at national and international levels.

The official went on to say that the development of smart education requires the enhancement of synergy, the exchange of expertise, and the utilization of shared capacities of countries more than ever. He expressed hope that the summit would lay the basis for the expansion of academic ties, the exchange of knowledge, and the development of collaborative initiatives in the smart education sector, which would in turn expand higher education at national, regional, and global scales.

Tags

• Iran
• scientific output
• Islamic countries