Stronger Islamic unity reduces outside interference: Pezeshkian

TEHRAN – In a series of high-level meetings held in Tehran, senior Iranian and Pakistani officials have condemned the 'United States and Israeli military aggression against Iran,' while pledging to deepen bilateral cooperation in border trade, security, and parliamentary relations. The diplomatic engagements, which took place on May 16 and 17, underscored a growing alignment between the two neighboring countries amid escalating regional tensions.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, during a meeting with Pakistan's Interior Minister Syed Mohsin Naqvi, stated that unity and integration among Islamic countries would pave the way for sustainable peace and security in the region. "The stronger the unity of the Islamic Ummah becomes, the less room there will be for the interference and adventurism of trans-regional powers and the Zionist regime," Pezeshkian said.

The President expressed appreciation for the role of the Pakistani government, particularly Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the Army Chief, in establishing and stabilizing the recent ceasefire. He voiced hope that these diplomatic efforts would lead to sustainable peace, stability, and security across the region.

Pezeshkian described the military aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran, which resulted in the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, several high-ranking commanders, ministers, innocent students, and citizens, as a major crime contrary to all human, legal, and international standards. "These criminal acts are unacceptable to any awakened and free conscience in the world," he asserted.

According to the President, the primary objective of the United States and Israel in attacking Iran was to create internal instability and weaken the Islamic system. "They never imagined that the great, honorable, and aware nation of Iran would stand beside their country with such cohesion, authority, and loyalty," he added.

Pezeshkian also thanked the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq for not allowing their soil to be used against the Islamic Republic. "The enemies attempted to transfer insecurity into the country by providing financial, intelligence, and weapons support to terrorist groups. However, the cooperation of Iran's neighbors in preventing any abuse of their territory was a valuable and commendable measure," he said.

Separately, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf told Minister Naqvi that recent events had demonstrated that the United States military presence in the region does not bring security but rather lays the groundwork for instability. Qalibaf emphasized that some regional governments had mistakenly believed that the United States would provide them with security, but recent developments had proven this assumption wrong.

The Parliament Speaker expressed gratitude for Pakistan's support during the imposed war against Iran. "The Iranian people and officials fully understand Pakistan's backing," Qalibaf said. "The Leader of the Revolution also paid special attention to Pakistan in his first message following the war."

While describing current Tehran-Islamabad relations as good, Qalibaf stressed that bilateral cooperation in political, economic, cultural, and security fields must accelerate. He added that the development of parliamentary cooperation is also on Iran's agenda.

Referring to the recent war, Qalibaf stated: "This war demonstrated that the United States and the Zionist regime bring nothing but evil and insecurity to all nations and countries in the region. The better solution is for regional countries to expand their economic, political, and security relations through mutual trust and cooperation."

In a separate meeting, Iran's Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni and his Pakistani counterpart, Syed Mohsin Naqvi, discussed joint measures to facilitate border trade, transit, and the exchange of goods. Momeni welcomed Naqvi's second visit to Iran in just over a month, expressing gratitude to the Pakistani government and people for their friendly and brotherly stance toward the Islamic Republic.

Stating that his discussion with the Pakistani minister was mainly focused on trade, Momeni expressed hope that the long common borders would become even more secure and beneficial through mutual efforts. "Both governments and peoples of the two countries have a very positive view of each other," he noted, pointing to the first message of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, which contained special emphasis on relations with Pakistan.

Momeni added that, as both sides are determined to expand economic and trade relations, necessary facilities should be created on both sides of the border to further strengthen this unity, solidarity, and brotherhood.

For his part, Naqvi thanked his Iranian host and said the two countries would reach tangible solutions on issues related to border security and trade. He expressed readiness to follow up on the discussions with greater seriousness in subsequent meetings with other Iranian officials.

During the meetings, Pakistan's Interior Minister reviewed the military aggressions against Iran and highlighted Pakistan's efforts to help halt conflicts and reduce tensions. "Today, more than ever, the true dimensions of regional developments and the roles of various actors have become clear to public opinion," Naqvi said. "Recent circumstances have shown how true friends and foes are recognized at critical junctures – an issue that can serve as an important baseline for future strategic decisions."

Emphasizing the depth of historical and cultural ties between the two countries, Naqvi concluded: "Iran and Pakistan have always maintained close and brotherly relations, and today these bonds are stronger than in the past. The Pakistani nation holds deep affection and respect for the Iranian people, and we hope to further expand the level of bilateral cooperation under the will of both countries' leaders."

Tags

• Iran
• Pakistan
• Masoud Pezeshkian
• Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf
• Interior Minister of Pakistan Syed Mohsin Naqvi

Iran sets five non-negotiable prerequisites for nuclear talks with US

TEHRAN– As diplomatic efforts to resume negotiations between Iran and the United States remain stalled, conflicting reports have emerged regarding the terms each side is setting.

According to Iranian media outlets, Tehran has formally conditioned the start of any negotiations on a set of five confidence-building measures. These prerequisites include: An end to the war on all fronts with a particular emphasis on Lebanon; the lifting of anti-Iran sanctions; the release of Iran's frozen financial assets; compensation for war damages; formal recognition of Iran's sovereign rights over the Strait of Hormuz.

Citing informed sources, the Mehr news agency reported that Washington has responded with what it described as “excessive” and “unacceptable” demands. According to the agency, the U.S. is reportedly asking for: No reparations for war damages; transfer of approximately 400 kilograms of uranium from Iran to the United States; only a single nuclear facility is to remain operational in Iran; no release – not even 25 percent – of Iran's frozen assets; a cessation of hostilities on all fronts is to be contingent upon the completion of negotiations.

Mehr added that even if Iran were to meet these conditions, the threat of military aggression from the United States and the Israeli regime would persist. According to experts cited by the news agency, the U.S. proposal attempts to achieve through diplomacy what Washington failed to secure on the battlefield.

However, a contrasting version of the U.S. position has emerged. Laurence Norman, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, wrote on X that an alternative proposal is on the table. According to Norman, the U.S. offer would grant Iran access to over $25 billion in frozen funds while allowing Tehran to keep its nuclear enrichment capability intact.

Tags

• nuclear talks
• Iran
• U.S.

Sanders: 'No more money should be spent on US wars'

TEHRAN- Reacting to the United States' endless wars in West Asia, Senator Bernie Sanders has declared that while the country cannot afford housing, healthcare, or childcare, it somehow always finds money for another bloody war.

In a conversation with political podcaster Jennifer Welch, the independent US senator criticized his country's ongoing warmongering, stating: "It is time to say no to a government that invests in war instead of the needs of working people."

"The world has learned things about how to deal with conflicts, rather than killing and wiping out others," Sanders continued. "We see the war in Ukraine. We see the horror that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unleashed in Gaza and Lebanon, which in my view is a genocide, and all of this is happening in Gaza with American taxpayers' money."

The senator also turned his criticism toward President Donald Trump: "Look at our friend Donald Trump, who, alongside Netanyahu, has launched an unprovoked war against Iran that no one can provide a definitive reason for. Now there are those in Washington within the Trump administration saying that the cost of the war against Iran has been 25 to 30 billion."

Sanders dismissed those figures as "completely baseless and nonsense," adding: "The cost of war is 10 to 20 times higher than what has been stated. Not only is all this money being spent on the war against Iran, but Trump is going even further. We spend one trillion dollars a year on military expenses. Do you realize that?"

The senator, a prominent opponent of Trump's policies, elaborated: "We do not have money for the treatment and health of Americans. We are facing a challenged educational system. American children have no money to go to college. But one trillion dollars a year goes to the military. Do you know what Trump wants? He wants another $500 billion. He is eyeing a precise 50 percent increase in military spending."

He added, "Just three blocks away from Congress, people are sleeping on the ground and in the streets because we are facing a serious and widespread housing crisis. As I told you, we cannot deal with the housing, childcare, and health insurance crisis. We do not have the capability. But well, when it comes to a bloody war outside the United States, we still have money for it. But enough is enough."

Tags

• Bernie Sanders
• war
• U.S.
• Iran

The Cost of the See-Saw – India’s Credibility Crisis in BRICS

 By Ranjan Solomon

BRICS was conceived not merely as an economic grouping, but as a political assertion that the Global South deserved a more democratic, multipolar, and equitable world order free from domination by any single power bloc.

For many countries in the Global South, BRICS represented more than economic coordination. It symbolized the possibility of a world less dominated by Western military alliances, financial institutions, and geopolitical double standards. India, with its long history of anti-colonial struggle and leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, was expected to play a central moral and political role within that vision.

India’s status within BRICS is now under increasing scrutiny, with the country facing significant diplomatic friction because of its balancing act between its strategic partnership with the U.S.-Israel axis and its obligations within the 11-member bloc. While India holds the rotating BRICS chair for 2026 and continues to drive initiatives on digital currencies, trade, and economic cooperation, what critics describe as its increasingly pro-Israel posture has generated tensions within the grouping.

India’s balancing act became diplomatically costly during the April 2026 BRICS consultations in New Delhi, where disagreements over Gaza, Lebanon, and Palestine exposed deep fractures within the bloc.

The diplomatic rupture became visible during the April 2026 BRICS Deputy Foreign Ministers and Special Envoys meeting in New Delhi. India, chairing the bloc for 2026, reportedly attempted to dilute language condemning Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon and sought removal of references to East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state — positions that departed from formulations adopted at the Kazan (2024) and Brasilia (2025) summits.

The proposals met strong resistance from Russia, China, Iran, Egypt, and several other members, resulting in the rare failure to issue a joint communiqué. Instead, India released only a Chair’s Statement, exposing deepening fractures within BRICS over West Asia and India’s evolving geopolitical posture.

According to reports in The Hindu, extended late-night parleys and heated debates marked the New Delhi meeting. Officials from India’s Ministry of External Affairs reportedly attempted to replace direct references to Israel in criticisms of military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon with the phrase “occupying power,” while also seeking removal of references to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The move surprised several member states because India had previously endorsed stronger language on Palestine in other multilateral forums. Analysts interpreted the episode as evidence of India’s growing strategic proximity to Israel and the West, raising concerns about whether New Delhi was drifting away from the traditional anti-colonial and non-aligned principles that once defined its international identity.

The impasse was further complicated by tensions between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the wider Middle East crisis. While India continues to formally support a two-state solution, its recent diplomatic conduct has been viewed by many within BRICS as prioritizing U.S.-Israeli strategic sensitivities over the collective political mood of the Global South.

India argues that it is playing a constructive balancing role by advocating dialogue and diplomacy. Yet its refusal to endorse the stronger anti-Western language preferred by several BRICS members has created what many now see as a tightening diplomatic tightrope.

Despite these tensions, India continues to chair critical BRICS meetings in 2026 while attempting to focus on economic, technological, and digital infrastructure cooperation. However, critics increasingly argue that India is becoming excessively aligned with Israeli and Western strategic interests, thereby weakening perceptions of its strategic independence.

In summary, although India remains a core BRICS member, its ability to function as a cohesive political leader within the bloc is being tested by its simultaneous proximity to the U.S.-Israel axis and the sharply opposing positions of key BRICS states such as Iran, Russia, and China.

A month later, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi played a prominent and confrontational role at the opening of the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting 2026 on May 14, 2026. Arriving amid escalating regional tensions, Araghchi transformed the platform into a rallying point against U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East.

He accused Washington and Tel Aviv of “illegal aggression” against Iran and called upon BRICS nations to condemn such actions collectively. Urging the bloc to resist what he described as “U.S. bullying” and coercive global practices, Araghchi declared that such policies must be pushed “into the dustbin of history.”

Although initially avoiding direct criticism of regional neighbors in the interest of unity, he later accused the UAE of facilitating attacks against Iran. Araghchi also arrived in India aboard a plane displaying the phrase “Minab168,” referencing a school attack in Iran that Tehran attributes to a U.S. strike — a symbolic gesture underscoring the political intensity of the visit.

He used the BRICS platform, and specifically India’s presidency, to push for a stronger collective diplomatic response against Western military actions. Defending Iran’s position in the Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi maintained that Tehran would defend itself while remaining open to diplomacy. His intervention exposed the widening ideological and geopolitical divisions within the expanded BRICS bloc.

In an unfortunate departure from its earlier image of solidarity with anti-colonial struggles and the Global South, India is now navigating a difficult dual-track strategy: pursuing global leadership while simultaneously attempting to preserve strategic relationships with competing geopolitical camps.

The current consensus among many observers is that India seeks to redefine leadership through strategic autonomy and pragmatic, interest-driven diplomacy rather than alignment with any single power bloc. India’s supporters argue that this flexibility allows New Delhi to function as a crucial “neutral pole” capable of engaging both the West and the Russia-China axis in an increasingly polarized world.

India’s advocates also point to its projected contribution to global economic growth, its push for digital public infrastructure, and its emphasis on development-oriented global governance reforms. Through forums such as the G20 and BRICS, India has sought to amplify concerns of the Global South on debt restructuring, climate finance, and technological inclusion.

Yet these arguments are increasingly failing to convince important sections within BRICS. Many perceive India as attempting to operate on both sides of a growing geopolitical divide — a form of political opportunism that risks leaving it trusted by neither camp fully.

The United States and European powers continue pressuring India to move beyond strategic ambiguity toward clearer alignment, particularly regarding Russia and China. Simultaneously, India faces the long-term challenge of managing competition with China while maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific through frameworks such as the Quad.

India’s foreign policy is therefore increasingly characterized by balancing rather than leading. It seeks to act as a “Vishwa Bandhu” — a friend of the world — presenting itself as a bridge between the Global North and the Global South rather than as part of a confrontational anti-Western bloc.

But India would do well to remember that strategic autonomy without moral consistency eventually risks becoming indistinguishable from opportunism.

India now stands at a defining diplomatic crossroads. It cannot indefinitely speak the language of the Global South while simultaneously shielding the geopolitical priorities of Washington and Tel Aviv. Strategic autonomy loses credibility when it appears selective, hesitant, or morally inconsistent.
For decades, India earned international respect through principled non-alignment, anti-colonial solidarity, and support for Palestinian self-determination. That legacy gave India moral stature far beyond its economic weight. But moral capital, once diluted, is difficult to recover.

India’s dilemma reflects a wider crisis confronting emerging powers in an increasingly polarized world order: whether strategic flexibility can coexist indefinitely with ethical ambiguity. Balancing interests may produce short-term diplomatic room, but over time nations are also judged by consistency, reliability, and the principles they appear willing to defend.

BRICS does not merely test India’s diplomatic skill; it tests its political authenticity. A nation seeking leadership in a multipolar world cannot continue operating a see-saw foreign policy that attempts to satisfy opposing camps without eventually losing the trust of both.

The concern is not merely about policy differences, but about the erosion of trust in India’s political consistency.

Tags

• BRICS
• Iran
• Israel

Iran and the limits of American power

 By Xavier Villar

MADRID - Empires rarely collapse all at once. In his monumental study of Rome, Edward Gibbon argued that decline is usually gradual, shaped by long-term structural transformations. Yet history occasionally records moments when a strategic miscalculation accelerates the process. The question worth asking is whether the United States may have reached one of those moments.

The joint American-Israeli war against Iran, launched on February 28, is not simply another conflict in West Asia. It may represent a geopolitical turning point comparable to the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Britain and France succeeded militarily but collapsed politically, revealing that Britain could no longer act as an independent imperial power.

What is at stake goes beyond military calculations. The issue concerns the architecture of the contemporary global order and the racial structures of power that sustain it. For seven decades, the United States has anchored that order not only through force but through institutions and economic arrangements. The legitimacy of American leadership rested on the perception that its system produced stability and prosperity. Yet that legitimacy also depended on something more fundamental: the assumption that certain peoples – white, Western, liberal – possessed the natural right to govern the world, to decide which political forms were legitimate, and to determine which forms of violence were permissible.

This racial assumption has structured American policy in West Asia since 1948. Washington positioned itself as a neutral arbiter, but that neutrality always rested on an implicit racial hierarchy. The United States offered security guarantees to the Persian Gulf monarchies in exchange for pricing oil in US dollars – the petrodollar system. Iran, however, stood outside this system. After 1979, Iran positioned itself in opposition to American influence.

For decades, American strategy rested on three pillars: containing Iran, preserving the petrodollar system, and guaranteeing Persian Gulf security. Yet it also reproduced a racial geography of power. America’s allies – monarchies willing to integrate into the liberal order – were treated as legitimate partners. Iran, which rejected that integration and organized politics differently, was marked instead as irrational, fanatical, and premodern.

Recent events suggest this system is weakening. The war has raised doubts about American credibility. It is worth recalling that negotiations were still underway in Oman when the first attack took place. Launching a military operation during diplomacy undermines confidence in negotiation itself. The operation is clearly illegal under international law. But something deeper is at stake. Washington’s willingness to violate its own legal frameworks reveals the racial structure of the liberal order: norms are applied selectively. The United States may violate Iranian sovereignty without consequence, while Iran cannot do the same without being branded a terrorist state.

Iranian retaliatory actions have targeted infrastructure associated with Persian Gulf states. For these governments, a fundamental question arises: if the United States cannot protect them from regional escalation, can it still function as a reliable security guarantor? These concerns have been developing gradually. Persian Gulf states have diversified their strategic relationships. China’s expanding economic presence has created alternative partnerships. The 2023 agreement restoring Saudi-Iranian relations, brokered by Beijing, demonstrated that alternative diplomatic actors are emerging. States that for decades had little choice but to align with Washington can now pursue alternatives.

Wars are also fought in the realm of perception. And it is precisely on this terrain that Iran has achieved its most decisive victory. By confronting both the United States and Israel without capitulating, Iran has transformed resistance into regional political capital. This is not a conventional military victory but something deeper: the consolidation of an image of a state capable of imposing limits on imperial power. Even the debate within the United States reveals a growing discomfort with the erosion of the myth of American military superiority – a superiority that no longer guarantees strategic victory. Destroying targets does not resolve the central problem: the inability to translate force into durable political control.

From Vietnam to Afghanistan, American firepower has repeatedly proved insufficient to secure submission. What is different now is that Iran is not merely resisting: it is reorganizing the battlefield, shifting the conflict into an asymmetric, politically exhausting struggle for its adversaries. By avoiding confrontation, Iran operates through regional allies, low-cost technologies, and indirect control over strategic chokepoints. The issue is no longer who possesses greater military power, but who can sustain confrontation without political collapse. Prolonged war exacts a heavy price within the United States – inflation, energy pressures, and political fatigue. The ability to sustain long-term conflict, once a pillar of American hegemony, is eroding.

Yet the deeper transformation is beyond the battlefield. For much of the Global South, victory is measured by the capacity to remain standing against the Western war machine. To resist is already to win. The West continues to underestimate this perception. The more pressure Iran has faced, the stronger its image has become as a resilient power. The 'discourse of resistance' has moved from a marginal slogan to a regional political language, crossing borders and sectarian divisions. Its growing appeal reveals a strategic fracture in the Western project of fragmenting the Middle East.

What makes this transformation particularly intolerable for the liberal order is that it challenges the racial geography that has structured the modern international system. Iran is not supposed to be capable of resisting, developing advanced technology under embargo, maintaining complex alliances, or imposing costs on the United States. Each of these capacities contradicts the narratives used to justify the Western posture towards Iran. If those representations collapse, then the justification for sanctions, threats and regime change collapses with them.

America’s inability to translate military superiority into political victory reveals something fundamental. For decades, Washington assumed that the capacity to inflict violence translated directly into the capacity to shape political outcomes. The war with Iran demonstrates that this assumption no longer holds. Iran has developed mechanisms to absorb pressure, ideological resources to sustain legitimacy under siege, and strategic doctrines that privilege resistance over comfort. These developments challenge the narrative of invincibility that has always been central to American imperial power. Iran’s capacity to remain standing dismantles that narrative. And once the invincibility of the oppressor is called into question, space opens for a profound transformation in the political psychology of people.

It would still be premature to announce the end of American global leadership. Yet hegemonic orders rarely disappear abruptly. They enter a phase of slow erosion: a gradual loss of authority marked by weakening confidence in the dominant power’s ability to sustain the system it created. If confidence in American security guarantees continues to deteriorate, the international system may evolve towards a more fragmented, less hierarchical configuration. What is truly significant about this war is that it has revealed that military supremacy no longer guarantees political control; that the capacity to destroy does not entail the capacity to order. Iran’s real victory lies in forcing recognition that the Western monopoly over political legitimacy and the definition of modernity can no longer be assumed as permanent. Iran has demonstrated that other models of political organization can resist and contest influence. The rupture set in motion by this war is at once discursive and material: it has altered the language through which the liberal order was legitimized, and it has shown that the hierarchies sustaining that order can no longer reproduce themselves without mounting costs.

Tags

• Donald Trump
• Iran
• U.S.

Senior Iranian MP warns US of total regional oil shutdown

TEHRAN- A senior Iranian lawmaker has warned that any attack on Iran's energy infrastructure will result in a total disruption of global oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region.

Hamidreza Hajibabaei, Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, made the remarks during an interview with IRIB on Sunday, outlining Iran's strategic posture regarding potential strikes on its oil sectors.

"If Iran's oil is to be targeted, we will strike the region's oil," Hajibabaei stated. "If damage is inflicted on Iranian oil, Iran will act in a way that prevents the United States and the world from receiving oil from this region for a significant period of time."

Hajibabaei suggested that countries such as Saudi Arabia are attempting to insulate themselves from potential fallout.

The deputy speaker dismissed the notion that Washington would show restraint, specifically naming US President Donald Trump. He asserted that "it is impossible for the US, especially Trump, to have the capability to do something and not do it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive."

To counter this threat, Hajibabaei emphasized that Iran would leverage its geopolitical position to impose its own economic costs, describing the Strait of Hormuz as Iran's ultimate strategic leverage.

Tags

• Hamidreza Hajibabaei
• Persian Gulf
• Iran
• U.S.
• war

China’s role in shaping the new global order

 By Mahdi Zolfaghari 

Over the past two decades, China has emerged as one of the principal actors in shaping a new international order—an order no longer solely dominated by Western powers, particularly the United States, but increasingly defined by the multiploidization of global power and a new balance between East and West. By combining economic, technological, cultural, and political capabilities, China has elevated its position from a regional power to a global one, playing a decisive role in redefining the rules of international engagement.

The first—and perhaps most significant—arena of China’s influence is the global economy. China is currently the world’s second-largest economy and the largest trading nation. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), serving as the backbone of China’s global strategy, has established a vast network of economic, rail, maritime, and digital corridors connecting Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. This initiative not only strengthens economic infrastructure in participating countries but also expands China’s geoeconomic influence worldwide. From this perspective, China is gradually reshaping globalization by advancing a new model whose center of gravity lies in East Asia.

In the sphere of technology and innovation, China has also experienced a remarkable transformation. From artificial intelligence and fifth-generation (5G) communications to clean energy industries and electric vehicles, China is no longer merely a consumer of Western technology but a producer of cutting-edge innovations. Chinese companies such as Huawei, Alibaba, ByteDance, and Tesla China have secured significant shares of the global market, reinforcing the country’s technological autonomy. This trajectory has reduced Western dominance over the global science and technology order, steering it toward greater competition and a diversification of centers of power.

Politically and in the realm of international diplomacy, China seeks to promote a model of relations based on “non-interference,” “mutual respect,” and “shared benefit.” Unlike certain Western approaches that may involve political intervention or military pressure, China aims to consolidate its influence through dialogue, investment, and mediation. A prominent example was China’s mediating role in the restoration of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023, demonstrating that Beijing can also contribute to strengthening regional stability and peace.

In the military and security domain, China is modernizing its armed forces within a framework of defensive deterrence. Although Chinese military doctrine places less emphasis on expanding direct military influence, the development of its naval fleet, missile capabilities, and space technologies has positioned China as a decisive actor in the security dynamics of the Pacific region. This shift has significantly altered the balance of power regionally and, consequently, globally.

Overall, China today is not merely pursuing a display of power; rather, it seeks to replace the previous unipolar order with a multipolar, balanced system grounded in mutual respect. 
Although this approach faces challenges—including intense competition with the United States, tensions surrounding Taiwan, and economic pressures—it outlines a new path for shaping the future of the world: a world in which East and West, instead of remaining in constant confrontation, move toward constructive coexistence within a framework of shared interests.

Tags

• China
• Iran
• Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)