Trump’s War against the World at UNGA

Alwaght- The US President Donald Trump went to the UN to address the annual gathering of the General Assembly. A considerable part of his speech was more like a list of threats and warnings than a normal one. He addressed the UNGA while the world is living an array of war and security crises, but instead of going diplomatic to de-escalate the tensions, he once again bragged about the US military power as the main instrument of his administration's foreign policy, at a time his war against Iran has gone nowhere.

The US war against the world

Iran topped Trump’s agenda. Defending the war the US and Israeli regime launched against Iran, the American president said that absent a deal, Washington could “obliterate” the Islamic Republic. He even invoked phrases about “wiping out” Iran and doing it swiftly, while calling on other countries to join Washington in strangling Iran’s economy.

Trump’s remarks came as the US war against Iran entered its seventh month with no clear end in sight, and as many experts, even inside the US, have concluded that Trump has failed to achieve his objectives against Iran.

Clearly, Trump framed the Iran issue not merely as a Washington–Tehran dispute but as a demand that other nations enlist in US economic pressure campaign. His message to the world was that the countries must now choose between falling in line with US policy and maintaining economic ties with Iran. All this, even though over the past seven months, Trump has had no direct military partner in his operations against Iran, with the sole exception of Tel Aviv. 

But Iran was not the only country came under attack of Trump during speech. 

In another stretch of his remarks, the American president said the US would no longer tolerate threats emerging against it in the Western Hemisphere, citing Washington’s military actions in Venezuela as a template for a new American posture. Those operations, he said, signal that the U.S. is prepared to wield military force to preempt any threat before it takes shape.

Trump then turned his fire on Mexico, branding it a “hub of cartel violence” and demanding that the Mexican government seize control of its own territory. He once again championed a military approach to drug cartels. The stance makes clear that even toward the US neighbors, the language of threat and coercion remains a core element of Trump’s foreign policy discourse.

Cuba, too, was not spared Trump’s verbal assault. He called it a “failed state” and predicted its collapse. As he spoke about Cuba, members of the Cuban delegation walked out of the General Assembly hall, a moment that became one of the speech’s defining images.

Even the UN was not spared Trump’s barrage. The American president once again tore into the body’s administrative and bureaucratic machinery, defending his push to shrink its role and its costs. He also took aim at the International Criminal Court, declaring that Washington would never allow its troops to be investigated or tried by such an institution.

On the war in Ukraine, the US president said he is in contact with Russian and Ukrainian leaders and vowed to bring the conflict to an end. His speech, however, offered no concrete details on how such a deal would be reached.

Election speech at UNGA

A striking share of Trump’s address, meanwhile, was devoted essentially to domestic American concerns. The Associated Press reported that he opened his speech in the cadence of a campaign rally, dwelling far more on the economy, immigration, crime and his administration’s record at home than on laying out any sweeping vision for international cooperation.

That matters because Trump was standing before nearly 200 nations, yet part of his remarks were still aimed squarely at a domestic audience. The General Assembly became a stage on which the American president sought to showcase his administration’s homegrown achievements while selling his aggressive foreign policy to the American public. The AP underscored in its report that Trump was, to a large degree, talking to American voters.

Trump’s claims about US military might were equally noteworthy. He insisted the US faces no shortage of munitions or advanced weaponry, saying it has more ammunition than anyone could imagine. But in the same report, the AP cited experts and officials in allied countries who have warned of depleted stockpiles of certain weapons and of the lengthy timelines needed to replace cruise missiles and Patriot and THAAD interceptors.

That gap between Trump’s assertions and the experts’ assessments carries particular weight: Trump is touting unlimited military superiority even as a protracted war with Iran has placed heavy strain on the weapons stockpiles of the US and some of its allies.

War against media

Even before start of the speech, the UN atmosphere are under influence of Iran war. According to the AP, the Iranian representatives left the hall when Trump started his remarks on Iran war. The president and foreign minister of Iran were absent and the Iranian delegation left about 10 minutes after Trump began his speech.

The media atmosphere surrounding Trump’s UN appearance was itself shaped by his bitter feud with the American press. In protest of restrictions imposed on CNN, MSNBC and Politico, major US television networks refused to tske part in the joint television pool covering Trump’s trip. CNN reported that other networks in the media group declined to fill its slot in the presidential trip coverage.

Even as Trump entered UN headquarters, his running battle with the press continued. Reports from New York indicate that Trump got into a verbal confrontation with CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins

Iran Flights Embargo and Test of Iraq’s Sovereignty

Alwaght- After Washington launched a fresh propaganda campaign against Iran’s aviation industry spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who called on Wednesday for all countries to halt flights and airport services for Iranian passenger planes, Iraq’s initial move to cancel flights to and from Iran triggered a wave of backlash at home, from public opinion to elites and politicians alike.

In a surprising measure, Najaf International Airport announced the suspension of all inbound and outbound flights to and from Iran starting Friday, September 25, until further notice, citing “official directives issued by competent authorities.

Even earlier, following the decision to suspend flights at Baghdad International Airport, all arrivals and departures to and from Iran were grounded at Erbil and Sulaymaniyah airports as well.

Close political ties and geographic proximity, religious affinity and unbreakable historical and cultural bonds, extensive economic partnership and wide-ranging border exchanges and heavy citizen traffic, all these factors combined to create a sense of surprise at Iraqi officials’ swift and explicit embrace of the air embargo, sparking widespread reaction in Baghdad and Shiite holy cities, especially Najaf.

The fallout can be examined on two levels: the symbolic and political message, and the economic pressure that is the Treasury Department’s primary target. These are two dimensions that have not affected relations between the two countries at one level.

Financial and economic aspects of the flights suspension 

Regarding the financial and economic outcomes of the move, it should be noted that according to official data, over 60 percent of the inbound and outbound flights of Iran are to and from Iraq, which is a considerable figure. According to Hormatullah Rafee, the head of Iranian travel and tourism agencies syndicate, in the present time, over 3 million flights are conducted to Iraq from Iran annually, excluding the Arbaeen flights. About 3.5 million flights are conducted from Iraq to Iran. 

Though canceling such a big number of flights deals a heavy blow to the aviation industry of the two neighbors, the reality is that the main and certain weight of trade between the two countries is on the shoulder of land routes, and so canceling the flights does not meaningfully impact their vast economic and trade ties. Bilateral trade exceeded $10 billion in 2025, with the bulk of it consisting of Iranian exports to Iraq, including foodstuffs, energy, consumer goods and services.

Still, if the flight suspension drags on, it will surely inflict losses on religious tourism, medical tourism and the hotel industry, particularly on the Iraqi side. After all, travelers who fly to Iraq tend to be hotel patrons, unlike the lower-income pilgrims who opt for overland and rail routes to visit the holy shrines.

Symbolic aspect and political and propaganda impacts 

But concerning the symbolic aspect and political and propaganda effects, this hurried and incalculated move by the government of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaydi regarding announcing alignment with the illegal embargo on the Iranian aviation industry has caused serious implications. The decision not only runs counter to the traditional approach of Iraq to maintain a balance between the US pressures and its national interests in its relationship with Iran, but also can can bear witness to the submission to the American pressures, which signals weakness of of national sovereignty of Iraq. 

In this context, Iraqi political figures and groups, including former Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, Faleh al-Khazali of the Sayyid al-Shuhada Brigades, Hadi al-Amiri (whose Badr Organization counts Transport Minister Wahhab Salman Mohammed al-Hasani, the official overseeing the aviation file, among its ranks), Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi, secretary-general of the al-Nujaba Movement, and Hussein al-Mousawi, the movement’s deputy secretary-general for media affairs, have bluntly branded the decision a mistake, a surrender of national sovereignty and a capitulation to American diktat. They stressed that Iran has stood by Iraq at critical junctures, facilitating the safe passage of Iraqi oil through the Strait of Hormuz, supplying gas to Iraq’s power plants, and keeping its borders open for trade and defense support, and that the proper response to such solidarity is not to join the embargo but to show gratitude and preserve the strategic relationship with the Islamic Republic. 

Additionally, threats to stage sit-ins at airports and warnings about the decision’s economic and social fallout suggest the flight cancellation could become a flashpoint for internal tensions in Iraq and fuel discontent with the al-Zaydi’s government’s performance.

Therefore, Baghdad's move can create a question about the the independence in decision-making of the country, a question that, if the embargo against Iran continues by the government, will likely have broader outreach. If the halt of flights causes serious disruption in travel of patients, students, and pilgrims, the social pressure on the government for a settlement will build up.

That same alarm, sparked by the sheer scale of the backlash, prompted the al-Zaydi’s government to soften the tone and calm public opinion by announcing it would seek an exemption in talks with Washington, a softer stance than its initial response to the US sanctions move.

The reality is that Tehran-Baghdad relations cannot be defined merely through the framework of formal government ties. Religious and historical bonds, the sheer volume of citizen traffic, the presence of Iraqi students in Iran, religious tourism, medical travel and border trade have forged a web of connections that no administrative decision to halt flights can sever. Iraq’s ambassador to Tehran, too, stressed after the crisis erupted that the two countries’ ties run deep and that this temporary rupture should not affect bilateral relations.

So, while Washington seeks to raise the cost for foreign companies and airports of cooperating with Tehran by sanctioning Iran’s aviation industry, Iraq’s experience over the past few days has shown that enforcing such a policy in a country like Iraq can carry direct political consequences for the host government.

The Americans may manage to ban services to Iranian airlines in other countries by threatening with imposing secondary sanctions, but this pressure necessarily does not mean it can go ahead with the Iraqi society and political structure accepting it without any costs. The US faces a country for whom Iran is not merely a trade partner or a foreign ravel destination, rather, it is a neighbor sharing long borders and deep network of historical and religious relations with Iraq. 

12 American Bases and Facilities Iranian Missiles Damaged

Alwaght- Since the US-Israeli alliance waged its war on Iran on February 28, satellite imagery and American and international media reports have talked about damages to a number of American bases and other military facilities in the region. However, the scale of damage and destruction published by these outlets is far from similar. Some are confirmed by independent satellites and some others are reported by international media.

1. Headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain

The headquarters of the US's Fifth Fleet in the Bahraini capital Manama is ond if the most important American facilities damaged by the Iranian attacks. New York Times on March 3 scrutinized confirmed footages and satellite images,, reporting that one drone struck one of the radomes of the base and destroying at least one another. The newspaper also reported destruction of two satellites communication terminals.

The Associated Press, citing satellite imagery in a March 17 report, also described the destruction of a large building and damage to several radomes at the base.

 The Washington Post, in a review published May 6, reported that the Fifth Fleet headquarters, along with three US military sites in Kuwait, accounted for more than half of all identified damage across a survey of 15 American sites.

2. Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait

ABC News and The Washington Post confirmed damage to Ali Al Salem in the war's opening days using satellite imagery.

In a March 4 report, The Washington Post said satellite imagery showed more than 12 structures at Ali Al Salem had been damaged, including at least four aircraft hangars and buildings likely used to store military equipment. Lower-resolution imagery also showed damage to troop housing.

In its May 6 review, The Washington Post also listed Ali Al Salem among the sites where military equipment and infrastructure had been damaged. The paper reported damage to Patriot equipment and other materiel at the base.

In a later development, Anadolu Agency, citing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported that another strike on Ali Al Salem had targeted MQ-9 drone hangars, a communications center, satellite reception equipment and a missile defense radar.

3. Camp Arifjan, Kuwait

The Washington Post reported on March 4 that communications equipment at Camp Arifjan had been damaged or destroyed in a drone attack from Iran. Citing satellite imagery, the paper said the facility's communications equipment had been wrecked.

In the Post's comprehensive May 6 review, Arifjan was again among the American sites whose buildings and equipment had been damaged. The base, along with the Fifth Fleet headquarters, Ali Al Salem and Camp Buehring, was among the locations where a significant share of recorded damage was concentrated.

4. Camp Buehring, Kuwait

The Washington Post also reported on March 4 that a Shahed drone had struck Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait. Video footage showed the drone passing over parts of the base before slamming into it.

In its May 6 comprehensive report, the Post also noted that satellite imagery showed damage to a power plant and other infrastructure at Camp Buehring.

5. US logistics center at Kuwait's Shuaiba Port

The Washington Post reported on March 4 that six American service members killed in a drone attack had been working at a tactical operations center at Shuaiba Port. The center was located in a civilian port in Kuwait, and the building hit was a prefabricated structure with limited protection against airstrikes.

According to the outlet, those six were, at that point, the only American troops whose deaths in Iran's post-war retaliation had been specifically reported.

6. Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar

The New York Times reported on March 3 that satellite imagery showed damage to a satellite communications center at Al Udeid. The imagery indicated the destruction of a structure ringed by satellite dishes and possible damage to a number of the dishes.

The AP, in a March 17 report, said satellite imagery showed damage to a building at the base.

In its comprehensive May 6 review, The Washington Post documented damage to two satellite communications centers at Al Udeid.

The base is considered one of the most important hubs for US military command and control in the region.

7. Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia

The AP reported on March 17, citing satellite imagery, that Iran's strike on Prince Sultan air base had caused damage at the site. An image captured March 15 showed the scars of the damage.

The Washington Post, in its more comprehensive May 6 review, offered further detail, reporting that an E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft and an aerial refueling tanker at the base had been damaged or destroyed.

8. Muwaffaq Salti air base, Jordan

The Washington Post further reported that THAAD system equipment and radars at Muwffaq Salti base had been damaged. The finding was part of its assessment of recorded damage in the war's first weeks.

The Wall Street Journal reported on September 12 that the July 17 missile strike on the base, which killed three American service members and wounded four others, came after Iran obtained high-resolution satellite imagery of the site. Based on publicly available satellite imagery, the paper observed damage to more than 20 structures across three sections of the base.

9. Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE

The AP, in its March 17 report analyzing satellite imagery from Airbus Defence and Space, said visible damage could be seen at Al Dhafra.

Imagery from March 15 showed a hangar complex in the northwest of the base had been damaged, while another hangar in the southeast had been severely destroyed by fire. The roof of an adjacent hangar was also damaged.

The AP also noted that Al Dhafra typically hosts around 2,000 American troops and has been used in recent years for drone operations and F-35 fighter jets.

10. Patriot systems in Bahrain

The Washington Post, in its satellite review, reported that Patriot equipment at the Riffa and Isa bases in Bahrain had been damaged. The finding was part of the paper's broader survey of damage to American facilities in the region.

ABC News, in a March 18 report, also said an analysis of imagery and video indicated attacks on at least 10 US and allied radar sites in the region. The network stressed, however, that the exact extent of damage at all those sites could not be confirmed.

11. THAAD equipment in the UAE

In its May 6 review, The Washington Post identified damage to THAAD system equipment and radars at two sites in the UAE, in addition to Jordan. This, too, concerns damage to missile defense equipment and should not be interpreted as the "destruction of a base."

12. Bubiyan Island, Kuwait

Bubiyan Island also emerged during the war as one of the locations linked to the movement of American forces.

Reuters reported on April 6 that American forces transferred to Bubiyan came under Iranian attack. Citing a spokesman for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the report said satellite equipment and ammunition were targeted.

Reuters also reported, citing Kuwait's Health Ministry, that falling debris from the attack wounded six people in a residential area in northern Kuwait.

Conclusion on scale of damage

The most important independent review of the damage to the American military facilities in the Iranian missile and drone attacks is conducted by The Washington Post on May 6. 

The newspaper reported that since the war began on February 28, over 228 buildings of pieces of the facilities in 15 US military sites sustained damage or were fully destroyed. This includes 217 buildings and 11 pieces of facilities and does not mean damage to 228 bases. 

To survey this claim, over 100 satellite images published by credible Iranian sources and compared them to some images provided by independent sources, including Copernicus of the EU and Planet Labs. The newspaper reported that I the imagery investigated there were no clues of manipulation. 

In the March 4 report of the Washington Post, at least 11 bases and military sites of the US were destroyed by the Iranian forces. But in the comprehensive review of May 6, the number of the American sites with damaged buildings or facilities reached 15.

Taken together, the satellite imagery reviewed by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The AP and ABC News points to damage at satellite communications centers, radomes, Patriot and THAAD systems, aircraft hangars, military aircraft, and a range of buildings and support facilities.

Washington’s Unintended Admission: The Bill to Destroy Hezbollah Acknowledges the Roots of Its Legitimacy

By Mohamad Hammoud

A proposal introduced in the United States Senate with the explicit objective of disarming Hezbollah contains an inadvertent admission about why the movement remains so deeply rooted in Lebanese society. Introduced in August 2026 as the Lebanon Sanctions, Stabilization, and Support Act, the legislation approaches Hezbollah not merely as a proxy army that can be eliminated through sanctions, but as a socio-political reality embedded in daily life. According to the office of Republican Senator James Lankford, the bill combines economic sanctions with state-run infrastructure recovery, security funding, and civil service expansion explicitly designed to provide Lebanese communities with an alternative to Hezbollah. By attempting to substitute state institutions for Hezbollah’s social network, Washington makes an important admission: Hezbollah's influence cannot be explained solely by Iranian military funding or domestic intimidation, as its opponents have often claimed.

More Than Services: Conviction and Resistance

This legislative prescription exposes a fundamental miscalculation by Washington strategists regarding the constituency in southern Lebanon. For decades, southern communities endured "Israeli" occupation, repeated military aggression, destroyed infrastructure, and systemic economic marginalization. The central government consistently abandoned these populations, creating a governance vacuum that Hezbollah stepped in to fill through hospitals, schools, and reconstruction networks. Yet, treating these communities as passive consumers whose allegiance can be purchased through civic aid reflects a deep misunderstanding of their political consciousness. The local relationship with Hezbollah was forged through decades of Resistance, invasion, and shared sacrifice. For many supporters, defending their land against "Israel" and preserving their national dignity are matters of faith, identity, and political conviction that cannot be traded away for state-issued social services. Replacing a Hezbollah-supported service with a government service may address material dependence, but it cannot simply replace convictions rooted in religious belief, historical experience, and decades of conflict. A community’s relationship with Resistance, therefore, cannot be understood as a mere transaction.

The Contradiction at the Heart of the Bill

The bill relies on a profound logical contradiction at the center of American policy toward Lebanon. The legislation seeks to expand state services to draw populations away from Hezbollah, while simultaneously utilizing security assistance to force those same state institutions into disarming the movement. In using public development as a strategic weapon, Washington implicitly admits the historical failure of the Lebanese state itself. The bill acknowledges that the government's long-standing abandonment of its citizens created the exact vacuum that enabled Hezbollah to build its legitimate social base. The central irony of the American proposal is that its strategy for weakening the Resistance begins by validating the very historical abandonment that made the Resistance necessary in the first place.

Instrumentalized Sovereignty and Geopolitical Aims

Furthermore, the bill reveals that Washington views the Lebanese government's return to these communities not as a duty owed to neglected citizens, but as a tool to advance Western geopolitical interests. Senator Lankford’s official release clarifies that the bill conditions aid on mandatory reporting regarding military coordination between the Lebanese Armed Forces and "Israel," alongside efforts to push Lebanon toward peaceful relations with its neighbor. Washington frames this as an effort to restore Lebanese sovereignty, yet it imposes strict foreign diplomatic expectations on state aid. The expanded government presence envisioned by American lawmakers is far from a neutral public service; it is a policy designed to turn the state against its own people to satisfy Western regional security goals.

The Miscalculation of Western Strategy

Ultimately, the expansive scope of the proposed legislation highlights the limitations of American strategy in the Middle East. If Hezbollah were merely an isolated militia sustained entirely by foreign weapons and illicit financing, dismantling it would not require comprehensive state reconstruction, civil infrastructure funding, and economic intervention. By treating civic development as an essential tool of disarmament, American policymakers unintentionally prove that Hezbollah's endurance is anchored in deep socio-historical roots. Western strategy may succeed in replacing a local service provider, but substituting a deeply rooted political conviction is an entirely different matter.

The Enemy’s Testimony: How Western and “Israeli” Voices Saw Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah

By Mohamad Hammoud

Few Middle Eastern leaders were studied by their adversaries as intensely as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. For decades, “Israeli” intelligence dissected his speeches, Western journalists interviewed him, and scholars examined his leadership. Their assessments were often hostile to his politics and organization. Yet beneath that hostility emerged an unusual consensus: Sayyed Nasrallah was intelligent, charismatic, strategically calculating, and exceptionally attentive to the psychology of his adversary.

Writing in The Washington Post during the 2006 Lebanon War, veteran correspondent Robin Wright described Sayyed Nasrallah as an “Islamic populist” and a “charismatic guerrilla tactician.” More striking was the judgment of Daniel Ayalon, then “Israel’s” ambassador to Washington, who called him “the shrewdest leader in the Arab world.”

A “Piercing Intelligence”

The recognition went beyond charisma. In a 2009 Foreign Policy essay, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who interviewed Sayyed Nasrallah in 2003 and 2006, called him “one of the Arab world’s most charismatic figures” and credited him with “a piercing intelligence.” Ignatius highlighted his pragmatism, noting that Sayyed Nasrallah could conduct indirect negotiations over prisoner exchanges.

“Israeli” commentary could be even more emphatic. In a 2004 Yedioth Ahronoth/Ynet column, Raanan Shaked portrayed Sayyed Nasrallah as exceptionally intelligent, knowledgeable, persuasive, and commanding on television, calling him a prodigy and writing that it was clear he was brilliant. The assessment was notable because it came from an “Israeli” commentator.

Through the Eyes of “Israeli” Intelligence

Perhaps the most revealing judgments came from professionals whose job was to understand him. In a 2022 "'Israel' Hayom" interview, Brig. Gen. Dror Shalom, former head of the IOF Military Intelligence Research Division, described Sayyed Nasrallah as an “extremely unique figure” with “developed thinking,” abundant charisma, and “high emotional intelligence.” Shalom said those qualities helped explain Hezbollah’s popularity and emphasized Sayyed Nasrallah’s ability to use the professional apparatus around him.

Shalom also credited Sayyed Nasrallah with an exceptional ability to analyze “Israel,” including its political nuances and public debates. His close attention to “Israeli” newspapers, television, political disputes, and public sentiment allowed him to turn his adversary’s information environment into a source of strategic knowledge. His words were therefore examined as carefully as his military decisions.

Shalom was not alone in that assessment. Former “Israeli” Military Intelligence analysis chief Itai Brun offered another professional assessment in a 2021 Jerusalem Post interview, describing Sayyed Nasrallah as increasingly careful, wary, and deliberate. Brun presented a leader capable of learning from experience, adjusting his conduct, and exercising restraint rather than acting impulsively. Alongside Shalom’s observations, it reinforced the image of a leader whose adversaries took his judgment and analytical abilities seriously.

Charisma as Strategic Power

Western scholarship likewise treated Sayyed Nasrallah’s personal authority as requiring serious explanation. In Hezbollah: Mobilization and Power, published by Oxford University Press in 2019, scholar Aurélie Daher devoted an entire chapter to “The Hassan Nasrallah Phenomenon: Leadership and Mobilization.” Oxford’s abstract says Sayyed Nasrallah’s personality and militant trajectory became a “major element” in Hezbollah’s attraction to militants and supporters. Daher examined his “mature yet still evolving charisma” and concluded that Sayyed Nasrallah had earned a place among the Arab world’s leading figures.

That judgment echoed what journalists, commentators, and intelligence officers had observed for years: Sayyed Nasrallah’s charisma was not merely ornamental. It functioned as political and strategic power. His command of language enabled him to move between religious discourse, military messaging, political argument, and everyday speech, often addressing supporters and adversaries simultaneously. Communication itself became part of how he exercised influence.

The Adversary’s Testimony

Taken together, these assessments reveal a striking consistency. Across Western journalism, “Israeli” commentary and military intelligence, and academic scholarship, Sayyed Nasrallah was repeatedly described as intelligent, charismatic, analytical, and deliberate—possessing “piercing intelligence,” “developed thinking,” and “high emotional intelligence,” and even called “the shrewdest leader in the Arab world.” These were not the words of Hezbollah’s media or Sayyed Nasrallah’s supporters, but of journalists, scholars, and adversaries who spent years studying him.

That is what gives their testimony its significance. Admiration from supporters is expected; acknowledgment from those who confronted him carries a different weight. On the anniversary of his martyrdom, their words leave a portrait drawn from across the divide: a leader whose intellect, charisma, strategic discipline, and commanding presence were too consequential for even his enemies to ignore.

From Chips to Iran War: Xi-Trump’s Hard Discussions

Alwaght- As the economic and geopolitical contest in the world escalates, eyes once again return to Washington and Beijing, where leaders of the two economic heavyweights are pushing to, through a face-to-face meeting, discuss the growing differences and bilateral issues, as well as the critical international developments.

In this regard, President Xi Jinping of China visited the US heading a high-ranking delegation, the first since 2015 and a sign of the significance of talks between the two rival powers at the present time.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson described the trade of visits of the two leaders in four months as "historic", adding that this will serve to guide the strategic relations of Beijing and Washington. The spokesperson added that China will work with the US to boost dialogue and cooperation, manage differences, and help spread global peace, instability, and welfare.

A number of senior Chinese companies CEOs, including those of the EV giant BYD and Xiaomi accompany the Chinese leader to the US.

Main themes of Xi-Trump talks

Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington comes at a time when US–China relations, unlike the atmosphere that typically surrounds official visits by heads of state, are defined by intense economic, technological and geopolitical competition.

The significance of the visit lies in the fact that the two sides are coming to the negotiating table not to declare an end to their differences, but to manage them and prevent their rivalry from spiraling out of control.

The most important issue on the agenda is the future of the US–China trade agreement.

According to The Washington Post, "US officials said Washington and Beijing may be ready to lower some tariffs on certain non-strategic goods." 

A trade agreement reached after last year’s summit is set to expire in November, leaving markets waiting to see whether Trump and Xi will announce an extension.

The previous tariff war between the world’s two largest economies, at one point involving reciprocal tariffs exceeding 100 percent, posed a serious threat to global supply chains. As a result, even a limited agreement to extend the existing trade deal could carry significant implications for the global economy.

For Trump, the trade deal could include increased purchase of American goods and products like Boeing airplanes and agriculture products. Reuters reported that China was assembling a large business delegation to accompany Xi, with talks underway over a possible major Boeing deal. Some Western outlets have also reported that China plans to purchase substantial agricultural products from the US. 

The US-China chip rivalry has emerged as one of the most critical arenas of technological competition between the two powers, as advanced semiconductors underpin not only artificial intelligence, cloud computing and telecommunications infrastructure but also defense industries and a host of strategic technologies. That is why Washington has spent recent years tightening export restrictions on advanced chips and the equipment used to make them, seeking to curb China's access to cutting-edge semiconductor technology. Those very restrictions, however, have pushed Beijing to accelerate development of its domestic chip industry.

The US holds a key edge in chip design, design software and parts of the manufacturing equipment chain, while China commands a massive home market, expanding production capacity and sprawling state investment. That mutual dependence has turned chips into one of the most powerful bargaining chips in the relationship.

Emerging AI technologies have likewise become a central battleground in the rivalry.

Rana Mitter, a professor of US-Asia relations at Harvard University, argues that "the three main axes of negotiation remain trade, technology and Taiwan, but the rapid evolution of AI has injected greater urgency into the technology file." 

AI is one of the few areas where limited cooperation is conceivable, given that both countries share concerns about AI misuse and its security implications. Still, fierce technological competition makes a comprehensive agreement in this space a long shot.

Another flashpoint is rare earths and critical minerals, of which China controls vast supplies. Washington officials said the issue of maintaining an acceptable flow of these mineral exports from China will be on the table, but a deal in which the US rolls back its export restrictions in return is unlikely to materialize.

China holds a critical position across the extraction, processing and production of many of these materials, and Washington wants guarantees that their exports will continue to flow, while Beijing is seeking to ease US technology restrictions on Chinese companies.

Taiwan is also one of the most sensitive issues at the meeting. China considers Taiwan part of its territory, while the US is the island’s most important international backer and arms supplier. More sensitive still, a roughly $14 billion US arms package for Taiwan is awaiting final approval. China wants the sale halted and views the issue as directly tied to its national security.

Reuters reported that US allies in Asia are concerned that Trump could soften Washington’s position on Taiwan in exchange for economic gains, a prospect of particular concern to Japan and Taiwan.

Importance of Xi-Trump meeting

A meeting between the Chinese and American presidents has always been more than just a bilateral sit-down, and its significance stems first and foremost from the economic weight of the two countries.

The US, with an economy of roughly $30 trillion, and China, at $19 trillion, are the world's two largest economies, and their decisions can reverberate across global trade and the world economy well beyond their bilateral ties.

That is why any summit between the leaders of Beijing and Washington is typically watched closely by governments, markets and economic players alike, so much so that the International Monetary Fund has reported that the trade integration of the US and China played a major role in shaping the global economy over the past three decades. The fact that CEOs and heads of Chinese and American corporate giants have been invited to the Trump-Xi meeting underscores just how much is at stake.

These summits also offer a chance to set the "rules of the game" on regional stability, energy and international affairs, matters that directly affect the economies of other nations. For that reason, every meeting between the two leaders is not merely a diplomatic event but an opportunity to take stock of the future trajectory of the global economy, international trade and the geopolitical order.

US-China relations are so vast and complex that a substantial share of their disputes simply cannot be resolved at the level of ministers or negotiators alone.

The Atlantic Council has described the current state of affairs as a kind of temporary, fragile stability rather than genuine de-escalation, with both sides still testing each other's red lines while simultaneously working to prevent chain reactions and further escalation.

Xi's trip can thus be seen as an effort to institutionalize "managed competition", even if the two sides hold fast to their fundamental disagreements over Taiwan or technology, establishing a direct channel between the leaders can reduce the risk of miscalculation.

Iran war

The Iran war will also be a key item on the Trump-Xi agenda. Washington believes China can leverage its close economic and political ties with Tehran to influence Iran, but analysts say Beijing has so far shown only limited appetite for applying serious pressure on Tehran.

Rubi Othman of the Tony Blair Institute argues that "stability in the relationship serves both leaders, allowing them to focus on their more pressing priorities, for Trump, the Iran war; for Xi, hardening China's domestic resilience for whatever lies ahead in US relations."

Against that backdrop, a potential trip to Beijing by Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran's parliament, takes on particular significance after the Xi-Trump meeting, because the two events together signal that the Iran question is no longer merely a bilateral file between Tehran and Washington and it can now become part of a broader US-China conversation about security, energy and regional order.

In that context, Ghalibaf's visit can be read as an attempt to convey Tehran's perspective directly to one of the few powers that both maintains a strategic relationship with Iran and has an effective channel to Washington. Beijing, for its part, has not formally declared that it will act as a direct mediator between Iran and the U.S., with Chinese officials instead emphasizing dialogue, de-escalation and rebuilding a negotiating mechanism between Tehran and Washington. Xi has also recently unveiled a five-point initiative calling for an immediate end to hostilities in West Asia.

American officials have said economic talks with China related to Iran are underway and could come up in the two presidents' discussions. In this framework, the Iran war is not just a political issue for China, energy security, shipping lanes and oil market stability are directly tied to Beijing's economic interests, and a prolonged war directly undercuts them. The Iran war may therefore figure as a secondary but important item on Xi's trip to the US, alongside the core cases between the two sides.

US Has no Choice but to Accept Iranian Conditions: Iran’s MP

Alwaght- Alwaght has asked Iranian member of parliament Abbas Moghtadaee for comments on the years of the US hostile policy against Iran and the current war conditions. He said that the Americans for decades have vastly used an array of instruments to stop the Iranian advances in various areas; from using the UN and political pressures to spreading lies, pushing economic pressure, and tens of other tools. In all of these years one threat has been repeated by the Americans and it is "all options are on the table."

But the reality is that over the past year or so, the Americans have thrown virtually every option in their arsenal at the problem, and still failed to achieve their objectives. For years, Washington has threated war against Tehran, warning that its superior technology and firepower would overwhelm any Iranian resistance. The Islamic Republic, the message went, stood no chance against American military and technological dominance.

Today, the tables have turned. Despite the fact that the US has burned through the bulk of its equipment, capabilities and strategic options, few in the world would now dare claim that Iran has been defeated. Indeed, no fair-minded observer or even an unfair one, could easily swallow the assertion that Iran has lost. Even inside the US itself, voices across the political spectrum, among both Donald Trump's allies and his detractors, have acknowledged the plain truth: Trump has failed to achieve his objectives against Iran.

An equation changed

And the key issue is that today, Iran looks bolder than ever, while the US appears more afraid of war than ever. Trump's political predicament has only deepened that fear. The same Americans who once spoke of war with swagger now discuss it, and its potential to drag on, with caution and anxiety.

Alongside this, another reality is asserting itself more forcefully than before: Iran has managed to achieve a level of internal cohesion and global public sympathy unmatched in its recent history, a shift whose fingerprints are plainly visible in the political and media factions surrounding the war.

Lies that do not work anymore

One of Donald Trump's go-to tools is lying, a device he deploys mainly to keep the facts from surfacing and to paper over his own failures. But here's the problem: Trump's lies have piled up so high that even this weapon is growing threadbare and ineffective.

The rule is simple. The more Trump lies, the more exposed the credibility crisis becomes, for the US, for its president, and for his accomplices. One of Iran's key moves during this period has been to discredit Washington's military and political claims, a campaign that has chipped away at the credibility of American officials' statements and narratives, laying bare the widening gap between claim and reality.

Washington's worn-out tools

The UN is now in its weakest condition and the UN chief, who is about to change, is known as a weak one.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the upheaval in Lebanon, the Iran case and a host of other flashpoints all point to one thing and it is the UN's failure to play an effective role.

Against this backdrop, Washington keeps exploiting the US apparatus, even leaning on its own debt leverage to the organization, to bend its various bodies, from the Security Council to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to its own ends. This proves the claim that the UN is being hollowed out. 

Meanwhile, the Iranian president's remarks at the United Nations show that Tehran has once again sought to put global pushback against the US, and an end to Washington's ruthless actions, front and center. Those positions also signal that Iran has made striking gains in soft power and global persuasion, and now commands more of the world's attention than ever before.

Iran's logic: War for defense not violence

Under these circumstances, Iran has sought to offer global publics a logic they can grasp, one that signals both a readiness to safeguard its own security and that of others, and a readiness to confront those who have made destabilization the core of their conduct.

That logic rests on two clear balances: if others start a war and keep it going, Iran will fight; but if others do not pursue war, Iran would not pursue violence either.

The message, in essence, is an attempt to paint a clear picture of Iranian policy, one that combines self-defense and confronting threats with an aversion to warmongering under normal conditions.

The US in front of a new reality

The US now has little choice but to accept what Iran is saying, because Iran has entrenched itself not only in military hardware and capability, but in geography itself.

A growing number of observers now believe that if Iran so chooses, much could happen, and that is precisely why others are calling on Iran to exercise restraint.

So, the US finds itself staring down a new reality and it is that Iran's power no longer boils down to military calculations alone. Geography, deterrence, political clout and soft power have all been added to the equation.

In this situation, Washington's options are narrower than ever, and it has no choice but to accept Iran as a regional superpower with global reach and influence.