Canada is looking across the Atlantic, Europe is holding open the door, and Donald Trump is warning that the emerging relationship could amount to a “hostile act.”European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed making Canada the European Union's first-ever associate member, an unprecedented arrangement designed to take relations between Ottawa and Brussels well beyond their existing trade agreement.The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. Von der Leyen says EU–Canada trade in goods has already grown 75 per cent in less than a decade under CETA.But there is an important caveat: Canada is not joining the European Union.“Associate membership” currently has no established legal status in the EU. The proposal remains undefined, would require the backing of member states and has already prompted questions from European diplomats about how such an arrangement would actually work.Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney nevertheless welcomed the ambition while addressing the European Parliament on Thursday. He argued that deeper cooperation would strengthen Canadian resilience and independence rather than create another global power bloc.Washington's response has been considerably less enthusiastic.Trump called the proposal “laughable” and warned that if he considers it hostile, the United States could impose heavy tariffs or restrict trade with Europe.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | Canada-EU ties &#39;irk&#39; Donald Trump Mark Carney addresses EU lawmakers <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ShivanChanana?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShivanChanana</a> tell you more <a href="https://t.co/XF3g3KvpFI">pic.twitter.com/XF3g3KvpFI</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2100618312040567021?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

France pushed back, saying Washington cannot determine Europe's geopolitical choices. The European Commission insists the proposed partnership is not directed against anybody.That leaves a striking contradiction.Relations between Canada and the United States have deteriorated amid tariffs and broader disputes. Ottawa has consequently sought to reduce its economic dependence on its southern neighbour and deepen relationships elsewhere. Roughly 70 per cent of Canadian exports currently go to the United States.Now Canada's attempt to diversify those relationships is itself provoking another tariff threat.The dispute therefore reaches beyond trade.It raises a larger question about sovereignty and alliances in an increasingly transactional international order: can major powers expect their allies to become more independent while objecting when those allies exercise that independence?Geography will not change.America will remain Canada's neighbour.But being somebody's neighbour does not make you their property.And if Washington pushes traditional partners to look elsewhere, it cannot be surprised when they begin finding each other.

The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. 

Canada is looking across the Atlantic, Europe is holding open the door, and Donald Trump is warning that the emerging relationship could amount to a “hostile act.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed making Canada the European Union's first-ever associate member, an unprecedented arrangement designed to take relations between Ottawa and Brussels well beyond their existing trade agreement. The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic. Von der Leyen says EU–Canada trade in goods has already grown 75 per cent in less than a decade under CETA. But there is an important caveat: Canada is not joining the European Union. “Associate membership” currently has no established legal status in the EU. The proposal remains undefined, would require the backing of member states and has already prompted questions from European diplomats about how such an arrangement would actually work. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney nevertheless welcomed the ambition while addressing the European Parliament on Thursday. He argued that deeper cooperation would strengthen Canadian resilience and independence rather than create another global power bloc. Washington's response has been considerably less enthusiastic. Trump called the proposal “laughable” and warned that if he considers it hostile, the United States could impose heavy tariffs or restrict trade with Europe.

The proposed partnership could encompass defence production, technology, artificial intelligence, energy, critical minerals, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing and the Arctic.&nbsp;

The Verdict | Hostile to whom? Canada looks to Europe — and Trump threatens tariffs

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines.Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.”The Houthis deny targeting Mecca.That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert?Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers.Yet their military capabilities have expanded.The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | Saudi Arabia VS Houthi conflict reaches the doorstep of the holy city Air raid alerts sound in Mecca, birthplace of Prophet Muhammad; Houthis deny attack on the holy city<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ShivanChanana?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShivanChanana</a> have more <a href="https://t.co/KBkf2UKs1l">pic.twitter.com/KBkf2UKs1l</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2100255999462666536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The consequences now extend far beyond Yemen.The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman travelled to Egypt as Riyadh sought regional support. During talks with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, both leaders stressed the importance of securing navigation through the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.But perhaps the most revealing development is diplomatic.U.S. officials reportedly met Houthi representatives in Oman over the weekend, according to Reuters reporting cited by multiple outlets.That creates an extraordinary picture.Saudi Arabia is talking about deterrence. The Houthis are demonstrating military reach. Washington is exploring diplomacy. And global commerce remains exposed to whatever happens around the Red Sea.Saudi Arabia's warning over Mecca therefore carries significance far beyond one intercepted drone.Because declaring a red line is the easy part.The harder question is what happens when an adversary decides to test it.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines. Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.” The Houthis deny targeting Mecca. That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert? Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers. Yet their military capabilities have expanded. The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away

Africa has heard the compliments before.The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South.All true.But recognition without influence is merely applause.The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America.That is welcome.But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order?Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries.That is progress. It is not proportional power.And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either.Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act.Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy.This is where the African Union should become central.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/WIONAtBRICS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIONAtBRICS</a> | 54 African countries. Only THREE are full BRICS members. Africa doesn&#39;t need applause for its &quot;potential.&quot; It needs power proportional to it. India deserves credit for opening the door. But Africa must decide how it walks through it.<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> brings more on… <a href="https://t.co/xmwS1LAkgK">pic.twitter.com/xmwS1LAkgK</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2099168609893576871?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Instead of African countries approaching emerging blocs primarily through individual national interests, the continent needs greater coordination around what it wants from them: infrastructure financing, industrialisation, technology transfer, energy security, agricultural transformation, value addition and reform of global financial institutions.Africa possesses many of the resources the emerging world wants. It should negotiate accordingly.India deserves recognition here.New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.That matters.India and Africa also have something important in common: neither wants the international system permanently dictated by institutions reflecting yesterday's balance of power.But partnership cannot mean replacing dependence on one centre of global power with dependence on another.Africa should neither become an appendage of the West nor a bargaining chip for the East.It should become a pole of power itself.That means BRICS should not simply ask how many more African countries it can accommodate.Africa should ask what membership actually delivers.More African flags around the BRICS table will mean little if African economies continue exporting raw minerals only to import the finished products; if infrastructure gaps persist; if Africans remain underrepresented where global financial and security decisions are made; and if the continent's enormous population translates into market size but not negotiating strength.The New Delhi Declaration talks about giving the Global South a greater voice.Good.Now Africa must use it.Because the continent does not need another invitation to somebody else's table.It needs the leverage to help decide what is served.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

Africa has heard the compliments before. The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South. All true. But recognition without influence is merely applause. The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. That is welcome. But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order? Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries. That is progress. It is not proportional power. And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either. Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act. Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy. This is where the African Union should become central.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

The Verdict | Africa is too big to remain a guest at the BRICS table

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates.Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world.The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them.<h2>Consensus amid contradiction</h2>The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance.Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement.The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed</a>That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters.<h2>A rival to the United Nations?</h2>Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere.In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight.Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action.<h2>The test of adulthood</h2>At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members.That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential.The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates. Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world. The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them. Consensus amid contradiction The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance. Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement. The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade. https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters. A rival to the United Nations? Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere. In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight. Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action. The test of adulthood At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members. That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential. The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world.But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough.The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed.September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations.George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare.Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict.Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion.A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | 25 years after 9/11, America remembers. But after Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran — and a rising fear of extremism from within — has America actually learned? THE VERDICT with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/September11?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#September11</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/911Anniversary?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#911Anniversary</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> <a href="https://t.co/YLzzYu9mfH">pic.twitter.com/YLzzYu9mfH</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098452221021352377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>The threat came home</h2>Perhaps the greatest transformation, however, is in what Americans now fear.September 11 focused American attention overwhelmingly on terrorism originating overseas.Today, 61 per cent of Americans say ideology-driven attacks by domestic extremists pose the greater threat, compared with 34 per cent who point to extremists abroad. When asked more broadly about threats to ordinary Americans, mass shootings ranked even higher.America spent decades hunting terrorism thousands of kilometres from its shores. Twenty-five years later, its citizens increasingly fear violence emerging from within their own country.That is an extraordinary reversal.<h2>The people 9/11 never stopped killing</h2>Then there is another legacy — one measured not in geopolitics but in hospital wards.Thousands of first responders, recovery workers, survivors and residents have suffered illnesses associated with exposure to the toxic aftermath of the World Trade Center collapse. This year's commemoration even added, for the first time, a moment of silence for people who later died from 9/11-related illnesses.And just days before the anniversary, Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration released the first 170,000 pages of previously withheld city records concerning air quality and the government's response after the attacks. The release followed years of litigation and campaigning by 9/11 advocates. More documents are expected over the next year.It creates a striking political juxtaposition.Former mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose public image became inseparable from his leadership after September 11, has been among Mamdani's fiercest critics. Yet Mamdani's administration is now opening records concerning what City Hall knew about toxic conditions after Ground Zero and when it knew it.For survivors and families, accountability cannot end with memorial ceremonies."Never forget" must also mean never forgetting those who survived the morning but have spent decades living with its consequences.<h2>America's unfinished lesson</h2>There is no denying that America changed after September 11.Airport security was transformed. Intelligence agencies were reorganised. Al-Qaeda's leadership was devastated. Osama bin Laden was killed.But America also paid heavily for some of the choices made in the shadow of those burning towers: long wars, expanded surveillance, enormous expenditure, civilian casualties abroad and deep political arguments at home.A quarter-century later, America is considerably more politically divided than the country that briefly united on September 12, 2001. The Financial Times notes how starkly today's polarisation contrasts with the extraordinary national solidarity immediately following the attacks.That may be the uncomfortable lesson of this anniversary.Grief without reflection can become policy.Fear without restraint can become war.And remembrance without accountability can become ceremony.America has kept its promise to never forget September 11.Twenty-five years later, the harder question is whether it has finally learned from everything that came after.&nbsp;

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world. But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough. The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed. September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare. Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict. Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran. That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

The Verdict | 25 years after 9/11: America remembers — but has it learned?

Every side is talking about how the Iran war ends. Almost everything they are doing suggests they are preparing for it to continue. President Donald Trump says the fighting could end “immediately after” America's November midterm elections. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran and its regional axis are approaching collapse.&nbsp;Yet the battlefield is sending a very different message.&nbsp;Iran is still resisting. The Houthis remain capable of opening another front of pressure around vital shipping routes. Hezbollah, while badly weakened, has not disappeared. And Washington is now warning Tehran over reported activity at Pickaxe Mountain, raising the possibility of another major strike even as Trump predicts the conflict is approaching its conclusion.&nbsp;The contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.&nbsp;Netanyahu has offered one of the most confident assessments yet of where the war is heading, declaring that defeating the Iranian regime is now within reach and predicting that Tehran's wider axis will ultimately collapse.&nbsp;There is evidence behind some of Israel's confidence.&nbsp;Hamas has been severely degraded after years of war. Hezbollah has been battered militarily and politically. Iran's regional network has suffered blows that would have seemed extraordinary only a few years ago.&nbsp;But weakened is not the same as defeated.&nbsp;Hezbollah retains military capabilities. The Houthis remain capable of threatening Saudi Arabia and maritime traffic around one of the world's most important shipping corridors. Recent attacks have again demonstrated how quickly instability can spread beyond the immediate US Iran battlefield.The axis may be damaged. Declaring it dead is another matter.&nbsp;Trump, meanwhile, has attached an extraordinary political timetable to the conflict.&nbsp;He says the war could end immediately after the November midterms, arguing that Tehran is desperately attempting to hold out long enough to influence the American election.&nbsp;That assertion inevitably raises another question: why should the military endurance of Iran suddenly expire when Americans finish voting?&nbsp;The timing matters because the war is no longer only a foreign policy problem for the White House. Disruption across the Gulf has helped drive energy prices higher, increasing economic and political pressure at home as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress.&nbsp;Trump is therefore selling two messages simultaneously: America is winning, and Americans will not have to endure the consequences for much longer.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/15-000-police-200-paramilitary-companies-deployed-routes-secured-hotels-fortified-as-delhi-gears-up-for-brics-summit-1789056700020">15,000 police, 200 paramilitary companies deployed, routes secured, hotels fortified as Delhi gears up for BRICS Summit</a>&nbsp;But his own threats complicate that promise.&nbsp;Attention is now turning to Pickaxe Mountain, near Iran's damaged Natanz nuclear complex.Trump has warned Tehran against further activity there, threatening a powerful American response if Iran crosses Washington's line.&nbsp;It is a remarkable juxtaposition.&nbsp;One moment, the president predicts that Iran can barely hold out beyond November. The next, he is publicly contemplating another significant military strike.&nbsp;The language of conclusion is colliding with the mechanics of escalation. Iran, meanwhile, is hardly speaking like a government preparing to surrender.&nbsp;Tehran has attached sweeping conditions to ending the conflict, including demands involving Lebanon, Yemen, frozen Iranian assets and non interference in its nuclear and missile programmes.&nbsp;Several are unacceptable to Israel and Washington in their present form. That leaves diplomacy theoretically possible, but politically and strategically distant.&nbsp;And then there is the timeline reportedly being discussed behind closed doors in Washington.&nbsp;The Wall Street Journal reports that senior Trump advisers, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have discussed with the president the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure far longer than publicly suggested, potentially stretching the conflict through the remainder of Trump's presidency.&nbsp;That means Washington may effectively be operating with two clocks.&nbsp;The public clock runs to November.&nbsp;The strategic clock could run to January 2029.&nbsp;Perhaps neither prediction will prove correct. Wars have an unpleasant habit of destroying the timetables politicians construct for them.&nbsp;But the widening gulf between rhetoric and reality matters.&nbsp;Netanyahu says Iran's axis is approaching collapse. Trump says Tehran cannot hold out much longer. Yet Iranian resistance continues, regional actors remain active, shipping routes remain vulnerable, and Washington is threatening another target buried beneath an Iranian mountain.&nbsp;Six months into this conflict, perhaps the most revealing question is no longer who says they are winning.&nbsp;It is this:&nbsp;If Iran is close to defeat, its axis close to collapse and the war close to ending, why does everyone appear to be preparing for what comes next?

Despite Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu predicting Iran's defeat and the war's end, continued Iranian resistance, regional attacks and threats of further US strikes suggest the conflict could continue well beyond the November midterms.

Every side is talking about how the Iran war ends. Almost everything they are doing suggests they are preparing for it to continue. President Donald Trump says the fighting could end “immediately after” America's November midterm elections. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran and its regional axis are approaching collapse. Yet the battlefield is sending a very different message. Iran is still resisting. The Houthis remain capable of opening another front of pressure around vital shipping routes. Hezbollah, while badly weakened, has not disappeared. And Washington is now warning Tehran over reported activity at Pickaxe Mountain, raising the possibility of another major strike even as Trump predicts the conflict is approaching its conclusion. The contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Netanyahu has offered one of the most confident assessments yet of where the war is heading, declaring that defeating the Iranian regime is now within reach and predicting that Tehran's wider axis will ultimately collapse. There is evidence behind some of Israel's confidence. Hamas has been severely degraded after years of war. Hezbollah has been battered militarily and politically. Iran's regional network has suffered blows that would have seemed extraordinary only a few years ago. But weakened is not the same as defeated. Hezbollah retains military capabilities. The Houthis remain capable of threatening Saudi Arabia and maritime traffic around one of the world's most important shipping corridors. Recent attacks have again demonstrated how quickly instability can spread beyond the immediate US Iran battlefield. The axis may be damaged. Declaring it dead is another matter. Trump, meanwhile, has attached an extraordinary political timetable to the conflict. He says the war could end immediately after the November midterms, arguing that Tehran is desperately attempting to hold out long enough to influence the American election. That assertion inevitably raises another question: why should the military endurance of Iran suddenly expire when Americans finish voting? The timing matters because the war is no longer only a foreign policy problem for the White House. Disruption across the Gulf has helped drive energy prices higher, increasing economic and political pressure at home as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress. Trump is therefore selling two messages simultaneously: America is winning, and Americans will not have to endure the consequences for much longer. Also Read: 15,000 police, 200 paramilitary companies deployed, routes secured, hotels fortified as Delhi gears up for BRICS Summit But his own threats complicate that promise. Attention is now turning to Pickaxe Mountain, near Iran's damaged Natanz nuclear complex. Trump has warned Tehran against further activity there, threatening a powerful American response if Iran crosses Washington's line. It is a remarkable juxtaposition. One moment, the president predicts that Iran can barely hold out beyond November. The next, he is publicly contemplating another significant military strike. The language of conclusion is colliding with the mechanics of escalation. Iran, meanwhile, is hardly speaking like a government preparing to surrender. Tehran has attached sweeping conditions to ending the conflict, including demands involving Lebanon, Yemen, frozen Iranian assets and non interference in its nuclear and missile programmes. Several are unacceptable to Israel and Washington in their present form. That leaves diplomacy theoretically possible, but politically and strategically distant. And then there is the timeline reportedly being discussed behind closed doors in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reports that senior Trump advisers, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have discussed with the president the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure far longer than publicly suggested, potentially stretching the conflict through the remainder of Trump's presidency. That means Washington may effectively be operating with two clocks. The public clock runs to November. The strategic clock could run to January 2029. Perhaps neither prediction will prove correct. Wars have an unpleasant habit of destroying the timetables politicians construct for them. But the widening gulf between rhetoric and reality matters. Netanyahu says Iran's axis is approaching collapse. Trump says Tehran cannot hold out much longer. Yet Iranian resistance continues, regional actors remain active, shipping routes remain vulnerable, and Washington is threatening another target buried beneath an Iranian mountain. Six months into this conflict, perhaps the most revealing question is no longer who says they are winning. It is this: If Iran is close to defeat, its axis close to collapse and the war close to ending, why does everyone appear to be preparing for what comes next?

Despite Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu predicting Iran's defeat and the war's end, continued Iranian resistance, regional attacks and threats of further US strikes suggest the conflict could continue well beyond the November midterms.

Words of victory, plans for war: The dangerous contradiction over Iran | Race to Power

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once.The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.”There is only one problem.The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story.A war with two deadlinesTrump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections.Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029.That is not a minor difference.It is the difference between weeks and years.It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States.But terminology cannot alter consequences.Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran.Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money.Welcome to the Trump showThen came Dallas.Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election.Trump made clear who the central character was.“I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters.The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.”But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man.Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest.The show was enormous.Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question.$5,000 for a Republican victoryThen came Trump's biggest promise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | A war that ends after an election. A $5,000 cheque if Republicans win. A bill that could hit $1.35 TRILLION. Trump says: pretend he&#39;s on the ballot. But who pays for the promises? Tonight&#39;s <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://t.co/JZTgjHxqHB">pic.twitter.com/JZTgjHxqHB</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098081923126141031?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

If Republicans retain the House and Senate, Trump says he will issue a $5,000 dividend to every American adult.It is an extraordinary proposition.With roughly 270 million American adults, distributing $5,000 to each would cost approximately $1.35 trillion.And that follows Trump's earlier proposal for a $2,000 tariff dividend — another cash promise that never materialised.Critics immediately asked the obvious question: is promising voters money if your party wins effectively buying political support?Legally, the answer is more complicated than the accusation. The proposed payment is not directly conditioned on an individual casting a Republican vote, and any actual distribution would require congressional approval.Politically, however, the optics are extraordinary.Vote Republican, Trump says, and there could be $5,000 waiting on the other side.But where does $1.35 trillion come from?That is the question the spectacle could not answer.The United States is already running enormous annual deficits and carrying a colossal national debt.American households remain concerned about affordability. The Iran conflict has put additional pressure on energy prices. Tariffs have created their own costs.Trump's answer to economic anxiety is now another enormous cheque.But governments cannot create $1.35 trillion without consequences.Either the money must come from additional revenue, spending cuts, borrowing — or some combination of all three.A dividend without a credible funding mechanism is not an economic programme.It is a promise.The Democrat at the Republican conventionThere was another extraordinary moment in Dallas.Democratic Senator John Fetterman appeared by video to introduce Republican Senator Dave McCormick, describing him as a friend and promising cooperation with Trump to protect Pennsylvania's steel industry.For Democrats, the optics were uncomfortable.But suggestions that Fetterman had somehow been “bought” go beyond the available evidence. He subsequently reaffirmed that he remains a Democrat.What his appearance demonstrated instead was something more politically interesting: the ideological fractures inside America's parties are becoming increasingly difficult to conceal.And then there is VenezuelaBehind the spectacle and the cheques sits another extraordinary economic gamble.Washington has taken a 35% position, structured through warrants, in a Venezuelan oil venture as the Trump administration attempts to turn access to Venezuela's enormous petroleum reserves into an American strategic asset.Trump has promoted the Venezuelan arrangement as a route toward greater energy security and lower fuel prices.The attraction is obvious.A prolonged confrontation with Iran threatens energy flows through the Gulf. Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves. Washington therefore has powerful incentives to diversify where its energy security comes from.But this too raises questions.The Venezuelan arrangement has already attracted scrutiny over its structure, legality and the extraordinary involvement of the Pentagon in a commercial oil venture.America is therefore fighting — or conducting a “military conflict” — against one major oil power while simultaneously deepening its economic leverage over another.That may prove strategic foresight.It may also demonstrate just how complicated and expensive America's new geopolitical order is becoming.Reality versus spectacleThis was ultimately the contradiction running through Dallas.Trump spoke about American greatness while voters worry about affordability.He promised $5,000 cheques while the government is already deeply in deficit.He predicted an imminent end to the Iran conflict while his own advisers reportedly contemplate a struggle lasting years.He asked Americans to pretend that his name is on the ballot.Perhaps that was the most revealing statement of the convention.Because November increasingly appears to be about Donald Trump — his war, his economy, his promises and his political survival.But Americans cannot pay grocery bills with political theatre.They cannot fill their tanks with applause.And before Washington writes a $1.35 trillion cheque, voters are entitled to ask the simplest question of all:Who is going to pay for it?

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once. The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.” There is only one problem. The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story. A war with two deadlines Trump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections. Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029. That is not a minor difference. It is the difference between weeks and years. It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States. But terminology cannot alter consequences. Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran. Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money. Welcome to the Trump show Then came Dallas. Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters. The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.” But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man. Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest. The show was enormous. Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question. $5,000 for a Republican victory Then came Trump's biggest promise.

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

The Trump Show: A $5,000 promise, a war without an end and a trillion-dollar question | The Verdict

Alice Weidel embodies one of the strangest contradictions in European politics.She leads a party fiercely opposed to mass immigration, yet her partner is Sri Lanka-born. She is in a same-sex relationship while leading a political movement that has championed the traditional heterosexual family. She raises children with her partner while her party has fought liberalisation of family policy. And the woman selling German nationalism has spent significant parts of her private life in Switzerland.Then there is economics. The former investment banker carries distinctly market-oriented instincts while commanding a populist movement drawing heavily from workers who feel abandoned by Germany's political and economic establishment.Welcome to the paradox of Germany's Alternative für Deutschland.Except the AfD is no longer merely an alternative.It is becoming a dominant political force.In Saxony-Anhalt, voters handed the AfD an extraordinary 43.8 per cent of the vote. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU managed just 17.2 per cent. The AfD secured 39 of the state parliament's 83 seats — short of governing alone, but comfortably the largest party.The political shockwaves have reached Berlin.Merz described himself as deeply shocked and acknowledged a devastating defeat. Former chancellor Angela Merkel has also reacted with dismay. Meanwhile, thousands have taken to German streets protesting the AfD's advance.But protests cannot erase ballots.And that presents Europe's liberal establishment with an uncomfortable democratic dilemma.If an election is free and fair, what happens when voters choose the political movement the establishment has spent years warning them against?AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.But condemning a political movement is not the same thing as understanding why people vote for it.Immigration. Economic insecurity. National identity. Cultural anxiety. Anger at established politicians. Frustration with institutions voters believe no longer listen to them.These forces are not confined to Germany.Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist movements have moved from the political fringes towards government, parliament and increasingly the mainstream.Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump's movement speaks much of the same political language: borders, sovereignty, cultural conservatism, national pride and rebellion against an establishment accused of abandoning ordinary citizens.Yet there is a crucial difference.

America's populist Right captured one of the country's two dominant political parties. Europe's insurgent Right operates through multiple parties and political systems, often confronting coalition barriers designed to keep it away from executive power.And inevitably, Germany's history hangs over this debate.Comparisons with the interwar years must be handled carefully. Europe in 2026 is not Europe in 1933. Its constitutions, institutions and political conditions are fundamentally different, and today's right-wing movements cannot simply be labelled replicas of twentieth-century fascism.But history offers warnings rather than photocopies.Economic anxiety, resentment towards political elites, arguments over national identity, hostility towards outsiders and the conviction that existing institutions no longer represent ordinary citizens all existed in Europe's darkest political periods.That does not mean history is repeating itself.It means politicians would be foolish not to listen when history rhymes.The lesson from Saxony-Anhalt therefore extends far beyond the AfD.Europe's establishment can build firewalls. It can organise protests. It can condemn extremists and challenge rhetoric that threatens minorities or democratic institutions.But none of those things answers the most important question:Why are so many voters moving Right in the first place?Until Europe's political centre answers that question convincingly, the insurgency will continue.The Right is no longer knocking on Europe's door.Voters are increasingly handing it the keys.

AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.

Alice Weidel embodies one of the strangest contradictions in European politics. She leads a party fiercely opposed to mass immigration, yet her partner is Sri Lanka-born. She is in a same-sex relationship while leading a political movement that has championed the traditional heterosexual family. She raises children with her partner while her party has fought liberalisation of family policy. And the woman selling German nationalism has spent significant parts of her private life in Switzerland. Then there is economics. The former investment banker carries distinctly market-oriented instincts while commanding a populist movement drawing heavily from workers who feel abandoned by Germany's political and economic establishment. Welcome to the paradox of Germany's Alternative für Deutschland. Except the AfD is no longer merely an alternative. It is becoming a dominant political force. In Saxony-Anhalt, voters handed the AfD an extraordinary 43.8 per cent of the vote. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU managed just 17.2 per cent. The AfD secured 39 of the state parliament's 83 seats — short of governing alone, but comfortably the largest party. The political shockwaves have reached Berlin. Merz described himself as deeply shocked and acknowledged a devastating defeat. Former chancellor Angela Merkel has also reacted with dismay. Meanwhile, thousands have taken to German streets protesting the AfD's advance. But protests cannot erase ballots. And that presents Europe's liberal establishment with an uncomfortable democratic dilemma. If an election is free and fair, what happens when voters choose the political movement the establishment has spent years warning them against? AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities. But condemning a political movement is not the same thing as understanding why people vote for it. Immigration. Economic insecurity. National identity. Cultural anxiety. Anger at established politicians. Frustration with institutions voters believe no longer listen to them. These forces are not confined to Germany. Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist movements have moved from the political fringes towards government, parliament and increasingly the mainstream. Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump's movement speaks much of the same political language: borders, sovereignty, cultural conservatism, national pride and rebellion against an establishment accused of abandoning ordinary citizens. Yet there is a crucial difference.

AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.

Europe turns right: The revolution the establishment cannot ignore | The Verdict

The countdown to the 18th BRICS Summit has begun.India's national capital is preparing for the arrival of global leaders at the high-stakes gathering, where countries at war, countries affected by war, and those pushing for peace will be under the same roof.What began as a BRIC summit in 2009 became BRICS with South Africa's inclusion in 2011.But in the last few years, BRICS has expanded exponentially, with Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining in 2024. The latest country to join the grouping is Indonesia. With the exception of America and its Western allies, BRICS provides a counterbalance to Western hegemony over the global order.The rules of this new and emerging world order are no longer being drafted in Western capitals. Despite internal differences and disputes, BRICS provides a critical platform for convergence on shared interests, especially trade and the economy.Trump's tariff threats and wars in West Asia and Ukraine have left the Western consensus fractured. At the same time, countries like China and India are positioning themselves as stabilising forces.But there is a caveat. There is still a huge difference between what BRICS can be and what it really is. This untapped potential of the grouping can be realised if the member states manage to work out their differences.China and India have a border dispute to resolve; Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been dragged into the West Asia conflict. Iran and Russia have their own active wars to resolve.The internal power dynamics have certainly not stopped these countries from engaging on common interests. But can they move further without resolving these issues? That remains a big question.BRICS will bring together India, China and Russia once again after last month's SCO Summit.Increased diplomatic engagements and coordination on the bilateral front have revived speculation regarding the RIC trilateral. Russia is striving to revive the activities of the Russia-India-China troika.New Delhi, on the other hand, has shown cautious openness.BRICS nations are facing three big challenges, which boil down to one aspect: the economy.Tariffs, wars and energy — all of these affect the economy.The strings of all these issues are, one way or another, attached to Washington, where the Trump administration will be watching the summit very closely. China and India are the world's second-largest economy and fastest-growing major economy, respectively.Both countries are net importers of oil. The longer the Hormuz blockade continues, the greater will be the cost of energy.Then come tariffs. The US President's tariff onslaught has left countries searching for new markets, and the economic component of BRICS could come into play on this front.The grouping collectively represents 49.5 per cent of the global population, 40 per cent of world GDP and 26 per cent of global trade.Last year's BRICS declaration called for comprehensive UN reform, multilateral trade reform and inclusive governance, while strengthening the group's role as a platform for Global South solidarity.New Delhi has outlined four pillars for its BRICS chairship — resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability.The focus will be on strengthening economic resilience to navigate global uncertainties and deepening multilateral engagement through policy coordination, development finance and trade facilitation.When BRICS leaders gather in New Delhi on September 12 and 13, all eyes will be on how the forum positions itself in the wake of global challenges.More importantly, how countries position themselves within the group itself amid internal differences and disputes.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/role-of-brics-in-re-balancing-global-order-can-it-expand-scope-of-cooperation-1788883516936/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/role-of-brics-in-re-balancing-global-order-can-it-expand-scope-of-cooperation-1788883516936/embed</a>&nbsp;

The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi will bring together major emerging economies as they navigate tariffs, wars, energy concerns and internal differences.

The countdown to the 18th BRICS Summit has begun. India's national capital is preparing for the arrival of global leaders at the high-stakes gathering, where countries at war, countries affected by war, and those pushing for peace will be under the same roof. What began as a BRIC summit in 2009 became BRICS with South Africa's inclusion in 2011. But in the last few years, BRICS has expanded exponentially, with Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining in 2024. The latest country to join the grouping is Indonesia. With the exception of America and its Western allies, BRICS provides a counterbalance to Western hegemony over the global order. The rules of this new and emerging world order are no longer being drafted in Western capitals. Despite internal differences and disputes, BRICS provides a critical platform for convergence on shared interests, especially trade and the economy. Trump's tariff threats and wars in West Asia and Ukraine have left the Western consensus fractured. At the same time, countries like China and India are positioning themselves as stabilising forces. But there is a caveat. There is still a huge difference between what BRICS can be and what it really is. This untapped potential of the grouping can be realised if the member states manage to work out their differences. China and India have a border dispute to resolve; Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been dragged into the West Asia conflict. Iran and Russia have their own active wars to resolve. The internal power dynamics have certainly not stopped these countries from engaging on common interests. But can they move further without resolving these issues? That remains a big question. BRICS will bring together India, China and Russia once again after last month's SCO Summit. Increased diplomatic engagements and coordination on the bilateral front have revived speculation regarding the RIC trilateral. Russia is striving to revive the activities of the Russia-India-China troika. New Delhi, on the other hand, has shown cautious openness. BRICS nations are facing three big challenges, which boil down to one aspect: the economy. Tariffs, wars and energy — all of these affect the economy. The strings of all these issues are, one way or another, attached to Washington, where the Trump administration will be watching the summit very closely. China and India are the world's second-largest economy and fastest-growing major economy, respectively. Both countries are net importers of oil. The longer the Hormuz blockade continues, the greater will be the cost of energy. Then come tariffs. The US President's tariff onslaught has left countries searching for new markets, and the economic component of BRICS could come into play on this front. The grouping collectively represents 49.5 per cent of the global population, 40 per cent of world GDP and 26 per cent of global trade. Last year's BRICS declaration called for comprehensive UN reform, multilateral trade reform and inclusive governance, while strengthening the group's role as a platform for Global South solidarity. New Delhi has outlined four pillars for its BRICS chairship — resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability. The focus will be on strengthening economic resilience to navigate global uncertainties and deepening multilateral engagement through policy coordination, development finance and trade facilitation. When BRICS leaders gather in New Delhi on September 12 and 13, all eyes will be on how the forum positions itself in the wake of global challenges. More importantly, how countries position themselves within the group itself amid internal differences and disputes. https://www.wionews.com/videos/role-of-brics-in-re-balancing-global-order-can-it-expand-scope-of-cooperation-1788883516936/embed

The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi will bring together major emerging economies as they navigate tariffs, wars, energy concerns and internal differences.

Race To Power: Can India, China and Russia bridge differences amid global crises?

Today, we are not going to begin with the usual race to power story.We are going to talk about a far more grim reality — years of neglect, corruption, governance failure, and the blatant flouting of rules that have left innocent people paying with their lives in India’s national capital.Because in Delhi, tragedy has become a familiar cycle.A disaster strikes. A few officers are suspended or sacked. Compensation is announced. Promises are made. And then, silence. Until the next tragedy.This time, it began like any other Sunday for students living in a PG hostel in Satya Niketan, a student hub next to South Delhi's most expensive neighbourhoods. An area surrounded by Delhi University colleges and home to thousands of young students.And then, in a matter of seconds, their world came crashing down, literally.The building collapsed, turning the hostel into a death trap. At least seven people have lost their lives. Twelve have been rescued. And more than 24 hours later, there is still no clear answer to the most basic, most terrifying question: how many people are still buried under the debris?<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-hostel-collapse-7-killed-still-no-clear-tally-of-trapped-1788796236611/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-hostel-collapse-7-killed-still-no-clear-tally-of-trapped-1788796236611/embed</a>&nbsp;This is not just a story about a building that collapsed. It is a story about a system that collapsed long before the building did.Police nabbed the owner of the building, Hariram Bansal, from Bhiwadi in Rajasthan.The Delhi civic body suspended five officials with immediate effect: Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, Rakesh Kumar; Superintending Engineer Ranvir Singh; Executive Engineer Lalit Kumar Goel; Assistant Engineer Sunil Chauhan; and Junior Engineer Ashish Kumar of the South Zone.The Delhi High Court called for a high-level probe into the incident.The court said hostel facilities for students who come from outside the city to study are in a pathetic condition. The judges issued strong remarks against the Delhi government and the civic body, directing one to increase the number of hostels and ordering the other to ensure that building by-laws are maintained, their condition is examined, and a report is submitted within a week.Notices have been issued to Delhi University, the civic body, the National Human Rights Commission, the Delhi government, the Central government, and the Delhi Police.After the High Court rap, the DU Vice Chancellor urged college principals to review student accommodation and explore plans to construct new hostels.The incident has triggered questions over the safety of buildings used as PG accommodation and the enforcement of construction and fire safety norms in densely populated parts of the national capital.According to the MCD's preliminary assessment, the property had no sanctioned building plan for the existing structure, unauthorised construction in its basement, and no fire NOC.Yet the report also said there was no record of the property having been booked or sealed before the collapse.However, locals living in the area claim that authorities had earlier issued a notice against the now-collapsed building. This has once again put the civic body’s building-safety enforcement under scrutiny.In 2020, following directions from the Delhi High Court, the three erstwhile municipal corporations set a six-month deadline for structural safety certificates for specified categories of high-risk and older buildings, including structures built before seismic provisions were incorporated into Delhi’s building bye-laws.Six years later, the compliance figures remain limited.According to figures reported by Hindustan Times, the MCD identified 4,762 high-risk and old structures and issued notices to 4,571. Structural audit reports were received for only 1,155, with demolition being carried out in 56 cases and retrofitting in 47.Delhi has seen deadly building collapses for years.They happen when multiple failures converge: poor construction practices, illegal land use, inadequate safety systems, weak enforcement, administrative negligence, and a lack of public awareness.Preventing future tragedies requires more than arrests.It demands a culture of compliance, regular audits, strict accountability, and active participation from building owners, authorities, and occupants alike.Because if systemic failures remain unaddressed, the cycle will continue.There will be outrage after every tragedy. A few arrests. Promises of action. And then silence, until another building turns into a death trap.

The Satya Niketan building collapse that killed seven people has raised questions over unauthorised construction, safety enforcement and Delhi's student housing crisis.

Today, we are not going to begin with the usual race to power story. We are going to talk about a far more grim reality — years of neglect, corruption, governance failure, and the blatant flouting of rules that have left innocent people paying with their lives in India’s national capital. Because in Delhi, tragedy has become a familiar cycle. A disaster strikes. A few officers are suspended or sacked. Compensation is announced. Promises are made. And then, silence. Until the next tragedy. This time, it began like any other Sunday for students living in a PG hostel in Satya Niketan, a student hub next to South Delhi's most expensive neighbourhoods. An area surrounded by Delhi University colleges and home to thousands of young students. And then, in a matter of seconds, their world came crashing down, literally. The building collapsed, turning the hostel into a death trap. At least seven people have lost their lives. Twelve have been rescued. And more than 24 hours later, there is still no clear answer to the most basic, most terrifying question: how many people are still buried under the debris? https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-hostel-collapse-7-killed-still-no-clear-tally-of-trapped-1788796236611/embed This is not just a story about a building that collapsed. It is a story about a system that collapsed long before the building did. Police nabbed the owner of the building, Hariram Bansal, from Bhiwadi in Rajasthan. The Delhi civic body suspended five officials with immediate effect: Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, Rakesh Kumar; Superintending Engineer Ranvir Singh; Executive Engineer Lalit Kumar Goel; Assistant Engineer Sunil Chauhan; and Junior Engineer Ashish Kumar of the South Zone. The Delhi High Court called for a high-level probe into the incident. The court said hostel facilities for students who come from outside the city to study are in a pathetic condition. The judges issued strong remarks against the Delhi government and the civic body, directing one to increase the number of hostels and ordering the other to ensure that building by-laws are maintained, their condition is examined, and a report is submitted within a week. Notices have been issued to Delhi University, the civic body, the National Human Rights Commission, the Delhi government, the Central government, and the Delhi Police. After the High Court rap, the DU Vice Chancellor urged college principals to review student accommodation and explore plans to construct new hostels. The incident has triggered questions over the safety of buildings used as PG accommodation and the enforcement of construction and fire safety norms in densely populated parts of the national capital. According to the MCD's preliminary assessment, the property had no sanctioned building plan for the existing structure, unauthorised construction in its basement, and no fire NOC. Yet the report also said there was no record of the property having been booked or sealed before the collapse. However, locals living in the area claim that authorities had earlier issued a notice against the now-collapsed building. This has once again put the civic body’s building-safety enforcement under scrutiny. In 2020, following directions from the Delhi High Court, the three erstwhile municipal corporations set a six-month deadline for structural safety certificates for specified categories of high-risk and older buildings, including structures built before seismic provisions were incorporated into Delhi’s building bye-laws. Six years later, the compliance figures remain limited. According to figures reported by Hindustan Times, the MCD identified 4,762 high-risk and old structures and issued notices to 4,571. Structural audit reports were received for only 1,155, with demolition being carried out in 56 cases and retrofitting in 47. Delhi has seen deadly building collapses for years. They happen when multiple failures converge: poor construction practices, illegal land use, inadequate safety systems, weak enforcement, administrative negligence, and a lack of public awareness. Preventing future tragedies requires more than arrests. It demands a culture of compliance, regular audits, strict accountability, and active participation from building owners, authorities, and occupants alike. Because if systemic failures remain unaddressed, the cycle will continue. There will be outrage after every tragedy. A few arrests. Promises of action. And then silence, until another building turns into a death trap.

The Satya Niketan building collapse that killed seven people has raised questions over unauthorised construction, safety enforcement and Delhi's student housing crisis.

Race to power: 7 dead, Satya Niketan collapse exposes student housing crisis

For decades, regime change in Iran was the ambition nobody in Washington or Jerusalem quite wanted to admit openly.Not anymore.Donald Trump is again asking when Iranians will “rise up and fight.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared toppling Iran's government a “central mission” and says the objective is “within reach.” US Senator Ted Cruz has gone further, advocating that Iranian opponents of the government be armed to overthrow it themselves.The message is unmistakable: the Islamic Republic is wounded. Now, its enemies want Iranians to finish the job.But revolutions cannot simply be commissioned from abroad.Iran has already suffered something approaching political and military decapitation. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is gone. Senior commanders and political figures have been eliminated. The old hierarchy has been ripped apart.And yet, the Islamic Republic remains.That may be the greatest problem confronting the regime-change strategy.Destroying leaders is not the same as destroying institutions.Iran's political system was constructed precisely to withstand enormous pressure. The Revolutionary Guards, clerical establishment, security apparatus and overlapping centres of authority mean that when one powerful figure disappears, another can occupy the space.And the replacements are not necessarily moderates.Iran has elevated veteran hardliner Mohsen Rezaei to a crucial national-security position. Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian may favour negotiations and de-escalation, but Iran's presidency has never possessed absolute authority over the country's military-security establishment.That leaves Washington confronting an uncomfortable possibility: it can decapitate Iran's leadership without liberalising Iran.There is no denying the fury inside the country.Economic pressure is enormous. Oil exports have collapsed under the American blockade. Inflation and economic isolation are squeezing ordinary Iranians. Years of demonstrations have already exposed deep frustration with clerical rule.But asking Iranians to revolt from Washington is very different from Iranians deciding independently to revolt.Every call from an American president or Israeli prime minister risks handing Tehran another propaganda weapon: the argument that dissent is not an indigenous demand for freedom but a foreign-backed attempt to dismantle the Iranian state.And there is another question Washington cannot escape.What happens the morning after?Ted Cruz says the objective should be regime collapse and has argued for giving opponents of Tehran the weapons to achieve it.But collapse is not a political settlement.Iraq should have permanently buried the assumption that removing a hated government automatically produces a stable successor. Saddam Hussein's government was destroyed rapidly. The political, sectarian and security consequences outlived the invasion itself.Iran — with more than 90 million people, powerful security institutions, ethnic and regional fault lines and an enormous strategic footprint — would present an even more consequential challenge.None of this absolves Tehran.The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.That is precisely why their future cannot simply become another strategic objective written in Washington or Jerusalem.Trump can call for an uprising.Netanyahu can declare regime change within reach.Cruz can advocate putting weapons into Iranian hands.But none of them can manufacture the legitimacy required to govern Iran the day after the Islamic Republic falls.<h2>The Verdict</h2>America and Israel may have succeeded in changing many of the men who rule Iran.They have not yet changed the system that rules Iran.And perhaps that is the lesson being forgotten amid all the talk of imminent victory.You can bomb a command centre. You can eliminate a commander. You can even decapitate a government.But a revolution belongs to the people who must live with what replaces it.And if Washington and Jerusalem confuse regime destruction with nation-building, Iran could become another brutal reminder that in the Middle East, removing the old order is sometimes the beginning of the war — not the end of it.

The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.

For decades, regime change in Iran was the ambition nobody in Washington or Jerusalem quite wanted to admit openly. Not anymore. Donald Trump is again asking when Iranians will “rise up and fight.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared toppling Iran's government a “central mission” and says the objective is “within reach.” US Senator Ted Cruz has gone further, advocating that Iranian opponents of the government be armed to overthrow it themselves. The message is unmistakable: the Islamic Republic is wounded. Now, its enemies want Iranians to finish the job. But revolutions cannot simply be commissioned from abroad. Iran has already suffered something approaching political and military decapitation. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is gone. Senior commanders and political figures have been eliminated. The old hierarchy has been ripped apart. And yet, the Islamic Republic remains. That may be the greatest problem confronting the regime-change strategy. Destroying leaders is not the same as destroying institutions. Iran's political system was constructed precisely to withstand enormous pressure. The Revolutionary Guards, clerical establishment, security apparatus and overlapping centres of authority mean that when one powerful figure disappears, another can occupy the space. And the replacements are not necessarily moderates. Iran has elevated veteran hardliner Mohsen Rezaei to a crucial national-security position. Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian may favour negotiations and de-escalation, but Iran's presidency has never possessed absolute authority over the country's military-security establishment. That leaves Washington confronting an uncomfortable possibility: it can decapitate Iran's leadership without liberalising Iran. There is no denying the fury inside the country. Economic pressure is enormous. Oil exports have collapsed under the American blockade. Inflation and economic isolation are squeezing ordinary Iranians. Years of demonstrations have already exposed deep frustration with clerical rule. But asking Iranians to revolt from Washington is very different from Iranians deciding independently to revolt. Every call from an American president or Israeli prime minister risks handing Tehran another propaganda weapon: the argument that dissent is not an indigenous demand for freedom but a foreign-backed attempt to dismantle the Iranian state. And there is another question Washington cannot escape. What happens the morning after? Ted Cruz says the objective should be regime collapse and has argued for giving opponents of Tehran the weapons to achieve it. But collapse is not a political settlement. Iraq should have permanently buried the assumption that removing a hated government automatically produces a stable successor. Saddam Hussein's government was destroyed rapidly. The political, sectarian and security consequences outlived the invasion itself. Iran — with more than 90 million people, powerful security institutions, ethnic and regional fault lines and an enormous strategic footprint — would present an even more consequential challenge. None of this absolves Tehran. The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them. That is precisely why their future cannot simply become another strategic objective written in Washington or Jerusalem. Trump can call for an uprising. Netanyahu can declare regime change within reach. Cruz can advocate putting weapons into Iranian hands. But none of them can manufacture the legitimacy required to govern Iran the day after the Islamic Republic falls. The Verdict America and Israel may have succeeded in changing many of the men who rule Iran. They have not yet changed the system that rules Iran. And perhaps that is the lesson being forgotten amid all the talk of imminent victory. You can bomb a command centre. You can eliminate a commander. You can even decapitate a government. But a revolution belongs to the people who must live with what replaces it. And if Washington and Jerusalem confuse regime destruction with nation-building, Iran could become another brutal reminder that in the Middle East, removing the old order is sometimes the beginning of the war — not the end of it.

The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.

The Verdict | Kill the leaders, save the regime? Why Iran refuses to fall

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has been geography’s trump card in the global energy market. Now, the Trump administration is betting that pipelines, ports and political realignment can dramatically weaken that advantage.The idea is audacious: instead of repeatedly fighting to keep Hormuz open, build enough alternative routes that closing it no longer holds the world economy hostage.US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has put an extraordinary timeline on that ambition. He says that within two years, the Strait could become “irrelevant”, predicting that 50 to 70 percent of energy currently moving through it could eventually travel through underground pipelines instead. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has similarly argued that Iran’s use of Hormuz as a strategic chokepoint has strengthened the case for permanently restructuring regional energy routes.And pieces of that alternative map already exist.Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, or Petroline, carries crude from Abqaiq across the kingdom to Yanbu on the Red Sea. Its capacity has risen to as much as seven million barrels per day, and Riyadh is considering adding another one to two million barrels of capacity. The UAE, meanwhile, has its own route carrying crude from Abu Dhabi to Fujairah, outside Hormuz, and is working to expand that capacity.But perhaps the most geopolitically significant piece of the puzzle runs through Iraq and Syria.Washington is backing plans for new or revived pipeline infrastructure capable of carrying Iraqi crude westwards towards Syria’s Mediterranean coast. A proposed Basra-to-Baniyas corridor could eventually transport around two million barrels per day, giving Iraqi oil a route to global markets without entering Hormuz. Syria, once economically isolated, is consequently pitching itself as a new bridge between Gulf energy producers and the Mediterranean.The strategy would amount to a dramatic rewiring of the Middle East’s energy architecture.Before the Iran war, roughly 15 million barrels of Persian Gulf oil passed through Hormuz every day. Projects now being developed or discussed could provide another 7.3 million barrels per day of bypass capacity by the end of 2028. Analysts estimate that could eventually allow around 60 percent of the Gulf's pre-war oil exports to avoid Hormuz when necessary.Yet making Hormuz less important is very different from making it obsolete.Pipelines cost billions, cross multiple borders and require years of construction. They also create fixed targets vulnerable to missiles, drones and sabotage. Saudi Arabia's Petroline itself was attacked by Houthi drones in 2019. And moving Saudi crude to Yanbu merely introduces another potential chokepoint for Asian-bound cargoes: Bab el-Mandeb, where Houthi attacks have already demonstrated the vulnerability of Red Sea shipping.Then there is LNG.Pipelines carrying crude cannot simply solve Qatar's dependence on maritime LNG exports. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global LNG trade passed through Hormuz, making natural gas one of the biggest obstacles to any claim that the strait can truly become irrelevant.And therein lies the contradiction in Washington's messaging.President Donald Trump only this week floated renaming the waterway the “Trump Strait”, while declaring it under American control. Yet his own administration is simultaneously championing a future in which the same strait matters dramatically less.One message celebrates controlling Hormuz. The other seeks to escape it.The more realistic objective, therefore, may not be to kill the Strait of Hormuz but to kill its monopoly.Saudi Petroline, Fujairah, Baniyas and potentially new corridors through Turkey and Jordan could give Gulf producers something they have historically lacked: options. That would dilute Tehran's ability to turn geography into economic leverage and fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the Gulf.But there is no risk-free route out of the Middle East.Bypassing Hormuz could simply move the danger — from Iranian waters to vulnerable pipelines, from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and from one geopolitical chokepoint to another.Washington may be trying to redraw the world's energy map.Geography, however, has not surrendered yet.

The Trump administration wants to reduce global dependence on the Strait of Hormuz through pipelines and alternative energy routes. Can the strategy work

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has been geography’s trump card in the global energy market. Now, the Trump administration is betting that pipelines, ports and political realignment can dramatically weaken that advantage. The idea is audacious: instead of repeatedly fighting to keep Hormuz open, build enough alternative routes that closing it no longer holds the world economy hostage. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has put an extraordinary timeline on that ambition. He says that within two years, the Strait could become “irrelevant”, predicting that 50 to 70 percent of energy currently moving through it could eventually travel through underground pipelines instead. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has similarly argued that Iran’s use of Hormuz as a strategic chokepoint has strengthened the case for permanently restructuring regional energy routes. And pieces of that alternative map already exist. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, or Petroline, carries crude from Abqaiq across the kingdom to Yanbu on the Red Sea. Its capacity has risen to as much as seven million barrels per day, and Riyadh is considering adding another one to two million barrels of capacity. The UAE, meanwhile, has its own route carrying crude from Abu Dhabi to Fujairah, outside Hormuz, and is working to expand that capacity. But perhaps the most geopolitically significant piece of the puzzle runs through Iraq and Syria. Washington is backing plans for new or revived pipeline infrastructure capable of carrying Iraqi crude westwards towards Syria’s Mediterranean coast. A proposed Basra-to-Baniyas corridor could eventually transport around two million barrels per day, giving Iraqi oil a route to global markets without entering Hormuz. Syria, once economically isolated, is consequently pitching itself as a new bridge between Gulf energy producers and the Mediterranean. The strategy would amount to a dramatic rewiring of the Middle East’s energy architecture. Before the Iran war, roughly 15 million barrels of Persian Gulf oil passed through Hormuz every day. Projects now being developed or discussed could provide another 7.3 million barrels per day of bypass capacity by the end of 2028. Analysts estimate that could eventually allow around 60 percent of the Gulf's pre-war oil exports to avoid Hormuz when necessary. Yet making Hormuz less important is very different from making it obsolete. Pipelines cost billions, cross multiple borders and require years of construction. They also create fixed targets vulnerable to missiles, drones and sabotage. Saudi Arabia's Petroline itself was attacked by Houthi drones in 2019. And moving Saudi crude to Yanbu merely introduces another potential chokepoint for Asian-bound cargoes: Bab el-Mandeb, where Houthi attacks have already demonstrated the vulnerability of Red Sea shipping. Then there is LNG. Pipelines carrying crude cannot simply solve Qatar's dependence on maritime LNG exports. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global LNG trade passed through Hormuz, making natural gas one of the biggest obstacles to any claim that the strait can truly become irrelevant. And therein lies the contradiction in Washington's messaging. President Donald Trump only this week floated renaming the waterway the “Trump Strait”, while declaring it under American control. Yet his own administration is simultaneously championing a future in which the same strait matters dramatically less. One message celebrates controlling Hormuz. The other seeks to escape it. The more realistic objective, therefore, may not be to kill the Strait of Hormuz but to kill its monopoly. Saudi Petroline, Fujairah, Baniyas and potentially new corridors through Turkey and Jordan could give Gulf producers something they have historically lacked: options. That would dilute Tehran's ability to turn geography into economic leverage and fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the Gulf. But there is no risk-free route out of the Middle East. Bypassing Hormuz could simply move the danger — from Iranian waters to vulnerable pipelines, from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and from one geopolitical chokepoint to another. Washington may be trying to redraw the world's energy map. Geography, however, has not surrendered yet.

The Trump administration wants to reduce global dependence on the Strait of Hormuz through pipelines and alternative energy routes. Can the strategy work

Race To Power | Trump’s Hormuz gambit: Can America make the world’s most important oil route obsolete?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Erick Njoka

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.