Donald Trump promised to make America great again. But as the dust settles on America's midterm elections, a more uncomfortable question emerges: has his America First agenda left Washington increasingly isolated on the world stage?&nbsp;From Europe to Asia, Trump's foreign policy has strained longstanding partnerships, disrupted trade relationships and raised questions about America's reliability as a global ally.&nbsp;Across the Atlantic, disagreements over tariffs, defence spending and security commitments have tested relations with European allies. In Asia, trade tensions have complicated Washington's relationships with key partners, including India.&nbsp;Trump's sweeping tariffs, aggressive negotiating tactics and extensive use of executive orders have become defining features of his presidency.&nbsp;Supporters argue these measures protect American interests, strengthen Washington's bargaining position and challenge unfair international arrangements. Critics contend they have damaged diplomatic trust, increased economic uncertainty and weakened America's global standing.&nbsp;Now, with two years remaining in his presidency, Trump faces a different political reality.Democrats have secured sweeping midterm victories, taking control of both chambers of Congress and delivering unexpected defeats to Republicans in traditionally conservative territory.Trump has congratulated Democrats and expressed willingness to cooperate. Yet his warnings about using presidential veto power suggest that confrontation could remain central to Washington's politics.&nbsp;Can Trump rebuild relationships with traditional allies? Will he reconsider his tariff policies and confrontational diplomacy? Or will the remaining years of his presidency bring further political and international disputes?For Democrats, electoral success presents an equally significant challenge.Congressional oversight and accountability are essential democratic responsibilities. But investigations and political battles alone will not address Americans' concerns about prices, employment, healthcare and the cost of living.&nbsp;Democrats will have greater congressional authority, but Trump will retain the presidency and substantial executive powers. Meaningful legislative progress may require compromise between political rivals.&nbsp;The election has changed Washington's balance of power. It has not automatically resolved America's domestic or international challenges.&nbsp;Trump must decide whether to pursue cooperation or confrontation. Democrats must demonstrate that winning power is not the same as using it.Will the next two years be spent repairing relationships and solving problems, or fighting another round of political battles?That's The Verdict.

President Trump's sweeping tariffs, aggressive negotiating tactics and extensive use of executive orders became defining features of his presidency. These measures protect US interests and strengthen bargaining position but have damaged diplomatic trust and increased economic uncertainty.

Donald Trump promised to make America great again. But as the dust settles on America's midterm elections, a more uncomfortable question emerges: has his America First agenda left Washington increasingly isolated on the world stage? From Europe to Asia, Trump's foreign policy has strained longstanding partnerships, disrupted trade relationships and raised questions about America's reliability as a global ally. Across the Atlantic, disagreements over tariffs, defence spending and security commitments have tested relations with European allies. In Asia, trade tensions have complicated Washington's relationships with key partners, including India. Trump's sweeping tariffs, aggressive negotiating tactics and extensive use of executive orders have become defining features of his presidency. Supporters argue these measures protect American interests, strengthen Washington's bargaining position and challenge unfair international arrangements. Critics contend they have damaged diplomatic trust, increased economic uncertainty and weakened America's global standing. Now, with two years remaining in his presidency, Trump faces a different political reality. Democrats have secured sweeping midterm victories, taking control of both chambers of Congress and delivering unexpected defeats to Republicans in traditionally conservative territory. Trump has congratulated Democrats and expressed willingness to cooperate. Yet his warnings about using presidential veto power suggest that confrontation could remain central to Washington's politics. Can Trump rebuild relationships with traditional allies? Will he reconsider his tariff policies and confrontational diplomacy? Or will the remaining years of his presidency bring further political and international disputes? For Democrats, electoral success presents an equally significant challenge. Congressional oversight and accountability are essential democratic responsibilities. But investigations and political battles alone will not address Americans' concerns about prices, employment, healthcare and the cost of living. Democrats will have greater congressional authority, but Trump will retain the presidency and substantial executive powers. Meaningful legislative progress may require compromise between political rivals. The election has changed Washington's balance of power. It has not automatically resolved America's domestic or international challenges. Trump must decide whether to pursue cooperation or confrontation. Democrats must demonstrate that winning power is not the same as using it. Will the next two years be spent repairing relationships and solving problems, or fighting another round of political battles? That's The Verdict.

President Trump's sweeping tariffs, aggressive negotiating tactics and extensive use of executive orders became defining features of his presidency. These measures protect US interests and strengthen bargaining position but have damaged diplomatic trust and increased economic uncertainty.

The Verdict | Trump’s final two years: Can he repair America’s fractured global relationships?

Donald Trump is not on the ballot in America's midterm elections. But his presidency, political influence and ability to govern during his final two years are very much at stake.As Americans vote, Trump faces a historical pattern that has challenged presidents for generations: the party controlling the White House usually loses seats in the House of Representatives during midterm elections.Trump himself has acknowledged that history. There have been notable exceptions, including Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002, when their parties gained House seats. But such outcomes remain rare.&nbsp;Now, the Republican president faces his own electoral test.A Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on November 2 puts Trump's approval rating at 32 percent. Democrats lead Republicans by 46 to 38 percent among registered voters in a nationwide congressional preference survey.Economic concerns are central to the contest.&nbsp;Some 78 percent of voters surveyed said the rising cost of living was a very important or their most important voting issue. Higher fuel prices, household expenses and the economic consequences of the Iran war have intensified the debate over the administration's policies.&nbsp;Trump has defended his economic record, while Democrats argue that Americans need a change in congressional leadership.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The consequences of losing control of Congress could be significant.A Democratic-controlled House could launch investigations, challenge administration priorities and obstruct legislation. A Democratic Senate could create additional obstacles for presidential appointments.Trump has already acknowledged the possibility of becoming "Mr Veto" if Democrats take control, suggesting he could block legislation before negotiating compromises. But would that make him a lame-duck president?Not necessarily. Presidents retain substantial executive authority even when the opposition controls Congress. And while national polling offers a picture of voter sentiment, individual congressional contests will determine the outcome.Republicans are fighting to retain their majorities, and nothing has been decided.Still, the underlying question remains. Trump has spent years challenging political expectations.Can he defy the presidential midterm curse, or will America's voters deliver a Congress that places new limits on his final two years in office?That’s The Verdict.

The consequences of losing control of Congress could be significant.

A Democratic-controlled House could launch investigations, challenge administration priorities and obstruct legislation. A Democratic Senate could create additional obstacles for presidential appointments.

Donald Trump is not on the ballot in America's midterm elections. But his presidency, political influence and ability to govern during his final two years are very much at stake. As Americans vote, Trump faces a historical pattern that has challenged presidents for generations: the party controlling the White House usually loses seats in the House of Representatives during midterm elections. Trump himself has acknowledged that history. There have been notable exceptions, including Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002, when their parties gained House seats. But such outcomes remain rare. Now, the Republican president faces his own electoral test. A Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on November 2 puts Trump's approval rating at 32 percent. Democrats lead Republicans by 46 to 38 percent among registered voters in a nationwide congressional preference survey. Economic concerns are central to the contest. Some 78 percent of voters surveyed said the rising cost of living was a very important or their most important voting issue. Higher fuel prices, household expenses and the economic consequences of the Iran war have intensified the debate over the administration's policies. Trump has defended his economic record, while Democrats argue that Americans need a change in congressional leadership.

The consequences of losing control of Congress could be significant. A Democratic-controlled House could launch investigations, challenge administration priorities and obstruct legislation. A Democratic Senate could create additional obstacles for presidential appointments.

The Verdict | Trump vs the presidential midterm curse: Will Congress limit his power?

A scoop of ice cream should hardly become an international controversy. Yet footage of Vladimir Putin offering frozen treats to African delegation leaders in Moscow has opened an uncomfortable debate about power, dignity and diplomatic results.&nbsp;Kenyan reporting documented criticism of the scene, including the appearance of President William Ruto. Some viewers saw leaders being diminished by the optics. Others saw ordinary hospitality and an exaggerated reaction.Accepting ice cream does not establish subservience. A short video cannot explain an entire diplomatic relationship. But citizens are entitled to scrutinise how their leaders represent them.The more consequential question is what those leaders secured.&nbsp;Moscow hosted the third Russia–Africa summit on October 28–29, following gatherings in 2019 and 2023. Ministerial meetings between summits have helped build a continuing diplomatic structure. This is sustained outreach, with ambitions extending well beyond ceremonial hospitality.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Russia wants stronger commercial relationships and greater strategic influence. Its engagement with African governments also helps counter Western efforts to isolate Moscow over the war in Ukraine. African countries have their own reasons to engage: food supplies, energy, investment, technology and a wider choice of international partners. Their attendance should not be mistaken for automatic alignment with the Kremlin.However, diversification only strengthens sovereignty when governments negotiate effectively and remain accountable. Putin presents Russia as an alternative to Western domination. That claim deserves scrutiny through published agreements, viable financing and measurable benefits for the countries involved.How many local jobs will projects create? What obligations will governments assume? Who monitors implementation? When should citizens expect delivery?Those questions should follow every summit, regardless of the host. The controversy offers African leaders an opportunity to move the conversation from appearances to evidence. Publish the terms. Explain the trade-offs. Report the results.Putin can be expected to pursue Russia’s interests. African citizens should expect their leaders to pursue theirs with equal determination.Enjoy the ice cream. Then show the public the deal.

The controversy offers African leaders an opportunity to move the conversation from appearances to evidence. Publish the terms. Explain the trade-offs. Report the results. Putin can be expected to pursue Russia’s interests. African citizens expect their leaders to pursue theirs.

A scoop of ice cream should hardly become an international controversy. Yet footage of Vladimir Putin offering frozen treats to African delegation leaders in Moscow has opened an uncomfortable debate about power, dignity and diplomatic results. Kenyan reporting documented criticism of the scene, including the appearance of President William Ruto. Some viewers saw leaders being diminished by the optics. Others saw ordinary hospitality and an exaggerated reaction. Accepting ice cream does not establish subservience. A short video cannot explain an entire diplomatic relationship. But citizens are entitled to scrutinise how their leaders represent them. The more consequential question is what those leaders secured. Moscow hosted the third Russia–Africa summit on October 28–29, following gatherings in 2019 and 2023. Ministerial meetings between summits have helped build a continuing diplomatic structure. This is sustained outreach, with ambitions extending well beyond ceremonial hospitality.

The controversy offers African leaders an opportunity to move the conversation from appearances to evidence. Publish the terms. Explain the trade-offs. Report the results. Putin can be expected to pursue Russia’s interests. African citizens expect their leaders to pursue theirs.

The Verdict | Putin’s ice cream diplomacy: Africa deserves more than a photo opportunity

Israel has voted. Benjamin Netanyahu has survived another election. But the country's political future remains deeply uncertain.The final count from Tuesday's parliamentary election has delivered a fragmented Knesset, with Netanyahu's right-wing bloc securing 53 seats, eight short of the 61 required for a majority.Gadi Eisenkot's opposition bloc has 48 seats, while Arab-led parties have made historic gains, securing 19.The arithmetic is straightforward. The politics are anything but.Netanyahu's Likud remains the largest individual party, but his existing coalition no longer commands a parliamentary majority.And that raises an uncomfortable question: can Israel's longest-serving prime minister build another government without abandoning some of his political allies or persuading his rivals to join him?The unprecedented showing by Arab-led parties has complicated that calculation.Their parliamentary strength could provide the opposition with a path to power. But cooperation between Jewish opposition parties and Arab-led factions remains politically contentious.Netanyahu has warned against such an arrangement, while his critics accuse him of attempting to delegitimise Arab political participation.Meanwhile, allegations of election interference have further inflamed tensions. Israeli election authorities have stressed that the ongoing investigation does not affect the final vote count.President Isaac Herzog must now oversee consultations aimed at identifying a candidate capable of forming a government.A unity government, an opposition arrangement supported by Arab parties, or prolonged negotiations ending in another election all remain possible.The implications extend beyond Israel. Gaza's future, tensions with Iran, relations with Washington and the broader regional security landscape could all be affected by the direction of Israel's next government.For Netanyahu, remaining in office is not the same as securing another governing mandate. For Eisenkot, opposing Netanyahu is easier than assembling a workable coalition. And for Arab-led parties, historic electoral representation has created an opportunity whose political consequences remain uncertain.Israel's voters have delivered their decision. Now its political leaders must determine whether they can translate that decision into a government. Because winning an election is one thing. Governing a divided country is quite another.

Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc falls short of a majority with 53 seats as Arab-led parties secure 19 in a fragmented Knesset, leaving Israel's next government uncertain.

Israel has voted. Benjamin Netanyahu has survived another election. But the country's political future remains deeply uncertain. The final count from Tuesday's parliamentary election has delivered a fragmented Knesset, with Netanyahu's right-wing bloc securing 53 seats, eight short of the 61 required for a majority. Gadi Eisenkot's opposition bloc has 48 seats, while Arab-led parties have made historic gains, securing 19. The arithmetic is straightforward. The politics are anything but. Netanyahu's Likud remains the largest individual party, but his existing coalition no longer commands a parliamentary majority. And that raises an uncomfortable question: can Israel's longest-serving prime minister build another government without abandoning some of his political allies or persuading his rivals to join him? The unprecedented showing by Arab-led parties has complicated that calculation. Their parliamentary strength could provide the opposition with a path to power. But cooperation between Jewish opposition parties and Arab-led factions remains politically contentious. Netanyahu has warned against such an arrangement, while his critics accuse him of attempting to delegitimise Arab political participation. Meanwhile, allegations of election interference have further inflamed tensions. Israeli election authorities have stressed that the ongoing investigation does not affect the final vote count. President Isaac Herzog must now oversee consultations aimed at identifying a candidate capable of forming a government. A unity government, an opposition arrangement supported by Arab parties, or prolonged negotiations ending in another election all remain possible. The implications extend beyond Israel. Gaza's future, tensions with Iran, relations with Washington and the broader regional security landscape could all be affected by the direction of Israel's next government. For Netanyahu, remaining in office is not the same as securing another governing mandate. For Eisenkot, opposing Netanyahu is easier than assembling a workable coalition. And for Arab-led parties, historic electoral representation has created an opportunity whose political consequences remain uncertain. Israel's voters have delivered their decision. Now its political leaders must determine whether they can translate that decision into a government. Because winning an election is one thing. Governing a divided country is quite another.

Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc falls short of a majority with 53 seats as Arab-led parties secure 19 in a fragmented Knesset, leaving Israel's next government uncertain.

Israel voted, Netanyahu survived, but who really won? | The Verdict

Vote chori seems to be the flavour of the election season, not just in India, but globally.&nbsp;PM Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Arab parties of stealing elections. In fact, Israel's election head has asked the intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to probe suspected Qatari influence on the voting.&nbsp;His friend, President Trump, is also claiming vote theft, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3. He says the Democrats are manipulating voters and stealing votes to ensure that his Republican Party loses the crucial polls.&nbsp;But that's not all. Just a few miles away, Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro, who lost the recently held elections to&nbsp;President Lula, has accused him of vote theft in the last few hours of voting. and he didn't stop here. He fled Brazil, reached America and declared himself the president-elect of Brazil.&nbsp;&nbsp;

So essentially, all those who lost or fear losing elections are claiming vote theft.But here's the important point: when election results come out, the winner says, “The people have spoken!” The loser claims "vote theft". And the citizen says, “Excuse me, I voted for better roads. Can somebody please get me those?" On a more serious note, an allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence.If votes have been manipulated, investigate, establish the facts, and punish those who are responsible...and if the allegations are false, expose the falsehood with evidence.Citizens must never lose trust in the democratic process. Here in India, or in Israel, or Brazil, or the United States. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat and make amends. Let the winners ensure that probes reach their logical conclusion. The ballot must be protected because the citizen must never become the casualty of political warfare.

An allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat.

Vote chori seems to be the flavour of the election season, not just in India, but globally. PM Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Arab parties of stealing elections. In fact, Israel's election head has asked the intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to probe suspected Qatari influence on the voting. His friend, President Trump, is also claiming vote theft, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3. He says the Democrats are manipulating voters and stealing votes to ensure that his Republican Party loses the crucial polls. But that's not all. Just a few miles away, Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro, who lost the recently held elections to President Lula, has accused him of vote theft in the last few hours of voting. and he didn't stop here. He fled Brazil, reached America and declared himself the president-elect of Brazil.

An allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat.

The Verdict | Vote Chori goes global: From India to Israel, Brazil and the US

When the United States and Cuba clash at the United Nations, it's not just a fight of a few minutes. It’s a conflict spanning generations.&nbsp;The United States speaks of democracy, freedom and human rights. But when it comes to Cuba, Washington has spent decades enforcing an economic embargo that has hurt ordinary Cubans, restricted economic opportunities, and deepened the suffering of an already struggling people.&nbsp;However, remember Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;America has the greater economic and diplomatic power. With that power comes greater responsibility...and Cuba has every right to demand sovereignty and oppose external pressure.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the United States must be held accountable for the consequences of its policies, Cuba must be held accountable for the treatment of its people.&nbsp;International law cannot be a weapon used against enemies and ignored when it becomes inconvenient.Ordinary people continue to pay the price while powerful governments fight over ideology and influence.And so, if civilians suffer while leaders score political points, the world must ask a very pertinent question - who exactly is winning?

Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.

When the United States and Cuba clash at the United Nations, it's not just a fight of a few minutes. It’s a conflict spanning generations. The United States speaks of democracy, freedom and human rights. But when it comes to Cuba, Washington has spent decades enforcing an economic embargo that has hurt ordinary Cubans, restricted economic opportunities, and deepened the suffering of an already struggling people. However, remember Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic. https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed America has the greater economic and diplomatic power. With that power comes greater responsibility...and Cuba has every right to demand sovereignty and oppose external pressure. If the United States must be held accountable for the consequences of its policies, Cuba must be held accountable for the treatment of its people. International law cannot be a weapon used against enemies and ignored when it becomes inconvenient. Ordinary people continue to pay the price while powerful governments fight over ideology and influence. And so, if civilians suffer while leaders score political points, the world must ask a very pertinent question - who exactly is winning?

Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.

The Verdict | US-Cuba clash: Who is winning while civilians suffer?

If there were a movie made on comebacks, Lula da Silva would be the plot twist nobody expected.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s fourth presidential victory is more than a historic personal comeback. It is a major political moment for Brazil, for Latin America, and for Donald Trump’s ambitions in the region.President Lula made this election about people’s everyday lives: poverty, social welfare, jobs, and the cost of living. His record on reducing hunger and unemployment in Brazil gave him a good position from which he could pitch to voters. His campaign mobilised massive numbers of supporters after he lost round one. Lula was a man who hadn't taken to the digital world, yet he flashed a smartphone at his rallies and used social media to reach out to Gen Z voters.But apart from this, Lula turned American pressure into a defence of Brazilian sovereignty. He was crystal clear in his message: Brazil would choose its own path. Whether in governance or building AI, Lula's before- and after-poll speeches emphasised self-reliance. At a time when leaders across the world have been trying to figure out how to respond to Trump's pressures and bullying, President Lula stood up to him and came across to Brazilians as a man with a spine. A lesson, perhaps, in international politics.But critics and Flavio Bolsonaro question Lula's victory and accuse him of voter manipulation. His supporters attribute his win to his past policies, stance against President Donald Trump, and his team's efforts to reach out to the last voter in line.For Latin America, Lula’s victory reinstates the left wing's position in Brazil and disrupts Trump's plan of implementing the Monroe Doctrine. International endorsements and economic pressure cannot simply substitute for domestic voter support. In fact, on the contrary, support from outside the country can backfire, as has been the case for Flavio Bolsonaro. Once again, a lesson in international politics.For now, the real test is whether President Lula can turn this dramatic comeback into results for the millions of Brazilians who voted for him and reinstated their faith in him for a fourth time.

Lula da Silva’s historic fourth-term victory strengthens Brazil’s left, challenges Trump’s ambitions in Latin America and puts sovereignty at the centre of regional politics.

If there were a movie made on comebacks, Lula da Silva would be the plot twist nobody expected. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s fourth presidential victory is more than a historic personal comeback. It is a major political moment for Brazil, for Latin America, and for Donald Trump’s ambitions in the region. President Lula made this election about people’s everyday lives: poverty, social welfare, jobs, and the cost of living. His record on reducing hunger and unemployment in Brazil gave him a good position from which he could pitch to voters. His campaign mobilised massive numbers of supporters after he lost round one. Lula was a man who hadn't taken to the digital world, yet he flashed a smartphone at his rallies and used social media to reach out to Gen Z voters. But apart from this, Lula turned American pressure into a defence of Brazilian sovereignty. He was crystal clear in his message: Brazil would choose its own path. Whether in governance or building AI, Lula's before- and after-poll speeches emphasised self-reliance. At a time when leaders across the world have been trying to figure out how to respond to Trump's pressures and bullying, President Lula stood up to him and came across to Brazilians as a man with a spine. A lesson, perhaps, in international politics. But critics and Flavio Bolsonaro question Lula's victory and accuse him of voter manipulation. His supporters attribute his win to his past policies, stance against President Donald Trump, and his team's efforts to reach out to the last voter in line. For Latin America, Lula’s victory reinstates the left wing's position in Brazil and disrupts Trump's plan of implementing the Monroe Doctrine. International endorsements and economic pressure cannot simply substitute for domestic voter support. In fact, on the contrary, support from outside the country can backfire, as has been the case for Flavio Bolsonaro. Once again, a lesson in international politics. For now, the real test is whether President Lula can turn this dramatic comeback into results for the millions of Brazilians who voted for him and reinstated their faith in him for a fourth time.

Lula da Silva’s historic fourth-term victory strengthens Brazil’s left, challenges Trump’s ambitions in Latin America and puts sovereignty at the centre of regional politics.

Lula’s 4th presidential victory a blow to Trump’s ambitions in Latin America | The Verdict

France is preparing for another weekend of mass demonstrations, but the confrontation unfolding on its streets raises a question far greater than public order: how far can a democratic government go to restore calm without undermining the freedoms it is supposed to protect? President Emmanuel Macron's government is mobilising approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes ahead of Saturday's demonstrations, following widespread violence, looting and vandalism during last weekend's protests. Restrictions on demonstrations, curfews and heightened security measures have become central to the government's response. Macron has accused organised ultra-left groups of exploiting legitimate demonstrations to provoke violence and destabilise the French Republic. There is little dispute that the violence requires a firm response. Businesses have been vandalised, public property damaged and communities left fearful of further unrest. But an important distinction must not disappear amid the destruction. The right to protest is not the right to riot. Equally, the existence of rioters does not invalidate the right to protest. France's demonstrations have been driven by genuine economic and social grievances. Rising energy costs, mounting household expenses, concerns about public services and frustration among young people have contributed to the mobilisation.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-s-unrest-raises-a-fundamental-question-about-democracy-and-the-limits-of-state-power-1792772470237/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-s-unrest-raises-a-fundamental-question-about-democracy-and-the-limits-of-state-power-1792772470237/embed</a>These problems cannot be resolved through policing alone. The government's responsibility is twofold: prevent violence while protecting peaceful political expression. Whether its restrictions strike that balance is now a central question. The controversy has also crossed the Atlantic. US President Donald Trump has blamed migrants and extremist groups for France's unrest, promoting an explanation that has not been substantiated by available evidence. Macron has pushed back, accusing foreign leaders of exploiting France's difficulties for their own political campaigns. That exchange illustrates how domestic unrest can become a convenient instrument in international political messaging. For Trump, the French crisis has become part of a broader debate over immigration and security. For Macron, it presents an immediate challenge involving public confidence, political authority and constitutional freedoms. Yet neither political messaging nor an overwhelming security presence can substitute for addressing the underlying grievances. France's authorities must protect lives, businesses and public institutions. Those responsible for violence should face appropriate legal consequences. But the country's response must also preserve the distinction between peaceful demonstrators and those responsible for criminal acts. The coming demonstrations will test the government's ability to uphold both responsibilities. Because the ultimate measure of a democracy is not the absence of public anger. It is whether citizens can express that anger peacefully, freely and without fear of unjustified punishment. And that is The Verdict.

France's demonstrations have been driven by genuine economic and social grievances. Rising energy costs, mounting household expenses, concerns about public services and frustration among young people have contributed to the mobilisation.

France is preparing for another weekend of mass demonstrations, but the confrontation unfolding on its streets raises a question far greater than public order: how far can a democratic government go to restore calm without undermining the freedoms it is supposed to protect? President Emmanuel Macron's government is mobilising approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes ahead of Saturday's demonstrations, following widespread violence, looting and vandalism during last weekend's protests. Restrictions on demonstrations, curfews and heightened security measures have become central to the government's response. Macron has accused organised ultra-left groups of exploiting legitimate demonstrations to provoke violence and destabilise the French Republic. There is little dispute that the violence requires a firm response. Businesses have been vandalised, public property damaged and communities left fearful of further unrest. But an important distinction must not disappear amid the destruction. The right to protest is not the right to riot. Equally, the existence of rioters does not invalidate the right to protest. France's demonstrations have been driven by genuine economic and social grievances. Rising energy costs, mounting household expenses, concerns about public services and frustration among young people have contributed to the mobilisation. https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-s-unrest-raises-a-fundamental-question-about-democracy-and-the-limits-of-state-power-1792772470237/embed These problems cannot be resolved through policing alone. The government's responsibility is twofold: prevent violence while protecting peaceful political expression. Whether its restrictions strike that balance is now a central question. The controversy has also crossed the Atlantic. US President Donald Trump has blamed migrants and extremist groups for France's unrest, promoting an explanation that has not been substantiated by available evidence. Macron has pushed back, accusing foreign leaders of exploiting France's difficulties for their own political campaigns. That exchange illustrates how domestic unrest can become a convenient instrument in international political messaging. For Trump, the French crisis has become part of a broader debate over immigration and security. For Macron, it presents an immediate challenge involving public confidence, political authority and constitutional freedoms. Yet neither political messaging nor an overwhelming security presence can substitute for addressing the underlying grievances. France's authorities must protect lives, businesses and public institutions. Those responsible for violence should face appropriate legal consequences. But the country's response must also preserve the distinction between peaceful demonstrators and those responsible for criminal acts. The coming demonstrations will test the government's ability to uphold both responsibilities. Because the ultimate measure of a democracy is not the absence of public anger. It is whether citizens can express that anger peacefully, freely and without fear of unjustified punishment. And that is The Verdict.

France's demonstrations have been driven by genuine economic and social grievances. Rising energy costs, mounting household expenses, concerns about public services and frustration among young people have contributed to the mobilisation.

The Verdict | France's protest crackdown: When protecting democracy risks restricting it

With Israel's election approaching, contrasting statements from the American president and vice president have sparked questions about foreign political endorsements and Washington's relationship with its closest Middle Eastern ally.US President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the country's October 27 parliamentary election.&nbsp;In a lengthy statement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a strong wartime leader and an important partner in confronting Iran, offering what he described as his complete and total endorsement.But the endorsement went beyond ordinary political praise.&nbsp;Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran.The statement has raised questions about the extent to which an American president should involve himself in another country's democratic process.&nbsp;Then came a contrasting response from Vice President JD Vance.Asked whether he would endorse Netanyahu, Vance declined, explaining that his political focus was on American candidates ahead of the November midterm elections.He clarified that his position should not be interpreted as opposition to Netanyahu.Nevertheless, his explanation has attracted scrutiny because Vance previously campaigned for Viktor Orbán in Hungary.&nbsp;The vice president has also expressed reservations about aspects of Israel's approach to Iran, arguing that American foreign policy must remain focused on US national interests.These developments do not necessarily establish a fundamental disagreement between Trump and Vance over Israel's security.They do, however, reveal contrasting approaches to political endorsements and the boundaries of American involvement in foreign elections.For Netanyahu, Trump's support arrives at a politically sensitive moment.Israel's election follows years of regional conflict, with voters divided over national security, governance and the country's future direction.&nbsp;Trump's endorsement may energise some Netanyahu supporters, but analysts caution that its broader electoral impact remains uncertain.There is also a wider diplomatic question.Can Washington maintain a close strategic partnership with Israel while remaining neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose?And should expressions of support for a foreign candidate be linked to expectations about American military commitments?The contrasting statements from Trump and Vance have brought those questions into sharper focus.Ultimately, the outcome of Israel's election will be determined by Israeli voters and the coalition negotiations that follow — not by an endorsement from Washington.

President Donald Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Benjamin Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. Now, the question arises whether Washington can remain neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose.

With Israel's election approaching, contrasting statements from the American president and vice president have sparked questions about foreign political endorsements and Washington's relationship with its closest Middle Eastern ally. US President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the country's October 27 parliamentary election. In a lengthy statement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a strong wartime leader and an important partner in confronting Iran, offering what he described as his complete and total endorsement. But the endorsement went beyond ordinary political praise. Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. The statement has raised questions about the extent to which an American president should involve himself in another country's democratic process. Then came a contrasting response from Vice President JD Vance. Asked whether he would endorse Netanyahu, Vance declined, explaining that his political focus was on American candidates ahead of the November midterm elections. He clarified that his position should not be interpreted as opposition to Netanyahu. Nevertheless, his explanation has attracted scrutiny because Vance previously campaigned for Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The vice president has also expressed reservations about aspects of Israel's approach to Iran, arguing that American foreign policy must remain focused on US national interests. These developments do not necessarily establish a fundamental disagreement between Trump and Vance over Israel's security. They do, however, reveal contrasting approaches to political endorsements and the boundaries of American involvement in foreign elections. For Netanyahu, Trump's support arrives at a politically sensitive moment. Israel's election follows years of regional conflict, with voters divided over national security, governance and the country's future direction. Trump's endorsement may energise some Netanyahu supporters, but analysts caution that its broader electoral impact remains uncertain. There is also a wider diplomatic question. Can Washington maintain a close strategic partnership with Israel while remaining neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose? And should expressions of support for a foreign candidate be linked to expectations about American military commitments? The contrasting statements from Trump and Vance have brought those questions into sharper focus. Ultimately, the outcome of Israel's election will be determined by Israeli voters and the coalition negotiations that follow — not by an endorsement from Washington.

President Donald Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Benjamin Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. Now, the question arises whether Washington can remain neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose.

The Verdict | Trump endorses Netanyahu, but JD Vance declines to follow: A difference of principle or politics?

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu on Monday instructed regional authorities to impose limited and localised curfews in areas affected by the unrest, as the government scrambled to prevent further violence.Speaking after an emergency meeting with senior officials, Lecornu said it was a miracle that nobody had been killed during Saturday's extensive violence.More than 2,400 people were arrested, while hundreds of businesses were looted or vandalised as demonstrations over rising living costs, deteriorating public services and conditions in schools descended into some of France's worst urban violence in recent years.<h2>Macron rejects interior minister's resignation</h2>The crisis has exposed serious shortcomings in France's security response.Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez offered his resignation after acknowledging that authorities had lost control in parts of several major cities despite deploying approximately 60,000 police officers and other security personnel.President Emmanuel Macron rejected the offer, instead instructing Nuñez to investigate failures in intelligence gathering and security planning and introduce new policing tactics.The mayors of Paris, Marseille and Lyon have also demanded answers from the government, accusing authorities of leaving large sections of their cities inadequately protected.In a joint intervention, the mayors described the scale of the violence as unprecedented in their experience and called for urgent action to restore public confidence.<h2>Luxury stores looted, historic buildings torched</h2>Scenes of destruction unfolded across France as masked rioters attacked public buildings, set vehicles ablaze and ransacked commercial establishments.In the central city of Limoges, the historic 19th-century City Hall was almost completely destroyed by fire, with its roof collapsing.Paris witnessed extensive vandalism, with an estimated 300 to 400 businesses damaged during the weekend.Luxury shopping districts were among the worst affected. Boutiques belonging to Dior, Rolex, Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Ralph Lauren suffered damage, while other high-end stores were also targeted by looters.In Marseille, rioters ransacked the official store of football club Olympique de Marseille, while municipal buildings were also attacked.The violence extended to Lyon, Bordeaux and several other cities, with police using tear gas and other crowd-control measures during confrontations.<h2>Macron blames radical far left</h2>Addressing the nation on Sunday before departing for a Gulf tour, Macron condemned the destruction and accused radical far-left activists and criminal groups of exploiting otherwise legitimate demonstrations.The French president distinguished between peaceful protesters expressing economic grievances and those responsible for violence, promising accountability for attacks on businesses, public buildings and security personnel.His remarks came amid mounting criticism of the government's handling of the crisis, with political opponents questioning why authorities failed to anticipate the scale of the disorder.<h2>Trump blames immigration for French turmoil</h2>The unrest has also triggered an international political debate, with U.S. President Donald Trump using social media to link the violence to immigration.In two recent interventions, Trump portrayed the turmoil as evidence of France's migration problems, claimed migrants had taken over and urged French authorities to close the country's borders.However, the demonstrations were organised primarily around rising living costs, deteriorating education conditions and concerns over public services.French authorities have blamed much of the rioting on radical far-left activists and opportunistic looters. There is no established evidence that immigration was the cause of the nationwide protest movement.Trump's remarks have nevertheless added an international dimension to the debate over immigration, public security and political instability in Europe.<h2>Fresh protests planned as Macron faces mounting pressure</h2>Despite the government's security measures, demonstrations continued on Monday, with protesters blocking access to the Louvre museum and staging gatherings at Sciences Po university in Paris.French unions have called for another round of nationwide strikes and demonstrations on November 5, raising the prospect of further disruption.The unrest comes approximately six months before France's presidential election and at a particularly difficult moment for Macron's government, which is grappling with mounting public debt, budget pressures and growing dissatisfaction over living costs.Macron, meanwhile, has travelled to the Gulf seeking additional petrol and diesel supplies to ease pressure on domestic fuel prices.With damaged businesses demanding assistance, local authorities seeking accountability and protesters planning further action, France's government faces two immediate challenges: restoring public order and addressing the economic grievances that sparked the demonstrations.The coming weeks will test whether the government's security response can contain the violence without deepening public resentment or undermining the right to peaceful protest.

Democrat David Crowley holds a narrow polling lead over Republican Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin's closely contested governor race, with affordability, crime and Trump's popularity shaping the campaign.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu on Monday instructed regional authorities to impose limited and localised curfews in areas affected by the unrest, as the government scrambled to prevent further violence. Speaking after an emergency meeting with senior officials, Lecornu said it was a miracle that nobody had been killed during Saturday's extensive violence. More than 2,400 people were arrested, while hundreds of businesses were looted or vandalised as demonstrations over rising living costs, deteriorating public services and conditions in schools descended into some of France's worst urban violence in recent years. Macron rejects interior minister's resignation The crisis has exposed serious shortcomings in France's security response. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez offered his resignation after acknowledging that authorities had lost control in parts of several major cities despite deploying approximately 60,000 police officers and other security personnel. President Emmanuel Macron rejected the offer, instead instructing Nuñez to investigate failures in intelligence gathering and security planning and introduce new policing tactics. The mayors of Paris, Marseille and Lyon have also demanded answers from the government, accusing authorities of leaving large sections of their cities inadequately protected. In a joint intervention, the mayors described the scale of the violence as unprecedented in their experience and called for urgent action to restore public confidence. Luxury stores looted, historic buildings torched Scenes of destruction unfolded across France as masked rioters attacked public buildings, set vehicles ablaze and ransacked commercial establishments. In the central city of Limoges, the historic 19th-century City Hall was almost completely destroyed by fire, with its roof collapsing. Paris witnessed extensive vandalism, with an estimated 300 to 400 businesses damaged during the weekend. Luxury shopping districts were among the worst affected. Boutiques belonging to Dior, Rolex, Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Ralph Lauren suffered damage, while other high-end stores were also targeted by looters. In Marseille, rioters ransacked the official store of football club Olympique de Marseille, while municipal buildings were also attacked. The violence extended to Lyon, Bordeaux and several other cities, with police using tear gas and other crowd-control measures during confrontations. Macron blames radical far left Addressing the nation on Sunday before departing for a Gulf tour, Macron condemned the destruction and accused radical far-left activists and criminal groups of exploiting otherwise legitimate demonstrations. The French president distinguished between peaceful protesters expressing economic grievances and those responsible for violence, promising accountability for attacks on businesses, public buildings and security personnel. His remarks came amid mounting criticism of the government's handling of the crisis, with political opponents questioning why authorities failed to anticipate the scale of the disorder. Trump blames immigration for French turmoil The unrest has also triggered an international political debate, with U.S. President Donald Trump using social media to link the violence to immigration. In two recent interventions, Trump portrayed the turmoil as evidence of France's migration problems, claimed migrants had taken over and urged French authorities to close the country's borders. However, the demonstrations were organised primarily around rising living costs, deteriorating education conditions and concerns over public services. French authorities have blamed much of the rioting on radical far-left activists and opportunistic looters. There is no established evidence that immigration was the cause of the nationwide protest movement. Trump's remarks have nevertheless added an international dimension to the debate over immigration, public security and political instability in Europe. Fresh protests planned as Macron faces mounting pressure Despite the government's security measures, demonstrations continued on Monday, with protesters blocking access to the Louvre museum and staging gatherings at Sciences Po university in Paris. French unions have called for another round of nationwide strikes and demonstrations on November 5, raising the prospect of further disruption. The unrest comes approximately six months before France's presidential election and at a particularly difficult moment for Macron's government, which is grappling with mounting public debt, budget pressures and growing dissatisfaction over living costs. Macron, meanwhile, has travelled to the Gulf seeking additional petrol and diesel supplies to ease pressure on domestic fuel prices. With damaged businesses demanding assistance, local authorities seeking accountability and protesters planning further action, France's government faces two immediate challenges: restoring public order and addressing the economic grievances that sparked the demonstrations. The coming weeks will test whether the government's security response can contain the violence without deepening public resentment or undermining the right to peaceful protest.

France is facing a deepening political and security crisis after a weekend of violent protests, widespread looting and arson left several cities devastated, prompting the government to call for targeted curfews and an urgent review of policing failures.

France unrest: PM calls for curfews as riots engulf cities, Macron blames far left and Trump targets migrants | RTP

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities.India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement.On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting.Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational.The announcement represents a significant change in tone.Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions.Now, the two governments are signalling progress.But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive?&nbsp;<h2>The tariff battle</h2>&nbsp;At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access.Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India.New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports.American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions.Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment.A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment.But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments.&nbsp;<h2>The Russian oil contradiction</h2>&nbsp;Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations.Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel.Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel.However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ.The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi.So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed.That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue.&nbsp;<h2>Strategic autonomy meets economic reality</h2>&nbsp;For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs.New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner.The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets.Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests.China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates.Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward.A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position.But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy.For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships.For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests.Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text.&nbsp;<h2>Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test</h2>&nbsp;US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan.His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership.The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement.But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement.Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps.Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership.Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains.Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations.Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market?Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need?Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices?And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking?Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit.Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits.The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities. India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement. On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational. The announcement represents a significant change in tone. Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions. Now, the two governments are signalling progress. But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive? The tariff battle At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access. Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India. New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports. American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions. Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment. A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment. But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments. The Russian oil contradiction Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations. Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security. The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel. Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel. However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ. The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi. So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed. That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue. Strategic autonomy meets economic reality For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs. New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner. The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets. Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests. China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates. Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward. A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position. But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy. For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships. For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests. Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text. Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan. His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership. The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement. But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement. Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps. Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation. The Verdict India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership. Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains. Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations. Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market? Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need? Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices? And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking? Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit. Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits. The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and the price of a deal: Is India finally getting a fair bargain?

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create.India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging.Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday.The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series.The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers.&nbsp;<h2>The energy shock behind the numbers</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices.Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets.The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies.India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude.A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector.It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food.In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>When wholesale pressure reaches households</h2>&nbsp;Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy.The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households.That distinction matters.An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases.Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices.India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent.Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent.For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed.Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses.The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases.&nbsp;<h2>The government's difficult balancing act</h2>&nbsp;India's policymakers face competing priorities.Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation.But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured.Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers.Monetary policy presents another dilemma.The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden.Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations.However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households.That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases.&nbsp;<h2>India's growth story faces a new test</h2>&nbsp;India's economic growth remains an important source of strength.Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty.But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation.Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories.Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures.These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction.If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment.The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures.&nbsp;<h2>Can India shield itself from global instability?</h2>&nbsp;India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships.The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge.Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks.But those measures take time.In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable.There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders.That makes effective crisis management essential.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended.They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing.A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses.The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation.The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment.And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise?India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden.Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create. India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging. Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday. The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series. The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers. The energy shock behind the numbers Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices. Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets. The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies. India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude. A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector. It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food. In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything. https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed When wholesale pressure reaches households Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy. The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households. That distinction matters. An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases. Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices. India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent. Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent. For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses. The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases. The government's difficult balancing act India's policymakers face competing priorities. Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation. But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured. Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers. Monetary policy presents another dilemma. The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden. Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations. However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households. That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases. India's growth story faces a new test India's economic growth remains an important source of strength. Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty. But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation. Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories. Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures. These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction. If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment. The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures. Can India shield itself from global instability? India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships. The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge. Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks. But those measures take time. In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable. There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders. That makes effective crisis management essential. The Verdict India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended. They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing. A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses. The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation. The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment. And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise? India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden. Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: A growing economy, but who pays the price?

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment.On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living.For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences.India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.&nbsp;<h2>Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny</h2>&nbsp;The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year.According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established.Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment.The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement.Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern.Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi.Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions.At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote?&nbsp;<h2>India's economic resilience faces new pressures</h2>&nbsp;Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge.India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent.Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions.Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain.The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies.A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy.Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending.For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day.Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight.The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power.&nbsp;<h2>Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations</h2>&nbsp;India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge.The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security.But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled.Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population.The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship.Washington wants closer strategic coordination.New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests.That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions.Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions.The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions.&nbsp;<h2>Three challenges, one larger question</h2>&nbsp;These pressures are interconnected.Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability.Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning.Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence.Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing.Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention.Both perspectives are part of the national debate.What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues.India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability.That requires more than responding to individual controversies.It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance.India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy.But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home.A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy.Three important objectives.And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment. On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences. India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together. Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year. According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established. Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment. The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement. Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern. Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi. Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions. At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote? India's economic resilience faces new pressures Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge. India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent. Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions. Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain. The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies. A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy. Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending. For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day. Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight. The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power. Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge. The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security. But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled. Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population. The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship. Washington wants closer strategic coordination. New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests. That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions. Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions. The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions. Three challenges, one larger question These pressures are interconnected. Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability. Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning. Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence. Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing. Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention. Both perspectives are part of the national debate. What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues. India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability. That requires more than responding to individual controversies. It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance. India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy. But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home. A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy. Three important objectives. And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

The Verdict | Modi's three-front challenge: Protests at home, pressure from Washington and an economy under strain

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize.And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award.His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars.But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated.From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace.And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home.&nbsp;<h2>Eight wars and a Nobel ambition</h2>&nbsp;Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented.He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating.His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East.These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits.But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict?Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success.Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement.And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives.Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires.But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace.&nbsp;<h2>‘I can do whatever I want’</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7.Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents.He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect.Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’&nbsp;Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments.He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate.His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority.American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security.But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight.The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system.And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals.&nbsp;<h2>The divisions within MAGA</h2>&nbsp;Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement.The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts.Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach.But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative.Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base.They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean.Is it a commitment to military restraint?Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened?That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record.&nbsp;<h2>Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone</h2>&nbsp;There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success.A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement.An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely.Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely.That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims.His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements.Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests.The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently.And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it.&nbsp;<h2>The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition</h2>&nbsp;Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus.One concerns America's contribution to international peace.The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself.Both deserve scrutiny.A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory.But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits.Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize.It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries.&nbsp;The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace.It does not confer unlimited presidential authority.And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award. His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars. But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated. From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace. And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home. Eight wars and a Nobel ambition Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented. He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating. His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits. But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict? Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success. Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement. And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives. Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires. But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace. ‘I can do whatever I want’ Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7. Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents. He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect. Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’ Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments. He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate. His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority. American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security. But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight. The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system. And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals. The divisions within MAGA Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement. The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts. Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach. But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative. Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries. These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base. They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean. Is it a commitment to military restraint? Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened? That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record. Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success. A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement. An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely. Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely. That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims. His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements. Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests. The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently. And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it. The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus. One concerns America's contribution to international peace. The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself. Both deserve scrutiny. A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory. But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits. Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize. It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries. The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace. It does not confer unlimited presidential authority. And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

Is Brazil headed towards a complete shift to the right?The answer to this will decide the course of South America's political journey.The battle between Brazil’s veteran left-wing leader and current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, is inching closer to a conclusion.After the first round, it is Flavio Bolsonaro who has entered the runoff with the lead.With virtually all votes counted, Flavio secured about 47% of the valid vote, compared with roughly 45% for Lula.With no outright winner, Brazil now heads for a decisive second round on October 25.Beyond the numbers, it is also a contest over what political direction Brazil and Latin America take next.It is Bolsonaro's Liberal Party versus Lula's Workers' Party.If Flavio Bolsonaro's surname is his biggest political asset, it is a challenge too because he has to live up to how his father, Jair Bolsonaro, transformed Brazil's conservative movement.Jair Bolsonaro was later convicted over a plot to overturn the 2022 election result, which he lost to Lula, and is now serving a 27-year prison sentence.His son has taken up the political mantle, and Flavio's first-round performance shows that the Bolsonaro political brand remains a significant force in Brazil.So what does Flávio Bolsonaro's rise mean for Brazil's relationship with Donald Trump?The US president has made no secret of his interest in Brazil's political direction.Trump has hosted Flávio Bolsonaro at the White House and has publicly praised him, calling him quite: "A smart young man who loves his country very much."On the other hand, his relationship with Lula has become increasingly complicated over tariffs.The Trump administration imposed additional tariffs on Brazilian imports, affecting a significant portion of Brazil's exports to the United States.Lula accused Washington of interfering in Brazil's affairs. Suddenly, an election inside Brazil became entangled with a much larger argument: who gets to decide Brazil's political and economic future?Lula's message has increasingly been that Brazil should not allow foreign governments to dictate its choices. This argument has particular resonance because Trump's administration has become more openly aligned with conservative political forces across Latin America.But in contrast, Flavio represents a very different foreign-policy orientation. His campaign has positioned itself closer to the conservative governments and movements that have been gaining ground across the region.The campaign has revolved heavily around crime, the cost of living, corruption, household debt and concerns about public finances.Brazil's economy has continued to grow, and unemployment and inequality have improved, but concerns over living costs and government debt remain politically important.After the first round, Flavio declared that Brazil was witnessing the "end of the era" of Lula's Workers' Party.Lula, meanwhile, has another campaign to fight. At 80, he is seeking an unprecedented fourth non-consecutive presidential term. His response after the result was straightforward: the first campaign is over; a new campaign begins now.Flávio has momentum; Lula has experience.Neither has won yet.All eyes are now on October 25 as the battle between two political legacies unfolds.

Brazil heads for a decisive runoff between Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro as voters weigh competing political legacies and the country's future direction.

Is Brazil headed towards a complete shift to the right? The answer to this will decide the course of South America's political journey. The battle between Brazil’s veteran left-wing leader and current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, is inching closer to a conclusion. After the first round, it is Flavio Bolsonaro who has entered the runoff with the lead. With virtually all votes counted, Flavio secured about 47% of the valid vote, compared with roughly 45% for Lula. With no outright winner, Brazil now heads for a decisive second round on October 25. Beyond the numbers, it is also a contest over what political direction Brazil and Latin America take next. It is Bolsonaro's Liberal Party versus Lula's Workers' Party. If Flavio Bolsonaro's surname is his biggest political asset, it is a challenge too because he has to live up to how his father, Jair Bolsonaro, transformed Brazil's conservative movement. Jair Bolsonaro was later convicted over a plot to overturn the 2022 election result, which he lost to Lula, and is now serving a 27-year prison sentence. His son has taken up the political mantle, and Flavio's first-round performance shows that the Bolsonaro political brand remains a significant force in Brazil. So what does Flávio Bolsonaro's rise mean for Brazil's relationship with Donald Trump? The US president has made no secret of his interest in Brazil's political direction. Trump has hosted Flávio Bolsonaro at the White House and has publicly praised him, calling him quite: "A smart young man who loves his country very much." On the other hand, his relationship with Lula has become increasingly complicated over tariffs. The Trump administration imposed additional tariffs on Brazilian imports, affecting a significant portion of Brazil's exports to the United States. Lula accused Washington of interfering in Brazil's affairs. Suddenly, an election inside Brazil became entangled with a much larger argument: who gets to decide Brazil's political and economic future? Lula's message has increasingly been that Brazil should not allow foreign governments to dictate its choices. This argument has particular resonance because Trump's administration has become more openly aligned with conservative political forces across Latin America. But in contrast, Flavio represents a very different foreign-policy orientation. His campaign has positioned itself closer to the conservative governments and movements that have been gaining ground across the region. The campaign has revolved heavily around crime, the cost of living, corruption, household debt and concerns about public finances. Brazil's economy has continued to grow, and unemployment and inequality have improved, but concerns over living costs and government debt remain politically important. After the first round, Flavio declared that Brazil was witnessing the "end of the era" of Lula's Workers' Party. Lula, meanwhile, has another campaign to fight. At 80, he is seeking an unprecedented fourth non-consecutive presidential term. His response after the result was straightforward: the first campaign is over; a new campaign begins now. Flávio has momentum; Lula has experience. Neither has won yet. All eyes are now on October 25 as the battle between two political legacies unfolds.

Brazil heads for a decisive runoff between Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro as voters weigh competing political legacies and the country's future direction.

Is Brazil headed towards a complete shift to the right? Lula vs Bolsonaro | Race To Power

The incident aboard a flydubai plane on Wednesday is a disaster averted. A heroic Indian pilot fought back after being stabbed by his co-pilot on a flight en route from Dubai to Tel Aviv.&nbsp;Captain Smit was grievously injured but still found a way to open the cockpit door and let others in.&nbsp;Eventually, passengers and other crew managed to overpower the attacking pilot. Despite a dangerous momentary loss of altitude, the plane landed safely in Saudi Arabia.&nbsp;The investigation is underway, the motive is still unknown, but Israel suspects it to be a hijack and crash disaster that has been averted.&nbsp;The plane tragedy took place just a day after Benjamin Netanyahu had released a video, claiming that there are enemies who may try to attack Israel ahead of elections.&nbsp;The video was released on September 29th, from Israel's Tel Nof airbase.&nbsp;&nbsp;The plane incident unfolded on September 30, and Israel views it as a major security threat.&nbsp;But even before it happened, a political tussle over fear-mongering had already broken out in the country.&nbsp;Opposition leader Yair Lapid lashed out at Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing the prime minister of 'fear mongering' through his comments on Tuesday.&nbsp;Lapid's comments come after a security briefing was held at the highest level.&nbsp;Even after the plane incident, Lapid accused the government of playing cheap politics at the expense of Israel’s security.&nbsp;Lapid said in an earlier statement on social media, “Netanyahu ignored every warning before October 7, and now, 28 days before the election, he’s suddenly busy fear-mongering. I, of course, will not violate the confidentiality of the security briefing but it must be said: security threats must be handled professionally and responsibly.”&nbsp;The latest flurry of accusations comes amid a close contest between the ruling coalition and opposition bloc, if the pre-election popularity polls are anything to go by.&nbsp;This will also be Israel's first election following the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack and Israel's blanket bombing of Gaza thereafter.&nbsp;The elections take place on October 27th this month.&nbsp;Netanyahu and the leaders contesting against him are staring at a high-stakes race.&nbsp;And for Netanyahu, the gamble is even bigger, because it decides the course of his political career.&nbsp;The question now is this — will the Israeli prime minister leverage the latest incident just weeks before elections to reverse his unpopularity? Or was Bibi's warning of attack amid elections a genuine one?

The plane tragedy took place just a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had released a video, claiming that there are enemies who may try to attack Israel ahead of elections. The video was released on September 29th and the flydubai incident unfolded on September 30.

The incident aboard a flydubai plane on Wednesday is a disaster averted. A heroic Indian pilot fought back after being stabbed by his co-pilot on a flight en route from Dubai to Tel Aviv. Captain Smit was grievously injured but still found a way to open the cockpit door and let others in. Eventually, passengers and other crew managed to overpower the attacking pilot. Despite a dangerous momentary loss of altitude, the plane landed safely in Saudi Arabia. The investigation is underway, the motive is still unknown, but Israel suspects it to be a hijack and crash disaster that has been averted. The plane tragedy took place just a day after Benjamin Netanyahu had released a video, claiming that there are enemies who may try to attack Israel ahead of elections. The video was released on September 29th, from Israel's Tel Nof airbase. The plane incident unfolded on September 30, and Israel views it as a major security threat. But even before it happened, a political tussle over fear-mongering had already broken out in the country. Opposition leader Yair Lapid lashed out at Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing the prime minister of 'fear mongering' through his comments on Tuesday. Lapid's comments come after a security briefing was held at the highest level. Even after the plane incident, Lapid accused the government of playing cheap politics at the expense of Israel’s security. Lapid said in an earlier statement on social media, “Netanyahu ignored every warning before October 7, and now, 28 days before the election, he’s suddenly busy fear-mongering. I, of course, will not violate the confidentiality of the security briefing but it must be said: security threats must be handled professionally and responsibly.” The latest flurry of accusations comes amid a close contest between the ruling coalition and opposition bloc, if the pre-election popularity polls are anything to go by. This will also be Israel's first election following the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack and Israel's blanket bombing of Gaza thereafter. The elections take place on October 27th this month. Netanyahu and the leaders contesting against him are staring at a high-stakes race. And for Netanyahu, the gamble is even bigger, because it decides the course of his political career. The question now is this — will the Israeli prime minister leverage the latest incident just weeks before elections to reverse his unpopularity? Or was Bibi's warning of attack amid elections a genuine one?

The plane tragedy took place just a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had released a video, claiming that there are enemies who may try to attack Israel ahead of elections. The video was released on September 29th and the flydubai incident unfolded on September 30.

Race To Power | Flydubai attack puts Israel security warnings under new scrutiny ahead of polls

One country has nuclear weapons. Another is told it must never have them. One leader faces pressure and military confrontation. The other is called a “friend.”Donald Trump has once again put the contradictions of American nuclear diplomacy under the spotlight.Asked why North Korea can possess nuclear weapons while Iran cannot, the US president offered an extraordinary response.Trump blamed previous American presidents for failing to stop Pyongyang's nuclear programme before turning to his personal relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.“He happens to be a friend of mine,” Trump said, adding that Kim likes and respects him. Trump acknowledged that North Korea possesses a “pretty large” nuclear capability, although one smaller than that of the United States.The contrast is difficult to ignore.Trump has maintained an uncompromising position that Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon. Tehran, meanwhile, has consistently denied that it seeks one.North Korea presents the opposite reality: it already possesses nuclear weapons.South Korean Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back recently estimated Pyongyang's arsenal at between 80 and 120 nuclear warheads. Trump himself previously put the figure at 57. Whatever the precise number, North Korea is no longer merely suspected of pursuing a bomb; it is an established nuclear-armed state.And therein lies Washington's uncomfortable dilemma.Is American nuclear policy based on principle — or on the realities created once a country successfully crosses the nuclear threshold?<h2>Friendship is not a nuclear doctrine</h2>There is an important distinction that cannot be ignored. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it has committed not to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and subsequently conducted nuclear tests.Washington therefore confronts two very different nuclear realities.But Trump's explanation was striking because instead of focusing primarily on treaties, proliferation law or regional security, he repeatedly invoked his relationship with Kim.The president has argued that getting along with the North Korean leader is an asset rather than a weakness. He has also said North Korea should never have been allowed to obtain nuclear weapons in the first place.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/WIONRaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIONRaceToPower</a> | Trump&#39;s doublespeak on nuclear debate US nuke hypocrisy exposed as Trump slams Iran, praises North Korea Trump: Kim Jong Un is a friend of mine <a href="https://x.com/ShreyaOpines?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShreyaOpines</a> and <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> speak to John Erath, Policy Director at Center for Arms Control for more <a href="https://t.co/RqXGxMBksL">pic.twitter.com/RqXGxMBksL</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2105326156014821620?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

That may explain Trump's diplomacy.It does not eliminate the larger question.If possessing nuclear weapons eventually forces Washington to accept a country as a nuclear reality, while countries that have not crossed that threshold remain vulnerable to overwhelming pressure, what message does that send to other governments contemplating their own security?The danger is obvious.A non-proliferation strategy must convince countries that not building nuclear weapons makes them safer, not that possessing them eventually earns greater strategic caution from Washington.<h2>From ‘fire and fury’ to friendship</h2>Trump's relationship with Kim has itself undergone an extraordinary transformation.During his first presidency, Trump threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” before embarking on unprecedented personal diplomacy with Kim.The two men subsequently met three times — Singapore in 2018, Hanoi in 2019 and the Korean Demilitarised Zone later that year.Yet those meetings failed to produce an agreement eliminating North Korea's nuclear arsenal. Pyongyang's capabilities have instead expanded substantially since their first summit.Trump nevertheless continues to argue that his personal relationship with Kim reduces the danger.That creates another uncomfortable contrast with Iran.The same American president who presents personal diplomacy as a mechanism for managing an already nuclear-armed North Korea has pursued a dramatically harder approach towards preventing Iran from ever reaching that position.Strategically, Washington can argue that prevention is easier than disarmament.Politically, however, the optics are considerably harder.<h2>The nuclear club’s uncomfortable truth</h2>This debate extends beyond Trump.The global nuclear order has always contained contradictions.The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain are recognised nuclear-weapon states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons outside that framework. Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity. North Korea withdrew from the NPT and built its arsenal.Iran remains inside the treaty framework while facing intense international scrutiny over its nuclear activities.That does not make every nuclear programme equivalent. Their histories, treaty obligations, security environments and relationships with the international community differ significantly.But Trump's latest remarks expose the fundamental challenge confronting global non-proliferation:What happens after deterrence succeeds?Once a state possesses a credible nuclear arsenal, the cost of forcing it to surrender those weapons becomes dramatically higher.North Korea may be the clearest example.Washington spent decades demanding denuclearisation. Today, Trump is publicly acknowledging Kim's nuclear capacity while arguing that his personal relationship can keep the situation under control.For Iran — and indeed every country watching — that distinction matters.Because the lesson emerging from the world's nuclear confrontations cannot be allowed to become this:Build the bomb and eventually the world learns to live with you. Don't build it, and the world retains the option of stopping you.That would not strengthen nuclear non-proliferation.It could become one of its greatest weaknesses.

Trump’s contrasting approaches to nuclear-armed North Korea and non-nuclear Iran have raised questions over consistency in US non-proliferation policy and the role of personal diplomacy in managing nuclear threats.

One country has nuclear weapons. Another is told it must never have them. One leader faces pressure and military confrontation. The other is called a “friend.” Donald Trump has once again put the contradictions of American nuclear diplomacy under the spotlight. Asked why North Korea can possess nuclear weapons while Iran cannot, the US president offered an extraordinary response. Trump blamed previous American presidents for failing to stop Pyongyang's nuclear programme before turning to his personal relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “He happens to be a friend of mine,” Trump said, adding that Kim likes and respects him. Trump acknowledged that North Korea possesses a “pretty large” nuclear capability, although one smaller than that of the United States. The contrast is difficult to ignore. Trump has maintained an uncompromising position that Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon. Tehran, meanwhile, has consistently denied that it seeks one. North Korea presents the opposite reality: it already possesses nuclear weapons. South Korean Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back recently estimated Pyongyang's arsenal at between 80 and 120 nuclear warheads. Trump himself previously put the figure at 57. Whatever the precise number, North Korea is no longer merely suspected of pursuing a bomb; it is an established nuclear-armed state. And therein lies Washington's uncomfortable dilemma. Is American nuclear policy based on principle — or on the realities created once a country successfully crosses the nuclear threshold? Friendship is not a nuclear doctrine There is an important distinction that cannot be ignored. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it has committed not to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and subsequently conducted nuclear tests. Washington therefore confronts two very different nuclear realities. But Trump's explanation was striking because instead of focusing primarily on treaties, proliferation law or regional security, he repeatedly invoked his relationship with Kim. The president has argued that getting along with the North Korean leader is an asset rather than a weakness. He has also said North Korea should never have been allowed to obtain nuclear weapons in the first place.

Trump’s contrasting approaches to nuclear-armed North Korea and non-nuclear Iran have raised questions over consistency in US non-proliferation policy and the role of personal diplomacy in managing nuclear threats.

US nuclear double standard? Trump’s ‘friend’ Kim exposes the Iran contradiction

A diplomatic scramble is underway to find a way out of the US-Iran war, but despite renewed talks through mediators, Washington and Tehran still remain at loggerheads.Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been meeting Qatari mediators in New York, while American officials are also talking separately with them.The immediate objective is to stop the fighting, reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz and get the two sides back to negotiations. But there is one issue standing at the centre of the dispute, and that is Iran's nuclear programme.The latest diplomatic push comes after months of war and two previous ceasefire attempts that collapsed.Iran had put forward a seven-day proposal, under which hostilities would end, the United States would lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, some Iranian assets would be unfrozen, and sanctions on Iranian oil would be eased. In return, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations over its nuclear programme.But President Donald Trump rejected Iran's proposal publicly over the weekend.Even so, Washington has continued talking through mediators.So essentially, the talks have not stopped. Instead, Qatar and other intermediaries are trying to narrow the gap between two fundamentally different positions.Washington says there can be no comprehensive agreement unless Iran's nuclear programme is addressed. US officials say they want concrete assurances and restrictions designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.Tehran, however, says it is not seeking a nuclear bomb and insists on its right to a civilian nuclear programme. Iranian officials are making clear that they do not intend to simply surrender their nuclear position as the price for reopening Hormuz.Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that there has been no change in Iran's position and no compromise on the nuclear issue. He says Tehran has already submitted its proposal and is waiting for Washington's formal response through Qatar.Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and accused President Trump of misrepresenting Tehran's nuclear ambitions.So where does the situation stand?There are essentially three negotiations taking place at the same time.First, the war itself. Iran wants an end to US military pressure. Washington wants an agreement that, in its view, prevents Iran from rebuilding a nuclear capability.Second is the Strait of Hormuz. For Iran, reopening the waterway is leverage. But for the United States, restoring unrestricted shipping is a major strategic and economic objective.The third negotiation taking place is on nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear rights cannot simply be negotiated away, while America insists nuclear restrictions must be part of any final settlement.Meanwhile, reports suggest that President Trump was prepared to consider sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian funds in exchange for concrete nuclear concessions. But Trump himself rejected those reports, saying he had offered Iran nothing.President Trump entered this conflict promising that American pressure would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and repeatedly presenting military pressure as a path towards a decisive outcome. But seven months into the conflict, Washington is once again relying heavily on diplomacy.Donald Trump has, at different points, declared the US had effectively won, threatened further military action, rejected Iran's ceasefire proposal, and at the same time signalled that negotiations could continue.For the moment, however, there is no final deal and no confirmed permanent ceasefire. Qatar and other mediators are shuttling messages between Washington and Tehran.The next critical test is whether the mediators can turn these indirect conversations into an agreed sequence of steps.

Qatar is mediating between Washington and Tehran as the US-Iran war, Strait of Hormuz and Iran's nuclear programme remain unresolved.

A diplomatic scramble is underway to find a way out of the US-Iran war, but despite renewed talks through mediators, Washington and Tehran still remain at loggerheads. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been meeting Qatari mediators in New York, while American officials are also talking separately with them. The immediate objective is to stop the fighting, reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz and get the two sides back to negotiations. But there is one issue standing at the centre of the dispute, and that is Iran's nuclear programme. The latest diplomatic push comes after months of war and two previous ceasefire attempts that collapsed. Iran had put forward a seven-day proposal, under which hostilities would end, the United States would lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, some Iranian assets would be unfrozen, and sanctions on Iranian oil would be eased. In return, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations over its nuclear programme. But President Donald Trump rejected Iran's proposal publicly over the weekend. Even so, Washington has continued talking through mediators. So essentially, the talks have not stopped. Instead, Qatar and other intermediaries are trying to narrow the gap between two fundamentally different positions. Washington says there can be no comprehensive agreement unless Iran's nuclear programme is addressed. US officials say they want concrete assurances and restrictions designed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Tehran, however, says it is not seeking a nuclear bomb and insists on its right to a civilian nuclear programme. Iranian officials are making clear that they do not intend to simply surrender their nuclear position as the price for reopening Hormuz. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that there has been no change in Iran's position and no compromise on the nuclear issue. He says Tehran has already submitted its proposal and is waiting for Washington's formal response through Qatar. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and accused President Trump of misrepresenting Tehran's nuclear ambitions. So where does the situation stand? There are essentially three negotiations taking place at the same time. First, the war itself. Iran wants an end to US military pressure. Washington wants an agreement that, in its view, prevents Iran from rebuilding a nuclear capability. Second is the Strait of Hormuz. For Iran, reopening the waterway is leverage. But for the United States, restoring unrestricted shipping is a major strategic and economic objective. The third negotiation taking place is on nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear rights cannot simply be negotiated away, while America insists nuclear restrictions must be part of any final settlement. Meanwhile, reports suggest that President Trump was prepared to consider sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian funds in exchange for concrete nuclear concessions. But Trump himself rejected those reports, saying he had offered Iran nothing. President Trump entered this conflict promising that American pressure would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and repeatedly presenting military pressure as a path towards a decisive outcome. But seven months into the conflict, Washington is once again relying heavily on diplomacy. Donald Trump has, at different points, declared the US had effectively won, threatened further military action, rejected Iran's ceasefire proposal, and at the same time signalled that negotiations could continue. For the moment, however, there is no final deal and no confirmed permanent ceasefire. Qatar and other mediators are shuttling messages between Washington and Tehran. The next critical test is whether the mediators can turn these indirect conversations into an agreed sequence of steps.

Qatar is mediating between Washington and Tehran as the US-Iran war, the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's nuclear programme remain unresolved.

Race To Power | Can Qatar bridge the gap as US-Iran talks face diplomatic scramble

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack.India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action.&nbsp;Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done?&nbsp;Because every few months, we hear the same promise.&nbsp;10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad.&nbsp;Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes.&nbsp;&nbsp;Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering.&nbsp;So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases.This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility.&nbsp;For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it.&nbsp;The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings.So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil.&nbsp;If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism.&nbsp;But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack. India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action. Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done? Because every few months, we hear the same promise. 10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad. Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes. Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering. So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases. This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility. For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it. The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings. So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil. If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism. But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

The Verdict | 10 years, repeated promises: Will Pakistan really ever act against terror?

Election season is upon Israel.The country is scheduled to vote in less than one month, in a poll that is extremely pivotal to incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's career.But Bibi is not in the news for an election-related development. Rather, it is a so-called secret visit to the UAE over the weekend that is grabbing eyeballs.There has been no government announcement from either country, but as more and more reports emerge, the reason for this sudden visit is raising several questions.On Sunday, reports first surfaced in the Israeli media saying that Netanyahu had made a short, unannounced visit to meet with Emirati leader Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.The visit reportedly lasted just a few hours.However, no other details emerged until a few hours ago.Before we get into that development, the context and timeline are important here.Just a few days ago, reports emerged of the UAE allegedly warning Israel about Hamas' plan to carry out an attack.Reports, citing a book written by two investigative journalists, detailed how MBZ himself allegedly warned Bibi about the now-slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's intent and plan to carry out an attack.Netanyahu has denied receiving any such intelligence ahead of the October 7 attacks, while the UAE has declined to directly address the reports.Now, there is a report by The Times of Israel which claims that Israel's prime minister flew to the UAE on Sunday to ask Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to deny the reports about the alleged intelligence sharing, which have come under renewed scrutiny.Sources cited by The Times of Israel and the Associated Press say the meeting focused on the reports that bin Zayed had warned Netanyahu about a looming Hamas attack ahead of October 7. The UAE's Foreign Ministry has declined to comment directly on the reported meeting. However, it has said that the country maintains “open and direct lines of communication” with Israel and shares relevant intelligence.Remember, the UAE and Israel normalised relations in 2020 under the Abraham Accords.The developments also overlap with separate reports of Egypt sharing intelligence with Israel.According to The Wall Street Journal, Egypt conveyed at least three separate warnings to Israel about signs of an impending attack from Gaza. These reportedly included a secret visit by Egypt's intelligence chief Abbas Kamel and a phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just days before the attack.According to officials cited by the newspaper, Kamel secretly travelled to Israel around two weeks before October 7 and warned that Hamas appeared to be preparing for a major attack.But the Egyptian warning reportedly did not include a specific date, targets or detailed information about the scale of the planned operation.And The Wall Street Journal says the warnings continued.In the days before October 7, Kamel reportedly called Netanyahu again, warning of signs of an impending attack.These fresh reports are also raising new questions over what Israel knew in the weeks before the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.Netanyahu has repeatedly denied personally receiving advance warnings of the October 7 attack. He has also blamed Israeli security officials for failing to adequately alert him to the threat. On Monday, Netanyahu again denied reports that he had personally spoken with Abbas Kamel or received an Egyptian warning.The Israeli government has faced continued scrutiny over the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Hamas assault, which killed about 1,200 people in Israel and saw around 250 people taken hostage during the attack.The latest reports are particularly significant because they come amid renewed political debate in Israel over the government's handling of the events leading up to October 7.

Netanyahu reportedly flew to the UAE to seek a denial over claims that MBZ warned him about a Hamas attack before October 7. Netanyahu denies receiving the warning.

Election season is upon Israel. The country is scheduled to vote in less than one month, in a poll that is extremely pivotal to incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's career. But Bibi is not in the news for an election-related development. Rather, it is a so-called secret visit to the UAE over the weekend that is grabbing eyeballs. There has been no government announcement from either country, but as more and more reports emerge, the reason for this sudden visit is raising several questions. On Sunday, reports first surfaced in the Israeli media saying that Netanyahu had made a short, unannounced visit to meet with Emirati leader Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The visit reportedly lasted just a few hours. However, no other details emerged until a few hours ago. Before we get into that development, the context and timeline are important here. Just a few days ago, reports emerged of the UAE allegedly warning Israel about Hamas' plan to carry out an attack. Reports, citing a book written by two investigative journalists, detailed how MBZ himself allegedly warned Bibi about the now-slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's intent and plan to carry out an attack. Netanyahu has denied receiving any such intelligence ahead of the October 7 attacks, while the UAE has declined to directly address the reports. Now, there is a report by The Times of Israel which claims that Israel's prime minister flew to the UAE on Sunday to ask Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to deny the reports about the alleged intelligence sharing, which have come under renewed scrutiny. Sources cited by The Times of Israel and the Associated Press say the meeting focused on the reports that bin Zayed had warned Netanyahu about a looming Hamas attack ahead of October 7. The UAE's Foreign Ministry has declined to comment directly on the reported meeting. However, it has said that the country maintains “open and direct lines of communication” with Israel and shares relevant intelligence. Remember, the UAE and Israel normalised relations in 2020 under the Abraham Accords. The developments also overlap with separate reports of Egypt sharing intelligence with Israel. According to The Wall Street Journal, Egypt conveyed at least three separate warnings to Israel about signs of an impending attack from Gaza. These reportedly included a secret visit by Egypt's intelligence chief Abbas Kamel and a phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just days before the attack. According to officials cited by the newspaper, Kamel secretly travelled to Israel around two weeks before October 7 and warned that Hamas appeared to be preparing for a major attack. But the Egyptian warning reportedly did not include a specific date, targets or detailed information about the scale of the planned operation. And The Wall Street Journal says the warnings continued. In the days before October 7, Kamel reportedly called Netanyahu again, warning of signs of an impending attack. These fresh reports are also raising new questions over what Israel knew in the weeks before the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Netanyahu has repeatedly denied personally receiving advance warnings of the October 7 attack. He has also blamed Israeli security officials for failing to adequately alert him to the threat. On Monday, Netanyahu again denied reports that he had personally spoken with Abbas Kamel or received an Egyptian warning. The Israeli government has faced continued scrutiny over the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Hamas assault, which killed about 1,200 people in Israel and saw around 250 people taken hostage during the attack. The latest reports are particularly significant because they come amid renewed political debate in Israel over the government's handling of the events leading up to October 7.

Netanyahu reportedly flew to the UAE to seek a denial of claims that MBZ warned him about a Hamas attack before October 7. Netanyahu denies receiving the warning.

Netanyahu’s secret UAE visit: Was it linked to reports of Oct 7 warning | Race To Power

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process.&nbsp;The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation.&nbsp;The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly.&nbsp;Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.&nbsp;In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence.&nbsp;Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive.&nbsp;The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident.&nbsp;Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered.&nbsp;And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known.&nbsp;So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process. The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation. The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly. Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender. In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence. Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive. The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident. Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered. And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known. So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

Leaders of two global superpowers will be meeting for the second time this year. Four months after visiting Beijing, US President Donald Trump will now host his Chinese counterpart on American soil.This is Xi Jinping's first visit to US in more than 10 years, and the world is watching keenly.&nbsp;The decisions that both countries take and the remarks that are made are bound to have a global impact.&nbsp;A host of issues are expected to be on the agenda for the Trump-Xi summit.&nbsp;Trade could potentially be front and centre in the high-stakes meeting.&nbsp;US and China have been at loggerheads ever since Trump first announced sweeping retaliatory tariffs on all its trade partners.&nbsp;For Beijing and Washington, trade ties reached a new low when both sides slapped high tariffs against each other's goods.&nbsp;Last year's trade war saw US tariffs on Chinese goods rise as high as 145%, while China's retaliatory tariffs reached 125%.While both countries have rolled back few of these measures, many of the tariff rates and the major flashpoints still remain unresolved.&nbsp;The last time the two leaders met was in Beijing in May, but that summit fell short of delivering on several key commitments.&nbsp;But it is a race against time, as a November 10 deadline on the current trade agreement looms large on the upcoming talks.&nbsp;Other important aspects might include cooperation on artificial intelligence risks, and a discussion on critical rare earth minerals as well. But it is not just about what is on agenda.&nbsp;It is also about what might not be on the list for bilateral discussions.&nbsp;According to reports, Beijing has given Washington four red lines on what US is not allowed to talk about during Xi's visit.&nbsp;These include Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China's political system and its development rights.&nbsp;Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng also urged the US not to use national security and forced labour as grounds to constrain China.&nbsp;A separate report in China's People's Daily called Taiwan a key guardrail for ties and warned US to handle the issue with utmost caution.&nbsp;The meeting also comes at a time when world leaders at the UNGA are discussing multilateralism and ongoing challenges which have fractured global ties.&nbsp;Trump has pushed forward the idea of the group of two concept, an exclusive, bilateral, deal-based framework between the two superpowers.&nbsp;China on the other hand, has remained hesitant of such a dynamic.&nbsp;But the US president has often touted his personal relationship with his Chinese counterpart.&nbsp;The question is -- will it help iron out wrinkles in a complex relationship between two economic giants competing with each other?

US and China have been at loggerheads ever since President Donald Trump first announced sweeping retaliatory tariffs on all its trade partners. For Beijing and Washington, trade ties reached a new low when both sides slapped high tariffs against each other's goods.

Leaders of two global superpowers will be meeting for the second time this year. Four months after visiting Beijing, US President Donald Trump will now host his Chinese counterpart on American soil. This is Xi Jinping's first visit to US in more than 10 years, and the world is watching keenly. The decisions that both countries take and the remarks that are made are bound to have a global impact. A host of issues are expected to be on the agenda for the Trump-Xi summit. Trade could potentially be front and centre in the high-stakes meeting. US and China have been at loggerheads ever since Trump first announced sweeping retaliatory tariffs on all its trade partners. For Beijing and Washington, trade ties reached a new low when both sides slapped high tariffs against each other's goods. Last year's trade war saw US tariffs on Chinese goods rise as high as 145%, while China's retaliatory tariffs reached 125%. While both countries have rolled back few of these measures, many of the tariff rates and the major flashpoints still remain unresolved. The last time the two leaders met was in Beijing in May, but that summit fell short of delivering on several key commitments. But it is a race against time, as a November 10 deadline on the current trade agreement looms large on the upcoming talks. Other important aspects might include cooperation on artificial intelligence risks, and a discussion on critical rare earth minerals as well. But it is not just about what is on agenda. It is also about what might not be on the list for bilateral discussions. According to reports, Beijing has given Washington four red lines on what US is not allowed to talk about during Xi's visit. These include Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China's political system and its development rights. Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng also urged the US not to use national security and forced labour as grounds to constrain China. A separate report in China's People's Daily called Taiwan a key guardrail for ties and warned US to handle the issue with utmost caution. The meeting also comes at a time when world leaders at the UNGA are discussing multilateralism and ongoing challenges which have fractured global ties. Trump has pushed forward the idea of the group of two concept, an exclusive, bilateral, deal-based framework between the two superpowers. China on the other hand, has remained hesitant of such a dynamic. But the US president has often touted his personal relationship with his Chinese counterpart. The question is -- will it help iron out wrinkles in a complex relationship between two economic giants competing with each other?

US and China have been at loggerheads ever since President Donald Trump first announced sweeping retaliatory tariffs on all its trade partners. For Beijing and Washington, trade ties reached a new low when both sides slapped high tariffs against each other's goods.

Trump-Xi Summit: Trade, Taiwan and the red lines shaping US-China talks | Race To Power

Pakistan signed the Mecca Defence Pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye with a very clear promise: an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three. So here's an uncomfortable question for Field Marshal Asim Munir: what is the impact of this pact?Where is this pact when the Saudis are being attacked by Houthis?Saudi Arabia is facing repeated Houthi missile and drone attacks. Riyadh has been seeking additional military assistance.And what's Pakistan's response?They condemned it. They called for restraint.But no military response under the Mecca Pact.And here's Munir's rather weak reason for not getting involved: the agreement still needs mechanisms and frameworks before its operationalised.That creates an awkward little problem: if an attack on one is an attack on all, when exactly does "all" actually mean all?There is another irony Pakistan cannot escape. While presenting itself as a pillar of regional security, Pakistan is killing civilians in Afghanistan.Just today, Pakistan carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, killing 3 locals.Was the Mecca Pact designed as a defence alliance or as a diplomatic declaration that sounds strongest before the first shot is fired?Alliances are ultimately tested not by signatures, ceremonies or speeches. They are tested when an ally calls for help.The Mecca Pact is being tested by reality, and it seems to be failing so far.

The Mecca Defence Pact faces scrutiny as Houthi attacks target Saudi Arabia while Pakistan has not mounted a military response.

Pakistan signed the Mecca Defence Pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye with a very clear promise: an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three. So here's an uncomfortable question for Field Marshal Asim Munir: what is the impact of this pact? Where is this pact when the Saudis are being attacked by Houthis? Saudi Arabia is facing repeated Houthi missile and drone attacks. Riyadh has been seeking additional military assistance. And what's Pakistan's response? They condemned it. They called for restraint. But no military response under the Mecca Pact. And here's Munir's rather weak reason for not getting involved: the agreement still needs mechanisms and frameworks before its operationalised. That creates an awkward little problem: if an attack on one is an attack on all, when exactly does "all" actually mean all? There is another irony Pakistan cannot escape. While presenting itself as a pillar of regional security, Pakistan is killing civilians in Afghanistan. Just today, Pakistan carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, killing 3 locals. Was the Mecca Pact designed as a defence alliance or as a diplomatic declaration that sounds strongest before the first shot is fired? Alliances are ultimately tested not by signatures, ceremonies or speeches. They are tested when an ally calls for help. The Mecca Pact is being tested by reality, and it seems to be failing so far.

The Mecca Defence Pact faces scrutiny as Houthi attacks target Saudi Arabia while Pakistan has not mounted a military response.

The Verdict | The Mecca Agreement is under scrutiny as Houthis attack Saudis

A major military showdown looms over West Asia. Iran has vowed to bring unseen &amp; deadlier weapons to the battlefield, Donald Trump is ramping up rhetoric with his statements.&nbsp;At the same time, his indecision on Yemen has left Saudi Arabia on its own.&nbsp;All the developments are not unfolding in isolation.&nbsp;Escalation on Iran will fuel tensions in Bab al-Mandeb and become the second chokepoint after Hormuz. And US president seems to be caught in this dilemma.&nbsp;Donald Trump unexpectedly cut short a weekend at Camp David, a secluded presidential complex in rural Maryland, and returned to the White House.&nbsp;The reason behind the move remains unknown.&nbsp;According to a report by New York Times, Saudi Crown Prince convinced Donald Trump to launch strikes on Houthis. US president also asked Pentagon to prepare for the attacks.&nbsp;Commanders had approved target lists, troops were loading bombs onto US warplanes selected for the missions, and the wave of attacks was just about to begin.&nbsp;But by midday on Sunday, Donald Trump reportedly reversed his position and decided not to intervene at the moment. A line of communication is in place between Houthis and the Trump administration.&nbsp;The Yemeni group has refrained from blocking the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, despite having control over the coastal areas along the Red Sea.They are giving free way to commercial vessels, except those linked to Saudi Arabia.&nbsp;Saudi Arabia has scrambled to contain the fallout.&nbsp;But Houthis are escalating their attacks on the kingdom while advancing in the territory controlled by Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces.&nbsp;Saudi Arabia has responded with scores of airstrikes on Houthi-held areas but has failed to curtail their advance.&nbsp;The Yemen based group has also warned Mecca Pact signatories.&nbsp;Houthis said Pakistan and Turkiye should be ready for a decisive and painful response if they provide any military assistance to Saudi Arabia.&nbsp;Meanwhile, US president is walking down a similar path on Iran.&nbsp;Donald Trump has outlined 3 options amid the deadlock—wiping Iran out, letting them rot economically, or making a deal.&nbsp;Iran has responded with a staunch warning—renewal of attacks will change the geography of war, and the world will be astonished by unseen weapons.&nbsp;During a recent encounter, Iranian air defences shot down American drone over the Strait of Hormuz.&nbsp;UK Maritime Trade Operations also issued a warning regarding Iranian attack on a vessel in the contested waterway.&nbsp;Amid the heated rhetoric, a window of diplomacy is opening up.&nbsp;Iran's President Pezeshkian is scheduled to travel to New York to participate in United Nations General Assembly.&nbsp;There are no direct diplomatic engagements planned with the US, but it will be the first time when a high-level Iranian delegation will be on American soil since the beginning of the war on 28th February this year.&nbsp;Pezeshkian will be flanked by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, who made a brief stop in Qatar on his way to New York.&nbsp;According to Doha, mediators are working overtime to revive negotiations between Iran and US.&nbsp;Pakistan's Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi is also in Tehran.&nbsp;However, Iranian media reported that Naqvi is neither carrying a message to Iran nor will Iran send a message to the US through him.

The Yemeni group has refrained from blocking the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, despite having control over the coastal areas along the Red Sea. They are giving free way to commercial vessels, except those linked to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has scrambled to contain the fallout.

A major military showdown looms over West Asia. Iran has vowed to bring unseen & deadlier weapons to the battlefield, Donald Trump is ramping up rhetoric with his statements. At the same time, his indecision on Yemen has left Saudi Arabia on its own. All the developments are not unfolding in isolation. Escalation on Iran will fuel tensions in Bab al-Mandeb and become the second chokepoint after Hormuz. And US president seems to be caught in this dilemma. Donald Trump unexpectedly cut short a weekend at Camp David, a secluded presidential complex in rural Maryland, and returned to the White House. The reason behind the move remains unknown. According to a report by New York Times, Saudi Crown Prince convinced Donald Trump to launch strikes on Houthis. US president also asked Pentagon to prepare for the attacks. Commanders had approved target lists, troops were loading bombs onto US warplanes selected for the missions, and the wave of attacks was just about to begin. But by midday on Sunday, Donald Trump reportedly reversed his position and decided not to intervene at the moment. A line of communication is in place between Houthis and the Trump administration. The Yemeni group has refrained from blocking the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, despite having control over the coastal areas along the Red Sea. They are giving free way to commercial vessels, except those linked to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has scrambled to contain the fallout. But Houthis are escalating their attacks on the kingdom while advancing in the territory controlled by Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces. Saudi Arabia has responded with scores of airstrikes on Houthi-held areas but has failed to curtail their advance. The Yemen based group has also warned Mecca Pact signatories. Houthis said Pakistan and Turkiye should be ready for a decisive and painful response if they provide any military assistance to Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, US president is walking down a similar path on Iran. Donald Trump has outlined 3 options amid the deadlock—wiping Iran out, letting them rot economically, or making a deal. Iran has responded with a staunch warning—renewal of attacks will change the geography of war, and the world will be astonished by unseen weapons. During a recent encounter, Iranian air defences shot down American drone over the Strait of Hormuz. UK Maritime Trade Operations also issued a warning regarding Iranian attack on a vessel in the contested waterway. Amid the heated rhetoric, a window of diplomacy is opening up. Iran's President Pezeshkian is scheduled to travel to New York to participate in United Nations General Assembly. There are no direct diplomatic engagements planned with the US, but it will be the first time when a high-level Iranian delegation will be on American soil since the beginning of the war on 28th February this year. Pezeshkian will be flanked by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, who made a brief stop in Qatar on his way to New York. According to Doha, mediators are working overtime to revive negotiations between Iran and US. Pakistan's Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi is also in Tehran. However, Iranian media reported that Naqvi is neither carrying a message to Iran nor will Iran send a message to the US through him.

The Yemeni group has refrained from blocking the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, despite having control over the coastal areas along the Red Sea. They are giving free way to commercial vessels, except those linked to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has scrambled to contain the fallout.

West Asia on the brink: Iran threatens new weapons as Trump weighs war | Race To Power

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

The FBI director has come under fire once again.&nbsp;This time, it is for an eligibility criterion that has been updated. But the change has triggered confusion and questions from both sides of the political aisle.&nbsp;The change concerns a crime, which has been removed from a long list of activities which make a person ineligible to enrol in the FBI. And that, is bestiality.&nbsp;Kash Patel has removed bestiality as an automatic disqualifier for candidates applying for a job with the FBI.&nbsp;Earlier, the agency disqualified people who acknowledged engaging in crimes, including prostitution or bestiality. But now, it will not be a roadblock for those who have committed these crimes anymore.&nbsp;The move has many reacting with disbelief, including Republican congressional lawmakers who grilled Patel on the matter during a hearing.&nbsp;The toughest questions came from Louisiana senator of the Red Camp, John Kennedy.&nbsp;&nbsp;In his typical style, Kennedy questioned what Patel meant by the term, 'victims of bestiality', further asking if the FBI director was referring to animals.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fbi-director-kash-patel-grilled-over-change-of-hiring-rules-on-bestiality-1789575594461/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/fbi-director-kash-patel-grilled-over-change-of-hiring-rules-on-bestiality-1789575594461/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;But, grinning at the remarks, Patel declined it was a reference to animals; rather, it was about individuals who have been convicted of the unnatural sexual crime.&nbsp;In his defence, the FBI director justified the decision on grounds that many people who are victims of human trafficking get forced to commit criminal and unnatural acts, and they should not be removed from the process of joining the FBI.&nbsp;However, Kennedy's grilling did not end here. The veteran Republican lawmaker went on to question why criminal activities were important to remove or re-adjust and why the FBI would even 'get into it.'&nbsp;Bestiality is the unnatural sexual act between a human and animal. Until now, it was an automatic disqualifier in the FBI enrolment process.&nbsp;However, with the changes introduced by Patel, it no longer remains a roadblock, much to the shock of many.

Earlier, the FBI disqualified people who acknowledged engaging in crimes, including prostitution or bestiality. But now, it will not be a roadblock for those who have committed these crimes anymore. The move has many reacting with disbelief, including Republican congressional lawmakers.

The FBI director has come under fire once again. This time, it is for an eligibility criterion that has been updated. But the change has triggered confusion and questions from both sides of the political aisle. The change concerns a crime, which has been removed from a long list of activities which make a person ineligible to enrol in the FBI. And that, is bestiality. Kash Patel has removed bestiality as an automatic disqualifier for candidates applying for a job with the FBI. Earlier, the agency disqualified people who acknowledged engaging in crimes, including prostitution or bestiality. But now, it will not be a roadblock for those who have committed these crimes anymore. The move has many reacting with disbelief, including Republican congressional lawmakers who grilled Patel on the matter during a hearing. The toughest questions came from Louisiana senator of the Red Camp, John Kennedy. In his typical style, Kennedy questioned what Patel meant by the term, 'victims of bestiality', further asking if the FBI director was referring to animals. https://www.wionews.com/videos/fbi-director-kash-patel-grilled-over-change-of-hiring-rules-on-bestiality-1789575594461/embed But, grinning at the remarks, Patel declined it was a reference to animals; rather, it was about individuals who have been convicted of the unnatural sexual crime. In his defence, the FBI director justified the decision on grounds that many people who are victims of human trafficking get forced to commit criminal and unnatural acts, and they should not be removed from the process of joining the FBI. However, Kennedy's grilling did not end here. The veteran Republican lawmaker went on to question why criminal activities were important to remove or re-adjust and why the FBI would even 'get into it.' Bestiality is the unnatural sexual act between a human and animal. Until now, it was an automatic disqualifier in the FBI enrolment process. However, with the changes introduced by Patel, it no longer remains a roadblock, much to the shock of many.

Earlier, the FBI disqualified people who acknowledged engaging in crimes, including prostitution or bestiality. But now, it will not be a roadblock for those who have committed these crimes anymore. The move has many reacting with disbelief, including Republican congressional lawmakers.

Kash Patel grilled over FBI decision to drop bestiality as hiring disqualifier | Race to Power

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

The very fabric of the United Kingdom is under unprecedented strain.For the first time in history, pro-independence parties hold the reins of power in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.They are now joining forces to demand an end to what we know as the United Kingdom.In a rare and historic summit at the Welsh capital of Cardiff, leaders from the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Féin signed a joint agreement, declaring their absolute right to self-determination.The leaders issued a blunt warning to the UK Parliament, declaring in the memorandum that Westminster's time is coming to an end.All three parties now share a common goal: to break away from the United Kingdom and secure their future within the European Union.The Cardiff Pact pledges to strengthen cooperation between their governments to force constitutional change.The political landscape has shifted dramatically following Labour's recent election rout in Wales, leaving pro-independence forces in charge across all three devolved nations.Scottish First Minister John Swinney even claimed that UK Prime Minister Burnham will go down in history as the final prime minister of the United Kingdom.The independence movement is catching international attention.Just two days before this summit, Donald Trump weighed in during a visit to Dublin, declaring he would love to see a united Ireland.To understand the magnitude of this moment, you have to look at just how long this union has stood.The United Kingdom was forged over centuries of conflict and consolidation.Wales was officially united with England in 1536.Scotland followed in 1707, giving birth to Great Britain under Queen Anne.Ireland was officially brought into the fold in 1801, but the union was short-lived.Following the Easter Uprising of 1916 and a brutal war of independence, the southern counties broke away in the 1920s to form an independent Ireland, leaving only the six counties of Northern Ireland in the UK.For decades, the current borders seemed set in stone.But in the late 1990s, successful referendums led to devolution.This granted Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland their own parliaments and assemblies.Those bodies have grown in power over the last 25 years.The very democratic institutions established to keep the nations united are serving as the launchpad to dismantle the UK entirely.While the three parties differ on exactly how and when they will break away, their message is unified:Constitutional change is coming, and they believe the people will decide their own future.

Pro-independence parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have united in Cardiff, demanding self-determination and constitutional change across the UK.

The very fabric of the United Kingdom is under unprecedented strain. For the first time in history, pro-independence parties hold the reins of power in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They are now joining forces to demand an end to what we know as the United Kingdom. In a rare and historic summit at the Welsh capital of Cardiff, leaders from the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Féin signed a joint agreement, declaring their absolute right to self-determination. The leaders issued a blunt warning to the UK Parliament, declaring in the memorandum that Westminster's time is coming to an end. All three parties now share a common goal: to break away from the United Kingdom and secure their future within the European Union. The Cardiff Pact pledges to strengthen cooperation between their governments to force constitutional change. The political landscape has shifted dramatically following Labour's recent election rout in Wales, leaving pro-independence forces in charge across all three devolved nations. Scottish First Minister John Swinney even claimed that UK Prime Minister Burnham will go down in history as the final prime minister of the United Kingdom. The independence movement is catching international attention. Just two days before this summit, Donald Trump weighed in during a visit to Dublin, declaring he would love to see a united Ireland. To understand the magnitude of this moment, you have to look at just how long this union has stood. The United Kingdom was forged over centuries of conflict and consolidation. Wales was officially united with England in 1536. Scotland followed in 1707, giving birth to Great Britain under Queen Anne. Ireland was officially brought into the fold in 1801, but the union was short-lived. Following the Easter Uprising of 1916 and a brutal war of independence, the southern counties broke away in the 1920s to form an independent Ireland, leaving only the six counties of Northern Ireland in the UK. For decades, the current borders seemed set in stone. But in the late 1990s, successful referendums led to devolution. This granted Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland their own parliaments and assemblies. Those bodies have grown in power over the last 25 years. The very democratic institutions established to keep the nations united are serving as the launchpad to dismantle the UK entirely. While the three parties differ on exactly how and when they will break away, their message is unified: Constitutional change is coming, and they believe the people will decide their own future.

Pro-independence parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have united in Cardiff, demanding self-determination and constitutional change across the UK.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland push for exit from UK | Race To Power

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

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?

race-to-power

Race To Power, News on Race To Power, stories on Race To Power, articles on Race To Power, Race To Power stories at Wion, Race To Power news, Race To Power latest news

race to-power

The Verdict | Trump’s final two years: Can he repair America’s fractured global relationships?

The Verdict | Trump vs presidential midterm curse: Will result limit his power?

The Verdict | Putin’s ice cream diplomacy: Africa deserves more than a photo op

Israel voted, Netanyahu survived, but who really won? | The Verdict

The Verdict | Vote Chori goes global: From India to Israel, Brazil and the US

The Verdict | US-Cuba clash: Who is winning while civilians suffer?

Lula’s 4th presidential victory a blow to Trump’s ambitions in Latin America

France's protest crackdown: When protecting democracy risks restricting it

The Verdict | Trump endorses Netanyahu, but Vance refuses: Differences brewing?

PM calls for curfews as riots engulf France, Macron blames far left | RTP

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and price of a deal: Is India getting a fair bargain?

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: Growing economy, but who pays the price?

The Verdict | Modi's 3-front challenge: Protests, pressure from US and economy

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

RTP | Is Brazil headed towards a complete shift to the right? Lula vs Bolsonaro

Flydubai attack puts Israel security warnings under new scrutiny ahead of polls

US nuclear double standard? Trump’s ‘friend’ Kim exposes the Iran contradiction

Can Qatar bridge the gap as US-Iran talks face diplomatic scramble

The Verdict | 10 yrs, repeated promises: Will Pakistan ever act against terror?

Netanyahu’s secret UAE visit: Was it linked to reports of Oct 7 warning

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

Trump-Xi Summit: Trade, Taiwan and the red lines shaping US-China talks

The Verdict | The Mecca Agreement is under scrutiny as Houthis attack Saudis

West Asia on the brink: Iran threatens new weapons as Trump weighs war

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

Kash Patel grilled over FBI decision to drop bestiality as hiring disqualifier