• The two million Gazans are crowded into a tent city on the beaches in the 30 percent which remains in Palestinian hands. There is chronic unemployment and the Gazans are totally dependent on aid for their survival.

By Tom Arms | London

While the world’s attention has been fixed on Iran, Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, Gaza has quietly slipped from the headlines. That is unfortunate, because the territory is settling into a dangerous and potentially permanent limbo.

Except for the occasional exchange of fire, fighting between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has stopped. What has replaced conflict is an armed truce with a deep mutual distrust preventing any progress on last autumn’s peace plan.

The IDF still occupies more than 60 percent of Gaza with orders from Benjamin Netanyahu to increase that slice to 70 percent. The two million Gazans are crowded into a tent city on the beaches in the 30 percent which remains in Palestinian hands. There is chronic unemployment and the Gazans are totally dependent on aid for their survival.

The IDF occupation was—still is—billed as “temporary security buffers.” Nine months later, however, the ‘temporary’ zones contain fortified bases, permanent roads for armour, observation posts, logistics hubs and cleared fields of fire. They increasingly resemble the infrastructure of a long-term military occupation.

The IDF was meant to hand over control to a 20,000-strong International Stabilization Force (ISF) which would oversee the final disarmament of Hamas and the training of a Palestinian Police. So far only 200 American soldiers have turned up, and they don’t appear to have a role. Several countries have been approached to contribute to the ISF, but all are frightened at being caught in the middle of an Israeli-Hamas crossfire.

The 15-member team of Palestinian technocrats who are supposed to run Gaza until elections can be organized has been appointed. It even has a chairman, former Palestinian Authority official Dr. Ali Sha-ath. But the committee has yet to leave Cairo. They refuse to enter Gaza until the security situation improves. In their absence, Hamas continues to exercise political control.

Billions of dollars were supposed to transform Gaza into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East,’ as Donald Trump once described it. An increasingly frustrated Tony Blair has been touring Arab capitals in search of funds. But no Arab government is prepared to finance reconstruction while there is every possibility that Israeli bombs could reduce new buildings to rubble or that Hamas could divert materials to rebuild its military infrastructure.

The peace and prosperity that Trump talked about in his peace plan rests on the security issue. And the security issue is bedeviled by a deep mistrust.

Under the terms of the Gaza Peace Plan Hamas must disarm and forego any future role in the governance of Gaza. They must also destroy all their tunnels and military structures. When they have disarmed, Israel will immediately withdraw from most of Gaza and gradually withdraw from all of it as the ISF replaces it.

Hamas now says it will not disarm until Israel withdraws. Israel says it will not withdraw until Hamas disarms.

Neither side’s position is irrational. Israel fears that withdrawing before Hamas is disarmed simply recreates the conditions that led to 7 October. Hamas fears that surrendering its weapons before Israel withdraws would leave it politically and physically at Israel’s mercy. Israel also has a history of occupying territory in the face of international opposition—example, the West Bank.

Adding to the uncertainty is the influence of ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who openly favour permanent Israeli control and renewed Jewish settlement in parts of Gaza.

There is a further problem in that the current peace plan would assign Hamas to political oblivion. That is a fate which any political leadership would desperately want to avoid. Furthermore, what influence Hamas has is based entirely on its military.

Next week Trump’s “Board of Peace” is expected to meet in Cyprus. The 15-man transitional committee will attend. Also in attendance will be Tony Blair. The meeting is likely to be an exercise in frustration. Trump’s peace plan has succeeded in ending large-scale fighting. It has not succeeded in making peace. Instead, Gaza risks becoming neither war nor peace: a devastated enclave divided by permanent military lines, sustained by foreign aid and paralyzed by mutual distrust. If that happens, the Korean Peninsula may not be the only historical comparison. Gaza could become another frozen conflict, one that lasts for generations.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Surviving Iran

____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He is a regular contributor to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” “World Elections on File,” “America Made in Britain” and two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Gaza first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Oil spill likely triggered by Strait of Hormuz tensions has reached Astola island days after hitting strategic Gwadar coast

Amir Latif Arain

Karachi, Sindh

Days after plaguing Pakistan’s strategic Gwadar coast, an oil spill—likely from tankers hit by the US and Iranian strikes in and around the Strait of Hormuz—has now reached the country’s only protected marine island, posing a serious threat to its rich but fragile biodiversity, an official told Anadolu on Tuesday.

A thick layer of crude oil has already covered a vast stretch of the southwestern Gwadar coast and penetrated sensitive zones, with authorities struggling to clean up the shoreline.

“The issue is expanding and getting more serious,” Abdul Rahim, a marine scientist associated with the Gwadar Development Authority, told Anadolu, confirming that the oil spill has reached Astola Island.

Located in the northern part of the Arabian Sea, east of the Pasni district in the southwestern Balochistan province, Astola is the country’s largest offshore island and the only marine protected area known for its rich marine biodiversity.

The island is one of the world’s largest breeding sites for the yellow-billed tern, a small seabird found in Latin America, and supports a wide variety of water birds such as coursers, gulls and plovers.

Fearing that the oil slick could cause significant harm to the island’s unique biodiversity, Rahim said that the latest development, reported over the past 24 hours, is a continuation of the Gwadar coast incident.

“This (oil spill) has added to a slew of threats already constituting a serious threat to the island’s ecology,” Rahim added.

Muhammad Asghar, an official of Balochistan’s Environment and Climate Change Department, told Anadolu that the department is coordinating with different government agencies to formulate a joint strategy to clear the oil spill from Astola Island.

The government authorities and marine biologists are still trying to find out the exact cause and origin of the oil spill, but they are focusing on different possibilities—all linked to the US-Iran war.

According to Rahim, one of the strong possibilities is that it is the leakage from oil tankers, which tried to cross the Strait of Hormuz and were targeted by the US or Iranian forces.

Also, he added, the spilled oil may have reached Pakistan from Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub, which was bombed by the US and Israel.

Read: Hormuz Tensions Trigger Pakistan Oil Spill

______________________

Aamir Latif is a Karachi-based senior journalist. He represents Anadolu, a Turkish news agency.

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post Toxic Oil Slick Reaches Astola Island first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Westerly winds, coupled with sea currents, have pushed spilled oil toward Pakistan, says expert
• Cleanup operation underway to clear shoreline; oil accumulation could have long-term effects on marine life, experts warn

Aamir Latif

Karachi, Sindh

What began as a distant war between the US and Iran in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz is now visibly reaching South Asia, spilling onto Pakistan’s doorstep.

In the southwestern city of Gwadar, a thick layer of crude oil — likely spilled from tankers hit by the US and Iranian strikes in and around the Strait of Hormuz — has covered a vast stretch of the coast, posing a serious threat to marine life and the local fishing communities.

The government authorities and marine biologists are still trying to find out the exact cause and origin of the oil spill, focusing on three possibilities – all linked to the US-Iran war.

According to Abdul Rahim, a marine scientist associated with the Gwadar Development Authority, the spilled oil may have reached Gwadar’s coast via a key Arabian Sea shipping route about 200 nautical miles off Pakistan’s shoreline, which is linked to the Strait of Hormuz.

The second possibility, he told Anadolu, could be the leakage from oil tankers, which tried to cross the Strait of Hormuz and were targeted by the US or Iranian forces.

The third origin, he told Anadolu, could be Kharg Island – Iran’s primary oil export hub – which was bombed by the US and Israel.

​​​​​​​Investigation continues

“We have collected water and sand samples to trace the possible source of oil spill and its impact on marine environment through carbon monitoring and remote sensing,” Rahim said, adding that the oil layer has covered a 20-kilometer stretch of Gwadar’s west coast. The results are expected this week.

According to him, westerly winds, coupled with sea currents, have pushed the spilled oil toward Gwadar’s coast.

Sharing a similar view, Muhammad Asghar, a senior official of Balochistan’s Environment and Climate Change Department said that investigation is underway to find out the real source of the oil spill, without ruling out the possibility of its linkage with the latest hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz.

“We are not ruling out the possibility of any factor. It could be the US-Iran war or an informal oil trade with Iran,” he said, referring to the illegal smuggling of petroleum products from Iran into Balochistan that has been taking place for decades.

The Strait of Hormuz has been reopened to commercial shipping after being effectively restricted for several weeks amid the US-Iran conflict. The narrow waterway — through which around one-fifth of global oil and LNG trade normally flows — had seen severe disruptions to maritime traffic during the escalation.

The demand for cheaper smuggled Iranian oil has surged in recent months as a result of disruption of oil flows after the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Gwadar is a key route of the multi-billion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to connect China to Central Asia and Europe through a network of roads, railways, and pipelines for cargo, oil, and gas transportation.

With its 600-kilometer (373-mile) coastline, Gwadar is an important deep seaport currently operated by China.

Silent price of war

Rahim said a cleanup operation is underway to clear the shoreline, but warned that the oil accumulation could leave long-term impacts on marine life.

“In fact the impact is already there,” he said, adding that authorities have so far found at least four dead green sea turtles, an endangered species.

Endorsing the view, Rafi-ul-Haq, a Karachi-based ecologist, said that the oil slick, which is the beginning of a “transboundary ecological crisis,” is extremely harmful to marine life and acts as a poison for the marine ecosystem.

Speaking to Anadolu, he said that the slick might increase marine mortality rates, especially for hatchlings, struggling to reach the sea and regulate their body temperature.

“While the immediate ecological damage of the war that has already disrupted the global oil supplies, is localized around the Persian Gulf, its long-term impacts ripple outward through shared ocean currents, atmospheric pathways, and climate systems,” Haq said.

Pakistan will continue to pay the silent ecological price of a war it is not fighting as environmental security in the North Arabian Sea is inextricably linked to geopolitical stability in the Persian Gulf, he said

He recalled that southwestern Makran coast, which includes Gwadar, had faced a similar crisis during the 1990 Gulf war.

“The environmental devastation caused by burning and dumping of millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf, did not remain contained, and drifted eastward, severely impacting the Makran coast,” he said.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) warned that attacks on ships could cause large-scale marine pollution such as oil, hazardous and noxious substances and hazardous residues arising from missiles, drones, fires and explosions.

“We are aware of the reports …(but) … cannot confirm the source of the pollution at this time, and whether it is linked to incidents in and around the Strait of Hormuz,” an IMO spokesperson told Anadolu.

Read: Trout under pressure from man and nature

_____________________

Aamir Latif is a Karachi-based senior journalist. He represents Anadolu, a Turkish news agency.

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post Hormuz Tensions Trigger Pakistan Oil Spill first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Israel’s security rests on three pillars: military superiority, American support and deterrence. If the Iran War has weakened any of those pillars, the consequences for Israel are potentially much greater than for the United States.

By Tom Arms | London

America will survive the Iran War. It has survived worse. Israel may not be so fortunate. Superpowers can afford mistakes. Small countries living in dangerous neighborhoods cannot.

People have been predicting the decline of American power since Vietnam. America lost in Vietnam, failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and suffered humiliation in Somalia. Yet the United States remains the world’s dominant military and financial power. Superpowers can absorb defeats. They possess strategic depth.

Of course, the same may not be said about individual politicians. Donald Trump has been seriously weakened inside and outside MAGA world. So have the Republican politicians who have hitched themselves to the Trumpian star.

But in the case of Israel, there is more at stake than a few right-wing security-minded politician. Israel is a country of fewer than ten million in a hostile region. Its security rests on three pillars: military superiority, American support and deterrence—the belief among its enemies that resistance is futile.

If the Iran War has weakened any of those pillars, the consequences for Israel are potentially much greater than for the United States. America’s allies may doubt Washington’s judgment, but they are unlikely to abandon the dollar or NATO. Israel, by contrast faces increased diplomatic isolation; reduced confidence in US support; strengthened adversaries convinced that Israel’s power has limits; domestic political divisions and—most important of all—the end of the aura of invincibility that has been central to Israeli strategy since 1967.

In Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu thought he had found a kindred spirit who believed in solving problems through the barrel of a gun with a few dollars thrown in for good measure. In Gaza he humbled Hamas with American help. It cost 73,000 Palestinian lives and a great deal of international support. Americans, for the first time, began to question their unquestioning support for Israel.

Netanyahu saw success in Gaza as an opportunity to re-draw the political map of the Middle East in Israel’s favour. This meant developing his growing special relationship with Trump to eliminate the primary source of anti-Israeli sentiment—the theocratic regime in Iran.

For 34 years Netanyahu had been urging American presidents to join Israel in attacking Iran in order to stop it acquiring a nuclear bomb. Until Trump came along his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Then came the “bunker-busting” bombs of June 2025 that were supposed to have “utterly destroyed” Iran’s bomb-making capabilities. That was obviously false because on February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a joint bombing campaign designed to topple the Iranian regime and end the country’s nuclear ambitions one and for all.

The regime has not fallen. The MOU signed on Thursday pledged Iran to end its nuclear program, but no one believes it will honor that promise. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost. The Iranians have discovered a new political lever by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Billions have been wasted in missiles. Hundreds of billions of dollars has been lost to the world economy.

Trump had been told by Netanyahu that the Iranian regime would collapse like a house of cards. It was another Venezuela. The people were so angry with the regime that the moment American and Israeli bombs started to fall, they would rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

It did not happen. The mullahs clung to power and held the world to ransom by closing the Strait of Hormuz and ending the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

Trump was faced with the prospect of another “forever war” in the Middle East along with rising oil prices only months before the mid-term elections. He pulled the plug on the war and Netanyahu. Not surprisingly, the result has been a series of expletive-loaded conversations between the Israeli and American leaders.

Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has insisted that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. We are not parties to this agreement that does not ensure our security.”

But the first of fourteen points in the Memorandum of Understanding, is an “end to fighting on all fronts”—including Lebanon. The first point goes on to stress that both sides will ensure that “the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon is respected.”

Netanyahu insists that Israel will retain its buffer zone in southern Lebanon and continue to do whatever is necessary to guarantee the country’s security. But the hard truth is that security cannot be guaranteed by buffer zones, bunker-busting bombs or even American presidents. It rests on deterrence, alliances and the belief among Israel’s enemies that resistance is hopeless.

Those pillars have been weakened. America will recover. It always does. It has the size, wealth and strategic depth to absorb even serious mistakes. Israel does not. Benjamin Netanyahu entered the Iran War dreaming of remaking the Middle East. Instead, he may have succeeded in remaking Israel—and not for the better.

For the first time since 1948, Israelis are being forced to contemplate an uncomfortable possibility: that military superiority and American support are not enough; that their enemies can survive and adapt; and that the greatest threat to the Jewish state may not come from Tehran, Gaza or southern Lebanon, but from the illusion that force alone can secure a lasting peace.

Read: Observations of an Expat: NATO Irony

________________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also lectures on world affairs and contributes to “The New World” magazine. He is the author of two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War,” “World Elections on File,” “The Falklands Crisis” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Surviving Iran first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Once trust collapses, societies become vulnerable to entrenched polarization, collective moral exhaustion

By Habib Toumi | Bahrain

MANAMA: The war in the Gulf and the Middle East has not fully settled. Missiles and drones may have temporarily disappeared from the skies, and military operations may have entered phases of hesitation or recalibration, but another confrontation has already assumed great prominence and ominous danger: the battle of narratives.

Today, every side involved in the war seeks to dominate the story. Each country endeavors to convince its own people, the wider region and the international community that it has achieved a decisive triumph, while its adversary has faltered, capitulated or failed to withstand the might of its military and strategic capabilities.

In modern conflicts, victory is no longer measured solely by shattered lives, territorial gains, destroyed targets or military casualties. It is increasingly measured by perception. Whoever controls the narrative often claims the psychological and political victory, regardless of the realities on the ground.

What makes this phase particularly alarming is the unprecedented sophistication of information warfare. The mechanisms used to diffuse information, misinformation and mal-information have become extraordinarily advanced and deeply invasive. Social media platforms, manipulated videos, anonymous digital accounts, selective leaks and algorithm-driven amplification now shape public consciousness at astonishing speed and produce narratives built on chimeras.

For ordinary people or those far away from the battle grounds, discerning the truth has become painfully difficult.

When the war broke out, the world watched missiles and drones crossing borders and skies. Now, societies are witnessing the relentless bombardment of competing narratives, many of them fallacious, emotionally manipulative and openly dismissive of logic or factual consistency.

The first victims of wars have always been innocent people: civilians, families, children, the elderly, locals and foreigners alike. But in this new phase of the war, another category of victims is emerging: populations overwhelmed by deception, misrepresentation and fabricated realities.

Artificial Intelligence, despite its enormous promise for humanity, has also become a dangerous instrument when flagrantly misused. Deepfakes, fabricated audio recordings, stage-managed videos, manipulated images and AI-generated propaganda now circulate with alarming credibility. Lies no longer need to be convincing; they only need to spread faster than the truth.

This creates a deeply troubling question: Is it humanity’s destiny to continue suffering even after missiles and drones fall silent?

If wars once destroyed cities and infrastructure, today’s narrative wars threaten something even more fragile: trust itself. Trust in facts. Trust in institutions. Trust in the media. Trust in human judgment.

And once trust collapses, societies become dangerously susceptible to entrenched polarization, deepening cynicism and a pervasive sense of collective moral exhaustion.

People retreat into ideologically sealed, like-minded silos, while opposing groups no longer merely disagree over events, facts or policies; they begin to inhabit entirely separate realities.

In such an environment, meaningful dialogue steadily disintegrates, and the prospect of collective problem-solving grows ever more distant.

The saying prevalent in several countries, “Tell me about the one I love, even if it is a lie,” captures a profound human impulse: the longing for emotional reassurance and psychological comfort, especially when confronting painful truths.

In matters of the heart, the solace of hearing what one wishes to believe, even if embellished or untrue, becomes more bearable than the cold weight of objective reality. It quiets doubt, eases insecurity and offers temporary refuge from discomfort.

This human vulnerability is increasingly exploited by those who manipulate the media and seek to assert their narratives.

The challenge confronting humanity is no longer confined to ending wars on the battlefield. It is also about restoring dignity amid the deafening noise of deception, resisting the manipulation of perception and reclaiming truth in an era increasingly shaped by manufactured realities and weaponized narratives.

The world may eventually succeed in rebuilding shattered cities and smashed infrastructure. Rebuilding collective trust, however, is far more difficult.

That may well be the most dangerous battlefield of all.

Too many people have been killed. Too many lives have been irreparably shattered. Too many families have lost their means of livelihood. Too many homes have been destroyed…

And behind every statistic stands a human being, a life shaken by grief, scarred by loss and overshadowed by uncertainty.

Read: Iran at War: Ancient Roots, Modern Conflicts

________________________

Habib Toumi is a senior journalist. Based in Manama, Bahrain, he is also the Editor-in-Chief of The AsiaN English Edition 

Courtesy: The AsiaN, Seoul, South Korea

The post The Battle beyond the Battlefield first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Noor Muhammad Marri, Advocate | Islamabad

The ancient philosopher Heraclitus once said, “War is the father of all.” Centuries have passed, yet human history still appears to move under the shadow of this harsh reality. Modern morality may reject war, intellectuals may condemn violence, and religions may preach peace, but the structure of civilization itself often emerged from conflict, conquest, resistance, and consolidation.

Usually people present history in moral language, but history itself moves through power. Empires did not expand through sermons; they expanded through armies. Borders were not drawn by philosophers; they were drawn by victories and defeats. Even civilizations that later became symbols of law, culture, and refinement were born in periods of bloodshed and struggle.

In the subcontinent too, it is often argued that the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi defeated the United Kingdom. But such explanations ignore the larger global reality. The real turning point was World War II, which exhausted Britain economically, militarily, and psychologically. The empire no longer possessed the strength to maintain direct colonial control over vast territories. Anti-colonial movements certainly played their role, but global power equations had already shifted. History often changes not only because people desire freedom, but because empires lose the capacity to continue domination.

War, however, is only the first phase. After destruction comes consolidation. After conquest comes amalgamation. Civilizations are not created merely by military victories; they are shaped when different cultures, values, traditions, and populations begin interacting under new political realities. Almost every great civilization emerged from this process.

The Mongol conquests began with extraordinary violence, yet they later connected vast regions of Asia and Europe, opening routes for trade, diplomacy, and intellectual exchange. Muslim empires in the subcontinent were not merely military occupations; over centuries they produced blended cultures, languages, architecture, customs, music, and administrative systems. Even modern European nation-states such as Germany and Italy emerged after prolonged wars and political consolidation.

If we carefully observe human history, civilization and interaction among nations often took place under the shadows of swords. The Silk Road flourished because powerful empires secured routes through military authority. Conquest was followed by trade; trade was followed by cultural exchange; and cultural exchange slowly produced new social realities. Armies opened roads, but afterward came scholars, merchants, saints, poets, and craftsmen.

Yet force alone never sustains a civilization. The sword may establish authority, but legitimacy preserves it. Every empire that relied only upon violence ultimately collapsed under its own weight. Durable civilizations emerged where power transformed itself into law, administration, economic integration, and cultural accommodation. History therefore is not merely a story of war, but of what societies build after war.

Modern states still behave according to this old logic, though they hide it beneath sophisticated language such as development, democracy, security, or globalization. Behind many political slogans remains the same struggle for power, influence, resources, and strategic control. Human civilization may speak the language of peace, yet the structure of international politics continues to move through competition and conflict.

Thus, when Heraclitus declared that war is the father of all, he was not glorifying bloodshed alone. He was pointing toward a painful truth about human history: conflict has repeatedly acted as the force that breaks old structures, creates new realities, and pushes societies into transformation. The real question for humanity is not whether conflict exists, but whether mankind can transform the aftermath of conflict into justice, coexistence, and civilization rather than endless domination.

Read: From Divine Kings to People’s Voice

__________________

Noor Muhammad Marri Advocate & Mediator is based in Islamabad

The post The real question for humanity first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

Energy Security. The Ukraine War made it a hot topic for a Europe dependent on Russian oil and gas. The Iran War—alongside the climate change debate– has revived the issue for the rest of the world.

The world’s main fossil fuel production centers are unstable. As a result, demand is growing to replace oil and gas with renewable energy. Furthermore, the renewable energy should be produced in areas which the consuming countries control. Many countries are already doing just that. Some better than others.

Surprisingly, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” America does well when it comes to renewable sources of energy. Forty-six percent of US electricity is produced by renewables. The bulk of it – 19 percent—comes from the world’s largest “fleet” of nuclear reactors—94 spread over 54 sites.

The next largest provider are the windmills that Donald Trump hates. They produce 10.8 percent of the country’s electricity. Nine percent comes from solar power and hydro is six percent. Energy from biomass brings up the rear with 1-2 percent.

Three of the worst countries for renewable energy—and thus heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil—are Japan, India and South Korea. Japan (the world’s third largest economy) and India both derive only 25 percent of their electricity needs from renewables. But South Korea’s energy supplies are even less secure. Only about 9 percent of its electricity comes from renewables.

China is a bit better. Thirty-eight percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources. Solar and wind provide 18 percent, and China operates the world’s largest solar farm in Xinjiang. It covers 33,000 acres and is said to produce enough energy to power two million electric cars a year. Even larger solar farms are planned on the Tibetan Plateau.

The Tibetan Plateau is also the fount of another of China’s renewable energy sources—hydro power. The Himalayan mountain range is the source of many of the world’s great rivers which the Chinese have dammed to produce 13 percent of their electricity. But it is not as much as wind power which produces 18 percent of Chinese needs.

Read: How the War in the Middle East Is Affecting Energy, Trade, and Finance

European countries are at the top of the scale when it comes to renewables and energy security. In the EU, an average of 45 percent of all electricity was generated from renewable sources. One of the renewable source leaders in the EU is Spain with 57 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2025. Some diplomatic observers maintain that Spain’s energy security contributed to Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s tough stance towards Donald Trump.

France depends heavily on nuclear energy for its electricity supply. It boasts the world’s largest “fleet” of nuclear reactors after America—56 plants on 18 sites. These plants supply 61 percent of the country’s electricity. Another 18 percent comes from hydro, 15 percent from wind, three percent from solar and two percent from biomass. Only about seven percent comes from oil and gas. Coal—in common with most of the rest of Europe– provides less than one percent of France’s energy needs.

Germany used to have a large nuclear industry—29 reactors. But the Germans started to de-commission their nuclear power plants after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It revived slightly in the early 2000s and then plunged again after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan. The last German reactor shut down in April 2023. But Germany is still able to generate 56 percent of its electricity needs from renewable sources. Most of it comes from onshore windmills, but a growing proportion of the wind turbines are in the Baltic. Offshore wind energy is popular throughout northern Europe. In Germany, windmills produce 33 percent of the country’s electricity.

Wind is also a growing energy source in Britain, especially offshore wind. A third of Britain’s electricity is produced by windmills dotted around the coast and on hilltops. In total 52.5 percent of British electricity comes from renewable sources. Unfortunately, most of the remainder comes from fossil fuels, but not from the Middle East. Eighty-six percent of Britain’s fossil fuels come from oil and gas platforms in the British and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. About nine percent is liquefied natural gas which crosses the Atlantic from America.

The UK is thought of as wet, cold and sunless. Despite the weather, a growing source of British energy is solar. In fact, near Newport, Wales (one of the wettest parts of the UK) is Llanwern Solar Park which supplies electricity to 108,000 households.

Llanwern is the second largest solar farm. The largest is Cleve Hill Solar Park on the North Kent coast. It was connected to the national grid in July 2025.It boasts 550,000 solar panels; a 150-megawatt battery storage system to stabilize supplies and supplies electricity to 120,000 homes.

Solar power is growing in popularity because it relies more on the number of hours of daylight rather than just the intensity of the heat generated by the sun. That is not to say that hot, desert countries do not have the advantage when it comes to solar power. They do.

Saudi Arabia, with its vast hot deserts, is perfect for solar power and it plans to generate half of its electricity from the sun by 2030. Morocco is hoping to become a solar superpower. Its Noor Quarzazate complex in the foothills of the Atlas Mountains already produces electricity for more than three million Moroccan homes and a power cable has already been laid across the Strait of Gibraltar to connect with Spain’s power grid. Morocco plans to derive more than half of its electricity from the sun by 2030 and Moroccans claim that they could in future supply half of Europe’s electricity needs.

Read: Observations of an Expat: The Cost

_____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures of world affairs. He is the author of two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War,” “The Falklands Crisis” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Energy Security first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

Trump’s War against Iran has upended the world economy. And it has only just begun. As one economist said: “At the moment things are bad. They are going to get worse and they could become catastrophic.”

At the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meeting of world finance ministers the IMF revised down world economic growth for 2026 from 3.3 percent to 3.1 percent. It then went on to warn that if the Iran War continued much longer there was a real risk of a global recession.

Of the world’s advanced economies, the UK is the hardest hit according to both the IMF and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Predicted growth in the UK is 0.8 percent for 2026, down from 1.3 percent.

Read: War Darkens Global Economic Outlook

Even harder hit are the Asia Pacific countries who are dependent on the Persian Gulf for their gas and oil-based energy. Asia is also the most populous continent and accounts for more than half of global manufacturing which means that economic hits to that region have major global impact. The UN Development Program (UNDP) reckons that the war has already cost Asia-Pacific countries $300 billion.

Fossil fuels are not the only vital commodity exported from the Persian Gulf. The region is the world’s major source of urea which is a derivative of natural gas and a major component of fertilizer. There is a real danger that the lack of fertilizer will hit global crop yields.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has warned that forty-five million people could be pushed into “food insecurity” and that food shortages could reach “catastrophic levels.”

The Eurozone has also been hit. IMF growth predictions for the Eurozone have been revised down from 1.3 percent to 1.1 percent and inflation is expected to go up from 2.1 percent to 2.6 percent. Trump’s war has made it unlikely that the European Central Bank can cut interest rates. In fact, they may have to raise them. This view is being echoed by central banks around the world.

Germany is the hardest hit of the Eurozone countries. This is because its economy is heavily geared towards manufacturing which in turn is fuelled by oil and gas. Because France derives a large part of its energy from nuclear power plants it will escape a lot of the pain, but the French finance minister has warned about inflation and supply chain risks.

Europe has the added pain of having to increase defense spending because of the Ukraine war and Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from NATO.

Ironically, the countries that one would expect to be worst hit—the Gulf oil producers—appear to be best-equipped to weather the storm. Qatari Finance Minister Ali Ahmed al-Kuwari told the IMF that Qatar could “ride it out for a year.” He added that the rest of the world would suffer. “A full-fledged impact is coming,” he said, “and it is not far away.”

The reason for the Gulf countries insouciance is their massive sovereign wealth funds which have grown to immense levels with the help of half a century of oil money. In total Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have an estimated $4.1 trillion financial cushion.

That it is not to say that the Gulf countries will not escape entirely. To start with there is the damage that Iranian drones and missiles have wrought on oil and gas installations. But perhaps more important is the damage that the war has brought to the region’s reputation as an international hub for tourism, finance and trade. Seventy-two million tourists visited the Gulf countries in 2024 and spent $102.2 billion—ten percent of the region’s GDP. Those same tourists are unlikely to want to holiday in a war zone.

Unlikely to want to take their families to live in the region are the four million Europeans and Americans who hold the main managerial positions and are key to the region’s economic success.

Of course, the key country is the United States. It is the Americans who elected an erratic president who started the war. It is only Americans who can stop him.

The American love of affair with the automobile means that a crucial factor in their thinking is the price of petrol (or, if you prefer, gas). The price of a gallon of petrol at the pump has risen an average of $1.00, or about 36 percent since the start of Trump’s War. Most economists believe petrol prices will remain high until after the all-important midterm elections in six months’ time.

The growing unpopularity of the war and that of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, means that the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives and may also win a majority of the Senate. The Democrats have already tried to vote an end to the war. They were blocked by the Republican majority. Come six months that could change. But what will be the state of the world economy after six months of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or, even worse, an escalation of Trump’s War?

Read: Observations of an Expat: Two-State Solution

________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He is also a regular contributor to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: The Cost first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Sustained ceasefire prerequisite, but things ‘have not yet reached stage’ for peace talks to begin, experts tell Anadolu

Anadolu staff

ISTANBUL

Iran wants the US and Israeli forces to “immediately halt their hostilities, particularly targeting top Iranian leadership, in addition to the “unconditional” withdrawal of US President Donald Trump’s “deadline” on the Strait of Hormuz, Pakistani official sources told Anadolu on Monday, confirming a ceasefire proposal was shared with Tehran.

“Iran has conveyed to Islamabad that it will only consider the proposal if the US and Israel immediately halt all kinds of hostilities against Iran, including targeting its senior military and civilian leaders,” said the sources privy to developments, stressing not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The statement came as Tehran on Monday confirmed the killing of Majid Khadmi, intelligence chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, while reports had suggested that a 45-day ceasefire proposal had been made.

Tehran said it cannot be forced to enter into any dialogue through “deadline threat,” according to the Pakistani sources.

Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Asim Munir and the country’s top diplomat Ishaq Dar are in “constant” contact with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, respectively, in an attempt to persuade the two sides to come to the negotiation table, the sources added.

The ceasefire proposal, the sources said, includes an immediate ceasefire, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, within two to three weeks to finalize a broader settlement, and subsequent in-person talks in Islamabad.

Trump said on Sunday there was a strong chance of reaching an agreement with Iran as soon as Monday, while also threatening to escalate attacks dramatically if Tehran fails to deliver quickly.

Notably, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told a news briefing in Tehran on Monday that it communicated its demands to the US side through third parties.

“We have formulated our own set of demands based on our interests and considerations. We are not ashamed to voice our legitimate and logical demands,” Baqaei said when asked if there is any new plan for ending the war between Iran and the US.

Baqaei also rejected the idea of a ceasefire with the US, saying any pause in fighting could allow its adversaries to regroup and resume attacks.

Pakistan has positioned itself to mediate between the US and Iran, leveraging its good relations with Washington and Tehran, and strategic and defense partnerships with China and Saudi Arabia.

‘Sustained ceasefire prerequisite for direct peace talks’

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Tahir Andrabi declined to confirm or deny reports that Islamabad had proposed a framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran.

But Andrabi said the “peace process is ongoing.”

Amid the ongoing claims and counterclaims, Pakistani journalist and analyst Iftikhar Firdous said officials from Pakistan and Iran “have already held a physical meeting.”

“The meeting lasted for a few hours in Pakistani territory a few days ago,” Firdous said on US social media company X.

Neither Islamabad nor Tehran has confirmed nor denied the claims by Firdous, who leads the Khorasan Diary outlet.

“One of the main demands that has emerged from the Iranian side is a sustained ceasefire as a prerequisite for direct peace talks to begin,” Firdous told Anadolu in a text message.

However, he cautioned: “The process of how the negotiations are taking place has been kept extremely confidential because of the high stakes involved in an extreme security environment.”

‘Difficult to predict any final outcome at this stage’

Mansoor Ahmad Khan, a Pakistani diplomat who served as Islamabad’s top diplomat in neighboring Afghanistan during the Afghan Taliban’s return to power in 2021, told Anadolu it was “difficult to predict any final outcome on peace at this stage.”

For the “realization” of a ceasefire and negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, Iranian and US officials “will be required to sit together and negotiate with each other,” Khan said in a phone interview.

“It appears that the things have not yet reached that stage,” he added.

Khan said: “The major difference between the two sides in reaching an understanding remains on future guarantees on not attacking Iran again and the unconditional opening of the Strait of Hormuz in the absence of such assurances.”

“Therefore, due to complexities surrounding this war, it is difficult to predict any final outcome on peace at this stage,” he added.

Calling Pakistani Field Marshall Asim Munir “a trusted arbiter between the United States and Iran,” Firdous said Pakistan has positioned itself as a “trusted intermediary” between two hostile powers like Iran and the United States.”

“The real issue,” he stressed, is “Tehran’s strategic calculus… based on the history of negotiations,” he said, referring to past US-Iran talks.

While Pakistan shares “strong ties” with Iran based on geography, security cooperation, and shared interests, Firdous said Pakistan has a “working relationship with the US…strategic relations with China, Gulf states, as well as Türkiye.”

“This multi-vector diplomacy is exactly why Pakistan is not a liability, but a rare advantage,” he emphasized.

Read: Iran at War: Ancient Roots, Modern Conflicts

____________________

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post Iran Seeks End to Leadership Targeting first appeared on Sindh Courier.

The two most powerful leaders have unleashed an asymmetrical war against a sovereign nation on the pretext of a fake propaganda, to bury the ghost of Epstein Files and corruption charges and they intend to benefit from the deaths of thousands or probably millions of innocent people.

History contains numerous examples of heads of state using war to create a hysteria of existential threat among citizens to reverse plummeting approval ratings.  According to The Economist, President Trump’s ratings have plummeted, especially after the announcement of the immigration policy. Similarly, Netanyahu is again trying to bury corruption charges by seeking to increase his support with a win over Iran

By Nazarul Islam | USA

Amid a series of prevailing crises, a fresh crisis has hit the world, again courtesy US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The unprecedented war against Iran comes close on the heels of the US abducting the sitting President of Venezuela in the dead of the night and the continuing genocide in Gaza.

The Trump regime has offered a series of justifications for the war — ranging from Iran secretly enriching uranium to build nuclear bombs and posing an existential threat to Israel to helping the Iranians remove a tyrannical regime, and subsequently, posing an imminent threat to the US. Trump and his administration keep oscillating between these justifications. However, Trump’s main thrust has been to dispossess Iran of nuclear weapons and usher in democracy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an intergovernmental organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and inhibit its use for any military purpose, has reiterated that it did not find any evidence of nuclear-grade uranium during inspections.

Several top global security experts, such as Joe Cirincione, who headed the Ploughshares Fund (a public grant-making foundation focused on nuclear non-proliferation and conflict resolution), assert that there was no imminent nuclear threat from Iran. Instead, the goal is to change the regime and expand hegemony in the region with Israel by turning Iran into a vassal state like other Gulf countries to control the world’s energy matrix. The US has so far failed to provide any credible evidence of an imminent danger from Iran.

The way Trump chose to accomplish these narratives, involved eliminating the spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the top military brass through one of the most powerful conventional bombs in history. Besides, US and Israeli forces have blown up schools, hospitals and residential areas, which included the horrific murder of 160 primary school girls.

In lieu of this devastation, Trump has talked about installing a Great and Acceptable leader(s)” of his choice. Though he hasn’t mentioned it in so many words, the US has long been throwing its weight behind Reza Pehalvi, the eldest son of last King of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pehalvi, whose dictatorial regime was overthrown in a popular uprising led by the students. Shah Iran’s son Reza himself is pitching to lead a transitional government in Iran after the end of the current Iranian regime that would lead to free and fair elections. (Meanwhile, as per reports, Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, has been chosen as Iran’s Supreme Leader by the clerical body).

The events leading to the unilateral, unjust, unprovoked, and imposed war clearly demonstrate that the justifications given by Trump and Netanyahu are far from the truth and they had other ulterior motives for starting it.

There are four main counterpoints that explain the tearing eagerness with which Netanyahu and Trump went for all-out war with Iran, a conflict that every day has put a colossal cost on American citizens. On the fifth day of the war, the Trump administration was slated to have put a bill of $850 billion to Congress to replace the depleted arsenal, which consisted of costly Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and lethal bombs.

Impending elections amidst corruption charges

Both Netanyahu and Trump are facing elections and both are witnessing dwindling public support because of serious corruption charges. Just days before launching a strike on Iran, Netanyahu appeared before the Tel Aviv District Court for the 79th time on February 23. According to the charges, Netanyahu maintained a bribery relationship with businessman Shaul Elovitch. As part of that relationship, Netanyahu and his family allegedly made various demands of the Elovitch family regarding media coverage of their affairs on the Walla news website controlled by Elovitch. The requests allegedly included limiting coverage of Netanyahu’s political rivals. The court proceedings are continuing amid deep divisions in Israel over Netanyahu’s formal request for a pardon from President Isaac Herzog.

Similarly, President Trump is facing an array of alleged corrupt transactions during his current term as the 47th President of the US. A tracker prepared by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC)— a non-partisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy—extensively catalogues the benefits Trump has put up for sale and what they cost, highlighting the most egregious examples and explaining how these transactions have adversely impacted the public.

The Ghost of Epstein Files

The steadily opening Pandora’s Box of the infamous Epstein Files is further eroding public trust in these leaders, just as it has done across the world.  The US House of Representatives Document Repository contains damning allegations against President Trump in the form of explosive tapes recorded by author Michael Wolff, showing a nexus between Trump and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

In the latest developments, an under-pressure Department of Justice (DoJ) informed news outlets that 47,635 files were offline for additional review and are expected to be ready for re-production by the end of this week.

“Our team is working around the clock to address victim concerns, redact personally identifiable information and any images of a sexual nature,” according to Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre. “All responsive documents will be repopulated online once proper redactions are made,” she added.

The United States DoJ was virtually forced to admit withholding this large tranche of Epstein Files, promising to post them online after redactions due to exemplary investigations by The Independent and NPR (National Public Radio).

On February 24, barely four days before President Trump joined the war against Iran, NPR, a US-based independent, non-profit media organization, revealed that the DoJ withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that President Trump sexually abused a minor. It alleged that the DoJ also removed some documents from the public database, which contained accusations against Epstein that also mention Trump.

NPR’s investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be catalogued by the Justice Department but not shared publicly.

The ghost of Epstein Files has also ostensibly made Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his coterie subservient to American and Israeli interests. This clearly reflects in the US diktat on allowing India 30 days waiver to buy Russian oil.

Israel’s Hegemonic Ambitions in West Asia

Right now, this may seem like a conjecture or conspiracy theory but there is a growing possibility that Trump was forced to join the war against Iran to further Israel’s hegemonic ambitions in West Asia. The key to this riddle is again embedded in the Epstein Files. Many documents released so far suggest that Epstein was a trained spy of Mossad.

Documents released by the DoJ revealed that a confidential FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) informant claimed to have become convinced that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was operating as an agent for Israeli intelligence.

The informant, referred to as a confidential human source (CHS) also alleged that Epstein had a close personal relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and claimed Epstein had been “trained as a spy under him.”

The suggested links between Epstein and Mossad give rise to speculation that Israel possesses the raw footage, photographs, or call logs implicating several world leaders, such as President Trump and several top US officials. This forced Trump to enter Israel’s war against Iran.

Plummeting Ratings

History contains numerous examples of heads of state using war to create a hysteria of existential threat among citizens to reverse plummeting approval ratings. According to The Economist, President Trump’s ratings have plummeted, especially after the announcement of the immigration policy. Trump’s net approval on inflation also remains negative at -24.

Early surveys after the beginning of the Iran war suggest the war is unpopular. According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted a week before the first strikes, just 27% of Americans favored an attack. But experts agree that a quick result with few or no American casualties can help Trump turn the tide and seek public approval during the midterm elections in November this year.

Similarly, Netanyahu is again trying to bury corruption charges by seeking to increase his support with a win over Iran, similar to what occurred during his military successes against Hezbollah. Legally, the elections for the 26th Knesset (Israeli parliament) are scheduled for October 27, this year, but there is a strong chance that Netanyahu might move them earlier to September or July to encash his popularity.

Possible Scenarios After War Ends

There is no consensus on the post-war scenario. Pro-US and Israel hawk experts, such as former four-star General and former CIA Director David Petraeus and former National Security Advisor John Bolton (who advised Trump during his first term as US President), believe that this will end the tyrannical IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core) regime and pave the way for a US- and Israel-friendly popular democratic regime. However, many caution that this action will turn Iran into a failed state with different ethnic insurgent groups, such as the Kurds and Baloch engaged in a power struggle.

Experts in Predictive History like Professor Jiang Xueqin (who successfully predicted Donald Trump becoming US President and attacking Iran alongside Israel) and Douglas Macgregor, former senior advisor to the US Secretary of Defence, claim that Iran will withstand the onslaught because it has learned sufficient, suitable lessons from previous attacks, and the US will lose. Prof Jiang argues that Iran will inflict enough damage on the critical infrastructure of the GCC countries which are the lynchpins of the US economy.

Regardless of what experts say, the fact remains that the two most powerful leaders have unleashed an asymmetrical war against a sovereign nation on the pretext of a fake propaganda, to bury the ghost of Epstein Files and corruption charges and they intend to benefit from the deaths of thousands or probably millions of innocent people.

History will not remember them very kindly!

Read: Chasing the Hopes and Promises

__________________

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.

The post Living in a mad, mad world first appeared on Sindh Courier.