North America

Iran’s nuclear file is witnessing a rapidly escalating trajectory, underscored by its potential decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This move could redefine the very architecture of global nuclear governance. Should this course of action materialise, it would mark the first precedent of its kind since North Korea’s withdrawal from the same treaty in 2003, transforming what might initially appear as a mere negotiating stance into a profound strategic turning point with far-reaching implications for the policies of the Middle East and the wider international order.   These Iranian threats, which began escalating in June 2025, did not emerge in a vacuum; instead, they were a direct reaction to a series of successive strategic developments. The U.S.–Israeli military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 significantly deepened the complexity of the situation, while the crisis further intensified when the European troika (E3) announced in September 2025 the activation of the “snapback mechanism,” thereby reimposing UN sanctions on Tehran. Taken together, these measures led Iran to conclude that the economic and political value of adhering to international treaties had effectively evaporated.   The gravity of the situation extends beyond political dimensions to encompass highly sensitive technical and legal aspects. Technically, Iran possesses between 400 and 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to roughly 60%; a stockpile that places it only weeks away from producing weapons-usable fissile material if enrichment were elevated to about 90%. Legally, Iran’s invocation of Article X of the NPT would trigger an immediate cessation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) oversight and remove the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement from the equation, paving the way for near-total diplomatic isolation. Consequently, the fallout from withdrawal would transcend the confines of Tehran’s nuclear programme and create a broad regional security dilemma.

Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump’s unpredictable decisions have become a puzzle to follow, let alone to anticipate. Amid this growing political turbulence, a dose of rational analysis is badly needed. His recent move on the H-1B visa program, for instance, has reverberated across the globe. Though seemingly aimed at harrassing India, the policy has instead cornered the United States itself, fueling economic strain, draining valuable talent, and unsettling the tech industry. The ripple effects are already visible in Silicon Valley and among those aspiring to join it. Yet, this turbulence also opens a window of opportunity. Nations in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf, if swift and strategic, could position themselves to attract the very talent cast aside by Washington. Still, seizing this chance is no straightforward task. It demands structural reforms, long-term vision, and proactive policies. Dislodging Silicon Valley from its pedestal is not impossible, but neither is it simple or automatic. What matters now is understanding the impact on the U.S., its economy, its talent pool, and recognizing what ambitious countries must do if they wish to challenge the world’s current tech giant.

The global competition over semiconductors and related military technologies has become the central axis of great-power rivalry. The United States maintains its leadership in the global semiconductor industry, with American companies securing roughly half of the global semiconductor market. However, this dominance faces a growing challenge from China, which accounted for 20% of global semiconductor sales in 2024. Beijing’s ambition to achieve self-sufficiency in semiconductors is steadily advancing despite ongoing trade tensions and intellectual property restrictions imposed by Washington amidst the broader ‘tech war.’ China aims to reach 50% self-sufficiency in semiconductor production by the end of the year, reinforced by significant investments in R&D and market expansion by Chinese firms.   In contrast, Russia’s position in semiconductor-dependent military industries is increasingly constrained. Although Russia retains expertise in weapons design, its reliance on imported materials and advanced chip-making equipment from Western countries exposes critical vulnerabilities. Western sanctions, introduced in response to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, have sharply limited Moscow’s access to these essential inputs. In response, Russia has sought alternative suppliers, with China emerging as its largest source of semiconductor materials. These dynamic forms part of the broader Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral framework, underpinning Moscow’s strategic pivot toward Eastern partnerships.   Meanwhile, India is rapidly evolving as a significant player in the semiconductor sector. The country’s announcement in September of its first indigenous chip, “Vikram 32,” marks a milestone in New Delhi’s pursuit of technological self-reliance and signals India’s potential emergence as a competitor to U.S. semiconductor dominance. India’s increasing engagement with Russia and China reflects a pragmatic alignment based on mutual interests, particularly in the context of escalating policy tensions with Washington. Notably, U.S. tariffs imposed on India’s trade in Russian oil have further incentivized this trilateral collaboration.   Collectively, the China-Russia-India “troika” represents a coalition of shared interests rather than a formal ideological alliance. Should this partnership strengthen, it could significantly bolster their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities and pose a formidable challenge to the American industry. Nevertheless, lingering frictions—such as unresolved border disputes, differing economic priorities, technological gaps, and the impact of sanctions—are likely to impede seamless technological integration. The United States still wields substantial influence over India, with opportunities to attract New Delhi through increased investments, tariff reductions, and advanced technology cooperation. Ultimately, the trajectory of the RIC semiconductor partnership holds profound implications for the global order. A successful integration of this “troika” chip industry with their respective military technologies could catalyse the rise of a multipolar system, revolutionizing surveillance, air defence, drone capabilities, and the broader defence industrial base, thereby reshaping international power dynamics.

Lebanon today faces a critical crossroads that directly threatens its national sovereignty, and this challenge is reflected in the issue of confiscating Hezbollah’s weapons. On Aug. 5, 2025, the Lebanese government issued an important decision entrusting the armed forces with the task of developing a plan to establish the state's monopoly on weapons, restricting the possession of arms exclusively to state institutions, in implementation of the ceasefire agreement with Israel, with the plan to be executed before the end of the current year. This decision represents a strategic turning point that places Hezbollah before complex choices: voluntary disarmament, moving towards political transformation, or direct military confrontation with the Lebanese army.   Hezbollah, for its part, rejects this decision, describing it as a major sin, threatening to ignore it and considering disarmament a direct threat to Lebanon’s resistance against external aggression. The decision faces significant challenges due to the strong popular and political support Hezbollah enjoys, in addition to political maneuvers aimed at obstructing any measures targeting its weapons. Given the fragility of Lebanon’s political and sectarian system, there are significant risks of a confrontation breaking out that could escalate internal tensions and undermine security stability, making any direct military clash between the army and Hezbollah fraught with danger, with the likelihood of intensifying sectarian divisions and expanding the circle of violence. Will the Lebanese army be able to confront Hezbollah?

Recent statements by France, the United Kingdom, and Canada—subsequently echoed by other European states—on their intention to recognise a Palestinian state in September mark a notable transformation in the policies of major Western powers toward the Palestinian question. This development comes against the backdrop of the deepening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, manifested in widespread famine and a death toll exceeding 60,000, which has further amplified international calls for an urgent political resolution to the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict.   The announcements from Paris, London, and Ottawa—particularly France’s unconditional pledge alongside the conditional approaches adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada—represent a clear departure from traditional diplomatic norms, which had long tied recognition of a Palestinian state to the conclusion of a comprehensive negotiated peace agreement. This shift reflects mounting frustration over the stalled peace process, coupled with a growing conviction that conventional pathways have ceased to yield results. Recognition of Palestine is now increasingly seen not merely as the outcome of peace but as an instrument to catalyse the political process, thereby reshaping the diplomatic tools available for addressing the conflict and establishing a precedent that other states may exploit to strengthen international pressure.   At the international level, between 140 and 147 of the 193 UN member states already recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. This broad consensus provides the reference framework for understanding the recent decisions taken by France, the UK, and Canada. Notably, these three countries are all members of the G7, none of which had taken such a step before France’s declaration. France—Europe’s most populous nation—thus emerges as a prominent actor in this diplomatic shift, with both France and Canada poised to become the first G7 states to extend formal recognition to Palestine.   By contrast, the U.S. remains the sole permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that has yet to recognise the State of Palestine. This imbues the current shift with symbolic weight, laying the groundwork for a recalibration of diplomatic pressure on both Israel and the U.S., and potentially encouraging other hesitant Western states to follow suit. The divergence of positions within the Atlantic powers also underscores how internal pressures and the urgency of the humanitarian crisis have shaped the emergence of more assertive stances. Against this backdrop, this analysis explores the drivers behind this shift and its political and security implications for the states concerned, alongside the anticipated responses from Israel and the U.S.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States for his second term took place on Jan. 20, 2025. Trump outlined a wide-ranging agenda that blends traditional conservative values. Notably, he signed 26 executive orders on Inauguration Day, which is the highest number by any U.S. president to sign on that day. Trump’s second-term agenda focuses mainly under the banner of “Making America First,” “retribution,” and “law and order.” He aimed at aggressively reshaping the Federal Government, restoring hardline policies from his first term, and shifting America’s global role through protectionism and reduced international engagement.   Trump had emphasised avoiding foreign wars and promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy, focusing instead on border security and economic growth. He opposed “endless wars” and advocated reducing the U.S. military presence abroad. He repeatedly stated that the U.S. should avoid costly wars in the Middle East that lack clear American interests, using slogans like “We are not the world’s policeman” and “End the endless wars.” He sharply criticised previous administrations for prolonged military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. However, despite these promises made during his 2024 campaign, Trump’s actions in office have diverged significantly from his non-interventionist stance.  

Recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have reignited global concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Over 12 days, the region witnessed a direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel, accompanied by U.S. airstrikes on critical sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran responded by launching retaliatory attacks on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.   While Washington declared the “complete destruction” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, subsequent assessments suggest these operations fell short of their strategic goals. Key elements of the Fordow facility, including vital centrifuge systems, remained partially operational, preserving a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear capability.   Growing uncertainty surrounds the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, particularly after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% are unaccounted for—a volume theoretically sufficient to produce multiple nuclear warheads. Iranian authorities acknowledged relocating this material to “secure locations” ahead of the strikes. However, Western intelligence sources indicate that locating and neutralising these hidden stockpiles through military means remains exceedingly difficult.   This ambiguity intensifies the risks of nuclear proliferation and grants Tehran a potent strategic asset in any future diplomatic negotiations, while keeping the spectre of renewed military escalation ever-present.   Given these circumstances, Iran’s nuclear programme appears to have endured only a temporary disruption. Tehran retains the technical expertise and human infrastructure necessary to reconstruct its facilities and resume enrichment efforts. As such, the unknown status of the enriched uranium now emerges as a critical variable that could shape the region’s security landscape. Should Iran revive its nuclear activities—or should external actors attempt to strike these undisclosed caches—the result could be a new flashpoint in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel.   This analysis examines the disparity between political declarations proclaiming the end of Iran’s nuclear threat and the ground realities that suggest its persistence. It explores the strategic implications of enriched uranium remaining outside international oversight, as well as the broader consequences for regional stability and the evolution of conflict in the Middle East.

Sports diplomacy is not something new. It can be traced back to the ancient Olympic Games, when Greek city-states suspended conflicts to compete peacefully. The modern Olympic movement, revived in 1896, was based on similar principles of fostering global unity. However, sports have also been used to serve political agendas, such as the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, during which Nazi Germany turned the games into a propaganda tool. In other cases, sports played an important diplomatic role to ease tensions between countries. The Ping-Pong diplomacy, for instance, facilitated communication between the U.S. and China in 1971, which later paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s historic visit in 1972. This analysis explores how sports diplomacy contributes to easing political tensions between countries.

Iran’s uranium enrichment dilemma constitutes the central axis of the ongoing nuclear dispute, where technical considerations intersect with imperatives of national sovereignty, and where international legal frameworks collide with the strategic logic of deterrence. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic, the possession of a full nuclear fuel cycle—including domestic enrichment—is not merely a technical aspiration but an inherent sovereign right enshrined in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet, within Iran’s political consciousness, this “right” transcends legalistic interpretation; it has become a symbolic pillar of national autonomy and a manifestation of defiance against what is perceived as Western hegemony.   Conversely, the U.S. and its allies view the same enrichment capability as a direct gateway to weaponization. The centrifuge-based architecture of Iran’s program enables, with little more than a political decision, a rapid transition from low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade fissile material within a matter of weeks. These concerns escalated significantly following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) May 2025 report confirming that Iran had amassed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—an amount theoretically sufficient to produce three to five nuclear weapons, should the enrichment level be increased to 90%, without requiring any additional infrastructure.   Iran’s historical experience—from its exclusion from the Eurodif consortium in 1979 to the collapse of the Tehran Research Reactor fuel deal in 2009—has deeply entrenched the belief among Iran’s ruling elite that reliance on external fuel guarantees is neither secure nor sustainable. As such, any negotiated settlement that requires Tehran to abandon domestic enrichment is perceived as a fundamental affront to its sovereign dignity and strategic autonomy.   Thus, the essence of the conflict lies not in centrifuge counts or enrichment levels per se, but in the deeply embedded political architecture of mutual distrust. A sustainable resolution cannot be achieved without a broader security framework that redefines Iran’s position within both the regional and global order.   This study adopts a multi-layered approach to the enrichment dilemma, treating it not as a narrowly technical issue but as a strategic contest between sovereign entitlement and non-proliferation imperatives. It proceeds along four main analytical axes: the technical properties of enrichment, the political and strategic motivations driving Iran’s position, the security calculus of Western powers, and the viability of proposed diplomatic frameworks. The study ultimately affirms that any lasting agreement must emerge from a comprehensive reconfiguration of Iran’s relationship with the international system.

Having lost the presidential election and both chambers of Congress, it should have been expected that the Democratic Party would reflect on why voters rejected the party’s policies, platform, and candidates, and rally to face a second and far more empowered Trump administration that is aggressively dismantling the core of the Democratic Party’s achievements.   Instead, Democrats seem to have lost themselves, mired in an internal struggle over the party’s identity and future direction and unable to agree on what it truly means to be a Democrat in the Trump era.   These rifts reflect the fundamentally contrasting visions of what the party should stand for: incrementalism versus systemic change, compromise versus confrontation, electability versus principle. Without a unifying narrative or leadership capable of bridging these divides, the Democrats risk remaining paralyzed at pivotal moment in American history.

The war between Iran and Israel is arguably a war of survival for the regime in Iran. Attacking Iran seemed to be a logical step for Israel after almost destroying its arms of proxies in the region. the regime, which stands on three pillars, namely, its conventional missile arsenal, its extensive network of regional proxy forces, and its nuclear program, is facing a war of attrition that might eventually end the very survival of the regime. The fall of the regime in Iran goes beyond mere regime change, rather, it is considered a state collapse.   The collapse of the Iranian state would have dire consequences for the region. However, the possibility of the regime surviving remains a significant scenario. While the fall of Iran is widely regarded as a regional catastrophe, its continued survival, particularly with Tehran asserting itself as a regional superpower, could prove even more destabilizing for Israel and its allies. Both outcomes carry profound regional and global implications, signalling a transformation in Middle Eastern geopolitics. The pressing question is not whether change is coming, but rather: what will the new Middle East look like?

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, striking nuclear facilities, missile bases, air defenses, and targeting military leaders and nuclear scientists. In response, Iran retaliated the same evening with firing over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones at Tel Aviv and Haifa.   Israel and Iran have continued to trade blows and there are no significant signs of a potential slowdown in the conflict between the long-time adversaries. The spectre that looms over both is that of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has gone from negotiating with Iran for a nuclear deal to pushing for its “unconditional surrender” in the span of a week. as the U.S. simultaneously repositions its military assets to potentially strike Iran.