Diplomacy & Crisis News

The government and army are taking back their own country.

The organization’s current cash crunch is a historic opportunity for reform.

Central banks are independent for a reason.

A peace treaty would settle a long and bloody conflict—and create new geopolitical options in the region.

It’s time for Washington to shift from patron to partner.

The deadly attack killed at least 20 people, including five journalists.

European states would be primary targets for Moscow.

The Trump administration is throwing away a chance to end HIV worldwide.

A new book argues that the world’s two biggest economies need a bit more of each other’s cultures.

Washington needs to move quickly if it hopes to compete in this critical industry.

The United States is pressuring developing countries to make a binary choice without making itself a better choice.

Essays and insider accounts on the secret history of the agency.

The three points of security contention for the West; Russia, Iran and China, seemed to become ever closer until recently when Russia stepped aside during the US attack on Iran’s nuclear program. For years, closer ties came with North Korean soldiers and former PLA Chinese mercenaries contributing to Russia’s front with Ukraine, a relationship previously thought to be only as a parts supplier of China to Russia’s industrial base. China’s links in the Middle East and recent moves in becoming a broker between Saudi interests and Iran’s interests ended with an evacuation of the region as entrenched Russian allies fell and international shipping became targets, affecting Russian, Chinese and international trade interests.

Much of the reversal of the Axis came with assertive moves from the US and their allies against ties between Russia, Iran and China. With the US and Europe now fully united in the re-invigoration of NATO and a full defense of Ukraine, moves by the Axis has galvanised the West militarily on the Ukrainian front, in focusing on Iran, and may quickly collect a united front if China was to attack Taiwan or India. A tactical error that would mirror Sweden and Finland’s ascension into NATO would be for China to pressure both NATO and India’s common security interests as India and NATO would rapidly form defensive alliances if either interests faced military pressure from China or their regional allies in Asia.

The lack of success on the battlefield by the Axis may explain other policy developments that are designed to fracture the Western alliance, mostly by playing the Delay Card and forcing internal upheaval in Western countries. The targeting of Western norms, via the normalization of disproportionately eroding actions in local communities, clearly function by permanently altering Western interests and the internal degradation of Western norms. Most of these orchestrated events come about when there is a Western victory or paradigm shift towards Western interests, often countered by leadership in the West that have low approval ratings or are in power due to outside interest campaigns.

The race to tear down the internal strength of Western powers must be juxtaposed with the deterioration of regimes in Russia and China due to age or political divisions within their Cabinets and ruling party politics. It is hoped that stability can hold so that Western countries would not fracture, nor would countries like Russia or China fracture, as it would likely lead to a more complicated security situation in both countries. A fractured Russia and/or China is bad for the West as it would harm both local allies and adversaries of Western powers. The race to the bottom must not hit the floor, as the end result is bad for everyone.

Since the October 7th massacre, Israeli society has been greatly torn between those who send their children to the army and are suffering the effects of the war, and Haredim who are exempt from sending their children to the army.  Many segments of Israeli society that send their children to the army are growing greatly resentful of the Haredim, who do not send their children to the army, especially as the causalities from the Gaza War continue to rise, with almost every day us hearing about soldiers who were killed in action.

Israeli society is furthermore torn between those who want this war to end as soon as possible and for the hostages to be released by whatever means necessary, and those who would like to see Hamas militarily defeated, even if it means that not all of the hostages will make it back. While Israeli society has always been divided between the secular and the religious, the right and the left, these divisions have only grown stronger since the October 7th massacre.   In the eyes of some, these internal divisions pose a grave threat to Israeli society, as it is hard to focus one’s efforts on fighting external threats if one lacks a united home front. Some argue that these internal divisions have gotten so bad that they threaten the future functioning of the State of Israel.

The Dor Moria Think Tank recently proclaimed, “Israeli society faces a crisis that transcends traditional political or religious divisions. According to groundbreaking research by the Dor Moriah Analytics Center, the nation is trapped within what researchers call an “ontological bubble”—a self-perpetuating system of mutual antagonism that threatens the very fabric of the state.”

According to the Dor Moria Think Tank, “This isn’t merely another analysis of Israel’s well-documented secular-religious divide or left-right political split. The ontological bubble represents something far more insidious: a complete breakdown in shared reality, where opposing worldviews have crystallized into simplified, irreconcilable narratives that feed on conflict itself.”

“The Dor Moriah Center’s extensive research program—encompassing 14 nationwide sociological studies, 5 expert surveys, and collaboration with leading Israeli polling firms Maagar Mochot and Geocartography—has revealed a disturbing pattern,” the Dor Moria Think Tank noted. “Israeli society has bifurcated into two dominant, antagonistic worldviews: the “secular-liberal” and the “religious-conservative.””

“What makes this an ontological bubble rather than a conventional societal split,” one may ponder. According to the researchers, “it’s the self-sustaining nature of these divisions. Traditional information campaigns or dialogue initiatives don’t bridge the gap—they actually intensify it. Any attempt at neutral positioning triggers negative reactions from both sides. The bubble feeds on conflict, growing stronger with each clash.”

Dr. Lola Kolpina, a sociologist at Haifa University and one of the study’s authors, noted that “the high level of radicalization in respondent answers revealed by the study should be considered. On the most significant social issues, most people take extreme positions, reflecting not so much a process of situation analysis as a behavioral strategy oriented toward pushing through their values and interests rather than dialogue and interest coordination.”

The data confirms this grim assessment:

• Only 27.2% hold moderate positions on the state structure question
• Radical positions outnumber moderate ones by 1.5 times on key issues
• The polarization coefficient for critical dichotomies approaches zero, indicating maximum conflict potential

For example, 45% of ultra-Orthodox Jews frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an existential clash between Judaism and Islam.   However, only 30.1% of secular Jews share this view, with 34.1% seeing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as territorial dispute.   While 30.8% of Israelis favor complete annexation of Palestinian territories—the single most popular position—most (52%) doubt it would resolve the conflict. Yet they’re equally pessimistic about alternatives—only 22.6% believe peaceful coexistence is possible without territorial changes.  Nevertheless, 56.9 percent of the ultra-Orthodox support complete annexation of all Palestinian areas, while only 23.3 percent of secular Jews support this extreme position.

This ontological bubble according to the researchers at the Dor Moria Think Tank adversely affect the functioning as Israel as a state, leaving the state strongly divided between those who are religious versus secular, those who favor a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared to a two-state solution.  According to the researchers, unless the issue of the ontological bubble is addressed, Israel will not be able to exist in its present form, as the high level of conflict between the sides and the lack of national solidarity will make it difficult for Israel to function in its present format.

We are already beginning to see signs of how the ontological bubble is adversely affecting the functioning of the Israeli government. Elana Sztokman, co-host at Women Ending War Podcast, recently stated on Facebook: “The Knesset has quietly continued with a whole series of terrible actions aimed at breaking democratic processes and enabling the government to do whatever it wants without any criticism. Among other things, they are frantically trying to remove from office anyone who disagrees with their actions, such as the Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav (still in place, thus far, but in peril), Mk Ayman Odeh (saved for now), and the Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein — out.”

According to Sztokman, “Edelstein, who I don’t have any particular affinity for considering he has spent most of the past two years as an obedient arm of this corrupt government, did exactly one thing that reflects a possibly lingering conscience within him. That is, he refused to automatically allow the continuing of the haredi draft exemption, while the rest of the country is suffering through this war. For that, for still believing in what’s called “sharing the burden” and putting a stop to the free-flowing faucet of budgets and exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox, he was fired from his speaker job and other important Knesset positions.”

“Now, his powerful position as chair of Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is about to go to a little-known Knesset member named MK Hanoch Milwidsky,” she added. “Aside from being a Netanyahu loyalist who will do whatever Bibi wants, there is another little item worth knowing about this little Milwidsky guy: He is under investigation for rape. Multiple rapes. His victims are still coming forward.”

However, prominent Middle East scholar Dr. Mordechai has a quite different view than Sztokman and the Dor Moria Think Tank: “Polarization is dangerous when both sides are equal in their power. However, the right side is much more powerful than the left side of the spectrum in Israel. This is why the left stick to the judicial system, the arts, academia, the economy, and media in order to hold onto power. The smaller they become, the more perspicuous they are and more extreme in their actions against the majority. Since this risk is unbalanced, they will finish when the left will be finished and it is going in that direction.”

According to Dr. Kedar, “This is what the demography leads to, with the religious population bigger and more numerous and the secular population smaller and therefore, they become more and more violent. A lady was recently arrested for wanting to acquire a weapon and use it against the prime minister. This means they are desperate. The left lacks significant leadership for they are a large array of positions, which vary from ultra-leftists who identify with Hamas to people who are more centric and define themselves as left because they don’t want to define themselves as right.”

Dr. Kedar feels that polarization in American society is a greater issue than it is in Israeli society: “American society is polarized for it is half and half.   They are divided between Democrats and Republicans. Here, the system represents the people much better for we have a multi-party system for people stick to their parties that they supported in the past. This is the way to manage with this.”    

Source: World Bank

At the core of the strategic rivalry between the United States and China lies China’s heavy dependence on maritime trade routes. As of early 2025, about 57.3% of China’s foreign trade transited by sea, with exports reaching nearly $325 billion in June alone. This maritime reliance underscores the economic dominance of China’s eastern coastal regions—Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Shandong—which together generated over $5.1 trillion in GDP in 2024. These provinces thrive on export-oriented manufacturing and port infrastructure, while inland regions such as Wuhan and Chengdu, despite faster population growth and rising consumption, continue to lag economically, with GDP per capita roughly half that of the coastal hubs in 2023. This stark regional disparity creates a national imperative for Beijing to rebalance economic development toward the interior, driving China’s strategic expansion into Central Asia.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Central Asian corridors play a crucial role as an economic equalizer by channeling trade, investment, and infrastructure into inland provinces, thereby reducing coastal dominance and maritime dependency. Through integrating overland logistics networks—like transnational railways and highways—China empowers inland cities with direct access to global markets. This strategy not only lowers transportation costs and diversifies export routes, but also fosters industrial growth in the interior, fundamentally altering China’s economic geography. Consequently, a rising share of China’s foreign trade is shifting from sea-based routes to land-based networks, narrowing regional economic gaps and significantly lessening China’s vulnerability to maritime chokepoints and external disruptions.

The traditional Indo-Pacific Strategy, which has historically emphasized maritime dominance, now faces a critical gap as China diversifies its export and investment pathways toward Eurasia. To effectively counter China’s expanding multi-vector influence, the U.S. must broaden its policy beyond maritime competition, deepening strategic engagement with the Eurasian landmass by integrating economic, political, and security dimensions across the continent. This calls for a shift toward fostering a more resilient and interconnected regional framework.

Fostering Competitive Cooperation to Reflect Realpolitik in Central Asia

Building on this strategic imperative, America should actively promote the development of an open, resilient, and inclusive regional economic ecosystem in Central Asia. The crucial insight is that by enlarging the overall economic “pie,” greater opportunities emerge for meaningful engagement and dynamic interactions among all regional actors—including Russia, China, Turkey, and other ambitious players. By fostering sustainable development and deeper integration, the U.S. can establish itself as a constructive yet strategically savvy partner, cultivating a competitive environment that deliberately harnesses the region’s natural rivalries as a strategic advantage.

This model of competitive cooperation—or “coopetition”—creates space for emerging and increasingly influential actors to contribute to regional development while preventing any single power from achieving dominance. Turkey, for instance, has rapidly expanded its economic footprint, with exports to Central Asia reaching $12 billion in 2022 and bilateral trade with Turkmenistan hitting $2.5 billion in 2023. Ankara’s influence is strengthened not only by trade and defense partnerships—including UAV cooperation with Kazakhstan—but also by deep linguistic and cultural ties to Turkic-speaking populations.

While enlarging the economic pie through engaging diverse actors is crucial, the U.S. must exercise necessary caution in this approach. Critics rightly warn that deepening economic ties with authoritarian-leaning states such as China risks entrenching illiberal governance models across Central Asia. Infrastructure investments and expanded trade may strengthen state capacities for surveillance and repression as much as for development. This tension is particularly evident in the record of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, where investment often advances without governance conditions, effectively decoupling growth from liberal reform and potentially undermining democratic development.

Therefore, as the economic pie grows, U.S. engagement—especially in coordination with the European Union—must move beyond mere commercial diplomacy. Any strategy for economic integration should embed robust mechanisms that promote transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation by civil society. Without addressing these governance dimensions proactively, growing economic interdependence risks solidifying authoritarian resilience, thereby limiting the U.S.’s ability to advance long-term democratic governance and human rights in the region. This governance-conscious approach ensures that economic expansion serves not just growth, but also the development of more open and accountable political systems.

The U.S. Needs to Strategically Leverage Regional Rivalries to Diversify Supply Chains in Central Asia

With this long-term framework in mind, the U.S. should remove Cold War-era constraints on Central Asian countries, most notably by repealing the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. According to a 2025 Atlantic Council report, this outdated provision denies permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to several Central Asian nations that have already met original human rights criteria, resulting in higher tariffs and reduced investment that directly impede U.S. influence and limit economic engagement with the region. The bipartisan efforts led by Senators Marco Rubio, Steve Daines, Chris Murphy, and Todd Young to eliminate this barrier represent a crucial first step toward unlocking trade, infrastructure investment, and cooperation in critical sectors such as rare earth minerals and counterterrorism. Repealing Jackson-Vanik would bring U.S. policy into alignment with current geopolitical realities, enabling more substantial partnerships that promote development grounded in human dignity and democratic accountability.

Building on this policy foundation, the U.S. short-term strategy should adopt a complementary two-pronged approach. First, it must strengthen its institutional toolkit by expanding the role of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to effectively “coopete” with the region’s multipolar actors. This involves promoting private investment and the development of high-quality infrastructure to advance economic diversification and regional connectivity, while enforcing rigorous environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards to support transparent and sustainable growth, along with facilitating the entry and expansion of U.S. companies in competitive markets.

Second, the U.S. should prioritize diversifying trade routes and supply chains by actively engaging both the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) and the Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR), thereby capitalizing on the ongoing China-Russia rivalry for strategic advantage. This dual-corridor approach helps ensure reliable transportation of natural gas to EU allies while securing access to critical minerals in Siberia, reducing dependence on any single transport pathway or political arrangement.

The strategic logic behind reinforcing these complementary infrastructure corridors lies in fostering a competitive dynamic between China and Russia in Eurasia that ultimately serves U.S. interests. The TITR serves as a vital energy corridor that allows Central Asia to reduce dependence on Russian-dominated supply chains while countering China’s growing influence in regional energy exports. In 2023, freight volumes along the TITR increased by 63.7%, with Kazakh exports surging by 122%, highlighting its rising prominence as an alternative to Russian-controlled transport routes and demonstrating its potential to reshape regional trade patterns. This development systematically diminishes Moscow’s leverage while strengthening regional economic autonomy and diversification.

Simultaneously, the TSR remains crucial for Russia’s mineral exports, underpinning its economic strength despite recent fluctuations in transit volumes due to geopolitical tensions. By ensuring Central Asia maintains access to viable alternatives to both Chinese and Russian transport monopolies, the U.S. empowers the region to enhance its economic sovereignty and alleviate authoritarian pressures from any single dominant power. Together, these competing yet complementary transport corridors promote a balance of economic interdependence and healthy rivalry, bolstering regional bargaining power and allowing U.S. firms to secure strategic resources within politically neutral environments that are not dominated by adversarial powers.

By advancing a pluralistic transport network centered on both the TITR and TSR, the U.S. pursues a sophisticated strategy of competitive cooperation—encouraging diverse connectivity options that simultaneously challenge and engage regional powers constructively. This nuanced approach ultimately supports the development of a stable, multipolar, and rules-based economic order in Central Asia that prevents hegemonic dominance while fostering prosperity and development that aligns with American values and strategic interests.

Azerbaijan is undergoing a significant geopolitical realignment, moving away from Moscow’s traditional dominance and pursuing a more independent, multi-vector foreign policy. This strategic shift has been shaped by historical grievances, the post-war dynamics of the South Caucasus, and the weakening of Russia’s regional influence following the Ukraine war.   For years, Azerbaijan maintained a careful balance with Russia, recognizing Moscow’s power while safeguarding its own sovereignty. However, Russia’s decades-long alliance with Armenia, its reluctance to ensure the implementation of post-war agreements, and its failure to restrain Armenian provocations have eroded trust in Moscow’s role as a “neutral” mediator.   The 2020 Second Karabakh War highlighted a changing reality: Turkey’s military and diplomatic support, rather than Russian involvement, enabled Azerbaijan’s decisive victory. This demonstrated that Moscow was no longer the only power capable of shaping events in the South Caucasus.   Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 weakened its global standing and diminished its ability to project power in the South Caucasus. Preoccupied with the conflict and isolated by Western sanctions, Moscow’s influence in the region has noticeably declined.   This created an opportunity for Azerbaijan to strengthen its role as a reliable energy partner for Europe. The Southern Gas Corridor, supplying gas to European markets, has made Baku a key player in Europe’s energy security strategy, further reducing its reliance on Moscow.   The proposed Zangezur Corridor, which would connect mainland Azerbaijan with its exclave Nachshivan through southern Armenia, is a strategic priority for Baku. This corridor would not only enhance regional trade and connectivity but also reduce Azerbaijan’s dependence on Russian-controlled routes.   Moscow’s lukewarm stance on this project and its attempts to maintain control over all transit links in the South Caucasus have created additional friction. Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, seeks to establish the corridor as a sovereign project without Russian oversight.   Moreover, the corridor is viewed by Western and regional partners as a critical route that would integrate the South Caucasus with global trade networks, bypassing both Russia and Iran.   Azerbaijan’s partnership with Turkey has evolved into a robust strategic alliance. Military cooperation, defense industry collaborations, and joint regional initiatives underscore the “one nation, two states” principle.   At the same time, Baku has strengthened its relations with Israel, particularly in defense technology, intelligence sharing, and energy. The European Union and the United States have also deepened their engagement with Azerbaijan, viewing it as a vital partner in energy diversification and regional stability.   Azerbaijan’s growing influence is reshaping the South Caucasus power dynamics. While Russia remains a factor due to geography and trade, its weakened position has allowed Baku to pursue a more independent path. By leveraging its energy resources, modern military capabilities, and strong alliances, Azerbaijan is positioning itself as a leading regional power that is no longer bound by Moscow’s dictates.   Azerbaijan’s strategic pivot is not about severing ties with Moscow but about redefining its role in a multipolar world. The combination of energy diplomacy, the Zangezur Corridor initiative, and strong partnerships with Turkey, Israel, and the West reflects Baku’s determination to act as an autonomous and influential force in the South Caucasus.

A few short weeks into the Ceasefire with Iran, Iranian backed Houthis Kill Four, 15 kidnapped/missing after Houthis sink Greek ship in Red Sea.

After much talk and negotiations, the US has finally decided to go full steam ahead and resume its natural state of being as the tip of the spear for NATO in support of Ukraine. With much of the EU pushing for further kinetic involvement and border countries near Ukraine, notably Poland becoming the next major security superpower, the alignment of NATO comes after tough discussions between the Europeans and the United States on financial and supply obligations to the organisation. The new wartime commitment of 5% matches the reality of the current situation in Europe, a conflict that has erupted in other parts of the world despite the haughtiness of European denials on the reality of these situations. While not part of the common discussion in many NATO capitals, Europeans outside of Ukraine are being fired upon as European shipping fleets continue to be targeted and sunk abroad with limited response by the noble Western alliance. These actions during a supposed Ceasefire has resulted in deaths and likely more hostages, with an insufficient response by NATO against one of Russia’s allies. This trend of weak responses does nothing but encourage more conflict it seems, as Russia’s test of NATO’s fortitude continues to fuel more destruction.

In a sincere effort to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, new tariff measures aim to end Russia’s export of oil and gas to its main customers in many BRICS nations. Since the 2022 war began, there has been a concerted efforts to end the dependence on Russian oil and gas, while silently purchasing much of those same products by countries helping Ukraine to the tune of billions in military aid. The prohibition on the sale of North America energy to allies in Europe and Asia likely did more to fund Russia’s war machine than any attempted sanctions, as with high oil prices and the unwillingness to apply workable limits, the Russian military industrial complex would always be able to outproduce NATO with funding being constant. With these half measures, the war could always continue as long as there were men and metal available to put on the field, and Russia seems to be using many allies for these missions.

Effective sanctions on oil and gas must come with the displacement of these resources so other nations dependent on Russian energy have an alternative to conflict themselves. Acknowledging this reality was always a step never truly taken since 2022. A further acknowledgment of the greater war also prohibited and end to the conflict in Ukraine, as NATO sat on intelligence for years on drone production from Iran being sent to Russia. The scourge of these drones have become the essential terror weapon that are now murdering civilians at night in Ukraine. Now that drone facilities are operating in Russia, tank factories are on 24 hour shifts producing new armour and weapons, and former Soviet weapons storage facilities are being emptied out in record time providing refurbished equipment for the front, these targets should be met with the same vigour as the mission to end many of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet on the ground by Ukraine’s intelligence service.

A concerted effort should be taken against Russia’s military supply allies so that all sources of weapons can be limited along with tariffs and sanctions limiting funds towards Russia’s war production. Taking small steps to claim ceasefires only works when the ceasefire is committed to by both sides. In many situations, there is no rational side that can hold to any ceasefire agreement as it is usually just a tactic to delay a conflict until the West tires of the mission, leading to many deaths of innocents until that time comes. The war of delay is one that will always be lost as since the War in Vietnam, all adversaries of the United States have used this tactic with great effectiveness, now mixed with internal conflicts degrading the security situation in many of Europe’s and America’s great cities. Anarchy mixed with the normalisation of disproportionately undemocratic actions is the internal conflict that will likely weaken one side to such a great degree, that they will be unable to counter any conflict. To admit there is a war is the first step, to fight the war is what these new actions hope to achieve before it is no longer an option. Only time will literally tell of the eventual outcomes.

By Rachel Avraham

Donald Trump’s latest geopolitical positioning suggests a dramatic shift in U.S. attitudes toward the South Caucasus. In what critics call a “draining of the Washington swamp,” Trump appears ready to distance himself from the entrenched influence of Armenian lobbyists and place his bets on Azerbaijan—a nation that offers real strategic, economic, and security advantages to the United States.

For decades, the Armenian lobby in Washington, led by groups such as the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the Armenian Assembly of America, has been among the most vocal diaspora forces in U.S. politics. By leveraging historical grievances and emotional narratives, they lobby against military and energy cooperation with Azerbaijan.

However, the Trump camp sees this lobby as part of an outdated, unproductive political ecosystem. Trump’s strategy focuses on tangible gains: energy security, trade routes, and pragmatic alliances, rather than symbolic gestures. This shift has left Yerevan’s traditional lobbying tactics increasingly ineffective in shaping U.S. foreign policy.

Azerbaijan’s importance has grown significantly in the wake of global energy disruptions caused by the Ukraine war. As a key supplier of natural gas to Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor, Baku is now central to efforts aimed at reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy. For a dealmaker like Trump, Azerbaijan represents an opportunity to align U.S. economic and strategic goals with a rising regional power that delivers real results.

Moreover, Azerbaijan’s decisive victories in the 2020 and 2023 operations to restore its sovereignty over Karabakh have boosted its standing on the world stage. By contrast, Armenia has been increasingly seen as a struggling state, overly dependent on Russian protection and unable to adapt to the shifting geopolitical realities of the region.

Trump’s approach to international relations has always been guided by business logic and transactional partnerships. With Azerbaijan’s strategic location—bordering Russia, Iran, and the Caspian Sea—Trump views Baku not just as an ally but as a gateway for trade, energy, and influence in Eurasia. Political analysts suggest that a future Trump administration could dramatically expand U.S.-Azerbaijan cooperation, particularly in energy infrastructure, defense partnerships, and counter-terrorism efforts.

Armenia’s heavy reliance on the U.S. diaspora lobby has left it vulnerable to shifts in Washington’s priorities. As Russia’s grip on the South Caucasus weakens, Yerevan is scrambling to secure allies but has little to offer in terms of strategic value. Trump’s pivot to Azerbaijan highlights this reality: the U.S. is less interested in symbolic narratives and more focused on nations that can contribute to energy diversification and regional stability.

The Trump camp’s emphasis on Baku could redefine U.S. policy in the South Caucasus. By sidelining Armenia’s lobbyists, Washington could foster stronger cooperation with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and other regional players—ultimately reshaping the balance of power in a way that supports Western interests.

Trump’s shift from Yerevan to Baku is not just a diplomatic adjustment—it’s a signal that U.S. politics is moving toward pragmatic, results-oriented partnerships. As Armenian influence in Washington fades, Azerbaijan stands to gain from a renewed American focus on energy security, trade, and stability in the region. If Trump’s strategy continues, Baku could become a key U.S. partner, while Armenia risks sliding into political irrelevance.

A decentralized emirate system based on traditional governance structures could offer
Palestinians sustainable development and peaceful coexistence.

In recent days, the possibility of transforming governance in Judea and Samaria from the
failed Palestinian Authority model to a United Emirates system has been making headlines.
This model, based on traditional clan structures and local governance, represents a fundamental
shift from centralized authoritarian rule to decentralized, community-based administration that
prioritizes economic development and peaceful coexistence.

The emirates model offers what neither Hamas nor the PA can provide: legitimate local
governance rooted in traditional social structures, economic opportunity through industrial
zones and regional cooperation, and a pathway to joining the Abraham Accords framework.
Unlike the current system where over 80% of Palestinians view their government as corrupt
and disconnected from their needs, the emirates model builds on existing social trust within
communities.

Itamar Marcus, head of Palestinian Media Watch, emphasizes the systemic advantages: “There are communal leaders that care about their people. For years, there has been business going on between Jews living in Judea and Samaria and local Palestinians, with the blessing of the clan leaders for these people want the best for the Palestinians. If we are able to transition from the PA to the clan leaders, it will be for the people and for Israel as well.”

The economic dimension is crucial. As the Dor Moria Center research demonstrates,
sustainable peace requires addressing the root causes of conflict – particularly economic
exclusion and underdevelopment. With Human Development Index levels below 0.7 strongly
correlating with conflict, the emirates model’s focus on industrial zones, economic cooperation,
and integration into regional trade networks offers a concrete pathway above this critical
threshold.

The transition mechanism matters as much as the end goal. The current PA survives not
through legitimacy but through international funding – particularly from Europe. A phased
transition would involve redirecting this support from maintaining a failed centralized authority
to empowering local governance structures that can deliver actual services and economic
opportunities to their communities.

A Palestinian journalist, speaking on condition of anonymity, highlighted the systemic
failure: “Before 1988, we had dignity through economic integration. Today, 350,000
Palestinians who once worked in Israel are unemployed. The financial restrictions have
paralyzed our economy. People are so desperate they risk injury jumping the security barrier
just to find work. This isn’t about changing faces at the top – it’s about changing the entire
system.”

The emirates model addresses these structural problems through:
• Decentralized governance that maintains local accountability
• Economic integration through industrial zones and the Abraham Accords
• Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms that have legitimacy
• Direct service delivery without the corruption of centralized bureaucracy

Dr. Mordechai Kedar notes that the primary obstacle isn’t Palestinian opposition but
institutional inertia within certain Israeli administrative structures that have grown comfortable
with the dysfunctional status quo. The success of the emirates model requires Israeli support
for this systematic transformation – not just tolerating it, but actively facilitating the transition
from failed centralization to successful decentralization.

The window for this transformation is now. Each month that passes entrenches the failed
system deeper, while the population’s desperation grows. The United Emirates model offers
not just new leadership but a new system – one built on traditional legitimacy, economic
opportunity, and peaceful coexistence within the Abraham Accords framework.

Seo Sam-seok, National Assembly member for Sinan: a stark reminder that elected officials who assume public responsibility should bear public humiliation—not the powerless

In April 2025, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) barring imports of salt produced by Taepyung Salt Farm in Sinan, citing credible evidence of forced labor. This marked the first WRO imposed on a South Korean product, following a 2022 petition by advocacy groups. The CBP identified nine indicators of forced labor, as defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), including the exploitation of vulnerable workers, movement restrictions, confiscation of identification documents, debt bondage, unpaid wages, and physical abuse. The WRO effectively halts imports unless the company can conclusively demonstrate that its supply chain is free from forced labor. This move represents a significant escalation in U.S. efforts to hold South Korea accountable on labor rights, reigniting scrutiny of a case long emblematic of systemic failures.

The Sinan salt farm slavery scandal first drew international attention in 2014, when media and police investigations exposed widespread abuse, particularly of people with disabilities. Since then, the U.S. Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report has consistently cited labor exploitation concerns in South Korea, frequently referencing Sinan as a representative case. In 2021, a fresh incident of forced labor and wage theft triggered on-site investigations by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, which relayed detailed findings to Washington. Although South Korea has maintained its Tier 1 ranking in the TIP Report, the U.S. has repeatedly urged stronger enforcement, framing Sinan as a litmus test for Seoul’s commitment to international human rights norms. Even after the high-profile 2014 investigation, further cases emerged. In 2021 and 2022, new abuses were exposed, with reports that local police at times ignored victims’ pleas or returned escapees to their exploiters. Notably, in 2019, South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled that the government and police bore responsibility for failing to prevent such abuses, underscoring the systemic nature of the problem.

The Sinan case illustrates how entrenched local power structures and economic dependencies perpetuate exploitation. In isolated regions like Sinan, local elites—including landowners, law enforcement, and religious figures—often maintain overlapping interests, blurring the boundaries between governance and personal gain. Victims were not hidden; their suffering was an open secret sustained by collective silence and complicity. This points to a broader systemic problem: a feudal mindset that allows abuses to persist under the pretext of “community cohesion” and loyalty to entrenched power brokers. Such corruption not only obstructs justice but also undermines public trust in national protections.

No evidence to date implicates leaders of specific religious organizations or denominations directly in the Sinan forced labor case. However, media reports and NGO investigations have documented instances where salt farm owners leveraged their status as church elders or maintained close ties with local pastors to bolster their social standing. This influence sometimes discouraged whistleblowing or helped maintain a code of silence within the community. While isolated cases have seen individual pastors or church officials investigated for alleged complicity or negligence, there is no indication of formal involvement by religious institutions. The dominant pattern remains one of collusion among salt farm owners, politicians, and police, rather than coordinated action by religious groups.

Democratic Party politicians—many of whom represent constituencies in Jeollanam-do—have faced criticism for their muted response. Analysts point to a combination of regionalist loyalty, fear of alienating influential local actors, and a political culture averse to intra-regional critique as reasons for the inertia. Despite promoting human rights and labor reforms on the national stage, these politicians have often downplayed or sidestepped the Sinan scandal, wary of unsettling their rural support base.

The persistence of forced labor on Sinan’s salt farms galvanized artists and documentarians, who sought to confront public apathy. The UK-based Channel 4 documentary series Unreported World, produced by one of Britain’s leading public service broadcasters, aired a detailed episode in 2018 that investigated the Sinan salt farm forced labor case through firsthand testimonies and on-the-ground reporting. The program exposed how disabled and vulnerable individuals were lured under false pretenses, forced to work without pay, and subjected to violence and threats, all enabled by systemic failures in welfare protections and local complicity.

Although government crackdowns and rescues followed these media exposés, a 2023 investigation by Jeollanam-do authorities confirmed that exploitative labor practices persisted. Most perpetrators received only lenient sentences, such as probation, and many local elites avoided prosecution entirely. As a result, survivors continue to face daunting challenges in rehabilitation and reintegration.

The Sinan salt farm forced labor scandal is not a closed chapter of history; it remains an ongoing human rights challenge demanding vigilance, comprehensive reform, and above all, sustained commitment from all levels of governance and civil society. But such commitment must not be distorted or diluted by shifting narratives. A case in point is recent coverage by Maeil Business Newspaper, which highlights a media framing pattern that deserves scrutiny. While quoting workers, employers, and officials, the reporting tends to emphasize incremental improvements while downplaying systemic issues. The narrative often pivots to external trade concerns—such as U.S. misunderstandings or diplomatic repercussions—rather than keeping human rights violations at the center. Heavy reliance on government data without deeper investigation, and sympathetic space for employer grievances, may reflect subtle media bias aligning with official narratives. This framing risks diluting accountability and diverting focus from the structural reforms still urgently needed.