Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

China’s top universities are opening to foreign students. That’s a big problem for US schools.

Inside China Business | February 4, 2026

Chinese universities dominate the global rankings in hard sciences, Engineering, and Computer Science. Many of them now accept international students, and are marketing their schools in foreign countries. US schools already face serious financial challenges, from the steep decline in international student enrollment. Foreign families typically pay full tuition and room and board, and American colleges rely on those higher fees. Chinese universities pose an existential problem, going forward. They are qualitatively superior, even in Western surveys. And the over cost of attendance is a mere tenth of going to a top American program. Closing scene, Shanghai Container Port

Resources and links: Mapped: How China Overtook the U.S. in Global Trade (2000–2024) https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/h…

Fewer international students are enrolling at U.S. colleges, which could cost the country $1 billion, reports find https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/30/inter…

The College Conundrum: Chasing International Students And Full-Pay Families https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwhi…

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) https://stubard.com/blog/admission/be…

Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT) https://apply.china-admissions.com/un…

Best Global Universities for Engineering https://www.usnews.com/education/best…

Best Global Universities for Computer Science https://www.usnews.com/education/best…

International college students bring billions to the US. Here’s why that may change. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/e…

U.S. Economy Could Suffer a $7 Billion Loss from Precipitous Drop in International Students https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-naf…

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video | , | Leave a comment

Beijing cancels Panama deals after court blocks Chinese port operations

The Cradle | February 5, 2026

Chinese authorities have asked state-owned companies to suspend talks on new projects in Panama, in response to the Central American nation’s cancellation of a contract with China’s CK Hutchison Holdings to operate two ports along its strategic canal, Bloomberg reported on 5 February.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Panama’s decision could jeopardize billions of dollars in potential Chinese investments.

Chinese authorities also asked shipping companies to consider rerouting goods through other ports if the extra cost is not prohibitive, and have stepped up inspections of Panamanian imports, such as bananas and coffee.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian issued a statement saying that the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling “ignores the facts, violates credibility,” while harming the interests of Chinese companies.

Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison responded to the Supreme Court decision by initiating international arbitration proceedings against Panama.

CK Hutchison has operated Panama’s Cristobal and Balboa ports for decades. The ports lie at opposite ends of the Panama Canal – the strategic waterway that connects the Pacific and Caribbean Oceans, and through which roughly three percent of global seaborne trade passes.

The move comes amid US President Donald Trump’s campaign to counter Chinese influence over strategic infrastructure in the Americas.

Following his election last year, Trump argued that it was “foolish” of the US to hand over control of the canal to Panama. The US built the canal in 1904 and handed it back to Panamanians nearly a century later, in 1999.

Trump has also complained about the fees Panama charges the US to use the waterway.

Amid pressure from Washington, Panama also withdrew from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in February last year.

At the time, Beijing stated it “firmly opposes the United States using pressure and coercion to smear and undermine Belt and Road cooperation. The US side’s attacks … once again expose its hegemonic nature.”

Twenty Latin American nations have participated in the BRI since Beijing initiated it in 2013.

Current Chinese infrastructure projects in Panama include a $1.4-billion bridge over the canal, a cruise terminal constructed by China Harbour Engineering Co., and a segment of a metro line by China Railway Tunnel Group Co.

In Latin America, Trump is seeking to revive the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine. It states that Washington will not allow European powers to interfere in the Western Hemisphere as they had in colonial times, asserting that the region would be regarded as a sphere of US interest.

Trump used the doctrine as one of his justifications for bombing Venezuela and abducting its president, Nicholas Maduro, on 3 January.

The US president claimed that Maduro was hosting “foreign adversaries in our region” and acquired “menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives.”

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Sinophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia doubts ‘bright future’ for US economic ties – Lavrov

RT | February 5, 2026

The actions of US President Donald Trump’s administration contradict its claims that it is willing to restore economic cooperation with Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Since returning to the White House more than a year ago, Trump has repeatedly said he wants to do business with Moscow. After a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last March, the White House teased “enormous economic deals” between the two countries once the Ukraine conflict is settled.

Moscow doubts the sincerity of those claims by Washington, Lavrov said in an interview with RT’s Rick Sanchez on Thursday, ahead of Diplomatic Workers’ Day on February 10.

Not only the economic restrictions that had been slapped on Moscow under the previous administration of US President Joe Biden “all remain in place,” but “very harsh sanctions have been imposed against our largest oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft, for the first time,” he said.

Washington’s move “surprised” Putin, the foreign minister recalled, coming just weeks after his face-to-face meeting with Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, in August, during which Moscow “supported the US proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.”

According to Lavrov, the Americans are now “openly trying to push Russian companies from Venezuela.” This follows a January raid by US commandos on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, during which President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were abducted.

“India is being banned from buying Russian oil. At least, that is what was announced,” the Russian diplomat added.

Last month, Washington also said that “a state of emergency is being declared due to the threat Cuba poses to US interests in the Caribbean, including due to Russia’s hostile and malicious policies,” the minister noted.

The US is looking to introduce “a worldwide ban” on Russian oil and gas supplies, saying that they should be replaced by American oil and liquefied natural gas, Lavrov stressed.

“Well, the bright future of our economic and investment cooperation doesn’t really square with that,” he noted.

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Focus on Panama’s ‘port case’ must not be misplaced

Global Times | February 3, 2026

Since the Supreme Court of Panama ruled that CK Hutchison’s concession contract to operate Panama Canal ports was “unconstitutional,” the most elated individuals over the past few days have undoubtedly been certain US politicians and media outlets. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly posted on social media that the US is “encouraged,” while some American media outlets claimed this marks a “major victory” for Washington in curbing Chinese influence. The Wall Street Journal even issued a blunt threat, stating that other countries “might re-examine their ties to the world’s second-biggest economy.”

The cries of “victory” coming from the US confirm widespread outside suspicions and further expose Washington’s hegemonic arrogance in using geopolitical means to interfere with commercial cooperation and undermine trade rules. Although the US formally handed over control of the Panama Canal in 1999, in Washington’s Cold War mentality, this area remains an “inner lake” that others are not allowed to touch. The US has repeatedly expressed desire to “retake control of the Canal,” and Secretary of State Rubio chose Panama for his first overseas visit, threatening the country that it “must reduce Chinese influence.” Therefore, when the Supreme Court of Panama issued its so-called ruling, it is difficult for the international public opinion not to question its independence.

However, if one follows Washington’s rhythm and views this turmoil through the lens of “US-China competition,” they fall into a cognitive trap set by the US, and the focus on this matter becomes misplaced. These ports have never been, and should never be, bargaining chips in a geopolitical game. In fact, CK Hutchison has operated these ports for nearly 30 years; in such a long span of time, where has there ever been a shadow of a “Chinese threat”?

On the contrary, under the company’s management, these ports have been developed, benefiting the local area and contributing to global free trade. In this process, the US itself has been one of the beneficiaries. Therefore, regarding the attention on Panama’s port operation rights, if one must talk about winners and losers, the core should lie in the contest between free trade and hegemonism, and the confrontation between the spirit of contract and power politics.

Whether it is the ports along the Panama Canal, Australia’s Darwin Port mired in controversy, or the case of Nexperia in the Netherlands, the same “invisible hand” looms in the background. Some countries repeatedly claim to uphold a “rules-based order”; yet in practice, what they defend is an “order based on the interests of a single country.” This is, in essence, a targeted demolition of global investment credibility. If commercial contracts can be nullified at the whim of politicians or under pressure from allies, then no long-term investment within the Western system is truly safe. From Southeast Asia to the Middle East, global investors are watching closely, asking whether today’s rapacious acts will tomorrow descend upon any profitable industry.

International investment law does indeed recognize “security exceptions,” but these are by no means a universal master key for hegemonism. The core of international commercial law is certainty: companies that operate in compliance with the rules deserve the protection of the law. By using diplomatic coercion to push allies into rulings that defy legal principles, the US is eroding from within the very credit foundations on which the capitalist world depends. In the short term, Washington may have secured a few “strategic footholds”; however, in the long term, this has fundamentally undermined the international credibility of the US and the space for transnational commercial interactions. It is foreseeable that when the law ceases to be a fair arbiter and becomes a political tool, global capital will have to seek safe havens independent of the dollar system and the US “long-arm” influence.

What is even more concerning to the international community is that the geopolitical will of the US often surpasses the constitutions of some sovereign nations. This is a mockery of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the United Nations Charter. From the case of Alstom years ago to the current controversy over Darwin Port, the methods used by the US to attack competitors and seize interests are strikingly similar. The international business community needs a fair, just, and non-discriminatory business environment, not a “law of the jungle” dominated by hegemonic will. If this trend of politicizing economic and trade issues and weaponizing legal tools continues unchecked, the ultimate victim will be the entire international economic and trade order. Those who attempt to curb their rivals by undermining the rules will also find themselves facing a bankruptcy of credibility.

As an important maritime passage that carries about 5 percent of global shipping trade, the Panama Canal ports have become a crucial cargo hub on a global scale, and they should not waver under the shadow of hegemonism. According to reports, concessions for the Panama Canal ports will now need to be auctioned off.

In this context, it is hoped that the Panamanian side will truly demonstrate its “independence” by providing a predictable environment for fair competition for all bidders, rather than trying by any means to “ensure that China is blocked from the bidding” as some US media outlets have trumpeted. The whole world is watching everything that happens there.

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US traders struggling to find buyers for Venezuelan oil, as China shifts supply chain to Canada

Inside China Business | February 2, 2026

Following the US takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry, commodities trading firms were given contracts to market the crude to buyers across the world, including to China. But Venezuelan crude oil is now being sold at far higher prices than before, with the profits routed through US companies and energy traders. The higher prices have pushed Chinese refiners out of the market for the heavy crude from Venezuela, and they are shifting their orders to Canada, Russia, and Iran. Canadian tar sands oil is more expensive than Venezuelan heavy sour, but is similar, and offers far shorter transit times and lower shipping costs. Chinese energy traders have been instructed to refuse new offers for Venezuelan crude. Closing scene, Wulingyuan, Hunan Resources and links:

Reuters, Vitol, Trafigura offer Venezuelan oil to Indian, Chinese refiners for March delivery, sources say https://www.reuters.com/business/ener…

China replaces US barrels with crude from Canada https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/tan…

Trump’s Venezuela oil grab is pushing Chinese refiners to Canada (Not paywalled) https://calgaryherald.com/business/tr…

Reuters Exclusive: PetroChina holds off from buying Venezuelan oil marketed under US control, sources say https://www.reuters.com/business/ener…

Bloomberg, Trump’s Venezuela Oil Grab Pushes Chinese Refiners to Canada https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…

Trump administration demands Venezuela cut ties with US adversaries to resume oil production https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/politi…

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump tells India to stop purchasing Iran oil, buy Venezuelan instead

Press TV – February 1, 2026

US President Donald Trump has told India to stop purchasing oil from Iran and instead supply its energy demands by buying crude from Venezuela.

“India is coming in, and they’re going to be buying Venezuelan oil as opposed to buying it from Iran. So, we’ve already made that deal, the concept of the deal,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Saturday.

Earlier, Trump had threatened to slap fresh tariffs on India if New Delhi did not halt its purchase of oil from US adversaries.

However, New Delhi had resisted the threat, reminding the US president that Washington had no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations.

Trump is openly saying that he has taken full control of Venezuela’s oil industry following the US forces’ kidnapping of the South American country’s president, Nicolas Maduro.

Under the pretext of leading a cartel of drug and gun traffickers, Maduro was abducted from the presidential palace in Caracas last month and transferred to a prison facility in New York pending trial.

In the meantime, Trump has announced that the United States is controlling the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil sales. The Latin American country is among the top oil producers with the biggest proven reserves in the world.

“This Oil will be sold at its market price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social earlier last month.

Legal experts say Trump’s claim to Venezuela’s oil reserves is unlawful. There is expert consensus that Venezuela’s oil proceeds belong solely to its people.

February 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

How Trump’s Iran Gambit Could Blow Up the Entire Persian Gulf

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – February 1, 2026

Washington’s aggressive preparations under Donald Trump’s leadership will not bring victory but are guaranteed to result in a humanitarian and economic catastrophe for every single country in the region. This would turn the Gulf’s vital waters into the epicenter of an uncontrollable fire.

The Persian Gulf region is once again teetering on the brink of an abyss. Under the pretext of “promoting regional security,” the United States, led by its unpredictable administration, is engaging in blatantly provocative military escalation. The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and large-scale Air Force exercises are not steps toward stability but classic intimidation tactics. In the current climate of extreme tension, such moves risk a catastrophic blowback.

Tehran has made it clear: this time, any attack, even a “surgical” one, will be considered a declaration of full-scale war. The consequences of this decision, born of desperation and confidence after repelling aggression in June 2025, will fall not on Washington but on Iran’s neighbors across the Gulf. The US, acting as an irresponsible arbiter, is ready to set fire to a house where others live.

Iran as the Cornered Victim: Why Deterrence No Longer Works

The Trump administration seems stuck in the past decade, believing the language of ultimatums and muscle-flexing can still force Tehran to capitulate. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei shattered that illusion in his sharp statement on January 26. Iran, he said, is “fully prepared to deliver a large-scale and regrettable response.” A key doctrinal change was articulated by a senior Iranian official to Reuters: “This time, we will consider any attack—limited, surgical, or kinetic—as a full-scale war.”

What does this mean in practice? It means Trump’s calculation of a precise strike with no serious consequences is a dangerous fantasy. Iran will no longer tie its hands by responding proportionally to a local incident. A strike on a nuclear facility? The retaliation will target American bases in Qatar, the UAE, and Bahrain, housing thousands of US troops and costly infrastructure. An attempt to eliminate a senior leader? As Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi stated, it would mean Iran “sets their world on fire and deprives them of any peace”—referring to asymmetric warfare by all means. Thus, the US is creating a situation where any spark, any miscalculation, will inevitably escalate into a high-intensity regional conflict.

Immeasurable Disaster for Gulf States: Economic Collapse and Humanitarian Crisis

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries must clearly understand: in case of war, they will not be bystanders or “quiet beneficiaries” but the front-line and primary victims.

– Blocking the Strait of Hormuz. This is not a threat but an inevitability in a full-scale conflict. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated the capabilities of its navy and coastal defense missile systems. Shutting down this narrow chokepoint, through which about 30% of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes, would send global prices into chaotic turmoil. However, the first budgets to collapse would be those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait, whose existence depends on hydrocarbon exports. Global economies would withstand the shock, but the Gulf economies would plunge into a deep crisis.

– Strikes on Critical Infrastructure. Oil refineries and petrochemical complexes in Al-Jubail (Saudi Arabia) or Ras Laffan (Qatar), desalination plants, ports, airports —a ll these facilities are within range of Iranian missiles and drones. The result would be not only economic disaster but a humanitarian one: lack of fresh water, halted logistics, collapsed life-support systems in cities.

– Escalation Across All Fronts. The war would not be limited to exchanges between the US and Iran. It would immediately fuel conflicts in Yemen (where the Houthis would strike Saudi Arabia and the UAE with renewed force), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The US, with an ocean ensuring its security, can wage a “projection war.” The Gulf states have nowhere to retreat—the fire will rage at their doorstep and then spread inside.

Trump’s Irresponsibility and “Big Lie” Tactics

Donald Trump, whose foreign policy has always balanced between populism and rash aggression, is displaying glaring irresponsibility in this situation. His administration, instead of seeking diplomatic solutions, is deliberately ratcheting up tension, believing in its own impunity. However, as Baghaei rightly noted, “instability in the region is contagious,” and “any miscalculation by Washington will inevitably lead to the destabilization of the entire Middle East.”

The information warfare tactics employed deserve particular condemnation. As the Iranian Foreign Ministry pointed out, “the Zionist regime is the main source of fake news.” This refers to a targeted campaign of lies and disinformation, compared by Tehran to hysterical propaganda. False reports about secret diplomatic guarantees or mass executions in Tehran aim to create an image of Iran as an irrational and bloody regime in the eyes of the American public and the international community, justifying a “preemptive” strike. Trump, known for his fondness for loud but unverified statements, becomes the perfect conduit for this “big lie,” drowning out voices of reason.

The new strategy described by Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, appears even more cynical. He stated explicitly that the US has moved to provoking social crises within Iran to create a pretext for military intervention under the guise of “protecting human rights.” Funding and supporting “semi-terrorist urban groups” and attacks on national symbols — all are part of a hybrid war aimed at destroying internal solidarity.

What does this mean for the Gulf monarchies? It is a direct warning. If the US uses such methods against Iran today, tomorrow they could be applied to pressure any country in the region whose policy ceases to suit Washington. Supporting the American gamble today is buying a ticket into tomorrow’s turbulence, where internal stability becomes a bargaining chip in a grand geopolitical game.

Diplomacy: The Only Path to Saving the Region

Against this grim backdrop, the position of the United Arab Emirates provided a hopeful signal. They clearly stated that their territory, airspace, and waters would not be used for hostile actions against Iran. This step reflects a growing, though not always openly expressed, understanding in GCC capitals: the path to their own security lies not through war with Iran but through complex yet essential dialogue and mutual respect for sovereignty.

On this matter, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov issued a sharp warning, stating that any military strike on the Islamic Republic would lead to “serious destabilization” in the Middle East. Addressing journalists, Peskov called the prospect of an attack “another step towards serious destabilization of the situation in the region,” emphasizing that Moscow expects all international parties to show restraint and resolve differences exclusively through “peaceful negotiations.”

History has repeatedly shown that US military interventions in the Middle East brought only chaos, increased terrorism, and instability (Iraq, Libya, Syria). A new Trump adventure, if realized, would surpass all previous ones in its destructive consequences. It would not “bring order” but would blow up an already fragile region, burying the economic prosperity of the Persian Gulf states under the rubble and setting back their development for decades. Responsibility will lie not only with the reckless US leadership but also with those regional players who, blinded by short-term enmity, failed to prevent the catastrophe. There is still time for sober calculation and urgent diplomacy, but the clock is ticking down by the day.

February 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europeans oppose Brussels’ Russian energy ban, survey finds

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | January 30, 2026

A proposed European Union ban on Russian oil and gas faces broad public opposition across the bloc and mounting legal resistance from member states, according to new survey data.

Research published by Hungary’s Századvég Foundation indicates that a relative majority of EU citizens oppose a full embargo on Russian energy imports. Across the European Union, 45 percent of respondents said they were against a complete ban, while support failed to reach a majority in most member states. In two-thirds of EU countries surveyed, at least a relative majority rejected the proposal. Only Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia recorded absolute majority support.

Opposition was strongest in Central and Southern Europe. In Slovenia, 68 percent of respondents opposed the embargo, followed by Greece at 65 percent. In Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Hungary, 62 percent of respondents rejected the measure, according to the survey.

Despite this, the European Commission has moved ahead with a regulation under its REPowerEU framework that would prohibit new contracts for Russian fossil fuels and impose a complete phase-out by 2027. The regulation was advanced using qualified majority voting, overcoming government opposition from Hungary and Slovakia.

Critics argue that the Commission’s approach raises serious legal and constitutional questions. While the policy would have the effect of a sanction, opponents say it has been presented as a trade measure, allowing it to bypass the requirement for unanimous approval by all member states.

Energy policy and decisions on national energy mixes fall under member state competence under EU treaties, a point repeatedly emphasized by Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who announced on Monday that Budapest would seek to have the regulation annulled.

“Hungary will take legal action before the Court of Justice of the European Union as soon as the decision on REPowerEU is officially published. We will use every legal means to have it annulled,” he said.

“The REPowerEU plan is based on a legal trick, presenting a sanctions measure as a trade policy decision in order to avoid unanimity,” Szijjártó added. “This goes completely against the EU’s own rules. The Treaties are clear: decisions on the energy mix are a national competence.”

The Hungarian government has also warned of significant economic consequences if Russian supplies are cut off. Analysts cited by officials estimate that household utility costs could rise to three-and-a-half times current levels, while fuel prices could exceed 1,000 forints (€2.62) per liter.

Slovakia has announced it will join Hungary’s legal challenge. Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar said Bratislava could not accept solutions that fail to reflect the “real possibilities and specificities” of individual member states, according to comments cited by TASR.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico went further in his criticism, describing the Commission’s plan as “energy suicide” and predicting that “when the military conflict ends, everyone will be breaking their legs, rushing to go to Russia to do business.”

January 30, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil Tankers

teleSUR | January 30, 2026

On Friday, Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced that her country will take all necessary measures to protect its oil tankers, several of which have been seized in international waters.

“If the norms of international law are violated in relation to vessels flying our flag, Russia will take all measures at its disposal to defend them. Attacks on freedom of navigation are inadmissible,” she said.

Referring to Western sanctions used to justify the seizure of tankers belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet,” Zakharova said they run counter to international law and, in any case, cannot serve as a basis for exercising jurisdiction on the high seas and seizing vessels.

“Allusions to European Union sanctions, which French leaders arbitrarily describe as international, as grounds for adopting coercive measures against any vessel are absolutely untenable,” she insisted.

Russia adopted a very restrained stance in the case of vessels seized by the U.S. Coast Guard, as occurred earlier this year with the tanker Marinera.

Moscow’s position became much firmer in the case of the vessel Grinch, seized more than a week ago by French authorities between Morocco and Spain.

Western authorities have decided in recent months to intensify their pursuit of the fleet Moscow uses to circumvent sanctions on its oil exports, which have declined significantly since the end of last year.

January 30, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Iran, China and Russia sign trilateral strategic pact

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | January 29, 2026

In a dramatic geopolitical development this afternoon, Iran, China and Russia formally signed a comprehensive strategic pact, marking one of the most consequential shifts in 21st-century international relations. While the full text of the agreement is being released in stages by the three governments, state media in Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have acknowledged the ceremony and described it as a cornerstone for a new multipolar order.

The pact comes against the backdrop of decades of growing cooperation between these three states. Iran and Russia earlier concluded a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty designed to deepen economic, political, and defence ties, and to blunt the impact of Western sanctions — a treaty that was signed in January 2025 and entered into force last year.  Meanwhile, Iran and China have been bound by a 25-year cooperation agreement first signed in 2021, aimed at expanding trade, infrastructure, and energy integration.

What makes today’s signing significantly different, and newsworthy, is that it explicitly combines the three powers in a coordinated framework, aligning them on issues ranging from nuclear sovereignty and economic cooperation to military coordination and diplomatic strategy.

Officials in Tehran described the pact as a joint commitment to “mutual respect, sovereign independence and a rules-based international system that rejects unilateral coercion,” echoing similar statements issued by Beijing and Moscow.

What the pact represents

This agreement does not – at least from the initial public texts – constitute a formal mutual defence treaty akin to NATO’s Article 5, obligating one to defend the others militarily. Past pacts between Iran and Russia always carefully stopped short of a binding defence guarantee.  Instead, the pact appears to link three major powers in a broader geopolitical coalition defined by shared opposition to Western military dominance and economic coercion.

Central to the agreement is a unified stance against reimposition of sanctions on Iran tied to its nuclear programme under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have previously issued joint statements rejecting European attempts to trigger “snapback” sanctions, and have declared the UN Security Council’s considerations of the nuclear deal terminated.

This trilateral pact is therefore as much about diplomatic leverage and strategic narrative as it is about concrete defence or economic mechanisms.

Immediate regional and global consequences

The pact’s signing coincides with heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump has reiterated threats of military action against Iran absent a negotiated settlement on its nuclear activities, even deploying a US carrier strike group to the Middle East theatre.  Against that backdrop, this new strategic pact serves both Tehran and its partners as a buffer against unilateral US military pressure. By presenting a united front, the three governments aim to compel Washington to negotiate from a position of constraint rather than dominance.

For the Middle East, the balance of power is reshaping. Iran, long isolated by Western policies — now claims the protection of two permanent members of the UN Security Council. This will embolden Tehran’s regional posture in theatres such as Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf, and complicate conventional deterrence strategies exercised by the United States and its Gulf allies.

For Europe, the pact undercuts Brussels’ ambitions to retain independent influence in Middle Eastern diplomacy. European powers have repeatedly attempted to revive elements of the JCPOA and threaten punitive measures against Tehran, but coordination by Iran, China and Russia has thwarted those efforts, exposing Europe’s diplomatic limitations in a world less anchored to Western consensus.

Economic repercussions

Economically, the deal signals deeper integration among three of the world’s most significant non-Western economies. Russia and China have already worked on investment protection and bilateral trade agreements designed to sidestep Western financial systems, such as SWIFT, which have been used as vectors for sanctions.  A trilateral pact potentially accelerates the creation of alternative financial mechanisms and trade routes that further bleed Western economic leverage.

Iran — sitting on vast energy resources — gains broader access to markets and investment, especially as China continues its Belt and Road initiatives and Russia seeks alternatives to sanctions-laden European markets. In combination, these developments portend increased trade flows and reduced vulnerability to the US dollar-centric financial system.

Military and strategic dynamics

Although not a formal alliance, the pact strengthens military cooperation among the trio. China and Russia have conducted regular joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and Gulf waters — exercises that Iran has participated in as well, signalling interoperability and shared security interests.

Strategically, the pact will likely lead to more coordinated defence planning and intelligence sharing, even if it stops short of a binding treaty that compels military intervention. For the United States and NATO partners, this raises the stakes in multiple regions: any escalation with Iran now risks broader strategic responses involving Beijing and Moscow, increasing the threshold for conflict and reducing the effectiveness of unilateral threats.

Longer-term global impact

In the long term, the pact accelerates the multipolar restructuring of international relations. For decades, the United States and its allies have dominated the architecture of global governance — from trade regimes to security pacts. A structured alignment of Iran, China and Russia signifies an alternative axis that challenges Western hegemony not through ideological competition but through pragmatic power balances.

Whether this pact evolves into a deeper defence agreement, or stays as a diplomatic and strategic framework, remains to be seen. What is indisputable is that the world’s power centre is shifting — not towards a simple “East vs West” dichotomy, but towards a more contested, multipolar world order where diplomatic leverage, economic resilience and military signalling converge in new and unpredictable ways.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Riyadh and Hezbollah: A rapprochement forged in fire

As Lebanon becomes an unlikely stage for a slow Saudi pivot toward pragmatism, regional rifts with allies and foes alike compel Riyadh to recalculate its hard lines.

By Tamjid Kobaissy | The Cradle | January 29, 2026

Lebanon, once more, reflects the fault lines tearing through the Arab world. But this time, the ground is moving. The era of blockades and isolation is ceding to a colder, more calculated politics – and at its core lies an unlikely dialogue: between Hezbollah and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

As The Cradle observed last month on ‘Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia’s uneasy détente,’ behind-the-scenes communication between the two has laid groundwork for a quiet thaw. Recent developments have accelerated this shift, compelling the kingdom to reassess both threats and alliances. The signals are no longer limited to backchannels.

They are becoming visible across Lebanon’s political, economic, and media fronts. This suggests that rapprochement is no longer a theoretical discussion but an unfolding process reshaping both the Lebanese and regional scene.

Economic tremors, political signals

Saudi repositioning on Lebanon and Hezbollah has taken shape across multiple fronts. Economic pressures are easing, political language is softening, and discourse on the resistance movement’s disarmament is adapting to new realities. These changes track with the Saudi–Hezbollah talks and reflect broader drivers such as domestic demands in Lebanon, urgent regional recalculations, and Hezbollah’s calibrated outreach.

Sources tell The Cradle the talks have already produced results, with Riyadh stepping away from its previous economic blockade. That shift is becoming tangible across Lebanon.

The economic front offers the clearest evidence. During a visit to Beirut by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, flanked by a senior economic team, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun signaled readiness to deepen Beirut–Tehran ties. In Lebanon, such moves usually require nods from Riyadh or Washington.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, known for his Saudi ties, announced the launch of reconstruction in southern Lebanon within two weeks, with plans to accelerate rebuilding efforts. This follows parliamentary approval of a World Bank loan – an indication of intent to harness regional momentum. Salam also flagged upcoming agreements with Riyadh.

Simultaneously, the long-dormant file of Lebanese depositors was revived in cabinet through a proposed financial reorganization and deposit recovery law. This legislation lays the groundwork for closing the financial gap and gradually repaying deposits.

The reopening of this file after years of stagnation reflects not only domestic pressure but also a new political and financial environment shaped by waning external pressure and the rollback of the economic suffocation policy previously imposed on Lebanon.

Changing tones in Beirut 

Political and media rhetoric in Lebanon is also adjusting, particularly among factions with Saudi leanings. The Lebanese Forces (LF) offer a striking example. Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Youssef Raji’s tone during Araghchi’s visit was notably tempered compared to previous Iranian delegations. While his broader stance may still reflect internal party lines, it is important to note that the LF is not entirely Saudi-aligned and intersects with Washington’s foreign policy.

Equally notable is the near absence of the usual Saudi-linked media campaigns. Outlets and figures typically vocal during such visits stayed quiet. That silence reflects a broader repositioning.

Media sources also say Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Waleed Bukhari has privately conveyed Riyadh’s interest in engaging Lebanon’s Shia leaders, moving beyond the image of a sectarian boycott.

The weapons file: A vocabulary shift

A recalibration is also visible in official discourse around Hezbollah’s arms. Where previous rhetoric focused on “disarmament” or exclusive control south of the Litani River, a new phrase has emerged: weapons “containment” north of the Litani. This lexical shift reflects a more tempered and strategic approach.

On one level, it indicates closer coordination – both internally and with external stakeholders – and a move away from maximalist demands. On another, it aligns with a broader political posture from Riyadh to reduce friction and avoid escalation.

During a recent visit to Beirut, Saudi envoy Yazid bin Farhan told Lebanese officials that while Riyadh supports arms being under state authority, the process must proceed with reason and avoid internal disruption. This was widely read as a message tailored to Hezbollah.

His remark that Saudi Arabia has “no problem … with any of the Lebanese components,” mirrored Hezbollah’s framing of a national defense dialogue. More pointedly, his call for calm in the process echoed the group’s insistence that change must come through consensus, not coercion.

Wariness of war, new parliamentary cues

Another clear signal of Saudi recalibration is its growing resistance to military escalation in Lebanon. Once expressed obliquely, this position is now surfacing in both private meetings and public statements from Saudi-aligned figures.

Reports from Israel’s Channel 12, citing unnamed Saudi royals, pointed to Riyadh’s refusal to countenance any military operation against Lebanon. Such red lines bolster Hezbollah’s messaging and complicate Tel Aviv’s threat matrix.

This shift was also evident in the 18 January parliamentary session, where quorum battles pitted Hezbollah and the Amal Movement – referred to in Lebanon as the Shia Duo – against the LF. Samir Geagea, the long-standing LF leader and vocal advocate for Hezbollah’s disarmament, reportedly urged the Saudi envoy to discourage Sunni MPs from attending. The attempt fell flat. Sunni MPs aligned with Riyadh showed up anyway.

In this context, Hezbollah Political Council member Ghaleb Abu Zainab tells The Cradle:

“In principle, we want our relations with Arab states to be positive – built on mutual respect and shared interests in Lebanon and the Arab world. This, of course, includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which holds significant Arab and Islamic weight in the region.”

Riyadh’s Persian Gulf equation is shifting

The Hezbollah track is one part of a larger Saudi recalibration, driven by new regional pressures. Yemen, Sudan, the Red Sea, and Lebanon are all areas where Riyadh now sees mounting friction with longtime Gulf ally, the UAE.

In Yemen, Saudi Arabia remains uneasy. While it sought to contain Emirati actions in the south, Abu Dhabi’s moves – including a controlled pullback from certain zones – have sparked concern. The fugitive leader of the now-dissolved Southern Transitional Council (STC), Aidarus al-Zubaidi’s remarks from Abu Dhabi about pursuing southern independence, coupled with the assassination attempt on Giants Brigade commander Hamdi Shukri al-Subaihi and subsequent protests, have raised alarms in Riyadh.

In Sudan, Saudi Arabia is backing the official government in Khartoum, preparing for a potential confrontation with the UAE-supported Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Riyadh facilitated a $1.5-billion deal with Pakistan to supply weapons, air defense systems, and drones to the Sudanese army, signaling its intent to push back on Emirati encroachment – part of a broader regional re-ordering described as a response to Abu Dhabi’s growing alignment with Tel Aviv.

Meanwhile, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland and reports of a possible military presence there have added another layer of anxiety – a new Israeli footprint near the Red Sea. 

Confronting Emirati ambitions

Lebanon is not exempt. Saudi officials now suspect that Abu Dhabi is maneuvering for influence in Beirut. The LF, with its alignment to the UAE–Israel axis, is part of this concern. The scandal involving “Abu Omar” – a man posing as a Saudi prince who reportedly ran Lebanese political operations – reinforced concerns that the UAE filled the Saudi void during Riyadh’s absence.

Sources note that Qatar has also intensified its presence in Lebanon, funding figures like those in the Free Patriotic Movement. Whether this is in coordination with Riyadh or not, it contributes to a crowded Gulf rivalry playing out in Beirut.

In response, Riyadh is reassessing its Lebanese allies. The “Abu Omar” affair reportedly prompted the kingdom to question the seriousness of some of its former clients – many of whom failed to deliver either politically or in terms of security. This realization has made Riyadh more cautious and less inclined to repeat past mistakes.

The kingdom is now leaning on Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s Ain al-Tineh as a channel to Hezbollah – a more direct and realistic track. Hezbollah remains the decisive force in Lebanon, and Riyadh now appears willing to operate within that reality.

Even former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri’s future is under reconsideration. A political source stresses that a return through the Emirati channel would lead to deep divisions, especially within the Hariri household itself, as the Emirati project does not align with his personality or political legacy. One of the main reasons for his withdrawal from public life was his refusal at the time to follow the Saudi call for a civil war – a demand that reflected the Emirati approach. Therefore, the Saudi option remains the most realistic path for Hariri, capable of reintegrating him into the political scene and ensuring the unity of the Sunni community under Riyadh’s umbrella rather than fragmenting it through external projects.

These developments mark a broader unveiling of the long-simmering Saudi–Emirati rivalry. Riyadh is now moving quickly to neutralize manageable disputes and focus on what it increasingly sees as its main challenge: Abu Dhabi.

In the end, it is clear that the Saudi–Hezbollah rapprochement is not a sudden development but the product of mounting regional pressures and internal constraints that have made pragmatism not a choice – but a necessity.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian oil major agrees sale of foreign assets to US firm

RT | January 29, 2026

Russian oil major Lukoil has said it has agreed to sell most of its international assets to American private equity giant Carlyle Group. The US has targeted Russia’s second-biggest oil producer with sanctions, forcing it to divest its overseas holdings worth $22 billion.

Washington has imposed broad sanctions on the Russian oil sector since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. Along with oil majors, including Rosneft, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegas, and their subsidiaries, the US has banned American firms from deals with Russian oil companies, joined the G7 price cap on Russian energy, and imposed restrictions on more than 180 oil tankers and ships.

Moscow has argued that the sanctions show that the West is scrambling to maintain dominance and is resorting to anti-democratic and anti-market practices to eliminate competition.

Lukoil said on Thursday that the transaction is subject to regulatory approvals, including clearance from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. The company did not disclose the financial terms, but stressed it is continuing talks with other potential buyers. It noted that the deal doesn’t include its assets in Kazakhstan.

Last month, Reuters cited sources as saying that around ten global investors, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Carlyle, and Saudi Arabia’s Midad Energy, were interested in buying Lukoil’s assets.

A previous offer from Swiss-based trader Gunvor Group reportedly collapsed in November after the US Treasury accused the firm of having ties with Moscow. Gunvor, headquartered in Geneva, was co-founded in 2000 by Swedish businessman Torbjorn Tornqvist and Russian entrepreneur Gennady Timchenko. Timchenko sold his stake in 2014, when Washington targeted him with personal sanctions.

Founded in Washington in 1987, Carlyle Group currently manages around $474 billion in assets. The company has long-standing business ties to US President Donald Trump. In 2005, the firm took part in a $1.8 billion deal to acquire land and three buildings from Trump in Manhattan. In December, The Atlantic reported that Trump and Carlyle co-founder and billionaire David Rubenstein “regarded each other as friends.”

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »