In an apparent awkward moment at the Oval Office on Thursday stateside, U.S. President Donald Trump referenced Pearl Harbor in his first meeting with Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi after her landslide electoral victory.
When asked by a Japanese reporter on why the U.S. did not inform allies such as Japan before carrying out the attacks against Iran on Feb. 28, the U.S. president said it was to maintain the element of surprise.
“Who knows better about surprise than Japan … Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”
Trump was referencing the surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1941, which saw the deaths of over 2,400 personnel and drew the U.S. into World War II.
“Who knows better about surprise than Japan … Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”
Donald Trump U.S. President
Trump said that the surprise attack on Iran had helped the U.S., adding that it “knocked out 50% of what we anticipated” in the country within the first two days.
During the meeting, Trump praised Japan for “stepping up” to assist in efforts to secure the Strait of Hormuz, “unlike NATO.“
Before the meeting, Japan, as well as Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands had released a joint statement expressing their readiness to “contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”
Trump had called on Japan and other countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, but Takaichi had reportedly said Monday that there were no plans to dispatch naval vessels to escort boats in the Middle East.
Her office also said in a post on X that there was “no specific request from the United States to Japan for the dispatch of vessels.”
Japan’s prime minister on Tuesday said that the government was considering what could be done within the framework of the country’s law. Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are governed by its pacifist constitution, that renounces war and the threat or use of force for settling international disputes.
Trump had taken aim at NATO allies earlier this week, saying that the alliance was “making a very foolish mistake” by not getting involved in the war.
In response, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius reportedly said on Monday that “This is not our war, we have not started it,” a stance that was also adopted by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Subsequently, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday that “we have declared that as long as the war continues, we will not participate in ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, for example, by military means,” according to Reuters.
BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump’s administration spent the past year dismissing Europeans as pathetic and irrelevant. Now, as he wages a war alongside Israel to force regime change in Iran, he wants Europe to cheer him on.
European leaders, who distanced themselves from the U.S. attack in its early hours, are ramping up their response to a crisis spreading beyond Iran. France, Italy and others are deploying military reinforcements to the region to defend their bases and partners. Britain has now allowed U.S. forces to use its bases to block Tehran’s retaliation. But the European moves so far fall short of the applause Trump is seeking for an assault without clear end that is violently reshaping the region.
The White House is not exactly trying to forge a coalition of the unwilling. Washington did not consult European allies before the attack and has not asked them to join in bombing Tehran. But the administration wants access to strategic European air bases and logistics hubs to facilitate its aerial barrage. And Trump is rebuking countries that don’t offer unflinching support, like Britain, or anyone who takes a forceful stand against the war, namely Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
“It’s taken three or four days for us to work out where we can land. … So we are very surprised,” Trump said. “This is not the age of Churchill.”
U.S. President Donald Trump meets German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 5, 2025. (REUTERS/Kent Nishimura)
The fragility of the transatlantic relationship is on display as European leaders avoid criticizing an American president who is sensitive to it, while he strikes an Iranian leadership that they too want to see weakened. The continent’s leaders are wary, however, of a conflict unleashed by their most powerful ally that could bring untold ramifications to their doorstep — and of following America into yet another war in the Middle East, which has little, if any, upside with their voters.
So, while Berlin backs Trump and Madrid stands up to him, Europe’s top leaders have delivered a medley of barely consistent responses. Many are twisting themselves into knots to address the conflict while maintaining a veneer of neutrality, with Trump already unpopular across much of the continent.
It was only weeks ago that Trump threatened to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.
With few exceptions, the balancing act leaves European leaders “half in, half out,” ignoring their purported values, and tilting to the side of a U.S. president they can hardly influence, said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs.
The result, she said, is tacit endorsement of a campaign for regime change that threatens to bring more chaos to the region, where Europeans have a sizable military footprint and hundreds of thousands of citizens.
The war in Iran began “unbeknownst to the world” and was not a decision “shared by anyone,” Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told lawmakers in Rome on Thursday. “Of course, it was well outside the rules of international law. We don’t need to say it.”
More Middle East Tensions
Crosetto, a member of the party led by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Trump’s closest allies in Europe, appeared to be addressing criticism of the European response — and the apparent lack of U.S. warning to allies, which left him stuck in Dubai when the strikes started.
“No country” in Europe or elsewhere, he added, “can convince the U.S. and Israel to stop this war.”
European capitals were not asked to join the attack on Iran in advance, and they have not taken part in combat, said three senior European diplomats, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive discussions.
Trump has praised one European leader, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited Washington this week after he declared there was little use “lecturing” about the illegality of war.
Back home, however, Merz faced European criticism for abandoning support of international law, which he has touted on Ukraine and Greenland, and for not defending Spain from Trump’s criticism in the Oval Office.
“Clueless tourist stranded in crisis zone” is how one German front page described Merz’s trip to Washington.
The optics contrast with European pledges to develop unity and independence from the United States on security matters. “Surely your sovereignty begins by speaking your mind,” Tocci said. She noted several European leaders were so careful not to criticize the U.S. attack that it seemed simpler for them — however absurd — to ignore it in their initial reactions.
People demonstrating in support of the government in Tehran on Saturday. (The New York Times)
Spain’s Sánchez — who has warned his European peers for months against projecting double standards or ignoring security threats from the bloc’s southern borders — has mounted the only vehement public opposition to Trump.
Still, the Europeans are not sitting this out, as the war hikes oil prices and risks spurring a new wave of refugees. French President Emmanuel Macron, deploying a surge in air defenses and warships to the Middle East, pledged to protect E.U. member Cyprus and Persian Gulf nations, which have come under fire from Iran’s retaliation. Macron also said the U.S. attack broke international law, and that he is trying to broker another ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes have displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
The French military said Paris has allowed the U.S. to use a base in France for its aircraft, so long as it’s not used to “participate in any way” in U.S. strikes on Iran.
Even Spain, locked in a showdown with Washington for refusing access to Spanish bases, announced it was dispatching a frigate to help Cyprus and demonstrate “commitment to the defense of the European Union.”
Trump was so furious with Spain that he threatened to “embargo” the country, although singling out Spain would be tricky, since the 27-nation European Union trades as a bloc.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose about-face allowed the U.S. to use British bases, is also under pressure from his Labour Party to disavow the war. He maintained that the decision is “limited.”
European bases are far closer to the conflict, including the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands, which Britain controls, in the Indian Ocean. In a drawn-out conflict, those facilities would let the U.S. move jets, fuel or weaponry more quickly. Washington has used European bases in past Middle East offensives, including for rotating troops during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A senior British official said the proximity of the bases to Iran would “enable U.S. forces to take out more missile sites and command-and-control units at a greater rate.”
A USAF B1-B bomber prepares to land at RAF Fairford on Friday. (Toby Melville/Reuters)
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte praised Trump on Fox News and Newsmax in recent days, insisting that allies support the U.S. war on a “massive scale” — an assertion Spain has rejected. But Rutte seemed to succeed with a core element of his role these days: keeping Trump pleased. “Thank you to our great NATO Secretary General!” the president posted on social media.
The Trump administration has made clear it expects Europeans to help Washington, given America’s longtime defensive shield for the continent. Ukraine’s European backers also rely on U.S. weapons for the fight against Russia.
Despite uneasiness over a long war in the Middle East, European officials have their own misgivings with Iran, including over its ballistic missiles and ties to Russia, and they have heaped blame almost entirely on Tehran.
Yet the fallout could hit closer than in America. Some E.U. countries, such as Cyprus, are within missile range, as is Turkey, which is a NATO member.
For European politicians, joining a U.S. war will be unpopular after the stained legacies of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. Following Israel into war will also be divisive in many European nations, with some European officials having accused Israel of genocide in Gaza.
As they deploy reinforcements to the region, officials cast this as a means to safeguard citizens and Europe’s energy needs.
Italy’s Meloni described Persian Gulf partners as “vital” to the country’s energy supply. Above all, she said, “there are tens of thousands of Italians in that area, and approximately 2,000 Italian soldiers whom we want to, and must, protect.”
Sánchez, meanwhile, urged Europe to remember the fallout of past Western interventions. “You cannot answer one illegality with another,” he said in a speech, “because that is how the great catastrophes of humanity begin.”
Perth, Australia – In a strategic move that puts American interests front and center without the endless quagmires of past interventions, the Pentagon is gearing up to station up to four nuclear-powered submarines at HMAS Stirling, a naval base in Western Australia, starting as early as 2027. This deployment, part of the AUKUS security pact, serves as a smart “insurance policy” against potential Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific—ensuring U.S. trade routes stay open, supply chains remain secure, and American workers aren’t left holding the bag for Beijing’s bullying. It’s a classic America First play: leveraging allies to share the load, deter threats, and protect our economic edge without committing to another forever war.
The announcement, detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal report, highlights how Washington is repositioning its naval assets closer to flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea. HMAS Stirling, located near Perth, is undergoing a massive $5.6 billion upgrade funded largely by Australia, including new maintenance facilities that will allow U.S. subs to operate more efficiently—reducing strain on American bases in Guam and Hawaii. By 2027, the base will host rotational deployments of Virginia-class attack submarines, with up to four U.S. boats and one from the U.K., under the banner of Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West). This isn’t about basing them permanently—it’s rotational, keeping flexibility while building Australia’s skills for their own nuclear-powered fleet in the 2030s.
From an America First perspective, this is gold: It deters China without overextending U.S. forces. Beijing’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea threaten vital shipping lanes that carry trillions in American trade annually. By parking subs Down Under, we’re sending a clear message—back off—while letting allies like Australia pull their weight. No more freeloading on Uncle Sam’s dime; this pact ensures shared burdens for shared security. And unlike the neocon dreams of regime change, it’s focused on deterrence, not invasion—protecting American jobs in manufacturing and tech that rely on stable Pacific trade.
The move comes amid a broader realignment in Asia, where U.S. policies are reshaping alliances to counter China’s economic and military clout. Take President Trump’s recent tariff tweaks with India: On February 8, he slashed reciprocal tariffs from 25% to 18% and axed a 25% penalty on Indian goods, rewarding New Delhi for slashing Russian oil imports—a smart play to wean allies off adversarial energy sources while boosting U.S. exports. India’s electronics boom, fueled by schemes like Make in India and Productivity Linked Incentives, has catapulted it to the world’s second-largest mobile phone maker, with exports surging from $21.3 billion in 2014-15 to $127 billion in 2024-25. Yet, this growth hinges on Chinese components—39.7% of India’s electronic imports come from Beijing—highlighting the tangled web of dependencies Washington is working to untangle.
This tariff relief positions India to challenge Vietnam in the U.S. market, where Hanoi faces a 45% transshipment tariff to block Chinese rerouting. In 2024, Vietnam grabbed 4% of U.S. imports versus India’s 2.7%, but with electronics making up 17.6% of India’s U.S. exports—and now tariff-free—expect a shift that benefits American consumers and weakens China’s supply chain dominance. It’s America First economics: Reward friends who align with our interests, punish those who don’t.
Further south, political winds are shifting in Bangladesh, where February 12 elections follow the 2024 ouster of Sheikh Hasina amid student uprisings. The interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is cozying up to China and Pakistan, irked by India’s sheltering of Hasina despite extradition demands. This realignment could tip South Asia’s balance, with Beijing eyeing infrastructure deals to expand its Belt and Road footprint. For U.S. interests, it’s a reminder to back stable partners like India without getting bogged down in regional squabbles—focus on trade pacts that secure American access to markets, not endless diplomatic meddling.
Across the East China Sea, Japan’s snap election on February 9 saw Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s hawkish stance on China dominate headlines. Her November 2025 vow to defend Taiwan militarily if attacked drew Beijing’s ire—bans on Japanese seafood, tourism curbs, and threats to rare earth exports. Young voters like Aoi Nakamura rallied behind her: “Japan should maintain a firm stance without making any compromises.” A strong win for Takaichi would signal Tokyo’s resolve, aligning with U.S. efforts to fortify alliances against Chinese coercion. But America First means encouraging Japan to step up its own defense spending—now at 2% of GDP—rather than relying on U.S. troops as a crutch.
These threads weave into the AUKUS fabric: The submarine deal accelerates Australia’s nuclear sub program, with U.S. and U.K. rotations building expertise. Recent visits, like the USS Vermont in October 2025 and USS Minnesota in February 2025, test maintenance protocols at Stirling, paving the way for SRF-West. By 2032, Australia gets three Virginia-class subs, enhancing collective deterrence. Experts note this brings U.S. forces 4,000 miles closer to Taiwan than Pearl Harbor, cutting response times in a crisis.
The Virginia-class USS Minnesota docked at the HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia last year. (Colin Murty/Press Pool)
Critics worry about escalation, but proponents argue it’s preventive—deterring Beijing from adventurism that could disrupt global trade. With China flexing in the Taiwan Strait, this base ensures America can protect its interests from afar, without boots on the ground. As one Pentagon official put it, “It’s about presence, not provocation.”
In this era of great-power competition, Trump’s strategy—trade incentives for India, alliances like AUKUS, and firm lines with rivals—puts American workers, security, and prosperity first. No more nation-building; just smart power that keeps the peace and pays dividends at home.
For the full story on the submarine deployment, read The Wall Street Journal’s report here. Details on AUKUS from the Australian Submarine Agency. Coverage of India’s trade surge from Dow Jones. The New York Times on Japan’s election dynamics.
PHOENIX — In the heart of the America First movement, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a masterclass in political navigation at Turning Point USA’s year-end bash, deftly sidestepping the Israel quagmire that’s fracturing MAGA ranks without uttering the word that has neocons and Zionist lobbyists foaming at the mouth. The 41-year-old Ohioan, fresh from hosting a Hanukkah shindig at his home—complete with VP-sealed kippahs—focused on core conservative values: No “purity tests” for patriots, a nod to the young groypers questioning endless U.S. handouts to foreign powers. Vance’s restraint isn’t weakness; it’s wisdom—refusing to let establishment gatekeepers like AIPAC dictate who belongs in Trump’s coalition. As he told the roaring crowd, “President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests.” Amen to that—Vance gets it: Real America First means putting White working families before endless Middle East entanglements.
This “tightrope” act, as one ally aptly put it, comes amid mounting pressure from the pro-Israel old guard to excommunicate bold voices like Nick Fuentes—the podcaster unapologetically calling out dual loyalties and endless wars—and Tucker Carlson, whose Israel skepticism echoes the frustrations of young conservatives tired of seeing their tax dollars fund foreign adventures. Fuentes, a fearless advocate for White America against demographic replacement, has taken heat for his unfiltered takes, but Vance’s silence speaks volumes: Why condemn a guy exposing the strings pulled by foreign lobbies? As Vance posted on X just before his Hanukkah event: “There’s a difference between not liking Israel (or disagreeing with a given Israeli policy) and anti-semitism.” Spot on—criticizing endless aid isn’t “hate”; it’s fiscal sanity.
From a right-center view, Vance’s balancing act is pure genius: Embracing Israel as a “strategic partner” without kowtowing to the war hawks who bled us dry in Iraq and Afghanistan. His UnHerd chat nailed it: “Antisemitism, and all forms of ethnic hatred, have no place in the conservative movement.” But let’s be real—Vance hates the Fuentes smears from the left, and his restraint keeps the door open for groypers disillusioned with Zionist priorities. Allies like TPUSA’s Andrew Kolvet praise Vance’s bridge-building: “Israel is our ally… but they’re not our only concern.” Exactly—America First means securing borders here, not babysitting endless conflicts abroad.
Critics like Shabbos Kestenbaum whine Vance is “winking” at groypers, but that’s swamp-speak for fearing real debate. Vance’s refusal to bash Carlson—after Tucker’s Fuentes sit-down—or Fuentes himself shows backbone: No bowing to the ADL’s cancel mob. As Vance ally noted anonymously: “JD understands the needs… of young Americans… better than any other leading politician.” Young Whites, squeezed by inflation and replacement migration, see Israel aid as a distraction—Vance’s “soul” check on Palestinian kid casualties humanizes that without caving.
Fuentes fired back via email, calling Vance’s remarks “performative” but open to support if he reins in Israel and bans immigration—fair ask for a guy amplifying White grievances ignored by RINOs. Greene’s resignation over Epstein files and Israel aid underscores the rift: MAGA’s evolving beyond neocon shackles.
Vance’s Phoenix omission? Strategic gold—focusing on Trump’s coalition sans Israel drama. As 2028 whispers grow, his “tightrope” keeps options open: Pro-White base without alienating allies. Trump stayed mum, but Vance’s play echoes the boss: Deal-making over division. For MAGA, it’s a win—prioritizing America, not endless foreign welfare.
The BBC will apologise for the misleading editing of a Donald Trump speech in a Panorama documentary, the Telegraph can disclose.
Samir Shah, the BBC’s chairman, will write to the culture, media and sport committee on Monday to express regret for the way the speech, made on the day of the Jan 6 2021 Capitol riot, was spliced together.
The apology will heap further pressure on Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, to quit over an 8,000-word dossier compiled by a whistleblower that alleged widespread bias within the corporation.
The Telegraph has previously disclosed that both Mr Davie and Mr Shah were warned of the doctored footage in May but appear to have kept quiet.
The decision to issue an apology now raises questions about why it has taken them six months to admit viewers were misled.
The Telegraph understands the apology will be for the misleading editing of the Trump speech. It is not clear what Mr Shah will say about the coverage of the Gaza war or alleged bias in the BBC’s reporting on gender, but it is understood that he may also advocate changes to the management and oversight of BBC Arabic.
The Panorama episode, broadcast a week before the 2024 US election, “completely misled” viewers, according to the memo written by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser to the BBC.
His memo was circulated amongst senior managers, who “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards”.
Mr Prescott is then understood to have warned Mr Shah of the “very, very dangerous precedent” set by Panorama, but received no reply.
The existence of the dossier and its contents were revealed by The Telegraph last week, prompting calls from senior politicians, including the former prime minister Boris Johnson, for Mr Davie to resign.
On Friday night, the White House accused the BBC of “purposeful dishonesty”, claiming it was a “Leftist propaganda machine”.
The dossier also highlighted anti-Israel bias, especially in coverage of the war in Gaza, on its dedicated BBC Arabic news service.
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Britain’s foremost constitutional expert, also called on Mr Davie to resign with “immediate effect” on Saturday.
The academic, a former professor of government at the University of Oxford, said the broadcaster had “ignored” a separate report he had sent to it, warning of distortion and bias in its reporting on Gaza.
The Telegraph has been told that Mr Shah’s apology for misleading viewers on the editing of Mr Trump’s speech will be contained in a letter sent to Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the culture, media and sport committee.
It is likely to raise questions over whether Mr Shah and Mr Davie tried to cover up internal concerns over the Trump edit, given that they are only now apologising in the face of intense media scrutiny.
Danny Cohen, a former director of BBC Television, said on Saturday night: “It is extraordinary that the BBC’s leadership has been missing in action for a week amidst this growing crisis.
“Both BBC director general Tim Davie and chairman Samir Shah were in the room when the faked Trump video was raised as a serious problem six months ago. This makes it very hard for them to excuse away the scandal.”
In his report, Mr Prescott wrote: “Examining the charge that Trump had incited protesters to storm Capitol Hill, it turned out that Panorama had spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech. This created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.”
‘The BBC has become the story’
In an email sent to news staff on Friday evening, Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News and Current Affairs, appeared to lay the ground for the apology. She said in her email: “I’m writing to you today because it’s always difficult when the BBC becomes a story – as it has, in some quarters, this week.”
She went on: “You will all have seen the news coverage following the leaking of a letter to the BBC board from Michael Prescott, who is a former adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). The EGSC is a sub-committee of the BBC board.”
She said the BBC had received a letter from Dame Caroline “seeking reassurance from the BBC, adding: “The chairman will be providing a full response on Monday, and this will be shared with you, but I felt it was important for me to come to you as CEO of BBC News before the end of the week.”
In a statement, a BBC spokesman said on Saturday night: “The BBC chairman will provide a full response to the culture, media and sport committee on Monday.”
‘Serious manipulation’
Sir John Whittingdale, the former culture secretary, in an interview with Radio 5 Live on Saturday night, said: “The BBC does great work and I’m a huge supporter of the BBC World Service, its investigative journalism has been outstanding. But all of that has been threatened in the case of the Trump speech.
“It’s a very serious manipulation to present a picture that is not accurate and that will cast doubt on everything that the BBC says.”
Sir John, who is MP for Maldon, said the “buck stops” with Mr Davie.
He added: “I think part of the problem is that the director general also has the title of editor-in-chief. Ultimately he is responsible and previous director generals have had to resign.
“If Tim Davie is to continue he has got to show that he recognises what a serious threat to the reputation of the BBC this is and to show that he is going to act very swiftly and make sure things improve and that it can’t happen again.”
On being asked if he thought Mr Davie’s job was under threat, Sir John said: “Yes I do.”
He added: “There are already people saying that the director general will have to resign.”
‘We need to listen and learn’
Nick Robinson, presenter of the BBC Today programme, said on X: “We live in a time of deep divisions – about politics and culture – Gaza/Israel, trans and women’s rights, Donald Trump’s policies and politics – to name just three.
“The BBC like many public organisations faces competing pressures about how we navigate these treacherous waters.
“We, like others, need to listen and learn. We can and will do better but we should stand up to those who prefer propaganda and disinformation.
“I look forward to hearing what the chairman of the BBC will say in response to legitimate concerns which have been raised but I have no idea what he plans to say nor did he – or any other my bosses – know what I said on air today or here on X.”
Trump has unleashed a barrage of sanctions on Russia’s oil behemoths, Rosneft and Lukoil, sending shockwaves through global energy markets and forcing America’s key Asian trading partners—China and India—to rethink their cozy deals with Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The move, announced Wednesday amid a fresh Russian missile barrage on Kyiv that claimed seven lives including children, marks Trump’s first direct punch at Moscow’s energy lifeline since reclaiming the White House. It’s a clear signal: Enough with the empty summits and fruitless phone calls. Time for America to squeeze Putin until he sues for peace in Ukraine.
Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, rocketed 5% Thursday to $65 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate surged over 5% to nearly $60—reflecting traders’ bets on tighter supplies as Russia’s two largest producers, which pump out 3.1 million barrels per day and account for nearly half of Moscow’s crude exports, face isolation from Western finance. That’s a potential $100 billion annual hit to Russia’s coffers, per Bloomberg estimates, at a moment when the Kremlin’s war chest is already strained by three years of battlefield stalemates and a stumbling economy.
Trump, speaking alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, didn’t mince words: “Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere.” The president scrapped a planned Budapest summit with Putin just days ago, opting instead for the sanction hammer after Moscow rebuffed his ceasefire overtures. “Now is the time to stop the killing and for an immediate ceasefire,” echoed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who framed the penalties as a direct assault on the “Kremlin’s war machine.” With Rosneft—headed by Putin’s crony Igor Sechin—and the private giant Lukoil now blacklisted by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), plus 36 subsidiaries frozen out of U.S. markets, Trump is betting big that choking off oil revenues will drag Putin to the table.
This isn’t just tough talk; it’s targeted leverage. Russia’s oil and gas sector props up a quarter of its federal budget, fueling tanks, drones, and troops in Donbas. By design, the sanctions include a grace period until November 21 for global buyers to wind down deals, but the real teeth lie in secondary penalties: Any foreign bank, trader, or refinery touching Rosneft or Lukoil risks U.S. wrath, from asset freezes to SWIFT exclusions. “Engaging in certain transactions… may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions,” the Treasury warned pointedly. For Trump, it’s classic Art of the Deal—turning economic pain into diplomatic gain, much like his Gaza ceasefire triumph earlier this year.
India Feels the Squeeze: A Trade Deal Lifeline?
Nowhere is the ripple more immediate than in India, where refiners are scrambling to slash Russian imports that ballooned to 1.7 million barrels per day in the first nine months of 2025—up from a negligible 0.42 million tons pre-war. “There will be a massive cut,” one industry source told Reuters Thursday, as state-run giants like Indian Oil Corp. and Bharat Petroleum pore over shipping manifests to purge any Rosneft- or Lukoil-sourced crude. Reliance Industries, India’s top private buyer and locked into long-term contracts for nearly 500,000 barrels daily from Rosneft, is “recalibrating” imports to align with New Delhi’s guidelines, a company spokesman confirmed.
This pullback couldn’t come at a better time for U.S.-India relations, strained by Trump’s 50% tariffs on Indian exports—half explicitly tied to Moscow’s oil fire sale. In a Tuesday call, Prime Minister Narendra Modi assured Trump that Delhi “was not going to buy much oil from Russia” and shares his goal of ending the Ukraine bloodbath, per White House readouts. Sources close to the talks say the sanctions could shatter a diplomatic logjam, paving the way for a bilateral trade pact that levels the playing field for American farmers and manufacturers. “We’re talking about bringing India’s tariffs in line with Asian peers,” one U.S. trade official told The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal on background. “Wind down the Russian crude, and we wind down the duties. It’s a win-win: India saves on overpriced alternatives, and we get fair trade.”
Senior Indian refinery execs, speaking anonymously to Bloomberg, called the sanctions a “game-changer,” rendering direct Russian buys “impossible” amid fears of U.S. blacklisting. Exports to India hit $140 billion since 2022, but at what cost? Discounted Urals crude shielded New Delhi from energy inflation, yet it undercut Trump’s peace push and emboldened Putin. Now, with global prices spiking, Indian consumers may pay more at the pump—but the strategic upside is huge: Stronger ties with Washington, access to U.S. LNG, and a seat at the table in Trump’s post-war reconstruction bonanza for Ukraine.
Critics in the Beltway whisper that this pressures Modi too hard, but let’s be real: India’s neutrality has been a fig leaf for profiteering off Putin’s aggression. Trump’s move forces accountability, reminding allies that America’s security umbrella isn’t free. As former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst put it to the BBC, these sanctions “will certainly hurt the Russian economy… It’s a good start” toward genuine negotiations.
China’s Reluctant Retreat: Xi’s Putin Problem
Across the border, Beijing’s state behemoths—PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC, and Zhenhua Oil—are hitting pause on seaborne Russian crude, Reuters reported Thursday, citing trade insiders. China, which snapped up a record 109 million tons last year (20% of its energy imports), has been Putin’s economic lifeline, laundering sanctions via “shadow fleets” of ghost tankers. No longer. The quartet’s suspension, if it sticks, signals a seismic shift: Even Xi Jinping, Putin’s “no-limits” partner, can’t ignore the U.S. financial guillotine.
Trump, fresh off Gaza, sees this as his opening. “Xi holds influence over Putin,” he said Wednesday, vowing to press the issue at next week’s APEC summit in South Korea. No secondary tariffs on China yet—unlike India’s 25% slap in August—but the threat looms. “Will the U.S. actively threaten secondary sanctions on Chinese banks?” mused ex-State Department sanctions guru Edward Fishman on X. Short answer: Expect pullback, at minimum. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry blasted the measures as “unilateral bullying,” but actions speak louder: With Rosneft and Lukoil cut off, Chinese traders face pricier middlemen or a pivot to Saudi or U.S. barrels.
For Russia, it’s a gut punch. China and India gobble 70% of its energy exports; losing even 20-30% could slash GDP growth from its anemic 1.5% forecast (per IMF) and force trade-offs between bombs and breadlines. “As profit margins shrink, Russia will face difficult… financing a protracted war,” notes Michael Raska of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. Dr. Stuart Rollo at Sydney’s Centre for International Security adds that while the sanctions won’t cripple Russia’s industrial base overnight, they “may coerce [it] into accepting peace terms” if paired with Trump’s deal-making flair.
Putin’s Bluster Meets Economic Reality
Vladimir Putin, ever the tsar, struck defiant Thursday: “No self-respecting country ever does anything under pressure,” he told Russian reporters, dismissing the sanctions as an “unfriendly act” that won’t dent Moscow’s resolve. Yet cracks show. He conceded “some losses are expected,” and warned of “overwhelming” retaliation if Ukraine gets U.S. Tomahawks—though that’s more theater than threat. Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s hawkish ex-president, raged on Telegram: “The U.S. is our enemy… Trump has fully sided with mad Europe.” But even Kremlin-linked analysts like Igor Yushkov admit Asian buyers will shy away, hiking costs via shadowy intermediaries.
Russia’s shadow fleet—aging hulls under UAE flags—has dodged G7 caps before, sustaining flows despite EU embargoes. “New sales schemes will simply appear,” boasts military blogger Mikhail Zvinchuk. Fine, but at what price? Logistics snarls could add $5-10 per barrel, eroding the discounts that hooked India and China. With the EU mulling its 19th sanctions package—including an LNG import ban—and the UK already aboard on Rosneft/Lukoil, isolation is setting in. The Guardian reports Putin floated delaying the Budapest talks for “proper preparation,” but that’s code for stalling.
Will this end the war? Analysts like Bill Taylor, another ex-U.S. envoy to Kyiv, call it an “indication to Putin that he has to come to the table.” It’s no silver bullet—Russia’s pivoted before, and military momentum in Donbas favors Moscow. But Trump’s calculus is sound: Freeze lines, cede nothing more, and let sanctions do the talking. “If we want Putin to negotiate in good faith, we have to maintain major pressure,” Herbst urges. Under Biden, dithering let Putin dig in; Trump’s resolve is restoring deterrence.
Stock Widget
Wall Street cheered the news, with energy stocks like ExxonMobil XOM +3.00% ▲ and Chevron CVX +2.50% ▲ on prospects of higher prices and U.S. export booms. Yet Felipe Pohlmann Gonzaga, a Geneva-based trader, cautions the 5% Brent spike “will correct” amid global slowdown fears—China’s property bust, Europe’s recession. Still, for American producers, it’s manna: Permian Basin output hits 6 million barrels/day, and Trump’s LNG push could flood Asia, undercutting Russia’s Urals at $55-60.
The EU’s frozen Russian assets—$300 billion—now fund a fresh Ukraine loan, per Brussels talks. And as Trump eyes a “cut the way it is” armistice, preserving Zelenskyy’s gains without endless aid, taxpayers win too. No more blank checks; just smart pressure.
In this high-stakes energy chess game, Trump’s sanctions aren’t just hurting Russia—they’re realigning alliances, punishing enablers, and clearing the board for peace. Putin may bluster, but with India and China peeling away, his war of attrition is cracking. As Trump heads to APEC, the message to Xi and Modi is clear: Join the winning side, or pay the premium. America’s back in the driver’s seat, and the pump prices? A small price for freedom.
SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt – As the sun rose over the Red Sea resort on Thursday, October 9, 2025, negotiators from Israel and Hamas inked the final draft of the first phase of President Donald Trump’s audacious Gaza peace plan, a hard-fought accord that promises the release of all 48 remaining hostages – 20 believed alive, the rest tragically not – in exchange for a partial Israeli troop withdrawal, a ceasefire, and the freedom of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. The breakthrough, sealed after days of grueling indirect talks mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, now awaits Israel’s security cabinet vote later today – a procedural hurdle expected to clear with bipartisan support, despite grumbles from far-right hardliners who fear it’s a concession to terror.
“This is the art of the deal in action – tough, unyielding, and finally delivering results where the Biden crew could only dither,” Trump declared during a White House Cabinet meeting, touting the pact as a “great day for Israel, the Arab world, and America.” With U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on the ground in Egypt, the president – ever the showman – plans a weekend dash to the region for the formal signing, potentially capping it with a Knesset address that could cement his legacy as the ultimate peacemaker. Hostages could start crossing back into Israel as early as Monday, Trump projected, with the living handed off to Red Cross officials and the deceased honored in somber IDF ceremonies – a timeline echoed by Netanyahu’s office and White House insiders.
The deal’s mechanics are as precise as they are pragmatic: Within 24 hours of cabinet approval, the IDF pulls back to lines securing 53% of Gaza – including buffer zones along the Philadelphi Corridor, northern enclaves like Beit Hanoun, and southern strongholds in Rafah and Khan Younis – halting operations in urban cores while maintaining a vise on terror infrastructure. Hamas, in turn, has 72 hours to deliver the captives sans fanfare ceremonies, a concession wrung from the terror group after months of Israeli pressure that decimated its ranks. No victory laps for the kidnappers – just quiet handovers, followed by a joint Israel-U.S.-Qatar-Turkey-Egypt task force hunting the remains of those whose graves Hamas claims ignorance of.
On the prisoner front, Israel commits to freeing 250 lifers – but draws red lines at arch-terrorists like Marwan Barghouti, the Second Intifada mastermind eyeing a Palestinian Authority power grab, and the corpses of Hamas bosses Yahya and Mohammed Sinwar, whose bodies stay buried as war trophies. Another 1,700 Gazans nabbed during IDF ops go free, plus 15 Palestinian bodies per Israeli remains returned – a grim arithmetic underscoring the butcher’s bill of October 7, 2023, when Hamas’s savagery claimed 1,200 lives and sparked a conflict that’s felled over 66,000 in Gaza, per the strip’s Hamas-tallying health ministry.
Hamas’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya – surfacing publicly since an Israeli strike in Doha last month claimed his son and aides – struck a defiant tone in Sharm el-Sheikh, insisting on “real guarantees” for a lasting ceasefire before full compliance. “We need assurances this isn’t a trap,” al-Hayya told reporters, echoing Qatar’s Majed al-Ansari’s call for “practical solutions” to implementation snags, like seamless international aid flows and monitoring to avert backsliding. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty painted a rosier picture: Talks are “progressing” toward phase one, blending hostage releases with prisoner swaps and IDF redeployments to “prepare the climate” for peace. Yet, as Reuters notes, the accord’s brevity leaves “unresolved questions” – from Hamas disarmament to Gaza’s post-war governance – that could unravel the fragile truce, much like past efforts torpedoed by Palestinian bad faith.
Netanyahu’s camp, delayed an hour-and-a-half for “sensitive” prisoner list haggling, frames the vote as a slam-dunk, with spokeswoman Shosh Bedrosian declaring “victory” in the war’s core aims: Hostages home, Hamas gutted, Gaza neutralized as a threat. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, on Fox News, tempered the triumph: No “end of the war” yet – just a conditional path where Hamas must disarm for full Israeli pullout, and the PA’s reforms are no sure bet for relevance. “We don’t intend to renew the war,” Sa’ar stressed, but a Palestinian state? “No” – skepticism runs deep on Ramallah’s capacity for change.
Trump’s 20-point blueprint – unveiled last week with Netanyahu at his side – envisions a technocratic interim council under a U.S.-chaired “Board of Peace” (Tony Blair eyed for a slot), deradicalizing Gaza into a terror-free zone primed for reconstruction, with aid surging post-ceasefire. Phase two kicks off a day after releases, tackling the big-ticket items: Hamas’s guns for amnesty, no foreign overlords, and a reformed PA eyeing self-determination – but only if it sheds its terror sympathies. Arab pressure, per a Saudi report, has been “unprecedented” on Hamas, with guarantors like Qatar’s prime minister jetting in to seal gaps.
Backlash brews on the Israeli right, where firebrands like Itamar Ben-Gvir threaten coalition collapse if Hamas endures, branding any half-measure a “national defeat” and “ticking time bomb.” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich decried it as “fleeing the truth,” a relapse to Oslo-era follies dooming future generations to refight the same battles. Yet, hostage families and opposition heavyweights – from Yair Lapid to Avigdor Lieberman – hail it as a “historic turning point,” their pleas drowning out the ultras: “After two years of anguish, this heals.”
Globally, the vibes are electric. Turkey’s Erdogan pledges monitoring and rebuild muscle, while bipartisan U.S. praise rolls in – Sen. Roger Wicker thanks Trump and Rubio for igniting “hope for lasting peace.” On X, euphoria erupts: “Trump made the impossible happen,” exclaims Eylon Levy amid Tel Aviv’s Hostage Square cheers, as Al Arabiya captures the cautious Palestinian optimism. Even as the Nobel snub stings – decided pre-deal, per The Times of Israel – this is vintage Trump: Bold strokes where faint hearts failed, turning a quagmire into a launchpad for Abraham Accords 2.0.
Skeptics whisper of fragility – Hamas’s history of double-dealing, implementation landmines – but Trump’s playbook has rewritten the rules before. As the cabinet convenes and Trump eyes Air Force One, one verity holds: Peace through strength isn’t a slogan; it’s the deal of the century, unfolding in real time. If phase one sticks, the Middle East – and history – won’t look the same.
WASHINGTON – In a triumph of American diplomacy and unyielding resolve, President Donald Trump has brokered a historic breakthrough between Israel and Hamas, securing agreement on the first phase of a comprehensive peace plan that promises the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza and a long-overdue ceasefire in the war-torn enclave. Announced late Wednesday on Truth Social, the deal – hammered out in the sun-baked halls of Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt – stands as a testament to Trump’s deal-making prowess, where previous administrations’ hand-wringing gave way to his bold 20-point blueprint for Middle East stability.
“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump declared in a midnight post, his words crackling with the optimism of a man who promised – and is delivering – peace through strength. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace. All Parties will be treated fairly! This is a GREAT Day for the Arab and Muslim World, Israel, all surrounding Nations, and the United States of America, and we thank the mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who worked with us to make this Historic and Unprecedented Event happen. BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”
The agreement, set for formal signing in Egypt on Thursday, October 9, 2025, envisions Hamas freeing the estimated 20 living hostages and the remains of over two dozen others – victims of the barbaric October 7, 2023, terror rampage that slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and ignited a conflict that has claimed more than 66,000 Palestinian lives, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. In exchange, Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences, and pull back troops to a pre-agreed line, allowing a surge of humanitarian aid into the devastated strip – a move that pauses the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) operations in Gaza City while preserving Israel’s ironclad right to self-defense.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government faces a Thursday cabinet vote to ratify the accord, hailed it as “a great day for Israel” in a Telegram post, pledging to “convene the government tomorrow to approve the agreement and bring all our dear hostages home.” “With the help of the Almighty, together we will continue to achieve all our goals and expand peace with our neighbors,” he added, crediting the IDF’s relentless pressure – not weak-kneed negotiations – for forcing Hamas to the table. Even as hardliners like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich decry the plan as a “tragedy” echoing the failed Oslo Accords, broad swaths of Israel’s political spectrum, from centrist Yair Lapid to nationalist Avigdor Lieberman, have rallied behind it, with hostage families tearfully calling it a “historic turning point” after two years of agony.
Hamas, the Iran-backed terror outfit designated by the U.S. and EU, issued a rare nod to Trump in its Telegram statement, appreciating “the efforts of US President Donald Trump” alongside mediators Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey for “ending the war on Gaza, ensuring the withdrawal of the occupation forces, allowing the entry of aid, and facilitating a prisoner exchange.” Yet, in a reminder of the group’s duplicitous nature, it vowed to “never relinquish our people’s national rights until freedom, independence, and self-determination are achieved,” while urging guarantors to “compel the occupation government to fully implement its obligations.” Qatar’s foreign ministry confirmed the pact covers “all the provisions and implementation mechanisms of the first phase,” with details forthcoming.
From the White House, the drama unfolded like a scene from Trump’s reality-TV playbook. During a roundtable on Antifa threats – a nod to the domestic chaos sown by leftist radicals – Secretary of State Marco Rubio slipped the president a note: Deal imminent. “We’re very close to a deal in the Middle East, and they’re going to need me pretty quickly,” Trump quipped to reporters, wrapping up early to greenlight his triumphant Truth Social blast. In a Fox News sit-down with Sean Hannity, Trump eyed Monday for the hostages’ return – “probably” including the deceased’s remains – and floated a trip to Egypt, Israel, and perhaps a Knesset address: “They want me to give a speech at the Knesset and I will definitely do that if they want me to.” “Gaza is going to be a peaceful, much safer place,” he assured, envisioning a “Council of Peace” – chaired by himself, with figures like Tony Blair aboard – to oversee reconstruction and a technocratic interim government, deradicalizing the strip and barring Hamas forever.
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff, fresh from Cairo huddles, were the on-the-ground architects, building on Trump’s October 3 ultimatum: Release hostages by Sunday or face annihilation. This isn’t the limp diplomacy of Joe Biden’s era, where endless talks yielded endless rockets; it’s Trump channeling Reagan’s “peace through strength,” pausing IDF strikes at his behest to create breathing room while keeping the hammer poised. The plan’s genius: Hamas disarms for amnesty, Gaza demilitarizes under a U.S.-led board, and the Palestinian Authority – reformed – paves a path to statehood, sans terror tunnels or Iranian puppets. “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return,” the accord stipulates, a humane flourish amid the rubble.
Skeptics like Arab Center’s Yousef Munayyer warn of fragility – thorny issues like full Hamas disarmament and governance loom large – but Trump’s track record, from Abraham Accords to North Korea summits, silences the naysayers. Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, threaten to bolt if Hamas survives, but the premier’s bipartisan buy-in and hostage families’ pleas – “After almost two years of unimaginable anguish, we stand at a historic turning point” – drown out the din. Even Tony Blair, tipped for the peace board, called it “bold and intelligent,” offering “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering.”
Globally, reactions pour in like applause at a MAGA rally. Bipartisan U.S. leaders, from Rubio to hawks in Congress, hail the “fantastic day”; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey – key mediators – see a ripple toward broader Arab-Israeli normalization. On X, the buzz is electric: “Trump Secures Israel-Hamas Deal for Hostage Release and Gaza Ceasefire,” posts one aggregator, echoing the sentiment that this is “a great day for the world.”
The war’s toll – Houthi disruptions in the Red Sea, Israeli strikes on Lebanon, U.S. hits on Iran’s nukes – has scarred the region, but Trump’s vision resets the board: A terror-free Gaza as a launchpad for prosperity, not peril. As he eyes Walter Reed Thursday morning before jetting east, one truth endures: In the art of the deal, no one’s better than Donald J. Trump. If this holds, the Nobel whispers won’t be whispers for long.
In a bold and aggressive move that underscores Beijing’s relentless ambition to dominate the Indo-Pacific, Chinese President Xi Jinping is reportedly maneuvering to extract a major concession from President Donald Trump: a formal U.S. declaration opposing Taiwan’s independence. This push, revealed in recent reports, exploits Trump’s focus on securing a robust trade deal with China, potentially at the expense of America’s longstanding commitment to the democratic island nation that stands as a bulwark against communist expansionism.
Xi, who has made “reunification” with Taiwan a cornerstone of his authoritarian “China Dream” since seizing power in 2012, sees the upcoming high-stakes meetings with Trump as his golden window to erode U.S. support for Taipei. According to sources familiar with the matter, Beijing has urged the Trump administration to shift from the Biden-era phrasing that the U.S. “does not support” Taiwan independence to a stronger stance explicitly “opposing” it – a semantic change with profound implications that could embolden China’s military adventurism and undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty. This would mark a diplomatic triumph for Xi, aligning Washington more closely with Beijing’s narrative that Taiwan is a breakaway province destined for absorption, by force if necessary.
The Trump administration has yet to decide on this demand, which sits amid a laundry list of Chinese asks under review. But conservatives in Washington are sounding the alarm, warning that any capitulation would signal weakness and betray America’s allies. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton blasted the idea on X, stating, “Recent reports confirm Xi Jinping is going to leverage trade negotiations with Trump to push the U.S. to abandon our position on Taiwan independence. This is exactly what I warned against last week.” Bolton’s concerns echo his earlier criticism of the administration’s decision to withhold over $400 million in military aid to Taiwan this summer amid trade talks, a move that raised eyebrows about prioritizing economic deals over deterring Chinese aggression.
Trump, known for his art-of-the-deal negotiating style, has so far played his cards close, avoiding explicit commitments to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion to preserve leverage. In August, he revealed that Xi had assured him China would not invade during his presidency, adding cryptically, “China is very patient.” Yet, recent actions – including denying Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te a routine U.S. transit stop and delaying arms deliveries – have fueled speculation that trade priorities might be overshadowing security pledges, prompting unease in both Washington and Taipei.
The U.S. maintains its “One China” policy, acknowledging Beijing’s claims without endorsing them, and emphasizes opposition to any unilateral changes to the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. A State Department spokesperson reiterated to reporters, “We have long stated that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. China presents the single greatest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” This stance was bolstered earlier this year when the department removed Biden-era language explicitly not supporting independence, a tweak praised by Taiwan but met with fury from Beijing.
Xi’s strategy is clear: capitalize on Trump’s desire for a trade win following the recent TikTok agreement, which kept the app operating in the U.S. under American ownership. The leaders have a slate of engagements lined up, including a face-to-face at next month’s Asia-Pacific economic summit in South Korea, Trump’s potential visit to Beijing in early 2026 – a diplomatic coup for Xi – and Xi’s reciprocal trip to the White House later that year, contingent on progress on trade and fentanyl curbs.
Experts warn this is classic Chinese Communist Party tactics: incremental gains to erode U.S. resolve. Evan Medeiros, a former U.S. national security official, told reporters, “Driving a wedge between Washington and Taipei is the holy grail of the Taiwan problem for Beijing. It would undermine Taiwan’s confidence and increase Beijing’s leverage over Taipei.” Yun Sun of the Stimson Center added, “No U.S. policy change on Taiwan will happen overnight. But China will push persistently to inch forward – and in the process, undermine Taiwan’s confidence in U.S. commitment.”
From Taiwan’s vantage point, these developments are alarming but not insurmountable. A senior Taiwanese national security official, speaking anonymously, dismissed Beijing’s ploy: “China’s attempts to exploit political transitions in the US to create a ‘strategic gap’ would not succeed, as they disregard Washington’s established strategic policy on Taiwan.” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung recently appealed for U.N. recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty, arguing it’s time for the world to “leave no one behind” by embracing Taiwan’s contributions. Taipei remains confident in its U.S. ties, viewing a strong Taiwan as essential to Indo-Pacific stability.
Meanwhile, China’s military saber-rattling intensifies. Beijing has ramped up war games in the Taiwan Strait, claiming jurisdiction over the 110-mile waterway. Leaked documents reveal Moscow is aiding Xi’s preparations, agreeing to train Chinese paratroopers and supply vehicles for a potential aerial assault, with Western intelligence estimating Beijing could be invasion-ready by 2027. Chinese Embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu stonewalled inquiries, reiterating, “China firmly opposes any form of official exchanges or military ties” between the U.S. and Taiwan.
Right-leaning voices argue this is no time for concessions. Trump, who championed America First policies, should stand firm against Xi’s coercion, prioritizing deterrence over deals that could embolden a regime hell-bent on regional hegemony. As Bolton warned, trading away Taiwan’s security for short-term economic gains risks long-term catastrophe, echoing the appeasement pitfalls of the past. With global stocks rising amid bets on U.S. rate cuts, the real stakes are geopolitical: Will America hold the line against communist aggression, or blink in the face of Beijing’s bluster?
A Bob Vylan concert in the Netherlands has been cancelled after comments made by the performer on stage about the assassination of Donald Trump ally Charlie Kirk.
A member of the outspoken punk duo, who caused controversy when they chanted for the “death” of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) at Glastonbury Festival, told the audience “if you chat shit you will get banged” in footage widely shared on social media.
In response, their planned performance on Tuesday September 16 at the 013 in Tilburg has been cancelled, with the venue saying the statements made by the performer “go too far”.
During their performance at Amsterdam’s Paradiso on Saturday, frontman Bobby Vylan, whose real name is reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster, told fans: “I want to dedicate this next one to an absolute piece of shit of a human being.
“The pronouns was/were. Cause if you chat shit you will get banged. Rest in peace Charlie Kirk, you piece of shit.”
Mr Kirk, who was a prominent political commentator in the US and ally of the president, was shot and killed at a Utah Valley University event on Wednesday, in what authorities called a political assassination.
Hundreds of people attended a vigil for Mr Kirk in central London on Saturday with speakers hailing him as a “Christian martyr” and calling for people to wage a “war on evil”.
A translated statement on the 013 website on Sunday said: “The planned performance by British rap-punk group Bob Vylan on Tuesday, September 16th, at Poppodium 013 in Tilburg has been cancelled.
“The reason for the cancellation is the controversial statements the artist made last night during a show at Paradiso in Amsterdam.
“Despite the controversy that arose after their Glastonbury performance, 013 decided to let Bob Vylan perform in Tilburg.”
The venue said it had an “understanding for the artist’s anger” regarding the violence in Israel and said the duo clarified in a statement that the “death to the IDF” chant was “not an antisemitic slogan, but rather criticism of the Israeli army”.
The statement added: “While we understand that these statements were made in the context of punk and activism, and that the reporting on them is sometimes less nuanced than what actually happened, we still believe these new statements go too far. They no longer fall within the scope of what we can offer a platform.”
In a statement on its website, Club Paradiso said: “On Saturday September 13, during his performance at Paradiso, artist Bob Vylan made statements that many experienced as harsh and offensive.
“Paradiso believes in the power of artistic freedom. Music, and punk in particular, has traditionally been a form of art that amplifies anger, discontent, and injustice without filter.
“In a world on fire, artists sometimes choose language that sounds confrontational or violent. That is part of artistic expression, but not automatically language that we as a venue endorse.
“Paradiso shares the outrage and concern regarding the genocidal violence taking place in Gaza.
“That Bob Vylan raises his voice against it is legitimate and necessary. Should the Openbaar Ministerie (public prosecution service) wish to investigate whether any criminal offences have been committed, Paradiso will cooperate.”
After reports that his comments “celebrated” Mr Kirk’s death, Bobby Vylan said in an Instagram video: “At no point during yesterday’s show was Charlie Kirk’s death celebrated. At no point whatsoever did we celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death.”
The duo, comprised of frontman Bobby Vylan and drummer Bobbie Vylan, have another gig in the Netherlands at Doornroosje which is billed for Monday.
A translated statement on the Doornroosje website, which appears to have been online prior to the recent comments, said: “Bob Vylan plays at Doornroosje because he’s an act that fits within our programming. The band has previously been booked for Doornroosje and played at the Valkhof Festival.”
Following Bobby Vylan’s comments about the IDF at Glastonbury in June, Avon and Somerset Police launched an investigation.
Earlier in the month, BBC director general Tim Davie said the corporation’s decision to broadcast Bob Vylan’s set live was “a very significant mistake”.
While facing questions from MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday, Davie said the punk duo’s set was “antisemitic” and “deeply disturbing”.
The corporation issued an apology after the Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury, saying: “We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on the BBC and want to apologise to our viewers and listeners and in particular the Jewish community.”
Bobby Vylan said in a social media post that “there was nothing antisemitic or criminal about anything I said at Glastonbury”.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
