Latest news with #internationalpolitics
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Has Not Stopped Making News Since Getting To Scotland. Here's 9 Things We've Learned So Far
Donald Trump is on day three of his four day visit to Scotland – and clearly in the mood to make some waves. Here primarily for nothing other than a golfing holiday at his two Scottish resorts in South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire, Trump has also squeezed in several visits with international leaders. He has already sat down with EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and UK prime minister Keir Starmer. A separate chat with Scotland's first minister John Swinney is scheduled for this evening. While Stop Trump Coalition protesters have been campaigned against his arrival outside the US consulate in Edinburgh, the president has been making major statements on both domestic and international politics from his Turnberry gold course. Here's everything that has happened through his visit so far: 1. He changed the 50-day deadline for Putin Trump declared he was 'disappointed' with Vladimir Putin's ongoing aggression against Ukraine, especially after giving him 50 days to end the war – or face secondary sanctions. So Trump said he was to cut that time down to 10 or 12 days, adding: 'There's no reason in waiting. I want to be generous but we just don't see any progress being made.' 2. He disagreed with Israel over Gaza Trump distanced himself from his ally Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that there is 'no starvation in Gaza'. He said the situation in the Palestinian territory is 'terrible' and that 'we have to get the kids fed'. He also suggested setting up food centre in Gaza with 'no boundaries'. Trump said Gaza is one of the main reasons for their meeting and that a ceasefire is very much possible. 3. Trump insisted he did not visit Epstein's island Trump claimed he 'never went' to the island owned by the late convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, also known as Little Saint James, where many of the alleged offences took place. The US president has been facing major backlash in the States, particularly with his MAGA base, recently. It comes his administration announced it would not be releasing any further files on the former financier, who was friends with Trump for over a decade. But Trump told reporters today: 'I did turn it down but a lot of people in Palm Beach were invited to his island. In one of my very good moments, I turned it down. I didn't want to go to his island.' He also claimed: 'For years I wouldn't talk to Jeffery Epstein. I wouldn't talk because he did something that was inappropriate. 'He hired help and I said don't ever do that again. He's stolen people that work for me, I said don't ever do that again. He did it again and I threw him out of the place. I threw him out and that was it.' 4. He weighed in on the small boats crisis When asked how the UK should deal with the migrants who arrive on British shores illegally, he spoke about the US immigration policy and said no one had come into the country illegally in the last month. 'If you're stopping immigration and stopping the wrong people, my hats are off to you,' Trump said. He added that he knows 'nothing about the boats' but he welcomed Starmer's strong opposition to it. 'Anyone here illegally should not be allowed in,' he said. 5. The president casually claimed he's stopped six wars The US president alleged to have stopped six wars since he was sworn into the Oval Office in January, adding: 'I'm averaging around a war a month.' He referred to India and Pakistan, and Congo and Rwanda. It's not clear which other conflicts he is referring to, especially as the Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza crisis are both ongoing. 6. Trump attacked Sadiq Khan 'I am not a fan of the London mayor [Sadiq Khan]. I think he has done a terrible job. He's a nasty person,' Trump said. Starmer tried to defuse the tension, cutting in: 'He's a friend of mine actually!' But Trump continued: 'No I think he's done a terrible job.' 7. Trump said he liked Nigel Farage Asked for his response on the UK's 'divided' world and Reform UK Nigel Farage, Trump said: 'I like this man [Starmer] a lot and I like Nigel. He said one is 'slightly liberal' and the other 'slightly conservative', but they are both 'good men'. 'Nigel is a friend of mine and Keir is a friend of mine,' he said. Trump was clearly overlooking the major tensions between the two political figures who tend to disagree on almost all subjects. 8. Trump resumed his usual attacks on wind power The US president tore into Scotland's offshore wind turbines, calling the 'ugly' – while also praising the UK government's plans to build three nuclear reactors, calling nuclear power 'safe'. But he claimed the UK could get oil and gas out of the North Sea instead, which he claimed would be cheaper – and less ugly. 'Wind is the the most expensive form of energy and it destroys the beauty of your fields and your plains,' Trump claimed. 9. The US has struck a deal with EU Oh and, before meeting Starmer, Trump also struck a major trade agreement. On Sunday, Trump and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade deal with 15% tariffs – half of what he initially threatened – on most goods going into the States from the trade bloc. In exchange, the EU will have to invest in US energy products – which will prevent a potential trade war between the two allies. The UK's trade deal secured a 10% tariff in May, but many European allies suggested it was a bad agreement so are unlikely to be happy with this one. There's already been some backlash from France, Germany and Ireland over the deal. Asked by reporters why the US gave a better deal to the UK than the EU, he said: 'We have a very special relationship with this country.' He said his mother was born there and that it 'always has an impact' and says he 'wants to see this part of the world to do well'. Related... All Eyes On Starmer After Macron Confirms France Will Recognise Palestine State 'Shames Us All': Keir Starmer Is Now Facing Pressure Across Political Spectrum To Act On Gaza How Starmer Told His Cabinet To Stop Beating Themselves Up – Then Cracked The Whip On Rebel MPs
Russia Today
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
The age of American nuclear privilege is over
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Russia Today
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
A new nuclear age is coming, but this time it's different
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Telegraph
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why I'm banned from Iran, Israel and the US – despite breaking no rules
Persian by blood, British by birth. A dual citizen who visited Iran every year of her life – until recently – to see the relatives still living there. I wouldn't change my heritage for the world, but I'd be lying if I said it hadn't caused a few problems when it comes to travel. It's a strange thing, being effectively barred from three of the world's most fascinating countries – without ever having broken a single rule. As a British-Iranian journalist, I've found myself… less than welcome, shall we say, in Iran, Israel and the US. Caught in a tangled web of international politics and passport technicalities, I've been forced to forgo opportunities and miss moments that matter. I remember being offered a press trip to Israel in the early days of my career – long before recent events – and telling my dad the exciting news. He shut it down almost instantly. 'If you go, you may never be allowed back into Iran,' he warned. At the time, I couldn't believe the two were so mutually exclusive. I'd hoped to visit Israel and Palestine with open eyes, to experience the people and cultures first-hand. But that door closed before it ever opened. The irony? Iran is now effectively off the table too. I haven't been banned – not officially – but as a journalist, the risks of a misunderstanding at the border are all too real. My parents' growing concern about my return is likely justified, no matter how frustrating it is to hear. And then there's the US. In 2016, I received an email informing me that my ESTA – the visa waiver British travellers take for granted – had been revoked. No explanation, just a blunt notification that I'd now need to apply for a full tourist visa. The reason? A sweeping policy affecting anyone who holds Iranian nationality or has travelled to certain countries since 2011. It was Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan at the time – and more have since been added to the list. I know what you're thinking: just give up the Iranian citizenship. But that's easier said than done – and not something I want to do. My Iranian passport may be expired, but holding onto it, or even just the national ID card, is a tether to my roots. To the country in which my parents were born, where my grandparents are buried, and where so many of my relatives still live. Retaining that citizenship is more than a legal technicality – it's a deeply personal connection to my culture, my language and my family. Growing up, I didn't always appreciate those annual visits, but I now see them as some of the most meaningful experiences of my life. And I'm far from alone. Thousands of dual nationals, including friends and colleagues, find themselves in similar limbo. Holding onto that second passport is, for many of us, a way of preserving our identity. But it comes with baggage: extra scrutiny at borders, bureaucratic hurdles and, in my case, a growing list of no-go zones. I've lost count of the number of times someone's told me, 'Just apply for an ESTA!' as if I haven't thought of that. Being shut out of a country based on your heritage is frustrating enough, and being met with blank stares or misguided advice when you try to explain why just adds insult to injury. I was lucky, in some ways. After graduating, I did manage to travel across the States – a three-month coast-to-coast road trip that I'll never forget. I returned again that winter for New Year's Eve in New York. At the time, I'd been torn between the US and backpacking through Southeast Asia. Now I'm glad I chose America – because that window has long since closed. Lately, though, I've had the itch again. There are places I'd love to revisit, friends I miss and cities I've yet to explore. But it's not simple. Getting a US visa isn't impossible, but appointments are backed up, and processing can take months. I could maybe get one for 2026 – if I'm lucky. Even then, there's the risk of being pulled aside at customs. It's an exhausting process to go through every time you just want to travel. I've already missed out on so much. I can't see the Savannah Bananas play (yes, really – look them up on Instagram). I've had to turn down work trips, missed invitations from friends, and soon I'll miss a close family friend's wedding in New York. None of my immediate family can go. My mum wanted to celebrate her 70th birthday in California next year. I've told her to keep up her gym routine and take her vitamins – we may have to delay that milestone. As for Iran, I haven't seen some of my relatives in a decade. When one set of aunts and uncles were able to get visas to visit their son in Canada, my sister and I flew out to meet them there. I'm so grateful we did. It's bittersweet to see travellers on Instagram and TikTok venturing to Iran, sharing the beauty of the country I know so well – its hospitality, its landscapes, its culture. I feel a pang of envy every time. Because while the world feels more connected than ever, people like me remain quietly, frustratingly, stuck in between.
South China Morning Post
18-05-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
By eroding US soft power, Trump is ceding the contest to China
In the grand theatre of international politics, soft power – the art of attraction without coercion or payment so eloquently defined by the late Joseph Nye – was long considered the gleaming crown jewel of American influence and the glaring deficiency in the Chinese arsenal amid the countries' rivalry for pre-eminence. Yet since US President Donald Trump's return to office, the balance of international attraction has been shifting remarkably in Beijing's favour. On the domestic front, the US administration's actions have profoundly compromised America's soft power reservoir. Its attacks on academic freedom and termination of student visas weaken the allure of American higher education, a key soft-power asset that fosters global appreciation for US values. Cuts to federal research grants, such as those for the National Institutes of Health, threaten America's technological leadership. A recent Nature survey of scientists in the US revealed an alarming finding – 75 per cent of respondents were considering relocating amid funding instabilities – a potential brain drain that would severely impair the nation's capacity to attract and retain talent. According to Nye, liberal democracies typically score high in national attractiveness because they are generally perceived as more legitimate and trustworthy than their non-democratic counterparts. Trump's authoritarian tendencies – his expressed admiration for autocratic leadership styles, prioritisation of loyalty over expertise in staffing his administration and efforts to bend news coverage to his will – undermine the rule of law, a cornerstone of US soft power, tarnishing its image as an exemplar of democracy.
