Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Friday, May 01, 2026

Why Gas Prices Tell a Truer Story About the U.S. Economy than the Stock Market

    Friday, May 01, 2026   No comments

When the stock market hits a new high, financial networks celebrate. But walk into any gas station in America, and you'll find a different story—one written in dollars per gallon, not decimal points on a trading screen. For the informed reader trying to separate signal from noise, gasoline prices offer something the S&P 500 cannot: a direct, unfiltered read on the real economy.

The stock market is a remarkable machine for pricing future expectations. But expectations are fragile things. They shift on Fed whispers, algorithmic momentum, geopolitical rumors, and the collective mood of investors who may never pump a gallon of gas or load a truck. Equity valuations can soar while wages stagnate, or plunge while Main Street hums along. This isn't a flaw in the market—it's a feature of what the market measures: sentiment, leverage, and forward-looking bets.

Gasoline prices measure something else entirely. They are the price of motion. Every commute, every delivery, every harvest depends on fuel. When you fill your tank, you aren't trading a derivative—you're paying a cost that cannot be deferred, leveraged, or wished away. That immediacy is why gas prices cut through financial abstraction and speak directly to economic reality.


Economists talk about "sticky" prices—costs that resist moving downward even when conditions improve. Gasoline is sticky in the most consequential way: it embeds itself into the structure of daily life and business.

Consider the chain reaction. A sustained rise in pump prices doesn't just pinch household budgets; it raises the cost of shipping food, materials, and goods. Trucking companies adjust freight rates. Farmers factor higher diesel costs into planting decisions. Retailers recalculate margins. These adjustments aren't reversed when a headline fades. Once a cost becomes part of the operating calculus, it tends to stay.

This stickiness is why prolonged high gas prices matter more than temporary spikes. A brief surge might be absorbed. But when prices remain elevated for weeks or months, they cease to be a shock and become a structural feature of the economy. That's when the real pressure builds—not on portfolios, but on paychecks, profit margins, and political accountability.


AAA's daily state-by-state gas price map uses color to show economic reality: red for higher prices, blue for lower. Since late February 2026, that map has been turning redder across the country. This shift followed escalating tensions in the Middle East, which disrupted global oil markets and pushed crude prices sharply higher.

The pattern isn't about politics—it's about physics and logistics. States farther from Gulf Coast refineries, those with limited pipeline access, or regions requiring specialized fuel blends saw the steepest climbs. But the economic impact transcends geography. In agricultural states, where diesel powers tractors, combines, and freight trucks, rising fuel costs don't just affect drivers—they affect food prices, farm viability, and rural livelihoods.

What makes this trend especially significant is its persistence. Unlike stock prices, which can reverse on a single news item, gasoline prices reflect physical constraints: how much crude is available, how fast refineries can process it, and how reliably it can reach American pumps. These are not variables that respond to press conferences.


Politicians understand the power of the gas pump. A spike in prices can dominate headlines and shift public sentiment overnight. But here's the crucial difference: while leaders can influence financial markets through rhetoric or policy signals, they cannot talk down the price of gasoline.

Fuel costs respond to tangible factors—global supply chains, refining capacity, geopolitical stability in oil-producing regions, and seasonal demand. Even if diplomatic breakthroughs occur, the lag between crude oil and finished gasoline means relief at the pump takes weeks to materialize. And history shows that prices tend to rise faster than they fall. This inertia makes gas prices a more honest indicator of sustained economic pressure than assets driven by sentiment.


At its core, the argument isn't that the stock market is irrelevant. It's that gasoline prices offer a complementary lens—one grounded in the daily experience of millions of Americans. When a family budgets for a tank of gas, when a small business owner calculates delivery costs, when a farmer decides whether to plant an extra acre, they are making decisions based on real prices, not abstract valuations.

And when those prices stay high, the consequences ripple outward. Consumers cut back on discretionary spending. Businesses delay expansion. Wage negotiations grow tense. These are the mechanisms through which energy costs translate into broader economic momentum—or stagnation.


For those seeking to understand where the economy is headed, the lesson is simple: watch the pump. Not as a replacement for financial market analysis, but as a necessary reality check. Stock indices tell you what investors believe will happen. Gas prices tell you what households and businesses are paying right now.

When the two diverge—and they often do—the informed reader should ask which metric is more likely to shape the next chapter of economic life. If history is any guide, the answer leans toward the number on the gas station sign. Because in the end, economies aren't powered by portfolios. They're powered by fuel. And the price of that fuel writes a story no ticker tape can rewrite.

Monday, March 23, 2026

Media review: A New Era of American Credibility

    Monday, March 23, 2026   No comments

 In the span of 72 hours, the global order witnessed something unprecedented: not merely a diplomatic crisis, but a fundamental inversion of trust. On Saturday, President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran: reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the "obliteration" of its power plants. Iran responded with a warning grounded in international law—any attack on its civilian energy infrastructure would be met with reciprocal strikes against facilities housing U.S. assets across West Asia. Then, on Monday, the President announced a five-day postponement of military action, citing "very good and productive conversations" with Tehran.

But here is where the story fractures—and where a new, unsettling reality takes hold.

While the White House framed the delay as a diplomatic breakthrough, Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency quoted a source stating there had been "no direct or indirect contact" with the Trump administration. The source suggested the President's reversal came only after learning Iranian retaliation would target all power stations in the region—a consequence that would destabilize U.S. allies and spike global oil prices. Iran's Foreign Ministry went further, characterizing the postponement as a tactical maneuver: an attempt to calm markets, halt soaring oil prices, and buy time to prepare for eventual military action.

This is not merely a dispute over facts. It is a crisis of epistemic authority.

For decades, the pronouncements of the U.S. President carried presumptive weight in global media. Today, Americans—and the world—are increasingly turning to Iranian, European, and independent sources to parse the truth of U.S. intentions. When the President speaks of "productive talks" and Tehran denies any dialogue occurred, who do we believe? When market volatility follows every social media post, and oil prices swing on the rhythm of ultimatum and retreat, the stakes extend far beyond the Persian Gulf.

Consider the consequences. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil. Its effective closure has already triggered the worst energy crisis since the 1970s, with Brent crude surging past $105 a barrel. Global supply chains tremble. In Asia, cooking gas shortages are reported; in Europe, inflation fears resurge. This is not abstract geopolitics—it is the price at the pump, the stability of pensions, the cost of bread.

Amid this volatility, a deeper shift is underway. The American public, long accustomed to receiving foreign news through a domestic lens, is now cross-referencing Al Jazeera, Iran's sources, and Bloomberg to understand its own government's actions. This is not cynicism; it is adaptation. When official narratives appear disconnected from observable outcomes—when threats are issued, then paused, then reissued without clear strategic logic—citizens seek coherence wherever they can find it.

This erosion of trust is the cumulative result of a communication style that privileges spectacle over substance, impulse over strategy. Diplomacy requires clarity, consistency, and credibility. It cannot be conducted exclusively through all-caps social media posts that oscillate between "obliteration" and "productive conversations" within 48 hours.

The postponement itself may yet yield a diplomatic off-ramp. Regional powers are reportedly engaging in quiet mediation, and Iran has signaled willingness to de-escalate if given guarantees against future aggression. But sustainable peace cannot be built on a foundation of mutual suspicion and contradictory messaging. It requires transparent channels, verifiable commitments, and a shared respect for international law—principles that appear increasingly absent from the current approach.

The most profound takeaway from this episode is not who blinked first in a game of brinkmanship. It is that the United States, for the first time in modern memory, is no longer the default arbiter of its own narrative. When Americans find themselves reading Iranian state media not out of curiosity but out of necessity—to understand what their President might actually do next—we have crossed a threshold.


Restoring credibility will not come from louder declarations or tighter ultimatums. It will require humility: acknowledging that in a hyper-connected world, actions are scrutinized in real time, contradictions are exposed instantly, and trust, once fractured, is rebuilt word by careful word, promise by kept promise.

The next five days will test more than military readiness. They will test whether American leadership can relearn a foundational truth: that in the court of global opinion, consistency is the highest form of strength—and that the world is watching, not just what US political leaders say, but whether they mean it.

Economic Accountability in an Age of Impulse

The global economy has become a real-time barometer of presidential volatility. Oil prices and stock indexes now rise and fall on the cadence of Donald Trump's social media statements, laying the economic cost of this confrontation disproportionately at his feet. The market is sending an unambiguous signal: his unpredictable escalations trigger economic flattening, spike gas prices, and foreshadow rising costs for every essential good tied to energy. When Brent crude surged following Saturday's ultimatum and retreated slightly after Monday's postponement, the correlation was undeniable—war rhetoric carries an immediate negative premium, while de-escalation offers fleeting relief. Still, a crucial distinction must be drawn. While Trump's reckless maximalism inflicts immediate shock, Iran's calibrated responses—threatening specific regional assets rather than indiscriminate escalation—embed the economic cost more deeply the longer the crisis persists. Trump can momentarily calm markets with a single post, but he cannot secure long-term stability without Iran's cooperation. In choosing the path of brinkmanship, he has inadvertently tethered his political future to Tehran's next move. That is the profound irony of impulsive statecraft: the quest for unilateral control yields dependence on the very adversary one seeks to coerce.


Tuesday, September 02, 2025

President Trump: " Israel's lobby had total control over Congress"

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

In the intricate theater of American politics, where influence is currency and loyalty is a commodity, few topics are as potent or as perilous to discuss openly as the role of foreign lobbying. That taboo was shattered once again this week when President Donald Trump, in a wide-ranging interview with The Daily Caller, made a blunt assertion that has sent ripples through the foreign policy establishment.

"Israel was the strongest lobby I’ve ever seen," Trump stated. "They had total control over Congress."

This stark declaration, from a man who proudly moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and brokered the Abraham Accords, is more than just a soundbite. It is a rare, public admission from the commander-in-chief that reignites a long-simmering debate about the power of pro-Israel advocacy groups, their strategic influence on U.S. policy, and the line between support for an ally and "total control."

Trump’s remark did not come in a vacuum. It was part of a broader reflection on his presidency and his relationships—and friction—with various power centers. While he praised his administration's pro-Israel achievements, his comment about the lobby appears to stem from his perception of political pressure, particularly from groups that he felt were insufficiently loyal or critical of his specific policies.

This aligns with a recurring theme in Trump's political narrative: his self-styled image as a Washington outsider battling entrenched interests. By claiming that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and similar organizations wield "total control," he frames his own actions not as capitulation to this influence, but as independent decisions made in the face of it.

Decoding "Total Control"

What does "total control" mean in practice? Political scientists and insiders argue it is less about sinister puppetry and more about a highly effective, sophisticated advocacy ecosystem that has been built over decades. This system encompasses:

  • AIPAC: The most well-known and powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, renowned for its bipartisan approach, extensive fundraising network, and deep relationships on Capitol Hill.

  • PAC Fundraising: Associated political action committees donate millions to the campaigns of both Democratic and Republican candidates who align with their policy goals.

  • Grassroots Mobilization: A network of local chapters that can activate constituents to contact their representatives on key votes, such as military aid packages or Iran sanctions.

  • Discourse Shaping: Efforts to influence think tanks, media commentary, and academic circles to align with a pro-Israel perspective.

The result is a political environment where unwavering support for Israel is often the default, bipartisan position. Voting against aid to Israel or criticizing its government’s actions is frequently seen as a significant political risk, a testament to the lobby's perceived power to reward friends and punish foes.

   

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Trump’s “America First” and the Shifting Middle East

    Tuesday, May 13, 2025   No comments

Under the banner of “America First,” President Donald Trump’s second term is leaving an unmistakable imprint on the Middle East. The traditional American posture—strongly aligned with Israel and antagonistic toward Iran—is giving way to a new configuration driven more by economic pragmatism and regional stability than ideology. At the heart of this shift is a surprising warming of ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a recalibration in U.S.-Israel relations amid the Gaza war, and a relentless push for commercial deals that serve both American and regional interests.

Trump's Strategic Bet: Trade Over Troops


Trump’s latest Middle East tour, which began with a high-profile stop in Riyadh, highlights a clear message: economic engagement is now Washington’s primary tool of influence. In Saudi Arabia, he and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed a “Strategic Economic Partnership” encompassing energy, mining, and defense. The visit was touted by Trump as “historic,” with the New York Times reporting the president’s desire to announce deals worth over $1 trillion, which he believes will bolster American jobs and global influence.

Instead of pursuing a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine, Trump’s second term appears guided by transactional diplomacy—striking business deals and forging bilateral agreements without broader regional conditions. This is a marked departure from previous administrations that often tied economic or military cooperation to political reform or diplomatic alignment, especially concerning Israel.

Practical decisions:Saudi Arabia and the United States have signed a historic $142 Billion dollar arms deal, the largest in history. Saudi Crown Prince Bin Salman also pledged that Saudi Arabia would invest a staggering $600 Billion USD into the U.S. economy.


Gaza War Reveals Strains in U.S.-Israel Ties

Meanwhile, the ongoing war in Gaza is exposing growing daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv. Trump, once hailed by Israeli leaders as one of their strongest allies, is now signaling fatigue with the conflict. According to The Guardian, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff criticized Israel’s prolongation of the war, stating plainly that “Israel is not ready to end it,” while the U.S. wants it resolved—especially with American hostages involved.

Trump’s reluctance to visit Israel during this regional tour, and his administration’s quiet disengagement from Israeli military priorities—like launching strikes on Iran or continuing the Gaza war indefinitely—signals a pivot. One former Israeli diplomat noted bluntly: “Trump is not anti-Israel, but he doesn’t care that much.”

This pragmatism is echoed in Trump’s decision to finalize a ceasefire with the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen—without consulting Israel—and even referring to the Houthis as “brave.” These actions underscore a major shift: the U.S. is prioritizing regional calm and economic deals over ideological battles or military entanglements.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "There will be no scenario in which we stop the war...even if Hamas releases additional Israeli prisoners, IDF operations in Gaza will continue."

Iran-Saudi Talks: A New Regional Axis?

Perhaps the most striking development of all is the quiet but determined rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia—two rivals long seen as polar opposites in the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently visited Jeddah to meet his Saudi counterpart, Faisal bin Farhan. The two discussed bilateral cooperation and regional challenges, signaling a thaw in relations that were icy during Trump’s first term.

The visit came on the heels of indirect U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, which Araghchi described as entering a “detailed” and “constructive” phase. Oman, playing mediator, confirmed a shared desire to reach a “dignified agreement.” Trump’s administration appears to be backing this diplomatic track quietly, a sign that America no longer seeks to isolate Iran at any cost.

More significantly, Saudi Arabia is engaging with Iran not because of American pressure, but despite it. The economic rationale is compelling: both nations are navigating uncertain oil markets, diversifying their economies, and facing youth-driven demand for growth and jobs. Regional stability is no longer optional—it’s essential for survival.


Normalization with Israel? Not at Any Price

While Trump continues to advocate for Saudi-Israeli normalization, the path is increasingly steep. As long as the war in Gaza rages, Riyadh has made clear it will not move forward. The Jerusalem Post warned that normalization “is no longer given for free,” and Israel may no longer be a necessary partner for American-Arab relations.

This mirrors Trump’s broader approach: if a deal serves economic interests, it’s pursued; if not, it's sidelined—regardless of who the traditional allies are.

The Middle East Reorders Around Stability and Commerce

Trump’s “America First” no longer means a blanket commitment to old alliances or ideological battles. It means pushing American interests through trade and stability. This pivot has encouraged unlikely conversations—between Iran and Saudi Arabia, between economic development and military restraint. It has also cooled previously unquestionable loyalties, as seen in Washington’s growing impatience with Israel’s war strategy.

The new Middle East is one where economic realism outweighs ideological loyalty, and where Trump’s transactional instincts are reshaping the region—not through force, but through a cold calculation of mutual benefit.

Friday, May 17, 2024

Another US governmental official and a Biden Appointee, who is also Jewish, resign protesting Biden's handling of the war in Gaza calling it a Genocide

    Friday, May 17, 2024   No comments

In a move that some observers described as a resounding rejection of Biden's handling of the war in Gaza, a high-ranking Jewish employee in the administration of US President Joe Biden announced her resignation from her position on Wednesday, due to what she described as his disastrous and ongoing support for the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

In an article published by the Washington Post, Lily Greenberg Call, Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff at the Interior Ministry, cited her Jewish upbringing and relationship with Israel and recounted how her family fled from Europe to America to escape anti-Semitic persecution there.

In her resignation letter (see below), Greenberg Call - who made the first public resignation by a Jew over Biden's support for Israel - wrote, "I can no longer in good conscience continue to represent this administration amid President Biden's disastrous and continuing support for the genocide in Gaza."

In an interview she conducted with writer Yasmine Abu Talib Yasmine Abu Talib, Greenberg Call said that resigning was a difficult decision because of the society in which she grew up, but the Jewish values ​​in which she was raised led her to make this decision.

“Judaism is the most important part of my identity, and all the values ​​I was raised with and all my Jewish education are what led me to this decision,” Greenberg Call said. She added, "What Israel is doing in Gaza and to the Palestinians throughout the land does not represent the Jews and is a shame to our ancestors."

Commenting on her position in the Biden administration, she said, “Everyone here is thinking about achieving the American dream and rising to the top, but I asked myself several times during the past eight months: What is the benefit of power if it is not used to stop crimes against humanity?”

Earlier this week, a US Army major working for the Defense Intelligence Agency resignedUS Army major working for the Defense Intelligence Agency resigned, writing in an open letter that he felt “incredibly ashamed and guilty” when he realized that his work contributed to the suffering and killing of Palestinians.

A political official also resigned from the Ministry of Education last January, and an employee at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who worked on transporting weapons to foreign countries last October.

In february of this year, U.S. airman Aaron Bushnell U.S. airman Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire at the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., after he described his action while walking to the location as an extreme act of protest against the war in Gaza—a desperate plea to “free Palestine,” as he screamed while flames engulfed his body.

As early as October of last year, some US officials, including State Department officials, have resigned rejecting Biden's blind support of a genocidal war in Gaza.

Whi is Lily Greenberg Call

 An American Jewish politician and human rights activist at the local and international levels. She served as Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff at the US Department of the Interior, and participated in the election campaigns of US President Joe Biden and his Vice President, Kamala Harris.

She worked for many years within Zionist groups supporting Israel, then took an anti-occupation stance, opposed violence in the occupied Palestinian territories, and called for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Jews.

Lily Greenberg Cole was born and raised in San Diego, California. Her origins go back to a Jewish family that immigrated to the United States of America to escape the persecution practiced against Jews in Europe.

Her family lived on Ellis Island, New York, and spent decades suffering under the weight of racial discrimination, which affected Lily's upbringing and her vision of issues of justice and discrimination.

Greenberg grew up in a Jewish community in which unconditional support for Israel prevails, to the point where it is considered part of the Jewish identity, so she was a prominent youth in pro-Israel activism in her high school years, and has been involved in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since her freshman year of high school. She was elected president of the Israel Defense Club at her school.

When she was 16 years old, she went on a trip to the occupied territories and stayed there for a full year, as part of a program for the “Jewish Youth” movement, which included making trips in the occupying state and joining educational courses. Among the activities were meetings with Palestinian teenagers, the goal of which was Developing the spirit of coexistence between the two parties.

When she joined the University of California, she joined pro-Israel groups, and became the leader of a student movement supporting Israel and known within the university.

In 2017, she led a trip to Israel, organized by the Hillel Berkeley Jewish Student Center. Students from a wide range of ethnic and religious backgrounds joined the trip, visited Palestinian cities such as Bethlehem and Ramallah, and met Palestinians and settlers.

Greenberg worked for many years as an activist to defend Israel, but experiences began to change her convictions. During a relief mission in Greece, she forged friendly relations with refugees of Palestinian origins, developed deep relationships with Palestinians through academic programs, and established close relationships with Palestinian Americans during periods of study and campaigns. Electoral relations, and those relations had a significant impact on changing the ideas on which they grew up.

In her article about severing its relationship with AIPAC, Lilly stated that she realized that the organization, through its unconditional support for the Israeli government, was supporting violence, which was contrary to its values, and so she joined to work with other groups.

Greenberg also worked with non-Zionist organizations, such as the "If Not Now" organization, which opposes the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

  


Monday, May 13, 2024

US elections: Gaza War is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump

    Monday, May 13, 2024   No comments

If Trump lost the 2020 elections because of Covid-19, Biden may lose it because of his support for actions that are producing a genocide in Gaza.

In late May 2020, Trump was sliding down in the polls. His advisors told him it was covid-19 and his handling of it. Reportedly, Trump reacted with anger, how could something that he had nothing to do with, derail his chances of winning a second term.

Biden is in a similar situation, he is behind in key states, and he is behind because he is losing young American voters who are protesting what they see as a genocidal war in Gaza. Unlike the pandemic, which Trump claimed he had nothing to do with it, Biden chose to deal with the war they way he did, and he will face the consequences of that choice this November. Biden's handlers seem to recognize the need for him to change direction, however, Biden is personally unmoved by the plight of Gazan civilians being exterminated by bombs and famine, and soon as the weather heats up, disease.


According to the New York Times’s data, if November was last week, Biden would lose the election.


Trending now...


ISR +


Frequently Used Labels and Topics

40 babies beheaded 77 + China A Week in Review Academic Integrity Adana Agreement afghanistan Africa African Union al-Azhar Algeria Aljazeera All Apartheid apostasy Arab League Arab nationalism Arab Spring Arabs in the West Armenia Arts and Cultures Arts and Entertainment Asia Assassinations Assimilation Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belt and Road Initiative Brazil BRI BRICS Brotherhood CAF Canada Capitalism Caroline Guenez Caspian Sea cCuba censorship Central Asia Charity Chechnya Children Rights China Christianity CIA Civil society Civil War climate colonialism communication communism con·science Conflict conscience Constitutionalism Contras Corruption Coups Covid19 Crimea Crimes against humanity D-8 Dearborn Debt Democracy Despotism Diplomacy discrimination Dissent Dmitry Medvedev Earthquakes Economics Economics and Finance Economy ECOWAS Education and Communication Egypt Elections energy Enlightenment environment equity Erdogan ethics Europe Events Fatima FIFA FIFA World Cup FIFA World Cup Qatar 2020 Flour Massacre Food Football France Freedom freedom of speech G20 G7 Garden of Prosperity Gaza GCC GDP Genocide geopolitics Germany Global Security Global South Globalism globalization Greece Grozny Conference Hamas Health Hegemony Hezbollah hijab Hiroshima History and Civilizations Hormuz Human Rights Huquq Ibadiyya Ibn Khaldun ICC Ideas IGOs Immigration Imperialism In The News india Indonesia inequality inflation INSTC Instrumentalized Human Rights Intelligence Inter International Affairs International Law Iran IranDeal Iraq Iraq War ISIL Islam in America Islam in China Islam in Europe Islam in Russia Islam Today Islamic economics Islamic Jihad Islamic law Islamic Societies Islamism Islamophobia ISR MONTHLY ISR Weekly Bulletin ISR Weekly Review Bulletin Italy Japan Jordan Journalism Kenya Khamenei Kilicdaroglu Kurdistan Latin America Law and Society Lebanon Libya Majoritarianism Malaysia Mali mass killings Mauritania Media Media Bias Media Review Middle East migration Military Affairs Morocco Multipolar World Muslim Ban Muslim Women and Leadership Muslims Muslims in Europe Muslims in West Muslims Today NAM Narratives Nationalism NATO Natural Disasters Nelson Mandela NGOs Nicaragua Nicaragua Cuba Niger Nigeria Normalization North America North Korea Nuclear Deal Nuclear Technology Nuclear War Nusra October 7 Oman OPEC+ Opinion Polls Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - OIC Oslo Accords Pakistan Palestine Peace Philippines Philosophy poerty Poland police brutality Politics and Government Population Transfer Populism Poverty Prison Systems Propaganda Prophet Muhammad prosperity Protests Proxy Wars Public Health Putin Qatar Quran Rachel Corrie Racism Raisi Ramadan Ramadan War Regime Change religion and conflict Religion and Culture Religion and Politics religion and society Resistance Rights Rohingya Genocide Russia Salafism Sanctions Saudi Arabia Science and Technology SCO Sectarianism security Senegal Shahed sharia Sharia-compliant financial products Shia Silk Road Singapore Sistani Slavery Soccer socialism Southwest Asia and North Africa Sovereignty Space War Spain Sports Sports and Politics Starvation State Power State Terror Sudan Sunni Axis sunnism Supremacism SWANA Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates terrorism Thailand The Koreas Tourism Trade transportation Tunisia Turkey Turkiye U.S. Cruelty U.S. Foreign Policy UAE uk ukraine UN under the Rubble UNGA United States UNSC Uprisings Urban warfare US Foreign Policy US Veto USA Uyghur Venezuela Volga Bulgaria Wadee wahhabism War War and Peace War Crimes War on Iran Wealth and Power Wealth Building West Western Civilization Western Sahara WMDs Women women rights Work Workers World and Communities Xi Yemen Zionism

Search for old news

Find Articles by year, month hierarchy


WEEKLY AdSpace 3

_______________________________________________

Copyright © Islamic Societies Review. All rights reserved.