Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

Media Review: Who’s Shaping the Narrative of Iran’s Protests?

    Thursday, January 15, 2026   No comments

Reviewing a news story from  Al Jazeera:

In an era where digital spaces often shape political realities as much as streets and parliaments, a recent wave of online activism surrounding protests in Iran has come under scrutiny. What appeared to be a grassroots digital uprising—centered around the hashtag #LiberateThePersianPeople on X (formerly Twitter)—has been revealed by a detailed network analysis to be a highly coordinated campaign.

A Digital Campaign with External Origins

The protests in several Iranian cities were initially sparked by worsening economic conditions. However, online discourse quickly shifted from local grievances to sweeping political narratives about regime change, thanks in large part to the viral spread of #LiberateThePersianPeople.

Contrary to assumptions that this digital momentum originated within Iran, an investigation by Al Jazeera Verify shows that the campaign was primarily orchestrated by external actors—most notably pro-Israeli networks.

Data collected over several days reveals striking anomalies:

Of 4,370 posts analyzed, 94% were retweets, with only 170 original posts.

Despite reaching over 18 million users, the content stemmed from a very small pool of sources.

The interaction pattern followed sharp, intermittent spikes—typical of coordinated inauthentic behavior rather than organic public discourse.

A Politicized Narrative, Not Organic Outrage

The messaging pushed through the hashtag wasn’t just sympathetic to protesters—it carried a clear political agenda. Posts framed the unrest as a historic “moment of collapse,” using stark binaries like:

“The people vs. the regime”

“Freedom vs. political Islam”

“Iran vs. the Islamic Republic”

The campaign also aggressively promoted Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s last Shah, as the legitimate alternative leader. Pahlavi himself actively participated, posting on X and receiving enthusiastic endorsements from Israeli-linked accounts who labeled him “the face of a new Iran.”

Direct Involvement of Israeli Officials

High-profile Israeli figures openly joined the digital push:

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security, posted in Persian calling for the “fall of the dictator” and expressing support for the protests.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s past statements were widely recirculated within the hashtag ecosystem.

Additionally, Israeli activists such as Eyal Yakobi and Halil Nueir amplified claims of excessive violence by Iranian authorities while accusing international media of silence.

Ideological Reframing and Calls for Foreign Intervention

Rather than focusing on socioeconomic demands, the campaign reframed the protests as an ideological battle against Islam itself. Posts frequently described Iran’s government as “oppressive Islam” and portrayed Persians as victims of religious tyranny—a narrative aimed at severing the link between the state and society.

Even more alarmingly, the discourse escalated into explicit calls for foreign military intervention:

Fabricated or decontextualized quotes attributed to Donald Trump suggested U.S. readiness to act if protesters faced violence.

Reza Pahlavi publicly welcomed these alleged statements.

U.S. lawmakers like Rep. Pat Fallon shared similar messages, while numerous posts urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene directly.

Central Nodes in a Coordinated Network

Network mapping identified key accounts driving the campaign:

@RhythmOfX: Created in 2024, this account changed its name five times and consistently promotes both Israeli interests and the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. It regularly calls on the U.S. to take action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

@NiohBerg: A verified account claiming to be an “Iranian Jewish activist” supporting Israel and monarchy restoration. Active since 2017 and also renamed multiple times, it presents itself as a leading voice in the movement and alleges it is wanted by Iranian authorities.

@IsraelWarRoom: This account functions as a digital “war room,” routinely reposting content from @NiohBerg and disseminating real-time alerts, U.S. official statements, and field footage related to Iran.

These nodes formed a tightly interconnected cluster, demonstrating strategic coordination rather than spontaneous solidarity.

A Weaponized Hashtag

The evidence strongly suggests that #LiberateThePersianPeople was not an authentic expression of Iranian public sentiment, but a politically weaponized digital operation launched from outside Iran. Orchestrated by networks tied to Israel and its allies, the campaign sought to hijack legitimate economic protests and reframe them as part of a broader geopolitical project—one that envisions regime change through foreign intervention and the restoration of monarchy. In doing so, it highlights a growing trend: the battlefield of narratives is now as critical—and as contested—as any physical one.

Indonesia Becomes First Country to Block Grok Over AI-Generated Sexualized Content

Indonesia Becomes First Country to Block Grok Over AI-Generated Sexualized Content

    Sunday, January 11, 2026   No comments

Indonesia has made global headlines by becoming the first nation to temporarily block access to Grok, the artificial intelligence chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s xAI, citing serious concerns over AI-generated pornographic and sexualized imagery—including depictions of children.

The decision by Indonesia’s Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs follows mounting international scrutiny of Grok’s image-generation capabilities, which have reportedly produced explicit and non-consensual content. In a statement, Communications and Digital Minister Meutya Hafid emphasized the gravity of the issue: “The government views the practice of non-consensual sexual deepfakes as a serious violation of human rights, dignity, and the security of citizens in the digital space.”

This unprecedented move underscores growing regulatory anxiety worldwide about the unchecked power of generative AI tools. Authorities in Europe and Asia have already launched investigations or issued condemnations regarding similar content generated through Grok, but Indonesia is the first to take concrete action by restricting public access entirely.

In response to the backlash, xAI announced it would limit Grok’s image generation and editing features exclusively to paying subscribers while it works to strengthen its content safeguards. The company acknowledged that lapses in its safety protocols had allowed users to generate disturbing outputs, including images of scantily clad minors—a violation not only of ethical standards but also of Indonesian law.

The ministry has also summoned officials from X (formerly Twitter), the platform hosting Grok, for discussions on how to address these risks moving forward. The meeting is expected to focus on accountability, user verification, and enhanced moderation systems.

Elon Musk addressed the controversy directly on X, asserting that users who employ Grok to create illegal content would face the same legal consequences as if they had uploaded such material themselves. However, when Reuters sought comment from xAI, the company responded with what appeared to be an automated message: “Legacy Media Lies”—a phrase Musk and his associates have used in the past to dismiss critical reporting.

Digital rights advocates and child protection organizations have welcomed Indonesia’s swift action, calling it a necessary step in curbing the proliferation of AI-generated abuse material. “When AI tools can produce realistic images of children in sexualized contexts, even if synthetic, the psychological and societal harm is real,” said Dr. Lina Wijaya, a Jakarta-based researcher specializing in digital ethics.

As governments worldwide grapple with how to regulate fast-evolving AI technologies, Indonesia’s move may set a precedent. With calls for stricter oversight intensifying, the Grok controversy highlights the urgent need for robust safeguards, transparent accountability, and international cooperation to prevent AI from becoming a vector for exploitation.

For now, Grok remains inaccessible to Indonesian users—a symbolic and substantive warning to tech companies that innovation without responsibility will not go unchallenged.

Other countries may follow

In a significant escalation of the regional response, Malaysia has now joined Indonesia in suspending access to Elon Musk’s Grok AI chatbot, citing serious concerns over its capacity to generate pornographic and sexualized imagery—including depictions of women and children. The Malaysian Communications and Digital Ministry announced the move on Sunday, confirming that the suspension was enacted as a precautionary measure to protect public safety and uphold national values. This decision comes just one day after Indonesia became the first country globally to block Grok entirely, signaling a coordinated pushback across Southeast Asia against AI tools perceived as lacking adequate ethical safeguards. Like Indonesia, Malaysia enforces strict regulations on digital content involving sexuality and minors, and authorities emphasized that Grok’s failure to prevent harmful outputs—even through basic text prompts—posed an unacceptable risk. The twin bans from two influential Muslim-majority nations not only intensify pressure on xAI and X but also highlight a growing divide between Silicon Valley’s rapid AI deployment and the cultural, legal, and moral frameworks of countries where such content is not merely controversial but criminal. With more nations potentially following suit, the Grok controversy may mark a turning point in how emerging markets assert regulatory sovereignty over powerful Western AI platforms.

Saudi Arabia Problem 

The fallout from Indonesia’s ban could also reverberate beyond Grok itself—potentially straining X’s relationship with its major financial backers, particularly Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which holds a significant stake in the platform. The Kingdom, under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has invested billions in Musk’s ventures, including a reported $2 billion in X, as part of its broader Vision 2030 strategy to diversify its economy and project a modernizing image. Yet this investment now sits uneasily alongside Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative social norms, where even mild sexual content is strictly censored and AI-generated pornography—especially involving minors—would be considered deeply taboo and illegal. Should Grok’s controversies escalate further, Saudi leadership may face mounting domestic pressure to either publicly condemn the platform’s content or divest entirely, exposing a stark contradiction between their global tech ambitions and rigid cultural values. Such a dilemma could force Riyadh into an uncomfortable position: defend an AI tool generating morally unacceptable material or acknowledge that their high-profile bet on Musk’s vision clashes with the very foundations of their societal order.

GCC is on the line: How Bahrain Emerged as a New Front in the Growing Saudi-Emirati Rift

GCC is on the line: How Bahrain Emerged as a New Front in the Growing Saudi-Emirati Rift

    Saturday, January 10, 2026   No comments

Media review: An exclusive report from Darkbox (France)

Confidential sources revealed to Darkbox that Saudi forces, specifically the Peninsula Shield Force, withdrew from Bahrain following a sharp political and security dispute between Saudi Arabia and the Bahraini government.

According to these sources, the withdrawal was neither routine nor planned, but rather a consequence of escalating tensions between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, with Manama finding itself caught in the middle.

The sources describe this move as highly unusual, given the long-standing Saudi military presence in Bahrain and the Kingdom's traditional role as a key guarantor of Bahrain's security. They say the decision to withdraw the forces came after a breakdown in coordination and trust, resulting from what Saudi officials perceived as Bahrain's alignment with Emirati positions that conflicted with Saudi interests.

Turkey Moves to Join Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact, Fueling an Islamic Military Alliance Speculation

Turkey Moves to Join Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact, Fueling an Islamic Military Alliance Speculation

    Friday, January 09, 2026   No comments

In a rapidly shifting global order marked by the United States’ perceived retreat from long-standing alliances, an unprecedented Israeli military strike on Qatar, and escalating regional security threats Middle Eastern and South Asian powers are redefining their defense strategies. The Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, was merely the opening chapter. Now, with Turkey actively seeking to join the pact, the potential expansion of this alliance is becoming a geopolitical reality—one that could reshape security architectures across the Muslim world and beyond.

A potential trilateral military alliance among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is gaining momentum, following reports that Ankara is seeking formal membership in the bilateral defense pact signed by Riyadh and Islamabad in September 2025. According to sources familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg, Turkey’s accession talks are at an advanced stage, with a deal appearing increasingly likely.

The development follows claims by prominent Turkish commentator Eyüp Sağcan, who asserted on January 6 that a comprehensive Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani military coalition was “ready and will be signed soon,” describing it as a world-shaking arrangement aimed at securing Muslim nations. While no official confirmation has emerged from any of the three capitals, the speculation aligns with deepening defense cooperation across the trio.

The original Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement includes a mutual defense clause—mirroring NATO’s Article 5—that treats aggression against one party as an attack on both. Pakistan, the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state, brings significant strategic heft to the partnership. Turkey, already NATO’s second-largest military, has long-standing defense ties with Pakistan, including joint fighter jet and drone programs, and has recently expanded defense industrial collaboration with Saudi Arabia, including local production of Akıncı combat drones.

Diplomatic engagement among the three countries has intensified since 2022, with high-level talks focusing on regional security—from Yemen to Gulf stability—and enhanced defense technology sharing. Analysts suggest that while bilateral ties have flourished, a formal trilateral alliance would mark a geopolitical watershed, potentially countering Iranian influence, Israeli military reach, and Western-led security frameworks in the region.

If realized, the alliance would unite Turkey’s advanced defense industry and NATO access, Saudi Arabia’s financial power, and Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent—a combination that could significantly reshape security dynamics across the Middle East and South Asia.

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

The Kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Its Immediate Impact on Russian Foreign Policy

    Friday, January 09, 2026   No comments

In an unprecedented breach of international law and state sovereignty, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was forcibly abducted by armed forces of the United States government on January 3, 2026. The incident has triggered a global diplomatic crisis and prompted a swift, uncompromising response from Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, issued a scathing statement describing it as “sheer thuggery and vileness—or, to put it more elegantly, a civilizational catastrophe in the sphere of international relations.” His remarks are not mere rhetoric; they reflect a fundamental recalibration of Russia’s strategic posture in the wake of what is now widely regarded as the most brazen act of state-sponsored abduction in modern history.

For Moscow, Maduro’s abduction is not just a regional crisis—it is a direct challenge to the multipolar world order Russia has spent two decades trying to construct. Venezuela has been a cornerstone of Russian influence in Latin America, serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

In his statement, Medvedev outlined two possible outcomes: either the U.S. releases Maduro under diplomatic cover—an outcome he deems “minimal”—or Maduro becomes “a new Latin American Mandela,” martyred by Western imperialism and immortalized alongside Simón Bolívar, Francisco de Miranda, and Hugo Chávez. Either scenario, Medvedev argues, strengthens the anti-imperialist narrative that Russia and its allies have cultivated globally.

Medvedev tied the kidnapping directly to energy politics. “Oil is the key factor here,” he noted, referencing Venezuela’s vast reserves—the largest in the world. He warned that if the current Venezuelan authorities (now led by acting President Delcy Rodríguez) refuse to grant U.S. firms access to those resources, Washington might consider a full-scale invasion. Yet he dismissed this as unlikely, citing domestic political constraints in the U.S., including a divided Congress and growing public opposition to foreign military entanglements.

Perhaps most significantly, the Maduro kidnapping has accelerated Russia’s formal abandonment of the post–World War II international legal framework. Medvedev explicitly stated that after such an act, “the American elites—both Republican and Democratic—should permanently shove their long tongues back into their rickety asses” and “acknowledge the legitimacy of Russia’s actions during the SMO [Special Military Operation] in Ukraine.”

This linkage is deliberate: Moscow now asserts moral equivalence between its actions in Ukraine and U.S. actions in Venezuela—both, in its view, are exercises of sovereign power in a world where might makes right. In this new paradigm, international law is not merely weakened; it is declared obsolete. As Medvedev chillingly put it: “international law is not required at all.”

He reinforced this stance in discussing the recent seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker by U.S. naval forces—a vessel that had been granted temporary registration to evade sanctions. While acknowledging the move violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Medvedev pointed out that the U.S. never ratified the treaty, rendering its objections hypocritical. More importantly, he argued that responses to American aggression must now occur “entirely outside the framework” of existing legal structures.

Medvedev’s closing metaphor reveals the emerging Russian doctrine: in a world turned into “outright Bedlam,” diplomacy is futile. “Dangerous madmen,” he wrote, “require either a straitjacket—or a lifesaving injection of haloperidol.” The reference to events “last night in the west of the Bandera-run Ukrainian periphery” suggests that Russia has already begun administering its own form of “treatment”—likely a major retaliatory strike or covert operation designed to signal that any further U.S. adventurism will be met with asymmetric, unpredictable force.

This marks a decisive shift from deterrence through parity to deterrence through unpredictability. Russia is no longer seeking to negotiate within the system; it is working to dismantle it and replace it with a raw balance of power enforced by “orderlies with massive fists.”

The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is not a speculative fiction—it is a watershed moment in international relations. It has validated Moscow’s long-held claim that the United States operates as a lawless hegemon, willing to violate the most basic norms of sovereignty when convenient. In response, Russia has abandoned any pretense of working within Western-led institutions and is now openly advocating for a world governed by strength, loyalty, and retribution.

As nations across the Global South watch closely, the coming weeks will determine whether this act triggers a cascade of realignments—or a broader conflict. One thing is certain: the rules-based order did not die slowly. It was taken hostage from a bedroom in Caracas—and with it, the last vestiges of post–Cold War stability.

In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

    Thursday, January 08, 2026   No comments

January 9, 2026 — Paris and Berlin

In a rare and forceful rebuke of U.S. foreign policy, the presidents of France and Germany have issued sharp criticisms of Washington’s recent actions under President Donald Trump, warning that America’s shift away from multilateralism and international norms threatens to unravel the postwar global order.

Speaking before France’s diplomatic corps at the Élysée Palace on Thursday, President Emmanuel Macron lamented what he described as a “gradual turning away” by the United States from its traditional allies and the very international rules it once championed. Macron characterized the current trajectory of U.S. diplomacy as exhibiting “a new colonial aggressiveness,” asserting that the world is increasingly dominated by great powers tempted to carve it up among themselves.

“The U.S. is an established power, but one that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the very international rules that it was until recently promoting,” Macron said. He added that multilateral institutions are “functioning less and less effectively,” and urged reform of the United Nations—calling on the G7 and major emerging powers to help reshape a faltering international system.

Macron’s remarks come amid growing European unease over a series of unilateral U.S. moves, including last weekend’s dramatic raid in Caracas that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and President Trump’s long-stated ambition to acquire Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark. Though Macron did not explicitly name these incidents, diplomats and analysts widely interpreted his comments as a direct response.

Across the Rhine, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, himself a former foreign minister, delivered an equally stark warning Wednesday evening during a public forum. Steinmeier said the international order is suffering a “second historic rupture”—the first being Russia’s annexation of Crimea and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The second, he argued, stems from the erosion of democratic values by none other than America, “our most important partner,” which helped construct the very system now under threat.

“The world must not be allowed to descend into a robber’s den,” Steinmeier declared, “where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want, and entire regions or nations are treated as the private property of a few great powers.”

Both leaders emphasized the urgency of defending a rules-based international order while navigating the delicate balance of maintaining the transatlantic alliance. Europe, caught between upholding international law and preserving its strategic and economic ties with the U.S.—especially in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine—has struggled to formulate a unified response to Washington’s increasingly assertive and unilateral foreign policy.

Macron underscored France’s push for “greater strategic autonomy” and reduced dependence on both the U.S. and China—a vision increasingly shared across European capitals. “We reject new colonialism and new imperialism,” he said, “but also vassalage and defeatism.”

The simultaneous but apparently uncoordinated condemnations from Europe’s two most influential powers mark a significant escalation in transatlantic tensions. As the Biden-era emphasis on alliances and multilateralism appears to give way to a more transactional and expansionist approach under Trump’s regime, European leaders are signaling they may no longer accept U.S. leadership uncritically—and may act independently to safeguard global norms.

Erdogan Vows to Eradicate Terrorism, Condemns Foreign Interference in Venezuela

Erdogan Vows to Eradicate Terrorism, Condemns Foreign Interference in Venezuela

    Monday, January 05, 2026   No comments

Ankara, January 6, 2026 — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reaffirmed his government’s unwavering commitment to eliminating terrorism and upholding international law during a speech following a cabinet meeting in Ankara on Tuesday. Declaring that Turkey will not allow any actor to undermine its vision of a “Turkey free from terrorism,” Erdoğan framed the fight against terror as both a national imperative and a moral obligation.

“For forty years, terrorism has drained our nation’s energy and resources,” Erdoğan stated. “With our clear vision of a Turkey without terrorism, we will finally put an end to this scourge.”

The president identified several groups—including ISIS, the Gülen movement (FETÖ), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—as instruments of what he described as “imperialist shackles” designed to weaken Turkey. He accused external forces of using these organizations to destabilize the country and obstruct its sovereignty.

Beyond its domestic security agenda, Erdoğan emphasized Turkey’s role as a global advocate for justice, legality, and international norms. “Turkey stands at the forefront of nations defending justice, legitimacy, and international law across the world,” he said, citing Ankara’s consistent positions in conflict zones from Gaza to Syria. “Wherever injustice or violations of international law occur, we have made our stance unmistakably clear.”

Turning to Latin America, Erdoğan expressed deep concern over recent developments in Venezuela, a country he described as a “close friend” of Turkey. He referred to ongoing political and social unrest in the South American nation as “regrettable events” and warned against foreign interference that could exacerbate the crisis.

During a recent conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, Erdoğan said he stressed the importance of avoiding actions that might plunge Venezuela into further instability. “We do not accept any violation of international law,” he asserted. “Our goal is to support what is best not only for Turkey but also for our friendly Venezuelan people.”

The Turkish leader pledged his country’s continued solidarity with the Venezuelan population in their pursuit of “prosperity, stability, and development.” He cautioned that breaches of national sovereignty and violations of international legal norms are “risky steps” that could trigger serious global repercussions.

Erdoğan’s remarks come amid heightened geopolitical tensions and underscore Turkey’s ambition to position itself as a principled actor on the world stage—one that champions anti-imperialism, respects state sovereignty, and combats terrorism in all its forms.

China, other countries Slam U.S. Coup in Venezuela at UN Security Council

China, other countries Slam U.S. Coup in Venezuela at UN Security Council

    Monday, January 05, 2026   No comments

United Nations, New York – January 6, 2026

In a forceful intervention at the United Nations Security Council today, China issued a scathing condemnation of what it described as a U.S.-led military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, followed by Washington’s declaration of intent to “run Venezuela.” The statement, delivered by China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, underscored Beijing’s rejection of unilateral interventions and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and international law.

China’s ambassador opened the statement with an unequivocal denunciation: “The United States has flagrantly violated Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and grossly breached the foundational principles of the UN Charter.” He emphasized that no nation, regardless of its power, has the right to unilaterally impose regime change or dictate the internal affairs of another sovereign state.

“The actions taken by the United States constitute a textbook coup d’état—executed not by domestic actors, but by foreign military force,” he declared.

Central to China’s position was a demand for the immediate and unconditional release of President Maduro and his spouse. “President Maduro is the democratically elected head of a UN member state. His detention by foreign forces is not only illegal under international law but also sets a dangerous precedent for global order,” the ambassador stated.

He warned that holding a sitting head of state captive would “destabilize the entire Western Hemisphere” and potentially trigger a regional crisis.

China urged the Security Council to convene emergency consultations and adopt a resolution condemning the U.S. intervention, calling on all member states to refrain from recognizing any authority imposed by force. “The Council must act—not to enforce the will of the powerful, but to uphold international legality and prevent further bloodshed,” the statement read.

The Chinese representative stressed that Venezuela’s future must be determined solely by its people through peaceful and democratic means, free from external coercion.

One of the most resonant lines from the speech came in response to what China described as Washington’s historical pattern of interventionism in Latin America: “Latin America is not a U.S. colony. It is a zone of peace—a region with its own sovereignty, dignity, and right to self-determination.”

Invoking the legacy of past U.S. military interventions, the ambassador drew stark parallels to Iraq, Libya, and Iran: “We have seen this script before—fabricated justifications, military strikes, regime change, and then chaos. Millions displaced. Infrastructure destroyed. Civilian lives shattered. The world cannot afford another repeat.”

In closing, China issued a broader warning against hegemonism in international relations: “No country can act as the world’s police, nor presume to be the international judge. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over. Multilateralism, not unilateral force, must guide our collective security.”

The statement marks the latest escalation in tensions between Beijing and Washington over Venezuela, a nation that has long been a point of geopolitical contention. While the U.S. has yet to formally address the allegations of a military strike and detention of Maduro, China’s intervention at the Security Council signals its readiness to challenge what it perceives as American overreach on the global stage.

As the international community grapples with this unfolding crisis, China’s message is clear: sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the UN Charter must remain the bedrock of global peace—not a relic to be overridden by power.

Media review: The Illegality of U.S. abduction of the president of Venezuela and the Precedent it will regret setting

Media review: The Illegality of U.S. abduction of the president of Venezuela and the Precedent it will regret setting

    Saturday, January 03, 2026   No comments

In a move that has shocked the international community and drawn swift condemnation from global capitals, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on January 3, 2026, that a covert military operation had successfully “ousted” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and “extradited” him—along with his wife—from their home in Caracas to face trial in New York on drug and weapons charges. Simultaneously, Trump declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela “properly” and “professionally” until a transition of power could be arranged.

This extraordinary assertion of unilateral authority—framed in triumphalist rhetoric rather than legal or moral reasoning—raises profound questions under both international law and ethical governance. Worse still, it comes just days after Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a leader indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The juxtaposition is jarring and revealing: while the U.S. president embraces an accused perpetrator of mass civilian atrocities, he orchestrates a military-style raid to depose and abduct the head of state of a sovereign nation—all under the thin veneer of enforcing “justice.”

A Clear Violation of International Law

The United Nations Charter, the bedrock of modern international law, enshrines two core principles: the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)) and the right of states to sovereignty and territorial integrity. The U.S. operation in Venezuela—described by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot as an act that “infringes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law”—constitutes a textbook violation of both.

Even if one accepts U.S. allegations that Maduro’s government is corrupt or authoritarian (a view held by many human rights groups and Western governments), that does not grant any state the legal authority to invade another, kidnap its sitting president, or impose a transitional administration. There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing such action. There is no invitation from Venezuela’s legitimate government—only a furious denunciation from Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who was swiftly sworn in as interim leader and demanded Maduro’s immediate return.

Moreover, the notion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela echoes colonial-era paternalism. As Trump boasted: “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world going in, invest billions and billions of dollars.” The implicit promise—that Venezuelans will benefit—is undercut by the fact that the U.S. is acting without their consent, installing no democratically legitimate authority, and asserting control over one of the world’s largest oil reserves.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice

The ethical bankruptcy of this intervention becomes even starker when viewed alongside U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. Just days before the Venezuela raid, Trump hosted Netanyahu—a man now subject to an ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes, including the intentional starvation of civilians and indiscriminate bombing of residential areas in Gaza. The ICC’s charges also cite Netanyahu’s role in a policy that may amount to crimes against humanity.

Yet instead of distancing himself from an indicted ally, Trump rolled out the red carpet. No military raids. No extradition demands. No declarations that Israel must be “run properly” until new leadership emerges.

This double standard exposes a deeply entrenched pattern: international law applies only to adversaries, never to allies—or to the United States itself. When the U.S. acts unilaterally, it calls it “strength.” When others do the same, it’s “aggression.” This selective enforcement erodes the very foundations of a rules-based order and fuels global cynicism about Western claims to moral leadership.

The Dangerous Precedent of Legitimacy as a Weapon

The Trump administration justifies its actions by claiming Maduro’s 2024 re-election was “illegitimate.” But if contested elections become grounds for foreign military intervention and the kidnapping of heads of state, then no leader is safe—not even American presidents.

Consider this: Trump’s own 2016 election was widely scrutinized for foreign interference (as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies), voter suppression, and unprecedented foreign meddling. If Canada, Germany, or France adopted Trump’s logic, they could theoretically declare him “illegitimate” and, in the name of democracy, dispatch special forces to Mar-a-Lago to “extradite” him to The Hague.

Of course, no democratic nation would do such a thing—because they respect sovereignty, due process, and legal norms. The absurdity of the hypothetical underscores the recklessness of Trump’s Venezuela gambit. It is not a defense of Maduro to point out that regime change by abduction is lawless. It is a defense of international order.

Supremacism Masquerading as Strategy

At its core, this operation reflects what can only be described as imperial supremacism: the belief that the United States, by virtue of its military and economic power, is exempt from the rules that bind others. Trump’s declaration—“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might in American history”—is not a statement of policy but of domination.

Such actions are not only illegal; they are strategically foolish. They alienate allies (the European Union expressed “great concern”), embolden adversaries like Russia and China (both of whom condemned the raid as “armed aggression”), and invite reciprocal logic in other regions. If the U.S. can remove Maduro, why can’t China “liberate” Taiwan? Why can’t Russia “stabilize” the Baltics? The erosion of legal norms is contagious.

A Reckless Abandonment of Principle

The United States once positioned itself as a champion of sovereignty, self-determination, and the rule of law—even if imperfectly. Trump’s Venezuela intervention represents a full-throated rejection of those ideals in favor of raw power politics. By hosting an ICC-indicted leader while simultaneously abducting another on disputed legal grounds, the administration has revealed its moral compass to be calibrated not by justice, but by allegiance.

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

In a powerful display of military coordination and strategic messaging, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has concluded the second day of its expansive “Justice Mission 2025” joint military drills encircling Taiwan. The maneuvers, which began on December 29, represent far more than routine training—they constitute a calibrated assertion of Beijing’s resolve to deter “Taiwan independence” and block foreign interference, particularly from the United States and Japan.

The exercises, orchestrated by the PLA Eastern Theater Command, brought together integrated forces from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force. Live-fire drills on Tuesday morning targeted waters north of Taiwan, followed by simulated joint strikes to the south in the afternoon. According to official reports, every rocket launched from long-range modularized rocket systems struck its intended target—a demonstration not only of precision but of psychological pressure.

“This series of exercises demonstrates our strong capability to seize comprehensive control of the Taiwan Strait,” said Zhang Chi, a professor at China’s National Defense University. He emphasized that the drills combined “blockade and strike” operations across multiple domains—sea, air, land, and cyber—to enforce what Beijing describes as “multidimensional isolation” of the island.

A Three-Tiered Operational Framework

Zhang outlined the spatial architecture of the drills in three concentric arcs:

1. Nearshore enforcement: China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels patrolled contested waters near Matsu and Wuqiu, enforcing maritime law and signaling administrative control.
2. Encirclement of Taiwan: Naval and air assets pressed closer to the island, overseeing critical sea lanes and chokepoints, effectively disrupting civilian air traffic—941 flights were reportedly affected on Monday alone.
3. Eastern theater projection: In the Pacific-facing waters east of Taiwan, the PLA conducted anti-submarine operations, air superiority drills, and amphibious raids using elite forces and unmanned systems, underscoring its readiness to interdict external reinforcements.

A provocative “Throat-Choking” poster released by the CCG depicted the interception of a Taiwanese cargo ship allegedly carrying U.S.-made HIMARS rocket launchers—highlighting Beijing’s focus on cutting off military supply lines as part of its coercive strategy.

Political Messaging and Domestic Repercussions

The timing of the drills is no coincidence. They follow a major U.S. arms sale to Taiwan worth $11.1 billion and escalating rhetoric from Taipei under President Lai Ching-te, whose approval ratings have slumped—52.2% of Taiwanese now express dissatisfaction with his leadership, according to a December poll.

Meanwhile, China is coupling military pressure with diplomatic outreach. Song Tao, head of the Communist Party’s Taiwan Affairs Office, met with nearly 200 Taiwanese business leaders during the drills, urging them to oppose “Taiwan independence” and support peaceful reunification. This dual-track approach—“tough on the tough, soft on the soft”—reflects Beijing’s evolving Taiwan policy, aimed at dividing pro-independence elites from the broader public and business community.

Despite the scale of the exercises, Washington’s response has been conspicuously muted. When asked by CBS News, the Pentagon offered “nothing to say,” while former U.S. President Donald Trump downplayed the drills as routine, saying, “They’ve been doing this for 20 years.”

But analysts suggest this restraint may mask strategic realism. “The mainland not only has vast numerical superiority, it now has qualitative superiority across the board—in weaponry and probably in training as well,” noted Lyle Goldstein of the U.S.-based think tank Defense Priorities.

Japanese media, including Nikkei and Jiji Press, interpreted the drills as a direct warning to Tokyo not to intervene in any future cross-strait contingency. A senior Japanese defense official acknowledged the exercises as a serious escalation, pledging to “stay vigilant.”

The Shadow of Taipei 101

Adding symbolic weight to the maneuvers, the PLA released drone footage on Monday showing Taipei 101—the island’s iconic skyscraper—under the shadow of Chinese military aircraft. The image resurrected a haunting prediction made a year ago by former Taiwanese security chief Su Chi: that if PLA jets ever photographed Taipei 101 at night, Taiwan would be powerless to stop them.

Now, that scenario appears less like prophecy and more like practice.

While Beijing insists the drills are defensive and aimed solely at separatists, their scope and synchronization suggest a rehearsal for real-world contingencies—including blockade, amphibious assault, and rapid decapitation strikes. As Professor Li Haidong of China Foreign Affairs University noted, “The U.S. and Japan know full well that achieving a military victory against China in the Taiwan Strait today is unrealistic.”

The “Justice Mission 2025” may not herald imminent invasion, but it undeniably marks a new threshold in China’s campaign to normalize military dominance over the Taiwan Strait—reshaping regional power dynamics while testing the limits of American and allied resolve. 

US precendent

This escalation around Taiwan must also be viewed in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy, which has repeatedly employed military pressure and coercive tactics against sovereign nations—most recently in Venezuela, where the U.S. government has intensified sanctions, conducted naval drills off the Caribbean coast, and openly supported opposition figures in efforts to undermine the Maduro administration. Washington justifies such actions under the guise of promoting democracy or countering authoritarianism, yet it rarely faces meaningful international consequences for violating principles of non-intervention. From China’s perspective, this double standard is glaring: if the United States can openly threaten, isolate, and destabilize a recognized sovereign state like Venezuela—without renouncing its own adherence to the “One China” policy—then Beijing contends it is well within its rights to treat Taiwan not as an independent actor, but as an internal matter. After all, every U.S. administration since 1979 has formally acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, even while deepening unofficial ties. China thus frames its military posturing not as aggression, but as a proportionate and legitimate response to what it sees as American hypocrisy—using force to uphold sovereignty in one context while undermining it in another.