Michigan lawmakers have proposed a bill that would outlaw online pornography and restrict circumvention tools
Republican lawmakers in the US state of Michigan have introduced a bill that would ban online pornography and restrict the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). The proposal, entitled ‘The Anticorruption of Public Morals Act’, was introduced in the state legislature earlier this month.
The bill would prohibit any pornographic materials distributed on the internet, including those generated by artificial intelligence (AI). To prevent bypassing of restrictions, internet service providers would be obliged to actively monitor and block known circumvention tools such as VPNs and proxy servers.
Currently, there are no federal or state restrictions on VPN use in the US. No state has a full legal ban on adult pornography, with some states curbing access by employing measures such as age verification, obscenity laws, and filtering.
If the bill becomes law, violations could result in fines of up to $500,000 in some cases and/or up to 25 years in prison.
The legislation would also ban content where people represent themselves “to be of the other biological sex.”
Several laws have been proposed or enacted in other US states in recent years, limiting or prohibiting LGBTQ+ topics in schools, libraries, and sometimes at public events.
Since taking office in January, US President Donald Trump has moved quickly to roll back pro-LGBTQ+ policies, insisting on what he calls a return to “biological truth.” His administration has also moved to strip federal recognition of gender identities beyond male and female.
Michigan is a so-called swing state with a sizable conservative population and an equally strong liberal bloc. Its legislature is split, with Democrats holding the Senate and Republicans controlling the House. The state has recently seen a series of criminal and civil cases involving sexual abuse of minors and child pornography.
The bloc’s 19th package targets third-country buyers of Russian oil, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a new package of sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, targeting “refiners, oil traders, [and] petrochemical companies in third countries, including China,” accused of helping Moscow bypass earlier restrictions.
Member states will now discuss the proposed package, which must be unanimously approved before being adopted.
The new proposed measures, revealed on Friday, extend beyond the bloc to target foreign energy firms, including in China, which are alleged to be “purchasing oil in breach of the sanctions,” the commissioner claimed.
Russia has emerged as one of the largest suppliers of oil to both China and India since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The two countries have pushed back against Western demands to reduce their reliance on Russian crude, citing domestic economic needs and national interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Western nations against adopting a “colonial” tone toward China and India and trying to “punish” them.
The package also proposes to ban imports of Russian liquefied natural gas into EU markets, adds 118 vessels from what Brussels claims is a Russian “shadow fleet” to the blacklist, and places major Russian energy traders Rosneft and Gazpromneft under a full transaction embargo.
Von der Leyen said the measures also seek to close “financial loopholes,” extending transaction bans to more Russian banks as well as lenders in third countries. For the first time, EU sanctions will also cover cryptocurrency platforms, blocking digital transactions. She added that foreign banks tied to Russian “alternative payment systems,” along with entities in special economic zones, will also face restrictions.
The EC is “in parallel” working on a new solution to finance Ukraine, “based on immobilized Russian assets,” von der Leyen said.
“With the cash balances linked to these assets, we can provide Ukraine with a reparations loan,” she stated, adding that “The assets themselves will not be touched, and the risk will be carried collectively.”
Von der Leyen said the 19th package of measures against Moscow was drawn up in response to an escalation in the Ukraine conflict, citing missile strikes on Kiev and alleged Russian drone incursions into Poland and Romania. Moscow has dismissed the accusations as “unfounded.”
“We’re increasing the pressure. With our 19th package of sanctions covering energy, financial services and trade restrictions,” von der Leyen stated.
Hundreds of thousands have flooded the streets, outraged over budget cuts being pushed by France’s new prime minister
Police fired tear gas in Paris, Nantes, and Lyon on Thursday as protesters clashed with law enforcement during strikes across France against proposed austerity measures.
Hundreds of thousands joined demonstrations to oppose budget cuts proposed by President Emmanuel Macron’s newly appointed prime minister, Sebastien Lecornu. Protesters demanded higher taxes on the wealthy, more funding for public services, and the reversal of pension reforms.
Footage showed crowds waving flags, chanting slogans, singing, and clapping while smoke from flares drifted over nearby buildings.
The demonstrations targeted cuts unveiled over the summer by then Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, amounting to €44 billion ($52 billion) from next year’s budget. The proposals included freezing tax rates, social benefits, and pensions, as well as turning Victory Day on May 8 and Easter Monday into working days. His government was ousted on September 8 after parliament rejected the plan, triggering a political crisis that brought Lecornu into office.
The Interior Ministry said more than 180 people were arrested as 80,000 police and gendarmes, including riot units and armored vehicles, were deployed nationwide. Officers in Paris used tear gas to disperse black-clad protesters throwing bottles and stones, and also blocked attempts to damage banks. Brief clashes were reported in Nantes and in Lyon, where three people were reportedly injured.
Around one million people took part nationwide, according to the union group CGT, while government officials put the figure closer to 500,000. The authorities estimated 55,000 marched in Paris alone.
In the capital, metro services ran mainly at rush hour and regional trains were disrupted, adding to the sense of chaos, though high-speed lines operated normally. Unions said up to 45% of teachers walked out, while the Education Ministry reported lower figures.
The biggest event in international football will be hosted by the US in June and July of next year
Russian President Vladimir Putin could accept the invitation of his American counterpart Donald Trump to visit the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the US next summer, Moscow’s ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin, has said.
During a press-conference late last month dedicated to the biggest event in international football, Trump claimed that Putin “very badly” wants to attend the World Cup.
“That is a man named Vladimir Putin who I believe will be coming depending on what happens. He may be coming and he may not,” the US president told journalists as he displayed a photo of himself with the Russian leader from their summit in Alaska on August 15.
Kelin said in an interview published by British broadcaster LBC on Thursday that Putin could really attend the World Cup because he wants to foster “closer links” with Trump.
“There are different ideas. Earlier… they [Putin and Trump] talked about the possibility of an ice hockey match between US and Russia… and football game as I understand is also at work,” he said.
When asked to clarify if he was talking about the “football tournament” to take place in the US between June 11 and July 19, 2026 the ambassador replied, “Yes, football tournament. I hope that in the coming contacts we are going to discuss that.”
Kelin suggested that Putin and Trump “will have an opportunity to meet before that, in ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and other international forums.” The face-to-face talks could take place by the end of the year, he added.
The Russian and US leaders have spoken on the phone on a number of occasions since Trump returned to the White House in January, but they have only met in person once – in Alaska just over a month ago, with the settlement of the Ukraine conflict topping the agenda of the summit.
Kelin said that peace talks to end the Ukraine conflict should take place “as soon as possible,” but stressed that “everybody should come to that with constructive suggestions and proposals.”
Warsaw has claimed the Zapad military drills in neighboring Belarus justify the move to block rail freight
Poland’s decision to close its border with Belarus has caused major disruption to a key corridor for rail freight traffic between China and the EU, according to Politico.
The route affected by the closure normally accounts for approximately €25 billion per year in freight traffic between China and the EU. All cargo is currently blocked, including time-sensitive shipments such as medicine and food.
Warsaw has claimed the closure is “related to the Russian-Belarusian ‘Zapad-2025’ exercises,” held in neighboring Belarus on September 12-16. The Zapad drills were attended by international military delegations, including from the US and India, and are staged by Moscow and Minsk roughly every four years.
The closure compounds existing frictions over tariffs, subsidies, and security concerns that have long pressured EU-China trade ties.
Warsaw described the maneuvers as “very aggressive” and conducted “very close to the Polish border.” Moscow has said the exercises were designed to repel attacks, using lessons from the Ukraine conflict.
Beijing has sought to retain the “flagship project” in China’s cooperation with Poland and the EU. However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who flew to Warsaw for talks on Monday, could not convince his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski, to allow the goods to flow into the EU.
According to Sikorski, a noted Russia hawk, “the logic of trade” was being replaced by “the logic of security,” Politico reported, citing Polish foreign affairs spokesman Pawel Wronski. China, according to Warsaw, made no direct demands to reopen the border.
The European Commission has said it is monitoring the potential fallout from the closure, adding that “it’s too early to go into further detail.”
Piotr Krawczyk, former head of Poland’s Foreign Intelligence Agency, suggested the US could be backing Warsaw “in not rushing to reopen it,” saying he is “quite sure Washington is more than happy to see the routes closed – at least temporarily.”
He pointed to Washington’s pressure on the EU to slap extra tariffs on China over its purchases of Russian energy.
The US president has promised to take a “harsh” position on the issue in the future
US President Donald Trump has said it is not the right time for him to call for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.
A reporter asked Trump aboard Air Force One whether it was time to press for a ceasefire, noting that a month has passed since his rare face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
“It doesn’t feel like it,” Trump said. “But at the right time, if I have to do it, it will be harsh,” he added.
Trump, who has at times criticized both Russia and Ukraine, recently admitted that negotiating an end to the conflict would be harder than he had anticipated. Speaking at a press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his trip to the UK on Thursday, the US president said that Putin had “really let me down.”
Last week, Trump said he would impose additional “major sanctions” on Moscow, but only if all NATO members stop purchasing Russian oil. “This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was president!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform, referring to his predecessor and the Ukrainian leader.
In a TV interview which aired in Russia on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Trump had shifted “from issuing an ultimatum for an unconditional ceasefire to advocating for a long-term, sustainable solution.”
Moscow has demanded that Ukraine recognize its new borders, abandon its plan to join NATO in favor of permanent neutrality, and agree to limit its military. Zelensky has rejected these terms.
The ‘global majority’ is rewriting the rules of diplomacy – and the West’s monopoly on power is over
In economics and sociology, there’s a well-known observation called the Pareto Principle. Named after the Franco-Italian thinker Vilfredo Pareto, it is often summarized as the “80/20 rule”: 20 percent of efforts yield 80 percent of results, while the remaining 80 percent of efforts account for just 20 percent. Over time, this idea inspired Western “elite theory,” a convenient justification for why every society contains an active minority that dominates a passive majority – why 20 percent of the population holds 80 percent of the wealth.
Today, the principle has outgrown national borders. In diplomacy, it has come to symbolize a deeper conflict: the “global minority” versus the “global majority.”
The first group, sometimes called the “golden billion,” began to take shape in the late 20th and early 21st centuries under the Democratic administrations in the United States and their allies in the G7 and NATO. This group gradually solidified its position through exploiting globalization in their favor. In contrast, the latter group, resisting the formation of a unipolar world and advocating for a more equitable multipolar global order, has gained increasing significance on the world stage. This momentum has been fueled not only by the individual efforts of nations like Russia, China, and India but also through the establishment of fundamentally new institutions for multilateral diplomacy such as BRICS, the SCO, and others.
Achieving significant progress in diminishing the hegemony of the collective West, evidenced by the SCO+ summit in Tianjin (August 31 – September 1, 2025) which became the largest in the organization’s history, and the second BRICS summit during Brazil’s presidency this year (September 8, 2025), the nations of the ‘global majority’ have effectively reversed the Pareto principle. Today, these countries not only occupy most of the earth’s land and constitute the majority of the world’s population but they also account for the majority of the world’s GDP. Leveraging their vast reserves of essential resources and consistently demonstrating robust economic growth, these nations have achieved remarkable success by overcoming internal divisions and consolidating power with the support of their populations.
In stark contrast, the countries of the “global minority” are witnessing an opposite trend. As they lose their leading positions in the global economy and access to key natural resources, political fragmentation is becoming prevalent. In many of these nations, an active minority with low trust ratings clings to power.
This has resulted in deepening societal divides in numerous countries – from the US, UK, and France to Poland and Israel – and a clear paralysis of government authority. For instance, in the US, the Democrats, who are rapidly losing ground, are resorting to increasingly radical political tactics.
Following an assassination attempt on Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, supporters of the Democratic Party were implicated in the murder of young Republican Charlie Kirk (September 10, 2025).
This incident, coupled with a worsening illegal immigration crisis, led thousands of protesters to take to the streets of London last weekend under the banner “Unite the Kingdom.” Criticism has not only targeted the ruling Labour Party and its leader Keir Starmer – whose approval ratings are the lowest among post-WWII prime ministers – but also the “shadow government” – the Conservative Party, which has gradually lost power with each new leader from Theresa May and Boris Johnson to Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.
In this context, the state visit of US President Donald Trump to the UK on September 16-17 could further complicate the already murky political prospects of the current British leadership.
A significant crisis is also unfolding on the other side of the English Channel. As he nears the end of his second presidential term, French President Emmanuel Macron increasingly resembles a lame duck. Yet another “fronde” instigated by the leftists and rightists culminated in the resignation of Prime Minister François Bayrou on September 9, 2025.
Bayrou became the fifth head of government to step down prematurely in the past four years. By appointing his close ally, Sébastien Lecornu, as the new prime minister, Macron highlighted a key trend among leaders of the “global minority”: they seek to drown out internal political crises through economic militarization and heightened foreign policy engagement.
This explains France’s prominent role in discussions regarding security guarantees for Ukraine, as well as Britain’s “diplomatic mission” to Ukraine that included Prince Harry, who is seeking to reset his relationship with the royal family, the newly appointed Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, and even former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who had undermined peace talks in Ukraine back in April 2022. His call to stop “holding a gun to Ukraine’s head” (the metaphor he used to urge Russia to withdraw its troops from Kiev region) led to Ukraine’s withdrawal from negotiations with Russia and Zelensky’s self-imposed ban on talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ultimately, the strategy of political radicalization can explain why recent events in Poland, Qatar, and Nepal have become symbols of the “artillery bombardment” of the peaceful plans of the Trump administration, Russia, China, and many countries of the ‘global majority’. Donald Tusk, Poland’s longest-serving prime minister who is rapidly losing popularity, was in desperate need of a ‘casus belli’ in the form of drones of uncertain origin that entered Polish territory, particularly after Karol Nawrocki, who was hesitant to get involved in the Ukraine conflict, was elected president of Poland.
On a similar note, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s long-time prime minister whose popularity is plummeting due to failures in the fight against Hamas, found no better solution than to launch a full-scale operation in Gaza, starting with a strike on the group’s headquarters in Doha.
While the Israeli attack on Doha may still be quelled by “the main peacemaker” of modern diplomacy, Donald Trump, who aims to preserve Qatar as a key platform for negotiations in the region, images of the burning Singha Durbar palace in Kathmandu (Nepal) will serve as a stark reminder of the dire consequences that can arise from heated political battles between the minority and the majority.
Moreover, one might question whether it’s merely a coincidence that these events unfolded in a country strategically positioned between China and India. Both Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have opted to resolve their differences not through saber-rattling but rather by relying on diplomacy, which remains our last hope in an increasingly harsh world fraught with asymmetric conflicts.
France is facing a crisis not seen in almost 70 years – is it time for a Sixth Republic?
The France of President Emmanuel Macron, who is really the egomaniac-in-chief, is somewhere on the spectrum between “spiraling political crisis” (Financial Times), “big trouble” (The Economist) and terminal collapse. Again.
Barely a week after a new, if fragile, government was cobbled together in acute crisis mode, the country is bracing “for big anti-austerity street marches and labor strikes,” while the state’s finances are “pernicious” and the budget for 2026 a big question without an answer. In Paris, for instance, the Metro is semi-comatose; in the country as whole, a third of teachers are on strike.
An earlier wave of protests – under the slogan “Let’s block everything”– did not quite achieve that ambitious aim, but it did attract double the number of participants the authorities had expected. In that respect – even if they were different in their ideological background – the French protests resemble the recent ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally in London. On both sides of the Channel, decrepit, unpopular, unresponsive Centrist regimes are barely hanging on now.
As the French have taught us to say “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (“The more things change, the more they stay the same”). Especially after Macron’s two irresponsible and egotistic decisions of 2024, France can’t find a way out of the mess he has created: first, he called snap parliamentary elections to then, second, ignore the will of the French voters.
If Macron had respected the results of the elections that he himself initiated, he would have had to charge either a left-wing bloc, with the most combined votes, or the new-right Rassemblement National (RN), which obtained the most votes for a single party, with building a new government. Yet the man with a vast ego and an incredibly shrinking popularity base, clearly rejected by a preponderant majority of his people, felt he knew better. Since then Macron has tried to impose his will against parliament. The problem? Parliament won’t agree.
So, after what the YouTube channel of venerable left journal l’Humanité calls “the parliamentary hara-kiri” of the last politically short-lived prime minister, here we go again. Total deadlock at the political center; in the streets, picturesque unrest featuring traditional folklore, such as burning rubbish bins, baton-charging police, and teargas galore; and finally, yet another compulsive attempt by Macron the Unpopular to succeed with what keeps failing: installing a new – his fifth in less than two years – prime minister (his name is Sébastien Lecornu, but don’t bother remembering) who has no majority in parliament and thus, cannot possibly pass the budget ex-investment banker Macron wants in order to get his kind of austeritarian-neoliberal handle on France’s very real debt crisis. Please the rich, squeeze all others.
In short, since Macron refuses to either call fresh parliamentary elections or go away, let’s do the doom loop again. That at least is a tempting reading of the current situation in Paris and the unfortunate country that its detached president plagues. And yet, perhaps things are different this time. As in, even worse. Maybe this crisis is not just bad-business-as-usual but a sign that a bigger political earthquake is coming, the kind that reshapes the landscape.
Consider for starters the intriguing frequency with which commentators are making historic comparisons. Two British experts discussing the French mess for the conservative British magazine Spectator could not help but recall that the French Revolution – the big one, 1789 – started with a debt crisis, too.
In France, heavy-weight journalist Frédéric Taddeï is having thoughts of the Battle of Valmy – a French military victory that was however very much part of the Revolution. The Bastille had fallen more than a year before the battle, and the king would be guillotined less than half a year after it.
And the Financial Times cannot stop mentioning “1958.” That was the fatal year when France’s previous constitution – the blueprint of the hapless, dysfunctional Fourth Republic established following WWII – suffered cardiac arrest, to be replaced by the current iteration, the Fifth Republic. “Macron’s choices,” the Financial Times sagely notes, “have led to political turmoil not seen since 1958.” Indeed.
Let that sink in: between 1948 and 1958, during the Fourth Republic, French governments changed, on average, every six months. Former uber-President Charles de Gaulle designed the Fifth Republic precisely to end this chronic instability. Now, wrecked by the worst combination of narcissism and over-reach since Napoleon III, the Fifth Republic itself is plagued by self-blockage and volatility. Bravo, Emmanuel! One for “la grandeur!” Les “slow claps”de l’histoire will be yours forever.
Meanwhile, the ongoing Macronalypse is generating massive popular discontent because of increasing social inequality and anxiety combined with the authoritarian and manipulative habits of the president. No wonder some, for instance Jean-Luc Mélenchon – leading the non-Centrist (“populist”) left party La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) or LFI – are calling for a Sixth Republic, that is, yet another fundamental recasting of the constitution and political system.
So, what is it going to be? An agonizing, slow slog through two more years of Macron’s ego trip because that’s how long his term lasts and he won’t finally do the one decent thing he can still do for his country and resign? One nasty and not-so-little crisis after another?
Or is the Fifth Republic, De Gaulle’s proud creation, now ruined by a bombastic and incompetent epigone, on the verge of becoming an Ancien Regime? The bad memory left behind once a revolution has happened?
What kind of change then? If you listen to the parties – on the New Left (LFI) and the New Right (RN), but not in the so-called center – that the French actually vote for, then they want an end to neo-liberal austeritarianism. They also agree on the need to regain true national sovereignty. On migration and economic policy, the left and right do not see eye to eye, but there is no doubt that, on both issues, the center is deeply unattractive.
It may, moreover, be an irony of history that, in at least some key respects, the faux-Gaullist Macron may be swept away by things De Gaulle recognized as irking the French back in that annus horribilis of 1958. As he told us in the chapter ‘Renewal 1958-1962’ of his ‘Memoirs of Hope’, the 1958 crisis was not only about France’s brutal and miserably failing colonial war in Algeria. It was also about the lopsided, nationally disadvantageous relationship to the EU’s predecessor, the ECSC, and the at least equally detrimental one with both the US and NATO.
The EU is already the target of explicit criticism from both the RN and the LFI. Both key RN leaders, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella keep reiterating that one of their aims is to stop wasting money on it. Both attack the EU’s dismal, disgraceful failure to protect the economic interests of its member states against the US tariff war. Indeed, for Bardella, Ursula von der Leyen’s recent fiasco at Trump’s Turnberry Berghof amounts to “democratic treason,” a “political setback,” and a “capitulation.”
You will hardly hear similarly clear words about NATO. But, Atlanticists, don’t bank on that silence. It does not mean there is no discontent. It simply means that the interests attached to NATO – that is what is left of the US empire in Europe – are even more sensitive than those tied to the EU. As you would expect in the de facto dual NATO-EU system, in which the EU plays second fiddle.
The crisis of the Macron regime that is afflicting the French – called in France either “Macronisme” or “la Macronie” – may look as if it is “merely” about budgets, debt, pensions, public holidays, and all in all, fiscal austerity and social inequality. Yet there is an international, even geopolitical dimension. A France ready to reclaim genuine sovereignty will have to at the very least fundamentally recast its relationship with both the EU and NATO.
And if it is smart, it will also have to rediscover the real de Gaulle, a statesman hardened in patriotic rebellion and a war for all or nothing – not a pampered finance whiz kid – who knew that Europe stretches from Gibraltar to the Urals (no, not merely to Kiev) and that its western part needs Russia to balance against a ruthless and exploitative US.
Once the architect of balance, Washington is now sidelined as West Jerusalem, Ankara, and Riyadh shape the future of the region
On September 9, 2025, Israel carried out an airstrike on a Hamas-linked compound in Doha. The attack landed like a thunderclap: it was the first time Israel had struck inside Qatar, home to Al-Udeid Air Base – the largest US military facility in the region and a cornerstone of Washington’s posture in the Middle East.
The strike exposed the contradictions of America’s regional strategy. For decades, Washington positioned itself as the guarantor of balance in the Middle East. But Israel’s decision to act unilaterally, in the heart of an American ally, has shaken that framework and raised the question: is US influence in the region slipping away?
The incident and its fallout
Within hours of the Israeli strike, US President Donald Trump distanced himself from the decision. On his Truth Social account, he wrote:
“This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me. Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States … does not advance Israel or America’s goals.”
It was a rare public rebuke of an Israeli action by a sitting US president – and a telling sign of the strain between Washington and West Jerusalem. Trump’s words revealed two things at once: America’s desire to preserve its Gulf alliances and the perception that Israel is increasingly willing to act alone, even at the expense of its patron.
The United Nations was quick to sound the alarm. Rosemary DiCarlo, the UN’s chief political affairs officer, called the attack an “alarming escalation” that risked opening “a new and perilous chapter in this devastating conflict.”
The choice of target made the shock even greater. Qatar is not a marginal actor: it is home to Al-Udeid Air Base, the hub of US air operations across the region.
Before his departure, former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had warned on January 14, 2025 that the American empire had to do everything to maintain a favorable order in the region and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key: “We continue to believe the best way to create a more stable, secure, and prosperous Middle East is through forging a more integrated region. The key to achieving that integration now, more than ever, is ending this conflict in a way that realizes the long-standing aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
By striking in Doha, Israel hit at the very heart of America’s military footprint – and fueled doubts among Arab partners about Washington’s ability to keep its closest ally in check.
A fragile balance built over decades
For half a century, US policy in the Middle East has rested on a delicate balance. After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Washington stepped in as the region’s chief arbiter, eventually brokering the Camp David Accords in 1979 that ended the state of war between Israel and Egypt. That deal broke the united Arab front against Israel and cemented America’s role as guarantor of a fragile order.
The post-9/11 wars redrew the map again. The invasion of Iraq toppled a longstanding adversary of Israel, but also unleashed new instability that Iran was quick to exploit through proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The Arab Spring in 2011 further destabilized regimes, creating openings for Tehran to expand its influence.
By the late 2010s, Washington’s strategy had evolved into a tacit alignment with Israel and the Sunni Gulf monarchies against the so-called “axis of resistance” led by Iran. The Abraham Accords of 2020 sought to formalize this alignment, bringing Israel into open relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, and nudging Saudi Arabia toward eventual normalization.
However, that framework began to unravel after the Hamas assault of October 7, 2023. Two years of war in Gaza froze the normalization process and forced Arab leaders to put the Palestinian issue back at the center of their politics. What was meant to be a stable order anchored by US leadership now looks increasingly brittle.
FILE PHOTO. Israeli forces get prepared before entering the Gaza Strip for an attack in Nahal Oz, Israel on December 12, 2023.
Despite the political costs of the Gaza war, Israel has accumulated significant military gains in recent years. Its intelligence services have decimated Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon, weakening the group’s standing both militarily and politically.
In Syria, Israeli support for cross-border operations have expanded a buffer zone in the south since the collapse of Assad’s government. In Iran, precision strikes and covert assassinations have damaged nuclear facilities and eliminated key scientific and military personnel.
The result is a Middle East where Israel faces no immediate rival of comparable strength. That perception alarms regional players, especially Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, which see Israeli actions in Syria and the West Bank as destabilizing. From backing Druze separatists in southern Syria to pursuing annexation in the West Bank, West Jerusalem increasingly projects the image of a state willing to expand its footprint at any cost.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan captured this sentiment during the Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit in Doha on September 15, 2025. “We recently see some arrogant sham politicians in Israel frequently repeating the ‘Greater Israel’ delusions,” he warned. “Israel’s efforts to expand its occupations in neighboring countries are each a concrete manifestation of this goal.”
For the Gulf monarchies, Israel’s growing military weight is a double-edged sword. Riyadh worries that any annexation of parts of the West Bank could displace Palestinian groups hostile to the monarchy and destabilize Jordan – its vital buffer state, which has been shaken in the past by uprisings and civil war.
Türkiye has its own concerns. Ankara views Israeli ambitions in Syria as a direct challenge to its post-conflict reconstruction plans, which extend to Qatar and the broader zone of former Ottoman influence.
These overlapping fears are already driving new alignments. Qatar is moving closer to Türkiye and redoubling its role in Syrian stabilization. Saudi Arabia has turned to Pakistan, sealing a mutual defense pact on September 17, 2025, as a hedge against Israeli power. Egypt, for its part, has called for the creation of an “Arab NATO,” positioning itself as a potential security anchor.
The political fallout is equally sharp. On September 15, 2025, an extraordinary joint summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation urged all states to take “all possible legal and effective measures” against Israel, including reviewing diplomatic and economic relations. Yet on the very same day, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in Israel, pledging America’s “unwavering support” for its campaign to eradicate Hamas.
As political scientist Ziad Majed put it, “With the September 9 attack in Qatar, Israel is clearly indicating that it no longer sets a red line in the pursuit of Hamas leaders. The Gulf states may seek to no longer be so dependent on the Americans.”
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi makes a speech during the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – Arab League Extraordinary Summit on September 15, 2025 in Doha, Qatar.
Looking toward 2030, three possible trajectories stand out for the Middle East.
The first is a shift toward regional multipolarity, in which the Gulf states and Türkiye build their own security architectures with less reliance on Washington. That path would increase the risk of fragmentation and flare-ups, but it also reflects a reality already taking shape: power in the region is no longer centered on the United States, but shared among ambitious local players.
The second scenario is a forced US re-engagement. Washington could try to rein in Israel by attaching conditions to military aid, while tightening ties with the Gulf monarchies. Such a move would require a painful realignment of America’s strategic focus at a time when the Indo-Pacific remains its top priority.
The third is a hybrid and unstable order, with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye emerging as the three dominant military poles under intermittent US oversight. That arrangement would be fraught with rivalries and could open the door to outside powers like Russia and China, adding another layer of instability – much as Syria has illustrated since 2011.
The end of an era
The strike in Doha crystallized a larger truth: Washington is no longer the unquestioned guarantor of order in the Middle East. Israel’s growing autonomy, Saudi Arabia’s strategic awakening, Türkiye’s regional ambitions, and Iran’s resilience are reshaping the balance of power in ways the United States can no longer fully control.
American support for Israel remains official policy, but it has become a source of friction with Arab and Turkish partners. The region is drifting toward a multipolar order defined less by global powers than by local actors – a landscape of shifting alliances, unpredictable escalations, and fragile balances.
The unipolar moment has passed. What comes next will be decided not in Washington, but in the capitals of the Middle East itself.
Member states are facing financial strain providing benefits to millions escaping the conflict
The EU will gradually wind down its temporary protection program for millions who fled the ongoing Ukraine conflict in order to encourage their eventual return home, the European Council has said.
Brussels invoked the Temporary Protection Directive in early 2022 after the Ukraine conflict escalated. First introduced in 2001, the directive provides benefits including residence permits, housing, jobs, education, healthcare, financial aid and social services.
Initially due to expire in March 2025, the scheme, which provides for over four million Ukrainians, has been extended until March 2027.
Discussions on exit strategies have been gaining momentum amid growing challenges for member states in managing the influx. This week, EU interior ministers agreed on a recommendation setting out a framework for Ukrainians’ “return and reintegration into Ukraine, when conditions allow.”
Member states are being urged to promote voluntary returns, support exploratory visits, and create time-limited return programs coordinated with Kiev and other EU states. The Council also recommended establishing ‘Unity Hubs,’ financed through EU programs, to assist with documents, jobs, and return planning.
UNHCR estimates that nearly seven million Ukrainians have fled abroad since 2022. Russia reports that 5.5 million people had crossed from Ukraine by the end of 2023.
The exodus has been driven not only by the conflict but also by aggressive mobilization tactics in Ukraine. Draft officers have clashed with men resisting conscription; many who fled risk criminal prosecution if they return.
EU governments are reassessing support programs amid rising costs. Germany, which hosts over 1.2 million Ukrainians, has started scaling back welfare benefits, citing sustainability concerns.
Poland, one of Kiev’s main backers, has resisted taking in more Ukrainians. At least 2.5 million reside in the country, comprising nearly 7% of the population, according to official statistics.
Social tensions have grown, with some citizens reportedly viewing Ukrainian immigrants as freeloaders or criminals. Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said many Poles were dismayed by “the sight of young men from Ukraine driving expensive cars and spending weekends in five-star hotels.”
Some Ukrainian lawmakers argue that most of those who left are unlikely to return due to “chaos within state institutions” and continuing security concerns.
