A new world map appears to have emerged since the beginning of the First World War, a brief conflict lasting around forty days, yet with deep and lasting consequences. The global center of gravity seems to have shifted toward Asia, with major powers such as China, Russia, and Iran. Africa, meanwhile, stands out as a vast continent with significant potential and a promising future. In contrast, the Americas appear to occupy a more peripheral position, while Europe is gradually returning to its natural geographical position west of Asia. Benyounès Saidi

 The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the leader of an important Taiwanese opposition party, received in Beijing with a great ceremony, takes place in a context marked by geopolitical tensions and by the attitude of the United States and the West in general toward China’s position on Taiwan. This exchange highlights an approach that combines political dialogue with certain forces on the island and a consistent affirmation of Beijing’s position on national unity. This way of combining diplomatic openness with strategic firmness may, in some cases, inspire other states facing similar situations related to their national unity. For such an approach to be truly effective and sustainable, it must also be grounded in moral and political coherence, avoiding alliances that contradict its own principles and the logic of the cause being defended. From this perspective, such approaches can be seen as aligned with the course of history when they reconcile strategic effec...

 The President of the United States has proposed a ceasefire and the opening of negotiations hosted by Pakistan. This is an important development showing that after a period of intense tension, diplomacy is beginning to regain its place. First observation: the generalized war that many feared did not occur. The conflict remained limited to the main belligerents. On one side were the allied countries — Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen — and on the other side the aggressor countries: the United States and Israel. Second observation: the negotiations that are now resuming appear to be based on new foundations. They take into account the Iranian demands, particularly the guarantee that no future attacks will take place and the recognition of Iran’s right to possess all the means necessary to ensure its own defense. These elements show that the situation is evolving in a direction different from what initially seemed likely. The logic of military confrontation is gradually giving way to n...

 The current conflict in West Asia shows all signs of a global conflict in the making. On one side, the United States, the world’s leading power, allied with Israel, a regional power of European origin. On the other side, Iran, supported by Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. Unlike 20th-century conflicts centered on Europe, we are witnessing a confrontation between a Western power and an expanding regional power. The conflict could quickly escalate. China, an emerging Asian power, may support Iran for economic and strategic reasons. Russia, as well as major European powers — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy — could intervene. India could also become involved, extending the conflict into South Asia. These dynamics show that the conflict has already gone beyond its initial region and may involve actors from three continents. If these alliances materialize, we could be facing a real world war, different from those of the 20th century in terms of participants and geographic...

Over the past 48 hours, the U.S. president issued a two-day ultimatum to Iran regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, only to ultimately back down. This decision followed Tehran’s firm response, reaffirming its refusal to yield to any external pressure. Washington announced negotiations expected to last five days, suggesting a possible dialogue, but Iran denied any discussions, direct or indirect, indicating that the American statement was largely intended to “save face.” It should be recalled that this confrontation, involving Israel and the United States, targets a sovereign state. The Israeli government, particularly its Prime Minister, played a major role in drawing Washington into the confrontation, which goes beyond U.S. interests and is part of a complex regional dynamic where Iran’s sovereignty faces multiple strategic pressures. Iran responded with determination, defending its territory and sovereignty. It is clear that this aggression primarily serves Israeli objective...

 Significant divisions exist today between U.S. President Trump and several European leaders. Tensions arose when he expressed his intention to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory under Denmark. The Israeli-American aggression against Iran has deepened these divisions. Washington sought the support of European countries, but many refused. During an exchange with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump even raised the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO. Founded in 1949 to face the Soviet Union, NATO should have disappeared with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (a military alliance of Soviet bloc countries). Instead of that, it expanded, growing from 12 members at its creation to 32 today. A U.S. withdrawal would mark the end of NATO and allow a return to a more normal situation, opening the way to a new European space based on economic cooperation and cultural exchange, “from the Urals to the Atlantic.” Paradoxically, the agg...