The Unjust War in Iran, A Sequel…

 

'Unjust' is a grossly inadequate description!
A friend whatsapped me with the following comment on my earlier article:

“Unjust is an inadequate word to describe the atrocities — especially the killing of so many Iranian schoolchildren — committed by the Americans.

“Trump and Hegseth tried to claim that the bombing was carried out by an Iranian jet fighter. But the USAF had 100% control of the airspace over Iran and had already shot down an ageing Iranian fighter jet.

“How could any Iranian fighter jet even be flying? And why would it bomb its own school buildings?”

This friend, whose opinions, knowledge and wisdom I great appreciate, is a very distinguished retired academic. Now in his 80s, he was once a senior engineering professor and head of department at the University of Malaya, and later at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore.

I could feel his anger and scorn.

He is right. I should have used a stronger term to condemn Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s attack on Iran. Their bombing of the school was indeed a criminal act of the worst kind and deserves outright condemnation by all fair-minded people of the world.

Cowboys and Mullahs are from different worlds

Another friend - a school and university mate - who often alerts me on my frequent typos and factual errors in my posts, also wrote to say that I had omitted any mention of the 1979 hostage crisis, which he believes remains the defining fracture in US–Iranian relations. In his view, the perceived humiliation of that episode still affects Washington’s hawkish stance and continues to drive a desire for “payback”.

I do remember the crisis. However, it did not cross my mind when I wrote the earlier article. I was entirely focused on condemning what I saw as the immorality of Trump’s actions rather than analysing the history of US–Iran relations in depth.

That crisis lasted well over a year. 

Yes, that was a big wound on Uncle Sam’s collective psyche. My friend was kind enough to forward to me the following information he obtained from Gemini:

“Following the Iranian Revolution earlier that year, the Shah fled the country. When US President Jimmy Carter allowed the cancer-stricken Shah to enter the United States for medical treatment, it triggered massive outrage in Iran. A group of militant Iranian students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took 66 hostages, 52 of whom remained in captivity.

“A secret American rescue mission in April 1980 ended in tragedy when a sandstorm and mechanical failures led to a helicopter crash in the Iranian desert, killing eight US servicemen. The failure was a severe blow to American morale. The crisis dominated US news coverage and became a central issue in the 1980 presidential election. The hostages were finally released just minutes after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president.”

At that time, however, I had little sympathy for the Iranian government and regarded the hostage-taking as a foolish act by the revolutionary regime. I also encountered several Iranians who had chosen to flee their country, both in Melbourne and in Kuala Lumpur.

In the Middle East, Iran generally supports governments and groups that are aligned with its survival and religious commitment — those that oppose the United States and Israel, and those connected to Shiite political networks. It strongly supported the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Iran’s closest non-state ally is Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was created with Iranian assistance in the 1980s and continues to receive funding, weapons and training from Tehran.

Iran also supports Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, although Hamas is Sunni. It backs Shiite militias in Iraq that have fought against the Islamic State. The Houthis, who are fighting a Saudi-backed coalition in Yemen, also receive support from Iran.

My attitude changed after Benjamin Netanyahu came into power. His Zionist design, cruelty and hand-handedness made me cheer for these Iranian supporters. But I still think the Iranians do deserve far better leadership.

From detracting to sympathising

The war has generated a great deal of anxiety in me. As someone who dislikes the idea of religious figures governing a country, I would normally not allow myself to sympathise with the Iranian clerics. But this time, I did feel sorry about the killing of Ali Khamenei, who also lost many of his loved ones in the unwarranted attack. I genuinely feel for the Iranian people who are now suffering the consequences of the recklessness of Trump and Netanyahu.

We now see that its new supreme leader is determined to block the Strait of Hormuz. He has also threatened to set the region’s oil and gas infrastructure on fire. Even CNN reports that Trump may be unable to end the war he has started, even if he wishes to do so.

Iran has deployed cluster munitions to challenge Israel’s air defences. Some of its ballistic missiles are reportedly equipped with such munitions, which are released at high altitude before raining down over a wide area. Iran has also turned the waters of the Gulf into a weapon, relentlessly targeting vessels in the Persian Gulf and energy facilities across the region. Even its cheap drones have proven difficult to stop.

Many of the wealthy are now fleeing the Middle East.

Trump is indeed riding a tiger and does not know how to dismount.

How long Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states can endure the disruption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remains anybody’s guess.

China helped bring about a thaw in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023. With strong economic ties to both countries, China brokered an agreement under which the two rivals restored diplomatic relations, reopened embassies, and pledged to respect sovereignty and avoid interference in each other’s affairs.

The relationship, however, remains fragile and cautious. With Iran retaliating against the US–Israeli attacks by striking targets near Riyadh and oil facilities inside Saudi Arabia, the relationship is now under severe strain. Fortunately, both sides have kept diplomatic channels open.

Mud-trudging
The new supreme leader has vowed to fight the United States to the end. This time, I believe the resolve is real. In the past, Iran often bent to American pressure. But things are different now. As long as Trump remains at the helm, there is simply no way the new leadership can trust his words. The hatred is too deep for them to forgive.

Trump has jumped into a mud-trudging war. It is not winnable unless he is prepared to destroy the world — and the United States along with it. He has surrounded himself with sycophants and cronies even worse than those who served under Joe Biden.

Credible reports suggest that the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, had actually warned against attacking Iran. Trump has reportedly admitted that it was his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who influenced him to launch the strike. Other hawks are said to include Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff. None of these four possesses serious military qualifications to prosecute a war. Witkoff is a real-estate businessman with no diplomatic background, yet he has been sent to Moscow to talk with Putin about ending the war in Ukraine.

Trump has also just suffered a major setback on the tariff front. Following a ruling by the Supreme Court, the US government may face refund claims estimated at between $166 billion and $182 billion. In lieu, Trump has announced a temporary universal tariff of 15% for 150 days under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974; however, the legal status of the situation remains uncertain.

The worst cocktail
Trump’s economic warriors include Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior counsellor for trade and manufacturing — the former, a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein, is widely criticised for his business associations and the latter, is often accused by economists of promoting dubious theories. His Treasury Secretary,  Auntie Scott Bessent has largely been reduced to talk like a parrot.

But Trump remains the chief clown. Nobody around him dares to say anything he does not wish to hear.

His old toys — the Ukraine wand, the Board of Peace theatrics, his proposals to annex Canada and Greenland, the containment of China through tariffs, technology bans and semiconductor blockades — are no longer working. Despite all his hyperbolic shouts, none of his antics was actually a success. But his twisted mind needs him to seek new ones to excite himself: hence the attack on Iran and the threats against Cuba.

There is also a strong belief that he has merely played into Netanyahu’s grand design. Be that as it may, Trump is the one who pushed the button. Trump has dragged the US into a war that serves no clear strategic purpose and carries enormous risks for the entire world. The Middle East may yet be set ablaze, the global economy shaken, and countless innocent lives destroyed — all because of the reckless judgment of a single man and the small circle of jesters who surround him.

History will one day record how unnecessary this war was.

And throughout these processes, he and his family have reportedly continued to enrich themselves. He is many times wealthier now than when he began his second presidency.

Yet what remains astonishing is that even now, nearly half of America still looks upon this man as their saviour.

End

The Unjust War in Iran

I have never had any high regard for the ruling clerics in Iran. The Iranian people certainly deserve better leadership. But the US-Israeli attack on Iran, which began on 28 February, was deeply unjust! The attack killed its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his daughter, son-in-in-law, daughter-in-law, a grandchild, and several senior military and political figures. 

Two months ago the US kidnapped Venezuela's President Nicholas Maduro!

Neither country is officially at war with the US. These are absolutely acts of lawlessness! We are dealing with an international monster, yet few leaders dare to speak out against this pervert!

Back to Iran. 

The majority of the Iranians are Persian. The Persians are a great civilization; they deserve far more respect and sympathy.

Persia’s Glorious Past…
Few civilizations possess a historical legacy as deep and influential as that of Persia, today known as Iran.

For more than two millennia before the upheavals of the twentieth century, Persia stood as one of the great centres of political power, culture, and intellectual achievement in the world. (The Parsis in India are descendants of Zoroastrians who fled Persia after the Islamic conquest in the 7th-10th centuries. Ratan Tata is a Parsi.)

The rise of Persia as a major imperial power began in the sixth century BCE under Cyrus the Great, who founded the vast Achaemenid Empire. At its height, this empire stretched from the Indus River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, encompassing many peoples, languages, and religions.

The Persians pioneered a sophisticated system of governance that allowed local traditions and faiths to flourish while maintaining imperial unity. Cyrus himself gained lasting fame for his policy of tolerance, symbolized in the Cyrus Cylinder, often regarded as one of the earliest declarations of human rights.

Later rulers such as Darius I strengthened the empire through administrative brilliance. He organized the realm into provinces called satrapies, built roads linking distant regions, and established a reliable postal system that astonished the ancient world. The great ceremonial capital of Persepolis stood as a symbol of imperial grandeur and artistic achievement.

Although the Achaemenid Empire fell to Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, Persian civilization endured and revived under later dynasties.

The Sassanian Empire (224–651 CE) restored Persian political strength and became one of the two superpowers of the late ancient world, rivalling the Byzantine Empire. Persian art, architecture, and administrative practices profoundly influenced neighbouring cultures.

Following the Arab conquest in the seventh century, Persia adopted Islam, yet it retained a distinctive cultural identity. Persian language, literature, and scholarship flourished throughout the Islamic world. The poetry of figures such as Rumi and Hafez became enduring treasures of world literature.

In the early modern period, Persia once again emerged as a major regional power under the Safavid Empire (1501–1736). The Safavids established Shia Islam as the state religion, shaping Iran’s religious identity to this day. Their capital, Isfahan, became one of the most magnificent cities of the early modern world, famed for its grand squares, mosques, and gardens.

Enter the Western Powers…

Although later dynasties such as the Qajar dynasty struggled with internal weakness and growing foreign influence from Russia and the United Kingdom, Persia remained a land of deep historical prestige and cultural refinement on the eve of World War I.

Thus, long before the turbulence of the modern era, Persia had already left an indelible mark on human civilization—through imperial governance, artistic beauty, philosophical thought, and a cultural legacy that continues to inspire the world.

During World War I, the then Persia was officially neutral but effectively occupied by foreign powers - Russia dominated the north, and Britain controlled the south because of oil interests. The ruling Qajar dynasty was weak and unable to resist foreign interference. The country was politically unstable and economically fragile.

In 1921, a military officer, Reza Shah, seized power in a coup. He overthrew the Qajar dynasty in 1925 and founded the Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Shah pursued aggressive modernization. He built railways, schools, and a modern army, reduced the influence of tribal leaders and clerics, and adopted secular reforms inspired by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey. However, his rule became authoritarian.

During World War II, Britain, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941 because they feared Reza Shah might lean toward Germany. He was forced to abdicate and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, became the new Shah.

Iran became strategically important as an Allied supply corridor to the Soviet Union.

The Oil Curse…
In 1951, nationalist politician Mohammad Mossadegh became prime minister.

He nationalized the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and became extremely popular inside Iran.

Britain and the United States began to fear their loss of oil interests and possible Soviet influence during the Cold War.

In 1953 the CIA and MI6 helped overthrow Mossadegh and restore the Shah’s power. This event deeply shaped Iranian distrust of the West.

The Shah ruled as an all-powerful monarch. However, he did introduce the White Revolution (1963), the programmes of which included land reform, women’s suffrage, rapid industrialization, and expansion of education. The country experienced strong economic growth from oil revenues.

However, the Shah became closely aligned with the US. Wealth inequality grew. Traditional religious groups felt threatened. His secret police SAVAK began to suppress opposition.

By the mid-1970s, Iran effectively became a one-party state. The Shah lived ostentatiously and lavishly and displayed extreme royal luxury, when many people were still poor. Members of the royal family and court accumulated enormous wealth through state contracts, monopolies, and privileged access to oil revenues. (The Pahlavi Foundation controlled vast assets, blending charity with business holdings. Critics believed it functioned partly as a financial network benefiting the monarchy.)

However, the modernization was top-down and politically repressive, which produced resentment. SAVAK was tasked with arresting thousands of political opponents, torturing dissidents, maintaining extensive surveillance networks, and suppressing newspapers and political parties.

A major religious critic of the Shah was Ruhollah Khomeini who opposed the Shah’s authoritarian rule and Western influence. After protests in 1963, Khomeini was arrested and then exiled (first to Iraq, later France). From exile, he continued to inspire opposition through speeches and recordings.

Due to economic difficulties, political repression, religious opposition and anger at Western influence, mass protests erupted in 1978.

The Black Friday Massacre
Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Jaleh Square in Tehran on Friday, 8 September to protest against the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after the government had declared martial law in Tehran and several other cities a day before. Iranian soldiers opened fire with rifles and machine guns. Hundreds or even thousands are said to be killed. Even the lower estimates were shocking enough to transform the political situation.

Black Friday became a turning point in the Iranian Revolution. After this event, the Shah’s regime rapidly lost control. Within five months, he fled Iran.

In February 1979, Khomeini returned from exile and Iran became an Islamic republic. A referendum was actually held, and it approved the creation of the Islamic Republic. A constitution created the position of Supreme Leader, held by Khomeini. The state became a Shiite Islamic theocracy combining religious authority with republican institutions.Top of Form

The Seed of Its Present-Day Problem…
Ironically, it was the West that initially supported Iran’s nuclear programme which began under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1957, Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with the US under President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. Western companies from Germany, France, and the US helped build nuclear facilities. Iran had planned to build over twenty nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

Everything changed after the Iranian Revolution, when Khomeini established an Islamic Republic. Western countries cancelled nuclear cooperation and many nuclear projects in Iran were halted or abandoned. However, Iran resumed the nuclear program in the 1990s with help from Russia and other partners.

Western opposition intensified after secret facilities are revealed by an Iranian opposition group. These discoveries alarmed Western governments, who suspected Iran might be pursuing nuclear weapons. From that point onward, the International Atomic Energy Agency launched investigations and Western countries pushed for sanctions and restrictions.

The first major international action came with United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in 2006 which demanded Iran halt uranium enrichment or face sanctions. Years of negotiations eventually produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed by Iran and six world powers. The agreement limited Iran’s uranium enrichment, allowed international inspections, and lifted many sanctions.

But in 2018, the US under Trump, withdrew from the agreement and re-imposed sanctions.

We all know who the instigator is.

Israel has long regarded a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. It contends that Iran supports armed groups hostile to Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Israeli leaders – from Benjamin Netanyahu to earlier prime ministers – have consistently lobbied the United States and Europe to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Truth is…
The Iranians are a highly intelligent people. Making nuclear bombs is no sweat to them. I dare say many are pro-West by nature. (They generally consider themselves as White equivalents!) If the Americans have been fair to them, they will certainly tilt towards the US.

But we know the Zionist ambitions. They want a weak and divided Middle East. They would want to seize as much land as possible there and, unfortunately, the Palestinians in general, and the Hamas in particular, are silly enough to create an opportunity for the Israelis to bomb Gaza to the ground. (Some 72,000 thousand were killed and another 170,000 wounded. And now the perverse Trump is talking about a Peace Board and the development of a riviera there.)  

But no matter how adverse we are towards Iran’s clerics, we cannot help feeling how unjust Trump and Netanyahu have been in striking Iran when they were still holding talks in Oman.

One thing is clear, though, the Iranians are unlike the Iraqis and Libyans who in the wake of their invasions by the West swarmed out to celebrate and wave the Stars and Stripes. (Some Iranians would perhaps like to, but the actions of the US and Israel have certainly put paid to that inclination.) Instead, they are digging in, even though I see that their Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is no Wang Yi. Araghchi is tentative in demeanours and tends to speak with little gravitas to the press.

I do not propose to write about the war even though much of the Western and pro-West media are self-censoring themselves to deliver only the glorious achievements of Trump and Hegseth in their destruction of Iran. Friends and readers certainly have the opportunity to learn from alternative sources how determined are the Iranian forces in inflicting pains on the US, Israel and its allies in the Gulf. (However, I do see that there are also many false claims and much fake news from some of these overzealous alternative sources.) But suffice for me just to highlight a few observations to support my use of the word “unjust" to describe the US and Israeli actions. 

Trump's De facto War Cabinet

1. Trump’s Spiritual Guidance

The above video clip went viral lately; it showed Trump being blessed by his holy team. 

Throughout history leaders tended to seek divine blessings when they wage wars, many did so with great elaboration and ceremonies. Many still today, but you would not expect to see the above clip to be beamed to the public. They will just utter their prayers in private.

If you are being attacked, or you are fighting a just cause, that's fair. But you are waging a war against a sovereign country which is not a threat to you and your people in any way, which divine force will be on your side?

Trump has always been an outlier; obviously, he does not believe in conventions. It is common knowledge that he had a Faith Office in the White House. Established in 2025, the office has two key figures – Senior advisor Paula White-Cain and her deputy Jennifer S. Korn.

Three times-married, Paula White-Cain is an American televangelist, pastor, author, and political religious adviser who has been closely associated with Donald Trump for many years.

She was born in 1966 and often describes a difficult childhood marked by poverty and family problems, and says she became a born-again Christian shortly after high school. She married preacher Randy White, and together they founded Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida in 1991. The church grew rapidly and at one point had around 20,000 members, making it one of the largest churches in the U.S. She later became a television evangelist, author, and motivational speaker, building a national audience through Christian TV networks.

White is widely associated with prosperity theology—the belief that faith and generous donations to a ministry will bring material blessings and financial prosperity from God. This teaching is controversial and heavily criticized by many mainstream Christian theologians.

White became a spiritual adviser to Donald Trump years before his presidency and helped mobilize evangelical support for him in the 2016 election.

She lives lavishly – a $2.6 million, 8,000-sq-ft mansion in Tampa, multi-million dollar properties everywhere (including a unit in Trump Tower), access to a private jet connected with her ministry and high salaries and benefits linked to church finances.

From these, you can judge for yourself the level of Trump"s spiritual wisdom.

2.  The Sinking of the Iranian Frigate Dena
On 4 March, the Iranian  frigate Dena was torpedoed by a US submarine in the Ocean near Sri Lanka. The frigate was not operating near Iran at the time. It was sailing through international waters on its way back after participating in an international naval exercise hosted by India in the Bay of Bengal. It is said that about 180 crew members were on board, 87 sailors confirmed dead, and 32 survivors were rescued by the Sri Lankan Navy. 

The incident sparked debate internationally because:

• The ship was in international waters far from Iran.
• It was returning from a multinational naval event, not actively engaged in combat at the time.

The International Fleet Review 2026 was hosted by the Indian Navy in February 2026. Besides Iran, a wide range of countries joined the exercise and fleet review. Among those that sent ships, aircraft, or delegations were United States. Russia, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Seychelles. (Overall, more than 70 countries took part in the broader events, with about 19 foreign warships participating directly in the sea activities.) The IFR is essentially a ceremonial gathering of naval ships from many countries, hosted by one nation to showcase naval cooperation, diplomacy, and maritime capability. It allows navies to build trust and relationships. Admirals, officers, and sailors meet, exchange visits, and strengthen cooperation.

Countries that might not normally operate together get opportunities to interact, which can help in disaster relief cooperation, anti-piracy coordination, and search-and-rescue collaboration. An International Fleet Review is the naval equivalent of a diplomatic summit — but with warships instead of conference rooms.

Instead, the Iranian frigate was sunk by another participating country’s submarine after the event. How cruel and immoral Trump can be!

It is most unfortunate that the Indian government was not decent enough to offer protection to the vessel of a participating nation.

3.    Strike on Iranian school

Evidence suggests the US forces likely bombed a girls’ elementary school in Minab, leaving at least 168 children dead, as well as teachers and staff on February 28. The strike came on the first day of the US-Israeli attack. 

The school building was partitioned off from the military compound in 2016 and bore clear hallmarks of a civilian educational facility, including a sports field and children’s murals.

War Secretary Hegseth had the cheek to insist that US forces "never target civilian targets." The act is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. 

The Minab incident is not the first atrocity committed by the US against Iran. In 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War, the US Navy cruiser USS Vincennes downed civilian airliner Iran Air Flight 655, killing all 290 people on board. Washington later expressed "deep regret" and paid compensation but has never formally apologized for the incident.

Work-in-Progress

The war is still a work in progress. The Americans and the Israelis have bombed the hell out of Iran, and Iran has retaliated strongly. The status of the Strait of Hormuz has been jeopardized. If the war does not end soon, the entire world will suffer deeply.

All because of Trump and Netanyahu!

Another lesson from history: you cannot count on clerics to rule your country. They will destroy it.

If the Ayatollahs were clever, they should have taken a leaf out of Kim Jong Un’s playbook. Western logic has no place for weaklings.

And if the Iranians had not been so skeptical of China's technological prowess, they would have armed themselves like the Pakistanis. And the equation will be different today. Too late!

Trump boasts that on a scale of 10, he is scoring 15 in the way he is conducting the war. But I believe that, deep inside, The TACO is actually panicking. He is riding a tiger and does not know how to dismount. Trump may find that Netanyahu becomes his political undoing this time. 

I wonder what he is going to talk about with Xi Jinping when they meet at the end of the month.

End

 

A Twisted World: Irony, Hypocrisy, and Power

 

From Washington to Seoul, and New Delhi to Tokyo, the global order is defined by stark contradictions. Laws are bent, histories are rewritten, and principles are abandoned when they clash with power or profit. A series of recent events reinforces my fear of this "twisted world."

The US: A President vs. The Rule of Law (and Then, The Market)

In a landmark 6–3 ruling, the US Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to former President Donald Trump, deciding that he lacked the legal authority to impose sweeping reciprocal tariffs. The Court affirmed that under the Constitution, the power to tax and tariff lies exclusively with Congress. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the justices argued, is for narrow crises—not for rewriting global trade policy.

While the decision didn't touch tariffs levied under other statutes (like Section 232 on national security or Section 301 on unfair trade), it left over an estimated $100-$175 billion in collected duties in legal limbo, potentially subject to refund claims.

Predictably, Trump’s response was swift and characteristic. He announced a new 10% global tariff under a different law (Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974), a temporary measure meant to address balance-of-payments issues. But in a move that defines his modus operandi, he immediately raised the rate to 15% overnight, seemingly to "punish" the court and maximize the economic impact.

His verbal assault on the justices was even more scorching. He called them "a disgrace," "unpatriotic," "fools," and "lapdogs," even baselessly suggesting foreign influence had swayed them. In most common-law nations, this would be clear contempt of court. In the US, it is a protected, if corrosive, exercise of free speech.

Seoul vs. Washington: A Tale of Two Insurrections

On 19 February, a South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life imprisonment for leading an insurrection. His crime: imposing martial law and using military force against the legislature, an act deemed a direct attack on constitutional order.

To a lay observer, the parallels with January 6, 2021, are glaring. On that day, a mob incited by Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol to halt the certification of an election. Trump was impeached for "incitement of insurrection" but acquitted by the Senate. While "treason" is a narrow legal charge in the US that doesn't apply here, the core similarity—a leader using extra-legal means to subvert democratic processes—is undeniable. The wildly different verdicts are a stark lesson in how political systems, and the power of personality, can bend the application of justice.

The "Board of Peace": A Gaza Conference Without Gaza

Trump’s inaugural "Board of Peace" meeting, held on 19 February, was ostensibly about coordinating Gaza's recovery. Twenty-six countries joined, with leaders from Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Hungary in attendance. The US pledged $10 billion, with nine other nations adding $7 billion, and several countries offered troops for a stabilisation force.

But the meeting's true nature was revealed by two glaring absences. Neither Russia nor China sent representatives. More tellingly, no Palestinians were invited to discuss the future of their own homeland. The conference, chaired by Trump, felt less like a peace forum and more like a real estate development planning session. As one observer might cynically note, it is not hard to imagine Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, positioning himself to profit from the development of a "Riviera Trump de Gaza." The "Board of Peace" may well fizzle out, but the deals made in the shadows could have a lasting impact.

Japan’s Irony: The Pacifist Constitution and the Return of Militarism

Japan stands at a historic crossroads. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's recent electoral victory has given her party a two-thirds supermajority in the Lower House, the first step toward amending the country's pacifist constitution.

The irony is profound. Japan's post-war identity as a civilian power was enshrined in Article 9 of its constitution, a document largely imposed by the United States during the Allied occupation. Now, the US—seeking a stronger ally to counter China—is quietly encouraging Japan to rearm. Even more ironic is the response from Southeast Asia. Some leaders of nations that suffered brutal Japanese occupation during World War II are now welcoming a more militaristic Japan.

Whether Takaichi can overcome the hurdle of the upper house and a national referendum remains to be seen, but the momentum is unmistakable. The nation that was forced to renounce war is now being pushed to embrace the potential for it once more.

I do believe in physiognomy. Rightly or wrongly, my first and lasting instinct when I look at Takaichi is that her face conveys a slyness that makes me deeply uneasy — and it is an unease I cannot simply dismiss.

The Currency of Power: Technocrats, Bombs, and Bluster

In this twisted world, only muscle talks—but "muscle" comes in different forms.
Among Western leaders, Canada's Mark Carney stands out, not for military might or populist rhetoric, but for "Middle Power" strengths. A former head of two central banks, he understands the mechanics of economic warfare better than anyone. He could fight Trumpism on its own terrain, which all other Middle Powers seem incapable of wielding. Yet for all his technocratic skill, Carney lacks the raw political killer instinct of a Kim Jong Un, who holds a different, more existential form of power—for instance, in denying the US the right to use its airspace.

Elsewhere, leaders like those in Iran or Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro project defiance, but their threats often ring hollow. Venezuela has been robbed of its oil, and Panama of the right to exercise sovereignty over its canal. Yet they appear as regimes waiting for the next shock, their bluster masking deep-seated vulnerability.

India’s AI Aspirations and a Robotic Dog

Finally, to New Delhi, where India recently hosted a massive AI Impact Summit, touted as the largest of its kind for the Global South. With 25,000 participants, 20 world leaders, and tech CEOs, it was meant to showcase India's technological rise.

Instead, it became a case study in the gap between aspiration and reality. The conference was overshadowed by a bizarre controversy when a professor from Galgotias University presented a robotic dog named "Orion" to the public broadcaster as an indigenous innovation from the university's "Centre of Excellence." It was quickly unmasked as a Unitree Go2—a commercially available model from a Chinese company retailing for just over $2,000. Apparently, other bogus AI feats were also exhibited. But the high praises continued, nonetheless.

The incident became an embarrassing metaphor for an event that, despite its high aims, seemed to lack the very organisational intelligence the conference was meant to celebrate. It was a small, farcical moment that perfectly encapsulated a "twisted world" where image is often mistaken for reality, and the substance of innovation is sometimes just a borrowed shell.

Of course, Google and Meta need look no further if they require a super CMO. This professor can guarantee instant publicity for any project they wish to promote.

End

Sharing Some Titbits from My Recent Travels…

 

1. Politics in Malaysia

I enjoy engaging cab drivers in conversation, especially during longer journeys — for example, to and from Seletar Airport to my hotel downtown, or between my apartment at Saujana Resort and KLIA. They often have a practical understanding of the world around them that many of us may overlook.

Just last Monday, I booked a Grab car to take me to KLIA for a trip to Jakarta on a Malaysia Airlines flight. My driver was a certain Abdullah Husain. I praised him for keeping his car neat and clean. He told me it was only a month old.

After some small talk about the weather, hometowns and families, I ventured to ask him about his views on Malaysian politics.

LYB: Given Anwar’s thin support among the Malay community, what are his chances of Pakatan Harapan winning the next general election?

AH: No way Anwar can win the election.

AH said the entire PH government revolved around only one man — Anwar Ibrahim himself.

“Do you see his ministers talk?” he asked. “Rafizi speaks a lot now, but that is because he is no longer in the Cabinet.” (He was referring to Rafizi Ramli, the former Economy Minister.)

LYB: Who will win the next election then?

AH: PAS!

LYB: But are Malays not concerned about PAS’s track record in the states they currently govern?

I told AH that I had visited Kelantan not too long ago, and that I genuinely felt sorry for the lacklustre state of the economy there. He countered that this was because Kelantan had not received the support it deserved from the federal government.

I also told him that the Chinese community feared PAS. He replied that the Chinese in Kelantan were happy under the present PAS state government. I did not feel it was appropriate to tell him that, in reality, only the older Chinese had chosen to remain, while many younger Chinese had moved to other states.

I shudder to think of the prospect of PAS forming the next federal government. AH believes UMNO would join PAS as a junior partner. In his view, UMNO no longer has the grassroots support to revive its former glory.

The Chinese community, to him, does not feature in the political equation at all.

To me, however, despite the setback suffered by DAP in the last Sabah state election, it will still be the Hobson’s choice for the Chinese community. MCA may have recovered slightly, but it remains far from being able to close the gap.

2. Jakarta’s Soekarno–Hatta International Airport

One cannot quite fault the designers of Terminal 3 at Jakarta’s Soekarno–Hatta International Airport for its overall structure. The terminal was extended from an existing building, and aircraft therefore have to be docked along only one side. That said, much still leaves to be desired in terms of internal layout.

Upon arriving at the gate assigned to Malaysia Airlines — located at one end of the building — one has to walk almost one kilometre, even with the help of moving walkways (or travelators).

The long rows of automated immigration gates look very impressive — very state-of-the-art — until you try to use them. They do not work with my Malaysian passport. Worse still, there was nobody around to help. All of us had to scramble to the manual counters. And guess what? Only two counters were open.

I was among the earlier arrivals, so the waiting time was still tolerable. But what about the bulk of passengers who arrived later?

For departures, immigration is again located at the far end of the hall. Between the check-in area and the immigration hall are the usual airport shops. Customs and security screening were fortunately efficient, but once again the rows of modern auto-gates were not friendly to foreigners like me. I had to use the manual counter yet again.

After clearing immigration and descending to the gate level, I had to walk another kilometre or so to reach my gate.

Two questions came to mind:

1. Why can’t immigration and customs be located in the middle of the terminal?
2. Why is Malaysia Airlines, which operates many flights a day to Jakarta, assigned gates at one extreme end of the terminal?

A Question of Attitude…

After my accident in 2016, my left heel pad became permanently impaired. I now walk with a slight limp. For longer walks, I carry a cane to help my left leg bear my body weight. On occasions, I use the assistance lane at airports. I thought I had a perfectly valid reason to use the one provided at Jakarta Immigration. However, When I approached the counter, the officer was clearly unhappy that his peace had been disturbed and gave me a distinct “why are you here?” look. I pointed to my leg. He reluctantly attended to me but could not hide his displeasure and subjected me to some unnecessary questioning. I remained polite, lest I be sent back to the long queue.

The contrast with what one sees at Singapore Immigration could not be sharper. Although some officers look like retired granddads and grandmas, they are unfailingly courteous, ushering passengers into available lanes and indulgently guiding one how to use their face recognition system efficiently.

The same applies in Malaysia, where QR-code counters are available for Malaysians. Older people like us can sometimes be confused by the procedure, but there is always someone on hand to help.

One wonders why Indonesia does not send its officers to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur to observe how neighbouring countries run their systems.

3. Social Etiquette

I was invited by a professional society to join its delegation to Jakarta. I could not help noticing that many of us are still not quite up to scratch when it comes to basic social norms — punctuality, personal hygiene, dressing appropriately for occasions and even table etiquette. The last two being important in Indonesia, for hosts in their society’s upper echelon tend to take them seriously. And they can feel extremely awkward when their guests are visibly uncomfortable or lost in such situations. (However, punctuality is usually a non-issue in Indonesia; it is just a matter of my personal discipline.)

Raising awareness would certainly help to address this problem.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to serve as a board member of a social enterprise chaired by Royal Professor Ungku Aziz, then retired Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya. I once proposed to him that all university students should be required to attend a short finishing programme before graduation — a kind of mini-MBA in which the basic functions of business are introduced. For example, non-business students should understand P&L statements, balance sheets and cash flows, while non-STEM students should be exposed to basic technological literacy. Alongside these, social etiquette should also be taught, to better prepare graduates for workplace and societal expectations.

He was very supportive of the idea. Unfortunately, there was no practical mechanism for me to follow up and push it through.

End

A Chinese Diplomat Speaks Out… See the Difference!

 

On Australia’s plan to re-acquire the Port of Darwin…China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, recently described Australia’s plan to re-acquire the Port of Darwin as unwise and problematic.

Xiao publicly criticised Canberra for seeking to take back the port now that it has become profitable, after leasing it out when it was unprofitable. He described this move as “ethically questionable” and “not the way to do business.”

He underscored that the Chinese company Landbridge had obtained its 99-year lease through proper market processes and had since invested substantially in the port’s infrastructure. In his view, such investment should be respected rather than reversed.

Xiao suggested that if Australia were to forcibly take back control of the port, China would feel obliged to take “measures to protect the Chinese company’s interests.” While he did not specify what those measures might be, he implied they could carry economic consequences or have broader implications for bilateral trade and investment relations.

He further argued that altering the agreement could affect “substantive investment, cooperation, and trade” by Chinese companies in the region—reflecting Beijing’s view that such a move could deter future foreign investment.

Xiao’s comments form part of the broader tensions between Canberra and Beijing over strategic infrastructure, foreign investment, and national security. While the Australian government maintains that regaining control of the Port of Darwin is in the national interest, China views any move to unwind the lease as destabilising commercial norms and bilateral relations.

On Chinese naval movements near Australian waters…
In an earlier interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in Hobart, Xiao described China’s naval deployments and drills near Australia as “normal” activities for a major power—routine training operations rather than a message or threat directed at Australia. He urged Australians not to over-interpret or misinterpret China’s military movements in the region.

He also emphasised that there was “no reason” for China to threaten Australia, even in the context of these naval activities. (You want to sink ships of your biggest trading partners? Come on!)

Coming of age…

I used to joke about the former ambassador, who could hardly string together a proper sentence in English. Xiao, on the other hand, represents a new generation of Chinese diplomats—confident, articulate in English, and carrying real gravitas. His demeanour exudes friendliness. Compared with the ambassadors dispatched by Trump around the world, the contrast is immediately obvious. (The one for Singapore literally asks for alms!)

End

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

 

 

Xi’s “Purge” of China’s Military - Zeekr and Zika

China's Zeekr

The removal of Zhang Youxia (张又侠), Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and Liu Zhenli (刘振立), also a CMC member and Chief of Staff, a few days ago has sent shockwaves around the world. They have been placed under investigation for “serious violations of discipline and law,” a euphemism for corruption or political disloyalty.

Is this a deep leadership restructuring taking place in China, or something else?

Since Xi became CMC Chairman in 2012, he has pushed a major anti-corruption drive into the military, restructuring its leadership to ensure loyalty and strengthen centralised control. In recent years, particularly from 2023 to the present, the pace and prominence of removals have accelerated, including the unprecedented fall of sitting CMC vice chairmen and other top commanders.

A couple of months ago — in October last year — He Weidong (何卫东) became the first sitting CMC Vice Chairman to be removed since the Cultural Revolution era. Removed together with him was Miao Hua (苗华), Director of the CMC Political Work Department, who was widely regarded as a Xi loyalist. Also removed at the same time were seven other full generals:

1. He Hongjun (何宏军), Executive Deputy Director, CMC Political Work Department
2. Wang Xiubin (王秀斌), Executive Deputy Director, CMC Joint Operations Command Center
3. Lin Xiangyang (林向阳), Commander, Eastern Theater Command
4. Qin Shutong (秦树桐), Political Commissar (Army)
5. Yuan Huazhi (袁华智), Political Commissar (Navy)
6. Wang Houbin (王厚斌), Commander, Rocket Force
7. Wang Chunning (王春宁), Commander, People’s Armed Police

Defence Minister and former Rocket Force commander Wei Fenghe (魏凤和) was removed in 2024, while in 2023 Li Shangfu (李尚福), Minister of National Defense, was purged.

Earlier casualties included Liu Zheng (刘铮), former Deputy Director of the PLA General Logistics Department; Li Zuocheng (李作成), the retired Chief of the CMC Joint Staff Department; and Li Yuchao (李玉超), former Commander of the Rocket Force.

All were three-star full generals.

Before Xi, the PLA had largely been a law unto itself, especially from the 1990s to the early 2010s. Although the PLA formally answered to the Party, in practice senior generals ran powerful fiefdoms. Civilian leaders such as Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao often lacked either the authority or the will to discipline top officers. Promotions were heavily influenced by patronage networks rather than professional merit. This gave rise to what many Chinese insiders later described as “军中山头林立” — mountains within the military, each with its own lord.

Corruption was systemic. “Buying ranks” was an open secret. Under generals Xu Caihou (徐才厚) and Guo Boxiong (郭伯雄) — both CMC vice chairmen — promotions to major general, lieutenant general, and full general were widely believed to be for sale. Key posts in logistics, armaments, and personnel became cash cows. Officers paid bribes to secure promotions, avoid audits, or obtain lucrative postings. Xu and Guo were the gatekeepers, and both fell between 2014 and 2015.

Xi later lamented that corruption had reached a level that “threatened the survival of the Party and the army.”

The PLA also ran businesses. Until the late 1990s and early 2000s, PLA units owned hotels, real estate, and trading companies. Officers blurred the lines between national defence and personal enrichment. Although Jiang formally ordered the PLA out of business in 1998, the networks and habits remained.

Xi did three things his predecessors did not dare to do fully:

    (a) Took down CMC vice chairmen

• Xu Caihou
• Guo Boxiong
• He Weidong, Zhang Youxia

    This shattered the belief that “CMC vice chairmen are untouchable.”

    (b) Broke service-based power blocs

• Rocket Force
• Equipment Development Department
• Political Work Department

     The recent purges show that Xi is still dismantling entrenched networks, even among his own appointees. 

    (c) Centralised loyalty to one authority

• Loyalty is no longer to “the Party” in an abstract sense
• It is explicitly to Xi as CMC Chairman

Outcome...
The system is certainly cleaner than before. However, corruption may simply have shifted from the open buying of ranks to more subtle forms. In the interim, fear has replaced impunity. Professionalisation has improved, but initially at the cost of initiative, candour, and internal trust.

Xi genuinely believes that corruption threatens China’s war-fighting ability. If he is true to his mission, these temporary hiccups will disappear in due course.

Poor Messaging…

Unfortunately, Beijing has been poor at explaining Xi’s transformation effort to the outside world.

          1. Silence looks like instability

China’s instinct is secrecy, but externally this backfires. Senior generals disappear, defence  ministers vanish without explanation, and CMC vice chairmen fall with boilerplate language.

 

To outsiders, this does not look like reform — it looks like elite chaos or factional warfare.

 

Western analysts fill the vacuum with the most damaging interpretations:

·         “The PLA is hollowed out”

·         “Xi doesn’t trust his own generals”

·         “China’s military is unready for war”

 

Beijing’s refusal to engage allows these narratives to harden.

2. Anti-corruption without benchmarks sounds arbitrary
“Serious violations of discipline and law” tells the world nothing. Without clear standards or named offences, it appears to be selective punishment rather than systemic clean-up. Internally, cadres may understand the signals; externally, it feels opaque and personalistic.

            3. The PLA is still treated as a sacred black box

           The CPC continues to communicate as if:

·         Military affairs are nobody else’s business

·         Foreign perceptions do not matter

That mindset worked when China was inward-looking. It does not work when China is a near-peer military power, operating globally and under constant strategic scrutiny.

What Could Have Been Done?
The framing should have shifted from PURGE to PROFESSIONALISATION.

Standards, operational competence, and key command rotations to prevent fiefdoms should have been emphasised. “We are building a modern, rules-based military, not a loyalty club” is the kind of language people understand. Due process must be observed, and outcomes should not be conveyed through leaks, rumours, or silence.

At present, every purge reinforces the idea that if Xi goes, the system collapses. Reforms should be institutionalised — promotion criteria codified, command regulations published, and collective CMC decision-making, even if symbolic, emphasised.

The irony is this: Xi may be carrying out the most radical PLA transformation since Mao, yet because of how it is communicated, the world interprets it as paranoia, instability, and personal insecurity.

However, I believe Xi is now confident enough to transform the PLA without the baggage of the old guards. Modern warfare requires quality young bloods, which China has plenty. 

Regardless, I have great faith in Xi. Let us help him explain his good intentions to the world.

End

 

Postscript…
Friends may be wondering why I have chosen a picture of Zeekr – a Chinese car – to introduce this article. Zeekr 极氪 (pronounced Jí kè), which means “Extreme Krypton,” is a premium electric vehicle brand owned by Geely Automobile Holdings, and it is known for its high performance. Yet the name Zeekr is faintly unsettling. Doesn’t it sound rather like Zika, the mosquito-borne virus infamous for causing severe birth defects when expectant mothers are infected?

A month or so ago, while I was in Shanghai, I visited a Pien Tze Huang (片仔癀) franchise outlet to buy a facial lotion that I thought would be suitable for my wife. When I returned, she unpacked the box and tried to make sense of the instructions. She asked whether I trusted it. I could hardly blame her. The English translation was so Mickey-mousy that few people – especially those who are unfamiliar with the depth and sophistication of traditional Chinese medical formulations – would dare to use the product. And yet Pien Tze Huang has a pedigree spanning nearly 500 years, dating back to the Ming Dynasty, and occupies a venerable place in traditional Chinese medicine.

Fortunately, Chinese companies now appear to be paying closer attention to global sensibilities in branding. Names like BYD, rendered in Chinese as 比亚迪 (pronounced Bǐyàdí), travel far more easily across languages and cultures. Is this, perhaps, a quiet form of reverse engineering in product naming?

In much the same way, Xi would do well to be more conscious of how China is viewed by the outside world.