US Accuses China of Funding Iran Amid Hormuz Tensions

US-China tensions rise as Washington links Beijing’s Iran oil imports to terrorism financing, urges support to reopen Strait of Hormuz ahead of Trump visit

Sharp remarks from US

In a pointed escalation of rhetoric, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has accused China of effectively financing Iran by continuing to import large volumes of its oil, describing Tehran as the “largest state sponsor of terrorism”. The comments come at a sensitive moment, just days before US President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Beijing for high-level talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

According to officials familiar with the matter, the remarks were made during a media interaction on Monday and reflect growing unease within Washington over Beijing’s energy ties with Tehran.

Oil trade under scrutiny

Bessent alleged that China has been purchasing nearly 90 per cent of Iran’s energy exports, a claim that underscores longstanding US concerns over sanctions enforcement. “Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and China has been buying most of their energy,” he said, suggesting that such transactions were helping sustain the Iranian regime despite Western pressure.

The US has, since 2018, attempted to restrict Iran’s oil revenues under its “maximum pressure” campaign, following its exit from the nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Hormuz crisis deepens

The criticism comes amid rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Recent disruptions, which Washington attributes to Iranian actions, have affected shipping movement in the region.

Bessent said the US was working to reopen the waterway through an initiative dubbed “Project Freedom”, aimed at ensuring safe passage for vessels currently stranded or rerouted due to the situation.

Call for China’s support

Despite the sharp tone, the US has urged Beijing to play a constructive role. Bessent called on China to back international efforts to secure the Strait of Hormuz and to use its diplomatic leverage with Iran.

“I would urge the Chinese to join us in supporting this international operation,” he said, adding that Beijing’s influence could prove critical in persuading Tehran to ease tensions and restore normalcy in the shipping lane.

Sources indicated that Washington sees China’s involvement as key, given its deep economic engagement with Iran, particularly in the energy sector.

Diplomatic pressure on Tehran

Alongside operational support, the US is also pushing for diplomatic intervention. Officials suggested that China could help de-escalate the crisis by encouraging Iran to reopen the strait and avoid further confrontation.

Bessent reiterated that the US had made it clear Iran does not have unilateral control over the strategic passage and that international cooperation would be necessary to maintain maritime security.

UN stalemate continues

Efforts to build a global consensus, however, have faced hurdles. At the United Nations, a proposed resolution condemning Iran’s alleged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was recently vetoed by China and Russia, leading to a diplomatic impasse.

Defending Beijing’s position, Chinese envoy Fu Cong said the draft lacked balance and did not adequately reflect the broader geopolitical context, including actions by the US and its allies.

Beijing pushes back

China has also pushed back against US sanctions targeting its firms engaged in Iranian trade. Responding to recent measures, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian criticised what he described as “illicit unilateral sanctions” and cautioned Washington against overreach.

Analysts note that China’s continued engagement with Iran reflects both strategic and economic considerations, including energy security and regional influence.

Focus on upcoming summit

The developments come ahead of the anticipated Trump–Xi meeting, which is expected to cover a wide range of issues including trade, security, and regional stability. While tensions remain high, there are indications that both sides may seek to stabilise ties through dialogue.

Bessent suggested that leader-level engagement could help ease friction, noting that mutual respect between the two countries’ leadership has previously contributed to stability.

As the situation unfolds, the US-China-Iran dynamic is likely to remain a focal point in global diplomacy, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz tensions continuing to impact energy markets and international shipping.

India Backs UN Statement Criticising Israel’s West Bank Actions

In a significant diplomatic move, India condemns Israel West Bank measures by supporting a joint statement at the United Nations criticising Israel’s recent unilateral decisions in the occupied territory. The statement, backed by over 100 countries and international organisations, opposes Israeli settlement expansion and administrative changes in the West Bank.

This development is important because India shares strong strategic and defence ties with Israel, yet historically supports the Palestinian cause and the Two-State Solution framework. India’s decision to join the statement at the last moment highlights the delicate balance New Delhi is trying to maintain.

What Is Happening in the West Bank?

The West Bank has been at the centre of the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel took control of the territory, which was earlier administered by Jordan. Since then, the region has been considered “occupied territory” under international law.

Recently, Israel has reportedly:

 Expanded civilian settlements

 Allocated land for Israeli housing and infrastructure

 Increased administrative control and land registration

Many countries argue that these unilateral measures violate international law, including provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The concern is that such actions fragment Palestinian territories, making it difficult to establish a viable Palestinian state in the future.

 Why the UN Joint Statement Matters

The UN Joint Statement strongly opposes:

 Any form of annexation of occupied territories

 Actions that undermine peace and stability

 Measures that weaken the feasibility of the Two-State Solution

It calls for negotiations and mutual agreement rather than unilateral decisions.

India initially stayed away when 85 countries first supported the statement. However, as global backing grew, India added its name, reinforcing its long-standing support for a negotiated peace process.

Why Did India Condemn Israel?

The move may appear surprising given India’s deep defence and technology cooperation with Israel. However, India’s foreign policy has consistently supported:

 Palestinian self-determination

 A Two-State Solution

 Respect for international law and multilateral processes

By supporting the statement, India signals that strategic partnerships do not override its commitment to international norms.

Experts believe this decision reflects India’s broader global positioning. As a rising power seeking a larger role in global governance, India wants to be seen as supportive of international law and diplomacy.

 Will This Impact India-Israel Relations?

At present, major disruption in India-Israel ties seems unlikely. Defence, technology, and security cooperation remain strong pillars of the relationship.

Israel understands India’s historical stance on Palestine. Similarly, India continues to emphasise dialogue and diplomacy rather than confrontation.

However, diplomatically, this adds pressure on Israel amid growing global criticism over settlement expansion.

 Why This Matters Now

The issue is timely as tensions in the Middle East continue to rise. Settlement expansion directly affects the future of peace negotiations. If territorial continuity is broken, creating a viable Palestinian state becomes increasingly difficult.

India’s decision sends a message that while geopolitical realities matter, international law and negotiated settlements remain central to long-term peace.

India’s move to support the UN statement shows the complexity of modern diplomacy. By condemning unilateral actions in the West Bank, India reaffirms its support for the Two-State Solution while maintaining strategic ties with Israel.

In a world shaped by shifting alliances and rising conflicts, India’s balanced stand reflects both principle and pragmatism.

In a move that has sent ripples through the corridors of global power, US President Donald Trump used the Davos platform to launch a controversial new "Board of Peace" . Promoted as a tool to resolve conflicts and oversee reconstruction, starting with GGaza, the board is being viewed by many analysts as a direct challenge to the post-World War II, UN-centric world order . While nations like Pakistan, Israel, and several Gulf states have signed on, a crucial player remains conspicuously silent: India .

The invitation from President Trump to Prime Minister Narendra Modi presents New Delhi with one of its most delicate diplomatic puzzles in recent years. Joining could offer a seat at a new table of influence but risks alienating traditional partners and undermining the multilateral system India has long supported. Staying out could invite further economic pressure from a protectionist US administration. India's calculated silence thus far speaks volumes about its high-stakes dilemma.

What Is Trump's Board of Peace?

Announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Board of Peace is framed as the body to implement the second phase of Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza, which includes reconstruction and long-term governance . However, its ambitions appear far broader. The board's leaked charter reveals an organization with a global peace mandate, a lifetime chairman in Trump himself, and a staggering $1 billion fee for permanent membership .

The executive board is composed entirely of Trump confidants and allies, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio . This structure has led critics to label it a "passion project" designed less for inclusive global problem-solving and more for consolidating a new axis of influence under Trump's personal stewardship.

A World Divided: Who's In, Who's Out

The board's membership reveals a stark geopolitical split:

· The Joiners: Approximately 20 countries, including Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, and Azerbaijan, have joined the initiative .

· The Holdouts: Major European powers like the UK, France, Germany, and Sweden have pointedly refused, expressing concerns over the board's legal scope and its implications for the existing international order . Canada, Russia, China, and the European Union have also not committed .

This division places India in a tough spot. Aligning with the "Joiners"—a group that includes its rival Pakistan—could be domestically unpopular and signal a retreat from its principled stance on multilateralism. However, siding with the "Holdouts" risks provoking a US administration that has already shown a willingness to use trade as a weapon.

India's Calculated "Wait and Watch"

India's non-committal response is a classic diplomatic maneuver, but it is fraught with risk. Experts cite several factors behind India's hesitation:

· Defending Multilateralism: As a founding member of the UN and a traditional champion of a rules-based order, India is ideologically cautious about initiatives that might weaken established institutions 

· The Pakistan Problem: Pakistan's enthusiastic membership complicates India's decision. Analysts fear the board could become a platform for internationalizing the Kashmir issue on terms unfavorable to New Delhi.

· Uncertain Longevity: The board is seen as intrinsically linked to Trump's persona and current term. Its viability and relevance beyond his presidency are major questions for Indian strategists thinking in long-term horizons.

The Shadow of Trade and Tariff Wars

The diplomatic calculation cannot be separated from hard economic reality. The Trump administration has already imposed a 50% tariff on all Indian imports, citing trade imbalances and India's continued purchase of Russian oil . The threat of even more punitive measures looms large.

· India's exports worth approximately $87 billion annually are vulnerable to these tariffs, impacting key sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles .

· Furthermore, South Africa is now considering similar 50% tariffs on vehicles imported from India and China, signaling that US actions may embolden other nations .

In this context, India's silence on the Board of Peace is also seen as an effort to avoid giving Trump any pretext to escalate trade hostilities further. The hope in New Delhi is that a neutral stance might keep the door open for back-channel negotiations on tariffs.

A Precarious Balancing Act

India finds itself navigating a perfect storm of diplomatic innovation and economic coercion. Trump's Board of Peace is more than a peace proposal; it is a litmus test for loyalty in a fragmenting world. For India, the choice is not merely about joining a new group but about defining its strategic path in an era where traditional alliances are being stress-tested.

The "wait and watch" approach offers temporary shelter but is not a long-term strategy. As pressure builds from both Washington and its own economic corridors, New Delhi will soon have to make a decisive move. That decision will reveal whether India believes its future lies in reshaping the old world order or cautiously engaging with the contours of a new, uncertain one. The world is watching.

U.S. Exits Dozens of Global Pacts in Sweeping “America First” Move, Stunning Allies

In a dramatic shift away from multilateral cooperation, former President Donald Trump has signed an order withdrawing the United States from 66 international organizations, labeling them as “wasteful, ineffective, and no longer serving American interests.”

The move, which includes exiting the foundational UN climate treaty and an India-led solar energy alliance, marks one of the most sweeping unilateral disengagements in recent history and sends shockwaves through global diplomacy.

The memorandum, signed Wednesday, directs federal agencies to halt participation and funding “as soon as possible.” The list spans 31 UN-linked bodies and 35 other international groups, fundamentally reshaping America’s role on the world stage at a time of intertwined climate and health crises.

A Major Blow to Global Climate Action

The decision notably targets the heart of international climate cooperation. The U.S. will withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1992 treaty underpinning the Paris Agreement. This follows the already-announced exit from the Paris pact itself.

“This move is not just symbolic; it’s a debilitating blow to the global fight against climate change,” said Stanford University scientist Rob Jackson. He warns it could encourage other nations to scale back their commitments. The U.S., the world's second-largest emitter, is also leaving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Renewable Energy Agency.

The withdrawal from the International Solar Alliance, a key initiative co-founded by India and France to promote solar energy in sun-rich nations, is seen as a particular snub to a strategic partner and a growing clean energy market.

Diplomatic Isolation and Economic Costs

Former U.S. climate adviser Gina McCarthy stated the move would make America “the only country outside the UNFCCC,” dismantling decades of diplomatic leadership. “This isn’t just about climate,” she warned. “It isolates us, costs trillions in lost green investment, and cedes economic ground to China.”

The US international withdrawal extends beyond environmental pacts. Exiting groups like the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)—amid disputed claims over its work—and the Global Counterterrorism Forum raises concerns about broader humanitarian and security impacts.

This follows a pattern. In January 2025, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization for a second time, citing its pandemic response. Scientists fear this hampers the fight against AIDS, malaria, and future health crises.

What This Means Moving Forward

Manish Bapna of the Natural Resources Defense Council calls the decision “self-defeating,” weakening U.S. competitiveness. The practical effect is immediate: no U.S. delegations at crucial talks, frozen funding, and a vacuum in global governance.

For now, the world is left to ponder a fractured system of global partnerships. As one European diplomat lamented, “When the U.S. steps back, it doesn’t create an empty seat—it creates a much weaker table.” The long-term cost, experts agree, may be measured not just in diplomatic capital, but in a less stable, less cooperative world.

A Precedent of Force: The Global Reckoning After Maduro’s Capture

In the early hours of January 3, 2026, a dramatic military operation upended Latin American politics and sent shockwaves through the halls of global diplomacy. U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas and swiftly transported them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. This bold strike, framed by Washington as a justified action against a “narco-terrorist regime,” has ignited an urgent debate at the United Nations and beyond, challenging core tenets of the international order.

The immediate aftermath saw an emergency UN Security Council meeting, where the legality of the action was fiercely contested. While the United States defended its move, a coalition of nations, including regional powers Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, issued a stern rebuke. They condemned the “unilateral military actions” as a violation of the UN Charter’s fundamental principles prohibiting the use of force and affirming state sovereignty.

The Legal and Diplomatic Firestorm

At the heart of the controversy is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which expressly forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. The U.S. has argued its action falls under self-defense, citing Maduro’s alleged role in flooding America with deadly drugs. However, legal experts and opposing nations sharply reject this justification, arguing it sets a perilous precedent where a powerful country can militarily intervene in another based on domestic criminal indictments.

“One could easily imagine a Chinese indictment of a Taiwanese leader, under specious grounds, as lubricating a Chinese attack on Taiwan,” warns Justin Logan of the Cato Institute, highlighting the global ripple effects of this legal rationale. The European Union, while critical of Maduro’s legitimacy, stressed that combating transnational crime “must be addressed through sustained cooperation in full respect of international law”.

Energy and the “Trump Corollary”

Beyond law, the Venezuela intervention is a stark manifestation of the so-called “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine—a policy aimed at denying influence in the Western Hemisphere to external powers like China and Russia. The operation directly targeted a key ally of both Beijing and Moscow; China had extended over $60 billion in loans to Venezuela and purchased the majority of its oil exports.

The prize is Venezuela’s vast but crippled oil industry. Once producing 3.5 million barrels per day, output has collapsed to around 1 million due to mismanagement and sanctions. President Trump has stated that “very large US oil companies” will be tasked with rebuilding the sector. However, analysts caution that recovery is a decade-long, multibillion-dollar endeavor requiring political stability that is far from guaranteed.

A World on Notice

The capture of Nicolás Maduro is more than a regional event. It is a signal that has been received in capitals worldwide. For adversaries, it demonstrates a willingness to use unilateral force. For allies, it deepens concerns over the volatility of U.S. power. And for the global south, it starkly questions whether the rules-based order applies equally to all.

As the UN debate continues, the ultimate cost of this operation remains unwritten. It has achieved a tactical objective but at the strategic price of eroding diplomatic norms and inviting a more unpredictable and confrontational global landscape.

The world is now watching to see if this becomes an isolated event or a template for a new, more coercive era of international relations.