Deadly Crane Crash Derails Passenger Train In Thailand
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Bangkok | Planet & Commerce
At least 22 people were killed and around 80 others injured on Wednesday after a construction crane collapsed onto a passenger train in northeast Thailand, triggering one of the country’s deadliest rail disasters in recent years. Authorities warned that the death toll could rise further as rescue teams continue to search through damaged carriages and treat the critically injured. The accident occurred in the Sikhio district of Nakhon Ratchasima, approximately 230 kilometres northeast of Bangkok. The train was travelling from the capital toward Ubon Ratchathani, a major destination in the northeastern Isaan region, when it passed beneath an elevated construction site for a high-speed rail project. According to initial findings, a large crane operating above the existing railway line suddenly collapsed, plunging down onto the moving train. The impact caused the train to derail, while debris from the crane crushed multiple carriages. A brief fire broke out following the collision, compounding the chaos before emergency crews managed to extinguish the flames. Thailand’s Transport Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn confirmed that 195 passengers were on board at the time of the incident. In a statement, he said that the fatalities were concentrated in two of the three carriages directly struck by the falling crane. He added that a full investigation had been ordered to determine the cause of the collapse and to assess whether safety regulations were properly followed at the construction site. Emergency responders and local police said rescue operations were launched immediately, with ambulances, firefighters and medical teams rushing to the scene. Survivors were pulled from twisted metal as rescuers worked to stabilise damaged carriages. Hospitals across Nakhon Ratchasima province were placed on high alert to receive the injured, many of whom suffered severe trauma.
The scale of the tragedy became apparent only gradually. Early reports suggested that four people had died, but as access to the wreckage improved, the confirmed death toll rose sharply, first to 12 and then to 22. Police officials said they feared more bodies could be found as search efforts continued through the mangled remains of the train. Witnesses described terrifying scenes as the crane struck the carriages with immense force. Local resident Mitr Intrpanya, 54, said he heard a loud crash followed by explosions around 9am. When he arrived at the site, he saw the crane resting across the train, with one carriage split open by the impact. His account echoed images from the scene showing extensive structural damage, particularly to the middle carriages. The route involved in the accident is among the most heavily used rail corridors in northeast Thailand, linking Bangkok with densely populated provinces. Rail officials said passenger trains regularly pass beneath sections of elevated infrastructure that are part of long-running rail modernisation projects. Wednesday’s incident has raised urgent questions about how construction work is coordinated with active rail operations. The crane was reportedly part of a high-speed rail project backed by Chinese investment, designed to eventually connect Bangkok with the northeastern region and onward to neighbouring countries. Construction on the project has been under way for nearly a decade, with elevated concrete platforms built above existing tracks. Images from the crash site appear to show the crane falling from one of these large concrete pillars. Transport analysts say the disaster highlights long-standing concerns about safety oversight at major infrastructure sites. While Thailand has pushed ahead with ambitious transport upgrades, critics have warned that construction near active rail lines requires stricter controls, including better monitoring of heavy equipment and temporary shutdowns when high-risk operations are under way.
Government officials sought to reassure the public that accountability would follow. The transport ministry said inspectors would examine whether the crane was properly secured, whether weather or mechanical failure played a role, and whether contractors complied with safety protocols. Any negligence, officials said, would be met with legal action. Prime Ministerial aides said the government would provide compensation to victims’ families and cover medical costs for the injured. Flags were ordered to be flown at half-mast in parts of the province as a mark of respect, while messages of condolence poured in from across the country. Rail safety experts noted that while derailments are not uncommon globally, accidents involving collapsing construction equipment are rare and often catastrophic. They stressed the need for clear separation between construction zones and operational railways, especially on routes carrying hundreds of passengers daily. As investigations begin, the tragedy has sparked a broader debate in Thailand about the pace of development versus public safety. Many commuters rely on long-distance trains as an affordable and essential mode of transport, particularly in the northeast, one of the country’s most populous regions. Confidence in rail safety, observers say, has been badly shaken. For now, rail services on the affected line have been suspended, with passengers redirected to alternative transport. Engineers are assessing damage to the track and overhead structures, while authorities work to clear debris and restore operations. Officials have not given a timeline for when services might resume. The deadly crash stands as a stark reminder of the risks associated with large-scale infrastructure development when safety systems fail. As Thailand mourns the victims, pressure is mounting on authorities to ensure that such a disaster is never repeated.
West Bank Bedouins Forced Out By Settler Violence
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
West Bank | Planet & Commerce
With trucks idling on dirt tracks and sheep pens being dismantled plank by plank, Bedouin families in the Israeli-occupied West Bank are abandoning homes they have occupied for decades, driven out by escalating violence and intimidation from Israeli settlers. In the village of Ras Ein al-Auja, north of Jericho, residents describe a slow but relentless campaign that has shattered their community and erased what they call the Bedouin way of life. Families have been loading water tanks, tents and livestock onto vehicles, knowing that staying has become impossible. The pressure, they say, is not the result of a single attack but of constant harassment that leaves them standing guard day and night to protect their power lines, irrigation pipes and grazing land. Many say exhaustion, fear and a lack of protection from authorities have forced their hand. “What is happening today is the complete collapse of the community as a result of the settlers’ continuous and repeated attacks, day and night, for the past two years,” said Farhan Jahaleen, a Bedouin resident of Ras Ein al-Auja. His words echo a broader pattern playing out across the West Bank, where Bedouin communities are among the most vulnerable to displacement. Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, Israeli settlements and outposts have steadily expanded. More than 500,000 settlers now live in the territory alongside roughly three million Palestinians. While most settlers do not engage in violence, a minority has been repeatedly accused of attacking local Palestinians to coerce them into leaving strategic land areas. The United Nations recorded a record 260 settler attacks in October last year alone, highlighting what rights groups describe as an unprecedented surge. In Ras Ein al-Auja, the impact has been devastating. Of the hamlet’s approximately 130 families, Jahaleen says nearly half have already fled. Twenty families from the Ka’abneh clan left just last week, while dozens more are in the process of dismantling their homes. What was once a close-knit herding community is rapidly emptying, one family at a time. The village sits in a strategic corridor between rocky hills to the west and the fertile Jordan Valley to the east. At the heart of Ras Ein al-Auja is a natural spring that allowed the Bedouins to remain largely self-sufficient. That lifeline, residents say, was deliberately targeted. In May last year, settlers diverted water from the spring, crippling the community’s access to its most precious resource.
Since then, Bedouins say harassment has intensified. Settlers have allegedly cut power supplies, damaged irrigation systems and driven their own livestock into grazing areas used by Bedouin herders. Trailers that once dotted the surrounding hills are being replaced by permanent structures, some built less than 100 metres from Bedouin homes, reinforcing fears that the land is being quietly absorbed. “If you defend your home, the police or army will come and arrest you. We can’t do anything,” said Naif Zayed, another resident. His frustration reflects a common complaint among Bedouin communities: that law enforcement rarely intervenes to protect them and often responds only when Palestinians resist. “There is no specific place for people to go; people are acting on their own, to each their own,” he added. Most Palestinian Bedouins rely on herding for survival, a livelihood that makes them especially exposed in isolated rural areas. When settlers bring competing herds onto nearby land, tensions escalate quickly. Settlement watchdog groups describe this tactic as “pastoral colonialism”, a strategy that uses livestock grazing to assert control over land without formal expropriation. Israeli military officials have acknowledged the problem publicly. In November, Israel’s military chief Eyal Zamir said he wanted to put a stop to settler violence. More recently, the army announced the deployment of new monitoring technologies intended to enforce movement restrictions on both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli media reported that the measures were largely aimed at curbing attacks by settlers. Asked about the situation in Ras Ein al-Auja, the Israeli military said incidents in the area were “well known” and that forces enter based on operational needs to prevent friction and maintain order. It said its presence had been increased due to repeated incidents, though Bedouin residents say this has not translated into lasting protection.
For families already leaving, the future remains uncertain. Naaman Ehrizat, another herder from the village, said he had moved his sheep to Hebron ahead of his own relocation. But Jahaleen warned that moving elsewhere in the West Bank offers no guarantee of safety. He pointed to families displaced from the nearby village of Jiftlik who were later forced out again after resettling in the Jordan Valley. The repeated displacement has deep psychological and cultural consequences. Slogans reading “No future in Palestine” have recently appeared spray-painted along major West Bank roads, capturing a growing sense of despair. For Jahaleen, whose family has lived in Ras Ein al-Auja since 1991, the message feels painfully accurate. “The settlers completely destroyed the Bedouin way of life, obliterated the culture and identity, and used every method to change the Bedouin way of life in general, with the complete destruction of life,” he said. His words reflect a broader fear among Bedouin communities that displacement is not accidental but systematic. Human rights groups warn that the forced removal of Bedouins could permanently alter the demographic and cultural landscape of large parts of the West Bank. They argue that displacement through sustained harassment, rather than formal eviction orders, allows responsibility to be obscured while achieving the same outcome. As trucks roll out of Ras Ein al-Auja and sheep scatter toward uncertain pastures, what remains is a stark symbol of a conflict increasingly fought through pressure and attrition rather than open confrontation. For the Bedouins leaving behind dismantled homes and ancestral grazing land, the loss is not only physical but existential, raising urgent questions about protection, accountability and the future of some of the West Bank’s oldest communities.
US Senate Moves To Limit Trump Venezuela War Powers
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Washington D.C. | Planet & Commerce
The United States Senate is bracing for a politically charged war powers vote that could test congressional authority over military action, as President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on Republicans to block legislation aimed at curbing further US operations against Venezuela. The vote, scheduled for Wednesday, comes amid rising unease in Congress over the administration’s expanding foreign policy ambitions across the Western Hemisphere. At the centre of the dispute is a war powers resolution that would require explicit congressional authorisation for additional military action related to Venezuela. Five Republican senators joined Democrats last week to advance the measure, triggering a furious response from the White House. Trump has openly castigated the defectors, framing their support as disloyalty following what he described as a major national security success. Speaking at a rally in Michigan on Tuesday, Trump defended the recent US operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro during a surprise nighttime raid earlier this month. “Here we have one of the most successful attacks ever and they find a way to be against it. It’s pretty amazing. And it’s a shame,” he said, drawing applause from supporters. Trump went further, singling out Republican senators by name. He labelled Rand Paul a “stone cold loser” and derided Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins as “disasters”. The remarks followed reportedly terse phone calls between the president and the lawmakers, underscoring how the war powers vote has taken on outsized political significance within the Republican Party. Democrats are forcing the vote as a direct response to the Maduro operation, arguing that Congress must reassert its constitutional role before the administration escalates further. Although the resolution has little chance of becoming law — it would ultimately require Trump’s signature — it has become a symbolic and procedural test of how much latitude the Republican-controlled Senate is willing to grant the president in deploying military force abroad. Signs of wavering have already emerged among the Republicans who initially backed the measure. Josh Hawley, who voted to advance the resolution last week, indicated he is reconsidering his position. Hawley said Trump warned him that the legislation would “really tie my hands,” a message reinforced during subsequent discussions with senior administration officials.
Hawley said a follow-up call with Marco Rubio was “really positive”, adding that Rubio gave explicit assurances that the administration has no plans to deploy ground troops to Venezuela. According to Hawley, Rubio also pledged that constitutional requirements would be respected if further deployments became necessary. “I’m in listening-and-receive mode at this time,” Hawley said, adding that he remains undecided on how he will vote on the Senate floor. Another Republican supporter of the resolution, Todd Young, has declined to publicly state his intentions, saying only that he is “giving it some thought”. Collins, meanwhile, had previously opposed similar war powers measures before voting last week to advance the current resolution, a shift that has drawn particular attention amid Trump’s campaign to maintain party unity. Democrats argue that the backlash from the president illustrates precisely why the vote is necessary. Tim Kaine, who has sponsored multiple war powers resolutions this year, said Trump’s anger reflects resistance to congressional oversight. “They’re furious at the notion that Congress wants to be Congress,” Kaine said. “But people who ran for the Senate want to be US senators, not rubber stamps.” The debate has been sharpened by the Trump administration’s evolving legal rationale for its actions in Venezuela. As US naval forces expanded operations in the Caribbean and targeted vessels accused of transporting narcotics, the administration invoked wartime authorities under the global war on terror, after designating certain drug cartels as terrorist organisations. Officials have also characterised the Maduro capture as a law enforcement action, designed to extradite him to face US charges filed in 2020. During a classified briefing on Tuesday, senators reviewed the administration’s still-unreleased legal opinion justifying the use of military assets in the operation. The document was described by participants as extensive. Emerging from the briefing, Paul criticised the secrecy surrounding the legal arguments. “Legal arguments and constitutional arguments should all be public,” he said, adding that keeping them secret suggested “the arguments aren’t very good.”
Beyond Venezuela, lawmakers from both parties have expressed alarm at the broader trajectory of Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric. In recent weeks, the president has suggested the US could “run” Venezuela for years, threatened military action to seize Greenland, and told Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”. Critics warn that such statements risk entangling the US in open-ended conflicts without clear congressional approval. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer accused Trump of selective concern for protesters abroad while ignoring domestic unrest. He referenced a fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, arguing that the administration’s priorities were skewed. “It’s amazing,” Schumer said. “He’s concerned about protesters in Iran, but not about what’s happening at home.” Republican leaders, meanwhile, are seeking to minimise the confrontation and move past the issue quickly. Senate Majority Leader John Thune questioned whether the resolution should even be prioritised under Senate rules, arguing that there are no US troops engaged in active combat in Venezuela. “There is no kinetic action. There are no operations. There are no boots on the ground,” Thune said, insisting the legislation does not reflect current realities. Despite such objections, the resolution is still expected to receive a vote. Schumer said he hopes the Republicans who initially supported the measure will stand firm, stressing that the issue goes beyond Venezuela itself. “They understand how important this is,” he said, framing the vote as a defining moment for congressional authority in matters of war and peace. As the Senate prepares to cast its votes, the outcome remains uncertain. Even if the resolution fails or is ultimately vetoed, it has already exposed deep fissures within the Republican Party and reignited a long-simmering debate over the balance of power between Congress and the presidency. With Trump showing no sign of retreating from his assertive approach to foreign policy, the war powers vote is widely seen as an early indicator of how aggressively lawmakers are willing to challenge — or accommodate — a president determined to expand America’s reach abroad.
Khamenei Regime Seizes Starlink To Hide Iran Killings
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Tehran | Planet & Commerce
Iran’s clerical leadership has escalated its crackdown on digital communications by launching coordinated house-to-house raids to seize Starlink satellite internet equipment, following the deployment of sophisticated military-grade jamming systems that partially disrupted the service across the country. The move comes amid nationwide anti-government protests that rights groups say have left more than 2,000 people dead and thousands more detained, as authorities attempt to seal off the last remaining channel through which images of the unrest were reaching the outside world. For weeks, Iran has been gripped by its most extensive protests in years, with demonstrations spreading to hundreds of locations across all provinces. As the unrest intensified, the government imposed a near-total internet blackout, cutting off mobile data and restricting broadband access. In that vacuum, Starlink, owned by Elon Musk, emerged as a crucial lifeline for protesters, enabling them to upload videos and photos documenting the scale of the crackdown. According to digital rights monitors, Iranian authorities initially attempted to neutralise this lifeline using high-end electronic warfare tools. Expensive jamming systems, reportedly sourced from Russia or China, were deployed to disrupt Starlink’s satellite signals. Analysts estimate that these measures reduced Starlink connectivity by as much as 80 percent. When technical interference proved insufficient, the regime shifted tactics, moving aggressively on the ground to physically eliminate access points. Security forces have now begun raiding residential neighbourhoods, confiscating Starlink dishes, modems and other satellite equipment. Amir Rashidi, director of digital rights and security at the US-based Miaan Group, described the campaign as “electronic warfare,” saying operations have been most intense in protest hotspots and during evening hours when demonstrations typically flare. Reports from multiple cities indicate that armed units are conducting door-to-door searches, targeting rooftops and apartments suspected of hosting satellite terminals. Berlin-based bne IntelliNews cited opposition sources and Persian-language messages circulating online that warn of intensifying Starlink disruptions and expanding raids. The warnings urged users to hide or dismantle equipment immediately, suggesting that the authorities’ sweep has grown broader and more systematic over recent days. Satellite internet has long been a sensitive issue for Iran’s leadership.
The possession of satellite dishes was formally banned in 1994 under the administration of Ali Khamenei, but millions of Iranians continued to use them clandestinely to access foreign television and uncensored news. During the 2000s and 2010s, security forces, including the Basij, became notorious for dramatic raids, sometimes rappelling down apartment blocks to remove dishes in what the regime described as a fight against “Western cultural invasion.” That pattern has returned with renewed intensity during the current unrest. Activists say the crackdown on communications always accelerates during protest waves, but the focus on Starlink reflects how central satellite internet has become to modern dissent. Despite being illegal, Starlink terminals were smuggled into Iran via neighbouring countries, including routes through Iraq and the Persian Gulf, providing protesters with an independent channel beyond state-controlled infrastructure. The importance of that channel became starkly clear as reports of mass casualties emerged. The Human Rights Activists News Agency and Iran Human Rights have documented a rapidly climbing death toll. Reuters cited an Iranian official who acknowledged that around 2,000 people had been killed, including members of the security forces. Videos transmitted via Starlink, showing injured protesters, funerals and morgues, were instrumental in revealing the scale of the violence while the domestic internet remained largely shut down. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, co-founder of Iran Human Rights, said Starlink had become indispensable. “It is the only way,” he told the Wall Street Journal, underscoring why authorities are determined to shut it down completely. Messages circulating among Iranians reflect growing fear. One, cited by bne IntelliNews, warned that every Starlink device would be hunted down, echoing memories of earlier satellite crackdowns. Iranian blogger and activist Ilya Hashemi said security services are deliberately deepening the digital blackout to conceal what he described as mass killings. Footage aired by Iran International showed rows of bodies at a morgue in south Tehran, images that activists say would not have reached the outside world without satellite internet. The intensified repression follows statements by Donald Trump, who said he planned to speak with Elon Musk about restoring internet access for Iranians.
Trump has repeatedly warned Tehran against using brutal force and has suggested that Washington is weighing a wide range of possible actions, according to reports by CBS News. Those remarks appear to have added urgency to Tehran’s efforts to eliminate remaining communication channels. While ordinary Iranians have been plunged into digital darkness, reports indicate that the regime itself continues to operate online through a protected “whitelist” network. According to Iran International, approved government bodies, state media and loyalists retain uninterrupted access to selected internet services, allowing authorities to coordinate security operations and disseminate propaganda even as the public remains cut off. State media has shown large pro-government rallies, including a demonstration at Tehran’s Enqelab Square billed as an “uprising against American-Zionist terrorism,” as reported by The Guardian. At the same time, anti-Khamenei protests continue to ripple through cities and rural areas alike, driven by economic collapse, inflation, unemployment and long-standing political repression. Economists warn that the internet shutdown is compounding Iran’s economic crisis. Businesses already weakened by sanctions and strikes have been hit hard by the loss of online services, with analysts estimating that weeks of disruption have cost the economy billions of dollars. For protesters, however, the immediate concern is survival and visibility. Communication has always been central to both protest movements and efforts to suppress them. By raiding homes and seizing Starlink equipment, Iran’s leadership is attempting to sever the final link between protesters and the outside world, even as it relies on encrypted and whitelisted channels to maintain control. Activists say the strategy reflects a recognition that images and information can be as powerful as street demonstrations themselves. As the raids expand and jamming intensifies, fears are growing that Iran is entering a phase of near-total informational isolation. With Starlink targeted as the last open window, the struggle over connectivity has become inseparable from the broader fight over truth, accountability and the future of dissent in the country. The outcome, observers say, will shape not only how the current protests are remembered, but whether Iranians can continue to make their voices heard at all.
Can United States Repeat the 1953 Iran Coup Under Pahlavi?
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Tehran | Planet & Commerce
As Iran reels under one of its bloodiest internal crackdowns in decades, the shadow of history is resurfacing with uncomfortable clarity. With more than 2,000 protesters reportedly killed in just two weeks, according to figures cited by Reuters, the United States is once again weighing intervention in Tehran. The echoes of 1953, when a US- and UK-backed coup toppled Iran’s elected government and restored the Pahlavi monarchy, now loom large over Washington’s deliberations. S President Donald Trump has issued his most explicit warnings yet to Iran’s leadership. In a message posted on Truth Social, Trump urged protesters to “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS,” promised punishment for those responsible for killings, and declared that Washington had cancelled all engagement with Iranian officials. He added that the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” if violence against civilians continued. The rhetoric has fuelled speculation that Washington may be considering direct or indirect action to influence Iran’s political future. At the centre of this speculation stands Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, who has lived in the United States since 1978. During the latest wave of protests, chants of “Pahlavi will return” have reportedly been heard on Iranian streets, turning the exiled crown prince into a potent symbol for some protesters seeking an alternative to clerical rule. Should Reza Pahlavi return to Iran following US intervention, it would mark a striking historical repetition: the second time a Pahlavi heir rose amid a US-backed regime change. The precedent for such a scenario lies in Operation Ajax, the 1953 coup that reshaped Iran and the Middle East. More than seven decades ago, the United States and the United Kingdom orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, after he nationalised Iran’s oil industry. That decision had expelled the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now known as BP, from Iran’s vast oil fields, directly threatening Western economic interests.
At the height of the Cold War, Washington viewed Iran as a strategic prize in its struggle against the Soviet Union. Britain, furious over the loss of its oil concession, imposed crushing economic sanctions on Iran and applied military pressure in the Persian Gulf. When these measures failed to break Mosaddegh, London sought Washington’s backing for covert regime change. Initially hesitant, the US ultimately agreed, driven by its need for British cooperation in the Korean War, the containment of communism, and the consolidation of NATO. The CIA and Britain’s MI6 launched Operation Ajax by funding propaganda campaigns, bribing politicians, mobilising religious leaders, and fomenting street unrest. As chaos spread through Tehran, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled the country. On August 19, 1953, royalist army units, backed by clerics and conservative forces, clashed with Mosaddegh’s supporters in the streets. By nightfall, the army’s loyalty to the shah proved decisive. Mosaddegh surrendered, and the coup succeeded. For decades, Washington denied direct involvement. That narrative collapsed in 2017 when the CIA declassified documents confirming that Operation Ajax had been authorised at the highest levels of the US government, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The files detailed how British intelligence networks were repurposed by the CIA to destabilise Iran through paid protests and psychological operations. After the coup, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned from exile in Italy and resumed power. Mosaddegh was arrested, sentenced to death, then spared by the shah and placed under house arrest until his death. Iran’s oil sector was reopened, this time to a consortium that included five major American oil companies. In the short term, Western strategic and economic interests were secured. In the long term, the consequences proved disastrous.
The shah’s reliance on US and British backing eroded his domestic legitimacy. His authoritarian rule, enforced by the US-trained SAVAK intelligence service, bred resentment that eventually exploded into the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That uprising swept Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power, expelled US companies, and transformed Iran into one of Washington’s most implacable adversaries. Anti-Americanism became a defining pillar of the new regime, reshaping Middle Eastern geopolitics for decades. Today, Iran is once again at a crossroads. The current protests, sparked by economic collapse, political repression and social grievances, have spread to hundreds of locations nationwide. Despite a near-total internet blackout, footage smuggled out via satellite connections has revealed scenes of mass arrests and bloodshed. Iran has since moved to crush even those channels, raiding homes to seize Starlink equipment and further isolate the population. Meanwhile, Iran’s strategic alignment has shifted decisively eastward. Tehran has deepened ties with Russia and China, both of which now serve as diplomatic and economic lifelines amid Western sanctions. Any US-backed regime change today would unfold in a vastly more complex geopolitical environment than in 1953. For Trump, the temptation to engineer a decisive outcome may be strong. Supporting a figure like Reza Pahlavi could offer a ready-made alternative to clerical rule, appealing to segments of the Iranian diaspora and protesters nostalgic for pre-revolutionary Iran. Yet history offers a stark warning. Operation Ajax achieved short-term gains but planted the seeds of long-term instability, radicalisation and hostility that continue to shape US-Iran relations. As Washington debates its next move, the lesson of 1953 remains painfully relevant. External interference, even when cloaked in the language of liberation, often produces outcomes far removed from those intended. A second Operation Ajax may promise control and influence, but it also risks entrenching anti-American sentiment for generations to come. With Iran already on the brink, the decisions made now could define not just the fate of a protest movement, but the trajectory of an entire region once again.
South Korea Ruling Party Demands Death Penalty For Yoon
P&C | Wednesday, 14 Jan. 2026
Seoul | Planet & Commerce
South Korea’s political crisis has entered a volatile new phase as prosecutors prepare to seek sentencing against former president Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of sedition, while the country’s ruling Democratic Party openly demands the harshest punishment available under law: the death penalty. The development has triggered an intense national debate, with senior legal scholars warning that such a move could backfire by transforming Yoon into a political martyr rather than delivering meaningful accountability. South Korean prosecutors are expected to formally seek sentencing on January 13 at the Seoul Central District Court, after the conclusion of first-instance hearings. The prosecution had originally planned to request sentencing on January 9, but the schedule was altered following a delay in the defendant’s closing statement. The case centres on allegations that Yoon masterminded an insurgent act by ordering the mobilisation of military and police forces during a period that did not meet constitutional conditions for martial law. Under South Korean criminal law, sedition and rebellion are among the gravest offences, and the maximum penalty for those deemed to have orchestrated such acts is death. Seizing on this provision, leaders of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea have intensified public pressure on prosecutors to pursue capital punishment, framing the case as a defining test of constitutional order and democratic sovereignty. On January 12, Democratic Party lawmaker Park Ji-won argued that Yoon had shown no remorse and deserved the ultimate penalty. He insisted that anything less would fail to reflect the gravity of the alleged crime. Another senior figure, Choo Mi-ae, echoed the call in a social media post, stating that Yoon’s actions amounted to an attempt to undermine the constitutional principle that all power in South Korea derives from the people. According to Choo, the alleged mastermind of civil unrest must face death to uphold the rule of law.
The prosecution’s decision to formally seek the death penalty on January 13 has elevated the stakes dramatically. If carried through, Yoon would become only the second former president in South Korean history for whom prosecutors have sought execution. The move has reignited public discussion of the so-called “Blue House curse,” a phrase used to describe the pattern of South Korean presidents ending their tenures in scandal, exile, imprisonment or disgrace rather than peaceful retirement. Yet legal experts caution that the political symbolism of a death sentence could outweigh its practical consequences. South Korea has maintained the death penalty in its legal code but has not carried out an execution for 27 years, effectively placing the country in a de facto moratorium. Han In-seop, professor emeritus at Seoul National University College of Law, warned that even if a death sentence is handed down, it would likely translate into life imprisonment in practice. Han stressed that the symbolic impact could be far more potent than the legal outcome. He argued that a death sentence could be weaponised politically, allowing Yoon to portray himself as a victim of political persecution. In such a scenario, the verdict could galvanise supporters, deepen polarisation and undermine the intended deterrent effect. According to Han, allowing the sentence to become a symbolic coronation rather than a sober act of justice would be deeply counterproductive. The charges against Yoon stem from events on December 3, 2024, when he declared martial law and allegedly ordered the deployment of military and police units despite the absence of war or a constitutionally defined national emergency. The move sparked widespread unrest, mass demonstrations and a political crisis that ultimately led to his removal from office. Prosecutors argue that the decision amounted to a deliberate violation of the constitution and constituted the planning and execution of an insurgency against democratic institutions. The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Panel 25 convened the closing hearing of the first-instance trial on January 13, at which prosecutors formally demanded the death penalty. The court is expected to deliver its verdict in mid-February, a decision that could shape South Korean politics for years to come.
The case has reopened historical wounds linked to South Korea’s turbulent presidential legacy. Since the country’s first presidential election in 1948, few leaders have completed their terms without controversy. The first president, Syngman Rhee, was forced from office following the April 19 Revolution in 1960 after attempting to cling to power through electoral fraud. He spent his final years in exile in Hawaii, where he died in 1965. Subsequent presidents have faced assassination, coups, impeachment, imprisonment or prosecution, reinforcing the perception of a political system that exacts a heavy toll on those who reach its pinnacle. Against this backdrop, the Democratic Party’s push for capital punishment is being interpreted by critics as both a legal and political manoeuvre. Supporters argue that anything less than the harshest penalty would trivialise an unprecedented constitutional violation. Detractors counter that the demand risks conflating justice with vengeance, potentially undermining democratic norms in the name of defending them. Public opinion remains sharply divided. Some South Koreans view the call for the death penalty as a necessary statement that no individual, not even a former president, stands above the constitution. Others fear that turning the trial into a spectacle of symbolic punishment will only inflame political divisions at a time when social cohesion is already strained. International observers are also watching closely. South Korea’s handling of the case will be scrutinised as a measure of its democratic maturity and commitment to the rule of law. A death sentence, even one unlikely to be carried out, could raise questions about proportionality, due process and the politicisation of justice in a country that has long portrayed itself as a democratic success story in East Asia. As prosecutors make their sentencing request and the court deliberates, the central question remains unresolved: will the pursuit of the harshest possible punishment reinforce constitutional order, or will it inadvertently elevate Yoon Suk-yeol into a symbol for his supporters? With the verdict expected in mid-February, South Korea stands at a critical juncture, where law, history and political symbolism intersect in a way that could redefine the nation’s already fraught relationship with presidential power.