Israel Strikes Lebanon Sites Ahead Hezbollah Disarmament
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Beirut | Planet & Commerce
Israel carried out a fresh wave of airstrikes across southern and eastern Lebanon late Monday and into early Tuesday, hitting multiple locations that the Israeli military said were linked to militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas. The attacks come just days before a key Lebanese government meeting at which the country’s army commander is expected to brief officials on efforts to disarm Hezbollah in sensitive areas near the Israeli border, underscoring the fragile security environment and the high political stakes surrounding the issue. One of the most significant strikes occurred around 1 a.m. on Tuesday in the southern coastal city of Sidon, Lebanon’s third-largest urban centre. An Israeli airstrike levelled a three-storey commercial building in a busy district known for workshops and mechanic shops. According to an Associated Press photographer at the scene, the building was uninhabited at the time of the strike, though rescue teams searched the rubble for potential victims. At least one person was taken away by ambulance, but there were no immediate reports of fatalities. The strike on Sidon was particularly notable because it was not preceded by a public warning from the Israeli military, unlike earlier attacks on Monday. The Israeli army did not immediately issue a statement explaining the target in Sidon, adding to concerns among Lebanese officials and residents about the widening scope of Israeli operations beyond traditional border areas. Earlier on Monday, the Israeli army acknowledged striking several sites in southern and eastern Lebanon, alleging that they contained infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah and Hamas. Those attacks followed warnings issued on social media by the Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesman Avichay Adraee, who said the army would target specific villages in the eastern Bekaa Valley and in southern Lebanon. Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported that one of the homes struck in the Bekaa Valley village of Manara belonged to Sharhabil al-Sayed, identified as a Hamas military commander who was killed in an Israeli drone strike in May 2024. Lebanese authorities said the areas were evacuated following the Israeli warnings and that no casualties were reported in those particular strikes.
Separately, Lebanon’s Health Ministry said an Israeli drone strike earlier on Monday hit a car in the southern village of Braikeh, wounding two people. The Israeli military said that attack targeted two Hezbollah members. These incidents highlight how Israel continues to conduct targeted operations even as a formal ceasefire remains in place. The latest escalation comes at a politically sensitive moment in Lebanon. The government is scheduled to discuss Hezbollah’s disarmament during a meeting on Thursday, which will be attended by army commander Rudolph Haikal. Lebanese officials have said the army will present updates on its mission to clear armed groups from areas close to the border with Israel, particularly the region south of the Litani River. The Lebanese army began disarming Palestinian militant groups last year, and the government has pledged that by the end of 2025 all areas near the Israeli border, known as the south Litani zone, will be free of Hezbollah’s armed presence. Monday’s airstrikes, however, hit villages north of the Litani River and far from the immediate border, raising questions about Israel’s intentions and the limits of Lebanese state control. The push to disarm Hezbollah follows a devastating 14-month conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed group that reshaped Lebanon’s security landscape. The war erupted on October 8, 2023, a day after Hamas launched its attack on southern Israel, when Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel in what it said was solidarity with Gaza. Israel responded with escalating air and artillery strikes across Lebanon.
In September 2024, Israel launched a massive bombardment campaign targeting Hezbollah’s command structure, weapons depots and infrastructure, followed by a ground invasion that further weakened the group. Much of Hezbollah’s senior political and military leadership was killed during the conflict, dealing the organisation its most serious blow in decades. The fighting ended in November 2024 with a ceasefire brokered by the United States, but the truce has remained fragile. Since then, Israel has carried out near-daily airstrikes in Lebanon, primarily targeting alleged Hezbollah operatives and facilities. According to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, at least 127 civilians have been killed in these post-ceasefire strikes, fuelling anger and fear among Lebanese communities. Israeli officials argue that continued military pressure is necessary to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting its forces and threatening northern Israel. Lebanese leaders, meanwhile, face mounting domestic and international pressure to assert state authority and implement disarmament commitments, even as many warn that unilateral Israeli strikes undermine those efforts. Analysts say the timing of the Sidon strike, just ahead of the Lebanese government’s disarmament discussions, could complicate already delicate political negotiations. Sidon lies well north of the traditional conflict zone and is a densely populated city with significant economic and symbolic importance, making any strike there particularly sensitive. As Lebanon prepares for a critical debate over Hezbollah’s future role and weapons, the latest Israeli attacks underscore how unresolved security concerns continue to drive events on the ground. With ceasefire lines increasingly blurred and civilian areas repeatedly drawn into the conflict, the prospect of lasting stability remains uncertain, even as both sides publicly insist they want to avoid a return to full-scale war.
Iran Unrest Escalates With 35 Dead And Mass Arrests
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Tehran | Planet & Commerce
At least 35 people have been killed and more than 1,200 detained as Iran’s ongoing economic protests intensify, marking the country’s most serious unrest since the nationwide demonstrations triggered by the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. Rights groups say the demonstrations, now entering their second week, show no signs of slowing despite a harsh security crackdown and explicit warnings from the country’s supreme leadership. The latest death toll was reported Tuesday by the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, which said at least 29 protesters, four children and two members of Iran’s security forces have been killed so far. According to the group, demonstrations have spread to more than 250 locations across 27 of Iran’s 31 provinces, underscoring the scale of public anger over worsening economic conditions. The organization, which relies on a network of activists inside Iran, has previously provided accurate casualty figures during periods of unrest. Its reporting suggests the current protests have moved well beyond isolated demonstrations and now represent a nationwide challenge to the Iranian authorities. Iranian state-linked media has acknowledged significant injuries among security personnel. The semiofficial Fars News Agency, widely viewed as close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported late Monday that around 250 police officers and 45 members of the volunteer Basij force had been wounded during clashes with protesters. Officials have not provided a detailed breakdown of civilian casualties, and state media coverage of the unrest has remained limited. The protests are driven primarily by economic grievances, following a dramatic collapse of Iran’s currency late last year. After years of sanctions pressure and the economic shock of a 12-day war with Israel, the Iranian rial plunged in December to around 1.4 million to the US dollar, fuelling inflation, shortages and public anger. Demonstrations began soon after, initially focused on living costs before expanding into broader expressions of dissent.
The unrest has drawn international attention, particularly after Donald Trump warned Tehran on Friday that if Iranian authorities “violently kill peaceful protesters,” the United States “will come to their rescue.” The comments immediately raised the stakes, prompting fierce reactions from Iranian officials who threatened retaliation against US forces stationed across the Middle East. Trump’s warning has taken on added significance in the wake of Washington’s seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, a longtime ally of Tehran. Iranian officials have cited that operation as evidence of what they describe as growing US willingness to use force against adversaries, heightening fears that external intervention could further destabilize the region. Despite the rising death toll and mass detentions, assessing the full scale of the protests remains difficult. Iranian state television has offered little sustained coverage, and access for foreign journalists is tightly controlled. Reporters face travel restrictions, bureaucratic hurdles and the risk of harassment or arrest, limiting independent verification of events on the ground. Online videos circulating on social media provide only fragmented glimpses of the unrest, showing crowds chanting in the streets, security forces firing weapons, and the sounds of gunfire echoing through residential areas at night. Activists say internet disruptions and surveillance have made it harder to organize and document protests, though demonstrations continue to flare up across the country. The current wave of unrest is being compared to the protests that erupted in 2022 after the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old woman who died in police custody after being detained for allegedly not wearing her hijab properly. That movement drew millions into the streets and posed one of the most serious challenges to Iran’s leadership in decades. While the present protests have not yet reached the same intensity or visibility, analysts note that their economic focus and broad geographic spread make them particularly volatile.
Iran has experienced repeated cycles of nationwide protests in recent years, often sparked by fuel price hikes, subsidy cuts or currency devaluations. Each time, authorities have responded with force, arrests and internet shutdowns. This time, however, the convergence of economic collapse, regional conflict and international pressure has created what observers describe as a more combustible situation. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signalled a hard line over the weekend, declaring that “rioters must be put in their place.” His remarks were widely interpreted as a green light for security forces to intensify their crackdown, even as protests continued in multiple cities. Iranian officials insist the demonstrations are being fuelled by foreign interference, a claim protesters and activists reject. They argue that the unrest reflects genuine domestic anger over corruption, economic mismanagement and declining living standards. With sanctions biting and prospects for economic relief uncertain, many Iranians say they see little reason to return home. The growing casualty figures and detentions have raised concerns among human rights groups that the situation could deteriorate further. Mass arrests risk radicalizing segments of the population, while continued use of lethal force could provoke wider unrest. At the same time, explicit threats of foreign intervention have allowed Iranian authorities to frame the protests as a national security issue, potentially justifying harsher measures. For now, the demonstrations show no clear signs of abating. As security forces remain deployed and the government tightens control over information, the confrontation between Iran’s rulers and a population squeezed by economic crisis appears set to continue. Whether the unrest evolves into a broader political movement or is suppressed through force may depend on how long protesters can sustain momentum in the face of mounting repression. What is clear is that Iran is once again entering a period of profound instability, with domestic discontent colliding with international tensions in ways that could have far-reaching consequences for the country and the wider Middle East.
Maduro Capture Jolts China As Taiwan Talk Explodes
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Beijing | Planet & Commerce
The dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US special forces has sent shockwaves far beyond Latin America, delivering a sharp geopolitical blow to China even as the episode fuels intense debate on Chinese social media about Taiwan. What unfolded in Caracas over a matter of hours has become a case study in how sudden power shifts can ripple through global alliances, unsettling Beijing’s long-term strategic calculations while energising nationalist voices at home. Just hours before his abduction, Maduro was hosting Qiu Xiaoqi, China’s top envoy to Latin America, at the Miraflores Palace. The Venezuelan leader praised Beijing’s leadership and expressed personal gratitude to Xi Jinping, describing him as “like an older brother.” The meeting symbolised the depth of ties between Caracas and Beijing, forged over decades through shared ideology, economic dependence and mutual opposition to US dominance. By nightfall, that partnership was abruptly disrupted. Elite US Delta Force commandos reportedly seized Maduro in a daring operation in the heart of the Venezuelan capital, removing one of China’s most reliable allies in the Western Hemisphere. For Beijing, the event underscored a stark reality: a pillar of its Latin America strategy had collapsed almost overnight. China and Venezuela formalised their closeness in 2023 through what both sides termed an “all-weather strategic partnership.” Under that framework, Beijing deepened financial assistance, diplomatic backing and energy cooperation. China became the primary destination for Venezuelan oil exports, while Chinese firms poured billions of dollars into infrastructure, telecommunications, mining and power projects across the country. Over the past two decades, Chinese policy banks extended more than $60 billion in loans to Caracas, making Venezuela the single largest recipient of Chinese finance globally.
Maduro’s removal now raises serious questions about the future of that relationship. Analysts say China’s preferential access to Venezuelan crude, already complicated by US sanctions and opaque trading networks, could face new constraints depending on how Washington reshapes Venezuela’s political and economic landscape. While Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, its output has collapsed to roughly one million barrels per day, diminishing its strategic value even as it remains symbolically important to Beijing. Officially, China moved quickly to condemn the US operation. Beijing accused Washington of acting as a global policeman and violating international law, calling for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife. During a meeting with Ireland’s prime minister, Xi issued a pointed warning against “unilateral bullying” that “seriously undermines the international order,” a veiled rebuke widely interpreted as directed at the United States. State-run media echoed that line. Xinhua published commentaries accusing Washington of hypocrisy, arguing that the so-called rules-based international order was in reality a system driven by US interests. A social media account linked to the People's Liberation Army focused on the need for strong military capabilities, warning that weakness invites crisis and external coercion. Yet while Beijing’s official rhetoric emphasised sovereignty and restraint, Chinese social media told a different story. On Weibo, topics linked to Maduro’s capture amassed more than 650 million impressions within hours. Among many users, the US raid was hailed as a bold demonstration of decisive power. Some commentators openly speculated whether a similar operation could be replicated by China against Taiwan.
The logic circulating online was blunt: if the US could snatch a leader from its perceived backyard, why couldn’t China do the same to absorb what it claims as its own territory. Beijing has long insisted that Taiwan is part of China, despite never having governed the island, and has vowed to achieve “reunification” by force if necessary. In recent years, China has escalated military pressure on Taiwan, staging large-scale drills and simulating blockades. The nationalist fervour online, however, contrasts sharply with Beijing’s measured strategic calculus. China’s record on sovereignty is selective. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Beijing refused to condemn Moscow, instead echoing Russian narratives blaming NATO and the United States. That stance has long complicated China’s claims to be a defender of international law. In Taiwan, officials have dismissed comparisons with Venezuela as simplistic and misleading. Wang Ting-yu, a member of Taiwan’s ruling party and the legislature’s foreign affairs and defence committee, said the analogy was fundamentally flawed. “China is not the US, and Taiwan is not Venezuela,” he said, arguing that while Beijing has never lacked hostile intent, it lacks a feasible and low-cost means to carry out such an operation against a well-defended, self-governing democracy. Security analysts broadly agree. William Yang of the International Crisis Group said the US move against Venezuela is unlikely to directly alter China’s timeline or calculations on Taiwan. Instead, Beijing’s decisions will hinge on domestic economic pressures, the capabilities of the PLA, Taiwan’s internal politics and, critically, Washington’s policy posture in the region.
Yang warned, however, that the broader implication of the Maduro operation is the normalisation of military force as a tool of foreign policy. “Resorting to military options to pursue certain foreign policy goals is likely going to become a new norm,” he said, urging Taiwan to strengthen its deterrence and defence preparedness. Beyond Asia, the fallout is also being felt across Latin America. China has steadily expanded its footprint in the region through trade, infrastructure and technology investments, often filling gaps left by Western lenders. Eurasia Group analyst Dan Wang described Maduro’s ouster as a major setback for Beijing’s regional strategy, but not a fatal one. He noted that China’s deep involvement in power grids, telecom networks and industrial projects gives it enduring leverage, as abrupt disengagement could destabilise local economies. Energy analysts say China’s oil supply is unlikely to suffer significantly. Venezuelan crude accounts for a relatively small share of China’s imports, much of it handled by independent “teapot” refiners attracted by steep discounts. While Kpler estimates that up to 80% of Venezuela’s exports flowed to China in late 2025, Trump has suggested that limited purchases could continue, albeit without the discounts that made them lucrative. For Beijing, the immediate priority appears to be damage control rather than confrontation. Analysts believe China will focus on safeguarding its economic interests in Venezuela and the wider region, avoiding a direct geopolitical showdown with Washington while reassessing the risks of relying on embattled partners. Maduro’s capture has thus become more than a dramatic episode in US-Venezuela relations. It has exposed vulnerabilities in China’s overseas strategy, ignited nationalist debate over Taiwan, and reinforced a global perception that force is increasingly being used to reshape political outcomes. As Beijing recalibrates and Washington presses its advantage, the episode may mark a turning point in how power is projected and contested in an increasingly unstable world.
Global Backlash Erupts At UN Over US Maduro Operation
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
New York City | Planet & Commerce
The United Nations Security Council became the stage for an unusually sharp global confrontation on Monday as both U.S. allies and adversaries condemned Washington’s military intervention in Venezuela, while the United States mounted a robust defence of its operation to seize President Nicolás Maduro. The emergency session, convened after the audacious U.S. raid over the weekend, exposed deep divisions over international law, sovereignty and the expanding use of force under the banner of law enforcement. The meeting followed the dramatic capture of Maduro and his wife during a U.S. special forces operation on January 3, an action that has already reshaped diplomatic relations across the Americas and beyond. Speaking before the 15-member council, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the United States may have violated core principles of international law, cautioning that the implications of such actions extend far beyond Venezuela. “I remain deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected with regard to the January 3 military action,” Guterres said in a statement to the council. He warned that the gravity of the U.S. intervention could set a dangerous precedent for future relations between states, eroding long-standing norms that underpin global stability. Criticism came not only from traditional U.S. rivals but also from close allies. Denmark, a NATO member whose sovereignty over Greenland has recently been questioned by Washington, aligned itself firmly with the secretary-general’s assessment. Denmark’s ambassador to the UN, Christina Markus Lassen, stressed that territorial integrity remains a foundational principle of the international system. “The inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation,” she said, adding that no state should seek to influence political outcomes in Venezuela through force or methods inconsistent with international law. Colombia’s envoy delivered one of the most pointed regional rebukes. Ambassador Leonor Zalabata described the raid as reminiscent of “the worst interference in our area in the past,” drawing on Latin America’s long history of foreign intervention. She argued that democracy cannot be defended through violence or coercion, nor overridden by economic interests, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
Russia went further still, framing the U.S. action as a fundamental assault on the international order. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya accused Washington of dragging the world back to an era of lawlessness. He warned against allowing the United States to appoint itself as a global judge with the authority to invade countries, label leaders as criminals and enforce punishments regardless of sovereignty and nonintervention principles. The unusually broad criticism reflected alarm not just over Venezuela, but over President Donald Trump’s recent rhetoric. In addition to defending the Maduro operation, Trump has openly signalled the possibility of expanding U.S. military action to countries such as Colombia and Mexico over drug trafficking allegations, while also renewing controversial remarks about taking control of Greenland for U.S. security purposes.
Washington, however, showed no sign of retreat. U.S. ambassador Mike Waltz forcefully defended the intervention, describing it as a justified and “surgical law enforcement operation.” Waltz dismissed criticism from the council and accused the UN of lending legitimacy to what he called an illegitimate narco-terrorist leader. “If this body confers the same treatment on a narco-terrorist as it does on a democratically elected head of state, what kind of organisation is this?” Waltz asked, directly challenging the council’s moral authority. The ambassador, a former national security adviser to Trump, argued that the operation targeted criminal activity rather than Venezuelan sovereignty. According to U.S. officials, Maduro and his wife were seized from their residence on a military base early Saturday and transferred to a U.S. warship before being flown to New York. They now face prosecution under a Justice Department indictment alleging participation in a narcoterrorism conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking to the United States. Maduro appeared in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, where he pleaded not guilty and declared that he remains Venezuela’s president. The operation capped months of escalating U.S. pressure on Caracas. Washington had steadily increased its military presence off Venezuela’s coast, intercepting and destroying vessels it described as drug trafficking boats. Trump has since claimed that the United States will effectively “run” Venezuela, at least temporarily, and exploit its oil reserves to supply global markets, statements that have intensified international unease.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to clarify Washington’s economic intentions, saying the U.S. would enforce an existing oil quarantine on sanctioned tankers rather than immediately seize control of Venezuela’s energy sector. Rubio said that leverage would be used to press for policy changes in Caracas, though he did not elaborate on what political framework Washington envisions for the country. At the UN, diplomats from several countries warned that conflating criminal prosecution with cross-border military action risks collapsing the distinction between law enforcement and warfare. Legal scholars echoed those concerns, noting that international law provides no clear justification for abducting a sitting head of state from foreign territory without host nation consent or Security Council authorization. The Venezuelan intervention has also reverberated across Latin America, where memories of Cold War-era U.S. interventions remain deeply ingrained. Several delegations privately expressed concern that Trump’s approach signals a return to unilateral force as a tool of hemispheric policy, potentially destabilising already fragile political environments. Beyond the region, the debate has taken on global significance. Analysts say the Security Council session underscored how the norms governing state behaviour are increasingly contested in an era of great-power rivalry. While Washington argues that extraordinary threats require extraordinary measures, critics counter that such reasoning undermines the very legal framework the United States claims to defend. As the emergency meeting concluded, no resolution was adopted, reflecting the council’s paralysis in the face of a permanent member willing to act unilaterally. Yet the sharp language from allies and adversaries alike highlighted the extent of diplomatic damage caused by the Maduro operation. Whether the backlash translates into concrete consequences for Washington remains uncertain. What is clear is that the U.S. intervention in Venezuela has become a defining test of international law, the authority of the United Nations and the limits of power in a rapidly fragmenting global order. As Maduro’s legal battle unfolds in New York and Washington signals it may go further, the debate ignited at the UN is unlikely to fade anytime soon.
US Greenland Threat Could End Nato, Warns Denmark
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Copenhagen | Planet & Commerce
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has issued a stark warning that a United States military attack on Greenland would spell the end of Nato and shatter the post–Second World War global security order, following renewed threats by Donald Trump to take control of the strategically vital Arctic territory. Her comments reflect growing alarm in Europe that Washington’s recent actions and rhetoric signal a dramatic shift away from the norms that have underpinned transatlantic security for nearly eight decades. Speaking to Danish broadcaster TV2 on Monday, Frederiksen said that if the United States were to militarily attack another Nato member, “everything would stop – that includes Nato and therefore post-second world war security.” The warning came just days after Trump authorised a military operation in Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro, an intervention widely condemned as illegal under international law. That episode has intensified fears that Trump may now act on his long-standing ambition to bring Greenland under US control. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is a former Danish colony and today a largely autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. While Nuuk governs domestic affairs, foreign and security policy remain under Copenhagen’s authority. Trump reignited controversy over the island on Sunday, declaring aboard Air Force One that the United States needed Greenland “very badly” for national security. He refused to rule out action, saying the issue would be revisited “in 20 days,” while mocking Denmark’s defence capabilities. “Right now, Greenland is full of Chinese and Russian ships everywhere. We need Greenland for national security reasons. Denmark will not be able to handle the task,” Trump said. His remarks echoed previous claims that Washington must control Greenland to counter rival powers, particularly as Arctic ice melt opens new shipping routes and access to untapped mineral resources. Greenland’s strategic importance is undeniable. The island sits between North America and Europe and hosts key components of the US ballistic missile defence system. It is also rich in rare earths and other critical minerals that Washington wants to secure as part of efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains. These factors have long made Greenland a focal point of Arctic geopolitics, but Trump’s language has pushed the issue into a far more confrontational realm.
Frederiksen accused Washington of applying “unacceptable pressure” and described the rhetoric as an “unreasonable attack on the world community.” She said she had been clear with Trump, both publicly and privately, that Denmark and Greenland reject any notion of annexation. “You cannot go in and take over part of another country’s territory,” she told Danish broadcaster DR. “Greenland has repeatedly said that it does not want to be part of the USA.” Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen delivered one of the strongest rebukes yet, urging Trump to abandon what he called “fantasies about annexation.” In a blunt social media statement, Nielsen said US rhetoric was “completely and utterly unacceptable,” adding: “Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.” Speaking later in Nuuk, he sought to reassure Greenlanders, stressing that the territory is a democracy and cannot be compared to Venezuela. Not all voices in Greenland view Trump’s comments with the same alarm. Pele Broberg, leader of the pro-independence opposition party Naleraq, said he was not concerned and expressed confidence that the US would protect Greenland as an independent nation if it chose that path. He argued that Nuuk should engage in dialogue with Washington, remarks that highlight internal divisions over Greenland’s future and relations with major powers. Regional and international support for Denmark has been swift. Sweden, Norway and Finland publicly backed Copenhagen, underscoring Nordic unity in the face of external pressure. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide the island’s future. The European Union also weighed in, with foreign policy spokesperson Anitta Hipper reaffirming the bloc’s commitment to national sovereignty and the inviolability of borders, especially when an EU member state is involved. Britain and Germany echoed those sentiments. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Greenland’s future must be determined by its people and Denmark alone. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul suggested Nato could explore ways to strengthen Greenland’s protection, signalling that alliance discussions may soon move from rhetoric to contingency planning.
The controversy has also intensified domestic political pressure on Frederiksen, who faces a general election later this year. Critics argue Denmark must move beyond diplomacy and outline concrete responses should US pressure escalate. Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic lawmaker in Denmark’s parliament, said while she did not believe an invasion was imminent, Greenlanders should “prepare for the worst.” She described Trump’s latest remarks as the most serious yet, warning they point to a “new world order” where dialogue and collaboration can no longer be taken for granted.
Chemnitz stressed that Greenland’s future rests solely with its people. “I understand that he might be interested in having Greenland, but Greenland is not interested in being part of the US,” she said. Her comments reflect widespread sentiment in Greenland, where memories of colonial rule remain sensitive and autonomy is closely guarded. Analysts say the Greenland dispute illustrates how the Arctic is emerging as a frontline of great-power competition. As climate change reshapes the region, the US, China and Russia are all racing to secure strategic advantages, from shipping lanes to resource access. Trump’s blunt approach, however, has alarmed allies who fear it undermines the very alliance structures designed to manage such competition peacefully. For Nato, the implications are profound. The alliance is built on mutual defence and trust among its members. A US attack on Danish territory would strike at the heart of that principle, calling into question the credibility of collective security itself. Frederiksen’s warning that such an act would end Nato reflects the severity with which Copenhagen and its allies view the threat. As tensions mount, European leaders are urging restraint and renewed commitment to international law. Whether Trump’s remarks represent negotiating bluster or a genuine willingness to use force remains unclear. What is clear is that Greenland has become a symbol of a rapidly changing global order, where long-standing assumptions about alliances and sovereignty are being openly challenged. The coming weeks may determine whether diplomacy prevails or whether the Arctic becomes the next flashpoint in an increasingly unstable world.
China, Pakistan Press Kabul For Visible Anti-Terror Measures
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Islamabad | Planet & Commerce
Pakistan and China have jointly called for “visible and verifiable” steps to dismantle terrorist organisations operating from Afghan territory, underscoring growing regional alarm over militancy spilling across borders and threatening strategic infrastructure and citizens. The demand came in a joint statement issued on Monday following talks between Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, held in Beijing in early December but released amid renewed security tensions in South and Central Asia. The statement said that “terrorist groups operating from Afghanistan continue to pose serious threats to regional and global security” and stressed the need to prevent Afghan soil from being used to plan or launch attacks against any country. While the statement did not name specific groups, the language reflects long-standing concerns in Islamabad and Beijing about militant networks exploiting Afghanistan’s instability. There was no immediate response from the government in Kabul. China used the occasion to publicly commend Pakistan for what it described as “comprehensive counterterrorism measures,” particularly those aimed at protecting Chinese nationals and projects linked to the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. CPEC is a flagship component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, connecting China’s western Xinjiang region to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea through a vast network of roads, railways, power plants and industrial zones. Thousands of Chinese engineers and workers are currently involved in CPEC-related projects, making security a central pillar of Sino-Pakistani cooperation. Militant attacks on Chinese interests have become a major strain on the relationship in recent years. In 2024, five Chinese nationals were killed when a suicide bomber rammed a vehicle into a bus carrying Chinese workers in northwest Pakistan, an incident that drew sharp condemnation from Beijing and intensified pressure on Islamabad to enhance protection measures. The joint statement also highlighted plans to build an “upgraded version” of CPEC, expanding cooperation into industry, agriculture, mining, and the financial and banking sectors. Chinese officials said Pakistan’s recent security steps had helped stabilise conditions for Chinese personnel, signalling Beijing’s desire to sustain long-term economic engagement despite persistent risks.
Afghanistan’s role loomed large over the talks. Pakistan has repeatedly accused Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers of sheltering the outlawed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Islamabad blames for a surge in attacks since 2021. The TTP is distinct from Afghanistan’s Taliban, which returned to power in Kabul in 2021 and maintains that it does not permit its territory to be used for attacks on other countries. Tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan escalated sharply in early October when Pakistan conducted airstrikes on what it described as TTP hideouts inside Afghan territory, killing dozens of alleged insurgents. Afghan forces responded by targeting Pakistani military posts along the border, claiming to have killed 58 Pakistani soldiers. Islamabad acknowledged losing 23 troops. The clashes halted only after Qatar brokered a ceasefire in Doha, followed by inconclusive talks in Istanbul. Despite the ceasefire, mistrust remains deep. In August, senior diplomats from Pakistan, China and Afghanistan met in Kabul and pledged to work toward extending CPEC into Afghanistan, a move seen as potentially transformative for the landlocked country’s economy. However, there has been little visible progress since, reflecting the security and political obstacles that continue to hinder regional connectivity. Pakistan and China’s renewed call for “visible and verifiable” action suggests frustration with what they see as insufficient enforcement by Afghan authorities. The phrase implies not just assurances, but tangible steps on the ground, a demand that places additional pressure on Kabul at a time when it is seeking regional acceptance and economic relief. The statement also reaffirmed the two countries’ historically “ironclad” friendship, with both sides pledging to deepen strategic coordination. Pakistan is among a small group of states that China designates as an “all-weather strategic partner,” a relationship rooted in decades of diplomatic, military and economic cooperation. China has long valued Pakistan’s support on sensitive issues including Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and the South China Sea.
Yet the geopolitical backdrop is becoming more complex. Relations between Islamabad and Washington have warmed since Donald Trump returned to the White House, creating a subtle counterweight to Beijing’s influence in a region China considers part of its strategic neighbourhood. Pakistan recently credited Trump with helping defuse a conflict with India and even said it would recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize, a move that drew global attention. Counterterrorism cooperation has played a role in the thaw. Pakistan last year highlighted its collaboration with the United States following the arrest of Mohammad Sharifullah, whom Islamabad blames for the 2021 attack on US troops at Kabul airport. Trump publicly thanked Pakistan for its role, and his administration later released $397 million for a US-backed programme monitoring Pakistan’s use of F-16 aircraft in counterterrorism operations, despite a broader freeze in foreign aid. For China, the warming US-Pakistan relationship adds a layer of strategic uncertainty, even as Beijing continues to invest heavily in Pakistan. Analysts say Beijing’s praise for Pakistan’s security measures and its emphasis on “verifiable” action in Afghanistan reflect an effort to safeguard its economic interests while reinforcing Islamabad’s role as a key regional partner. As militancy continues to test borders and alliances, the joint China-Pakistan statement sends a clear message to Kabul and the wider region: security is now inseparable from economic integration. Whether Afghanistan can meet the demand for concrete, demonstrable action against militant groups may determine not only regional stability, but also the future trajectory of connectivity projects linking South Asia, Central Asia and China.
North Korea Says Missile Tests Rehearse Actual War
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Pyongyang | Planet & Commerce
North Korea has declared that its latest hypersonic missile tests are not symbolic shows of force but direct rehearsals for “actual war,” linking the launches explicitly to what it calls an increasingly dangerous global security environment following the United States’ military seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The statement, delivered by leader Kim Jong Un, underscores Pyongyang’s view that Washington’s actions abroad validate its long-standing narrative that only overwhelming military deterrence can prevent regime change. According to North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency, Kim said the recent test-firing of hypersonic missiles was made necessary by “the recent geopolitical crisis and complicated international events.” He described the launches as preparation for “an actual war,” a phrase that has alarmed neighbouring countries and reinforced fears that Pyongyang is accelerating the transition from weapons development to operational readiness. Kim argued that the need for such preparations was “exemplified” by events beyond the Korean Peninsula, a clear reference to the US-led operation that captured Maduro in Caracas and transported him to the United States. North Korean officials have framed that operation as proof that Washington is willing to use military force to remove unfriendly governments, regardless of sovereignty or international law. Pyongyang’s Foreign Ministry denounced the US capture of Maduro as a “serious encroachment of sovereignty” and a “hegemonic act” that violates the UN Charter. In a statement carried by KCNA, a ministry spokesperson said the raid “clearly confirms once again the rogue and brutal nature of the U.S.” and urged the international community to raise “voices of due protest and denunciation” against what it called Washington’s habitual violations of other countries’ sovereignty. The condemnation reflects North Korea’s deep anxiety over the precedent set by the Maduro operation. For decades, Pyongyang has justified its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes as essential deterrents against what it describes as persistent US attempts at regime change. The sight of a sitting head of state being seized by foreign forces has reinforced that narrative within North Korea’s leadership, according to analysts.
North Korea has long been a vocal supporter of Maduro’s socialist government in Venezuela, viewing it as a fellow adversary of US influence. Pyongyang’s reaction to his removal has therefore been particularly fierce, portraying the incident as a warning to all states that resist Washington. Officials in Pyongyang argue that the fate of Maduro demonstrates what can happen to leaders who lack credible military deterrence. The missile launches themselves triggered immediate regional alerts. Japan issued emergency warnings after detecting the launches, while South Korea placed its military on heightened readiness. The tests occurred as South Korean President Lee Jae-myung was in China seeking Beijing’s help in easing tensions with Pyongyang, highlighting the delicate diplomatic timing of the launches. The United States sought to downplay the immediate danger. The US Indo-Pacific Command said it was aware of the launches and was consulting closely with allies, but stressed that the tests did not pose an “immediate threat” to US territory, personnel or regional partners. “The United States remains committed to the defence of the US homeland and our allies in the region,” the command said in a statement. Despite that reassurance, security experts note that hypersonic missiles represent a qualitative leap in North Korea’s capabilities. Designed to fly at extreme speeds while manoeuvring unpredictably, such weapons are far harder to track and intercept than traditional ballistic missiles. Pyongyang’s insistence that the tests are rehearsals for real combat suggests a shift from experimental testing to integration into operational doctrine. North Korea’s rhetoric has also been sharpened by the broader international climate. Pyongyang views the US operation in Venezuela, combined with ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as evidence that global norms restraining the use of force are eroding. In that context, Kim’s call for readiness for “actual war” appears aimed at mobilising both the military and the population around a sense of imminent external threat. The Maduro operation has been described by North Korean media as a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s leadership. The image of US special forces entering a foreign capital, bombing key sites and seizing a president from his residence mirrors the very scenarios Pyongyang claims its nuclear deterrent is designed to prevent. By highlighting Venezuela, North Korean propaganda reinforces domestic support for continued weapons development despite economic hardship.
According to US officials, Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured during Operation Absolute Resolve, flown to the USS Iwo Jima, then transferred to Guantánamo Bay and eventually to New York. Maduro is now held at Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center and faces narco-terrorism charges, with a court appearance scheduled in Manhattan. North Korea has repeatedly cited these details as evidence of what it calls US lawlessness. For Japan and South Korea, the convergence of North Korean missile tests and aggressive US actions elsewhere complicates an already volatile security picture. Tokyo’s emergency alerts underscored public anxiety, while Seoul’s diplomatic outreach to Beijing reflects concern that escalating rhetoric could spiral into miscalculation. China, North Korea’s principal ally, has not publicly endorsed Pyongyang’s framing of the missile tests as war preparation, but Beijing has criticised the US capture of Maduro as a violation of sovereignty. Analysts say North Korea may be seeking to align its messaging with broader criticism of US unilateralism while simultaneously justifying its own military buildup. The language used by Kim and state media suggests that Pyongyang sees the world entering a more permissive era for the use of force. By portraying its missile programme as defensive preparation for an “actual war,” North Korea aims to deter perceived threats while warning adversaries that it is ready to respond decisively. Whether the rhetoric translates into further escalation remains uncertain. The US maintains that it will continue monitoring North Korean activity and coordinating with allies, while urging restraint. However, with Pyongyang explicitly linking its missile tests to events far beyond the Korean Peninsula, analysts warn that global crises are becoming increasingly interconnected. For North Korea, the lesson drawn from Venezuela is clear: power, not promises, determines survival. Kim’s declaration that missile tests are rehearsals for real war marks a chilling escalation in tone, signalling that Pyongyang believes the risk of confrontation is no longer theoretical. As international norms strain under the weight of great-power rivalry, the Korean Peninsula once again finds itself at the intersection of local tensions and global upheaval.
Pakistan Moves To Reopen Afghan Trade Border After Standoff
P&C | Tuesday, 06 Jan. 2026
Kabul | Planet & Commerce
Pakistan has signalled a major policy shift on its long-frozen trade ties with Afghanistan after months of confrontation, agreeing to form a joint business-led committee aimed at reopening border crossings and restoring bilateral trade. The decision, announced on Monday, comes after prolonged economic pressure and mounting losses on both sides following the closure of all major trade routes since October last year. According to officials and media reports, Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to establish a 13-member joint committee comprising leading business figures from both countries to conduct formal negotiations on reopening the border. The committee will include six members from Pakistan and seven from Afghanistan, reflecting what officials described as a balanced framework for dialogue after months of deadlock. The border shutdown followed a sharp escalation in tensions last year when Pakistan accused Afghanistan of providing sanctuary to militant groups, particularly the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border strikes in October, triggering armed clashes between Pakistani and Afghan forces. In the aftermath, all trade crossings were closed to passenger and commercial traffic, dealing a severe blow to traders, transporters and border communities. After maintaining a hardline stance for months, the government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has now moved to reopen channels of engagement, driven in part by Pakistan’s deepening economic crisis. Analysts say the prolonged suspension of trade with Afghanistan exacerbated shortages, increased prices in border regions and deprived Pakistan of valuable transit and customs revenues at a time when its economy remains under acute strain. The Pakistani delegation to the joint committee will be led by Syed Jawad Hussain Kazmi, Adviser to the President of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Speaking to the media, Kazmi said the primary objective of the talks is the immediate reopening of Pak-Afghan trade routes, the removal of obstacles in border management and the restoration of uninterrupted bilateral trade.
Kazmi said the committee would prepare a “comprehensive and practical roadmap” aimed at providing a permanent solution to the problems faced by traders and the general public. He added that the Sharif government has granted the committee full decision-making authority, signalling political backing for meaningful negotiations rather than symbolic talks. “The goal is continuity,” Kazmi said, expressing optimism that the talks would yield positive outcomes. He noted that prolonged border closures had inflicted heavy financial losses on businesses on both sides and created unnecessary hardship for ordinary people who depend on cross-border commerce for their livelihoods. The Pakistani side of the committee includes Sardar Muhammad Ayub Maryani, president of the Quetta Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Haji Muhammad Yousaf Afridi, president of the Khyber Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Haji Qadeerullah Wazir, president of the Waziristan Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Shireen Khan Afridi of the Khyber Chamber; and Engineer Durr Khan Achakzai, a former FPCCI president. Their inclusion reflects the heavy involvement of border-region business leaders most affected by the closure. The Afghan delegation will be headed by Mohammad Wali Amini of the Ghazni Chamber of Commerce and includes representatives from major commercial hubs across Afghanistan. Members include Inayatullah Sadiqzai from the Nangarhar Chamber, Meerajan Sulaiman Khail from the Herat Chamber, Khan Jan Alokozai of the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce, Haji Masood Rahat from Kandahar, Haji Hamayoon Khawaja Zada from Kabul and Mohammad Suleman Bin Shah from the Khost Chamber of Commerce.
Afghan officials have welcomed the formation of the committee, seeing it as an opportunity to revive trade flows that are critical for the landlocked country’s fragile economy. Afghanistan relies heavily on Pakistan for access to seaports, particularly for imports of food, fuel and construction materials, while Pakistani exporters view Afghan markets as vital for agricultural produce, cement and manufactured goods. Business communities on both sides have reacted positively to the announcement. Traders have repeatedly warned that the closure of crossings such as Torkham had caused losses running into millions of dollars, with perishable goods rotting in trucks and supply chains breaking down. Many expressed hope that the talks would lead not only to the reopening of Torkham but also other key crossings, allowing trade to resume at pre-crisis levels. The shift in Pakistan’s posture has been widely interpreted as a pragmatic response to economic realities. With foreign exchange reserves under pressure and inflation remaining high, Islamabad faces limited room to sustain policies that restrict trade. Analysts say reopening the Afghan border could ease supply bottlenecks, lower costs in border provinces and generate modest but meaningful economic relief. At the same time, security concerns remain unresolved. Pakistan continues to accuse Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government of failing to curb militant groups operating from its soil, allegations Kabul denies. Afghan authorities insist they do not allow their territory to be used for attacks against other countries. The new committee, while focused on trade, is expected to navigate these sensitivities carefully, seeking technical solutions to border management without reopening political fault lines.
The agreement also follows a period of intense diplomatic activity. After clashes in October, fighting subsided only after mediation by Qatar, which brokered a ceasefire in Doha. Subsequent talks in Istanbul failed to deliver a breakthrough, leaving trade suspended for months. The business-led committee is now seen as an alternative channel that could succeed where formal diplomacy stalled. For Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities, reopening trade with Pakistan carries strategic importance. Restoring cross-border commerce would help stabilise domestic markets, strengthen revenue streams and signal a degree of regional normalisation at a time when Kabul remains diplomatically isolated. For Pakistan, the move reflects a recalibration rather than a concession, officials insist. By delegating talks to business leaders and granting them decision-making authority, Islamabad appears intent on insulating economic engagement from political volatility, at least in the short term. As negotiations begin, expectations are cautious but hopeful. Traders say even a partial reopening of border crossings would bring immediate relief, while a longer-term framework could prevent future closures triggered by political or security crises. Whether the talks lead to a lasting reopening of the border will depend on the committee’s ability to deliver concrete outcomes and manage trust deficits built up over months of confrontation. For now, the formation of the joint panel marks the first tangible step toward restoring Pak-Afghan trade, signalling that economic necessity may be forcing both sides to step back from the brink.