‘Chairman Trump’ and a Dystopian Vision for Gaza Without Gazans

by Alan Mosley | Jan 25, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/Alan_Mosley/2026/01/25/chairman-trump-and-a-dystopian-vision-for-gaza-without-gazans/

When Donald Trump strode into the World Economic Forum in Davos this January flanked by Jared Kushner and other confidants, it was ostensibly to sign a charter establishing a “Board of Peace.” The document, hailed by its backers as a technocratic alternative to decades of dead‑end diplomacy, promises “pragmatic judgment” and a “nimble and effective” institution to rebuild war‑torn Gaza. The preamble reads like an attempt to imitate the United Nations Charter without its collective obligations. Beneath that veneer, the charter sets up a structure that concentrates virtually all authority in the hands of its chairman, Donald J. Trump, and relegates Palestinians to spectators while foreign investors draw up the blueprints for their homeland.

A personal chairmanship with no term limits

The charter treats the chairmanship as a personal role rather than an office tethered to the U.S. presidency, or any other head of state. The text explicitly states that “Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace,” with no mention of the presidential office or any fixed term. In other words, the chairmanship belongs to Trump, exclusively. The charter further grants him the sole authority to designate his own successor; replacement can occur only upon his resignation or incapacitation, and even then the successor is someone he has already chosen. Once appointed, the chairman can renew the board ad infinitum. It is scheduled to dissolve only when the chairman deems it “necessary or appropriate,” and the board can otherwise continue indefinitely with annual renewals controlled by him.

Membership is by invitation only. The charter states that membership commences when a state consents to be bound after receiving an invitation from the chairman. The initial term lasts three years and is renewable “by the Chairman,” while states that contribute $1 billion in cash to fund the board’s activities secure permanent membership; an echo of pay‑to‑play diplomacy. Member states may be removed at any time by the chairman, subject only to a veto by two‑thirds of the other members. A diplomat quoted by Reuters said the model resembles a “Trump United Nations” that sells permanent membership to those demonstrating “commitment” – a euphemism for financial support.

Agenda control and veto power

The Board of Peace is ostensibly composed of heads of state and government who meet to vote on budgets, international agreements, and major policies. Yet every aspect of its operations is subject to the chairman’s approval. The agenda for voting sessions, to be held at least annually, is set by the executive board “subject to notice and comment by Member States and approval by the Chairman.” Decisions require a majority vote of member states but do not take effect unless the chairman approves them; he may also cast a tie‑breaking vote. The chairman may invite regional bodies to attend under “such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate,” and he alone may create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities. In case of disputes over the meaning or application of the charter, the chairman is “the final authority” on interpretation. He is empowered to issue resolutions or directives unilaterally, further eroding any semblance of collective governance.

The extent of this concentration of power is jaw‑dropping. Trump has the sole power to invite states, set agendas, override board decisions and terminate membership. He selects the executive board, interprets the charter, chooses his successor, and controls the board’s budget. Membership is renewable at his discretion and can be revoked unilaterally. His personal control of a peace‑building institution fits seamlessly with the pay‑for‑play ethos of his foreign policy. Even the board’s duration hinges on his whim. The charter allows the board to be dissolved only when the chairman decides or at the end of every odd‑numbered year unless he renews it by November 21. Thus, Trump can keep the board alive indefinitely, effectively constructing a new international organization under his, or his chosen successor’s, personal chairmanship.

Layers of subservience: executive boards and technocrats

Below the Board of Peace is an executive board selected entirely by the chairman. Members serve two‑year terms but may be removed or reappointed at his discretion. The executive board elects its own chief executive, but this individual is nominated by the chairman and subject to his veto. The executive board’s decisions become effective only until the chairman chooses to overturn them. He may establish subcommittees and determine their mandates, meaning that all administrative structures derive from his authority.

At the bottom sits the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Palestinian technocratic body. According to the White House, the NCAG will manage public services and economic development under the supervision of a U.S.‑appointed high representative. Gaza’s only Palestinian component is this committee; the top decision‑making positions are reserved for foreign leaders and investors. Gaza’s future is thus to be managed by an international corporate board while Palestinians remain relegated to municipal duties.

“Glitzy Gaza” at Davos

If the board’s composition evokes colonial governance, the development pitch that accompanied its launch further exposes its priorities. At the signing ceremony in Davos, Kushner presented a slide deck promising to turn Gaza into a glitzy resort. The plan, he said, could be completed in three years if Hamas demilitarizes. Kushner described Gaza’s reconstruction as “a Mediterranean utopia” with terraced towers, a seaport, and an airport. He called the project a “master plan” for “catastrophic success” and urged critics to “just calm down for 30 days” while the new board gets to work. He and Trump repeatedly emphasized Gaza’s “beautiful piece of property” on the sea, underscoring the real‑estate logic behind the initiative. Kushner advocated a free‑market economy in Gaza, claiming that the plan would deliver “100 percent full employment” and raise household incomes to $13,000 per year within a decade. He insisted there was “no plan B” and called for $25 billion in private investment.

Such rhetoric reveals a striking disconnect. While Gaza reels from what rights groups call a genocide that has killed over 71,000 Palestinians and displaced virtually the entire population, U.S. officials promote luxury developments contingent on the disarmament of the territory’s defenders. The requirement that Hamas demilitarize before reconstruction can begin effectively conditions aid on surrender. Kushner’s reference to Gaza’s waterfront as prime real estate echoes his earlier suggestion that the enclave’s inhabitants could be removed temporarily to make way for redevelopment. The Davos pitch thus appears less about humanitarian recovery than about transforming Gaza into an investment opportunity for global capital.

A colonial echo chamber

Critics across the political spectrum have denounced the Board of Peace as neo‑colonial. Rights advocates told Reuters that having Trump supervise a foreign territory’s governance resembles a colonial structure and undermines the United Nations. Diplomatic sources warned that the board could become a permanent global peace‑making body that rivals the UN. One diplomat described the plan as a “Trump United Nations that ignores the fundamentals of the U.N. charter.” Several European governments expressed concern that the board might erode multilateral institutions and privilege wealthy states that can afford membership fees.

Gaza analyst Iyad al‑Qarra said that Trump treats Gaza “not as a homeland, but as a bankrupt company in need of a new board of directors.” He describes the structure as a “corporate takeover” that turns sovereignty into a commercial venture. The lineup of investors and real‑estate developers at the top, he suggests, reflects the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a business deal. Even Israeli objections to the inclusion of Turkish and Qatari officials appear more tactical than principled; analysts note that Israel still retains security control while outsourcing Gaza’s day‑to‑day misery to international donors.

A dystopian vision without Gazans

What emerges is a dystopian vision for Gaza’s future. The board’s charter eliminates any possibility of Palestinian self‑determination; all authority flows upward to a chairman who owes his position to personal ambition rather than democratic mandate. By tying membership to billion‑dollar payments and awarding permanent seats to financiers and war hawks, the plan monetizes governance and disenfranchises those whose lives are at stake. The executive board resembles a consortium of business executives and politicians who view Gaza’s reconstruction as a chance to implement neoliberal policies and real‑estate projects.

Furthermore, the board’s insistence on complete demilitarization before any rebuilding can begin ensures that Gaza remains under Israeli military domination. Israel’s assault has killed tens of thousands of people and created a hunger crisis; yet the board offers no mechanism to halt the bombardment or lift the blockade. Instead, it conditions aid on the elimination of armed resistance. This mirrors earlier proposals in which U.S. envoy Kushner offered economic incentives only if Palestinians abandoned claims to their land.

The plan’s disregard for Palestinian agency is perhaps its most striking feature. Despite repeated references to “peace” and “partnership,” the board includes no Palestinian voices at the top. Palestinians are relegated to a municipal committee under the supervision of a foreign high representative. The board invites 60 nations to join and solicits billion‑dollar memberships, but it does not invite the people whose fate it claims to manage. Even the technocratic NCAG is answerable to the board and not to Gaza’s residents.

Empire disguised as peace

By designating himself chairman for life and constructing a governance structure that is answerable only to him, Donald Trump has created an organ that resembles a private company more than an international peace‑building body. Its membership roster reads like a who’s who of pro‑Israel hawks, real‑estate speculators and corporate financiers. The “glitzy Gaza” pitch at Davos underscores the board’s priorities: expensive towers, free‑market economics, and a lavish Mediterranean destination built atop the ruins of Palestinian homes. As rights advocates and diplomats have observed, this plan is less about peace than about consolidating U.S. and Israeli control over Gaza’s future. It is a dystopian vision for Gaza without Gazans – a world in which sovereignty is commodified, resistance is criminalized, and war profiteers masquerade as peace‑makers.

Trump's Doctrine offers a grim choice for the world: Obey or suffer

Alain Gabon

25 January 2026 

Venezuela and Iran are just the latest examples of this twisted approach, which prioritises US interests above global security

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/trumps-donroe-doctrine-offers-grim-choice-world-obey-or-suffer

The prospect of US military intervention in Iran seems to have been avoided for the time being, thanks to vigorous diplomatic action from the Gulf states and Turkey, and more surprisingly, Israel itself.

Given US President Donald Trump’s declarations that there would be no mass executions of protesters in Iran, and that the killings had stopped, it appears that Iran will for the moment be spared the Venezuela treatment or worse. 

Yet even without military action in the form of targeted assassinations or bombing campaigns, it would be safer - especially for the Iranian regime - to consider such interventions as having only been put on hold, at best. 

This sudden change of heart might simply be a sort of psy-op ploy to reassure Iran’s regime, encouraging the nation to lower its guard before an actual strike. It’s also possible that Trump was genuinely convinced to shelve that option, at least for awhile. 

Many factors might have contributed to this about-face, including the resolute opposition of Trump’s regional allies; the still-fresh example of the Iraq disaster; the lack of preparation among the US and its regional allies for a major operation in Iran; the likely destabilising consequences for the region, especially Lebanon; the possibility of “mission creep”; the uncertainty over the ultimate outcome in Iran itself; and the lack of viable opposition figures.

On the latter point, Trump neither respects nor trusts Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, who claimed to lead the protests from Los Angeles.

Domestic factors in Trump's decision not to strike include a probable increase in the price of oil, which would hurt Trump’s own voters in the run-up to this year’s crucial midterm elections; deep divisions on this issue, even within Trump’s closest circle; and the fact that the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans strongly oppose military intervention in Iran.

Cynical calculations

Trump likely favours a “Venezuela solution” for Iran: namely, a show of military might and threats, followed by quick de-escalation (a tactic he previously adopted in his June 2025 bombing campaign against Iran). 

Trump’s now-recognisable strategy of alternating between threats and dialogue, also visible not only in his dealings on the Russia-Ukraine war but also on Greenland, amounts to a tacit promise that the enemy regime will be allowed to survive - as long as it cooperates, or at least no longer threatens, US and Israeli interests.

Trump remains, first and foremost, a businessman. In his estimation, a good deal with a dictatorial and deeply antagonistic, yet stable and coherent, regime is preferable to a messy war with uncertain consequences. 

The Gulf states themselves, in their typically cynical and pragmatic calculations, might also greatly prefer a regional situation where the Iranian regime has been weakened to the point where it no longer represents a credible threat - political, economic or military - yet remains in charge domestically, to prevent the emergence of a genuine democracy that could represent a model for their own populations.

Despite the incendiary rhetoric between Israel and Iran, Tel Aviv’s priorities are to eliminate Iran’s nuclear programme and to destroy its ballistic missile capabilities, to the point where it no longer represents an existential threat. Yet despite a series of US-Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities last June, major questions remain about the extent of damage that was actually done.

Iran’s “axis of resistance”, meanwhile, is essentially dead for the foreseeable future, or at least no longer operational.

Another credible scenario that we might see unfolding involves genuine attempts to eliminate Iran’s current regime through a mix of covert Israeli-US destabilisation operations (as we’ve already witnessed this January), alongside support for anti-regime elements in an effort to foment or support an internal coup. Targeted bombings and assassinations could then be deployed in a campaign to eliminate the last major “irritant” and obstacle to full Israeli-US regional hegemony.

Supremacist manifesto

All of this comes in the context of Trump’s seminal November 2025 National Security Strategy. The slim document, which is around 30 pages, reads like a typically Trumpian “America uber alles” manifesto on steroids, triumphantly supremacist and imperialistic. 

Page after page, it repeats that the US must dominate all the regions of the world where it has interests - and Washington’s tentacles are spread over much of the globe. On the other hand, it rejects “global domination” and declares that “not every country, region, issue, or cause - however worthy - can be the focus of American strategy”. 

The document forcefully asserts that the US must avoid getting sucked into foreign conflicts that are “peripheral or irrelevant” to its national interests. It also advocates for a dramatically refocused definition of national interests, and encourages a “predisposition to non-interventionism”.

This is not to be confused with isolationism or disengagement from world affairs. Indeed, interventionism in the name of “protecting national interests” has for decades been the major - if not the main - foreign policy practice of the US.

As the National Security Strategy makes abundantly clear, Trump wants a relatively stable and secure Middle East, where he can do business and access its natural riches. The region may fall short of being pro-US, but it must serve its interests, even if that means via threats and coercion. At the very least, it cannot be allowed to endanger them. 

Democratisation and human rights do not matter any more than the Iranian people themselves. On the contrary: while the National Security Strategy places a historically low priority on the Middle East and advocates relative disengagement from the region, this in no way signifies a recognition of those nations’ sovereignty, or even autonomy from the US.

Both the regimes and the peoples of the region remain, like every other nation on earth, subject to the perceived interests of the US, living with that Sword of Damocles above their heads. In that world order, there can be no real, substantive sovereignty or self-determination anywhere. 

Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” can thus be summed up in two options: obey or suffer. Venezuela and Iran are just the latest two examples. 

Trump weighs imposing 'total oil blockade' on Cuba in bid to topple government

Following the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the White House reportedly believes the Cuban government is 'ready to fall'

News Desk

JAN 23, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/trump-weighs-imposing-total-oil-blockade-on-cuba-in-bid-to-topple-government

The White House has discussed imposing a total blockade on oil imports to Cuba as part of an effort to promote regime change in the Caribbean nation, Politico reported on 23 January, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is behind the proposal, according to the sources.

US President Donald Trump stated last week that the US would end Venezuela's shipments of oil to Cuba, which account for 60 percent of the island nation's oil consumption.

Havana has sought to replace subsidized Venezuelan oil with purchases from Mexico at higher market rates to stave off an economic crisis. Cuba sold some of the oil provided by Caracas for the foreign currency needed to import food and machine parts amid harsh US sanctions.

Trump abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on 3 January, called himself “acting president,” and is personally managing the revenues of shipments of Venezuelan oil recently sold by Washington.

"A total blockade of oil imports into Cuba could then spark a humanitarian crisis" and, ultimately, regime change, Politico wrote.

"Energy is the chokehold to kill the regime," said one person familiar with the plan.

Toppling the country's communist government, which took power following the Cuban revolution in 1959, which toppled US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, is "100 percent a 2026 event" in the view of White House officials, the person added.

Secretary of State Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who left the island years before the revolution, has long pushed for regime change in Havana.

After President Trump reacted to a social media post joking about Rubio becoming the president of Cuba, Rubio replied, "Sounds good to me."

Some Republican lawmakers have also pushed for an oil blockade on Cuba in recent weeks.

"There should be not a dime, no petroleum. Nothing should ever get to Cuba," said Senator Rick Scott of Florida last week.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that White House officials are actively seeking regime change in Cuba, believing that its economy is "close to collapse and that the government has never been this fragile after losing a vital benefactor in Maduro."

US officials are reportedly looking for Cuban officials who "want to cut a deal," the paper added.

Trump says US ‘armada’ moving towards Iran

President warns Washington is watching Tehran closely as US naval forces move into the region

By MEE staff

Published date: 23 January 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-says-us-armada-moving-towards-iran-amid-renewed-threats

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is sending an “armada” towards Iran, threatening Tehran against resuming its nuclear programme.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after returning from meetings with world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said Washington was closely monitoring Iran as US naval assets moved into the region.

“We have a lot of ships going that direction, just in case,” Trump said. “I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely.”

He added: “We have an armada heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it.”

US officials, speaking anonymously to Reuters, said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers were expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.

One official said Washington was also considering deploying additional air defence systems to protect US bases from potential Iranian retaliation in the event of an American strike.

The deployments expand Trump’s military options and follow a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June.

The summer strikes were widely seen as a violation of international law.

The warships began moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions rose following a crackdown on protests across Iran. Tehran has accused Washington of encouraging the unrest.

Trump has repeatedly threatened intervention warning Iran against killing protesters, but in the end US strikes were called off. Demonstrations appeared to ease last week.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said “several thousand” people were killed during weeks of nationwide protests.

Trump claimed on Thursday that Iran had cancelled nearly 840 executions after US warnings.

“I said, ‘If you hang those people, you’re going to be hit harder than you’ve ever been hit,’” Trump said. “It’ll make what we did to your nuclear programme look like peanuts.

He said the executions were cancelled an hour before they were due to take place, calling it “a good sign”.

Iran’s top prosecutor Mohammad Movahedi, however on Friday dismissed Trump's claim suggesting the judiciary had authorised mass executions, calling the allegations baseless.

Speaking in comments carried by the judiciary’s Mizan News Agency, Movahedi said “this claim is completely false; no such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision”.

Trump also repeated his warning that the US would strike again if Iran restarted its nuclear programme.

“If they try to do it again, they have to go to another area. We'll hit them there too, just as easily,” he said.

Protests in Iran began on 28 December with demonstrations over economic hardship in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar before spreading nationwide.

An Iranian official told Reuters that the confirmed death toll had exceeded 5,000, including 500 members of the security forces.

The Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ Is Dividing the Globe

Netanyahu Reverses Course, Now Says Israel Will Join

by Alan Mosley | January 21, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/21/the-gaza-board-of-peace-is-dividing-the-globe/

A fractious global debate over the newly proposed Gaza “Board of Peace” has intensified as countries publicly declare whether they will participate in a U.S.-led body that its proponents say could oversee Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and, potentially, broader conflict resolution. European powers have split sharply over involvement, Middle Eastern governments are lining up to join, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reversed an earlier refusal to participate, agreeing to take Israel’s seat.

French, Scandinavian, and other Western European governments have been among the most vocal in declining invitations, citing concerns about the board’s mandate, structure, and potential to undercut established international institutions. France, Norway, Sweden, and Slovenia have announced they will not join at this time, rejecting both the board’s expanded ambition beyond Gaza and the requirement – articulated in draft terms shared with invited nations – to contribute roughly $1 billion for permanent membership status.

Paris’s refusal stems in part from worries that the board, as envisioned, would duplicate or weaken the United Nations’ roles on peace and reconstruction. European officials have warned that a parallel forum dominated by a single national leader could fragment international diplomacy and erode multilateral norms. Norway and Sweden similarly pointed to a lack of clarity about authority and oversight, choosing to withhold endorsement until those issues are resolved.

Other European states have not yet committed. Britain, Germany, Italy, and the executive arm of the European Union have each acknowledged invitations but stopped short of agreeing to join, leaving their positions open amid domestic debate over the board’s purpose and governance. Russia, China, and Ukraine similarly remain noncommittal, having received invitations but offering only preliminary assessments of the proposal.

By contrast, a swath of Middle Eastern and allied countries have accepted invitations to participate. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Turkey, and Pakistan are among those that have publicly signaled their intent to join the board. Several Central Asian and other non-Western nations – including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Kosovo, Armenia, Belarus, Indonesia, and Vietnam – are also planning to sign on.

Support from this cohort reflects a shared interest in stabilizing Gaza and shaping the narrative around regional recovery. For some, aligning with Washington’s initiative is also a strategic move to bolster bilateral ties and gain a voice in potential post-conflict arrangements. Morocco’s decision, for example, comes amid its recent diplomatic engagement across the region, even as public opinion at home remains wary of normalization trends.

The contrasting responses underscore a broader geo-political divide: Western European powers are cautious, seeing risks to the international order, while many Middle Eastern, African, and smaller states view the board as an opportunity to influence outcomes in Gaza and beyond. Countries in both groups have referenced the board’s $1 billion membership threshold as a significant consideration, with several declining precisely because they object to what they perceive as an exorbitant price for influence.

Israel’s Reversal

Israel’s position has been particularly notable. Initially, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government criticized the board’s structure, saying it was not adequately coordinated with Jerusalem and objecting to the composition of its executive committee – particularly the inclusion of representatives from countries seen as hostile to Israeli policy. Israeli officials indicated that these elements were “contrary to its policy,” and declined to commit to participation.

On January 21, however, Netanyahu’s office announced that Israel would join the Board of Peace, marking a reversal amid intense international discussion and ahead of an expected signing ceremony tied to the World Economic Forum in Davos. The move reflects a strategic calculation by Israel to retain influence in shaping Gaza’s future, even as the board’s mandate appears to be broadening beyond its original Gaza focus.

Netanyahu’s change of stance may also be aimed at balancing domestic political pressures with diplomatic imperatives. Critics within Israel – including hard-line ministers who argued for unilateral control over Gaza’s future – have warned that foreign oversight bodies could constrain national sovereignty. The prime minister’s decision to participate suggests a willingness to engage with the board’s processes despite these domestic tensions.

As the Board of Peace moves toward formal establishment, its contested reception highlights enduring fault lines in international diplomacy: competing visions of governance, questions about the cost and control of peacebuilding, and deep uncertainty about how best to end violence and rebuild societies.

The applause for China at Davos is sincere: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: Jan 21, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1353764.shtml

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 opened on January 19 in Davos, Switzerland. This year's forum was widely regarded as facing severe challenges. An official press release mentioned "the most complex geopolitical backdrop in decades" and "rising fragmentation," while the Global Risks Report 2026, published ahead of the opening, pointed out that "geoeconomic confrontation has emerged as the most severe risk" for 2026. Despite these challenges, the meeting set a record for the highest number of participating leaders and senior government officials in the forum's history. This indicates that the stronger the countercurrents of unilateralism and protectionism, the greater the international call to uphold multilateralism and safeguard the international order.

On January 20 local time, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Vice Premier of the State Council He Lifeng, delivered a speech at the Davos Forum. He said that in January 2017, President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the World Economic Forum, which China has seriously implemented, demonstrating firm support for multilateralism and free trade. In recent years, President Xi has put forward four major global initiatives, providing Chinese solutions to address the common challenges facing the world. In his address at the forum, He Lifeng outlined four key points: firmly supporting free trade, steadfastly upholding multilateralism, adhering to win-win cooperation, and promoting mutual respect and equal consultation. China's firm stance was met with sincere and enthusiastic applause at Davos.

Multilateralism and free trade remain the prevailing aspirations of the international community, and China has always stood on the right side of history. The Global Cooperation Barometer released by the World Economic Forum shows that, despite the strong headwinds facing multilateralism, global cooperation still demonstrates a certain level of resilience. From international cooperation on climate change, to global discussions on AI governance, to developing countries' demands for fair development, all point to one conclusion: only unity and cooperation can effectively address global challenges.

In a world of growing uncertainty, China has consistently upheld moral principles and practiced opening-up and cooperation, choosing to do what is difficult yet right. 

As the world's second-largest economy, China has followed through on its commitments and always acted as a responsible major country, firmly safeguarding multilateralism and promoting economic globalization toward a more universally beneficial and inclusive direction. The Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for Formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development clearly commits to expanding high-standard opening-up and steadily advancing institutional opening-up. From the expansion of pilot free trade zones to the development of the Hainan Free Trade Port, and from the China International Import Expo to the China International Fair for Trade in Services, China's door to opening-up continues to open wider, offering vast market opportunities for global businesses. 

World Economic Forum President Borge Brende has noted that China is doubling down on investment in research, development and innovation, and that "technologies can represent huge opportunities for productivity gains and also growth in the years to come. And China is a major contributor to that."

Prior to the forum, China released its economic data for 2025. Amid the ongoing turbulence in the global situation, the strong resilience of the Chinese economy and its positive role in areas such as global economic governance have received widespread praise. In the face of a complex and severe international environment and the domestic tasks of reform, development, and maintaining stability, the Chinese economy has continuously signaled steady progress, becoming an important force in promoting healthy global development. China actively participates in the reform and construction of the global governance system and insists on following a path of peaceful development. China's development practice fully demonstrates that countries can handle with state-to-state relations and achieve revitalization through peaceful means and that nations with different social systems and development paths can fully respect each other and achieve win-win cooperation.

This year, the forum's opening ceremony deliberately replaced the guest speeches of previous years with a concert. The forum's official explanation stated that this reflects the "spirit of dialogue" because "music knows no borders, it speaks no single language." The development of human civilization has repeatedly proven that confrontation can only bring destruction and regression, while dialogue and cooperation can create prosperity and progress. The postwar international order was established based on a cherishing of peace and has brought unprecedented long-term peace and development opportunities to the world. Today, as this order faces severe challenges, the international community should return to its original intention, insisting on resolving differences through dialogue rather than confrontation, and addressing conflicts through negotiation rather than pressure.

The greater the storm and snow, the more we need someone to guide the way forward. In this era full of uncertainty, China remains a stable "ballast." We do not engage in exclusive "cliques"; what we offer is a commitment to opening up a market of over 1.4 billion people, shared technological and innovation dividends with the world, and a steadfast adherence to international fairness and justice. 

The profound changes in the international situation will once again prove that multilateralism is the right path for humanity.

Empire of Chaos, Plunder and Strikes in Panic of Being Evicted from Eurasia

Pepe Escobar • January 19, 2026

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/empire-of-chaos-plunder-and-strikes-in-panic-of-being-evicted-from-eurasia/

Tehran will never bow down to the diktats. The neo-Caligula regime change obsession – in fact mirrored as a NATOstan obsession – will keep ruling. Tehran is not intimidated.

The whole planet is somehow convulsed by neo-Caligula’s latest scam: because he did not get his “peace” Nobel from Norway, part of his megalomanic narcissist revenge is to bag Greenland from Denmark (in Empire-speak, who cares? These Scandinavians are al the same anyway).

In neo-Caligula’s own words: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

That seals the Empire of Chaos completely morphed into the Empire of Plunder and now the Empire of Permanent Strikes.

Assorted Euro-chihuahuas dared to dispatch a tiny bunch of dog-sled conductors to defend Greenland from neo-Caligula. To no avail. They were instantly hit with tariffs. The strike remains in effect until the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

Euro-chihuahuas – following the Global South – may have finally woken up to the new paradigm: Strike Geopolitics.

Neo-Caligula did not get regime change in Caracas – and his oil mirage was refuted even by US energy majors. He did not get regime change in Tehran – even if CIA, Mossad and assorted NGOs worked full time to deliver.

So Plan C is Greenland, essential for imperial lebensraum purposes, as collateral for the unpayable $38 trillion – and rising – debt.

By all means that does not imply ditching the Iran obsession. The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier is moving into a position in the Sea of Oman/Persian Gulf where it would be able to strike Iran before the end of the week. All attack scenarios remain in place.

Assuming all hell breaks loose, this may become an even more humiliating replay of the 12-day war in June last year, which the death cult in West Asia spent as much as 14 months planning.

The 12-day war not only failed as a regime change op; it engendered a sample of Iranian retaliation so hardcore that Tel Aviv still has not recovered. Tehran has been explicit, over and over again, that the same fate awaits neo-Caligula’s forces in Iran and across the Gulf in case of renewed strikes.

Why the regime change obsession endures

As for the equally, miserably failed regime change op on Iran these past few weeks, it featured on the forefront the pathetic Clown Prince Reza Pahlavi, safely ensconced in Maryland, massively plugged by US media as a “unifying political figure” capable of reassessing the “lived catastrophe of clerical rule”.

Neo-Caligula was too busy to care about these ideological niceties. What he wanted was to accelerate the proceedings by – what else – applying Empire of Permanent Strikes logic: bombing Iran.

Diversionist spin, predictably, went ballistic. The death cult in West Asia may have asked Moscow to tell Tehran that they would not strike if Iran did not strike first. As if Tehran – and Moscow – could trust anything coming from Tel Aviv.

The Gulfie crowd – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman – may have asked neo-Caligula not to strike, because that would have set the whole Gulf on fire and generate “grave blowback”.

The real deal – once again – was TACO. There was simply no gamed US strike scenario that would have allowed lightning quick regime change, the only acceptable outcome. Thus back to bagging Greenland.

It took only a few days to unmask the massive propaganda campaign across NATOstan about “mass casualties” among Iran protesters.

The – fake – figures came from the Center for Human Rights in Iran, located in, where else, New York, and financed by the CIA-infested National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington and other assorted disinformation entities.

The list of reasons for urgent regime change in Iran though remains off the charts, featuring, among others, these four key elements:

1.   Tehran must ditch the Axis of Resistance across West Asia supporting Palestine.

2.   Because Iran is at the privileged crossroads of trade/energy connectivity corridors in Eurasia, both its connections with the
International North–South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) and China’s New Silk Roads (BRI) must be severed. That means blowing up from the inside organic intra-BRICS cooperation between Russia, Iran, India and China.

3.   As over 90% of Iranian oil exports go to China – and are settled in yuan – that’s a serious threat to the petrodollar: the ultimate anathema. That’s where in Empire of Permanent Strikes terms, Iran aligns with Venezuela. It’s our – petrodollar – way or the highway.

4.   The staying power of the never-ending dream of an Iran under the Shah remix – complete with a Shah-style SAVAK secret police; cozy Mossad ties to rein in those Arab barbarians; and a sprawling CIA-run net of surveillance hubs targeting both Russia and China.

How to counter a “regime-change war”

Tehran is not spooked by sanctions – as it has endured over 6,000 of them over four decades, designed to totally strangle its economy and even bring oil exports, in imperial terminology, down “to zero”.

Even under maximum pressure, Iran was capable of building the most extensive industrial base across West Asia; relentlessly invested in self-sufficiency and state of the art military hardware; joined the SCO in 2023 and BRICS in 2024; and for all practical purposes developed a top Global South knowledge economy.

Tsunamis of – digital – ink have been spent on why China has not properly helped Iran so far against imperial maximum pressure, for instance supporting Tehran against the speculative attacks on the rial. That would have cost Beijing almost nothing – compared to its level of foreign reserves.

The speculative attack on the rial was arguably the essential trigger of the protests across Iran. It’s essential to remember that hunger salaries were a key contributor to the collapse of Syria.

It’s up to Beijing to – diplomatically – answer this uncomfortable question. The spirit of BRICS Plus – call it Bandung 1955 Plus – may not survive when we all know this current world war is essentially about resources and finance, which need to be mobilized and properly deployed.

And that brings us to China’s leadership seriously evaluating whether it’s worth to remain a sort of larger version of Germany: embryonically self-centered; harboring fear; and fundamentally selfish in economic and financial terms. The – auspicious – alternative is for China to create sufficiently sized credit facilities within BRICS to an array of friendly nations.

Whatever happens next, it’s clear that the Empire of Permanent Strikes not only will remain “actively hostile” to a multipolar, multi-nodal world; the hostility will be marinated in a toxic sludge of anger and revenge, and subordinated to the ultimate, panic fear: the Empire’s slowly but surely, inexorable expulsion from Eurasia.

Cue to White House Special Representative Witkoff – the real estate Bismarck – enouncing the imperial diktats to Iran:

1.   Stop enriching uranium. Out of the question,

2.   Reduce missile stockpiles. Out of the question.

3.   Reduce approximately 2000 kg of enriched nuclear material (3.67–60 %). That might be negotiated.

4.   Stop supporting “regional proxies” – as in the Axis of Resistance. Out of the question.

Tehran will never bow down to the diktats. But even if it did, the – promised – imperial reward would be the lifting of sanctions (the US Congress will never do it) and a “return to the international community”. Iran is already part of the international community at the UN and inside BRICS, SCO and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), among other institutions.

So, the neo-Caligula regime change obsession – in fact mirrored as a NATOstan obsession – will keep ruling. Tehran is not intimidated. Cue to the strategic advisor to Iran’s Parliament Speaker, Mahdi Mohammadi:

“We know that we are facing a regime-change war in which the only way to achieve victory is to make credible the threat that, during the 12-day war, although it was ready, did not get the opportunity to be carried out: a geographically expansive war of attrition, focused on the Persian Gulf energy markets, on the basis of steadily increasing missile firepower, lasting at least several months.”