It seems that gold is going through a delicate phase, balancing between long-term bullish momentum and short-term profit-taking pressures, at a time when global markets are on edge ahead of upcoming U.S. sentiment data. As prices approach the $4,000 per ounce mark once again, the key question resurfaces: can gold still break its historical ceiling at $4,059, or will the current corrective wave extend temporarily before the next upward leg begins?

From my perspective, the underlying outlook for the precious metal remains positive in the medium term, as gold is heading for its eighth consecutive weekly gain — a sign of investors’ continued confidence in the demand for safe-haven assets despite the volatility in U.S. monetary policy. Buyers have shown remarkable resilience in defending support near $3,946, suggesting that any current pullbacks still fall within the scope of natural corrections inside the broader upward channel that has persisted since the third quarter of the year.

In my view, several factors are driving this positive performance, the most notable being the prevailing cautious sentiment across markets. The ongoing U.S. government shutdown adds to financial uncertainty and strengthens demand for defensive assets. Meanwhile, declines in Asian equities and a pause in the U.S. dollar’s rally are giving gold technical breathing room to consolidate and potentially reclaim the $4,000 level, especially amid politically and economically tense global conditions.

On the monetary policy front, the dovish tone coming from Federal Reserve officials has provided further support to the yellow metal. Remarks from John Williams, President of the New York Fed, in favor of additional rate cuts this year, along with Mary Daly’s comments from the San Francisco Fed about a “risk management” approach to policy, clearly signal that the tightening phase is nearing its end. This implies that U.S. real yields are likely to decline further — a traditional tailwind for non-yielding assets like gold.

These statements gain even more importance as markets await the University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment and Inflation Expectations data, a key gauge for future monetary policy direction. Weaker-than-expected data could strengthen bets on faster rate cuts, boosting gold’s position against the U.S. dollar. Conversely, stronger data might trigger a temporary price pullback, though it would likely be limited given the broader safe-haven environment.

Another supportive factor for gold is the continued geopolitical tension on multiple fronts. Despite the relatively positive impact of the ceasefire agreement in the Middle East, escalating Russian strikes on Kyiv and White House statements pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine serve as reminders of global instability. In such conditions, investors tend to rebuild positions in volatility-resistant assets — with gold at the top of that list.

Gold’s price action appears confined within a narrow range below $4,000, reflecting the tug-of-war between bullish momentum and corrective caution. However, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) remains far from overbought territory, leaving room for another attempt to break the psychological barrier — particularly if upcoming U.S. data disappoints or if the dollar continues to weaken.

Although risk appetite has slightly faded, the absence of heavy selling pressure suggests that traders increasingly believe downside potential is limited. The metal continues to benefit from a mix of supportive forces: a slowing U.S. economy, rising rate-cut expectations, political gridlock in Washington over the budget, and persistent geopolitical tensions. This combination makes any short-term correction more of a buying opportunity than the start of a trend reversal.

On the flip side, short-term risks remain if the Fed unexpectedly shifts to a more hawkish tone or if inflation data comes in significantly stronger, prompting markets to reassess rate-cut expectations. However, such a scenario seems unlikely given ongoing signs of economic slowdown and growing concerns within the Fed about a potential recession.

In my opinion, the odds still favor a continuation of the broader uptrend, even if some price fluctuations occur before a stable direction resumes. As long as gold holds above the $3,920–$3,940 range, buyers are likely to maintain control, supported by lower bond yields and rising expectations of monetary easing. A clear breakout above $4,000 could quickly lead to a retest of the previous peak — and potentially to new record highs if both technical and fundamental conditions align.

In conclusion, gold is facing a true test ahead of the U.S. sentiment data, but the macro environment continues to favor it. The combination of financial and political caution, expectations of rate cuts, and a softer dollar reinforces the view that the precious metal has not lost its shine. While the path to new highs may require patience, the overall trend remains confidently bullish — keeping gold the preferred choice for investors seeking protection amid economic and political storms.

The article Gold Caught Between Dollar Pressure and U.S. Sentiment Outlook appeared first on Arabian Post.

Over the past few months, silver prices have witnessed a strong rally — not only as a safe-haven asset alongside gold, but also due to fundamental factors rooted in industrial supply and demand dynamics. As of early October 2025, silver is trading around $48.65 per ounce in spot market data, while ETFs such as iShares SLV show a slightly lower net asset value (NAV), reflecting timing and liquidity discrepancies between the spot and ETF markets. 

The two main forces underpinning the recent surge are the wave of safe-haven demand amid global political and financial uncertainty, and the rising industrial demand for silver — especially in the solar energy, electronics, and electric vehicle sectors. On the first front, economic and political developments, such as U.S. fiscal pressures and currency fluctuations (e.g., the yen’s weakness), have bolstered demand for precious metals as a temporary hedge against risk, which has been clearly reflected in early October 2025 price movements.

From a supply-and-demand standpoint, the silver market is under real strain. Data and reports this year indicate a significant jump in industrial consumption, accompanied by recurring supply deficits that have affected registered inventories at delivery exchanges. The decline in available stockpiles at designated delivery centers has added further upward pressure, as any immediate shortage tends to influence spot prices more strongly than the more liquid futures market. This physical market reality is supported by analytical reports showing a sustained drop in supply relative to growing industrial demand throughout 2025.

From a fundamental perspective, silver appears to be entering a pivotal phase where its future trajectory will depend on the balance between industrial supply constraints, financial demand, and global liquidity conditions. The market continues to experience structural deficits; according to the World Silver Survey 2025, another deficit is projected this year, meaning total supply (from mining and recycling) still falls short of actual demand — especially in industrial applications. This recurring shortage provides a sustained bullish foundation, since silver — often mined as a byproduct of other metals — cannot easily ramp up production simply because prices rise, unlike some other commodities.

At the same time, industrial demand remains a powerful driver. Silver plays an increasingly vital role in solar energy, electronics, and photonics, making it not only a store of value or speculative asset but also an indispensable component of technological infrastructure. This growing industrial demand, combined with limited production flexibility, reinforces the upward pressure on prices, making it a structural rather than speculative force.

On the financial and monetary front, global liquidity trends and safe-haven flows serve as an additional lever for silver prices. With geopolitical tensions and currency volatility, investors are shifting away from risk assets, boosting precious metals, and silver particularly benefits from this pattern, especially during tightening cycles or periods of heightened uncertainty. However, this factor could fluctuate if central banks take sudden actions toward renewed stimulus or unexpected monetary tightening.

Given these fundamentals, in the short term (a few months), the bullish trend supported by industrial deficit and liquidity conditions is likely to persist. Silver could potentially test the $50–$55 per ounce range if no major adverse shocks occur, such as a sharp interest rate hike or a significant dollar rebound. This range represents the first major resistance zone that the market is likely to challenge.

In the medium term (6–12 months), if key fundamentals continue — including persistent deficits, growth in green industries, and expansion of solar energy — combined with ongoing safe-haven demand, silver could advance toward $57–$60 per ounce in a moderately optimistic scenario. However, if speculative positioning reverses or unexpected monetary tightening occurs, prices could temporarily retreat toward the $40–$30 range, unless offset by strong industrial or liquidity support.

In the long term (1–3 years), silver maintains a strong fundamental story, driven by green technology, digitalization, and the global energy transition. These trends could propel it toward new historical highs if supportive conditions persist. Nevertheless, this path will not be linear — corrections and retracements are likely — yet the overarching direction, anchored in growing industrial deficits and global demand, points upward.

In my view, silver should be approached as part of a diversified portfolio, accumulated gradually while tracking indicators such as metal inventories, production reports, industrial demand shifts, and central bank policies. Given these dynamics, the upward trend remains the most probable scenario as long as the industrial deficit persists and global liquidity continues flowing into metals, with a high likelihood of seeing prices surpass $50 per ounce should momentum and investor risk appetite strengthen.

The article Between Industrial Deficit and the Global Liquidity Shift Toward the White Metal? appeared first on Arabian Post.

The USD/JPY pair is rising, driven by renewed momentum supported by the ongoing divergence in monetary policies between the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan. Yield differentials between the two economies remain a key factor in explaining the pair’s price action. The dollar gained additional support following the release of U.S. retail sales data, which significantly exceeded expectations, thereby weakening the likelihood of a Fed rate cut in September and prompting traders to reprice risk accordingly. A 0.6% rise in sales compared to a 0.1% forecast reflects continued strength in consumer demand, reinforcing the Fed’s relatively hawkish stance that sees little urgency to ease policy amid persistent price pressures.

In this context, I view the dollar’s rise against the yen as a natural reflection of both macroeconomic and technical factors, especially as the pair approaches the psychological resistance level of 149.15. If U.S. data continues to outperform and Japanese fundamentals remain stagnant, this level could be breached. In my view, holding above 148.80 will encourage traders to test higher technical levels near 149.30 and eventually 150.00, particularly if more hawkish remarks emerge from Fed officials in the coming days. On the Japanese side, the BoJ’s persistent commitment to low interest rates creates a fertile ground for further yen weakness — a policy stance that seems to be part of an implicit strategy to stoke inflation through currency depreciation.

However, price action doesn’t unfold in a vacuum. Japan’s political and fiscal backdrop is casting a heavy shadow on investor sentiment, especially with the upcoming Upper House elections this Sunday. At this critical juncture, Japanese bond yields have spiked sharply, reflecting growing expectations of unchecked fiscal expansion following the elections. In my view, this surge in yields isn’t merely a technical move; it signals deeper market anxiety about the incoming government’s ability to balance economic support with fiscal restraint. I expect yields to continue rising through the third quarter, potentially surpassing 1.2% unless the government outlines a credible financial roadmap that reassures markets.

These concerns are further complicated by Japan’s debt-driven fiscal model. As one of the most indebted countries relative to GDP, Japan relies heavily on issuing new debt to meet its obligations. In my opinion, this model is no longer sustainable. Without a clear structural fiscal reform plan within the next two years, sovereign credit ratings could come under increasing pressure, pushing Japan toward harsh policy divisions or even disruptions in its bond market. This current model resembles walking a tightrope; even a minor loss of confidence or revenue shock could destabilise its financial equilibrium.

Amid these pressures, a controversial policy proposal has emerged: cutting the consumption tax. I view this move as a financial misstep at this time. While it may offer short-term electoral appeal, it jeopardises medium-term fiscal stability, particularly if not paired with alternative revenue sources. In my estimate, reducing the tax from 10% to 8% without offsetting measures could widen the fiscal deficit by ¥7 to ¥10 trillion annually, translating into pressure on both the yen and bond yields. In short, markets are unlikely to tolerate such populist measures and will likely react swiftly and harshly.

In an attempt to calm market nerves, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba stated he would not finance any tax cuts through additional borrowing. While this message offers some reassurance to the markets, it lacks an actionable plan. Without accompanying implementation details, the impact of this statement is muted, keeping markets in a state of cautious anticipation. In my view, this position may temporarily slow the rise in yields, but it is insufficient to shift the broader trajectory unless backed by clear strategies on both spending and revenue fronts.

What is more concerning is that markets have already begun pricing in a potential post-election collapse in the Japanese bond market — a reflection of fragile investor confidence. While I do not foresee a full-scale crash, I do anticipate a sharp correction of 5% to 10% in bond prices within two weeks following the elections, especially if the new government’s messaging is both expansionary and vague. Such a correction would likely force the BoJ to intervene again and potentially reassess its quantitative easing programs, which in turn could spark heightened volatility in currency and yield markets.

On a broader scale, eroding confidence in Japanese bonds poses a serious risk to global debt markets, given the size and international significance of Japan’s government bond market. Should international investors begin to question the sustainability of Japan’s fiscal path, it could trigger a global yield surge, especially in high-debt countries like Italy and France. The ripple effects may also extend to emerging markets, where we could witness capital flight and rising borrowing costs that threaten macroeconomic stability.

In my view, the USD/JPY pair is not simply reacting to short-term data or technical indicators — it is a mirror reflecting a broader conflict between an economy that has successfully delayed slowdown (the U.S.) and another that is masking structural fragility behind ultra-low interest rates (Japan). As long as this divergence persists, the most likely scenario is continued upside for the pair, though at a measured pace, and closely tied to how the political and fiscal narrative evolves in Tokyo over the coming weeks.

Technical Analysis of ( USDJPY ) Prices:

The USD/JPY pair is currently trading near a critical technical zone around the psychological resistance level of 149.15, where several technical factors converge to heighten the sensitivity of this area. Most notably, it aligns with the 50% Fibonacci retracement level of the decline from the January high to the April low, adding further significance to this resistance. A bullish breakout above this level — particularly if accompanied by strong momentum and high trading volume — could trigger a fresh wave of buying targeting the 150.00 level, which has historically acted as a battleground between bulls and bears, making it a key short-term resistance.

The article Between U.S. Tightening Scenarios and Japan’s Expanding Deficit Post-Elections appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Cihan Tuğal

DAMASCUS: As the smoke settles on the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and its replacement by Islamist leadership under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), it is clear that Turkey’s far-right governing bloc has emerged from the tumult strong and emboldened. What is less clear is whether this will mean that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will be able to project influence across the region without constraint.

To many observers and government propagandists, HTS’s victory in Syria was a product of Erdoğan’s strategic genius. But while the fall of Assad may have emboldened those elements of the Turkish elite happy to entertain neo-Ottomanist imperial dreams, it has not yet changed the fact of Kurdish presence in Syria’s north or definitively altered the complex balance of power between regional players like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and Russia.

Turkey’s old establishment — made up of figures from the centre-rightist and Kemalists, two loose class coalitions led respectively by the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy — prioritized the integrity of the postwar state system. Keeping Syria intact was an unquestioned part of this balancing act, which Turkey maintained even as tensions mounted between it and its southern neighbour due to disputes over water, Islamist insurgency, and Kurdish guerrilla camps.

Turkey has long desired to see more conservative Sunni rule in Syria and has gone as far as to back the country’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an alliance that culminated in the 1982 Hama uprising, which the Syrian army eventually quashed after a twenty-seven-day siege of the city and tens of thousands of casualties. Assad, in turn, housed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) training camps, ignoring his own troubled relations with Syria’s Kurds.

A thaw began in 1998, when Assad decided to stop harbouring the PKK’s leader, Abdullah Öcalan. Points of tension between Damascus and Ankara remained, but until the Arab uprisings of 2010–13, it appeared that the major ones could be resolved. Initially, the implications of the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) rise to power in 2002 were unclear. Yes, the AKP had Islamist roots, but its leaders had disavowed much of this background in order to make a dash for the political centre ground. Or so it seemed. In power, the AKP flirted with neo-Ottomanist tendencies through mostly “soft power” overtures, by intensifying Turkey’s Islamic outreach through business and diplomatic expansion. What it did not seek to alter — at least openly — was the fragile peace between Turkey and its southern neighbour.

Commentators and historians of Turkey often counterpose the AKP’s Islamism with a secular nationalist Kemalist tradition, so named after the country’s founder, Kemal Atatürk. However, the line separating the two traditions has often been blurry. In fact, the AKP’s rise to power was made possible by a contradictory integration of the two. Turkey had warm relations with Assad’s Syria during the first nine years of AKP rule. The reproachment that the AKP had organized between its Kemalist and Islamist factions, combined with a geostrategic pragmatism, smoothed over potential cracks in the relationship between Syria and Turkey. During the 2000s, Turkey arguably developed warmer relations with Syria than it had during the heyday of the old establishment, a development that was partially a reflection of the growing influence of what has come to be called Eurasianism within the state apparatus.

Actors within Turkey’s foreign policy establishment developed a so-called “Eurasianist” line following the 1990s, largely in an effort to distinguish themselves from neo-Ottomanist and Sunni-Islamist imperialisms. The defining feature of Eurasianism is its acceptance of the idea of Turkey as a nation-state, as opposed to an imperial or supranational religious project. This bloc favours alliances with Russian, China, and Central Asian republics and was significantly more favorable to Assad’s rule in Syria than previous Turkish governments. However, the Eurasianists’ and AKP’s shared anti-Kurd sentiment — a through line connecting the party in the early 2000s to its present iteration, and the earlier Kemalists to their Eurasianist offshoots — remained a sore spot in their relations with the Assad regime.

In the late 2000s, the AKP, fearing a coup, purged Eurasianists from the military. Despite growing hostility, the two sides’ positions were quietly converging. For the Islamic camp, Turkey’s interests as a capitalist nation-state had started to outweigh, or at least reduce, the relative importance of Islamist ideology. For the erstwhile Kemalists, Mustafa Kemal’s foreign policy motto — Peace in the Homeland, Peace in the World — didn’t make as much sense as it did in the twentieth century. The world was walking into an era of falling and rising empires, and Turkey had to redefine itself.

Whether Islamism and Kemalism would be able to form a constructive relationship with one another remained unclear throughout the 2000s. What finally decided things was the Arab Spring. During the uprising, Turkey sought to impose Muslim Brotherhood rule in the region, but after this attempt failed, Erdoğanists shifted their support to the jihadis. Initially, the Gulf statelets and Saudi Arabia appeared to have more control over the Sunni forces, and especially the jihadis. But pro-Turkish forces’ occupation of Idlib in 2020 changed this picture.

Ankara had greater control over the jihadis in northeastern Syria, where war between multiple sides, including the Kurds, still rages on. However, al-Qaeda’s Syria offshoot HTS also came under Turkish influence in the second half of the 2010s, although it retained a certain degree of independence. Unlike the Syrian National Army (SNA), which focused its energies on fighting the Kurds along Ankara’s desires, HTS prioritized building a functioning Islamic ministate in the Idlib area. HTS ruled this region for more than four years, laying the groundwork for “tamed jihadi” government in the rest of Syria.

These regional changes interacted with tectonic shifts in Turkey. In 2016, the AKP regime’s solidly pro-American wing, the Gülen movement, cooperated with other forces to stage a coup, which military factions allied with the fascist Grey Wolves (MHP) and police forces resisted. The AKP’s Istanbul branch and youth organizations cooperated with mosques to mobilize millions and, as a result, the putsch failed. Victorious Erdoğanists then liquidated the Gülenists and reintegrated Eurasianists and other Kemalists into the military. What until then was only flirtation encouraged by understated ideological similarities congealed into a new ruling bloc. The AKP and the Grey Wolves were the public face of this new arrangement, but Eurasianists and other right-wing variants of Kemalism exercised influence behind the scenes.

This new bloc favoured state capitalism and imperialism, reversing earlier AKP administrations’ emphasis on free markets and soft power projected in the form of “neo-Ottomanismism.” Alongside adopting more aggressive stances in other corners of the world, including the Caucasus and Africa, Syria became an arena in which the different aspects of Turkey’s imperial ambitions — Islamism and opposition to the Kurds — played out. The disparate forces within this bloc allowed for apparently contradictory overtures, such as negotiating with Iranians and Russians as late as November 2024 to keep Assad in the picture, while paving the way for HTS control over the entire country.

While from the perspective of Turkey’s elites, imperialism in Syria appeared to be a win-win proposition because it served Turkish capital accumulation, Sunni consolidation, and could potentially lead to the defeat of the Kurds, the AKP’s attempt to project power was not overwhelmingly popular within Turkey. Battles between jihadis, Assadists, and the Kurds led to a massive influx of refugees into Turkey. The opposition — primarily the Republican People’s Party (CHP), as well as the newly formed anti-immigrant fringe Victory Party and the Good Party (a liberalized offshoot of the MHP) — treated the refugee crisis as Erdoğan’s greatest foreign policy failure.

Subsequently, anti-Syrian sentiment grew. In the eyes of many Turks, Syrian refugees came to be perceived as the source of not only crime, but an alleged Islamist conspiracy to undermine secularism and Turkish identity. From the mid-2010s until the end of 2024, a race to the bottom between the (centrist-Kemalist) Republican People’s Party and small far-right parties ensued to monopolize this sentiment.

The overthrow of Assad seems to have reversed this wave, even though the fate of refugees remains uncertain. Erdoğanists now market their Syrian policy as the government’s main foreign policy success. Going even further, Islamist newspapers see in this “revolution” (as they call it) the rebirth of Turkish control over the Islamic world. Mainstream opposition forces (primarily the centrist-Kemalist CHP) are now on the defensive and seek to draw attention away from Syria. But among the sections of Turkey’s political class supportive of their country’s adventurism, there is a general sense that the Kurds pose a serious obstacle to the more ambitious aspects of the Islamist program.

There are almost daily clashes between the Kurds and the Turkish-controlled SNA. Hundreds of people have died in the last several weeks. At the same time, the government has been carrying out a crackdown on Kurdish mayors in Turkey, along with journalists who appear to have ties with the Kurdish movement. The crackdown frequently extends to Kemalist, leftist, and liberal journalists and academics, and even to far rightists who refuse to join the governing bloc.

Some commentators in Turkey see these ongoing crackdowns as part of an effort to put tactical pressure on the opposition, rather than simply a contradictory stance: Erdoğanists want to gain as much ground as possible before they reach a deal with the Kurds. The expanding operations are negotiation tactics instead of signs of confusion or conflicts within the government, as some other commentators (such as Istanbul mayor Ekremİmamoğlu, CHP) hold.

However, other interpretations are possible: the AKP has used its media empire to convey the message that it views Trump’s election as auguring a new moment in global politics, in which repressive governance and expansionism will be more legitimate than in any time in the recent past. Rather than viewing the AKP’s ongoing crackdown on dissent as a negotiation tactic for a coming peace deal with the Kurds, the governing bloc might be abusing the possibility of a peace deal to establish a dictatorship in Turkey that no electoral process or uprising will be able to shake.

For now, HTS appears to be aligned with Turkey’s position on the Kurds, in spite of mixed signals. In the first few days following the overthrow of Assad, al-Jolani resisted the SNA’s extremism regarding the Kurds, creating hopes among the latter that he might be a potential partner. HTS has even met the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces during the last few weeks. Recognition of Kurdish autonomy and Kurdish rights in the constitution were among the discussed items. Some speculate that Turkey has offered tacit approval of these talks, though there are those who see in the HTS’s actions as a partial divergence from Ankara.

Nevertheless, there are real signs of Erdoğanist-HTS alignment on the Kurdish issue. Right before al-Jolani declared his presidency, HTS convened a “Syrian Revolution Victory Conference,” where the SNA dissolved itself and joined the newly founded Syrian Arab Army. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and militias of non-Sunni groups were not invited to the conference, signalling the formation of the new military apparatus on solidly ethnic and religious sectarian grounds, with sizable jihadi flanks.

Al-Jolani’s visits to Saudi Arabia and Turkey didn’t resolve these ambiguities. There were more signs (yet still no declaration) regarding promises of integration of Kurdish armed forces into the Syrian army. Yet, al-Jolani solidly communicated his stance against not only federalism but Kurdish autonomy. However, regional security forces for Kurds, as well as the constitutional recognition of their rights and language, still seems to be on the table. These vague commitments notwithstanding, the extent to which Ankara or al-Jolani will be willing to accept some version of Kurdish autonomy is deeply unclear.

Along with the Kurdish issue, another source of uncertainty for Erdoğanists is the multiplicity of players in the region. Turkey will have to vie not only with Israel but also the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates (and more distantly, Western and Eastern powers) in its attempts to control the new Syria. Qatar seems to be more aligned with Turkish desires, as evidenced by both countries’ support for Islamist forces throughout the region to the dismay of the Saudis, but even these two groups do not share an identical set of interests.

The cash and natural resource reserves of the Arab monarchies make them unavoidable partners for Syria, given that Russia and Iran can no longer smoothly serve these purposes due to the overthrow of the regime they supported, and Turkey does not have as much to offer in terms of cash and resources. This was one reason al-Jolani visited Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman after declaring his presidency, and only then Turkey. However, there seem to be more convoluted reasons behind his actions as well. There is widespread and credible speculation that al-Jolani and company are trying to convey the message that the Gulf monarchies need not fear Islamist rule, and also that they are not puppets of Turkey. Counterintuitively, Turkey is said to have facilitated this thinking, making the competition between these players all the more difficult to decipher.

Furthermore, shortly after al-Jolani assumed the position of president he met with Turkey’s foreign minister and announced plans to establish Turkish airbases in Syria. Based on anonymous Syrian and foreign sources “not authorised to speak to the media,” Reuters also added that Turkey is likely to train Syria’s new military. Pro-government Turkish news outlets featured more details regarding business and military plans throughout Syria, with specific ports, routes, towns, and regions meticulously specified.

How much of this will the monarchies tolerate? It is too early to tell. With or without al-Jolani, the new Syria will be one of the primary battlegrounds for the rivalry between Turkey and Saudi Arabia to lead Sunni forces in the region. In the years coming, the two countries will compete over the right to build Syria’s infrastructure and chart new paths for the flows of energy between the Middle East and Europe.

It is still unclear what stance the United States will take on these issues. Trump and sources close to him have sent mixed messages regarding American military presence and initiatives in Syria, going back on Trumpists’ earlier declarations of quick withdrawal and nonengagement. It is even less clear whether Trump’s America would side with Turkey or Saudi Arabia in their bid to control infrastructural overhaul, capital accumulation, military restructuring, and energy flows in and through Syria.

The dream scenario for American imperialism would be a toned-down Turkish imperialism, al-Jolani leadership without its more radical Islamist elements, and the cooperation of both Turkey and Syria with Saudi-led monarchies in further eroding Iranian and Russian influence over Syria. However, given the multiplicity of forces in the country, the turbulence within Turkey, and the disunity of the Gulf monarchies, which are still far from acting as a bloc, the Trumpist fantasy that the new Syria can turn into a haven for Western-friendly regional actors without any serious American involvement (and high price tags for Americans) is bound to crash hard against reality.

The frequently voiced fear in some foreign policy circles — that Turkey is seeking to replace Iran as the leader of resistance against the West and Israel — is also unfounded. Erdoğanists are not principled opponents of either Western imperialism or Israel; they are, rather, advocates of a loosely formulated imperialist project of their own, which continuously morphs under shifting geopolitical balances, domestic pressures, and pragmatic considerations. Likewise, it would be completely misguided to expect democracy or equitable peace from a Syrian regime that is under heavy Erdoğanist influence. Neither the world hegemon nor any aspiring regional hegemon is in a position to bring liberty and dignity to Syrians. (IPA Service)

Courtesy: Jacobin

The article Syria Remains Another Battleground For Competing Regional Powers appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article Gold struggling to capitalize momentum appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bitcoin price approaches an upward breakthrough, hovering around $37,600 early on Thursday. Investors in the market anticipate approvals for Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requested public comments on the application of the Franklin Templeton Exchange-Traded Fund filed on the stock exchange yesterday.

This comes in conjunction with significant Bitcoin withdrawals from exchanges, based on data from cryptocurrency price tracking sites. The data indicates that approximately a billion dollars worth of BTC has been withdrawn from exchanges over the past week.

Bitcoin’s external flows, marked by a significant shift away from exchange platforms, have historically triggered buying fluctuations at market lows in previous years. This supports the theory of a potential medium and long-term rise in Bitcoin prices.

Yesterday, the regulatory body stated that deciding on the approval of instant Bitcoin exchange-traded funds will take more time. However, the agency has now changed its stance on such projects, seeking a unified and appropriate opinion before issuing its decision. This has raised hopes for approvals of traded instant Bitcoin funds.

From my perspective, another incentive supporting the bullish hypothesis for Bitcoin’s price is the increase in reserves for stablecoins. Approximately $15.23 billion of Tether is held in the top 10 USDT exchange wallets, indicating purchasing power and anticipated demand for Bitcoin.

I also anticipate the possibility of Bitcoin Spot ETFs receiving a single batch approval in January 2024. The total number of Bitcoin Spot ETF issuers has risen to 13, with the application of the Pando ETF by Pando, a European giant in traded investment funds.

Additionally, I believe that the delay in filing submissions and exchanging details with BlackRock’s trading and markets division within the Securities and Exchange Commission may play a role. After the asset management giant submitted a modified model design based on employee feedback in their recent meeting a week ago, it provides hope for the markets and incentivizes the approval of these funds, pushing Bitcoin prices higher and leading other cryptocurrencies to gain medium and long-term profits.

In the past few hours, the increase in Bitcoin prices has led to the liquidation of $8.94 million worth of sell deals within a short period. This explains the current downward price volatility, which may reach $35,700 before returning to an upward trajectory.

The article Bitcoin approaches upward breakthrough appeared first on Arabian Post.

The digital currency markets, particularly Bitcoin and Ripple, have experienced their worst performance in recent weeks, and this wasn’t significantly related to the geopolitical situation in Palestine. However, there have been some positive legal developments, particularly regarding Ripple, but these haven’t yet translated into realistic price improvements for Ripple. Additionally, Ripple had to accept the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Campbell, who joined Maven Clinic as their CFO.

I believe Ripple’s performance in the third quarter was good, even though it failed to maintain the gains made after the judge decided to reject the Securities and Exchange Commission’s appeal, which seems to have weakened investor sentiment and consequently reduced demand for the currency.

On Monday, October 3rd, the Federal Court rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction. Judge Torres mentioned that for the SEC’s request for a preliminary injunction to be granted, they must establish, among other things, a “substantial likelihood” of success on the merits. However, the digital market, including Ripple and Bitcoin, failed to capitalize on Judge Torres’s decision, as the price of Ripple dropped by about 3.2% yesterday. Bitcoin’s price also dropped to $27,060, which may also be due to the prevailing risk aversion sentiment in the market.

In my opinion, another reason for the recent decline in Ripple and Bitcoin is the recent decision by the International Settlements Bank to add Ripple to its interbank operability working group. This means that Ripple is now part of the working group established for cross-border payments. This should have been a significant positive development, but it hasn’t been priced in by the markets yet.

Looking at the fear and greed index in the cryptocurrency space, we’ve seen a slight shift from fear to neutrality over the past month, which is a minor positive for the overall cryptocurrency market.

Despite the judgment issued by Judge Torres last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission can still choose to drop its case against Ripple. Given the SEC’s apparent disdain for the cryptocurrency industry, the markets will remain in a state of anticipation in the near and medium term.

The article Crypto blues not related to Palestine conflict appeared first on Arabian Post.

The price of Bitcoin had risen earlier yesterday to over $27,400, its highest level since late August. However, it quickly plummeted and is currently trading at $26,819 at the start of trading on Tuesday. The price dropped by approximately 2% in a matter of minutes, reaching $26,700. Bitcoin is still up by about 0.8% over the past 24 hours.

Among the standout Cryptocurrencies, today are Solana’s SOL, Litecoin (LTC), and Bitcoin Cash (BCH), which have risen by 3% to 4%. The original Chain-link token, LINK, has also surged by almost 8% today amid new partnerships with traditional financial institutions.

In my view, the sudden price drop has raised concerns among some Cryptocurrency derivatives traders, as they liquidated nearly $100 million worth of leveraged positions in the past 24 hours. Short sellers who attempted to profit from the price decline incurred losses of $60 million, while those who bet on price increases suffered losses of $40 million.

Currently, I believe that Shiba Inu (SHIB) and Pepe Coin (PEPE) are strong Cryptocurrencies, attracting investors worldwide. Meanwhile, the broader Cryptocurrency market is gearing up for what analysts call the “altcoin season,” where meme coins emerge as strong contenders in the markets, poised for significant price increases. This comes after the new project Qubeta (QUBE) has taken the lead among those interested in Crypto markets, generating significant buzz with its upcoming Initial Coin Offering (ICO) expected to see astonishing gains of up to 8000%. It is a pioneer in the encrypted artificial intelligence revolution, aiming to bridge the gap between emerging AI companies and enthusiastic investors.

I believe that such a project will create price waves in the world of cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. This innovative project offers the first crowdfunding platform for cryptocurrencies that facilitates fractional investments in emerging AI companies using QUBE tokens, an ERC20 deflationary token. The project aims to be the best cryptocurrency investment platform, revolutionizing how emerging AI companies raise funds and interact with their community with ease and security.

In my opinion, QUBE tokens are the best cryptocurrency to buy in the AI sector. Every investment opportunity in NFTs is recorded and divided, allowing investors to participate based on their budget while enjoying early support benefits. Here, its NFT market is on the verge of a potential 8000% rise, enabling emerging AI companies to raise funds and offer reward-based NFTs and shares. QUBE token holders will also have easy access to projects they believe in, creating a symbiotic ecosystem that benefits both sides easily and securely.

I consider it an attractive investment opportunity as this currency functions as a governance token, giving holders a say in the decision-making processes in the ecosystem. This democratic approach allows for proposals, discussions, and voting on InQubeta’s development aspects and future direction. With this feature, experts expect the value of QUBE to rise, attracting influential individuals and companies seeking the best cryptocurrency investment for a substantial profit.

The article Crypto price drop causes concern appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bitcoin prices, currently trading near $25,900, have witnessed a significant surge in the cryptocurrency market ahead of the release of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) for August. The impact of this data on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will likely depend on the overall market volatility after the data is released today. This means that if there are significant surprises in inflation figures, whether higher or lower, the digital cryptocurrency market, led by Bitcoin’s price, will be greatly affected.

The U.S. Consumer Price Index is scheduled for release today, Wednesday, September 13. Inflation in the United States is expected to rise for the second consecutive time, with the main Consumer Price Index for August expected to increase to 3.6% from 3.2% in July on an annual basis.

On the other hand, the core Consumer Price Index is likely to decline, with the possibility of it falling to 4.3% from 4.7% in July, on an annual basis. The reason for the difference in expectations is the sharp increase in oil prices, which are not included in the core index, at a time when other price pressures in the United States are declining.

In my view, we will see a stronger increase in core inflation in August after two consecutive monthly increases of 0.16%, with the core Consumer Price Index rising by 0.3% every month. The core Consumer Price Index is expected to register another 0.2% increase, albeit retaining stronger gains compared to June and July.

I also expect further slowing in home prices, coinciding with increased chances of a 0.6% rise in the main Consumer Price Index, the largest increase since June 2022. This is likely due to rising gas and oil prices and increased energy component costs, which will negatively impact dollar-denominated assets and consequently lead to a medium to long-term decline in the price of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

The Consumer Price Index will impact the decision-making process at the Federal Reserve ahead of next week’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. If the core Consumer Price Index comes in stronger than expected, the Fed may raise interest rates more aggressively, which would be a significant surprise to the markets, especially since interest rates are expected to remain unchanged in September.

Therefore, I believe that the price of Bitcoin will only be significantly affected by the release of the Consumer Price Index data if the core Consumer Price Index surprises the markets by rising instead of falling as expected or if there is an unexpectedly large increase in the main Consumer Price Index.

The sudden increase in core inflation could potentially erase the gains made by Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in the past 24 hours, during which Bitcoin’s price exceeded $26,000. Most cryptocurrencies have also seen their values rise, pushing the market capitalization to over a trillion dollars. However, all of this could be reversed if the core Consumer Price Index surprises the markets with an unexpected significant increase.

The article Surge in crypto market ahead of US data appeared first on Arabian Post.

Given the unprecedented shifts in the cryptocurrency market, the trading volume of Bitcoin has significantly dropped to less than $5 billion, raising questions about what is happening in the crypto markets. As trading began on Monday, the price of Bitcoin stood at $25,770, reflecting a slight decrease of less than 0.10%, and there are several contributing factors to this.

Firstly, I believe the ongoing energy crisis in Texas has affected Bitcoin’s mining reserves, leading to reduced confidence in Bitcoin’s price recovery, especially after a federal official indicated that the final decision regarding cryptocurrency remains uncertain over the weekend.

On the other hand, the banking giant JPMorgan has made significant strides in this field by launching a blockchain-based token aimed at speeding up payment processes. This highlights the continually evolving nature of cryptocurrency markets.

Currently, the BTC/USD price is declining due to the ongoing energy crisis in Texas. Bitcoin’s recovery, stabilizing between $25,500 and $26,000, has halted for three weeks now with no signs of improvement. Texas, a major Bitcoin mining hub, is experiencing a significant drop in energy supply due to severe weather conditions, leading to mining farms’ closures. This energy crisis threatens the network’s hashing power, particularly impacting AntPool, a major contributor responsible for about 22.27% of Hash Power. Intensive selling by mining companies to cover expenses during this crisis could exert strong downward pressure on Bitcoin prices, as we witnessed in August.

While the Federal Reserve actively investigates developments in electronic exchange platforms, blockchain technology, and digital assets like cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, this differs from deciding on the next steps in full-scale payment system development. Issuing a central bank digital currency requires clear support from the executive branch and authorization from the US Congress, making any decision in this regard extremely challenging. This underscores the caution of US officials when it comes to digital currencies.

On the other hand, JPMorgan Chase and its counterparts are taking significant steps in the blockchain technology world by unveiling digital depositary receipts based on this system, designed to enhance global payments and settlements. These digital depositary receipts represent customer deposits in commercial banks and aim to expedite transactions while reducing associated costs through blockchain system efficiency. However, I believe regulatory approval will remain a significant hurdle to their adoption.

In my opinion, the adoption of such technologies in large organizations and banks is sure to pose a threat to well-known cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which may be the underlying reason for the decline in Bitcoin and digital currency prices today.

The article Texas energy crisis hits Bitcoin mining appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bitcoin prices are currently in an extremely volatile state, with the price still slightly above the weak support around the $25,000 region. A breach of this support could lead to a sharp decline in Bitcoin’s price against the US dollar. However, it doesn’t seem that the continuous uptrend since the beginning of 2020 has been broken yet. There’s a possibility that maintaining this level could result in an upward rebound, potentially leading to a breakthrough of resistance at $30,000.

To determine which of the above scenarios is stronger, we need to analyze historical data. Historically, low volatility and price consolidation often precede significant movements in the cryptocurrency market. This means that Bitcoin’s price could retest $20,000 before making another upward move.

In the historical price chart of Bitcoin, we can observe recurring patterns. During each sharp upward cycle, there’s a period of decline and sideways movement in the market (indicated by the red circles on the chart), especially when Bitcoin’s price falls below the new peak achieved. This area typically represents the final stage of a bear market. In each instance, Bitcoin’s price tests the overall cycle low.

Following this, we see a price reversal, with Bitcoin breaking above the previous peak (indicated by the green circles on the chart), initiating a long-term bullish trend. The only exception was in March 2020 when Bitcoin’s price also experienced a sharp decline due to the global spread of the coronavirus. After that, Bitcoin retested the previous peak in an upward move (indicated by the blue circle on the chart), which, in my opinion, is always an excellent buying opportunity.

Now, when we look at the current Bitcoin price movement, we see these similarities. Bitcoin’s price dropped below the peak it reached in June 2022, at around $46,404. Then the price oscillated around this level for a long period before prices surrendered due to the FTX exchange crash in November 2022. In contrast, Bitcoin’s price broke the bearish trend and started rebounding in January 2023, leading to a recovery and a retest of the price level near $30,000.

So, will the Bitcoin price retest the $20,000 level?

Currently, Bitcoin’s price is at a major support level in the $25,000 range, and technical analysis suggests that a drop to the next support level at $23,500 is possible if this level is breached. The chart also illustrates that if a scenario similar to what happened in March 2020 occurs, Bitcoin’s price could drop to below $20,000 in my opinion. If the Bitcoin cycle analysis above is correct, this would be an excellent buying opportunity in the medium and long term.

To clarify further, the sharp and strong price movement expected in the coming weeks could go in one of two directions. Either the price of Bitcoin will drop to test the price level near $20,000 in a bearish scenario, and this could be an excellent opportunity to enter the market and buy.

As for the bullish scenario, the first and most important resistance level that must be overcome is the $30,000 level, and if the price remains above it on the four-hour chart, we will have a strong bullish signal before the imminent Bitcoin network halving event in early 2024, although this scenario is the less likely one.

The article Bitcoin prices in extremely volatile state appeared first on Arabian Post.

The price of Bitcoin reached $25,694.23 at the start of trading on Tuesday, marking a 1.19% loss over the past 24 hours, pushing it below the $26,000 level. This drop continues due to ongoing uncertainty surrounding the approval of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) in the United States. Other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum (ETH), Dogecoin (DOGE), Ripple (XRP), Litecoin (LTC), and Solana (SOL) also followed Bitcoin’s lead in declining. Stellar (XLM) was the exception, showing the largest gain with nearly a 3% increase over the past 24 hours.

The global market capitalization of cryptocurrencies stood at $1.04 trillion this morning, registering a 1.06% decrease over the past 24 hours. In my opinion, Bitcoin is currently trading around the $25,600 range due to the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the potential launch of an immediate Bitcoin ETF in the United States. This price movement indicates the presence of negative sentiment in the market.

After the recent rise to $28,000, Bitcoin remained within a narrow range between $25,800 and $26,000. These increases came following a federal appeals court ruling that asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to reconsider its rejection of Grayscale Investments’ GBTC conversion into an ETF. However, Bitcoin faced a setback as the SEC postponed decisions on expected ETFs on Friday, leaving traders uncertain about the sustainable recovery of Bitcoin’s price.

I see Bitcoin currently facing a challenging environment, and the possibility of it dropping to $22,000 is becoming increasingly likely. I can say that this downward trend reflects investor sentiment volatility in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency market. Despite the initial enthusiasm surrounding Grayscale’s legal victory against the SEC and the European Training Institute’s demands, this optimism quickly waned.

Attempts to break the $28,000 support have failed, and the shrinking general budget of the Federal Reserve, which has fallen to $8.12 trillion from its peak in March 2023, has added to the uncertainty in high-risk markets. This suggests that liquidity is flowing out of markets, weakening Bitcoin’s role as an inflation hedge. While Bitcoin has maintained the $25,000 level since March, the fate of the BTC ETF remains uncertain, diverting investor attention away from the cryptocurrency market at the moment.

From a technical perspective, markets are expected to experience a slowdown in trading and a decrease in liquidity in the coming period as investors await decisions from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). There are two possible outcomes following this move: an upward breakthrough or a downward trend. The stronger scenario leans towards a decline as BTC approaches the support level of $24,995 and extends losses to the critical support level of $24,000.

In the worst-case scenario, Bitcoin’s price could drop to the demand zone between $21,711 and $20,155. These predictions draw strength from signals from the Relative Strength Index (RSI), which is currently decreasing, indicating bearish momentum. Similarly, the bars of the Awesome Oscillator indicator are rising in red, signaling a strong bearish sentiment in the market.

In another scenario, an upward surge in Bitcoin’s price could change the current trend if the price returns above the strong level at $28,000, last tested on August 29. A breakthrough above it could send Bitcoin to levels beyond $29,692 or $31,518.

The article Bitcoin facing a challenging environment appeared first on Arabian Post.

The prices of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies have experienced significant fluctuations over the past few months due to increasing economic and regulatory pressures. Traders are now gearing up for a seismic event on Wall Street in the Crypto markets worth $15.5 trillion in September.

This comes after an insider at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warned buyers of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies about the Binance platform, suggesting that Elon Musk could turn X (Twitter) into an updated version of the electronic bank PayPal called “Pi-Bi-El.”

It appears that Musk is preparing to unleash a massive bombshell in the Crypto markets should he decide to announce a new payment system, an updated version of the electronic PayPal bank that offers low transaction costs compared to credit cards and generates income through user data usage. Earlier this month, media reports indicated that Elon Musk denied the possibility of X adding an integrated trading platform within the app as part of a plan to transform the app into the world’s financial data giant. He continues to insist that X will never launch its cryptocurrency but rather serve as a competitor to Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and his favorite Dogecoin cryptocurrency.

It’s worth noting that PayPal’s bank was launched by Elon Musk’s payments giant X.com when it merged with Confinity in March and introduced a stablecoin linked to the U.S. dollar called PYUSD in hopes of success where Meta failed with its stablecoin Libra, which later became Diem.

In my opinion, despite the hype surrounding PayPal’s new stablecoin, very few people are using PYUSD and holding it in their wallets. I believe this could dampen the enthusiasm for X to follow in PayPal’s footsteps on Wall Street and may delay or even lead to the cancellation of Elon Musk’s plans due to a lack of demand from cryptocurrency users for PYUSD, given the availability of other alternatives. This could be due to PayPal’s targeting of specific regions and countries. Most blockchain data indicates that about 90% of PYUSD is currently held in wallets controlled by the issuer, Paxos, with exchange holdings accounting for 7% of the total supply, and only 3% held by traders.

This comes as BlackRock plans to establish a long-awaited American Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), also known as the “approval seal.” The world’s largest asset management company has piqued Wall Street’s interest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies by applying for a Bitcoin ETF in June last year, bolstering the rise of Bitcoin, which leads the Crypto asset movement.

The article Musk bombshell animates crypto markets appeared first on Arabian Post.

It’s a different day for the cryptocurrency market as Bitcoin and most other Cryptocurrencies are experiencing a sharp increase in trading since yesterday. The price of Bitcoin started trading today, Wednesday, at $27,711. The fear and greed index has also moved out of the fear zone by several points and is currently at 42/100.

It’s worth noting that yesterday, Bitcoin led a surge in cryptocurrency prices after a US court supported Grayscale Investments (GBTC) against the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the company’s request for a Bitcoin ETF. This came after the Treasury Department proposed new rules for cryptocurrency taxes last Friday. Starting in 2026, cryptocurrency currency exchanges will provide annual 1099 reports to the IRS and taxpayers, disclosing total transactional revenue. In 2027, companies will be required to report the amount customers paid for cryptocurrency assets or their cost basis. This move is expected to provide credibility and significant investor confidence in the cryptocurrency markets.

I believe that court decisions and positive legal news related to cryptocurrency assets like Bitcoin will undoubtedly impact their prices. The court’s support for the Grayscale ETF is seen as an encouragement for further institutional investment products for cryptocurrencies. This could lead to increased interest from investors and major institutions in the market, potentially driving up demand for Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies and assets.

However, it’s important to note that the impact of this news depends on various factors, including general economic conditions, developments in regulations related to cryptocurrency markets, and technical factors within the market. It’s also crucial to recognize that the price of Bitcoin is subject to extreme volatility and rapid changes regardless of individual news events. Below is a technical overview of Bitcoin’s price movement, which is leading the cryptocurrency markets after this significant surge in the past few hours:

Currently, the price of Bitcoin is testing the level of the trendline it breached yesterday during the sharp price surge at $27,462. This level, which is now holding on to the four-hour chart, serves as confirmation of the continuation of the upward trend. The next targets in this case would be $29,300 and $30,000, respectively. However, it’s more likely that prices will remain within a range today, fluctuating between $28,133 and $25,878, as the markets await stronger catalysts.

Looking from another perspective, stability below the range of $28,100 to $30,000 could support the primary downward price trend. By technical indicator signals, potential downward targets in the medium term could be at $27,000, $26,470, and $25,897, respectively. In the short term, Bitcoin’s price might continue its ascent and target $28,335.58 in an attempt to retest the aforementioned resistance zone.

The article Bitcoin leads surge in crypto prices appeared first on Arabian Post.

By James M Dorsey

A potential revival of the Iran nuclear accord is likely to test the sustainability of Middle Eastern efforts to dial down tensions and manage differences by improving diplomatic relations and fostering economic cooperation.

In the latest fence mending, two Gulf states, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates announced their ambassadors’ return to Tehran.

The two countries, together with Saudi Arabia, withdrew their envoys in 2016 after rioters protesting the execution of a Shiite cleric in the kingdom ransacked the Saudi embassy in the Iranian capital.

For its part, Saudi Arabia is engaged in a round of Iraqi-mediated talks with Iran focused on security issues, including an end to the war in Yemen, where Iran supports Houthi rebels.

The Gulf’s latest outreach to Iran comes on the heels of two years of regional diplomacy that produced UAE, Bahraini, Moroccan, and Sudanese recognition of Israel; greater Saudi openness towards the Jewish state; improved Saudi, Emirati, and Egyptian relations with Turkey; and most recently, restoration of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel.

Laudable as that may be, much of the endeavour to manage disputes is built on thin ice. It assumes that improved communication, economic interest, and a regional concern that armed conflict could prove devastating will reduce differences or even help resolve disputes in the longer term.

Moreover, the endeavour was in response to major powers-the United States, China, and Russia – making clear in recent years that they expected Middle Eastern players to take greater responsibility for managing regional conflict, reducing tensions, and their defence.

The Gulf states, alongside the United States and Europe, further hope that a dialling down of tensions will challenge Iran’s regional alliances like in Iraq, where they are betting on the campaign by populist Islamic scholar Muqtada al-Sadr, a leading Shiite powerbroker, to counter Iranian influence in Iraq.

Even so, the rivalry between various regional powers continues more subtly. For example, competition for regional influence drove the battle between Turkey and Qatar on the one hand, and the UAE, on the other, for the contract to manage Kabul’s international airport. The rivalries are also evident in Turkey’s still fragile regional relationships and Saudi moves.

The rivalry was the subtext of a recent visit to Greece by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who earlier had visited Turkey, and Israel’s sale to Cyprus of its Iron Dome air defence system at a time when Turkish-Greek-Cypriot tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean threaten to heat up again.

There is little doubt that the system would serve as a defence against Turkey, which has had troops in the breakaway Turkish Cypriot republic since it invaded the island 38 years ago. Similarly, Turkey will likely watch with argus eyes Saudi Arabia’s expanding ties to Greece, its longstanding archrival.  Turkey has also insisted that relations with Israel would not dampen its support for the Palestinians, a festering problem that repeatedly erupts into violence at the expense of innocent civilians and resonates in Turkish and Arab public opinion.

Add to this that Turkey may see its hopes dashed of finding common ground in curtailing Kurdish aspirations in northern Syria with President Bashar al-Assad, whose demise Turkey has demanded for the past decade. Finally, when it comes to Turkey, a potential rift in NATO if Turkey renews its opposition to Swedish and Finnish membership could impact the country’s regional calculations. Turkey has demanded the extradition by the two Nordic countries of scores of ethnic Kurds and followers of exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen, some of whom are Swedish nationals.

To be sure, a revival of an admittedly problematic and flawed Iran nuclear accord is better than a failure of the negotiations involving the United States, the European Union, Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia. Even so, a revival of the accord is unlikely to reshape the regional environment given that in the words of analyst Trita Parsi, “the current US and Iranian political leaderships…have few domestic incentives to move beyond their shared enmity.”

A revival of the nuclear agreement would return Iranian oil to world markets and compensate for the loss of sanctioned Russian crude. As a result, it would likely spark a drop in oil prices and weaken the Saudi-Russian grip on pricing.

In the ultimate analysis, Saudi Arabia may see this as a price it must pay for averting a regional conflagration in the absence of a nuclear deal. Nevertheless, in talks in Washington in the last week, senior Israeli officials, including Defence Minister Benny Gantz and National Security Advisor Eyal Hulata, made their objections to the agreement clear.

Israeli officials said they had found a sympathetic hearing in Washington, including their demand that the United States develop a military option if all other efforts fail to prevent Iran producing a nuclear weapon. The United States struck twice in recent days against Iranian-backed forces in Syria in response to attacks on a US base in the country. Analysts suggested the attacks were retaliation for Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria.

Israel has insisted that it retains the right to strike Iranian nuclear facilities on its own, a move that could spark a regional war. Moreover, even if it decides not to do so, Israel’s covert war against Iranian targets in Iran itself as well as in Syria risks armed confrontation with Iranian-backed groups, including the Islamic Republic’s foremost non-state ally Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia.

Confrontation with Hezbollah could erupt not only because of Iran but also because the group is threatening to attack Israeli drilling platforms in the Mediterranean if a final agreement is not reached in US-mediated talks to draw the Israel-Lebanon maritime border.

Adding to the uncertainty is the possibility of a return to office of former Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu following elections in November.  Netanyahu was a driving force behind Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and his failed maximum pressure strategy. Like the Gulf states, Israel argues that the agreement would allow Iran to increase its support for allied militant groups in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen and does nothing to curb the Islamic republic’s ballistic missiles program. Neither issue was part of the original deal.

Israel and the Gulf states are further concerned that the deal has a remaining shelf life of at best three years, at which point Iran would be free to do as it likes unless a follow-up deal can be negotiated. Moreover, Iran will likely continue to be a nuclear threshold state with or without a revival of the nuclear agreement, raising the spectre of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey seeking to match Iranian capabilities. So far, albeit undeclared, Israel is the region’s only nuclear power. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Revival Of Iran Nuclear Deal To Test Middle East Détente first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Revival Of Iran Nuclear Deal To Test Middle East Détente appeared first on Arabian Post.

James M Dorsey

Education is emerging as a major flashpoint in competing visions of a future Muslim world. Rival concepts being instilled in a next generation are likely to shape what amounts to a battle for the soul of Islam.

Reports earlier this year published by the Israel-based Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) chart the divergence in educational approaches.

At one end of the spectrum are Pakistan and Turkey, two of the more populous Muslim countries whose claim to leadership of the Muslim world is rooted in conservative, if not ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam, that increasingly shape their education systems.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates reside at the other end with their reduced emphasis on religion in education and emphasis on science as well as religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue.

Straddling the two approaches is Qatar, the world’s only other Wahhabi state alongside Saudi Arabia even if it adhered to a more liberal interpretation long before the rise of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Since coming to office, Prince Mohammed has significantly reduced the role of ultra-conservative religious figures and institutions, cut back on global funding of Wahhabi activity, enhanced women’s rights and built a Western-style entertainment sector.

Sandwiched between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Qatar sees global support of political Islam, including the Muslim Brotherhood, as its best defense against the Saudi and Iranian governance models.

Qatari textbooks reflect the tightrope the Gulf state walks between professing adherence to concepts of democratic freedoms, human rights, tolerance, and pluralism, yet refusing to break with anti-Semitic and anti-Christian notions as well as philosophies of jihad and martyrdom prevalent in political Islam.

What the different approaches have in common is what makes both problematic: an endorsement of autocratic or strongman rule by either explicitly propagating absolute obedience to the ruler or the increasingly authoritarian environment in which the Islamicised education systems are being rolled out.

Underlying the different approaches to education are diverging interpretations of what Islam represents and what constitutes a moderate form of the faith as well as seemingly haphazard definitions put forward by various leaders.

To be sure, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in contrast to the values propagated in Turkish and Pakistan school curricula, tackle issues that are widely seen as potentially contributing to breeding grounds for radicalism and extremism.

These include supremacist concepts, discriminatory portrayals of minorities, emphasis on rote learning and attitudes towards violence.

In an interview in early May, Prince Mohammed expressed seemingly contradictory definitions of what his version of moderate Islam entailed. On the one hand, the crown prince suggested that it involved a liberal application of Islamic law guided by principles of tolerance and inclusivity.

Yet, at the same time, when asked about tackling extremism, Prince Mohammed cited a hadith or prophetic saying that urges the faithful to kill extremists. Saudi dissidents charged that the crown prince was justifying the targeting of those who criticized him, such as Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist who was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

“Today, we cannot grow, attract capital, offer tourism, or move forward with the existence of extremist ideology in Saudi Arabia. If you want millions of jobs, decline of unemployment, economic growth, and better income, then you must uproot this project… Any person who espouses an extremist ideology, even if he is not a terrorist, he is still a criminal who must be held accountable before the law,” Prince Mohammed said, arguing that the days in which religious ultra-conservatism served a purpose were in the past.

The divergence in educational approaches takes on added significance because countries that vie for leadership of the Muslim world like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey as well as Iran, export their visions of what the faith stands for in a variety of ways. These include funding of religious, cultural, and educational institutions in third countries and lobbying for policies that bolster their approach and counter that of their rivals.

While cutting back significantly on its overseas funding and harnessing the Muslim World League (MWL), once a prime vehicle in the Saudi promotion of ultra-conservatism, to propagate the kingdom’s more recent message of tolerance and inter-faith outreach, Saudi Arabia at times does not shy away from employing those it now denounces as extremists.

Indonesia is a case in point. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), another government-sanctioned non-governmental organization once used to further Saudi ultra-conservatism, prides itself on the funding of mosques in Indonesia built by the Prosperous Justice Party (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera or PKS), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated group.

When MWL secretary general  Mohammed al-Issa visited the headquarters in Jakarta of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the world’s largest Muslim movement, he opted to take with him Hidayat Nur Wahid, a leader of the PKS, and a staunch rival of the National Awakening Party (or PKB) that is associated with NU.

The Saudi flaunting of its political Islamic Indonesian associate appears designed to counter Nahdlatul Ulama, the single most serious challenger to the various concepts of Islam put forward by Middle Eastern powers, including the kingdom.

Nahdlatul Ulama promotes a concept of humanitarian Islam that is rooted in a reinterpretation of religious texts, recognizes the need for reform to revise or remove what the group calls “obsolete” concepts such as that of the kafir or infidel, and is supported by a broad base of Islamic scholars.

For its part, Turkey’s religious authority, Diyanet, that resides in the office of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has seen its budget increase 23-fold in the last two decades, making it by far one of the best funded government agencies.

Diyanet has funded mosque construction from the nearby formerly Ottoman countries in the Balkans to Africa and even Cuba. The Maarif Foundation, a vehicle used to take control globally of schools once operated by followers of Fethullah Gulen, uses school materials supplied by Diyanet.

Turkey accuses Mr. Gulen, a preacher who lives in exile in the United States and an erstwhile ally of Mr. Erdogan, of engineering a failed military coup in Turkey in 2016. Turkey has since arrested thousands of alleged Gulen supporters and removed large numbers of suspected supporters from the government bureaucracy and the military.

Multiple countries have handed local Gulen-operated schools to the Maarif Foundation. At last count, the foundation operated 323 schools, 42 dormitories and one university in 43 countries.

By the same token, the UAE supported by Saudi Arabia, has employed its religious soft power and commercial and economic sway to lobby for a tougher French policy towards political Islam prior to the crackdown initiated by President Emmanuel Macron.

The lobbying emphasized common interests in countering political Islam and Turkey, with which France is at odds in Libya and the eastern Mediterranean as well as on the issue of political Islam. It gave the French leader welcome Muslim cover to target political Islam and Turkey as he gears up for an election in 2022 in which Marie Le Pen, the leader of the far right, nationalist and anti-immigration National Rally, looms large.

As part of the crackdown on political Islam, France required children to attend school from age three. It also all but eliminated options for home schooling or the operation of privately-funded schools.

Mr. Erdogan laid down the gauntlet declaring in 2018 that “the joint goal of all education and our teaching system is to bring up good people with respect for their history, culture and values.” Mr. Erdogan spoke of a “pious generation” that “will work for the construction of a new civilisation.” It’s that new civilisation that is at stake in the battle for the soul of Islam.

The article ME powers fight for next generation of Muslims appeared first on Arabian Post.

-Reuters

The article U.S., Turkish leaders put best face on ties amid tensions
| Reuters appeared first on Arabian Post.

(The 19 hijackers implicated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack came from Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. None of those countries will be subject to what Mr. Trump described as “new vetting measures.”)

Continue reading the main story

During the 90-day period, the Trump administration will assess if the foreign governments on the list are providing enough information about citizens seeking visas to enable the United States to assess whether they pose a terrorism risk. If the governments do not comply, they will be given 60 days to do so; failing that, their citizens will be barred from entering the United States.

Government reaction to the order has been cautious. But there is little doubt that the demand for information will be a challenge for Iran, which sends far more people to the United States each year, around 35,000, than any other country on the list.

While Iran willingly allows its citizens to travel to the United States, it is ideologically opposed to sharing information with Washington. But if it does not, many of its citizens will be cut off from visiting relatives who are among the estimated one million Iranian-Americans living in America.

The visa ban will provide an early indication of where relations between Tehran and the Trump administration are headed, one analyst said.

Photo

“Trump will regard the Iranian reaction as a test,” said Farshad Ghorbanpour, who is close to the government of President Hassan Rouhani. “If Iran doesn’t comply, they won’t do so either on other issues. We will see in 30 days.”

Another analyst doubted the government would comply with the order.

“We are not obliged to give information about our citizens to the Trump administration,” said Hamidreza Taraghi, considered a hard-liner. “Such a move would be unjustifiable.”

In the United States, Americans of Iranian descent expressed shock and dismay at news of Mr. Trump’s impending policy change, and were particularly concerned about their relatives and friends in Iran.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, a Washington-based advocacy group, said many Iranian citizens with valid green cards and American visas were distraught. Those outside the United States are fretting they will not be allowed in, and those already in the country fear they will not be able to leave, even temporarily, because they will be barred from returning.

Continue reading the main story

“There is a sense of bewilderment, as well as a sense of injustice,” over why Iran was even included on the list of targeted countries, Mr. Parsi said. No Iranian has been accused of an attack on the American homeland. By contrast, he said, the Sept. 11 attackers included citizens from countries which are not on the list — and “the United States has produced more ISIS fighters than Iran has.”

Iran’s most popular actress, Taraneh Alidoosti, announced on Twitter that she was canceling her trip to the Academy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles on Feb. 26, after reports that Mr. Trump was about to sign the sweeping executive order.

Ms. Alidoosti plays a leading role in ‘‘The Salesman,’’ directed by the acclaimed Iranian director Asghar Farhadi and nominated for best foreign film. She almost certainly could have obtained a visa as a ‘‘culturally unique artist,’’ but said she no longer felt like making the trip.

“This is not about me or the Academy Awards, it’s about having a discussion about this decision,” Ms. Alidoosti said. “This is such a bizarre ban, it is uprooting people’s lives in ways not imaginable.”

In 2015, according to the Department of Homeland Security, a total of 35,266 nonimmigrant visas were granted to Iranians to enter the United States, compared with 21,381 for Iraq; 16,010 for Syria; 5,549 for Yemen; 4,792 for Sudan; 2,879 for Libya and 359 for Somalia.

OPEN Graphic

As there is no American embassy or consulate in Iran, Iranians must travel to Ankara, Turkey, Dushanbe in Tajikistan or to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, to apply for a visa. The State Department says that more than 40 percent of all applications are rejected. There are numerous agencies in Iran and other countries that mediate and assist Iranians seeking appointments.

“Let’s hope this is fake news,” said Ali Reza Falahati, who runs a mediation agency in Ankara. “People are constantly calling to ask us if their appointments are canceled. They paid visa fees, $160, and booked tickets and hotels. I just hope this will be all right.”

One woman in Tehran, a 28-year-old restaurant manager, nearly broke down in tears when hearing news of the ban.

She said she had been waiting for a green card and that she and her husband had been planning for years to move to Orlando, Fla., where her mother, father and brother live. They even postponed having a baby, she said, and now regretted having waited for so long.

Continue reading the main story

The effects of the measure were felt in Africa, too.

Many people in Mogadishu, Somalia, used the same word to describe Mr. Trump. “He’s a dabaal,” said Guled Hassan, a Somali university student. “Dabaal” is the Somali word for a fool.

On Thursday, Mr. Hussan and his friends, who were hanging out in a park near Mogadishu’s crumbling seashore, slurping mango shakes, were paying extra close attention to the news streaming into their phones. Just about all of them had heard that Mr. Trump might ban visas for Somalis.

Just about all of them said they wanted to go to the United States, and they mostly agreed the visa ban was “stupid” and “unfair.”

No Somalis doubt that their country has a terrorism problem. Just the day before, more than a dozen people were killed in a double bombing at a Mogadishu hotel. The Shabab, a Somali militant group, took credit for the attack and remains one of the world’s most bloodthirsty and dangerous terrorist organizations, having killed thousands across several countries in eastern Africa.

But the consensus was that Mr. Trump was punishing all Somalis for the potential misdeeds of a few. “He won the election by saying he would chase away black people,” said Bilal Guled Mohamed, a college student.

Another young man, Abdul Karim Hilowle, asked, “What’s the difference between Somalis already in the U.S. and those who want to go now?”

Continue reading the main story

NYtimes

The article In Iran, Shock and Bewilderment Over Trump Visa Crackdown appeared first on Arabian Post.