Category World News

Unlike his 46 predecessors, Donald Trump’s political career began with a direct bid for the presidency rather than through a progression of elected or appointed offices. His political trajectory and election as President of the United States were unprecedented. Without a track record in politics, his first term was, by definition, a foray into the ways of Washington and the conduct of international affairs. The successes of his first term enabled him to master the intricacies of American governance and prepared him for his second, which places greater emphasis on foreign policy.

One year after his second election, President Trump’s foreign policy doctrine has reshaped the global order and redirected America’s role in the world at lightning speed, from defence alliances to resource security strategy. Critics dismiss the Trump Doctrine as nothing more than a chaotic combination of isolationism, dismantlement of multilateralism, and imperialism. Yet the reality is quite the opposite. President Trump’s vision is methodical and strategically results-driven. Although unorthodox, Trump’s bold and sometimes deliberately provocative pronouncements unnerve adversaries, often leading to concessions and desired outcomes. Whether friend or foe, America-first interests define his agenda and tactics. He aptly practises the “art of the deal” to achieve his goals. Nowhere is this strategy clearer than in Greenland. Trump threatened an invasion, a maximalist bargaining position, if Denmark refused to cede the island, which he deems vital to US security. The result: an agreement in which Denmark and the US will greatly increase their joint military footprint and open investment almost exclusively to the United States while excluding Chinese and Russian encroachment. Mission accomplished: enhanced US strategic access while reinforcing Western security architecture. Trump believes that by placing American interests first, the free world will also benefit, prosper and be more secure. Trump argues that prioritising American strength ultimately stabilises and secures the broader democratic alliance.

To accomplish his objectives, Trump has discarded what he sees as the role of the United Nations and argues that the 80-year-old organisation is at best ineffective and at worst a forum for anti-Americanism and left-wing activism, frequently paralysed by veto politics and incapable of enforcing meaningful accountability. Instead, his approach is bilateral or regional, reflecting a doctrine that prioritises direct power relationships over multilateral consensus. Regional alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), have been redefined by Trump’s insistence on collective engagement and greater contributions by member states, rebalancing alliance obligations to strengthen deterrence while reducing US overextension. Wealthy allies in Europe and Asia will now shoulder more of the financial burden for their own defence. At its core, the Trump Doctrine rests on two strategic pillars designed to secure peace through strength and prosperity through leverage. First, enhanced American military strength through a proposed doubling of the defence budget to 6 percent of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP), aimed at restoring overwhelming military deterrence in an era of great power competition. Second, the promotion of investment and equitable free trade. Trade and tariffs are instruments used by Trump not only to achieve equitable trade agreements but also as strategic tools designed to shape global behaviour and advance foreign policy objectives, ranging from curtailing Russian oil purchases in support of Ukraine to combating the global illicit drug trade, demonstrating Trump’s belief that economic leverage can be as decisive as military strength in shaping global outcomes.

In no region of the world has Trump invested more energy and political capital than the Middle East, which has become a central arena for his foreign policy approach. The Trump Doctrine has reaffirmed and strengthened the American-Israeli relationship while expanding the United States’ historic ties to Arab allies through the Abraham Accords that Trump championed in his first term, positioning them as a framework for broader regional cooperation. President Biden labelled Saudi Arabia a “pariah state”; Trump, in turn, considers the Kingdom a pivotal ally and a cornerstone of regional stability. Trump’s sway with Arab allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, was instrumental in achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, using regional alliances to advance negotiations. Trump’s vision for the Middle East is largely based on a philosophy that prosperity and opportunity, particularly for the Palestinians, is the cornerstone to achieve peace. Hence, his references to the development of Gaza and investments to make it prosperous. Trump’s 20-point, three-phase Gaza peace plan and Peace Council seek to balance Palestinian self-rule with Israeli security requirements. By marshaling the resources and commitments of Turkey and key Arab allies in the region, Trump is prepared to take calculated gambles to resolve the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, applying similar regional coalition-building efforts, just as he has done with the warring parties in Syria and with his support of the Sharaa-led government. Where Trump draws a red line is with respect to Iran. The Trump Administration subscribes to the view that most of the instability in the region is attributable to the Iranian regime’s meddling and support of terrorism and Iranian proxies in Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon. Beyond being a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions also pose a global threat and, if successful, would serve to impose Iran’s hegemony over the entire region. Whether by military force or through a verifiable negotiated agreement, Trump is determined to conclusively end the Iranian threat, seeking to contain or dismantle Iran’s strategic capabilities for the long term. Trump is the first American President to strike Iran and is prepared to do so again. With Iran’s containment or with regime change through internal revolution supported by the United States, Trump would have much more leeway to press for a Palestinian state and the necessary security arrangements for both Israel and the Palestinians. In Trump’s vision, the guarantors of such a peace would be the United States and a cadre of Arab leaders representing an expanded Abraham Accords roster that would include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and Lebanon, alongside other Arab states committed to regional security cooperation.

It is essential to consider the Trump Administration’s global foreign policy achievements and objectives through a broad lens, recognising them as part of a deliberate and coherent strategic doctrine. The Trump Doctrine’s principles are anchored in an unprecedented expansion of national defence, the pursuit of fair and equitable trade, and steadfast support for American allies. Unorthodox as Trump’s approach may be, its outcomes, according to its supporters, have demonstrated tangible strategic gains. In many respects, Donald Trump is portrayed as a 21st century Theodore Roosevelt, a leader willing to project strength to secure national interests. Both Presidents put America First and carried a big stick, prioritising national power as the foundation of global influence and stability.

The ICC T20 World Cup has been a showcase of the big-time – and biggest hitting – stars of cricket since the tournament’s inception in 2007.

The latest edition in India and Sri Lanka will be no different, with the evolution of the shortest format of the game continuing to break records and defy the odds.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at five of the top names at the tournament that will be hoping to lead their side to the 2026 final on March 8.

Abhishek Sharma – India

The world appears to be at the feet of Abhishek Sharma; indeed, it has appeared that way since he was signed by Delhi Daredevils in the Indian Premier League at the age of 17.

Now 25, the left-hander has established himself as one of the most feared T20 batters in world cricket – striking at nearly 200 in his 38 T20 international appearances on arrival at the tournament. The Punjab-born opener has yet to appear in Test or one-day international cricket for India, but has already recorded two centuries and eight fifties for his country in the shortest format.

Sikandar Raza – Zimbabwe

An elder statesman at the tournament, Sikandar Raza commands huge respect not only in Zimbabwe but also in Pakistan. Born in Punjab, the 39-year-old switched Asia for Africa with his family just after the turn of the century.

The right-handed batter, who also bowls both off and leg-break, made his debut for Zimbabwe in 2013 and has 152 appearances across all formats on arrival at the T20 World Cup. It is in the shortest format where he has achieved the most success, becoming a gun player for numerous T20 sides the world over.

Abrar Ahmed – Pakistan

Wrist spinners have long been regarded as the key to any successful T20 side and, in Abrar Ahmed, Pakistan have a player capable of turning a match on sixpence. The 27-year-old leg-break bowler only made his Test debut in 2022 and had to wait until 2024 to make his bow in both white-ball formats.

Then, 116 wickets for his country followed, including 46 in T20 internationals at an average of 17 with an economy just below seven. The greatest challenge for Abrar in his career has sadly been persistent back injuries, which slowed his early years and delayed his international debut. Both he and Pakistan will hope those problems are long behind him now.

Harry Brook – England

Arguably England’s most exciting talent, Harry Brook certainly has the ability to be their most explosive. The 26-year-old batter already has 134 caps for his country, with 13 centuries in that time, and claimed a T20 World Cup winners’ medal at the 2022 edition.

The right-hander was the first Englishman to score a triple century in Test cricket since Graham Gooch’s 333 against India in 1990. Brook’s effort came in Pakistan in 2024 and was achieved at nearly a run-a-ball. He has already represented three teams in the IPL and has 169 T20 appearances to his name in total, with three centuries and 16 fifties at a strike rate of 152.

Glenn Maxwell – Australia

Maxwell has long been the darling of white-ball cricket the world over. The best example of his incredible talent came when, severely hampered by injury, he dragged Australia into the semifinals of the 2023 Cricket World Cup with an unbeaten double century.

The 37-year-old had the nickname “The Big Show” long before that knock, and has been a near ever-present – and one of the highest earners – in the Indian Premier League. Maxwell arrives in India and Sri Lanka with 281 international appearances under his belt, and – even with age against him – one of cricket’s greatest game changers could well have another trick up his sleeve for Australia.

My name is Krishna Nandi. I am a Hindu. I am a businessman. I am also a parliamentary candidate of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami.

For many readers, this combination appears unusual. For me, it reflects a deeper truth about politics in Bangladesh that has long been obscured by fear, misinformation and political convenience.

My nomination has generated national debate because it challenges a long-held assumption that an Islamic political party cannot genuinely represent religious minorities. I welcome this debate. My candidacy exists precisely to confront this assumption directly and openly.

I want to state clearly what I have said repeatedly to people across my constituency. If Jamaat-e-Islami comes to power, no Hindu will have to leave Bangladesh. No Hindu will be forced to go to India. Instead, Hindus will live in this country with dignity, safety and respect. When I say that Hindus will be treated with honour, I am not speaking symbolically. I am talking about concrete guarantees of security, justice and equal citizenship under the law.

For decades, fear has been deliberately planted in the minds of minority communities. Hindus have been told that Islamic politics automatically means their persecution. This narrative has been politically useful for some but deeply harmful for national unity. My nomination itself is a living contradiction of this claim, and it has already restored confidence among many who had lost faith in politics altogether.

I joined Jamaat-e-Islami in 2003, not out of convenience but out of conviction. I found discipline, accountability and moral clarity within the party. Jamaat does not buy votes with money. It does not rely on intimidation, extortion or violence.

These are not rhetorical claims. They are principles enforced internally. That is why many ordinary citizens, including minorities, are now reassessing their political choices.

People are losing confidence in traditional political parties. This includes parties that once spoke the language of democracy but gradually normalised corruption, violence and impunity. Citizens are not simply voting against something. They are searching for an alternative that is serious about justice, governance and moral responsibility.

Jamaat is increasingly being seen as that alternative. In my constituency of Khulna-1, people have suffered for years due to extortion, political violence and fear. Hindus, in particular, have faced targeted attacks, discrimination and economic marginalisation. Many have lost jobs unfairly. Families have lived under constant pressure.

I have said clearly that these injustices will not be ignored. Those dismissed unfairly will receive justice through lawful procedures. Violence and intimidation against any community will not be tolerated.

I do not believe in broker-based politics. I do not operate through intermediaries. My phone number is with the people, and it will remain so. Representation should be direct, accountable and continuous — not something activated only during election seasons.

There have been attempts to intimidate me. Local power structures, including figures linked to established parties, have tried to apply pressure. My response has been firm. I cannot be silenced and I cannot be pushed aside. Fear has dominated our politics for too long. If we surrender to it, nothing will change.

Another issue that deserves honesty is history. I do not deny that minorities in Bangladesh have suffered at different moments under different governments. That suffering cannot be erased by rhetoric. What matters is whether a political movement is willing to confront injustice rather than deny it.

My presence within Jamaat-e-Islami is not an attempt to rewrite history but to shape the future. Many ask whether Jamaat is only for Muslims. My answer is straightforward. Jamaat is an Islamic party in values but a national party in responsibility. Justice, accountability and human dignity are not owned by any one religion.

During the July 2024 uprising in Bangladesh, naturally many amongst minority religious communities felt unsafe and insecure. However, it was members of organisations like Jamaat-e-Islami who gave us protection and safe guarded our temples and places of worship.

A state governed by justice protects minorities better than a state governed by slogans. When families fall into poverty, Jamaat-linked welfare networks step in without asking about religion or political loyalty. This culture of service explains why many citizens see Jamaat not as a party of slogans but as a party of discipline, structure and responsibility.

For international observers, I want to be equally clear. This election is not about importing ideology or exporting fear. It is about restoring trust between citizens and the state.

Bangladesh is a plural society by reality, not by charity. Any political force that ignores that fact cannot govern sustainably. My candidacy is not only about winning a seat, it is also about opening a new political conversation in Bangladesh. A conversation beyond fear, beyond communal suspicion and beyond the idea that identity must divide us.

I stand as a Hindu candidate, not in spite of Jamaat-e-Islami but because I believe its principles can help build a safer, fairer Bangladesh for all. This country belongs to all of us.

Captain Salman Ali Agha has warned that his Pakistan team must bring their “A-game” to the 2026 T20 World Cup to reach the knockout stages after forfeiting their group match against India.

The tournament has been overshadowed by an acrimonious political build-up as Bangladesh were replaced by Scotland, and Pakistan refused to face co-hosts India in their Group A fixture.

Pakistan will lose two points for the forfeit and also suffer a significant blow to their net run rate, leaving little margin for error.

Even one abandoned match due to bad weather could complicate their path to the next round.

Pakistan open their campaign on Saturday in Sri Lanka against the Netherlands and will also face Namibia and the United States.

“We need to be cautious and bring our A-game,” Agha told reporters on Friday, admitting Pakistan have limited experience of the Netherlands and “don’t know many” of their players.

“We intend to unleash all our spin options because we feel they are vulnerable against quality spin,” he said.

The 2009 champions will lean heavily on their explosive opening pair, Fakhar Zaman and Saim Ayub, with Agha slated for number three.

Former skipper Babar Azam, who has struggled for form, slots in at number four.

“Babar has been working overtime on his game. He’s a key player in these conditions and can change a match in a few overs. We depend on him heavily,” Agha said.

Pakistan are on a high after a 3-0 whitewash of Australia at home.

The team will seek advice from their government if they reach the knockout phase and meet archrivals India.

Two Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the northern Gaza Strip, emergency services said, with multiple attacks reported across the coastal enclave as Israel presses its genocidal war despite the “ceasefire” it has violated daily since October 10.

The bodies of those killed in the cities of Jabalia and Beit Lahiya were transported on Friday to al-Shifa Medical Complex in Gaza City.

In southern Gaza’s Khan Younis, Israel struck a Palestinian home, with the military, claiming the attack was in response to its soldiers being shot near the so-called yellow line – the demarcation line where the Israeli army entrenched under the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire, creating its own buffer zone.

“Within half an hour, the house was evacuated. It was cleared out, and then it was bombed,” resident Saleh Abu Hatab told Al Jazeera, adding it was located “opposite a school sheltering displaced people”.

‘Traumatising Palestinians’

Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary, reporting from Khan Younis, said the attack hit a multistorey building belonging to the Abu Hatab family.

“No injuries or deaths were reported,” she said. Khoudary added that Israeli forces also attacked an area of empty land in Sheikh Ijilin in Gaza City.

“Despite the ceasefire … Israeli forces continue to attack different areas across the Gaza Strip, which is traumatising Palestinians,” she added.

Elsewhere, in the central enclave, several Israeli tanks and engineering vehicles advanced east of Deir el-Balah, bulldozing and conducting clearing operations in the area.

The attacks come two days after Israel killed at least 23 Palestinians on Wednesday, one of the deadliest days since the Gaza US-brokered “ceasefire” began in early October.

In that period, Israeli attacks have killed at least 574 people with 1,518 wounded, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

Palestinian families united

Twenty-one Palestinians stranded in Egypt were reunited with their families on Thursday in southern Gaza via the Rafah crossing.

The journey back from the Egyptian city of El Arish took many hours amid Israeli restrictions and obstacles at the crossing, with returnees looking visibly exhausted.

The Rafah crossing on the border with Egypt – the only way in and out for almost all of Gaza’s more than two million residents – was kept shut by Israeli authorities for most of the war and only partially reopened on Monday.

With its limited reopening, Israel is allowing a mere trickle of people to travel, finally permitting Palestinians who had been stranded outside to return and enabling the transfer of patients desperately needing medical treatment abroad, a key condition of the US-brokered “ceasefire” deal intended to end the genocidal war on Gaza. Israel has dragged its feet on that condition even after its last remaining captive’s body in Gaza was returned.

To date, only a few dozen people have been allowed to enter and leave the war-devastated coastal enclave.

Khoudary, citing the Red Crescent, said there were currently no plans for any movement at the crossing on Friday.

“There is a very big challenge that not only journalists are facing right now, but also the Palestinians themselves, where no one is informing Palestinians about when does this crossing open. When does it close? What is the process?” Khoudary said.

Khoudary added that the processing time at the crossing was “very long”, including for those returning, who were also being interrogated.

“They are being interrogated, they’re being handcuffed, blindfolded, and they’re also being harassed by the Israeli forces,” she added.

“This is not what Palestinians were looking forward to. They want real freedom of movement,” she added.

Meanwhile, the pace of medical evacuations since the crossing’s partial reopening has been slower than the numbers promised, and far short of what was required to meet the needs of the approximately 20,000 patients in need of medical treatment in other countries.

While the agreement had spoken of 50 patients being evacuated each day, accompanied by two family members each, only about 30 had been transferred so far this week.