The war against Iran, unleashed by the United States and Israel started 100 days ago, on 28 February 2026. Two days later, in my Monday Commentary on commonspace.eu, I said that Donald Trump had opened Pandora’s Box, and that the conflict unleashed will have deep and lasting consequences for the region, and for the world. Unfortunately, it seems I was right. We are just at the beginning of what are likely to be, a chain of events, that remain for the most part unpredictable, even if the dangers, turmoil and risks, can already be seen. The problem is far from being resolved. A sort of a ceasefire has decreased the violence in the Gulf. Trump, under pressure from many quarters, to bring the crisis to a halt, keeps promising a deal “soon”, but in this, as with everything else in this saga, Trump is far away from reality. The revolutionary regime in Iran did not melt away; the killing of the Supreme Leader did not end the regime, nor did it mellow it down, the Iranian people did not rise to overthrow the clerics and their system, and the world did not rally around the US to support its adventure. Instead, Trump found himself tied to Israel’s Benyamin Netanyahu, and his convoluted view of the Middle East. Traffic through the vital global trade artery – the Strait of Hormuz, has been disrupted, as have global energy supplies, and other vital goods, such as fertilizer. Even if a semblance of peace is restored, the impact will be widespread and everlasting. This is seen, and will be seen even more crudely in the future, in the six Gulf monarchies that constitute the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). The six countries have since the late 1960s relied on the US for their defence and security. They had blind faith in the US, and this seemed to increase when Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term. They did not want the war. It came as an unpleasant surprise. But once it started, they expected the Americans to win it quickly and decisively. Instead, they find themselves faced with an injured but emboldened Iran, and a new Gulf reality that is unpleasant and uncomfortable. The GCC countries have to go back to the drawing board. At least three of them, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE, have the financial clout necessary, and leaders that are sharp enough to deliver. But there are some realities that will be inevitable. Iran, a hundred days after the killing of the Supreme Leader, is injured but emboldened. The heavy bombardments by the most powerful planes and missiles of the US and Israel, killed thousands of people, including one tier of leaders. But the worst damage is the material damage to infrastructure and facilities that will take years to restore. So far, the Islamic Republic, and its institutions have remained intact. But that does not mean they are not under pressure. Beyond the bravado speech coming out of Tehran, there is another reality. The war might not have triggered the revolt that Netanyahu and Trump expected, but it has triggered a process of change, the full implications of which will only be seen once the dust has settled. Donald Trump emerges from the last hundred days weakened and vulnerable. The outcome of the war is not what he expected. It was his war, even if some say that it was Netanyahu’s war. He thought he could win it quickly and decisively. He didn’t. Americans, to the right and to the left, are unhappy with the war and its consequences. They will have their say in the mid-term elections later this year. It is too early for the opponents of Trump to claim victory. But the writing is on the wall. The war will define Trump’s second term. For the moment it does not look good for the president. It does not look good for the United Sates either. Despite the impressive display of US shooting power, the war exposed the limits of US power, and the increasing US isolation in the world. The US can flatten a country, but it cannot flatten a people. The US deployed everything it has against Iran, except nuclear weapons. It dented the Iranian regime and its capabilities. Maybe even more. But it did not obliterate it. That clearly came as a surprise to Donald Trump; to US allies in the Gulf it came as a shock; to US adversaries in the world, who were watching carefully, it was a very instructive moment, and they all drew their own conclusions. The last hundred days have had an impact on others too: Israel; Lebanon, and the Palestinians, are caught in it. Europe is trying desperately not to be embroiled in Trump’s war. But Europe must be prepared for the day after. There is little sign of that yet. ======== (Click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

Parliamentary Elections are scheduled to be held in Armenia next Sunday (7 June). The Armenians will vote for a new parliament, and the leader of the winning party will become the prime minister, and will form the government. The incumbent, Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in a peaceful “velvet” revolution in 2018, is defending his eventful record against a spirited, well resourced, opposition. The Armenian people have a choice in the coming election, and a clear one. It is important to state clearly, and at the outset, that it is up to the Armenians to make this choice. Outsiders should not interfere. The next Armenian government will have important choices to make, at both the domestic and international level, and it must have the clear mandate, and the legitimacy of a popular vote, to deliver these choices. But it seems that this does not fit the needs of Putin’s Russia. Over the last days Russia has openly interfered in Armenian politics, using the leverages it accumulated over the years. Putin has made it clear that he will not tolerate an independent minded Armenian government. Armenia was since its independence in 1991, a compliant “partner” of Russia, and fitted into Vladimir Putin’s grand strategy of surrounding Russia with countries, that whilst nominally independent, depended on Russia for their defence, economy, foreign policy, and indeed for their survival. Any attempts at independent thinking or action was to be crushed. Look what happened to Ukraine. Armenia was told bluntly that the same could happen to it. Armenia’s big “sin” was that it expressed the wish to join the European Union. Everyone knows that this was an aspiration, rather than a decision. EU membership takes years, decades even, to negotiate. If the process starts officially now, and it has not, it will probably take twenty years to become a reality. But Putin is not taking chances. He will not allow Armenia to escape Russian clutches, even if that escape is only aspirational. Russia is trying to intimidate the Armenian people, prior to Sunday’s vote., accompanied by a barrage of disinformation emanating from Moscow, This process must be watched carefully. Western leaders have visited Armenia in the last month, for the EPC Summit, for the Armenia-EU summit, and most recently last week the short visit of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Their presence in Yerevan was a message to Moscow: we will not allow you to do in Armenia what you did in Ukraine. Sunday, the Armenian people, will make their decision. They should be allowed to make that decision freely, and without pressure. Everyone should thereafter respect that decision. (Click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full, or listen to the audio).

Empires tend to self-destruct. They peak to greatness and military might, and then gradually decline, either as a result of military defeats, or internal discord, or more likely a mix of both. Decline can take along time. The Roman Empire, first split in  two and the Eastern part survived until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The British and French empires, that dominated the world in the last part of the 19th and early 20th centuries never recovered from WWII. They emerged victorious but weakened. The formal end of the British empire happened with the withdrawal from the Gulf and South Yemen in the 1970s. The British left because they simply could not afford to stay. The emerging states, roughly the six GCC states and Southern Yemen (an independent country until 1991), did not even bother to join the British Commonwealth. These days we call empires superpowers, and for 30 years there has only been one – the United States. It remains the richest and best armed country n the world, but its ability to act as global arbiter and policeman is fading away. The current Iran war has exposed the limits of American power, to the incredulity of friends and foe alike. The international system does not like vacuums. What is left empty is often quickly filled by something else. People look at China as the new superpower, that will fill whatever space US decline will empty. It will not happen. China’s economic resurgence is nothing short of miraculous. It has the second largest economy in the world, and growing. Its armed forces have gone through a major transformation, and are designed primarily to deal with a confrontation with the United States. Under president Xi, in the “new era”, China is ready to make its mark on the world. It will, or is already, a global player that must be taken seriously. But it lacks the ability to be a global hegemon. There are several reasons: first, it will always been seen by the US as the primary threat, and even a weakened US can still take on China. China will spend much of its effort at managing this. Second, China is boxed in, not only through its maritime arteries, but also through its two strong Asian neighbours: Japan and India. The Chinese navy, and a robust and assertive Chinese policy in the South China Sea is trying to mitigate this weakness, but  with mixed results.  This means that China cannot even become a hegemon in Asia, let alone the world; Third is the issue of Taiwan, which remans China’s priority, and which will always be a distraction; and fourthly, last but not least, the Chinese political model is unattractive to everyone else. The reaction of most nations when confronted by the Chinese model is, “Thank you, but No thank you”. In this situation the likely scenario for the rest of this century is likely to be the absence of a global hegemon, and the rise, or consolidation of strong big powers, assisted by smaller but not insignificant regional powers, with areas of competition, where conflict is likely as big powers, assisted by regional powers, fight each other through proxies.  One can argue that Artificial Intelligence and other high tech developments might change all these consideration, but this is an area where big powers and important regional powers are already competing aggressively. Finally, despite all the justified pessimism can one still have hope in international institutions. On Tuesday (26 May), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will hold a high-level open debate on “Upholding the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter and Strengthening the UN-Centred International System”. It is a Chinese initiative, coinciding with their chairmanship of the Council in May. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi will chair the meeting, during which UN Secretary-General António Guterres is expected to brief. It is good that countries ponder this topic, but world opinion must be more vocal in making the case for multilateralism. The empire system must not be reconstructed in any form. (click the image to read the full Monday Commentary)

The 2026 Summit of the presidents and prime ministers of NATO countries is scheduled to take place at the presidential complex in Ankara on 7 and 8 July. The decision to hold the summit in Turkiye was taken at the last NATO summit in The Hague in 2025. At the time people assumed that although having the summit in Turkiye is symbolic, and will help consolidate the membership of that country in NATO, the Ankara summit will simply be a glorified photo-opportunity. It is clear now that things will work out differently. The Ankara summit will define NATO for the next decade, and preparations are on the way, seriously and in earnest. Two reasons are contributing to this: the first is  the acute situation in the international system, caused by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the US-Israeli war on Iran and the crisis it has created in the Gulf, and Donald Trump’s disregard, even disdain, for the US traditional allies in Europe, and even for NATO itself. The second reason why the Ankara summit has become so important is that the Turks, as hosts, are determined to use the event to push some key issues that NATO has been avoiding for some time, including how the alliance engages with its southern neighbourhood. Turmoil in the international system have raised questions of how the NATO alliance can look in the future. As hosts of the Ankara summit, the Turks embraced these three challenges. As Ilker Sezer puts it in Turkiye Today, “For all of its complex balancing acts, NATO remains on of the most critical pillars of Turkiye’s own national security, whether you like it or not” Speaking a few days ago in an interview on al Jazeera, Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, said that NATO’s biggest achievement since its creation was not its power of deterrence, but rather the fact that it had stopped different European countries from fighting with each other, and instead co-operate together for mutual defence. Given European history up to WWII it is difficult to disagree with him. As Levant Kemal, also argues on Turkiye Today, “As the global landscape shifts, this summit offers Ankara a significant opportunity to act as a visionary host in shaping NATO’s future trajectory”  (click image to read full Monday Commentary)

Dozens of European presidents, prime ministers and other senior leaders, descended on Yerevan last week, to participate in the 8th Summit of the European Political Community (EPC). For a day or two, you could not go anywhere in the centre of the Armenian capital without bumping into a European leader and his entourage. The following day, it was time for bilateral relations, and the first EU-Armenia summit took place with the participation of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Antonio Costa, president of the European Council. This was a more substantial affair, during which the EU heaped praise, and some financial support, for Armenia, and importantly highlighted how it proposed to engage with Armenia in the future. Armenia had made the journey from being a Russian outpost, which it was until 2018, to becoming the EU’s favorite in the South Caucasus – a “status” achieved not least because of Azerbaijani aloofness, and Georgia’s bizarre anti EU trajectory. Moscow, Tehran and Washington watched events in Armenia carefully. For Armenia, Azerbaijan remains the elephant in the room. Pashinyan has gone along way to redefine Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. This is still “work in progress”. But the EU needs to engage carefully and sensitively, but not meekly, on this issue too. Kaja Kallas the EU High Representative, went to Baku immediately after Yerevan, to emphasise this inclusivity. On the same day (6 May), EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Magdalena Grono spoke about the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process and the role of external players during a panel discussion held within the framework of the Yerevan Dialogue international forum 2026. EUSR Grono noted that the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process has been a “wonderful and powerful” one, adding that it has received important support from external partners. She expressed hope for new opportunities for regional cooperation when the time is right. She also stressed the importance of addressing humanitarian issues. In Yerevan last week the European Union and wider Europe assembled in the EPC, showed its commitment to Armenia and the South Caucasus region. It was necessary. It was timely, but it was also just a start. In its approach to the South Caucasus over the last thirty years Europe has been largely reflexive: responding to events. It has lacked a strategic approach and a regional vision. Both require patience, perseverance and flexibility, but in the end they make policy towards the region more sustainable. In the South Caucasus, people have long memories, and the EU has no institutional memory. It fails to build on its own success, and it fails to learn from its mistakes. The region is too important and is too close to Europe either to be ignored, or to be approached lightly. The Armenian parliamentary elections on 7 June will define Armenia’s future, as well as that of the region. In many ways the EPC Summit and Armenia-EU summit were a loud statement of support for the current Armenian trajectory. However in the end it is up to the Armenian people to make a decision. Europe must support the democratic process that makes this possible, and after 7 June must be ready to stand with Armenia in case Moscow and Tehran do not like the result. (click image to read the full commentary)

The visit of King Charles III to the USA last week was a huge success. It greatly contributed to the image of Brtain, and the monarchy, but it also contributed to improving the image of the Uniited States in the world, at a time when its global position is at a long time low. In his speeches, at a joint session of Congress, and at the State Dinner in the White House the King was measured and forcefull. He said everything that needed to be said, but without causing offence, In fact in Congress he was given twelve standing ovations. In a country that seems to agree on almost nothing, the King received a warm reception from both sides of the political divide where neutral ground is rare. The King visited the US at a time when UK-US relations were seen as being in crisis, and with an unpredictable president in the White House, known to ambush his guests. A commentator in the conservative Washington Examiner wrote that the UK needed more than conventional diplomacy - and that King Charles delivered. As the BBC noted, ” for months, Donald Trump - a committed Anglophile and avid fan of the Royals - repeatedly told reporters that he was excited for the King's visit. That excitement was on full display throughout the King's visit to Washington, in which the world saw a warmer version of a president not shy to make his feelings known. Uncharacteristically, Trump largely stuck to a script, making no mention of policy disagreements with Downing Street and lauding the long ties between the US and Britain.”  Trump, following the King’s speech to Congress remarked: "He got the Democrats to stand, I've never been able to do that. I couldn't believe it. They liked him more than they've ever liked any Republican or Democrat, actually." Britain has a political system that often appears to be broken, an economy that often appears to be tired, and a young generation that often appears to be confused. Yet there is a parrallel British system, with the monarchy at its head, that remains robust and ambitious, and that can deliver when necessary. Some call it a deep state. In fact it is much more subtle, and wider, and can rise to the occasion. The visit of Charles III to the US last week proved that. All the jeremiahs, particularly in the mainstream British media, who have been singing the futility of the monarchy, and hearalded its demise, have had to eat humble pie last week as King Charles manoevered around the many obstacles of his trip to the US. King Charles showed he has personality, acumen and personal charm, and did the British people proud. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)

The news that six members of UNIFIL – the UN Peacekeeping force in Lebanon – have been killed in the last few weeks, has been overshadowed by the broader desperation of the situation in the Middle East. In March Israel launched an orgy of violence in Lebanon, killing thousands of people, and forcing the displacement of more than a million Lebanese.  Yet, the killing of the six UNIFIL members is a significant indicator of the gravity of the situation facing UN peacekeepers in numerous trouble-spots around the globe. Israel and Hizballah are blamed for the killing of the six UNIFIL soldiers – four Indonesian and two French – in separate incidents. Their death unfortunately is symbolic of a dangerous trend: UN peacekeepers are increasingly specifically targeted. They are in the eyes of belligerents a legitimate target. They are not. Killing peacekeepers is a violation of international humanitarian law. The perpetrators of this crime must be pursued. The UN had 11 peacekeeping operations with 61,197 peacekeepers in 2025. This number is set to decrease. It is financial constraints that are a more existential threat to UN peacekeeping operations. The impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on UN peacekeeping operations is a major concern. The UN is expected to run out of cash in July if member states, and particularly the US, do not pay their dues. The Secretary-General has warned that the organisation faces a major risk of “imminent financial collapse”, a situation that would have catastrophic implications for its peacekeeping missions. The crisis in UN peacekeeping, and the broader UN financial crisis, reflects a deeper problem in the UN, and particularly in the leadership of the UN Security Council, and  its legitimacy. it is financial constraints that are a more existential threat to UN peacekeeping operations. The impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on UN peacekeeping operations is a major concern. The UN is expected to run out of cash in July if member states, and particularly the US, do not pay their dues. The Secretary-General has warned that the organisation faces a major risk of “imminent financial collapse”, a situation that would have catastrophic implications for its peacekeeping missions. The crisis in UN peacekeeping, and the broader UN financial crisis, reflects a deeper problem in the UN, and particularly in the leadership of the UN Security Council, and  its legitimacy. (click the image to read the full Monday Commentary)

Last year the Catholic Church elected an American for the first time as its head. Robert Prevost, known since 2025 as Pope Leo XIV, was clearly not a conventional choice. He was also an enigma: on matters of religious liturgy and dogma he appeared as a conservative and traditionalist, on matters of the world he appeared liberal and progressive. It was perhaps this contradiction that made it easy for his fellow cardinals to elect him as Pope. Everyone could see something that they liked in Robert Prevost. In 2025, another American took over in a position of global consequence. In January Donald Trump was sworn in as president of the United States for a second term. Whilst Trump has never been short of controversy, even his most ardent critics have been shocked by his audacity, arrogance, and sheer bravado in office over the last fifteen months, culminating in a war that is far from over but is already a disaster for the US and the world. Trump 2.0 appears to have no constraints, either moral or constitutional. He returned to the White House a bitter man, feeling that he had been cheated of winning a second term in 2020, and determined to use his party’s control of both houses of congress to cheat the system of checks and balances that is the basis of the US constitution. Trump is also uninhibited by a need to think of his next election. Both his age and the constitution makes this prospect unlikely. So he decided to “enjoy the moment”. He does not like to hear bad news, nor advice that does not fit his own plans. The result is the surreal situation that has prevailed for the last 15 months. That these two Americans would clash was inevitable. On paper they exist in parallel worlds – one spiritual, and one temporal. But in truth they both have a strong view of how the world should look like, and this view cannot be more different. Up to recently different points of view emerged around domestic political issues, such as migrants. However, it is the war in the Middle East that has put the two Americans at loggerheads. Pope Leo XIV has been a very vocal critic of the war, and the basis of his criticism is moral. In his April 12 Truth Social post, Trump called the pope not just weak on crime but “terrible for Foreign Policy,” adding that "Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” The pope responded by saying he had “no fear of the Trump administration” and would continue to preach the Catholic Gospel. Trump takes on the Catholic leader at his peril. This is a rare moment in history, one in which the leader of one of the world’s largest faiths clashes with the strongest political leader of his age. Few doubt that it will be Pope Leo XIV who will emerge victorious, not least because he is right. (click image to read the full commentary).

The six Gulf countries members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have been caught in the war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran since 28 February. Ostensibly, because they host US military facilities, they were relentlessly attacked by Iran in the period before the two-week cease fire, announced a week ago. The Gulf countries have not retaliated, but they made strong requests to Iran to desist. They were very supportive of the efforts to end the conflict, especially the talks hosted by Pakistan in Islamabad over the weekend. The 21 hours of talks were intense, but according to all accounts unsuccessful. But this was the first direct contact at a high political level between Iran and the US since the 1979 Iranian revolution, so their importance should not be underestimated either. The opening of the Strait of Hormuz for unimpeded movement of shipping is a top priority. In resolving this issue the GCC countries must be involved directly. For the six GCC countries the conflict in Iran is not only unwelcome. They tried to stop the war from starting. They face a serious problem, which is not yet existential, but may well change their way of life forever. But, despite the bleakness of the current situation, the Gulf must prepare for tomorrow. Three areas are of importance: Defence and Security; Foreign Policy and National Cohesion. Developing a new security architecture for the Gulf is a long term, ten-year, project. It should not be rushed but neither should complacency be allowed. Thinking and discussion on these issues must start now. This is a testing time for the six GCC countries, but they have internal resilience, and enough financial cushion to weather the storm. And I am sure they also have the creativity and the will to reconstruct, and reconstruct better. (click the picture to read the Commentary in full)

The war in the Middle East goes on. Most countries, governments and people think it was unnecessary and unjustified. The person who started it, and who has the power to stop it quickly, Donald Trump, has as much as admitted he had not thought the whole thing through properly. This war has already deformed the Middle East in ways we are just starting to understand. Its negative impact on the world, even if it stops tomorrow are going to be deep and long lasting. Some will despair. But governments, international organisations, and more broadly civil society, do not have this luxury. It is time to rethink, regroup, and develop a future strategy. For that it is necessary to look at the big picture. This is far from easy while the senseless war continues but it is necessary, and all those who can, in their different ways, need to contribute. On 19 March the EU had a summit of the leaders of the 27 member states in Brussels. It was a serious, somber affair, overshadowed by the war in the Middle East, and the political and economic fallout from it. Big decisions were taken. The European leaders also met with the UN Secretary General, Antonio Gutteres. Both the EU and the UN are large organisations, that often look dysfunctional. But for the future if the world, post the Trump war in the Middle East, both are vital  The commitment of both to multilateralism at this precise moment, when the concept appears broken, is welcome. The world must recognize that the present crisis, is the biggest challenge since WWII. The solutions must be equal to the challenge. They must also be bold and ambitious. The EU working with the UN is one of the few, maybe only, actor that can make a difference. But this will require political will and determination. The Brussels EU meeting on 19 March gave a hint of that. But we are not there yet. ---- Monday Commentary will take a two-week Easter break, and will next be published on 13 April 2026. In the meantime however, commonspace.eu will continue to be updated daily. (Click the picture above to read the full Monday Commentary).