Mohammad Jafar Asadi, a senior figure in Iran’s military central command, said evidence showed that Washington was not committed to its promises or agreements, according to remarks published by Iran’s Fars news agency.“A renewed conflict between Iran and the United States is likely,” Asadi said, adding that previous developments had demonstrated that the United States could not be trusted to uphold commitments.

His comments came hours after President Donald Trump said he was dissatisfied with a new Iranian negotiating proposal delivered through mediator Pakistan on Thursday.“At this moment I’m not satisfied with what they’re offering,” Trump told reporters, blaming delays in diplomacy on what he described as “tremendous discord” inside Iran’s leadership.

“Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever or do we want to try and make a deal?” Trump said, adding that he would prefer to avoid military escalation “on a human basis.”The war, launched by the United States and Israel in late February, has been paused since April 8 after a ceasefire took hold following weeks of strikes across the region.

One round of peace talks in Pakistan failed to produce a breakthrough.Iran’s judiciary chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, said on Friday that Tehran had never avoided negotiations but would not accept peace terms imposed by outside powers.

The White House has not disclosed details of the latest Iranian proposal. Axios reported that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff had proposed amendments that would return Iran’s nuclear program to the center of negotiations, including demands that Tehran not move enriched uranium from bombed facilities or restart activity there during talks.

News of the proposal briefly pushed global oil prices down by nearly 5%, though prices remain significantly above pre-war levels because of continued disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy shipping routes.Iran has maintained effective control over the strait since the conflict began, severely disrupting flows of oil, gas and fertilizer exports, while the United States has responded with a blockade targeting Iranian ports.

Washington said late Friday it had approved major arms sales to regional allies, including a $4 billion Patriot missile deal with Qatar and nearly $1 billion in precision weapons systems for Israel.In Washington, lawmakers are also debating whether Trump violated the legal deadline for seeking congressional approval for the military campaign.

Administration officials argue that the ceasefire paused the 60-day clock requiring congressional authorization, while opposition Democrats dispute that interpretation.Trump told congressional leaders that “there has been no exchange of fire between United States Forces and Iran since April 7” and said hostilities had effectively “terminated.”Inside Iran, the economic impact of the war continues to deepen.

New U.S. sanctions targeting Iranian currency firms and disruptions to trade have worsened inflation, which has reportedly surged above 50%.“For many people, paying rent and even buying food has become difficult,” one Tehran resident said, reflecting growing public anxiety over the prolonged crisis.Supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei on Friday urged business owners to avoid layoffs and called for what he described as “economic and cultural jihad” in response to mounting economic pressure and external threats.

The measure, introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia under the War Powers Act of 1973, would have required Trump to end U.S. actions enforcing restrictions on Cuba unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

Democrats argued that Washington’s use of Coast Guard and other federal assets to disrupt oil shipments and tighten sanctions amounted to hostilities that should fall under congressional oversight.Republicans moved to dismiss the resolution, arguing it was procedurally out of order because the United States was not engaged in direct military hostilities with Cuba.

Their motion succeeded in a 51-47 vote.Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in dismissing the resolution, while Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats in supporting it.The vote marked the first Senate test specifically focused on Cuba as Democrats continue to challenge Trump’s military and strategic actions in several theaters, including Iran and Venezuela.

Previous efforts to constrain the administration’s authority under the War Powers Act have failed.Kaine said U.S. enforcement measures had triggered severe humanitarian consequences on the island, including worsening water shortages, electricity outages and disruptions to medical care.

“My argument is that under the terms of the resolution we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force, primarily the Coast Guard, but other assets as well, to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation,” Kaine said during Senate debate.

Cuba has been grappling with prolonged shortages of fuel, food and medicine, while U.S. sanctions and interruptions to Venezuelan oil shipments have added pressure to the island’s struggling economy.The Trump administration has said its policy aims to pressure Cuba’s leadership to end political repression, release political prisoners and implement economic liberalization.

Trump, speaking after the recent conflict with Iran, said Cuba would be a next foreign policy priority and pledged “a new dawn for Cuba” during remarks last week at a Turning Points USA event.Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont said the resolution was intended not only to challenge the blockade but also to prevent the possibility of direct military escalation.

“The United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist,” Welch said.Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida defended Trump’s approach and accused Democrats of overlooking rights abuses by Cuba’s government.“President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him,” Scott said.

The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 following the Vietnam War, was designed to reassert congressional authority over decisions involving U.S. military engagement abroad, requiring presidents to notify Congress and limiting unauthorized hostilities.

While some refiners have slowed new purchases, others are turning to alternative sources on the global spot market to maintain steady energy supplies.

Despite the temporary pause, India’s commitment to energy stability remains firm. State-run Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has stated that it will continue to purchase Russian crude as long as transactions comply with international regulations.

“Russian crude is not sanctioned. It is the entities and shipping lines that are affected,” said Anuj Jain, Finance Director of Indian Oil.

He emphasized that IOC would continue sourcing oil through non-sanctioned entities and compliant shipping arrangements, ensuring uninterrupted operations while adhering to global norms.

India has become one of the largest importers of Russian oil since 2022, when Moscow began redirecting exports eastward following the Ukraine conflict.

According to the International Energy Agency, India imported about 1.9 million barrels per day of Russian crude during the first nine months of 2025 — nearly 40% of Russia’s total seaborne exports.

This shift has helped India secure competitively priced oil and maintain a diverse energy basket during volatile global market conditions.

In recent days, several refiners, including Indian Oil, Reliance Industries, and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), have taken proactive steps to ensure continuity in operations.

Indian Oil has floated a new tender for compliant oil supplies, while Reliance has increased purchases from the spot market to make up for any potential shortfall.

MRPL has also issued a tender to buy between 1 million and 2 million barrels of crude to maintain its refining operations.

Similarly, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) plans to issue a spot tender within the next week to secure December-loading cargoes.

According to industry sources, BPCL will continue to buy Russian oil only from non-sanctioned entities while exploring alternative sources for a portion of its supply.

The company typically purchases around 2 million metric tons of oil from spot markets each month, most of which is Russian. For November, BPCL is fully covered, and the company is now working to secure adequate volumes for December.

Officials have indicated that the most likely replacements for Russian crude in the short term are Iraq’s Basrah Heavy and Basrah Medium grades, as well as U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude.

However, WTI currently costs about $3 to $3.50 per barrel more than competing grades, making price optimization a key focus for refiners.

While the European Union, the UK, and the United States have introduced successive rounds of sanctions targeting Russian energy companies such as Lukoil and Rosneft, Indian refiners are treading carefully to ensure compliance without compromising energy security.

The Indian government has maintained a balanced stance, reiterating that purchases will continue from sources not under direct sanctions.

Industry experts note that Indian refiners’ cautious strategy demonstrates prudence and adaptability in navigating a complex geopolitical and economic environment.

Refiners are closely coordinating with suppliers to ensure transactions remain within the boundaries of international law while securing the volumes needed to sustain industrial activity and fuel demand.

One refinery executive said his company had cancelled some previously booked cargoes linked to sanctioned entities but was exploring fresh deals with approved traders.

Another source confirmed that refiners are waiting for further guidance from both domestic authorities and global trading partners before finalizing additional Russian shipments.

Overall, India’s approach reflects a balanced energy strategy — one that prioritizes compliance, economic stability, and diversification.

While the recent sanctions have temporarily slowed procurement, Indian refiners are well-positioned to adjust through global sourcing and strategic planning.

As energy markets continue to shift, India’s refiners remain focused on ensuring uninterrupted supply chains and maintaining affordable fuel prices for domestic consumers.

The ongoing evaluation of new trade routes and partnerships underscores India’s growing role as a key player in shaping global oil dynamics, demonstrating both resilience and pragmatism in uncertain times.

Syria’s recovery is not just symbolic—it’s strategic. A stable, unified Syria is essential for regional security, refugee returns, and long-term economic integration.

The war in Syria may not be over on paper, but on the ground, the tide has clearly turned. Since the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, nearly 250,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey have returned home. This movement is not driven by propaganda or pressure, but by something far more powerful: the hope that Syria, at long last, is stabilizing.

That hope is grounded in real, visible change. The Damascus Stock Exchange has reopened, signaling a cautious but meaningful restart of the formal economy. Finance Minister Mohammed Yisr Barnieh called it a message to the world—that Syria is back in business.

The turning point came on May 13, when U.S. President Donald Trump, during a landmark visit to Riyadh, announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria. Ten days later, the U.S. Treasury issued General License 25, permitting transactions with Syria’s new transitional government, headed by President Ahmad Al-Sharaa. The EU swiftly followed with a coordinated suspension of its own sanctions regime. In less than two weeks, Syria went from pariah to partner in the eyes of global policymakers.

The momentum is not only diplomatic. Gulf states are stepping up. On Saturday, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, speaking from Damascus, announced a joint initiative with Qatar to help fund salaries for Syrian civil servants. These are the sorts of actions that turn ceasefires into recoveries.

And yet, despite these gains, Syria’s path forward still faces one last—and deeply entrenched—obstacle: the PKK-affiliated administration in northeast Syria, branded to the world as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), and militarily represented by the PYD and SDF.

Let’s be candid. For years, Western governments, NGOs, and think tanks have celebrated the AANES as a “progressive” alternative in Syria. But the reality on the ground tells a much darker story. Despite controlling vast natural resources, receiving billions in foreign aid, and enjoying unprecedented U.S. military protection, the AANES has delivered little more than corruption, repression, and instability.

Entire Arab and Assyrian communities have been displaced under their watch. Basic services remain in disrepair. Youth conscription, political detentions, and even child recruitment are not allegations—they are documented practices. Many in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, and Hasakah view the AANES not as a government but as an occupying structure—an extension of the PKK’s transnational project, not a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

This is not just Syria’s internal issue. It’s a regional problem. The longer these entities maintain their grip, the harder it becomes to achieve a unified, sovereign Syrian state capable of rebuilding and reconciling.

To its credit, the transitional government in Damascus has not responded with vengeance. President Al-Sharaa has focused on restoring institutions, rebuilding national infrastructure, and pursuing a post-conflict political identity that moves beyond sectarianism. But these efforts will remain incomplete until all Syrian territories are returned to accountable, sovereign administration.

In this context, the reopening of the U.S. embassy in Damascus sends a powerful signal. Newly appointed American envoy Thomas Barrack—who also serves as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey—raised the American flag over the embassy for the first time since 2012. He praised Syria’s new leadership and openly discussed the prospect of peace between Syria and Israel—once a diplomatic impossibility. Barrack noted that the Caesar Act sanctions must now be repealed by Congress, describing President Trump as impatient with sanctions that obstruct reconstruction.

None of this should be mistaken for instant success. The Syrian state remains fragile. Public sector wages are still well below the cost of living. Corruption, while being addressed, is not yet defeated. And sectarian wounds—especially those left by clashes between pro-Assad remnants and local communities—will take time to heal.

But from my perspective as a European political analyst, this is the first time in years that Syria’s future feels negotiable rather than doomed.

To my Arab readers: Syria’s recovery is not just symbolic—it’s strategic. A stable, unified Syria is essential for regional security, refugee returns, and long-term economic integration.

To Western policymakers: the failed experiment of non-state actors ruling eastern Syria must end. It did not bring democracy. It brought dysfunction. The time has come to support a Syrian solution, not a Kurdish separatist detour funded by Western guilt and strategic confusion.

The Syrian war broke the country. But the outlines of recovery are finally emerging. The world has a choice: engage constructively—or prolong the suffering under the illusion of alternatives that have long since collapsed.