Top World News

Mar 3, 2026 - World

With 46% of Nepal’s population under the age of 24, the election will be a test of whether their hopes and frustrations are being taken seriouslyIn the unassuming, dusty lanes of the Nepali city of Damak, an unprecedented political showdown is unfolding. Pitting an old political heavyweight against a rapper-turned-politician with a penchant for dark sunglasses and sharp suits, the battle is one that could completely reshape the country’s politics.As Nepal heads into its most gripping election in years, at the forefront stands Balendra Shah, the 35-year-old known simply as Balen. He rose to fame as a popular rapper whose songs criticised the ruling elite, before pivoting to politics and winning a resounding victory to become the mayor of Kathmandu in May 2022. Continue reading...

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims that the U.S. was under an "imminent threat" prompting American military strikes in Iran came into question Monday. Rubio told reporters the Iranian military was growing its nuclear weapons program and planning to launch attacks against America, its assets in the Middle East, and its allies in the region — namely Israel. In the days since, Rubio said Iran has attacked civilian areas in the Middle East in retaliatory strikes since the attacks started Saturday."There absolutely was an imminent threat," Rubio told reporters Monday afternoon in Washington, D.C.People were critical of Rubio and the Trump administration amid the conflicting information around the military actions."So now the 'imminent threat' was that Iran would hit back after being attacked by Israel? That’s why the US launched this devastating war and plunged the region into chaos — instead of pressuring its closest ally not to attack in the first place.Impressive logic: start a war to stop the retaliation you expect from starting a war. That’s a very creative definition of 'imminent threat,'" Ghida Fakhry, producer and host of TRTWorld, wrote on X. "The whole thing is dishonest as hell but if you take them at their word: 1) the imminent threat was created by Israel's attack on Iran 2) they say Israel made that attack using U.S. intelligence 3) Trump said he authorized the attack They admit to creating their own pretext!" Aaron Fritschner, Rep. Don Beyer's (R-VA) deputy chief of staff, wrote on X."Netanyahu got what he wanted but what about the American people? What about the service members who died? What about the nearly 200 schoolchildren killed? There's a reason why past presidents didn’t go to war with Iran: they refused to risk American lives to open Pandora’s Box," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) wrote on X."There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the US, then we are in uncharted territory," Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in an interview with reporters, which was shared by journalist Aaron Rupar on X."This is the most insane and absurd definition of an ‘imminent threat’ I have ever heard in my life. Our ally and proxy, Israel, that we arm and fund, was about to illegally attack Iran so we joined in the attack because that illegal attack would have led to an attack on us," journalist and editor-in-chief of Zeteo Mehdi Hasan wrote on X.

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Now that President Donald Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off-ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.This has been very clear in internal conversations: no one wants to take responsibility for the aftermath. This is essentially the difference between regime change and regime collapse.That’s why they didn’t want to do an Iraq War-style regime change where you are actively trying to install a new government. If you do that, its track record becomes your track record.Indeed, if the US manages to kill a lot of the different leaders of the current system, there could be some sort of an implosion. Trump could declare victory even though you would likely have in that case severe instability, or potentially civil war.Another scenario is that the Iranians continue to strike back and outlast Trump. The Iranian onslaught would start to become too costly for the United States with casualty rates increasing (possibly even on the American side), inflation worsens, and global markets become destabilized.And then the pressure on Trump internationally, from the American public, and from his own base would start to become so strong that he would have to look for an exit.At that point, he may actually take the deal that was on the table: a deal that is better than what Barack Obama managed to secure, and that Trump nevertheless rejected. He may take that and suddenly declare it a victory, saying: “Thanks to my bombing campaign, we achieved this.”There is also a third scenario, that is the least likely, in which after a couple of rounds of attacks, both sides may feel they can go back to the negotiating table.They might even go back to the same agreement that was on the table during the most recent talks. And both sides could frame that as a win. Trump can claim he bombed Iran and was very successful. The Iranians can claim they struck back and were very successful. And then they come to some sort of agreement.However that would be difficult because there’s now absolutely no trust between the US and Iran.But even if they did come to some form of agreement, it would be extremely difficult to implement, it would likely not endure, and it wouldn’t be anything more than essentially a ceasefire with a pretense of having a deal beyond that.Meanwhile, Israel’s interest is in pushing the narrative that the negotiations were a ruse from the outset, and that this attack was already planned — because that narrative destroys America’s credibility as a diplomatic force, as a negotiator.And the more you push the narrative that diplomacy was a lie from the outset, the more easily you can avoid any future negotiations.I’m not convinced it really was a ruse from the beginning. There were elements in the US government who were sincere about the diplomatic path, but ultimately Trump fell for the type of pressure that he has proven himself to be far too susceptible to.None of that makes what happened forgivable. It doesn’t make it legal. It doesn’t make it strategic. But we do have to recognize this: nothing would serve Israeli interests more than to completely destroy America’s credibility as a negotiating partner.Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy — Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice — Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." This article was adapted from Trita Parsi’s remarks during an appearance on Breaking Points

Mar 2, 2026 - World

A historian and national security specialist was skeptical Monday of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's first public comments defending the Trump administration's decision to launch strikes against Iran. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen expressed doubt about Rubio's argument of an "imminent threat" and what could happen next in the war with Iran, which has left six American service members dead. "Casey, I'm extremely skeptical," Bergen told CNN anchor Kasie Hunt. "I mean, the Israelis and the United States are very closely allied. And their operations, as we've seen just now, are very closely integrated," Bergen added. "And Netanyahu has been in D.C., repeatedly. We've been moving massive amounts of military assets into the region since January, so I just find that kind of an implausible rationale."

Mar 2, 2026 - World

Sporadic clashes reported in several provinces in Afghanistan as both sides give conflicting death tollsAfghanistan has said it had thwarted Pakistan’s attempted airstrikes on Bagram airbase, the former US military base north of Kabul, as cross-border fighting between the two countries stretched into a fourth day.Months of clashes have flared up again since Thursday, when Afghanistan launched attacks along the frontier and Pakistani forces hit back on the border and from the skies. Pakistan has declared it is in “open war” with Afghanistan. Continue reading...