US President Donald Trump has signed a flurry of deals on his Asia visit to secure the supply of rare earths, a critical sector that China has long dominated.

The deals with Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia differ in size and substance and it’s too early to assess their tangible impact. But they all include efforts to diversify access to the minerals that have become essential for advanced manufacturing, from electric vehicles to smartphones.

The agreements, which aim to lock partners into trading with the US, are a clear bid to reduce dependence on China, ahead of a key meeting with its leader Xi Jinping.

They could eventually challenge Beijing’s stranglehold over rare earths, but experts say it will be a costly process that will take years.

“Building new mines, refining facilities, and processing plants in regions such as Australia, the United States, and Europe comes with much higher capital costs, stricter environmental regulations, and more expensive labour and energy inputs [compared to China],” Patrick Schroder, senior research fellow at the Environment and Society Centre at Chatham House wrote in an editorial this week.

It’s not clear yet if the $550bn US investment Japan had previously agreed to will be part of the rare earths deal. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is expected to flesh out those details with Japanese companies during his upcoming visit.

But it’s a turning point step in the US-China rivalry.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In recent days, Israel has launched another devastating assault on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 40 civilians and wounding dozens. The attack, which Israeli officials claim was a response to the killing of two of its soldiers by Hamas, has reignited international outrage and raised urgent questions about the fate of President Donald Trump’s 21-point Middle East peace plan. Many observers believe that this assault, like the wars before it, was less a response to provocation and more an attempt to derail the peace framework that could constrain Israel’s territorial ambitions.
In an urgent diplomatic push, President Trump dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Israel to secure the government’s commitment to at least the first stage of the plan. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the contrast between Washington’s tone and Jerusalem’s defiance was striking. Throughout the entire event, Netanyahu avoided any reference to the peace plan or to Israel’s obligations under it. Vice President Vance, on the other hand, stressed that the plan would allow international agencies to feed the starving population of Gaza, rebuild shattered infrastructure, and ensure security guarantees for both Israelis and Palestinians.
In fact, this peace plan has effectively neutralized Israel’s long-term objectives and reset the situation to zero. It has stopped Israel from achieving its ultimate ambition—not merely the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank, but the complete occupation and denial of the Palestinian right to statehood and self-determination. Israel had sought to permanently expel Palestinians under the pretext of a Hamas-led war, using Hamas as a convenient scapegoat to justify atrocities, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the transformation of Gaza into a slaughterhouse.
However, all of that—the killings, the political maneuvering, the massive financial and military investment, and the loss of soft power, credibility, and global image—has now gone in vain. This peace plan has practically reversed the gains Israel had made over the last three years, despite the enormous resources spent on sustaining its military operations, engaging in open confrontation with Iran, and bearing the immense costs of trade losses, investor flight, and international isolation.
Consequently, the plan represents a terrible blow to Israel, one it may neither easily digest nor forgive. In the coming days, Israel is likely to take every possible measure to sabotage this peace process and return to its earlier trajectory—resuming the killing, reoccupying Gaza and the West Bank, expanding illegal settlements, and advancing toward its long-cherished dream of a “Greater Israel.”
Analysts note that this political and psychological blow explains Netanyahu’s open hostility to the plan. His far-right cabinet views Trump’s initiative as an existential threat to their vision of a regional Israel dominating the Middle East under the banner of divine entitlement. For them, the peace plan undermines decades of ideological investment and military strategy, forcing Israel to confront a future where Palestinian sovereignty is not just tolerated but internationally guaranteed.
Ironically, Hamas—the very organization long branded as the obstacle to peace—appears more willing than Israel to accept the plan’s early conditions. For Hamas, exhausted by siege and isolation, participation offers a chance to regain legitimacy and to attract Arab reconstruction funds. Arab monarchies, too, now see in this plan an opportunity to curtail Iran’s influence in the region by weakening Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Tehran-aligned groups. Their alignment with Washington and Trump’s diplomacy has become a tool to re-engineer Middle Eastern politics around a new Sunni-led order.
Yet the geopolitical centerpiece remains Iran. Tehran, though not a signatory to the plan, looms over every conversation. It alone among Muslim powers retains both the will and the capability to confront Israel militarily. Were it not for U.S. intervention, Israel could have faced a deeper crisis during the recent regional escalation, when Iran demonstrated unprecedented drone and missile capabilities. For this reason, the peace plan’s architects understand that no durable arrangement is possible without Iran’s eventual inclusion or at least tacit restraint.
Still, Israel and Iran now stand on opposite sides of Trump’s initiative—each rejecting it for different reasons. Israel sees it as a brake on its territorial expansion; Iran views it as an American-Israeli tool to marginalize its regional role. Meanwhile, the so-called “middle bloc” of Muslim nations—Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and several Gulf states—support the plan conditionally. They will fund Gaza’s reconstruction only after Hamas is dismantled and new governance structures are in place.
This triangulation has created an uneasy balance: two powerful opponents of the plan, Israel and Iran, confronting a coalition of pragmatic states determined to stabilize the region under U.S. oversight. European nations, pressured by outraged publics and student protests, have also pivoted toward endorsing Palestinian statehood and humanitarian aid. They now see peace in Gaza not as a moral luxury but as a political necessity to preserve their own credibility.
If Israel continues to resist implementation, it risks isolation not only diplomatically but also domestically. American universities, churches, and media outlets are increasingly critical of Israel’s conduct. The moral authority Israel once claimed as a besieged democracy is collapsing under the weight of documented atrocities and live-streamed destruction. Without Trump’s backing, its expansionist agenda could face unprecedented limits.
In this new geopolitical equation, the probable losers are Israel, Iran, and Hamas—each for different reasons. Israel loses because it is constrained; Iran loses because its influence may shrink; Hamas loses because it is being rendered irrelevant. The relative winners are the Sunni Arab states, Turkey, Pakistan, and European nations, whose commitment to reconstruction and stability aligns with public opinion and global expectations.
Yet the success of this ambitious plan depends on unprecedented diplomatic coordination. It demands financial commitment from the Arab world, political discipline from Israel, and restraint from Iran. It also requires sustained U.S. engagement—an uncertain prospect in an election year when domestic divisions are deep and foreign entanglements unpopular.
If these elements can somehow be harmonized, Trump’s peace plan could usher in the first tangible path toward Palestinian sovereignty in decades. If they fail, the region will once again descend into chaos—driven by the same forces of mistrust and ambition that have defined the Middle East for generations.
For now, the world watches anxiously, hoping that sanity prevails, that Israel resists the temptation of renewed aggression, and that the people of Gaza may finally reclaim the right to live with dignity, freedom, and peace.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Since Donald Trump assumed office in January 2025, U.S. policy toward China has been a study in contradictions. On some days, he hails China as a great country deserving normal relations with the United States. On others, he brandishes tariffs as weapons, imposing crushing duties on Chinese imports. This oscillation between praise and punishment betrays a failure to grasp the transformation of China. It is no longer the vulnerable power of a decade ago but an ascendant nation, propelled by consistent leadership, unity of purpose, and a relentless focus on rising as a global force.
China’s achievements are undeniable. Over the past decades, it has eliminated mass poverty, built unparalleled infrastructure, and secured dominance over industries that define the modern age. From artificial intelligence and quantum computing to aerospace, electric vehicles, and cyber security, China sits at the commanding heights of technology. Central to this dominance is its control over rare minerals—the essential inputs for semiconductors, batteries, aircraft, and advanced weaponry. While America was lulled into complacency, financing consumption with printed dollars, China quietly consolidated its grip on global mineral refining, leaving the United States exposed at the core of its supply chain.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s decision to impose a sweeping 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods by November 2025 has alarmed economists worldwide. Their verdict is nearly unanimous: tariffs will not cripple China but will instead damage the American economy. The burden falls squarely on U.S. consumers and industries, who must pay higher prices for imports and inputs. For companies such as Boeing, electric vehicle manufacturers, and defense contractors, which rely heavily on Chinese components, the effect will be immediate and severe. Instead of securing advantage, tariffs threaten to undercut sectors vital to U.S. national security and global competitiveness.
What makes this escalation more dangerous is China’s newfound willingness to retaliate. Traditionally cautious in the face of U.S. provocations, Beijing now responds with confidence. Its counter-tariffs on American soybeans struck at the heart of U.S. agriculture, redirecting purchases to Brazil, a BRICS partner eager to deepen trade ties. American farmers, once heavily dependent on Chinese markets, are left scrambling, while Brazil emerges as the winner. In this struggle, China adapts swiftly while the United States absorbs the blow.
The timing could not be worse. The U.S. government shutdown, now stretching into weeks, has already eroded public confidence and economic stability. Inflation is climbing, job growth is stalling, and uncertainty hangs over financial markets. Trump’s long-term vision of rebuilding domestic refining and mining capacity may carry merit, but the reality is sobering: constructing such infrastructure will take five to ten years. Until then, the United States remains tied to China. With Beijing redirecting exports to other markets at competitive rates, Washington risks isolation and decline in sectors where it once excelled.
The domestic repercussions extend beyond economics. Trump’s reliance on executive orders to deploy National Guard units across American cities has stirred resentment. Governors, civil society groups, and ordinary citizens increasingly resist federal overreach. What began as isolated protests now carries the seeds of civil disobedience. If these tensions deepen, the United States could face a crisis of internal legitimacy alongside its external challenges.
Internationally, relationships once grounded in cooperation have soured. Under Trump, ties with Mexico, Brazil, Canada, and Europe have deteriorated, shifting from cordiality to volatility. Diplomacy has been supplanted by threats, taunts, and public insults. America’s reputation as a partner of choice is waning, leaving it with fewer allies and diminishing influence. Soft power, once its greatest asset, has been eroded. What remains is the blunt projection of military might—a tool ill-suited for resolving economic and political disputes.
At the heart of the crisis lies the failure to pass a coherent federal budget. Without it, the machinery of government grinds to a halt. Public servants go unpaid, households lose income, consumer spending contracts, and economic growth falters. Inflation compounds the pain, creating a vicious cycle that ordinary Americans feel most acutely. Jobs vanish, prices rise, and confidence evaporates. The very people who form the backbone of the nation bear the brunt of political dysfunction.
It is this human cost that makes the current trajectory so alarming. Americans, resilient and innovative, do not deserve humiliation at home or antagonism abroad. They deserve leaders who strengthen alliances, foster diplomacy, and pursue prosperity through cooperation rather than confrontation. Instead, they are witnessing the erosion of goodwill with neighbors, partners, and global institutions, while being asked to shoulder the economic pain of tariffs and shutdowns.
The trade war with China is not an isolated clash. Its consequences ripple across the global economy. Supply chains are disrupted, investment flows redirected, and markets destabilized. For consumers worldwide, the fallout means higher prices and increased uncertainty. For businesses, it means recalibrating strategies and bearing new risks. A conflict between the world’s two largest economies cannot be contained—it reverberates in every corner of the globe.
The path forward demands wisdom, not bravado. Tariffs, coercion, and military posturing cannot secure a sustainable future. Only dialogue can. The United States and China, as the central pillars of the global economy, must find common ground. A balanced agreement that delivers tangible benefits to both peoples would not only stabilize relations but also reassure a world rattled by their rivalry. Cooperation would send a signal of stability, confidence, and hope—qualities the global economy sorely needs.
The stakes could not be higher. Confrontation risks undermining prosperity, fueling unrest, and deepening global fractures. Cooperation offers the chance to channel competition into progress, ensuring that innovation, trade, and development serve people everywhere. In the end, the choice is stark: a spiral of tariffs and tensions that punish the many, or a diplomatic breakthrough that uplifts all. For the sake of Americans, Chinese, and citizens across the world, one hopes that reason prevails before it is too late.