POLITICS
The Restoration of Ties between Tehran and Riyadh: From Paper to Implementation
Published
2 years agoon
By
Editor
By Amer Ababakr
The agreement between Tehran and Riyadh to normalize the relations between the two countries and “resuming diplomatic relations within two months and reopening their embassies and political representatives”, which was initiated by Chinese President Xi Jinping and was published in a surprising manner in Beijing, if implemented, it can undergo the security equations of the West Asian region and the Persian Gulf to a severe shock.
The Obvious question to start is why now?
The trend towards normalization of relations between the two countries began following the dialogue hosted by Iraq and followed by the Sultanate of Oman through the transmission of exchanged messages. This dialogue came to keep pace with the direction of the US administration, headed by Joe Biden, towards re-establishing the nuclear agreement with Iran. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have always called for adding regional issues to the agreement and including these countries in the talks. However, this did not materialize due to Iran’s refusal to link the nuclear talk to any other issue or to include new players who might add conditions and demands that would complicate the negotiation process. However, the suspension of the Vienna nuclear negotiations after the completion of the draft agreement due to a disagreement over some complementary elements, including Iran’s demand for guarantees that America will not leave the agreement in the future and to find a mechanism to verify the lifting of the American-Western blockade on it, contributed to the stopping of the Iranian-Saudi dialogue. This is because Saudi Arabia was synchronizing the steps of normalizing relations with Iran and the negotiations in Vienna, and this is reminiscent of what happened after the nuclear agreement in 2015 when Riyadh was preparing for talks with Iran, but it returned and stopped it in light of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidency with a promise he made to cancel the nuclear agreement, and followed is Saudi Arabia’s welcome to Trump’s termination of the agreement and his launch in 2018 of a fierce sanctions campaign against Iran.
In addition, Saudi Arabia wanted a comprehensive agreement with Iran in the renewed dialogue in the last two years, which would restrict Iran’s presence and role in the region, at a time when Iran wanted to limit it to restoring diplomatic representation and normalizing relations between the two countries and leaving the discussion of regional files to other frameworks, especially since Iran refuses to be an agent for its allies in deciding their national affairs.
Recently, things have moved again for several reasons:
The success of the Iranian government and people in thwarting the bet on destabilizing it in the broad campaign led by people supported arguably by the US and its allies to force the leadership of the Islamic Republic to submit. The emergence of a rapprochement between China and Saudi Arabia, represented by the visit of the Chinese president to Riyadh and the signing of partnership agreements between the two sides, and then the visit of the Iranian president to Beijing and the agreement to activate the strategic partnership agreement signed by the previous government during the era of President Rouhani.
Reassuring the Saudi Arabia that the United States is seriously seeking to sign a nuclear agreement with Iran, and that the references to that are countless, under the pretext that the agreement is in the interest of American national security and ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon after the rapid progress in its program. Here, Saudi Arabia did not want to appear to be lagging behind.
There was a divergence between the democratic administration in Washington and the Saudi leadership over their supposed roles in supporting each other, and this was recently reflected in Saudi Arabia’s position not to respond to Washington’s request to condemn Russia and increase oil production to meet the demand for it in the United States.
Saudi Arabia is increasingly devoted to providing the appropriate environment for the implementation of Vision 20-30, and this requires developing the truce in Yemen into permanent stability, and then – from its point of view – involving Iran in putting pressure on “Ansar Allah”, at a time when Tehran considers that there is no way out. From recognizing the role of “Ansar Allah” in determining the future of Yemen, along with other Yemeni components.
The Second inevitable question is Why in China?
Over the past years, China has been able to develop broad relations with many countries in the region, despite the intimidation campaign led by Washington to alienate these countries from the Chinese role under security pretexts or claiming that there are motives for hegemony so that the atmosphere remains clear for the United States in the region. Chinese successes are no longer confined to anti-American countries such as Iran, but extend to traditional allies of Washington such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which forged important economic, technological and armament relations with Beijing that aroused Washington’s ire. Turning east has become an imposed reality in one way or another, despite the fact that the United States formulated plans to establish a regional system that brings together the Gulf states and “Israel” and takes over its leadership from a distance, with the aim of focusing on the increasing confrontation with Russia and China, which are plans that the Gulf states interpreted as turning their backs on the allies.
China’s emerging position allowed it to play an acceptable conciliatory role between its two important partners, and it believes that ensuring its interests in the region depends to a large extent on stability arrangements between the active countries. In my estimation, the Saudi side wanted to “sell” the paper of understanding to restore relations with Iran to the Chinese mediator and not to the Iraqis, because it is betting on developing relations with China economically and militarily in the phase of reducing the American presence in the region, and it is also sending, in one way or another, a message of protest to the United States. And Riyadh wants to show that it has other options than absolute dependence on America. This perspective does not negate the fact that Saudi Arabia is currently negotiating with America to acquire the status of a major ally outside NATO, similar to other smaller Gulf states such as Qatar and Bahrain.
With this, China was able to hold on to both sides of the relationship with its two major partners from the middle, and moved away from previous Saudi bets in giving priority to relations with the Kingdom at the expense of Iran, especially after Saudi Arabia increased its oil exports to China and provided it with very large investment inducements. China has always shown that it is a rising international power keen to gain soft influence and does not practice politics in its arrogant sense in the Western style, and that it is interested in establishing relations with all actors in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Zionist entity and Turkey, and it is also interested in not losing Iran to the interest of India, which strengthens its relations. Economic and commercial transport links with Iran, especially through the port of Chabahar in southern Iran.
The announcement of the restoration of relations between Riyadh and Tehran would not have provoked shocking responses in Washington had it not been issued by Beijing and with Chinese mediation. that is, the return, in and of itself, was not excluded, and there was no American objection to the role of Iraq and Oman to restore the broken link between Riyadh and Tehran. However, the entry of the Chinese engineer into the line and his success in achieving a Middle Eastern breakthrough seemed to come at the expense of the declining American role in the region, and aroused astonishment and anxiety in Washington, which dealt with it as an event that might represent a regional-geopolitical turning point, and perhaps a historic one. Because of this size, it immediately occupied the headlines and sparked a flood of preliminary comments and readings that intersected in its interpretation when it was considered a Chinese target in the American goal, at a moment when the Biden administration was talking about the Chinese danger and mobilizing to weaken its influence in the world and to confront it in its Asian home and beyond.
In its first response, the administration seemed as if it was surprised by this development, despite saying that “Saudi Arabia has kept it informed about its dialogue with Iran,” according to White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who added that it “supports any efforts to reduce tension in the region.” The generality of his words and his ambiguous wording – as he ignored the mention of China – indicates that the administration was surprised by the announcement. What is worse is that it embarrassed it in several respects and aspects that observers placed in the category of net American losses. Most notably, China has broken the unity of dependence in the region on the United States, whose policies have led to “vacuum and failure there.” That is, Beijing, has known the ways to undermine this policy, as well as the entrances that lead to enabling it to address the region in a language that takes into account its sensitivities, and thus strengthens relations with it and trust in it.
China’s other gain is that it recorded the first successful diplomatic entry into the arena of international conflicts, especially the Middle East, by building this role on an approach to international relations that is based more on interests than on calculations and security guarantees. Thus, it gave the region an encouragement to diversify relations instead of relying on a single power, leaving space for the freedom of local decision-making and the primacy of its interests.
However, all of this depends on the steadfastness of the return of relations between Riyadh and Tehran, and whether this return is the title of a “coexistence” process between the two neighbors, or is it perhaps the result of a deal to resolve a crisis, even if an important one, such as the Yemen war. The backgrounds and facts outweigh the first possibility, given that the sponsor is a weighty international party that countries need until further notice. The Kingdom has worked in recent years, after strained relations with the administration of President Joe Biden, to weave in-depth relations with China as another option, if not as a final alternative. And Iran sought, through its partnership with Beijing, to break its isolation, which was achieved, albeit in part, by restoring its relations with the Kingdom. On these accounts, all three were winners.
Besides the administration, Israel was the biggest loser. It is believed that the Prime Minister of the incumbent government, Benjamin Netanyahu, has disappointed his bets on a normalization deal that has been repeated in recent days with Saudi Arabia. Some reports stated that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs “refused” to comment on the return of Saudi-Iranian relations. A position that reflects the extent of the unease, as is the case in Washington; Although there were those who were quick to downplay the matter by considering it a development that would serve the administration in the sense that it would help “liberate it from the troubles of instability” in the region, thus allowing it to devote itself to its most important issues with China and Russia in the Ukraine war.
But it is an explanation closer to mitigating the impact of the shock, as the process seemed closer to an American failure in exchange for Chinese sophistication that achieved understanding between two opponents united by aversion, each for its own reasons and to varying degrees, from America.
China’s main goal for mediating between Tehran and Riyadh is to de-escalate the tension in a region that sees its peace and security as aligned with its strategic interests as the world’s largest energy importer and the largest exporter of goods to the West Asian region.
China is currently the largest buyer of Iran’s crude oil and also the largest foreign trade partner of Saudi Arabia, and more than 55 billion dollars out of the estimated 120 billion dollars of trade between the two countries this year is related to Saudi Arabia’s oil exports to China.
In this way, it seems that China has used its purchasing power in Tehran and Riyadh as a political lever in a situation and at a time when there was enough favorable ground between the two countries to enter into thematic negotiations.
Another factor that has left China’s hand free in advancing the discussed political initiative is the desire of the United States to gradually leave the West Asian region on the one hand, and thr Russia’s preoccupation with the Ukraine war and the reduction of Moscow’s attention to developing its presence and influence in the Persian Gulf region on the other hand.
What lies ahead
There have been many reactions to the Iranian-Saudi agreement, most of which hope that it will lead to a broader rapprochement that would contribute to resolving several crises in the region, including Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. However, the differences that governed relations for four decades and were permeated – as Tehran sees it – Saudi bets on bullying the West to weaken Iran and contribute to the blockade measures imposed on it and destabilize it by supporting rebel groups, all of which left scars in relations that cannot be erased easily. On the other hand, the Saudi side wants Iran to commit itself not to play any competing regional role with it, and to refrain from providing support to the forces of the axis of resistance, and to let Riyadh exercise its leading role in influencing the policies of other countries. Iran considers this division unfair and unrealistic.
Therefore, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia is not considered a quick entry point to warm relations, or to an agreement on regional issues around which a multilateral conflict revolves. But it is a necessary step for political communication between the two sides at the official level after an era of estrangement. This means that there will be no immediate reflection on the regional issues in dispute, but a door may be opened for an exchange of views on how to contain their repercussions, control their rhythm, and perhaps contribute later to finding settlements if conducive conditions are available. Tehran always stresses that it does not replace the allies in determining their national affairs and interests.
Courtesy: Modern Diplomacy
You may like
POLITICS
Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory
Published
3 days agoon
April 16, 2025By
Editor
Baba Yunus Muhammad
In an alarming escalation, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced the “capture of large areas” of the Gaza Strip to be permanently integrated into Israeli “security zones.” This declaration, made on April 15, 2025, signals a dangerous and irreversible shift in the decades-long Israeli occupation: the transition from occupation to de facto annexation.
Israeli airstrikes continue to pummel Khan Younis and Rafah, killing dozens, including women, children, and the elderly. Gaza’s Health Ministry reports over 900 people killed in recent days alone — many of them children. The cumulative death toll now exceeds 50,000, with more than 110,000 injured, many maimed for life. The majority are civilians.
In the most chilling development this week, a mass grave was uncovered in Khan Younis containing the bodies of 15 Palestinian rescue workers — bound, shot, and buried. These were not combatants, but medics and volunteers. The execution-style killings speak to a deepening moral crisis that now grips the conflict.
Strategic Expansion: Occupation Masquerading as Security
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently confirmed Israel’s intentions to create a “second Philadelphi corridor,” effectively carving Gaza into disconnected territories. This would further divide and control the population, while seizing critical border areas along the Egypt-Gaza frontier.
Human rights organizations, including Israel’s own Gisha, warn that Israel has already seized 62 square kilometers of Gaza — nearly one-fifth of the territory — under the guise of “buffer zones.” These so-called zones increasingly resemble permanent annexations. What began as a war is morphing into a land grab, executed under the fog of military necessity.
As one analyst told The Islamic Economist: “This is not just about dismantling Hamas. It is about redrawing the map of Gaza, erasing Palestinian sovereignty, and engineering a demographic reality where Palestinians are forced to leave or live under siege indefinitely.”
Trump Administration and the Shift in American Policy
Under the current Trump administration, Israel enjoys unprecedented diplomatic latitude. Former President Biden opposed any moves to reoccupy Gaza or expel its residents, insisting on a political solution. President Trump, however, has openly spoken of Gaza as a potential “Riviera” and suggested relocating Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan — ideas widely condemned as ethnic cleansing.
Simultaneously, the Israeli government has quietly launched a bureau for the “voluntary transfer” of Gaza’s population. But with Gaza reduced to rubble, its hospitals shut down, bakeries burned, and humanitarian aid blocked, what appears voluntary on paper is, in reality, coerced displacement.
The UN and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have warned that such transfers violate international law, potentially amounting to war crimes. But with a muted response from key Western capitals, including Washington, the machinery of occupation continues unabated.
Deliberate Starvation as a Tool of War
Since January, Israel has imposed a near-total siege on Gaza. Water systems have been destroyed. Fuel is forbidden. Wheat reserves have run out. The United Nations World Food Programme says all bakeries are now closed. Only a few humanitarian kitchens remain — and they too are on the verge of collapse.
The result: Gaza is now facing famine. Children are dying from dehydration and starvation, not just bombs. Diseases are spreading through overcrowded shelters and makeshift camps. The siege is not a byproduct of war — it is the strategy itself.
By making Gaza uninhabitable, Israel appears to be pressuring its civilian population to flee. As history has shown — from the Nakba in 1948 to today — displacement is not a side effect. It is the plan.
Hostages and the Politics of Delay
Israel continues to justify its campaign by citing the 59 hostages held by Hamas since the October 2023 attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis. But as families of the hostages grow increasingly vocal, many accuse the government of sacrificing their loved ones for political and territorial gains.
Polls show that the Israeli public now favors a ceasefire deal that brings the hostages home, even if it means withdrawing from Gaza. But the Netanyahu government — emboldened by far-right coalition partners and a sympathetic White House — refuses to halt the offensive.
Hamas, meanwhile, demands a permanent ceasefire and the right to remain in power. Israel insists on total military victory and Hamas’s destruction. The resulting deadlock is costing lives — every day.
A Moment of Reckoning for the Muslim World
The silence from many Muslim capitals is deafening. While some countries have condemned the atrocities, few have taken tangible steps — whether diplomatic, legal, or economic — to halt the carnage. The Ummah watches in horror, but action remains limited.
Yet this is not just a Palestinian issue. It is a moral and existential test for the Islamic world. Gaza is not just being destroyed — it is being erased. If this moment passes without consequence, the precedent will be set: that under the right geopolitical conditions, a people can be displaced, their land seized, and their history rewritten — with impunity.
The Muslim world must ask: what kind of future are we building, if the soil of the Holy Land can be soaked in blood and the world simply watches?
Conclusion: Toward Justice, Not Just Ceasefire
This is not just a war. It is a transformation of Gaza’s geography, identity, and people. The Palestinian struggle is no longer about borders — it is about survival.
The Islamic world, together with all people of conscience, must raise its voice against this unfolding injustice. Ceasefire is no longer enough. What is needed is an international movement — legal, economic, political, and moral — to end the occupation, prevent annexation, and restore dignity and self-determination to the Palestinian people.
Gaza may be small in landmass. But in the story of justice, it has become a vast battlefield for the soul of humanity.
POLITICS
The Battle for Khartoum: Tracking Sudan’s War over Two Years
Published
2 weeks agoon
April 2, 2025By
Editor
After nearly two years of brutal fighting, Sudan’s civil war is at a critical juncture: the Sudanese Armed Forces announced it has regained control of the capital Khartoum from its rivals, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. It’s yet to be seen if this signals a break in the war or is simply another phase in the fighting. In this article, Kagure Gacheche tracks the conflict since it began in 2023.
Sudan has been engulfed in brutal conflict since 15 April 2023, when tensions between the country’s two most powerful military factions erupted into civil war.
The conflict stems from a long-standing power struggle over military control and integration. Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces began in the capital, Khartoum, and quickly spread across the country. International efforts to broker peace since have largely failed.
The conflict, which has been going on for two years now, has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies. An estimated 30 million Sudanese civilians are in need of aid. Brutal attacks, looting and destruction of infrastructure have become commonplace. Millions of people lack access to essential medical care. Food shortages and economic collapse have worsened the suffering. The war has also triggered a massive displacement crisis, with more than 14 million people forced to flee their homes. Many have sought refuge in neighbouring countries, while others remain trapped in dangerous conditions within Sudan.
As the conflict drags on, the toll on Sudan’s people continues to grow. Estimates of those killed vary widely, from 20,000 to 62,000, but the actual figure could be much larger. With no clear resolution in sight, Sudan’s crisis is one of the most urgent and devastating conflicts in the world. At The Conversation Africa, we have worked with academics who have tracked the conflict since 2023.
Weapons flow
Early on, it was clear that both the Sudanese army and the paramilitary force had a sufficient supply of weapons to sustain a protracted conflict. The country was already awash with firearms. It is ranked second – after Egypt – among its regional neighbours in total firearms estimates. Khristopher Carlson, part of a research project tracking small arms and armed violence in Sudan, noted that the two Sudanese forces might have different fighting methods but were adequately equipped to trade fire. The army’s superiority was its air force and heavy arsenal on the ground. The paramilitary force relied on nimble mobile units equipped primarily with small and light weapons.
External interference
This proliferation of weapons has been compounded by financial and military support from external states. Various foreign players – Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar and Russia – have picked a side to support. However, the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has been particularly problematic. Political scientist Federico Donelli explained that the two nations viewed Sudan as a key nation because of its location. Following President Omar al-Bashir’s ouster in 2019, the two monarchies bet on different factions within Sudan’s security apparatus. This external support exacerbated internal competition. Riyadh maintained close ties with army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Abu Dhabi aligned itself with the head of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Dagalo, or Hemedti.
Regional dynamics
The support from international players in Sudan’s war has had a damaging effect on regional dynamics. The Sudanese army recently accused the United Arab Emirates of supplying the Rapid Support Forces with weapons through Chad. At a ceremony for an officer killed in a drone strike carried out by paramilitary forces, a senior army official said Chad’s airports would be “legitimate targets” should retaliatory action become necessary. This heightened the risk of a spillover of the Sudanese conflict. Sudan shares borders with seven countries in an unstable region, including Chad, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Economics professor and legal expert John Mukum Mbaku warned that a spillover of the fighting could devastate the region economically, socially and politically.
Protecting civilians
The conflict has put millions of civilians in Sudan in the crossfire. A UN report in September 2024 called for an independent force to protect civilians; Sudan’s officials rejected the proposal. However, peace talks have yet to achieve a lasting ceasefire. Sudan had a peacekeeping force between 2007 and 2020, followed by a UN-led political mission that exited in February 2024. Since then, there has been no security presence in Sudan responsible for protecting civilians. Peacekeeping researcher Jenna Russo noted the need for a regional or international peace force that could create “green zones”. This would help protect areas where displaced persons were sheltering and facilitate humanitarian aid.
What’s been missing?
High-level peace talks brokered by the African Union and the UN to negotiate a ceasefire have largely been unsuccessful, putting civilians at constant risk. Talks held in Switzerland and Jeddah have had little impact. Philipp Kastner, a peace scholar, highlighted that the countries hosting or supporting these talks were pursuing competing interests in Sudan, which affected their impartiality. Progress to negotiate an end to the war would be unlikely if external military support to the warring parties continued unabated. Civilians would continue to pay the price.
Kagure Gacheche is the commissioning Editor, East Africa.
Courtesy: The Conservation
POLITICS
Russia-Ukraine War: A Delicate Pause Amid Geopolitical Maneuvering
Published
4 weeks agoon
March 20, 2025By
Editor
B.Y. Muhammad
In a surprising development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has agreed to a mutual pause in attacks on energy infrastructure with Russia for 30 days, marking a potential step toward a broader cease-fire. The agreement, facilitated through a phone conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, underscores the shifting dynamics of international involvement in the ongoing conflict.
The Cease-Fire Agreement: Tactical or Strategic?
While the 30-day truce is being framed as a diplomatic breakthrough, there are indications that the Kremlin has not deviated from its broader objectives in Ukraine. Russia’s agreement to pause strikes on energy infrastructure, participate in prisoner exchanges, and discuss security in the Black Sea has been presented as a concession. However, these elements align with longstanding Russian interests, making it unclear whether the Kremlin has genuinely altered its stance or is simply buying time.
Zelensky, while agreeing to the deal, expressed skepticism regarding Russia’s commitment, emphasizing the need for U.S. monitoring. “Just the assertion and the word of Putin that he will not strike energy sites is too little,” he remarked, underscoring the deep mistrust between Kyiv and Moscow.
Russian Strategy and Western Concerns
Western analysts argue that the Kremlin’s approach remains fundamentally unchanged. Putin’s overarching demand—a complete cessation of foreign military and intelligence support for Ukraine—would, if met, leave Kyiv vulnerable to Russian dominance. While Trump denied discussing aid with Putin, the Kremlin’s statement suggested otherwise, raising questions about the true nature of their discussions.
This development has heightened fears that Moscow is merely playing for time, anticipating that the U.S. may eventually disengage from Ukraine. The timing of this cease-fire agreement, coupled with Russia’s battlefield momentum and growing Western fatigue, suggests that Moscow might be maneuvering for a strategic advantage rather than pursuing genuine peace.
U.S. and Russian Diplomatic Calculations
Trump’s involvement in the negotiations signals a potential shift in U.S. policy. The former president has historically expressed skepticism toward Ukraine’s strategic importance, and his willingness to engage with Putin could indicate a broader recalibration of Washington’s stance. Russia, in turn, appears eager to leverage this opportunity to normalize relations with the U.S. without making significant concessions on Ukraine.
Moscow has already floated the prospect of economic cooperation with American firms, particularly in the rare earth metals and energy sectors. Additionally, discussions have included cultural engagements, such as a proposed U.S.-Russia hockey tournament—seemingly trivial, yet indicative of Russia’s broader attempt to reframe its relationship with Washington beyond the Ukraine conflict.
Implications for Ukraine and the Global Order
For Ukraine, the stakes remain high. While a temporary cessation of hostilities on energy infrastructure provides some relief, the country remains in a precarious position. The prospect of losing its principal backer, the U.S., could force Kyiv into unfavorable compromises that undermine its sovereignty.
For the broader international community, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to reflect a contest not only between two nations but between geopolitical blocs vying for influence. Russia seeks to restore its sphere of control, while the West struggles to maintain a unified front in supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Islamic world, with its historical ties to both Russia and Ukraine, watches closely, balancing economic interests and diplomatic relations in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
While the 30-day cease-fire offers a temporary reprieve, it is far from a definitive step toward peace. The agreement highlights the ongoing complexities of diplomacy in wartime, the strategic calculations of global powers, and the uncertain future of Ukraine’s sovereignty. As negotiations continue, the world waits to see whether this pause will serve as a bridge to lasting peace or merely as a tactical interlude in a protracted conflict.

Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory

Are we Bound to this Violence?

GLOBAL VISION 2000 HOSTS 9TH ESCHATOLOGY CONFERENCE: “ENTERING THE FINAL STAGES OF END TIMES”

How Shariah-Compliant is Islamic Banking?

How Hajj Has Become a Billion-Dollar Industry in Saudi Arabia

The Triangulation of Entrepreneurialism with Women, Food Production and Technologies
Topics
- AGRIBUSINESS & AGRICULTURE
- BUSINESS & ECONOMY
- CULTURE
- DIGITAL ECONOMY & TECHNOLOGY
- EDITORIAL
- ENERGY
- EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
- HEALTH & EDUCATION
- IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
- ISLAMIC ECONOMY
- ISLAMIC FINANCE & CAPITAL MARKETS
- KNOWLEDGE CENTRE, CULTURE & INTERVIEWS
- OBITUARY
- OPINION
- POLITICS
- PROFILE
- PUBLICATIONS
- REPORTS
- SPECIAL FEATURES/ECONOMIC FOOTPRINTS
- SPECIAL REPORTS
- SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE CHANGE
- THIS WEEK'S TOP STORIES
- TRENDING
- UNCATEGORIZED
- UNITED NATIONS SDGS
Trending
-
EDITORIAL3 days ago
Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: Charting a Strategic Response from the Islamic World
-
POLITICS3 days ago
Israel’s Expansion in Gaza: A Turning Point in the Conflict and the Future of Palestinian Territory
-
ISLAMIC ECONOMY3 days ago
IsDB and Algeria Enhance Strategic Partnership
-
EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS3 days ago
Madinah to Host the 45th AlBaraka Islamic Economics Symposium
-
BUSINESS & ECONOMY3 days ago
Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: A Global Economic Earthquake with Far-Reaching Implications
-
SPECIAL REPORTS3 days ago
Are we Bound to this Violence?
-
EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS3 days ago
GLOBAL VISION 2000 HOSTS 9TH ESCHATOLOGY CONFERENCE: “ENTERING THE FINAL STAGES OF END TIMES”