Day 30 U.S./Israel War With Iran: A Foreign News Round-Up Perspective - Domestic Political Spectacle vs. Global Geopolitical Realities

This past weekend’s No Kings protests continue to reverberate loudly across domestic broadcast and print media, creating a backdrop that foreign outlets can no longer ignore. At this point, it is impossible for the international press to assess Trump or his administration’s actions without acknowledging the collapse of his already‑fragmented domestic base and the implications this has for his so‑called “doctrine,” incoherent and disjointed as it is. With each passing hour, his erratic behavior makes it harder for global observers to treat him as a rational actor within the geopolitical community. That reality now shapes the tone and substance of today’s foreign coverage, and it is fully on display in the Day 30 summaries of the U.S./Israel war with Iran.

Across today’s global press, coverage of the United States is dominated by reactions to Donald Trump’s latest decisions, statements, and foreign‑policy maneuvers. T The weekend’s No Kings protests continue to reverberate loudly across domestic broadcast and print media, creating a backdrop that foreign outlets can no longer ignore. At this point, it is impossible for the international press to assess Trump or his administration’s actions without acknowledging the collapse of his already‑fragmented domestic base and the implications this has for his so‑called “doctrine,” incoherent and disjointed as it is. With each passing hour, his erratic behavior makes it harder for global observers to treat him as a rational actor within the geopolitical community. That reality now shapes the tone and substance of today’s foreign coverage, and it is fully on display in the Day 30 summaries of the U.S./Israel war with Iran.he Guardian centers its reporting on the growing international unease surrounding Trump’s shifting positions on military commitments and diplomatic engagements, noting how allies are struggling to interpret the administration’s intentions. The Independent highlights the confusion created by Trump’s contradictory public remarks, emphasizing how U.S. messaging on security and global partnerships has become increasingly difficult for foreign governments to track.

From France, Le Monde (English edition) focuses on European frustration with Trump’s unpredictable approach to alliances, particularly NATO and Middle East policy, describing a continent recalibrating its expectations of American leadership. DW Germany echoes this theme, reporting that Berlin is once again bracing for sudden shifts in U.S. policy, especially regarding defense coordination and sanctions, as Trump continues to make abrupt announcements without prior consultation.

In the Middle East, Al Jazeera English concentrates on the regional consequences of Trump’s latest statements and military posturing, noting how U.S. actions are reshaping diplomatic calculations from the Gulf to the Levant. Haaretz, reporting from inside Israel, focuses on how Trump’s moves are being interpreted by Israeli political and security officials, particularly in relation to ongoing regional tensions and the long‑term implications for U.S.–Israel coordination.

In Asia, China Daily frames Trump’s actions as evidence of Washington’s increasingly erratic global posture, emphasizing how Beijing views U.S. unpredictability as both a challenge and an opportunity in the broader competition for influence. The Japan News reports on Tokyo’s concerns about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees, noting that Trump’s shifting tone on defense commitments has prompted renewed debate within Japan’s political establishment. The Korea Herald adds that Seoul is closely watching Trump’s statements on North Korea and regional deterrence, with officials wary of sudden changes in U.S. strategy.

From South Asia, The Times of India focuses on how Trump’s decisions are affecting India’s strategic environment, particularly regarding energy markets, regional stability, and the delicate balance between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Finally, AFP provides a broad, wire‑style overview of global reactions to Trump’s latest policy moves, capturing the rapid international response to U.S. actions across diplomatic, military, and economic spheres.

Critiques

The inference of American decline is unmistakable in China Daily’s coverage, where Xi and his government continue positioning China as the only geopolitical power capable of filling the vacuum created by Trump and his “America First” doctrine. Trump’s contradictory interventionism in the Middle East, paired with his isolationist disdain for the post‑WWII architecture of NATO and the alliances the United States once stewarded as the self‑proclaimed “leader of the free world,” has left allies uncertain and adversaries emboldened. Today’s sharply toned critiques across the foreign press make that vacuum impossible to ignore, as postwar Europe openly grapples with the question of who — if anyone — will assume the mantle of global leadership. That uncertainty is reflected throughout the aggregate of global press critiques today, each outlet capturing a different facet of the geopolitical disarray surrounding Trump’s actions.

Across today’s global coverage, the foreign press converges on a single, unmistakable theme: deep skepticism about Donald Trump’s leadership and growing alarm over the direction of U.S. policy. The Guardian frames Trump as a destabilizing force whose impulsive decisions and erratic messaging have left allies uncertain and adversaries emboldened. Their critique centers on the vacuum created when Washington abandons coherent strategy in favor of spectacle.

The Independent sharpens this further, portraying Trump as a leader trapped by his own political instincts — reactive, thin‑skinned, and incapable of articulating a long‑term vision. They argue that U.S. actions under Trump feel less like policy and more like improvisation, with global consequences that outlast the theatrics.

From France, Le Monde offers a structural critique: Trump’s America is no longer seen as a stabilizing anchor but as a source of volatility. They highlight how his transactional worldview undermines alliances, weakens multilateral institutions, and leaves Europe scrambling to compensate for American unpredictability.

DW Germany echoes this, noting that Berlin increasingly views U.S. policy as inconsistent and self‑defeating. Their critique focuses on Trump’s habit of announcing major shifts without consultation, leaving European governments to manage the fallout from decisions they neither supported nor anticipated.

In the Middle East, Al Jazeera English is blunt: Trump’s approach is seen as inflaming tensions, sidelining diplomacy, and prioritizing domestic political optics over regional stability. They argue that U.S. actions under Trump have deepened humanitarian crises while offering no credible path forward.

Haaretz, speaking from inside Israel, delivers a more nuanced but equally sharp critique. They note that while Trump’s policies often align with the Israeli government’s short‑term preferences, his lack of strategic discipline ultimately leaves Israel more exposed, not less. The paper questions whether Trump understands — or even cares about — the long‑term consequences of his decisions.

In Asia, China Daily uses Trump’s behavior as evidence of American decline, portraying the U.S. as erratic, divided, and incapable of sustained leadership. As noted in my preamble for the summary of critical views by the foreign press their critique is self‑serving, but it resonates globally: Trump’s America looks unreliable.

The Japan News focuses on the anxiety Trump creates among allies who depend on U.S. security guarantees. Their critique centers on the fear that Trump’s impulsiveness could trigger crises faster than Japan can prepare for them.

The Korea Herald adds that Trump’s inconsistency on North Korea — oscillating between threats and flattery — has left Seoul navigating a more dangerous peninsula with fewer assurances from Washington.

From South Asia, The Times of India criticizes Trump’s narrow, domestic‑politics‑first approach, arguing that it ignores the global ripple effects on energy markets, diaspora communities, and regional stability.

Finally, AFP captures the overarching sentiment: Trump’s America is unpredictable, inward‑looking, and increasingly disconnected from the responsibilities of global leadership. Their critique is understated but unmistakable — the world is adjusting to a United States that no longer behaves like the United States.

My “The Buck Stops Here” analysis is intentionally short and direct. Domestic political optics remain the metric of the moment, as global perspectives are increasingly shaped by Trump’s impulsive, whimsical actions presented as pure spectacle. A compliant domestic press continues to hang on his every word, treating him as a rational narrator of his own outcomes despite the glaring mismatch between his claims and the reality they produce. The foreign press, however, is under no such illusion. They now treat nearly everything he says as bombastic theater, untethered from the actual dynamics of geopolitics and the consequences unfolding around him.

Day 29 U.S./Israel War With Iran: A Foreign News Round-Up Perspective - A Complete Domestic Rejection of Trump's Governing Philosophy Coupled With An Erratic Doctrine of Foreign Policy Justification and End State

Before we look at Day 29 of today’s foreign press roundup of the Iran conflict it first should be contrasted against the domestic backdrop of an estimated 3,000 “No Kings” protests erupting across all 50 states — demonstrations aimed squarely at Trump himself and a wide array of grievances against his administration. These include the illegal war in Iran waged without Congressional authorization, soaring oil prices, inflation, the Epstein files, attacks on voting rights, the stripping away of women’s rights, and a growing erosion of free speech and press freedom. One can only imagine leaders within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps watching these scenes and noting the optics — how profoundly weak this makes Trump appear. Layer onto that his rambling Cabinet meetings, his erratic “pause‑and‑strike” diplomacy, and persistent domestic reporting that he is bored with the conflict, and the result is a doctrine that looks disjointed and incoherent to Tehran, which sees little incentive to engage with him diplomatically.

With this in mind let’s take a look at today’s summary of global press coverage as it centers on the widening uncertainty surrounding the U.S.–Iran confrontation, with nearly every outlet noting the stark contrast between Washington’s statements and Tehran’s denials. AFP reports heavily on President Trump’s claim of “productive conversations” with Iran and the five‑day extension of his ultimatum, emphasizing the confusion created by Iran’s immediate rejection of any such talks. The Independent echoes this theme, describing a diplomatic landscape clouded by contradictory signals and highlighting European attempts to verify whether any back‑channel communication is actually underway.

In Israel, Haaretz focuses on the security implications for the region, noting intensified consultations between Israeli officials and Washington as they try to interpret the shifting U.S. posture. Across Europe, The Guardian underscores the danger of dueling narratives, pointing to the heightened tension created by Trump’s public declarations of progress contrasted with Tehran’s categorical denials. Le Monde concentrates on the ripple effects in global energy markets, describing European efforts to stabilize fuel reserves amid uncertainty over the conflict’s trajectory.

German broadcaster Deutsche Welle highlights European anxiety over U.S. military deployments and the lack of clarity from Washington, while The Times of India reports on India’s delicate balancing act as rising oil prices stir domestic unease. In East Asia, The Japan News describes Tokyo’s increased coordination with regional partners, and The Korea Herald notes Seoul’s diplomatic outreach to both Washington and Tehran as it adjusts its missile defense posture.

Coverage from Al Jazeera English centers on the U.S. media environment during the crisis, examining the administration’s wartime messaging and its impact on press freedoms. Meanwhile, China Daily frames the conflict as evidence of Western diplomatic failure, highlighting China’s humanitarian aid shipments and its calls for de-escalation.

Foreign outlets keep circling the same contradiction: Trump boasts of victory while quietly pleading with allies to keep the Strait of Hormuz open — a split‑screen that makes his bravado look hollow and his strategy desperate.  Across the international press, skepticism toward Washington’s handling of the crisis is widespread. The Independent questions the credibility of President Trump’s shifting statements, noting that his claims of diplomatic progress appear inconsistent and risk confusing allies. AFP echoes this concern, pointing out that Trump’s announcement of “productive conversations” with Iran is contradicted by Tehran’s denials, raising doubts about whether the messaging is aimed more at market reassurance than genuine diplomacy.

In Israel, Haaretz voices unease over what it describes as mixed signals from Washington, warning that Trump’s inconsistent posture leaves Israeli planners uncertain about the reliability of U.S. commitments. The Guardian is similarly critical, arguing that Trump’s public threats and declarations have escalated tensions and undermined the credibility of any diplomatic overtures. Le Monde characterizes the administration’s approach as improvised, suggesting that the lack of coherent strategy complicates European crisis management efforts.

From Germany, Deutsche Welle highlights frustration with what it calls Washington’s “strategic opacity,” noting that Trump’s public rhetoric and private actions appear misaligned, leaving European partners unsure of U.S. intentions. The Times of India critiques the administration’s unilateralism, arguing that Trump’s approach destabilizes energy‑dependent economies and sidelines multilateral frameworks that countries like India rely upon.

In East Asia, The Japan News expresses concern that Trump’s unpredictability complicates Japan’s security planning, while The Korea Herald warns that the administration’s “maximum pressure” posture risks widening the conflict and undermining regional stability. Al Jazeera English focuses on Trump’s wartime media posture, framing his threats against broadcasters as an alarming example of executive overreach. Meanwhile, China Daily condemns what it describes as U.S. “hegemonic aggression,” portraying Trump’s actions as destabilizing and self‑serving on the global stage.

My “The Buck Stops Here” analysis makes one thing unmistakable: the collision of scathing global coverage with the nationwide “No Kings” protests erupting across all 50 states on Day 29 of the Iran conflict amounts to a wholesale repudiation of Trump and the governing philosophy he has imposed on the country. Together they paint the portrait of a president visibly unraveling — weak, cornered, and increasingly incapable of sustaining even the pretense of strategic focus. His attention to the Iran conflict has shrunk into a jittery, erratic flicker, endangering U.S. national security at home and abroad with every passing day. And the question now hangs in the air with growing weight: how long before his own Cabinet and party begin quietly gaming out the 25th Amendment, citing a president whose diminishing capacity to perform his duties — and to honor the oath he swore to protect and defend the Constitution — is no longer possible to ignore.

Day 25 U.S./Israel War With Iran: A Foreign News Round-Up Perspective - The Negotiation That Isn't There

Our Day 25 foreign press roundup brings two new contributors into the fold: AFP (Agence‑France Presse) and UPI (United Press International). AFP appears twice today, reflecting its multi‑cycle wire structure and widening the scope of our global lens. Over the past five days, nuance has remained the dominant narrative across most outlets — with the notable exceptions of SCMP and The Independent, both of which continue to sharpen their skepticism about Trump’s claim of negotiations with an unnamed Iranian official. Below is today’s distilled summary of global coverage from our expanded press cohort.

Foreign reporting converges on a single unstable axis: the United States’ halted strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and Trump’s assertion that negotiations with Tehran are “active,” even as U.S. officials describe any talks as early and undefined. BBC and The Guardian highlight the tension between diplomatic language and ongoing military activity, noting intensified Israeli strikes in Lebanon and Iranian missile launches. Le Monde and Der Spiegel frame the moment as a precarious diplomatic pause, with Europe urging restraint while acknowledging that neither side is signaling de‑escalation.

Al Jazeera emphasizes the regional impact, focusing on Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon and Iran’s claims of intercepting incoming threats. SCMP widens the frame to global markets, linking Middle East instability to energy volatility and China’s diplomatic positioning. Times of India echoes these economic concerns, stressing India’s vulnerability to energy shocks and noting Iran’s insistence that its nuclear infrastructure remains intact.

AFP underscores the duality of the moment: Trump’s negotiation claims contrasted with Iran’s report of a strike near the Bushehr nuclear plant, Iraq’s arrests after rocket attacks, and Israel’s insistence that its military plans remain unchanged. Haaretz centers on Israeli military operations and internal security debates, while noting continued skepticism about the substance of U.S.–Iran talks.
NYT International presents the day as a near‑escalation narrowly avoided, pairing the paused strike with continued Israeli operations and Ukraine’s ongoing drone bombardment. UPI, meanwhile, stands apart by focusing on global economic stress — from Argentina’s dairy crisis to U.S. worker disengagement — and tying these pressures to broader geopolitical uncertainty.

Across the foreign press, the through‑line is unmistakable: diplomacy is being spoken, but conflict continues to move.

Critiques Across the Foreign Press
Critiques of U.S. policy toward Iran converge on a shared concern: Washington is projecting an unstable and contradictory strategic posture at a moment of heightened regional risk. BBC and The Guardian emphasize the widening gap between Trump’s confident claims of active negotiations and the more cautious, often conflicting assessments offered by U.S. officials. They argue that this mismatch undermines credibility and injects volatility into an already tense environment.

The Independent sharpens this critique, openly questioning whether any genuine diplomatic channel exists. By highlighting Iran’s categorical denial of talks, it suggests the administration’s narrative may be tactical or politically motivated — a discrepancy that increases the likelihood of miscalculation.
Le Monde and Der Spiegel echo concerns about incoherence, arguing that Washington’s signals lack strategic clarity and leave European allies uncertain about U.S. intentions. Der Spiegel goes further, portraying Trump’s decision‑making as reactive and optics‑driven, with Europe increasingly sidelined.
Al Jazeera critiques the United States for enabling Israeli escalation while simultaneously presenting itself as a diplomatic actor. SCMP and Times of India focus on the global economic consequences of U.S. unpredictability, stressing that energy‑importing nations bear the brunt of volatility triggered by shifting U.S.–Iran dynamics.

AFP underscores the contradiction between diplomatic language and ongoing military activity, describing the moment as a fragile “dual track.” Haaretz questions Netanyahu’s political incentives and the sustainability of Israel’s strategy, while also expressing skepticism about U.S. claims of progress. NYT International frames the administration’s posture as inconsistent and dangerously reactive, and UPI links geopolitical instability to rising global economic stress.

Together, these critiques depict a world increasingly uneasy with Washington’s oscillation between brinkmanship and diplomacy.

The Buck Stops Here — My Analysis
Trump continues to insist that talks with an unnamed high‑level Iranian official are ongoing, based on an unspecified 15‑point pact he claims includes a prohibition on nuclear development. He also maintains that his June 25, 2025 order to strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities — a claim that many global and domestic observers find difficult to reconcile with his current justification for renewed military operations aimed at “permanently” destroying those same capabilities.

The skepticism voiced by The Independent and Haaretz stands out sharply against the more cautious tone of other outlets. Meanwhile, some U.S. domestic media continue to treat Trump’s declarations as though they represent a coherent strategic framework, when in reality they often reflect impulsive, inconsistent decision‑making rather than a grounded national‑security doctrine.

China Gets Tacit Okay To Move On Hong Kong From Trump

The political pressure cooker used by Trump to govern with has been breached and may not be repairable.  While the political strategy of dissent and grievance continues to simmer and be driven by Trump's governing style and campaign for reelection here at home underneath the cover of the unabated sear of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump's foreign policy negligence goes politically unchecked through via the distracted eye of the corporate media here at home and abroad.  In 1997 when the United Kingdom's lease on Hong Kong expired there was a "gentleman's agreement" between the still very much communist government of China and the provincial government of Hong Kong letting the city keep its unique status of a free market that thrived within the confines of a democratic political structure granted by an exceptional status that would transition over a period of fifty years to complete Chinese government control.  It is obvious by now that "gentlemen's agreement" has collapsed, along with the democratic government of Hong Kong as the government of China prepares to move in with its military to administer the political and cultural hand of oppression and suppression. 

Meanwhile Trump has given a Tacit okay to the Chinese government and Secretary Xi Jinping to go through with this move on Hong Kong as the White House walks a tight rope clinging to the prospects of a trade agreement still unresolved between the two countries.  What's going seemingly unnoticed is the continuing and ever expanding chasm between the United States and the western world politically and socially driven by the vacuum of an absentee leadership role by Trump as he turns his back on our European allies and the rest of the western hemisphere.  His "America First" policy, as Trump likes to call it, is by day proving to be economically and politically detrimental and expensive for our nation in its relations outside of our boarders as we turn inward and withdraw from a global community grasping for a leader pull us out of this global pandemic.

While we had a world leader and statesman do just that from the confines of a wheelchair at the outbreak of World War II with President Roosevelt we find ourselves with a President who won't even wear a medical mask in public as he politically flails about in an environment fraught with massive unemployment and unrest over how to handle the pandemic as it spreads across the country.  His lack of leadership at home and abroad is on the verge of undoing what over 150 yeas of healing in post Civil War America had made possible with the election of its first black President. 

We were only now beginning to form scars over the scabs that still existed from a war that nearly destroyed us from within.  The fact that Trump can almost undo all of that work in a short four years has only underlined how tenuous it has been over a century and a half.  If he gets four more years those scabs may turn out to be wounds that will not ever heal in the political environment we have now that makes us what we were to the world: a beacon of hope and unity.  

The assassination of a beautiful mind

Even the utterance of the word 'assassination' has a profane sound to it.

Thursday morning I was sitting on my living room floor playing with my 23-month-old daughter trying to stretch out every last moment of joy left in the holiday season with her when I realized it was time for her favorite TV program on Nickelodeon. Suddenly I found my holiday joy and spirit being tempered by a feeling of nausea that descended over me. Staring back at me from my TV screen was a CNN “Breaking News” headline: “Benazir Bhutto Assassinated.” Even though I wasn’t surprised, the fact it had happened in exactly the way one would have expected it still had the shocking and sickening impact the perpetrators intended.

Other than this description of the feelings and horror I was experiencing there isn’t much more one can say about her murder in context with the current situation in Pakistan. I’ll leave that to the brilliantly informed and analytical mind of Juan Cole. Having said that, there are a couple of observations I would like to add from a personal perspective and one of them is to ask the obvious rhetorical question the American mainstream media seems incapable of asking: where is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

From Dr. Rice’s point of view, which always seems to be from the back of a milk carton under the header “missing,” whenever a foreign policy initiative pushed by her goes awry, she continues to demonstrate one of the two major aspects of consistency in her tenure as head of the state department. First, she always seems to be conspicuously absent at those critical moments of failure when the world stage demands a clarification of some kind on the American position and what actions or inactions need to be taken. As for the other aspect, it is the ever present state of shock and surprise on her face whenever she does happen to appear publicly before the reverberations of one of her monumental blunders has had time to settle down to the level of normal confusion that is now standard under her tenure. After all it was the New York Times that reported on the moves initiated by her and the WH to pressure Musharraf into talks over a power sharing arrangement with the former Prime Minister. This was all due to the hope of introducing an ingredient of stability into a critical Middle Eastern ally with a fluid political environment awash in volatility from a variety of directions both internally and externally. Dr. Rice’s reverse German WWI gambit paralleling Lenin’s passage through their country to Russia as a destabilizing factor was sure to fail on its own terms considering Bhutto’s family history and legacy.

Dr. Rice’s stunning inability to read history and misinterpret its parallels with today’s international political climate continues to stagger the mind. Progressive tendencies to pejoratively compare her and the team of stumbling and bumbling jingoists that continue to serve as the arbiters of policy in the rump U.S. government of the executive branch to Machiavelli does a disservice to the cold, antiseptic, and pro-monarchist philosophy of the Italian diplomat. Though in contrast, humanizing Machiavelli's policies is quite a feat for this group.

The main reason for my shock and near sickening sadness is the fact I liked the public face of Ms. Bhutto. I liked her intellect and seemingly fearless motives, as she acted on what she believed was the best interest of her country at the risk of her own life. I am positive the intellect she always publicly demonstrated made her keenly aware of the Deus ex machina role she was expected to play for American regional interests. Despite this handicap from the Islamic world perspective, I also don’t believe for one moment she cared what that role implied. She was an incredibly shrewd politician who found herself in a position to use the American State Department for her own means to an end as much as it was the other way around. I once saw a quote from her autobiography where she gave the reason she left the comforting world of Western stability: “I didn’t chose this life, it chose me.” These are words that could have just as easily been uttered by the likes of Robert F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, or Mahatma Gandhi. She was the first female in her family to appear in public without a burqa, which, despite Salmon Rushdie’s lampooning, was an early indication of her strong will. I like to think my affinity for the public aura she emitted had noting do to do with the prejudicial reasons indicated in an obituary from one of the United Kingdom’s online news services, The Telegraph:

“Her glamorous good looks and fluent English led to a sustained love affair with Western politicians and journalists, many of whom had known her at either Harvard or Oxford. For those with the standard Western prejudices against the Islamic world, she had the added assets of a pronounceable name and a tolerant religious outlook. She did not organize anti-American rallies or issue fatwas against best-selling authors.”

That last sentence in itself demonstrates a racially prejudicial view it seems to object to and acts as a disservice to any thinking person, no matter what region of the world they are from when considering her educational background and the fact she was grounded in sensibilities one would not otherwise expect to find in an environment of religious ideological extremism.

I’m not sure what would have been had she lived and there is no doubt she had her flaws both personally and politically. I’m only sure of what the possibilities she offered were despite the somewhat negative and sobering analysis offered from the Telegraph on the legacy she carried with her upon her return to the Pakistan:

“In Pakistan she was often far less popular than her foreign press made out. To her opponents she was more English than Pakistani, more Western than Eastern. Her Urdu, although fluent, was ungrammatical, while her Sindhi, her family's mother tongue, was almost non-existent. It was also said hat she lacked a coherent political philosophy and tended to dissipate her energies on party politicking. During her first 20-month spell as prime minister, from 1988 to 1990, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation, admittedly due in large part to the constraints imposed on her by a hostile and still-powerful military. […]Her tight monetary policy produced a dramatic reduction in the budget deficit, pulling the country's economy back from the brink of collapse, and earning it a clean bill of health from the IMF and World Bank.”

Despite the White House simpleton’s black and white perspective of the world and the volatile mixture of Middle Eastern cultural, religious, and political mechanizations it’s a wonder and a miracle she survived as long as she did.

Yes. ‘Assassination’ is an ugly and profane word. Its use has always demonstrated the inhumanity of the person and individuals who employ it and overwhelm and undermine the cause they support. Though martyrdom’s plight seems to serve a higher cause for the unjustly murdered its result is always short lived when the realities of the long view set in.

As I said, I liked the public face of Ms. Bhutto. Without putting a finger on the exactness of it let’s just say she seemed be a tranquil oasis in a dessert empty of sanity and reason, whether real or illusionary.