Cuba

A $100 million would go a long way to alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused by the US blockade of Cuba.

The island’s communist government has already made big concessions on the economic front in an attempt to appease the Trump Administration.

It has legalised small and medium-sized private businesses; abolished Cuba’s dual currency; opened more than 2,000 additional occupations to private initiative and allowed exiled Cubans to invest in the island’s economy.

On the political front they have been less forthcoming. Only a handful of political prisoners have been released and there is no sign of the regime introducing freedom of expression or a reform of its judicial system.

There is also the additional problem of who distributes the aid should it be released. Havana says it will handle the distribution through established government channels. Washington says those channels are corrupt and the money must be distributed by the Catholic church.

Finally, there is the question of whether the $100 million carrot is a mere ruse. That the Trump Administration will settle for nothing less than complete regime change; the dismantlement of Cuba’s socialist state and the return to pre-1959 style American domination of the Caribbean island.

To achieve that, Washington may just have to invade the island. They increasingly appear prepared to do just that. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz has been parked in the Caribbean. The Cuban president, 94-year-old Raul Castro, has been indicted for murder.

And finally, Cuban-American Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the military option is more likely than the diplomatic.

Israel

Benjamin Netanyahu has proven himself a tough man. Since the October 7 attacks he has launched wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, to say nothing of the continuing turmoil in the West Bank. Few Israeli leaders have confronted so many enemies on so many fronts.

But toughness alone will not win the forthcoming election. Opinion polls show his approval ratings at between 40 and 47 percent and Likud is trailing a coalition opposition. If Netanyahu is to survive politically, he must prove not only that he can start wars, but that he can end them—and win them.

In Gaza Hamas has been badly damaged but not destroyed. This week the government ordered the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to increase their occupation from 64 percent of the territory to 70 percent. Yet despite repeated declarations of imminent victory from both Jerusalem and Washington, there remains no clear political settlement and no obvious answer to the question of what happens to Gaza when the fighting finally ends.

The ceasefire in Lebanon is meant to be an integral element in the ceasefire in the Iran War. Yet Israel continues to fire missiles into Lebanon and has moved ground forces into the southern part of the country to create a security zone. Netanyahu says he sees no reason to “take his foot off the pedal.” For many Israelis, a security zone may look like a military necessity. For others, it looks suspiciously like another open-ended commitment.

The Iran War has an outside chance of being the one military and diplomatic success that the Israeli prime minister can point to before the elections. But if an agreement is reached it will likely be because Donald Trump is prepared to make concessions that Netanyahu has long resisted.

The difficulty for Netanyahu is that military success and political success are not the same thing. Israeli voters may applaud the destruction of Hamas tunnels, the assassination of Hezbollah commanders and air strikes deep inside Iran. But elections are ultimately decided by outcomes, not operations. After nearly three years of conflict many Israelis are beginning to ask a simple question: when does victory arrive?

Most Israelis still support confronting Iran and Hezbollah. Both are considered an existential threat. Many also support continuing pressure on Hamas, although an increasing number wonder why the IDF is still in Gaza.

For years Netanyahu’s political reputation rested on the belief that only ‘Bibi’ could keep Israel safe. The coming election may test a different proposition. Israelis still appear willing to fight. What they increasingly want to know is whether anyone—including Netanyahu—knows how to stop fighting.

India

India’s most elite club may soon close its doors forever. A court battle may save it, but the odds are not good.

The Gymkhana Club is a hangover from the Raj. Liveried servants float quietly over the plush carpets to pour whisky and sodas. The membership may no longer be pale-skinned Brits, but it is still comprised of India’s ruling elite. As such it is a symbol of entrenched elitism of the past.

The threatened closure of the Delhi Gymkhana Club is best understood as part of Narendra Modi’s wider campaign to redefine India’s identity. Colonial symbols, Mughal legacies, Westernised elites and secular institutions have all found themselves under increasing pressure. The Gymkhana may simply be the latest casualty in a struggle over what sort of country India wishes to be

For the supporters of Modi’s ruling BJP, that India is one in which the country’s Hindu culture –  past, present and future – are emphasised at the expense of others.

Since coming to power in 2014, the government has renamed countless streets, towns and cities with Hindu names. Schoolbooks have been rewritten to emphasise the role of Hindu kingdoms over the Mughal rulers.

Christian organisations are not immune from attack. Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity was threatened with closure for receiving funds from foreign donors.

Perhaps the most impactful move by the Modi government was the Citizenship Amendment Act. This legislation opened a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries—except Muslims.

Whether or not the Gymkhana survives its court battle is almost beside the point. What matters is what the dispute represents. A century after it opened its doors to British colonial administrators, the club finds itself caught in a different struggle: a battle over India’s identity, its history and the story it tells itself about its future.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”