By Naiara Galarraga Gortázar

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 80, is a veteran with an aversion to adventure or improvisation. Supporter always not touching what works. Following that logic, this Tuesday he has confirmed that he will attend the next elections in October with his current vice president, Geraldo Alckmin, 73 years old, as number two again. Theirs is a marriage of convenience between two politicians who were adversaries for decades and who united in 2022 the fear that Jair Bolsonaro would dynamite Brazilian democracy. The union between the leader of the Brazilian left and the former center-right leader works.

The announcement was expected because, over time, they both developed an obvious complicity. “Comrade Alckmin will have to leave the Ministry of Industry and Commerce because he is running again as a candidate for the vice president of the Republic,” the president announced at a ministerial meeting in Brasilia. The Cabinet meeting was actually a farewell from half of the ministers, who have to leave office by law because they are in the October general election.

Alckmin has simultaneously served as vice president with that of Minister of Industry and Trade. The first has led him to assume power during the president’s multiple trips abroad and to represent him at some international event. And as a minister he has an important role, along with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Finance, in the harsh negotiations with the Trump Administration for the tariff war waged by the Republican.

Lula has often publicly praised Alckmin’s loyalty, which he defeated in the 2006 presidential election. Before and after those elections, he added four terms as governor of São Paulo. The invitation of the leader of the Workers’ Party to the then leader of the PSDB (the Brazilian Social Democratic Party) shocked those who saw them all their lives as adversaries. Alckmin brings to Lula intimacy with economic power—in which a sector has never trusted him—and an image of moderation that manages to attract the leftist’s, squander-up white middle classes,

The next election campaign has precipitated the departure of 18 of the 38 ministers, including that of the Civil House (a kind of prime minister), the Institutional Relations (in charge of relations with Congress). Fernando Haddad recently left the Ministry of Finance to accept, after resisting, to be a candidate for governor of São Paulo — an arduous career. Also coming the headlines of the Environment, Marina Silva; Indigenous Peoples, Sonia Guajajara, or Racial Equality, Marielle Franco, among others.

Lula has decided that all of them will be replaced by members of their teams while he reserves energy and political capital to mount the candidatures to the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and the States, in addition to his.

Brazil’s president has told outgoing ministers that they have “important missions” in the coming months before lamenting the current state of politics: “Policy has gotten much worse. Today there are still many serious people who are engaged in politics with capital P, but the truth is that, in many cases, politics has become a business. Anyone who comes to a public office knows this: the positions are very high priced,” Lula said.

Courtesy of El Pais

We congratulate Emmanuel Gregoire as the newly arriving incumbent of the office of Mayoralty of the City of Paris, France and wish him good fortune and a healthy tenure in his duties and responsibilities for the future.

By Iqbal Basyari, Kurnia Yunita Rahayu

04 Mar 2026 20:22 WIB · English

The military attack launched by the United States and Israel against Iran in late February 2026 shook stability in the Middle East and exacerbated global tensions. However, its impact was not limited to the region. The attack also sparked strong calls from various elements of Indonesian society to withdraw from the Board of Peace (BoP), an international organization to which Indonesia had joined since late January 2026.

Indonesia's decision to join the Peace Council was initially regarded as a strategic diplomatic move to support world peace, particularly in advocating for Palestinian independence. However, following the attacks carried out by the United States - the initiator of the Peace Council - and Israel against Iran, Indonesia's action is now under sharp scrutiny as it is seen as contradictory to the principles of peace upheld by the country.

Following the attack, the call for an immediate withdrawal from the Peace Council has intensified. This demand comes from various groups, including the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), community leaders, and members of the House of Representatives. Many parties agree that Indonesia's position in the Peace Council is now in question, especially after the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran, which are considered violations of international law and detrimental to world peace.

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) firmly condemns the military attacks carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran. In its circular letter, MUI assesses that the attacks are contrary to humanitarian values and the principles outlined in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution.

Furthermore, the MUI emphasized that Indonesia must immediately withdraw from the Peace Council. This is because Indonesia's membership within it actually exacerbates international tensions, rather than promoting peace, which should be the primary objective of the Peace Council.

"The Peace Council, which should serve as a platform for peace, is instead exacerbating the conflict. Therefore, we urge the Indonesian government to immediately withdraw Indonesia's membership from the Peace Council," reads the letter from MUI.

The Peace Council, which should serve as a symbol of collective efforts to create global peace, has instead become a political tool that supports military aggression.

In addition to the MUI, more than 60 national figures and 70 civil society organizations have joined a petition calling for Indonesia to withdraw from the Peace Council. The petition, issued on March 1, 2026, assesses that the US-Israel attacks violate international law and undermine world peace.

The signatories of this petition criticized the Peace Council, which is supposed to act as a peacekeeping institution, but is now considered to have turned into a “Board of War” because it supports military aggression against Iran.

"The Peace Council, which should be a symbol of a collective effort to create global peace, has now become a political tool that supports military aggression. The Peace Council must be evaluated, and Indonesia must withdraw immediately," said one of the petition signatories, Ray Rangkuti, a democracy activist.

The pressure to withdraw from the Peace Council also comes from members of Commission I of the DPR, Tubagus Hasanuddin. Hasanuddin believes that remaining in the Peace Council risks undermining Indonesia's foreign policy consistency, which is free and active. He warned that the continuation of Indonesia's membership in the Peace Council would worsen Indonesia's position in the eyes of the world, particularly in addressing the Palestinian conflict and other international situations.

"Indonesia has already entered the Peace Council, but remaining within it will lead to greater issues. I urge the government to withdraw from the Peace Council in order to maintain the consistency of the active non-alignment principle mandated by our constitution," said Hasanuddin.

Foreign Minister Sugiono did not provide an answer when asked about the government's response to the calls for Indonesia to withdraw from the Peace Council. Instead, he explained that the international situation regarding the military attacks occurring in Iran is currently dominating the government's attention.

"All the Peace Council discussions are on hold, all attention has shifted to the situation in Iran," said Sugiono after a friendly meeting and discussion between President Prabowo Subianto and several national figures at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Tuesday (3/3/2026) evening.

Sugiono stated that the Indonesian government continues to engage in intensive communication with partner countries, particularly in the Gulf region, which are also members of the Peace Council. This is because the countries in that region are also facing similar impacts due to the tensions in Iran.

"We continue to conduct consultations and consolidations with our colleagues in the Gulf. They are also experiencing the same situation, some have been attacked as well. Nevertheless, they are also members of the Peace Council," said Sugiono.

The Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly, Ahmad Muzani, during an impromptu interview with journalists at the Presidential Palace Complex in Jakarta on Wednesday (4/3/2026), revealed that President Prabowo has received various inputs from former presidents, former vice presidents, former foreign ministers, and business circles regarding Indonesia's position in the Peace Council. In the gathering and discussion held on Tuesday night, the President explained the situation and conditions related to the global situation, as well as listened to the various perspectives provided.

"All those views were well received by the President. The President accepted those views with pleasure and considered them as input that he used as a reference in making decisions," said Muzani.

The Peace Council is part of the efforts to expedite the process of Palestinian independence and development, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of Palestine. "And that is the main objective of the establishment of the BoP. However, there is an issue with Iran. I believe that the President also conveyed that perspective more clearly last night," said Muzani.

Muzani responded when asked whether there would be a reevaluation of Indonesia's position on the Peace Council considering that the party proposing it has actually launched an attack on Iran.

"For Indonesia, entering and exiting the Balance of Payments (BoP) is something that could happen, as mentioned several times by the President. We could exit at any time. However, once again, it must be based on a mutual agreement," said Muzani.

The Rector of the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII), Fathul Wahid, stated that UII regrets the stance of the Indonesian Government, which is considered to have not shown firmness in responding to the military attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran. This attitude is seen as reflecting the weak implementation of Indonesia's foreign policy principle of an active and independent stance.

"We regret the stance of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, which has yet to demonstrate adequate firmness in responding to the military attacks by Israel and the United States on the Islamic Republic of Iran," said Fathul Wahid in a Statement of Position from UII.

Fathul Wahid believes that the attack violates the principle of state sovereignty in international law and contradicts the constitutional mandate that emphasizes the rejection of all forms of colonialism. He also warned that this attack has the potential to worsen the global geopolitical situation and exacerbate the suffering of civilians, particularly women and children.

In response to this development, UII issued a call to the Indonesian Government to promptly condemn the attack and demand consistency in foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of other nations. UII also emphasized the importance of promoting peaceful resolutions through multilateral diplomacy.

"We demand that the government immediately condemn the Israeli and United States military attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran," said Fathul Wahid.

In addition, he continued, UII also expressed concern over foreign policy that is deemed to potentially undermine the sovereignty of the state. One of the issues relates to Indonesia's involvement in the Peace Council established by US President Donald Trump.

Fathul Wahid believes that Indonesia's participation in the Peace Council risks contradicting the principles of Indonesia's active and independent foreign policy. This participation also poses a risk of undermining Indonesia's consistent stance in supporting the struggle for Palestinian independence and its constitutional commitment to reject all forms of colonization on Earth. Therefore, UII urges the Indonesian government to promptly withdraw from the Peace Council.

"Indonesia's involvement in the Peace Council established by President Donald Trump has the potential to contradict the constitutional mandate and undermine the principle of an independent and active foreign policy, which has been the foundation of Indonesia's diplomacy since independence," he stated.

Now that the public is calling on the President to let Indonesia leave the Peace Council, will this be considered?

Writer:

Iqbal Basyari, Kurnia Yunita Rahayu Credits Writer: Iqbal Basyari, Kurnia Yunita Rahayu | Editor: Cyprianus Anto Saptowalyono

Courtesy of the Middle East Monitor

In today’s fractured geopolitical landscape, energy flows are no longer governed by markets alone. They are shaped—often decisively—by politics. Nowhere is this clearer than in the unfolding crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, where Indonesia finds itself on the wrong side of a strategic divide.

As tensions escalate in the Middle East, Iran has adopted a selective approach to maritime access through the strait, one of the world’s most vital energy chokepoints. Rather than a blanket closure, Tehran has opted for a calibrated policy: friendly nations may pass; others must wait. 

The consequences for Indonesia are immediate and stark. While countries like Malaysia, Thailand, China, India and Russia have secured safe passage for their tankers, two Indonesian vessels remain stranded. This is not a logistical hiccup. It is a geopolitical signal.

Iran’s own officials have made the logic explicit. Access is granted based on diplomatic alignment and strategic trust. Nations perceived as cooperative—or at least non-hostile—are accommodated. Others are left navigating uncertainty.

Indonesia, it appears, has misread the moment.

READ: Indonesia suspends Gaza troop deployment amid Middle East tensions

For decades, Jakarta prided itself on a doctrine of “free and active” foreign policy—non-aligned, pragmatic and flexible. That posture allowed Indonesia to engage multiple power centers without becoming entangled in their rivalries. But recent policy choices suggest a drift away from that equilibrium.

By signing the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) with the United States and joining the Board of Peace (BoP), Indonesia has moved beyond nominal non-alignment into visible proximity to the US orbit.

The ART is not merely a trade deal; it reshapes tariffs, supply chains and regulatory frameworks in ways that bind Indonesia more closely to U.S.-led economic and security systems.  Meanwhile, the decision to join the BoP—widely criticized at home as a strategic misstep—signals alignment with Washington’s Middle East posture, particularly in the context of Gaza. 

In Tehran’s eyes, these moves blur the line between cooperation and alignment. In a conflict environment defined by binary loyalties, even economic agreements and diplomatic platforms are read as strategic signals. In that context, perception is policy.

The cost of that perception is now measurable.

First, energy security. The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of global oil shipments, and disruptions there ripple across supply chains worldwide. If Indonesian tankers cannot pass freely, the country must source crude and liquefied petroleum gas from alternative routes—longer, riskier and far more expensive.

Shipping costs rise. Insurance premiums spike. Subsidy burdens swell. In a country where energy prices are politically sensitive, the fiscal implications are profound. What begins as a diplomatic miscalculation quickly becomes a budgetary strain.

Second, competitiveness. Malaysia and Thailand, having secured passage, are better positioned to maintain stable energy inputs and export flows. Their manufacturing sectors—already integrated into global supply chains—gain an advantage over Indonesia’s.

This is not just about oil. It is about the broader architecture of trade. Delays in energy supply affect production timelines. Disruptions in shipping lanes threaten exports of automotive components, industrial goods and commodities. In a tightly coupled global economy, reliability is currency—and Indonesia risks devaluation.

Third, macroeconomic stability. Higher import costs feed directly into inflation. A widening subsidy bill pressures public finances. And as external balances deteriorate, the rupiah faces renewed volatility. These are not abstract risks; they are the building blocks of economic stress.

All of this stems from a single, uncomfortable reality: geopolitics has overtaken economics.

READ: Iran says US seeking to achieve war goals via 15-point plan after military failure

Iran’s policy in the Strait of Hormuz underscores a broader shift in global order. Strategic chokepoints are no longer neutral spaces. They are instruments of leverage. Access is conditional. Neutrality, if not actively maintained, is easily questioned.

Indonesia’s response so far—continued negotiation and diplomatic outreach—may yet yield results. But negotiation from a position of ambiguity is inherently difficult. Other countries have secured passage not merely through dialogue, but through clear, consistent alignment in the eyes of Tehran.

Jakarta must therefore confront a difficult question: can it afford its current trajectory?

Recalibrating foreign policy does not mean abandoning partnerships or retreating into isolation. It means restoring balance. Indonesia’s strength has always been its ability to engage across divides—to be trusted by competing blocs precisely because it was not seen as belonging to any of them.

That credibility now needs rebuilding.

The immediate priority is practical: secure the release and passage of Indonesian vessels, stabilize energy supply and prevent further economic fallout. But the longer-term task is strategic. Indonesia must reassess its positioning in a world where neutrality is no longer assumed, but demonstrated.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis is a warning. It reveals how quickly global alignments can translate into tangible costs—and how vulnerable even large economies can be when geopolitical signals are misread.

For Indonesia, the lesson is clear. In an era of weaponized interdependence, foreign policy is no longer a distant abstraction. It is an economic imperative.

And getting it wrong is no longer affordable.

OPINION: The Strait of Hormuz crisis is Indonesia’s economic test

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Small Government only leads to ineffective Government.

Low taxation only leads to poverty of public services.

Privatisation of Government services only leads to higher public services cost.

Social service is public service.

Affordability is democracy, in economic form.

Freedom is a collective pursuit.

We want, at this stage, to comfort and dispel any talk about panic among the public regarding the events in the general Near Eastern region with respect to the conflict which is taking place there, this is, in our opinion, not a large conflict and likely will not lead to a wider conflict. The issue is straightforward and revolves around forms of Nationalism which have been allowed to fester in that region for far too long, and which has spawned an extremist form of politics both in the US and UK, which we are all aware of.

The situation essentially revolves around the Islamic Republic of Iran’s domestic energy posture and electricity production both for its domestic and external export markets. It seems that the Jewish nationalists and elements of American Nationalist movements do not want to see a stable Iran on the International stage.

The rest of the World, which certainly is a lot more powerful and influential on the International stage, has no problem with Iran producing domestic energy by Nuclear means, as the nation of the Islamic Republic of Iran has a long and proven record of Nuclear energy research and development that does not entail weaponisation of Nuclear material, the Government and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran have publicly stated they will not weaponise Nuclear material and have done so for religious reasons, which has long been accepted by the International Community.

Of course, you will have to make your own judgements about why there is a conflict in that region, and why there is always a conflict of some kind in that region.

I can assure you, it is not the result of religion, faith, tolerance, love and understanding.

But then, you already knew that.

Our judgement on this issue is that the US and Jewish nationalists have gone too far this time, there is no public consumption of their position in any form, Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu cannot and should not expect public support for their political or military position.

We say to Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu that the policy you are following does not command public respect and that you should abandon your policy as soon as possible, you have made political decisions based entirely on your own simplistic interpretations of your party political diatribes, the way the world actually works does not sit in any position you may call your own.

The World is certainly not going to be lead by nationalist dogma, today, tomorrow or any other time.

We, here at the Peace, have far better prospects ahead.

Yes, so we share the Russian news media’s assessment, in addition we believe that the US nationalist and Jewish nationalist states have taken their nationalist ideologies and expanded them into the wider region in which they claim an existence, for no other reason than to cause infrastructure damage to the states that peacefully inhabit that area. There is no principled position with either of those actors, nor any political framework in play, nor any logic, nor any tactical or strategic imperative.

The ‘plan’ they are using is entirely based on chaos, with a speculative and exploitative follow up in media management terms which would then by used to smother any outcome with generalised political nonsense that suits no-one in either the short, medium or long term, but favours the nationalist political outlook in purely populist terms.

The issue for both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Trump is one of basic competence.

And we have to say the publics reaction, as it is it being presented by US social media corporations, is entirely chaotic and anarchic.

We shall move toward the legality of this next, and in particular acts of criminality which exist in the domestic sense and which should not exist in International form, as it has been enabled by the nationalist and its rather foolish and erratic self beliefs.

Hajj is the sacred pilgrimage performed by Muslims at the holy mosque of Masjid al-Haram in Makkah, Saudi Arabia.

It is one of the five pillars of Islam, which means that it is obliged of every Muslim at least once in their lifetime (so long as they have the means). Hajj takes place during the same period each year – during the month of Dhul Hijjah, the twelfth month in the Islamic Calendar. Hajj begins on the 8th of Dhul Hijjah and lasts until the 13th of Dhul Hijjah.

This year, Hajj is is expected to take place between 25th May 2026 to the 30th June 2026 in the Gregorian Calendar, depending on the sighting of the moon.

The Republican Party of the United States, a political organisation linked to Mr Donald J. Trump, the current holder of the office of President of the Federal body of the US Government, is now officially a banned organisation.

The ban was put into place after the head of state of the Islamic Republic of Iran was assaulted by US and associated nationalist peripheral organisations, after they were caught exercising a policy which has no international qualification.

The ban will remain in place permanently.

For the time being, and while these issues are formally confirmed, the US Republican movement is immediately banned from exercising any statement that associates in any way with content published here, and they will not claim indirectly or directly any connection with this site or domain. The US Republican movement should consider that an imminent ban is highly likely to be in place against their movement at this site in the following hours.