Opinion
The Oracle: Different People Different Forms of Government (Pt. 16)
Published
4 years agoon
By
Eric
By Chief Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
Last week, we started our discourse on Feudalism wherein we saw how the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. Today, we shall conclude same and start a new concept, Monarchy.
MODERN CRITIQUES OF FEUDALISM
From the time of the French historian Louis Chantereau Le Febvre (1588–1658), questions were raised concerning the extent to which the feudal construct over simplified and distorted the historical realities it was intended to capture. Chantereau Le Febvre denounced as futile the attempts of his contemporaries to deduce general rules from uncertain principles. He stressed the necessity of studying authentic acts and working “historically,” implying thereby that his contemporaries were not working in this fashion. He cautioned against reducing the great variety of fiefs to a single type, because each fief was different from the others. Despite Chantereau Le Febvre’s reservations, in the end he succumbed to current fashion and endorsed a simplified picture of feudal institutions. He did, however, edit and publish medieval documents demonstrating the difficulty of attaching precise meanings to such words as feudum and allodium.
Many modern historians have attempted to follow Chantereau Le Febvre’s admonitions and have studied these words and others, such as vassus (“vassal”), homo (“man”), and fidelis (“the faithful”), which figured centrally in the classic definitions of the feudal construct. By examining the contexts in which key words appear in a host of medieval acts and chronicles, they have demonstrated the wide range of meanings these words possessed and the difficulty of formulating simple and precise definitions of any of them. It is clear that in the Middle Ages those who fought (like those who farmed) were rewarded in different ways and were sometimes paid in money. Land was owned, controlled, and held in a variety of ways.
The extent to which surrender of property to a lord as a fief limited control and rights over the property has been investigated, as has the importance of such acts in creating ties between family groups that could be repeatedly renewed. The difficulty and danger of drawing sharp distinctions between the ceremonial practices of the nobility and the peasantry have been recognized, so too the importance of urban and parochial communities and the significance of spiritual and economic links between religious establishments and the laity. In studying the settlement of disputes, historians have emphasized the continuing importance of mediation and of judgments given by free men, especially members of the secular and ecclesiastical elite.
Increased knowledge of the Middle Ages and greater sophistication regarding the constructs (and periods) that scholars have created in attempting to comprehend the past have sparked the search for appropriate terms to describe human institutions and societies. Although the feudal labels have lost their validity as terms to designate the realities of medieval society, they provide insight into the thought processes and assumptions of the lawyers and historians who formulated and utilized them between the 16th and the 20th century.
MONARCHY
Monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to restricted (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), and can expand across the domains of the executive, legislative and judicial. A monarchy can be a polity through unity, personal union, vassalage or federation, and monarchs can carry various titles such as king, queen, emperor, Raja, khan, caliph, tsar, sultan, or shah.
In most cases, the succession of monarchies is hereditary, often building dynastic periods, however elective and self-proclaimed monarchies are possible. Aristocrats, though not inherent to monarchies, often serve as the pool of persons to draw the monarch from and fill the constituting institutions (e.g. diet and court), giving many monarchies oligarchic elements.
Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century. Today, forty-five sovereign nations in the world have a monarch, including sixteen Commonwealth realms that have Elizabeth II as the head of state. Other than that there are a range of sub-national monarchic entities. Modern monarchies tend to be constitutional monarchies, retaining under a constitution unique legal and ceremonial roles for the monarch, exercising limited or no political power, similar to heads of state in a parliamentary republic.
The opposing and alternative form of government to monarchy has become the republic.
HISTORY OF MONARCHY
The similar form of societal hierarchy known as chiefdom or tribal kingship is prehistoric. The oldest recorded and evidenced monarchies were Narmer, Pharaoh of Egypt c. 3100 BCE, and Enmebaragesi, a Sumerian King of Kish c. 2600 BCE.
From earliest historical times, with the Egyptian and Mesopotamian monarchs as well as in reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion, the king held sacral functions directly connected to sacrifice or was considered by their people to have divine ancestry. In Germanic antiquity, kingship was primarily a sacral function. The king was directly hereditary for some tribes, while for others he was elected from among eligible members of royal families by the thing. The role of the Roman emperor as the protector of Christianity led eventually to monarchs ruling ‘by the Grace of God’ in the Christian Middle Ages, only later in the Early modern period there being a conflation of (increased) power with these sacral aspects held by the Germanic kings bringing forth the notion of the “divine right of kings”.
Polybius identified monarchy as one of three “benign” basic forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), opposed to the three “malignant” basic forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy). The monarch in classical antiquity is often identified as “king” or “ruler”, or as “queen”. Polybius originally understood monarchy as a component of republics, but since antiquity monarchy has contrasted with forms of republic, where executive power is wielded by free citizens and their assemblies. In antiquity, some monarchies were abolished in favour of such assemblies in Rome (Roman Republic, 509 BCE), and Athens (Athenian democracy, 500 BCE).
Monarchy has been challenged by evolving parliamentarism e.g. through regional assemblies (such as the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Swiss Landsgemeinde and later Tagsatzung, and the High Medieval communal movement linked to the rise of medieval town privileges) and by modern anti-monarchism e.g. of the temporary overthrow of the English monarchy by the Parliament of England in 1649, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.
Since then, advocacy of the abolition of a monarchy or respectively of republics has been called republicanism, while the advocacy of monarchies is called monarchism. As such republics have become the opposing and alternative form of government to monarchy, despite some having seen infringements through lifelong or even hereditary heads of state.
With the rise of republicanism a diverse division between republicanism developed in the 19th-century politics (such as anti-monarchist radicalism) and conservative or even reactionary monarchism. In the following 20th century many countries abolished monarchy and became republics, especially in the wake of World War I and World War II.
Today, forty-five sovereign nations in the world have a monarch, including sixteen Commonwealth realms that have Elizabeth II as the head of state. Most modern monarchs are constitutional monarchs, who retain a unique legal and ceremonial role but exercise limited or no political power under a constitution. Many are so-called crowned republics, surviving particularly in small states.
In some nations, however, such as Brunei, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Eswatini and Thailand, the hereditary monarch has more political influence than any other single source of authority in the state, either by convention or by a constitutional mandate.
According to a 2020 study, monarchy arose as a system of governance because of efficiency in governing large populations and expansive territories during periods when coordinating such populations was difficult. The authors argue that monarchy declined as an efficient regime type with innovations in communications and transportation technology, as the efficiency of monarchy relative to other regime types declined.
CHARACTERISTICS AND ROLE OF MONARCHIES
Monarchies are associated with hereditary reign, in which monarchs reign for life and the responsibilities and power of the position pass to their child or another member of their family when they die. Most monarchs, both historically and in the modern-day, have been born and brought up within a royal family, the centre of the royal household and court. Growing up in a royal family (called a dynasty when it continues for several generations), future monarchs are often trained for their expected future responsibilities as monarch.
Different systems of hereditary succession have been used, such as proximity of blood, primogeniture, and agnatic seniority (Salic law). While most monarchs in history have been male, many female monarchs also have reigned. The term “queen regnant” refers to a ruling monarch, while “queen consort” refers to the wife of a reigning king. Rule may be hereditary in practice without being considered a monarchy: there have been some family dictatorships (and also political families) in many democracies.
The principal advantage of hereditary monarchy is the immediate continuity of leadership (as evidenced in the classic phrase “The King is dead. Long live the King!”).
Some monarchies are not hereditary. In an elective monarchy, monarchs are elected or appointed by some body (an electoral college) for life or a defined period. Four elective monarchies exist today: Cambodia, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates are 20th-century creations, while one (the papacy) is ancient.
A self-proclaimed monarchy is established when a person claims the monarchy without any historical ties to a previous dynasty. There are examples of republican leaders who have proclaimed themselves monarchs: Napoleon I of France declared himself Emperor of the French and ruled the First French Empire after having held the title of First Consul of the French Republic for five years from his seizing power in the coup of 18 Brumaire. President Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic declared himself Emperor of the Central African Empire in 1976.[8] Yuan Shikai, the first formal President of the Republic of China, crowned himself Emperor of the short-lived “Empire of China” a few years after the Republic of China was founded. (To be continued).
FUN TIMES
There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.
“If infants enjoy infantry, carpenters enjoy carpentry and chemists enjoy chemistry. What should adults enjoy?”.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The rule of law is a republic. The rule of one person is a monarchy.” (Lee Zeldin).
Related
You may like
Opinion
Give What, to Gain What? Reflections on the 2026 International Women’s Day Theme
Published
2 days agoon
March 5, 2026By
Eric
By Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya
At first glance, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day celebration sounded a little odd to me.
Last year’s theme, Accelerate Action, was clear enough. You read it and immediately understood it as a call to move faster, push harder, do more, close the gaps. It was energetic, direct and unambiguous.
But “Give To Gain”? Give what? To whom? And to gain what, precisely? How is giving a pathway to gender equity? In the legal profession, and in leadership generally, we are trained to think in terms of advantage. What do I gain? What do I secure? What do I protect? But the more I reflected, the more I realised that perhaps that reflection was the point. Because my reflection took me to some of the most defining moments in my professional journey, and they did not come from what I took. They came from what someone chose to give.
A colleague who gave me insights instead of indifference, a leader who gave me visibility in a room where my voice would have been overlooked, a mentor who gave me honest feedback when flattery or a comfortable silence would have been easier.
None of those acts diminished them. They did not lose relevance, influence, or authority. If anything, their giving expanded their impact. Sometimes, some of us act as though giving someone else room to rise somehow shrinks our own space. But leadership does not weaken when it is shared wisely. It deepens.
That is the quiet power behind “Give To Gain”, and the paradox at the heart of this year’s theme. “Give To Gain” is not a call to diminish ourselves. It is a call to invest in one another because when we give from strength, we gain strength. So give respect.
give access. Give honest evaluation. Give opportunity without prejudice. And you will gain trust, loyalty and potential. Give mentorship and gain contunuity, give equal footing and gain the full measure of talent available. That kind of giving multiplies gain.
So perhaps the theme is not so odd after all. In a world that often asks, “What do I stand to lose?” this year’s International Women’s Day asks instead, “What could we stand to gain, if we were all willing to give?”
In the context of gender equity, the theme becomes even more compelling. Giving equal footing is not about doing women a favour; it is about acknowledging merit. When barriers fall, capacity rises to the surface. When access expands, talent flourishes. When women thrive professionally, institutions gain.
Against this backdrop, I began to think about the remarkable women who embodied this principle long before it became a theme. Women who gave intellectual rigour to complex situations and gained distinction. Women who gave courage and resilience in the face of resistance or in rooms where they were the only one, and gained respect. Women who gave mentorship to younger women and gained a legacy that cannot be erased.
Women who gave integrity to public service and the private sector and gained trust and admiration that cannot be manufactured.
Women whose boldness did not ask for permission to contribute. They did not lower their standards to fit expectations.
They gave of their intellect, their discipline, their time and their resilience, and in doing so they expanded the space for others. That is the spirit I want to honour this IWD month.
Beginning tomorrow, on International Women’s Day and continuing through all the remaining days of March, I will be celebrating a female icon who exemplifies this principle. Women who have given and gained. Each day, one story. One journey.
One example of boldness in action. Not to romanticise their journeys or suggest that their paths were easy, but to illuminate them and show what is possible when you dare to try.
Each profile will tell a story of contribution and consequence, of how giving strengthens, and how excellence, when sustained with integrity, inevitably earns its place.
My hope is that other women will read these stories and recognise themselves in them. That men also will read them and see leadership, not limitation. And that we will all be reminded that progress is rarely accidental. It is built, often quietly, by those willing to give more than is required.
If this year’s theme “Give To Gain” means anything to me, it means that we must intentionally amplify the inspiring examples that prove what is possible when women are bold.
Because inspiration and visibility are forms of giving. And sometimes, the simple act of telling a story is the spark that lights ambition in someone who was unsure where or whether she belonged.
This March, I choose to give inspiration and visibility and honour where it is so richly deserved.
And I trust that in doing so, we will gain a stronger world, a clearer sense of direction and possibility and another generation of women bold enough to step forward without apology.
Now the theme no longer seems strange. Now I understand that when we give boldly, we gain collectively. And that is a theme worth celebrating.
Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN FCIArb
Related
Opinion
Beyond the Vision: The Alchemy of Turning Ideas into Execution
Published
6 days agoon
February 28, 2026By
Eric
By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD
History is littered with the skeletons of great ideas that never saw the light of day. In boardrooms and basements across the world, concepts with the power to reshape industries lie dormant, suffocated not by a lack of merit, but by a lack of execution. We live in an era that venerates the “light bulb moment,” yet the painful truth, as articulated by venture capitalists and historians alike, is that ideas are a dime a dozen; it is execution that is richly rewarded . The journey from the spark of imagination to the tangible reality of a finished product, a profitable corporation, or a thriving nation is an alchemical process. It requires the transformation of abstract thought into concrete action—a discipline that separates the dreamer from the builder. This evolution of an idea into reality is not a mystical event but a replicable process, best understood through the distinct exemplars of visionary individuals, resilient corporations, and transformative nations.
The Individual: The “Thinker-Doer” Synthesis
The romantic notion of the genius lost in thought, sketching blueprints while others do the heavy lifting, is a seductive myth. The reality, as demonstrated by history’s most impactful figures, is that the major thinkers are almost always the doers. Steve Jobs, a figure synonymous with innovation, famously articulated this principle by invoking the ultimate Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. Jobs argued that the greatest innovators are “both the thinker and doer in one person,” pointing out that da Vinci did not have a separate artisan mixing his paints or executing his canvases; he was the artist and the craftsman, immersing himself in the physicality of his work . For Jobs, this synthesis was the guiding doctrine of Apple. He understood that abstract ideation is sterile without the feedback loop of hands-on mastery. The refinement of the Mac’s typography, the feel of a perfectly weighted mouse, the intuitive interface of the iPhone—these were not born from pure theory but from an obsessive, tactile engagement with the building process. The “doer” digs into the hard intellectual problems precisely because they are engaged in the act of creation.
This principle is further illuminated by the career of Elon Musk. While often perceived as a master inventor, Musk’s greatest genius may lie in his ability to execute existing ideas at a scale and speed previously thought impossible. He was not a founder of Tesla on day one, but he stepped in to spearhead its execution, transforming an electric vehicle concept into a global automotive powerhouse. At SpaceX, he inherited the age-old idea of space travel but revolutionized its execution by challenging fundamental cost structures and vertically integrating manufacturing. Musk embodies the “thinker-doer” by immersing himself in the engineering details, sleeping on the factory floor, and distilling complex challenges down to their fundamental physics. Both Jobs and Musk validate the venture capital adage that investment is placed not in ideas, but in the people capable of navigating the treacherous path from Point B to Point Z—the messy, unglamorous grind where visions are either realized or abandoned.
“In the architecture of achievement, ideas are merely the blueprints; execution is the foundation, the steel, and the mortar. A blueprint without a builder is just a dream drawn on paper” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD
The Corporation: Engineering the Culture of Execution
For corporations, the evolution of an idea into reality is not a one-time event but a cultural imperative. It demands a structure and a philosophy that bridges the notorious gap between strategy and outcome. Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer goods giant, provides a master-class in adapting its execution model to survive and thrive. Despite investing billions in internal research and development, P&G recognized that its traditional closed-door approach was failing to meet innovation targets. The company evolved its idea-generation process by embracing “Connect + Develop,” opening its innovation pipeline to external inventors, suppliers, and even competitors. This shift in mindset was merely the idea; the reality was the rigorous, internal execution that vetted, integrated, and scaled those external concepts—like the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, which was discovered as a prototype in Japan and flawlessly executed by P&G’s operational machine. The company’s success hinges on what researchers call “imaginative integrity”—the ability to make an imagined future so tangible that the entire organization can build toward it.
Similarly, UPS stands as a testament to the power of “creative dissatisfaction.” For over a century, UPS has operated not on bursts of pure invention, but on the relentless engineering and re-engineering of its systems. Founder Jim Casey instilled a culture where the status quo was perpetually questioned—from testing monorail-based sort systems to optimizing delivery routes with algorithmic precision. The idea was not merely to deliver packages, but to create the pinnacle of logistical efficiency. The execution involved tens of thousands of employees “pulling together” to transform the organization repeatedly, embracing changes that ranged from entering the common carrier business in the 1950s to mastering e-commerce logistics in the 1990s. These companies succeed because they build what management experts call the “five bridges” to execution: the ability to manage change, a supportive structure, employee involvement, aligned leadership, and cross-company cooperation. At Costco, this is embodied by CEO James Sinegal, whose Spartan office and relentless focus on in-store details align leadership behavior with the company’s razor-thin margin strategy, proving that execution is modeled from the top down.
The Nation: The Political Economy of Progress
The evolution of ideas into reality scales beyond individuals and firms to the very level of nations. The economic trajectories of countries are determined by their ability to adapt foreign concepts and execute them within local contexts. The post-war rise of Japan is perhaps the most powerful example of this phenomenon. In the early 20th century, Japan was exposed to American ideas of scientific management, but the devastation of World War II left its industrial base in ruins. The idea that saved Japan was quality control, imported through lectures from American scholars W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran. The genius of Japan, however, was not in the adoption of the idea, but in its adaptation. Private organizations like the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) took the lead, transforming foreign theories into the uniquely Japanese practice of Total Quality Management (TQM) and the grassroots phenomenon of Quality Control circles. This was not government-mandated execution; it was a national movement of “thinker-doers” on the factory floor, relentlessly refining processes. The evolution of this idea rebuilt a nation, turning “Made in Japan” from a byword for cheap goods into a global standard for reliability.
In contrast, Singapore represents a different model of national execution: the state as a strategic architect. Upon independence, Singapore possessed few natural resources and a uncertain future. The government, however, possessed a clear-eyed vision of industrial development. It actively sought external assistance from the United Nations and Japan, but crucially, the Singaporean authorities acted as the “agent of adaptation” . They did not passively accept advice; they made decisive judgments about what was relevant to their unique circumstances and demanded specific adaptations. This disciplined, top-down execution of economic strategy—from building world-class infrastructure to enforcing rigorous education standards—evolved the idea of a “sovereign nation” into the reality of a first-world entrepôt. The contrast with nations like Tunisia, where external donors took the lead due to a lack of domestic policy clarity, highlights a fundamental truth: ideas flow freely across borders, but the ability to execute them is a domestic condition, cultivated through leadership and institutional will.
Conclusion: The Integrity of the Build
Ultimately, the evolution of an idea into reality demands what can be termed “imaginative integrity”—the unwavering commitment to binding the vision to the execution. It is a concept that applies equally to the Renaissance painter mixing his own pigments, the CEO sleeping on the factory floor, and the nation-state meticulously adapting foreign technology. The world is full of “crude ideas” that lack the refinement of execution; even a brilliantly designed structure like MIT’s Stata Center can falter if the craftsmanship of its realization is flawed.
The journey from “A to Z” is long, and the gap between strategy and outcome is the graveyard of potential. To traverse it, one must recognize that thinking and doing are not sequential acts but concurrent disciplines. The doers are the major thinkers, for they are the ones who test hypotheses against reality, who adapt to feedback, and who possess the grit to push through the inevitable obstacles. Whether it is a nation reshaping its economy, a corporation reinventing its logistics, or an individual defying the limits of technology, the lesson remains constant: the future belongs not just to those who can dream it, but to those who can build it.
Vision sees the path; execution walks it, blisters and all. The distance between a dream and a legacy is measured only by the courage to begin the work.
History does not remember the whisper of a thought, but the echo of its impact. To think is human, but to execute is to leave a mark on time.
Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com
Related
Opinion
How an Organist Can Live a More Fulfilling Life
Published
2 weeks agoon
February 23, 2026By
Eric
By Tunde Shosanya
It is essential for an Organist to live a fulfilling life, as organ playing has the capacity to profoundly and uniquely impact individuals. There is nothing inappropriate about an Organist building their own home, nor is it unlawful for an Organist to have a personal vehicle. As Organists, we must take control of our own futures; once again, while our certificates hold value, organ playing requires our expertise. We should not limit ourselves to what we think we can accomplish; rather, we should chase our dreams as far as our minds permit. Always keep in mind, if you have faith in yourself, you can achieve success.
There are numerous ways for Organists to live a more fulfilling and joyful life; here are several suggestions:
Focus on your passion. Set an example, and aim for daily improvement.
Be self-reliant and cultivate harmony with your vicar.
Speak less and commit to thinking and acting more.
Make choices that bring you happiness, and maintain discipline in your professional endeavors.
Help others and establish achievable goals for yourself.
Chase your dreams and persist without giving up.
“Playing as an Organist in a Church is a gratifying experience; while a good Organist possesses a certificate, it is the skills in organ playing that truly matter” -Shosanya 2020
Here are 10 essential practices for dedicated Organists…
1) Listen to and analyze organ scores.
2) Achieve proficiency in sight reading.
3) Explore the biographies of renowned Organists and Composers.
4) Attend live concerts.
5) Record your performances and be open to feedback.
6) Improve your time management skills.
7) Focus on overcoming your weaknesses.
8) Engage in discussions about music with fellow musicians.
9) Study the history of music and the various styles of organ playing from different Organists.
10) Take breaks when you feel fatigued. Your well-being is vital and takes precedence over organ playing.
In conclusion, as an Organist, if you aspire to live towards a more fulfilling life in service and during retirement, consider the following suggestions.
1) Plan for the future that remains unseen by investing wisely.
2) Prioritize your health and well-being.
3) Aim to save a minimum of 20 percent of your monthly salary.
4) Maintain your documents in an organized manner for future reference.
5) Contribute to your pension account on a monthly basis.
6) Join a cooperative at your workplace.
7) Ensure your life while you are in service.
8) If feasible, purchase at least one plot of land.
9) Steer clear of accumulating debt as you approach retirement.
10) Foster connections among your peers.
Related


The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 1)
Presidency Releases Postings of Ambassadors-designate
Court Grants Malami, Family N200m Bail
Israeli Ambassador Accuses Iran of Spreading Terror, Sponsoring Extremist Activities in Nigeria
Mike Ozekhome Celebrates Obasanjo at 89, Says Former President Wiser with Age
Friday Sermon: Reflections on Ramadan 3: Spiritual Stocktaking
Akinwumi Adesina Celebrates Obasanjo at 89
Prof Jide Owoeye: When a Distinguished Academic Turns 70
NELFund Extends Deadline for Student Loan Applications Nationwide
Federal Government Issues Travel, Safety Warning for Nigerians in Iran, Gulf States
Iran Confirms Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Dead after US-Israeli Attacks
Shiites Protest in Kano over Killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader
Saudi Arabia Shuts Down One of World’s Largest Oil Refinery after Iran’s Drone Strike
FIFA Strikes Out Nigeria’s Petition, Okays DR Congo for 2026 World Cup Play-Off
Trending
-
Boss Of The Week6 days agoProf Jide Owoeye: When a Distinguished Academic Turns 70
-
News4 days agoNELFund Extends Deadline for Student Loan Applications Nationwide
-
National6 days agoFederal Government Issues Travel, Safety Warning for Nigerians in Iran, Gulf States
-
Middle East6 days agoIran Confirms Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Dead after US-Israeli Attacks
-
Featured5 days agoShiites Protest in Kano over Killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader
-
Middle East4 days agoSaudi Arabia Shuts Down One of World’s Largest Oil Refinery after Iran’s Drone Strike
-
Sports2 days agoFIFA Strikes Out Nigeria’s Petition, Okays DR Congo for 2026 World Cup Play-Off
-
World5 days agoTrump Claims 48 Iran Leaders Killed in US-Israeli Operations

