Romanians Vote in Tense Presidential Runoff That Pits Nationalist Against Pro-EU Centrist

 Presidential candidate Nicusor Dan prepares to cast his ballot in the second round of the country's presidential election redo in Fagaras, Romania, Sunday, May 18, 2025. (AP)
Presidential candidate Nicusor Dan prepares to cast his ballot in the second round of the country's presidential election redo in Fagaras, Romania, Sunday, May 18, 2025. (AP)
TT

Romanians Vote in Tense Presidential Runoff That Pits Nationalist Against Pro-EU Centrist

 Presidential candidate Nicusor Dan prepares to cast his ballot in the second round of the country's presidential election redo in Fagaras, Romania, Sunday, May 18, 2025. (AP)
Presidential candidate Nicusor Dan prepares to cast his ballot in the second round of the country's presidential election redo in Fagaras, Romania, Sunday, May 18, 2025. (AP)

Romanians were voting on Sunday in a tense presidential runoff between a hard-right nationalist and a pro-Western centrist in a high-stakes election rerun that could determine the geopolitical direction of the European Union and NATO member country.

The race pits front-runner George Simion, the 38-year-old leader of the hard-right Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, or AUR, against incumbent Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan. It comes months after the cancelation of the previous election plunged Romania into its worst political crisis in decades.

Polls opened at 7 a.m. local time and will close at 9 p.m. (1800 GMT). In the first two hours of voting, more than 1.7 million people — or about 9.5% of eligible voters — had cast ballots, according to official electoral data. Romanians abroad have been able to vote since Friday at specially set-up polling stations, and more than 750,000 have already voted.

Romania’s political landscape was upended last year when a top court voided the previous election after far-right outsider Calin Georgescu topped first-round polls, following allegations of electoral violations and Russian interference, which Moscow denied.

Simion appeared alongside Georgescu at a Bucharest polling station on Sunday and told reporters that he voted against the “humiliations to which our sisters and brothers have been subjected.”

“We voted against abuses and against poverty. We voted against those who look down on all of us,” he said. “I voted for our future to be decided only by Romanians, for Romanians and Romania. So help us God!”

Years of endemic corruption and growing anger toward Romania’s political establishment have fueled a surge in support for anti-establishment and hard-right figures, reflecting a broader pattern across Europe. Both Simion and Dan have made their political careers railing against Romania’s old political class.

Most recent local surveys indicate the runoff will be tight, after earlier ones showed Simion holding a lead over Dan, a 55-year-old mathematician who rose to prominence as a civic activist fighting against illegal real estate projects.

After voting in his hometown of Fagaras, Dan told reporters that he voted for Romanians “who are quiet, honest, and hardworking, and who have not felt represented for a long time.”

“I voted for a change that brings prosperity, not one that brings instability and discourages investment in Romania,” he said. “I voted for a European direction, and for strong cooperation with our European partners, not for Romania’s isolation. I voted for a society where we can have dialogue, not one where we are destined to be divided.”

Turnout is typically higher in the final round of Romanian presidential elections, and is expected to play a decisive role in the outcome on Sunday. In the first round on May 4, final turnout stood at 9.5 million, or 53% of eligible voters, according to official electoral data.

Dan founded the reformist Save Romania Union party in 2016 but later left, and is running independently on a pro-European Union ticket reaffirming Western ties, support for Ukraine and fiscal reform.

The president is elected for a five-year term and has significant decision-making powers in matters of national security and foreign policy. The winner of Sunday's race will be charged with nominating a new prime minister after Marcel Ciolacu stepped down following the failure of his coalition’s candidate to advance to the runoff.

After coming fourth in last year’s canceled race, Simion backed Georgescu who was banned in March from running in the election redo. Simion then surged to front-runner in the May 4 first round after becoming the standard-bearer for the hard right.

A former activist who campaigned for reunification with neighboring Moldova, Simion says he would focus on reforms: slashing red tape, reducing bureaucracy and taxes. Still, he insists that restoring democracy is his priority, returning "the will of the people.”

His AUR party says it stands for “family, nation, faith, and freedom” and rose to prominence in a 2020 parliamentary election. It has since grown to become the second-largest party in the Romanian legislature.

His critics say Simion is a pro-Russian extremist who threatens Romania’s longstanding alliances in the EU and NATO.

In an Associated Press interview, he rejected the accusations, saying Russia is his country’s biggest threat and that he wants Romania to be treated as “equal partners” in Brussels.

“I don’t think he is a pro-Russian candidate, I also don’t think that he’s an anti-Russian candidate,” said Claudiu Tufis, an associate professor of political science at the University of Bucharest. “I think what is driving him is ... his focus on what I call identity politics.”

In the first-round vote, Simion won a massive 61% of Romania’s large diaspora vote, with his calls to patriotism resonating with Romanians who moved abroad in search of better opportunities.

Hours after voting abroad opened on Friday, Simion accused the Moldovan government of election fraud, claims that were quickly rejected by Moldovan and Romanian authorities.

“These statements are intended to sow distrust and hostility, with the aim of influencing the election process,” Romania’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.



NATO 'Must Remain United', Says Italy PM Meloni

FILE PHOTO: A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins/File Photo
TT

NATO 'Must Remain United', Says Italy PM Meloni

FILE PHOTO: A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins/File Photo

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday urged NATO allies to stick together, after a report that the United States was mulling action against Spain over its refusal to support operations against Iran.

"NATO must remain united. I believe it is a source of strength," Meloni told reporters as she attended an EU summit in Nicosia, Cyprus.

The Reuters news agency cited an anonymous US official saying the Pentagon had outlined potential measures to punish allies over their response to the Iran war, including suspending Spain from the alliance.

There is no provision in the NATO treaty allowing for the suspension or expulsion of one of the alliance's members.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against NATO allies for refusing to help out more with the Iran war, saying he viewed it as a betrayal.

Some of them -- France, Spain and Italy -- did not allow US military aircraft deployed for the war to overfly their territories or to use bases.

Britain initially also refused, but later allowed US flights from its bases for "defensive" missions in the conflict.

Trump also tried, in vain, to get European NATO members to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively closed with military threats and attacks.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, whose country was reportedly singled out for suspension, said Friday he was "not worried", stressing his country was a "reliable member" of NATO.

Meanwhile, as Trump deepens questions over whether Washington would help defend NATO allies, the EU is set to lay out a "blueprint" for how its own mutual assistance clause works if a country is attacked.

Meloni insisted that NATO would remain central to Europe's defence, but that European nations needed to play a bigger role in their own security.

"We must work to strengthen NATO's European pillar which must clearly complement the American one," she added.


Behind The Scenes: US-Israeli Military Decisions Shaping Iran's War

US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
TT

Behind The Scenes: US-Israeli Military Decisions Shaping Iran's War

US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)
US CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper meets Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen. Eyal Zamir during his visit to Israel (Israeli Army)

Although US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have made the ultimate war and ceasefire decisions regarding Iran, The Jerusalem Post revealed the details and extent to which Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and CENTCOM Chief Admiral Brad Cooper have been the next most dominant figures.

In many ways, Zamir was key to convincing Caine and Cooper that such a war was feasible, such that they would support it, or at least not oppose it.

Caine was then critical in convincing Trump that such a war was viable, while precisely describing risks and second and third order considerations, even as the US chairman himself held doubts about significant aspects of the war, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Caine has also hovered over Trump's decisions to repeatedly announce unilateral ceasefires with Iran out of concern that any upping the ante on the military playing field could cost him in both American lives and politically.

When Netanyahu made an emergency flight to Washington to meet with Trump around 11:00 am on February 12 to try to convince him to go to war with Iran, as the US president had started to move away from that option, he presented a four-step plan.

The four steps were: First, assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his top military and intelligence officials. Second, pounding Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities. Third, helping foment an uprising within Iran against the regime, and fourth, transforming the uprising, plus possibly a ground attack by the Kurds who straddle Iran and Iraq, into regime change.

None of the three high commanders really believed in steps three or four, but Zamir was willing to roll the dice to see what might come of it, the Jerusalem Post said. Caine and Cooper were ready to go in for the first two steps and hold their noses regarding efforts at steps three and four.

It was not a coincidence that Israel was assigned to bomb Iran's top leaders and thousands of Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij command centers and locations, as well as Iranian military threat capabilities, while US forces stayed more focused almost exclusively on Iranian capabilities.

Trump, to some extent under the influence of Caine (with Cooper supporting in the background), kept the US out of direct military involvement in regime change.

Sources have indicated to the Jerusalem Post that Israeli efforts to influence Trump and when and how to go to war have also heavily focused on Caine.

Zamir, Mossad Director David Barnea, and Israeli Army Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder also visited Washington leading up to Netanyahu's February 12 White House sales pitch to make their case directly to a variety of officials, but collectively especially to Caine.
In some ways, Cooper was easier to convince than Caine, the report said.

This is partially true because Cooper did not try as much as his predecessor, Erik Kurilla, to influence the decision of whether to go to war or not, focusing more on being the architect of what the different options of going to war would look like.

Right Timing

Zamir was very successful in bringing on board Caine and Cooper, and then indirectly Trump, in the sense of convincing them that the timing was right.

The Post has learned that Zamir made a sophisticated and nuanced argument to Caine, Cooper, and others, which reached Trump.

The argument acknowledged that in theory Israel and the US could wait some period of months, as Iran had not yet crossed a redline threshold of a volume of ballistic missiles which the Israeli army would have trouble with. After all, Israel's original plan was not to attack Iran's ballistic missile program until sometime between June and November 2026.

However, Zamir said that Iran was racing forward too fast.

Iran was producing an additional 200-300 ballistic missiles per month. It had replaced about half of its lost missiles and half of its lost missile launchers in only eight months, getting back up to 2,500 missiles.

In Zamir's understanding, waiting another six months could mean an Iran with 3,700-4,300 missiles, and waiting another year could mean 4,900 to 6,100 missiles.

The report said it could also mean much more damage, could lead to Israeli difficulties with its volume of missile interceptors at a much earlier point, and collectively force Israel and the US to cut short their attacks on Iran's missile and other capabilities much earlier than what might make sense strategically.

Adding on that if Israel and the US wanted to take a real shot at regime change, that February was a unique moment to build on the January Iranian domestic protests, the Post understands that Zamir argued that February was a unique moment to go to war. This was true despite Israel's original plan for an attack in later 2026.

Two Main Failures

The report held Zamir, Caine and Cooper responsible for two main failures, the first being the inability to stop Iranian missiles.

It said only days into the war, Zamir, Caine, and CENTCOM were telling the public that missile fire was down 70-90%. The expectation was that within a week or two, it would be down to a drizzle. But while missile fire did drop to a medium level, the fading to a drizzle never happened.

None of the top Israeli or American officials anticipated how rapidly Iran would be able to unearth its underground missile launchers, which the allies had caused to be neutralized with cave-ins.

Pre-war estimates were that cave-ins would neutralize such missiles for the rest of the war, whereas in many cases, the Post has learned that Iran has developed bulldozer teams and techniques to uncover caved-in missile teams or silos within less than a day.

Also, Iran spread its surviving missile crews throughout its vast country, making it nearly impossible to track them down efficiently, and adjusted its missiles such that over 70% of them included cluster munitions, which the Israeli army was much less ready to defend against.

The second potential failure of Caine and Cooper relates to Hormuz.

The report found that neither Caine nor Cooper raised their voices loudly and decisively about the Hormuz nightmare scenario, again preferring to provide neutral advice to a US president, who clearly was out of his depth in aspects of this conflict.

The two of them could have seen this scenario coming, and so their choice, despite their heavy potential influence, to not raise the alarm loudly enough leaves them with some contributory fault in not better preparing Trump and the US.

The fact that the US needed to wait several weeks into the war before troops were in place to do something about Hormuz, if necessary, was a massive strategic miss.

In fact, the US could have even deployed forces into the Hormuz area the day the conflict started, as opposed to focusing on sinking large Iranian naval vessels first.

Overall, the report found that the military campaign pitched by Zamir and approved by Caine and Cooper succeeded more than might have been expected upfront, with notable exceptions regarding the continuity of medium-level ballistic missile threats and regarding Hormuz.

It said the military gains into long-standing strategic achievements is now more in the hands of the political and diplomatic leaders than the generals.


Hormuz Crisis Throws Spotlight on World's Largest 'Chokepoint' - the Malacca Strait

FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016.  REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
TT

Hormuz Crisis Throws Spotlight on World's Largest 'Chokepoint' - the Malacca Strait

FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016.  REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A container ship enters the Singapore Strait for the Strait of Malacca, as tourists stand at mainland Asia's southern most point in Johor, Malaysia November 12, 2016. Picture taken November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Henning Gloystein/File Photo

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has forced policymakers in Asia to face questions over the security of other maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Malacca, which is the world's busiest waterway for international trade.

Importance of The Malacca Strait

The 900-km (550-mile) long Malacca Strait, bounded by Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, provides the shortest sea route from East Asia to the Middle East and Europe, according to Reuters.

It carries nearly 22% of the world's maritime trade, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This includes oil and gas shipments from the Middle East to the energy-hungry economies of China, Japan and South Korea.

Malacca is the largest “oil transit chokepoint” in the world and the only one that outpaces Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

In the first half of 2025, some 23.2 million barrels of oil per day were transported through the Malacca Strait, accounting for 29% of total maritime oil flows. The next largest chokepoint, Hormuz, saw about 20.9 million bpd pass through.

More than 102,500 ships, mostly commercial vessels, transited through the Malacca Strait in 2025, up from around 94,300 in 2024, data from Malaysia's ⁠Marine Department showed. These include most tankers, but some very large vessels avoid the strait because of draught restrictions and go south around Indonesia instead.

This route allows the Strait of Malacca to be bypassed if it were closed, but it adds to journey time that would delay shipments and drive up prices.

Concerns About Strait of Malacca

At its narrowest point in the Phillips Channel of the Singapore Strait, the Malacca Strait is only 1.7 miles (2.7 km) wide, creating a natural bottleneck, as well as potential for collisions, grounding, or oil spills.

Some parts of the strait are relatively shallow, with a depth of 25-27 meters restricting the largest vessels, but even very large crude carriers (VLCCs) measuring more than 350 meters long, 60 meters wide, and with a draft of more than 20 meters, make the transit.

For years, the strait has been a hotbed of piracy and attacks on merchant vessels. Last year saw criminal attacks spike to at least 104, but these have fallen off in the first quarter of this year, according to the ReCAAP ⁠Information Sharing Centre, an organization established by regional governments to combat piracy.

The narrow and congested waterway has been strategically important to Beijing, with around 75% of China's seaborne crude oil imports passing through it from the Middle East and Africa, data from tanker tracker Vortexa shows.

The Iran crisis has crystallized long-standing worries about how chokepoints such as Malacca could be affected if a conflict breaks out in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, where another 21% of global maritime trade transits, according to CSIS.

Malaysian authorities say the Malacca Strait is also a growing spot for illegal ⁠ship-to-ship transfers, where oil is shifted between tankers at sea to obscure its origin.

Officials Assurances

Indonesian Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa made waves on Wednesday by openly musing about ways countries could impose tolls on ships as a way to monetize the strait, before noting that such an arrangement is not possible.

When asked about the risks of tolls or other restrictions on movement in ⁠the strait, Singapore Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told CNBC that the nations along the strait share a strategic interest to keep it open, and have agreed not to collect tolls.

He also said Singapore had assured the United States and China that the right of passage was guaranteed for all and it would not participate in any efforts to ⁠block the strait or impose tolls.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan told a forum on Wednesday that no unilateral decisions can be made about the strait and that Malaysia is on the same page with Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, and they conduct joint patrols to ensure the waterway remains open.