National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump brokered peace. Before Israel and Iran, the 47th US President had claimed to mediate the conflict between nuclear-armed nations India and Pakistan. On May 10, DGMOs (Directors General of Military Operations)&nbsp;of the two countries in a telephonic exchange agreed upon a ceasefire on the insistence of the Pakistani side. Even before the parties involved could announce the development, Trump posted on Truth Social, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"<h2>Optics or urgency? &nbsp;</h2>The need to announce to the world may either be viewed as urgency or probably could even mean optics. In this case, India denied claims of having mediated the matter with the United States.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ceasefire talks came after India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, in retaliation to the dastardly terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam orchestrated by Pakistani terrorists. Islamabad’s inaction against the terror outfits in Pakistan and PoK led to New Delhi planning precision strikes.&nbsp;And recently, in a telephonic conversation between PM Modi and President Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit, this was discussed.&nbsp;In his statement issued on June 18, India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said, PM Modi clearly told President Trump that throughout this entire sequence of events, at no point were topics such as the India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan discussed. The discussions regarding pausing military actions took place directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, on Pakistan’s request.&nbsp;PM Modi emphasised on the fact that India has never accepted mediation, does not accept it now, and will never accept it. And on this matter, there is complete political consensus in the country.<h2>Israel-Iran-US conflict</h2> As Israel and Iran were embroiled in cross-border fighting, Trump yet again claims to have brokered peace. On June 13, Israel launched strikes in Iran targeting nuclear facilities. This led to Iran also sending a barrage of drones and missiles to its neighbours. As the conflict began spreading, world leaders have been urging both countries to practice restraint.&nbsp;The US has also been holding talks and reiterating the call for peace. And just as these peace talks and diplomatic routes were being explored, the US struck Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using B-2 bombers on June 22.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In his statement, he said, “Tonight, I can report to the world that these strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear facilities have been completed and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.”&nbsp;He concluded his statement with a warning to Iran, saying that ‘if they do not’, then future attacks will be far greater and easier.&nbsp;And as Trump spoke of destroying Iranian nuclear sites, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s adviser Ali Shamkhani said, ‘surprises will continue’ and ‘the game isn’t over’. A day later, Iran launched aerial strikes on the American base Al-Udeid in Qatar in retaliation.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Yet another ceasefire announcement by Trump</h2>&nbsp;Just a day after announcing the extent of damage caused to the site and warning of future attack, Trump announces a ceasefire, calling it ‘an official end to the 12-day war’. Even hours later&nbsp;Trump wrote, “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!”&nbsp;Even hours after this announcement by the US President, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said, ‘there is NO agreement’&nbsp;In his tweet, the Iranian Foreign Minister wrote, “As Iran has repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around. As of now, there is NO 'agreement' on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards."&nbsp;Is it only Trump and his administration planning these ceasefires in silos or are countries involved a part of these agreements too. Once bitten, twice shy, or maybe not.

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump brokered peace. Before Israel and Iran, the 47th US President had claimed to mediate the conflict between nuclear-armed nations India and Pakistan. 

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump brokered peace. Before Israel and Iran, the 47th US President had claimed to mediate the conflict between nuclear-armed nations India and Pakistan. On May 10, DGMOs (Directors General of Military Operations) of the two countries in a telephonic exchange agreed upon a ceasefire on the insistence of the Pakistani side. Even before the parties involved could announce the development, Trump posted on Truth Social, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Optics or urgency? The need to announce to the world may either be viewed as urgency or probably could even mean optics. In this case, India denied claims of having mediated the matter with the United States. Ceasefire talks came after India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, in retaliation to the dastardly terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam orchestrated by Pakistani terrorists. Islamabad’s inaction against the terror outfits in Pakistan and PoK led to New Delhi planning precision strikes. And recently, in a telephonic conversation between PM Modi and President Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit, this was discussed. In his statement issued on June 18, India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said, PM Modi clearly told President Trump that throughout this entire sequence of events, at no point were topics such as the India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan discussed. The discussions regarding pausing military actions took place directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, on Pakistan’s request. PM Modi emphasised on the fact that India has never accepted mediation, does not accept it now, and will never accept it. And on this matter, there is complete political consensus in the country. Israel-Iran-US conflict As Israel and Iran were embroiled in cross-border fighting, Trump yet again claims to have brokered peace. On June 13, Israel launched strikes in Iran targeting nuclear facilities. This led to Iran also sending a barrage of drones and missiles to its neighbours. As the conflict began spreading, world leaders have been urging both countries to practice restraint. The US has also been holding talks and reiterating the call for peace. And just as these peace talks and diplomatic routes were being explored, the US struck Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using B-2 bombers on June 22. In his statement, he said, “Tonight, I can report to the world that these strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear facilities have been completed and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.” He concluded his statement with a warning to Iran, saying that ‘if they do not’, then future attacks will be far greater and easier. And as Trump spoke of destroying Iranian nuclear sites, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s adviser Ali Shamkhani said, ‘surprises will continue’ and ‘the game isn’t over’. A day later, Iran launched aerial strikes on the American base Al-Udeid in Qatar in retaliation. Yet another ceasefire announcement by Trump Just a day after announcing the extent of damage caused to the site and warning of future attack, Trump announces a ceasefire, calling it ‘an official end to the 12-day war’. Even hours later Trump wrote, “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!” Even hours after this announcement by the US President, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said, ‘there is NO agreement’ In his tweet, the Iranian Foreign Minister wrote, “As Iran has repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around. As of now, there is NO 'agreement' on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards." Is it only Trump and his administration planning these ceasefires in silos or are countries involved a part of these agreements too. Once bitten, twice shy, or maybe not.

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump brokered peace. Before Israel and Iran, the 47th US President had claimed to mediate the conflict between nuclear-armed nations India and Pakistan.&nbsp;

From India to Iran: Trump brokered peace in silos as nations involved remain clueless

What is the connection between a cricket Test between India and England at Leeds and a disturbing military conflict between Iran and the US involving Israel? On the face of it, there is none, but then cricket is a great metaphor to understand the game involving geopolitics and diplomacy. It was great to see a huge crowd of well-dressed English folk at the Headingly ground applauding Indian cricketers in a Test match that seems evenly poised as this is being written.&nbsp;&nbsp;There was a time when the crowds for an India-England game were thin and often full of ethnic Indians. Things have changed so much that you could say the English now view India as closer to, if not better than, their old rivals, Australia. Some of the old assumptions that go back to Britain's colonial domination of India are gone -- from both sides.&nbsp;Time changes everything, and it is time to keep that in mind as we look at the options before India following the Israel-Iran faceoff in which the military might of President Donald Trump-led Washington is more than apparent as Iran's nuclear facilities have been pounded by US stealth bombers. The broad perception is that India is on the side of Israel and, therefore, the US. It gets tricky when you notice that diplomatic relations are more than messy in the merry-go-round of geopolitics. The US sees Iran as a terror-sponsoring state, but conveniently supports Pakistan that India sees as a terror sponsor because it is a useful ally in containing both Iran and China, not to speak of Afghanistan.&nbsp;Operation Sindoor showed that India is pretty much alone in its battle to contain state-supported terror attacks on India nurtured on the Pakistani soil by the very groups that the US has declared as terrorists. Don't look for logical consistency here. It is all about expediency and usefulness. Only the other day, General-turned Field Marshal Asim Munir was recommending Trump for the Nobel peace prize after an honourable luncheon at the White House but Pakistan is now officially not with the US on Iran bombings.&nbsp;What should India do now? The attitude of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in general and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular has been pro-Israel and anti-Islamist terror, but for all practical purposes that translates as anti-Iran. This requires a course correction following last weekend's Operation Midnight Hammer.&nbsp;We need to stand back a little to get some context. While it is true that the US equated India and Pakistan in an undesirable false equivalence after Operation Sindoor, it is equally true that India decided to go ahead and buy Russian oil despite American sanctions against Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. If the "usefulness" or "sovereignty" criterion are applied equally, it is apparent that both India and the US have acted in self-interest, and not concerned about principled diplomacy on issues such as terror or the UN charter against unprovoked intervention or invasion of a sovereign country.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are backstories for all this that could fill several books but the real question for India is: what to do now? The answer could be simple: stay clear of taking sides, and do some purposeful diplomacy at the UN with details in mind on everything, from the Palestine problem to the Iran war, economic growth and bilateral trade.&nbsp;In plain language: Stay smart, stay neutral. There are already unconfirmed reports of US or Western military aircraft having refuelled in India as part of the attacks on Iran. That brings back memories of 1991 when the then short-lived government led by Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar allowed American military jets to refuel at Mumbai, sparking controversy at home and elsewhere.&nbsp;Regional security is of importance to India, and that concerns Pakistan, China, and Iran. There is no need to go out of the way to support the US, which is widely seen as losing credibility already lowered by Trump's trigger-happy trade tariffs on Europe, India, and China alike. India has solid trade relations with both China and the US. Iran is not a big trading partner as there is a total bilateral turnover of less than $2 billion, but the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz controlled by Iran shows that oil prices can zoom, hurting India's economic growth precisely at a bounce-back stage. Anything that causes an oil price spike is not good for India.&nbsp;It also does not help India if it spites a host of Muslim countries or their societies across the world when Israel is being widely criticised on its Gaza attacks on innocent Palestinians. In the considered interest of India's economy and regional security, it is best for India to be part of a broad coalition of nations at the United Nations to demand a cessation of hostilities and if possible, join efforts to facilitate negotiations.&nbsp;There are simplistic critics who equate Operation Sindoor with Operation Midnight Hammer. That is simply not on. An act of limited reactive defence on a terrorist attack with back-up evidence cannot be equated with a proactive, preemptive military pounding on Iran's nuclear programme, for which there is no evidence in international diplomacy. If India were to do with Pakistan what the US is doing with Iran, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, India would have had an all-out war to bomb nuclear facilities at Kahua or Islamabad.&nbsp;My mind goes back to 1992, when in the month of January, India under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao established full diplomatic relations with Israel -- something that seemed impossible just a year earlier. But then, later that year in November, I was with Rao on board a jet to Senegal in Africa for a G-15 summit of emerging economies of the developed world -- and on the way, we stopped at the airport in Tunis, where Rao met Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and held cordial talks. I watched from a distance as they smiled at each other.&nbsp;That meeting reminded one that if one is a friend of Israel, it does not mean one has to be a foe of the Palestinians. That spirit has to be brought back as India walks a diplomatic tightrope on a number of fronts. &nbsp;An elegant neutrality is a long-term asset.&nbsp;The wheels of fortune keep changing in both politics and international diplomacy. In times of confusion, it might be wise to remember how things can change -- be it in American politics or global diplomacy. In cricket, there was a time when Indian players were considered lucky when they played in the English county championships. We now have English players jostling for space in the Indian Premier League tournament.&nbsp;In a new atmosphere, we carry pride and competence, but not colonial baggage -- of adversity or subordination.&nbsp;The Leeds Test is a good example of how things can be brought back to an even keel by a mix of diligent work and patience. In diplomacy as in cricket, every ball has to be played with a sense of purpose and fair play. Taking blind swipes will just not be cricket.

Stay smart, stay neutral: Why India should avoid risky strokes in Iran-US crisis

What is the connection between a cricket Test between India and England at Leeds and a disturbing military conflict between Iran and the US involving Israel? On the face of it, there is none, but then cricket is a great metaphor to understand the game involving geopolitics and diplomacy. It was great to see a huge crowd of well-dressed English folk at the Headingly ground applauding Indian cricketers in a Test match that seems evenly poised as this is being written. There was a time when the crowds for an India-England game were thin and often full of ethnic Indians. Things have changed so much that you could say the English now view India as closer to, if not better than, their old rivals, Australia. Some of the old assumptions that go back to Britain's colonial domination of India are gone -- from both sides. Time changes everything, and it is time to keep that in mind as we look at the options before India following the Israel-Iran faceoff in which the military might of President Donald Trump-led Washington is more than apparent as Iran's nuclear facilities have been pounded by US stealth bombers. The broad perception is that India is on the side of Israel and, therefore, the US. It gets tricky when you notice that diplomatic relations are more than messy in the merry-go-round of geopolitics. The US sees Iran as a terror-sponsoring state, but conveniently supports Pakistan that India sees as a terror sponsor because it is a useful ally in containing both Iran and China, not to speak of Afghanistan. Operation Sindoor showed that India is pretty much alone in its battle to contain state-supported terror attacks on India nurtured on the Pakistani soil by the very groups that the US has declared as terrorists. Don't look for logical consistency here. It is all about expediency and usefulness. Only the other day, General-turned Field Marshal Asim Munir was recommending Trump for the Nobel peace prize after an honourable luncheon at the White House but Pakistan is now officially not with the US on Iran bombings. What should India do now? The attitude of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government in general and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular has been pro-Israel and anti-Islamist terror, but for all practical purposes that translates as anti-Iran. This requires a course correction following last weekend's Operation Midnight Hammer. We need to stand back a little to get some context. While it is true that the US equated India and Pakistan in an undesirable false equivalence after Operation Sindoor, it is equally true that India decided to go ahead and buy Russian oil despite American sanctions against Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. If the "usefulness" or "sovereignty" criterion are applied equally, it is apparent that both India and the US have acted in self-interest, and not concerned about principled diplomacy on issues such as terror or the UN charter against unprovoked intervention or invasion of a sovereign country. There are backstories for all this that could fill several books but the real question for India is: what to do now? The answer could be simple: stay clear of taking sides, and do some purposeful diplomacy at the UN with details in mind on everything, from the Palestine problem to the Iran war, economic growth and bilateral trade. In plain language: Stay smart, stay neutral. There are already unconfirmed reports of US or Western military aircraft having refuelled in India as part of the attacks on Iran. That brings back memories of 1991 when the then short-lived government led by Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar allowed American military jets to refuel at Mumbai, sparking controversy at home and elsewhere. Regional security is of importance to India, and that concerns Pakistan, China, and Iran. There is no need to go out of the way to support the US, which is widely seen as losing credibility already lowered by Trump's trigger-happy trade tariffs on Europe, India, and China alike. India has solid trade relations with both China and the US. Iran is not a big trading partner as there is a total bilateral turnover of less than $2 billion, but the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz controlled by Iran shows that oil prices can zoom, hurting India's economic growth precisely at a bounce-back stage. Anything that causes an oil price spike is not good for India. It also does not help India if it spites a host of Muslim countries or their societies across the world when Israel is being widely criticised on its Gaza attacks on innocent Palestinians. In the considered interest of India's economy and regional security, it is best for India to be part of a broad coalition of nations at the United Nations to demand a cessation of hostilities and if possible, join efforts to facilitate negotiations. There are simplistic critics who equate Operation Sindoor with Operation Midnight Hammer. That is simply not on. An act of limited reactive defence on a terrorist attack with back-up evidence cannot be equated with a proactive, preemptive military pounding on Iran's nuclear programme, for which there is no evidence in international diplomacy. If India were to do with Pakistan what the US is doing with Iran, sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, India would have had an all-out war to bomb nuclear facilities at Kahua or Islamabad. My mind goes back to 1992, when in the month of January, India under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao established full diplomatic relations with Israel -- something that seemed impossible just a year earlier. But then, later that year in November, I was with Rao on board a jet to Senegal in Africa for a G-15 summit of emerging economies of the developed world -- and on the way, we stopped at the airport in Tunis, where Rao met Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and held cordial talks. I watched from a distance as they smiled at each other. That meeting reminded one that if one is a friend of Israel, it does not mean one has to be a foe of the Palestinians. That spirit has to be brought back as India walks a diplomatic tightrope on a number of fronts. An elegant neutrality is a long-term asset. The wheels of fortune keep changing in both politics and international diplomacy. In times of confusion, it might be wise to remember how things can change -- be it in American politics or global diplomacy. In cricket, there was a time when Indian players were considered lucky when they played in the English county championships. We now have English players jostling for space in the Indian Premier League tournament. In a new atmosphere, we carry pride and competence, but not colonial baggage -- of adversity or subordination. The Leeds Test is a good example of how things can be brought back to an even keel by a mix of diligent work and patience. In diplomacy as in cricket, every ball has to be played with a sense of purpose and fair play. Taking blind swipes will just not be cricket.

The broad perception is that India is on the side of Israel and, therefore, the US

US President Donald Trump has spared no effort in demonstrating his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In a latest development, Trump once again touted his claimed diplomatic achievements as a justification for receiving the world’s most prestigious peace honour. This time, Trump bragged his alleged role in easing tensions between India and Pakistan, a claim which has multiple times been firmly denied by New Delhi. On numerous occasions, from official speeches to campaign rallies and even interviews, Trump has never shied away from publicly referenced the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite not securing the award during his first term, his preoccupation with it appears undiminished.<h2> A Pattern of Nominations</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on multiple occasions, since his first term but has never won the prize. From Norwegian MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde, Swedish MP Magnus Jacobsson, and U.S. Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, his nominations have come from a range of people, who have been &nbsp;typically citing his role in diplomatic agreements such as the Abraham Accords.&nbsp;Earlier on Saturday, Pakistan through a post on social media platform X recommended his name, stating that the President should get Nobel Peace Prize in 2026 “in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis”.&nbsp;In 2024, Trump was again nominated by Anat Alon-Beck, who is an &nbsp;Israeli-born law professor at Case Western Reserve University. He &nbsp;credited him with fostering the early efforts toward peace in the Middle East and even facilitating hostage releases. &nbsp;Before this, Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Merezhko also put Trump forward for consideration.Despite being nominated several times, the Nobel Committee has never considered awarding him. The committee, which was appointed by the Norwegian parliament, maintains a very strict confidentiality and independent evaluation, although, Trump has often cast serious doubts on these factors.&nbsp;<h2>Repeated Obsession with the Prize</h2>&nbsp;Trump's desire to win the Nobel Peace prize is not hidden. He has publicly expressed this desire many times over the years, in interviews, speeches, campaign rallies, and even social media posts. In the recent post on June 20, the President's desperation broke all bounds, he went on to mention the prize six times, lamenting he "won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what."&nbsp;He cited his administration’s efforts in preventing conflicts between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia, as well as his important role in the Abraham Accords. Trump has consistently taken credit for de-escalating tensions and brokering peace, and this is regardless of whether the parties involved acknowledged his mediation. This is especially true in case of the India-Pakistan recent conflict, when India repeatedly denied any efforts of mediation made by US in the matter.&nbsp;His frustration over the snub has not only been public but also persistent. According to advisers, the desire for the Nobel is not symbolic, it is personal, and has actively influenced how his team positions his foreign policy moves.&nbsp;<h2>Obama and the Source of Frustration</h2>&nbsp;But the frustration is not without a reason. It is often said that at the core of Trump’s resentment appears to be the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the then President Barack Obama. Obama was honoured with the prestigious award just months into his presidency, for efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and promote nuclear disarmament.&nbsp;Trump has often called Obama’s win undeserved. In 2019, he commented, “They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. That was the only thing I agreed with him on.”&nbsp;Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who is now a Trump critic, said Trump’s view is that if Obama could recieve the prize so early in his presidency, then he should too, especially considering the number of peace-related efforts he &nbsp;alleges he has undertaken.&nbsp;<h2>Why Trump Wants It</h2>&nbsp;But the question remains, Why does Trump want the Prize? Trump’s longing for the Nobel Peace Prize seems to be rooted in legacy, recognition, and validation. If we go by the reports from The New York Times and Axios, Trump believes this prize would strengthen his status as a statesman and validate his often-criticised foreign policy.&nbsp;He has provided multiple reference to the Nobel every time he is &nbsp;touting peace deals and mediating ceasefire efforts, this includes his involvement in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Middle East, often arguing that his contributions have gone unrecognised due to 'political bias'. The prize has become both a point of pride and grievance for Trump.&nbsp;On Social media and during public appearances, Trump frames the Nobel Peace Prize as a symbol of unjust exclusion, even while asserting that he does not care about awards. “No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do... but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me,” he wrote. Many of Trump critics believe that this statement tells of deeper personal ambition.&nbsp;<h2>Past U.S. Presidents Who Won the Prize</h2>&nbsp;Trump is obviously not the first American president to seek the Nobel Peace Prize, but he is among a rare group who have expressed such great interest so vocally. Four US presidents have received the honour. Theodore Roosevelt was the first US President to receive the prize in 1906, for mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth to end the Russo-Japanese War. Later Woodrow Wilson was recognised for his role in establishing the League of Nations after World War I in 1919. Jimmy Carter was the third American President awarded in 2002. The fourth President to be awarded was Barack Obama in 2002. He was honoured early in his presidency for diplomatic outreach and nuclear disarmament efforts.&nbsp;For Trump, the Nobel is more than a prize: it represents vindication. Whether he will ever receive it remains uncertain, but his pursuit of it remains unabated.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer. &nbsp;

Trump has often called Obama’s win undeserved. In 2019, he commented, “They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. That was the only thing I agreed with him on."

US President Donald Trump has spared no effort in demonstrating his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In a latest development, Trump once again touted his claimed diplomatic achievements as a justification for receiving the world’s most prestigious peace honour. This time, Trump bragged his alleged role in easing tensions between India and Pakistan, a claim which has multiple times been firmly denied by New Delhi. On numerous occasions, from official speeches to campaign rallies and even interviews, Trump has never shied away from publicly referenced the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite not securing the award during his first term, his preoccupation with it appears undiminished. A Pattern of Nominations Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on multiple occasions, since his first term but has never won the prize. From Norwegian MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde, Swedish MP Magnus Jacobsson, and U.S. Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, his nominations have come from a range of people, who have been typically citing his role in diplomatic agreements such as the Abraham Accords. Earlier on Saturday, Pakistan through a post on social media platform X recommended his name, stating that the President should get Nobel Peace Prize in 2026 “in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis”. In 2024, Trump was again nominated by Anat Alon-Beck, who is an Israeli-born law professor at Case Western Reserve University. He credited him with fostering the early efforts toward peace in the Middle East and even facilitating hostage releases. Before this, Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Merezhko also put Trump forward for consideration. Despite being nominated several times, the Nobel Committee has never considered awarding him. The committee, which was appointed by the Norwegian parliament, maintains a very strict confidentiality and independent evaluation, although, Trump has often cast serious doubts on these factors. Repeated Obsession with the Prize Trump's desire to win the Nobel Peace prize is not hidden. He has publicly expressed this desire many times over the years, in interviews, speeches, campaign rallies, and even social media posts. In the recent post on June 20, the President's desperation broke all bounds, he went on to mention the prize six times, lamenting he "won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what." He cited his administration’s efforts in preventing conflicts between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia, as well as his important role in the Abraham Accords. Trump has consistently taken credit for de-escalating tensions and brokering peace, and this is regardless of whether the parties involved acknowledged his mediation. This is especially true in case of the India-Pakistan recent conflict, when India repeatedly denied any efforts of mediation made by US in the matter. His frustration over the snub has not only been public but also persistent. According to advisers, the desire for the Nobel is not symbolic, it is personal, and has actively influenced how his team positions his foreign policy moves. Obama and the Source of Frustration But the frustration is not without a reason. It is often said that at the core of Trump’s resentment appears to be the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the then President Barack Obama. Obama was honoured with the prestigious award just months into his presidency, for efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and promote nuclear disarmament. Trump has often called Obama’s win undeserved. In 2019, he commented, “They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. That was the only thing I agreed with him on.” Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who is now a Trump critic, said Trump’s view is that if Obama could recieve the prize so early in his presidency, then he should too, especially considering the number of peace-related efforts he alleges he has undertaken. Why Trump Wants It But the question remains, Why does Trump want the Prize? Trump’s longing for the Nobel Peace Prize seems to be rooted in legacy, recognition, and validation. If we go by the reports from The New York Times and Axios, Trump believes this prize would strengthen his status as a statesman and validate his often-criticised foreign policy. He has provided multiple reference to the Nobel every time he is touting peace deals and mediating ceasefire efforts, this includes his involvement in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Middle East, often arguing that his contributions have gone unrecognised due to 'political bias'. The prize has become both a point of pride and grievance for Trump. On Social media and during public appearances, Trump frames the Nobel Peace Prize as a symbol of unjust exclusion, even while asserting that he does not care about awards. “No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do... but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me,” he wrote. Many of Trump critics believe that this statement tells of deeper personal ambition. Past U.S. Presidents Who Won the Prize Trump is obviously not the first American president to seek the Nobel Peace Prize, but he is among a rare group who have expressed such great interest so vocally. Four US presidents have received the honour. Theodore Roosevelt was the first US President to receive the prize in 1906, for mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth to end the Russo-Japanese War. Later Woodrow Wilson was recognised for his role in establishing the League of Nations after World War I in 1919. Jimmy Carter was the third American President awarded in 2002. The fourth President to be awarded was Barack Obama in 2002. He was honoured early in his presidency for diplomatic outreach and nuclear disarmament efforts. For Trump, the Nobel is more than a prize: it represents vindication. Whether he will ever receive it remains uncertain, but his pursuit of it remains unabated. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Trump has often called Obama’s win undeserved. In 2019, he commented, “They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. That was the only thing I agreed with him on."

‘Nobel ambitions': Why Donald Trump won’t stop talking about the peace prize?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook yet another transcontinental official tour, which took him to three diverse countries – Cyprus, Canada, and Croatia – from 15 to 19 June. Visiting three nations in different time zones in five days involved a punishing schedule, but it was executed to secure clear-cut objectives of Indian diplomacy. The common thread was twofold: to represent India at the still-important summit of the Group of Seven in Canada’s western province of Alberta, and to push India’s strategic partnership with the EU, particularly by forging closer ties with the countries of eastern and central Europe. That this complex operation was planned and executed at extremely short notice was a tribute to the protocol, security, and diplomatic officials, confirming how sophisticated and competent the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has become in such matters.A wisecrack compared the three-nation trip to a three-course meal, which began with an appetiser in Cyprus, featured varied dishes in the main course at the Kananaskis Summit in Alberta, and ended with a collection of desserts in the Croatian capital, Zagreb. It was a project designed to engage a multiplicity of stakeholders who contributed to advancing India’s partnership with key nations, as well as its growing global profile.<h2>Cyprus</h2>A member of the European Union (EU) since 2004, Cyprus is set to take over the presidency of the European Council in the first half of 2026. It is a small state with a population of less than one million, yet it boasts a high per capita income, and this is evident in its signs of prosperity. Since 1974, it has been a divided island country, with almost one-third of the territory under the control of Turkish Cyprus, recognised by only one country – Türkiye. Ankara’s highly partisan attitude, favouring Pakistan, especially on the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the 'Operation Sindoor,' made Cyprus a natural choice as a destination for PM Modi. What helped the mission was that a close friendship and mutual empathy between the two nations had begun much earlier, during the time of Archbishop Makarios III and Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1960s. Then, the bonds of the Commonwealth and the Non-Aligned Movement made India and Cyprus natural partners. Representing India in Cyprus in the late 1970s, this author experienced the magic of this special friendship and the warmth of Cypriot hospitality every time he visited the country from his diplomatic base in Beirut.On 15 June, Prime Minister Modi was received in a special gesture by President Nikos Christodoulides at Larnaca Airport. This was the first visit by an Indian PM in two decades. Detailed discussions followed. The leaders focused on ways to strengthen the India-EU strategic partnership, including ongoing discussions on the India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA). India conveyed its support to Cyprus on the Cyprus question. The host government expressed full support for India’s stand on combating cross-border terrorism. Efforts to deepen economic cooperation were given a fillip with Cyprus emerging as one of the top ten sources of FDI for India. “Our partnership is becoming increasingly multifaceted,” said a senior official. Defence industrial collaboration and establishing connectivity through shipping and logistics were promoted, with specific steps that became more relevant in the context of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). By bestowing its highest honour, the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III, on Prime Minister Modi, the Cyprus government demonstrated its goodwill towards India. The joint declaration expressed the two governments’ “determination to advance this partnership across sectors further.”CanadaThe ostensible purpose of visiting Canada was all too obvious: to participate in the outreach session of the G7 summit. PM Modi did so, presenting India’s perspective on energy security and several other topics, including terrorism, technology, and Artificial Intelligence. On the sidelines, he held discussions with several European and other leaders, especially the President of Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa.It was the Canadian dimension of the stay at Kananaskis that emerged as a welcome development in terms of India-Canada relations. In the background of preparatory work by senior officials, the two prime ministers reached an agreement on a significant reset of the bilateral relationship, which had been severely strained by certain actions of the previous Canadian government since October 2023. The basic agreement centred around the two sides taking “calibrated and constructive steps” to restore stability to the relationship. It was also decided to restart senior ministerial-level and working-level arrangements across various domains “to rebuild, trust and bring momentum to the relationship.”CroatiaEven those who are well-informed about foreign affairs face difficulty in answering the question as to what followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. What is easy to recall is that as a result, Croatia emerged as one of the independent states. Marshal Josip Broz Tito, the president of Yugoslavia and a great friend of India during the Cold War period, was a Croat. Choosing Croatia for the first-ever visit by an Indian PM was indeed historic. With a population of 3.8 million and an area of over 56,000 km², Croatia, a member of the European Union, enjoys a strategically important location on the Adriatic Sea. It is rich in tourism, trade, and investment potential.The reception of Prime Minister Modi by Prime Minister Andrej Plenković at the airport, along with elaborate bilateral discussions and the signing of four agreements relating to cooperation in agriculture, science and technology, cultural exchange, and the establishment of a Hindi chair at the University of Zagreb, were among the highlights of this visit. It was agreed that a stronger India-EU relationship would be mutually beneficial. The host nation’s interest in IMEC was also noted. The two sides expressed interest in concluding a mobility partnership agreement. PM Modi’s visit came six years after India’s President Ram Nath Kovind visited Croatia. MEA expressed the hope that the latest visit would be “a catalyst to the expansion of India-Croatia partnership and (would) further strengthen India-EU strategic partnership.”A post on X by the Croatian PM drew attention to the intellectual and cultural dimensions of this relationship, He presented to his Indian counterpart a reprint of Filip Vezdin’s Sanskrit Grammar written in 1790, based on the knowledge he gained while living in India from Kerala Brahmins and local manuscripts, Prime Minister Plenković hailed it as a “symbol of early cultural ties between Croatia and India.”With this diplomatic odyssey, the tapestry of India’s foreign policy became richer. India renewed old friendships and gained new friends. The multi-country visit demonstrated our nation’s expertise in nurturing ties with great powers, middle powers, and small states. This is the hallmark of an accomplished player performing on the global stage. &nbsp;

A wisecrack compared the three-nation trip to a three-course meal, which began with an appetiser in Cyprus, featured varied dishes in the main course at the Kananaskis Summit in Alberta, and ended with a collection of desserts in the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook yet another transcontinental official tour, which took him to three diverse countries – Cyprus, Canada, and Croatia – from 15 to 19 June. Visiting three nations in different time zones in five days involved a punishing schedule, but it was executed to secure clear-cut objectives of Indian diplomacy. The common thread was twofold: to represent India at the still-important summit of the Group of Seven in Canada’s western province of Alberta, and to push India’s strategic partnership with the EU, particularly by forging closer ties with the countries of eastern and central Europe. That this complex operation was planned and executed at extremely short notice was a tribute to the protocol, security, and diplomatic officials, confirming how sophisticated and competent the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has become in such matters. A wisecrack compared the three-nation trip to a three-course meal, which began with an appetiser in Cyprus, featured varied dishes in the main course at the Kananaskis Summit in Alberta, and ended with a collection of desserts in the Croatian capital, Zagreb. It was a project designed to engage a multiplicity of stakeholders who contributed to advancing India’s partnership with key nations, as well as its growing global profile. Cyprus A member of the European Union (EU) since 2004, Cyprus is set to take over the presidency of the European Council in the first half of 2026. It is a small state with a population of less than one million, yet it boasts a high per capita income, and this is evident in its signs of prosperity. Since 1974, it has been a divided island country, with almost one-third of the territory under the control of Turkish Cyprus, recognised by only one country – Türkiye. Ankara’s highly partisan attitude, favouring Pakistan, especially on the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the 'Operation Sindoor,' made Cyprus a natural choice as a destination for PM Modi. What helped the mission was that a close friendship and mutual empathy between the two nations had begun much earlier, during the time of Archbishop Makarios III and Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1960s. Then, the bonds of the Commonwealth and the Non-Aligned Movement made India and Cyprus natural partners. Representing India in Cyprus in the late 1970s, this author experienced the magic of this special friendship and the warmth of Cypriot hospitality every time he visited the country from his diplomatic base in Beirut. On 15 June, Prime Minister Modi was received in a special gesture by President Nikos Christodoulides at Larnaca Airport. This was the first visit by an Indian PM in two decades. Detailed discussions followed. The leaders focused on ways to strengthen the India-EU strategic partnership, including ongoing discussions on the India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA). India conveyed its support to Cyprus on the Cyprus question. The host government expressed full support for India’s stand on combating cross-border terrorism. Efforts to deepen economic cooperation were given a fillip with Cyprus emerging as one of the top ten sources of FDI for India. “Our partnership is becoming increasingly multifaceted,” said a senior official. Defence industrial collaboration and establishing connectivity through shipping and logistics were promoted, with specific steps that became more relevant in the context of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). By bestowing its highest honour, the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III, on Prime Minister Modi, the Cyprus government demonstrated its goodwill towards India. The joint declaration expressed the two governments’ “determination to advance this partnership across sectors further.” Canada The ostensible purpose of visiting Canada was all too obvious: to participate in the outreach session of the G7 summit. PM Modi did so, presenting India’s perspective on energy security and several other topics, including terrorism, technology, and Artificial Intelligence. On the sidelines, he held discussions with several European and other leaders, especially the President of Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa. It was the Canadian dimension of the stay at Kananaskis that emerged as a welcome development in terms of India-Canada relations. In the background of preparatory work by senior officials, the two prime ministers reached an agreement on a significant reset of the bilateral relationship, which had been severely strained by certain actions of the previous Canadian government since October 2023. The basic agreement centred around the two sides taking “calibrated and constructive steps” to restore stability to the relationship. It was also decided to restart senior ministerial-level and working-level arrangements across various domains “to rebuild, trust and bring momentum to the relationship.” Croatia Even those who are well-informed about foreign affairs face difficulty in answering the question as to what followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. What is easy to recall is that as a result, Croatia emerged as one of the independent states. Marshal Josip Broz Tito, the president of Yugoslavia and a great friend of India during the Cold War period, was a Croat. Choosing Croatia for the first-ever visit by an Indian PM was indeed historic. With a population of 3.8 million and an area of over 56,000 km², Croatia, a member of the European Union, enjoys a strategically important location on the Adriatic Sea. It is rich in tourism, trade, and investment potential. The reception of Prime Minister Modi by Prime Minister Andrej Plenković at the airport, along with elaborate bilateral discussions and the signing of four agreements relating to cooperation in agriculture, science and technology, cultural exchange, and the establishment of a Hindi chair at the University of Zagreb, were among the highlights of this visit. It was agreed that a stronger India-EU relationship would be mutually beneficial. The host nation’s interest in IMEC was also noted. The two sides expressed interest in concluding a mobility partnership agreement. PM Modi’s visit came six years after India’s President Ram Nath Kovind visited Croatia. MEA expressed the hope that the latest visit would be “a catalyst to the expansion of India-Croatia partnership and (would) further strengthen India-EU strategic partnership.” A post on X by the Croatian PM drew attention to the intellectual and cultural dimensions of this relationship, He presented to his Indian counterpart a reprint of Filip Vezdin’s Sanskrit Grammar written in 1790, based on the knowledge he gained while living in India from Kerala Brahmins and local manuscripts, Prime Minister Plenković hailed it as a “symbol of early cultural ties between Croatia and India.” With this diplomatic odyssey, the tapestry of India’s foreign policy became richer. India renewed old friendships and gained new friends. The multi-country visit demonstrated our nation’s expertise in nurturing ties with great powers, middle powers, and small states. This is the hallmark of an accomplished player performing on the global stage.

A wisecrack compared the three-nation trip to a three-course meal, which began with an appetiser in Cyprus, featured varied dishes in the main course at the Kananaskis Summit in Alberta, and ended with a collection of desserts in the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

A tale of PM Modi’s three visits

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has held office longer than anyone else since the founding of Israel in 1948. The &nbsp;name is synonymous to Israel’s most influential political figure, involved in shaping the country's policy and global posture through a mix of strategic acumen, deep-rooted ideology, and political resilience. Serving his sixth term as prime minister, the veteran’s legacy is intertwined with Israel’s current conflicts and long-term security doctrine. Born in 1949 in Jaffa, Netanyahu spent a part of his childhood in both Jerusalem and the United States.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Early years</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>Netanyahu's family background set the tone for his future worldview since childhood. The leader's father, Benzion Netanyahu was a historian and a staunch Revisionist Zionist who had always advocated for a Greater Israel stretching beyond the Jordan River. This ideological grounding later, allegedly, influenced Netanyahu’s political positions, especially those regarding the territorial bargains and talks with Arab states.&nbsp;<h2>Military roots and diplomatic rise</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>The early years of Benjamin Netanyahu were marked by military service in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, where he also served as a captain before being discharged. He also fought in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, later even taking part in the 1972 rescue of hostages from a hijacked Sabena aircraft. These formative experiences played a great role in contributing to his emphasis on security as a pillar of his leadership in his country.&nbsp;Netanyahu began his political career abroad, initially serving as Israel’s deputy chief of mission in Washington in 1982, and later as the ambassador to the United Nations between 1984 and 1988. His experiences during his tenure, helped him hone his diplomatic skills, especially with American audiences, a key component, it seems, of his enduring influence on U.S.-Israel relations.&nbsp;<h2>Political climb and repeated returns</h2>&nbsp;Domestically, Netanyahu rose rapidly through the Likud party ranks, becoming party leader in 1993. He first became the &nbsp;Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999 and later returned to office in 2009, remaining in power until 2021. After a brief political setback, during this time, Netanyahu reclaimed leadership in late 2022, following a November election win. As of 2025, Netanyahu holds the distinction of being Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and one of the most powerful leaders globally.&nbsp;His tenure has been characterised by a series of crises and comebacks. In 2019, as per media reports, he was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He, however, denied any wrongdoing, framing the cases as politically motivated. However, it was on 21 November 2019, that Netanyahu was officially charged with fraud and breach of trust. Despite these legal proceedings, Netanyahu retained his political power by forging the coalitions with right-wing and religious parties, including controversial figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose past links to extremist ideologies had sparked criticism both within and outside Israel.&nbsp;<h2>The Gaza War and international scrutiny</h2>&nbsp;The current stage of Netanyahu’s leadership is defined by intensifying regional conflict, especially full-fledged war with Gaza and Iran. The Israel-Hamas conflict officially began in October 2023 which left 1,100 Israeli citizen dead. In response to Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, Israel launched a major military campaign in Gaza. That offensive led to widespread destruction and drew global scrutiny. The diplomatic impact of the Gaza war was such that at least eleven countries cut ties with Israel. In May 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, citing allegations including the starvation of civilians and attacks against non-combatants. Similar warrants were also issued for Israel’s then-defence minister and leaders of Hamas.&nbsp;While Netanyahu and his government have continuously rejected the ICC's jurisdiction, the development has sparked fierce debate over the rules of war as well as conduct of state leaders. Supporters still argue that Netanyahu acted within Israel's right to self-defence while his critics claim disproportionate use of force. Former prime minister (and Likud leader) Yitzhak Shamir once called Netanyahu the “angel of destruction”. Amid the fallout from the Gaza conflict, Netanyahu has shifted focus to Iran, long considered Israel’s most formidable adversary, with the escalating tensions between the two countries, the world is watching every move closely. The Netanyahu government launched a series of airstrikes in ban operation which they called 'Operation Rising Lion,' targeting sites linked to Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Netanyahu has consistently labelled the country as an existential threat for Israel, and his current actions are widely seen as an attempt to reassert Israeli deterrence.&nbsp;<h2>Focus on Iran and why?</h2>&nbsp;The Iran operation has also had international ramifications. It comes at a time when regional alliances are shifting, and yet the global powers remain distracted by other conflicts, including Russia’s war in Ukraine. With the war-like situation in other countries as well, Israel’s assertive stance under Netanyahu reflects both a strategic calculation and a broader effort to shape Middle Eastern dynamics.&nbsp;Netanyahu remains a deeply polarising figure, but Netanyahu shares a close relationship with India. It is also important to mention that the India–Israel partnership deepened significantly over the past decade, with growing strategic, technological, and defence cooperation. To his base, Netanyahu is a guarantor of national security but to his opponents, he risks undermining democratic norms. Yet few dispute his political mastery. Whether through military decisions, coalition manoeuvring, or global messaging, he continues to define Israel’s direction more than any other individual.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The early years of Benjamin Netanyahu were marked by military service in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit. He also fought in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, later even taking part in the 1972 rescue of hostages from a hijacked Sabena aircraft. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has held office longer than anyone else since the founding of Israel in 1948. The name is synonymous to Israel’s most influential political figure, involved in shaping the country's policy and global posture through a mix of strategic acumen, deep-rooted ideology, and political resilience. Serving his sixth term as prime minister, the veteran’s legacy is intertwined with Israel’s current conflicts and long-term security doctrine. Born in 1949 in Jaffa, Netanyahu spent a part of his childhood in both Jerusalem and the United States. Early years Netanyahu's family background set the tone for his future worldview since childhood. The leader's father, Benzion Netanyahu was a historian and a staunch Revisionist Zionist who had always advocated for a Greater Israel stretching beyond the Jordan River. This ideological grounding later, allegedly, influenced Netanyahu’s political positions, especially those regarding the territorial bargains and talks with Arab states. Military roots and diplomatic rise The early years of Benjamin Netanyahu were marked by military service in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, where he also served as a captain before being discharged. He also fought in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, later even taking part in the 1972 rescue of hostages from a hijacked Sabena aircraft. These formative experiences played a great role in contributing to his emphasis on security as a pillar of his leadership in his country. Netanyahu began his political career abroad, initially serving as Israel’s deputy chief of mission in Washington in 1982, and later as the ambassador to the United Nations between 1984 and 1988. His experiences during his tenure, helped him hone his diplomatic skills, especially with American audiences, a key component, it seems, of his enduring influence on U.S.-Israel relations. Political climb and repeated returns Domestically, Netanyahu rose rapidly through the Likud party ranks, becoming party leader in 1993. He first became the Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999 and later returned to office in 2009, remaining in power until 2021. After a brief political setback, during this time, Netanyahu reclaimed leadership in late 2022, following a November election win. As of 2025, Netanyahu holds the distinction of being Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and one of the most powerful leaders globally. His tenure has been characterised by a series of crises and comebacks. In 2019, as per media reports, he was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. He, however, denied any wrongdoing, framing the cases as politically motivated. However, it was on 21 November 2019, that Netanyahu was officially charged with fraud and breach of trust. Despite these legal proceedings, Netanyahu retained his political power by forging the coalitions with right-wing and religious parties, including controversial figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose past links to extremist ideologies had sparked criticism both within and outside Israel. The Gaza War and international scrutiny The current stage of Netanyahu’s leadership is defined by intensifying regional conflict, especially full-fledged war with Gaza and Iran. The Israel-Hamas conflict officially began in October 2023 which left 1,100 Israeli citizen dead. In response to Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, Israel launched a major military campaign in Gaza. That offensive led to widespread destruction and drew global scrutiny. The diplomatic impact of the Gaza war was such that at least eleven countries cut ties with Israel. In May 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, citing allegations including the starvation of civilians and attacks against non-combatants. Similar warrants were also issued for Israel’s then-defence minister and leaders of Hamas. While Netanyahu and his government have continuously rejected the ICC's jurisdiction, the development has sparked fierce debate over the rules of war as well as conduct of state leaders. Supporters still argue that Netanyahu acted within Israel's right to self-defence while his critics claim disproportionate use of force. Former prime minister (and Likud leader) Yitzhak Shamir once called Netanyahu the “angel of destruction”. Amid the fallout from the Gaza conflict, Netanyahu has shifted focus to Iran, long considered Israel’s most formidable adversary, with the escalating tensions between the two countries, the world is watching every move closely. The Netanyahu government launched a series of airstrikes in ban operation which they called 'Operation Rising Lion,' targeting sites linked to Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Netanyahu has consistently labelled the country as an existential threat for Israel, and his current actions are widely seen as an attempt to reassert Israeli deterrence. Focus on Iran and why? The Iran operation has also had international ramifications. It comes at a time when regional alliances are shifting, and yet the global powers remain distracted by other conflicts, including Russia’s war in Ukraine. With the war-like situation in other countries as well, Israel’s assertive stance under Netanyahu reflects both a strategic calculation and a broader effort to shape Middle Eastern dynamics. Netanyahu remains a deeply polarising figure, but Netanyahu shares a close relationship with India. It is also important to mention that the India–Israel partnership deepened significantly over the past decade, with growing strategic, technological, and defence cooperation. To his base, Netanyahu is a guarantor of national security but to his opponents, he risks undermining democratic norms. Yet few dispute his political mastery. Whether through military decisions, coalition manoeuvring, or global messaging, he continues to define Israel’s direction more than any other individual. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The early years of Benjamin Netanyahu were marked by military service in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit. He also fought in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, later even taking part in the 1972 rescue of hostages from a hijacked Sabena aircraft.&nbsp;

A devout patriot, master tactician or a relentless power broker? All about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s most powerful man

In the White House press briefing room, as tensions between Israel and Iran boiled over, current White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stepped to the podium with her voice rising with rehearsed conviction. It was vintage Trumpian spin—and the latest chapter in an era where the White House press secretary have become more marionette than messenger.&nbsp;The string of White House press secretaries in Donald Trump's first and second terms—Karoline Leavitt, Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Stephanie Grisham, and Kayleigh McEnany—seemed less like independent communicators and more like synchronised marionettes, dangling from the same orange-tinted strings.&nbsp;&nbsp;In what should have been the most trusted voice between the presidency and the press, we instead saw a rotating cast of characters who were less about transparency and more about total fealty to one man’s narrative, no matter how bizarre or provably false. The role of the press secretary, traditionally one of poise, policy, and accountability, became under Trump a mouthpiece of performance—one that demanded absolute loyalty, shameless spin, and, above all, showmanship.<h2>Body language that screams ‘submission’</h2>Watch any footage—seriously, any—and you'll notice it: the stiff posture, the forced smiles, the furrowed brows, the clenched fists at the podium. Each secretary embodied their own physical version of damage control.&nbsp;Sean Spicer burst into the job like a man late to a meeting he didn’t understand. His now-iconic lie—“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period”—was delivered with the sweaty anxiety of someone trying to bluff through a lie detector test on live TV. His voice cracked, his eyes darted, and his knuckles whitened on the podium like he was holding onto credibility by a thread.&nbsp;Sarah Huckabee Sanders adopted a stoic wall-of-steel approach. Her eyes narrowed, her arms folded—a classic self-protective gesture—as she fielded questions with a half-smile and an expression that said: “I could not care less.” It wasn't confidence. It was deflection masked as deadpan.&nbsp;Kayleigh McEnany turned the job into a Harvard-polished performance. Her plastic smiles and over-rehearsed hand gestures gave off the polished sheen of a game show host crossed with a Sunday School teacher. Yet beneath the surface was relentless aggression, particularly in her habit of ending briefings mid-question with, “And with that, I’ll leave it there”—like a magician vanishing in a puff of evasion.&nbsp;Stephanie Grisham skipped the performance entirely. She held no press briefings during her entire tenure. That’s not a metaphor. She simply didn’t show up. She once justified it by saying: “I felt like the media was not good to us, so why give them a platform?”Which is like a firefighter refusing to fight fire because it’s “too hot.”&nbsp;And then there’s Karoline Leavitt, the newest inheritor of the Trumpian throne. She channels her boss’s sneer with youthful gusto, waving off journalistic scrutiny with the arrogance of a Twitter troll at a campaign rally. Her body language—tight, fidgety hands and a forward-thrust jaw—exudes aggression over poise, confrontation over clarity.<h2>Language that mirrors a master’s voice</h2>From day One, their linguistic loyalty was unmistakable. These weren’t spokespeople—they were translators of Trump. The vocabulary was predictable: “Fake news.” “Radical left.” “Witch hunt.” “Tremendous success.” Spicer lied loud. Sanders lied stone-faced. McEnany lied with legalese. Grisham lied by vanishing. Leavitt lies with snark and sarcasm.&nbsp;They weren't delivering facts; they were delivering feelings—Trump’s feelings. Journalists asking factual questions were treated as antagonists, not interlocutors. There was no longer an effort to explain the administration’s decisions; only to defend them, blindly and aggressively.&nbsp;Each press secretary channelled Trump’s grievances like tuning forks vibrating in MAGA frequency. Policy became secondary to personality, and press briefings transformed into ideological theatre—complete with props, binders, and moral grandstanding.<h2>A cult of personality on display</h2>More than anything, the Trump-era press secretaries were/are emblematic of a government that prized loyalty over truth. These individuals didn’t speak for the presidency. They spoke for Trump—the man, not the office he holds.&nbsp;Rather than serving as intermediaries between the public and the president, they became palace guards, protecting their king from uncomfortable facts. They weren’t trying to sell you on policy—they were trying to convince you that your eyes were lying. Their function wasn’t communication. It was containment.&nbsp;They were expected not just to control the narrative, but to mirror the mood. Angry Trump? Angry press secretary. Vindicated Trump? Triumphant press secretary. Cornered Trump? Defensive, sneering, combative press secretary. And through it all, they contorted themselves—physically and rhetorically—into whatever shape was needed to shield the man behind the curtain.<h2>The legacy: A podium of puppets</h2>What remains is a blueprint for what not to do. This isn’t just about individual failures. It’s about the institutional rot that occurs when the role of press secretary is weaponised as a propaganda tool. When truth becomes optional and performance becomes policy, the public suffers.&nbsp;From Spicer’s flop-sweat lies to Leavitt’s gleeful contempt, each of these figures proved that under Trump, the White House podium wasn’t a symbol of government transparency. It was a stage for submission, a megaphone for madness, and a place where truth went to die—draped in flags, buzzwords, and bad faith.&nbsp;And with that… we’ll leave it there.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Trump press secretaries only toe his line, and the new one is not any different

In the White House press briefing room, as tensions between Israel and Iran boiled over, current White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stepped to the podium with her voice rising with rehearsed conviction. It was vintage Trumpian spin—and the latest chapter in an era where the White House press secretary have become more marionette than messenger. The string of White House press secretaries in Donald Trump's first and second terms—Karoline Leavitt, Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Stephanie Grisham, and Kayleigh McEnany—seemed less like independent communicators and more like synchronised marionettes, dangling from the same orange-tinted strings. In what should have been the most trusted voice between the presidency and the press, we instead saw a rotating cast of characters who were less about transparency and more about total fealty to one man’s narrative, no matter how bizarre or provably false. The role of the press secretary, traditionally one of poise, policy, and accountability, became under Trump a mouthpiece of performance—one that demanded absolute loyalty, shameless spin, and, above all, showmanship. Body language that screams ‘submission’ Watch any footage—seriously, any—and you'll notice it: the stiff posture, the forced smiles, the furrowed brows, the clenched fists at the podium. Each secretary embodied their own physical version of damage control. Sean Spicer burst into the job like a man late to a meeting he didn’t understand. His now-iconic lie—“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period”—was delivered with the sweaty anxiety of someone trying to bluff through a lie detector test on live TV. His voice cracked, his eyes darted, and his knuckles whitened on the podium like he was holding onto credibility by a thread. Sarah Huckabee Sanders adopted a stoic wall-of-steel approach. Her eyes narrowed, her arms folded—a classic self-protective gesture—as she fielded questions with a half-smile and an expression that said: “I could not care less.” It wasn't confidence. It was deflection masked as deadpan. Kayleigh McEnany turned the job into a Harvard-polished performance. Her plastic smiles and over-rehearsed hand gestures gave off the polished sheen of a game show host crossed with a Sunday School teacher. Yet beneath the surface was relentless aggression, particularly in her habit of ending briefings mid-question with, “And with that, I’ll leave it there”—like a magician vanishing in a puff of evasion. Stephanie Grisham skipped the performance entirely. She held no press briefings during her entire tenure. That’s not a metaphor. She simply didn’t show up. She once justified it by saying: “I felt like the media was not good to us, so why give them a platform?” Which is like a firefighter refusing to fight fire because it’s “too hot.” And then there’s Karoline Leavitt, the newest inheritor of the Trumpian throne. She channels her boss’s sneer with youthful gusto, waving off journalistic scrutiny with the arrogance of a Twitter troll at a campaign rally. Her body language—tight, fidgety hands and a forward-thrust jaw—exudes aggression over poise, confrontation over clarity. Language that mirrors a master’s voice From day One, their linguistic loyalty was unmistakable. These weren’t spokespeople—they were translators of Trump. The vocabulary was predictable: “Fake news.” “Radical left.” “Witch hunt.” “Tremendous success.” Spicer lied loud. Sanders lied stone-faced. McEnany lied with legalese. Grisham lied by vanishing. Leavitt lies with snark and sarcasm. They weren't delivering facts; they were delivering feelings—Trump’s feelings. Journalists asking factual questions were treated as antagonists, not interlocutors. There was no longer an effort to explain the administration’s decisions; only to defend them, blindly and aggressively. Each press secretary channelled Trump’s grievances like tuning forks vibrating in MAGA frequency. Policy became secondary to personality, and press briefings transformed into ideological theatre—complete with props, binders, and moral grandstanding. A cult of personality on display More than anything, the Trump-era press secretaries were/are emblematic of a government that prized loyalty over truth. These individuals didn’t speak for the presidency. They spoke for Trump—the man, not the office he holds. Rather than serving as intermediaries between the public and the president, they became palace guards, protecting their king from uncomfortable facts. They weren’t trying to sell you on policy—they were trying to convince you that your eyes were lying. Their function wasn’t communication. It was containment. They were expected not just to control the narrative, but to mirror the mood. Angry Trump? Angry press secretary. Vindicated Trump? Triumphant press secretary. Cornered Trump? Defensive, sneering, combative press secretary. And through it all, they contorted themselves—physically and rhetorically—into whatever shape was needed to shield the man behind the curtain. The legacy: A podium of puppets What remains is a blueprint for what not to do. This isn’t just about individual failures. It’s about the institutional rot that occurs when the role of press secretary is weaponised as a propaganda tool. When truth becomes optional and performance becomes policy, the public suffers. From Spicer’s flop-sweat lies to Leavitt’s gleeful contempt, each of these figures proved that under Trump, the White House podium wasn’t a symbol of government transparency. It was a stage for submission, a megaphone for madness, and a place where truth went to die—draped in flags, buzzwords, and bad faith. And with that… we’ll leave it there. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The role of the press secretary, traditionally one of poise, policy, and accountability, became under Trump a mouthpiece of performance—one that demanded absolute loyalty, shameless spin, and, above all, showmanship

Trump press secretaries only toe his line, and the new one is not any different. A series of lies from term 1 and 2

After a week of relentless strikes and counter-strikes, the Iran–Israel conflict has escalated from covert proxy warfare to overt, devastating kinetic operations. Israel’s aggressive aerial campaign has directly targeted the heart of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—striking Natanz, Fordow, and military sites near Tehran—eliminating key nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders, crippling air defence assets, and establishing air superiority for future punitive operations.Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks (including hypersonic variants), targeting Israeli cities, military and intelligence installations, and economic infrastructure. These responses, while demonstrating Tehran’s resolve, have largely been intercepted by Israel’s layered air defence, bolstered by U.S. and allied support.The spectre of regional escalation, nuclear fallout, and possible American military intervention has cast a dark shadow over the Middle East. Global markets have been rattled, and the world watches closely—especially with Donald Trump stepping into the spotlight with threats of “unconditional surrender” from Iran (Dismissed by Khomeini) and ambitions to reassert U.S. strategic dominance.&nbsp;<h2>Netanyahu’s Gamble: “Think Big or Go Home”</h2>&nbsp;Israel’s Strategic Aim: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s overarching goal is to decisively degrade Iran’s nuclear and military capability, dismantle its command structures, re-establish deterrence, and reap domestic political dividends. His extended strategic intent, it seems, also includes pushing for regime change, evidenced by open threats to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-hiding-military-aircraft-american-warplanes-vanish-from-qatar-base-amid-israel-iran-tensions-1750384150003">US hiding military aircraft? American warplanes vanish from Qatar base amid Israel-Iran tensions</a>&nbsp;Israel’s Strategy: Israel’s campaign was meticulously choreographed in phases. The first targeted Iran’s proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah—through pre-emptive strikes, buffer-zone creation in Syria, and relentless cyber and covert attacks, concluding successfully by mid-2025.The second phase began with full-scale air, cyber, and intelligence operations on Iranian soil. Fighter aircraft, missiles, and drones executed precision standoff strikes, crippling Iranian airdefences and eliminating key figures within its military and nuclear programs. Natanz and Fordow were repeatedly targeted, with visible overground damage reported.However, the fortified underground cascade halls and deep bunkers at these sites remain intact. Without American assistance—specifically B-2 bombers and GBU-57 bunker-buster munitions—Netanyahu cannot achieve complete destruction. Thus, Trump’s entry into the fray becomes crucial.Netanyahu’s call for Iranian citizens to overthrow their regime may prove counterproductive. Regardless of political leanings, most Iranians view both Israel and the U.S. as staunch adversaries. Bombing campaigns often consolidate nationalism rather than foster dissent. Worse, a regime collapse might pave the way for even more hardline successors.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-israel-ukraine-girl-cancer-treatment-dies-in-iranian-attack-1750388799607">Seven-year-old girl who escaped war-torn Ukraine for cancer treatment in Israel dies in Iranian attack</a>&nbsp;<h2>Iran’s Riposte: Testing Resolve, Not Just Power</h2>&nbsp;Iran’s Strategic Objectives: Iran’s goals are straightforward: avenge Israeli aggression, uphold regime legitimacy and national honour, maintain nuclear and military posture, and demonstrate that it cannot be coerced into submission.Iran’s Strategy: Iran has adopted a multidimensional response: missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities, cyber operations, and limited proxy mobilisation. While some Israeli military and strategic targets were hit, Tehran suffered substantial infrastructure losses in return. Proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, still reeling from prior Israeli offensives, have yet to contribute meaningfully.Iran has refrained from actions that would force full-scale U.S. involvement—like closing the Strait of Hormuz or striking American bases—but continues to showcase its capacity for long-term conflict. It is also leveraging its missile capabilities, regional influence, and diplomatic ties with Russia, China, and segments of the Global South to shift the narrative in its favour and blame Israel and the U.S. for global instability, energy and economic crisis, as the world feels the ripple effects of surge in oil prices and financial uncertainty.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-launches-new-wave-of-missiles-on-israel-idf-1750396281757/embed&nbsp;While maintaining retaliatory capability, Iran must navigate a precarious balance—displaying enough strength to deter aggression, yet avoiding a regional war it cannot sustain. Internally, the regime grapples with worsening sanctions, economic strain, and simmering dissent. Should Iran's survival feel threatened, it may escalate uranium enrichment further underground.&nbsp;<h2>Can U.S. Intervention Tip the Balance?</h2>&nbsp;The U.S. is already deeply involved—providing intelligence, air defence, logistical support, and munitions. The critical question is whether Trump will authorise direct bunker-buster strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.Trump has redeployed U.S. military assets—carrier groups, refuelling tankers, and advanced munitions—to the region. But even these might not guarantee complete destruction of Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure. A full ground invasion—akin to Iraq or Afghanistan—would be politically toxic and strategically disastrous for the U.S.On social media, Trump’s rhetoric has intensified: calls for “unconditional surrender,” evacuation warnings for Tehran, and veiled threats to Iran’s Supreme Leader. This may bepsychological warfare—intended to force Iran into accepting a deal that dismantles its nuclear ambitions without actual war.However, Trump faces significant internal and external constraints. Domestically, his hawkish stance may please Republican hardliners and defence contractors, but it alienates the anti-war MAGA base. Bipartisan voices in Congress—Sanders, Kaine, Khanna—are already moving to restrict Trump’s war-making powers. Globally, even U.S. allies urge restraint, fearing Gulf destabilisation and oil market disruptions.Will Trump Pull the Trigger?<h2>This ambivalence defines the central question: will Trump authorise strikes?</h2>So far, he has stopped at the brink—supplying weapons, intelligence, and air defence—but not engaging in direct attacks. His hesitation stems from uncertainty about the effectiveness of bunker-busting munitions and concerns over the geopolitical and humanitarian costs of a full-blown war.Iran has not crossed red lines like attacking U.S. forces or closing Hormuz. This gives Trump the space to play the long game—maintain strategic pressure, demonstrate resolve, but avoid entrapment. A limited support role allows him to stay influential without being dragged into an unpopular war.&nbsp;<h2>Nuclear Fallout and Global Shockwaves</h2>&nbsp;Even without American strikes, sustained pressure could push Iran to double down on underground enrichment. Any successful attack on nuclear sites risks radiation leaks, regional humanitarian crises, and irreversible damage to non-proliferation frameworks like the JCPOA. It could also encourage copycat nuclear programs by other states in the region to or start a proliferation cascade.A U.S.-led strike might also provoke regional spill over: Hezbollah entering the fray, Gulf states being pulled in, and a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—which handles 20% of global oil. The shock to energy markets could fracture Western unity and allow China and Russia to dominate the narrative of Western militarism.Endgame or Escalation?Netanyahu appears to be enticing Trump into a legacy-defining military intervention, reminiscent of the Bush-era invasion of Iraq. Trump’s recent announcement that he will “allow two weeks of diplomacy” before deciding on military intervention may either be a countdown to escalation, or a ploy to pressure Iran diplomatically. It could also be a deception campaign to catch Tehran off guard.Trump may seek a hybrid strategy: strong deterrence, limited military action, psychological warfare, and diplomatic coercion. Whether this will lead to a “real end” or an even bloodier beginning remains uncertain.&nbsp;<h2>Conclusion: Trump’s Gamble in a War on Edge</h2>&nbsp;Donald Trump stands at a critical juncture. He has postured for war, drawn rhetorical red lines, and repositioned forces. But the choice to escalate remains fraught with risks. Netanyahu is growing impatient, and Israeli munitions are being depleted. Trump's decision—whatever it may be—will define not only the outcome of this war but also his legacy in American foreign policy.A measured role could stabilise the region; a strike could engulf it in flames. In this high-stakes theatre, Trump claims to pursue peace through strength—but may well be walking a tightrope between decisive diplomacy and catastrophic war.&nbsp;

The spectre of regional escalation, nuclear fallout, and possible American military intervention has cast a dark shadow over the Middle East. Global markets have been rattled, and the world watches closely.

After a week of relentless strikes and counter-strikes, the Iran–Israel conflict has escalated from covert proxy warfare to overt, devastating kinetic operations. Israel’s aggressive aerial campaign has directly targeted the heart of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—striking Natanz, Fordow, and military sites near Tehran—eliminating key nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders, crippling air defence assets, and establishing air superiority for future punitive operations. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks (including hypersonic variants), targeting Israeli cities, military and intelligence installations, and economic infrastructure. These responses, while demonstrating Tehran’s resolve, have largely been intercepted by Israel’s layered air defence, bolstered by U.S. and allied support. The spectre of regional escalation, nuclear fallout, and possible American military intervention has cast a dark shadow over the Middle East. Global markets have been rattled, and the world watches closely—especially with Donald Trump stepping into the spotlight with threats of “unconditional surrender” from Iran (Dismissed by Khomeini) and ambitions to reassert U.S. strategic dominance. Netanyahu’s Gamble: “Think Big or Go Home” Israel’s Strategic Aim: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s overarching goal is to decisively degrade Iran’s nuclear and military capability, dismantle its command structures, re-establish deterrence, and reap domestic political dividends. His extended strategic intent, it seems, also includes pushing for regime change, evidenced by open threats to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader. Also Read: US hiding military aircraft? American warplanes vanish from Qatar base amid Israel-Iran tensions Israel’s Strategy: Israel’s campaign was meticulously choreographed in phases. The first targeted Iran’s proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah—through pre-emptive strikes, buffer-zone creation in Syria, and relentless cyber and covert attacks, concluding successfully by mid-2025. The second phase began with full-scale air, cyber, and intelligence operations on Iranian soil. Fighter aircraft, missiles, and drones executed precision standoff strikes, crippling Iranian air defences and eliminating key figures within its military and nuclear programs. Natanz and Fordow were repeatedly targeted, with visible overground damage reported. However, the fortified underground cascade halls and deep bunkers at these sites remain intact. Without American assistance—specifically B-2 bombers and GBU-57 bunker-buster munitions—Netanyahu cannot achieve complete destruction. Thus, Trump’s entry into the fray becomes crucial. Netanyahu’s call for Iranian citizens to overthrow their regime may prove counterproductive. Regardless of political leanings, most Iranians view both Israel and the U.S. as staunch adversaries. Bombing campaigns often consolidate nationalism rather than foster dissent. Worse, a regime collapse might pave the way for even more hardline successors. Also Read: Seven-year-old girl who escaped war-torn Ukraine for cancer treatment in Israel dies in Iranian attack Iran’s Riposte: Testing Resolve, Not Just Power Iran’s Strategic Objectives: Iran’s goals are straightforward: avenge Israeli aggression, uphold regime legitimacy and national honour, maintain nuclear and military posture, and demonstrate that it cannot be coerced into submission. Iran’s Strategy: Iran has adopted a multidimensional response: missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities, cyber operations, and limited proxy mobilisation. While some Israeli military and strategic targets were hit, Tehran suffered substantial infrastructure losses in return. Proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, still reeling from prior Israeli offensives, have yet to contribute meaningfully. Iran has refrained from actions that would force full-scale U.S. involvement—like closing the Strait of Hormuz or striking American bases—but continues to showcase its capacity for long-term conflict. It is also leveraging its missile capabilities, regional influence, and diplomatic ties with Russia, China, and segments of the Global South to shift the narrative in its favour and blame Israel and the U.S. for global instability, energy and economic crisis, as the world feels the ripple effects of surge in oil prices and financial uncertainty. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-launches-new-wave-of-missiles-on-israel-idf-1750396281757/embed While maintaining retaliatory capability, Iran must navigate a precarious balance—displaying enough strength to deter aggression, yet avoiding a regional war it cannot sustain. Internally, the regime grapples with worsening sanctions, economic strain, and simmering dissent. Should Iran's survival feel threatened, it may escalate uranium enrichment further underground. Can U.S. Intervention Tip the Balance? The U.S. is already deeply involved—providing intelligence, air defence, logistical support, and munitions. The critical question is whether Trump will authorise direct bunker-buster strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Trump has redeployed U.S. military assets—carrier groups, refuelling tankers, and advanced munitions—to the region. But even these might not guarantee complete destruction of Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure. A full ground invasion—akin to Iraq or Afghanistan—would be politically toxic and strategically disastrous for the U.S. On social media, Trump’s rhetoric has intensified: calls for “unconditional surrender,” evacuation warnings for Tehran, and veiled threats to Iran’s Supreme Leader. This may be psychological warfare—intended to force Iran into accepting a deal that dismantles its nuclear ambitions without actual war. However, Trump faces significant internal and external constraints. Domestically, his hawkish stance may please Republican hardliners and defence contractors, but it alienates the anti-war MAGA base. Bipartisan voices in Congress—Sanders, Kaine, Khanna—are already moving to restrict Trump’s war-making powers. Globally, even U.S. allies urge restraint, fearing Gulf destabilisation and oil market disruptions. Will Trump Pull the Trigger? This ambivalence defines the central question: will Trump authorise strikes? So far, he has stopped at the brink—supplying weapons, intelligence, and air defence—but not engaging in direct attacks. His hesitation stems from uncertainty about the effectiveness of bunker-busting munitions and concerns over the geopolitical and humanitarian costs of a full-blown war. Iran has not crossed red lines like attacking U.S. forces or closing Hormuz. This gives Trump the space to play the long game—maintain strategic pressure, demonstrate resolve, but avoid entrapment. A limited support role allows him to stay influential without being dragged into an unpopular war. Nuclear Fallout and Global Shockwaves Even without American strikes, sustained pressure could push Iran to double down on underground enrichment. Any successful attack on nuclear sites risks radiation leaks, regional humanitarian crises, and irreversible damage to non-proliferation frameworks like the JCPOA. It could also encourage copycat nuclear programs by other states in the region to or start a proliferation cascade. A U.S.-led strike might also provoke regional spill over: Hezbollah entering the fray, Gulf states being pulled in, and a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—which handles 20% of global oil. The shock to energy markets could fracture Western unity and allow China and Russia to dominate the narrative of Western militarism. Endgame or Escalation? Netanyahu appears to be enticing Trump into a legacy-defining military intervention, reminiscent of the Bush-era invasion of Iraq. Trump’s recent announcement that he will “allow two weeks of diplomacy” before deciding on military intervention may either be a countdown to escalation, or a ploy to pressure Iran diplomatically. It could also be a deception campaign to catch Tehran off guard. Trump may seek a hybrid strategy: strong deterrence, limited military action, psychological warfare, and diplomatic coercion. Whether this will lead to a “real end” or an even bloodier beginning remains uncertain. Conclusion: Trump’s Gamble in a War on Edge Donald Trump stands at a critical juncture. He has postured for war, drawn rhetorical red lines, and repositioned forces. But the choice to escalate remains fraught with risks. Netanyahu is growing impatient, and Israeli munitions are being depleted. Trump's decision—whatever it may be—will define not only the outcome of this war but also his legacy in American foreign policy. A measured role could stabilise the region; a strike could engulf it in flames. In this high-stakes theatre, Trump claims to pursue peace through strength—but may well be walking a tightrope between decisive diplomacy and catastrophic war.

The spectre of regional escalation, nuclear fallout, and possible American military intervention has cast a dark shadow over the Middle East. Global markets have been rattled, and the world watches closely.

Trump, Netanyahu, and the Iran-Israel inferno: Can the strongman duo end the war—or ignite a bigger one?

As fighting between Israel and Iran completes its first week, US President Donald Trump continues to keep the world guessing about whether America will take military action against Tehran.The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had approved military plans to strike Iran, but had not yet given the final order. According to the paper, senior officials said the Fordow nuclear site, buried under a mountain, was among the potential targets, one that would require the most powerful weapons in the US arsenal.<h2>Trump hits back at reports</h2>Trump reacted angrily to the article without naming it directly, writing on Truth Social, “The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!”At a press conference earlier, he admitted he had not made a final decision: “I may do it. I may not do it.”Trump added that he does not want war, but left the door open if it means stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.“I’m not looking to fight. But if it’s a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do,” he added.Trump also said, “I have ideas as to what to do. I like to make a final decision one second before it’s due.”According to the Journal, Trump hopes his unpredictability will pressure Iran into dropping its nuclear programme. However, Iran has continued its retaliatory strikes after Israeli air raids began last Friday.<h2>Rising death toll in Iran and Israel</h2>The conflict began when Israel launched attacks on several Iranian sites, including military and nuclear facilities. Since then, the situation has spiralled.In Israel, at least 24 people have been killed and hundreds more injured by Iranian missile strikes. In Iran, local media report 585 dead and more than 1,300 wounded in Israeli attacks.Despite the worsening conflict, Trump’s stance remains unclear, not just to the public or US allies, but perhaps even to himself.<h2>A president like no other</h2>No modern US president has managed a potential war with such unpredictability. Iran’s leaders and Israel are all watching closely, but they still don’t know what Trump will do. And judging by his own words, neither&nbsp;does&nbsp;he.Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The conflict began when Israel launched attacks on several Iranian sites, including military and nuclear facilities. Since then, the situation has spiralled.

As fighting between Israel and Iran completes its first week, US President Donald Trump continues to keep the world guessing about whether America will take military action against Tehran. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had approved military plans to strike Iran, but had not yet given the final order. According to the paper, senior officials said the Fordow nuclear site, buried under a mountain, was among the potential targets, one that would require the most powerful weapons in the US arsenal. Trump hits back at reports Trump reacted angrily to the article without naming it directly, writing on Truth Social, “The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!” At a press conference earlier, he admitted he had not made a final decision: “I may do it. I may not do it.” Trump added that he does not want war, but left the door open if it means stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “I’m not looking to fight. But if it’s a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do,” he added. Trump also said, “I have ideas as to what to do. I like to make a final decision one second before it’s due.” According to the Journal, Trump hopes his unpredictability will pressure Iran into dropping its nuclear programme. However, Iran has continued its retaliatory strikes after Israeli air raids began last Friday. Rising death toll in Iran and Israel The conflict began when Israel launched attacks on several Iranian sites, including military and nuclear facilities. Since then, the situation has spiralled. In Israel, at least 24 people have been killed and hundreds more injured by Iranian missile strikes. In Iran, local media report 585 dead and more than 1,300 wounded in Israeli attacks. Despite the worsening conflict, Trump’s stance remains unclear, not just to the public or US allies, but perhaps even to himself. A president like no other No modern US president has managed a potential war with such unpredictability. Iran’s leaders and Israel are all watching closely, but they still don’t know what Trump will do. And judging by his own words, neither does he. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The conflict began when Israel launched attacks on several Iranian sites, including military and nuclear facilities. Since then, the situation has spiralled.

Israel-Iran war: World has 'no idea' what Trump's thoughts on Iran are, but does he?

In the early part of 2003, American Army rumbled over the Kuwait border into Iraq in the name of liberation. The pretext: weapons of mass destruction, regime change, and freedom for the Iraqi people. Within a matter of weeks, Baghdad had fallen. Saddam Hussein had been toppled; his regime destroyed.&nbsp;But as history would soon reveal, over-throwing a government was the simple part. What ensued was decades of sectarian strife, insurgencies, foreign interventions, and a region thrown into disarray. Now, with Israel bombarding Iranian military and nuclear facilities and the threat of American intervention hanging over it, the world is asking an all-too-familiar and foreboding question: Is America about to revive 2003 in Tehran?&nbsp;The Iran-Israel war that has broken out has spread much beyond covert attacks and proxy tensions. In what Israel called as ‘Operation Rising Lion’, its fighter jets have initiated prolonged air bombardment operations above Tehran, Natanz, Esfahan, and other military centres.&nbsp;Civilian neighbourhoods have been hit; communication and energy grids are crumbling. As of June 19, more than 500 have been killed and thousand injured, according to a human rights group. Iran’s response, swift and muscular, included launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli territory—most intercepted, some not. The region is on fire.&nbsp;Amidst this spiral, the voice of US President Donald Trump—now again a leading figure in American foreign policy—is unmistakably belligerent. He has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” declared that the Supreme Leader is “not hard to find,” and suggested that only full military intervention can bring this war to a decisive close. The language mirrors that of George W. Bush in 2003. The assumptions do too: that air superiority, regime decapitation, and a short, sharp campaign can reset the Middle East in America’s favour.&nbsp;But this is not Iraq. And that assumption may be the most dangerous one yet. The strategic thinking in 2003 was based on two key premises: that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that a swift removal of Saddam’s regime would lead to democratic transformation.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both premises collapsed under the weight of reality. Iran, on the other hand, does have an advanced nuclear program—although how close it is to building a weapon remains hotly debated. What’s beyond dispute is that its nuclear infrastructure is more advanced, more dispersed, and significantly better protected than Iraq’s ever was. Facilities like Fordow and Natanz are buried deep underground, hardened against aerial attacks. Even Israel’s cutting-edge F-35s and intelligence assets cannot reach them without either massive US bunker-busting weaponry or ground troops.&nbsp;Therein lies the Iraq parallel—and the trap. Just as Iraq’s regime change required boots on the ground to truly take control of the state apparatus, any serious attempt to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and military command structure would likely require a similar invasion. Airstrikes, however sophisticated, have their limits. And Tehran knows this.&nbsp;But there are deeper differences that make a repeat of 2003 far more perilous in 2025. Iran is a large, militarily capable state with regional networks—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to militias in Iraq and Syria—that can ignite multiple fronts. Its ability to retaliate is proven. Within hours of the first Israeli strikes, it launched one of the largest missile salvos in modern military history. Though most were intercepted, the message was clear: this is not a regime that will fall quietly.&nbsp;Even more critical is the geopolitical context. In 2003, the United States enjoyed broad—if ultimately misguided—international support. Today, the US is deeply divided at home and increasingly distrusted abroad. More importantly, it's not a unipolar world anymore. Russia and China—both Iran's friends—are vying for global power and actively shaping a multipolar order that resists American dominance. Any US action against Tehran will have to contend not just with Iran, but with a broader geopolitical axis that sees American interventionism as a common threat.&nbsp;These questions have no clear answers—and that’s exactly the problem. Iran, for all its internal repression and foreign policy aggressions, retains a resilient state structure. Removing its leadership without triggering national fragmentation would be almost impossible.&nbsp;Already, the Israeli bombings have stirred both fear and fury within Iran. Anti-government protests have erupted, yes—but so have nationalistic calls for unity. The regime is bloodied but not broken. And unlike Iraq, it has prepared for this scenario for decades.&nbsp;There are also the legal and humanitarian ramifications to consider. Several civilians have died in the Tehran region alone since Israeli strikes began. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and infrastructure is buckling. An American-led invasion would only magnify the toll—likely exponentially. The US would find itself at the center of international condemnation, with little to show but further destabilisation.&nbsp;And yet, despite all this, the temptation to act militarily remains strong in Washington’s more hawkish circles. They argue that deterrence has failed, that Iran’s leadership is emboldened, and that without a decisive blow, the region will descend into permanent conflict. They point to the limitations of sanctions, the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear deal, and the erosion of American credibility. To them, war is not the worst option—it is the only option left.&nbsp;But this is a false binary. Between all-out invasion and passive diplomacy lies a spectrum of action. The United States could intensify its containment strategy—reinforce missile defense across the Gulf, expand cyber operations to disrupt Iranian command-and-control networks, empower internal dissent, and prepare for limited retaliatory strikes without committing to regime change.&nbsp;The lessons of 2003 are not just historical footnotes. They are warnings. They tell us that removing a regime without understanding the society underneath is folly. That military victory without political vision is ruinous. And that America’s power, though vast, cannot impose stability on nations from 30,000 feet in the sky. As Israeli jets continue to strike and Tehran vows vengeance, the drums of intervention beat louder. But the echoes from Baghdad still ring. The world would do well to listen.

The Iraq invasion playbook returns: But can it work against Iran?

In the early part of 2003, American Army rumbled over the Kuwait border into Iraq in the name of liberation. The pretext: weapons of mass destruction, regime change, and freedom for the Iraqi people. Within a matter of weeks, Baghdad had fallen. Saddam Hussein had been toppled; his regime destroyed. But as history would soon reveal, over-throwing a government was the simple part. What ensued was decades of sectarian strife, insurgencies, foreign interventions, and a region thrown into disarray. Now, with Israel bombarding Iranian military and nuclear facilities and the threat of American intervention hanging over it, the world is asking an all-too-familiar and foreboding question: Is America about to revive 2003 in Tehran? The Iran-Israel war that has broken out has spread much beyond covert attacks and proxy tensions. In what Israel called as ‘Operation Rising Lion’, its fighter jets have initiated prolonged air bombardment operations above Tehran, Natanz, Esfahan, and other military centres. Civilian neighbourhoods have been hit; communication and energy grids are crumbling. As of June 19, more than 500 have been killed and thousand injured, according to a human rights group. Iran’s response, swift and muscular, included launching hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli territory—most intercepted, some not. The region is on fire. Amidst this spiral, the voice of US President Donald Trump—now again a leading figure in American foreign policy—is unmistakably belligerent. He has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” declared that the Supreme Leader is “not hard to find,” and suggested that only full military intervention can bring this war to a decisive close. The language mirrors that of George W. Bush in 2003. The assumptions do too: that air superiority, regime decapitation, and a short, sharp campaign can reset the Middle East in America’s favour. But this is not Iraq. And that assumption may be the most dangerous one yet. The strategic thinking in 2003 was based on two key premises: that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that a swift removal of Saddam’s regime would lead to democratic transformation. Both premises collapsed under the weight of reality. Iran, on the other hand, does have an advanced nuclear program—although how close it is to building a weapon remains hotly debated. What’s beyond dispute is that its nuclear infrastructure is more advanced, more dispersed, and significantly better protected than Iraq’s ever was. Facilities like Fordow and Natanz are buried deep underground, hardened against aerial attacks. Even Israel’s cutting-edge F-35s and intelligence assets cannot reach them without either massive US bunker-busting weaponry or ground troops. Therein lies the Iraq parallel—and the trap. Just as Iraq’s regime change required boots on the ground to truly take control of the state apparatus, any serious attempt to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and military command structure would likely require a similar invasion. Airstrikes, however sophisticated, have their limits. And Tehran knows this. But there are deeper differences that make a repeat of 2003 far more perilous in 2025. Iran is a large, militarily capable state with regional networks—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to militias in Iraq and Syria—that can ignite multiple fronts. Its ability to retaliate is proven. Within hours of the first Israeli strikes, it launched one of the largest missile salvos in modern military history. Though most were intercepted, the message was clear: this is not a regime that will fall quietly. Even more critical is the geopolitical context. In 2003, the United States enjoyed broad—if ultimately misguided—international support. Today, the US is deeply divided at home and increasingly distrusted abroad. More importantly, it's not a unipolar world anymore. Russia and China—both Iran's friends—are vying for global power and actively shaping a multipolar order that resists American dominance. Any US action against Tehran will have to contend not just with Iran, but with a broader geopolitical axis that sees American interventionism as a common threat. These questions have no clear answers—and that’s exactly the problem. Iran, for all its internal repression and foreign policy aggressions, retains a resilient state structure. Removing its leadership without triggering national fragmentation would be almost impossible. Already, the Israeli bombings have stirred both fear and fury within Iran. Anti-government protests have erupted, yes—but so have nationalistic calls for unity. The regime is bloodied but not broken. And unlike Iraq, it has prepared for this scenario for decades. There are also the legal and humanitarian ramifications to consider. Several civilians have died in the Tehran region alone since Israeli strikes began. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and infrastructure is buckling. An American-led invasion would only magnify the toll—likely exponentially. The US would find itself at the center of international condemnation, with little to show but further destabilisation. And yet, despite all this, the temptation to act militarily remains strong in Washington’s more hawkish circles. They argue that deterrence has failed, that Iran’s leadership is emboldened, and that without a decisive blow, the region will descend into permanent conflict. They point to the limitations of sanctions, the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear deal, and the erosion of American credibility. To them, war is not the worst option—it is the only option left. But this is a false binary. Between all-out invasion and passive diplomacy lies a spectrum of action. The United States could intensify its containment strategy—reinforce missile defense across the Gulf, expand cyber operations to disrupt Iranian command-and-control networks, empower internal dissent, and prepare for limited retaliatory strikes without committing to regime change. The lessons of 2003 are not just historical footnotes. They are warnings. They tell us that removing a regime without understanding the society underneath is folly. That military victory without political vision is ruinous. And that America’s power, though vast, cannot impose stability on nations from 30,000 feet in the sky. As Israeli jets continue to strike and Tehran vows vengeance, the drums of intervention beat louder. But the echoes from Baghdad still ring. The world would do well to listen.

The Iran-Israel war that has broken out has spread much beyond covert attacks and proxy tensions

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s military establishment clung to a carefully curated narrative of deterrence success. From naval press briefings to televised strategic maps, the story painted was one of maritime vigilance, submarine tracking, and strategic restraint that supposedly “deterred” India’s aggression. But behind this narrative lies a bleak and inconvenient truth: Pakistan’s maritime posture is a theatrical display sustained by external bailouts and internal decay.&nbsp;The economic realities are devastating. Pakistan's currency has depreciated by over 35% in the last year. Inflation remains out of control, foreign exchange reserves are critically low, and industrial production has stagnated. Widespread energy shortages disrupt not only civilian life but also critical military operations. Amid this disarray, Pakistan continues expensive naval deployments primarily for optics, backed by concessional loans and foreign assistance, largely from China.&nbsp;In contrast, India’s defence spending is underwritten by sustained economic growth and indigenous capability. The Indian Navy’s modernisation is built on sovereign resources. India’s blue-water capability is credible because it is structurally sound. Pakistan’s, by contrast, is a strategic theatre grand on paper, fragile in reality.&nbsp;Precision Over Provocation&nbsp;Operation Sindoor marked a new chapter in India’s strategic doctrine. It was not a knee-jerk reaction but a calibrated, multi-domain response that blended precision with restraint. The Indian Navy was forward-deployed and combat-ready throughout the episode. As Vice Admiral A.N. Pramod confirmed, India had the full capacity to strike land and sea targets, including Karachi, but deliberately chose restraint.&nbsp;This signalled a significant evolution from earlier kinetic responses like Balakot or the surgical strikes post-Uri. Op Sindoor employed symbolic targeting, airpower superiority, and real-time intelligence to neutralise threats without breaching thresholds of escalation. Rafale jets, SCALP cruise missiles, and S-400 air defence systems were showcased not to provoke, but to affirm capability. Pakistan’s response, labelled “Operation Bunyan Marsoos” attempted aerial interception but failed to cause material damage. It merely reinforced the asymmetry in capability and intent.&nbsp;Mirage of Maritime Might and Dependency on Doles&nbsp;Pakistan’s naval narrative depends heavily on imagery of submarine acquisitions, fleet parades, and participation in multinational exercises like AMAN. But beneath the surface lies a fleet overwhelmingly dependent on Chinese hardware, concessional financing, and limited domestic integration. Modern platforms like the Type 054A frigates or the Hangor-class submarines offer symbolic parity but little operational autonomy. Maintenance challenges, interoperability issues, and a lack of doctrinal clarity hamper effectiveness. There is little meaningful technology transfer or domestic shipbuilding capability.&nbsp;India, in contrast, has invested in indigenous platforms (Scorpene, Kamorta, Vikrant), strategic interoperability through Quad and Indian Ocean Rim collaborations, and blue-water deployment reach. Humanitarian operations such as Samudra Setu and SAGAR further enhance its credibility as a maritime security provider.Strategic Hypocrisy of the Global Order&nbsp;Pakistan’s ability to project power beyond its means is not self-derived; it is underwritten by decades of indulgence from Western powers. From Cold War alignments to post-9/11 security arrangements, Islamabad has consistently positioned itself as a ‘strategic pivot.’ Even today, institutions like the IMF and World Bank continue to release tranches of financial support despite little accountability in public expenditure, especially on defence. The contradiction is striking: a state that diverts funds from healthcare and education to buy frigates continues to get lenient global treatment.&nbsp;India, by contrast, despite being a functioning democracy and growing economy, often faces tighter global scrutiny for legitimate defence actions. This double standard reflects a deeper problem, one of selective morality in international politics.&nbsp;Deconstructing the Parity Illusion&nbsp;Operation Sindoor decisively shattered the myth of parity. Pakistan’s narrative relied on ambiguous submarine tracks, vague maps, and televised press statements. India relied on operational readiness, global diplomatic outreach, and silent deterrence.&nbsp;The Indian Navy did not need to cross thresholds to establish dominance. The mere posture of forward deployment, paired with calibrated air and land operations, was sufficient to assert deterrence. The world noticed. Thirteen UNSC members were briefed ahead of time. Key global partners supported India's right to self-defence. Pakistan’s counter-narratives, in contrast, found little traction.&nbsp;The symbolic naming of the operation “Sindoor” evoked a deeply Indian sentiment of justice and loss, especially for women. It was a subtle reminder that India’s military&nbsp;actions were not just strategic but moral. However, this framing also highlights the intersection between strategic necessity and emotional narratives in South Asia’s contested landscape.&nbsp;Strategic Integrity vs Symbolic Projection&nbsp;The fundamental difference in maritime posture is this: India’s Navy projects strength with responsibility. Pakistan’s Navy projects imagery with fragility.&nbsp;India’s doctrine centres on securing sea lanes, humanitarian outreach, and cooperative regional presence. Pakistan’s naval imagination remains confined to achieving symbolic parity with India, even as its economy buckles and infrastructure collapses. India has showcased how restraint, deterrence, and readiness can coexist. Pakistan continues to rely on grandstanding, maps, and borrowed ships. The contrast is not just strategic, it is civilizational.&nbsp;The world must recognise this dichotomy. Strategic illusions from failing states must no longer be indulged. Accountability, not appeasement, is the true currency of international credibility.&nbsp;A Call for Strategic Realism&nbsp;Operation Sindoor was more than a military episode; it was a doctrinal message. India does not seek escalation, but it will not hesitate to act with precision and credibility. Op Sindoor exposed the fragility of Pakistan’s force projection and the limits of its maritime bluff. It also reaffirmed India’s ability to defend its sovereignty without theatrics. India leads with capability. Pakistan responds with choreography.&nbsp;The global order must take note. Strategic illusions are unsustainable. As India continues to grow into a responsible regional and global power, it will act with clarity, composure, and calibrated resolve. The time has come to see Pakistan’s grand naval posturing for what it is: a hollow projection sustained by borrowed power and fading legitimacy. &nbsp;

Shattered illusions: Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan expensive force projection amidst a crumbling economy

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s military establishment clung to a carefully curated narrative of deterrence success. From naval press briefings to televised strategic maps, the story painted was one of maritime vigilance, submarine tracking, and strategic restraint that supposedly “deterred” India’s aggression. But behind this narrative lies a bleak and inconvenient truth: Pakistan’s maritime posture is a theatrical display sustained by external bailouts and internal decay. The economic realities are devastating. Pakistan's currency has depreciated by over 35% in the last year. Inflation remains out of control, foreign exchange reserves are critically low, and industrial production has stagnated. Widespread energy shortages disrupt not only civilian life but also critical military operations. Amid this disarray, Pakistan continues expensive naval deployments primarily for optics, backed by concessional loans and foreign assistance, largely from China. In contrast, India’s defence spending is underwritten by sustained economic growth and indigenous capability. The Indian Navy’s modernisation is built on sovereign resources. India’s blue-water capability is credible because it is structurally sound. Pakistan’s, by contrast, is a strategic theatre grand on paper, fragile in reality. Precision Over Provocation Operation Sindoor marked a new chapter in India’s strategic doctrine. It was not a knee-jerk reaction but a calibrated, multi-domain response that blended precision with restraint. The Indian Navy was forward-deployed and combat-ready throughout the episode. As Vice Admiral A.N. Pramod confirmed, India had the full capacity to strike land and sea targets, including Karachi, but deliberately chose restraint. This signalled a significant evolution from earlier kinetic responses like Balakot or the surgical strikes post-Uri. Op Sindoor employed symbolic targeting, airpower superiority, and real-time intelligence to neutralise threats without breaching thresholds of escalation. Rafale jets, SCALP cruise missiles, and S-400 air defence systems were showcased not to provoke, but to affirm capability. Pakistan’s response, labelled “Operation Bunyan Marsoos” attempted aerial interception but failed to cause material damage. It merely reinforced the asymmetry in capability and intent. Mirage of Maritime Might and Dependency on Doles Pakistan’s naval narrative depends heavily on imagery of submarine acquisitions, fleet parades, and participation in multinational exercises like AMAN. But beneath the surface lies a fleet overwhelmingly dependent on Chinese hardware, concessional financing, and limited domestic integration. Modern platforms like the Type 054A frigates or the Hangor-class submarines offer symbolic parity but little operational autonomy. Maintenance challenges, interoperability issues, and a lack of doctrinal clarity hamper effectiveness. There is little meaningful technology transfer or domestic shipbuilding capability. India, in contrast, has invested in indigenous platforms (Scorpene, Kamorta, Vikrant), strategic interoperability through Quad and Indian Ocean Rim collaborations, and blue-water deployment reach. Humanitarian operations such as Samudra Setu and SAGAR further enhance its credibility as a maritime security provider. Strategic Hypocrisy of the Global Order Pakistan’s ability to project power beyond its means is not self-derived; it is underwritten by decades of indulgence from Western powers. From Cold War alignments to post-9/11 security arrangements, Islamabad has consistently positioned itself as a ‘strategic pivot.’ Even today, institutions like the IMF and World Bank continue to release tranches of financial support despite little accountability in public expenditure, especially on defence. The contradiction is striking: a state that diverts funds from healthcare and education to buy frigates continues to get lenient global treatment. India, by contrast, despite being a functioning democracy and growing economy, often faces tighter global scrutiny for legitimate defence actions. This double standard reflects a deeper problem, one of selective morality in international politics. Deconstructing the Parity Illusion Operation Sindoor decisively shattered the myth of parity. Pakistan’s narrative relied on ambiguous submarine tracks, vague maps, and televised press statements. India relied on operational readiness, global diplomatic outreach, and silent deterrence. The Indian Navy did not need to cross thresholds to establish dominance. The mere posture of forward deployment, paired with calibrated air and land operations, was sufficient to assert deterrence. The world noticed. Thirteen UNSC members were briefed ahead of time. Key global partners supported India's right to self-defence. Pakistan’s counter-narratives, in contrast, found little traction. The symbolic naming of the operation “Sindoor” evoked a deeply Indian sentiment of justice and loss, especially for women. It was a subtle reminder that India’s military actions were not just strategic but moral. However, this framing also highlights the intersection between strategic necessity and emotional narratives in South Asia’s contested landscape. Strategic Integrity vs Symbolic Projection The fundamental difference in maritime posture is this: India’s Navy projects strength with responsibility. Pakistan’s Navy projects imagery with fragility. India’s doctrine centres on securing sea lanes, humanitarian outreach, and cooperative regional presence. Pakistan’s naval imagination remains confined to achieving symbolic parity with India, even as its economy buckles and infrastructure collapses. India has showcased how restraint, deterrence, and readiness can coexist. Pakistan continues to rely on grandstanding, maps, and borrowed ships. The contrast is not just strategic, it is civilizational. The world must recognise this dichotomy. Strategic illusions from failing states must no longer be indulged. Accountability, not appeasement, is the true currency of international credibility. A Call for Strategic Realism Operation Sindoor was more than a military episode; it was a doctrinal message. India does not seek escalation, but it will not hesitate to act with precision and credibility. Op Sindoor exposed the fragility of Pakistan’s force projection and the limits of its maritime bluff. It also reaffirmed India’s ability to defend its sovereignty without theatrics. India leads with capability. Pakistan responds with choreography. The global order must take note. Strategic illusions are unsustainable. As India continues to grow into a responsible regional and global power, it will act with clarity, composure, and calibrated resolve. The time has come to see Pakistan’s grand naval posturing for what it is: a hollow projection sustained by borrowed power and fading legitimacy.

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s military establishment clung to a carefully curated narrative of deterrence success.&nbsp;

Shattered illusions: Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan's expensive force projection amidst a crumbling economy

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is attending the G7 summit in Canada. The invitation for the huddle of the world's richest nations is strategically and symbolically important for India. Coming as it does amid conflicts in West Asia and Europe, it is also an opportunity for India to highlight the challenges of security, climate change and disruption of supply chains while foregrounding its advantages on manufacturing, trade, stability and security particularly in the conext of China.<h2> A bulwark of stabilty for the Indo-Pacific region</h2>Amid G7 members' concerns over Chinese territorial and trade ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, India can play a crucial role in providing regional security and stability in the region, in alignment with the G7 interests. India has the advantages of strategic location, maritime capabilities and trade and infrastructure inititiaves such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor or IMEC make it vital for trade and stability.<h2>Bolstering trade relations with the G7 nations</h2> India has growing trade relationships with all G7 countries : the US, &nbsp;UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. This enhance its economic influence, with major trade deals underway, boosting bilateral relationships and offering alternatives to China.<h2>India can raise concerns of the Global South &nbsp;</h2>India is arguably the only representative of the Global South at the G7, and can use the platform to raise its concerns, particularly in the context of energy security and climate action.&nbsp;The G7 and India can be partners on equitable climate finance and foster green technology transfer, which are requirements of the Global South, particularly Africa.&nbsp;<h2>India can be the alternative to China on supply chains and manufacturing</h2> G7 nations are slowly realising the perils of over-reliance on China for supply chains and manufacturing, particularly on critical issues like rare earths and clean energy components.&nbsp;&nbsp;India can be a trustworthy alternative for secure supply chains and manufacturing.&nbsp;It has stability ensured by democracy, and can act as bridge between the G7 advanced economies and emerging markets. &nbsp;<h2>Africa outreach as counter to China &nbsp;</h2>India has been engaged in Africa outreach, partially as a counterweight to China's presence in the continent through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative or BRI. India's outreach also aligns with G7's Africa focus. &nbsp;<h2>India is an advocate of equitable trade and climate finance &nbsp;</h2>At various international fora, India has raised its voice for equitable trade and climate finance for vulnerable regions, particularly in Asia and Africa. At the G7, India can achieve these goals by positioning itself as a manufacturing hub amid US-China trade tensions. G7 nations can look at India as part of their diversification strategy, given India's workforce, digital growth, logistics, and trade pacts with several of its members. The proof of concept is already there, given investments in India by major global firms.&nbsp;<h2>India can be a beacon of clean energy growth &nbsp;</h2>India can find new avenues of cooperation with G7 in clean energy growth, particularly in areas like electric vehicles, green hydrogen, and Artificial Intelligence.&nbsp;&nbsp;When it comes to climate action, India is targeting net-zero by 2070. It also has a solar capacity potential estimated at 10,830 GW, and can be an important player in clean energy future, and potential partner of G7. India has called for fair and substantial climate financial funding in tune with the needs of developing nations, and supports reforms in global financial systems, something that it can advocate at the G7. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Coming as it does amid conflicts in West Asia and Europe, the G7 summit is also an opportunity for India to highlight the challenges of security, climate change and disruption of supply chains while foregrounding its advantages.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is attending the G7 summit in Canada. The invitation for the huddle of the world's richest nations is strategically and symbolically important for India. Coming as it does amid conflicts in West Asia and Europe, it is also an opportunity for India to highlight the challenges of security, climate change and disruption of supply chains while foregrounding its advantages on manufacturing, trade, stability and security particularly in the conext of China. A bulwark of stabilty for the Indo-Pacific region Amid G7 members' concerns over Chinese territorial and trade ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, India can play a crucial role in providing regional security and stability in the region, in alignment with the G7 interests. India has the advantages of strategic location, maritime capabilities and trade and infrastructure inititiaves such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor or IMEC make it vital for trade and stability. Bolstering trade relations with the G7 nations India has growing trade relationships with all G7 countries : the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. This enhance its economic influence, with major trade deals underway, boosting bilateral relationships and offering alternatives to China. India can raise concerns of the Global South India is arguably the only representative of the Global South at the G7, and can use the platform to raise its concerns, particularly in the context of energy security and climate action. The G7 and India can be partners on equitable climate finance and foster green technology transfer, which are requirements of the Global South, particularly Africa. India can be the alternative to China on supply chains and manufacturing G7 nations are slowly realising the perils of over-reliance on China for supply chains and manufacturing, particularly on critical issues like rare earths and clean energy components. India can be a trustworthy alternative for secure supply chains and manufacturing. It has stability ensured by democracy, and can act as bridge between the G7 advanced economies and emerging markets. Africa outreach as counter to China India has been engaged in Africa outreach, partially as a counterweight to China's presence in the continent through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative or BRI. India's outreach also aligns with G7's Africa focus. India is an advocate of equitable trade and climate finance At various international fora, India has raised its voice for equitable trade and climate finance for vulnerable regions, particularly in Asia and Africa. At the G7, India can achieve these goals by positioning itself as a manufacturing hub amid US-China trade tensions. G7 nations can look at India as part of their diversification strategy, given India's workforce, digital growth, logistics, and trade pacts with several of its members. The proof of concept is already there, given investments in India by major global firms. India can be a beacon of clean energy growth India can find new avenues of cooperation with G7 in clean energy growth, particularly in areas like electric vehicles, green hydrogen, and Artificial Intelligence. When it comes to climate action, India is targeting net-zero by 2070. It also has a solar capacity potential estimated at 10,830 GW, and can be an important player in clean energy future, and potential partner of G7. India has called for fair and substantial climate financial funding in tune with the needs of developing nations, and supports reforms in global financial systems, something that it can advocate at the G7.

Coming as it does amid conflicts in West Asia and Europe, the G7 summit is also an opportunity for India to highlight the challenges of security, climate change and disruption of supply chains while foregrounding its advantages.

PM Modi at G7: India has advantages on security, stability, trade, climate action and Global South. Can a membership be next?

June 10, 2025, was supposed to be historic for India. Our astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla was set to blast off to space aboard the Axiom-4 mission, continuing the proud legacy of Rakesh Sharma and Kalpana Chawla. But then came the announcement that no space fan wants to hear: "Launch delayed due to weather."&nbsp;Just 24 hours. That's all we have to wait. But in the world of space exploration, even Mother Nature gets the final say.&nbsp;India's Big Space Moment&nbsp;The Axiom-4 (Ax-4) mission isn't just another trip to space—it's a statement. This private crewed mission to the International Space Station, run by Axiom Space, NASA, and SpaceX, will carry four astronauts for a two-week stay. Among them is our very own Shubhanshu Shukla, an Indian Air Force pilot who's about to make history.For India, this is huge. After decades of watching other nations send their people to space regularly, we're finally getting our moment in the spotlight. Shukla will conduct critical experiments, test new technologies, and show the world that India belongs among the space superpowers.&nbsp;The mission was originally set to launch on June 10 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. But nature had other plans.&nbsp;Why Weather Isn't Just Rain and Wind in Space&nbsp;"Unfavorable weather conditions"—that's the official reason for pushing the launch to June 11 at 5:30 PM IST. Sounds simple, right? But when you're shooting a rocket carrying human lives into space, weather becomes deadly serious.&nbsp;This isn't like postponing a cricket match because of drizzle. In space launches, weather can mean the difference between success and disaster. Here's why the delay was absolutely necessary:&nbsp;Rain Threatens Everything: NASA's weather team reported a 45% chance of rain at Kennedy Space Center. Rain doesn't just make things wet—it reduces visibility for ground crews, can damage sensitive rocket equipment, and throws off the precisely timed launch sequence. When you're dealing with rocket fuel and electronics worth billions, you don't take chances with water.&nbsp;Winds Can Kill: Strong winds along the Falcon 9's flight path aren't just uncomfortable—they're dangerous. Even small gusts can push the rocket off course as it climbs through the atmosphere. Imagine trying to thread a needle while someone's shaking your hand. That's what launching in windy conditions feels like.&nbsp;Lightning Strikes Fear: Thunderstorms bring lightning, and lightning can fry a rocket's electronics in seconds. One strike could turn this historic mission into a catastrophe before it even begins. The safety systems would shut everything down, but the damage could be permanent.&nbsp;Structural Stress: High-altitude winds put enormous stress on the rocket's body. These machines are built tough, but they have limits. Push beyond those limits, and you risk mechanical failure when you're already miles above Earth with no way back down safely.&nbsp;Why Patience Pays Off&nbsp;Some might see this delay as disappointing. We waited so long for this moment—what's one more day? But that's exactly the right attitude to have.&nbsp;Space exploration demands perfection. Every bolt, every wire, every second is planned down to the smallest detail. But the weather? That's the one thing no amount of planning can control. And when you're carrying precious cargo like Shubhanshu Shukla and his fellow astronauts, you don't gamble with their lives.&nbsp;This delay shows something important: responsibility over rush. The teams behind Ax-4 could have pushed ahead, hoping for the best. Instead, they chose the harder path—waiting for conditions that give the mission its best shot at success.&nbsp;What's at Stake&nbsp;This mission means everything for India's space ambitions. Shukla will spend two weeks on the ISS conducting experiments that could benefit all of humanity. From studying how the human body adapts to zero gravity to testing new technologies that might help future Mars missions, his work will have lasting impact.&nbsp;Every experiment he performs, every photo he takes, every moment he floats in that space station will inspire millions of young Indians to look up at the stars and think: "That could be me someday."&nbsp;The Bigger Picture&nbsp;As we wait for June 11, let's remember what this delay really represents. Space exploration has always been about pushing boundaries, but it's also about knowing when to step back and wait for the right moment.&nbsp;Weather delays aren't failures—they're wisdom in action. They show that even in our age of incredible technology, we still respect the forces of nature. They prove that human life is more valuable than schedules or PR moments.When that Falcon 9 finally roars to life tomorrow evening, carrying Shukla and India's dreams toward the stars, it will do so under clear skies and calm winds. And that's exactly how it should be.&nbsp;Because some dreams are worth waiting for. Some moments are too important to rush. And sometimes, the most powerful thing you can do is pause, look at the clouds, and say: "We'll try again tomorrow."&nbsp;India's time in space is coming. Twenty-four hours won't change that—it'll just make it safer.

Shubhanshu Shukla historic Axiom-4 flight: Weather writes the final chapter 


June 10, 2025, was supposed to be historic for India. Our astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla was set to blast off to space aboard the Axiom-4 mission, continuing the proud legacy of Rakesh Sharma and Kalpana Chawla. But then came the announcement that no space fan wants to hear: "Launch delayed due to weather." Just 24 hours. That's all we have to wait. But in the world of space exploration, even Mother Nature gets the final say. India's Big Space Moment The Axiom-4 (Ax-4) mission isn't just another trip to space—it's a statement. This private crewed mission to the International Space Station, run by Axiom Space, NASA, and SpaceX, will carry four astronauts for a two-week stay. Among them is our very own Shubhanshu Shukla, an Indian Air Force pilot who's about to make history. For India, this is huge. After decades of watching other nations send their people to space regularly, we're finally getting our moment in the spotlight. Shukla will conduct critical experiments, test new technologies, and show the world that India belongs among the space superpowers. The mission was originally set to launch on June 10 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. But nature had other plans. Why Weather Isn't Just Rain and Wind in Space "Unfavorable weather conditions"—that's the official reason for pushing the launch to June 11 at 5:30 PM IST. Sounds simple, right? But when you're shooting a rocket carrying human lives into space, weather becomes deadly serious. This isn't like postponing a cricket match because of drizzle. In space launches, weather can mean the difference between success and disaster. Here's why the delay was absolutely necessary: Rain Threatens Everything: NASA's weather team reported a 45% chance of rain at Kennedy Space Center. Rain doesn't just make things wet—it reduces visibility for ground crews, can damage sensitive rocket equipment, and throws off the precisely timed launch sequence. When you're dealing with rocket fuel and electronics worth billions, you don't take chances with water. Winds Can Kill: Strong winds along the Falcon 9's flight path aren't just uncomfortable—they're dangerous. Even small gusts can push the rocket off course as it climbs through the atmosphere. Imagine trying to thread a needle while someone's shaking your hand. That's what launching in windy conditions feels like. Lightning Strikes Fear: Thunderstorms bring lightning, and lightning can fry a rocket's electronics in seconds. One strike could turn this historic mission into a catastrophe before it even begins. The safety systems would shut everything down, but the damage could be permanent. Structural Stress: High-altitude winds put enormous stress on the rocket's body. These machines are built tough, but they have limits. Push beyond those limits, and you risk mechanical failure when you're already miles above Earth with no way back down safely. Why Patience Pays Off Some might see this delay as disappointing. We waited so long for this moment—what's one more day? But that's exactly the right attitude to have. Space exploration demands perfection. Every bolt, every wire, every second is planned down to the smallest detail. But the weather? That's the one thing no amount of planning can control. And when you're carrying precious cargo like Shubhanshu Shukla and his fellow astronauts, you don't gamble with their lives. This delay shows something important: responsibility over rush. The teams behind Ax-4 could have pushed ahead, hoping for the best. Instead, they chose the harder path—waiting for conditions that give the mission its best shot at success. What's at Stake This mission means everything for India's space ambitions. Shukla will spend two weeks on the ISS conducting experiments that could benefit all of humanity. From studying how the human body adapts to zero gravity to testing new technologies that might help future Mars missions, his work will have lasting impact. Every experiment he performs, every photo he takes, every moment he floats in that space station will inspire millions of young Indians to look up at the stars and think: "That could be me someday." The Bigger Picture As we wait for June 11, let's remember what this delay really represents. Space exploration has always been about pushing boundaries, but it's also about knowing when to step back and wait for the right moment. Weather delays aren't failures—they're wisdom in action. They show that even in our age of incredible technology, we still respect the forces of nature. They prove that human life is more valuable than schedules or PR moments. When that Falcon 9 finally roars to life tomorrow evening, carrying Shukla and India's dreams toward the stars, it will do so under clear skies and calm winds. And that's exactly how it should be. Because some dreams are worth waiting for. Some moments are too important to rush. And sometimes, the most powerful thing you can do is pause, look at the clouds, and say: "We'll try again tomorrow." India's time in space is coming. Twenty-four hours won't change that—it'll just make it safer.

June 10, 2025, was supposed to be historic for India. Our astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla was set to blast off to space aboard the Axiom-4 mission, continuing the proud legacy of Rakesh Sharma and Kalpana Chawla.&nbsp;

Shubhanshu Shukla's historic Axiom-4 flight: Weather writes the final chapter

While writing cheques for a high-value payment, it is important for you to know certain things to avoid misuse. To prevent cheque-related frauds, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has placed systems – ‘Positive Pay’. It protects the issuer and the receiver. If you are issuing a cheque above ₹5 lakh, there are rules to follow.&nbsp;These rules vary slightly by bank, but they all follow the RBI’s guidelines. The idea is to add an extra layer of confirmation before the money leaves your account. You must share details about the cheque before the receiver presents it for clearing. Ignoring this can lead to the cheque being rejected in certain cases. Let’s understand how it works and what you should do!<h3>What is positive pay and how it work?</h3>The Positive Pay System (PPS) was introduced by the RBI in 2021. It aims to reduce cheque fraud. It asks the person writing the cheque (the issuer) to confirm its key details with the bank. This is done before the cheque is cleared. &nbsp;You must provide information such as the cheque number, issue date, amount and payee name to your bank before the clearance of the cheque. These details are usually sent through your bank’s mobile app, online banking, ATM, or by visiting a branch. Once submitted, these details are cross-checked when the cheque is presented for payment. If there is a mismatch between what you reported and what is on the cheque, the bank will flag it. This protects both the payer and the receiver. It also helps banks detect any unauthorised changes or tampering. This process is mandatory for cheques above Rs 5 lakh. Some banks may allow you to use PPS for lower amounts, but it is not required by the RBI.<h3>What cheque issuers should keep in mind</h3>If you are about to issue a high-value cheque, act carefully. First, make sure all details on the cheque are accurate. Write clearly. Avoid overwriting. Use permanent ink. Sign in the correct space. Then, submit the cheque details through your bank’s Positive Pay facility. Make sure the details match exactly. Even small errors can cause problems, as mismatches can lead to rejection. You must send the information as soon as you issue the cheque. Some banks ask for a time gap between submission and presentation. Check your bank’s rules. If you miss this step, the cheque may bounce even if your account has enough funds.<h3>What happens after submission?</h3>Once you send the cheque details to the bank, the system stores them. When the payee submits the cheque for clearing, the bank compares the information. If everything matches, the cheque goes through. If there is a mismatch, the bank flags it. It may ask the issuer to confirm or reject the payment.&nbsp;&nbsp;This step helps prevent fraud or errors. The clearing process takes a little longer in such cases, but it adds safety. Some banks also send alerts to the issuer when a cheque is presented. This gives you a chance to stop a transaction if it looks suspicious. It is worth checking your bank’s website or mobile app for how to use Positive Pay. They often have a separate option in their services menu. If you are unsure, you can also visit a branch or call customer support. The Positive Pay System adds security but also requires action from the issuer. Make sure to share the cheque details with your bank. Use clear writing. Double-check figures and names. It takes a few extra minutes but saves you from big trouble.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Before you sign big cheque, check ‘Positive Pay’ rule

While writing cheques for a high-value payment, it is important for you to know certain things to avoid misuse. To prevent cheque-related frauds, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has placed systems – ‘Positive Pay’. It protects the issuer and the receiver. If you are issuing a cheque above ₹5 lakh, there are rules to follow. These rules vary slightly by bank, but they all follow the RBI’s guidelines. The idea is to add an extra layer of confirmation before the money leaves your account. You must share details about the cheque before the receiver presents it for clearing. Ignoring this can lead to the cheque being rejected in certain cases. Let’s understand how it works and what you should do! What is positive pay and how it work? The Positive Pay System (PPS) was introduced by the RBI in 2021. It aims to reduce cheque fraud. It asks the person writing the cheque (the issuer) to confirm its key details with the bank. This is done before the cheque is cleared. You must provide information such as the cheque number, issue date, amount and payee name to your bank before the clearance of the cheque. These details are usually sent through your bank’s mobile app, online banking, ATM, or by visiting a branch. Once submitted, these details are cross-checked when the cheque is presented for payment. If there is a mismatch between what you reported and what is on the cheque, the bank will flag it. This protects both the payer and the receiver. It also helps banks detect any unauthorised changes or tampering. This process is mandatory for cheques above Rs 5 lakh. Some banks may allow you to use PPS for lower amounts, but it is not required by the RBI. What cheque issuers should keep in mind If you are about to issue a high-value cheque, act carefully. First, make sure all details on the cheque are accurate. Write clearly. Avoid overwriting. Use permanent ink. Sign in the correct space. Then, submit the cheque details through your bank’s Positive Pay facility. Make sure the details match exactly. Even small errors can cause problems, as mismatches can lead to rejection. You must send the information as soon as you issue the cheque. Some banks ask for a time gap between submission and presentation. Check your bank’s rules. If you miss this step, the cheque may bounce even if your account has enough funds. What happens after submission? Once you send the cheque details to the bank, the system stores them. When the payee submits the cheque for clearing, the bank compares the information. If everything matches, the cheque goes through. If there is a mismatch, the bank flags it. It may ask the issuer to confirm or reject the payment. This step helps prevent fraud or errors. The clearing process takes a little longer in such cases, but it adds safety. Some banks also send alerts to the issuer when a cheque is presented. This gives you a chance to stop a transaction if it looks suspicious. It is worth checking your bank’s website or mobile app for how to use Positive Pay. They often have a separate option in their services menu. If you are unsure, you can also visit a branch or call customer support. The Positive Pay System adds security but also requires action from the issuer. Make sure to share the cheque details with your bank. Use clear writing. Double-check figures and names. It takes a few extra minutes but saves you from big trouble. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The Positive Pay System (PPS) was introduced by the RBI in 2021. It aims to reduce cheque fraud

In the last 11 years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has changed India completely. Our country has become a major world power while making life better for people at home.&nbsp;&nbsp;India has grown from the world's 10th biggest economy to the 4th biggest. We now export defence equipment to many countries, explore space like never before, and have built world-class roads, railways, schools and hospitals.&nbsp;&nbsp;When we compare where India was in 2014 to where we are in 2025, we can see how much our nation has grown. Indians today have more opportunities, feel proud of their country, and have hope for the future.&nbsp;&nbsp;Let's look at the big changes in different areas.<h3>From 10th biggest economy to 4th biggest</h3>In 2014, India was the 10th largest economy in the world. Our GDP (total value of everything we produce) was $2.1 trillion. By 2025, we became the 4th largest economy, beating Japan. Our GDP is now $4.19 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund's report from April 2025. This means our economy has doubled in size.&nbsp;This growth happened because of smart policies like 'Make in India', which brought foreign companies to invest in our country. Between 2000 and 2024, we got over $1 trillion in foreign investment, and 69% of this came in the last 10 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Digital India programme made us world leaders in digital payments. Our UPI (Unified Payments Interface) now handles 83% of all digital transactions, and other countries are copying our system.&nbsp;The government also brought in GST (Goods and Services Tax) and new bankruptcy laws that made it easier to do business. The PM Gati Shakti plan reduced the cost of moving goods around the country, which helped our exports reach $778 billion in 2024. All this created more jobs - startups alone gave jobs to 17 lakh people. The average income of each Indian went up from $1,438 in 2013-14 to $2,880 in 2025.&nbsp;But we still have problems. The richest 1% of Indians own 40% of the country's wealth, and 234 million people are still poor. We need to make sure growth benefits everyone equally.<h3>Defence: From small exporter to global supplier</h3>In 2014, India's defence exports were very small - only Rs 4,312 crore from 2004 to 2014. By 2024-25, our defence exports jumped to Rs 23,622 crore ($2.76 billion). We are growing at 12.04% every year and now sell weapons to over 90 countries.&nbsp;Defence production in India has grown by 174% since 2014. This happened because of the 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (self-reliant India) policy. The government allowed foreign companies to invest up to 74% in defence companies in 2020, which brought new technology to India. Our defence budget for 2025-26 is Rs 6.81 lakh crore ($78.7 billion), which helps our military get modern equipment.&nbsp;Private companies now handle 64.5% of our defence exports. We have signed big deals like the $3.5 billion drone agreement with the US, which makes our friendship with America stronger. For Indians, this means our military is stronger and there are more jobs in defence manufacturing. In the world, India is now ranked 4th in military power.<h3>Space: From a promising beginning to historic moon landing</h3>In 2014, India's space programme was doing well but was limited. We had sent the Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) in 2013, making India the first Asian country to reach Mars on the first try. From 1993 to 2014, ISRO launched 97 satellites.&nbsp;By 2025, India became a space superpower. In 2023, our Chandrayaan-3 mission landed on the Moon's South Pole, making India the first country to explore this area. We also sent Aditya-L1 to study the Sun. Soon, we will send Indian astronauts to space with the Gaganyaan mission.&nbsp;Between 2014 and 2023, ISRO launched 466 satellites (396 for foreign countries, 70 for India). This is much more than the 97 satellites we launched in the previous 20 years. In 2020, the government allowed private companies to work in space, and now we have over 250 space startups.&nbsp;For Indians, this brings pride and creates jobs in the growing space industry. Around the world, India's low-cost space missions make us the preferred partner for 34 countries who want to send their satellites to space.<h3>Roads: Connecting every part of India</h3>In 2014, India had 91,287 km of national highways. We were building roads at 11.7 km per day. By 2024, our highway network grew 1.6 times to 146,145 km. Now we build roads at 34 km per day - almost three times faster.&nbsp;The government spent Rs 3.01 lakh crore ($36.09 billion) on roads in 2024, which is about 1% of our total GDP. This money came from private investment and selling government assets (Rs 40,314 crore in 2024). The Bharatmala Pariyojana project improved connectivity across the country, reduced the cost of transporting goods, and boosted trade.&nbsp;For people living in villages, better roads mean they can easily reach markets to sell their products, send children to better schools, and get to hospitals quickly. In cities, there is less traffic jam. Globally, India's rank in the World Bank's Logistics Performance Index improved from 44th in 2018 to 38th, showing our progress.<h3>Railways: Making our lifeline modern</h3>In 2014, Indian Railways carried 8.4 billion passengers every year. But our trains and tracks were old, and only 21,801 km of railway lines had electricity. The government spent Rs 85,000 crore on railways.&nbsp;By 2024, we carry 9.1 billion passengers every year. The government now spends Rs 2.6 lakh crore on railways - 77% more than before. We have electrified 68,000 km of railway lines, which is 93% of our entire network. This reduces pollution from trains.&nbsp;Big projects like the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line have connected Jammu and Kashmir to the rest of India. We now have fast Vande Bharat trains, and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train is almost ready. For Indians, this means faster, cleaner, and safer train journeys. Villages are now better connected to big cities for business. Globally, Indian Railways contributes 3% to our GDP and is becoming more environment-friendly.<h3>Education: Teaching a new generation</h3>In 2014, India had 16 Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), 13 Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), and very few skill development programs. By 2025, education has completely changed.&nbsp;We now have 23 IITs (7 new ones) and 21 IIMs (8 new ones, including IIM Mumbai, which was earlier called NITIE). This gives more students access to world-class education. The Skill India Mission, started in 2015, has trained 1.4 crore young people and upskilled 54 lakh people. We have set up 3,000 new Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) by 2024.&nbsp;The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) trained nearly 18 lakh youth by 2016, with a target of 1 crore by 2020. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has changed how we teach, focusing on digital learning through platforms like DIKSHA and SWAYAM. These platforms helped millions of students during the COVID-19 pandemic.&nbsp;Since 2014, we have also built 15 new All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), 16 Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs), and 390 universities. For Indians, this means better access to quality education and skills, especially in smaller cities, which helps people get better jobs.&nbsp;Globally, Indian students and professionals are competing successfully worldwide. However, we still have challenges - only 47.38% of our graduates can get jobs easily after finishing their studies.<h3>Health: A healthier India, world leader</h3>In 2014, India's health system was under pressure. Many people couldn't afford healthcare, and sanitation was poor. By 2025, big programmes have changed everything.&nbsp;The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) built 60 million toilets by 2019, improving hygiene, especially for women. Ayushman Bharat, started in 2018, is the world's largest health insurance scheme. It covers 10 crore families, giving each family Rs 5 lakh for medical treatment. Over 1 lakh people benefited within just one month of starting.&nbsp;The Ayush sector (traditional Indian medicine) is growing fast. Global demand was $657.5 billion in 2020, and India's Ayush sector grew 17% from 2014 to 2020. This made India a popular destination for medical tourism.&nbsp;During the COVID-19 pandemic, India produced Covaxin and Covishield vaccines. We supplied vaccines to many countries, earning the title "Pharmacy of the World." We have built 15 new AIIMS since 2014, giving people better access to healthcare.&nbsp;For Indians, this means better healthcare from village clinics to big city hospitals. Globally, India's health diplomacy, including sending vaccines to other countries and hosting the WHO's Global Centre for Traditional Medicine, has made us a world leader in health.<h3>World relations: India's voice shapes the world</h3>India's leadership of the G20 group in 2023 was a big diplomatic success. We showed leadership on climate change, digital technology, and disaster preparedness. We started initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, showing that India solves global problems.&nbsp;Modi's strong stand against terrorism at the G20 strengthened India's fight for peace. At home, this global leadership makes Indians proud. Our digital platforms like Aadhaar and CoWIN are being used as examples by other countries.&nbsp;India's leadership in renewable energy - we are 3rd in renewable power, 4th in wind energy, and 5th in solar energy - increases our soft power around the world.<h3>Problems we still face</h3>Despite all this progress, we still have challenges. Income inequality is high, our per capita GDP of $2,880 is still much lower than Japan's $33,000, and 234 million people are still poor. We need policies that help everyone equally.&nbsp;Youth unemployment is 13.8%, and not everyone has equal access to education and healthcare. These problems need immediate attention. Global trade tensions and rising oil prices could slow our growth, so we need to keep making reforms.&nbsp;But we are on the right track. Experts predict our GDP will reach $5.7 trillion by 2028, making us the world's 3rd largest economy, if we balance growth with making sure everyone benefits.<h3>India is reborn</h3>In 11 years, Modi's vision has made India a global leader. Economically, we jumped from 10th to 4th position. In defence, we went from being a small exporter to supplying weapons to 90 countries.&nbsp;&nbsp;In space, we went from having potential to becoming pioneers who reached the Moon's South Pole. In infrastructure, we went from slow growth to building world-class roads and railways. In education, we went from having limited institutions to becoming a hub of IITs, IIMs, and skilled youth. In health, we went from struggling systems to becoming a global healthcare model.&nbsp;At home, 25 crore people have come out of poverty. Millions have got jobs, healthcare, and better connectivity. Globally, India now influences important discussions from climate change to world peace.This is not just progress - this is a confident India that inspires its people and the world with a vision of unlimited possibilities.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

A new dawn 11 Years of Indias Remarkable Journey with Modi

In the last 11 years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has changed India completely. Our country has become a major world power while making life better for people at home. India has grown from the world's 10th biggest economy to the 4th biggest. We now export defence equipment to many countries, explore space like never before, and have built world-class roads, railways, schools and hospitals. When we compare where India was in 2014 to where we are in 2025, we can see how much our nation has grown. Indians today have more opportunities, feel proud of their country, and have hope for the future. Let's look at the big changes in different areas. From 10th biggest economy to 4th biggest In 2014, India was the 10th largest economy in the world. Our GDP (total value of everything we produce) was $2.1 trillion. By 2025, we became the 4th largest economy, beating Japan. Our GDP is now $4.19 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund's report from April 2025. This means our economy has doubled in size. This growth happened because of smart policies like 'Make in India', which brought foreign companies to invest in our country. Between 2000 and 2024, we got over $1 trillion in foreign investment, and 69% of this came in the last 10 years. The Digital India programme made us world leaders in digital payments. Our UPI (Unified Payments Interface) now handles 83% of all digital transactions, and other countries are copying our system. The government also brought in GST (Goods and Services Tax) and new bankruptcy laws that made it easier to do business. The PM Gati Shakti plan reduced the cost of moving goods around the country, which helped our exports reach $778 billion in 2024. All this created more jobs - startups alone gave jobs to 17 lakh people. The average income of each Indian went up from $1,438 in 2013-14 to $2,880 in 2025. But we still have problems. The richest 1% of Indians own 40% of the country's wealth, and 234 million people are still poor. We need to make sure growth benefits everyone equally. Defence: From small exporter to global supplier In 2014, India's defence exports were very small - only Rs 4,312 crore from 2004 to 2014. By 2024-25, our defence exports jumped to Rs 23,622 crore ($2.76 billion). We are growing at 12.04% every year and now sell weapons to over 90 countries. Defence production in India has grown by 174% since 2014. This happened because of the 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (self-reliant India) policy. The government allowed foreign companies to invest up to 74% in defence companies in 2020, which brought new technology to India. Our defence budget for 2025-26 is Rs 6.81 lakh crore ($78.7 billion), which helps our military get modern equipment. Private companies now handle 64.5% of our defence exports. We have signed big deals like the $3.5 billion drone agreement with the US, which makes our friendship with America stronger. For Indians, this means our military is stronger and there are more jobs in defence manufacturing. In the world, India is now ranked 4th in military power. Space: From a promising beginning to historic moon landing In 2014, India's space programme was doing well but was limited. We had sent the Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) in 2013, making India the first Asian country to reach Mars on the first try. From 1993 to 2014, ISRO launched 97 satellites. By 2025, India became a space superpower. In 2023, our Chandrayaan-3 mission landed on the Moon's South Pole, making India the first country to explore this area. We also sent Aditya-L1 to study the Sun. Soon, we will send Indian astronauts to space with the Gaganyaan mission. Between 2014 and 2023, ISRO launched 466 satellites (396 for foreign countries, 70 for India). This is much more than the 97 satellites we launched in the previous 20 years. In 2020, the government allowed private companies to work in space, and now we have over 250 space startups. For Indians, this brings pride and creates jobs in the growing space industry. Around the world, India's low-cost space missions make us the preferred partner for 34 countries who want to send their satellites to space. Roads: Connecting every part of India In 2014, India had 91,287 km of national highways. We were building roads at 11.7 km per day. By 2024, our highway network grew 1.6 times to 146,145 km. Now we build roads at 34 km per day - almost three times faster. The government spent Rs 3.01 lakh crore ($36.09 billion) on roads in 2024, which is about 1% of our total GDP. This money came from private investment and selling government assets (Rs 40,314 crore in 2024). The Bharatmala Pariyojana project improved connectivity across the country, reduced the cost of transporting goods, and boosted trade. For people living in villages, better roads mean they can easily reach markets to sell their products, send children to better schools, and get to hospitals quickly. In cities, there is less traffic jam. Globally, India's rank in the World Bank's Logistics Performance Index improved from 44th in 2018 to 38th, showing our progress. Railways: Making our lifeline modern In 2014, Indian Railways carried 8.4 billion passengers every year. But our trains and tracks were old, and only 21,801 km of railway lines had electricity. The government spent Rs 85,000 crore on railways. By 2024, we carry 9.1 billion passengers every year. The government now spends Rs 2.6 lakh crore on railways - 77% more than before. We have electrified 68,000 km of railway lines, which is 93% of our entire network. This reduces pollution from trains. Big projects like the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line have connected Jammu and Kashmir to the rest of India. We now have fast Vande Bharat trains, and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train is almost ready. For Indians, this means faster, cleaner, and safer train journeys. Villages are now better connected to big cities for business. Globally, Indian Railways contributes 3% to our GDP and is becoming more environment-friendly. Education: Teaching a new generation In 2014, India had 16 Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), 13 Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), and very few skill development programs. By 2025, education has completely changed. We now have 23 IITs (7 new ones) and 21 IIMs (8 new ones, including IIM Mumbai, which was earlier called NITIE). This gives more students access to world-class education. The Skill India Mission, started in 2015, has trained 1.4 crore young people and upskilled 54 lakh people. We have set up 3,000 new Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) by 2024. The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) trained nearly 18 lakh youth by 2016, with a target of 1 crore by 2020. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has changed how we teach, focusing on digital learning through platforms like DIKSHA and SWAYAM. These platforms helped millions of students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2014, we have also built 15 new All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), 16 Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs), and 390 universities. For Indians, this means better access to quality education and skills, especially in smaller cities, which helps people get better jobs. Globally, Indian students and professionals are competing successfully worldwide. However, we still have challenges - only 47.38% of our graduates can get jobs easily after finishing their studies. Health: A healthier India, world leader In 2014, India's health system was under pressure. Many people couldn't afford healthcare, and sanitation was poor. By 2025, big programmes have changed everything. The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) built 60 million toilets by 2019, improving hygiene, especially for women. Ayushman Bharat, started in 2018, is the world's largest health insurance scheme. It covers 10 crore families, giving each family Rs 5 lakh for medical treatment. Over 1 lakh people benefited within just one month of starting. The Ayush sector (traditional Indian medicine) is growing fast. Global demand was $657.5 billion in 2020, and India's Ayush sector grew 17% from 2014 to 2020. This made India a popular destination for medical tourism. During the COVID-19 pandemic, India produced Covaxin and Covishield vaccines. We supplied vaccines to many countries, earning the title "Pharmacy of the World." We have built 15 new AIIMS since 2014, giving people better access to healthcare. For Indians, this means better healthcare from village clinics to big city hospitals. Globally, India's health diplomacy, including sending vaccines to other countries and hosting the WHO's Global Centre for Traditional Medicine, has made us a world leader in health. World relations: India's voice shapes the world India's leadership of the G20 group in 2023 was a big diplomatic success. We showed leadership on climate change, digital technology, and disaster preparedness. We started initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, showing that India solves global problems. Modi's strong stand against terrorism at the G20 strengthened India's fight for peace. At home, this global leadership makes Indians proud. Our digital platforms like Aadhaar and CoWIN are being used as examples by other countries. India's leadership in renewable energy - we are 3rd in renewable power, 4th in wind energy, and 5th in solar energy - increases our soft power around the world. Problems we still face Despite all this progress, we still have challenges. Income inequality is high, our per capita GDP of $2,880 is still much lower than Japan's $33,000, and 234 million people are still poor. We need policies that help everyone equally. Youth unemployment is 13.8%, and not everyone has equal access to education and healthcare. These problems need immediate attention. Global trade tensions and rising oil prices could slow our growth, so we need to keep making reforms. But we are on the right track. Experts predict our GDP will reach $5.7 trillion by 2028, making us the world's 3rd largest economy, if we balance growth with making sure everyone benefits. India is reborn In 11 years, Modi's vision has made India a global leader. Economically, we jumped from 10th to 4th position. In defence, we went from being a small exporter to supplying weapons to 90 countries. In space, we went from having potential to becoming pioneers who reached the Moon's South Pole. In infrastructure, we went from slow growth to building world-class roads and railways. In education, we went from having limited institutions to becoming a hub of IITs, IIMs, and skilled youth. In health, we went from struggling systems to becoming a global healthcare model. At home, 25 crore people have come out of poverty. Millions have got jobs, healthcare, and better connectivity. Globally, India now influences important discussions from climate change to world peace. This is not just progress - this is a confident India that inspires its people and the world with a vision of unlimited possibilities. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

When we compare where India was in 2014 to where we are in 2025, we can see how much our nation has grown

A new dawn: 11 years of India's remarkable journey with PM Modi

In my decades of military service, I have witnessed how a clearly communicated strategic intent can shape not only the outcome of operations but also their perception by the nation and the world. This was evident during Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, when the Indian Armed Forces carried out precision strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was meticulously planned- designed to deliver a firm message of deterrence without triggering escalation.&nbsp;However, as is often the case today, the information space rapidly became turbulent. Misinformation from adversaries, sensationalist media coverage, misinterpretations by foreign outlets, and emotionally charged narratives began to cloud the public understanding of the operation’s intent. The initial aftermath, if not handled with clarity, could have undermined both domestic and international perception.&nbsp;Thankfully, these challenges were addressed swiftly through coordinated military and diplomatic outreach- daily briefings, timely updates via PIB Fact Checks, and engagement with the media helped ground the narrative. In this landscape, the voices of veterans emerged as a powerful stabilising force. Many within our fraternity stepped forward- on news channels, digital platforms, and social media- bringing with them experience, clarity, and calm. Their contributions added essential context and lent credibility to the evolving discourse.&nbsp;Veterans occupy a unique space in society. With first-hand experience and strategic understanding, we can bridge the gap between operational complexities and public interpretation. After Operation SINDOOR, I saw fellow veterans articulate with poise the rationale behind the strikes, underlining India’s commitment to restrained, proportionate responses rather than provocation. These interventions reassured the public, upheld stability, and communicated India’s responsible intent to the international community.&nbsp;That said, not every voice struck the right chord. A small section, perhaps overcome by emotion or provoked by media theatrics, drifted into speculative commentary. While the intentions may not have been harmful, such moments can confuse audiences and dilute the credibility that veterans collectively hold. This is a reminder that clarity and composure must remain non-negotiable standards for us all.&nbsp;As former servicemen, we also carry the responsibility of preserving the armed forces’ reputation for professionalism and ethical conduct. Several veterans highlighted key aspects of theoperation, including intelligence-backed targeting, restraint in execution, and adherence to international humanitarian law. These inputs strengthened public trust in the moral compass of our forces. However, even isolated lapses, where exaggeration or speculation replaces fact, can be damaging. The general public often perceives any veteran’s opinion as a reflection of the institution. It is therefore essential that we speak with precision, especially in times of national attention.&nbsp;The digital landscape today is unforgiving. Falsehoods spread rapidly, and misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, can provoke unnecessary anxiety or even diplomatic complications. Operation Sindoor was no exception. Inaccurate narratives surfaced within hours. In this context, many veterans made meaningful interventions, countering half-truths, offering factual corrections, and contextualising events without hyperbole.&nbsp;These actions played a crucial role in maintaining public confidence and shaping a realistic, steady narrative. Throughout these engagements, it was heartening to observe that most veterans maintained discretion and upheld operational confidentiality. This discipline is essential. Regardless of our retirement status, the obligation to safeguard sensitive information remains. Even casual remarks can be misconstrued, revealing more than intended. Our professionalism, built over the years in uniform, must not lapse when we are in public view.&nbsp;One particularly constructive area of veteran engagement post-Sindoor was the explanation of the operation’s technological sophistication and tri-service coordination. Veterans helped explain to the public how real-time intelligence, precision-guided munitions, and seamless cooperation between the Army, Air Force, and Navy enabled effective execution. These insights reassured the nation and reflected the growing technological prowess of India’s defence apparatus.&nbsp;Equally important was the effort by many veterans to look beyond the immediate tactical success. They reminded the nation that no single operation, however effective, neutralises all threats. Strategic deterrence must be sustained through vigilance, readiness, and constant evaluation of evolving threats. This guidance helped steer the national conversation away from short-term celebration toward long-term preparedness.&nbsp;Given the vital influence veterans wield today, I believe there is a strong case for structured initiatives, such as tailored media training, digital literacy programmes, and strategic communication workshops, to help us engage more effectively and responsibly in the public domain. Such efforts would ensure that our voices remain not only relevant but also deeply aligned with national interests.&nbsp;Operation Sindoor demonstrated that the veteran community, when engaged with discipline and purpose, plays a critical role in national discourse. Our experience allows us to guide public opinion, clarify complex realities, and reinforce the ethical strength of our armed forces. But this power comes with responsibility.&nbsp;We may no longer wear the uniform, but the values it instilled in us endure. Let us honour those values in every public utterance- measured, accurate, and always mindful of the impact we carry. Our continued service to the nation lies not just in what we did, but in how we choose to speak, act, and lead, long after the battlefield.

A veteran reflects on the influence of ex-servicemen in countering misinformation and upholding the armed forces' ethical standards, The piece underscores the enduring duty of veterans in national discourse.

In my decades of military service, I have witnessed how a clearly communicated strategic intent can shape not only the outcome of operations but also their perception by the nation and the world. This was evident during Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, when the Indian Armed Forces carried out precision strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was meticulously planned- designed to deliver a firm message of deterrence without triggering escalation. However, as is often the case today, the information space rapidly became turbulent. Misinformation from adversaries, sensationalist media coverage, misinterpretations by foreign outlets, and emotionally charged narratives began to cloud the public understanding of the operation’s intent. The initial aftermath, if not handled with clarity, could have undermined both domestic and international perception. Thankfully, these challenges were addressed swiftly through coordinated military and diplomatic outreach- daily briefings, timely updates via PIB Fact Checks, and engagement with the media helped ground the narrative. In this landscape, the voices of veterans emerged as a powerful stabilising force. Many within our fraternity stepped forward- on news channels, digital platforms, and social media- bringing with them experience, clarity, and calm. Their contributions added essential context and lent credibility to the evolving discourse. Veterans occupy a unique space in society. With first-hand experience and strategic understanding, we can bridge the gap between operational complexities and public interpretation. After Operation SINDOOR, I saw fellow veterans articulate with poise the rationale behind the strikes, underlining India’s commitment to restrained, proportionate responses rather than provocation. These interventions reassured the public, upheld stability, and communicated India’s responsible intent to the international community. That said, not every voice struck the right chord. A small section, perhaps overcome by emotion or provoked by media theatrics, drifted into speculative commentary. While the intentions may not have been harmful, such moments can confuse audiences and dilute the credibility that veterans collectively hold. This is a reminder that clarity and composure must remain non-negotiable standards for us all. As former servicemen, we also carry the responsibility of preserving the armed forces’ reputation for professionalism and ethical conduct. Several veterans highlighted key aspects of the operation, including intelligence-backed targeting, restraint in execution, and adherence to international humanitarian law. These inputs strengthened public trust in the moral compass of our forces. However, even isolated lapses, where exaggeration or speculation replaces fact, can be damaging. The general public often perceives any veteran’s opinion as a reflection of the institution. It is therefore essential that we speak with precision, especially in times of national attention. The digital landscape today is unforgiving. Falsehoods spread rapidly, and misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, can provoke unnecessary anxiety or even diplomatic complications. Operation Sindoor was no exception. Inaccurate narratives surfaced within hours. In this context, many veterans made meaningful interventions, countering half-truths, offering factual corrections, and contextualising events without hyperbole. These actions played a crucial role in maintaining public confidence and shaping a realistic, steady narrative. Throughout these engagements, it was heartening to observe that most veterans maintained discretion and upheld operational confidentiality. This discipline is essential. Regardless of our retirement status, the obligation to safeguard sensitive information remains. Even casual remarks can be misconstrued, revealing more than intended. Our professionalism, built over the years in uniform, must not lapse when we are in public view. One particularly constructive area of veteran engagement post-Sindoor was the explanation of the operation’s technological sophistication and tri-service coordination. Veterans helped explain to the public how real-time intelligence, precision-guided munitions, and seamless cooperation between the Army, Air Force, and Navy enabled effective execution. These insights reassured the nation and reflected the growing technological prowess of India’s defence apparatus. Equally important was the effort by many veterans to look beyond the immediate tactical success. They reminded the nation that no single operation, however effective, neutralises all threats. Strategic deterrence must be sustained through vigilance, readiness, and constant evaluation of evolving threats. This guidance helped steer the national conversation away from short-term celebration toward long-term preparedness. Given the vital influence veterans wield today, I believe there is a strong case for structured initiatives, such as tailored media training, digital literacy programmes, and strategic communication workshops, to help us engage more effectively and responsibly in the public domain. Such efforts would ensure that our voices remain not only relevant but also deeply aligned with national interests. Operation Sindoor demonstrated that the veteran community, when engaged with discipline and purpose, plays a critical role in national discourse. Our experience allows us to guide public opinion, clarify complex realities, and reinforce the ethical strength of our armed forces. But this power comes with responsibility. We may no longer wear the uniform, but the values it instilled in us endure. Let us honour those values in every public utterance- measured, accurate, and always mindful of the impact we carry. Our continued service to the nation lies not just in what we did, but in how we choose to speak, act, and lead, long after the battlefield.

A veteran reflects on the influence of ex-servicemen in countering misinformation and upholding the armed forces' ethical standards, The piece underscores the enduring duty of veterans in national discourse.

Operation Sindoor: Veterans as strategic voices in national discourse

In the last scene of Moonwalk, the tribute from Malayalam cinema to Michael Jackson, I spotted my dance instructor from the 1990s in the role of a breakdance competition judge. As I walked out of the cinema hall after the show, a bunch of new-generation YouTubers were asking opinions from the departing audience. Such audience reviews are now the norm in the movie industry of southern Kerala state, and can make or break films. For a moment, I felt like talking to the YouTubers, but I walked away, with a limp from my newly acquired back pain. As I stepped out, I felt the passage of time that affected my feet, which once tapped to songs from Michael Jackson and plenty of others, and doing signature breakdance steps such as 'wave', which is among the main meme-worthy scenes of Moonwalk.&nbsp;More than just another movie, Vinod AK's directorial debut was a nostalgia trip for people like me, who were young, restless and rebellious in the 1990s.&nbsp;It was an era when the Indian government's globalisation and liberalisation policies introduced the college-going youth to western music and dance. Michael Jackson was the undisputed king of pop, both as a singer and dancer. Breakdance, and later hip hop, were emerging as the new dance forms in Indian cities and towns. Tuning in to western music, wearing baggy pants, growing our hair long on the front (called shade) and back (called tail), riding bikes, and learning breakdance were part of the lifestyle and trends of the 1990s youth, almost a rite of passage for our times.&nbsp;The story of Moonwalk - a group of friends bonding over breakdance and taking inspiration from Michael Jackson to form a troupe - is the distillation of that subculture of music and dance in some parts of Kerala. It is almost unbelievable when looking back, as to how this essentially American culture swept us by our feet, quite literally.&nbsp;It happened because of several reasons, most depicted in the film: the availability of music cassettes and VHD tapes, either sent or smuggled from the Gulf or elsewhere by relatives of Malayalis, the search for something different from the regular small town existence of Trivandrum, the capital city of Kerala, and even a streak of rebellion, that made many of us pierce our ears and wear ear-rings, as shown in the film, and seek out and aspire for a culture bigger than ours. It helped me relate to the nostalgia, as even the language, which we call Trivandrum slang, was on point. As shown in the film, many of the dance troupes struggled to find stages, as it was quite a contrast from what Kerala - or for that matter India - was familiar with, culturally and musically. It was a sharp contradiction to see breakdance performances amid temple festivals, church events, or college functions. Dancers and musicians who looked up to the West for inspiration were often scorned and publicly ridiculed, or even attacked, all of which is shown in the film. The humiliating haircut that the troupe members received at a police station is quite possibly based on a real incident or incidents. The film had some dance moves that were relatable, though the choreography, framing, and editing could have been better. Then there is the limitation imposed by music copyright, which meant that none of Michael Jackson's songs, which we danced to in those days, could be used.&nbsp;The film's storyline also tried to incorporate the reality of racism and caste discrimination, by positioning a youth from a fisherman's family as a key dancer, the troupe's true inheritor of Michael Jackson and subsequent leader.&nbsp;The dancer, in Michael Jackson costume, being asked to carry a jackfruit on his head as an errand, is reflective of the times he lived in: Life happens amid all the fantasy ride. Reality hits hard at the end of it all.&nbsp;Many of the dancers went to different pastures eventually. Some went outside Kerala, or abroad, for further studies or jobs, carrying with them memories of a few great days and nights, while only a few stuck to their passion, becoming dance instructors, choreographers, directors and producers.&nbsp;The film, shot in 2020, almost didn't release till the top director-producer duo Lijo Jose Pellissery and Listin Stephen came on board as producer-distributor.&nbsp;In doing so, they helped not only bring a movie to the audience, but also leave behind an almost ethnographic documentary of a time that many youngsters of the late 1980s to 1990s from the sleepy southern town hold dear in their memories.&nbsp;While the film is not perfect, it needs to be appreciated for the effort that went into re-creating such a unique era of our young days.&nbsp;

Moonwalk,  Malayalam film tribute to Michael Jackson, a nostalgia trip into 1990s. A very personal review

In the last scene of Moonwalk, the tribute from Malayalam cinema to Michael Jackson, I spotted my dance instructor from the 1990s in the role of a breakdance competition judge. As I walked out of the cinema hall after the show, a bunch of new-generation YouTubers were asking opinions from the departing audience. Such audience reviews are now the norm in the movie industry of southern Kerala state, and can make or break films. For a moment, I felt like talking to the YouTubers, but I walked away, with a limp from my newly acquired back pain. As I stepped out, I felt the passage of time that affected my feet, which once tapped to songs from Michael Jackson and plenty of others, and doing signature breakdance steps such as 'wave', which is among the main meme-worthy scenes of Moonwalk. More than just another movie, Vinod AK's directorial debut was a nostalgia trip for people like me, who were young, restless and rebellious in the 1990s. It was an era when the Indian government's globalisation and liberalisation policies introduced the college-going youth to western music and dance. Michael Jackson was the undisputed king of pop, both as a singer and dancer. Breakdance, and later hip hop, were emerging as the new dance forms in Indian cities and towns. Tuning in to western music, wearing baggy pants, growing our hair long on the front (called shade) and back (called tail), riding bikes, and learning breakdance were part of the lifestyle and trends of the 1990s youth, almost a rite of passage for our times. The story of Moonwalk - a group of friends bonding over breakdance and taking inspiration from Michael Jackson to form a troupe - is the distillation of that subculture of music and dance in some parts of Kerala. It is almost unbelievable when looking back, as to how this essentially American culture swept us by our feet, quite literally. It happened because of several reasons, most depicted in the film: the availability of music cassettes and VHD tapes, either sent or smuggled from the Gulf or elsewhere by relatives of Malayalis, the search for something different from the regular small town existence of Trivandrum, the capital city of Kerala, and even a streak of rebellion, that made many of us pierce our ears and wear ear-rings, as shown in the film, and seek out and aspire for a culture bigger than ours. It helped me relate to the nostalgia, as even the language, which we call Trivandrum slang, was on point. As shown in the film, many of the dance troupes struggled to find stages, as it was quite a contrast from what Kerala - or for that matter India - was familiar with, culturally and musically. It was a sharp contradiction to see breakdance performances amid temple festivals, church events, or college functions. Dancers and musicians who looked up to the West for inspiration were often scorned and publicly ridiculed, or even attacked, all of which is shown in the film. The humiliating haircut that the troupe members received at a police station is quite possibly based on a real incident or incidents. The film had some dance moves that were relatable, though the choreography, framing, and editing could have been better. Then there is the limitation imposed by music copyright, which meant that none of Michael Jackson's songs, which we danced to in those days, could be used. The film's storyline also tried to incorporate the reality of racism and caste discrimination, by positioning a youth from a fisherman's family as a key dancer, the troupe's true inheritor of Michael Jackson and subsequent leader. The dancer, in Michael Jackson costume, being asked to carry a jackfruit on his head as an errand, is reflective of the times he lived in: Life happens amid all the fantasy ride. Reality hits hard at the end of it all. Many of the dancers went to different pastures eventually. Some went outside Kerala, or abroad, for further studies or jobs, carrying with them memories of a few great days and nights, while only a few stuck to their passion, becoming dance instructors, choreographers, directors and producers. The film, shot in 2020, almost didn't release till the top director-producer duo Lijo Jose Pellissery and Listin Stephen came on board as producer-distributor. In doing so, they helped not only bring a movie to the audience, but also leave behind an almost ethnographic documentary of a time that many youngsters of the late 1980s to 1990s from the sleepy southern town hold dear in their memories. While the film is not perfect, it needs to be appreciated for the effort that went into re-creating such a unique era of our young days.

More than just another movie, Vinod AK's directorial debut was a nostalgia trip for people like me, who were young, restless and rebellious in the 1990s.&nbsp;

Moonwalk:  Malayalam film tribute to Michael Jackson is a nostalgia trip into 1990s. A very personal watching experience

The Russia-Ukraine war has reached a terrifying new peak with Ukraine’s bold “Operation Spider Web” striking deep into Russian territory. This massive drone attack, involving 117 drones targeting Russian airfields, has been hailed by President Volodymyr Zelensky as Ukraine’s most daring long-range operation yet. The strike hit strategic sites, disrupting Russia’s ability to launch cruise missiles to some extent. But this audacious move has raised a chilling question: Will Vladimir Putin retaliate with the RS-28 Sarmat, the fearsome intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) known as “Satan 2”?&nbsp;The Satan 2, in development since 2009 and also called SS-X-30 by NATO, is a monstrous weapon designed to replace the 1970s-era Satan ICBM. Housed in underground silos, it’s built to carry devastating payloads, including 10 large nuclear warheads, 16 smaller ones, a mix of warheads and decoys, or up to 24 YU-74/Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicles. Its destructive power is staggering—a single missile can unleash a blast equivalent to 8 megatons of TNT, over 400 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed around 150,000 people.&nbsp;With a range of 18,000 kilometers, it can strike targets anywhere in the world in under an hour, soaring through space on a high, curved path.&nbsp;What makes Satan 2 so dangerous? It’s equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to release multiple warheads, each capable of hitting separate targets hundreds of miles apart at speeds exceeding 24,000 kilometres per hour. Its smart guidance system keeps it on course, while decoys—fake warheads that mimic real ones—confuse enemy defences. Some warheads may be cooled to evade heat-seeking missiles or disguised to avoid detection. These features, combined with the sheer number of warheads, overwhelm even advanced missile defence systems, which often fail nearly half the time.&nbsp;The missile’s YU-74/Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, developed under Project 4202, is a game-changer. Launched by ICBMs like Satan 2, it glides through the atmosphere at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 27 (3,800 to 20,000 miles per hour), covering up to 6,200 miles. Unlike traditional warheads with predictable arcs, Avangard twists and turns, dodging systems like America’s THAAD or NATO’s defences. It can carry nuclear warheads exceeding 2 megatons, conventional weapons, or electronic warfare systems to jam enemy radar. Unveiled by Putin in 2018, Avangard is now in serial production and operated by Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, with officials claiming it’s “invulnerable” to existing defences.&nbsp;Putin has called Satan 2 “unstoppable,” a response to the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Fully deployed in about 50 silos since 2020, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it’s a cornerstone of Russia’s arsenal.&nbsp;A Russian video showcases its launch from a silo, with computer-generated visuals depicting it soaring into space, its front section opening to reveal five nuclear warheads over a digital Earth, styled like a video game.&nbsp;Ukraine’s Spider Web attack has provoked Moscow’s fury. By targeting airfields housing strategic bombers, Ukraine has challenged Putin’s military might. Russia has already responded to past Ukrainian strikes with brutal missile and drone assaults on cities like Kyiv and Odesa, recently crippling Ukraine’s energy grid. But deploying Satan 2 would be an escalation of apocalyptic proportions. The missile has faced test failures, including a botched launch last year that left a crater at a Russian site, raising doubts about its reliability. Using an unproven weapon risks embarrassing Putin and weakening his image. More critically, firing a nuclear-capable missile could invite global condemnation and draw NATO into the conflict, a step even Putin might hesitate to take.&nbsp;Yet Putin’s warnings are ominous. He has promised “decisive” responses to Western-supplied weapons like the U.S.-made ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine. Last year, he tested an experimental Oreshnik missile on Dnipro, signalling his readiness to escalate. Satan 2, with its unmatched destructive power, could be his ultimate weapon to intimidate Ukraine and its allies. Fear is Putin’s greatest tool, and the threat of Satan 2 looms large.&nbsp;Ukraine, backed by Western support, shows no signs of retreat. Zelensky’s bold strikes test Putin’s red lines, but this high-stakes gamble carries grave risks. If Putin feels cornered, he might turn to Satan 2 or other terrifying weapons like the Poseidon nuclear torpedo or Burevestnik cruise missile. Any of these could plunge the war into a new catastrophic phase.&nbsp;The world watches a deadly game unfold. Ukraine’s Spider Web has wounded Russia’s pride, but Putin’s next move could decide whether this conflict remains conventional or spirals into a nightmare. For now, Satan 2 waits in its silo, a menacing spectre over the battlefield. The hope is that reason prevails before the unthinkable becomes reality.&nbsp;(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace &amp; Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany) (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

A Russian video showcases its launch from a silo, with computer-generated visuals depicting it soaring into space, its front section opening to reveal five nuclear warheads over a digital Earth, styled like a video game.

The Russia-Ukraine war has reached a terrifying new peak with Ukraine’s bold “Operation Spider Web” striking deep into Russian territory. This massive drone attack, involving 117 drones targeting Russian airfields, has been hailed by President Volodymyr Zelensky as Ukraine’s most daring long-range operation yet. The strike hit strategic sites, disrupting Russia’s ability to launch cruise missiles to some extent. But this audacious move has raised a chilling question: Will Vladimir Putin retaliate with the RS-28 Sarmat, the fearsome intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) known as “Satan 2”? The Satan 2, in development since 2009 and also called SS-X-30 by NATO, is a monstrous weapon designed to replace the 1970s-era Satan ICBM. Housed in underground silos, it’s built to carry devastating payloads, including 10 large nuclear warheads, 16 smaller ones, a mix of warheads and decoys, or up to 24 YU-74/Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicles. Its destructive power is staggering—a single missile can unleash a blast equivalent to 8 megatons of TNT, over 400 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed around 150,000 people. With a range of 18,000 kilometers, it can strike targets anywhere in the world in under an hour, soaring through space on a high, curved path. What makes Satan 2 so dangerous? It’s equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to release multiple warheads, each capable of hitting separate targets hundreds of miles apart at speeds exceeding 24,000 kilometres per hour. Its smart guidance system keeps it on course, while decoys—fake warheads that mimic real ones—confuse enemy defences. Some warheads may be cooled to evade heat-seeking missiles or disguised to avoid detection. These features, combined with the sheer number of warheads, overwhelm even advanced missile defence systems, which often fail nearly half the time. The missile’s YU-74/Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, developed under Project 4202, is a game-changer. Launched by ICBMs like Satan 2, it glides through the atmosphere at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 27 (3,800 to 20,000 miles per hour), covering up to 6,200 miles. Unlike traditional warheads with predictable arcs, Avangard twists and turns, dodging systems like America’s THAAD or NATO’s defences. It can carry nuclear warheads exceeding 2 megatons, conventional weapons, or electronic warfare systems to jam enemy radar. Unveiled by Putin in 2018, Avangard is now in serial production and operated by Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, with officials claiming it’s “invulnerable” to existing defences. Putin has called Satan 2 “unstoppable,” a response to the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Fully deployed in about 50 silos since 2020, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, it’s a cornerstone of Russia’s arsenal. A Russian video showcases its launch from a silo, with computer-generated visuals depicting it soaring into space, its front section opening to reveal five nuclear warheads over a digital Earth, styled like a video game. Ukraine’s Spider Web attack has provoked Moscow’s fury. By targeting airfields housing strategic bombers, Ukraine has challenged Putin’s military might. Russia has already responded to past Ukrainian strikes with brutal missile and drone assaults on cities like Kyiv and Odesa, recently crippling Ukraine’s energy grid. But deploying Satan 2 would be an escalation of apocalyptic proportions. The missile has faced test failures, including a botched launch last year that left a crater at a Russian site, raising doubts about its reliability. Using an unproven weapon risks embarrassing Putin and weakening his image. More critically, firing a nuclear-capable missile could invite global condemnation and draw NATO into the conflict, a step even Putin might hesitate to take. Yet Putin’s warnings are ominous. He has promised “decisive” responses to Western-supplied weapons like the U.S.-made ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine. Last year, he tested an experimental Oreshnik missile on Dnipro, signalling his readiness to escalate. Satan 2, with its unmatched destructive power, could be his ultimate weapon to intimidate Ukraine and its allies. Fear is Putin’s greatest tool, and the threat of Satan 2 looms large. Ukraine, backed by Western support, shows no signs of retreat. Zelensky’s bold strikes test Putin’s red lines, but this high-stakes gamble carries grave risks. If Putin feels cornered, he might turn to Satan 2 or other terrifying weapons like the Poseidon nuclear torpedo or Burevestnik cruise missile. Any of these could plunge the war into a new catastrophic phase. The world watches a deadly game unfold. Ukraine’s Spider Web has wounded Russia’s pride, but Putin’s next move could decide whether this conflict remains conventional or spirals into a nightmare. For now, Satan 2 waits in its silo, a menacing spectre over the battlefield. The hope is that reason prevails before the unthinkable becomes reality. (Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany) (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

A Russian video showcases its launch from a silo, with computer-generated visuals depicting it soaring into space, its front section opening to reveal five nuclear warheads over a digital Earth, styled like a video game.

Will Putin’s Satan 2 annihilate Ukraine after the Operation Spider Web assault?

The first time Donald Trump assured the world that he could end Russia’s devastating all-out war on Ukraine in a day was on March 5, 2023, when he was campaigning for re-election to a second term. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than one day,” he told a cheering crowd.The one-day solution promise to end a war, which at the time had just entered its second year, became a routine part of speeches in a campaign he won in 2024. Trump stressed that he based his prediction on good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. US military experts and diplomats familiar with Russia scoffed at the claim. America’s European allies shrugged it off as campaign hyperbole.The biggest military conflict in Europe since the end of World War II continued without a halt. Ceasefire negotiations failed. &nbsp;It took Trump 812 days from his first one-day promise to admit that he had misjudged his influence on Putin. After voicing frustration in a series of social media statements, he wrote on May 25: “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY, needlessly killing a lot of people as missiles and drones are being shot into cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.” &nbsp;That followed what the Ukrainian government described as the biggest Russian drone attack since the start of the war in 2022. Overnight, Russia launched 355 drones, following up on 298 the previous night. &nbsp;Just a week before, Trump had a two-hour telephone conversation with Putin to bring about a ceasefire. Putin did not agree, but both he and Trump said Russia and Ukraine would soon start talks towards a future peace.After the conversation with Putin, Trump arranged a conference call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Finland and the European Union. If they expected that Trump would announce concrete steps to tame the Russian leader, they were disappointed. &nbsp;While the European Union, a solid backer of Ukraine, has slapped new sanctions on Russia in response to Putin refusing a ceasefire, Trump threatened to step up existing sanctions and impose tariffs on Russia but has not acted so far.A bipartisan bill in the 100-seat Senate to impose additional sanctions on Russia has won 81 co-sponsors – a rare feat in deeply divided America – but Republican leaders are waiting for endorsement from the White House.&nbsp;It took a prominent Democratic senator to spell out what most experts in the US and Europe have been thinking for years. “Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle,” Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters. “He keeps extending the time because he sees time as being on the side of Russia.” &nbsp;The way Trump is handling Russia looks like the geopolitical equivalent of the way he has been handling the global tariffs he imposed on April 2, “liberation day” as he put it. His on-again, off-again tactics earned him a nickname from Wall Street he deeply resents: TACO.It stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. A reporter who mentioned the term in a press conference earned a stern rebuke: “nasty question.”One possibility Trump has mentioned in the first 100 days of his second term is for the US to walk away from negotiations and let Zelenskyy and Putin sort it out between them. It is open to conjecture whether that would mean a halt to the supply of weapons and intelligence support. The US has been the main supplier of both.Europe has been stepping up military support. Germany, the second biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the US, changed its long-standing policy on how its weapons can be used. &nbsp;Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in a decision that highlighted hardened resolve to back Ukraine, lifted long-standing restrictions on the range of German-delivered missiles. The new policy means that Ukraine can reach targets deep inside Russia. Merz did not mention a weapon high on the Ukrainian wish list – the Taurus missile, which has a range of 500 kilometres.But the German defence ministry said it would finance the production of long-range weapons systems in Ukraine, and “the first of these systems could be deployed by the Ukrainian armed forces in just a few weeks.”Ukrainian and Russian officials met in Turkey earlier in May for the first direct peace talks since the Russian invasion. No decisions came out of the meeting, but another one is scheduled for Istanbul early in June. Expectations for a breakthrough are low, and Trump himself has asserted that “nothing is going to happen until Putin and I get together.” &nbsp;Both in his first term and the first three months of his second, Trump has spoken of his good relationship with the Russian leader, which appears to be the reason he was so confident he could solve the conflict in one day.It’s worth noting that Trump is not the first American president who saw Putin through rose-tinted glasses. At a summit meeting in Slovenia in 2001, George W. Bush said of the ex-Soviet spymaster, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”Almost a quarter century later, Putin retains the ability to impress senior American officials. In March, Trump sent a special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to gauge the mood in the Kremlin at a time when Washington appeared receptive to Moscow’s version of the reason for its war. &nbsp;Witkoff, a real estate investor and friend of Trump, met Putin and told a US television anchor later he had “liked” the Kremlin leader. “I thought he was straight up with me. I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy.”

Trump's on-again, off-again tactics earned him a nickname from Wall Street he deeply resents: TACO. It stands for Trump Always Chickens Out.

The first time Donald Trump assured the world that he could end Russia’s devastating all-out war on Ukraine in a day was on March 5, 2023, when he was campaigning for re-election to a second term. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than one day,” he told a cheering crowd. The one-day solution promise to end a war, which at the time had just entered its second year, became a routine part of speeches in a campaign he won in 2024. Trump stressed that he based his prediction on good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. US military experts and diplomats familiar with Russia scoffed at the claim. America’s European allies shrugged it off as campaign hyperbole. The biggest military conflict in Europe since the end of World War II continued without a halt. Ceasefire negotiations failed. It took Trump 812 days from his first one-day promise to admit that he had misjudged his influence on Putin. After voicing frustration in a series of social media statements, he wrote on May 25: “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY, needlessly killing a lot of people as missiles and drones are being shot into cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.” That followed what the Ukrainian government described as the biggest Russian drone attack since the start of the war in 2022. Overnight, Russia launched 355 drones, following up on 298 the previous night. Just a week before, Trump had a two-hour telephone conversation with Putin to bring about a ceasefire. Putin did not agree, but both he and Trump said Russia and Ukraine would soon start talks towards a future peace. After the conversation with Putin, Trump arranged a conference call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Finland and the European Union. If they expected that Trump would announce concrete steps to tame the Russian leader, they were disappointed. While the European Union, a solid backer of Ukraine, has slapped new sanctions on Russia in response to Putin refusing a ceasefire, Trump threatened to step up existing sanctions and impose tariffs on Russia but has not acted so far. A bipartisan bill in the 100-seat Senate to impose additional sanctions on Russia has won 81 co-sponsors – a rare feat in deeply divided America – but Republican leaders are waiting for endorsement from the White House. It took a prominent Democratic senator to spell out what most experts in the US and Europe have been thinking for years. “Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle,” Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters. “He keeps extending the time because he sees time as being on the side of Russia.” The way Trump is handling Russia looks like the geopolitical equivalent of the way he has been handling the global tariffs he imposed on April 2, “liberation day” as he put it. His on-again, off-again tactics earned him a nickname from Wall Street he deeply resents: TACO. It stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. A reporter who mentioned the term in a press conference earned a stern rebuke: “nasty question.” One possibility Trump has mentioned in the first 100 days of his second term is for the US to walk away from negotiations and let Zelenskyy and Putin sort it out between them. It is open to conjecture whether that would mean a halt to the supply of weapons and intelligence support. The US has been the main supplier of both. Europe has been stepping up military support. Germany, the second biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the US, changed its long-standing policy on how its weapons can be used. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in a decision that highlighted hardened resolve to back Ukraine, lifted long-standing restrictions on the range of German-delivered missiles. The new policy means that Ukraine can reach targets deep inside Russia. Merz did not mention a weapon high on the Ukrainian wish list – the Taurus missile, which has a range of 500 kilometres. But the German defence ministry said it would finance the production of long-range weapons systems in Ukraine, and “the first of these systems could be deployed by the Ukrainian armed forces in just a few weeks.” Ukrainian and Russian officials met in Turkey earlier in May for the first direct peace talks since the Russian invasion. No decisions came out of the meeting, but another one is scheduled for Istanbul early in June. Expectations for a breakthrough are low, and Trump himself has asserted that “nothing is going to happen until Putin and I get together.” Both in his first term and the first three months of his second, Trump has spoken of his good relationship with the Russian leader, which appears to be the reason he was so confident he could solve the conflict in one day. It’s worth noting that Trump is not the first American president who saw Putin through rose-tinted glasses. At a summit meeting in Slovenia in 2001, George W. Bush said of the ex-Soviet spymaster, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Almost a quarter century later, Putin retains the ability to impress senior American officials. In March, Trump sent a special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to gauge the mood in the Kremlin at a time when Washington appeared receptive to Moscow’s version of the reason for its war. Witkoff, a real estate investor and friend of Trump, met Putin and told a US television anchor later he had “liked” the Kremlin leader. “I thought he was straight up with me. I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy.”

Trump's on-again, off-again tactics earned him a nickname from Wall Street he deeply resents: TACO. It stands for Trump Always Chickens Out.

US-Russia relations – Trump in fantasyland

"First of all, I want to apologise for this season," he said. "I know you are really disappointed with me and with the team. I want to say thank you. We are very grateful for your support during the season, and I know that it’s been hard. I know it was hard to support us in many games but now we have to make a choice or we stay stuck in the past because this season is in the past, it’s over.”&nbsp;&nbsp;"We fight each other, or we stick together and move forward. Six months ago, in my first three games in charge, with two victories and one draw, I said to you the storm is coming.&nbsp;&nbsp;"Today, after this disastrous season, I want to tell you the good days are coming. If there is one club in the world that proves in the past that it can overcome any situation, any disaster, it’s our club, it’s Manchester United Football Club.&nbsp;&nbsp;"Now I want to say sorry also to my players, sometimes I was not fair, but I always try to be honest with you. Thanks very much, see you next season."&nbsp; &nbsp;Those were Ruben Amorim’s words at Old Trafford, a raw, heartfelt farewell that echoed into the chilly Manchester night like a hymn for a broken congregation. And as fans stood there, arms crossed, scarf clutched tight to their throat,&nbsp;every Manchester United&nbsp;fan felt something&nbsp;they&nbsp;hadn’t felt in years—not hope, not anger, but something deeper. A love so fierce it hurts.&nbsp; &nbsp; For those of us who have bled red for decades, who grew up under the towering shadow of Sir Alex Ferguson’s reign, this season—like so many before—felt like a cruel rerun of a bad dream. A season of dashed hopes, of mediocrity dressed up as transition, of excuses and empty promises.&nbsp; &nbsp; But let’s rewind.&nbsp; &nbsp; When Sir Alex retired in 2013, he left behind not just a team, but an empire. Thirteen Premier League titles. Two Champions League trophies. Countless domestic cups. More than the silverware, he left behind a legacy of resilience, of passion, of never-say-die spirit. But what was Manchester United after Sir Alex?&nbsp; &nbsp; It was confusion. It was chaos. It was David Moyes, handpicked as the chosen one, yet devoured by the pressure of filling shoes too big for anyone. It was Louis van Gaal’s tactical rigidity and endless philosophy talk, crowned by an FA Cup but devoid of soul.&nbsp;&nbsp;It was José Mourinho’s bitter pragmatism, a Europa League here, a League Cup there, but ultimately a dressing room split and a fanbase divided. It was Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, the baby-faced assassin trying to recreate past glories with smiles and nostalgia but lacking the steel to truly rebuild.&nbsp; &nbsp; And now, it was Ruben Amorim. A coach who arrived with a swagger, a belief, and—briefly—a spark. His high-pressing game excited us; his insistence on youth over marquee signings gave us hope. But football, like life, is cruel.&nbsp; &nbsp; This season, 2024-2025, will be remembered not for the magic, but for the frustration. For the repeated defensive frailties, the lack of midfield control, the inability to convert dominance into goals.&nbsp;&nbsp;For the injuries—oh, the injuries!—to key players, the late collapses, the painful defeats at home and away. For the persistent gap between us and the likes of Manchester City, Liverpool, even Aston Villa.&nbsp; &nbsp; For a club that once set the standard for English football, this decade has been a lesson in humility. We have become a club caught between nostalgia and necessity, between the ghosts of our past and the hard truths of our present. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Glazer ownership saga has left scars that no amount of signings or rebrands can heal. The sporting structure has often felt reactive rather than visionary.&nbsp; &nbsp; But—and this is where Ruben’s words hit me hardest—being a United fan isn’t about winning all the time. It’s about believing when it’s hardest. It’s about that knot in your stomach before kickoff, that lump in your throat when the Stretford End roars. It’s about singing “Glory Glory Man United” at the top of your lungs even when we’re 3-0 down.&nbsp; &nbsp; Yes, I’m angry. Angry at the board, at the mismanagement, at the players who didn’t fight hard enough. I’m angry at the false dawns, the promises of “next season” that turned into more disappointment. I’m angry that I don’t recognize this team as the fearless, relentless United I grew up with.&nbsp; &nbsp; But I’m not leaving.&nbsp; &nbsp; Because love isn’t about walking away when things get tough. Love is staying through the heartbreak, the mediocrity, the embarrassment. Love is wearing the badge even when it feels heavy.&nbsp; &nbsp; What does the future hold? Maybe a new manager, a rebuild—again. Maybe a fresh start for the academy kids, a return to basics. Or maybe more of the same. I don’t know. What I do know is that this club—my club—isn’t just a football team. It’s history. It’s identity. It’s family.&nbsp; &nbsp; So, to Ruben Amorim—thank you. Not for the results, but for reminding us that Manchester United is more than silverware. It’s about us. The fans who fill Old Trafford, who chant in away ends, who argue in pubs and cry in the car park.&nbsp; &nbsp; To the players—you let us down. But we’ll be here next season, cheering you on, because that’s what we do.&nbsp; &nbsp; And to Manchester United itself—my beloved club—I’m angry at you, but that doesn’t mean I stop loving you.&nbsp; &nbsp; I’ll see you in August.&nbsp;&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

After the storm: Manchester United’s season ends, but the love remains 

"First of all, I want to apologise for this season," he said. "I know you are really disappointed with me and with the team. I want to say thank you. We are very grateful for your support during the season, and I know that it’s been hard. I know it was hard to support us in many games but now we have to make a choice or we stay stuck in the past because this season is in the past, it’s over.” "We fight each other, or we stick together and move forward. Six months ago, in my first three games in charge, with two victories and one draw, I said to you the storm is coming. "Today, after this disastrous season, I want to tell you the good days are coming. If there is one club in the world that proves in the past that it can overcome any situation, any disaster, it’s our club, it’s Manchester United Football Club. "Now I want to say sorry also to my players, sometimes I was not fair, but I always try to be honest with you. Thanks very much, see you next season." Those were Ruben Amorim’s words at Old Trafford, a raw, heartfelt farewell that echoed into the chilly Manchester night like a hymn for a broken congregation. And as fans stood there, arms crossed, scarf clutched tight to their throat, every Manchester United fan felt something they hadn’t felt in years—not hope, not anger, but something deeper. A love so fierce it hurts. For those of us who have bled red for decades, who grew up under the towering shadow of Sir Alex Ferguson’s reign, this season—like so many before—felt like a cruel rerun of a bad dream. A season of dashed hopes, of mediocrity dressed up as transition, of excuses and empty promises. But let’s rewind. When Sir Alex retired in 2013, he left behind not just a team, but an empire. Thirteen Premier League titles. Two Champions League trophies. Countless domestic cups. More than the silverware, he left behind a legacy of resilience, of passion, of never-say-die spirit. But what was Manchester United after Sir Alex? It was confusion. It was chaos. It was David Moyes, handpicked as the chosen one, yet devoured by the pressure of filling shoes too big for anyone. It was Louis van Gaal’s tactical rigidity and endless philosophy talk, crowned by an FA Cup but devoid of soul. It was José Mourinho’s bitter pragmatism, a Europa League here, a League Cup there, but ultimately a dressing room split and a fanbase divided. It was Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, the baby-faced assassin trying to recreate past glories with smiles and nostalgia but lacking the steel to truly rebuild. And now, it was Ruben Amorim. A coach who arrived with a swagger, a belief, and—briefly—a spark. His high-pressing game excited us; his insistence on youth over marquee signings gave us hope. But football, like life, is cruel. This season, 2024-2025, will be remembered not for the magic, but for the frustration. For the repeated defensive frailties, the lack of midfield control, the inability to convert dominance into goals. For the injuries—oh, the injuries!—to key players, the late collapses, the painful defeats at home and away. For the persistent gap between us and the likes of Manchester City, Liverpool, even Aston Villa. For a club that once set the standard for English football, this decade has been a lesson in humility. We have become a club caught between nostalgia and necessity, between the ghosts of our past and the hard truths of our present. The Glazer ownership saga has left scars that no amount of signings or rebrands can heal. The sporting structure has often felt reactive rather than visionary. But—and this is where Ruben’s words hit me hardest—being a United fan isn’t about winning all the time. It’s about believing when it’s hardest. It’s about that knot in your stomach before kickoff, that lump in your throat when the Stretford End roars. It’s about singing “Glory Glory Man United” at the top of your lungs even when we’re 3-0 down. Yes, I’m angry. Angry at the board, at the mismanagement, at the players who didn’t fight hard enough. I’m angry at the false dawns, the promises of “next season” that turned into more disappointment. I’m angry that I don’t recognize this team as the fearless, relentless United I grew up with. But I’m not leaving. Because love isn’t about walking away when things get tough. Love is staying through the heartbreak, the mediocrity, the embarrassment. Love is wearing the badge even when it feels heavy. What does the future hold? Maybe a new manager, a rebuild—again. Maybe a fresh start for the academy kids, a return to basics. Or maybe more of the same. I don’t know. What I do know is that this club—my club—isn’t just a football team. It’s history. It’s identity. It’s family. So, to Ruben Amorim—thank you. Not for the results, but for reminding us that Manchester United is more than silverware. It’s about us. The fans who fill Old Trafford, who chant in away ends, who argue in pubs and cry in the car park. To the players—you let us down. But we’ll be here next season, cheering you on, because that’s what we do. And to Manchester United itself—my beloved club—I’m angry at you, but that doesn’t mean I stop loving you. I’ll see you in August. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

This season, 2024-2025, will be remembered not for the magic, but for the frustration

After the storm: Manchester United’s season ends, but the love remains

Sharp cuts to science and research institutes in the United States have prompted many in the research community to consider leaving the country, enticed by newly-launched programmes in Europe and China to lure away disenchanted talent.&nbsp;This is a sharp reversal from decades of complaints that American institutions, long a magnet for the best and brightest around the world, were the cause of an unwelcome brain drain. Now, statistics point to a brain drain in reverse.&nbsp;According to a poll by the world’s most widely cited scientific journal, the British-based Nature, three quarters of 1,200 American scientists who responded to the magazine’s poll are considering leaving the United States. The reason: mass firings and disruptions since Donald Trump began his second presidential term in January.&nbsp;A decision to leave a hostile environment may well be made easier by a drastic, unprecedented move, announced on May 22, to bar Harvard, arguably the world’s most prestigious university, from enrolling international students. That followed protracted legal wrangling over how much influence the federal administration can have over the conduct of private universities.&nbsp;Disenchanted American researchers are being courted by a European Community plan to “make Europe a magnet for researchers” through an investment of 500 million Euros ($566 million) to help members of the U.S. science community settle into new jobs.&nbsp;At the same time, China is making a determined effort to recruit recently laid-off scientists to a large-scale research operation based in the south-eastern city of Shenzhen. Beginning in March, advertisements in major international publications, on Craigslist and Linked-in offered “comprehensive end-to-end support to realise your technological ambitions in Shenzhen.”&nbsp;The ads described Shenzhen as “a metropolis for the future” where “boundless opportunities” await in artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing and cutting-edge innovations. Shenzhen partners with leading universities and research universities, the ads promised.&nbsp;Both the European and Chinese initiatives came after a wave of layoffs across federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Research projects at top universities, including Harvard, have been paused or halted.&nbsp;The cuts were imposed by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, which is led by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and close associate of Trump. His election campaign benefitted from Musk contributions totaling $288 million.&nbsp;The wave of DOGE-dictated cuts and layoffs so alarmed the American scientific community that 47 scientific societies, associations, and organisations representing close to 100,000 scientists in a variety of fields urged Congress to protect federal scientists. The appeal came in a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists.&nbsp;The European Union and China are not the only outlets for Americans who give up on pursuing their careers in the U.S. in the present climate of hostility to scientific research institutions.&nbsp;In Germany, the Max Planck Institutes, home of top research facilities in biomedicine, astrophysics and environmental science, has been dubbed “a new talent pool” for disenchanted Americans by its president, Patrick Cramer.When the EU’s top executive, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the European incentive programme in March, she did not mention Trump of DOGE but left no doubt about her thoughts of what is happening in the United States. “Unfortunately, we see that the role of science in today’s world is questioned,” she said.&nbsp;“The investment in fundamental, free, and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation.”It is not known how many Americans will take up offers from outside the country. Life-changing plans take time and those who leave tend to keep it quiet for fear of being branded unpatriotic. So far, there is no sign of a massive outflow.But one basis for speculation mentioned by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel is the fact that close to ten percent of Highly Cited Researchers based in the U.S. have at least one bachelor, master’s degree or PhD from Europe and therefore are familiar with the region.&nbsp;Given generous relocation incentives, winning them back should be relatively easy to turn Europe into “a magnet for researchers” over the next two years, the aim von der Leyen proclaimed.&nbsp;A look at history highlights how significant a reverse brain drain would be in the world of science. One indicator of the gigantic role the United States has played for more than a century is the number of Nobel prizes awarded since two French citizens- Henry Dunant and Frederic Passy- shared the first in 1901.Since then, the United States grew into a research and science superpower, a powerful magnet for the best and brightest in the world. By last year, the toll of Nobel prizes won by Americans stood at 423 – 100 in physics, 86 in chemistry, 109 in physiology/medicine and 69 in economics.&nbsp;The harvest of prizes was more than twice that of Britain, the runner-up, with 143. Germany gained 115 and France 76.A significant share of American Nobel laureates – some estimates put it at 30 percent - have been immigrants, including last year’s physiology/medicine winner, Katalin Kariko. She was born in Hungary and came to the United States for post-doctoral studies at Temple University in Philadelphia.&nbsp;Not to forget: The Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb relied heavily on immigrant scientists who fled from persecution in Europe to the then American magnet for science.

Sharp cuts to science and research institutes in the United States have prompted many in the research community to consider leaving the country, enticed by newly-launched programmes in Europe and China to lure away disenchanted talent.

Sharp cuts to science and research institutes in the United States have prompted many in the research community to consider leaving the country, enticed by newly-launched programmes in Europe and China to lure away disenchanted talent. This is a sharp reversal from decades of complaints that American institutions, long a magnet for the best and brightest around the world, were the cause of an unwelcome brain drain. Now, statistics point to a brain drain in reverse. According to a poll by the world’s most widely cited scientific journal, the British-based Nature, three quarters of 1,200 American scientists who responded to the magazine’s poll are considering leaving the United States. The reason: mass firings and disruptions since Donald Trump began his second presidential term in January. A decision to leave a hostile environment may well be made easier by a drastic, unprecedented move, announced on May 22, to bar Harvard, arguably the world’s most prestigious university, from enrolling international students. That followed protracted legal wrangling over how much influence the federal administration can have over the conduct of private universities. Disenchanted American researchers are being courted by a European Community plan to “make Europe a magnet for researchers” through an investment of 500 million Euros ($566 million) to help members of the U.S. science community settle into new jobs. At the same time, China is making a determined effort to recruit recently laid-off scientists to a large-scale research operation based in the south-eastern city of Shenzhen. Beginning in March, advertisements in major international publications, on Craigslist and Linked-in offered “comprehensive end-to-end support to realise your technological ambitions in Shenzhen.” The ads described Shenzhen as “a metropolis for the future” where “boundless opportunities” await in artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing and cutting-edge innovations. Shenzhen partners with leading universities and research universities, the ads promised. Both the European and Chinese initiatives came after a wave of layoffs across federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Research projects at top universities, including Harvard, have been paused or halted. The cuts were imposed by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, which is led by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and close associate of Trump. His election campaign benefitted from Musk contributions totaling $288 million. The wave of DOGE-dictated cuts and layoffs so alarmed the American scientific community that 47 scientific societies, associations, and organisations representing close to 100,000 scientists in a variety of fields urged Congress to protect federal scientists. The appeal came in a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The European Union and China are not the only outlets for Americans who give up on pursuing their careers in the U.S. in the present climate of hostility to scientific research institutions. In Germany, the Max Planck Institutes, home of top research facilities in biomedicine, astrophysics and environmental science, has been dubbed “a new talent pool” for disenchanted Americans by its president, Patrick Cramer. When the EU’s top executive, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the European incentive programme in March, she did not mention Trump of DOGE but left no doubt about her thoughts of what is happening in the United States. “Unfortunately, we see that the role of science in today’s world is questioned,” she said. “The investment in fundamental, free, and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation.” It is not known how many Americans will take up offers from outside the country. Life-changing plans take time and those who leave tend to keep it quiet for fear of being branded unpatriotic. So far, there is no sign of a massive outflow. But one basis for speculation mentioned by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel is the fact that close to ten percent of Highly Cited Researchers based in the U.S. have at least one bachelor, master’s degree or PhD from Europe and therefore are familiar with the region. Given generous relocation incentives, winning them back should be relatively easy to turn Europe into “a magnet for researchers” over the next two years, the aim von der Leyen proclaimed. A look at history highlights how significant a reverse brain drain would be in the world of science. One indicator of the gigantic role the United States has played for more than a century is the number of Nobel prizes awarded since two French citizens- Henry Dunant and Frederic Passy- shared the first in 1901. Since then, the United States grew into a research and science superpower, a powerful magnet for the best and brightest in the world. By last year, the toll of Nobel prizes won by Americans stood at 423 – 100 in physics, 86 in chemistry, 109 in physiology/medicine and 69 in economics. The harvest of prizes was more than twice that of Britain, the runner-up, with 143. Germany gained 115 and France 76. A significant share of American Nobel laureates – some estimates put it at 30 percent - have been immigrants, including last year’s physiology/medicine winner, Katalin Kariko. She was born in Hungary and came to the United States for post-doctoral studies at Temple University in Philadelphia. Not to forget: The Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb relied heavily on immigrant scientists who fled from persecution in Europe to the then American magnet for science.

Sharp cuts to science and research institutes in the United States have prompted many in the research community to consider leaving the country, enticed by newly-launched programmes in Europe and China to lure away disenchanted talent.

Once a paradise for scientists, America faces a brain drain

As we observe Anti-Terrorism Day on May 21, 2025, our hearts are heavy yet hopeful. This day, marked every year to honour the memory of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was tragically assassinated by terrorists in 1991, reminds us of the deep scars terrorism has left on our nation. This year, the recent Operation Sindoor, a bold and precise military response to the horrific Pahalgam attack, gives us a moment to reflect on India’s unyielding spirit against terrorism. As we stand united, let us ponder the meaning of this day, the significance of Operation Sindoor, and the path ahead for a peaceful India.<h2>The Pain of Pahalgam and the Birth of Operation Sindoor</h2>On April 22, 2025, terror struck the serene valley of Pahalgam in Jammu agirisnd Kashmir. Twenty-six innocent lives, mostly Hindu tourists, were brutally taken by terrorists linked to Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). The attackers, in a calculated act of cruelty, targeted men, leaving their wives widowed, their sindoor—a sacred symbol of marriage—wiped away. The pain of this tragedy shook the nation, reminding us that terrorism knows no humanity, no religion, no boundaries.In response, on May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor, a meticulously planned operation that targeted nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Named after the vermilion mark that signifies the bond of marriage, the operation was a powerful message: India will not let the blood of its people be shed in vain. Over 100 terrorists, including high-profile figures like Yusuf Azhar, linked to the 1999 IC-814 hijacking, and others involved in the Pulwama attack, were eliminated. The strikes, carried out with precision using missiles and drones, destroyed terror hubs in places like Muridke and Bahawalpur, which have long been breeding grounds for anti-India activities<h2>A Nation United Against Terror</h2>Operation Sindoor was not just a military success; it was a symbol of India’s unity and resolve. From political leaders across parties to ordinary citizens, the nation stood shoulder to shoulder with the government and the armed forces. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, addressing an all-party meeting, emphasized that the operation was “ongoing” and that India would respond firmly to any escalation. Leaders like West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Congress’s Rahul Gandhi hailed the armed forces, proving that when it comes to fighting terrorism, India speaks in one voiceThe operation also sent a clear message to the world: India will not tolerate terrorism. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, speaking at a press briefing, exposed Pakistan’s links with terrorist groups, calling out their “state-sponsored” terror networks. The precision of the strikes, which avoided civilian and military targets, showed India’s commitment to responsible action, even in the face of provocation<h2>The Deeper Meaning of Anti-Terrorism Day</h2>&nbsp;Anti-Terrorism Day is not just about remembering the past; it is about renewing our pledge to fight terror in all its forms. Terrorism is a cancer that thrives on fear, division, and hatred. It does not care about religion, caste, or creed—it only seeks to destroy. The Pahalgam attack was a stark reminder of this, as terrorists targeted innocent tourists enjoying the beauty of Kashmir, a land we proudly call the “crown of India.”&nbsp;Yet, Operation Sindoor shows us that India is no longer a nation that will sit quietly. From the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrike, and now Operation Sindoor, India has evolved its strategy. We are no longer reacting; we are pre-empting, striking at the roots of terror before they can harm our people. This shift, as experts note, reflects a “strategic clarity” in India’s approach, where we reserve the right to act against terror, no matter where it hides.But fighting terrorism is not just about military might. It is about building a society that rejects hatred and embraces peace. On Anti-Terrorism Day, we must ask ourselves: How can we, as Indians, contribute to this fight? It starts with small steps—rejecting divisive narratives, supporting our security forces, and educating our youth about the values of unity and tolerance. Schools, colleges, and communities must come together to spread the message that terrorism has no place in our diverse, vibrant nation.<h2>The Road Ahead: Challenges and Hope</h2>&nbsp;While Operation Sindoor was a success, it also highlighted the challenges we face. Pakistan’s retaliation, including shelling in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 12 civilians and one soldier, shows that the path to peace is not easy. The international community, including the United Nations and the United States, has called for restraint, but India has made it clear: we will not escalate, but we will not back down either.&nbsp;The operation also exposed the deep-rooted terror networks in Pakistan, which continue to thrive with state support. Destroying camps is a step, but the ideology of terror is harder to defeat. India must continue to use diplomacy, intelligence, and international pressure to isolate those who sponsor terrorism. As AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi suggested, an international campaign to designate groups like The Resistance Front (TRF) as global terrorist organizations could be a powerful tool.&nbsp;At home, we must strengthen our security measures. The Pahalgam attack showed that terrorists can still exploit vulnerabilities. Our forces are combing Kashmir’s forests, searching for the attackers, but we need better intelligence, community cooperation, and modern technology to prevent such tragedies. At the same time, we must ensure that our fight against terror does not alienate innocent citizens. The detentions and strict measures in Kashmir must be balanced with efforts to win hearts and minds.<h2>A Call to Every Indian</h2>&nbsp;As we mark Anti-Terrorism Day, let Operation Sindoor inspire us. It is a reminder that our brave soldiers, from the Army to the Air Force and Navy, are ready to protect us. But they cannot do it alone. Every Indian has a role to play. Let us honour the memory of those lost in Pahalgam, and countless other attacks, by building a nation that stands united against terror.&nbsp;Let us teach our children the value of peace, not hatred. Let us support our government and forces, not with blind faith, but with constructive ideas and vigilance. And let us dream of a day when the sindoor on every forehead shines bright, untouched by the shadow of terror. This Anti-Terrorism Day, let us pledge to make India a beacon of hope, strength, and unity—a nation that not only fights terror but defeats it, once and for all.

As we stand united, let us ponder the meaning of this day, the significance of Operation Sindoor, and the path ahead for a peaceful India.

As we observe Anti-Terrorism Day on May 21, 2025, our hearts are heavy yet hopeful. This day, marked every year to honour the memory of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was tragically assassinated by terrorists in 1991, reminds us of the deep scars terrorism has left on our nation. This year, the recent Operation Sindoor, a bold and precise military response to the horrific Pahalgam attack, gives us a moment to reflect on India’s unyielding spirit against terrorism. As we stand united, let us ponder the meaning of this day, the significance of Operation Sindoor, and the path ahead for a peaceful India. The Pain of Pahalgam and the Birth of Operation Sindoor On April 22, 2025, terror struck the serene valley of Pahalgam in Jammu agirisnd Kashmir. Twenty-six innocent lives, mostly Hindu tourists, were brutally taken by terrorists linked to Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). The attackers, in a calculated act of cruelty, targeted men, leaving their wives widowed, their sindoor—a sacred symbol of marriage—wiped away. The pain of this tragedy shook the nation, reminding us that terrorism knows no humanity, no religion, no boundaries. In response, on May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor, a meticulously planned operation that targeted nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Named after the vermilion mark that signifies the bond of marriage, the operation was a powerful message: India will not let the blood of its people be shed in vain. Over 100 terrorists, including high-profile figures like Yusuf Azhar, linked to the 1999 IC-814 hijacking, and others involved in the Pulwama attack, were eliminated. The strikes, carried out with precision using missiles and drones, destroyed terror hubs in places like Muridke and Bahawalpur, which have long been breeding grounds for anti-India activities A Nation United Against Terror Operation Sindoor was not just a military success; it was a symbol of India’s unity and resolve. From political leaders across parties to ordinary citizens, the nation stood shoulder to shoulder with the government and the armed forces. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, addressing an all-party meeting, emphasized that the operation was “ongoing” and that India would respond firmly to any escalation. Leaders like West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Congress’s Rahul Gandhi hailed the armed forces, proving that when it comes to fighting terrorism, India speaks in one voice The operation also sent a clear message to the world: India will not tolerate terrorism. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, speaking at a press briefing, exposed Pakistan’s links with terrorist groups, calling out their “state-sponsored” terror networks. The precision of the strikes, which avoided civilian and military targets, showed India’s commitment to responsible action, even in the face of provocation The Deeper Meaning of Anti-Terrorism Day Anti-Terrorism Day is not just about remembering the past; it is about renewing our pledge to fight terror in all its forms. Terrorism is a cancer that thrives on fear, division, and hatred. It does not care about religion, caste, or creed—it only seeks to destroy. The Pahalgam attack was a stark reminder of this, as terrorists targeted innocent tourists enjoying the beauty of Kashmir, a land we proudly call the “crown of India.” Yet, Operation Sindoor shows us that India is no longer a nation that will sit quietly. From the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrike, and now Operation Sindoor, India has evolved its strategy. We are no longer reacting; we are pre-empting, striking at the roots of terror before they can harm our people. This shift, as experts note, reflects a “strategic clarity” in India’s approach, where we reserve the right to act against terror, no matter where it hides. But fighting terrorism is not just about military might. It is about building a society that rejects hatred and embraces peace. On Anti-Terrorism Day, we must ask ourselves: How can we, as Indians, contribute to this fight? It starts with small steps—rejecting divisive narratives, supporting our security forces, and educating our youth about the values of unity and tolerance. Schools, colleges, and communities must come together to spread the message that terrorism has no place in our diverse, vibrant nation. The Road Ahead: Challenges and Hope While Operation Sindoor was a success, it also highlighted the challenges we face. Pakistan’s retaliation, including shelling in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 12 civilians and one soldier, shows that the path to peace is not easy. The international community, including the United Nations and the United States, has called for restraint, but India has made it clear: we will not escalate, but we will not back down either. The operation also exposed the deep-rooted terror networks in Pakistan, which continue to thrive with state support. Destroying camps is a step, but the ideology of terror is harder to defeat. India must continue to use diplomacy, intelligence, and international pressure to isolate those who sponsor terrorism. As AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi suggested, an international campaign to designate groups like The Resistance Front (TRF) as global terrorist organizations could be a powerful tool. At home, we must strengthen our security measures. The Pahalgam attack showed that terrorists can still exploit vulnerabilities. Our forces are combing Kashmir’s forests, searching for the attackers, but we need better intelligence, community cooperation, and modern technology to prevent such tragedies. At the same time, we must ensure that our fight against terror does not alienate innocent citizens. The detentions and strict measures in Kashmir must be balanced with efforts to win hearts and minds. A Call to Every Indian As we mark Anti-Terrorism Day, let Operation Sindoor inspire us. It is a reminder that our brave soldiers, from the Army to the Air Force and Navy, are ready to protect us. But they cannot do it alone. Every Indian has a role to play. Let us honour the memory of those lost in Pahalgam, and countless other attacks, by building a nation that stands united against terror. Let us teach our children the value of peace, not hatred. Let us support our government and forces, not with blind faith, but with constructive ideas and vigilance. And let us dream of a day when the sindoor on every forehead shines bright, untouched by the shadow of terror. This Anti-Terrorism Day, let us pledge to make India a beacon of hope, strength, and unity—a nation that not only fights terror but defeats it, once and for all.

As we stand united, let us ponder the meaning of this day, the significance of Operation Sindoor, and the path ahead for a peaceful India.

From Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination to Sindoor’s wrath: Anti-Terrorism Day vows India’s vengeance

As global economic conditions grow increasingly fragmented, Indian startups are reassessing their strategic direction in response to evolving foreign direct investment (FDI) regulations, renewed protectionist trade measures, and a shifting investment climate.
Despite significant growth over the past decade, the Indian startup ecosystem remains heavily reliant on foreign capital, with over 85 per cent of funding originating from international sources. This dependence has exposed several sectors, particularly export-oriented businesses, to external shocks, including the reintroduction of US tariffs, which have disrupted pricing structures and access to overseas markets. In response, many startup founders are shifting focus from rapid international expansion to reinforcing domestic resilience.
Startups are increasingly investing in local supply chains, exploring regional trade linkages, and building intellectual property-driven business models to mitigate exposure to global trade disruptions. The recalibration also includes a stronger emphasis on India&rsquo;s internal market and policy frameworks.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-saudi-crown-prince-sign-major-business-deals-in-riyadh-9065342">Trump, Saudi Crown Prince sign major business deals in Riyadh</a>
Changes to FDI norms are impacting how startups structure their operations, particularly in sectors such as e-commerce and quick commerce, where compliance hinges on the distinction between marketplace and inventory-led models. In many cases, startups are operating through layered corporate structures, with foreign-funded parent entities adhering to investment rules while domestically capitalised subsidiaries handle inventory and fulfilment functions. While such frameworks remain legally compliant, they have prompted renewed discussions around sector-specific regulations that better reflect the complexities of modern business models.
A significant development in this regulatory landscape is the growing focus on the Indian-Origin Control and Ownership Criteria (IOCC). For startups aiming to list on Indian stock exchanges, meeting IOCC thresholds has become a key requirement. This has led many firms to reconfigure their capitalisation tables by increasing domestic institutional participation or facilitating secondary exits for early-stage foreign investors. Indian public markets, once viewed as secondary to global listings, are now seen as a more stable and capital-efficient route for long-term growth.
While talking to WION, Roma Priya, founder of Burgeon Law, which specialises in handling legal aspects for startups said, "The evolving regulatory landscape and geopolitical shifts present both challenges and opportunities for Indian startups. Navigating these complexities requires a nuanced understanding of legal frameworks and strategic foresight. At Burgeon Law, we have observed that startups adopting proactive compliance measures and aligning their operations with domestic regulations are better positioned to attract investment and scale sustainably."
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/kim-kardashian-testifies-in-paris-multi-million-dollar-robbery-trial-9061672">Kim Kardashian testifies in Paris multi-million-dollar robbery trial</a>
She added, "The emphasis on Indian-Origin Control and Ownership Criteria (IOCC) underscores the importance of structuring cap tables thoughtfully to facilitate domestic listings. In this dynamic environment, legal agility and informed decision-making are paramount for startups aiming to thrive."
Investor sentiment is adjusting rather than withdrawing. While foreign capital remains present, it is entering with more caution. In contrast, domestic capital&mdash;from institutional investors, family offices, and retail-linked entities&mdash;is becoming increasingly significant, particularly in late-stage funding rounds and IPO preparations. This shift is gradually changing the funding narrative from one dominated by global investors to a more India-focused capital structure.
Radhika Ghai, founder of kindlife.in, an online marketplace startup for new age beauty and wellness products said, "With over 85 per cent of Indian startup funding still coming from foreign sources, our ecosystem remains vulnerable to global shocks, be it US tariffs, shifting FDI norms, or investor sentiment swings. But this is also a wake-up call. India&rsquo;s real strength lies in our vast domestic market, digital infrastructure, and a rising pool of homegrown capital. In 2025, startups that focus on building for Bharat, leveraging local supply chains, tapping into domestic funds, and aligning with national priorities like Make in India and Digital Public Infrastructure will not just survive, they&rsquo;ll lead. It&rsquo;s time we stop chasing capital abroad and start unlocking the immense potential within."
As 2025 progresses, Indian startups are expected to operate with greater focus on compliance, governance, and domestic market integration. The previous model of growth driven largely by foreign funding is evolving toward one built on internal alignment and strategic autonomy. Startups that adapt to these conditions are more likely to withstand external pressures and contribute to the next phase of India&rsquo;s startup development.&nbsp;
Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Startups are increasingly investing in local supply chains, exploring regional trade linkages, and building intellectual property-driven business models to mitigate exposure to global trade disruptions.

As global economic conditions grow increasingly fragmented, Indian startups are reassessing their strategic direction in response to evolving foreign direct investment (FDI) regulations, renewed protectionist trade measures, and a shifting investment climate. Despite significant growth over the past decade, the Indian startup ecosystem remains heavily reliant on foreign capital, with over 85 per cent of funding originating from international sources. This dependence has exposed several sectors, particularly export-oriented businesses, to external shocks, including the reintroduction of US tariffs, which have disrupted pricing structures and access to overseas markets. In response, many startup founders are shifting focus from rapid international expansion to reinforcing domestic resilience. Startups are increasingly investing in local supply chains, exploring regional trade linkages, and building intellectual property-driven business models to mitigate exposure to global trade disruptions. The recalibration also includes a stronger emphasis on India’s internal market and policy frameworks. Also read: Trump, Saudi Crown Prince sign major business deals in Riyadh Changes to FDI norms are impacting how startups structure their operations, particularly in sectors such as e-commerce and quick commerce, where compliance hinges on the distinction between marketplace and inventory-led models. In many cases, startups are operating through layered corporate structures, with foreign-funded parent entities adhering to investment rules while domestically capitalised subsidiaries handle inventory and fulfilment functions. While such frameworks remain legally compliant, they have prompted renewed discussions around sector-specific regulations that better reflect the complexities of modern business models. A significant development in this regulatory landscape is the growing focus on the Indian-Origin Control and Ownership Criteria (IOCC). For startups aiming to list on Indian stock exchanges, meeting IOCC thresholds has become a key requirement. This has led many firms to reconfigure their capitalisation tables by increasing domestic institutional participation or facilitating secondary exits for early-stage foreign investors. Indian public markets, once viewed as secondary to global listings, are now seen as a more stable and capital-efficient route for long-term growth. While talking to WION, Roma Priya, founder of Burgeon Law, which specialises in handling legal aspects for startups said, "The evolving regulatory landscape and geopolitical shifts present both challenges and opportunities for Indian startups. Navigating these complexities requires a nuanced understanding of legal frameworks and strategic foresight. At Burgeon Law, we have observed that startups adopting proactive compliance measures and aligning their operations with domestic regulations are better positioned to attract investment and scale sustainably." Also read: Kim Kardashian testifies in Paris multi-million-dollar robbery trial She added, "The emphasis on Indian-Origin Control and Ownership Criteria (IOCC) underscores the importance of structuring cap tables thoughtfully to facilitate domestic listings. In this dynamic environment, legal agility and informed decision-making are paramount for startups aiming to thrive." Investor sentiment is adjusting rather than withdrawing. While foreign capital remains present, it is entering with more caution. In contrast, domestic capital—from institutional investors, family offices, and retail-linked entities—is becoming increasingly significant, particularly in late-stage funding rounds and IPO preparations. This shift is gradually changing the funding narrative from one dominated by global investors to a more India-focused capital structure. Radhika Ghai, founder of kindlife.in, an online marketplace startup for new age beauty and wellness products said, "With over 85 per cent of Indian startup funding still coming from foreign sources, our ecosystem remains vulnerable to global shocks, be it US tariffs, shifting FDI norms, or investor sentiment swings. But this is also a wake-up call. India’s real strength lies in our vast domestic market, digital infrastructure, and a rising pool of homegrown capital. In 2025, startups that focus on building for Bharat, leveraging local supply chains, tapping into domestic funds, and aligning with national priorities like Make in India and Digital Public Infrastructure will not just survive, they’ll lead. It’s time we stop chasing capital abroad and start unlocking the immense potential within." As 2025 progresses, Indian startups are expected to operate with greater focus on compliance, governance, and domestic market integration. The previous model of growth driven largely by foreign funding is evolving toward one built on internal alignment and strategic autonomy. Startups that adapt to these conditions are more likely to withstand external pressures and contribute to the next phase of India’s startup development. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

How Indian startups are realigning their strategies amid global uncertainty and regulatory shifts

US President Donald Trump&rsquo;s first foreign visit of his second term in office has been a mix of major commercial deals, an unexpected policy turn that changes Middle Eastern geopolitics, and the formal offer of a $400 billion aircraft that prompted corruption charges at home. &nbsp;
As it was on his first foreign trip in 2017, Trump&rsquo;s first stop was Saudi Arabia, where he was received with the pomp and circumstance only a rich country run by a royal family can offer. According to the White House, Trump secured $600 billion in several deals in talks with the ruling crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and business leaders.
Topping the list was what the administration described as &ldquo;the largest defence deal in history,&rdquo; a $142 billion agreement on state-of-the-art military equipment complete with services from major American defence industry companies. &nbsp;
Big commercial deals were expected before Trump left Washington. What was not expected &ndash; a presidential announcement that the United States would lift sanctions against Syria at the behest of MbS, as the crown prince is known. He followed the surprise change of policy with a Saudi-sponsored brief meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa.&nbsp;
Al-Sharaa once led a branch of al-Qaeda and had a $10 million US bounty on his head. The rebel group he put together after breaking with al-Qaeda swept to power in Syria five months ago, ending the iron rule of Bashar al-Assad, who fled into exile in Moscow just before the anti-government forces captured Damascus.
Lifting the sanctions, which Trump described as &ldquo;crippling and brutal&rdquo;, is a huge boost to the new Syrian government as it tries to rebuild ties with the West. &ldquo;Now it&rsquo;s Syria&rsquo;s time to shine,&rdquo; Trump said in a speech. &ldquo;I say good luck, Syria. Show us something very special.&rdquo;&nbsp;
It was the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in 25 years and a milestone in Trump&rsquo;s attempt to bring a measure of stability to the volatile region. Trump urged al-Sharaa to normalise relations with Israel.
Lifting the sanctions on war-shattered Syria was a significant policy shift. The US declared Syria a sponsor of terrorism in 1979 and imposed sanctions twice &ndash; in 2004 and again after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
Even before embarking on his four-day tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Trump surprised the Middle East with an announcement to end a months-long fierce US bombing campaign against Yemen&rsquo;s Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who had attacked US shipping in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab and the Gulf of Aden. &nbsp;
The ceasefire sidelined Israel, which has been left out of Trump&rsquo;s itinerary, unlike in 2017. Trump has made no secret of his irritation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for ignoring suggestions to make efforts to end the war in Gaza and allow the supply of humanitarian aid.
Trump&rsquo;s second stop on his Mideast swing of rich countries on Wednesday took him to Qatar, where his reception was even more lavish than in Saudi Arabia. A cavalry of dozens of camels lined the road to the Qatar Royal Court. As his motorcade neared the entrance, white horses galloped by.
But what made most headlines about the Qatar visit and will go down in history is a gift from the Qatar Royal family &ndash; a Boeing 747 so lavishly furnished that it is known as the Flying Palace. The aircraft is valued at $400 billion and is meant to replace the 38-year-old Air Force One he is now using.&nbsp;
It would be by far the most valuable gift ever received by a US president, and it raised ethical concerns not only from Democrats but also from some of his most loyal Republican allies. They included Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer who has Trump&rsquo;s ear and played a role in personnel decisions.
She tweeted to her millions of social media followers: &ldquo;I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him. But I have to call a spade a spade. We cannot accept a $400 million &lsquo;gift&rsquo; from jihadis in suits&rdquo; accepting it would leave &ldquo;a stain&rdquo; on Trump&rsquo;s legacy, she added.
The phrase &ldquo;jihadis in suits&rdquo; referred to Qatar&rsquo;s relations with the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas. Other far-right figures critical of the gift included Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the right-wing media outlet The Daily Wire.&nbsp;
In 2017, Trump said Qatar has &ldquo;historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Democrats raised both ethical and legal concerns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quipped that the plane meant &ldquo;foreign influence with extra leg room&rdquo;. Ethics experts said the gift violated the US Constitution, which has an article specifically about foreign gifts.
Article 1 says: &ldquo;No person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.&rdquo;
On the eve of his departure, Trump told reporters, &ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say &lsquo;No we don&rsquo;t want a free, very expensive airplane.&rsquo; But I thought it would be a great gesture.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Officials say that Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo giving the green light to the Qatari present. To put that into context, it&rsquo;s worth mentioning that Bondi worked as a lobbyist for Qatar in 2020 and 2022, with a monthly salary of $115,000.&nbsp;
While political antagonists in Washington were debating the ethics and legality of accepting the gift from Qatar, Trump and Qatar&rsquo;s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, sat down at a conference table in Doha to witness the signing of an agreement for the state-owned airline Qatar Airways to buy up to 210 widebody jets from Boeing.&nbsp;
Qatar Airways said it was the largest widebody order for Boeing and the airline&rsquo;s largest order ever, worth $96 billion.
When the US President returns to Washington on Friday, after the conclusion of his Gulf visit in Abu Dhabi, his administration is certain to portray the Boeing deal as one of the biggest win of a tour that blended commercial deals with politics to the benefit of the leader,&nbsp;his country -- and Syria.&nbsp;

Discover the surprise policy shift as Trump lifts sanctions on Syria, marking a significant geopolitical change and boosting Syria's new government relations with the West.

US President Donald Trump’s first foreign visit of his second term in office has been a mix of major commercial deals, an unexpected policy turn that changes Middle Eastern geopolitics, and the formal offer of a $400 billion aircraft that prompted corruption charges at home. As it was on his first foreign trip in 2017, Trump’s first stop was Saudi Arabia, where he was received with the pomp and circumstance only a rich country run by a royal family can offer. According to the White House, Trump secured $600 billion in several deals in talks with the ruling crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and business leaders. Topping the list was what the administration described as “the largest defence deal in history,” a $142 billion agreement on state-of-the-art military equipment complete with services from major American defence industry companies. Big commercial deals were expected before Trump left Washington. What was not expected – a presidential announcement that the United States would lift sanctions against Syria at the behest of MbS, as the crown prince is known. He followed the surprise change of policy with a Saudi-sponsored brief meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Al-Sharaa once led a branch of al-Qaeda and had a $10 million US bounty on his head. The rebel group he put together after breaking with al-Qaeda swept to power in Syria five months ago, ending the iron rule of Bashar al-Assad, who fled into exile in Moscow just before the anti-government forces captured Damascus. Lifting the sanctions, which Trump described as “crippling and brutal”, is a huge boost to the new Syrian government as it tries to rebuild ties with the West. “Now it’s Syria’s time to shine,” Trump said in a speech. “I say good luck, Syria. Show us something very special.” It was the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in 25 years and a milestone in Trump’s attempt to bring a measure of stability to the volatile region. Trump urged al-Sharaa to normalise relations with Israel. Lifting the sanctions on war-shattered Syria was a significant policy shift. The US declared Syria a sponsor of terrorism in 1979 and imposed sanctions twice – in 2004 and again after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. Even before embarking on his four-day tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Trump surprised the Middle East with an announcement to end a months-long fierce US bombing campaign against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who had attacked US shipping in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab and the Gulf of Aden. The ceasefire sidelined Israel, which has been left out of Trump’s itinerary, unlike in 2017. Trump has made no secret of his irritation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for ignoring suggestions to make efforts to end the war in Gaza and allow the supply of humanitarian aid. Trump’s second stop on his Mideast swing of rich countries on Wednesday took him to Qatar, where his reception was even more lavish than in Saudi Arabia. A cavalry of dozens of camels lined the road to the Qatar Royal Court. As his motorcade neared the entrance, white horses galloped by. But what made most headlines about the Qatar visit and will go down in history is a gift from the Qatar Royal family – a Boeing 747 so lavishly furnished that it is known as the Flying Palace. The aircraft is valued at $400 billion and is meant to replace the 38-year-old Air Force One he is now using. It would be by far the most valuable gift ever received by a US president, and it raised ethical concerns not only from Democrats but also from some of his most loyal Republican allies. They included Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer who has Trump’s ear and played a role in personnel decisions. She tweeted to her millions of social media followers: “I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him. But I have to call a spade a spade. We cannot accept a $400 million ‘gift’ from jihadis in suits” accepting it would leave “a stain” on Trump’s legacy, she added. The phrase “jihadis in suits” referred to Qatar’s relations with the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas. Other far-right figures critical of the gift included Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the right-wing media outlet The Daily Wire. In 2017, Trump said Qatar has “historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” Democrats raised both ethical and legal concerns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quipped that the plane meant “foreign influence with extra leg room”. Ethics experts said the gift violated the US Constitution, which has an article specifically about foreign gifts. Article 1 says: “No person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.” On the eve of his departure, Trump told reporters, “I think it’s a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say ‘No we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’ But I thought it would be a great gesture.” Officials say that Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo giving the green light to the Qatari present. To put that into context, it’s worth mentioning that Bondi worked as a lobbyist for Qatar in 2020 and 2022, with a monthly salary of $115,000. While political antagonists in Washington were debating the ethics and legality of accepting the gift from Qatar, Trump and Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, sat down at a conference table in Doha to witness the signing of an agreement for the state-owned airline Qatar Airways to buy up to 210 widebody jets from Boeing. Qatar Airways said it was the largest widebody order for Boeing and the airline’s largest order ever, worth $96 billion. When the US President returns to Washington on Friday, after the conclusion of his Gulf visit in Abu Dhabi, his administration is certain to portray the Boeing deal as one of the biggest win of a tour that blended commercial deals with politics to the benefit of the leader, his country -- and Syria.

Trump’s Gulf tour: Big arms deals, surprise politics, corruption charges

As an Indian, I feel immense pride in our defence industry, especially when I compare it with Turkey&rsquo;s, keeping in mind events like Operation Sindoor. India&rsquo;s military strength, driven by home-grown systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer, is soaring. But Turkey&rsquo;s support for Pakistan during this operation, supplying drones and taking anti-India stances, shows their true colours. Let&rsquo;s break it down in simple words, from an Indian perspective.
<h3>India&rsquo;s Defence Industry: A Self-Reliant Giant</h3>
India&rsquo;s defence sector is booming. We&rsquo;re not just importing weapons; we&rsquo;re building world-class systems under &ldquo;Make in India.&rdquo; Take the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile&mdash;jointly developed with Russia, it&rsquo;s one of the fastest and most precise missiles globally, capable of hitting targets 450 km away from land, sea, or air. During Operation Sindoor, BrahMos was a game-changer, striking terror camps in Pakistan and PoK with pinpoint accuracy. Then there&rsquo;s the Akash missile system, which defends our skies by shooting down enemy aircraft and missiles up to 30 km away. Its advanced version, Akashteer, integrates our air defence network, making it smarter and faster, neutralising Pakistani drones in seconds.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-high-level-cabinet-committee-meeting-chaired-by-pm-modi-on-national-security-concludes-9067565">Operation Sindoor: High-level Cabinet Committee meeting chaired by PM Modi on national security concludes</a>
We also have the D-4 anti-drone system and the S-400 from Russia, both of which crushed Pakistan&rsquo;s attacks during Operation Sindoor. Our defence budget, around $81 billion, is among the world&rsquo;s highest, fuelling companies like DRDO, HAL, and Bharat Dynamics to produce Tejas jets, radars, and missiles. While we import from Russia (36%), France (33%), Israel (18%) and US (11%) our focus is clear: self-reliance. Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack, proved this. In just 25 minutes, we destroyed nine terror sites, eight Pakistani airbases, and over 100 terrorists, showcasing systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer in action.
<h3>Turkey&rsquo;s Defence Industry: Growing but Outclassed</h3>
Turkey&rsquo;s defence industry is ambitious but falls short of India&rsquo;s might. Their $20 billion defence budget supports drones like Bayraktar TB2 and Songar, which Pakistan used against us in Operation Sindoor. Companies like Baykar and TAI export drones, warships, and jets to countries like Pakistan, and Turkey even banned defence exports to India to favour them. Their drones have seen action in Ukraine and Libya, earning praise, but they rely on foreign tech, like engines, limiting their independence.
Operation Sindoor exposed Turkey&rsquo;s weaknesses. Pakistan&rsquo;s Turkish-made Songar drones were shredded by our Akash and Akashteer systems, which one report called &ldquo;straws in the sky&rdquo; against India&rsquo;s air defence grid. Turkish defence stocks crashed after our operation, while Indian markets rallied. Turkey&rsquo;s industry may be innovative, but it&rsquo;s no match for India&rsquo;s scale and advanced systems like BrahMos, which outranges and outsmarts their tech.
Turkey is also developing a 5th-generation fighter, the TAI TF Kaan, which flew for the first time in 2024 and aims to rival advanced jets with stealth and supercruise by 2028. But it&rsquo;s still years away, relying on foreign engines and facing technical hurdles. India&rsquo;s own 5th-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), led by DRDO, is on track for its first flight by 2026, with stealth, AI, and indigenous engines. While Turkey dreams of exporting Kaan to Pakistan, India&rsquo;s AMCA will strengthen our air dominance, building on the success of systems like BrahMos and Akash. Turkey&rsquo;s Kaan is a bold step, but India&rsquo;s proven track record and larger resources give us the edge.
<h3>Operation Sindoor: Turkey&rsquo;s Blunder</h3>
Operation Sindoor was a defining moment. After the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, killed 26 people, India struck back hard. Our BrahMos missiles and Akash-Akashteer combo decimated terror camps and stopped Pakistan&rsquo;s counterattacks, including their Turkish drones and Chinese PL-15 missiles. Turkey&rsquo;s role was shameful&mdash;they supplied Pakistan with drones, sent warships and C-130 planes to replenish stocks, and condemned India&rsquo;s actions. President Erdoğan even pushed for UN talks on Kashmir, rubbing salt in our wounds.
This betrayal stings, especially after India&rsquo;s Operation Dost aided Turkey during their 2023 earthquake. Now, Indians are boycotting Turkish goods, and companies like EaseMyTrip have halted bookings to Turkey. Turkey&rsquo;s defence firm Baykar openly prioritised Pakistan, refusing to sell us drones. Operation Sindoor showed that their tech, like the Songar drone, couldn&rsquo;t stand up to our BrahMos precision or Akashteer&rsquo;s rapid response.
<h3>Why India Stands Stronger</h3>
India&rsquo;s defence industry is about innovation and resolve. Operation Sindoor highlighted our ability to plan and dominate, with BrahMos striking deep, Akash guarding our skies, and Akashteer coordinating it all. We briefed 70 nations on our success, deliberately excluding Turkey and China, who backed Pakistan. Our air defence grid outclassed their systems, proving our technological edge.
Turkey&rsquo;s support for Pakistan has backfired. Indian defence stocks soared post-ceasefire, while Turkish and Chinese firms faced losses. Globally, nations trust India as a responsible power, while Turkey&rsquo;s image suffers for siding with a state even a Pakistani citizen called a &ldquo;breeder of terrorism.&rdquo; Our systems like BrahMos and Akashteer are symbols of our strength and self-reliance.
<h3>The Way Ahead</h3>
As an Indian, I believe we must double down on self-reliance. Operation Sindoor showed the power of BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer, but we need more indigenous tech, stronger cyber defences, and sharper diplomacy to counter Turkey&rsquo;s antics. Their support for Pakistan is a wake-up call&mdash;trust must be earned. Boycotting Turkish goods is a start, but we should outpace them in innovation and global influence.
Turkey&rsquo;s defence industry may dream big, but it&rsquo;s dwarfed by India&rsquo;s scale, resolve, and moral clarity. Operation Sindoor wasn&rsquo;t just a military victory; it was a statement&mdash;India stands for justice, and our systems like BrahMos and Akashteer will protect us, no matter who stands against us. Turkey picked the wrong side, and they&rsquo;re paying for it. Let&rsquo;s keep building our strength and showing the world India&rsquo;s true power.

India’s military strength, driven by home-grown systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer, is soaring. But Turkey’s support for Pakistan during this operation, supplying drones and taking anti-India stances, shows their true colours. India

As an Indian, I feel immense pride in our defence industry, especially when I compare it with Turkey’s, keeping in mind events like Operation Sindoor. India’s military strength, driven by home-grown systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer, is soaring. But Turkey’s support for Pakistan during this operation, supplying drones and taking anti-India stances, shows their true colours. Let’s break it down in simple words, from an Indian perspective. India’s Defence Industry: A Self-Reliant Giant India’s defence sector is booming. We’re not just importing weapons; we’re building world-class systems under “Make in India.” Take the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile—jointly developed with Russia, it’s one of the fastest and most precise missiles globally, capable of hitting targets 450 km away from land, sea, or air. During Operation Sindoor, BrahMos was a game-changer, striking terror camps in Pakistan and PoK with pinpoint accuracy. Then there’s the Akash missile system, which defends our skies by shooting down enemy aircraft and missiles up to 30 km away. Its advanced version, Akashteer, integrates our air defence network, making it smarter and faster, neutralising Pakistani drones in seconds. Also read: Operation Sindoor: High-level Cabinet Committee meeting chaired by PM Modi on national security concludes We also have the D-4 anti-drone system and the S-400 from Russia, both of which crushed Pakistan’s attacks during Operation Sindoor. Our defence budget, around $81 billion, is among the world’s highest, fuelling companies like DRDO, HAL, and Bharat Dynamics to produce Tejas jets, radars, and missiles. While we import from Russia (36%), France (33%), Israel (18%) and US (11%) our focus is clear: self-reliance. Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack, proved this. In just 25 minutes, we destroyed nine terror sites, eight Pakistani airbases, and over 100 terrorists, showcasing systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer in action. Turkey’s Defence Industry: Growing but Outclassed Turkey’s defence industry is ambitious but falls short of India’s might. Their $20 billion defence budget supports drones like Bayraktar TB2 and Songar, which Pakistan used against us in Operation Sindoor. Companies like Baykar and TAI export drones, warships, and jets to countries like Pakistan, and Turkey even banned defence exports to India to favour them. Their drones have seen action in Ukraine and Libya, earning praise, but they rely on foreign tech, like engines, limiting their independence. Operation Sindoor exposed Turkey’s weaknesses. Pakistan’s Turkish-made Songar drones were shredded by our Akash and Akashteer systems, which one report called “straws in the sky” against India’s air defence grid. Turkish defence stocks crashed after our operation, while Indian markets rallied. Turkey’s industry may be innovative, but it’s no match for India’s scale and advanced systems like BrahMos, which outranges and outsmarts their tech. Turkey is also developing a 5th-generation fighter, the TAI TF Kaan, which flew for the first time in 2024 and aims to rival advanced jets with stealth and supercruise by 2028. But it’s still years away, relying on foreign engines and facing technical hurdles. India’s own 5th-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), led by DRDO, is on track for its first flight by 2026, with stealth, AI, and indigenous engines. While Turkey dreams of exporting Kaan to Pakistan, India’s AMCA will strengthen our air dominance, building on the success of systems like BrahMos and Akash. Turkey’s Kaan is a bold step, but India’s proven track record and larger resources give us the edge. Operation Sindoor: Turkey’s Blunder Operation Sindoor was a defining moment. After the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, killed 26 people, India struck back hard. Our BrahMos missiles and Akash-Akashteer combo decimated terror camps and stopped Pakistan’s counterattacks, including their Turkish drones and Chinese PL-15 missiles. Turkey’s role was shameful—they supplied Pakistan with drones, sent warships and C-130 planes to replenish stocks, and condemned India’s actions. President Erdoğan even pushed for UN talks on Kashmir, rubbing salt in our wounds. This betrayal stings, especially after India’s Operation Dost aided Turkey during their 2023 earthquake. Now, Indians are boycotting Turkish goods, and companies like EaseMyTrip have halted bookings to Turkey. Turkey’s defence firm Baykar openly prioritised Pakistan, refusing to sell us drones. Operation Sindoor showed that their tech, like the Songar drone, couldn’t stand up to our BrahMos precision or Akashteer’s rapid response. Why India Stands Stronger India’s defence industry is about innovation and resolve. Operation Sindoor highlighted our ability to plan and dominate, with BrahMos striking deep, Akash guarding our skies, and Akashteer coordinating it all. We briefed 70 nations on our success, deliberately excluding Turkey and China, who backed Pakistan. Our air defence grid outclassed their systems, proving our technological edge. Turkey’s support for Pakistan has backfired. Indian defence stocks soared post-ceasefire, while Turkish and Chinese firms faced losses. Globally, nations trust India as a responsible power, while Turkey’s image suffers for siding with a state even a Pakistani citizen called a “breeder of terrorism.” Our systems like BrahMos and Akashteer are symbols of our strength and self-reliance. The Way Ahead As an Indian, I believe we must double down on self-reliance. Operation Sindoor showed the power of BrahMos, Akash, and Akashteer, but we need more indigenous tech, stronger cyber defences, and sharper diplomacy to counter Turkey’s antics. Their support for Pakistan is a wake-up call—trust must be earned. Boycotting Turkish goods is a start, but we should outpace them in innovation and global influence. Turkey’s defence industry may dream big, but it’s dwarfed by India’s scale, resolve, and moral clarity. Operation Sindoor wasn’t just a military victory; it was a statement—India stands for justice, and our systems like BrahMos and Akashteer will protect us, no matter who stands against us. Turkey picked the wrong side, and they’re paying for it. Let’s keep building our strength and showing the world India’s true power.

India firepower crushes Turkey’s betrayal, Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan ally

opinions

Opinions & Blogs, News on Opinions & Blogs, stories on Opinions & Blogs, articles on Opinions & Blogs, Opinions & Blogs stories at Wion, Opinions & Blogs news, Opinions & Blogs latest news

opinions

From India to Iran: Trump brokered peace in silos as nations involved remain clueless

Stay smart, stay neutral: Why India should avoid risky strokes in Iran-US crisis

‘Nobel ambitions': Why Donald Trump won’t stop talking about the peace prize?

A tale of PM Modi’s three visits

All about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s most powerful man

Trump press secretaries only toe his line, and the new one is not any different

Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran-Israel inferno: Can the strongman duo end the war?

World has 'no idea' what Trump's thoughts on Iran are, but does he?

The Iraq invasion playbook returns: But can it work against Iran?

Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan's expensive force projection

PM Modi at G7: India's role in regional security, trade, climate, Global South

Shubhanshu Shukla's historic Axiom-4 flight: Weather writes the final chapter

Before you sign big cheque, check ‘Positive Pay’ rule

A new dawn: 11 years of India's remarkable journey with PM Modi

Operation Sindoor: Veterans as strategic voices in national discourse

Moonwalk: Malayalam film tribute to Michael Jackson is a nostalgia trip into 1990s. A very personal watching experience

Will Putin’s Satan 2 annihilate Ukraine after the Operation Spider Web assault?

US-Russia relations – Trump in fantasyland

After the storm: Manchester United’s season ends, but the love remains

Once a paradise for scientists, America faces a brain drain

From Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination to Sindoor’s wrath: Anti-Terrorism Day vows India’s vengeance

How Indian startups are realigning their strategies amid global uncertainty and regulatory shifts

Trump’s Gulf tour: Big arms deals, surprise politics, corruption charges

India firepower crushes Turkey’s betrayal, Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan ally