After Iran Rejects Surrender Call, Trump To Decide On Military Action In Two Weeks, Says White House

Pakistani Reporter Schooled on Kashmir as US Says Trump Respects India's Right to Decide Its Future
A Pakistani journalist tried to corner US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce by questioning whether President Trump needs Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'permission' to bring peace to South Asia by resolving the Kashmir issue. The response was swift and sharp. Bruce reiterated the United States' long-standing position of respecting a sovereign nation's right to decide its own future, clearly stating that President Trump supports countries like India making their own decisions—without third-party interference. The journalist's attempt to revive the old mediation narrative fell flat, echoing India's firm stance on no third-party mediation. Watch this clip as the U.S. once again backs India's sovereignty and the journalist is left red-faced.#pmmodi #donaldtrump #kashmirmediation #usindiapak #tammybruce #moditrump #indiausrelations #pakistanjournalist #kashmirissue #indiasovereignty #trumpmodi #southasiapolitics #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
1.8K views | 1 day ago

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hans India

33 minutes ago

• Hans India

No increase in radiation detected after strikes on Iran nuclear sites: IAEA

Vienna: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that no abnormal radiation levels have been recorded following the recent airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities by the US. The development comes in the wake of a major military operation announced by US President Donald Trump, targeting Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. In a post on X, the IAEA stated: "Following attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran - including Fordow - the IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time. IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available." This statement from the world's top nuclear watchdog comes as global concerns mount over the possible environmental and geopolitical fallout of the surprise US military action. Tehran has sharply condemned the attacks, with the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran calling the strikes a violation of international law. In a strongly worded statement, the organisation said: 'The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran assures the great Iranian nation that despite the evil conspiracies of its enemies, with the efforts of thousands of its revolutionary and motivated scientists and experts, it will not allow the development of this national industry, which is the result of the blood of nuclear martyrs, to be stopped.' The Iranian side did not disclose the extent of the damage caused by the attacks. The military action was first announced by Donald Trump in a message posted to his social platform, Truth Social. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is no other military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' Trump wrote. He described the strikes as a 'historic moment' for the US, Israel, and the world, asserting that Iran must now agree to end the ongoing conflict. The military move follows earlier remarks by Trump on Friday, where he gave Iran a two-week ultimatum to return to the negotiation table over its nuclear program. As of now, Iran has vowed to continue the development of what it calls its 'national industry,' a reference to its nuclear programme, and has shown no indication of backing down in the face of international pressure or military threats.

The Print

38 minutes ago

• The Print

Trump's seduction of Asim Munir won't get him cheap labour to uphold American Peace

The gushing reception President Donald Trump gave to Field Marshal Munir—making him the first Pakistan Army chief not holding political office to visit the White House—has caused no small anxiety in India. For the first time since 26/11, the United States seems to be tilting toward Islamabad, with Trump insisting on playing peacemaker on Kashmir. And yet, the effort can add up to little. Look at the old film of the imperial reception granted to Field Marshal Ayub Khan as he travelled through the United States in 1961. In the following decade, he lost a war and was rejected by his people and forced out of office by his brother officers. To seduce Pakistani generals is a perilous project. Field Marshal Asim Munir was content with goat cheese gateau and caramelised onions over his rack of lamb. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, one account assures us , was present at a party where 19-year-old showgirl Christine Keeler wasn't wearing any clothes. There is the story —take it for what it is worth—that General Yahya Khan snubbed his key ally, the Shah of Iran, Muhammad Raza Pehlavi, as he was busy in the bedroom. Trump's gargantuan vanity gives the impression that he's just after a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, he seeks to resolve a fracture that has confronted American policy since the birth of India and Pakistan, one that defeated figures like General Dwight Eisenhower and Robert F Kennedy. The stakes are far higher than containing jihadists in Afghanistan: They go to the heart of America's projection of power in the Middle East. Endless wars, Trump is discovering, will continue to be fought whether or not America continues to maintain the imperial presence that has upheld the global order across the Middle East. Iran is just one of many conflicts that might erupt across the region. To fight these wars of the future, Trump needs allies and partners—the cheaper, the better. The eastern guard Following the lessons of the war in Korea, the US persuaded itself it needed partners to secure its access to oil—to the great fields in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. In February 1951, a meeting of US ambassadors in the Middle East marked out Pakistan as one possible source of troops. Later that month, historian Robert McMahon has written, State Department officials based in South Asia concluded that Pakistan would be willing to commit forces to the Middle East, 'provided the Kashmir question is settled'. Through 1951, gushing commentary on Pakistan's military size, its martial traditions, and its pro-Western leanings spread rapidly through the US establishment. Later that year, newly appointed as Pakistan's military chief, Ayub reached out to Washington, asking for discussions on his country's role in the Middle East. America's strategic establishment was keen to take the bait. 'With Pakistan, the Middle East could be defended,' George McGhee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African affairs, told a meeting at the Pentagon that summer. 'Without Pakistan, I don't see any way to defend the Middle East.' General Omar Bradley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred, suggesting that the US should find means to arm both Pakistan and Turkey. From America's point of view, Pakistani troops were desperately needed to stabilise a volatile region. 'Currently, the danger in this area to the security of the free world arises not so much from the threat of direct Soviet military attack as from acute instability, anti-western nationalism and Arab-Israeli antagonism,' read a paper from the National Security Council, approved by President Harry Truman in April 1952. These concerns were adroitly manipulated by Pakistan. In a meeting that July, Ayub's Special Advisor on Defence, Mir Laik, requested $200 million worth of supplies for Pakistan's air force and army, as well as a substantial line of credit. The weapons, he told American Secretary of Defense Robert Lovett, were needed for use not against India, but against communist aggression. Even though diplomats responsible for engaging India were less than enthusiastic, the proposal to arm Pakistan soon had overwhelming political momentum. Following a visit to Karachi, Vice President Richard Nixon told the National Security Council that Pakistan was 'a country [he] would like to do everything for'. 'The people have less complexes than the Indians. The Pakistanis are completely frank, even when it hurts. It will be disastrous if the Pakistan aid does not go through,' he added. For its part, Pakistan had no interest in getting drawn into wars in the Middle East. It had manipulated American anxieties to secure its position against its principal regional rival. Also read: To be or not to be? Trump's next call on Iran-Israel conflict will reshape West Asia Fallout in Kashmir The government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru responded by hardening its position on Kashmir in response to these pressures, historian Paul McGarr observes. Talks between Nehru and Pakistan's Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Bogra in 1953, as well as with Ayub Khan in 1959, led nowhere. Later, six desultory rounds of dialogue took place between 27 December 1962 and 16 May 1963. India declined concessions beyond minor adjustments on the ceasefire line. For its part, Pakistan demanded that only the Hindu-majority parts of Jammu stay with India. Frustration mounted in Islamabad over the Kashmir deadlock, with dramatic consequences. From the mid-1950s, American aid to Pakistan had played a dramatic role in modernising its infrastructure and enabling industrialisation. The country's annual GDP growth, between 4 per cent and 6 per cent, had earned Ayub extravagant praise from economists like Samuel Huntington. To pressure the US, Ayub Khan reached out to China, organising an eight-day red-carpet visit for Premier Zhou Enlai in February 1964. From the colonial colonnades of Karachi's Frere Hall Garden, Zhou spoke of China's ancient trading relationship with the Indus plains and condemned the influence of colonialism. Newly elected US President Lyndon Johnson cancelled an invitation to Ayub Khan to visit the country after the Field Marshal publicly criticised the war in Vietnam. From 1964, tensions began to build up over Kashmir, too. The disappearance of the Hazratbal relic in December 1963 led to anti-Hindu riots in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Kolkata's Hindus responded with an anti-Muslim pogrom, which led to hundreds of deaths. The Hazratbal crisis also led Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to extend provisions of the Indian Constitution, which allowed New Delhi to exercise direct rule in Kashmir. Led by Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Field Marshal Ayub Khan allowed himself to be persuaded that a limited war in Kashmir would compel the US and the United Kingdom to intervene again. The Indian Army, weakened by the war against China, would be in no position to widen the war, the argument went. National Security Council staff member Robert Komer warned his bosses of what was coming. In a 22 October 1963 memorandum, he noted that the Pakistanis appeared to be deliberately building up tensions over Kashmir. 'I wonder if we aren't doing ourselves a disservice by our continued pressure on Kashmir,' Komer wrote. Also read: Pakistan's coldness to Iran shows idea of Ummah is poetic illusion Partners in crime Islamabad's defeat in the 1965 war marked the coming of a long period of disengagement between the two allies. Though President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, facilitated arms supplies from third countries like Iran in the 1971 war, the United States proved unwilling to directly intervene, documents show. Following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan proved critical in facilitating flows of jihadists and weapons to fight the Soviet Union. Aid diminished again after 1989, though, with the Soviet withdrawal. Like the Afghan war had been for General Zia, 9/11 would prove a gift for another military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf. In 2011, though, President Barack Obama's government sharply reduced aid after the killing of Al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden. Trump further slashed funds after 2017, compelling Pakistan to turn ever-closer to China for support. Islamabad emerged as a gun-for-hire to fight American regional conflicts, but not the partner for peacekeeping that the US had imagined it would become in 1951. This is the relationship Trump hopes he will be able to resuscitate. America is today the largest oil producer in the world, and no longer needs the enormous system of Middle East bases it set up after 1947 to secure its energy. 'Keeping the region's shipping lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz, open to tanker traffic costs the Pentagon, on average, $50 billion a year—a service that earns us the undying enmity of populations in that region,' wrote scholar Arthur Herman in a superb 2014 analysis. Like his predecessors, Trump is holding out the prospect of a deal on Kashmir, with some lashings of aid, to persuade Field Marshal Munir to take on the job. Will Trump succeed where his predecessors failed? Free lunches—especially third-rate racks of lamb, lacking the least hint of garam masala, ginger, garlic, and exotic women—are likely to get you only so far. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)

The Print

38 minutes ago

• The Print

Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran

This attack comes on top of the defanging of Iran's other strategic instrument, its regional terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The Houthis are still standing, even if much weakened. Its other supporters in Lebanon have been weakened; Bashar al-Assad, its Syrian dictator ally, is now sitting in Moscow, having managed to flee the country with barely the clothes on his back a few months ago. The US reportedly dropped six GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busting bombs on the Fordow nuclear facility, which is buried beneath a mountain. These attacks have, at the very least, set back the Iranian nuclear weapons programme considerably. The fear of opponents of such military action against the programme – that this would simply hasten an Iranian nuclear bomb – does not seem to understand that the programme is now severely degraded and incapable of delivering a weapon at this point. Iran's Islamic regime, which has terrorised the region and its own population for decades, is finally facing a reckoning. Its nuclear programme, one of the two tools it has used in its terrorist strategy, may well have been destroyed now. Parts of it were already bombed by Israel. But its most secure sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – have now been hit by the United States. Iran risked a fight Iran has been making threats, seeking to deter others simply through its capacity for reckless behaviour, despite its weakness in other ways. Its economy is not in good shape despite its oil wealth, and its military is not particularly effective because the regime focuses more on covert forces. But terrorist strategies can only get you so far. Over time, others can figure out ways to work around your threats or prepare themselves so that they can escalate to deter. That is what Israel, in particular, has done. It has effectively neutered both Hezbollah and Hamas, picking off its leaders and cadre in highly effective direct and indirect operations that were breathtaking in their audacity and meticulous in their execution. Iran has been risking this fight for a long time, repeatedly attacking the US and Israel and their partners. Iran has been an expansionist power in the region, creating instability by building up covert forces from Lebanon in the Mediterranean to Yemen in the Arabian Sea. None of this was necessary. It was not necessary for Iranian security, except in the broadest definition of national security—which equates it with control over the entire region. The country had little reason to fight with either Israel or the US, neither of which was a threat to Iran or even the regime. Nevertheless, Iran picked this fight, and it is now paying the price. Also read: To be or not to be? Trump's next call on Iran-Israel conflict will reshape West Asia On the losing end There is no way that Iran can win this fight. Prudence would dictate that Tehran take a deep breath and reassess its choices. It did this to some extent after the US killed the commander of the Quds force, Qasem Soleimani, in 2020. Whether the country will act prudently now that its bluff has been called remains to be seen. If Iran doesn't take a step back to reevaluate, there will be further US action, which could lead to a regime change in Tehran. There was already an argument for this—that as long as the current Islamist regime continues in power, it could attempt to reconstitute the nuclear weapons programme. The only way to ensure the programme ends is by changing the rulers who want the weapons. But the US, and Trump in particular, do not appear keen on this as they know the risks associated with such goals. America seems intent on halting military operations, now that it has achieved its ends in large measure. Tehran's response is critical because further imprudence will lead to its end. While the demise of this brutal regime is an outcome that is much to be desired, it will also likely come at great cost to innocent Iranians who have already been suffering under its yoke. And of course, others in the region will also bear the repercussions. Also read: No country can stop Israel-Iran war now. For Netanyahu & Khamenei, it's a zero-sum game Consequences beyond Tehran The US attack on Iran will have consequences beyond Iran and the West Asian region—such as on domestic politics in the US. It could splinter Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) coalition. Even before this attack, there were some clear breaks with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sections of MAGA criticising various supporters of Israel, or arguments favouring US attacks on Iran. That argument had never directly targeted Trump. The question is whether that will change or whether MAGA will be whatever Trump says it is. Internationally, this will be at least partially good news for Ukraine. Iran has been supporting Russia by supplying it with drones that kill Ukrainian civilians. While this attack might not directly affect the supply of drones to Russia—because Russia has also built drone factories within its territory now—it will still be satisfying for Kyiv to see Moscow's allies get their comeuppance. Trump's action could also send a message to China. The US president recently said that nobody can predict his behaviour as he doesn't decide what to do until the last minute. He is correct, since he often doesn't know what he wants to do, and has no philosophical perspective beyond childish grievances and venality to guide him. But this means that if China was hoping that Trump would stand aside if it invades Taiwan, it will now be much more uncertain. A key distinction, of course, is that China has real material capability. In other words, it doesn't depend on threats alone, though threats are part of the strategic equation. If threats don't work, Beijing can actually undertake military action. Of course, a high-intensity war, with the world's most powerful military, is a task fraught with uncertainty. Will Xi Jinping be willing to undertake such a risky strategy? It's difficult to predict the Chinese president's actions, especially because he is not very strategic or prudent in his behaviour. But it is fair to say that Trump's action will give him a pause. Some American scholars are always eager to condemn the US military's over-extension and lack of prudence. They are sometimes even right. But such criticisms are rarely raised about other powers, including regional ones. They need to recognise this is a problem that afflicts many types of states and regimes. Iran is a good example. If China invades Taiwan, that would be another example of imprudence and over-expansion being a wider phenomenon. Rajesh Rajagopalan is a professor of International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. He tweets @RRajagopalanJNU. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)