The view from India newsletter Taking stock of the India-Pakistan clashes

After four days of aerial combat, India and Pakistan reached an 'understanding' on Saturday (May 10) to stop firing and other military activities. According to Director-General Military Operations (DGMO) Lt.-Gen. Rajiv Ghai, he received a message from Pakistan's DGMO Maj. Gen. Kashif Abdullah at 3.35 pm on Saturday on the hotline. 'Since our initial aim was to strike terror camps and all our actions in the subsequent days were in response to the intrusions and violations by the Pakistan Air Force and Pakistan Army, it was decided that I would indeed speak with the Pakistani DGMO,' said Lt. Gen. Ghai. The understanding to stop firing was agreed in the subsequent DGMO level talks.
On Saturday morning, India had carried out massive retaliatory strikes in Pakistan, targeting several military bases, including the high-profile Nur Khan base in Rawalpindi. 'India has fired air-to-surface missiles with its jets,' Pakistani military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmad Sharif Chaudhry told reporters on Saturday morning. In response, Pakistan launched Operation 'Bunyanun Marsoos'. Pakistan carried out strikes using drones, missiles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles targeting civilian and military locations across the western border. India's air defences shot down most of the incoming threats while Indian armed forces also launched counter-strikes on military installations in Pakistan, said military officers.
U.S. involvement
But there are more to the story. On Saturday, the ceasefire was first announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. 'After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Congratulations to both countries on using common sense and great intelligence,' Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also announced that India and Pakistan agreed to 'an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site'. Minutes later, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri made a short announcement in New Delhi saying both sides agreed 'to stop all firing and military action on land, air and sea with effect from 1700 hours IST'.
While the Pakistani leadership acknowledged the American role, India remained tight-lipped. But on Sunday (May 11), Mr. Trump wrote another post, saying the U.S. played a part in helping both countries 'to arrive at this historic and heroic decision'. He said the aggression between India and Pakistan 'could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much'. Further, he offered to work with India and Pakistan 'to see, after 'a thousand years', a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir'. In effect, Mr. Trump took credit for the ceasefire, re-hyphenated India and Pakistan and offered to mediate between the two on Kashmir — all against India's standard position on Kashmir and Pakistan.
Pakistan's escalation
After the ceasefire announcement was made on May 10, CNN carried a report saying the U.S. got 'alarming intel' about the conflict, which prompted Vice-President J.D. Vance to pick up the phone and talk to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While the report, based on American sources, doesn't say what the intel was, it says there was a 'high probability for dramatic escalation' of the conflict. Mr. Vance outlined to Mr. Modi 'a potential off-ramp', says the report, without offering any details on what the off-ramp was. Indian military officials say India's objective was to hit terror infrastructure inside Pakistan in response to the April 22 Pahalgam massacre and India met those objectives on May 7 when it hit 9 locations inside Pakistan, including Bahawalpur and Muridke in Punjab. But the Pakistani military, commanded by Gen. Asim Munir, decided to widen the conflict by launching drone and missile attacks. Pakistan initially denied carrying out attacks in India even when hundreds of Pakistani drones intruded into the Indian air space. But on May 10, after Indian strikes targeted Pakistani bases, including Nur Khan (Chaklala, Rawalpindi), Murid (Chakwal) and Rafiqui (Shorkot in Jhang), they acknowledged launching 'counterattacks'.
The Pakistanis say they gave a 'befitting reply' to India. On May 7, Pakistan claimed to have shot down 'five Indian fighter jets', including Rafael, without providing any evidence. India hasn't confirmed the Pakistani claims, but on May 11, while asked about loss of assets, Air Marshal A.K. Bharti said in a press conference that 'losses are part of combat', without providing details. We are in a combat scenario, losses are a part of combat. The question you must ask us is... have we achieved our objective of decimating the terrorist camps? And the answer is a thumping yes,' he said. 'As for the details, what could have been... how many numbers... which platform did we lose... at this time I would not like to comment on that because we are still in a combat situation. If I comment on anything, it will be only advantage adversary,' the Air Marshal said, adding that, 'all our pilots are back home'.
There are still unanswered questions. The opposition is asking the government to clarify whether it has accepted third party mediation on Kashmir — an offer Mr. Trump has made. It is also unclear whether India got any assurances from Pakistan in tackling terror when it accepted the ceasefire. On its part, Pakistan is selling its performance as 'a victory' to its public. By launching attacks inside Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, India has sought to establish a new normal in its dealings with Islamabad — Pakistan's continued support for terror groups would not go unpunished. Any future act of terror in India will be considered an 'act of war' against the country and will be responded to accordingly, unnamed government officials said on May 10. This is a doctrinal change. But by widening the conflict, Pakistan has sought to make India's new doctrine costly for New Delhi as well. This also means that the understanding to stop firing now (New Delhi doesn't call it a ceasefire) is in essence a pause not a conclusion of hostilities.
The Top Five
1. The terror trio of Pakistan | Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, LeT and JeM
The terrorist organisations, driven by Islamist ideology and anti-India sentiment, have close ties with Pakistan's military-security establishment, and have carried out multiple attacks inside India over the years, writes Suchitra Karthikeyan.
2. How will India's military response be assessed under international law?
An emerging rule in international law allows states to use force extraterritorially in self-defence against non-state actors if the host state is 'unwilling or unable' to take measures to neutralise the threat, writes Aaratrika Bhaumik.
3. A new normal in India-Pakistan ties
Until 2016, India's strategy for dealing with terror attacks linked to Pakistan largely relied on three measures: diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan internationally, economic penalties related to terror financing, and pressure on Islamabad to crack down on terror networks. This approach saw limited success, writes Stanly Johny.
4. What will be impact of India-U.K. trade deal? | Explained
How long was the free trade agreement in the works? When is it expected to be signed and implemented? Which are the sectors likely to benefit apart from textile and automobiles? What are the challenges for agriculture and medium and small enterprises? writes Saptaparno Ghosh.
5. Pope Leo XIV | The bridge-building pontiff
The first U.S. pope now faces the monumental task of transcending his national origin to unify a divided Church and navigate a complex world, writes Franciszek Snarski.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

13 minutes ago

• Time of India

Investors brace for oil price spike, rush to havens after US bombs Iran nuclear sites

A US attack on Iranian nuclear sites could push oil prices even higher and trigger a knee-jerk rush to safety, investors said, as they assessed how the latest escalation of tensions would ripple through the global economy. The reaction in Middle East stock markets , which trade on Sunday, suggested investors were assuming a benign outcome, even as Iran intensified its missile attacks on Israel in response to the sudden, deep US involvement in the conflict. US President Donald Trump called the attack "a spectacular military success" in a televised address to the nation and said Iran's "key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated". He said the US military could go after other targets in Iran if the country did not agree to peace. Iran said it reserves all options to defend itself, and warned of "everlasting consequences". Speaking in Istanbul, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran was weighing its options for retaliation and would consider diplomacy only after carrying out its response. Investors said they expected US involvement would cause a stock market selloff and a possible bid for the dollar and other safe-haven assets when major markets reopen, but also said much uncertainty remained. "I think the markets are going to be initially alarmed, and I think oil will open higher," said Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital. "We don't have any damage assessment and that will take some time. Even though (Trump) has described this as 'done', we're engaged," Spindel said. "I think the uncertainty is going to blanket the markets, as now Americans everywhere are going to be exposed. It's going to raise uncertainty and volatility, particularly in oil," he added. One indicator of how markets will react in the coming week was the price of ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency and a gauge of retail investor sentiment. Ether was down 8.5 per cent on Sunday, taking losses since the first Israeli strikes on Iran on June 13 to 13 per cent. Most Gulf stock markets, however, seemed unconcerned by the early morning attacks, with the main indexes in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait up slightly or flat. Israel's Tel Aviv main index was at an all-time high. Oil prices, inflation A key concern for markets centers around the potential impact of Middle East developments on oil prices and thus on inflation. Rising inflation could dampen consumer confidence and lessen the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. Saul Kavonic, a senior energy analyst at equity research firm MST Marquee in Sydney, said Iran could respond by targeting American interests in the Middle East, including Gulf oil infrastructure in places such as Iraq or harassing ship passages through the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and Iran and is the primary export route for oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Kuwait. "Much depends on how Iran responds in the coming hours and days, but this could set us on a path towards $100 oil if Iran respond as they have previously threatened to," Kavonic said. While global benchmark Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18 per cent since June 10, hitting a near five-month high of $79.04 on Thursday, the S&P 500 has been little changed, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks on Iran on June 13. Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, said oil prices would likely spike before leveling off in a few days as the attacks could lead Iran to seek a peace deal with Israel and the United States. "With this demonstration of force and total annihilation of its nuclear capabilities, they've lost all of their leverage and will likely hit the escape button to a peace deal," Cox said. Economists warn that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past eruptions of Middle East tensions, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3 per cent in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3 per cent higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. Dollar woes An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the US dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished US exceptionalism. In the event of US direct engagement in the Iran-Israel war, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Do we see a flight to safety? That would signal yields going lower and the dollar getting stronger," said Steve Sosnick, chief market strategist at IBKR in Greenwich, Connecticut. "It's hard to imagine stocks not reacting negatively and the question is how much." Jack McIntyre, portfolio manager for global fixed income at Brandywine Global Investment Management in Philadelphia, said it was uncertain whether US Treasuries would rally after the US attack, largely due to the market's hypersensitivity to inflation. "This could lead to regime change (which) ultimately could have a much bigger impact on the global economy if Iran shifts towards a more friendly, open economic regime," said McIntyre.

Mint

20 minutes ago

• Mint

Trump's Iran attack was ferocious. But has it actually worked?

'OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER", as America called its strike on Iran, was a vast raid involving more than 125 military aircraft. It was the largest-ever strike by B-2 stealth bombers, and the first use in battle of the GBU-57, America's largest bunker-buster bomb. Seven bombers flew east over the Atlantic from Whiteman air-force base in Missouri on the 37-hour mission to Iran and back, helped by in-flight refuelling tankers and fighter jets to sweep the skies ahead of them. Decoy planes flew west over the Pacific to confuse anyone watching their movement. Dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at Iran from submarines. Iranian forces did not respond. The scope and scale of the operation would 'take the breath away" of most observers, boasted Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. He was at pains to say that the attack was a 'precision strike" aimed solely at nuclear facilities. Iranian forces or civilians were not attacked. Nor was America seeking regime change. 'As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened," he said. Iran has 'every opportunity" to come to the table to negotiate a peace deal. But amid the self-congratulation, has the operation actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities? Donald Trump, who first announced the strikes on facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 21st (they took place on the 22nd Iranian time), declared that the programme was 'totally obliterated". General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was more cautious. He said the bomb-damage assessment would take time to complete. The initial assessment was that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction". Satellite images released by Maxar, an American firm, later on June 22nd showed a series of craters on the mountainside. The B-2s dropped 14 GBU-57s on buried uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and especially Fordow, which Mr Trump described as the 'primary" target (the image above shows Fordow before and after the attack). The Tomahawks struck Isfahan, a complex of facilities where Iran turns uranium metal into a gaseous compound and back, makes centrifuges to enrich the gas, and may have stored much of its stock of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) estimates that Iran had 400kg of HEU, concentrated to 60% purity, which is a short hop to weapons-grade (usually 90%). That would be enough for ten bombs, if the material were to be enriched further. Israel had already hit Natanz and Isfahan, and destroyed much of Iran's air-defence system, clearing the way for the Americans. But the site in Fordow, buried into a mountain, was beyond the reach of Israeli bombs. 'I have been there," noted Rafael Grossi, the secretary-general of the IAEA, earlier this month. 'The most sensitive things are half a mile [around 800 metres] underground." A European source gives the figure of 500 metres. Before the strikes Western officials disagreed on whether the GBU-57, or 'massive ordnance penetrator" (MOP), alone could obliterate Fordow. Some experts thought the site could be destroyed only with nuclear weapons, or by ground forces fighting their way into the site and blowing it up. In the end America used B-2s and MOPs for the job. These can burrow through 60 metres of standard concrete, but probably less if Iran was using strengthened concrete. Repeatedly striking the same spot allows them to strike deeper. David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who now leads the Institute for Science and International Security, a think-tank in Washington, argued prior to the war that Fordow was 'more vulnerable than people realise". Israel had detailed knowledge of the building's designs, he noted, including knowledge of the tunnels: 'where they start, how they zig and zag, where the ventilation system is, the power supplies". The site had only one ventilation shaft, which is visible in its plans and in historical satellite imagery showing the site's construction. Destroying that, he argued, could put Fordow out of action for 'a few years rather than a few months". One weapons expert told The Economist that the post-strike images suggest that America might have targeted Fordow's ventilation and access tunnels. Moreover, even if America did not reach all parts of the Fordow complex, the powerful blasts might have done enough to damage or destroy the machinery inside. 'Uncontrolled vibration…is a centrifuge killer," says Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another think-tank. 'That's why they're carefully balanced, heavily bolted down on the pads built for the purpose." Iran's IR6 centrifuges, which make up more than half of those installed at Fordow, are more robust than the much older IR1s, which make up the majority at Natanz, notes Mr Nephew. But even they would probably be affected badly by a blizzard of MOPs. If Iran had powered down the centrifuges, that would help. But the process of doing so can cause them to crash, says Mr Nephew, adding that it is 'pretty unlikely" Iran will have been able to turn off and disassemble the machines in the time available. Fordow was originally a secret project, revealed by Western countries in 2009. The question now is whether Iran has other intact secret facilities and a sufficient stock of HEU hidden away with which to restart the programme away from prying eyes. Iran had previously threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so now, IAEA inspectors would have no way to observe Iran's future nuclear work. Nevertheless, Israel's spies have displayed an extraordinary ability to penetrate Iran's nuclear enterprise and security forces, and have repeatedly assassinated nuclear scientists and generals. The Iranian project has been much more extensive and dispersed than the efforts of Iraq and Syria, whose reactors Israel bombed in 1981 and 2007 respectively. 'Will this look more like Syria 2007—where a nuclear programme was decisively ended—or Iraq 1981, where nuclear ambitions were strengthened, and repeated intervention was required?" asks Nicholas Miller, a non-proliferation expert at Dartmouth College. 'Assuming the current regime stays in power in Iran, my money is on the latter."

Business Standard

20 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Fake-out in the skies: How US fooled Iran before launching B-2 bombing raid

In the early hours of Saturday, the US military launched Operation Midnight Hammer, a large-scale and highly coordinated airstrike targeting three of Iran's key nuclear facilities. But before the actual mission began, it was a calculated deception in the skies that helped the US achieve what Pentagon officials are calling a tactical success. A fleet of B-2 stealth bombers appeared to be heading toward Guam from their base in Missouri, in a movement that analysts believed was routine or possibly part of pre-positioning for any potential conflict. But this group was a decoy. The real operation involved seven B-2 bombers flying east—undetected—for 18 hours. According to details shared by the US Department of Defense on Sunday, June 22, the stealth aircraft kept communication to a minimum, refuelled mid-air, and stayed off radar. As the bombers approached Iranian airspace, a US submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles to soften air defences. American fighter jets flew ahead as decoys, scanning for any Iranian aircraft or surface-to-air missiles that might be activated. Largest B-2 strike till date The mission marked the largest ever operational strike by B-2 stealth bombers and the second-longest flight in the aircraft's history—only exceeded by sorties conducted after the September 11 attacks. The bombers deployed 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—each weighing 30,000 pounds—specifically designed to hit heavily fortified targets. In total, the Pentagon confirmed that more than 125 aircraft were involved in the operation. From a military standpoint, the US says the mission met its objectives. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon, 'Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission. We retained the element of surprise.' Caine added that early assessments indicated "extremely severe damage and destruction" at all three nuclear sites targeted. However, he declined to confirm whether Iran's nuclear capabilities had been fully eliminated. 'Clear devastation', says Pentagon US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was more direct in his assessment: 'It was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program,' he said, speaking alongside General Caine at the Pentagon. Operation Midnight Hammer was executed with a high level of secrecy. According to Caine, 'very few people in Washington' were aware of the plan's timing or scale. Many top US officials only learned of the strikes through a social media post by President Donald Trump on Saturday night. Regional tensions high In the aftermath of the strike, Gulf nations—many of which host US military bases—were on high alert, assessing the potential for further escalation. The US military has also repositioned its assets across the region and increased security measures around American personnel. While the Trump administration has said it is not seeking a wider conflict, it has also made clear that any retaliation from Iran will be met with force. 'Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it,' Hegseth said, referring to Trump's warning about future US responses. At the same time, Hegseth mentioned that backchannel messages had been sent to Tehran, encouraging diplomatic dialogue over confrontation.