‘They Can't Even…': Tharoor Smirks Then Snipes At China Over Pakistan Stunt In Washington
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor offered a sharp and witty reply when asked if India's military action against Pakistan was intended as a message to China. Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Tharoor said the events and Pakistan's rapid de-escalation spoke volumes on their own. He noted the use of Chinese weapons by Pakistan and India's ability to bypass Chinese radar and defense systems, subtly implying that China may have already received the message without India needing to say a word.#shashitharoor #tharoor #india #operationsindoor #PAHALGAM #pakistan #pmmodi
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
US attacks on Iran: ‘Well done', Donald Trump gets praise from Republicans, sole Democrat John Fetterman
US-Iran war updates: United States President Donald Trump has recieved 'immediate praise' from Republicans in Congress and at least one Democrat, for bombing three nuclear sites in Iran. Dissenting from his fellow party-mates, Pennsylvania's Democract Senator John Fetterman, joined Republicans in praising Donald Trump for joining Israel's offensive against Iran, according to an AP report. Posting on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), South Carolina's Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wrote: 'Well done, President Trump'. Congressional Republicans — and at least one Democrat — immediately praised President Donald Trump after he said Saturday evening that the U.S. Further, Senator John Cornyn, the Republican rep of Texas called the US military bombing three sites in Iran a 'courageous and correct decision.' And Alabama Senator Katie Britt, also Republican, called the bombings 'strong and surgical'; while Oklahoma's Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin posted: 'America first, always.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Wicker posted on X that 'we now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies.' The quick endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump had publicly mulled the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that 'This is not Constitutional.' Many Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say. The Senate was scheduled to vote as soon as this week on a resolution by Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine requiring congressional approval before the U.S. declared war on Iran or took specific military action. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, posted on X after Trump's announcement: 'According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall. Full stop.'
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
War Powers Act vs. Article II: Is the US bombing of Iran constitutional? Could Trump be impeached?
On Saturday night, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that the United States had conducted what he described as a 'very successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Donald Trump said US had conducted 'successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities.(AP) '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," Trump wrote. "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added. The announcement reignited a constitutional debate, with critics pointing to a June 16 post on X by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who called such strikes unconstitutional. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to prohibit our involvement,' he had tweeted. Also Read: Iran Israel war news LIVE updates: US strikes on Iran a 'spectacular military success,' says Trump What Is the War Powers Act? Enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was designed to limit the president's ability to engage US forces in military conflicts without congressional approval. It followed public outrage over Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which resulted in significant civilian casualties and sparked widespread protests. The WPR requires the president to: Notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into 'hostilities' or situations where hostilities are imminent. End military actions within 60 days (or 90 days in emergencies) unless Congress approves continued engagement through a declaration of war or specific authorization. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rep. Massie have argued that Trump's strikes on Iran violate the WPR, as they were launched without congressional approval. What does Article II say? Trump's supporters, citing Article II of the Constitution, argue that as 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,' the president has broad authority to direct military operations. 'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,' the article states. However, this power is constrained by Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to 'declare war' and regulate the armed forces Legal scholar John Yoo, speaking to Fox News Digital, defended Trump's actions. He argued that a limited airstrike does not constitute 'war' in the constitutional sense and thus doesn't require congressional approval. 'As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies,' he told Fox News Digital. Also Read: US bombs Iran: 10 key developments after strikes on nuclear sites Can Trump be impeached? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If Congress determines that violating the WPR or bypassing its constitutional war powers constitutes a 'high crime,' impeachment could be pursued.
Hans India
40 minutes ago
- Hans India
BRICS summit to focus on local currency trade
Weeks before top BRICS leaders converge in Rio de Janeiro for summit talks, envoys of leading member nations of the grouping hinted that it could focus on greater use of national currencies for trade in the face of uncertainties over Trump administration's aggressive policy on tariff. Russian Ambassador Denis Alipov reaffirmed Moscow's strong support for trade in local currency among BRICS member nations and described the grouping as 'a serious platform for discussing joint soluti'ons to big challenges'. The summit is unlikely to make any significant progress on the proposed BRICS currency as it will need significant structural changes and reforms. In the last few months, President Donald Trump has cautioned BRICS member nations against rolling out a BRICS currency to replace the US dollar. 'BRICS is not a counter-bloc. It is a centre of gravity for countries seeking mutual respect and non-interference,' Alipov said at a conference titled 'BRICS in Rio: Shaping an Inclusive and Sustainable World Order' that was co-organised by the Embassy of Brazil in India and Centre for Global India Insights (CGII), a leading think tank focused on global affairs. The 17th BRICS ((Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) summit will be held in Rio de Janeiro on July 6 and 7. Brazil is hosting the summit in its capacity as the chair of the influential bloc. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and several other leaders of the member nations of the grouping are expected to attend the summit. Enhancing the use of national currencies in settling intra-BRICS trade figured prominently in discussions, with all panellists backing the proposal, which is already being implemented by BRICS countries. However, the panellists found the idea of a BRICS common currency impractical. Besides Alipov, India's BRICS sherpa and Secretary (Economic Relations) in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Dammu Ravi, Brazil's Ambassador to India Kenneth Felix Haczynski da Nobrega, Indonesia Ambassador Ina Hagniningtyas Krisnamurthi and Egypt's envoy Kamel Zayed Kamel Galal attended the conference. In his remarks, Ravi clarified that discussions around a BRICS common currency are still at a very early stage. 'Today, for now, we are only looking at trade settlement in national currencies. Harmonisation of fiscal and monetary policies is very, very difficult to achieve, he said. Nobrega and Ravi both reiterated that a common currency would require far deeper policy harmonisation -- something the EU struggled with despite far more economic alignment.
