Latest news with #Taco
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Has Trump ‘chickened out' on Iran? Five reasons for his two-week delay
On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump appeared poised to join Israel's war against Iran. Having left the G7 summit in Canada early, he convened an emergency meeting of his national security advisers. JD Vance, his vice-president and a staunch opponent of foreign military entanglements, signalled that the president was contemplating action. Mr Trump issued a series of increasingly bellicose warnings, demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he wrote in a social media post. Yet within 48 hours, the president had pulled back. To some observers of US politics, this will seem like another instance of Mr Trump living up to his 'Taco' instincts – 'Trump Always Chickens Out', the acronym that so palpably infuriates him. There are, however, several plausible reasons for delay. Mr Trump's flirtation with war has sharply divided his base. Maga loyalists, whose foreign policy instincts are overwhelmingly isolationist, are aghast at the prospect of their standard-bearer dragging them into a new conflict, especially after campaigning so forcefully against just such adventurism. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Mr Trump's most ardent Congressional allies, posted on social media. The prospect of US military action in the Middle East has thrown into relief the deep ideological rift on the American right, one that sets traditional hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham, who still see the US as the world's policeman, against the populist wing led by figures like Steve Bannon, who reject the interventionism that characterised the George W. Bush era. Mr Bannon and his allies have long argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were catastrophic, costly mistakes that drained US power and served global rather than national interests. By championing an 'America-first ideology', Mr Trump has echoed that view, casting himself as a president intent on disengaging from distant conflicts that do not directly threaten the US homeland. He now faces a delicate balancing act. Aligning too closely with Israel risks him being recast – by his own movement – as a 'neocon', indistinguishable from the foreign policy establishment he once vowed to upend. But appearing to abandon Israel, America's most cherished ally, carries its own political perils. Beyond the politics, strategic considerations are undoubtedly playing a major role – factors presumably impressed upon the president by cooler heads at the Pentagon. A brief delay allows more time to position US offensive assets. The USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is already in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz group is en route from the Indo-Pacific. Waiting will enable full integration with other US forces in the region. With more than 40,000 US troops stationed across 19 sites in the Middle East, Washington will want to bolster its defences against potential Iranian retaliation. The US has upgraded air defences in the region over the past five years, but may still choose to deploy additional Patriot batteries or THAAD systems. Allowing more time for Israel to further degrade Iranian defences may also be a consideration, particularly around the deeply buried enrichment facility of Fordow, likely to be the prime US target. Mr Trump will be wary of the political and military fallout if a prized B-2 bomber were to be shot down. The more Israel weakens Tehran's defensive capabilities, the less risky the operation becomes for US forces. Although Mr Trump has long opposed Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, he fundamentally sees this as Israel's war. In his calculus, the onus is therefore on the Israel Defence Forces to clear the path as much as possible. If Fordow is to be destroyed from the air, only the US can do so using its 30,000-lb GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator' bunker busters, which can only be deployed by the B-2. But Washington may expect Israel to lead in neutralising peripheral threats by knocking out radar sites, missile batteries, and command-and-control infrastructure that could complicate a US strike. American officials may also be waiting to see whether Israel can carry out alternative forms of action against Fordow. Covert sabotage remains an option. Israel could target ventilation systems or access tunnels to seal the site or attempt to strike the plant's power supplies, a move that could cause its delicate centrifuge cascades to spin out of control. A pause also offers benefits from an intelligence-gathering perspective. The US can use the window to monitor how Iran is repositioning its military assets, particularly its integrated air defence network and ballistic missile units. Analysts will also be watching to see how effectively Iran's military command is functioning in the wake of Israel's campaign of targeted assassinations against senior generals. Diplomatically, voices at the State Department may have counselled restraint as well. There are indications that Iran, while rejecting the demand for 'unconditional surrender', is signalling interest in a negotiated off-ramp. A short pause gives time for back-channel diplomacy to take place – possibly with Europe, and particularly France, playing a role in mediation. Perhaps most importantly, the delay gives Mr Trump an opportunity to reassert some control over Iran policy – an agenda increasingly driven by Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, appears to have calculated that the US president would eventually feel compelled to join his campaign and deliver the finishing blow to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Had Mr Trump launched strikes immediately, he risked the perception that the US was being led by its ally on one of the most consequential national security decisions of his presidency. While that impression may prove difficult to erase entirely, the delay buys Mr Trump the space to project greater independence should he ultimately decide to enter the war in a fortnight's time. There is one other possibility that cannot be discounted. The two-week delay could be a feint, designed to catch Iran off guard, only for the US to strike well before the deadline. With a president as unpredictable as Mr Trump, anything, after all, is possible.
Straits Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Nearly 1 in 2 business leaders in S'pore ready to tackle geopolitical and other challenges: Report
Kroll surveyed 1,200 C-suite executives from more than 20 markets including the United States, Britain, Hong Kong and Singapore in February. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO Nearly 1 in 2 business leaders in S'pore ready to tackle geopolitical and other challenges: Report SINGAPORE – Business leaders in Singapore are among the most confident globally about their level of business preparedness when it comes to dealing with challenges ranging from geopolitical tensions to cyber-security threats and developments in the artificial intelligence (AI) space. In its first edition of the Business Sentiment Report, global risk and financial advisory firm Kroll found that 48 per cent of respondents in Singapore were 'very prepared' to face the challenges. This is higher than the 34 per cent in the Asia-Pacific region and 38 per cent globally. Kroll surveyed 1,200 C-suite executives from more than 20 markets such as the US, Britain , Hong Kong and Singapore in February . About one-third of all those surveyed work in the financial services industry, and more than one-fifth are in technology companies. The report highlighted geopolitical tensions, such as tariffs, as one of the most significant business challenges facing organisations over the coming year. The survey was conducted before US President Donald Trump slapped 'Liberation Day' tariffs on economies on April 2, which he then put on hold as he strikes trade deals with different nations. Singapore runs a goods trade deficit of US$2 .8 billion (S$3.6 billion) with the US, according to data from the Office of the United States Trade Representative. This means that the Republic imports more goods than it exports. As a result, businesses here would not have expected to be slapped with tariffs, said Mr Joshua Tucker, senior geopolitical adviser at Kroll. Singapore was hit by a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. Mr Tucker said business leaders here were probably a bit too optimistic about their ability to predict the US policy on tariffs. The survey had found that 22 per cent of Singapore business leaders identified geopolitical tension as a significant business concern, compared with 33 per cent globally and 28 per cent in the Asia-Pacific. Insead economics and political science professor Pushan Dutt believes business sentiment should have since shifted substantially after the imposition of the tariffs. 'One school of thought is that we will live in a Taco (Trump Always Chickens Out) world – that his bark is worse than his bite and he always backs off. However, what Trump has induced in the global economy is uncertainty,' he said. He explained that Taco-like behaviour increases uncertainty as firms and political leaders will not be able to ascertain how long the tariffs will be imposed for, if and when they will be lifted and how the conditions and types of tariffs could evolve. 'We should distinguish between risk and uncertainty – the first is about known unknowns and the second is about unknown unknowns. We have been catapulted into a world of uncertainty and should not live in denial,' he added. Mr Tucker said that while tariffs, like other direct business costs, can be factored into decision-making, there are other indirect costs stemming from uncertainty over the US tariff policy. If businesses do not know what tariffs will be in 30 days, six months or a year, they will not be able to plan ahead to mitigate the effects of tariffs . They may thus be less willing to take large risks, make acquisitions or enter new markets, he added. Mr Nick Baker, co-lead for trade and customs at Kroll, said companies risk falling into 'analysis paralysis', where they are constantly reassessing strategies but not taking action to implement their plans. Mr Tucker noted that Singapore is heavily dependent on trade with other economies. The 10 per cent baseline tariff on the Republic , as well as higher tariffs on neighbouring economies, could thus have an 'outsized economic impact on businesses'. Kroll stated in its report that whether companies can weather the 'economic and geopolitical upheaval' will depend on their underlying financial health. Singapore companies scored relatively well on this front, with 20 per cent of business leaders here saying they have full confidence in their companies' financial health, versus 9 per cent of respondents in the Asia-Pacific and globally. Ms Annabelle Cai, managing director in the restructuring practice at Kroll, said 'strategic measures' announced in Singapore's Budget 2025, such as the 50 per cent corporate tax rebate, enhanced wage support for lower-income workers, and more funding support for firms to make AI investments, will help firms to manage rising costs and drive sustainable growth. A stable government and business-friendly environment contribute to business confidence in Singapore, Ms Cai added. On the whole, Dr Huynh Bao Tan, senior lecturer of economics at the Singapore Management University, stresses that while Singapore is impacted by the imposition of the tariffs, the 10 per cent levy is imposed across the board, and hence will likely have minimal impact on Singapore's relative competitiveness overall. 'Overall, I wouldn't be surprised if businesses' sentiment has dropped a little (from the time the survey was conducted), but I'm not really expecting things to have changed much,' he said. 'Markets seem quite hopeful that there'll be good outcomes regarding the trade negotiations,' he added, referring to the US trade talks with China as well as the European Union. Additional reporting by Megan Wee Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11-06-2025
- Business
- First Post
As LA immigration protests spread across the US, will Trump go Taco again?
US President Donald Trump's militarised response to immigration protests in Los Angeles has triggered backlash — reviving questions over whether he will backtrack, as he has often done under pressure. As protests spread nationwide, all eyes are on the White House. Will Trump follow the Taco pattern — Trump Always Chickens Out? read more US President Donald Trump speaks as he participates in a roundtable discussion with the Fraternal Order of Police at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 5, 2025. File Image/Reuters The ongoing protests in Los Angeles which were sparked by immigration enforcement raids were met with a swift federal response from Washington. United States President Donald Trump's move to deploy thousands of US troops to the city has resulted in a legal battle. At the heart of the controversy lies a simple question with complex implications: will Trump once again reverse course if opposition continues to mount? Trump's decision to send military personnel into LA — overriding objections from California officials — has reopened scrutiny into a longstanding pattern of policy flip-flops, especially when resistance grows or market impacts deepen. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This pattern, so familiar that it has come to be known by the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out — is now being put to the test once again. How Trump got the Taco tag The term 'TACO' surged into public discussion in May 2025 after journalist Robert Armstrong used it in a Financial Times opinion column analysing Trump's trade strategies. It gained immediate traction for encapsulating a familiar political behaviour: the President often makes aggressive pronouncements or policy moves, only to withdraw them later under pressure. Armstrong wrote that the market was realising that 'the US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain.' He dubbed this the 'Taco theory.' Since then, commentators and financial analysts have pointed to multiple episodes that fit this mold. Among the most cited were the rapid pause in 'Liberation Day' tariffs just a week after their announcement, Trump's public call to dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell followed by his retreat from that stance, and an agreement to scale back China-related tariffs after initial escalation. Financial Times' Katie Martin cited three such turnarounds that had tangible impacts on market performance. Other reports, like Shannon Pettypiece's for NBC News, documented as many as ten specific trade reversals: from duties on European wine and Canadian goods to proposed levies on iPhones and children's toys. As protests and unrest continue across California and spread to other cities like Dallas, Austin, Chicago, and New York, the question resurfaces: will Trump remain committed to this path, or will the 'Taco theory' play out once more? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why Trump's federal deployment in questionable The Trump administration has defended its decision to deploy a significant military presence to Los Angeles, but the move has drawn sharp criticism for both its legal footing and fiscal cost. According to a Pentagon estimate presented to Congress, the deployment is expected to cost approximately $134 million over a 60-day period. This figure includes expenses related to housing, transportation, and food for the personnel involved. Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, a Pentagon official serving as a special assistant to the secretary of defense, shared the cost breakdown during testimony before a House subcommittee. The funding for this operation is being drawn from the Department of Defense's Operations & Maintenance budget. A total of 4,700 personnel have been activated as part of this mobilisation: 4,000 members of the California National Guard and 700 Marines. Though Marines have yet to be seen actively engaged on the streets, the presence of National Guard troops — especially near federal buildings and ICE operations — has been confirmed. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth appeared before lawmakers to defend the decision, asserting that 'every American citizen deserves to live in a community that's safe, and ICE agents need to be able to do their job.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hegseth argued that the 60-day deployment timeline was intentional: 'We stated very publicly that it's 60 days because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere.' Hegseth also accused demonstrators of being in the country illegally and claimed the deployment was meant to protect law enforcement personnel who were being attacked. Why Trump's decision is being brought to court The troop deployment has exposed a significant clash between the federal executive branch and California's Democratic leadership. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a prominent critic of the Trump administration, has openly opposed the military presence in his state. Speaking in a nationally televised address, Newsom described the moment as a 'war' being waged not just against protesters, but against the foundational principles of American democracy. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived,' Newsom declared, warning that Trump's tactics reflect a larger attempt to centralise power in the White House and bypass the established norms of federalism. Newsom further added, 'He's declared a war. A war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. He's delegitimising news organisations, and he's assaulting the First Amendment.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Asserting that 'it's time for all of us to stand up,' Newsom urged peaceful resistance while criticizing Trump's actions as fundamentally anti-democratic. Simultaneously, California filed a legal challenge to the troop deployment, arguing that federal intervention in state matters without consent violates the principles of state sovereignty. In response, a judge opted not to issue an immediate ruling, instead granting several days for the administration to continue its actions ahead of a scheduled hearing. Adding to the friction, Trump claimed he had spoken to Newsom about the protests. The Governor disputed this directly on social media, writing: 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail.' He added, 'Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Members of Congress, particularly Democrats, pressed the administration over the legal grounds for military deployment. Representative Pete Aguilar cited federal law that allows presidential use of troops only under limited conditions such as foreign invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce federal law using regular means. 'Which authority is triggered here to justify the use?' he asked. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hegseth responded vaguely: 'I don't know. You just read it yourself so people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all three to me.' He reiterated claims that demonstrators were undocumented and violent, though evidence of this was not independently confirmed during the hearing. Representative Betty McCollum challenged why Marines were being sent to LA now when a similar response was not undertaken during the 2020 unrest in Minneapolis. Hegseth defended the decision, referencing leadership requests: 'The police chief said she was overwhelmed, so we helped.' However, it remains unclear which official Hegseth was referring to. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell had earlier issued a statement expressing concern over the deployment, saying it complicated efforts to de-escalate tension and posed logistical challenges due to lack of coordination. Will Taco Trump repeat himself? Trump has not ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, one of the most severe emergency powers available to a U.S. president. From the Oval Office, he said: 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see.' Trump also stoked further controversy by appearing to support the idea of Newsom's arrest if he were to obstruct federal immigration enforcement. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' the president told reporters. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The broader context includes years of tension between Trump and California leadership, particularly Newsom. Trump has previously threatened to withhold wildfire aid, intervened in homelessness policy debates, and warned California residents that 'your children are in danger' due to illegal immigration. His rhetoric often includes insults — calling the governor 'New-scum' — and incendiary policy declarations. The recent protests, which began in response to ICE raids, have remained concentrated in downtown Los Angeles but are now being echoed in major cities across the US. Reports of teargas and violent clashes, including the torching of vehicles and highway blockades, have only heightened national interest. While Trump has so far stood firm on the military deployment, historical precedent suggests the possibility of a reversal. The president's record — be it trade threats, economic tariffs, or even high-profile dismissals — shows a consistent pattern of retreat when faced with sustained opposition or political cost. With inputs from agencies
Business Times
10-06-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Don't fall for the trap of the Taco trade
[SINGAPORE] At first, it was ominous. Then, it became obvious. There's a new trade in town called the Taco trade, or Trump Always Chickens Out. Here's how it works: When US President Donald Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs on Apr 2, the S&P 500 index tanked by more than 10 per cent in days. His tariff threat lasted less than a week before he backed down, pausing the implementation of higher tariffs for 90 days. In response, the index jumped by 9.5 per cent in a single day. And just like that, the Taco trade was born. Despite the initial pause, underlying trade tensions re-emerged when the US raised tariffs on China and engaged in a tit-for-tat tariff battle, raising US import levies to as high as 145 per cent at its peak. Amid the war of words between the superpowers, the stock market was unsettled. Then on May 12, the US and China called a truce for 90 days with the US reducing tariffs to 30 per cent for Chinese imports, and China lowering its import levy to 10 per cent for American goods. Once again, the S&P 500 index rallied on the news; last Friday (Jun 6), it closed at just a stone's throw from its all-time high. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up By then, traders had started taking notice of the emerging pattern. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term Taco trade, an acronym that quickly spread all over Wall Street. Second guessing the Taco trade If you have noticed the Taco trade pattern, you're not alone – and that's a big problem. The truth is if everyone is thinking the same way, then no one has an edge over anyone else. Furthermore, if every trader anticipates a market recovery after Trump backs down, then the competition turns into one in which the fastest fingers to enter a trade wins. That's a race, not a strategy. Trying to second guess when the stock market will change course is no different from timing the market. Here's the rub: According to Hartford Funds, if you missed the 10 best days (read: gains) in the stock market over the past 30 years, your returns would be less than half the amount from staying fully invested over the same period. In other words, mistiming your entry and exit will have a severe impact on your investment returns if you miss even a tiny number of days. Like walking on a tightrope, a minor misstep could have major consequences. So, don't try your luck. History has not been kind to trendy trades History hasn't been favourable to formula-based investment strategies – for good reason. Take the Dogs of the Dow (DD), a methodology popularised in 1991. The DD formula suggested that investors can maximise their investment yield by buying the top 10 highest-paying dividend stocks from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) at the start of every year. But alas, it was not to be. Research from the NYU Stern School of Business showed that when an investment strategy becomes popular, the masses try to front-run the strategy, pre-emptively piling into the shares and driving up their stock prices. With a higher starting price at the beginning of the year, the DD group will inevitably find it hard to outperform the market. Therein lies the paradox: Even a proven formulaic strategy will fail if the masses pile into the stocks. Ironically, the simplicity that helps popularise the strategy eventually leads to its demise. But if that's the case, where does this leave investors? It's the business, not the acronym If acronym-laden trades don't work, then why have the original FAANG stocks been profitable to shareholders over the past decade? While Taco and FAANG are acronyms, the similarity stops there. The Taco trade is subject to the whims of Trump, which can change at any moment. FAANG stocks, however, are made up of growing US tech businesses. Coined in 2013, the original acronym FANG consisted of Facebook (now Meta Platforms), Amazon, Netflix and Google (now Alphabet). Apple was added in 2017. Here's the difference for FAANG: Over the past decade, the average return from FAANG stocks was over 900 per cent or 10x in returns. Tellingly, these gains are largely backed by growth in the quintet's free cash flow (FCF) per share. The best example is Alphabet. Over the past decade, its shares grew by 640 per cent. In terms of FCF per share, the gain was 643 per cent, which closely matches its stock price increase. The main reason the FAANG group's share prices have risen over this period lies in the solid gains in their free cash flow. Unlike the Taco trade, FAANG's gains were not dependent on the whims of a US president. The long-term difference Here's the twist: Buying a group of stocks such as FAANG does not guarantee great returns. The key to turning a great stock into great returns is time. Simply put, the average 10x return the FAANG stocks delivered was only possible when there was enough time for the businesses to demonstrate their ability to grow. For investors, patience is paramount. Sadly, many investors invariably lose their nerve along the way and sell too soon. The truth is, holding a stock for a decade is not as easy as it looks. Wealth manager Ben Carlson provided two telling statistics. First, the good news: if you look at the rolling 10-year periods since 1950, the S&P 500 index has delivered positive returns 93 per cent of the time. That is, you have a high chance of getting good returns if you hold for a decade. That's the reward for patient investors. Then, there's the unfortunate news. The probability of a bear market (an index decline of 20 per cent or more) during these same 10-year periods is 95 per cent. When you put the two together, the message is clear: Volatility is the price of admission. It's the toll booth you have to pass to get the returns you want. Get smart: It's a marathon, not a sprint There's no doubt that the allure of making a quick buck is strong. That's why trends such as the Taco trade are popular. Clever branding plays a role. But the reason the FAANG strategy has worked has not been because the five company names lined up to form a catchy acronym. The real insight was about giving great businesses enough time to run. For investors, the real trick is about cultivating the iron gut of a long-distance runner, not just picking the right stocks. As the numbers from Ben Carlson clearly show, the real game-changer isn't about timing your entry or exit, but in not exiting too soon. Because when the market inevitably tests your resolve, that unwavering patience, not some trendy trade, will be the real differentiator between success and failure to get what you want. So, choose great businesses over stock prices, endurance over speed, and above all, patience over quick trades. In the long run, the road less travelled is the most rewarding, in my eyes. The writer is co-founder of The Smart Investor, a website that aims to help people to invest smartly by providing investor education, stock commentary and market coverage
India Today
05-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
How Tharoor hit Trump, Rahul Gandhi with a single stone on ceasefire
Diplomacy is like the proverbial tip of the iceberg. What is visible to the public is just 10% of what takes place behind closed doors. And US President Donald Trump, with his bull-in-a-China-shop approach, is a diplomat's nightmare. There is a big reason why the Indian government hasn't vociferously junked Trump's claims of having mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the mini-war in May. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor made that public, albeit with the skills of a former diplomat that he most American presidents, Trump has been big on claims and short on action. This has led to him being mocked as Taco -- Trump always chickens out. However, the flying taco leaves an imprint wherever it claim of having brokered a ceasefire was lapped up by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, who used it to attack Prime Minister Narendra Modi. "Trump made one gesture from there (the US), picked up the call and said 'Modiji, what are you doing? Narender surrender'. And Modiji said 'yes sir' and followed Trump's instructions," Rahul said in Bhopal on June was less than a month ago that India launched Operation Sindoor to target terror camps inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). The May 7 strike saw Pakistan attack military and civilian areas in India with missiles and swarm of drones. India retaliated by targeting military infra deep inside Pakistan and left its forces May 10, as Trump made a surprise announcement on Truth Social -- the US had mediated a ceasefire between the two announced that the pause to the war came about after the Pakistani DGMO called up his Indian counterpart, raising the white Rahul Gandhi and his Congress have chosen to go with Trump, who also spoke about trade in the same has repeatedly, but prudently, stated that Trump didn't play any role in the ceasefire and that the pause came about with discussions between the two warring question is, why hasn't India vociferously rejected Trump's claims?The short answer is -- diplomacy happens behind closed doors and isn't a shouting ties are bigger than a property dealer-turned-politician's ego. Similarly, messaging for the nation, in which Shashi Tharoor is currently engaged, is not about the ego-massaging of a political is leading a multi-party team to the US to put forth India's stance on Operation Sindoor and the compulsion that forced it to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan."Do you think India has been firm enough to the constant mediation claim by Trump? It is the same question that your party continues to ask back home," Tharoor was asked in the yesterday, the leader of your party, Rahul Gandhi, said Modi surrendered to President Trump," the person asking made the backdrop with a loud laugh, Tharoor strongly reiterated India's stand -- India didn't ask anyone for mediation."All I can say is that I have enormous respect for the American Presidency and the American President. All we can say for ourselves is that we have never particularly wanted to ask anyone to mediate," Tharoor who has seen all shades of global diplomacy during his stint in the United Nations, including as the Under-Secretary-General of the UN, made clear India had clear priorities and didn't want to "jeopardise" ongoing India-US talks by countering Trump on a "matter of detail"."We have enormous respect for the US, and we have a much more important, valuable, and strategic partnership with Washington that we would not want to jeopardize over a matter of detail. We are cooperating in a number of areas and are interested in enhancing all of that. Small matters can be set aside so we can focus on tomorrow," said is amid ongoing India-US talks, where a trade deal could be finalised between the two countries soon. advertisementThe former diplomat killed two birds with one stone by calling Trump's ceasefire claims, and thereby Rahul Gandhi's political rhetoric, by trashing the issue as "small matter".Like Asaduddin Owaisi, who has been ferocious against Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack and used terms unlike anyone else to expose it, the suave Tharoor performed his national duty even as his own party tried to pull him Congress and Rahul Gandhi have been an exception in attacking the government at a time when the entire country stood united and bipartisan teams are representing Tharoor diplomatically sidestepped the political question, his colleague and Rajya Sabha MP Milind Deora, addressed it."As far as the political question is concerned, I would like to extend my admiration for Dr Tharoor, whom I have known for a long time. He always puts country before party," said Deora, who is among the leaders in Rahul Gandhi's inner circle to have moved out of the Tharoor explained was a growing India's treading the line in not antagonising Trump, for Trump is like Jaykant Shikre of Singham, the bhi karne ka, Jaykant Shikre ke ego nahi hurt karne ka," is his pet statement in the is the Jaykant Shikre in the White House -- a mass of bloated ego -- and India, like Tharoor outlined, doesn't believe in a diplomatic hack is no denying that the government is answerable, and will be held accountable, but this might not be the right time. It isn't the time to bolster voices against the country that might be amped up by forces inimical to India's interests. This is the time to speak up in one voice as a nation. And Shashi Tharoor is one of the millions of such voices, stating the InMust Watch
