Latest Israel-Iran Tensions News | Top Israel-Iran Tensions News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking Israel-Iran Tensions News Today | English Israel-Iran Tensions News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

Netanyahu: Israel Nears ‘Victory’ Over Iran’s Missiles And Secret Nuclear Sites

June 23, 2025, 3:17 am

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel is near completing its goals in deconstructing what he called the dual threats of Iran’s ballistic missile program and nuclear program.

Addressing Israeli media, Netanyahu underscored that though Israel will not let itself be pulled into an extended war of attrition, the war against Iran would not be brought to a premature end. “We won’t overdo it, but we also won’t cut short,” he said. “Once our goals are achieved, the operation will terminate, as will the combat.

He reaffirmed his conviction that the Iranian regime is an existential threat to Israel. “This is a regime that wants to annihilate us, and that is why we decided on this operation to remove the nuclear and missile threat. We are moving step by step and are very close to achieving these objectives,” Netanyahu stated.

The Prime Minister confirmed Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear site had suffered heavy damage in recent US attacks that used bunker-buster bombs, although the full measure of the destruction is still being evaluated. Iran, in turn, has pledged to defend itself from further hostility.

When asked about the situation regarding Iran’s 60% enriched uranium stockpile, Netanyahu refused to give details but said Israel is carefully following it. “It’s a key part of a nuclear program not the sole one, but a very important component,” he explained, adding that Israeli intelligence is monitoring it closely.

Iran had been producing 60% enriched uranium, a level just short of the 90% required for weapons, until Israel’s first attack on June 13. This is much higher than the 3.67% limit under the 2015 nuclear accord, to which Iran was adhering until the US pulled out of the accord in 2018.

There are high tensions still as the operation continues.

Iran vs Israel: Shadows of History, Firestorms of Today

June 21, 2025, 8:29 pm

As Israel’s Operation The Rising Lion faces off with Iran’s Fury, the world wonders if they are stepping closer to a Nuclear Holocaust! This is the first time that the Iran-Israel conflict is a full-fledged war! Conventionally, both nations fight in a silent blaze that rages across the Middle East through proxies, sabotage, cyberattacks, and intelligence wars since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

What began as an ideological hostility has evolved into one of the world’s most perilous rivalries, now culminating in open conflict in 2025. The latest conflict in the Middle East is a classic case of nuclear diplomacy failures that ensured both nations crossed the threshold into direct warfare.

Roots of Enmity

Until 1979, Iran and Israel shared quiet diplomatic and intelligence relations under the Shah of Iran. Israel purchased oil from Iran and supported its regime as a regional bulwark against Arab nationalism. Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Israel was the largest supplier of arms to Iran. However, the Islamic Revolution reversed that dynamic overnight.

Ayatollah Khomeini labeled the Jewish state of Israel the “Little Satan,” the USSR became the “Lesser Satan” and the USA was crowned the “Greater Satan.”

And these words became the foundation of the new Iran’s foreign policy. Soon after gaining political power, Ayatollah Khomeini began a massacre of communists and opposition leaders in the nation. Reportedly, the blood of close to 30,000 stained the hands of the Ayatollah regime in the first year itself. Apart from ensuring a stranglehold on the voice of the people’s representatives, the Islamic revolution of Iran enacted a policy of “exporting the revolution” – including arming, funding, and training Hezbollah and Hamas.

From 1982 onward, Iran established its proxy foothold in Lebanon through Hezbollah terrorists that regularly engaged with Israel and supplied ammunition as well as training to Hamas. Despite the 2024 pager attack on the senior leadership, Hezbollah remains a formidable paramilitary organization with an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets and ill-wishes aimed at Israel.

Covert Wars and Overt Strikes

Since 1979, Iran and Israel have engaged in numerous indirect clashes, often through third-party militias or cyber operations. A timeline of notable episodes:

1. Lebanon War (1982–2000)

On 6th June 1982, Israel invades south Lebanon to counter the growing influence of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and assist Lebanon’s Christian Kataeb Party or Phalanges in winning the Lebanese Civil War.
Two months of brutal war had 5000-6000 PLO members scurrying to Tunis via Egypt to escape from Israeli wrath. And by September 1982 the Iran-backed Hezbollah emerged to assistante the leader of the Pahalangists and President-elect of Lebanon.
The invasion created a no-go security buffer between Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon and Israel.
However, Hezbollah’s attacks, suicide bombings, and rocket fire continued to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians.

2. Second Lebanon War (2006)

A cross-border skirmish triggered a direct war.betweenIsrael and Hezbollah.
The 34 days of war ensured Israel suffered significant losses, and the Shia terrorist group of Hezbollah lost men, influence, and face with other Arab nations.
Israel blamed Iran for supplying weapons, training, and strategic support to propagate a proxy war with the Jewish nation.

3. CyberwarfareBetween Israel and Iran

Stuxnet in 2010, was a joint U.S.-Israel cyberattack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility.
A USB-based 500KB virus was input into 14 machines using Microsoft Windows, including the Urianium-Enrichment plant at Natanz.
The virus was malicious and fast-repliating, thus, spreading to many locations.
It enabled anyone to spy on the work done by the machine and control equipment like centrifuges without the knowledge of its operators.
A series of mysterious explosions, assassinations of nuclear scientists – like Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020, and facility fires have been attributed to Israel.

4. Syria, Gaza, Read Sea Conflicts (2010–present)

Israel has launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Iranian military targets and weapons convoys in Syria to prevent entrenchment near the Golan Heights.
Iran supplies Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad with arms and funds.
Several Gaza wars (2009, 2012, 2014, 2021) saw Iran’s hand in fueling anti-Israel aggression.
A maritime shadow war began in the 2010s with tit-for-tat sabotage of Israeli and Iranian ships.

The 2015 JCPOA: A Deal Dismantled

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a.k.a Iran Nuclear Deal, was signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China, Russia).

Key Terms of the 2015 Deal:

Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67% and cut its stockpile by 98%.
No new enrichment facilities were allowed.
IAEA inspections were mandated.
Sanctions on Iran were lifted in return.

But Israel was vocally critical of the deal. PM Netanyahu famously presented intelligence claiming Iran lied about the military dimensions of its program, calling the deal a “historic mistake.”

During his first term, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Sanctions on Iran came back in full force and were more crippling than ever. Consequently, Iran went on to respond by breaching enrichment limits.

Despite U.S. attempts under the Biden administration to revive the deal, Iran refused several terms:

Full IAEA transparency.
Sunset clause extensions.
Ban on ballistic missile development.
Limiting IRGC’s influence.

Iran argued these terms violated its sovereignty, and negotiations failed in 2022 and 2023.

The Slide into Open War

The fragile status quo began to collapse in late 2024. While fighting with Hamas and trying to dismantle the extensive tunnel structure of the Gaza-based terrorist groups, Israel exchanged hostilities via Iran and its proxy in the region.

Rocket attacks from Hezbollah resulted in Mossad’s Pager Operation that left Hezbollah’s top leaders stunned and the organization incapacitated.
Iran began a rapid enrichment of Uranium while the IAEA raised alarms of it nearing weapons-grade.
Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria.
Hezbollah’s weapons manufacturing facilities were neutralized.
Israel launched an attack on Iran’s military base, international airport, and Natanz nuclear site.
Allegedly, Israel was behind the death of Iran’s President EbrahimRaisolsadatia.k.aEbrahimRaisi.

The exchanges of hostilities pushed the region into open confrontation.

In April 2025, after an alleged Iranian drone strike on northern Israel killed civilians, the IDF launched Operation Iron Resolve, striking Iranian bases in Syria, Iraq, and even Isfahan.

Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles from its mainland — the first direct engagement since 1979.

Nuclear Escalation Risks

As of 2025, the IAEA reported that Iran was enriching uranium at 60%. This was alarmingly close to weapons-grade level. Experts began to warn that Iran could assemble a bomb in less than three weeks, though weaponization may take months. As per IAEA reports, the enriched Uranium reached 400 Kg which was enough to power 10 nuclear warheads, if weaponized.

Israel is long suspected to possess 90 -100 nuclear warheads. However, without a treaty in place, it remains unmonitored and undeclared. The Jewish nation has made it clear it will not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of the Islamic Regime of Iran.

Thus, while the world deliberated on IAEA sanction, Israel took matters into its own hands. The current Iran-Israel war is Israel’s attempt to preemptively restrict Iran’s nuclear dreams. Thus, the current war is underpinned by nuclear brinkmanship, with fears of a regional meltdown in the Middle East.

What’s at Stake

This current crisis in the Middle East is not merely a conflict between two states. The war threatens to:

Drag the USA into war as Israel’s ally.
EU and other allies are sure to support Israel in its quest to contain Iran.
Disrupt global oil markets through Strait of Hormuz blockades.
Inflame sectarian divisions between Sunni and Shia states.
Destabilize regional security in the Middle East – specifically in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq – where both nations hold stakes.

Iran’s Strategic Dilemma

Iran faces a triple crisis:

Domestic unrest is multiplying with Iranians choosing personal freedoms over restrictive regimes that use moral police to enforce morality laws (hijab laws) as the sanctions and war push the nation toward an economic collapse.
Regime change is a very real possibility facing the Ayatollah regime with the Shah of Iran assuring support to Israel while in exile.
An overstreach of resources is a daming probability faced by Ayatollha administration as Isrealistikes have limited its military capabilities limited.

Despite its ideological fervor, Iran is overextended. Yet its narrative of resistance gives it symbolic power across the Muslim world. With Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, and Lebanon offering support – Iran stands as a beacon to the Islamist regimes across the Middle East and Indian Subcontinent.

Israel’s Calculated Gamble

So what does Israel seek from this war? The answer is simple:

Destroy Iran’s nuclear program or delay it significantly.
Signal strength to deter Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and other regional adversaries.
Reassert deterrence amid growing Iranian confidence.
Engineer regime change in Iran to ensure security for Israelis.
Cut off the supply of arms and funds to the remnants of Hamas in Gaza.

However, Israel risks a full-scale regional war, with a slight chance of a nuclear holocaust if Iran manages to produce a Nuclear Warhead while engaging with Israel. Global backlash might increase multifold with deaths attributable to the Israeli administration increasing across the Middle East. If the war drags on for several days, its economic and civilian facilities become vulnerable targets of missiles, causing severe nationwide repercussions.

Final Word

This Israel-Iran war is not sudden. It is the crescendo of four decades of mistrust, proxy warfare, and failed diplomacy. The collapse of the JCPOA, Iran’s rejection of stricter nuclear dictates, and the growing regional ambitions of Israel & Iran have created a perfect storm.

While neither Iran nor Israel might want mutual destruction, the risk of miscalculation is dangerously high. With the nuclear card in play, the conflict now demands global attention, collaboration, and calls for restraint. Most importantly, it asks for all to recognize that the days of arm-twisting diplomacy by the West are over. If the interests of all parties are not kept in mind at the diplomatic table, it will result in a conflict that will cost human lives and national resources, far beyond just the Middle East.

‘Now or Never’ Moment for Israel, Says PM Netanyahu Advisor On War With Iran

June 21, 2025, 5:15 pm

Priya Sahgal, the Editorial Director at NewsX (iTV Network), recently interviewed George Eli Birnbaum, an American political consultant on Israel-Iran war, China’s global rise and other significant geopolitical issues. Birnbaum worked on the United States congressional and senatorial races. In 1998, he moved to Israel to work as a consultant to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, became his chief of staff, and afterwards formed a partnership with political consultant Arthur Finkelstein. Here are some excerpts of the interview:

Q. He is, it’s good to have you here, George, on the show, and you know, you have really one person who can give us an insight to the man of the moment. You’ve been an advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister, and first of all I’d like to begin with, you know, what is happening, what is he thinking, what is going on in his mind?

A. So as of today, the Prime Minister is really focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is eliminating an existential threat, not just to the Jewish people and to Israel, but for the world. He’s always believed that the Prime Minister of Israel, whoever it is, has a responsibility to ensure that what happened in the late 30s and 1940s to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany never happens again.

And I’ve said recently that had Israel been around in 1936, 1937, it would have taken out Nazi Germany and prevented World War II. I believe firmly that the Prime Minister and his cabinet and most of the Jewish people around the world believe that what Israel is doing now will be looked at as having prevented World War III.

Q. But, you know, the conflict, the timing of the conflict, there is a lot of speculation as to, you know, is this to take, deviate from his domestic pressures? Why now? I mean, can you, you know, pinpoint as to the timing of the attack?

A. So, the timing is clearly linked to the uranium enrichment program of the Iranians. There is a point of no return at which you have enough critical mass to make a weapon. And Iran was getting very close to reaching that critical mass. And so there was no choice. The choice was to either let Iran develop enough uranium, enriched uranium, to have nuclear warheads that could not just reach Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but put on ballistic missiles that could reach Europe and eventually the United States as well, or stop that from ever being able to happen. I think it was a very clear choice. The time was either now or never.

And the Prime Minister had to make a very difficult decision. I can tell you that these types of decisions where you know you’re putting not just soldiers’ lives in harm’s way, but civilians’ lives at risk as well, is not an easy decision. It is a decision that only one person makes.

He has to live with it. And it’s a very difficult one. And it’s one that Prime Ministers such as Prime Minister Netanyahu and your Prime Minister Modi make almost on a daily basis.

This is, of course, at a much greater scale than, let’s say, a small military operation. This is a very large-scale military operation. But nonetheless, it is a life-and-death decision that the Prime Minister had to take and did not take easily.

Q. In fact, I would like to talk to you a bit about the decision-making process of the Prime Minister. But before that, what is exactly his endgame? I mean, we’ve heard him talk of a regime change. We’ve heard Donald, the U.S. president, in fact, try and spell out what that regime change means in a post-untruth social. There have been threats. They literally all have been calling out for a threat to a leader. It’s not just issuing threats to a world leader at the end of the day. So, what is, I mean, in terms of, what are they both hoping to achieve with that?

A. Well, I think the endgame is a very simple one. It is preventing a country like Iran from having nuclear weapons. Remember, Iran is not standing alone in terms of its desire to bring harm not just to the little Satan, which is Israel, but the great Satan, which is America and other Western democracies through their proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, these proxies would have nuclear weapons as well. So the endgame is a very simple one. It’s to prevent fundamentalist Islamic radical regimes and their proxies from being able to turn their regular missiles into nuclear weapons.

Q. And with that, they’re talking about a regime change. Do they have any plans for what happens?

A. A regime change would be nice. It would be a nice benefit. Listen, the Iranian people, of whom I know many around the world, are all eager to see the Ayatollahs and Mullahs reign of Islamic fundamentalism come to an end in Iran. And so regime change would be a nice benefit. I don’t know that it’s the endgame.

The endgame is certainly just the elimination of Iran’s weaponized nuclear program. Regime change would be a wonderful benefit, an added benefit to that endgame.

Q. You know what strikes me a bit odd about the timing is that this also happened at a time when the U.S. had approached Iran, and there were talks for some dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program. They were making some headway over there. This is the time when Israel chooses to strike.

A. So listen, without divulging information, I think your viewers are well aware that the U.S. and Israel share intelligence on a daily basis.

And Donald Trump, who is an expert at negotiating deals, I think also understood that what the Iranians were doing was not negotiating in good faith, but negotiating to buy time, stretching out that time. Because every day that went by in those negotiations was another day that the Iranians were able to enrich more and more uranium. I think Donald Trump recognized that.

I think he recognized that the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith, that the Iranians were negotiating just as a means to buy more time to enrich more uranium. And given the intelligence that Israel had regarding the capacity of that enriched uranium, that the strike wasn’t done without the knowledge of the U.S. president and the U.S. administration, but with the full understanding that this had to happen, and there was no choice.

Q. And if the United States, or even if Israel is successful in, quote unquote, taking out the Ayatollah, have they ever thought, and I again repeat my question, what next? There will be a vacuum. There will be another Ayatollah somewhere. Do they want the Shah back? What do you think would be the best-case scenario?

A. Well, the best-case scenario would bring back some form of liberal democracy to the Iranian people, or even with the Shah, some sort of freedom that the people of Iran enjoyed prior to the Islamic Revolution. I mean, if you look at what Iran was like in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a haven for education and for culture.

I think that’s what everyone would like to see, is a return to that type of Iran, where the Iranian people are free to pursue their dreams, where women can dress freely, where people can express themselves freely, and where literature and arts and culture can thrive as opposed to be stymied and stifled by Islamic fundamentalists.

Q. But my next question is, you know, you’ve talked about Donald Trump being good at striking deals. Is he so good at striking deals? Because as of now, all he’s doing is really issuing threats. If he was good at striking deals, he would have worked out some deal between Israel and Iran. Why has he not been able to do that?

A. Well, you know, in order to make a deal, you have to have two parties that operate and negotiate in good faith. And so the fact of the matter is that there was no good faith on one side of the negotiation. You really can’t make a deal when there is only one side at the negotiating table that’s operating in good faith.

It’s impossible to make a deal that way. So I think that was clear, and Donald Trump understood that there was no deal to be had because he only had one side that was negotiating in good faith.

Q. But will Trump and Netanyahu, you know, if Trump wants to negotiate a deal with Netanyahu, listen to Trump? Is that also, you know, part of the problem?

A. No, no, listen, they have a very strong relationship. They know each other very well. When you say listen, I mean, they will listen and to a point. At the end of the day, the Israeli prime minister has to operate with the Israeli citizens’ best interests in mind, and the American president has to operate with the American people’s best interests in mind.

Most of the time, those two things converge. When they do diverge, then the two sides have to understand and respect each other and say, OK, you have to do what you have to do for your people. I have to do what I have to do for my people. But like I said, 99 percent of the time between the U.S. and Israel, those two ideas are converging, not diverging ideas.

Q. This is also a time, you know, where we’ve seen some kind of a peace in the region. We’ve seen the Abraham Accords being signed. We’ve seen even the U.S. has strategic interests over there also. This confrontation and regime change in the past hasn’t also worked very well. You know, whether you take Iraq or you take Africa, how, I mean, the benefits of this is not going to be as smooth as, you know, the democracy may come back, the people of Iran will be better off without the Ayatollah. It never works out like that on ground?

A. Listen, the idea that democracy or the idea of American democracy is the absolute solution to the problem is it is a wrong idea to pursue. I’ve worked in countries around the world where sometimes, you know, you need strong leadership in order to make sure that you have stability.

I’m not suggesting that by simply bringing back the Shah or by bringing democracy to Iran that you’ll solve all of the Iranian people’s problems. What I am suggesting, what I think most people do believe, is that the Iranian people deserve to choose their future and the path that they go on, as opposed to the Ayatollahs and the Islamic fundamentalists. And I think if you were to poll the Iranian people, most of them would not choose the So, I’m all for self-determination among the people of a country.

I am not suggesting that, you know, by instantly bringing democracy to Iran that you will solve all of Iran’s problems. But by allowing the people to have self-determination as to what the course of their future is, then I think you start on a path that will allow the people of Iran and, quite frankly, the region to live in a way that they haven’t for many, many decades.

Q. And what about the people of Israel? You know, there are those who claim that the Israeli prime minister has gone rogue. You know, how would you react to that?

A. Gone rogue in which way?

Q. In this action against Iran, in, you know, in stepping up, escalating the action, opening up another front, as it is you were, you know, dealing with Gaza.

A. Listen, again, this was a matter of time. It was not a matter of choice. I believe and I am not privy to the exact intelligence that the prime minister was looking at, but I do believe that the Israeli intelligence community came to the conclusion that Iran was just way too close to having that critical mass of enriched uranium and was leaving Israel and its leadership with no choice. And in fact, if you look at one of the prime minister’s biggest critics, the opposition leader, Yair Lapid, who has been a very, very vocal opponent of the prime minister, even throughout the Gaza conflict, he the other day came out and said, based on the intelligence that he saw as the opposition leader in his conversation with the prime minister, that the prime minister had no choice but to act in this way. So the voices in Israel are unified, even at the political level and even with some of the prime minister’s most outspoken critics.

They do agree that this was the thing that had to happen and that there was really no choice left for the prime minister.

Q. You worked with the prime minister, you know, I think in the 96 campaign, his first campaign. Can you give us some insights into him, some anecdotes, because he is really the man of the moment that we are looking at, trying to figure out what he’s thinking, what he’s all about. So maybe can you help us decode him?

A. Yeah, he comes, his background, his family, very, very strong Zionist. And what I mean by Zionist is very strong understanding that as Israel goes, so goes the fate of the Jewish people worldwide and that Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust and that Israel’s main purpose is to prevent that from ever happening again. That is probably the largest driving force within the prime minister, is that he sees Israel, the strength of Israel and Israel’s ability to protect itself and the people within Israel as a way of protecting the Jewish people around the world.

And quite frankly, I think he also is feeling that Israel is not only doing the Jewish people a service by taking out the Iranian nuclear threat, but quite frankly, Western civilization. He’s always been driven by this idea that Israel has to be strong, not just for the Jewish people in Israel, but worldwide. And he’s completely focused on making sure that any existential threats to Israel are eliminated and never allowing a Holocaust to happen outside of Israel or inside Israel.

But in terms of in terms of the prime minister himself, I can tell you that he is a probably the most intelligent political leader I’ve ever worked with. His capacity for intellect at every level. And it doesn’t matter the topic.

I always say that he could walk through the halls of Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard and walk in any classroom and have a very, very serious and in-depth conversation no matter what the topic in that classroom was. He also has an enormous capacity for humor and a sense of humor. And he’s quite he’s just quite an amazing leader.

And by the way, I think it’s one of the reasons him and your prime minister Modi get along so well. I think they have a deep respect for each other at an intellectual level, not just because they both are the elected leaders of their respective countries.

Q. We’ve seen a most significant turn in the world order. I think perhaps after World War Two, this has been the most in terms of destabilizing and there have been a new world order is now going to be coming together. How do you see how do you envisage that? And where do you really see India’s role, for instance, in that?

A.I think India has become already an enormous leader in terms of geopolitics, not just because of the population of India or the fact that India has nuclear weapons or a strong military, but India is leading the world in many ways in terms of economic growth and in terms of leadership.

And the Prime Minister, your Prime Minister Modi has really stepped into that role and embraced it. I think India plays a unique role in that it has relationships that are very broad. It has relationships with Israel. It has relationships with China. It has a relationship with Russia. It has relationships with the US.

And I believe that India can play an enormous role as a as a as an interlocutor, if you will, for geopolitical conflict. I’ve been advocating for a long time that I think India could play a big role in the Iranian-Russian conflict and bringing that to an end. I see India as a real honest broker when it comes to world conflict and world issues because of the relationships that India has built internationally with other governments around the world.

So I’m happy to see it. I don’t like a simple bipolar world where we saw the US and Russia as the two global powerhouses and no one else mattered. Other countries matter, India being one of the major countries that matter in the world in geopolitics.

And I really see India growing into that. And Prime Minister Modi has done a wonderful, masterful job of embracing it and playing that role. And I look forward to seeing India grow even more in terms of being a geopolitical player when it comes to world conflict and the global economy in general and global manufacturing and industry, export, import.

India is going to be a wonderful place for world leadership.

Q. Yes, that is what we actually want to do is to consolidate ourselves economically and focus on that story. But there is always Pakistan trying to distract and try and derail us. Given the Iran conflict happening right now, has that increased Pakistan’s utility for the US? We saw Donald Trump reach out to, sorry, President Trump reach out to Field Marshal Asif Munir. He never, you know, that was really thumbing his nose at the civilian leadership in Pakistan, but he needs something from Pakistan. Pakistan has always been a client state for the US, whether it was in terms of Afghanistan and now vis-a-vis Iran. So how do you see that as a stumbling block?

A. You know, I’m not sure exactly. President Trump, he will he will utilize those relationships as is necessary when it comes to this particular conflict. I think if you look at Pakistan’s vocal or outgoing position in regard to this conflict, it’s been relatively muted given some of the ties to Iran.

And so I think there’s been a really good job in terms of keeping Pakistan from being too vocal in this conflict and fairly muted. And by the way, you know, when you talk about, you know, new world order, what’s fascinating to see is how countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and Kuwait and other Jordan, if you will, even Syria now really not being too vocal in terms of the rhetoric against Israel going after Iran. I mean, let’s remember, this is not the first time that Israel has done something like this.

In 1981, Israel took out the nuclear reactors in Iraq that were clearly being built for weaponization. In 2007, Israel did the same thing in Syria. Israel is doing it now in 2025 in Iran.

You know, if you look at the new world order, as you put it, had those countries been allowed to develop their nuclear programs, Saudi Arabia would be nuclear, Kuwait would probably be nuclear, the UAE would probably be nuclear, Qatar would probably be nuclear. And so, you know, we’re really looking at a world in which by doing what Israel has done, not just in 2025, but going back to 1981, 2007, is preventing more and more countries in the region, in the Middle East. And, you know, quite frankly, you know, it’s not a very large step to go from the Middle East to Pakistan and India, preventing the whole region from being a nuclear region.

And so I think there’s a lot of credit that has to be given to Israel that it has prevented this new order from being a new nuclear world order.

Q. Fair enough. But, you know, let’s not talk about the role of China. There’s also the role of Russia. President Putin has just offered to mediate. You know, how do you see that going?

A. Well, I mean, you know, I think President Putin has to first mediate his own conflict and bring it into the Russia-Ukraine war in which, you know, quite frankly, Russia has been targeting the civilian population in Ukraine relentlessly for year after year.

And so I think it’s a little laughable that President Putin would be offering to mediate a ceasefire on this conflict when he has his own war that he started and has not been willing to take the steps to bring to an end. So I would suggest respectfully to President Putin to first mediate his own ceasefire before he worries about mediating another ceasefire.

Q. But do you think also the one reason why Russia has not really come to Iran’s aid is the energy issue, you know, because they do have an energy tariff competition or whatever you want to call it between Russia and Iran?

A. Listen, the fact of the matter is, and we have to be honest, that as the prices of oil goes up, that helps Russia in terms of its economy and being able to continue to fight this war.

Every dollar that a barrel of oil goes up, Russia’s economy is able to survive a little longer through this war. So, you know, looking at it from that point of view, Russia is, I think, quite happy to allow the attacks on Iran’s energy sector and on its oil refineries and anything else because that will just help Russia’s economy in the short term. Long term, of course, that’s another story.

But this is certainly an economic benefit to Russia at the current moment.

Q. But isn’t it a time where each nation is really looking after its own self-interest? I mean, who’s looking at the larger picture over here?

A. Yeah, listen, I mean, that’s the nature of geopolitics. It’s generally that you look out for your own interests first.

Q. The United States used to play that role, but with Trump, I don’t see that role happening anymore. The U.S. was the one that used to play the big brother role, so to say, but that is not happening anymore. Trump is trying to, but he’s also going by his own vested interest, America’s vested interest, rather than looking for a larger role of world peace or whatever.

A. Sure. Listen, I think the U.S. overextended itself for many years and getting involved in too many areas and being trying to get involved in too many places. But that goes back to the comment we spoke about briefly, where this is really an opportunity for countries like India and Prime Minister Modi to step up and step in and play a very vital role. You do have a US president who absolutely, very clearly before the election and after the election, put an America first agenda at the forefront. His goal is not to get involved in global conflicts.

His goal is not to insert the U.S. into every negotiation, every conflict. And the American people voted for that, whether you agree with it or not. However, again, that does create an opportunity.

And I would like to see a country like India and Prime Minister Modi step into that vacuum, certainly much more than I’d like to see China or Russia or any other of those types of countries get involved.

Q. Now, let’s talk about China, you know, China is also watching this and everybody is now repositioning themselves. China is, of course, looking to see whether it can. Is there some kind of tacit understanding that, you know, China between the U.S. will play a role here, China will wait and watch and then put its stake where it wants it?

A. China has its eyes on Taiwan, for sure. Now, that’s a little different situation because of the security agreements that the U.S. has with Taiwan and in the region. And so it’s a little bit of a different animal when you look at it.

But certainly, the president of China is watching very closely and he’s watching everyone’s movements very, very closely and analyzing them very, very closely. And so I think we have to watch China very carefully.

China has invested an enormous amount of money in their military infrastructure, an enormous amount of money. And that’s a dangerous thing for the Indo-Pacific, to be sure. Whether or not they use that military in the near future to be more aggressive, I think we’ll have to wait and see. But they are definitely watching and taking notes.

And so every action that whether it’s the U.S. takes or India takes or anyone else, the Chinese are watching and taking notes.

Q. But, you know, once again, China is watching and taking note. Again, we also have to deal with China in our own immediate neighborhood. India, in that sense, has been isolated because China is now, you know, co-opting Pakistan. They’re also reaching into Nepal, Sri Lanka. How do you see, in the sense, how should India proceed forward to fill into the role that you see for India?

A. So the Chinese, and I see this across the African continent and even in Latin America, the Chinese have been very, very involved in going aggressively after natural resources in the countries, whether it be gold or lithium or other rare earths.

They go after infrastructure projects like building ports and highways. If I were advising Prime Minister Modi, I would suggest that India compete with the Chinese at that level. Because a lot of these countries, whether it be African nations or Latin American nations, they are looking for alternatives.

They are looking for someone other than the Chinese to come and invest and help them grow, whether it’s through their natural resources or infrastructure. Here’s a place where I think India could counter the Chinese like no other nation. America is too slow to move on these issues sometimes.

But the Indian nation, I believe, could play a big counterbalance role if they were to start getting a little more aggressive in competing with the Chinese in these types of big projects. It would be a way for India to assert itself, not just within a country. But remember, the influence then flows over to things like in the United Nations and in other types of international organizations.

And it allows India to have a much louder voice when it comes to geopolitics. So that would be my advice to the Prime Minister. If you were listening to me, it would be, compete with China.

Compete at that level. Go after the natural resources in Africa. Go after the natural resources in Latin America.

Help these countries build their infrastructure and become a large, influencing country in these regions, which are the future, quite frankly. Africa has a huge potential if their natural resources are exploited properly and fairly. Same thing in Latin America.

And this is a place I really do believe where India could act as a counterbalance to the Chinese globally.

Q. That was going to be my question to you because you also have been a political consultant and have advised many global leaders. So in terms of a dominant narrative, that’s your advice to the Indian Prime Minister, something. But if you would just sum it up, and also the art of the political campaign, the political narrative in today’s world of social media and of, it’s now, it’s a world without borders. So in that sense, if you can just give us just a summation of your advice.

A. Yeah, I mean, social media has made, yes, a world without borders. But at the end of the day, personal relationships matter. Face to face matters. And what I see the Chinese doing around the world is putting boots on the ground, keep on the ground and aggressively taking over many of these areas in which I do believe India is one of the few countries that could compete.

And so while India has an enormous amount of influence currently, they could grow their influence exponentially by creating a much stronger global footprint by going around the world and competing one on one against the Chinese to offer an alternative that many of these countries are looking for, but haven’t been given yet.

Q. So our focus should be China more than Pakistan?

A. I believe so.

Q. Also, in the recent conflict with Pakistan Operation Sindhu, there is a feeling that while we may have won the war militarily, we did lose it in terms of narrative building. We did send delegations abroad to 33 countries to give a point of view. But also at a point when there is a conflict in Gaza, I think people are dying all over. I don’t know how much of a resonance that had. So how should India take this narrative forward?

A. Well, yeah, I think you’re right. I think it got lost in other global events. And so not a lot of people were paying attention to it. But the thing that I see India being able to do is have a moral high ground and take the moral high ground. And I’ll go back to the China issue, because if you can go and compete with China and go into countries and show we’re not going to do the same thing that the Chinese are doing, we’re not going to bring in our own people.

We’re going to train the local people. We’re not going to exploit the resources and then leave. We’re going to invest in the country.

We’re going to stay there. India has a much different culture than the Chinese culture. And I do believe that the way you change the perception of India long term globally is by showing the contrast between you and other global superpowers.

And I believe that that would happen very quickly, because when you would come into a country, whether it be an African nation or Latin American nation or any other nation around the world, and show how you take an approach to a natural resource or infrastructure, it would be such a different and stark contrast to the way the Chinese do. You would immediately start to help people look at India very differently and with affection and with a desire to create a much stronger global connection. So I think it goes back to that. I think India has an enormous opportunity to change its global perception. But it goes back, I think, to competing with the Chinese and showing the contrast between.

Asim Munir Warned Trump Iran’s Fall Could Trigger Unrest Along Pakistan’s Border

June 20, 2025, 11:25 am

Asim Munir, the head of Pakistan’s army, recently met with US President Donald Trump at the White House and warned of serious dangers if Iran’s government falls. Speaking on the growing Israel-Iran war, Munir stressed that a collapse in Iranian leadership might give jihadist and separatist terrorists operating along the Pakistan-Iran border more confidence, which would be dangerous for both countries.

Israeli leaders have persistently voiced intentions to destabilise or overthrow Iran’s leadership through ongoing military strikes. Speaking after his White House lunch with Munir, Trump remarked about Pakistan’s stance on the Israel-Iran tensions, stating, “They’re not happy about anything.”

Militants Exploit Iran’s Crisis

Some extremist groups along the Pakistan-Iran border see the turmoil as a chance to advance their agendas. Jaish al-Adl (JaA), an Iranian jihadist group formed from ethnic Baluch and Sunni Muslim groups and operating from Pakistani territory, openly welcomed the conflict’s destabilising effects. “Jaish al-Adl extends the hand of brotherhood and friendship to all the people of Iran and calls on all people, especially the people of Baluchistan, as well as the armed forces, to join the ranks of the Resistance,” the group declared in a June 13 statement.

Pakistani officials are also concerned that in the middle of the crisis, the Baluch rebels from their own ethnic minority who live in Iran might escalate their attacks against Pakistan. Islamabad is now more concerned about regional security as a result of these extremist dynamics on both sides

Asim Munir Calls For Stability

Pakistan’s military reported that after Munir met with Trump, both leaders discussed the Iran crisis and emphasised the necessity for a peaceful resolution. Israel’s recent assaults on Iran were also condemned by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry for the breach of international law. Shafqat Ali Khan, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphasised, “This is for us a very serious issue, what is happening in our brotherly country of Iran. It imperils the entire regional security structure, it impacts us deeply.”

The high-profile meeting between Asim Munir and Donald Trump has sparked considerable interest in Delhi, especially in light of recent India-Pakistan tensions following the Pahalgam terror attack.

Backchannel Diplomacy: US And Iran Hold Secret Calls Amid Escalating Israel Strikes

June 19, 2025, 10:20 pm

In an effort to stop the growing conflict between Iran and Israel, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have held a series of secret phone calls within the last week, according to three diplomats who spoke to Reuters anonymously.

The diplomats announced that Araqchi asserted strongly that Iran would not revisit the negotiating table until Israel stops its continuous airstrikes, which commenced on June 13. The calls constitute the most direct and serious communication between the US and Iran since indirect negotiations restarted in April.

Among the topics of discussion was a US initiative introduced in late May and called for forming a regional uranium enrichment group beyond Iran’s borders a move Tehran has spurned in the past. One regional diplomat close to Iran stated Araqchi offered intimation of flexibility on the nuclear front if the US put pressure on Israel to cease the bombardments.

This first round of diplomacy, led by Washington, featured a new offer intended to end the impasse on uranium enrichment a core issue that separates the two countries. Although President Trump is adamant Iran has to stop all uranium enrichment on its territory, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei believes this right is inalienable.

European powers have also joined the fight. British, French, and German foreign ministers had a teleconference meeting with Araqchi and intend to meet him in Geneva on Friday, EU and Iranian officials said. The European three want to act as a diplomatic overpass since Iran cannot at the moment hold public talks with Washington because of the ongoing Israeli airstrikes and intensifying domestic pressures.

President Trump, though equivocal on American military action, has expressed interest in a diplomatic resolution, proposing Iranian leaders come to Washington though he made it clear Iran would have to first satisfy US conditions.