Geopolitics Policy Security United States USA War World

Managed Unstable Equilibrium?

After US-Iran Peace Deal, West Asia continues to burn. India has to devise long term tactics to tide over uncertainties in the region. N. C. Bipindra The ink had barely dried on Bürgenstock framework before bombs started falling again. Four months after US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 29, 2026, and weeks after Washington and Tehran sat across the table in Switzerland to sign a memorandum of understanding meant to end the fighting “on all fronts,” there’s uncertainty all over. Lebanon is still burning, the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint and peace deal that was supposed to calm the region has instead exposed how far apart its core players really are. US – Iran interim agreement was billed as the moment the wider war finally ended. Iran agreed to stop blocking the Strait of Hormuz; Washington lifted its naval blockade of Iranian ports and both sides committed to 60 days of follow-on talks over Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions relief. On paper, it looked like off – ramp the world had been waiting for since oil tankers first started getting stranded in the Gulf back in March 2026. The problem is that MOU’s very first clause calls for a permanent end to hostilities in Lebanon, a country that was never at the table. Iran insisted on this because Hezbollah, its most important regional proxy, has been devastated by months of Israeli ground operations and airstrikes that have killed more than 4,000 people and displaced over a million Lebanese. For Tehran, protecting what’s left of Hezbollah isn’t a side issue; it’s the price of the peace deal itself. Iran has repeatedly said Israeli strikes on Lebanon “blatantly violate” the ceasefire it signed onto. Israel sees it completely differently. Israeli officials have said openly that they view Lebanon’s inclusion in the MOU as a major concession Washington’s envoys’ handed to Iran, one Israel never agreed to. Defence Minister Israel Katz has said Israeli forces would keep operating in what he calls the “security zone” regardless of what any memorandum says and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has separately negotiated a bilateral framework with the Lebanese government, bypassing Hezbollah entirely. That bilateral Israel-Lebanon framework signed in Washington just days ago, ties an Israeli troop withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament, something Hezbollah has rejected outright. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem called the agreement “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” and his supporters have taken to the streets of Beirut, burning tyres in protest. Even as the ink dried on that deal, an Israeli strike killed a civilian in southern Lebanon, the first casualty since the signing. This is the trap Lebanon is caught in: its own government wants out of a war it never chose, but doing so on Israel’s terms means publicly disarming Hezbollah which Hezbollah says it will never accept “unconditionally” without an Israeli withdrawal first. Meanwhile, Israel says it won’t withdraw until Hezbollah disarms. It’s a circular standoff, and Lebanese civilians are paying for it with airstrikes that haven’t actually stopped despite three rounds of declared ceasefires since April this year. Fragility of all this became impossible to ignore over past few days. An Iranian attack on a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz triggered fresh US airstrikes on Iranian targets. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responded by hitting American sites in the Gulf, warning that “if the aggression is repeated, our response will be broader.” Vice President JD Vance, who had just left Switzerland after peace talks, declared bluntly that “violence will be met with violence.” Israeli drones continued striking southern Lebanon’s Nabatieh area even as Netanyahu was publicly hailing his Lebanon framework as “a historic achievement.” In other words: the deal exists, the signing ceremonies happened and the shooting never really stopped. For countries like India, this war was never an abstract geopolitical drama; it hit the fuel pumps and the kitchen stoves directly. Roughly 41per cent of India’s crude oil imports, 55 per cent of LNG and an extraordinary 88 per cent of its LPG normally transit the Strait of Hormuz. When Iran effectively shut the strait in late February, India’s oil flow through that route collapsed from 2.8 million barrels a day to under 250,000, forcing New Delhi into a frantic scramble for alternatives. India responded the way it usually does in a crisis: pragmatically, and on multiple tracks at once. It ramped up Russian crude purchases, competing head-to-head with China for cargoes. It diversified toward Angola, Venezuela, Brazil, and the UAE. It even resumed direct oil and LPG purchases from Iran after a seven-year gap, betting that Washington wouldn’t punish it too harshly for doing so. The Indian Navy launched “Operation Urja Suraksha,” escorting Indian-flagged tankers through the Gulf rather than joining US-led naval coalition, a calculated act of strategic non-alignment. The payoff: by June, India’s crude imports had climbed back above 5 million barrels a day, roughly back to pre-war levels, even as the geopolitical map of its suppliers shifted dramatically. But the cost was real: a weaker rupee, an Indian crude basket that spiked from $ 69 to over $113 a barrel at the worst of the crisis and inflationary pressure that touched everything from fertilisers to transport. The deeper lesson for India and other import dependent developing economies is about exposure. A conflict thousands of kilometres away, between countries India does not quarrel with, was enough to threaten cooking gas supplies for hundreds of millions of households. That vulnerability is now feeding into longer-term decisions: faster EV adoption, push for piped natural gas over imported LPG and a renewed urgency around energy diversification that outlasts this particular war. Is peace tenable and everlasting: not yet and maybe not soon. US -Iran deal solved the problem the world cared most about: the global energy chokepoint. But it left the problem the region cares most about — Lebanon and Hezbollah — essentially unresolved. Iran needs Hezbollah alive enough to claim it didn’t abandon its allies; Israel wants Hezbollah disarmed before it ever

Defence Geopolitics Policy Security Technology United States USA War World

322

Inside Iran’s Military Mosaic

Iran always knew this day would come. For two decades, it built a warfare architecture that could not be centred, could not be decapitated, could not be won from the air. Rahul PAWA | March 9, 2026 | x- imrahulpawa On the morning of March 8, 2026, black rain fell on Tehran. The Iranian capital was engulfed in a cloud of toxic smoke that unleashed oil-tainted rainfall dozens of miles away after overnight Israeli strikes hit several fuel depots, causing fires to burn for hours. Four oil depots and a petroleum products transfer center in the Tehran and Alborz provinces were under Israeli fire and damaged, and four personnel, including two oil tanker drivers, were killed. By 10:30 in the morning, cars on Valiasr Street, Tehran’s main north-south artery, still needed their headlights on to navigate the darkness. It was a catastrophic image, and it was designed to be one. But here is what the architects of this air campaign may be miscalculating: Iran was not built to survive this war from the top. It was built to survive it from the bottom. This is the Mosaic Defence, and it is arguably the most consequential military framework to emerge from the Middle East in the past two decades. Its origins trace back to 2009, when then-IRGC Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari formally reorganised the Revolutionary Guards around a single, haunting lesson drawn from watching American military power eviscerate two neighbouring states. Afghanistan fell in weeks. Baghdad collapsed in three. In both cases, destruction of centralised command produced almost immediate systemic failure. Tehran incorporated those lessons: don’t fight the enemy’s preferred war. The US advantage is high-end airpower, precision strikes, and intelligence dominance. Mosaic Defence tries to make those strengths less decisive by ensuring there is no single headquarters, city, or leader whose loss collapses the fight. The architecture that emerged is methodical. Each of Iran’s 31 provincial IRGC commanders operates with his own weapons arsenal, logistics chains, intelligence services, and Basij militias, explicitly trained to make independent military decisions, plan attacks, and wage guerrilla warfare without consulting Tehran. The formal language inside IRGC operational culture refers to this as the “operational autonomy protocol,” triggered automatically when central command goes dark. Iranian Deputy Defence Minister Reza Talaeinik confirmed publicly that each figure in the command structure has named successors stretching three ranks down. You kill the general, his brigadier already has orders. You kill the brigadier, the colonel carries on. On March 1, after Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X in direct, unflinching terms: “Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war. Decentralised Mosaic Defense enables us to decide when, and how, the war will end.” It was not bravado alone. It was a precise articulation of a deeply embedded strategic posture. The Basij is the human tissue that holds this organism together. Established in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini as a people’s volunteer force and now operating as a subsidiary arm of the IRGC, its estimated one million members form the paramilitary backbone beneath the Revolutionary Guard’s 150,000 professional troops. In the coastal provinces, “Ashura” and “Imam Hussein” battalions are organised in towns to operate autonomously, defending designated geographic areas, leveraging proximity to logistics centers and coastal road networks to ensure flexible, rapid movement of combat assets between sectors. These are not conscript armies waiting for radio orders. They have pre-assigned mission packages. They know their terrain the way a farmer knows his field. The strategic calculation is brutally simple: to defeat Iran, you do not take Tehran. You take 31 separate, motivated, geographically embedded armies simultaneously. Operationally, this manifests in ways that have already unnerved American planners. In February’s “Smart Control” exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, IRGC fast-attack craft swarmed in coordinated patterns, electronic warfare systems blinded radars, and decentralised orders were executed without central authorisation. This is the rehearsal. The Strait, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes, is now overseen not by a single naval command in Tehran but by distributed coastal units that can independently initiate harassment, mining, or blockade operations. The UAE’s Ministry of Defence reported intercepting over 1,400 drones, eight cruise missiles, and 238 ballistic missiles from Iran in under a week of conflict. Some of that volume reflects this posture, not desperation: swarm the adversary’s interception capacity until something gets through. The darker edge of this framework is its unpredictability under pressure. While disciplined elite units will sustain coherent operations, less experienced units will fall victim to confusion and disorder, raising the risk of uncoordinated strikes and navigation errors that could trigger unintended escalation. The Iranian drone that reportedly struck Oman, a country actively mediating ceasefire talks, illustrated exactly this: autonomous units operating on pre-issued orders with no one in Tehran in a position to call them back in real time. The oil rain over Tehran, apocalyptic as it appeared, does not break this system. Iran’s oil distribution company confirmed that despite the strikes, sufficient gasoline reserves remained. Fuel disruption to a city of ten million is a genuine hardship and a psychological blow. But Mosaic Defence was never designed around keeping Tehran’s refineries lit. It was designed around the premise that even if Tehran burns, Khuzestan fights, Isfahan launches, and the IRGC navy at Bandar Abbas decides on its own when to close the Hormuz chokepoint. The question the US and Israel face is not whether they can win a battle. It is whether there is a battle to win. You cannot break a mosaic; you can only rearrange its pieces. And the pieces, right now, are fighting on their own. The author is an international criminal lawyer and director of research at New Delhi based think tank Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS).

Bharat Cyber Security Defence Geopolitics Security Technology United States USA War

274

US Tech Stack That Took Out Khamenei and Why It Matters to India

The joint US-Israeli strike of February 28, 2026 that killed Khamenei was full-spectrum corporate warfighting; satellites, AI, cloud, autonomous swarms, and information dominance working as one lethal system. India watched. It must now evolve. Rahul PAWA | x – iamrahulpawa In the predawn hours of Saturday, February 28, 2026, something extraordinary happened in the Shemiran district of northern Tehran. Khamenei, Iran’s Leader for 37 years, the man who had survived assassinations, wars, and decades of sanctions, was killed not primarily by a bomb, but by an algorithm. The operation, codenamed Epic Fury, was the first high-level decapitation strike in military history to be substantially driven by artificial intelligence across the kill chain. By the time Israeli aircraft and American munitions found their target, Palantir’s software had fused the intelligence, Anduril’s autonomous drone swarms had penetrated Iran’s air defences, Starlink had held communications together across a contested electromagnetic environment, and Claude’s Anthropic’s AI model, deployed on classified US defence networks had processed petabytes of intercepted Persian-language communications and generated targeting scenarios that human analysts would have taken weeks to produce. Ukraine had proved that Silicon Valley could hold a frontline. Venezuela had proved it could topple a government and secure an oil state. Iran was where both lessons converged into a single, decapitating strike. Invisible Architecture of a Visible Strike When news of Khamenei’s death broke, global attention fixed on the ordnance: 200 Israeli fighter jets in the largest military flyover in Israeli Air Force history, US bunker-busters, strikes across 24 Iranian provinces. What received less coverage was the invisible architecture that made it possible. Starlink was central long before the first missile launched. The Trump administration had covertly smuggled thousands of Starlink terminals into Iran in the months prior, sustaining a communications corridor for intelligence sources inside the country even as the Iranian regime drove national internet connectivity down to 4% of normal levels. When Iranian forces shut down Starlink networks, they were confiscating the same infrastructure that was feeding real-time intelligence upstream to US planners. Satellite connectivity was not a supporting element; it was the nervous system of the operation. Palantir provided the operational software layer; sensor fusion, targeting architecture, and the command-and-control framework that translated intelligence into actionable strike packages. Its Lattice system enabled autonomous drone swarms to communicate threat data laterally: when Iranian air-defence radar locked onto one drone, the entire swarm adapted, dispatching subgroups for electronic deception and anti-radiation strikes in real time. This is software-driven warfare weapons that are, as defence-tech investors now openly describe them, “code wrapped in aluminium shells.” Anduril’s YFQ-44A drones, operating through Hivemind AI pilots capable of executing complex missions without GPS, satellite communication, or human operators, demonstrated capabilities that rendered Iran’s hardware-centric air defences clumsy against algorithmic iteration. Shield AI’s autonomous systems operated in environments where traditional military drones would have been jammed and blinded. Amazon Web Services provided the cloud backbone, data continuity, logistics support, and the secure infrastructure that kept coalition planning intact against Iranian cyber-retaliation, which simultaneously targeted US military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. Anthropic’s Claude AI, which had already proven itself in Venezuela processing intelligence, mapping command chains, and generating scenario simulations that compressed weeks of human analysis into hours, ran the same playbook on Iran, this time trawling Persian communications and mapping fractures in the Revolutionary Guard’s targeting structure. Trump banned Anthropic the day before the strikes. US Central Command used Claude anyway, through Palantir and AWS, as bombs fell on Tehran. The corporate stack had become so load-bearing that a presidential order could not sever it mid-operation. It was not peripheral to American military power. It was the operation. From Sindoor to Stack For Indian strategic planners watching the war in West Asia unfold, the lesson is not comfortable. India has pieces of this architecture. It does not have the stack. India’s defence-industrial base is strongest where the old model still dominates: physical production. Native manufacturing capability is real, and Atmanirbhar Bharat has added momentum. But industrial production is the bottom layer of the stack US operation in West Asia demonstrated. Everything above it; connectivity, cloud, AI, autonomous systems, information operations is where India’s ambition is still catching up with requirement. India is building a commercial space sector, with domestic satellite launches accelerating and a small but growing constellation in development. It is not yet capable of blanketing a contested theatre with resilient satcom, let alone covertly sustaining intelligence networks inside an adversary state but the foundation is being laid. In operational software and autonomous systems, an iDEX-incubated startup ecosystem is producing native drones and ISR platforms, promising early capability, not yet embedded in classified pipelines at wartime depth. In frontier AI, India has launched sovereign large language model initiatives and is developing government-facing AI infrastructure but the institutional pathway from commercial deployment to classified defence integration remains nascent. In the information domain, digital public infrastructure is maturing, though platform-level influence at global strategic scale remains beyond reach. Iran’s near-total internet blackout could not sever the intelligence flow because a commercial satellite alternative existed. India is working toward equivalent resilience. However, it is not there yet. The operation that killed Khamenei was not a triumph of numbers. Iran was never going to match US and Israeli firepower. It was a triumph of the stack; satellites, AI, autonomous systems, cloud, and information dominance mobilised as one unified architecture. India already knows this, because it has lived it. Operation Sindoor 2025 was India’s own inflection point. AI fused multi-source battlefield data in real time. Native electronic intelligence software evolved mid-operation to pinpoint and rank threats. Over 600 drones were defeated in a single wave. Loitering munitions and FPV strike drones executed precision hits on high-value targets. The instinct was right. The native capability was real. But Sindoor also exposed the distance still to travel. The stack America deployed over Tehran was embedded in doctrine. India’s is battle-proven but not yet fully built. India need not replicate America’s model. But the underlying

Bharat Defence Economy Geopolitics International Policy Politics Security Technology Trade

258

Narendra Modi in Israel: Friendship Reborn

Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Israel goes beyond symbolism. Substantive outcomes may lead to redrawing alliances in West Asia. Paushali Lass For decades, India and Israel were close yet cautious partners, working behind the scenes. This week, that changed. Prime Minister Modi’s visit did more than make history. It marked dawn of “Special Strategic Partnership,” a status Israel reserves for select nations. Historic Embrace: Modi at Knesset During his address to Knesset, Modi spoke with clarity and warmth, praising shared democratic values and civilizational bonds between India and Israel. Members of parliament took selfies, posted on social media, visibly enthusiastic. Modi was not merely welcomed; he was embraced. In recognition of his leadership in deepening India–Israel ties, he was bestowed Speaker of the Knesset Medal, a historic first. The award was not just a personal accolade but public affirmation of renewed strategic friendship, reflecting trust, shared values and civilizational bonds that his visit celebrated[1]. For many Israelis, this was the moment India stepped out from behind diplomatic caution and said simply: we are friends. Modi invoked deep historical ties, highlighting that India has been part of Jewish story for millennia. He reminded the Knesset that Jews found refuge in India long before modern states existed, citing the story of Queen Esther in Bible and mentions of India in Talmudic texts[2]. Modi made a powerful, unequivocal statement condemning barbaric acts of Hamas, supporting Israel without ifs or buts. For many Israelis, this clarity of friendship was unprecedented. Sharp criticism at home from certain quarters questioned how an Indian Prime Minister could visit Israel at a time when allegations of genocide in Gaza loomed large. But, Modi proceeded and made a bold declaration of solidarity. He not only condemned the atrocities committed by Hamas as acts of ‘terror’ but also expressed profound grief over loss of innocent lives on October 7, 2023. Interestingly, Modi highlighted a deeper point that may help explain the particular affinity between India and Israel from perspective of ancient civilization and culture. Although India, a majority-Hindu nation and Israel, a majority-Jewish state, may appear to have fundamentally different faith systems, there exists a philosophical thread that binds the two peoples more closely than one might assume. Modi drew parallels between Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam (repairing and healing the world) and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the ancient Sanskrit declaration that world is one family. These deep-rooted philosophical traditions of both nations should not be underestimated. They offer precisely the kind of moral and spiritual foundation the world needs today as it seeks to promote global security and combat terrorism. After all, the world cannot be made a better place through political and economic deals alone; spiritual dimensions of these ancient civilizations must also be recognized and strengthened. The two-day visit was especially meaningful for Indian Jewish community. Prime Minister Modi met Indian Jewish community, creating a historic and emotional connect. Revital Moses[3], who dedicated herself to strengthening India–Israel cultural ties described the experience as “surreal”, meeting a leader she had grown up watching on television, whose vision she had admired for decades. The visit carried deep symbolic weight. Modi took out time to be at Yad Vashem and paid tributes to Holocaust victims, highlighting shared commitment to humanity. What many may not be aware of is that India gave refuge to Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust during World War II. Modi also held a private meeting with President Herzog who thanked him for India’s unwavering support and friendship towards Israel. Something that surprised many and instantly went viral was Modi’s meeting with immensely popular stars of Israeli TV series Fauda, celebrating creative talent that has become one of Israel’s global cultural exports. He engaged with Israel’s innovation leaders in a special tech forum, reflecting the cutting-edge technological landscape of the country. And then there were visuals that linger: Indian flags waving on Jerusalem streets. This is a profoundly moving sight. Agreements to Action: Strategic Partnership Modi’s visit translated goodwill into action. Together with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he oversaw signing of sixteen major agreements (Memorandum of Understanding) covering defence, technology, trade, agriculture, finance and people-to-people engagement. Highlights include: In short, it was more than a diplomatic exercise. It was roadmap for peace, innovation and prosperity, built on mutual trust, democratic values and complementary capabilities. Beyond MoUs and agreements, the visit signals a strong social and economic agreement: businesses, innovators, cultural leaders and citizens on both sides are invited into the partnership, encouraged to collaborate and recognised as part of the strategic equation. This public acknowledgement of friendship between the two nations also gives fresh momentum for private sector businesses to collaborate more actively, while also encouraging deeper people-to-people engagement, allowing citizens to explore and appreciate each other’s cultures. Geopolitical Implications: New Alignment Indian Prime Minister’s open friendship with Israel, warm reception he received across political spectrum, his huge popularity among Israelis and unequivocal condemnation of Hamas terror, not only deepens strategic and civilisational ties with Israel but invoked anger among adversaries. This partnership indicated a potential broader regional alignment with Greece, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Somaliland as counterweight to Turkey, Pakistan and Iran line up.The latter countries havea proven record of destabilizing Middle East and Indian subcontinent that are now sharpening their capabilities to challenge this emerging alliance. Consolidation of these partnerships is a significant shift in regional geopolitics, reflecting shared security priorities, mutual economic interests and concerted effort to safeguard stability and counter terrorism. Beyond defence and technology deals, what strikes the most is subtle but profound shift in how Israeli society is responding to relationship with India. Modi’s unequivocal acknowledgment of October 7 massacre has touched hearts of Israelis like few other world leaders’ speeches ever have. What truly sets this visit apart is that Modi has won hearts, from top leadership to regular Israelis on the street. (Paushali Lass is an India-born intercultural educator, writer and international speaker based in Germany. She authored Tasting Faith: Jews of India and works to build cultural and business bridges between Israel,

Britain's Palestine Recognition Hands China the Mediterranean

China Geopolitics International Policy Security United Kingdom

602

Britain’s Palestine Recognition Hands China the Mediterranean

CCP spent six decades cultivating Palestinian movements, embedding influence in Western activism and positioning itself as the indispensable power in a post-American WestAsia. Britain just made that job easier. Rahul Pawa On 21 September 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer broke with decades of U.K. policy formally recognising the state of Palestine. It was Britain’s most consequential West East move since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, made over explicit U.S. objections and Israeli fury. In London’s rush to show moral leadership, one reality was ignored: Beijing had spent six decades preparing for this moment. The CCP’s Palestinian project began in the 1960s. Between 1965 and 1970, Beijing sent small arms, mortars and anti-tank weapons to the Palestine Liberation Army and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It trained cadres at the Whampoa Military Academy in Nanning and dispatched instructors to Syria and Algeria. In May 1966 Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Ahmad al-Shuqairy thanked “Peking” for constant arms and training shipments. After the Six Day War in 1967, Israeli commanders displayed captured Chinese-made AK-47s, 81mm mortars and chemical decontamination gear seized in Gaza and Sinai. Alongside, Beijing also built a diplomatic bridge. In December 1995 it opened a foreign office in Gaza; a de facto embassy to the Palestinian Authority, decades before most Western states considered recognition. Its message to Palestinians was consistent: you can count on us when the West won’t. By Xi Jinping’s era the posture turned strategic. In 2017 the PLA opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti, a Red Sea hub housing thousands of Chinese troops. Beijing secured port stakes from Gwadar in Pakistan to Haifa in Israel, embedding itself along the arteries that supply Europe and the Gulf. A 25-year strategic agreement with Iran in 2021 locked in $400 billion in Chinese investments across oil, gas and transport corridors. CCP’s pattern is clear: first ports, then troops. Djibouti proved it, Hambantota confirmed it, Gaza may be next. Beijing has already demonstrated how commercial access becomes military power, and a recognised Palestine gives it the opening to repeat the same playbook on the Mediterranean. While Beijing built bricks abroad it built narratives at home. State-aligned Arabic media channels and TikTok streams pump out Gaza content at scale. A July 2025 Program on Extremism report mapped how the CCP’s influence runs through Western activism itself. That report details how Shanghai-based tech investor Neville Roy Singham, a onetime Huawei adviser, poured millions into U.S. and U.K. activist groups after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack. Groups like the People’s Forum, ANSWER Coalition and “Shut It Down for Palestine” became organising hubs for anti-Israel protests. BreakThrough News, their media arm, live-streamed marches while praising Xi Jinping Thought and Maoist revolution. Investigators concluded the effect was “to project the CCP as a defender of justice while undermining U.S. influence.” In December 2023 the People’s Forum hosted a “China75” event lauding Beijing’s governance model; by early 2024 its funding spiked from under $500,000 to $4.4 million as it expanded pro-Palestinian actions. The same network underwrote protests at Columbia University and in Whitehall, echoing CCP state rhetoric about “imperialist Zionism.” When Starmer spoke to recognise Palestine, Beijing didn’t improvise. Chinese State media instantly framed Britain’s recognition as vindication of the CCP’s “historic” support for Palestinian independence. Chinese diplomats in Ramallah pointed out they had welcomed Mahmoud Abbas to Beijing two years earlier and had pushed a ceasefire plan in 2023. They reminded Palestinian officials who had invested in them when no one else would. With London’s imprimatur, a Palestinian government now has every incentive to turn to CCP for reconstruction finance and infrastructure contracts. Beijing can bolt these onto its Belt and Road Initiative, locking in leverage over a new state at the heart of the Levant. U.S. influence, already eroded by drift and divided Congresses, will shrink further. China’s record speaks for itself. In Djibouti, commercial port access became a PLA base within three years. In Sri Lanka, Chinese loans turned into a 99-year lease at Hambantota. CCP has cultivated a pattern: ports, logistics, security co-operation and then military presence. If Palestine’s future leadership wants investment and security guarantees, CCP will deliver both. Even a small PLA signals unit or intelligence station would tilt the Eastern Mediterranean’s security balance. By presenting any facility as humanitarian or anti-piracy, Beijing can minimise Western backlash while gaining a front-row vantage on Israel, Egypt and NATO operations. Britain’s recognition may have been meant as a rebuke to Israel. However, in practice it is a strategic gift to Beijing. It signals to the Arab world that the West’s will is fractured and that China, not America, not Europe is the constant patron. It creates a diplomatic vacuum China is already moving to fill, from Gaza reconstruction bids to Palestinian security training. This is not hypothetical. Chinese firms dominated Iraq’s post-2003 oil fields; they built most of Africa’s new ports in the last decade. Palestine is a likely next. And unlike the United States or the U.K., the CCP fuses infrastructure with intelligence collection and military access as policy. Starmer’s Downing Street statement marks not the dawn of West Asia peace but a milestone in Beijing’s global ascent. The CCP spent six decades cultivating Palestinian movements, embedding influence in Western activism and positioning itself as the indispensable power in a post-American West Asia. Britain just made that job easier. (Rahul Pawa is director, research at New Delhi based think tank Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Is Islamic Alliance in offing, With Ambiguities

Defence Geopolitics International Pakistan Policy Security Trade

543

Is Islamic Alliance in Offing, With Ambiguities

Only a true test, a moment of crisis, will reveal whether this new alliance is as ironclad as advertised, or more of a strategic signal than a binding shield. Rahul Pawa When Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a sweeping mutual defense agreement in Riyadh this month, it marked a strategic pivot. The agreement, termed a “Strategic Mutual Defence” agreement declares that an attack on one is an attack on both, echoing NATO’s famous Article 5 commitment. It’s an unprecedented pledge between the guardian of Islam’s holiest sites and the only Muslim nation armed with nuclear weapons. Yet behind the celebratory rhetoric, the agreement’s true scope and weight remain uncertain. A NATO-Style on paper, the agreement’s collective defense vow is explicit: “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both” Pakistan’s government said. In practice, much is left vague. Notably, the agreement is silent on whether Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the Islamic world’s only nukes is now at Saudi Arabia’s disposal. Pressed about a potential Pakistani “nuclear umbrella” for Riyadh, a senior Saudi official would only say the agreement “encompasses all military means”. This careful ambiguity hints at a broad commitment while stopping short of any explicit nuclear guarantee. Another grey area is the agreement’s status. Riyadh and Islamabad pointedly call it an “agreement” and not a treaty. By definition, though, any written inter-state accord intended to bind is a treaty under international law, regardless of its label. The absence of a published text and the flexible wording suggest the parties prefer some wiggle room. Saudi Arabia has pursued grand defense coalitions before like a 2015 pan-Islamic military alliance against terrorism that proved “more symbolic than operational”. This time, the language of collective defense is tied to plans for concrete cooperation (joint exercises, intelligence-sharing, arms training). Whether it matures into a robust alliance or remains largely aspirational will only be clear with time. The agreement’s timing is telling. It came days after a surprise Israeli airstrike in Doha, Qatar that killed Hamas figures and stunned the Gulf States. Qatar hosts a major US airbase, yet Washington did not prevent the strike, a jolt to regional confidence in American protection. Saudi Arabia, already uneasy about U.S. reliability, seized the moment to bolster its own security. Officially, Riyadh says the deal “institutionalises” long-standing cooperation rather than targeting any specific incident. Still, it unmistakably signals that the kingdom can seek safeguards beyond the U.S. umbrella. The agreement even revived talk of an “Islamic NATO.” Saudi Arabia binding itself to Pakistan, Islam’s spiritual heart partnering with its only nuclear-armed state is a powerful image. Observers speculate that other Muslim countries might one day align under a similar framework. Yet longstanding sectarian and political rifts (Sunni vs Shia, Arab vs non-Arab) have doomed past unity efforts. For now, the Riyadh-Islamabad agreement is as much a message to big powers as a foundation for any broader alliance. Perhaps the toughest diplomatic test for Riyadh is managing the agreement’s fallout in New Delhi. India has spent years cultivating Saudi Arabia as a partner, a top source of oil, investment and Islamic-world backing on contentious issues. A formal Saudi-Pakistani security link is exactly what India hoped to avoid. New Delhi “would not welcome an explicit security tether between its principal energy supplier and its strategic rival,” one analysis noted. In effect, the agreement edges Saudi Arabia closer to Pakistan, risking awkward strain in Saudi-India ties. Indian government reacted in measured tones, acknowledging the agreement and saying it would “study the implications” for her security. The real worry in New Delhi is not that Saudi forces would fight on Pakistan’s side which remains far-fetched but that Pakistan will feel politically bolstered by Riyadh’s backing. Pakistani hardliners may adopt a tougher posture in future confrontations, believing a wealthy Arab power has their back. There’s also concern that Saudi aid or arms could flow to Pakistan over time, indirectly strengthening India’s longtime foe. Aware of these optics, Saudi officials have been quick to reassure India. One senior official stressed that Saudi’s relationship with India “is more robust than it has ever been” and vowed to keep deepening it. Riyadh clearly wants to show it can defend its interests with Pakistan without abandoning its friendship with India. Even so, the balancing act is delicate. New Delhi will likely respond by tightening its own strategic bonds, for instance, with Israel, a close defense partner – and by quietly urging Riyadh to stay neutral in South Asian issues. Much progress in India-Saudi relations has come in recent years, and both sides have incentives to prevent this new alignment from derailing that momentum. As the dust settles, the Saudi–Pakistan agreement stands as a bold statement, but one not yet tested by crisis. Its ripple effects are already evident. Israel, which had been inching toward a historic normalisation with Riyadh, now sees that prospect put on hold Washington, too, must grapple with a Gulf ally hedging its bets on security. Ultimately, the agreement’s significance will hinge on how seriously Riyadh and Islamabad implement it. Regular joint drills coordinated planning or clear mutual defense protocols could turn the promise into genuine deterrence. Absent that, skeptics may view it as more posturing than substance. History offers caution: Pakistan’s past defense agreement s (such as Cold War alliances with the U.S.) often fell short when real wars loomed, and Gulf unity schemes have tended to fragment under pressure. For now, Saudi Arabia has made a dramatic bid to diversify its security options, a gamble on Pakistan’s reliability and on charting a more independent course without alienating old partners. If the gamble succeeds, it could redraw the strategic map of the Middle East and South Asia. If it falters, it will remind everyone that even grand agreements can carry unspoken caveats. Only a true test, a moment of crisis will reveal whether this new alliance is as ironclad as advertised, or more of a strategic signal than a binding shield. (Rahul Pawa is director, research at New Delhi

Geopolitics International Terrorism United States War

971

Lions, Shadows & Silk Roads

Israel-Iran clash reshaped West Asia’s strategic chessboard with US getting in. India will have to display maturity, dexterity, openness and exercise its strategic autonomy. N. C. Bipindra The Middle East was thrust into dramatic escalation of hostilities as Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a comprehensive preemptive military campaign against Iranian targets, taking out military and nuclear facilities, on June 13, 2025. The operation, which included airstrikes, cyber-attacks and targeted assassinations was Israel’s most extensive cross-border military endeavour in recent years. In response, Iran activated proxy militias, launched missile attacks via Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and escalated its hybrid warfare tactics across the region. After calling for asking Iran to surrender, US President Donald Trump approved American air strikes completely obliterating three key Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, yet noting “now is the time for peace.” This confrontation has far-reaching implications for regional stability, global oil markets, US foreign policy and emerging trade corridors like India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and India-Isreal-UAE-USA (I2U2) group. For India, which has been investing heavily in regional diplomacy and infrastructure partnerships such as IMEC and I2U2, the conflict raises urgent questions about risk, resilience and realignment in its West Asia strategy. Operation Rising Lion, Israel’s Gambit Israel’s Operation Rising Lion was triggered by a surge in Iranian backed attacks on Israeli diplomatic and economic interests in northern Iraq, Syria and transfer of precision-guided missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon apart from repeated calls for use of nukes to annihilate Israelis. The operation marked a shift in Israel’s longstanding “campaign between the wars” doctrine into an open and assertive military campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure, weapons convoys and senior commanders in multiple theatres. Key components of the operation included coordinated airstrikes on IRGC installations, targeted killing of senior operatives, military leadership and taking out nuclear facilities. The operation included cyber strikes and group covert attacks that disrupted Iranian air defence networks, missile stations and fuel supply chains. Anticipating a counterstrike from Iran, Israel deployed its new laser-based missile defence system which had been tested successfully against Iranian cruise missile barrages. Most of the Iranian attacks were intercepted though some have penetrated the air defence system to hit Israeli cities and towns including a hospital complex. Israel declared the operation a strategic necessity to “decapitate Iran’s regional encirclement architecture” and pre-empt future multi-front attacks including the nukes. While tactically effective, it has risked triggering a full-scale war with Iran and its axis of resistance apart from getting US and Russia-China involved in the war. Iran’s Proxy Retaliation, Strategic Posturing Iran’s counter-response blended military retaliation, strategic ambiguity, and proxy warfare. Apart from direct state-to-state confrontation with Israel — still a risky escalation — Iran relied heavily on asymmetric tactics. Iran fired hundreds of drones and rockets into Israel, overwhelming Iron Dome systems despite Israeli air superiority. The Houthis, an Iranian proxy in Yemen, have dubbed the US strikes on Iran as a “declaration of war” and have fired several missiles at Israel. Iran’s missile strike on Israel marked the first direct hit from Iranian territory since the April 2024 skirmish, indicating a new threshold of confrontation. Though Iran is trying to avoid full-scale war, its response is carefully calibrated to bleed Israel politically and militarily, while also testing the resolve of US deterrence commitments in the region. US Strategic Overstretch? The US was quickly pulled into the maelstrom, just over a week into the launch of military hostilities. Though Trump only issued warnings for a week, providing intelligence support to Israel and deploying at least two aircraft carriers to the region, his administration seems to have decided that enough is enough. Washington now faces accusations of strategic inconsistency. While it pushed for de-escalation publicly, on the parallel it supported Israeli operational aims covertly. This dualism will further strain US ties with Gulf States like Oman and Kuwait who fear further regional de-stabilisation. Furthermore, as tensions peaked, Trump administration’s G7 engagement was interrupted, which complicates America’s long-term global balancing act. Disruptions, Opportunity for India India has deep economic, energy and strategic stakes in West Asia. Operation Rising Lion and its aftermath present both direct threats and unexpected opportunities for New Delhi. IMEC Corridor in Jeopardy: The IMEC, announced at the 2023 G20 Summit, depends on regional stability across UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan. The Israel-Iran conflict has disrupted port operations in Haifa and Eilat, key to IMEC’s Mediterranean leg. It has jeopardised land connectivity across Jordan due to increased Israeli military mobilisation. The insurance premiums on Red Sea maritime routes are expected to spike by about 35 per cent hurting Indian exporters. While not dead, IMEC’s viability is now under serious question until a ceasefire or détente is re-established. I2U2 Faces Diplomatic Strain: The I2U2 grouping aimed at high-tech cooperation, food security and infrastructure investment now faces political turbulence. UAE, a key I2U2 pillar, is deeply wary of regional conflict spilling over and has called for restraint putting it at odds with Israel’s aggressive posture. India is caught between maintaining its longstanding ties with Israel and its desire to deepen linkages with Iran, UAE and the Arab world, especially after recent Chabahar Port developments. India’s diplomatic tightrope is getting narrower. Energy Security and Diaspora Risks: Iran’s retaliation threatens commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz if India is seen backing Israel. While largely rhetorical, these threats would increase Brent crude prices beyond current rates, putting India’s inflation control at risk. There is heightened concern on nine million-strong Indian diaspora in the Gulf, as militias near Kuwait and Bahrain showed signs of mobilisation. India has had to yet again evacuate her citizens from Iran, Israel and the spill over of the conflict to other States in the region would compound the evacuation tasks on hand. Strategic Recommendations for India In navigating the evolving West Asian crisis, India must pursue a multi-vector strategy. It must reinvigorate strategic neutrality. India must avoid taking sides publicly while conducting quiet shuttle diplomacy between Israel, Iran and Gulf countries. A role in

Cyber Security Geopolitics Human Rights Insurgency Security

939

Israel’s Right to Defend is Absolute

Hamas and Hezbollah have just escalated their threat level, nuisance value thereby altering the delicately balanced West Asia power equations Rahul Pawa As Saturday dawned bright and sunny on the important Jewish day of observance, Israel was jolted by unexpected assault from Palestinian terrorists linked to Hamas in Gaza. With cold precision, Hamas backed by Hezbollah orchestrated a sweeping, multifaceted assault against Israel presenting one of the gravest challenges to the Jewish nation faced in half a century. In this nefariously orchestrated operation, diverse array of tactics was employed by Hamas, the dreaded Sunni Islamist outfit. This included gliders and parachutes with weapons that took to skies, naval vessels for maritime intrusion and heavily-armed terrorists advancing on foot. Hamas audacity became evident with launch of rockets in thousands, some daringly aimed at Jerusalem. The sheer scale of this aggression not only resonates with its immediate impact but raises significant concerns, setting off global alarm, attention and unease. In a recorded message, Hamas terror commander Mohammed Deif referred to the assault as “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm.” He urged Palestinians in various regions to unite in the fight and emphasized on return to their revolution. He pointed to alleged Israeli hostilities and tensions surrounding Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem as a catalyst. This sentiment was echoed by Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh who rallied Muslims worldwide to defend Al-Aqsa and Islam’s sacred mission. The overarching message to Israelis was not just about Palestinian cause but conveyed deep religious conviction, viewing Israelis, predominantly Jews as betrayers of the ‘Islamic divine will’. Fallout of this Hamas terror attack was catastrophic. About 22 Israeli towns and critical military installations were under siege with human toll painting an even grimmer picture. For Israelis, the ordeal was nightmarish, ceaseless, and unimaginable. As hours ticked by, families huddled in their homes, in hope of getting relief from encroaching Hamas terrorists infiltrating their communities. At a music festival southern Israel, young attendees from around the world faced a tragic and ruthless fate. In a dark twist, Hamas brazenly broadcast their acts turning their reign of terror into a spectacle for the world. Israeli families including women and children bore the brunt of this mindless violence with numerous abductions and heart-wrenching scenes streamed live. The world witnessed trauma of a wounded young Israeli woman dragged into Gaza and an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier’s tragic fate displayed for all. Shockingly, the reaction to this brazen act of terrorism in certain quarters was inconceivably jubilant. Pro-Hamas videos found enthusiastic distribution and received cheers from its supporters around the world, including far-left factions in the West and India. Celebrations erupted in Tehran and Ramallah with Iran’s own parliamentary body voicing chilling chants of “Death to Israel” inside its Parliament. The intent was clear: every harrowing moment inflicted on the Israelis was meant not just as an act of terror but also as a message, an open humiliation. In response to multiple infiltrations and rocket launches from Gaza Strip, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was now in a state of war. He vowed retaliation against Hamas and underscored Israel’s unwavering right to self-defense. By Saturday, prominent global leaders including Joe Biden, Narendra Modi and Rishi Sunak voiced their solidarity with Israel. Their condemnation of unprecedented aggression by Palestinian terror group, Hamas was resolute. Moreover, the US, UK and several nations unequivocally affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. Several hours later, Israel retaliated fiercely in Gaza resulting in significant casualties. The conflict’s ripple effects were felt as far as Lebanon with clashes between Israel and Hezbollah and in Alexandria, where two Israeli tourists were killed. Israeli airstrikes targeted strategic points in Gaza including residences and Hamas officials’ homes leading to over 300 fatalities. With ongoing ground confrontations in southern Israel, the military was criticized for not thwarting the initial attack. Israel has now deployed a substantial force around Gaza and plans to evacuate Israelis near the territory’s border. Hamas attacks which commenced in early hours of Saturday has to date tragically resulted in loss of over 800 lives and injuries to more than 2000 individuals. Importantly, implications of the events in Israel stretch far beyond the immediate trauma and retaliatory defense response. Streaming pro-Hamas videos depicting grave violations against Israeli civilians and detained IDF personnel amount to crimes against humanity. In a startling breach, Hamas terrorists from Gaza managed to infiltrate southern Israeli border in a very short span of time catching Israeli defense posts off guard. This raises eyebrows given the sophistication and depth of Israel’s intelligence and surveillance operations especially focused on monitoring Hamas. Several Western commentators point to serious intelligence lapse from within Israel and its global partners. Inefficiency of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) funded at a staggering $23.6 billion annually also posed serious questions. When Israeli citizens found themselves enmeshed in their darkest hour, the defense forces seemed conspicuously absent. Even hours into the crisis, rapid response from the military was lacking and the political leadership appeared equally paralyzed, failing to provide clarity or direction. The nation, so often lauded for its security prowess seemed collectively stunned. With the state’s apparatus seemingly in a state of inertia, a haunting silence enveloped the nation’s psyche. The events challenge conventional beliefs about the robustness of Israel’s defense and political machinery. Hamas, with swift terror acts sought to humiliate Israel. By kidnapping children, desecrating the fallen and broadcasting their acts, they aimed to instill fear and expose perceived Israeli vulnerabilities. These actions by Hamas, once considered a mere regional irritant, have substantially shifted the strategic landscape. Their provocations have transcended previous boundaries, deeply challenging Israel’s long-held defensive strategies. These events have catalyzed unity among Israelis across political and social spectra. While internal differences persist, Hamas actions have crystalized the pressing need for a united front against the common enemy. The images and narratives from recent events serve as painful reminders of perils of a divided stance. In the face of this enhanced threat level, Israel’s stance is bound to evolve.

Blog Post