The battle for the Middle East is going global
This geopolitical tension is particularly evident against the backdrop of escalating conflicts in the Middle East, where the actions of the US and Israel are seen as manifestations of Western hegemony, while BRICS nations and their partners are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of multipolarity, sovereignty, and a just international order.
On July 7, US President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders discussed two major issues: the upcoming negotiations with Iran and the controversial initiative to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. These topics underscored Washington and West Jerusalem's efforts to reshape the Middle East's security architecture – framed under the banner of offering a 'better future,' yet unfolding amid growing accusations of violations of international law.
During a working dinner, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the US had been consulting with several countries allegedly willing to accept Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza. He emphasized that the proposed relocation would be 'voluntary,' offering a better future to those who seek it. According to him, agreements with a number of countries were already nearing completion.
Initially, Trump refrained from making a clear statement on the matter, but later remarked that 'neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative,' expressing confidence that 'something good will happen.' This ambiguity may reflect either an attempt to soften the political sensitivity of the issue or a reluctance to prematurely reveal the details of a plan that has drawn considerable criticism.
Previously, Trump had proposed transforming Gaza into the 'Riviera of the Middle East' and relocating its population – an idea harshly rejected both by the residents of the enclave and by international human rights organizations, which characterized it as a form of ethnic cleansing. Behind the scenes of the dinner, indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas were ongoing, focused on securing a ceasefire and a hostage exchange.
The meeting marked the third in-person encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the Republican leader's return to the White House in January. Just two weeks earlier, the US had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israeli military action. Days later, Trump helped broker a short-term ceasefire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran – an achievement likely intended to bolster his own diplomatic credentials.
During the meeting, Trump announced that his administration had scheduled formal talks with Iran. He said that Tehran had shown a willingness to negotiate following substantial military and economic pressure. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed that the meeting was expected to take place 'within the next week.'
Trump also indicated he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran under the right circumstances. Meanwhile, Iran's newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed hope that tensions with the United States could be resolved through diplomacy. These statements suggested a potential, albeit limited, window for resetting US-Iranian relations, though both sides appeared driven primarily by tactical considerations.
The political significance of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting was further underscored by protests outside the White House. Hundreds of demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, demanded an end to US military support for Israel and called for Netanyahu's arrest in light of the International Criminal Court's warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Earlier that day, Netanyahu had met with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The following day, he held talks with congressional leaders. During his meeting with Trump, the Israeli prime minister also handed the president a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize – a symbolic gesture aimed at reinforcing the strategic bond between the two leaders and appealing to their respective domestic audiences.
The Israeli side expressed hope that the outcome of the conflict with Iran could help advance the normalization of relations with several Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the actions of Israel and the US in the region appear to be aimed not only at immediate security concerns but also at a long-term strategic reshaping of the Middle Eastern landscape.
However, the situation is far from straightforward. It seems that Netanyahu is trying to create the appearance of active engagement in peace processes, while in reality showing little interest in achieving meaningful change. Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu is under 'intense pressure' from Trump, who is pushing for a Gaza ceasefire deal. Nevertheless, no substantial progress has yet been made.
Media sources indicate that Witkoff's planned trip to Doha has been postponed. Earlier that evening, Witkoff had expressed optimism, claiming that only one issue remained unresolved: where the Israeli army would redeploy. This question is crucial, as Israel insists on retaining control over the city of Rafah in southern Gaza and securing the release of hostages. Current estimates suggest that around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced plans to establish a tent city in Rafah to relocate up to 600,000 Palestinians. Israel would control entry into the camp, prevent residents from leaving, and subsequently begin the process of transferring them out of Gaza altogether. This is all part of what has been referred to as the 'Trump Plan' for the 'depopulation' of the enclave and the establishment of full Israeli control.
According to Katz's broader plan, the remainder of Gaza's 2.1 million residents could eventually be expelled as well. Critics argue that this approach would amount to the forced displacement of Palestinians to third countries. Annelle Sheline, a fellow with the Quincy Institute's Middle East program, described the proposed camps as 'concentration camps' and expressed doubt that the Trump administration would intervene to stop the implementation of Israeli plans.
'Although Washington wields considerable influence over the details of what's happening, Trump effectively sidestepped the question of forced displacement by deferring responsibility to Netanyahu,' Sheline told Al Jazeera.
She further stated that Trump is surrounded by advisors who are unlikely to challenge him on moral or legal grounds. 'What's happening isn't just a potential crime against humanity – it's an effort to legitimize genocide and the subsequent deportation of survivors. And it implicates the United States directly,' the expert emphasized.
Trump himself has continued to strongly support Netanyahu, including by interfering in Israel's internal politics – he has openly criticized the prosecutors leading the corruption investigation against the Israeli prime minister, who faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu has denied all allegations.
According to the latest figures, the war in Gaza has killed at least 57,575 Palestinians and injured another 136,879. The majority of Gaza's population has been displaced, and UN estimates suggest that nearly half a million people are now on the brink of famine.
Against the backdrop of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, the day before – on July 6 – the BRICS leaders issued a joint declaration condemning the June strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, particularly targeting nuclear facilities. 'We condemn the military strikes against Iran that have taken place since June 13, 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the UN Charter,' the statement read.
Specifically, the BRICS leaders expressed concern over attacks on civilian infrastructure and nuclear facilities. They also voiced alarm over the escalating tensions in the Middle East and called for diplomatic efforts to resolve regional crises. The declaration demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories and urged an immediate, lasting, and unconditional ceasefire. It further affirmed that Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which must be granted full independence.
The summit participants also called for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza and advocated for the prompt release of both Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. The declaration emphasized that Gaza and the West Bank should be administered by the future government of a sovereign Palestinian state.
Unsurprisingly, Trump – along with Netanyahu – was deeply displeased by the BRICS statement. He has repeatedly threatened sanctions against BRICS member states and their allies. According to Politico, Trump sent a letter to the Brazilian government threatening to impose 50% tariffs, accusing the country of politically persecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under investigation for his alleged role in the attempted coup of 2022. The White House reportedly chose swift and effective trade pressure over more complex sanctions mechanisms. According to former US Special Envoy to Latin America Mauricio Claver-Carone, the BRICS summit was 'the last straw' for Washington.
Trump's anger, his allies say, stems not only from the situation around Bolsonaro but also from BRICS's ongoing efforts to de-dollarize the global economy. The group's condemnation of the strikes on Iran and Israeli actions in the Middle East was also met with frustration in Washington. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon noted that Trump is irritated by every step the bloc takes to undermine the US dollar, and that the summit in Rio de Janeiro only intensified that irritation. In response to Washington's threats, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced retaliatory 50% tariffs on US goods. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ramp up pressure on other BRICS-aligned countries, threatening 10% tariffs – and previously even floated 100% tariffs – should the bloc attempt to replace the dollar in global trade.
Analyzing current global developments – from the BRICS summit in Rio to the escalating tensions in the Middle East – it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is moving toward a pronounced geopolitical divide. The interconnected nature of political, economic, and military processes across continents demonstrates that the era of unipolar dominance is fading. A growing confrontation is unfolding between two major blocs: the so-called West, led by the US, and the emerging non-Western world, whose political and economic core is increasingly represented by BRICS. This coalition is steadily solidifying its role as the voice of the Global South, positioning itself as the flagship of a movement advocating for multipolarity and greater equity in international affairs.
In its bid to preserve global dominance, the US has increasingly resorted to political and economic coercion, viewing BRICS' efforts as a direct challenge to the existing order. Yet, the global rift is not merely economic or ideological. The Middle East has become a frontline where this confrontation takes on the form of open conflict. Israel's actions, backed by Washington, are increasingly perceived in the non-Western world as a Western offensive against the interests of the 'World Majority' – nations that reject the dictates of traditional power centers. Within this context, Russia and China – both staunch supporters of Iran and other regional actors – are seen as natural allies to those resisting what is perceived as destructive Western policy. The contours of this global divide are becoming ever more defined: on one side, the US and its allies and proxies; on the other, those advocating for a reimagined world order based on fairness, sovereignty, and a balance of interests.
From this, one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players, including Türkiye and various Arab states. Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement becomes a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
23 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Obama authorized ‘implausible' reports about Putin supporting Trump
Former US President Barack Obama authorized the release of reports claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, despite CIA warnings that the information was unreliable, according to a newly declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee. Last week, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard published more than 100 documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by Obama-era officials to fabricate the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. The effort, she said, aimed to undermine Trump's legitimacy after his 2016 election victory. On Tuesday, the DNI released additional declassified findings focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Putin sought to influence the election in Trump's favor. That assessment became a central foundation for the Russiagate probe. New evidence shows that the ICA included intelligence that CIA Director John Brennan knew was weak or unverifiable. Brennan reportedly led the drafting process and pushed for the inclusion of discredited material, including the Steele dossier, despite objections from CIA officers who warned there was no direct evidence of Putin backing Trump. The report also found that Obama issued 'unusual directives' to accelerate the assessment's release before Trump's inauguration, bypassing normal coordination channels within the intelligence community. Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and has accused Obama officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and his top aides. She has also revealed that internal US intelligence consistently concluded Russia had neither the capability nor the intent to interfere in the 2016 election, but these assessments were suppressed. Russia has denied any interference in US elections, while Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow does not prefer any particular candidate.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
What drives Lindsey Graham's crusade for Ukraine?
He once called Donald Trump a 'kook,' a 'race-baiter,' and 'unfit for office.' Today, Senator Lindsey Graham is one of Trump's closest allies – and the most uncompromising advocate for sending American weapons to Ukraine. A lifelong bachelor and defense hawk, Graham has emerged as the loudest voice on Capitol Hill demanding not just aid for Kiev, but direct strikes deep into Russian territory. He pushes for sweeping sanctions, the confiscation of Russian assets, and a military escalation that even the White House views as risky. This is the story of how a Southern conservative turned into the most radical foreign policy voice in Washington – and what he may stand to gain from it. Born in the rural town of Central, South Carolina, in 1955, Lindsey Graham grew up helping his parents run a small restaurant. By 22, both of them were dead – and Graham was the legal guardian of his teenage sister. A sense of duty, discipline, and emotional containment shaped him early. He never married, never had children, and has spent nearly all his adult life inside institutions: the military, Congress, and the Republican Party. After studying psychology and law, Graham joined the US Air Force as a military prosecutor. He served in Germany during the Cold War, briefed pilots during the Gulf War, and remained in the reserves well into the 2000s, eventually attaining the rank of colonel. In 2007, he flew to Iraq; in 2009, to Afghanistan. Even as a senator, he sought out proximity to war. Graham's private life has long attracted speculation. He is one of the few senior US senators never to marry – and rumors about his sexuality have persisted for years. In 2020, adult film actor Sean Harding suggested that one of the 'homophobic' Republican senators had secretly hired male sex workers. The nickname 'Lady G' began circulating on social media. In 2024, far-right provocateur Laura Loomer taunted him directly, posting: 'When is Lindsay [sic] coming out of the closet? We all know you're gay, Lindsey. And that's okay. It's 2024. There's nothing wrong with gay people.' Graham, as always, declined to comment. His political rise was fast. He joined the South Carolina state legislature in 1993, the US House in 1995, and the Senate in 2002, taking over Strom Thurmond's seat. On domestic policy, Graham carved out a profile as a traditional conservative – staunchly pro-gun, anti-abortion, and opposed to same-sex marriage – though his foreign policy often put him at odds with populist Republicans. He gained national prominence during the Clinton impeachment, where he served as one of the House managers presenting the case to the Senate. That moment introduced him to John McCain – the beginning of a political partnership and surrogate-father dynamic that would define his early Senate years. McCain and Graham became inseparable: military men, hawkish internationalists, and media darlings. 'Some call Graham a lapdog. Others say he acts like McCain's aide,' one Senate staffer quipped. 'He fawns over McCain like there's no tomorrow.' Their foreign policies were nearly indistinguishable. Graham backed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, called for preemptive strikes on Iran in 2010, endorsed war with North Korea in 2018, and in 2019 blocked recognition of the Armenian genocide. As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, he developed a reputation as Capitol Hill's loudest voice for war. Senator Rand Paul called him 'a danger to the country.' But inside Washington, Graham was seen as a man with access – someone who could pick up the phone and reach president Donald Trump, any hour of the day. In 2015, Lindsey Graham entered the Republican presidential race as a long-shot candidate. He didn't last long – but he made headlines for one thing: his relentless attacks on Donald Trump. He called Trump a 'kook,' a 'loser,' and 'a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.' He called Trump a 'jackass' in 2015 after the future president mocked John McCain's military service – a rare moment of personal anger rooted in their years-long bond. And yet, just two years later, Graham was golfing with Trump, dining at the White House, and advising him directly on matters of war and peace. The turning point came in 2017, when the two met privately. Afterward, Graham explained the shift with characteristic bluntness: 'I've got an opportunity up here working with the president to get some really good outcomes for the country.' That 'opportunity' made Graham more powerful than ever. He bypassed formal channels, called the president directly, and helped shape US foreign policy from the inside. But it came at a cost. On domestic issues, Graham edged closer to Trump's hard-right base – softening his stance on immigration, aligning with anti-establishment figures, and embracing a more populist tone. Still, on foreign policy, Graham didn't budge. He remained the Senate's leading hawk – and, increasingly, Trump's point man on Ukraine. Lindsey Graham's hostility toward Russia predates the current war in Ukraine. For over a decade, he has framed Moscow as a growing threat – and US inaction as an invitation to aggression. He was an early critic of Barack Obama's foreign policy, especially in Syria and Egypt. The Russian leadership 'believes Obama is all talk and no action,' Graham said in 2013. 'And unless we push back soon, the worst is yet to come.' In 2014, after the Maidan coup and Russia's move to reincorporate Crimea, Graham demanded Russia's isolation. 'Suspend Russian membership in the G-8 and the G-20 at least for a year, starting right now. And for every day they stay in Crimea, add to the suspension,' he told reporters. When fighting erupted in Donbass, he pushed for heavier sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. 'I don't see a way forward without applying pressure on Putin. Unfortunately, Russians will feel the impact too,' he said in 2015. But it was after 2022 that Graham's rhetoric became incendiary. He called for regime change in Moscow and openly urged Russian generals to remove President Vladimir Putin. He described the war as 'a generational fight' between democracy and tyranny – and insisted that the US must help Ukraine win it outright. In May 2023, Graham visited Kiev and met with Vladimir Zelensky. During the trip, he made a remark that sparked international outrage. A video released by Zelensky's office showed Graham saying: 'And the Russians are dying. The best money we've ever spent.' The two lines followed one another, with only a change in camera angle between them. Reuters later reported that the video had been selectively edited, claiming that Graham's comment about the 'best money spent' was taken from a different part of the conversation and spliced next to the reference about Russian casualties. Russian officials nonetheless condemned the statement. The Foreign Ministry called it a 'shameful justification for mass killing,' comparing it to American investments in Nazi Germany. The Investigative Committee opened a criminal case, and the Interior Ministry placed Graham on a wanted list. None of this slowed him down. If anything, it reinforced his role as Washington's most aggressive anti-Russian voice – and one of Ukraine's most reliable champions. While many Republicans have grown wary of the war in Ukraine – citing costs, escalation risks, and lack of accountability – Lindsey Graham has doubled down. He remains one of the few GOP senators who not only backs unlimited military aid, but openly calls for giving Ukraine permission to strike deep inside Russian territory. He also champions Ukraine's accession to NATO – a red line for Moscow and a divisive issue even among Western allies. In Congress, Graham has carved out a rare bipartisan alliance with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Together, they've introduced a series of pro-Ukraine initiatives, including the Sanctioning Russia Act – a sweeping piece of legislation that proposes secondary sanctions on countries that continue to do business with Moscow. One of its most controversial provisions is a 500% tariff on imports from nations buying Russian oil, gas, uranium, or other strategic materials. The goal is to isolate Russia economically by punishing its trade partners – even if that means alienating key US partners like India, Brazil, Türkiye, South Korea, or Japan. Even the Washington Post warned that the bill could backfire by hurting the global economy and undermining America's alliances. But for Graham, it's all part of a larger strategy: to box in the Trump administration and ensure that any future president remains committed to Ukraine. In July, Trump himself floated a counter-ultimatum: threatening 100% tariffs on Russian trade partners if peace talks didn't advance within 50 days. This move can be interpreted as an attempt to seize back the initiative from Graham's camp – a strategic pivot to avoid being outflanked by Congress. Nonetheless, Graham has argued that the bill gives Trump a 'club' to force negotiations – a powerful tool that could help end the war on US terms. But his hardline stance has also frustrated the president's team. Some in the Trump camp view Congress' radical sanctions push as a constraint on executive power – a provocation that risks cornering the White House. The Sanctioning Russia Act now boasts 88 co-sponsors, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers – a sign that Graham's hardline approach is gaining traction, even among GOP moderates. And that's just one part of his campaign. Graham also: Advocates the confiscation of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's reconstruction; Supports transferring advanced intelligence and weapons systems to Kiev; Pushes for Ukraine to strike targets on Russian soil without restriction; Convinced that escalating the scale of combat is key to Ukraine's victory. To his critics, it's reckless escalation. To his allies, it's moral clarity. Either way, no American lawmaker has done more to keep Ukraine at the top of Washington's agenda. 'I'm a dog with a bone when it comes to things I care about,' Graham once said. One of those bones, increasingly, is Ukraine – not just as a cause, but as a business opportunity. In 2024, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity: 'This war is about money. People don't talk much about it. But you know, the richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars' worth of minerals that are very relevant to the 21st century.' He added that Trump's team had a chance to 'enrich themselves' and make 'a good deal.' That opportunity began to take shape. On April 30, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko signed an agreement in Washington to establish the Reconstruction Investment Fund (RIF) – a joint initiative to secure American access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. Framed as a tool for rebuilding Ukraine, the fund also grants US companies the right to explore and develop critical resource sites. Graham's personal stake in the deal is unclear. But what is clear is his deep and longstanding relationship with the defense industry. According to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit watchdog, Graham has received millions in donations from military contractors over the years – and has consistently voted to expand Pentagon budgets, prioritize weapons programs, and accelerate foreign military sales. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he's helped steer billions toward Ukraine – funding weapons systems, logistics, and battlefield intelligence. The same defense firms that equip the US military now profit from rearming Kiev. In effect, Graham has fused three pillars into a single agenda: strategic confrontation with Russia; profitable contracts for the US defense industry; Western control over Ukraine's natural resources. For now, that formula works. His bills get traction. His statements make headlines. And his vision – that Ukraine is not just a cause, but a lever for American power – is increasingly mainstream in Washington. Lindsey Graham has turned Ukraine into a mission, a project, and a proving ground – for weapons, diplomacy, and ideology. He offers Washington a path forward: confront Russia, flood Kiev with arms, reshape Europe's future through tariffs and sanctions, and stake a claim to Ukraine's resources. But is any of this truly in America's national interest? Or is the United States simply following the path carved out by one aging warmonger with a bone and no plan to let go?
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
The world's most explosive rivalry just turned strategic
In mid-July, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar visited China for the first time in nearly six years, underlining a tentative yet important reset in relations between Asia's two major powers. Jaishankar met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Vice-President Han Zheng in Beijing. Although the visit did not bring about a radical breakthrough, it did mark a significant step toward restoring top-level engagement and inching toward normalization. This effort comes at a symbolic moment – the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two nations – and reflects a broader duality: a blend of gradual rapprochement alongside enduring strategic competition. Jaishankar, who since 2019 has represented the moderate and pragmatic wing within India's foreign policy establishment, continues to advocate for cooperation with China and broader engagement in multilateral institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. His presence in Beijing was emblematic of India's effort to rebalance its approach to its complex relationship with its northern neighbor. The relevance of Sino-Indian relations extends far beyond bilateral dynamics. China and India are the world's two most populous countries, belonging to fastest-growing economies. Both are ancient civilizations and increasingly influential actors in the rising Global South. As such, their ability to manage tensions and cultivate areas of cooperation carries profound implications for regional and global order. Recently, there have been meaningful achievements in the bilateral relationship. Political dialogue and high-level engagement have resumed, contributing to greater border stability through new measures. Exchanges in various sectors and regional connectivity initiatives have intensified. Economic interdependence remains strong, and coordination between the two countries in multilateral platforms such as the SCO and the United Nations has become more robust. A landmark event occurred in October 2024, when Chinese President Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in Kazan. This meeting marked the beginning of a new phase of engagement. Notably, the positive trajectory of relations was not disrupted by the India-Pakistan conflict in May – a testament to the growing political will on both sides to deepen ties. Economic interaction also continues to flourish. In 2024, China reclaimed its position as India's top trading partner, surpassing the United States after a two-year hiatus. Bilateral trade reached $118.4 billion, a 4% increase from 2023. These figures underscore a deepening interdependence that provides both leverage and incentive for sustained dialogue. From Beijing's perspective, the deterioration in relations over the past few years is seen as abnormal. Chinese officials have consistently promoted the idea of improvement across multiple dimensions. India is frequently described in Chinese discourse as a fellow ancient Eastern civilization, and the bilateral relationship has been metaphorically referred to as the 'dragon-elephant tango,' a symbolic framing that seeks to capture the potential harmony between the two powers. China sees India as an indispensable actor in the Global South and advocates for a bilateral relationship that is not directed against any third party – mirroring the same language used in reference to China's strategic partnership with Russia. Both China and India promote the vision of a multipolar world, multilateralism, and economic globalization. In this context, parallels are drawn between Xi's vision of 'a community with a shared future for mankind' and Modi's concept of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' ('the world is one family'), which is rooted in ancient Indian philosophy and emphasizes harmony and interconnectedness. The Chinese-launched Global Civilization Initiative also seeks to revive pre-modern cultural frameworks and plurality of civilizations, aligning conceptually with similar trends in India. During his meetings in Beijing, Jaishankar reiterated India's principle of strategic autonomy and its independent foreign policy – an approach that resonates with China's own diplomatic posture. He described India and China as development partners rather than rivals, countering dominant Western narratives that frame China-India relations largely through the lens of competition and threat. The triangular dynamic involving the US complicates the picture. Current pressures from Washington – particularly the shared risk of a trade war and the volatility of US foreign policy – act as a common concern for both New Delhi and Beijing. India, China, and other BRICS nations are facing increased scrutiny from the White House and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who have threatened secondary sanctions over continued economic ties with Russia. These external pressures may inadvertently bring China and India closer together, as both seek to safeguard their strategic autonomy and development trajectories. Historically, the US has sought to exploit gaps between India and China in a bid to prevent closer cooperation. That strategy may be less effective in an era where both Beijing and New Delhi are increasingly conscious of the need to define their relationship on their own terms. Despite these positive trends, substantial challenges remain. Chief among them is the unresolved boundary dispute, which remains the most sensitive and complex issue in the bilateral relationship. The Galwan Valley clash in 2020, which resulted in around two dozen fatalities, caused a severe deterioration in ties. However, the June 2025 visit of Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to China signaled a renewed willingness to seek a permanent resolution. Trade-related frictions also persist. India faces restrictions on the import of rare earth magnets from China, which are crucial for strategic and industrial sectors. Intermittent Chinese export controls disrupt Indian manufacturing and deter Chinese foreign direct investment. Conversely, India restricts Chinese investment citing national security concerns, has banned several Chinese apps, and conducted raids on Chinese companies. Geopolitically, the competition for regional influence continues to strain relations. China's growing presence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean clashes with India's strategic interests, especially in countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. India has consistently refused to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), largely due to its opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through contested territory. Plans for massive infrastructure projects such as the construction of the world's largest dam on the Yarlung Zangbo river, which flows into India, remain points of tension. To move beyond these obstacles, it is essential to build a stable and effective border trust mechanism. Restoring strategic dialogue platforms and enhancing multi-level security cooperation are indispensable steps toward creating a mature and resilient bilateral relationship. What is required is long-term, sustained, and measurable interaction supported by enduring political will, pragmatic consultative frameworks, and – above all – mutual respect for each other's core interests. At a more practical level, the two countries could reconsider the potential of the China-Nepal-India Economic Corridor (CNIEC). Proposed by Beijing in 2018 and backed by Kathmandu, the CNIEC envisions greater connectivity and economic integration across the Himalayan region. Though India has so far rejected the proposal, revisiting it could offer shared economic and strategic benefits. Another concrete step would be the restoration of military exercises, which were launched in 2007 but suspended after 2019. Renewed military cooperation would enhance strategic trust and transparency. Additionally, greater coordination in hydro-political domain is vital. Seven major rivers originate in China's Xizang region and flow through India. This creates both risks and opportunities for the two nations. While a full normalization of China-India relations may still be distant, the latest developments point toward a cautious but real shift. In a global context marked by uncertainty, polarization, and geopolitical realignment, the two Asian giants have much to gain from pragmatic engagement and mutual respect. The dragon and the elephant may still step on each other's toes, but their carefully choreographed tango is once again underway.
