Will India step in to mediate amid Iran-Israel escalation? – DW – 06/21/2025
With close ties to both Iran and Israel, India has the opportunity to mediate between the two as their confrontation continues and risks further geopolitical escalation. Delhi has increasingly sought out Israeli military technology but also long maintained good relations with Tehran for energy and other economic reasons. As a self-proclaimed leader of the Global South, will India step out of its traditional role of avoiding any strong position? Khinvraj Jangid, Director of the Jindal Center for Israel Studies in Delhi and Nicolas Blarel, a researcher on Indian foreign policy at Leiden University in the Netherlands, join the hosts of DW's security podcast, Global Eyes, to examine India's ties to both Israel and Iran. Should Delhi step up or stay on the sidelines?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
4 hours ago
- DW
Are Syria and Israel about to normalize ties? – DW – 08/21/2025
For the first time in decades, Syria and Israel have discussed the Golan Heights, Israeli troops in Syria and humanitarian aid for Syria's Druze community. Is this the beginning of establishing diplomatic ties? For the first time in decades, Syrian and Israeli officials held high-level face-to-face talks. Earlier this week, the US-brokered summit in Paris was attended behind closed doors by Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Syria's Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani and the US envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack. Key points on the agenda were the de-escalation of tensions between Syria and Israel, non-interference in Syrian domestic affairs and reactivating a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria. A further issue was humanitarian assistance for Syria's Druze minority. On Wednesday, an Israeli government spokesperson told DW that Israel refrained from commenting on the Paris meeting. But Syria's national SANA news agency reported that the meeting concluded with the comittment to further talks. A previous round of talks with supporting officials in late July had ended without an official agreement. These direct talks mark a diplomatic shift after 25 years of virtually no communication at all. The two countries have technically been at war since 1967. That year, Israel occupied Syria's Golan Heights — a strategic plateau along their shared border — and later annexed it in 1981. The international community continues to regard the Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. To date, only the United States and Israel officially recognize it as part of Israel. A ceasefire deal in 1974 set up a demilitarized UN buffer zone in the Golan Heights along the Israel-Syria border. However, tensions between the countries have been soaring since the fall of Syria's long-term dictator Bashar Assad in December 2024. Israel deployed troops beyond the demilitarized zone and carried out around 1,000 strikes on Syria — which has not retaliated. Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa condemned the attacks but repeatedly said that he doesn't want to go to war with Israel. "Under current circumstances, it is difficult to envision that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government would be considering concessions beyond reciprocal offers to refrain from interfering in the efforts of Syria's new rulers to consolidate power," Shalom Lipner, a veteran diplomat and former advisor to seven Israeli prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, told DW. "Immediate Israeli goals are to guarantee security along the border region with Syria, prevent any entrenchment of hostile interlopers who might compromise an accommodation with Damascus, and additionally, ensure the protection of Syria's Druze population." A Syrian source, quoted by SANA, confirmed that during the meeting in Paris, Israel had also insisted on establishing a humanitarian corridor into Sweida, where many of Syria's Druze minority live. In Israel, the Druze are a community of around 150,000 people. It is the only minority that are conscripted into Israel's military. In Syria, around 700,000 Druze make up one of Syria's largest minority communities. In mid-July, a week of sectarian violence had led to more than 1,700 deaths, including civilians, in fighting between the Druze community and Arab Bedouins. While a US-brokered ceasefire largely ended the clashes, locals have been reporting that Damascus keeps throttling access of humanitarian aid into Sweida. Syrian officials dismiss such claims. According to the news platform Axios, however, government officials expressed concern that Druze militias could use a humanitarian corridor to smuggle weapons. The Druze have meanwhile repeatedly taken to the streets to call for self-determination. This week, Action For Humanity, the parent NGO of Syria Relief, published an alarming report. "The humanitarian situation is deteriorating amid reported shortages in essential services and restrictions on freedom of movement," the NGO said, adding that "displaced civilians are largely dependent on informal shelter arrangements with relatives and friends, and severe food insecurity persists." In turn, Yossi Mekelberg, senior consulting fellow at the London-based think tank Chatham House, views the current talks as Damascus' chance for gaining trust within the country and abroad. "Improving the way in which minorties are treated could serve Syria to create the space for the government to unite the country, improve its image vis-a-vis the United States and the rest of the world," he told DW. "It could also deescalate tensions with Israel as for them, the issue of the Druze is the most pertinent." In his view, this could eventually lead to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from beyond the 1974 buffer zone in Syria's south. Nanar Hawach, senior Syria analyst at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars, agrees that the talks could help Damascus "regaining trust not only of the Druze community, but also of different communities that are not aligned with the state," he told DW. Observers widely agree that Washington continues to be set on enhancing security and stability in the region by fostering a "prosperous Middle East" as envisioned by US President Donald Trump. Part and parcel of this vision is normalizing ties between Syria and Israel. "From Israel's perspective, normalization would be a longer-term, aspirational objective," Shalom Lipner believes. Yossi Mekelberg doesn't see a prospect of normalization yet, "given that the war in Gaza continues." But should that war end, and if progress between Israel and Syria continued "it might lead to a normalization process," he said, stressing though that "it is unknown which direction Syria is taking, and it is also unknown what direction Israel is taking at the moment." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
9 hours ago
- DW
Taiwan's nuclear referendum reveals energy dilemma – DW – 08/21/2025
Taiwan's vote on restarting its last nuclear plant highlights the island's struggle to balance energy security, environmental risks, and geopolitical threats. DW unpacks the stakes behind the referendum. Voters in Taiwan are heading to the polls on Saturday for a referendum on whether to restart the island's Maanshan nuclear plant. It was shut down in May, fulfilling a pledge by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to phase out nuclear power by 2025. Five public debates were held in the run-up to the Taiwan nuclear referendum, highlighting divisions over national security, economic and environmental concerns. The nuclear vote is taking place amid Beijing's increased military aggression around Taiwan, as it considers the self-governing democracy to be Chinese territory and has not ruled out the use of force to "reunify" the island with the mainland. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "Going nuclear-free would undermine national security," said Huang Shih-hsiu, the founder of the civic group Nuclear Mythbusters, during a livestreamed debate. "If [China's] People's Liberation Army blockades Taiwan, our natural gas would last less than ten days," he claimed. Chia-wei Chao, of the Taiwan Climate Action Network (TCAN) and an assistant professor at National Taiwan University, told DW in May that energy consumption "would go down, or even halve, in the case of a blockade, so the reserves could last longer." There are also environmental concerns from anti-nuclear activists, many of whom warn that operating nuclear plants carries major risks from natural disasters. "Taiwan faces earthquake-related risks that cannot be underestimated. The Fukushima accident is a warning we must heed," Wu Ya-hsin, a 20-year-old civic representative, said in another broadcast debate, referring to the March 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan. Historically, Taiwan had six nuclear reactors across three sites on the island, each originally expected to operate for 40 years. In May 2025, just days after the Maanshan plant on Taiwan's southern coast was shut down, opposition lawmakers from the Taiwan People's Party (TPP), backed by the much larger Kuomintang Party (KMT), passed a bill for a referendum on whether to keep the plant running "after authorities confirm there are no safety concerns." Recent polls suggested that over 60% of Taiwanese would support restarting the plant. Still, the final decision rests on a government safety assessment. Taiwan held an earlier referendum in 2018 in which voters supported using nuclear power to help achieve green energy goals. But a 2021 ballot on restarting construction of a mothballed nuclear plant failed due to low voter turnout. Taiwan's energy supply heavily relies on imports, which accounted for about 96% of its total, according to the latest official data. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Despite nuclear power contributing merely 4.2% of Taiwan's electricity last year, proponents argue that a full phase-out would leave the island vulnerable in the event of a Chinese blockade in which energy shipments could be disrupted. Several prominent analysts from the United States, including former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger, have also publicly emphasized the importance of Taiwan's nuclear power for both energy independence and defense. "Nuclear provides a lot of independence, which might be helpful in situations of crisis, because you can store [nuclear] fuel on site for several years," Martin Pache, spokesperson of German nuclear technology association Kerntechnik Deutschland, told DW. However, Tsaiying Lu, a new energy geopolitics expert at DSET, a Taiwanese technology think tank, emphasized that nuclear energy supply also carries potential risks of instability in a wartime scenario. She highlights that Ukraine's nuclear reactors have experienced temporary shutdowns or disconnections due to damaged power lines and safety precautions amid ongoing Russian military aggression. Instead of focusing on developing nuclear power, Lu told DW that Taiwan should take steps to diversify its energy suppliers. She suggested that a broader mix of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal imports would ensure a "flexible supply mechanism" in times of crises. Amid heated public debate in Taiwan, the European Union's framing of nuclear power as a tool for the green energy transition has also become a central point of contention. The EU has classified nuclear power as environmentally sustainable under its taxonomy — a list of areas in which investments can be made to combat climate change — on the condition that radioactive waste can be safely managed, although no permanent disposal site has yet begun operation in the world. Germany, however, as the leading anti-nuclear voice in Europe, completed its phase-out in 2023 with the closure of its last three power stations. "Taiwan is not Germany," KMT lawmaker Weng Hsiao-ling said during the second public debate. "Germany still has coal, and about 50% of its energy now comes from renewables… Can Taiwan really do the same?" Currently, over 80% of Taiwan's electricity supply comes from fossil fuels, notably natural gas and coal, with a much smaller but growing contribution from renewables sitting at about 12% — falling short of the government's original target of 20% by 2025. However, in Taiwan's Pingtung County, home to the Maanshan plant, locals have voiced serious concerns about the environmental and safety risks if the reactor were restarted, given its location on a seismic fault. During protests against the referendum, several local industry representatives pointed out that Pingtung is a farming and fishing county that cannot afford the risks of a nuclear disaster. "After 40 years of safe operation, the plant was finally shut down," county magistrate Chou Chun-mi told local media. "Yet now the entire country is being asked to decide whether to restart it, a move residents of Pingtung find unacceptable."
DW
9 hours ago
- DW
Why the US government seeks a stake in chipmaker Intel – DW – 08/21/2025
The Trump administration has confirmed it is in talks to take a 10% stake in struggling semiconductor manufacturer Intel. Some say the move makes perfect strategic sense, but critics warn it could set a risky precedent. The White House has confirmed that the Trump administration is in talks with Intel about acquiring a stake of up to 10% in the chipmaker. "The president wants to put America's needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Tuesday after days of media speculation over a possible deal. Although it would be unusual for the US government to take a stake in such a large company, it would align with President Donald Trump's trend of intervening in the free market during his second term. Chipmakers Nvidia and AMD recently agreed to pay around 15% of their sales in China to the US government. Another example was the recent sale of US Steel to Japan's Nippon Steel, a deal which gave the US government a so-called "golden share," giving President Trump sweeping veto power over US Steel's corporate decisions and the right to appoint a board member. There was also the announcement last month that the US government would become the biggest shareholder in the US's only operational rare earths mine, owned by MP Materials. "The Trump administration is really taking a broad view of what is possible for US government interventions in the private sector and very much pushing the limit," Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told DW. He describes the recent moves as "unusual," drawing a distinction between other administrations' attempts to stimulate entire sectors and Trump's more personal, targeted approach. "They're cutting one-off deals with individual companies," he said. "That's quite a different approach from setting industry-wide industrial policy standards or guidelines." Yet there is plenty of support for Trump's approach, particularly when it comes to sectors seen as strategically important in the US's ongoing rivalry with China, such as semiconductors and rare earths. Sujai Shivakumar, director of the Renewing American Innovation program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, DC, says the global semiconductor industry is not a "level-playing field" given the massive state support provided in countries like China and elsewhere. "Intel is more than just a company, and I think the decision to invest should be applauded," he told DW. "It's time to understand that this kind of industrial policy is now the norm across advanced economies and that governments are providing this form of extensive support," he said. "If we hold to this myth of a purely pure market here in the US, it risks ceding the ground for one of the most strategic industries of the century." Meanwhile, Gertz says it is not "inherently wrong" for the government to invest in Intel. "I do think there are strategic sectors, and there is a case for active industrial policy, again, particularly where there's national security spillovers," he said. Both the Biden and Trump administrations shared the goal of boosting the US's capacity to build advanced chips, needed for practically every aspect of the modern, high-tech industry. The Biden administration introduced the CHIPS Act in 2022, legislation that received bipartisan support. The act earmarked substantial federal assistance and grants for companies such as Intel, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) and Samsung to boost production on US soil. Given that Samsung is from South Korea and TSMC is from Taiwan, Intel represents the most obvious prospect in terms of production within the US. However, the company has been beset by problems in recent years. It has struggled to compete with TSMC in manufacturing the most advanced semiconductors for external clients and has also not captured a share of the market for AI data chips, dominated by Nvidia. Its revenues have been sluggish, and its share price has plunged. Trump, who has been critical of the CHIPS Act, called for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's resignation earlier this month. However, after meeting with Tan, his approach changed when the move to invest in the company gathered steam. Sujai Shivakumar says Intel is the only US-headquartered firm within striking distance of regaining US dominance in advanced chipmaking and believes the company's potential justifies the US government stepping in. "It needs commercial demand for its products to be viable, but it needs that viability to secure demand," he said. "So it's stuck in this rut. And unless there's a strong signal that it can actually find the traction to get out, it's going to be spinning its wheels." Bloomberg reports that the deal could entail the US government taking an equity stake in exchange for some of the grants awarded to Intel through the CHIPS Act. United States Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick is negotiating on behalf of the US government. He told CNBC that the US should "benefit" from that arrangement, saying "that is exactly Donald Trump's perspective, which is: 'why are we giving a company worth $100 billion this kind of money?'" To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video If the deal goes through, it is likely to raise some concerns over the Trump administration's increasingly robust approach to direct intervention in corporate America. "There are risks of crony capitalism," says Geoffrey Gertz. "You can get to a situation where you're undermining competition, undermining long-term innovation by having a few favored companies who can frankly be a bit lazy because they know they are protected by the state." Sujai Shivakumar says the key is to balance genuine strategic concerns and market forces. "It's not that we should write a blank check," he says. "We can't leave everything up to the market. There needs to be some balance, a smart industrial policy that can help the company restore confidence among its customers, investors, and suppliers."
