President strangelove
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day.
Even by realpolitik standards, US loving terror sponsor Pak is a new low. India should assume worse will come
Trump saying 'I love Pakistan' must be understood both in the historical and current context of US policy. That America's president is proclaiming love for a country widely known for funding, training, and protecting terrorists links back to decades of Washington policy. America has long perfected a kind of doublespeak when it comes to Pakistan-sponsored terror. Americans chose to unsee even the fact that Islamabad gave sanctuary to 9/11's architect bin Laden. Or that 26/11, which claimed American victims, was an ISI op.
Now, with Israel's war on Iran, and some American strategists advocating Israeli-US bombing runs, Washington's 'realpolitik' argument would run like this: Pakistan is the only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, it has so far backed Tehran with which it shares a 909-km border, and Beijing has a key presence in all matters Pakistan, therefore, keeping Islamabad happy makes sense. That Trump met and dined with jihadi-in-uniform Munir reinforces the point that US sees Pakistan as a tool of war.
Sure, nation-states are expected to operate in national interest. Despite West's pressure, New Delhi stayed the course on buying oil from Moscow, the aggressor in the other war. But Russia, however unlovely Putin's regime is, isn't a terror sponsor. Only a few countries use terrorism as a strategic tool – Pakistan is one of them, and its target, as even Trump should know, is India. Therefore, 'loving Pakistan' and supping with its field marshal, who's a radical religious fundamentalist, isn't the same as India buying Russian oil. More so since, reportedly, Trump is offering Munir 'weaponry' in return for airspace access into Iran. Modi did well to tell Trump India won't brook any mediation. But New Delhi will have to assume things can get worse.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
'60 fighter jets in action': How Israel pulled off overnight airstrikes on Iran, struck nuclear facility
Israel strikes dozens of military targets in Iran NEW DELHI: The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) on Friday conducted extensive overnight strikes on numerous military targets within Iran, including a significant attack on the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), an institution allegedly involved in Iran's nuclear weapons development program. The conflict between Israel and Iran has now entered its second week, with European officials attempting diplomatic interventions to bring Tehran back to negotiations. US President Donald Trump has indicated that any decision regarding American involvement would be made within two weeks. The current escalation began last Friday when Israel initiated attacks on Iran, citing the need to prevent its long-standing adversary from developing nuclear weapons. Iran responded with retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israeli territory, while maintaining that its nuclear program serves peaceful purposes. How they conducted the strikes The operation, involving more than 60 Air Force fighter jets and approximately 120 munitions, targeted dozens of strategic military locations across Iran, including the SPND. The strikes focused on several missile manufacturing facilities in the Tehran region, which the IDF described as "industrial centers of gravity" for Iran's ministry of defence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Upto 15% Discount for Salaried Individuals ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo The operation targeted sites responsible for producing missile components and raw materials used in rocket engine manufacturing. A key objective was the SPND headquarters building in Tehran, which was successfully struck during the operation. "Among the sites attacked were military industrial sites for the production of missile components and sites for the production of raw materials used for casting rocket engines. As part of the attacks and as part of the IDF's activities to damage the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons project, the IDF attacked the Spand headquarters building in Tehran," the IDF said. Why SPND? The SPND headquarters holds particular significance as it serves as a crucial research and development center for advanced technologies and weapons supporting Iran's military capabilities. The organisation was established in 2011 by Fakhri Zadeh, who is recognized as the architect of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The IDF also confirmed striking a facility involved in producing essential components for Iran's nuclear weapons program, though specific details were not disclosed for security reasons. "In addition, a site for the production of a component that is a necessary basis for the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program was attacked," IDF said. Israeli air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
A U.S. attack on Iran would show the limits of China's power
When China helped negotiate a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023, it hailed the breakthrough as a victory for Chinese diplomacy and a sign that the United States' chief geopolitical rival had emerged as a major power broker in the Middle East. But as President Donald Trump openly ponders deploying U.S. forces to join Israel in attacking Iran, the limits of China's clout in the region are coming into focus. China has much to lose from a runaway conflict. Half of the country's oil imports move in tankers through the Strait of Hormuz on Iran's southern coast. And Beijing has long counted on Tehran, its closest partner in the region, to push back against American influence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Les trous de mémoire n'ont rien à voir avec l'âge. Il suffit de faire ceci Découvertes Santé | Compléments En savoir plus Undo But despite those strategic interests, China, which has little sway over the Trump administration, is unlikely to come to Iran's defense militarily, especially if the United States gets involved. "The reality is they don't actually have the capability to insert Chinese forces to defend Iran's installations," said Zack Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "What they would prefer to do is very quietly provide some material support, some rhetorical support and maybe some humanitarian aid." Live Events Though China favors stability in the Middle East, it could also gain if the United States gets roped into a prolonged war there, which might divert U.S. troops, ships and other military resources away from Asia. Whether Trump decides to strike Iran will offer lessons for Beijing that could shape its own geopolitical strategy. China will be trying to understand Trump's approach to foreign policy and his willingness to use force. The outcome could influence Beijing's assessment of whether the United States would come to the defense of Taiwan, the self-governed island that Beijing claims, should China decide to invade it. Despite China's close relationship with Iran, its rhetoric about the current conflict has been strikingly measured at the highest levels. After its top leader, Xi Jinping, called for a ceasefire during a call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Thursday, a summary of the call released by the Chinese government did not overtly criticize Israel for violating Iran's sovereignty. Xi also refrained from directly urging the United States not to attack Iran, saying only that the "international community, especially major powers that have a special influence on the parties to the conflict, should make efforts to promote the cooling of the situation, rather than the opposite." When China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, called his counterpart in Israel, he expressed Beijing's opposition to Israel's attacks, according to the Chinese summary of the call. But he stopped short of saying that China "condemns" them, as he had in a call with Iran. In another call, with the foreign minister of Oman, Wang said that "we cannot sit idly by and watch the regional situation slide into an unknown abyss," according to a Chinese government statement. But it is unclear what, if any, specific efforts China has made to find a diplomatic solution. In any case, Israel would likely be skeptical of China's neutrality as a mediator because of its alignment with Iran and engagement with Hamas, the Palestinian ally of Iran that attacked Israel in October 2023. China's efforts, at least in public, have been focused on evacuating more than 1,000 of its citizens from Israel and Iran. "Beijing is scrambling to keep up with the rapid pace of events and is prioritizing looking after Chinese citizens and assets in the region rather than any sort of broader diplomatic initiative," said Julian Gewirtz, who was a senior China policy official at the White House and the State Department during the Biden administration. Discussions of the conflict on China's heavily censored online forums have largely centered on the poor performance of Iran's military and security apparatus, though some participants have noted the limits of China's support for Iran. Zhu Zhaoyi, a Middle East expert at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, said in a post that China could not provide Iran with "unconditional protection" and confront the United States and Israel militarily. He said Beijing could only exert pressure through the United Nations Security Council, of which China is a permanent member. "The turmoil in the Middle East is both a challenge and a test for China," Zhu wrote. Chinese analysts often argue that Beijing is an attractive mediator in the Middle East because it will not lecture other countries about issues like human rights. "It's the only major power trusted by rival factions in the region, capable of achieving breakthroughs where the U.S. cannot," said Wen Jing, a Middle East expert at Tsinghua University in Beijing. But some Western analysts say China played only a small role in the detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia, toward the end of those negotiations. Washington has also been frustrated by Beijing's reluctance to put pressure on Iran to stop Houthi rebels from attacking ships off the coast of Yemen, except in cases involving Chinese vessels. That unwillingness to apply pressure on its partners undercuts China's standing in the Middle East, said Barbara Leaf, a former assistant secretary of state for near Eastern affairs at the State Department who is now a senior adviser at Arnold and Porter, a Washington-based law firm. "Nobody is saying, 'We better call up Beijing and see what they can do here,' because Beijing has played a purely commercial and economic role," Leaf said, describing the attitudes of Middle Eastern officials with whom she has spoken over the years. "They just sort of take it as a given that China is going to look out for China," she said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to LA
LOS ANGELES: An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalising control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. "The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters pinned down' several federal officers and threw concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant." It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The California governor's office and the White House didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion". "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
