View: India strictly enforced ceasefire, Pak played dirty on May 10 night
US President Donald Trump castigated both Iran and Israel for violating the ceasefire conditions after he announced a cessation of hostilities between the two arch-rivals on Monday evening (Eastern Time). Clearly, both warring nations took advantage of the time difference and communication lag to launch last-minute bombings and missile attacks on each other. Pakistani drone sightings in Jammu sector on May 10, hours after no fire pact was announced from 5 pm that day.(Reuters File)
While the 12-day war, as President Trump described it, ended following these final assaults, it is notable that Pakistan was not similarly reprimanded by the US, despite continuing to launch drone attacks against India after a ceasefire was declared at 5 pm on May 10. After the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) proposed a ceasefire to his Indian counterpart at 3.35pm on May 10 - and it was accepted by the Indian DGMO - Rawalpindi informed Washington. As a result, President Trump unilaterally took to social media and claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi later clarified to President Trump over the phone that the US had no role in the May 10 ceasefire agreement with Pakistan regarding Operation Sindoor.
The fact remains that while the Pakistani Army continued targeting Indian border cities even after the ceasefire was announced, the Indian Armed Forces strictly enforced the no-fire pact. This discipline was maintained despite serious military provocations by General Asim Munir's army in the Jammu sector, and in the Jodhpur and Bhuj sectors, on the night of May 10 using Turkish-made kamikaze drones. India's adherence to the ceasefire after 5 pm demonstrates the nation's strong command and control - especially when compared to Pakistan's fragmented political and military leadership, which often act out of sync.
Even as a delusional Pakistan claimed victory and promoted Asim Munir to the rank of Field Marshal, its panicked leadership rushed to the US seeking intervention after 11 of its air bases were rendered non-operational and aircraft destroyed by Indian long-range missile strikes in the early hours of May 10.
After PM Modi firmly stood his ground during a May 9 evening call from US Vice President Vance - who warned of a strong Pakistani response - saying that 'India would respond with a bomb to a Pak bullet,' the US State Department's Operational Control Centre scrambled to patch a call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. Pakistan's desperation became evident as the Centre made multiple calls to reach Jaishankar, who was initially unavailable when the first attempt was made at around 8.45 am on May 10. Calls were made to the Minister's office, the Foreign Secretary, and officers in charge to relay the urgency of Secretary Rubio's request. The call was finally connected at 9.38 am, during which Rubio conveyed Pakistan's offer for a ceasefire. Minister Jaishankar firmly responded that such a proposal must come through the institutionalized India–Pakistan DGMO channel to be considered.
Even as this diplomatic exchange took place, the Indian Armed Forces had already launched three BrahMos missile strikes on Pakistani air bases, the last of which struck Bholari Air Base at noon, destroying a large-bodied military aircraft.
However, once both DGMOs, under instructions from their respective leaderships, agreed to a ceasefire starting 5 pm on May 10, Indian forces held fire. In contrast, Pakistani forces violated the agreement by launching armed drones toward India - revealing poor discipline and command structure.
Had Indian political and military leadership not shown restraint and upheld the verbal ceasefire, the Pakistani port of Karachi would have likely been targeted by the Indian Navy on the night of May 10.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Netanyahu Planned Iran Strike Months Before Bringing In Trump: Report
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already set the country on a warpath with Iran months before his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump, The Washington Post has reported citing Israeli and US officials. The report claims that after Israel dismantled Iran's air defences and severely weakened its proxy Hezbollah in October last year, Netanyahu issued a general order to prepare for a strike. Israeli intelligence began compiling lists of nuclear scientists and military commanders for targeted killings, while the air force launched operations to neutralise air defence systems across Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. By March this year, Israeli officials had already decided to strike Iran by June, with or without US involvement, citing concerns that Tehran would soon rebuild its air defences, sources said. This decision reportedly came weeks before Netanyahu met Trump on April 7. "It is true there was no better time: Israelis have never been more well-practised, and Iran and their proxies have never been weaker," said an Israeli official. "But that's not enough for us to operate. The reason we operated is necessity and understanding there is no alternative." The June 13 strike was not pushed by fresh intelligence suggesting an imminent Iranian breakout toward a nuclear weapon, but rather by a strategic opportunity to cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure while it was vulnerable. In recent interviews, Netanyahu said he made the "difficult" decision months earlier but finalised the timing just two weeks before the attack. "Those were my instructions. We're going after the scientists, take them out," Netanyahu said on Israeli TV. Israel's intelligence services spent years tracking the scientists, with Mossad running a covert campaign that involved smuggling kamikaze drones and missile launchers into Iran. The assassination campaign and airstrikes that followed are said to have killed at least 10 top scientists and damaged key elements of Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. While Israeli officials believed Iranian scientists were quietly resuming work on weaponisation, US intelligence, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, maintained that Iran's leadership had not ordered a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, dismissed that assessment, telling reporters he believed Iran was "very close" to acquiring one. While the Israeli security establishment largely backed the decision as a "preventive strike", some officials questioned the wisdom of launching an attack while diplomatic talks led by Trump's envoy were ongoing. "We should have given the political route a chance," said Danny Citrinowicz, a former senior Israeli intelligence official. "We got operational achievements, but the risks are enormous." Netanyahu has for over 30 years maintained that Iran's nuclear ambitions warrant military intervention. "All the scientists who were sneaking around," said a close adviser to Netanyahu, "most of them are now sneaking around in hell."
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why are so many Turks applying for German citizenship?
AP image Germany has become increasingly attractive for Turks whether for life, work or study. Immigration statistics show that a total of 22,525 Turkish citizens received German passports in 2024, a 110 per cent increase over 2023. Turkey is now second only to Syria when it comes to the number of its citizens receiving German passports. Alaz Sumer is one of those who decided to apply. He came to Germany about eight years ago to pursue his master's degree. Now a lawyer, he works for a Berlin-based NGO and is completing his doctorate in constitutional law. He told DW that citizenship is the goal of every immigrant saying it is much more practical . "Otherwise you are always stuck dealing with bureaucracy, and it is heavy here. Just getting a residency permit can be torturous." Burak Keceli, an IT specialist who graduated from Istanbul's respected Bogazici University, came to Germany in 2016. He said he came for career reasons and has spent several years working in the private sector. Today, he continues to live in Berlin. "I've lived in Germany for years and speak the language fluently," he said. "After all that time, I wanted to be able to have my say politically. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The power of a German passport was also an important factor … with it, I can travel to many countries around the world without a visa. According to the 2025 global passport index, which ranks passports by the number of countries a holder thereof can travel to visa-free, Germany ranked fifth in the world, behind the United Arab Emirates, Spain, Singapore and France. A German passport provides visa-free entry into 131 countries, whereas a Turkish passport only allows 75. Dual German-Turkish citizenship a big incentive Germany's June 2024 citizenship reforms no doubt gave the trend a major boost, with dual citizenship becoming a major incentive for migrants to seek a second passport. Sumer, for instance, said he had no desire to relinquish his Turkish citizenship. " I didn't want to give up my right to vote," he said. A Turkish passport, he added, also has advantages in countries with which Turkey has better relations than Germany. Burak Keceli is also a dual citizen. He calls the possibility of having two passports "very positive," but said he would have sought German citizenship either way. Germany's previous government also shortened the residency requirement for citizenship from eight down to five years, and down to three for those who could show special integration potential. The new government under chancellor Friedrich Merz did away with the three year rile in May. Still, the new government has let the dual-citizenship model stand, meaning migrants can keep their original passports. That's very important to many of those who have come to Germany from elsewhere. Until recently, Germany required all migrants, with the exception of Swiss and EU-member state passport holders, to renounce prior citizenship before granting them German passports. That forced many to hold off seeking German citizenship over the emotional, familial and business ties they maintained with their country of origin. That goes for an estimated 3 million Turks living in Germany. Political repression and skyrocketing inflation in Turkey The political, social and economic situation in Turkey has also been a major driver for immigration. "I wanted to be an academic," said Sumer, "but I didn't have the impression that it was really possible to do so freely in Turkey. When the situation deteriorated, I left." As for Keceli, he said would wouldn't have been able to have a "nice life" in Turkey. "If I had chosen to go to another country [other than Germany] I probably would have applied for citizenship there." The political climate in Turkey has been worsening for years. Human rights organizations regularly report freedom of speech and press violations by the government. In March, the government of President Recap Tayyip Erdogan had his most capable election challenger, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu arrested, a drastic measure even by Erdogan's standards. Moreover, the country has languished economically for years: In 2015, a euro cost about 2.3 Turkish lira, now it's nearly 46 ($1 is currently worth around 40 Turkish lira, 10 years ago it was around it cost around 2.7 Turkish lira). Turkey will always be 'home' Despite integration and years of life spent in Germany, many Turks still feel rooted in their old culture and continue to call Turkey home. "Germany never became home for me. I wouldn't describe myself as a German. But even if I did, Germans would laugh at me — and rightly so," said Sumer. Keceli sees things similarly. "All of my loved ones are in Turkey. I never lost the connection. I will continue to travel back and forth. And even if I don't always keep up on the latest news, I still listen to Turkish music. I will always call Turkey home. I don't really feel at home in Germany." Not German enough? Sumer said he "mostly enjoys" life in Germany, but admits he doesn't feel like he really belongs. "I don't think that you're immediately accepted when you get a German passport, that certainly wasn't the case for me." He then described experiences that mirror those of other migrants: "I feel closer to Turkey than I do to Germany. It's clear to me that I am only German on paper. Even if you assimilate and live by German standards, you're still always an immigrant." Sumer recounted moments of everyday discrimination. When he tried to find an apartment after receiving his citizenship, he said, he didn't get any replies whatsoever to his online queries using his real name. That changed when he used a fake name. "If you don't have a German name, a German passport won't do you much good either," he said.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
29 minutes ago
- First Post
Despite bombs, backlash: Why Iran's nuclear programme matters to it
A preliminary US intelligence report indicates Iran's nuclear programme could resume within one to two months despite weekend strikes on sites like Fordow and Natanz. Trump insists the facilities were 'obliterated', but analysts say satellite imagery cannot fully reveal underground damage. Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment dates to 1957 and reflects its enduring quest for independence read more Members of the Iranian Parliament participate in a vote of trust for the cabinet of President Masoud Pezeshkian at the parliament in Tehran, Iran, August 21, 2024. File Image/WANA via Reuters Targeted airstrikes by the United States and Israel over the weekend aimed to neutralise Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. While senior US officials and US President Donald Trump have declared the operation a strategic success, conflicting assessments from the American intelligence community and historical context suggest a far more nuanced picture. Did the US strikes achieve their objective? According to sources familiar with a preliminary US intelligence assessment, the American strikes on key nuclear sites in Iran — including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — have caused damage that might delay the programme by only a few months. Three individuals with access to the classified findings indicated to Reuters that the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which produced the initial report, assessed that Iran could resume uranium enrichment activities within as little as one to two months. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These estimates stand in stark contrast to statements from the Trump administration. While addressing reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump acknowledged the ambiguity in the intelligence — 'The intelligence was … very inconclusive' — but asserted, 'I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration.' He went further to claim, 'Iran's nuclear deal had been set back basically decades, because I don't think they'll ever do it again.' This position was echoed by White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, who responded to reports about the assessment by stating: 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Despite these pronouncements, officials involved in the intelligence review have pointed out that the report includes several uncertainties, conditions and is expected to evolve as more data becomes available. A US official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, confirmed that even now, Washington does not fully grasp the scale of the impact on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Evaluating the destruction of highly fortified sites like Fordow, located deep underground, remains technically difficult, especially if assessments rely on satellite imagery. A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran, January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters The DIA is also not the only agency responsible for the damage assessment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What if Iran had a bomb? Debates about Iran's nuclear capabilities inevitably raise the question: what happens if Tehran crosses the threshold and becomes a nuclear-armed state? Analysts hold divergent views — ranging from alarm over regional instability to cautious recognition of nuclear deterrence dynamics. While fears of Iran sharing nuclear material with non-state actors or extremist groups exist, history offers limited precedent for such scenarios. According to the Arms Control Association, only one known case — the Soviet Union's transfer of uranium-235 to China in the 1950s — ever involved a state transferring bomb-grade material to another actor. More relevant is how a nuclear Iran would reshape its security calculus in West Asia. Nuclear weapons, particularly for a country like Iran, are seen less as tools of aggression and more as strategic deterrents. These weapons could serve multiple deterrence objectives: dissuading conventional military aggression from regional non-nuclear states, forestalling nuclear threats from powers like Israel, India or Pakistan, and deterring interventions by external powers such as the United States or Russia. Analysts often reference the doctrine of 'proportional deterrence,' a concept initially crafted in Cold War-era France. It proposes that a relatively less capable nuclear state can still effectively deter stronger nuclear adversaries by threatening to destroy high-value targets, even while absorbing significant damage itself. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This form of second-strike capability ensures that any country contemplating an attack must reckon with irreversible consequences. This logic, however, cuts both ways. Iran itself remains vulnerable to deterrence by Israel's nuclear arsenal, and even its missile advancements may not necessarily indicate nuclear ambitions. Some experts argue that Iran's precision missile development could be aimed at bolstering conventional deterrence — targeting strategic sites in Israel or elsewhere without resorting to nuclear arms. While a nuclear-armed Iran would not automatically destabilise the region, the psychological and political implications would be profound. The sheer perception of a shift in power dynamics could alter regional alignments, defence planning and diplomatic engagements. Most crucially, however, it is unlikely that regional or global powers will allow Iran to acquire such a capability uncontested. How did Iran's nuclear programme come about? Iran's nuclear journey began not in defiance, but under American sponsorship. In 1957, the US and Iran launched a civil nuclear partnership as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' initiative. By the 1970s, under the pro-Western Shah, Iran was planning an ambitious programme that included building 23 nuclear reactors. Washington, including then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, raised no objection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's nuclear development was envisioned as a symbol of modernity and a tool for regional leadership, with plans to export electricity to neighbouring states. But the Iranian Revolution of 1979 transformed the landscape entirely. The ousting of the Shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic introduced a new political order driven by anti-imperialist rhetoric and religious ideology. Western fears of weaponisation of Iran's nuclear capabilities began almost immediately. Iran's insistence on the right to enrich uranium has been a flashpoint in every round of nuclear negotiations since. To many in Washington, this insistence is incomprehensible if Iran's aims are purely peaceful. As US Vice President JD Vance remarked: 'It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.' Iran, however, has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. It remains a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it has pledged not to develop a nuclear weapon. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued multiple fatwas condemning nuclear arms as 'un-Islamic.' So why is Iran's nuclear programme so important to it? The roots of Iran's nuclear intransigence run deep — far deeper than its centrifuges. One of the revolution's founding principles, as handwritten by Ayatollah Khomeini in a 1979 declaration, was 'independence.' This idea, grounded in a long history of colonial subjugation, remains central to the Islamic Republic's identity. Iran's experience of foreign domination stretches back centuries: squeezed between Russian and British imperialism in the 19th century, subjected to the exploitation of oil resources by British corporations in the 20th, and politically undermined by direct foreign interventions. In 1953, the US and UK orchestrated a coup to remove then-Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he sought national control over Iran's oil. This episode is widely regarded as a defining national trauma. Author and analyst Vali Nasr, in his work Iran's Grand Strategy, traces Iran's emphasis on nuclear self-sufficiency back to this legacy of external coercion. He argues that the drive for civil nuclear power and the right to enrich uranium is not just about energy — it is about reclaiming sovereignty. 'Before the revolution itself, before the hostage crisis or US sanctions, before the Iran-Iraq war or efforts to export the revolution… the future supreme religious guide and leader of Iran valued independence from foreign influence as equal to the enshrining principles of Islam in the state,' Nasr notes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khamenei himself once explained the significance of the revolution by stating, 'now all decisions are made in Tehran.' This desire for autonomy — manifested in Iran's refusal to rely on imported enriched uranium from countries like Russia — has consistently obstructed nuclear agreements. Yet, from Iran's perspective, conceding on enrichment would be tantamount to surrendering the very ideals upon which the Islamic Republic was built. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
