India's Modi says Trump did not mediate Pakistan ceasefire
New Delhi: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Donald Trump that the ceasefire between New Delhi and Pakistan last month was worked out directly between the arch-rivals, a top Indian diplomat said Wednesday. The US president had said that the two nuclear-armed neighbours had agreed to end a four-day conflict on May 10 after "a long night of talks mediated by the United States".
It was their worst standoff since 1999, with more than 70 people killed in missile, drone and artillery fire on both sides. Officials from Islamabad and New Delhi confirmed the ceasefire on May 10, minutes after Trump posted the announcement on his Truth Social network. Indian officials said immediately that the ceasefire was worked out bilaterally, not with Washington. India's top career diplomat, Vikram Misri, said in a video statement on Wednesday that the leaders had spoken by telephone after Trump left early from the G7 summit in Canada, which Modi also attended. "Prime Minister Modi clearly conveyed to President Trump that at no point during this entire sequence of events was there any discussion, at any level, on an India-US Trade Deal, or any proposal for a mediation by the US between India and Pakistan," Misri said, speaking in Hindi.
"The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request." The last time Modi and Trump spoke was just after the April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-administrated Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan -- claims Islamabad denied. Misri repeated New Delhi's long held view that "India does not and will never accept mediation".
Muslim-majority Kashmir is claimed in full by both India and Pakistan, which have fought multiple wars over the Himalayan territory since being carved up at the end of British rule in 1947. He added that Trump said he would visit India for the next Quad alliance, the grouping that also includes Japan and Australia, expected later this year. "President Trump accepted the invitation and said that he is looking forward to visiting India", Misri added. The talks between the leaders come as India seeks to secure an interim agreement to shield it from the worst of Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs, which are set to kick in July after a 90-day-pause. New Delhi is not an export powerhouse, but it ran up a $45.7 billion trade surplus with the United States in 2024.
Analysts have indicated that tariff risks could impact India's economic outlook, with industry groups in sectors like gems and jewellery warning of potentially significant job losses. Negotiators from the two nations have made several back-and-forth trips over the last few months, with US Vice President JD Vance announcing in April that the countries had officially finalised the terms of reference for the negotiation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Iran's Khamenei rejects Trump's call for unconditional surrender
DUBAI/JERUSALEM: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement read by a television presenter on Wednesday that his country will not accept U.S. President Donald Trump's call for an unconditional surrender. In his first remarks since Friday, when he delivered a speech broadcast on state media after Israel began bombarding Iran, Khamenei said peace or war could not be imposed on the Islamic Republic. "Intelligent people who know Iran, the Iranian nation, and its history will never speak to this nation in threatening language because the Iranian nation will not surrender," he said. "The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage." Thousands of people were fleeing Tehran on Wednesday after Israeli warplanes bombed the city overnight, and a source said Trump was considering options that include joining Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear sites. Israel's military said 50 Israeli jets had struck around 20 targets in Tehran overnight, including sites producing raw materials, components and manufacturing systems for missiles. A source familiar with internal discussions said Trump and his team were considering a number of options, which included joining Israel in strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Iran had conveyed to Washington that it would retaliate against the United States for any direct participation, its ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, said. He said he already saw the U.S. as "complicit in what Israel is doing".
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
4 thoughts on Trump's hawkish turn on Iran
The only way to know for certain where Donald Trump's Iran policy is going is to wait — for the president to throw in fully with the Israelis, for a new attempt at diplomacy with a battered Iranian regime, for a continuation of the United States' current position as spectator, cheerleader and secondary participant. But while we wait, here are four quick comments on the debate about the war: 1) There is nothing inherently surprising about Trump's permitting and indirectly supporting Israel's war against Iran. Trump generally took a hawkish line on Iran throughout his first term; he has never been a principled non-interventionist; his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip; and the idea that you can accomplish a lot with a few sharp blows while avoiding regime change and nation building fits comfortably into his worldview. What is more surprising is that Trump would let war come after he had seemingly separated himself from his first term's hawkish personnel — sometimes with prejudice, as with the petty withdrawal in January of security protection from his former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. This separation helps explain the wounded shock with which some non-interventionists on the right have reacted to the war. They imagined that personnel was policy, that the realists and would-be restrainers in Trump's orbit would have a decisive influence. That was clearly a mistake, and the lesson here is that Trump decides and no one else. And it could well be the hawks' turn to be disappointed tomorrow, if he decides to accept concessions from Iran that they regard as fake or insufficient. 2) I have a lot of doubts about the decision to let the Israelis go for it. But non-interventionists should recognise that the strongest Tucker Carlson-style argument for restraining Israel from war, the warning that Iran could plunge the Middle East into turmoil and strike at Americans across the region and the world, inevitably looked much weaker once the Israelis were able to absolutely wreck Iranian proxies. Those successes were also of immediate strategic benefit to America that's facing serious challenges from multiple rivals at once, reducing Iran's ability to add its own pressure to Russian aggression and Chinese ambition. So if you imagine the basic Benjamin Netanyahu pitch to the White House — in effect, let us have a go at the Iranians, and you can decide whether to explicitly support us once you see the outcome — it's easy to see how Trump might decide that an 'America First,' national interest-based foreign policy is compatible with letting the Israelis try to settle all accounts. US President Donald Trump, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. — Reuters 3) With that said, I'm unconvinced by the arguments from some writers on the nationalist right, such as Oren Cass and Daniel McCarthy, who have tried to square Trump's acceptance of the Israeli war with their own desire for American disentanglement from global obligations. Of course one can square the two in theory — acceptance is not participation, and Israel's war need not be ours — but in practice wars are almost always engines of entanglement for great powers, whatever their initial intentions may be. So you can tell yourself a story in which America just watches Israel's war play out and stays aloof even if Iran collapses in the manner of circa-2005 Iraq or post-Moammar Gadhafi Libya, because 'America First' means that we don't worry about regional stability anymore. But stories have to interface with reality, and I don't see anything in the current nature of America's relationship with the Gulf states or the Israelis to suggest that we wouldn't be caught up in a postwar mess. 'America First' isn't a magic wand that does away with path dependency or makes the retreat from empire smooth. If Iran implodes, there will be crises we have to help manage, and a price we have to pay. 4) Last, it is by no means the most urgent question as the bombs and rockets fall, but one of my fears is that the price of a war against Iran that goes sideways will be paid inside American conservatism. I've suggested before that anyone who fears the toxic elements at work on the contemporary right — the pull of paranoia, the openness to antisemitism, the impulse to take the 'blackpill' of despair — should especially fear what might take root among disaffected right-wingers if Trumpism is seen to end in failure. And a reckless war in the Middle East, an echo of the Iraq disaster that implicates the right's long-standing loyalty to Israel, would be one of the most blackpilling ways for Trumpism to fail. All active presidencies assume some risk of this sort. You can't let the fear of disillusionment stop you from making what seems like the correct strategic choice, and I am more hopeful about the potential success of a war against Iran than I would have been a year or two ago. But that is not the same as being optimistic. — The New York Times
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Khamenei warns US ‘irreparable damage'
TEHRAN: Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday the nation would never surrender as demanded by President Donald Trump and warned the United States it would face "irreparable damage" if it intervenes in support of its ally. The speech came six days into the conflict, with Trump demanding Iran's "unconditional surrender" while boasting the United States could kill Khamenei and fuelling speculation about a possible intervention. The long-range blitz began on Friday, when Israel launched a massive bombing campaign that prompted Iran to respond with missiles and drones. "This nation will never surrender," Khamenei said in a speech read on state television, in which he called Trump's ultimatum "unacceptable". "America should know that any military intervention will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage," he said. Khamenei, in power since 1989 and the final arbiter of all matters of state in Iran, had earlier vowed the country would show "no mercy" towards Israel's leaders. The speech followed a night of strikes, with Israeli attacks destroying two buildings making centrifuge components for Iran's nuclear programme near Tehran, according to the UN nuclear watchdog. "More than 50 Israeli Air Force fighter jets... carried out a series of air strikes in the Tehran area over the past few hours," the Israeli military said, adding that several weapons manufacturing facilities were hit. Centrifuges are vital for uranium enrichment, the sensitive process that can produce fuel for reactors or, in highly extended form, the core of a nuclear warhead. The strikes destroyed two buildings making centrifuge components for Iran's nuclear programme in Karaj, a satellite city of Tehran, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. In another strike on a site in Tehran, "one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested", the agency added in a post on X. Iran's Revolutionary Guards said they had launched hypersonic Fattah-1 missiles at Tel Aviv. Hypersonic missiles travel at more than five times the speed of sound and can manoeuvre mid-flight, making them harder to track and intercept. No missile struck Tel Aviv overnight, though photos showed Israel's air defence systems activated to intercept missiles over the commercial hub. Iran also sent a "swarm of drones" towards Israel, while the Israeli military said it had intercepted a total of 10 drones launched from Iran. It said one of its own drones had been shot down over Iran. Trump fuelled speculation about US intervention when he made a hasty exit from the G7 summit in Canada, where the leaders of the club of wealthy democracies called for de-escalation but backed Israel's "right to defend itself". "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Trump met with his National Security Council to discuss the conflict. There was no immediate public statement after the hour and 20 minute meeting. US officials stressed Trump has not yet made a decision about any intervention. The United States is "complicit" in Israel's strikes in Iran, Tehran's ambassador to the United Nations claimed on Wednesday, vowing that his country would respond if Washington crosses a "red line". After decades of enmity and a prolonged shadow war, Israel says its surprise air campaign that began on June 13 is aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- an ambition Tehran denies. "We firmly believe that the United States is complicit in what Israel is doing," Iranian ambassador Ali Bahreini told a press conference. "And at any time, at any point, if we come to the conclusion that the United States is directly involved in attacks against Iran, we will start responding to the United States." He said Tehran was "vigilant" about Trump's "completely unwarranted" and "hostile" remarks. "There is a line which, if crossed, there should be a response on our side... once the red line is crossed, the response will come," Bahreini said. "We will respond strongly and we will stop aggression from any side, be it Israel or the United States," he told the UN correspondents' association. "And we have given a message to the United States that we will respond very firmly and will stop the aggression by anybody. Bahreini also said Tehran was "resolute in responding to Israeli attacks". "We will respond very, very, very seriously and strongly, and that is what we are doing now. Nobody should expect Iran to show any kind of restraint," he said. He also criticised the attitude of Western and European nations. "Not only they are not condemning the attacks and aggression, they are trying to justify the aggression," he said. Asked about a possible resumption of negotiations with Washington over Iran's nuclear programme, the ambassador said that for now, Iran was "not thinking about any scenario" other than "defending ourselves". Addressing the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday, Bahreini issued a warning to Israel's allies. "The Israeli regime's supporters, and the United States at the forefront, should know that supporting this regime means directly supporting international humanitarian and human rights law violations," he said. — AFP
