
How US pulled India and Pakistan back from all-out war
In a conflict characterised by a flood of misinformation, Muhammad Saleem knew something was really happening when he saw a missile pass over the roof of his home on Thursday night.
Seconds later, the Indian projectile smashed into a Pakistani air force base in Rawalpindi, exploding in flames and igniting the most dangerous round of fighting yet between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
At around 3am local time, Indian jets launched missiles at Nur Khan and two more air bases, Murid and Rafiqi, with the defence ministry citing an earlier wave of Pakistani attacks in justification. Footage of blasts lighting up the night surged across Pakistani social media.
On the ground in Rawalpindi, the garrison city that houses the headquarters of the Pakistani armed forces, crowds poured onto the street chanting 'Pakistan Zindabad', or 'victory to Pakistan'.
'I saw the missile from the top of my house,' Mr Saleem, who is in his late 40s, told The Telegraph. 'There were several explosions.'
Like dozens of others, he headed towards the Nur Khan air base, originally built by the RAF and used in the Second World War. 'God is great,' shouted the nervous residents.
With flames still burning, 'we saw a missile had hit the base area', Mr Saleem said.
At a 3.30am press conference, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the spokesman for Pakistan's army, accused India of 'pushing the whole region towards a dangerous war with its madness'.
Pakistan's air defences had shot down all but a few Indian missiles which 'sneaked in' but did not cause any damage, he claimed. Nur Khan hosts transport and signals-intelligence-collecting aircraft, rather than fighter jets.
Shaky phone camera footage from a rooftop hundreds of yards away appeared to show something erupting in flames on impact.
Ending his press conference, Mr Chaudhry issued a warning: 'India must now prepare for Pakistan's response.'
After little more than an hour, Pakistani air force jets took off for the launch of Operation 'Bunyam um-Marsoos', a phrase taken from the Koran that translates as 'unbreakable wall of lead'.
With several local Pakistani journalists briefed that the operation was underway before its targets were known, there was a moment when the region felt flung into the air – with where, and how hard it would come down, unclear.
Islamabad issued a notice to airmen announcing the total closure of its airspace from 3.15am until noon on Saturday.
'Targets are acquired and locked,' one popular anonymous X account wrote, promising strikes that would 'send chills down their spines, instilling dread in seven generations'.
The impact, AirlinePilotmax claimed, would 'reshape India's ideological core for decades'.
Then the missiles hit. At 5.52am, state-run Pakistani media reported that the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) had struck air bases in Pathankot, Udhampur and a storage site in the Beas region for the long-range, supersonic Brahmos missile.
An 'eye for an eye', said a statement from Pakistan's military.
In Srinagar, the main city in Indian-controlled Kashmir, residents took shelter from pounding explosions on their lower floors. 'Two loud blasts shook the ground. Dust filled the air. I thought jets had begun bombing the airport,' said Wasim Adhmad.
'We're used to gunfire and mines, but this is something else. It feels like death in the air.'
Later, PTV claimed that an Indian S-400 air defence missile system, worth roughly $1 billion, had also been destroyed – but the report was swiftly denied by New Delhi.
There were a few minutes to take stock; the damage looked more like tit-for-tat than armageddon. Both sides could claim wins. Civilian casualty numbers were not being bandied around.
At 7am, Ishaq Dar, Pakistan's foreign minister, was making conciliatory comments in an interview with Geo News, a local TV channel. 'If they stop, so will we,' he said. Khawaja Asif, the defence minister, denied reports of an urgent meeting of Pakistan's National Command Authority (NCA), which oversees Islamabad's nuclear arsenal.
In New Delhi, there were echoes. India's armed forces had given a 'befitting reply' to Pakistani strikes on schools and health facilities at India's air bases in Kashmir, said Colonel Sophia Qureshi.
'All hostile actions have been effectively countered and responded to appropriately,' added Wing Commander Vyomika Singh.
Outside of Kashmir, the last time India and Pakistan targeted each other's military facilities with this level of ferocity came in the 1971 war, which ended with Islamabad's defeat and the breakaway formation of Bangladesh.
Then, neither side possessed nuclear weapons. It may have been the prospect of an all-out war between two nations capable of destroying entire cities at the push of a button which roused Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, to personally intervene and call for calm.
Under Donald Trump, Washington had largely stood aside as tensions rose. JD Vance, the vice-president, said the conflict was 'fundamentally none of our business'. Mr Trump had called the hostilities little more than 'a shame', adding: 'I get along with both, I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out.'
Indian diplomats told The Telegraph there had not been the familiar descent of US officials on New Delhi and Islamabad, as there had been in previous rounds of fighting.
Mr Rubio spoke with Dr S Jaishankar, India's foreign minister, as well as Mr Dar and Asim Munir, the head of the Pakistani army, who is the most powerful person in the country.
According to a statement from the state department, Mr Rubio offered Mr Munir US assistance in starting 'constructive talks' towards peace. As so often happens, a United States seeking to disentangle itself from foreign conflicts appeared to be pulled back into one.
On Saturday afternoon, Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, held a cabinet meeting where he sought to lay down a new red line in the region. Any terror attack on India would be considered an 'act of war' by Pakistan, government sources told the Times of India.
For too long, Mr Modi and many Indians feel, the country has passively put up with massacres on its territory. Islamabad has failed to root out terrorists, they say – indeed at times it has indulged them.
In the Pahalgam attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir last month, gunmen asked victims their religion before executing any Hindus. 'Tell your government. Tell Modi what we did,' one attacker told a woman after shooting her husband in the head at point-blank range.
Mr Modi, a thoroughbred Hindu nationalist, promised to 'pursue [the terrorists] to the end of the earth'. Pakistan's fervent denials of any backing for the attack did not convince him, nor critics suggesting he should loosen repression of the largely Muslim population in Kashmir.
With his speech to cabinet on Saturday, the prime minister both appeared to be drawing a line under the fighting ignited by the Pahalgam attack, and threatening a far more violent encore should it ever be repeated.
It appeared that America's late-night return to pulling strings in foreign conflicts had paid off.
At 5pm local time (8am in Washington), Mr Trump surprised the world by being the first to announce the agreement of a full ceasefire.
The president, who had appeared disinterested, could claim to be a peacemaker. Few doubt such services will be needed again before long.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
12 hours ago
- Reuters
Japan and US trade negotiators spoke again on Saturday, Japan gov't says
June 14 (Reuters) - Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick spoke by phone for 30 minutes on Saturday and explored the possibility of a trade deal, the Japanese government said in a statement. Akazawa held separate in-person meetings on Friday with both Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent -- meetings that Akazawa had described to media on Friday as very detailed and an advance towards a potential trade agreement. Using similar language, the Japanese government statement described Saturday's discussion between Akazawa and Lutnick as "very in-depth" and said the two sides "explored the possibility of reaching an agreement that would benefit" both countries. The statement said the negotiations occurred "with an eye towards" the planned meeting between Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Group of Seven leaders' summit that begins on Sunday in Canada. Japan has been hoping to clinch a deal at the summit. Japan faces a 24% tariff rate starting in July unless it can negotiate a deal with the U.S. It is also scrambling to find ways to get Washington to exempt its automakers from 25% tariffs on automobiles, Japan's biggest industry.


Telegraph
20 hours ago
- Telegraph
The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude
'I swear I believe Armageddon is near.' This was Ronald Reagan's initial reaction, writing in his diary, after hearing news of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak on June 7 1981. The Israeli attack was a major operational success, destroying Osirak and denying Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein a nuclear bomb. In time, American leaders would come to recognise that they owed Israel a huge debt of gratitude for disarming Iraq's monstrous tyrant. Yet this is not how they reacted publicly at the time. For the deeply religious Reagan, with his profound aversion to nuclear weapons, his initial reaction was a mix of horror and confusion. As the historian William Inboden put it in The Peacemaker, his recent book on the US president's national security strategy, 'Reagan worried that his first year in office might also be the last year of Earth's existence.' President Donald Trump may not share Reagan's religious faith but he has spoken repeatedly over many years of his fear of nuclear war. This is likely to colour his response to the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Like the Reagan White House, the Trump's administration's avowed policy positions should, on the surface, lead it to endorse the strikes – support for Israel, opposition to nuclear proliferation and disgust at the target, in both cases a tyrannical regime that has committed itself to Israel's destruction and unleashed bloodshed across the region. Yet other diplomatic considerations led the Reagan administration to publicly disassociate itself from Israel. The White House denounced the attack. At the United Nations, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick allowed a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel to pass without issuing a US veto. And initially the US suspended any further sales of F-16s to Israel. These positions derived from a number of conflicting policy priorities. First, there was concern about the reaction of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. Secondly, there was a growing sense in the White House that the US should support Saddam's Iraq in its war with Iran, which had begun the previous year. Thirdly, there was concern about the potential for wider regional escalation, particularly in Lebanon. That war-torn country, occupied by Syria, had served as the base for regular Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel and was now hosting Syrian SA-6 missiles. Israel was determined to remove this threat but the Reagan administration wanted to negotiate a settlement. Fourthly, and overhanging all of this, was the wider fear that America's Cold War antagonist the Soviet Union might exploit the regional upheaval. Yet there were other officials in the administration who recognised that what Israel had done at Osirak was necessary, not only for its own security but that of the US too. And while Reagan reprimanded the Israeli ambassador that the US was 'caught by surprise,' he would very quickly begin to empathise with the Israelis. 'Indignation on behalf of Iraq is a waste,' he wrote in his diary. 'Saddam Hussein is a 'no good nut' and I think he was trying to build a nuclear weapon.' What's more, he had 'called for the destruction of Israel' and the threat thus had to be removed. After reflection, Reagan resumed sending F-16s to Israel. Just like Reagan, President Trump has distanced his administration from the Israeli strikes, although he has not yet gone so far as to issue any condemnation. Like Reagan, Trump had hoped to solve broader regional issues by negotiations rather than strikes. Yet there are important differences with 1981. Firstly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that Israel had informed the US ahead of time that 'this action was necessary for its self-defence.' Secondly, many of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, have long feared what Iran's theocratic Shiite rulers will do with a nuclear weapon. They are less likely than they were in 1981 to be condemning Israel's attack on Iran behind closed doors, whatever they say publicly. Thirdly, Iran has moved well beyond Saddam's rhetorical denunciation and support for terrorist attacks. Since October 7th 2023, they and their proxies have unleashed a broad, multi-front attack on Israel with its proxies. Yet by escalating its conflict with Israel, Iran has also left itself weaker, with its proxies devastated and its own air defences largely demolished by Israel last year. The Iranian nuclear weapons programme might be more sophisticated and spread out than the Iraqi one at Osirak. But Iran is also more isolated in the region. Even more so than with Saddam in 1981, the moment of maximum danger has already approached for Israel. While intelligence then suggested Osirak would become operational within months, the Iranians are currently enriching uranium to such levels that they are already a threshold nuclear state that could step over that precipice in days. Just as in 1981, much of the region and the wider world will condemn Israel's actions. But just as then, I suspect in time, the vast majority will come to be exceedingly grateful for what they have done. Iranian drones are already enabling Russia to pound Ukrainian cities, while the Islamic Republic's agents are targeting dissidents in the West, interfering in our elections, and unleashing violence on our streets. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei would have been as dangerous, if not worse, than one in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It remains to be seen if the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities prove as successful as their previous attack on Osirak. If it does then Western governments should be grateful to Israel. Just don't expect to hear much thanks.


Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
Seoul's LGBT community gathers for annual festival after liberal president elected
SEOUL, June 14 (Reuters) - The annual Seoul Queer Culture Festival was held in the South Korean capital on Saturday after the country ushered in a new liberal president, though it faced concurrent protests against the LGBT community's pride celebrations. While the community has made some advances towards broader acceptance in Korean society, conservative religious groups still mount resistance to efforts to pass laws against discrimination, and there is no legal acknowledgement of LGBTQ+ partnerships. City authorities repeatedly denied venue clearance requests for last year's festival before eventually giving their approval. "The slogan for the 26th Seoul Queer Culture Festival is that we never stop," said its chief organiser Hwang Chae-yoo. "During the last ... administration, hate against homosexuality and LGBTQ+ became very strong, leading to government policies that often ignored LGBTQ+ people. That's why we expressed our will to never give up until the end, and make efforts to improve human rights," Hwang said. South Korea elected liberal President Lee Jae-myung earlier this month in a snap election, after conservative predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol was ousted following his impeachment. While Lee has not explicitly stated his positions on LGBT issues during the campaign, his election has led to optimism among some in the community that conditions could improve. Under blue skies and temperatures reaching 31 degrees Celsius (87.8 Fahrenheit), festival turnout was brisk with people, some carrying rainbow flags, milling about booths including those set up by LGBTQ+ organisations, embassies and university clubs. From 4:30 p.m. local time (0730 GMT), participants marched through the streets of Seoul, calling for improved human rights and self-esteem for LGBTQ+ people. The event's organisers said 30,000 people were taking part, though police put their estimate at around 7,000. A protest against the Queer Culture Festival was also held in a nearby location in central Seoul on Saturday. Participants held blue and pink signs with phrases such as "Homosexuality Stop" and "Destroys Families". There was no clash. "It's changed a lot compared to the old days, but most people are still like, 'we know you exist, but don't come out'," said 44-year-old festival participant Hong Il-pyo, who was dressed in drag. "I hope we can make a little progress and change to 'you exist, so let's live well together.'"