Khamenei warns of 'even bigger blow' to US and Israel if attacked again
According to Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) and editor of the Long War Journal, Iran still possesses around 1,500 medium-range ballistic missiles and roughly 50 percent of its launch systems.TRUMP SAYS HE'S 'IN NO RUSH TO TALK'Amid ongoing tensions, US President Donald Trump has adopted a cautious tone on the issue. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Trump said he remains open to negotiations but added, "I'm in no rush to talk."NUCLEAR TALKS UNCERTAIN AS SANCTIONS THREATENMeanwhile, Western nations have made it clear that if Iran fails to make progress on talks with the US by the end of the summer, they may activate the "snapback" sanctions — a provision under the 2015 nuclear deal allowing the re-imposition of international sanctions if Iran fails to comply.Germany's Foreign Ministry told Fox News Digital, "A sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution that addresses the security interests of the international community is essential. If such a solution is not achieved by the end of the summer, the snapback mechanism will remain an option for the E3."The E3 refers to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — the three European countries involved in the 2015 nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). "We continue to coordinate closely with our E3 partners on this issue," the German ministry added.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Zelenskyy faces backlash as Ukrainians protest new anti-corruption law
KYIV: Ukrainian activists called for more protests against a law they say weakens the country's anti-corruption bodies. The legislation has also drawn rebukes from European Union officials and international rights groups. Thousands of people gathered in the capital and other cities across Ukraine on Tuesday evening to urge President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto the controversial bill passed by Ukraine's Parliament earlier that day, which tightens government oversight of two key anti-corruption agencies. After Zelenskyy approved it, activists called on social media for another demonstration in the center of Kyiv at 8 pm on Wednesday. Critics say the step could significantly weaken the independence of those agencies and grant Zelenskyy's circle greater influence over investigations. Fighting entrenched corruption is crucial for Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and maintain access to billions of dollars in Western aid in its fight against Russia's three-year invasion. Instead of vetoing the bill as protestors demanded, Zelenskyy signed it into law and argued for it, in a move that risked his public support after more than three years of war with Russia. Zelenskyy said the measure clears out 'Russian influence' from the fight against corruption and ensures punishment for those found guilty of it, after what he said were yearslong delays in criminal proceedings involving huge amounts of money. 'This is what Ukraine really needs,' Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post after midnight Wednesday. 'The cases that have been lying dormant must be investigated.' 'For years, officials who have fled Ukraine have been casually living abroad for some reason – in very nice countries and without legal consequences – and this is not normal,' he said. He didn't provide examples of what he said was Russian interference.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20 minutes ago
- First Post
How EU's new sanctions on Russia reveal West's colonial hangover
The new EU sanctions are not about hurting Russia anymore—they are about telling India how to behave read more The EU hasn't banned the purchase of Russian oil altogether. It has merely imposed a price cap, while pressuring others, like India, to stop refining or shipping that same oil. Image: REUTERS On July 18, the European Union (EU) imposed its 18th round of sanctions on Russia since the Ukraine war began. Among the fresh targets was an unexpected name: the Vadinar oil refinery in Gujarat, India, operated by Nayara Energy, in which Russian oil giant Rosneft holds a 49 per cent stake. Not stopping there, the EU went further to designate the Indian flag register itself, signalling that ships flying the Indian tricolour could be targeted if they are suspected of transporting Russian oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And yet, in a peculiar twist of logic, the EU hasn't banned the purchase of Russian oil altogether. It has merely imposed a price cap 15 per cent below the prevailing market rate, allowing itself to continue energy imports from Russia while pressuring others, like India, to stop refining or shipping that same oil. What does this imply? The EU wants to buy Russian oil, just not if it's touched by Indian hands. This is not a geopolitical strategy grounded in consistency or fairness. It reeks of hypocrisy. The Sham of Sanction Morality Since the war in Ukraine broke out in 2022, Western capitals have scrambled to impose sanctions on Russia, penalising its banks, banning technology exports, freezing assets, and restricting energy exports. The intention was to cripple Russia's war machine by starving it of funds. However, as months passed, the West itself quietly resumed or continued many of these same transactions under different guises. India, like any rational state, saw an opportunity in discounted Russian crude. As Western buyers moved away (at least on paper), India ramped up its purchases, now exceeding one million barrels per day. This oil, heavily discounted, has helped New Delhi manage inflation, stabilise its energy supply, and ensure growth for 140 crore citizens. This pragmatism hasn't gone unnoticed in Washington and Brussels. But instead of acknowledging their own continued dependence on Russian energy, particularly natural gas, the West has targeted Indian refiners, shippers, and institutions. The new EU sanctions are not about hurting Russia anymore. They are about telling India how to behave. The underlying assumption is simple: the West sets the rules; the rest of the world must follow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Energy for Whom? Let's dissect the numbers. In 2022 alone, the EU paid over $120 billion to Russia for fossil fuels. This included oil, natural gas, and coal. Compare this with India's total bill: about $50 billion—less than half of Europe's. Who, then, is fuelling the Russian economy? Spain and Belgium were among the top LNG importers from Russia. Germany, after shutting down pipeline imports post-Ukraine invasion, began receiving Russian LNG via its ports. Italy has also continued to buy Russian-origin oil, sometimes routed through third countries. Even the United States, which claims moral superiority, continues importing vital commodities from Russia. Case in point: uranium. Nearly 20 per cent of the uranium used in American nuclear power plants still comes from Russia. So much for an embargo. When national interests are involved, moral grandstanding takes a back seat. India Pushes Back India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has not taken this duplicity lying down. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal responded firmly: 'Securing the energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us.' That's the crux. In an energy-starved country with burgeoning demand, fuel isn't just an economic issue; it's a developmental necessity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, too, asserted that India is well-prepared to navigate sanctions, noting that India today buys oil from over 40 countries compared to just 27 in the past. Diversification, not dependency, has been India's guiding principle. Moreover, the MEA has expressed serious concern over reports of the United States planning a 500 per cent tariff on countries continuing to buy Russian oil, an undeclared threat aimed squarely at India. The very idea that a sovereign country could be penalised for making independent choices that benefit its people is absurd, but it reveals the West's real aim: control. Nato's Hypocrisy: The Case of Turkey If these sanctions were truly about punishing Russian partners, why is Turkey, another country buying Russian oil and even hosting the TurkStream gas pipeline, not under similar fire? Turkey, a NATO member, bought Russian S-400 missile systems in 2019. The US did impose minor sanctions on Turkish defence entities, but Ankara remains a Nato member and continues to transact with Moscow. The Western world makes exceptions for Turkey because of its strategic geography. India, by contrast, is expected to follow the West's orders or face consequences. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sovereignty Is Not for Sale The EU's latest move sanctioning an Indian refinery and targeting Indian-flagged vessels isn't about stopping Russian oil. It's about sending a message to India: fall in line, or be punished. This is an affront to Indian sovereignty. The Vadinar refinery processes oil not just for India but for international clients, including European ones. Europe has happily purchased refined products from India, even when they originated from Russian crude. So Europe pays India for processed fuels while penalising India for importing the crude used to make them. It is hypocrisy of the highest order. India's position is clear. It is not buying oil to finance a war. It is buying oil to power its economy. And unless the West is willing to completely cut off its energy ties with Moscow, which it won't, it has no moral authority to lecture India. The Global South and the New Multipolarity This episode illustrates a broader truth: the era of unipolar Western dominance is fading. Countries like India, China, Brazil, and others in the Global South are asserting their economic sovereignty and refusing to toe Western lines blindly. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has extended humanitarian aid to Ukraine, spoken to both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, and consistently called for dialogue. But it has also made it clear: national interest comes first. We will not compromise our energy security because the West wants a moral trophy. This is not just an issue of oil. It is an issue of global fairness. The West cannot continue creating a two-tier system where its interests are sacrosanct and others' interests are expendable. A Test of Global Leadership If the EU and the US want to lead, they must do so by example. Leadership isn't about coercion. It's about consistency and integrity. You cannot ask India to stop doing what you continue to do behind closed doors. It is time to call out the Western bluff. The sanctions regime, as it stands, is neither effective nor equitable. It is simply a mechanism to enforce Western will under the guise of international morality. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India must stay the course—firm, unyielding, and self-assured. We don't owe anyone an explanation for prioritising our people's needs. We are not a vassal state. We are a rising power. And we will decide our path, not Washington, not Brussels. Conclusion The EU's 18th round of sanctions has exposed more than it has achieved. It has revealed the moral bankruptcy of a West that wants to have its oil and lecture others, too. For India, this is not just a diplomatic challenge. It is a test of resolve. We must never forget: the ultimate responsibility of any government is to its people. As long as Russian oil provides a reliable and affordable option, we should not be cowed into abandoning it. Let the West fix its reactions before pointing fingers. India stands for peace, yes. But India also stands for sovereignty. And that is not negotiable. The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author. He pens national, geopolitical, and social issues. His social media handle is @prosenjitnth. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
China's Brahmaputra dam is also a military asset. It raises alarm for India
In contemporary geopolitics, infrastructure has become a strategic language of its own, one that Beijing is speaking fluently. Beyond the spectacle of scale, the Chinese online discourse quickly turned the project into a symbol of strategic ascendancy. India, the downstream neighbour, is cast as anxious and reactive . China, in contrast, is portrayed as visionary and unyielding—a master of its geography and architect of a new regional order. Chinese Premier Li Qiang, on 19 July, presided over the groundbreaking of what is set to become the world's largest hydropower dam , on the so-called 'Yarlung Zangbo', as China refers to the Brahmaputra River. Within hours, Chinese online platforms erupted in celebration. A Weibo hashtag marking the occasion—#Construction begins on lower Yarlung Zangbo Hydropower Project—amassed over 73 million views. Engineering feat or strategic signal? The Medog Hydropower Station is projected to cost $167 billion and boasts a planned capacity of 70 to 81 million kilowatts, roughly triple that of the Three Gorges Dam. Once completed, it is expected to generate 300 billion kilowatt-hours annually. The project will take a decade to build, but its signalling to the region, especially India, is immediate. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a daily Chinese tabloid, criticised Western media for focusing on India's ecological and geopolitical concerns while ignoring what he called an 'engineering miracle'. For Hu, the dam is not just about electricity; it is also a declaration of China's ability to tame the Himalayas and reshape geography. One Chinese commentator claimed that India's objections stem not from technical concerns, but from its deeply entrenched 'security-first' mindset. New Delhi, the commentator argued, has long prioritised control over collaboration, building its own dams while accusing others of weaponising water. 'India's alarmism,' another wrote, 'comes from its own guilty conscience.' China's dual narrative Officially, Beijing is presenting the dam as a developmental initiative, aimed at energy security, poverty alleviation, regional integration, and transforming Nyingchi into the 'Little Sichuan' or 'Jiangnan of Tibet.' Talk of water weaponisation is being brushed aside as paranoia. Commentators invoke 'non-zero-sum' logic and portray China as a responsible upstream actor. But unofficial voices tell a different story. 'India, which tries to control Pakistan with water cuts, now fears China might do the same,' one commentator quipped. Victor Gao, vice president of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, was even more blunt: 'If India uses rivers as leverage against Pakistan, it should be prepared for reciprocity.' These comparisons are not new. Over a decade ago, Ye Hailin, director of Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that if India expects restraint from China as an upstream power, it should accept the same standard when Pakistan, downstream of India, makes similar demands. A more recent commentary on Baidu put it less diplomatically: 'Just a month ago, before the official exchange of fire between India and Pakistan, India took the initiative, cutting off water at will, then releasing it, showing little regard for the lives of Pakistani civilians. Faced with a neighbour like India, we [China] must abandon any moral restraint. We should move at our own pace, neither seeking to dominate nor to appease. Stand firm, when necessary, fight when required. Otherwise, we risk being the ones who suffer.' Also read: India's 'triple anxiety'—What Chinese media sees in Jaishankar's Beijing visit Water, border, and politics of control On Chinese social media, the discussion turned openly strategic. One user noted a road built inside the dam tunnels, ostensibly for maintenance, that leads directly to Arunachal Pradesh. 'In peacetime, it is for power,' the user wrote. 'In wartime? I do not need to spell it out.' This is infrastructure envisioned not just as an economic backbone, but as a military asset, both shield and sword. This strategic undertone also helps explain Beijing's long-standing refusal to enter a hydrological data-sharing agreement with India. As Hu Suisheng, senior fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, once noted, such cooperation would implicitly acknowledge India's border position—especially over Arunachal Pradesh, which China disputes. Despite the rhetoric of regional uplift and mutual benefit, India's concerns have been routinely dismissed by the Chinese official narrative and online discourse. There has been no consultation, only unilateral action over a transboundary river system that feeds millions downstream. Beneath China's rhetoric of development flows a deeper current, shaped by quiet force and strategic intent. This is not merely the redirection of water but the rewriting of the regional order through determination and power. For New Delhi, this dam raises alarm. For Beijing, this is advantageous on multiple fronts. Cooperation may be the language used, but the headwaters of the Brahmaputra speak of dominance and unilateral action, not dialogue or mutual benefit. Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
