Indian investigators now claim all Pahalgam attackers were Pakistan nationals
DELHI — Indian investigators say all three militants involved in April's deadly attack on tourists near Indian-administered Kashmir's Pahalgam town were Pakistani nationals from the UN-proscribed militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Police had earlier issued sketches of three men saying two were Pakistanis while one was a local man.
The claim by the National Investigative Agency (NIA) came after it arrested two local men for allegedly sheltering the attackers. Pakistan has not commented on these claims.
It had earlier rejected involvement in the attacks in which 26 people were killed. The attack in Baisaran, a popular tourist spot, had brought India and Pakistan on the brink of war.
The nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors, who have fought three wars over Kashmir, claim the region in full but administer it in parts.
The killings on 22 April had sent shockwaves through India and the case was handed over to NIA, a federal investigative agency.Security forces had launched a major search and combing operation in the region and thousands were detained across Kashmir for questioning.The three attackers are, however, yet to be caught.In a statement on Sunday, NIA said the arrested men had "knowingly harboured the three armed terrorists at a seasonal dhol (hut)" before the 22 April attack. It did not give details of when the arrests took place and as those arrested are in custody, they have not made any statement.A little-known group, The Resistance Front (TRF), allied with the Lashkar-e-Taiba, had initially said it was behind the attack but later disowned it.Within days of the attack, India revoked the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, a long-standing water-sharing agreement with Pakistan. Islamabad, in turn, withdrew from the 1972 Simla agreement that sought to settle differences through bilateral negotiations and peaceful means.India followed it by launching air and missile attacks on 7 May, targeting sites it called "terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir".Pakistan denied the claim that these were terror camps and also responded by firing missiles and deploying drones into Indian territory.The hostilities between the two countries continued until 10 May when US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire. — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump ‘still interested' in Iran diplomacy: White House
Donald Trump thinks Iranians should overthrow their government if it refuses to negotiate on its nuclear program, but the US president is 'still interested' in diplomacy, the White House said Monday. 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way, why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?' Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Will the Iranian government surrender?
As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, a seismic shift has emerged in the rhetoric of world leaders and the trajectory of the conflict. US President Donald Trump issued a stark and sweeping demand: Iran must surrender unconditionally. The demand, made publicly during a press conference at the White House, draws on growing speculation that the Iranian government may be nearing the end of its capacity to fight a prolonged war. That speculation has only intensified following a major escalation: the United States has now formally joined Israel in direct military action, launching coordinated airstrikes against three of Iran's most sensitive and fortified nuclear sites – Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The attack marks a significant turning point in the conflict, signaling a unified Western resolve to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure and weaken its military-industrial backbone. Israel, for its part, has gained a clear edge in the ongoing hostilities. Within days of the initial exchange of fire, the Israeli military had not only asserted aerial superiority but also inflicted severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure. Airstrikes have decimated command centers, missile stockpiles, and key nuclear sites that once stood at the heart of Iran's defense doctrine. The joint US-Israeli assault on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sent an unmistakable message: The international patience with Iran's nuclear ambitions has run out, and the gloves are off. More shockingly, several of Iran's top military leaders – figures considered irreplaceable by many analysts – have been killed in the campaign. The effectiveness of Israel's offensive, now bolstered by US involvement, has led some observers to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? And if so, will Iran's leadership actually surrender? In many wars, especially those that reach a point of severe imbalance, the conclusion comes not through negotiated settlements but through one-sided surrenders. This pattern of collapse is often followed by either a peace agreement, a political transition, or a complete restructuring of governance. The logic of war would suggest that Iran, overwhelmed by superior firepower, international isolation, and internal decay, should ultimately throw in the towel. But when it comes to the Islamic Republic, things are not so simple. For many reasons – political, psychological, and existential – Iran's government is unlikely to surrender. In fact, it is more probable that the leadership will choose to fight to the bitter end, even if the battlefield is reduced to shadows, bunkers, and ruins. One of the most significant reasons Iran's ruling elite will resist surrender is fear – fear of what might follow their collapse. Over the past decade, the Islamic Republic has been rocked by some of the largest, most sustained protest movements in its history. Millions of Iranians have poured into the streets demanding justice, economic reform, an end to corruption, and a complete dismantling of the clerical establishment. From the 2019 protests over fuel prices to the nationwide uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Iran's streets became a recurring theater of revolt. In such a climate of public anger and mistrust, the ruling class knows that any surrender could open the floodgates to retribution. If the government collapses, the Iranian people – or the transitional government that follows – may seek to hold top officials accountable. Crimes against humanity, corruption, human rights violations, and political repression could all come under scrutiny in a post-government Iran. The prospect of facing international tribunals or even domestic trials is enough to make surrender unthinkable for those currently in power. They understand that stepping down might not just mean the loss of office, but the loss of their freedom – or even their lives. Adding to this paranoia is the reality that there are few viable exit routes available to Iran's ruling elite. While some might think these are the places Iranian leaders can flee to – countries like Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba – these supposed sanctuaries are far from secure. Russia, embroiled in its own international isolation and economic decline, may not have the capacity or willingness to indefinitely host high-profile fugitives from Iran. Latin American nations, while sympathetic to anti-American governments, have their own political instabilities to contend with. Moreover, even if Iran's leaders do manage to flee, there's always the looming risk of extradition. If a new Iranian government emerges and establishes diplomatic ties with the West, it could easily demand the return of former officials to stand trial. Life in exile, then, would likely be a shaky and paranoid existence – not the dignified retirement that many political elites might envision for themselves. Faced with these bleak prospects, Iran's leadership may instead seek to cling to power by disappearing into the shadows. Rather than formally surrendering, the government could fracture into a loosely connected network of bunkers, loyalist militias, and underground command centers. From these hiding places, they could continue to rule – albeit weakly – over a disintegrating country. In such a scenario, the Iranian state would effectively become a ghost government, battered by war but still refusing to admit defeat. Israel, meanwhile, seems poised to continue its campaign of degrading Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. With air superiority already established, the Israeli Air Force can now operate with relative impunity over Iranian skies. Each passing day brings more missile strikes, more military targets reduced to rubble, and deeper damage to Iran's infrastructure. The addition of US firepower – especially the high-precision targeting of critical nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow – has amplified the scale and intensity of the assault. These coordinated strikes have not only crippled Iran's nuclear advancement but also served to isolate the regime further on the international stage. Iran's leaders are likely betting that this air war will remain limited in scope. They may believe that as long as the conflict does not descend into a ground war, they can survive the onslaught. Their strategy, it seems, is to endure, absorb the damage, and hope that international diplomacy or domestic resilience can offer them a way back from the brink. This is a gamble, of course – but one that similar governments have made before. The leadership may calculate that it is better to be weak but in power than to surrender and risk annihilation. A model they may be looking at is Hezbollah in 2025. Despite Israel's intensive air campaign that has severely damaged Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, command centers, and missile infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the group has not been eliminated. A weakened but still intact Hezbollah remains embedded within the Lebanese political and social structure, continuing to function as both a militia and a political actor. Iran's leaders may be drawing parallels from this outcome. Even after suffering immense military losses, Hezbollah endures – and that endurance might offer Iran a psychological and strategic template. The thinking may be that if Hezbollah can survive relentless Israeli assaults and retain some form of operational and political presence, then perhaps the Islamic Republic, even in a debilitated state, can also weather the storm and rebuild over time. But the comparison only goes so far. Unlike Hezbollah, Iran is a state – with embassies, a currency, critical infrastructure, and a deeply embedded security apparatus. The fall of Iran's central authority would unleash a level of chaos that Hezbollah never had to contend with. From separatist movements to tribal rivalries to economic collapse, the unraveling of Iran would be immense. This, too, informs the government's thinking. By continuing to fight, even in diminished form, they maintain a grip – however tenuous – on the direction of the country. Surrender, on the other hand, means handing the wheel to forces that may be hostile, chaotic, or revolutionary. In the end, Iran's government may very well continue to fight – not because it believes it can win, but because it might see surrender as worse. The government sees the future in stark terms: fight and possibly survive, or surrender and face oblivion. And given that calculus, the outcome appears inevitable. The Islamic Republic, like several similar governments before it, will most likely choose defiance over defeat, even if it means ruling over rubble. For now, the war grinds on. Missiles fall, airstrikes roar, and civilians brace for whatever comes next. The recent US-Israeli joint strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, yet the regime remains unbowed. Whether that refusal leads to prolonged devastation or a final reckoning remains to be seen. But one thing is increasingly clear: the Iranian government does not seem to be surrendering anytime soon.
Saudi Gazette
4 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
US defends Iran strikes at UN Council as Russia and China condemn action
NEW YORK — The United States and Israel on Sunday at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) strongly defended their military action targeting Iran's nuclear sites, saying the regime in Tehran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Their remarks came at the UN emergency meeting called by Iran in the wake of US-led strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday, prompting reactions from several UN member states. "The time finally came for the United States in the defence of its ally and in the defence of our own citizens and interests, to act decisively", Dorothy Shea, the US representative to the UN Security Council. "The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon", she stressed. Israel's envoy, in his remarks, praised the US for the targeted strikes on the Iranian facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, warning that a nuclear-armed Iran spelt danger to the world. "Make no mistake, the cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence, just as much for you as it would have been for us," Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Danny Danon said. The US military struck three sites in Iran early Sunday, entering into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's nuclear program in a gambit to weaken a longtime adversary said to be working towards a nuclear decision to directly involve the US comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment vowed retaliation for the US strikes on its nuclear facilities."The timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response will be decided by its armed forces", Amir Saeid Iravani, the permanent representative of Iran to the United Nations, told the UNSC, accusing Israel and the US of destroying key allies, Russia and China, strongly condemned the US military action. They proposed that the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle members are expected to respond by Monday night. However, a resolution must have at least nine votes and not be vetoed by the US, the UK, France, Russia or China to the session, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a peaceful solution and diplomacy, saying, 'We cannot – and must not – give up on peace.'He urged immediate and decisive action to halt the fighting and return to 'serious, sustained negotiations' on Iran's nuclear program. He called for talks to find a verifiable solution with full access by UN nuclear inspectors and a restoration of urging a return to diplomacy and a peaceful solution, Guterres stressed on Sunday that one path leads to wider war, while the other leads to de-escalation and dialogue. 'We know which path is right,' he said. — Euronews
