Latest news with #militaryescalation
The Independent
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Indian official blames ‘political constraints' for loss of jets during clash with Pakistan
Indian 'political constraints' are to be blamed for the loss of fighter jets during the air force's operation in Pakistan, an Indian military attache to Indonesia has said, in remarks that have triggered a political row in the country. In a seminar at an Indonesian university analysing the India -Pakistan conflict, Captain Shiv Kumar said the Indian government did not permit strikes on Pakistani military bases at the start of the hostilities between the two countries, claiming this allowed Islamabad to shoot down an unspecified number of fighter jets. 'I may not agree with him that India lost so many aircraft. But I do agree that we did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishments and their air defences,' Captain Kumar of the Indian Navy said at the Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma on 10 June. New Delhi and Islamabad stepped back from the brink of all-out war on 7 May following their worst military escalation in decades, during which both sides fired drone and missile strikes in a four-day showdown while border forces fired artillery at the border, killing dozens of people. The conflict followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on 22 April that led to the deaths of 26 civilians, the worst attack on civilians in decades in the region. India called it an act of terrorism and blamed Pakistan-based militants for the attack, while Pakistan denied any involvement. Captain Kumar's comments follow weeks in which the Indian government formally refused to admit any of its jets had been shot down. India's chief of defence staff Anil Chauhan eventually admitted India suffered some losses but declined to give figures or details on how the planes came down. He blamed the loss of jets on tactical mistakes, which he claimed were then rectified during subsequent days. 'What is important is that... not the jet being downed, but why they were being downed,' he told Bloomberg TV on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May. Captain Kumar's latest comments represent the clearest explanation yet from the Indian side about why it lost fighter jets during the conflict, amid scrutiny of prime minister Narendra Modi's government from opposition parties at home. The opposition Congress party doubled down on its criticism of the government, using the Indonesian official's comment to argue that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had "misled" the country. 'There are several unanswered questions related to the untimely ceasefire – especially when India actually had an upper hand in the escalation,' it said. It prompted the Indian embassy in Indonesia to issue a clarification on Captain Kumar's remarks, saying his statements were misrepresented. 'His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker,' it said on X. 'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood.' During the speech at the university, Captain Kumar said India reassessed its policy after suffering initial losses and went about targeting Pakistan's air defences, allowing New Delhi to hit several military targets. He said it was the Indian strikes on airbases that led to Pakistan calling for a ceasefire. The intense fighting came to a halt after the two governments announced a ceasefire following talks between their national security advisers. US president Donald Trump claimed credit for brokering the truce but Indian officials quietly rowed back against the idea that his intervention was pivotal.
Arab News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Middle East must prioritize diplomacy over conflict
The Middle East stands at a crossroads as tensions between Iran and Israel escalate, marked by the recent Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile barrages. This exchange signaled more than a military skirmish; it heralds a transformative phase in regional geopolitics, challenging the balance of power and raising urgent questions about stability. This article explores the conflict's dynamics, its regional and global implications, and proposes a path toward diplomacy and coexistence, drawing on historical insights and balanced perspectives. The conflict's latest chapter began with Israel's targeted strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, a move that signaled a bold escalation in its strategy against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's vast geography allows it to disperse strategic assets, complicating defense but enabling resilience. Israel, conversely, benefits from compact, fortified defenses but faces vulnerabilities due to its concentrated infrastructure. Iran's missile response showcased its capacity to project power, underscoring a rebalanced military equation. Such tit-for-tat attacks risks spiraling into broader conflict, with significant human and economic costs. Israel's economy, for instance, faces daily losses estimated at half a billion dollars during intense operations. While both sides demonstrate military prowess, escalation threatens regional stability, underscoring the need for de-escalation to prevent further devastation. The 12-day conflict exposed strategic disarray in Israel and the US. In Israel, public support for the military action against Iran was strong, with 82 percent of its Jewish citizens backing the operations, according to polls. Yet, 70 percent of respondents, including 88 percent of Palestinian citizens, expressed concern over the war's economic and social toll, reflecting a nuanced public sentiment. In the US, political divisions complicated the response. A CNN poll indicated 56 percent of Americans opposed its strikes on Iran, with 60 percent fearing heightened threats to US security. Democrats (88 percent) and independents (60 percent) largely opposed military action, while Republicans (82 percent) generally supported it. This lack of consensus weakens coordinated policy, amplifying regional uncertainty. Escalation threatens regional stability, underscoring the need for de-escalation to prevent further devastation Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed Saudi Arabia offers a counterpoint, advocating for stability through diplomacy. Recognizing that military solutions, such as destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, could ignite further chaos, the Kingdom prioritizes regional alliances and dialogue. This approach contrasts with Israel's reliance on force under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose strategy intertwines national security with political survival amid domestic challenges. George Modelski's long cycle theory provides context, framing global leadership as cyclical, with hegemonic powers rising and declining over roughly 100-year periods. The US, the current hegemon arguably since 1914, faces declining influence as challengers emerge. This shift influences Middle Eastern dynamics, where Iran and Israel vie for regional dominance amid a multipolar global order. Similarly, Ibn Khaldun's 14th-century cyclical theory likens states to living organisms, rising through triumph and declining through internal decay. In this conflict, Iran's resilience and Israel's vulnerabilities reflect these cycles, suggesting that internal cohesion and strategic foresight will determine their trajectories. The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities tested the regime's resilience. Bolstered by national identity and complex ethnic ties, Iran differs from Iraq's post-2003 collapse. The regime's durability suggests that external pressure alone is unlikely to topple it. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta has warned that targeting Iran risks a regional war, citing Iraq's invasion as a cautionary tale. Iran's response could ultimately escalate tensions, potentially unifying its factions around a nuclear agenda. Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard, notes that while Iran's conventional military was weakened by the sustained Israeli strikes, the nuclear program's long-term setback is limited. Hard-liners advocating for a bomb may now gain influence, diminishing prospects for negotiated enrichment limits. Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations theory frames Western dominance as rooted in organized violence; a lens critics argue justifies aggression against the Islamic world. The West's history of colonial exploitation and modern conflicts, from Iraq to Palestine, fuels regional distrust. Media exposure of the limited Gaza aid and continued arms support for Israel despite global protests reinforces this narrative. While Western dissent exists, its impact remains limited, underscoring the challenge of altering entrenched policies. Saudi Arabia's model of coexistence offers a blueprint, emphasizing cooperative frameworks to ease tensions Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed In the Arab world, a nihilistic outlook attributing setbacks to external conspiracies often overshadows internal governance failures. Overcoming this requires embracing justice and strategic management to build resilient societies. The Middle East's future hinges on prioritizing diplomacy over conflict. Historical interventions, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrate that military victories are fleeting and destabilizing. Saudi Arabia's model of coexistence offers a blueprint, emphasizing cooperative frameworks to ease tensions. Addressing humanitarian crises, such as Gaza's plight, is critical to reducing regional friction. Israel must reassess its reliance on force, while Iran should engage in good-faith negotiations to reintegrate globally. A collective pause in hostilities on all fronts could pave the way for dialogue, fostering a new Middle Eastern order rooted in mutual respect. The Arab world must counter defeatist narratives by focusing on internal strengths, justice, governance and resource security. As the adage warns, 'when nations change, guard your head.' Strategic caution, including securing food, water and energy, is essential amid transformative shifts. The Iranian-Israeli conflict marks a pivotal moment for the Middle East, where competing visions of security and stability collide. While Israel and the US lean on military might, Saudi Arabia's diplomatic approach offers a viable alternative. History warns that wars complicate rather than resolve disputes. By embracing dialogue and addressing internal weaknesses, regional powers can forge a stable, cooperative future, break the cycle of conflict and build a new era of coexistence. • Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed is an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona's College of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, in the Department of Biosystems Engineering. He is the author of 'Agricultural Development Strategies: The Saudi Experience.' X: @TurkiFRasheed
Malay Mail
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a new era of escalation — Peter Apps
WASHINGTON, June 27 — As India's defence chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub 'the four-day war', he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again. It was a stark and perhaps counterintuitive conclusion: the four-day military exchange, primarily through missiles and drones, appears to have been among the most serious in history between nuclear-armed nations. Indeed, reports from both sides suggest it took a direct intervention from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt an escalating exchange of drones and rockets. Speaking to a Reuters colleague in Singapore, however, Indian Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the 'nuclear threshold', describing a 'lot of messaging' from both sides. 'A new space for conventional operations has been created and I think that is the new norm,' he said, vowing that New Delhi would continue to respond militarily to any militant attacks on India suspected to have originated from Pakistan. How stable that 'space' might be and how great the risk of escalation for now remains unclear. However, there have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several already volatile global stand-offs over the past two months. As well as the 'four-day' war between India and Pakistan last month, recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their '12-day war'. It ended this week with a US-brokered ceasefire after Washington joined the fray with massive air strikes on Tehran's underground nuclear sites. Despite years of confrontation, Israel and Iran had not struck each other's territory directly until last year, while successive US administrations have held back from similar steps. As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalised at speed — whether that means 'just' an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle. More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation. This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organised drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin's nuclear deterrent. All of that is a far cry from the original Cold War, in which it was often assumed that any serious military clash — particularly involving nuclear forces or the nations that possessed them — might rapidly escalate beyond the point of no return. But it does bring with it new risks of escalation. Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all — that between the US and China, with US officials saying Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict. As US President Donald Trump headed to Europe this week for the annual Nato summit, just after bombing Iran, it was clear his administration hopes such a potent show of force might be enough to deter Beijing in particular from pushing its luck. 'American deterrence is back,' US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing the morning after the air strikes took place. Iran's initial response of drones and missiles fired at a US air base in Qatar — with forewarning to the US that the fusillade was coming — appeared deliberately moderate to avoid further escalation. Addressing senators at their confirmation hearing on Tuesday, America's next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing. Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its 'strategic contraction'. Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: 'If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it.' After B-2 bombers struck Tehran's nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump headed to Europe, warning adversaries from Beijing to Moscow that US deterrence is back. — Reuters pic Long arm of America On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran's deepest-buried nuclear bunkers — having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected — will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing. Nor will Trump's not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide. None of America's adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 — now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 — has no foreign equal. Both are designed to penetrate highly sophisticated air defences, although how well they would perform against cutting-edge Russian or Chinese systems would only be revealed in an actual conflict. China's effort at building something similar, the H-2, has been trailed in Chinese media for years — and US officials say Beijing is striving hard to make it work. Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighters with some stealth abilities, but none have the range or carrying capacity to target the deepest Western leadership or weapons bunkers with conventional munitions. As a result, any Chinese or Russian long-range strikes — whether conventional or nuclear — would have to be launched with missiles that could be detected in advance. Even without launching such weapons, however, nuclear powers have their own tools to deliver threats. An analysis of the India-Pakistan 'four-day war' in May done by the Stimson Centre suggested that as Indian strikes became more serious on the third day of the war, Pakistan might have taken similar, deliberately visible steps to ready its nuclear arsenal to grab US attention and help conclude the conflict. Indian newspapers have reported that a desperate Pakistan did indeed put pressure on the US to encourage India to stop, as damage to its forces was becoming increasingly serious, and threatening the government. Pakistan denies that — but one of its most senior officers was keen to stress that any repeat of India's strikes would bring atomic risk. 'Nothing happened this time,' said the chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, also speaking to Reuters at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore. 'But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time.' For now, both sides have pulled back troops from the border — while India appears determined to use longer term strategies to undermine its neighbour, including withdrawing from a treaty controlling the water supplies of the Indus River, which Indian Prime Minister Modi said he now intends to dam. Pakistani officials have warned that could be another act of war. Drones and deterrence Making sure Iran never obtains the leverage of a working atomic bomb, of course, was a key point of the US and Israeli air strikes. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that the dangers of a government so hostile to Israel obtaining such a weapon would always be intolerable. For years, government and private sector analysts had predicted Iran might respond to an assault on its nuclear facilities with attacks by its proxies across the Middle East, including on Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as using thousands of missiles, drones and attack craft to block international oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response — and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hezbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Tehran to largely stand down. What that means longer term is another question. Flying to the Netherlands on Tuesday for the Nato summit, Trump appeared to be offering Iran under its current Shi'ite Muslim clerical rulers a future as a 'major trading nation' providing they abandoned their atomic program. The Trump administration is also talking up the success of its Operation ROUGH RIDER against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, selected as the new head of US Central Command, told senators the US military had bombed the Houthis for 50 days before a deal was struck in which the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US and other international shipping in the Red Sea. But Cooper also noted that like other militant groups in the Middle East, the Houthis were becoming increasingly successful in building underground bases out of the reach of smaller US weapons, as well as using unmanned systems to sometimes overwhelm their enemies. 'The nature and character of warfare is changing before our very eyes,' he said. Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran respectively for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks. According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched. Israel's use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations wondering what such an attack might look like. Its drones were smuggled into Iran and in some cases assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes as they slept in the small hours of the morning on the first day of the campaign. As they met in The Hague this week for their annual summit, Nato officials and commanders will have considered what they must do to build their own defences to ensure they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack. Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same. — Reuters *This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Arab News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a new era of escalation
WASHINGTON: As India's defense chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub 'the four-day war', he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again. It was a stark and perhaps counterintuitive conclusion: the four-day military exchange, primarily through missiles and drones, appears to have been among the most serious in history between nuclear-armed nations. Indeed, reports from both sides suggest it took a direct intervention from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt an escalating exchange of drones and rockets. Speaking to a Reuters colleague in Singapore, however, Indian Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the 'nuclear threshold', describing a 'lot of messaging' from both sides. 'A new space for conventional operations has been created and I think that is the new norm,' he said, vowing that New Delhi would continue to respond militarily to any militant attacks on India suspected to have originated from Pakistan. How stable that 'space' might be and how great the risk of escalation for now remains unclear. However, there have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several already volatile global stand-offs over the past two months. As well as the 'four-day' war between India and Pakistan last month, recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their '12-day war'. It ended this week with a US-brokered ceasefire after Washington joined the fray with massive air strikes on Tehran's underground nuclear sites. Despite years of confrontation, Israel and Iran had not struck each other's territory directly until last year, while successive US administrations have held back from similar steps. As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalized at speed – whether that means 'just' an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle. More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation. This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organized drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin's nuclear deterrent. All of that is a far cry from the original Cold War, in which it was often assumed that any serious military clash – particularly involving nuclear forces or the nations that possessed them – might rapidly escalate beyond the point of no return. But it does bring with it new risks of escalation. Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all — that between the US and China, with US officials saying Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict. As US President Donald Trump headed to Europe this week for the annual NATO summit, just after bombing Iran, it was clear his administration hopes such a potent show of force might be enough to deter Beijing in particular from pushing its luck. 'American deterrence is back,' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing the morning after the air strikes took place. Iran's initial response of drones and missiles fired at a US air base in Qatar – with forewarning to the US that the fusillade was coming – appeared deliberately moderate to avoid further escalation. Addressing senators at their confirmation hearing on Tuesday, America's next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing. Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its 'strategic contraction'. Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: 'If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it.' LONG ARM OF AMERICA On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran's deepest-buried nuclear bunkers — having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected — will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing. Nor will Trump's not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide. None of America's adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 – now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 – has no foreign equal. Both are designed to penetrate highly sophisticated air defenses, although how well they would perform against cutting-edge Russian or Chinese systems would only be revealed in an actual conflict. China's effort at building something similar, the H-2, has been trailed in Chinese media for years – and US officials say Beijing is striving hard to make it work. Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighters with some stealth abilities, but none have the range or carrying capacity to target the deepest Western leadership or weapon bunkers with conventional munitions. As a result, any Chinese or Russian long-range strikes – whether conventional or nuclear – would have to be launched with missiles that could be detected in advance. Even without launching such weapons, however, nuclear powers have their own tools to deliver threats. An analysis of the India-Pakistan 'four-day war' in May done by the Stimson Center suggested that as Indian strikes became more serious on the third day of the war, Pakistan might have taken similar, deliberately visible steps to ready its nuclear arsenal to grab US attention and help conclude the conflict. Indian newspapers have reported that a desperate Pakistan did indeed put pressure on the US to encourage India to stop, as damage to its forces was becoming increasingly serious, and threatening the government. Pakistan denies that – but one of its most senior officers was keen to stress that any repeat of India's strikes would bring atomic risk. 'Nothing happened this time,' said the chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, also speaking to Reuters at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore. 'But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time.' For now, both sides have pulled back troops from the border – while India appears determined to use longer term strategies to undermine its neighbor, including withdrawing from a treaty controlling the water supplies of the Indus River, which Indian Prime Minister Modi said he now intends to dam. Pakistani officials have warned that could be another act of war. DRONES AND DETERRENCE Making sure Iran never obtains the leverage of a working atomic bomb, of course, was a key point of the US and Israeli air strikes. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that the dangers of a government so hostile to Israel obtaining such a weapon would always be intolerable. For years, government and private sector analysts had predicted Iran might respond to an assault on its nuclear facilities with attacks by its proxies across the Middle East, including on Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as using thousands of missiles, drones and attack craft to block international oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response – and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hezbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Tehran to largely stand down. What that means in longer term is another question. Flying to the Netherlands on Tuesday for the NATO summit, Trump appeared to be offering Iran under its current Shiite Muslim clerical rulers a future as a 'major trading nation' providing they abandoned their atomic program. The Trump administration is also talking up the success of its Operation ROUGH RIDER against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, selected as the new head of US Central Command, told senators the US military had bombed the Houthis for 50 days before a deal was struck in which the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US and other international shipping in the Red Sea. But Cooper also noted that like other militant groups in the Middle East, the Houthis were becoming increasingly successful in building underground bases out of the reach of smaller US weapons, as well as using unmanned systems to sometimes overwhelm their enemies. 'The nature and character of warfare is changing before our very eyes,' he said. Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran respectively for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks. According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched. Israel's use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations wondering what such an attack might look like. Its drones were smuggled into Iran and in some cases assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes as they slept in the small hours of the morning on the first day of the campaign. As they meet in The Hague this week for their annual summit, NATO officials and commanders will have considered what they must do to build their own defenses to ensure they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack. Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same.
Asharq Al-Awsat
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a New Era of Escalation
By Peter Apps As India's defense chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub 'the four-day war', he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again. It was a stark and perhaps counterintuitive conclusion: the four-day military exchange, primarily through missiles and drones, appears to have been among the most serious in history between nuclear-armed nations. Indeed, reports from both sides suggest it took a direct intervention from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt an escalating exchange of drones and rockets. Speaking to a Reuters colleague in Singapore, however, Indian Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the 'nuclear threshold', describing a 'lot of messaging' from both sides. 'A new space for conventional operations has been created and I think that is the new norm,' he said, vowing that New Delhi would continue to respond militarily to any militant attacks on India suspected to have originated from Pakistan. How stable that "space" might be and how great the risk of escalation for now remains unclear. However, there have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several already volatile global stand-offs over the past two months. As well as the 'four-day' war between India and Pakistan last month, recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their '12-day war'. It ended this week with a US-brokered ceasefire after Washington joined the fray with massive air strikes on Tehran's underground nuclear sites. Despite years of confrontation, Israel and Iran had not struck each other's territory directly until last year, while successive US administrations have held back from similar steps. As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalized at speed – whether that means 'just' an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle. More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation. This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organized drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin's nuclear deterrent. All of that is a far cry from the original Cold War, in which it was often assumed that any serious military clash – particularly involving nuclear forces or the nations that possessed them – might rapidly escalate beyond the point of no return. But it does bring with it new risks of escalation. Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all - that between the US and China, with US officials saying Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict. As US President Donald Trump headed to Europe this week for the annual NATO summit, just after bombing Iran, it was clear his administration hopes such a potent show of force might be enough to deter Beijing in particular from pushing its luck. 'American deterrence is back,' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing the morning after the air strikes took place. Iran's initial response of drones and missiles fired at a US air base in Qatar – with forewarning to the US that the fusillade was coming – appeared deliberately moderate to avoid further escalation. Addressing senators at their confirmation hearing on Tuesday, America's next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing. Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its 'strategic contraction'. Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: "If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it." LONG ARM OF AMERICA On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran's deepest-buried nuclear bunkers - having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected - will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing. Nor will Trump's not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide. None of America's adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 – now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 – has no foreign equal. Both are designed to penetrate highly sophisticated air defenses, although how well they would perform against cutting-edge Russian or Chinese systems would only be revealed in an actual conflict. China's effort at building something similar, the H-2, has been trailed in Chinese media for years – and US officials say Beijing is striving hard to make it work. Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighters with some stealth abilities, but none have the range or carrying capacity to target the deepest Western leadership or weapons bunkers with conventional munitions. As a result, any Chinese or Russian long-range strikes – whether conventional or nuclear – would have to be launched with missiles that could be detected in advance. Even without launching such weapons, however, nuclear powers have their own tools to deliver threats. An analysis of the India-Pakistan 'four-day war' in May done by the Stimson Center suggested that as Indian strikes became more serious on the third day of the war, Pakistan might have taken similar, deliberately visible steps to ready its nuclear arsenal to grab US attention and help conclude the conflict. Indian newspapers have reported that a desperate Pakistan did indeed put pressure on the US to encourage India to stop, as damage to its forces was becoming increasingly serious, and threatening the government. Pakistan denies that – but one of its most senior officers was keen to stress that any repeat of India's strikes would bring atomic risk. "Nothing happened this time," said the chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, also speaking to Reuters at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore. "But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time." For now, both sides have pulled back troops from the border – while India appears determined to use longer term strategies to undermine its neighbor, including withdrawing from a treaty controlling the water supplies of the Indus River, which Indian Prime Minister Modi said he now intends to dam. Pakistani officials have warned that could be another act of war. DRONES AND DETERRENCE Making sure Iran never obtains the leverage of a working atomic bomb, of course, was a key point of the US and Israeli air strikes. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that the dangers of a government so hostile to Israel obtaining such a weapon would always be intolerable. For years, government and private sector analysts had predicted Iran might respond to an assault on its nuclear facilities with attacks by its proxies across the Middle East, including on Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as using thousands of missiles, drones and attack craft to block international oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response – and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hezbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Tehran to largely stand down. What that means longer term is another question. Flying to the Netherlands on Tuesday for the NATO summit, Trump appeared to be offering Iran under its current Shi'ite Muslim clerical rulers a future as a 'major trading nation' providing they abandoned their atomic program. The Trump administration is also talking up the success of its Operation ROUGH RIDER against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, selected as the new head of US Central Command, told senators the US military had bombed the Houthis for 50 days before a deal was struck in which the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US and other international shipping in the Red Sea. But Cooper also noted that like other militant groups in the Middle East, the Houthis were becoming increasingly successful in building underground bases out of the reach of smaller US weapons, as well as using unmanned systems to sometimes overwhelm their enemies. 'The nature and character of warfare is changing before our very eyes,' he said. Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran respectively for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks. According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched. Israel's use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations wondering what such an attack might look like. Its drones were smuggled into Iran and in some cases assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes as they slept in the small hours of the morning on the first day of the campaign. As they met in The Hague this week for their annual summit, NATO officials and commanders will have considered what they must do to build their own defenses to ensure they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack. Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same.
