Latest news with #nuclearstandoff
Yahoo
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The start of the post-war game: Iran has five weeks to create new nuclear deal
Could Europe's August deadline be the most important date in the decades-long nuclear standoff, or will Iran face more sanctions? Israel's and the US's historic attack on Iran between June 13 and June 24 set back the Islamic Republic's nuclear program by around two years, but the long-term direction of the nuclear standoff will be decided by diplomacy, with the next big meeting between Tehran and the E3 (UK, France, and Germany) set for Friday. After this summit, the Islamic Republic will have approximately five weeks until the E3 deadline – the end of August – before these countries start the process of 'snapping back' the global sanctions against Iran. While the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal had many holes, one of its positives was the ability it gave any of the E3 countries to activate the global sanctions snapback mechanism with no possibility for Russia or China to veto it. That ability to snapback sanctions expires on October 18. Hence, the E3 wants to start the UN's bureaucratic process several weeks before. America is out of this round of talks as Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not trust it after US President Donald Trump paraded around his accomplishments of 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear program. Also, Khamenei does not want to agree to zero nuclear enrichment, something which his Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy spokespeople continue to declare as loudly as they can. What does Iran want with new deal? So what is Khamenei's game? Having been bludgeoned the worst in his 36-year history as Iran's ayatollah, is he really aching for more Israeli and US airstrikes? That is a possibility, as Khamenei misjudged how much leverage he had over Israel and the US last month, and as Iranian pride could blind it to what would be its most rational course at this moment. But there is another alternative; in this latest nuclear dance, there is far more than meets the eye. The truth is that after Israel's and the US's airstrikes on Iran's nuclear program, the snapback conflict is much less decisive than it once was. Let's say that Iran sticks to refusing to make concessions on nuclear enrichment, the E3 then invokes the global sanctions snapback, and in response, Tehran pulls out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The main question would still be: Is Iran, in fact, moving again toward a nuclear program or not? And if it is, is it moving at a pace that could reduce the countdown to a nuclear weapon to under a year or shorter? Or, rather, is its rebuilding happening much more gradually, in a way that puts the danger far off into the future? So far, a month after the attacks, it appears that Iran is still digging through the substantial rubble left over from the Israeli and American attacks and still does not know where its nuclear program stands, other than embarrassingly admitting serious damage. If it takes even several months to dig through all the debris, then the nuclear threat remains around two years away. If, after those several months, Iran starts to rebuild some centrifuges and to enrich some uranium, but does not start rebuilding any of the weapons group activities, then it will still remain at least a year away, according to most estimates. That estimate will not shrink until it begins restoring weapons group activities. The West may be worried that it is blind regarding Iran's nuclear program in terms of IAEA inspector coverage, but it has been blind at various levels since 2021, and this did not stop the Mossad and IDF intelligence from accurately targeting dozens of nuclear sites and over a dozen nuclear scientists. If Israel could carry out that kind of surveillance before, it can do it again. Khamenei might be just fine with such a situation. The Islamic Republic would take a hit economically, but its economy is already in very bad shape. And Russia, China, and some others would still find ways to circumvent sanctions to keep Iran afloat. Back in the 2010-2015 era, when Russia and China supported sanctions in a more real way, they were both angry at Iran for various bilateral insults, and they were also weaker and more dependent on the US and the West than they are today. So it is possible that diplomacy will fail, both sides will exercise their worst diplomatic threats, and yet Israel and the US may refrain from attacking because Iran could quietly stay away from a nuclear red line, which might force the hands of Jerusalem and Washington again. Alternatively, right before the August 29 deadline, or right before the real deadline of October 18, Iran may agree to a new historic deal with real restrictions on nuclear enrichment and some kind of face-saving gestures toward it. In that case, all of the current Iranian statements will be subsequently exposed as posturing to try to get the best deal it can before settling for a deal that avoids global sanctions. So August 29 could turn out to be the most important turning point of the decades-long nuclear standoff, or it could be an overblown deadline with much less impact than it might have had if Israel's and the US's June strikes had not altered the reality that all of the sides are looking at.
South China Morning Post
25-05-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
How India and Pakistan are preparing for the next conflict
Along the border separating India from Pakistan , the aftermath of five days of aerial combat hangs in the air, thick with uncertainty. The conflict's true legacy may be a dangerous new normal, analysts say – one where escalation is only ever a provocation away. New Delhi maintains that Operation Sindoor – launched in response to a deadly terrorist attack in disputed Kashmir in April that it blamed on Islamabad – is far from concluded, hinting at the possibility of further punitive actions. Pakistan, meanwhile, has promoted its army chief of staff , Asim Munir, to field marshal for what it regards as a successful defence of the nation between May 7 and 11. Officials in Islamabad insist the country stands ready for renewed clashes, but caution that any escalation risks plunging both nations into a nuclear-armed stand-off. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed not to succumb to what he calls Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail'. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi salutes servicemen at an air base in Punjab on May 13. Photo: Indian Press Information Bureau/EPA-EFE Any future confrontation could unfold in myriad ways, analysts say, shaped by the evolving strengths and vulnerabilities of both militaries.
Arab News
14-05-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Latest Pakistan-India conflict cost both nations $1 billion an hour combined — economist
ISLAMABAD: A four-day military standoff between arch foes Pakistan and India last week cost both nations an estimated $1 billion an hour combined, a leading economist said this week, as a finance adviser to the government argued the conflict would have 'minimal fiscal impact' for Islamabad. Tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan escalated after a deadly April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir that India blamed on Pakistan, which denied involvement. On the night of May 6/7, India struck multiple sites in Pakistan that it said was 'terrorist infrastructure' and Pakistan retaliated, downing five Indian fighter jets. Over the next four days, the two nuclear-armed rivals engaged in the worst fighting between them since 1999, pounding each other with fighter aircraft, missiles, drones and artillery fire, until a ceasefire was brokered by the US and other nations on Saturday. The military confrontation had in the meantime disrupted stock markets, led to airspace closures, escalated defense spending and caused economic losses amounting to billions of dollars. Asked about the economic cost of the conflict, Farrukh Saleem, a prominent Pakistani political scientist and economist, said he estimated the 87-hour confrontation cost 'about a billion dollars an hour for both countries put together,' breaking it down into estimated costs borne by either of the neighbors. 'India has a much larger army, much larger air force. Once it starts moving, once it starts mobilizing its troops, it costs about, let's say, 12 to 20 times more for the Indian army to mobilize itself as compared to the Pakistani army,' Saleem said. 'So, when I say a billion dollars an hour, you're probably looking at 20 percent of that being incurred by Pakistan and a good 80-85 percent by India.' The investment in war was also different, Saleem said, comparing India's French Rafale fighter jets to Pakistan's Chinese J-17 Thunders and J-10cs. 'You look at Rafale, for instance, which is the French aircraft, with its paraphernalia, it's about $240 million apiece. India has a $16 billion investment into Rafales,' Saleem explained. 'On the other hand, Pakistan Air Force has gone for cheaper platforms. They are either JF-17 Thunders or J-10Cs and they're like $20-25 million.' In terms of missiles, the Indian ballistic missile BrahMos is $3 million apiece. 'If you're firing, let's say, 8 to 10 [missiles] a day, that's 10 times $3 million, that's $30 million in one day,' the economist said. Arab News reached out to the defense ministry and Pakistan's military media wing for official estimates of the latest conflict's cost but did not receive a response. But Khurram Schehzad, an adviser to the Pakistani finance minister, said the fiscal impact on Pakistan would not be large. 'The current standoff with India won't have a large fiscal impact on Pakistan,' he told Arab News. 'It can be managed within the current fiscal space, with no need for a new economic assessment.' Schehzad said Pakistan's economic resilience was evident from a new record at the Pakistan Stock Exchange, which on Monday posted the highest single-day gain in over 26 years, surging by 10,123 points or 9.45 percent, significantly surpassing the losses recorded last week following the Indian strikes. 'Pakistan's measured and responsible response, in both its narrative and actions on the ground, has caught investors' eye, alongside the potential positive spillover effect of a possible settlement in the US-China tariff issue,' he added. But economists say the recent military standoff has already inflicted heavy financial losses on both countries. Saleem said daily economic losses from the conflict, including stock market declines and other impacts, amounted to around $20 billion per day, with Pakistan losing up to $4 billion and India as much as $16 billion a day. 'I have tried to put things together. If this conflict had continued for 30 days, my estimate is that both countries would have lost a good $500 billion, with over a $400 billion loss for the Indian economy,' he said. Dr. Ali Salman, Executive Director of the Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME), an Islamabad-based independent economic policy think tank, said the conflict had disrupted economic sentiment and affected investor confidence. 'Certainly, investors would not like to come into countries, whether India or Pakistan, if they are in a constant war-like situation,' he told Arab News. He also warned that a prolonged conflict would push people in both countries deeper into poverty, noting that one in four poor people in the world lived in India or Pakistan. 'We have 27 percent of the world's poor in just these two countries, and I believe that we need to come out of the military contest and go into an economic contest,' he added. Another economist, Shakeel Ramay, said every war had an economic dimension and this conflict too had imposed a heavy financial burden on both economies. 'Pakistan's military expenditure over the four-day conflict, including jets, artillery and missiles, amounted to around $1.5 billion from the national budget, by my estimate,' he said, a significant cost as the country walked a tricky path to economic recovery bolstered by an $7 billion IMF bailout. 'The good thing is our economic activities continued without interruption, retail markets operated smoothly with no shortages and trade routes remained open, all indicating that the direct economic cost was minimal,' Ramay added.
