Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How CIA secretly triggered Sino-Indian war

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | November 26, 2025

From October 20 – November 21, 1962, a little-remembered conflict raged between China and India. The skirmish damaged India’s Non-Aligned Movement affiliation, firmly placing the country in the West’s orbit, while fomenting decades of hostility between the neighbouring countries. Only now are Beijing and New Delhi forging constructive relations, based on shared economic and political interests. A detailed academic investigation, ignored by the mainstream media, exposes how the war was a deliberate product of clandestine CIA meddling, specifically intended to further Anglo-American interests regionally.

In the years preceding the Sino-Indian War, tensions steadily brewed between China and India, in large part due to CIA machinations supporting Tibetan separatist forces. For example, in 1957, Tibetan rebels secretly trained on US soil were parachuted into the territory and inflicted major losses on Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army forces. The next year, these cloak-and-dagger efforts ratcheted significantly, with the agency airdropping weapons and supplies in Tibet to foment violent insurrection. By some estimates, up to 80,000 PLA soldiers were killed.

Mao Zedong was convinced that Tibetan revolutionaries, while ultimately US-sponsored, enjoyed a significant degree of support from India and used the country’s territory as a base of operations. These suspicions were significantly heightened by Tibet’s March 1959 uprising, which saw a vast outflow of refugees from the region to India, and the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama, their CIA-supported leader, by New Delhi. Weeks later, at a Chinese Communist Party politburo meeting, Mao declared a “counteroffensive against India’s anti-China activities.”

He called for official CPC communications to “sharply criticise” India’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru, stating Beijing “should not be afraid of making him feel agitated or of provoking a break with him,” and “we should carry the struggle through to the end.” For example, it was suggested that “Indian expansionists” be formally accused of acting “in collusion” with “British imperialists” to “intervene openly in China’s internal affairs, in the hope of taking over Tibet.” Mao implored, “we… should not avoid or circumvent this issue.”

Ironically, Nehru was then viewed with intense suspicion by the West due to his Non-Aligned commitment and broadly socialist economic policies. Thus, he could not be trusted to support covert Anglo-American initiatives targeting China. Meanwhile, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev considered Nehru an important prospective ally and was keen to maintain positive relations. Simultaneously, the Sino-Soviet Split, which commenced in February 1956 with Khrushchev’s notorious secret speech denouncing the rule of Joseph Stalin, was ever-deepening. Disagreements over India and Tibet only hastened the pair’s acrimonious divorce.

‘A weapon’

After months of official denunciations of Nehru’s policies toward Tibet, Beijing’s information war against India became physical in August 1959, with a series of violent clashes along the countries’ borders. Nehru immediately reached out to Moscow, pleading that they rein in their closest ally. This prompted a tense meeting in October 1959 between Khrushchev, his chief aides, and the CPC’s top leadership, at Mao’s official residence. Khrushchev belligerently asserted to his Chinese counterparts that their confrontations with New Delhi and unrest in Tibet were “your fault”.

The Soviet leader went on to caution about the importance of “preserving good relations” with Nehru and “[helping] him stay in power,” for if he was replaced, “who would be better than him?” Mao countered that India had “acted in Tibet as if it belonged to them,” and while Beijing also supported Nehru, “in the question of Tibet, we should crush him.” Assorted CPC officials then, one by one, forcefully asserted the recent border clashes were initiated by New Delhi. However, Khrushchev was highly dismissive.

“Yes, they began to shoot and they themselves fell dead,” he derisively retorted. A Soviet declaration of neutrality in the Sino-Indian dispute a month prior also provoked anger among the CPC contingent. Mao complained, “[the] announcement made all imperialists happy,” by publicly exposing rifts between Communist countries. Khrushchev et al were again unmoved by the suggestion. Yet, unbeknownst to attendees, they had all unwittingly stepped into a trap laid by the CIA, many years earlier.

In September 1951, a State Department memo declared, “The US should endeavor to use Tibet as a weapon for alerting” India “to the danger of attempting to appease any Communist government and, specially, for maneuvering [India] into a position where it will voluntarily adopt a policy of firmly resisting Chinese Communist pressure in south and east Asia.” In other words, it was believed that supporting Tibetan independence could force a Sino-Indian split. In turn, the Soviets might be compelled to take sides, deepening ruptures with Beijing.

This strategy informed CIA covert action in Tibet over the subsequent decade, which grew turbocharged when Allen Dulles became CIA chief in 1953. A dedicated, top-secret base was constructed for the separatists at Camp Hale, the US military’s World War II-era training facility in the Rocky Mountains. Local terrain – vertiginous, replete with dense forests – was reminiscent of Tibet, providing ample opportunity for insurgency practice. Untold numbers of militants were tutored there over many years.

At any given time, the CIA maintained a secret army of up to 14,000 Tibetan separatists in China. While the guerrillas believed Washington sincerely supported their secessionist crusade, in reality, the agency was solely concerned with creating security problems for Beijing, and resultantly inflicting economic and military costs on their adversary. As the Dalai Lama later lamented, the agency’s assistance was purely “a reflection of their anti-Communist policies rather than genuine support for the restoration of Tibetan independence.”

‘More susceptible’

Come October 1962, the CIA’s Tibetan operations had become such an irritant to China that PLA forces invaded India. Washington was well aware in advance that military action was imminent. A telegram dispatched to Secretary of State Dean Rusk five days prior to the war’s eruption forecast a “serious conflict” and laid out a detailed “line” to take for when the time came. First and foremost, the US would publicly make clear its “sympathy for the Indians and the problems posed by the Chinese intervention.”

However, it was considered vital to “be restrained in our expressions in the matter so as to give the Chinese no pretext for alleging any American involvement.” While New Delhi was already secretly receiving “certain limited purchases” of US military equipment, Washington would not actively “offer assistance” when war broke out. “It is the business of the Indians to ask,” the telegram noted. If such requests were forthcoming, “we will listen sympathetically to requests… [and] move with all promptness and efficiency to supply the items”:

“The US is giving assistance… designed to ease Indian military transport and communications problems. Additionally, the Departments of State and Defense are studying the availability on short notice and on terms acceptable to India of transport, communications and other military equipment in order to be prepared should the government of India request such US equipment.”

As predicted, the Sino-Indian conflict prompted Nehru to urgently reach out to Washington for military aid, a significant policy shift. Much of New Delhi’s political class duly adopted a pro-Western line, with calls for a review of the country’s Non-Aligned stance reverberating widely throughout parliament. Even Communist and Socialist parties that hitherto rejected any alliance with the US eagerly accepted the assistance. The CIA’s Tibetan operations had triumphed.

As a May 1960 Agency National Intelligence Estimate noted, “Chinese aggressiveness” toward New Delhi over Tibet had fostered “a more sympathetic view of US opposition to Communist China” among India’s leaders. This included “greater appreciation of the value of a strong Western – particularly US – position in Asia to counterbalance” Beijing’s influence regionally. However, the CIA noted how, as of writing, “Nehru has no intention of altering India’s basic policy of nonalignment, and the bulk of Indian opinion apparently still shares his attachment to this policy.”

The Sino-Indian War changed all that. A December 1962 Agency analysis of the conflict’s “outlook and implications” hailed New Delhi’s “metamorphosis”, which the CIA forecast would “almost certainly continue to open up new opportunities for the West.” The country was judged “more susceptible than ever before to influence by the US and the UK, particularly in the military field.” Conversely, the War had “seriously complicated the Soviet Union’s relations with India and aggravated its difficulties with China”:

“The USSR will place a high value on a continued close relationship with India. While its opportunity to build up lasting influence in the Indian military has virtually disappeared, it will probably continue to supply some military equipment and to maintain its economic ties with India.”

Subsequently, New Delhi began assisting Anglo-American intelligence gathering on China and became actively involved in CIA wrecking activities in Tibet. The Sino-Indian War’s spectre hung over relations between the two nations for many years thereafter, and border clashes occurred intermittently throughout. Now, though, as Donald Trump bemoaned in September, India appears enduringly “lost” to Beijing and its close partner Russia. Decades of determined US efforts to foment antagonism between the vast neighbours have come spectacularly undone, due to the sheer weight of geopolitical reality.

November 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

India’s Tejas fighter crash in Dubai deals major blow to export hopes

Al Mayadeen | November 23, 2025

India’s ambitions to market its home-grown Tejas fighter abroad have suffered a major setback after the jet crashed during a demonstration at the Dubai Airshow, an event attended by military delegations and arms buyers from around the world, Reuters said on Sunday.

The pilot, Wing Commander Namansh Syal, was killed, and the accident immediately raised questions over the future of India’s flagship aerospace program.

The cause of the crash has not yet been determined, but analysts say the optics alone complicate New Delhi’s long-running effort to present Tejas as a viable, export-ready platform. As one expert put it, “The imagery is brutal”, recalling previous high-profile airshow accidents that undermined national showcases. “A crash sends quite the opposite signal: a dramatic failure,” said Douglas A. Birkey of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He noted, however, that despite the negative publicity, the jet is likely to recover its momentum over time because “fighter sales are driven by high order political realities, which supersede a one-off incident.”

Tejas Turbulence

India has spent more than four decades developing Tejas, originally conceived to replace aging Soviet-era MiG-21s. The project survived sanctions after India’s 1998 nuclear tests, engine-development failures, and production delays at state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Although the Indian Air Force has ordered 180 advanced Mk-1A units, deliveries have stalled amid supply-chain problems involving GE Aerospace engines.

A former HAL executive said the Dubai crash effectively freezes near-term export hopes, explaining that “the crash in Dubai rules out exports for now.” HAL had been courting buyers across Asia, Africa, and Latin America and even opened a regional office in Malaysia in 2023. With exports now unlikely, the company is expected to prioritise domestic production. Meanwhile, India’s fighter fleet has dwindled to 29 operational squadrons, far below the authorized 42, as older MiG-29s, Jaguars, and Mirage 2000s approach retirement. An Indian Air Force officer said, “The Tejas was supposed to be their replacement. But it is facing production issues.”

Fleet decisions

To plug immediate gaps, Indian officials are weighing additional off-the-shelf purchases, including more French Rafales, and continue to examine US and Russian proposals for the F-35 and Su-57, an unusual pairing of 5th-generation jets seen together this week in Dubai.

Despite the setback, defense analysts argue, according to Reuters, that Tejas remains central to India’s long-term industrial goals. Walter Ladwig of the Royal United Services Institute noted that the aircraft’s most enduring value will come from the ecosystem it creates, not export sales, stating that its significance lies in the “industrial and technological base it creates for India’s future combat-aircraft programmes.”

Rivalry Renewed

The airshow also became another arena for India-Pakistan rivalry. Pakistan showcased its JF-17 Thunder Block III, jointly produced with China, and announced a provisional contract with a “friendly country” for the aircraft. The jet was displayed alongside Chinese PL-15E missiles, which US and Indian officials claim were used to down at least one Indian Rafale in the fierce aerial clash between the neighbours earlier this year. Pakistan’s aerospace industry promoted the fighter as “battle-tested”, a reference to the recent four-day conflict.

Indian officials, meanwhile, noted that Tejas was not deployed in that fight, nor did it take part in the Republic Day flypast in New Delhi, citing safety considerations associated with single-engine aircraft.

November 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Tata Group’s ties with Israel: How Indian capital fuels occupation and genocide

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | November 6, 2025

The mask of modernity

For over a century, the Tata Group has been celebrated as the conscience of Indian capitalism — a family of companies that fused profit with philanthropy, progress with ethics. To millions of Indians, “Tata” evokes trust: a brand woven into the very narrative of modern India. Yet behind this carefully cultivated image of virtue lies a darker reality – one that now links Tata directly to the Israeli war machine devastating Gaza.

A new report released by the U.S.-based South Asian collective Salam, titled “Architects of Occupation: The Tata Group, Indian Capital, and the India–Israel Alliance,” alleges that Tata is “at the heart” of the India–Israel military partnership and is “fundamentally embedded in the architecture of occupation, surveillance, and dispossession.” TRT World’s coverage of the report further details how the conglomerate’s various subsidiaries feed directly into Israel’s military-industrial complex.

The findings: A web of complicity

The report identifies several subsidiaries of the Tata Group as active participants in Israel’s defence and security ecosystem.

Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL), one of India’s largest private defence manufacturers, has long-standing partnerships with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Together, they manufacture key components for the Barak-8 surface-to-air missile system, which forms the backbone of Israel’s naval defence and is used in strikes on Gaza. TASL also produces aerostructures for F-16 fighter jets and fuselages for Apache attack helicopters, both extensively deployed by the Israeli Air Force.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), another Tata subsidiary, is alleged to provide the chassis for MDT David light armoured vehicles used by Israeli forces in West Bank patrols and urban crowd-suppression.

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the IT giant, is reportedly involved in building digital infrastructure for Israel’s governmental and financial sectors, including participation in Project Nimbus — the controversial cloud-computing contract co-run by Google and Amazon that facilitates Israeli state surveillance.

The Salam report argues that these are not isolated commercial arrangements but part of a systemic integration of Indian capital within Israel’s “occupation economy.”

Tata’s public sponsorship of global events, such as the New York City Marathon, is described as “sports-washing” — a means of masking its participation in war profiteering behind gestures of global modernity and social responsibility. Despite repeated inquiries, Tata Group has not issued a public response to the allegations.

From state to corporation: The India–Israel nexus

Tata’s complicity does not exist in a vacuum. It is the corporate mirror of a larger state transformation in India’s foreign and defence policy.

Since the 1990s, and more assertively under Narendra Modi, India has shifted from quiet engagement with Israel to a full-blown strategic partnership. India is now the largest buyer of Israeli arms, accounting for roughly 40–45 per cent of Israel’s defence exports.

Joint ventures proliferate:

  • The Barak-8 missile project, co-developed by DRDO and IAI, is assembled in part at Tata facilities.
  • India’s purchase of Heron drones, Phalcon AWACS systems, and Spike anti-tank missiles are products of the same industrial network that sustains Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
  • Several of these systems are used by India in Kashmir, linking one occupation to another — and revealing a disturbing symmetry between the surveillance of Palestinians and Kashmiris.

In this geopolitical alignment, Hindutva nationalism and Zionism converge on the ideological front. Both justify domination through a rhetoric of “security” and “counter-terrorism.” Both normalise militarism as a form of patriotism. And both have turned their societies into laboratories of digital surveillance and ethno-religious control.

Thus, the Tata Group’s partnerships are not merely commercial. They are the economic expression of a shared political project — where corporate capital, state power, and ideology intertwine.

Corporate complicity and ethical evasion

Tata is hardly alone. Global corporations have long buttressed the Israeli state’s apparatus of control. Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, and now Google and Amazon have all been accused of enabling occupation and surveillance. What makes Tata’s case particularly striking is its moral posture.

A company that invokes Gandhi and philanthropy in its advertising now profits from an economy of death. Its own code of conduct commits it to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which prohibit participation in human-rights violations. Yet there is no visible accountability mechanism — no disclosure of its defence revenues, no public audit of ethical compliance, and no internal oversight on the human impact of its contracts.

The Salam report calls this “ethical evasion through corporate nationalism”: the idea that Indian companies can deflect scrutiny by invoking patriotism and “Make in India” rhetoric. This is a convenient cover for profiteering from war.

Silence and complicity in India

Mainstream Indian media have barely reported on the Tata revelations. Nor has the Indian government shown any interest in investigating them. On the contrary, officials continue to trumpet the India–Israel “strategic embrace” as a model of technological progress.

Civil society, too, has grown hesitant. Decades ago, India was a vocal defender of the Palestinian cause. Today, solidarity has been replaced by silence, fear, and a dangerous normalization of genocide. Universities that once hosted discussions on occupation now avoid the subject. Protesters risk arrest under draconian laws.

The corporate capture of conscience mirrors a broader moral collapse in public life.

What accountability looks like

International law is clear: any company knowingly supplying equipment or services that enable war crimes may be complicit in those crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Guiding Principles both outline corporate responsibilities in situations of armed conflict.

Tata’s alleged manufacturing of components for weapons used in Gaza should therefore be subject to independent investigation. Investors, trade unions, and consumers have the right — and duty — to demand transparency.

There are precedents: in the 1980s, global campaigns pressured companies to divest from apartheid South Africa. A similar moral movement must emerge against those profiteering from Israeli apartheid. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign is one such call, and Indian civil society should not remain absent from it.

When conscience is outsourced

Tata’s silence in the face of genocide is not just a corporate failure; it reflects the hollowness of India’s moral claim to be the land of Gandhi. What remains of that heritage when its flagship corporation contributes to the machinery of ethnic cleansing?

As Gaza’s children starve and entire families are buried under rubble, the Tata empire continues to sell technology to the state that kills them — while its advertisements preach compassion and “building a better tomorrow.”

No nation can claim moral leadership while its corporations build profit from the blood of the oppressed. The time for polite silence is over. India must confront what it has become — and reclaim the humanity it once pledged to the world.

November 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump may not follow through on Russian oil or Tomahawk

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 25, 2025 

The US President Donald Trump has seemingly shifted gear in the US strategy to stop Russia on its tracks from creating new facts on the ground in Ukraine. Russian forces have the upper hand all along the 1250-km Ukrainian frontline stretching Kiev’s defences and resources, which no amount of western military help can hope to reverse in a foreseeable future. Trump is compelling Russia to seek a military victory in Ukraine.

Trump so far put on the air of a statesman in great anguish over the humanitarian aspects of the conflict. Moscow tolerated the theatrical show to pamper Trump’s egotistic personality — that is, until Putin shattered the myth last week to expose that Trump actually holds the record as the American president who sanctioned Russia the most number of times, exceeding even his predecessor Joe Biden’s tally. 

Trump, in the new avatar as war monger has unveiled a strategy of climbing the escalation ladder in the war until Putin capitulates. To that end, he has expanded the sanctions regime to include Russia’s oil industry, and is toying with the idea to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles that can hit deep inside Russian territory. 

The US Treasury Departments’ press release announcing the new sanctions against Russia reads as if its is custom made for targeting India. India and China account for some 80% of Russia’s oil exports, but the latter is the number one buyer with 60% of the imports  transported through pipelines, whereas India depends on carriers arranged by the Russian side (“shadow fleet”) which are also now under western sanctions. 

The press release claims that “The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behaviour.” It is a statement of fact because this is not really about oil, but about geopolitics. Whether Trump will actually press ahead with the oil sanctions remains unclear, since keeping Russian oil out of the world market risks high oil prices which could boomerang on the US economy and be damaging politically for Trump. 

Putin’s initial reaction last Thursday was that the oil sanctions are an “unfriendly” act which “will have certain consequences, but they will not significantly affect our economic well-being.” Putin said that Russia’s energy sector feels confident. He added, “This is, of course, an attempt to put pressure on Russia. But no self-respecting country and no self-respecting people ever decides anything under pressure.” 

Meanwhile, western hypocrisy broke through the ceiling, as the German chancellor Friedrich Merz who is one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the war is at Trump’s doorstep pleading for a sanctions waiver. Apparently, Germany has been quietly buying Russian oil even while portraying Russia in hostile terms, lest its GDP fell by another 3 percent! 

Germany “temporarily” took control of three subsidiaries of the Russian oil company Rosneft (which the US has sanctioned) to secure its energy supply. Interestingly, the UK PM Keir Starmer, the charioteer of the  so-called “coalition of the willing” raring to deploy troops in Ukraine to fight Russian forces, is travelling in the same boat as Merz seeking Trump’s waiver! 

Such shady behaviour with racial overtones by the Western countries holds lessons for India. Clearly, the effectiveness of the new sanctions against the Russian oil giants will depend on just how zealous the US is in enforcing them through secondary sanctions on entities that deal in Russian oil. If past experience is anything to go by, Washington won’t be able to sustain a full-court press – if for no other reason than that markets will force its hand once oil prices shoot up. 

That is to say, thanks to lax enforcement of sanctions, Russian oil will continue to reach the world market. Buyers like India who cut down oil supplies from Russia will end up paying higher prices. By meekly complying with Trump’s diktat, they compromised their interests. The sense of humiliation is such that Delhi shies away from engaging with Trump.  

However, as regards long-rage Tomahawk missiles (range: 3000 km) Putin was polite but frank in his reaction, saying, “This is an attempt at escalation. But if such weapons are used to attack Russian territory, the response will be very serious, if not overwhelming. Let them think about it.” 

The deputy chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev was even blunt in conveying the Kremlin thinking:

“The US is our enemy, and their talkative ‘peacemaker’ has now fully embarked on the path of war with Russia… this is now his conflict, not the senile Biden’s!… the decisions made are an act of war against Russia. And now Trump has fully sided with the insane Europe.

“But there is also a clear plus in this latest swing of the Trump pendulum: we can strike all the Bandera hideouts with a wide variety of weapons without regard to unnecessary negotiations. And achieve victory precisely where it is only possible: on the ground, not at a desk. Destroying enemies, not concluding meaningless ‘deals’”.  

Apparently, the message went home. Trump, before emplaning for Malaysia on his 3-nation Asian tour, made sure that his special envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff extended an invitation to his Russian interlocutor Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of Russian Direct Investment Fund, to go over to Miami for a quiet conversation to talk things over. The two erstwhile businessmen are meeting today.

Meanwhile, Trump has hinted in anticipation of his forthcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday that he may not after all carry out his threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and other trade curbs starting on November 1 in retaliation for China’s vastly expanded export controls on rare earth magnets and minerals. China’s tough stance is paying off. 

Similarly, the Kremlin’s blunt threat of retaliation against Tomahawk will be heeded seriously. Putin has many options — Oreshnik capable of Mach 10 speed, for instance, is a hypersonic missile that is also nuclear capable, against which the West has no defence. The weapon has entered into serial production and been supplied to the armed forces.

Again, Russia’s new jet-powered glide bomb gives a significant boost in range and superior resistance to electronic countermeasures. It is capable of hitting Ukraine’s western border. It is also moving to mass production and the West is defenceless against it. 

October 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Strongman Persona Inevitably Results in Lies and War

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 17, 2025

Trump’s claim that Prime Minister Modi had promised to end the purchase of Russian oil was obviously false; in fact, there was apparently no phone call between the two leaders at all. Such fabrications, portraying world leaders as deferential to him and as praising his greatness, constitute a recurring pattern—one that parallels his militaristic approach to peace.

As the president of a declining hegemon, Trump is convinced that the weakness of his predecessors was the source of decline. Trump has therefore concluded that projecting strength can reverse the erosion of American power. In constructing himself as the ultimate strongman—allegedly respected by all—he positions himself as the sole saviour of the US. The image of a powerful, decisive and respected leader capable of restoring US dominance also functions domestically to consolidate political support and project stability during the country’s uneasy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar international order. The American public is seemingly prepared to look the other way or justify the dishonesty and moral disgressions as the price worth paying for a return to greatness.

The central problem with the strongman image is that it sustains unrealistic expectations of reviving US primacy rather than adapting to the realities of a multipolar world. The outcome is a pattern of deception and conflict that ultimately undermines, rather than strengthens, the United States.

When the strongman cannot coerce his counterparts into subservience, the only recourse is retreat into fantasy. In this imagined world, other leaders allegedly regret their decisions of not falling into line, tremble as Trump wags his finger, shower him with compliments, offer tribute to the United States, and in Trump’s own words, line up to “kiss my ass.” Within the Trumpian bubble of superpower cosplay, these scenes of deference are celebrated as signs of a return to greatness, yet in the real world, American credibility declines and decadence deepens. As the gap between fantasy and reality widens, Trump becomes increasingly reckless. Case in point, the threats against India to sever ties with Russia and India backfired spectacularly as Prime Minister Modi instead went to China to cement India’s relations with Russia, China and the SCO.

Great powers and independent states cannot simply fall in line, for doing so would predictably lead to their destruction or subjugation. The ultimate aim of an aspiring hegemon is not to reconcile differences in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, but to defeat rival powers and capture independent states. The objective of the economic confrontation with China is not to renegotiate trade agreements, but to undermine China’s technological capacity and contain it militarily to restore US primacy. The purpose of the proxy war against Russia is not peace in terms of finding a new peaceful status quo, rather it is to use Ukrainians and increasingly Europeans to bleed and weaken Russia until it can no longer sustain great-power status. Similarly, the goal of the confrontation with Iran is not to reach a new nuclear accord—Tehran has already accepted such terms in the past—but to achieve Iran’s capitulation and disarmament by linking the nuclear issue to restrictions on missiles and regional alliances. Any power that concedes even marginally to US pressure ultimately finds itself in a weaker and more vulnerable position—one that the aspiring hegemon will inevitably exploit. Any peace agreements are therefore temporary at best, as an opportunity to regroup.

India presents an intriguing case, as it is not an adversarial power. Its commitment to non-alignment makes strong relations with the United States desirable, yet the very same non-alignment necessitates strategic diversification to reduce excessive reliance on Washington. Should India be persuaded to sever ties with other major powers such as China and Russia, it risks becoming too dependent on the United States and absorbed into a bloc-based geopolitical system. Subordination to a declining empire would be perilous, as the United States would predictably use India as a frontline against China, and simultaneously demand economic tribute and cannibalise Indian industries in pursuit of renewed dominance. In essence, India must avoid becoming another Europe.

The strongman act is most effective with weaker and dependent states—such as those in Europe—that are willing to subordinate themselves entirely in order to preserve American commitment to the continent. European states lack the economic capacity, security autonomy, and political imagination to envision a multipolar world in which the United States wields less influence and holds other priorities than a close partnership with Europe. Consequently, European leaders appear willing to sacrifice core national interests to preserve the unity of the “Political West” for a little while longer. In private, they may express disdain for Trump; in public, they pay tribute to “daddy” and line up diligently in front of his desk to receive praise or ridicule. Yet this subservience is inherently temporary: leaders who disregard fundamental national interests are, in time, swept aside by the very forces they seek to suppress.

The strongman does not create any durable peace the underlying problems are never addressed. The mantra of “peace through strength” can be translated into peace through escalation, with the assumption that the opponent will come to the table and submit to US demands. However, rival great powers that have nowhere to retreat will respond to escalation with reciprocation. The delusions of the strongman in the declining hegemony will therefore inevitably trigger major wars.

October 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

London Is Still Bent on Influencing India’s Independent Policy Trajectory

By Anvar Azimov – New Eastern Outlook – October 16, 2025

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited India to promote previously reached trade agreements; however, the negotiations have laid bare the extremely limited reach of London’s influence on New Delhi.

During the latest UK-India summit held on October 8-9 in Mumbai, London once again made an unsuccessful bid to affect New Delhi’s course regarding Russia, to secure its support for the Euro-Atlanticists’ plans for settling the Ukrainian conflict and for continuing anti-Russian sanctions policy.

Nevertheless, the two countries managed to make progress in expanding cooperation in trade, investments, defense, and security.

The official visit of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India aimed at cementing the agreements reached during the stay of the head of the Indian government, Narendra Modi, in London this July, and, first and foremost, at signing a far-reaching free trade agreement. The pact would open vast prospects for achieving the ambitious goal set by the parties to increase trade turnover by 2030 from the current $35 billion to $120 billion.

Starmer Urged Modi to Stop Purchasing Russian Oil

Simultaneously, the British guest made another attempt to talk New Delhi into abandoning substantial purchases of Russian energy resources, which currently account for up to 40 percent of India’s oil imports. Furthermore, the trade turnover between India and Russia, taking into account petroleum product supplies, has reached an unprecedented $70 billion, a fact that London and the West as a whole are also seriously apprehensive about. However, despite these British exertions, Prime Minister N. Modi made it clear that this matter is no exception to the rule; hence, here, India would also be guided by its own national and economic interests.

Nor has New Delhi veered from the path of distancing itself from anti-Russian Western sanctions, prioritising, once again, independent national interests. The Ukrainian conflict hasn’t evaded such a fate either, with Starmer failing to pull India completely to his side. While being committed to a peaceful settlement of the situation around Ukraine, India rejects anti-Russian rhetoric on the issue and maintains a measured, balanced stance. Even London’s various assurances of support for New Delhi’s aspirations to gain a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council did not spur India to alter its principled neutral position in the current struggle between the West and Russia.

Success evaded the British leader on this anti-Russian front, but he cancelled out his failure on the track of bilateral relations by means of signing a series of agreements in various fields, including defense, security, technology, trade, and education. Notably, the parties managed to conclude a military deal worth approximately $470 million for the supply of light multipurpose missiles to the Indian army. They also agreed on setting up a regional centre of excellence in maritime security and on developing marine electronic engines for Indian naval ships.

Further progress in trade, economic, and investment areas was also outlined. It is indicative that Starmer was accompanied by a representative delegation from the British business community (over 120 people), including heads of companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Telecom, Diageo, the London Stock Exchange, and British Airways. Within the framework of the joint forum held, the representatives signed commercial contracts.

India Dictates the Terms

All in all, British companies have invested about $40 billion in the Indian economy, and New Delhi traditionally remains one of London’s key trade and investment partners. And what further contributes to such a situation is the signed free trade agreement, which added up to a significant reduction in tariffs on a wide range of goods, and expanded market access for companies and Indian labour migrants.

In a nutshell, the latest meeting of the two countries’ leaders concluded with new agreements on enhancing multifaceted cooperation and increasing trade turnover to $120 billion by 2030. At the same time, Starmer was clearly frustrated that even his attempts to prompt India to weaken its ties with Russia ended up a failure, which once again confirms New Delhi’s determination to stick to its own guns on its foreign policy, providing for the development of partnerships with both the West and the East and drawing on the national interests of this major, now global, power.

Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Research Fellow at Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

October 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025

The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.

But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”

The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”

A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.

A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.

According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.

As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.

However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.

Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.

“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.

The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.

According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.

Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.

Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.

Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”

Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.

According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.

Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’

The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.

According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.

Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.

Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.

However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.

“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”

Bruner told The Defender :

“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.

“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”

Hinchliffe said:

“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”

Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.

The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.

According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”

Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.

“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”

Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’

London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.

“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.

“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”

Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.

According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:

“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”

Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.

U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.

Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.

“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”

The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.

Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy

In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.

According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.

Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.

Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”

“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.

In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.

In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.

According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.

In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.

The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”

Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.

The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.

“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.

Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?

Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.

In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.

Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.

Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”

Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.

Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.

“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian oil keeps flowing despite US pressure – Bloomberg

RT | September 30, 2025

Russia’s seaborne crude exports have remained near a 16-month high over the past four weeks, showing little impact from US President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure global buyers into halting imports from Moscow, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

According to vessel-tracking data through Saturday compiled by the outlet, average daily shipments held steady at 3.62 million barrels, matching the highest level since May 2024. The continued flow comes despite targeted US efforts to persuade countries to curb imports.

Trump has pressured the EU, India, and China to stop purchasing Russian oil, describing the move as an effort to advance a potential Ukraine peace settlement. Moscow has criticized Washington’s strong-arm tactics, saying that sovereign nations have the right to choose their trade partners.

New Delhi’s continued purchases of Russian oil have in particular drawn the ire of the US. In August, Washington imposed 25% punitive tariffs on India on top of the earlier 25% tariff imposed after the two countries failed to reach a trade deal. India has refused to scale back imports from Russia and described Washington’s policy as economic coercion.

China has taken an even firmer stance, with its Ministry of Commerce reaffirming intentions to deepen energy cooperation with Russia. The ministry says Beijing will defend its interests as the US pushes G7 nations to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.

European buyers are also resisting. Hungary and Slovakia, which are both reliant on pipeline shipments, have cited economic and logistical obstacles to ending Russian oil imports. Turkish imports have remained steady as well, averaging around 300,000 barrels per day.

Meanwhile, the redirection of oil from Russian refineries damaged by Ukrainian drone strikes may be contributing to the continued export volumes, according to Bloomberg. Export terminal capacity, however, could become a limiting factor if strikes intensify, the outlet adds.

In the most recent week, 36 tankers carried 26.75 million barrels of Russian crude, a rise from the previous week’s 23.69 million, Bloomberg data shows. The total value of exports in the week to September 28 rose by $240 million to $1.57 billion.

October 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why the US has sanctioned the Chabahar Port in Iran

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 27, 2025

US sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port may look like just another chapter in Washington’s “maximum pressure” playbook, but they are far more ambitious and dangerous.

The move simultaneously aims to discipline India, ratchet up economic warfare against Tehran, and force Afghanistan into a position where ceding Bagram airbase seems unavoidable. In pursuing all three goals at once, the US may be setting the stage for strategic overreach.

US axe falls on Chabahar

On September 16, the US announced that it was reimposing sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port that it co-developed with India. Revoking “the sanctions exception issued in 2018 under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) for Afghanistan reconstruction assistance and economic development,” the announcement further said that any “persons who operate the Chabahar Port or engage in other activities described in IFCA may expose themselves to sanctions under IFCA”.

The reference to any “persons” operating the port is to India, which has invested millions of dollars in the port in the last few years. India began to develop this port in a certain geopolitical context. Back then, New Delhi, supported by Washington, used this port to counter China’s Gwadar port in Pakistan. Accordingly, the US granted this port an exemption from sanctions. That exemption has now been taken away. Another imperative at that time was to allow India to use the port to provide supplies to Kabul to support the Karzai and Ghani administrations. Bypassing Pakistan—which Washington understood was supporting the Taliban—the US co-opted India to support the US-backed civilian regime. That geopolitical context, as it stands, no longer exists. The US no longer needs to support avenues to support the regime in Kabul that is no longer a Washington ally. In fact, Washington now prefers using the Chabahar Port issue to equally punish Kabul.

The Geopolitics of Sanctions

By sanctioning Iran’s Chabahar Port, Washington is pursuing more than just another chapter in its “maximum pressure” campaign. It has three critical objectives in mind, the first of which is to punish India. The Trump administration’s ongoing trade war with New Delhi has already seen tariffs climb as high as 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US, dramatically undercutting India’s competitiveness. The withdrawal of the 2018 sanctions waiver on Chabahar effectively expands this economic conflict into the strategic realm. Not only are Indian goods 50 per cent more expensive in the US market, but now Indian exports to Central Asia through Chabahar are threatened by US sanctions as well. The message is blunt: New Delhi cannot expect privileged access to either American markets or regional transit corridors if it resists Washington’s terms.

Yet the dispute is not only about tariffs or trade balances. Chabahar has long symbolised a broader geopolitical opening—an India–Iran–Afghanistan transport corridor that could eventually link New Delhi to Russian and Central Asian energy markets. For India, the project promises a vital alternative to reliance on Persian Gulf suppliers or US-aligned routes. For Washington, this is precisely the problem. By crippling Chabahar, the US seeks to stymie the emergence of an energy corridor outside its sphere of influence and to foreclose India’s access to Iranian and Russian hydrocarbons. The ultimate goal is not simply to weaken Tehran but to pressure India into diverting its purchases toward US liquefied natural gas and crude exports.

The sanctions also reflect a deliberate attempt to recalibrate India’s relationship with Iran. If New Delhi is forced to retreat from Chabahar, Washington calculates, Iran’s isolation will deepen. The State Department’s September 16 statement left little ambiguity, identifying the “networks” that generate “millions for the Iranian military” as key targets of the new restrictions. Chabahar, as Iran’s flagship connectivity project with India and Afghanistan, sits squarely within those crosshairs. Unsurprisingly, the port will dominate the agenda when Ali Larijani, Tehran’s national security adviser and one of the most influential figures in the Iranian establishment, arrives in Delhi in the coming weeks.

The third objective at play is Afghanistan. In recent months, President Trump has openly pressed Kabul to hand back the Bagram airbase to American control, a demand the Taliban leadership has flatly rejected. For the Taliban, acquiescence would be politically ruinous, signaling subservience to the very power they fought for two decades to expel. By sanctioning Chabahar, Washington is attempting to narrow Afghanistan’s options, undermining its role as a vital overland bridge that could connect India and other South Asian states—excluding Pakistan—to Central Asian markets. This is not a trivial calculation. With relations between Kabul and Islamabad deteriorating, the Taliban regime has been cautiously exploring new partnerships in the region, and India has emerged as an obvious candidate. Earlier this year, the Taliban went so far as to call India a “significant regional partner.” Washington’s sanctions strategy is designed precisely to choke this opening, shrinking the diplomatic and economic space available to Kabul as it manoeuvres for new allies.

The US risks a massive backfire

Yet Washington’s gambit carries the risk of a serious backlash. Kabul has little incentive to heed American preferences, particularly after the Biden administration’s refusal to release Afghanistan’s frozen financial assets. The Taliban leadership, already charting its course independently, is unlikely to view US sanctions as anything more than another act of hostility. More consequential, however, is the potential fallout with India. By undermining New Delhi’s flagship connectivity project, Washington risks inflicting lasting damage on a relationship it has spent years cultivating. Alienated, India may lean more heavily on alternative partnerships with Russia and even China, eroding the very strategic alignment the US has sought to build through the Indo-Pacific framework. And if New Delhi ultimately withdraws from Chabahar under sanctions pressure, Washington may not secure the energy dominance it envisions. Instead, the vacuum could invite Beijing to step in, transforming Chabahar into a Chinese-controlled gateway for Central Asian energy, a scenario that would decisively undercut American aims.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

West’s grip slips with Saudi–Pakistan security deal

Riyadh’s pact with Islamabad redraws alliances, weakens Indian leverage, and hints at a new Muslim deterrence framework beyond western control.

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | September 23, 2025

On 17 September, Riyadh rolled out the rare royal purple carpet for Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – an honor previously reserved for global power players like US President Donald Trump.

Accompanying him on the trip was Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. His presence highlighted that Riyadh values its defense pact with a nuclear power that, despite economic challenges, remains militarily strong.

Nuclear umbrella over Riyadh

The centerpiece of their visit was the signing of a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” (SMDA), which declares that an attack on either country will be considered an attack on both.

Described by a senior Saudi official to Reuters as covering “all military means,” the pact has triggered speculation that it includes a nuclear umbrella, which would be a game-changing development in the military balance of West Asia.

With 81 percent of Pakistan’s weapon imports coming from China, the agreement implicitly aligns Saudi Arabia with the Chinese military-industrial orbit, whether by design or default. The kingdom has long been reliant on US arms, training, and security guarantees.

The pact was signed just two days after an extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was called, following the 9 September Israeli airstrikes on Qatar – a major non-NATO ally and Gulf neighbor – with no substantial response from Washington, reinforcing perceptions that western security commitments are both selective and expendable.

Mushahid Hussain Syed, a former information minister and chairman of Pakistan’s Senate Defense Committee, tells The Cradle that the US has pivoted away from Arab allies toward Tel Aviv, leaving the region disillusioned and increasingly leaning toward alternatives.

“The strategy of ‘Greater Israel,’ spearheaded by Netanyahu, has involved military actions against five more Muslim nations. Pakistan’s recent triumph against India has demonstrated its capacity to contest Israel’s significant ally, India, and establish itself as a strategic alternative for Gulf nations.”

Toward an Islamic NATO?

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani recently called for an Islamic military alliance, akin to NATO, in response to Israel’s airstrike on Doha. His proposal echoed Egypt’s earlier attempt to revive a joint Arab defense force under the 1950 treaty – an initiative blocked by Qatar and the UAE, reportedly under US pressure.

A similar proposal has also come from Islamabad when Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, urged Muslim countries to band together in a NATO-like military alliance in light of the Israeli aggression in Doha.

During an appearance on Geo TV last week, Asif drove home the point that a united Muslim military front is essential to tackle common security issues and fend off outside dangers. Asif invoked the wider role of the west in instigating instability in West Asia, emphasizing the intricate network of US support for Al-Qaeda and the CIA’s covert actions that led to Osama bin Laden’s relocation to Sudan or the regime change war in Syria.

Is nuclear deterrence a part of the Pact?

The nuclear dimension of the Riyadh–Islamabad pact remains opaque, but highly significant. While no official statement from either side confirms the presence of a nuclear component, Asif hinted that Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could be shared with Saudi Arabia as part of the agreement.

Syed, however, clarifies to The Cradle that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-centric and that its deterrence posture is South Asia-specific and does not extend to the Persian Gulf.

“A novel security framework for the region appears to be taking shape, focusing on Global South nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whereas the Indo-Israeli Axis, previously supported by the US, now finds itself significantly diminished.”

The defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he says, represents a notable achievement for Pakistan, establishing it as a pivotal entity within the geopolitical framework of West Asia, particularly among Muslim countries.

“The agreement is shaped by three significant elements: the perceived neglect of Arab allies by the United States, Israel’s proactive maneuvers in areas such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and Pakistan’s recent triumph over India in May.”

New Delhi, Tel Aviv on alert

Foreign media and analysts are already warning that the pact may have unintended consequences for India and Israel, despite claims that it targets neither. Others predict that this pact is really about Riyadh’s ambitions to counter Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in the region.

Dr Abdul Rauf Iqbal, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at Islamabad’s National Defence University (NDU), tells The Cradle that New Delhi views the pact with unease as it formalizes Saudi–Pakistani security ties that could entangle Riyadh in South Asian rivalries, especially the India–Pakistan border tensions over Jammu and Kashmir:

“It represents a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, potentially leading to Saudi involvement in a prospective Indo–Pak conflict. Furthermore, future Saudi investments in Pakistan’s Gwadar port and economic corridors would challenge India’s regional influence and initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC).”

He adds that Saudi Arabia’s pivot toward Pakistan reflects a broader alignment of Muslim powers and could push Tel Aviv to recalibrate its war on Gaza. It also pressures Tel Aviv by placing Pakistan – a vocal opponent of Israeli expansionism – into West Asian affairs.

“This agreement is not meant to counterbalance Iran’s regional influence, but rather to promote the Saudi Iranian reconciliation, as Pakistan maintains friendly relations with both nations. By formalizing ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh secures a credible deterrent as US security guarantees weaken. While western think tanks view it as an effort to contain Iran, the Arab world emphasizes it as strengthening Gulf deterrence independently of Washington.”

Indian concerns also stem from fears that the pact’s NATO-style clause could complicate ongoing operations like Sindoor, which remains active in a limited capacity following the skirmish between the two nuclear powers in May, especially given that the Gulf states’ swift mediation to resolve the crisis reflects their own interests with India and makes any military action against it unlikely.

Secondly, India is strategically analyzing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which could see a boost if Saudi Arabia, having no such capacity, begins channeling funds to share Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

A post-western Gulf order?

While Tel Aviv and New Delhi remain publicly silent, both capitals are undoubtedly scrutinizing the fallout. Israel’s failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and India’s pressure campaign along the Line of Control, suggest that the axis is nervous about the consequences of a Saudi–Pakistani alliance. Israeli media downplayed the Saudi–Pakistan defense deal, seeing it as a show of force after Riyadh failed to influence Trump or West Asian policy.

As Syed notes, “The traditional ‘Oil for Security’ framework, which once defined US relations with the Middle East [West Asia], now serves as a remnant of a bygone era. As Saudi economic power increasingly reinforces China’s backing of Pakistan, India may feel vulnerable and isolated.”

Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst with a focus on Pakistan and Balochistan, tells The Cradle that this development holds particular significance for India. New Delhi, he argues, has sustained robust economic and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for many years, and the influx of Saudi investments in India continues to expand:

“India will be meticulously observing the progression of this agreement, particularly given that its specific terms are not publicly available. Any alteration in the regional security equilibrium may influence India’s strategic assessments, energy security, and diplomatic relations.”

As Washington’s selective security guarantees falter and Israel escalates unchecked, Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are looking eastward for credible deterrents and strategic autonomy.

By aligning with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh is asserting greater independence from the western military order. It also signals the emergence of a multipolar Persian Gulf security architecture –one increasingly shaped by Global South coordination, not western diktats.

September 23, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pakistan says ‘door open’ for more Arab states to join mutual-defense pact

The Cradle | September 20, 2025

Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on 18 September that “the doors are not closed” for other Arab states to join the new defense pact signed with Saudi Arabia.

Asif emphasized that there was no clause preventing Pakistan from extending similar arrangements to other nations.

The agreement was signed in Riyadh by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) during Sharif’s day-long visit, and declares that aggression against one country will be considered aggression against both.

A joint statement said the deal “reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieve security and peace in the region and the world.”

Asif also confirmed that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is included within the framework of the pact, describing it as a joint shield that leaves “no doubt” either side would respond if attacked.

“What we have, our capabilities, will absolutely be available under this pact,” Asif told Pakistani broadcaster Geo News.

He stressed that Pakistan had always placed its nuclear facilities under inspection and had “never committed any violation.”

“This agreement will not be a hegemonic arrangement but a defensive arrangement,” Asif emphasized.

“We don’t have any plans to conquer territory or attack anyone. But our fundamental right can’t be denied to us and we exercised that yesterday,” he added.

The minister drew comparisons with NATO, saying Muslim states had the same right to collective defense. “I think it is a fundamental right of the countries and people here, particularly the Muslim population, to together defend their region, countries, and nations.”

Pakistan has long stationed troops and air force units in Saudi Arabia, training Saudi forces and providing advisory support.

“I think that relationship has been more defined now and that understanding has been given the form of a defense agreement,” Asif explained.

Pakistani External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India would assess the implications for its national security, adding that the government remained committed to “ensuring comprehensive national security in all domains.”

Asif also tied the pact to Pakistan’s longstanding role in protecting Islamic holy sites in the kingdom, describing it as a “sacred duty.”

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Cranks Up Pressure on India for Refusing to Kneel

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – September 19, 2025

The US has announced it will withdraw the sanctions waiver granted for Iran’s Chabahar Port, which is being developed by India. The port holds strategic importance for both Tehran and New Delhi. Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi explains the move.

The US is pursuing two objectives by imposing sanctions related to India’s involvement in Chabahar Port, Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi tells Sputnik.

  • First, it seeks to cut off the North-South Transport Corridor and break the link between India and Russia that goes through Iran.
  • Second, it cannot reconcile with the fact that Indian PM Narendra Modi didn’t cave in despite tariffs and is now raising the stakes.

“They are trying to force the Indian government to do as they wish. And this is part of that process.”

The US’ intimidation of Russia, Iran, and India is pushing them to unite on solutions beyond US control, according to Marandi.

“They create an incentive for countries to work together and exclude the United States. It is US policy that has effectively made BRICS what it is today. It is US policy that has made the Shanghai Cooperation Organization what it is today. It is their behavior, their lawless behavior, using sanctions as a weapon, using tariffs as a weapon, using financial institutions and the US dollar as a weapon.”

The US wants full control, and they see the Global South on the rise, and they increasingly become irritated, and they behave increasingly irrational in order to preserve that control, according to the pundit.

So what’s the smart play for Russia, Iran, and India now? “To speed in the process of developing the North-South Transport Corridor and developing the Chabahar Port,” Marandi believes.

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »