Home Blog

The Unending Chain: Confronting the Colonialism Within

We often speak of colonization as a historical period, a chapter of empire that began and ended. But what if we have it backwards? What if this isn’t a chapter, but the very theme of the story? The impulse to colonize appears woven into the human condition itself. From the Greeks and Romans to the European empires forged in the Enlightenment’s furnace, the pattern repeats: a dominant group, convinced of its superiority, imposes its power, values, and gods upon others. The European project was uniquely devastating because it didn’t just conquer land; it set out to conquer reality itself. It weaponized knowledge to create racial hierarchies and a “civilizing mission” that justified its violence. This was a psychological siege designed to reprogram the minds of the colonized, to bury a deep and lasting sense of inferiority within their very souls.

This leads us to the great, painful paradox of our time: the loudest voices preaching against this coloniality often speak in the language of the colonizer. The theories we use to diagnose our pain, postcolonialism, decoloniality, are largely Western constructs, taught in Western-style universities and debated in English. We use their frameworks, their logic, and their jargon to plead for the value of our own. It feels like trying to use the master’s key to unlock a door the master himself built. This leaves us with a profound confusion: in our righteous fight to decolonize, are we unknowingly building a new colony of the mind? Are we, in our desperate search for freedom, simply rearranging the furniture in a house we never designed?

This abstract struggle finds its most potent expression in the mundane rituals of daily life. I recall an incident during my tenure at a news channel. We were on a break, a time meant for respite and informal connection, when a colleague noticed our Digital News head (DN) approaching. Suddenly flustered, he advised us all to stop talking and “look busy.” This was not a request born of genuine dedication, but a conditioned reflex of fear and subservience.

In that moment, the grand narrative of coloniality collapsed into a single, telling act. Here was no foreign oppressor, but a local elite. The demand was not for tribute or conversion, but for the performance of productivity, a drama of admiration to unearned authority. My response was to appeal to logic and equality: why should we feel compelled to act unnaturally during our designated time? The DN was a colleague, a worker like us, and his presence did not negate our right to autonomy during a break.

This incident is a microcosm of the internalized colonial mentality. It reveals how we perpetuate the very hierarchies we claim to oppose through our own passive acceptance. We create gods of our superiors and accept the role of supplicants, believing subservience is necessary for survival. In doing so, we grant them permission to treat us as inferiors. The colonizer, in this sense, doesn’t always come from outside; we are often colonized by our own elite, a phenomenon that creates a pervasive “local coloniality” that must be studied with the same rigor as its foreign counterpart.

This brings us to the essential question: if the intellectual tools we have are potentially compromised, how do we achieve true emancipation? The answer may lie not in a new theory, but in a return to a fundamental principle: “Tawheed” (the Oneness of God).

Faith in Tawheed is the ultimate antithesis to coloniality of every kind. It establishes a supreme authority that transcends all earthly power structures—foreign or local. When one internalizes that ultimate sovereignty belongs only to the Divine, the authority of every DN, every elite, and every system is radically relativized. They are diminished to mere mortals, temporary occupants of a fleeting status. This belief system does not require Western jargon to articulate; it is an internal, spiritual revolution that provides the epistemological independence we seek.

Tawheed offers the master key to a door we ourselves design. It gives the emancipation of mind and body by freeing us from the idolatry of man-made authority. It is the foundational act of decolonization, asserting that our worth, identity, and purpose are derived from a source beyond the grasp of any empire or elite. The journey to decolonize our world begins with this most personal of victories: the liberation of our own souls from all chains, seen and unseen. Only then can we stop “looking busy” for any master and finally stand tall, in genuine and unperformed freedom.

Iranian Strategic Culture and Expected Reaction to US-Israeli Attacks on Nuclear Program

The recent escalation in the Middle East has brought the region to the brink of a larger conflict. Iran has responded to the June 13th Israeli attack, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, by striking U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq. This attack followed targeted Israeli strikes on senior IRGC commanders, nuclear scientists, and air defense systems, suggesting an expectation of Iranian collapse. However, Iran absorbed the blow and responded with force, inflicting significant material and reputational damage on Israel. Media censorship within Israel concerning the impact of Iranian missile strikes further indicates the seriousness of the counterattack.

What was initially conceived as a quick, surgical strike has evolved into a protracted war of attrition. Iran’s resistance has rattled Israeli confidence and pushed the pro-Israel lobby in Washington to demand direct American military intervention. On June 21st, the United States reportedly bombed Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In response, Iran has escalated the conflict by targeting Israeli settlements and warning of additional strikes. Iranian officials have declared that the door to diplomacy is now closed.

To accurately assess Iran’s next moves, it is essential to explore its strategic culture—a concept rooted in the beliefs, norms, and historical experiences that shape a nation’s security posture. Iran’s strategic behavior cannot be understood without acknowledging the deeply ingrained factors influencing its national psyche.

Iran’s cultural and historical identity plays a crucial role in shaping its strategic outlook. As a civilization with over 4,000 years of continuous history, Iran possesses a profound sense of pride in its imperial legacy, language, and traditions. The dominant ethnic group is Aryan, coexisting with Azeris, Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, and others. Twelver Shi’ism is the official state religion, practiced by approximately 89% of the population.

The legacy of Shi’a Islam, particularly the doctrine of martyrdom, strongly influences Iran’s strategic thinking. Shi’a reverence for the Prophet’s family, especially the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, fosters a spirit of sacrifice and resistance. This belief manifested during the Iran-Iraq War, where Iranian youth, some as young as 14, volunteered to fight a technologically superior enemy backed by Western powers. Despite facing heavy losses, Iran’s resilience in that conflict set a precedent for its current posture of deterrence and defiance.

National pride also shapes Iran’s strategic behavior. Under the Pahlavi monarchy, particularly during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran aspired to regional hegemony. Iran’s intervention in Oman during the Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1975) reflected ambitions of strategic leadership. However, the Shah’s regime also marked a period of repression, economic disparity, and overdependence on Western powers, culminating in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

A pivotal event in modern Iranian memory is the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, angering British and American interests. Although widely supported by the Iranian public, he was ousted and the Shah was reinstated. This event entrenched deep suspicion toward the West and solidified the narrative of foreign exploitation.

The 1979 revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was both anti-monarchical and anti-imperialist. While it was a domestic uprising against the Shah’s authoritarianism, the West interpreted it as a direct challenge to its influence in the region. Since then, Iran has viewed Western policies—sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military encirclement,as attempts to undermine its sovereignty.

Iran’s strategic culture thus rests on three pillars: religious conviction rooted in Shi’a martyrdom, historical pride in Persian civilization, and a collective memory of foreign exploitation and resistance. This unique synthesis produces a national security mindset that values autonomy, deterrence, and strategic patience.

In the current conflict, Iran’s reaction to U.S. and Israeli aggression has been shaped by these enduring values. The country has retaliated across multiple domains, missile strikes, cyber operations, and regional alliances. Pro-Iranian groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis are reportedly preparing to escalate, while Iranian cyber units target Israeli infrastructure.

Iran’s Parliament has signaled the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a move with profound implications for global oil markets. However, analysts suggest that a full closure is unlikely, as it would harm China and Europe more than the United States, inadvertently pushing European powers further into American strategic orbit.

Looking ahead, Iran is expected to continue leveraging asymmetric strategies. It will maintain pressure on U.S. assets in the region, support allied non-state actors, and employ cyber warfare while avoiding direct confrontation with the U.S. that could trigger full-scale war. Paradoxically, such restraint, combined with calibrated escalation, serves to reinforce its deterrence. Its strategic culture dictates that it will not submit under pressure but rather escalate until it secures deterrence and strategic parity.

In conclusion, any U.S.-Israeli effort to change the Iranian regime through force is likely to backfire. Iran’s strategic culture ensures it will remain defiant, and any miscalculation could engulf the region in wider conflict. While Israel may seek short-term gains, the long-term consequences for the United States could include diminishing influence in the Middle East and a collapse of the regional order it helped construct.

Donald Trump drops hypocrisy bombs on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan

0

Donald Trump dropping hypocrisy bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan would serve as a stark demonstration of a controversial assertion: that every U.S. President since 1947 (excluding John F. Kennedy) has acted as a “keep” of Israel. This attack on Iran represents a historic blunder with catastrophic consequences. It would hand strategic victories to China and Russia, empower the Global South, and trigger a massive international crisis.

The Global South would respond decisively, not merely with complaints. They would cite the aggression as definitive proof that the United States operates outside established international rules. This would accelerate efforts to reform the United Nations and establish independent economic systems, moving decisively away from the U.S. dollar. Expect widespread adoption of bilateral currency trade agreements and non-Western financial platforms, such as the BRICS bank. The attack would validate their fundamental push for a world order no longer dominated by American hegemony.

China and Russia stand to gain the most. China would benefit from a distracted America, freeing it to intensify focus on Asia. It would secure discounted Iranian oil and position itself as a peacemaker in the Middle East, potentially drawing traditional U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia into its sphere of influence. Russia would gain from surging global oil prices, providing crucial funding for its war in Ukraine, while also expanding arms sales to an isolated Iran. Both powers would exploit the resulting chaos to actively dismantle the U.S.-led global order.

For the United States and Donald Trump, the fallout would be catastrophic. America would face profound isolation as European allies distance themselves. The U.S. would suffer an irreversible loss of standing as the global leader. Iran would retaliate asymmetrically, employing missiles, drones, and proxy forces to attack U.S. bases and allies across the region, while attempting to disrupt critical oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. would become ensnared in a protracted, unwinnable conflict, draining its military and economic resources. Global oil prices would skyrocket, potentially triggering a severe U.S. recession characterized by rampant inflation and significant job losses. This economic pain would disproportionately impact Trump’s core voter base, effectively ending the “America First” agenda.

Domestically, Trump would face intense scrutiny for initiating another perceived endless war. His political support would crumble, including within his own party, leading to deep national division. Widespread anti-war protests would erupt, fueling significant social and political unrest. Ultimately, attacking Iran constitutes an act of strategic self-sabotage. It would shatter American power, create a profound domestic crisis, and enable its rivals to establish the new rules governing the world order.

By:
Hassan Saleem Awan

GBU 57 bomb its usage and unique features

151
GBU-57

The GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a hefty 30,000-pound (around 13,600 kg) precision-guided bomb crafted by the United States Air Force. Its main purpose? To take out deeply buried and heavily fortified underground targets like nuclear bunkers, command centers, and weapons storage facilities.

Unique Features

Size and Weight:

This bomb stretches about 20 feet (6.2 meters) long and weighs roughly as much as a city bus, making it one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal.

Penetration Capability:

It’s built to dive deep, capable of penetrating up to 60 meters (about 200 feet) of reinforced concrete with a strength of 5,000 psi, or about 8 meters into 10,000 psi concrete. It can even go tens of meters into hard rock before it detonates. This impressive feat is thanks to its massive weight, high density, and an ogive-shaped nose that helps distribute impact forces gradually, allowing it to bore deep underground without falling apart.

Kinetic Energy:

When it hits, the bomb can reach speeds that exceed Mach 1 (the speed of sound), delivering kinetic energy similar to that of a 285-ton Boeing 747 landing at 170 mph, all focused on a small area. This helps it break through tough layers of rock and concrete.

Explosive Payload:

Inside, the warhead packs about 5,342 pounds of high-performance explosives (AFX-757 and PBXN-114), designed for a controlled detonation in confined underground spaces. This explosive charge makes up about one-fifth of the bomb’s total weight.

Smart Fuzing System:

It comes equipped with a programmable Large Penetrator Smart Fuze (LPSF) that can “count” layers of rock or concrete, spot hollow spaces like tunnels or chambers, and detonate the warhead at just the right depth to maximize destruction.

Guidance and Delivery:

The GBU-57 relies on a GPS/Inertial Navigation System (INS) for precise targeting, along with grid fins for mid-course flight adjustments. Right now, it can only be deployed by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which can carry two of these massive bombs.

Usage:

The GBU-57 is designed specifically to tackle tough, deeply buried targets that regular bombs just can’t handle, like Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, which is hidden beneath around 300 feet of rock and concrete.

Even with all the buzz in the media, the U.S. Air Force has confirmed that the GBU-57 has never actually seen combat, and there are only a few of them in stock.

Israel has shown interest in getting their hands on the bomb and the B-2 bomber capabilities to take out Iran’s nuclear bunkers, but as of June 2025, the U.S. hasn’t allowed access.

Summary:

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator is an incredibly powerful, non-nuclear bunker-buster bomb crafted to obliterate the most fortified underground targets. It achieves this by merging immense kinetic energy with a large, precisely timed explosive charge. Thanks to its cutting-edge guidance and smart fuzing systems, it can hit with remarkable accuracy and explode deep inside hardened structures, making it the only conventional weapon that can effectively neutralize targets like Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities.

Deterrence Dynamics Between Pakistan and India: An Evolving Trajectory

Pakistan and India

According to Structural Realism, the global system is anarchic, and the structure of the international system determines the behavior of its actors. Taking this a step further, Neoclassical Realism argues that while the distribution of power in the international system shapes state behavior, internal factors also influence how states respond to external pressures. These internal factors include leaders’ perceptions (and misperceptions), state institutions and regime type, bureaucratic politics, and national identity and strategic culture.

Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Pervaiz,a prominent scholar in Security Studies and International Relations at UMT Lahore, has made significant contributions to critical security studies. Among his notable theoretical ideas ,often discussed in academic circles  is the concept of “Political Party’s Strategic Culture.” This framework extends the traditional analysis of strategic culture, usually applied to states and militaries, to political parties. According to Dr. Shoaib, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) strategic culture is civilizational, ideologically rigid, and majoritarian, rooted in the Hindutva worldview. This represents a shift from the Nehruvian strategic culture, which was secular, non-aligned, and institutionalist, toward a more assertive, identity-driven, and revisionist approach. Dr Shoaib’s work help us to understand the Indian policy and actions against Pakistan and to formulate Pakistani response.

Since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan policies have become central to India’s domestic and foreign policy. Indian Muslims face systemic persecution, including lynching, murder, and rape by Hindu extremists, often with impunity. Under Modi, secular India has increasingly transformed into a hub of Hindu extremism and nativism. Pakistan, viewed as India’s antithesis, is vilified at the core. The Modi government has spared no effort to demonize Pakistan, investing billions in narrative-building campaigns to portray Pakistan as a pariah state deserving isolation. While falsely depicting India as a victim of Pakistan, Modi’s administration simultaneously supports and finances anti-Pakistan militant groups in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Since Prime Minister Modi came to power, his administration has consistently displayed hostility and antagonism toward Pakistan. In 2016, India claimed to have conducted a “surgical strike” across the Line of Control (LoC), which, upon closer examination, appeared to be a routine cross-border raid, common in the volatile dynamics of the LoC. The claim was largely dismissed by observers and perceived as a dramatized event meant to bolster domestic political support. To counter India’s narrative, the then Director General of ISPR invited international media to visit the alleged strike site, effectively challenging the credibility of the Indian account and turning the incident into an embarrassment for the Indian military establishment.

In 2019, following the Pulwama attack, the Indian Air Force carried out an airstrike in Balakot, allegedly targeting terrorist infrastructure. The strike, however, resulted in minimal damage, killing a crow and damaging a few trees. This marked the first time since the 1971 war that India targeted a settled area within Pakistan. Pakistan’s response was measured and professional, conducting airstrikes across the LoC without escalating to civilian targets.

However, this restrained response may have emboldened New Delhi. In May 2025, India activated its “salami slicing” strategy, conducting coordinated strikes on Muridke, Bahawalpur, and six other targets inside Pakistan. So confident was India in its position that its foreign minister publicly claimed that Pakistan had been notified prior to the strikes.

In the initial exchange, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) reportedly shot down six Indian fighter jets, including three Rafale aircraft. Nevertheless, India’s interpretation of Pakistan’s defensive posture, particularly PAF’s choice to engage without crossing the international border,was perceived as a sign of weakness.

Subsequently, India escalated by deploying drones, and on the night of 9–10 May, it crossed a critical threshold by launching BrahMos missiles, some of which targeted the Nur Khan Airbase. In response, Pakistan initiated a series of punitive strikes on 26 Indian targets from Occupied Kashmir to Indian state of Gujrat , demonstrating a significant escalation in the conflict. The intensity and precision of these retaliatory strikes reportedly compelled Prime Minister Modi to seek U.S. mediation, with President Trump intervening to facilitate a ceasefire.

The deterrence dynamics between Pakistan and India exhibit certain unique characteristics. A notable example is the episode of Operation Swift Retort in 2019, wherein Pakistan climbed the escalation ladder in response to Indian aggression. For the first time since the 1971 war, India conducted an aerial strike on Pakistan’s mainland settled area. In retaliation, Pakistan deliberately targeted areas across the Line of Control (LoC) in Indian-occupied Kashmir, executed precision bombings in proximity to Indian military positions, and then disengaged and returned without further escalation.

This calibrated response, however, was interpreted by India as a possible bluff, suggesting a perception that Pakistan lacked the capacity for engaging in a prolonged conventional conflict. As a result, following Operation Swift Retort, India issued threats of missile strikes on six strategic targets within Pakistan. In response, Pakistan identified eighteen Indian targets for counter-strikes. The situation de-escalated primarily due to the diplomatic intervention of China and the United States, which helped avert a broader conflict.

Despite this, India took Pakistan’s restraint, particularly its decision not to cross the international border in response to the Balakot strike, as an indication of strategic weakness. This perception had critical implications in the future trajectory of India’s military behavior.

In May 2025, this altered Indian perception manifested in a broader offensive. Whereas in 2019, India’s attack was limited to Balakot, this time Indian forces targeted settled areas within Azad Kashmir, as well as Bahawalpur and Lahore. Pakistan’s response, however, was markedly different. During the night of 7th and 8th, the Pakistan Air Force successfully downed six Indian aircraft.

Recognizing that India was operating under a misperception regarding the robustness of Pakistani deterrence, and in light of further provocations, including drone incursions and BrahMos missile attacks on Pakistan’s airbases, Pakistan opted to deliver a decisive physical response. In retaliation, missile strikes were conducted against Indian settled areas, resulting in the destruction of BrahMos missile stockpiles. Furthermore, Pakistan successfully targeted and destroyed S-400 air defense battery, as well as various military installations from Kashmir to Gujarat.

This escalation compelled India to unilaterally seek a ceasefire through the United States, marking a significant moment in the strategic calculus of both states. The key lesson derived from this sequence of events is that, in the context of Pakistan-India strategic relations, climbing the escalation ladder necessitates the delivery of physical punishment to the adversary. Only through such tangible responses does deterrence credibility solidify, preventing further escalation from the opposing side. Therefore, within the framework of bilateral deterrence, the element of punishment, particularly when climbing the escalation ladder, is indispensable for maintaining strategic stability and preventing miscalculations.

Possibility of a regime change in Iran

12

The idea of toppling the Iranian regime feels pretty far-fetched at this point in time, unless a few key things happen all at once. For real change to take root, we’d need to see a major revolt within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a wave of sustained protests sweeping across the nation, and a strong, unifying opposition leader to galvanize public support.

Even though many Iranians are unhappy with the current situation, the regime’s robust security apparatus and its track record of quashing dissent, like what we saw during the 2009 Green Movement and the 2019 fuel protests help it hold onto power.

Recent developments, such as increased Israeli airstrikes and U.S. leaders calling for Iran to completely surrender, have heightened internal tensions, but they haven’t yet weakened the regime’s core.

Experts suggest that the Iranian leadership is firmly in control, using a sense of unity to face various challenges. However, ongoing economic difficulties, effective opposition protests, and resistance from liberal segments of society could gradually expose weaknesses in the regime’s foundations. Despite these internal challenges, none of them have the potential to bring about immediate change. Even if there were to be a successful assassination of the Supreme Leader, the regime would likely continue to function.

In the end, a total collapse might only happen if external military pressure causes cracks within the IRGC. Without that, it seems Iran’s government will continue to endure, possibly becoming even more authoritarian, despite the rising unrest and frustration among its citizens, especially the younger crowd, liberals and Baluch separatists operating in Sistan province.

Nami Danam (I don’t Know) — A Postmodernist Analysis of Israel Iran War

Image courtesy AFP

The Israel-Iran war has now entered its sixth day. Israel, a settler-colonial entity, declared its independence in 1948, a project sanctioned by the British Empire. Interestingly, before Palestine, there were proposals to establish a Jewish homeland in East Africa, in what is now Uganda.

The creation of the Israeli state was rooted in the ideology of Zionism , a racialized political doctrine that has been rejected by many Jews themselves. Zionism fuses religion with ethnonationalism to consolidate power and rationalize ongoing crimes against humanity. Ironically, it was not the Muslim world but the West that historically persecuted the Jews. Europe’s dark legacy of pogroms, ghettos, and extermination stands in stark contrast to the benevolence of Muslim empires , including the Ottomans , who offered Jews sanctuary, prosperity, and dignity.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, this settler colony has steadily expanded, with unwavering support from Western powers. It functions as both a strategic outpost and a civilizational bulwark in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), aimed at containing Islamic revival. As Samuel Huntington predicted, Islamic civilization has the potential to reassert itself under adverse conditions.

The West’s so-called “rules-based order” collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, particularly in the face of unconditional support for Israeli genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Now, following its brutal campaign in Gaza, the Zionist state has provoked a wider conflict by launching airstrikes on Iran five days ago, escalating the region toward potential catastrophe. Citing Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu pushes forward his vision of a “Greater Israel.” Meanwhile, talks of regime change has surface once again. U.S. President Donald Trump has called for Iran’s unconditional surrender.

But why does the West misunderstand Iran so deeply?

Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was a loyal ally of the West, embracing Western modernity with zeal. The Pahlavi regime, particularly under the Shah, mirrored Western culture so obsessively that it alienated its own people, becoming a colonial elite ruling over a colonized population. The masses resisted. In a hopeful turn, they democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalized Iran’s oil resources. But that hope was short-lived. In a Cold War power play, MI6 and the CIA orchestrated a coup, ousting Mossadegh and reinstating the Shah. This betrayal of democracy sowed the seeds of revolution. By 1979, the people overthrew the monarchy and birthed a new, ideological Iran.

Modern Iran is not just a theocracy; it is the inheritor of a rich civilizational identity , deeper and older than its Zionist adversary or its Western patrons.

Following Israel’s attack on Iran, excitement is brewing in messianic and strategic circles. But this war is not merely kinetic, it is civilizational. The world is drifting toward a postmodern Cold War, with psychological warfare as its main theatre. Here, confusion is the strategy, perception the weapon, and the objective is to make irrational choices appear rational , all while sustaining chaos to justify control. The goal is not just dominance, but engineered disorder , a controlled demolition of clarity and meaning.

In the postmodern condition, states no longer function as rational actors in a realist framework. Ideas are imposed, not absorbed. Knowledge has become a tool of manipulation. Language itself , through intertextuality, binaries, and contradictions , becomes weaponized. In this epistemic battlefield, those still trapped in the myths of Western modernity are the most vulnerable. They are defeated in mind long before they fall in body.

Enter China.

China not only challenges Western economic hegemony, but also Western modernity. The rationality of modernity, paradoxically, births irrational systems. This produces new rationalities that question the foundations of the old. Through intertextuality, subjectivity coverups as objectivity. The illusion of peace births confusion, which in turn forms the support of a new global order , one rooted in conceit, deception, and ideological distortion.

Who falls into this trap? The ignorant, the blind, the intoxicated by borrowed truths. The way forward lies in indigenous modernity , a framework rooted in civilizational consciousness. It is both sword and shield. National interest viewed through foreign paradigms leads into darkness; only self-knowledge illuminates the path. True life begins with the death of false selfhood. Conversely, to live in denial of one’s civilizational being is a form of slow death.

The story will not end with the defeat of Iran or another regime change. Israel and its allies are not seeking victory, they are cultivating anarchy, intentionally. But this manufactured chaos may backfire. In trying to delay history, they may have accelerated it. What they plant today are not seeds of triumph, but the beginnings of a long war , one that may ultimately hasten their decline.

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is being sent to the Eastern Mediterranean, being deployed closer to Israel.

17

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) strike group is being deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean, joining two other U.S. carrier strike groups already positioned near the Middle East amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. This marks a significant naval buildup as the region faces one of its most intense conflicts in recent years.

The USS Carl Vinson strike group is currently operating in the Arabian Sea, while the USS Nimitz strike group is en route from the Indo-Pacific to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. Together, these three carrier strike groups enhance the U.S. Navy’s ability to project power and provide rapid military options in response to the ongoing hostilities.

The deployment comes as Iran and Israel continue to exchange missile and drone strikes. Since June 12, Iran has launched approximately 400 missiles toward Israel, some breaching air defenses and causing civilian casualties. Israeli forces have retaliated with airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites deep inside Iran, inflicting significant damage on Iran’s missile stockpiles and military infrastructure.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has rejected calls for Iran’s unconditional surrender and warned that any U.S. military involvement would cause “irreparable damage” to the United States. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is weighing options for U.S. involvement, including possible collaboration with Israel on strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, though a final decision has not been announced.

The presence of three U.S. carrier strike groups in proximity to the conflict zone underscores Washington’s strategic intent to support Israel, deter further Iranian aggression, and maintain stability in a volatile region. The USS Gerald R. Ford, as the Navy’s most advanced carrier, brings enhanced capabilities including advanced air wings and missile defense systems, which are critical amid the threat of Iranian missile and drone attacks.

This naval posture also reflects broader concerns about the conflict’s potential to escalate into a wider regional or global confrontation, with allied militias and other actors threatening retaliation should the U.S. formally enter the war. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing missile exchanges and diplomatic efforts continuing alongside military preparations.

Israeli spy agency set up bases deep inside Iran years before June 13 strike

0

THE MOSSAD, ISRAEL’S PRIMARY external intelligence agency, had set up forward-operating bases deep inside Iranian territory several years prior to last week’s attacks, which targeted Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. In some cases, Mossad operatives, including commando forces, were operating inside the vicinity of the Iranian capital Tehran for months prior to June 13, according to Israeli media outlets.

June 13 marked the commencement of Operation RISING LION, a joint Mossad/Israel Defense Force (IDF) campaign to decimate Iran’s military leadership, diminish its defense capabilities, and destroy its nuclear infrastructure. The assault, which is ongoing as of today, has been described by the Associated Press as the largest attack suffered by Iran since the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Reports that emerged in the past 48 hours suggest that the success of the Israeli operation hinged decisively on a network of bases that the Mossad had managed to establish deep inside Iranian territory for quite some time. The bases had been set up by Mossad operatives that, in some cases, had managed to operate inside Iran for years. Additional support was allegedly provided by “special units of Iranian operatives working for Mossad”, according to one report.

The Mossad bases hosted “precision weapons” that had been smuggled in from Isarel over time. These were used to target selected Iranian surface-to-air missile installations shortly prior to the main phase of the attack, which was carried out by over 200 IDF fighter jets. With key Iranian defensive installations destroyed, the IDF fighter jets were able to carry out their missions without obstruction in the early hours of June 13.

Moreover, the Mossad appears to have //penetrated// the battle plans that were to be followed by the Islamic Republic’s senior military leadership during a possible military confrontation with Iran. Therefore, as the IDF attack commenced, Israeli missiles destroyed the top-secret bunker that was used by the leadership of the Artesh (Iran’s conventional military force) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). At least two dozen senior Artesh and IRGC commanders were killed as a result of this intelligence penetration, according to reports.

Partition in the Multipolar Era

39

As smoke rose from the hills of Pahalgam following a deadly ambush on Hindu pilgrims, military columns from 23 nations marched through Moscow’s Red Square. They were not just honoring Soviet sacrifice in World War II; they were broadcasting a signal: the global order was shifting. The pageantry in Moscow was marked more than remembrance; it was a declaration of momentum. The world is pivoting toward a multipolar future, and the Global South is stepping into the limelight.

Yet, even as countries from Latin America to Africa deepen alliances with Russia and China, South Asia remains mired in crisis. The Pahalgam attack, executed by four unidentified gunmen who disappeared into one of the world’s most surveilled regions, reignited the combustible India-Pakistan rivalry. Cross-border accusations, followed by denials and frantic attempts from international mediators to prevent escalation, are an all-too-familiar script in the subcontinent.

The attack’s timing and impact were pivotal, coinciding with renewed momentum in BRICS, a coalition of emerging economies originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Initially formed to challenge Western economic dominance, BRICS has evolved into a platform for restructuring the global financial architecture.

Pakistan is among the countries whose efforts to engage with BRICS have received covert support from Russia and China. For Pakistan, the bloc offers more than geopolitical prestige; it constitutes an alternative to the Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and World Bank, long criticized for austerity-laden assistance. BRICS already accounts for over 37% of global GDP (PPP) and has established the New Development Bank, offering infrastructure financing free from Western political strings. As the bloc explores a common settlement currency to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, Pakistan sees in it a potential economic lifeline. Yet Pakistan’s path to integration is complicated not just by global alignments, but by entrenched regional rivalries.

But BRICS operates on consensus. India, a founding member, holds an effective veto over new entrants—and has shown no indication of supporting Pakistan’s inclusion. While both countries profess a desire for regional cooperation, bilateral hostility continues to stall multilateral progress.

We have encountered this before; following the Uri attack in 2016, India abstained from the SAARC summit, paralyzing the forum. After the 2019 Pulwama bombing, India launched airstrikes across the Line of Control. That same year, it revoked Article 370 in Kashmir, stripping the region of autonomy. Pakistan responded by downgrading the diplomatic alliance. The relationship remains frozen, with each new act of violence deepening distrust.

Pahalgam, therefore, is not just another tragic footnote. It unfolded just as BRICS was asserting itself as a serious counterweight to Western institutions. As much of the Global South embraces new alignments, South Asia remains stuck in the debris of partition, hostage to old grievances. Yet beneath the geopolitical maneuvering lies an even older fault line—identity.

In South Asia, identity politics often finds its sharpest expression through religion. Religion—so often a fault line in South Asia—has once again been weaponized. Early reports suggest the Pahalgam attackers singled out victims based on faith—a chilling echo of colonial-era tactics. The pattern is familiar throughout history. In 2002, a train fire in Gujarat sparked days of anti-Muslim riots. In the Pahalgam incident, communal rhetoric returned swiftly, with media narratives and political discourse deepening polarization instead of demanding clarity or accountability.

The South Asia Terrorism Portal notes that faith-based violence remains a persistent threat. But unlike in past decades, today’s violence plays out in the shadows of digital surveillance, misinformation, and identity profiling. Increasingly, policy is shaped not just by ideology but by algorithms and optics. The communal becomes political, and the political becomes normalized.

Meanwhile, India positions itself as a global player—courting Western alliances through the QUAD, G20, and Silicon Valley tech diplomacy. Yet within BRICS, India remains an ambiguous link. Its decision to skip the Moscow celebrations—officially due to prior commitments—raises deep questions. Unofficially, the optics of standing beside China and Russia, especially after a terrorist attack at home, were likely deemed too fraught. This delicate balance mirrors India’s wider struggle to uphold strategic connections with the West while preserving its influence on non-Western arenas. But strategic silence comes at a cost.

As the Global South reorients, India’s hesitance to fully commit creates friction—not only with adversaries, but within multilateral spaces that demand cohesion. By hampering Pakistan’s entry into BRICS, India may preserve a short-term edge—but at the expense of the bloc’s regional legitimacy. For Pakistan, the message is equally stark: without progress on bilateral normalization, forums like BRICS will remain out of reach. Rhetoric cannot replace diplomacy. The longer the stalemate drags on, the more South Asia risks being sidelined—its potential drowned by its past.

In the aftermath of the latest cross-border flare-up, Pakistan claimed victory in the skies, celebrating the downing of Indian jets as a national triumph. But while the battle played out in the air, the real war may be unfolding on the diplomatic front. New alignments are being forged not with missiles, but with trade, development banks, and institutional leverage. And on that front, India played the longer game—using its founding status in BRICS to stall Pakistan’s ascent while straddling East and West. South Asia may continue to trade fire, but the world has moved on to arenas where power is measured not by strikes but by seats at the table.

Popular Posts

My Favorites