Spies, Sanctions, Cyberattacks: China and the U.S. Clash Behind the Scenes nytimes.com/2026/05/14/us/po… Chinese Spying in America China’s technological rise is not driven by innovation alone. It has been accelerated by one of the world’s largest and most persistent campaigns of intellectual property theft, cyber espionage, and illegal technology acquisition. Artificial intelligence is only the latest battleground. China rapidly produced DeepSeek after the arrival of ChatGPT and is racing to replicate other cutting-edge American AI systems including American Claude Mythos. While China has many talented scientists and engineers, it also benefits from an extraordinary ability to acquire foreign technology at a fraction of the time and cost required to develop it independently, which may or may not succeed. The pattern extends far beyond AI. The striking similarities between America’s F-35 stealth fighter and China’s J-35 have long fueled allegations that sensitive technology was stolen. Similar accusations have surrounded advanced missiles, semiconductors, telecommunications, aerospace, and defence systems. Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that China employs cyberattacks, industrial espionage, insider recruitment, and academic partnerships to obtain technologies that would otherwise take years to develop. The targets are extensive: communications networks, power grids, water systems, universities, medical research, defence contractors, military laboratories, and high-tech companies. Virtually every sector that drives America’s economic and military strength is viewed as a potential source of valuable intelligence. The FBI and U.S. cybersecurity agencies have exposed numerous Chinese espionage networks and prosecuted offenders. Yet these successes barely scratch the surface. The theft continues because the rewards far outweigh the risks. Once stolen, the information is analysed, refined, and rapidly integrated into Chinese research, industry, and military programs. Years of costly American research can be compressed into months, allowing China to narrow the technological gap without paying the full price of innovation. The United States and its allies are finally pushing back, but they have reacted far too slowly. Every breakthrough that escapes through espionage weakens Western competitiveness and strengthens China’s strategic position. The real contest between America and China is no longer just about who invents first. It is about who can better protect whatever new is invented.

Pakistan Launches Deadly Strikes in Afghanistan nytimes.com/video/world/asia… Pakistan Is in No Position to Fight India Over River Water Right (Too many internal problems which are sapping Pakistan’s energy) How many simultaneous crises can one country survive before it begins to crack? Pakistan is rapidly approaching that point. Its internal security is deteriorating on every front. In Balochistan, a decades-old separatist insurgency continues to bleed the state. Along the western border, Taliban-backed militants reject the Durand Line and are waging a violent campaign against Pakistani authority. In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, growing unrest is challenging Islamabad’s control. The Pakistani military is already stretched thin. Yet Pakistan continues to fixate on India. Four wars, decades of cross-border terrorism, and countless provocations have failed to alter Kashmir’s status. The only lasting result has been mounting economic, diplomatic, and military costs for Pakistan. Now another strategic blow has arrived. Following years of Pakistan-backed militancy, India has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty and is pressing ahead with hydroelectric and water-storage projects on rivers allocated for Pakistan’s use. Pakistan fears serious consequences for its agriculture and has responded with increasingly bellicose threats. But threats are not strategy. Pakistan’s economy is in deep distress. It remains dependent on IMF bailouts and financial support from friendly nations. It can barely finance its current obligations, let alone sustain another military conflict. Even a warmer relationship with President Trump is unlikely to change that reality. With the Iran crisis fading, Washington’s need for Pakistan has diminished. Against this backdrop, boasts about “cutting off the hands” of anyone who touches Pakistan’s water are little more than political theatre. They may stir emotions at home, but they do not strengthen Pakistan’s strategic position. A war with India would be an enormous gamble. It would strain an already fragile economy, stretch an overextended military, and risk intensifying separatist movements in Balochistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir while increasing pressure along the Afghan frontier. Pakistan today is fighting too many battles at once. Opening another front against India would not solve its problems—it could accelerate the country’s internal unraveling. But its military is out of control. They are searching for victory even after loosing four wars.

President Trump Lost This War nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opini… While America Watched FIFA, Trump Lost the PR War on Iran As America’s military campaign against Iran dragged on through March and April, public interest steadily faded. What initially dominated headlines became an exhausting, seemingly endless conflict. Americans—and much of the world—were ready for something more upliftings. Then came the FIFA World Cup. Beginning in mid-June, the tournament captivated an estimated four billion viewers worldwide. With 42 nations competing in 104 matches across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, football replaced war as the world’s daily conversation. Even President Trump’s repeated warnings and dramatic statements on Iran struggled to compete with the spectacle unfolding on the pitch. For Americans, the tournament was a revelation. Although soccer has traditionally ranked behind American football, baseball, and basketball, World Cup matches drew packed stadiums of 70,000 to 100,000 fans, while millions more watched from home. The excitement was infectious. For a few weeks, Iran disappeared from the public mind. Ceasefire talks, military operations, and presidential rhetoric gave way to goals, upsets, and unforgettable moments. The audience Trump sought had shifted its attention elsewhere. American football remains immensely popular, but the FIFA World Cup is a different phenomenon altogether. Its fast-paced, uninterrupted 90 minutes, global rivalries, and unmatched atmosphere create a sporting event unlike any other. The United States may not be a traditional football power, but it proved itself an outstanding host, staging a tournament that captivated both domestic and international audiences. Credit is due to FIFA and the host cities across North America for organizing an event of remarkable scale and quality. But the final whistle will not end the Iran conflict. Once the trophy is lifted, the headlines are likely to return to war, diplomacy, and presidential pronouncements. The World Cup will end; the geopolitical crisis almost certainly will not.

You Can’t Be a Superpower Without Allies nytimes.com/2026/06/21/opini… Today’s Geopolitical Shifts Could Weaken America’s Superpower Status The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after President Mikhail Gorbachev made a series of strategic miscalculations. Overnight, the USSR lost its superpower status. Militarily, scientifically and diplomatically, Russia remained capable, but geopolitical mistakes had irreversible consequences. That history offers a cautionary lesson for President Trump. Trump has accumulated enormous decision-making power and is reshaping U.S. foreign policy with limited debate or consultation. His willingness to distance America from Europe, question NATO, launch a poorly conceived bombing campaign against Iran, and openly discuss acquiring Greenland or making Canada the 51st state has unsettled allies who have stood with Washington for decades. In Asia, the picture is equally troubling. Japan, which has relied on the U.S. security umbrella since the end of the Second World War, is increasingly uncertain about America’s long-term commitment as Chinese and Russian military pressure grows. Taiwan also fears that U.S. support may not be guaranteed if China attempts an invasion. In South Asia, Washington has strained relations with India while appearing to place greater value on its ties with Pakistan, a country with double crossing and terror history. These policy shifts may not immediately diminish American power, but they could gradually erode its position as the leader of the free world. America’s global influence rests not only on its economic strength, military might and technological leadership, but also on a network of trusted alliances built over eight decades. Those partnerships helped contain Soviet expansion and created an international order based on shared security and democratic values. Trump began disrupting that order on his first day in office by declaring that tariffs would become a central tool of U.S. policy. His tariff agenda rattled exporters worldwide and strained long-standing trade relationships with Europe, Asia, Canada and Mexico, including CUSMA. His repeated remarks about absorbing Canada into U.S. further damaged confidence in America’s intentions. His approach to Europe has been equally disruptive. By suggesting that the United States could reduce its commitment to NATO unless European members spent more on defence, he cast doubt on the alliance that America itself created to deter Soviet aggression. If it is more on fair share of defence expenditure is an acceptable argument. It is more about weakening the very alliances that underpin American leadership. History will decide which view is correct. My assessment is that loosening America’s ties with its closest allies risks repeating the kind of geopolitical misjudgments that contributed to the Soviet Union’s decline. Time will tell.

President Trump Lost This War nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opini… Trump Has Already Lost the Battle of the Strait of Hormuz President Trump has already lost the battle over the Strait of Hormuz. Beyond repeated threats to “annihilate” Iran and occasional retaliatory airstrikes, Washington has little leverage left. Those threats may impress a domestic audience, but they have not frightened Tehran. If Trump intended to cripple Iran militarily, he missed that opportunity months ago. Now, whether negotiations take place in Switzerland or Doha, Iran will enter from a position of strength. The strategic initiative has shifted. Trump has boxed himself into a corner. Launching a full-scale war against Iran would be politically costly at home, especially with elections looming. Yet doing nothing makes American threats look increasingly hollow. He needs a complete change of strategy. The first casualty should be the advisers who sold him the illusion that military pressure alone would force Iran to surrender. It has not. Iran is neither invincible nor immune to pressure, but it cannot be bullied into submission. A better course would be to revive the Obama-Kerry-Iran nuclear agreement and extend its restrictions for another 15 to 20 years. At the same time, Pakistan should face serious consequences for its past role in nuclear proliferation. Any penalty must be strong enough to deter future transfers of nuclear, missile, or other strategic technologies. The Strait of Hormuz cannot be secured from 15,000 miles away by aircraft carriers and warships alone. Permanent control would require boots on the ground on both shores—a campaign that could cost thousands of American lives and one the U.S. public is unlikely to support. If that option is off the table, Washington should stop pretending that naval power alone can solve the problem. Instead, Gulf nations should accelerate pipelines that bypass the Strait, permanently reducing its strategic importance. An independent maritime security force, funded by the oil-producing states, should safeguard commercial shipping without becoming an extension of any single power. The path to stability is not paved with threats or an endless naval buildup. It begins by accepting strategic reality. Until Washington replaces intimidation with practical diplomacy, the Strait of Hormuz will remain a flashpoint—and Iran will continue to hold the stronger hand.

Musadik Malik: 'Will cut off those hands': Pakistan minister's stark warning to India over Indus Waters Treaty - The Times of India timesofindia.indiatimes.com/… How Chenab River Water Could Reach Jodhpur in Rajasthan The Chandra and Bhaga rivers originate in the glaciated mountains of Himachal Pradesh’s Lahaul-Spiti region in India, at an elevation of nearly 12,000 feet. They merge to form the Chandra-Bhaga River, flowing past numerous Hindu religious sites before entering Jammu and Kashmir, where it becomes the Chenab River. (My ancestral village lies not far from this region in HP). As Chenab descends through Kashmir to about 4,000 feet, it becomes ideal for hydroelectric generation. India has already completed two run-of-the-river hydropower projects and is constructing three more. These projects use small catchment reservoirs to feed turbines. Because the river carries heavy sediment from the Himalayas, the reservoirs require de-silting every three to five years. The Chenab then enters the plains of Pakistan’s Punjab, where with an average flow of 977 m3/sec, is one of the principal irrigation sources, supplying water to roughly 40-45 percent of the province’s farmland. Under the now-defunct Indus Waters Treaty, the Chenab was allocated largely to Pakistan after it enters Pakistan, while India retained the right to build run-of-the-river hydropower projects. Pakistan has consistently opposed these projects, fearing that India could temporarily retain water in the reservoirs and reduce downstream flows during critical crop-growing periods. Even a short disruption at the wrong time could damage Pakistan’s agricultural output. India has now approved a project that could further reduce flows into Pakistan. Water from the Chandra River in Himachal Pradesh will be diverted through an 8-kilometre tunnel into the Beas River. Though not a massive diversion, it is significant at about 270 m3/sec (almost same as Jhelum River Flow). This additional water will eventually reach the Harike Barrage in Indian Punjab. It will provide irrigation benefits to Himachal Pradesh, and it can be channelled into the Indira Gandhi Canal before the Sutlej enters Pakistan, ultimately supplying irrigation and drinking water all the way to the Jodhpur and beyond region of Rajasthan. The project is both ambitious and practical. About two million acre-feet of water a year that would otherwise flow into Pakistan could instead remain in India, benefiting Indian farmers while easing chronic water shortages in Rajasthan. Pakistan has opposed the proposal vigorously and has signalled that it is prepared to escalate the dispute. Some statements by Pakistan’s military leadership have even suggested the possibility of bombing Indian dams in Kashmir. India, however, maintains that it is prepared for any such contingency and that its sea-based nuclear deterrent makes nuclear coercion ineffective. The result is a strategic impasse. By the time these projects are completed and begin altering regional water management, President Trump—widely viewed in Pakistan as sympathetic to its concerns—will no longer be in office, and the tariff pressures that proved influential in 2025 may no longer carry the same weight.

Trump Defends Deal to End the War With Iran as Details Emerge nytimes.com/2026/06/17/world… Trump’s Suspension of the 2016 Iran Deal Was a Costly Mistake Had President Trump not withdrawn from the 2016 Obama–Kerry nuclear agreement with Iran during his first term, the recent US-Iran war might never have occurred. The world would have been spared months of soaring oil prices, and the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz—a waterway carrying about one-fifth of the world’s oil—would never have loomed so large. President Obama recognized that Iran had already acquired nuclear technology and that eliminating that knowledge was unrealistic. Instead, the agreement froze Iran’s nuclear program for 15 years under strict international inspections. Trump rejected that approach, withdrew from the deal, and reimposed sanctions. Iran then resumed enriching uranium, eventually accumulating about 600 kilograms enriched to 60% purity—only a short technical step from weapons-grade material. The collapse of the 2016 agreement is the real turning point. Military action has failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program, and the current peace talks are unlikely to achieve more. Nor would further bombing of Iran solve the problem. Trump and many of his advisers have repeatedly shown a willingness to create confrontation without fully considering the long-term consequences or the determination of other nations to resist. The same pattern has appeared in tariff disputes and in territorial ambitions involving Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. A lasting solution lies not in more war but in reviving and strengthening the 2016 agreement. It should be extended, perhaps until 2045, with robust international inspections to ensure compliance. The country that originally enabled Iran’s nuclear program (Pakistan) should also be held accountable. Equally important, U.S. should abandon unrealistic goals such as regime change or seizing Iran’s oil and gas resources. Also Israel should end military operations against Iran, while Iran, in return, should cease support for armed proxy groups. The greatest beneficiary of such an agreement would be the world economy. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and with free international shipping would reduce geopolitical risk, stabilize energy markets, and benefit every nation.

Fighting India Helps Revive the Pakistani Military’s Popularity nytimes.com/2025/05/16/world… Indus Water Treaty - Can a Jihadi Nation Ever Settle Its Differences with Others? 
(Part 3) Can Palestinians and Israel ever permanently settle their differences? It is possible, but the chances remain remote. A similar logic applies to Pakistan and India. Pakistan was carved out of British India in 1947 as a separate Muslim homeland. For many in Pakistan, this identity has evolved into a lasting ideological rivalry with India. While Kashmir is presented as the central dispute, a deeper historical narrative also shapes the conflict—the memory of centuries of Muslim rule from Delhi during the medieval period. Kashmir, water disputes, and other grievances serve as rallying points that keep public passions inflamed. Jihad has long been used as a religious slogan to mobilize Muslims against non-Muslim adversaries. In that sense, it resembles the sectarian conflicts between Catholics and Protestants that consumed Europe for centuries. Those religious wars eventually faded in Europe, but similar ideological conflicts continue to influence parts of Asia and the Middle East. Since Pakistan’s creation, Kashmir has remained the principal issue used to sustain hostility toward India. More recently, the Indus Waters Treaty has become another flashpoint. India, however, is far larger, economically stronger, and increasingly focused on development rather than confrontation. That may be India’s most effective response to ideological hostility. Pakistan, by contrast, continues to devote enormous resources to military preparedness at the expense of economic progress and public welfare. Even after its setback in the May 2025 India-Pakistan aerial conflict, where 50 Indian missile strikes inflicted significant damage, Pakistan appears determined to rebuild its military capability rather than redirect national priorities toward development. Today, Pakistan is led by a military establishment whose outlook, critics argue, remains deeply shaped by religious ideology that is Jihad. Western attire and diplomatic language may reassure foreign donors, but they do not necessarily reflect a change in their strategic thinking. The belief that military confrontation can alter the balance with a much larger and better-equipped India persists despite repeated setbacks. For these reasons, India-Pakistan tensions may be paused but are unlikely to disappear entirely. India’s emphasis on economic growth and global integration offers a stronger long-term strategy than perpetual confrontation. Pakistan, however, continues to invest heavily in a security-first approach, leaving its people to bear the economic and social costs of an enduring conflict. It has resulted in Pakistan staying as an improvised nation with Jihad against India as it’s primary national objective. It is suiting India as it progresses in leaps and bounds and leaves Pakistan far behind economically and militarily.

Mideast Live Updates: U.S. Reaches Deal With Iran to Halt Attacks, Official Says nytimes.com/live/2026/06/29/… These are not the last attacks and counter attacks. Each is trying to show who has more power. With Trump on backfoot, Iran is exerting greater pressure. With empty Trump threats of ‘cease to exist’, America is making a laughing stock of itself.

India and Pakistan’s Air Battle Is Over. Their Water War Has Begun. nytimes.com/2025/05/31/world… War over Water - Indus Water Treaty Part - 2 Pakistan, despite being financially strained, appears to be preparing for a future conflict with India, centered on water. Its defense budget has risen by 18% this year after a 15% increase last year. In upcoming years, even more development funds are likely to be diverted toward military expansion. Within the military, Pakistan has reportedly created a dedicated rocket force intended to target Indian infrastructure within a range of 500 km. Potential targets include dams, refineries, railway yards, military airfields, and other strategic assets. Following losses suffered during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, their air force is rebuilding key capabilities. Additional surveillance satellites have also been launched to monitor India. The navy, meanwhile, has strengthened its presence in the Arabian Sea with new submarine assets. Diplomatically, Pakistan has managed to restore relevance in Washington by positioning itself as a useful intermediary for the U.S. in Middle East. Regardless, Pakistan has regained access to a powerful patron. The dispute over the six rivers of Punjab appears far from resolved. India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty in 2025 marked a major turning point. Pakistan protested vigorously, but international attention remained elsewhere, focused on tariff disputes, conflicts in the Middle East, and broader geopolitical tensions. For now, water continues to flow normally through the rivers allocated to Pakistan. All rivers flow from India to Pakistan that is a strategic drawback. However, the Chenab River has acquired greater importance. The Salal and Baglihar dams built by India are already operational, while Sawalkote, Pakal Dul, and Ratle dams all built upstream by India are expected to be completed within the next few years. Though designed for hydroelectric generation, their reservoirs could potentially provide India with water holding control over downstream water flows, during crop time frame. That could spell disaster for Pakistani agriculture. Any future conflict would emerge mainly over river water holding dams. If Pakistan were to respond militarily, missile strikes against dams, infrastructure, and military facilities in India could be among its opening moves. India would then rely on its missile-defense systems and layered air defenses to blunt the attack. The conflict could quickly escalate into missile, drone, and ground operations. Land battles would likely focus on strategic communication routes, border sectors, and critical military objectives. India’s objective is all of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir (POK). Should hostilities intensify, international pressure for a ceasefire would arrive rapidly. Western powers, concerned about escalation between two nuclear-armed states, would almost certainly push for an immediate halt to fighting. India unlikely to stop action like in previous wars. It will push on until the objective of liberating POK has been achieved. What happens next is anyone’s guess. Military strength and economy are on Indian side. Diplomatically and internationally Pakistan is better placed. War unlikely to end until Pakistan dumps enmity with India permanently and water sharing is renegotiated. To that Western powers are on Indian side. (To be continued)….

Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit. nytimes.com/2026/06/28/world… Is it corruption from the highest level or no?

India and Pakistan’s Air Battle Is Over. Their Water War Has Begun. nytimes.com/2025/05/31/world… War Over Water - the Indus Water Treaty Part - 1 Treaties survive only when both parties act in good faith. One of the oldest known peace treaty was signed in 1258 BC between Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt and the Hittite Empire after the Battle of Kadesh. It remained respected long after both kingdoms disappeared. A modern example is the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, which has endured despite repeated regional crises because both sides ultimately chose stability over conflict. The Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, signed in 1960, was intended to achieve a similar goal. The river system of Punjab sustains millions on both sides of the border. Under the agreement, India received exclusive rights over the smaller eastern rivers, while Pakistan obtained primary use of the much larger western rivers. India accepted these terms in the hope of fostering lasting peace. The water distribution was uneven in which 80% went to Pakistan and 20% to India. Yet relations between the two countries remained troubled. Disputes over Kashmir, objections to Indian hydroelectric projects, and recurring military confrontations kept tensions alive. Despite losing four wars with India, Pakistan continued to challenge Indian initiatives, particularly concerning water management and hydroelectric projects that India maintained were permitted under the treaty. A key fact is that the western rivers originate in India before flowing into Pakistan. The treaty allowed India to construct hydroelectric facilities provided downstream flows were not significantly affected. For decades, India largely adhered to those restrictions. The situation changed after the April 2025 terrorist attack in Kashmir that killed Indian civilians and was blamed by India on Pakistan-backed militants. Following a brief air conflict in May 2025, India suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty and indicated that it would no longer consider itself bound by its limitations. India is now expected to accelerate construction of hydroelectric projects and storage facilities, particularly on the Chenab River. Such infrastructure could enable temporary retention of water during critical agricultural periods and give India greater control over river flows. River-linking project that divert some water from River Chenab is also under active consideration. For Pakistan, these developments threaten a vital national interest. Pakistani Agriculture depends heavily on the Chenab and other western rivers. Any significant reduction or delay in water flows could have serious economic consequences. India argues that decades of terrorism and hostility have exhausted its patience. Pakistan insists that water should never become a strategic weapon. History shows that nations have fought wars over water before. If tensions over the Indus system continue to rise, another conflict cannot be ruled out. (To be Continued….)

Live Updates: Mideast Hostilities Flare, Testing Fragile U.S.-Iran Truce nytimes.com/live/2026/06/27/… Iran - US, Strikes & Counterstrikes As long as US forces are face to face with Iranians and President Trump not sure that he has achieved victory, these strikes and counter strikes would continue. Only way out that American Navy to leave the Gulf area and Iranians withdraw their forces from the Strait of Hormuz. Until then Trump will always be ready to order strikes. ….. Leave the area President Trump

Trump Is Making Big Claims About the Iran Talks. Iran Keeps Contradicting Him. nytimes.com/2026/06/23/us/po… Trump’s Constant Threats Undermine US-Iran Peace Talks President Trump’s habit of making public threats is complicating the US-Iran peace negotiations now underway in Switzerland. Although Vice President JD Vance is formally involved in the process, Trump reportedly receives frequent updates through his son-in-law Jared Kushner and businessman Steve Witkoff. Armed with a steady flow of information, he often comments on the talks before negotiating sessions have even concluded. His remarks that “America will hit Iran very hard” illustrate the problem. Such statements are unusual when sensitive peace negotiations are in progress. Diplomacy generally requires restraint, patience, and careful messaging. Public threats can harden positions and make compromise more difficult. Trump has long relied on intimidation as a negotiating tool. His approach is to apply maximum pressure at the outset, hoping to extract the greatest concessions from the other side. That style may have served him in real-estate transactions, but international conflicts are different. Here, lives, military risks, and vast economic costs are at stake. Yet Trump continues to employ the same tactics, often ignoring diplomatic convention. From the beginning of his presidency, he pursued an aggressive political agenda. Domestically, he consolidated influence within Congress, advanced policies favored by conservative factions, and used federal agencies in ways critics viewed as politically motivated. Abroad, he adopted an equally assertive posture. After concluding that Russia had been weakened by the Ukraine war, he increased pressure on Venezuela, urged European nations to bear more of the burden in Ukraine, and ultimately launched military action against Iran. What was expected to be a quick and decisive campaign instead became a costly entanglement. Although Iran suffered most of the physical destruction and economic damage, it remained politically unbowed. The conflict failed to produce the decisive outcome many in Washington had anticipated. Facing declining public support and growing pressure to end the confrontation, Trump was compelled to pursue negotiations. The peace process has included discussions of sanctions relief, military disengagement, and reconstruction assistance. Yet even as talks continue, Trump has not abandoned his rhetoric of overwhelming force and “total destruction.” His repeated threats, combined with a constant stream of unofficial updates and public commentary, risk undermining the very negotiations intended to secure a lasting peace. The talks are progressing, but often despite Trump’s words rather than because of them.

The A.I. Bubble Is Coming for Your Retirement Account nytimes.com/2026/06/10/opini… Is Natural Human Intelligence Succumbing to Artificial Intelligence? Is the excessive monies spent misleading everybody People who invested in companies heavy on Artificial intelligence are not well off today. They were under estimating the human brain. They have to think it over. Human intelligence is increasingly being challenged by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Computers can outperform people in repetitive tasks, analyze vast amounts of data, and recognize patterns at astonishing speed. Yet the greatest breakthroughs in human history did not emerge from algorithms. They came from imagination, curiosity, and insight of human brain. It was the human mind that created the Chemistry Periodic Table, uncovered the structure of the atom, and harnessed atomic energy. Ancient Indian mathematicians conceived zero, laying the foundation for modern mathematics. Every transformative invention began as an idea in a human brain long before it became a machine process. AI is undoubtedly a powerful tool, much as computers were in the 1950s and 1960s and the internet was in the 1990s onwards. Those technologies amplified human capabilities. AI is different because it challenges the very domain that humans have long considered uniquely their own—the ability to think. What AI does exceptionally well is process information, synthesize data, and execute narrowly defined tasks with remarkable efficiency. It can coordinate with other machines, automate workflows, and reduce human involvement in routine operations. However, AI does not originate ideas independently. It works within boundaries established by human programmers and draws upon knowledge created by human intelligence. The human brain, weighing barely two pounds, performs extraordinary feats with minimal energy requiring food and energy. AI, by contrast, requires enormous computing power, vast data centers, significant electricity consumption, and extensive water resources for cooling. The comparison is striking. The true test comes when situations become unpredictable. Commercial aviation offers a useful example. When severe weather, equipment failure, or a medical emergency occurs in the cockpit, judgment, intuition, and adaptability become critical. AI can assist and could or could not manage many scenarios, but most passengers would still feel more confident knowing a skilled human pilot is ultimately in command. Businesses are embracing AI because of its potential to reduce costs and increase productivity. Yet these savings are often offset by the enormous expenses of developing, maintaining, and constantly upgrading AI systems and infrastructure. Natural intelligence is not only being replaced. It is being challenged, augmented but the creative spark that drives discovery, innovation, and human progress remains firmly rooted in the human mind.

Thomas L. Friedman on the Clash at the Core of the Iran Deal nytimes.com/2026/06/24/opini… Are Iranian and Americans Honest Enough to Strike a Peace Deal The general impression is that President Trump an egocentric and combative person has already given too much away in the early peace deal in the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ digitally signed. Trump disagreed and said that they won the war and beat the hell out of the Iranians to force them to agree. Is there any truth in Trump’s understanding of the war? To satisfy his own ego of victory, he put the whole world under stress. Now he is directing remotely, talks in progress in Switzerland. Vice President JD Vance is a mere frontman acting as a negotiator. The whole issue boils down to whether the war which Trump fought on Israel’s behalf will destroy his presidency if he gives away other concessions like nuclear deal. If Trump yields back to 2016 Obama-Kerry-Iran agreement, which is most likely the case, then Trump’s presidency will suffer a crushing blow. As far as Iran is concerned, they are walking around as victors and not shaking hands with the Americans, refuse to pose for group photos and ignored the presence of Pakistani mediators. Hence, they are indirectly letting the whole world know that negotiate to end at our terms. In fact the challenge has been thrown to Trump to resume bombing and loose your presidency or agree to our terms including the nuclear deal. They are aware that the American people do not like resumed bombing. Hence both parties have a bit of dishonesty right up front. Trump does not want to end the Iran War without victory and Iranians say that they have their hands on daily 20 million barrels of oil which passes thru the Strait. Without them letting it go, the gasoline price could hit $4.50 a gallon again. Middle path, which the mediators have no capability to advise both parties is America withdrawing gracefully from Gulf of Oman. Iran permanently lifting its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Israel calling off its invasion of Lebanon. Iran withdrawing its military support of anti- Israel forces. In return the US lifting all sanctions over Iran. Nuclear issue goes back to Kerry-Iran deal of 2016. The above is in-fact not a middle path for a peace deal. America looses its prestige after so much effort but preserve world economies including American economy from further inflationary trend. Trump may loose presidency but get rest of the world’s goodwill.

U.S. and Iran Sign a Framework Deal, Leaving Major Issues for Future Talks nytimes.com/2026/06/15/world… Pakistan at a Knife’s Edge if It Pushes Too Far as a Mediator Iran allowed its hostility toward Israel to escalate far beyond routine political and religious differences. It learned a harsh lesson when Israel and the United States joined forces to strike Iran with overwhelming technological superiority. Precision weapons launched from thousands of miles away demonstrated the enormous military gap between Iran and its adversaries. Pakistan, meanwhile, unexpectedly found itself in the spotlight as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. For decades, Islamabad largely avoided direct involvement in Middle Eastern power struggles, but recent developments have drawn it into a role it neither sought nor equipped to handle. Whether the current ceasefire endures or not, Pakistan is likely to remain involved in diplomatic efforts. The challenge is that future tensions will be less about Iran-US and more about Israel’s conflicts with Iranian-backed groups. Israel has made clear that it will not tolerate any strategic gains by the Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthi movement in Yemen. All three receive varying degrees of support from Tehran. Iran, in turn, is unlikely to abandon these allies, making any broader settlement fragile and incomplete. Washington may continue encouraging Pakistan to play a mediating role. Pakistan may accept this partly to maintain American goodwill, military cooperation, and access to IMF support. Yet this involvement carries risks. Pakistan must be mindful not only of Israel’s military power but also of Israel’s strong lobby support within Washington. Future U.S. administrations may be less sympathetic to Pakistan’s balancing act and more inclined to back Israeli concerns. If Pakistan is perceived as consistently siding with anti-Israel forces, relations could deteriorate quickly. A direct Pakistan-Israel conflict remains highly unlikely. However, growing Israeli distrust could have serious consequences. Pakistan’s nuclear program has long attracted international scrutiny, and some strategists fear that, under extreme circumstances, Israeli policymakers could view those assets as a future security concern. That could result in Israel action on Pakistani nuclear installations. US will look the other way as they also fear Pakistani nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. For now, Pakistan is enjoying the prestige of diplomacy and mediation. But that could become a strategic nightmare tomorrow if Islamabad is drawn too deeply into conflicts against Israel.

Mideast Live Updates: Vance Points to Progress After First Round of U.S.-Iran Talks nytimes.com/live/2026/06/22/… Iran Could Emerge as a Major Middle Eastern Power After the Current War One of the least expected outcomes of the U.S.-Iran conflict may be the emergence of Iran as a stronger regional power. Whether or not it ultimately acquires a nuclear weapon may prove secondary. During the war, Iran refused to submit to American pressure and military coercion, enhancing its standing across much of the Middle East and the wider Global South. Many of President Trump’s principal objectives appear unfulfilled. Iran’s oil resources remain under its control, its nuclear program has not been conclusively dismantled, there has been no regime change, and a substantial portion of its missile capability appears to have survived. The disruption caused by threats to the Strait of Hormuz and naval deployments arguably created greater anxiety in global energy markets than hardship for Iran itself. The conflict has therefore moved toward a ceasefire and direct negotiations in Switzerland, where the future course of relations will be determined. Iran, with a population of about 90 million Shiite Muslim, possesses significant scientific, technological, and educational capabilities. Compared with many of its Arab neighbors, it has developed a broader domestic industrial and technical base. While some Gulf states have built impressive infrastructure with vast oil wealth, they often depend heavily on foreign labor, engineers, and specialists. Iran, despite sanctions and economic pressures, has cultivated a greater degree of self-reliance. As this author has argued before, Iran may not even need a nuclear bomb to exert strategic influence. Its ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz gives it leverage over a vital artery of the global energy trade. Nevertheless, if Iran eventually succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, the strategic balance in the Muslim world would change dramatically. Such a development could diminish the unique status long enjoyed by Pakistan as the only Muslim-majority nuclear power. For that reason, Pakistan may have strong incentives to discourage Iran’s nuclear ambitions behind the scenes. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, Iran’s regional stature has already risen. That reality may be unwelcome to the United States, Israel, and Pakistan, but it is increasingly difficult to ignore.

India’s Elections Deliver an Upset: What to Know nytimes.com/2026/05/03/world… Decline and Fall of India’s Political Parties India’s most regional parties and one main national party is in free fall. The BJP’s rise is one reason, but the real rot is internal. Most were one-man shows built on charisma, not institutions. These parties had no succession plan. Hence it resulted in fight for the throne. The above had a fatal flaw? The flaw was Dynastic handover. Leaders anointed their children, sidelining seasoned lieutenants. The forgoing was noticed by Voters and the masses walked away. Parties splintered, became punchlines. Primary example has been the CongressParty. Nehru elevated his daughter Indira. Indira elevated her son Rajiv. After his assassination, the party bypassed veterans and handed over power to his foreign-born widow Sonia. With vast monetary and functionary resources, she played kingmaker until her inexperienced son Rahul was ready. Rahul chased the PM’s chair, although too young, with no leadership gravity. The result: a string of federal and state defeats. That could not be the résumé for leading 1.4 billion. Regional parties aped the family-run model and got steamrolled. Dynastic handoffs hollowed them out while the BJP’s disciplined machine rolled on. Examples are below: Maharashtra: Shiv Sena dimmed once Balasaheb Thackeray passed the baton to Uddhav, his son. The party splintered. Uttar Pradesh: The Samajwadi Party faded after Mulayam Singh Yadav handed control to Akhilesh his son and lost mass following. Tamil Nadu: DMK wobbled as Udhayanidhi Stalin’s brash son made inroads into the party organization alienated cadre and voters. Hence, they voted DMK out of power recently. West Bengal: TMC party of Mamata Banerjee cracked under internal resentment against Abhishek Banerjee, her nephew, who she was designating as heir apparent. Bihar: RJD splintered as Lalu Yadav’s kids indulged in turf war and cut each other out of the power game. Delhi/Punjab: AAP bled out when Kejriwal lost grip on corrupt operatives within his party. A new incarnation of AAP under the name of ‘Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)’ has made appearance. Its tactics are similar to AAP. Its leader Abhijeet Dipke was an AAP member; went to England and then to USA under the guise of study but his purpose seemed political chaos training. He is back in India and found a cause in NEET re-exam as an issue. It is unknown who is funding it from abroad. The BJP won each round when the regional parties faltered. They are better organized. Their tighter control of cadre and cash has paid dividends. Also they are allergic to dynastic take over.

Mideast Live Updates: New Round of U.S.-Iran Talks Set to Start in Switzerland nytimes.com/live/2026/06/21/… Nothing will be Achieved in New Talks between Iran & US Unlikely to achieve any breakthrough in talks in Switzerland. Vance from US and Iran do not have enough power to do anything other than talking and feeling each other’s pulse. The real power is Trump & Khamenei (jr). Most analysts feel that Iran has won this round. America - Trump did not achieve anything other than destruction. Iran still has all the nuclear materials. War indemnity of $300 billion has to be paid to Iran. Also Iran closed the Strait again. There is joke going around between Iran and USA delegates and that is what two Prime Minister from Pakistan - Shariff & Munir doing in Switzerland without any direct or indirect connection? Very funny.