A renewed diplomatic dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) came to the forefront during the 16th Meeting of Heads of Security Agencies and National Security Advisers of BRICS countries in New Delhi. Iranian officials accused the UAE of facilitating US military operations against Iran, reviving tensions that had previously emerged during a BRICS foreign ministers' gathering earlier this year.

The allegations were made by Dr. Ghadir Nezamipour, Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, during the high-level security meeting. According to statements later shared by the Iranian Embassy in India, Nezamipour rejected accusations made by the UAE delegation and instead blamed the United States and Israel for escalating regional instability.

The remarks come despite recent efforts to ease tensions in West Asia following a ceasefire agreement. Analysts view the exchange as evidence that underlying disputes between Tehran and Abu Dhabi remain unresolved and continue to influence diplomatic interactions in international forums.

According to Iranian officials, the Strait of Hormuz crisis and recent military confrontations were triggered by actions undertaken by the United States and Israel. Nezamipour claimed that some attacks targeting Iran had been launched from facilities located within the UAE, a charge that Abu Dhabi has consistently denied.

Allegations Over Military Facilities

Addressing the gathering, the Iranian official alleged that UAE territory had been used as a platform for operations targeting Iranian civilian infrastructure. He claimed that schools, hospitals and other non-military facilities were among the locations affected by the attacks.

Iran also criticized what it described as the UAE’s failure to condemn military actions against Iran. Nezamipour urged the Emirati leadership to focus on regional stability and cooperation rather than what he termed “adventurism” and “propaganda.”

To reinforce Iran’s position, the delegation reportedly displayed photographs of students from Minab who, according to Tehran, were killed during the initial phase of the conflict.

Dispute Continues

The latest exchange follows a similar confrontation during a BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting held in New Delhi in May. At that event, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the UAE of being directly involved in military activities against Iran and questioned whether close security ties with the United States and Israel could guarantee regional stability.

Those remarks intensified diplomatic friction between the two countries, particularly after reports surfaced alleging Emirati involvement in operations targeting Iranian interests.

The UAE has repeatedly rejected accusations that it played any role in attacks against Iran. Emirati officials have maintained that their country supports regional dialogue and de-escalation efforts.

Officials familiar with regional developments say the dispute reflects broader geopolitical rivalries in West Asia, where security concerns, maritime routes and strategic alliances continue to shape diplomatic relations.

The latest developments at the BRICS security meeting highlight how regional conflicts are increasingly influencing discussions within multilateral organizations. While BRICS members have often emphasized cooperation and dialogue, disagreements among participating countries continue to emerge on issues related to security and foreign policy.

Observers believe that unless direct diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Abu Dhabi resumes, such confrontations may continue to surface at international forums. For now, the accusations exchanged in New Delhi underscore the persistent mistrust between the two regional powers and the challenges facing efforts to achieve long-term stability in West Asia.

US President Donald Trump said a Cuba operation similar to the Venezuela mission is “possible”, though his administration continues to publicly favour a peaceful transition in Havana.

Fresh remarks by US President Donald Trump have reignited speculation about Washington's long-term strategy towards Cuba after he suggested that a Venezuela-style operation on the island remains a possibility.

In an interview with The Axios Show, Trump was asked whether a potential US operation in Cuba could resemble the mission carried out earlier this year in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Responding to the question, Trump said such a scenario was "possible." 

The comments have drawn attention because they come amid increasing pressure by the Trump administration on Havana through sanctions and diplomatic measures, even as officials publicly maintain that they prefer a peaceful political transition. 

Cuba Compared To Venezuela

During the interview, Trump contrasted Cuba with other foreign policy challenges, arguing that the island's proximity to the United States would make any operation logistically easier than actions undertaken farther away.

He also described Cuba as possessing "nice property" and a "nice shoreline," while noting that the island sits only about 90 miles from the coast of Florida. 

Although Trump did not announce any military plans or timelines, his remarks have fuelled discussion about whether Washington could pursue more aggressive options if conditions inside Cuba deteriorate further.

No Official Intervention Plan

Despite the rhetoric, there is currently no official announcement of a US military intervention in Cuba.

Reports indicate that US officials have conducted contingency planning and scenario exercises in the event of instability or a potential collapse of Cuba's government. However, administration officials have repeatedly stated that sanctions and diplomatic pressure remain their preferred tools. 

According to Axios, the administration has developed response plans while continuing to emphasise a peaceful transition rather than direct military action. 

Economic Crisis Deepens

The discussion comes as Cuba faces one of its most severe economic crises in decades.

The island has been grappling with fuel shortages, food scarcity, recurring power outages and a shortage of foreign currency. The decline in subsidised oil supplies from Venezuela, coupled with the slow recovery of tourism after the COVID-19 pandemic, has added to the country's difficulties. 

These challenges have contributed to increased migration and growing public frustration. In recent years, Cuba witnessed rare large-scale protests as citizens expressed concerns over worsening living conditions.

Long History Of Tensions

Relations between the United States and Cuba have remained strained for more than six decades.

Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro, Havana aligned closely with the Soviet Union, turning the island into a major Cold War flashpoint. The rivalry culminated in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, one of the most dangerous confrontations of the nuclear era.

Since then, successive US administrations have imposed sanctions and maintained varying degrees of political and economic pressure on Cuba.

What Happens Next

Analysts caution that Trump's comments alone do not indicate an imminent operation. While administration officials have acknowledged planning for various contingencies, public policy continues to focus on economic pressure and diplomatic measures. 

Nevertheless, the president's remarks have ensured that Cuba remains firmly on Washington's strategic radar. With the island confronting economic hardship and the United States increasing scrutiny of developments in the Caribbean, questions about the future of US-Cuba relations are likely to persist in the months ahead.

A significant diplomatic breakthrough has emerged in the Middle East after the United States and Iran signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aimed at extending the ceasefire between the two countries and creating a pathway toward a comprehensive settlement. The agreement, signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, establishes a 60-day framework for negotiations on critical issues including sanctions relief, nuclear restrictions, regional security, and economic reconstruction.

The deal comes after months of tensions that disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, affected global energy markets, and heightened concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme. While both sides have described the agreement as a major step forward, officials have also acknowledged that the memorandum serves as a framework for future negotiations rather than a final settlement.

Under the agreement, military operations between the two sides are to cease immediately, and both countries have pledged to respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from interference in domestic affairs. A formal negotiation process has now begun, with a target of reaching a final agreement within 60 days, although the timeline can be extended by mutual consent.

Strait of Hormuz Reopening

One of the most consequential elements of the deal concerns the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime route through which a substantial share of global oil exports passes.

Iran has committed to facilitating safe passage for commercial vessels, while the United States has agreed to begin lifting restrictions affecting Iranian ports and maritime traffic. Shipping activity is expected to resume gradually as security and logistical measures are implemented.

The agreement also envisages future cooperation between Iran, Oman, and other Gulf nations on managing maritime security in the region.

Nuclear Commitments

A central feature of the memorandum is Iran’s commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. Both sides have agreed to address Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to officials familiar with the negotiations, the current proposal involves downblending enriched uranium rather than destroying it outright. However, the precise technical arrangements remain subject to further talks.

The agreement also requires both countries to maintain the current status of Iran’s nuclear programme while negotiations continue. During this period, Washington has pledged not to impose new sanctions and to provide limited waivers related to oil exports and associated financial services.

Economic Relief and Reconstruction

The memorandum includes provisions for sanctions relief and economic recovery. The United States has agreed in principle to remove economic sanctions, although the timing and sequencing will be negotiated during the next phase of talks.

Another notable provision is a proposed reconstruction and economic development framework worth at least $300 billion. US officials have clarified that Washington is not necessarily committing direct funding but may facilitate investments from regional partners and international stakeholders.

The deal also opens the possibility of releasing frozen Iranian assets, with access tied to compliance and future agreements between the two sides.

Major Issues Still Unresolved

Despite the breakthrough, several difficult questions remain unanswered. Negotiators have yet to finalize the mechanism for handling Iran’s enriched uranium reserves, determine the exact timetable for sanctions removal, and establish how the proposed reconstruction fund will operate.

Regional security concerns also remain contentious. Iran’s relationships with groups such as Hezbollah, its missile programme, and broader regional influence were not fully resolved in the interim agreement. Analysts note that these issues could prove to be the most challenging parts of the upcoming negotiations.

Pakistan has unexpectedly found itself at the center of a major diplomatic development after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly announced progress in negotiations between the United States and Iran before any formal declaration from Washington. The move has drawn international attention and fueled debate about whether Islamabad is emerging as a more influential diplomatic player in global affairs.

Sharif announced on June 12 that a final text of a peace agreement between the United States and Iran had been agreed upon and that Pakistan was working closely with both sides to finalize the next steps. Subsequent statements from U.S. and Iranian officials indicated that a framework agreement had indeed been reached, confirming Islamabad's involvement in the mediation effort.

The development is particularly notable because major diplomatic breakthroughs involving Washington are often announced directly by U.S. leaders. In this case, Pakistan's leadership became the first to publicly signal that negotiations had reached a critical stage.

Pakistan's Mediation Role

According to reports, Pakistan has been involved in facilitating communication between Washington and Tehran for several months. The country leveraged its diplomatic relationships across multiple regions, including the United States, Iran, Gulf states, and China, to help maintain dialogue between the two sides.

Reuters reported that Pakistan played a mediating role in helping both countries reach a preliminary agreement aimed at ending hostilities and reopening channels for broader negotiations.

The proposed framework reportedly includes a halt to military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a 60-day period of negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and sanctions-related issues. However, several complex matters remain unresolved and will require further discussions.

A Shift in Regional Diplomacy?

For decades, countries such as Qatar, Oman, and, at times, Turkey have often served as intermediaries in sensitive Middle East negotiations. Pakistan has generally remained on the margins of such diplomatic initiatives despite its strategic location and historical ties with key regional actors.

Analysts suggest that Islamabad's involvement in the U.S.-Iran talks could signal a broader effort to reposition itself as a facilitator of dialogue and conflict resolution. Successfully contributing to a breakthrough between two long-standing adversaries could enhance Pakistan's diplomatic credibility and strengthen its international profile.

The development also highlights Islamabad's ability to maintain working relationships with countries that often find themselves on opposite sides of geopolitical disputes.

Challenges Remain

Despite the positive momentum, experts caution against viewing the agreement as a final settlement. The framework is still subject to additional negotiations, and contentious issues such as Iran's nuclear activities, missile capabilities, sanctions relief, and regional security concerns remain unresolved.

Diplomatic observers note that mediators often receive recognition during the negotiation phase but can also face criticism if agreements later collapse. As a result, Pakistan's long-term diplomatic gains may depend on whether the current framework evolves into a durable and enforceable peace arrangement.

Symbolism Beyond the Agreement

Beyond the substance of the negotiations, the optics of the announcement have attracted attention. The fact that Pakistan's prime minister publicly disclosed the breakthrough before Washington underscored Islamabad's visible role in the process and generated discussion about changing diplomatic dynamics in the region.

For Pakistan, the moment represents an opportunity to showcase its diplomatic capabilities on a global stage. Whether it marks the beginning of a sustained role as a regional mediator or remains an isolated success will depend on future developments.

India has raised a sharp objection to the legislative assembly elections being held in Gilgit-Baltistan, a region currently under Pakistan’s administrative control but claimed by New Delhi as part of the Union Territory of Ladakh. The voting is scheduled for June 7 for 24 assembly seats across 10 districts.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that Pakistan’s decision to conduct elections in the region “illegally and forcibly occupied” by it is unacceptable. According to the MEA, such political exercises cannot alter the legal and constitutional status of the territory.

India has consistently maintained that the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir, including Gilgit-Baltistan, is an integral and inalienable part of the country.

Elections Under Existing Framework

The upcoming polls are being held more than five years after the previous elections conducted in November 2020, when the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerged as the dominant political force. The current assembly completed its five-year term in November 2025, but elections were delayed due to harsh weather conditions and logistical challenges in the mountainous region.

Gilgit-Baltistan operates under a separate administrative structure compared to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). While PoK has its own constitution and political setup, Gilgit-Baltistan has historically remained under federal control from Islamabad with limited autonomy.

Governance Structure Explained

The region’s governance framework was first formalised through the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order of 2009, which introduced an elected assembly. Later, the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 expanded the powers of the local government, though key authority continues to rest with Pakistan’s federal administration.

The current election is the second held under the 2018 framework, highlighting the evolving but still limited self-governance structure in the region.

Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir Elections Ahead

Separate from Gilgit-Baltistan, elections in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) are scheduled for July 27. The PoK Legislative Assembly consists of 53 seats, including reserved categories for women and technocrats.

In the 2021 elections, PTI secured a majority, but political instability followed after changes in Pakistan’s federal leadership. Subsequent leadership transitions and internal political realignments have continued to shape governance in the region.

India’s Constitutional Position

India also reiterated that 24 assembly seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly are reserved for areas currently under Pakistan’s control, including Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK, as per the delimitation framework introduced after the 2019 reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.

Since India does not exercise administrative control over these areas, elections are not conducted there and the seats remain vacant.

Geopolitical Context

The issue remains a sensitive point in India-Pakistan relations, with New Delhi consistently opposing any political or electoral activity in the region conducted by Islamabad. India maintains that such exercises have no legal standing and do not affect sovereignty claims.

India’s search for a fifth-generation stealth fighter has gained momentum as Russia formally proposed co-development and manufacturing of the Su-57 with full technology transfer. The offer, made under the “Make in India” framework, includes initial delivery of ready aircraft followed by local production with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that there are “no restrictions” on cooperation, including sharing of critical software source code. This would allow India to integrate indigenous weapons and electronic systems, significantly increasing operational flexibility.

The proposal comes at a crucial time when the Indian Air Force currently lacks any operational fifth-generation fighter aircraft, while neighbouring countries continue to advance their stealth capabilities.

Cost Advantage vs Rafale

The Su-57 is estimated to cost between $35 million and $50 million per unit, making it significantly cheaper than many Western stealth aircraft. However, defence analysts caution that the total cost of ownership is much higher once weapons, maintenance, training, and infrastructure are included.

India’s 2016 deal for 36 Rafale jets, signed with France, was valued at approximately ₹59,000 crore, translating to around ₹1,640 crore per aircraft when including full support systems and India-specific upgrades.

Dassault Rafale remains one of India’s most advanced combat platforms, but the Su-57 proposal is being seen as a potential lower-cost entry into fifth-generation technology.

Fifth-Generation Fighter Gap

India’s indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program is still under development and is expected to enter service in the 2030s. Until then, the Indian Air Force faces a capability gap in stealth aviation.

Currently, only three countries—the United States, China, and Russia—operate or produce fifth-generation fighter jets. The US F-35 remains the most widely exported stealth aircraft globally, with multiple allied nations already operating it.

Russia’s pitch is strategically positioned at a time when China is also advancing its J-35 stealth fighter program, increasing regional competition in air superiority technologies.

India’s Strategic Calculus

India has historically been cautious about fully committing to US stealth fighter programs due to restrictions on technology access and operational flexibility. American platforms, while highly advanced, often come with strict usage and integration limitations.

The Su-57 offer, on the other hand, is being promoted as a more open architecture system, potentially allowing India to modify and localize systems under its defence production ecosystem.

However, defence experts note that the aircraft’s actual performance record, production scale, and engine reliability remain key factors that India will need to evaluate before making any decision.

North Korea Amends Constitution to Mandate Automatic Nuclear Strikes

The Supreme People's Assembly codifies instant nuclear retaliation if command systems or leader Kim Jong Un are targeted by hostile forces.

Constitutional Shift in Pyongyang

North Korea has formally amended its constitution to incorporate an aggressive, legally binding clause that mandates an immediate and automatic nuclear strike if its leadership or strategic nuclear command structure comes under foreign attack. The constitutional revision was ratified during a two-day legislative session of the Supreme People's Assembly, state media network KCNA reported.

The legislative change marks a significant escalation in the isolated state's defense doctrine, moving away from subjective command-and-control protocols to an automated retaliatory system.

Article 89 and the Chain of Command

Based on the revised constitutional text and intelligence briefings shared with the South Korean parliament, the fundamental law now explicitly outlines the legal triggers for employing strategic assets. Under Article 89, supreme command over the state's strategic arsenal rests entirely with the Chairman of the State Council, Kim Jong Un.

However, the crucial addition is a delegation clause allowing the specialized Nuclear Forces Command to execute pre-set retaliatory protocols if the central leadership is physically incapacitated or killed during a conflict.

Pre-Emptive Retaliation Trigger

"If the command-and-control system over the state's nuclear forces is placed in danger by hostile forces' attacks, a nuclear strike shall be launched automatically and immediately," the modified legal text states. Regional defense analysts believe this system is explicitly designed to deter "decapitation strikes" practiced during joint military drills by western allies.

The constitutional update also removed historical references to peaceful inter-Korean reunification, formally redefining its borders and treating South Korea as a permanently hostile separate state entity.

Heightened Regional Deterrence

The timing of these legal changes has drawn immense concern from global security agencies. Pyongyang’s decisions appear heavily influenced by recent high-profile target strikes in the Middle East and Latin America, reinforcing the regime's long-held belief that absolute nuclear deterrence is its only survival guarantee.

Military analysts in Seoul note that the formalization of an automatic nuclear strike mechanism reduces the window for diplomatic crisis management, raising the stakes for accidental escalations along the demilitarized zone.

Putin’s Beijing visit holds more strategic weight than Trump’s ‘performative’ trip, state media claims

Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to arrive in China this week for a high-stakes bilateral summit with Xi Jinping, a development Chinese state media is already characterizing as far more substantive than US President Donald Trump’s recent visit to the country.

Strategic balancing act in Beijing

The Kremlin and Beijing have both confirmed that the Russian President will be in the Chinese capital between May 19 and 20. The visit, which marks Putin’s first foreign trip of the year, comes on the heels of Trump’s departure from China, pointing to a deliberate effort by Beijing to manage its ties with the world's two largest nuclear powers simultaneously.

While the American president's stopover was heavy on ceremony, local commentators and regional outlets like the South China Morning Post indicate that the upcoming Sino-Russian dialogue will tackle core geopolitical frictions. Local authorities have scaled up security protocols around the capital ahead of the arrival of the Russian delegation on Tuesday morning.

Heavy agenda on Ukraine and arms control

According to officials familiar with the scheduling, the primary focus of the closed-door meetings between Xi and Putin will revolve around the dragging conflict in Ukraine and the future of international nuclear arms control agreements. The timing is particularly notable given that Donald Trump recently proposed a tentative three-way arms framework involving Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.

Trump had previously noted that Russia’s expanding nuclear capabilities remain a shared concern for both Western nations and Asian powers. However, sources suggest Beijing is unlikely to commit to any US-led tripartite framework without securing major concessions first. Apart from the strategic dialogue, Putin is also slated to hold a separate briefing with Chinese Premier Li Qiang to review bilateral trade targets.

Sino-Russian Bilateral Trade Record

| Metric (Last Year)   | Value (USD)           |

| Total Trade Turnover | 228.1 Billion         |

| Russian Trade Surplus| 21.49 Billion         |

| Year-on-Year Surplus | +55% vs 2024          |

Deeper economic alignment amid sanctions

The economic partnership between the two neighbors has seen a massive surge since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, primarily driven by Western sanctions that forced Moscow to pivot its trade entirely toward Asia. Initial reports indicate that trade turnover between the two nations hit a record $228.1 billion last year, with Russia locking in a comfortable surplus.

China has steadily increased its imports of discounted Russian crude, coal, and liquefied natural gas. In return, consumer markets in Moscow and St. Petersburg have been flooded with Chinese automotives, heavy machinery, and semiconductors, effectively replacing Western brands. This economic lifeline continues to draw heavy criticism from Washington, which accuses Beijing of indirectly fueling Russia's military economy.

Power of Siberia pipeline on the table

Diplomatic sources say a crucial talking point during the May 19 session will be the long-delayed Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline project. Russia has been pushing hard to finalize the technicalities of this massive infrastructure asset, which is designed to channel 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from the Yamal Peninsula to northern China via Mongolia.

"The pipeline remains a critical long-term priority for Moscow as it seeks permanent alternatives to its lost European markets," a regional energy analyst noted. "If finalized, it could fulfill the energy needs of nearly 200 million Chinese households."

Mideast tensions provide economic cushion

The summit unfolds against the backdrop of escalating tensions in the Middle East involving the US, Israel, and Iran, which has threatened trade flows through the vital Strait of Hormuz. While the threat of a wider maritime blockade has raised fears of a global recession, the subsequent spike in international oil prices has provided a temporary fiscal cushion for the Kremlin.

The two leaders have met more than 40 times since Xi assumed office in 2013, establishing what both describe as a "no-limits" partnership aimed at pushing back against a US-dominated unipolar global structure. Following the conclusion of the Beijing meetings, the joint delegation is expected to release a statement on a "multipolar world order" before Putin departs mid-week.

Trump and Xi reset ties in Beijing; White House visit set for September

In a move that signals a significant cooling of long-standing trade and diplomatic frictions, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a fresh roadmap for bilateral ties, anchored by a high-profile invitation for the Chinese leader to visit Washington this autumn.

The development came during a packed day of diplomacy in the Chinese capital on Thursday, where both leaders moved past previous "trade war" rhetoric to frame the relationship as the world’s most consequential. Speaking at a lavish state banquet in the Great Hall of the People, President Trump extended a formal invitation to President Xi and Madam Peng Liyuan to visit the White House on September 24.

A constructive new path

The summit, which included a pivotal two-hour bilateral meeting, resulted in both nations agreeing to frame their relationship as “constructive, strategic, and stable.” According to a readout from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, this new positioning is intended to guide the superpower's interactions for the next three years and beyond.

The shift in tone was palpable. President Xi, addressing the delegation, noted that while the world is undergoing rapid change, the US-China relationship remains the bedrock of global stability. “We must make it work and never mess it up,” Xi said, emphasizing that the two giants should be “partners, not rivals.”

Massive trade deal looms

While the diplomatic optics were strong, the underlying economic stakes remained the primary focus for the markets. Reports from the ground indicate that a massive US-China trade deal worth approximately ₹9 lakh crore ($100 billion+) is currently being finalized.

Central to this agreement is a significant purchase of American aircraft by Beijing. Sources familiar with the matter suggest that China is prepared to commit to a large-scale acquisition of Boeing aircraft, a move seen as a major win for the US manufacturing sector and a primary objective of the Trump administration’s “Make America Great Again” economic policy.

Corporate giants join delegation

The importance of the commercial aspect was underscored by the presence of a "who’s who" of American industry. President Trump was accompanied by a high-powered delegation of executives, including Apple’s Tim Cook, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, and Tesla’s Elon Musk.

Musk, who was seen interacting with guests at the state banquet, expressed his desire to accomplish "many good things" during the visit. The inclusion of semiconductor and AI leaders like Huang and Cristiano Amon of Qualcomm suggests that despite recent export restrictions, both sides are looking for a path forward on technological cooperation.

Navigating the Taiwan issue

Despite the outward cordiality, the sensitive issue of Taiwan remained a critical point of deliberation. President Xi reportedly delivered a stern warning during the private sessions, describing the Taiwan issue as the "most important" in the bilateral relationship. He cautioned that mishandling the matter could push both nations toward "clashes and even conflict."

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, however, sought to downplay immediate fears of escalation. In an interview with CNBC, Bessent stated that Trump "understands the sensitivities" surrounding the democratically governed island and cautioned that the President’s negotiating style should not be mistaken for a lack of awareness regarding regional geopolitical red lines.

Progress on global security

The leaders also found rare common ground on Middle Eastern security. Both the White House and Beijing confirmed an agreement on the necessity of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for the free flow of energy.

Energy Security: China expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce its reliance on the volatile strait.

Nuclear Non-proliferation: Both leaders reaffirmed their stance that Iran must never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.

Regional Conflicts: Discussions also touched upon the ongoing Ukraine crisis and the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Looking toward September

The day’s events concluded with a visit to the historic Temple of Heaven, a site symbolic of harmony. As the motorcade departed the Great Hall of the People late in the evening, the focus shifted toward the upcoming September 24 visit to Washington.

With the US-China trade deal serving as the economic backdrop, the next few months will likely see intensive negotiations between trade teams to formalize the aircraft purchases and address lingering tariff concerns before the two leaders meet again on American soil.

Jaishankar Urges BRICS to Deepen Cooperation, Push Reforms

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Thursday called upon BRICS nations to find practical ways to deal with the fallout of ongoing global conflicts, economic volatility, and trade disruptions, even as India advances institutional reforms to accommodate the grouping’s expanded membership.

Opening the two-day BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting here, Jaishankar emphasised that the bloc must play a constructive and stabilising role amid growing uncertainty in international relations. The meeting at Bharat Mandapam brought together foreign ministers from core members including Russia, Brazil, and Iran, along with partner countries.

Time of considerable flux

“We meet at a time of considerable flux in international relations,” Jaishankar said in his opening remarks. “Ongoing conflicts, economic uncertainties, and challenges in trade, technology, and climate are shaping the global landscape.”

He noted that developing nations and emerging markets are increasingly looking to BRICS for stability and workable solutions. The minister stressed the need to reflect on global and regional developments and explore concrete steps to strengthen cooperation.

Institutional reforms under Indian chair

As the current chair, India has prioritised building a more inclusive and effective framework. Jaishankar highlighted progress in discussions on institutional development, including updating mechanisms to better integrate new members.

“It is essential for the smooth advancement of BRICS that later members fully appreciate and subscribe to BRICS’ consensus on various important issues,” he said.

Officials indicated that India’s chairmanship has already facilitated over 80 BRICS meetings involving all member states since January. This is India’s fourth stint at the helm, following previous summits in 2012, 2016, and 2021.

Development challenges in focus

Ministers are expected to address pressing issues affecting many countries, particularly in energy, food, fertiliser, and health security, as well as access to finance. Jaishankar said BRICS can help members respond more effectively to these challenges.

He also underlined the importance of reliable supply chains and diversified markets for building economic resilience in the face of global disruptions.

Climate, tech and equitable growth

Climate change figured prominently in the discussions. The minister called for sustainable development efforts guided by principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

On technology, Jaishankar pointed to the rapid pace of change and the need to harness innovations for inclusive growth and better governance.

Peace, security and counterterrorism

Peace and security issues remained central to the conversations. Recent conflicts have reinforced the importance of dialogue and diplomacy, Jaishankar noted. There was also strong emphasis on strengthening cooperation against terrorism, an area of shared interest among members.

The presence of Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Russia’s Sergey Lavrov added weight to discussions on geopolitical challenges.

Looking ahead

The two-day meeting, scheduled for May 14 and 15, forms part of broader consultations on global economic governance, development priorities, and current geopolitical realities. Outcomes are expected to feed into further BRICS processes under India’s presidency.

Analysts see the gathering as an opportunity for the expanded bloc to demonstrate its relevance in a fragmented world order. With multiple partner countries participating, the focus remains on practical coordination rather than grand declarations.

Local diplomatic circles in New Delhi described the meeting as business-like, with delegations working through detailed agendas on multilateral reform and economic cooperation. Many observers believe successful institutional adjustments will determine how effectively BRICS can deliver on expectations of emerging economies.

As global attention remains fixed on multiple conflict zones and economic headwinds, India’s push for pragmatic cooperation reflects its longstanding approach of seeking inclusive solutions through platforms like BRICS.

US Accuses China of Funding Iran Amid Hormuz Tensions

US-China tensions rise as Washington links Beijing’s Iran oil imports to terrorism financing, urges support to reopen Strait of Hormuz ahead of Trump visit

Sharp remarks from US

In a pointed escalation of rhetoric, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has accused China of effectively financing Iran by continuing to import large volumes of its oil, describing Tehran as the “largest state sponsor of terrorism”. The comments come at a sensitive moment, just days before US President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Beijing for high-level talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

According to officials familiar with the matter, the remarks were made during a media interaction on Monday and reflect growing unease within Washington over Beijing’s energy ties with Tehran.

Oil trade under scrutiny

Bessent alleged that China has been purchasing nearly 90 per cent of Iran’s energy exports, a claim that underscores longstanding US concerns over sanctions enforcement. “Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and China has been buying most of their energy,” he said, suggesting that such transactions were helping sustain the Iranian regime despite Western pressure.

The US has, since 2018, attempted to restrict Iran’s oil revenues under its “maximum pressure” campaign, following its exit from the nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Hormuz crisis deepens

The criticism comes amid rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Recent disruptions, which Washington attributes to Iranian actions, have affected shipping movement in the region.

Bessent said the US was working to reopen the waterway through an initiative dubbed “Project Freedom”, aimed at ensuring safe passage for vessels currently stranded or rerouted due to the situation.

Call for China’s support

Despite the sharp tone, the US has urged Beijing to play a constructive role. Bessent called on China to back international efforts to secure the Strait of Hormuz and to use its diplomatic leverage with Iran.

“I would urge the Chinese to join us in supporting this international operation,” he said, adding that Beijing’s influence could prove critical in persuading Tehran to ease tensions and restore normalcy in the shipping lane.

Sources indicated that Washington sees China’s involvement as key, given its deep economic engagement with Iran, particularly in the energy sector.

Diplomatic pressure on Tehran

Alongside operational support, the US is also pushing for diplomatic intervention. Officials suggested that China could help de-escalate the crisis by encouraging Iran to reopen the strait and avoid further confrontation.

Bessent reiterated that the US had made it clear Iran does not have unilateral control over the strategic passage and that international cooperation would be necessary to maintain maritime security.

UN stalemate continues

Efforts to build a global consensus, however, have faced hurdles. At the United Nations, a proposed resolution condemning Iran’s alleged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was recently vetoed by China and Russia, leading to a diplomatic impasse.

Defending Beijing’s position, Chinese envoy Fu Cong said the draft lacked balance and did not adequately reflect the broader geopolitical context, including actions by the US and its allies.

Beijing pushes back

China has also pushed back against US sanctions targeting its firms engaged in Iranian trade. Responding to recent measures, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian criticised what he described as “illicit unilateral sanctions” and cautioned Washington against overreach.

Analysts note that China’s continued engagement with Iran reflects both strategic and economic considerations, including energy security and regional influence.

Focus on upcoming summit

The developments come ahead of the anticipated Trump–Xi meeting, which is expected to cover a wide range of issues including trade, security, and regional stability. While tensions remain high, there are indications that both sides may seek to stabilise ties through dialogue.

Bessent suggested that leader-level engagement could help ease friction, noting that mutual respect between the two countries’ leadership has previously contributed to stability.

As the situation unfolds, the US-China-Iran dynamic is likely to remain a focal point in global diplomacy, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz tensions continuing to impact energy markets and international shipping.

Iran has openly questioned Pakistan’s suitability as a mediator in backchannel talks involving Tehran and Washington, adding a fresh diplomatic strain to an already volatile regional situation. The remarks came as efforts to reduce tensions in the Middle East remained inconclusive and no breakthrough was reported in indirect engagement between Iran and the United States.

Ibrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Pakistan may be a friendly country but it cannot be considered an impartial mediator in negotiations involving Iran and the US.

Pakistan’s neutrality questioned

Rezaei said Pakistan has repeatedly shown a tendency to align with American interests, particularly those linked to former US President Donald Trump, and therefore cannot be viewed as neutral. According to Iranian officials, a credible mediator must maintain equal distance from both sides and avoid favouring one party in strategic negotiations.

His remarks signal growing unease within sections of the Iranian establishment over Islamabad’s diplomatic positioning at a time when multiple regional powers are attempting to prevent further escalation.

The statement also comes amid heightened diplomatic movement. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Pakistan twice within 24 hours, underlining the urgency of consultations taking place behind closed doors, as per reports.

Trump issues warning

The diplomatic friction coincided with a sharp warning from Donald Trump, who claimed Iran had only three days to agree to a ceasefire or risk serious damage to its oil infrastructure.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump said Iran’s oil pipeline system could face internal pressure-related blasts if the conflict continued and export routes remained blocked. He argued that if Iran is unable to move crude through shipping channels or storage networks due to blockade conditions, pressure could build inside pipelines and trigger structural failures.

Trump claimed such damage would be technically difficult to reverse and could significantly reduce Iran’s oil export capacity over the long term.

Oil routes in focus

Trump’s remarks have drawn attention to Iran’s energy infrastructure, which remains central to both its economy and geopolitical leverage. Any disruption to oil movement, whether through sanctions, blockade or military escalation, could deepen pressure on Tehran and impact global energy markets.

Analysts tracking the region say oil remains one of Iran’s strongest strategic assets and a prolonged disruption could alter the balance of ongoing negotiations. While Trump is not currently in office, his comments continue to influence political discourse around US-Iran policy and remain closely watched in National and International News coverage.

Diplomatic pressure grows

The latest developments reflect the increasing complexity of diplomatic efforts involving Iran, the US and regional actors. Pakistan has sought to maintain engagement with both sides, but Tehran’s latest public criticism suggests trust remains limited.

According to officials familiar with regional discussions, mediation efforts have become more difficult as competing strategic interests continue to shape positions across the region. Iran’s public criticism of Pakistan may also complicate Islamabad’s attempts to project itself as a credible intermediary in future talks.

Regional stakes rise

The broader implications extend beyond diplomacy. Any failure in de-escalation efforts could trigger fresh disruptions in oil markets, deepen military tensions and draw more regional players into an already fragile conflict environment.

For Pakistan, the criticism presents a diplomatic challenge. For Iran, it signals a firmer public stance on who it considers acceptable in sensitive negotiations. For the US, the lack of progress keeps the confrontation unresolved.

What comes next

No formal agreement has emerged from the latest round of diplomatic activity, and neither Tehran nor Washington has indicated any immediate shift in position. Pakistan has not publicly responded to Rezaei’s remarks so far.

With Iran questioning Pakistan’s mediator role and Trump renewing pressure on Tehran, the coming days may prove critical for US-Iran talks.