Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2026

CIA’s Cold War Fears Realised: Operation Sindoor And The Rise of Indian Aerospace Power


There are moments when intelligence assessments capture the trajectory of a nation long before the world recognises it. For Bharat, the CIA’s close watch on Indian air power during the Cold War was one such moment, analysed Colonel Mayank Chaubey of Goa Chronicle.

Long before debates over Rafales, Balakot strikes, or the rise of drone warfare, American analysts had already concluded that India was building something far more ambitious than a defensive air arm.

A declassified paper titled Indian Airpower: Modernisation and Regional Implications reads almost like prophecy, recognising that India was preparing an aerospace force capable of shaping Asia’s geopolitics. Operation Sindoor decades later would validate those fears with striking clarity.

Military doctrines are rarely born in isolation. They emerge from the scars of past wars. The 1962 conflict with China exposed grave weaknesses in India’s preparedness, leaving a lasting imprint on its strategic psyche.

The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War then demonstrated the decisive role of air power, with the Indian Air Force crippling Pakistani movement and accelerating victory. For Indian planners, the lesson was permanent: future wars would be decided in the skies.

The CIA noted this doctrinal shift, observing India’s gradual transition from a defensive posture to an offensive doctrine built on mobility, reach, and strategic strike capability. This evolution would continue for decades, culminating in operations like Sindoor.

The CIA assessment paid particular attention to the induction of Jaguar strike aircraft. To civilians, acquisitions may appear routine, but to strategists they reveal doctrine. The Jaguar represented deep penetration strike capability, enabling India to hit command centres, logistics hubs, radar stations, and strategic infrastructure deep inside hostile territory.

This was not about defending airspace; it was about offensive reach. It marked the beginning of India’s transition from tactical defence to strategic aerospace power. That thinking later evolved into Balakot, stand-off precision strikes, and ultimately the integrated aerospace framework visible during Operation Sindoor.

The Mirage-2000 acquisition was highlighted as another transformational leap. Decades later, the aircraft would gain fame during Balakot, but the CIA had already identified its importance. With advanced avionics, precision strike capability, superior radar, and enhanced combat performance, the Mirage represented India’s entry into precision warfare.

Precision warfare became the defining feature of Operation Sindoor, where Bharat demonstrated the maturity of a doctrine that had been evolving for decades.

Operation Sindoor was not merely an operation; it was the visible manifestation of doctrinal evolution. What the CIA foresaw in the 1980s became reality in the 2020s. Bharat showcased integration of ISR dominance, drone warfare, satellite-enabled targeting, precision-guided munitions, electronic warfare, and real-time battlefield awareness.

This was no longer the air force of 1971 but an aerospace ecosystem fusing air power, intelligence, cyber capability, space assets, and network-centric command structures into a synchronised military response. The CIA had predicted precisely this trajectory.

One of the most fascinating sections of the CIA assessment concerned airborne surveillance and battlefield awareness. It noted that future wars would depend on who sees first, who tracks first, and who reacts first.

This insight lay at the heart of Operation Sindoor, which reflected the power of AWACS, drones, satellites, secure communications, and integrated ISR architecture. Indian planners understood that wars are won through information dominance, not sheer numbers. Sindoor demonstrated Bharat’s ability to maintain situational awareness across multiple domains simultaneously, the hallmark of a mature aerospace power.

The CIA also paid close attention to aerial refuelling capability. While technical in appearance, strategically it changes geography itself, allowing aircraft to remain airborne longer, strike deeper, and sustain operations far from home bases. By the time of Operation Sindoor, India was no longer thinking in terms of borders but in terms of strategic reach. This represented a profound doctrinal transformation.

Pakistan’s anxieties were repeatedly noted in the CIA document. It warned that overwhelming Indian conventional superiority could lower Pakistan’s nuclear threshold, a reality that persists today. 

Operations like Sindoor reinforce the uncomfortable truth for Islamabad: Bharat’s precision strike capability complicates deterrence calculations. Rapid, precise, intelligence-driven stand-off operations alter the strategic balance without necessarily escalating into full-scale war. The CIA foresaw this decades ago.

China too was watching. Though focused on Cold War dynamics, Beijing monitored India’s aerospace ambitions closely. Today, that rivalry has evolved into advanced fighter competition, border airbase expansion, ISR races, missile deployment, drone warfare, and space-based military capability. Operation Sindoor demonstrated Bharat’s entry into the league of nations capable of integrated multi-domain operations, a fact China could not ignore.

For many observers, Sindoor appeared as a tactical success. Strategically, it marked Bharat’s arrival as a technologically mature military power capable of integrating air, land, space, cyber, and intelligence assets into a unified architecture.

It validated decades of modernisation that began long before most realised. The CIA document serves as a historical mirror, recognising early that India’s trajectory would reshape South Asian geopolitics. Sindoor proved that prediction correct.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of India’s aerospace rise is its quietness. Bharat did not build capability through loud declarations but through doctrinal learning, technological absorption, operational experience, indigenous innovation, and strategic patience.

From Jaguars to Rafales, MiGs to integrated drones, radar gaps to real-time ISR dominance, tactical defence to network-centric warfare, the journey has been long. Yet history reveals that while many underestimated Bharat’s transformation, foreign intelligence agencies had already documented it decades ago. Operations like Sindoor show those assessments were not exaggerations but warnings.

GC


Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Armed Man Shot By Secret Service Near White House, Child Injured In Crossfire


An armed man was shot by the US Secret Service near the White House on Monday, prompting a brief lockdown of the complex.

The suspect fired at officers after being confronted and was struck in return fire, while a juvenile bystander was injured but is not in life-threatening condition. Authorities confirmed the suspect is alive and under hospital care, with investigations ongoing.

The US Secret Service confirmed that the incident occurred at 15th Street and Independence Avenue in Washington, DC, just over half a mile from the White House and close to the Washington Monument. 

Officers spotted a suspicious individual and observed what appeared to be the imprint of a firearm. When approached, the suspect fled briefly on foot, withdrew a gun, and fired in the direction of agents. Secret Service personnel returned fire, hitting the suspect, who was then transported to hospital. His condition has not yet been disclosed.


Deputy Director Matt Quinn explained that surveillance detection personnel identified the firearm print before engaging. He confirmed that a juvenile bystander was struck during the exchange but did not sustain life-threatening injuries.

The child is receiving treatment at a local hospital, and investigators believe the injury was caused by shots fired by the suspect.

The incident triggered a temporary lockdown of the White House, with journalists outside escorted into the press briefing room as a precaution. Security was tightened across the complex, and an all-clear was issued roughly fifteen minutes later. Despite the disruption, President Donald Trump continued hosting a scheduled event inside the White House without interruption.

Quinn noted that Vice President JD Vance’s motorcade had passed through the area shortly before the shooting, but stressed that the two events were not connected. When asked whether the suspect may have been targeting President Trump, Quinn declined to speculate, stating that investigations would determine motive and connections. He emphasised that the Secret Service maintains 24/7 patrols and surveillance around the complex.

The Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC confirmed it is investigating the officer-involved shooting and urged the public to avoid the vicinity due to road closures and emergency response operations. Authorities stressed that the situation was quickly contained and there is no indication of a broader threat.

The incident comes just over a week after a major security scare at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Cole Tomas Allen was arrested for allegedly attempting to assassinate President Trump. Law enforcement in Washington has been on heightened alert since that attack, underscoring the tense security environment around the capital.

This latest confrontation highlights the vigilance of the Secret Service in detecting and neutralising threats near the nation’s most sensitive sites. Investigators are now working to establish the suspect’s identity, motive, and whether there are any links to recent threats against senior US leadership.

ANI


Sunday, April 26, 2026

Gunfire Erupts At White House Press Dinner As Trump Escorted To Safety By Secret Service Agents


Shots were fired during a White House press dinner, causing immediate chaos as Donald Trump was swiftly rushed to safety by the Secret Service.

The incident unfolded when a heavily armed suspect managed to breach security and charged toward the venue, prompting a rapid response from protective personnel. Authorities confirmed that the attacker was subdued and arrested at the scene, with investigations now underway to determine the full circumstances behind the breach.

Trump later described the suspect as a possible “lone wolf”, though officials emphasised that inquiries remain ongoing to establish motive and potential connections. The swift intervention of the Secret Service ensured the safety of attendees, though the sudden eruption of gunfire triggered panic among those present.

At least one security officer sustained injuries during the confrontation but survived thanks to protective gear. The officer’s condition has been reported as stable, underscoring the effectiveness of the defensive measures in place. Emergency protocols were activated immediately, and the venue was secured as law enforcement carried out clearance operations.

The incident has raised serious questions about how the attacker was able to penetrate security at such a high-profile event. Authorities are now conducting a detailed review of the breach, while Trump has urged vigilance and a thorough investigation to ensure accountability and prevent future threats.

Agencies


Sunday, April 19, 2026

Red Flag Caution: US Intelligence Sees Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir As Risky Broker In Trump’s Iran Talks


Recent reporting indicates that senior US intelligence circles are viewing Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, as a potential “red flag” in Washington’s backchannel diplomacy with Tehran. 

Confidential assessments circulating within American security agencies describe him as a possible liability, despite his central role in trying to broker quiet negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Intelligence officials are said to worry that Munir’s layered relationships with key Iranian figures could complicate, rather than clarify, American calculations in an already volatile region.

A major concern stems from Munir’s alleged past links with top echelons of the Iranian military establishment, including the late Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani and senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, such as Hossein Salami.

According to retired Pakistani officers interviewed by US media, these are not merely professional contacts but longstanding and, in some cases, personal relationships.

Such ties are now under close scrutiny, particularly at a time when Pakistan is positioning itself as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran amid fresh escalatory pressures in West Asia.

The discomfort in certain US intelligence quarters is amplified by the fact that Munir is simultaneously acting as a mediator between a historically adversarial superpower and its long‑standing antagonist while maintaining these historical affinities with Iran.

Analysts argue that his dual‑hat role could create ambiguity over loyalties, with the risk that private messaging he conveys to Washington may be calibrated to align with Iranian interests more than Western ones. This has led to internal debates within the US national‑security bureaucracy about whether relying on him as a back‑channel conduit is prudent or strategically risky.

Further shaking American confidence, some analysts point to Pakistan’s broader record in the arena of great‑power diplomacy, particularly during the Afghanistan era, when Islamabad was widely criticised as a “perfidious ally.”

That label, often applied by former US officials, refers to Pakistan’s alleged pattern of accepting American aid and intelligence support while continuing to support militant groups and pursue autonomous regional strategies that did not always align with Washington’s goals.

Recalling this history, sceptics now warn that Pakistan’s military establishment, under Munir, may be using the US‑Iran channel to advance its own leverage rather than to serve as a truly neutral broker.

Despite these warnings, President Donald Trump has publicly placed considerable trust in General Munir, even referring to him as his “favourite field marshal.” Trump’s confidence appears to have been solidified during a tense India‑Pakistan crisis in May 2025, when Munir was credited with helping to de‑escalate hostilities and avert a wider conflict.

Since then, the US President has leaned on the Pakistani Army Chief to facilitate informal communications between Trump’s inner circle—reportedly including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—and Tehran, using Pakistan as a discreet venue for talks that might otherwise be politically toxic in Washington or in the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s own posture, however, has remained cautious and at times openly sceptical, even as Islamabad tries to project momentum. After a high‑level visit by Munir to Tehran, Iranian officials underlined that further negotiations with the United States would require a clear framework and concrete commitments, not just goodwill gestures.

Tehran’s insistence on preconditions has suggested that Munir’s mediation, while tactically useful for creating a diplomatic space, has not yet fundamentally altered the underlying mistrust between Washington and the Iranian leadership.

Experts argue that the growing prominence of General Munir in US‑Iran diplomacy reflects a deeper structural reality: Pakistan’s foreign policy is increasingly driven by the military establishment rather than by its civilian government.

This shift has complicated Pakistan’s ability to appear as a dispassionate third party, because the army’s own strategic priorities—balancing relations with China, managing tensions with India, and preserving influence in Afghanistan and the wider region—often diverge from Washington’s narrower focus on containing Iran.

As a result, even when Munir helps arrange talks or quiet messages, American interlocutors remain wary of what broader game he might be playing behind the scenes.

In this context, the “red flag” label attached to Asim Munir captures less a personal failing than a broader discomfort with using a key figure in a historically unreliable alliance structure as the linchpin of sensitive negotiations with Iran.

Intelligence officials caution that, while his relationships might give him rare access inside Tehran’s corridors of power, they also raise questions about whether he can be fully trusted to transmit US positions without distortion or self‑serving spin.

At the same time, Trump’s continued reliance on Munir underlines the limited options available to Washington, leaving American policymakers caught between the risks of his connections and the pragmatic necessity of working through whatever channels currently exist to avert a wider regional conflagration.

Agencies


Thursday, March 5, 2026

Tehran’s Secret Approach To CIA For Talks Amid Imminent Airspace Collapse


Amid the intensifying US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, operatives from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence have made discreet contact with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

This indirect approach seeks to explore possibilities for peace talks to halt the ongoing hostilities. Officials briefed on the matter revealed the outreach to The New York Times, highlighting a potential shift in Tehran's stance as its leadership grapples with severe pressures.

The timing of this overture is striking. It follows the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, killed in an Israeli airstrike that has plunged Iran's power structure into disarray. With key military and political figures under threat, Tehran's rulers appear increasingly cornered, prompting this covert bid for dialogue despite public defiance.

In Washington, however, the proposal has met with scepticism. US officials do not view the offer as credible at present, influenced by Israeli urgings to press the advantage. Jerusalem favours a sustained offensive aimed at dismantling Iran's military infrastructure and possibly engineering regime change, dismissing any immediate negotiations as a stalling tactic.

President Donald Trump has signalled a hardline position. In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, he declared negotiations with Iran "too late," asserting that the country's air defences, air force, navy, and leadership have been effectively neutralised. This rhetoric underscores the Trump administration's commitment to Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing air campaign conducted jointly with Israel.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reinforced this confidence during a Pentagon briefing. He proclaimed that American and Israeli forces are achieving "decisive" victories, predicting total control over Iranian airspace in the near term. Such statements reflect the rapid degradation of Iran's defensive capabilities, with strikes targeting command centres, radar installations, and missile sites across the country.

The conflict has exacted a heavy toll on Iran. Recent US and Israeli attacks have struck not only military assets but also civilian infrastructure, including the UNESCO-listed Golestan Palace in Tehran, as confirmed by Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei. Images from Minab depict public mourning after a reported strike on a school, underscoring the broadening human cost.

Simultaneously, operations extend into Lebanon, where Hezbollah strongholds face relentless bombardment. This multi-front pressure has strained Iran's regional proxy network, further isolating the regime and amplifying internal fissures. Exiled Iranian Prince Reza Pahlavi has seized the moment, urging the Iranian diaspora to ramp up international lobbying for a post-revolutionary transition.

Pahlavi described the current juncture as "sensitive" and "fateful," positioning himself as a figurehead for opposition forces. His call aligns with growing diaspora activism, which could influence Western policy if Tehran's overture falters. Yet, uncertainties persist over whether Trump or Iranian hardliners will engage further.

The broader geopolitical stakes remain high. A prolonged campaign risks entangling the US deeper in the Middle East, even as allies like Israel push for escalation. For Iran, the outreach represents a pragmatic pivot amid existential threats, though domestic hardliners may sabotage any concessions. As strikes continue unabated, the window for de-escalation appears narrow.

ANI


Sunday, March 1, 2026

'Khamenei, One of The Most Evil People In History, Is Dead'; Trump Hails Khamenei's Demise As 'Justice' Amid US-Israel Strikes On Iran


US President Donald Trump has declared Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, dead following a joint US-Israel military operation. In a stark post on his Truth Social platform, Trump described Khamenei as "one of the most evil people in History". He framed the leader's demise as "not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans".

The announcement came hours after intense airstrikes targeted Khamenei's residence and offices in Tehran. Satellite imagery from the New York Times revealed significant damage to the compound, which doubles as his official home. Reports indicate that some of the first strikes on Saturday hit areas near his offices, even as intelligence suggested he had been relocated to a secure site.

Trump elaborated that Khamenei "was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems". He credited close collaboration with Israel for the success, noting that "there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do". Iranian officials have remained tight-lipped, with no official confirmation of his death.

Israel's Channel 12, citing sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reported that "30 bombs were dropped on the complex".

Analyst Amit Segal noted Khamenei was underground but likely not in his personal bunker. Netanyahu himself hinted at the leader's fate, stating "there are many signs" that Khamenei had been killed.

Iran's Foreign Minister told NBC News that Khamenei was alive "as far as I know", insisting "all high-ranking officials are alive". The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baqaei, was more evasive in a BBC interview. He said he was "not in a situation to confirm anything" but stressed that "the whole system, the whole nation is focused on defending (our) national integrity".

Both Trump and Netanyahu used the moment to rally Iran's populace against the regime. Trump urged: "To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government."

Netanyahu echoed this call, addressing Iranians directly: "We have a common enemy, the murderous regime of the Ayatollahs that has taken over you through oppressive forces. They are the ones who have degraded your wonderful country, brought it to the lowest point, and they are the ones who slaughtered you en masse." Their words signalled hopes for regime change.

The strikes marked a sharp escalation after Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israel and Gulf states including Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. This followed a pattern of tit-for-tat hostilities, including a 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, alongside US strikes on Iranian targets in June.

Khamenei's potential end closes a 36-year reign that began in 1989, succeeding Ruhollah Khomeini. Despite initial scepticism about his authority, he consolidated power amid Iran's isolation. His rule saw the rise of proxy networks like Hamas and Hezbollah, now weakened by repeated US and Israeli operations.

Domestic unrest plagued his later years. Protests over economic woes peaked in January, met with a brutal crackdown. Hyperinflation, sanctions, and corruption eroded public support, while regional setbacks—from the fall of Syria's Assad to losses in Yemen—left the regime vulnerable.

The operation underscores advanced US-Israeli intelligence integration, likely involving real-time satellite tracking, cyber intrusions, and human assets. Precision munitions, possibly including bunker-busters, targeted hardened sites. This builds on prior successes, such as the 2020 strike on Qasem Soleimani.

For Iran, Khamenei's death—if confirmed—could trigger a power vacuum. The Assembly of Experts must select a successor, but infighting among hardliners, reformists, and the Revolutionary Guard looms large. President Ebrahim Raisi's government faces immediate tests amid ongoing hostilities.

Regionally, Gulf states hit by Iranian retaliation may deepen ties with the US-Israel axis. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, long targeted by Tehran, could see this as a pivot against Iranian influence. Yet, escalation risks broader conflict, potentially drawing in Russia or China, Iran's backers.

Trump's rhetoric revives his "maximum pressure" doctrine, abandoned under Biden but revived post-2024 election. It aligns with his pledges to confront Iran aggressively, including vows to dismantle its nuclear programme. Netanyahu, facing domestic probes, gains politically from a decisive blow against Tehran's leadership.

Global markets reacted swiftly, with oil prices surging over 5% on fears of Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Brent crude hit $85 per barrel. Stock indices in Tel Aviv and New York dipped, while safe-haven gold rose. Analysts warn of prolonged volatility if strikes continue.

Humanitarian concerns mount as Tehran urges sheltering amid "bombs dropping everywhere", per Trump. Casualty figures remain unverified, but urban strikes near civilian areas draw UN criticism. Aid groups call for de-escalation to avert a refugee crisis.

This episode redefines Middle East power dynamics. A post-Khamenei Iran might fracture into factional strife or pivot towards pragmatism. For the West, it offers a rare opening to support Iranian dissidents, though history—from 1953's Mossadegh coup—cautions against overreach.

As Iranian state media stays silent, the world awaits confirmation. Trump's full Truth Social post, blending triumph with provocation, captures the high stakes: "This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country."

Agencies


Khamenei's Family Slain In US-Israel Onslaught As Trump Declares Supreme Leader Dead


Iranian media outlets, including the Fars news agency, have confirmed the deaths of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter in targeted strikes by the United States and Israel.

The announcement came on Sunday, amid reports of contact with sources close to Khamenei's household verifying the "martyrdom" of these family members. Khamenei, who has led Iran since 1989, reportedly has six children, including three daughters, though specifics on the victims remain unclear.

This grim development followed closely on US President Donald Trump's declaration that the 86-year-old Khamenei himself had been killed in a joint military operation launched on Saturday.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump described Khamenei as "one of the most evil people in History" and hailed the strike as justice for Iranians and victims worldwide of Khamenei's "gang of bloodthirsty THUGS." He emphasised that neither Khamenei nor accompanying leaders could mount a defence, framing the action as a pivotal moment for Iranians to reclaim their nation.

Trump further vowed that "heavy and pinpoint bombing" would persist "uninterrupted" throughout the week—or longer if needed—to secure "PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD." His statements signal a bold escalation in long-simmering tensions, rooted in Iran's nuclear ambitions, support for proxy militias like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and repeated threats against Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed the narrative, stating there were "many signs" Khamenei was "no longer alive." In a video address, he claimed Israeli forces had destroyed Khamenei's compound that morning, targeting a figure responsible for global terrorism, domestic oppression, and plots to annihilate Israel over three decades.

Netanyahu listed additional high-profile casualties, including senior Revolutionary Guards commanders, nuclear programme figures, and Khamenei's top advisor Ali Shamkhani, alongside General Mohammad Pakpour, head of the Guards.

Netanyahu urged Iranians to overthrow their regime, promising strikes on "thousands more targets" in the coming days. The Israeli military corroborated the deaths of Shamkhani and Pakpour, underscoring the precision of the operation against Iran's power structure.

Contradictory reports emerged from Iran. While state television appeared to confirm Khamenei's death, agencies like Tasnim and Mehr insisted the Supreme Leader remained "steadfast and firm in commanding the field." A cryptic X post attributed to Khamenei added to the fog of war, leaving room for speculation about his survival or a body double.

The strikes commenced on Saturday, with smoke billowing over Tehran as US and Israeli forces hit key sites. Trump promptly announced "major combat operations" to neutralise "imminent threats," likely referencing Iran's nuclear facilities and missile stockpiles. Iran decried the attacks as unprovoked and illegal, retaliating with missile barrages on Israel and at least seven other nations, including Gulf states hosting US bases such as the UAE and Bahrain.

Eyewitness accounts from Tehran described chaos, with explosions rocking residential areas near government compounds. Social media footage showed debris-strewn streets and emergency responders amid air raid sirens. The operation's scale evokes memories of past US actions, like the 2020 strike on Qasem Soleimani, but dwarfs them in ambition.

Geopolitically, the move risks igniting a broader regional war. Iran's allies, including Russia and China, have condemned the strikes, while Sunni Arab states quietly back the US-Israel axis against Tehran's influence. Oil prices surged over 10% in early trading, reflecting fears of disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipping.

Trump's rhetoric positions the campaign as liberating, but critics warn it could radicalise Iran's hardliners or prompt asymmetric attacks via proxies. Netanyahu's government, facing domestic protests over Gaza, sees this as a strategic win bolstering deterrence.

As bombing continues, the world watches for Iran's next move—be it nuclear escalation, cyber retaliation, or internal upheaval. Khamenei's potential demise, if confirmed, could fracture the Islamic Republic's theocracy, paving the way for reformists or chaos.

Agencies


Monday, January 12, 2026

Thousands Slam Anti-Govt Protests As 'Terrorism' In Nationwide Pro-Iran Rallies


Iran's streets have become a battleground of contrasting narratives as massive pro-government rallies sweep across the nation. On Monday, January 12, 2026, tens of thousands gathered in cities and provinces including Tehran, Arak, and Azerbaijan province to voice unwavering support for the Islamic Republic.

Waving national flags and chanting patriotic slogans, demonstrators condemned recent anti-government protests as acts of "terrorism" and "foreign-backed unrest," according to Iranian state broadcaster Press TV.

These rallies mark a significant show of unity amid 15 days of escalating turmoil. Visuals from the events depict vast crowds filling public squares, with participants denouncing the violence that has plagued the country since late December 2025. Authorities framed the gatherings as a direct rejection of organised chaos, emphasising national solidarity against perceived external interference.

The pro-Iran demonstrations followed a pattern seen in other regions, such as the central city of Arak, where similar anti-terror protests drew large numbers. Organisers portrayed them as spontaneous expressions of loyalty to the regime, countering what they described as attempts to hijack legitimate economic grievances into armed rebellion. Press TV highlighted the events as a pivotal moment in restoring order.

This surge of government-backed mobilisation comes against a backdrop of severe unrest. Nationwide anti-government protests, initially sparked by soaring inflation and economic hardship, have evolved into direct challenges to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's authority, in power since 1979. Human rights groups report at least 544 deaths and over 10,600 arrests, with demonstrators transferred to prisons across multiple provinces.

Iran's internet shutdown, now exceeding 84 hours as of Monday, has intensified the crackdown. Implemented on January 8 to curb protest coordination, the blackout—monitored by cybersecurity firm NetBlocks—has isolated citizens and amplified regime control. Critics view it as a desperate measure to suppress dissent amid widespread fury over governance failures.

Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has pointed fingers at external actors, claiming "clear evidence" of Mossad involvement in stirring violence on Iranian soil. His statements reference a January 2 X post by former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who alluded to "Mossad agents walking beside" protesters in cities like Mashhad, Tehran, and Zahedan. Pompeo celebrated the unrest as a sign of regime fragility, predicting its collapse.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) echoed this rhetoric, denouncing US President Donald Trump's comments as "blatant intervention" in internal affairs. In a Sunday statement, the IRGC vowed that sabotage by US- and Israel-backed terrorists would fail, much like past destabilisation efforts. Trump, meanwhile, claimed Iran had initiated negotiations and warned of unprecedented retaliation if US bases were targeted.

From exile, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah, has seized the moment to rally international support. The crown prince declared that "global assistance will arrive" and urged protesters to "reclaim Iran," predicting the regime's imminent fall. In appeals to Trump, Pahlavi called for help to "liberate" the nation and "Make Iran Great Again," positioning a post-Khamenei Iran as a US ally for regional peace.

India's stock markets felt the ripples, with Nifty and Sensex opening lower on Monday amid Iran unrest and spiking crude prices. Investors adopted a cautious stance as oil volatility threatened global energy supplies, underscoring the protests' broader economic fallout.

Iran's envoy to India issued a stark warning against "fake news" circulating on foreign X accounts about the protests. Urging reliance on "reliable sources," the diplomat sought to counter narratives of regime collapse. Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Tehran to respect freedom of expression and avoid excessive force, citing reports of over 420 protester deaths, including children.

Trump further escalated tensions, stating Iran appeared to have "crossed their red line" on protester treatment. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he hinted at potential US action while revealing alleged outreach from Tehran for talks. These exchanges highlight a geopolitical chessboard where domestic strife intersects with enduring rivalries.

As rallies continue, the dual realities of regime loyalists and defiant protesters expose deep divisions. Economic woes fuel the fire, yet state media insists foreign hands orchestrate the chaos. With internet blacked out and arrests mounting, Iran's future hangs in precarious balance, drawing global scrutiny.

Based On ANI Report


Sunday, January 4, 2026

US Venezuela Op Risks Greenlighting Russia In Ukraine, China On Taiwan, Analysts Fear


Analysts have expressed grave concerns over the recent United States military operation in Venezuela, which culminated in airstrikes on 3 January 2026 and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, warning that it establishes a perilous precedent for global powers.

This intervention, involving the deployment of warships, CIA operations, and the seizure of oil tankers since late 2025, has been framed by President Trump as a means to combat drug trafficking and secure Venezuelan oil resources under the Monroe Doctrine.

Critics argue that such unilateral action against a sovereign state undermines international law and could embolden adversaries like Russia and China to pursue aggressive strategies elsewhere.

The operation began with a US military build-up in the Caribbean in August 2025, escalating to strikes on suspected drug vessels and a blockade that prevented oil exports. By December, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group was involved, and covert CIA teams tracked Maduro, leading to his extraction by helicopter raid near Caracas, protected by drones and fighter jets.

Trump has vowed that the US will "run" Venezuela until a safe transition, with American firms poised to exploit its oil and gas reserves, prompting accusations of resource grabs from Venezuelan officials.

International reactions have been swift and divided, with Latin American nations, Russia, China, and Iran condemning the strikes as violations of sovereignty. Russia's Foreign Ministry labelled it "armed aggression," while China expressed shock at the "hegemonic acts," urging adherence to the UN Charter. 

Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez denounced Maduro's capture as "barbaric," though Trump claimed she was cooperating, highlighting the chaotic power vacuum.

In geopolitical commentary, experts highlight how this sets a template for Russia in Ukraine. President Putin's long-held view of Ukraine as within Moscow's sphere mirrors Trump's Monroe Doctrine application, potentially justifying Russian abductions or escalations against Ukrainian leaders like President Zelenskyy.

Fiona Hill, a former Trump advisor, noted past Russian proposals to trade Venezuela support for US concessions on Ukraine, suggesting Putin might now overlook US actions in exchange for leeway. Russian officials have already invoked international law violations in Venezuela to bolster their narrative, despite their own actions in Ukraine.

Similarly, for China and Taiwan, the Venezuela precedent lowers barriers to coercion. Legal scholar Milena Sterio warns that US blockades and strikes on "terrorist" boats could rationalise Chinese blockades or "police actions" around Taiwan, especially amid ongoing drills like "Justice Mission 2025".

Steve Tsang of SOAS China Institute observes that Beijing, viewing Taiwan as non-sovereign, might treat incursions as internal policing, emulating US claims against Venezuelan cartels. Recent Chinese coast guard entries into Taiwanese waters near Kinmen underscore this escalating assertiveness.

Chatham House analysts predict Russia will cite the US strikes to defend its Ukraine invasion, while China leverages it in Taiwan rhetoric. The Trump administration's designation of Venezuelan gangs as terrorist organisations evokes China's probes into Taiwanese figures, blurring lines between state and non-state threats.

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III notes Beijing could argue stronger historical claims over Taiwan than the US has in the Caribbean, potentially turning the South China Sea into a "Chinese lake".

Broader implications extend to spheres of influence, with Trump's Ukraine peace proposals favouring Russia now under scrutiny amid this precedent. Uncertainty over US arms commitments to Taiwan—despite $10 billion sales—amplifies fears, as Xi Jinping eyes reunification. Iranian parallels are drawn too, given Trump's threats there, but focus remains on how Venezuela normalises regime change via force.

Ongoing coverage tracks these alarms in real-time, with Latin American outcry and ally support like from Ukraine contrasting sharply. As Maduro faces charges in New York, the operation's fallout risks a cascade of escalations, where powers invoke US justification for their own interventions. Analysts urge multilateral restraint to prevent a new era of unchecked great-power adventurism.

International Agencies


Monday, November 24, 2025

'I'm Going To Kill That Son Of A B**Ch': Ex-CIA Officer Reveals Musharraf's Angry Response To AQ Khan Selling Stolen Pak's Nuclear Tech


Former Pakistani Dictator Pervez Musharraf’s reaction to the exposure of Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear secrets leak was one of intense anger and decisiveness. When confronted by then-CIA Director George Tenet with irrefutable evidence that Khan was betraying Pakistan by selling nuclear technology to countries such as Libya, Musharraf reportedly responded with the vehement remark, “I’m going to kill that son of a bitch.” This moment marked a turning point in efforts to contain one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear proliferation networks.​

Abdul Qadeer Khan, a nuclear physicist and metallurgical engineer considered the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, had for decades sourced nuclear technology for Pakistan. However, his activities expanded into illicit trafficking of nuclear knowledge and materials to states like Libya, Iran, and North Korea, earning him the nickname “Merchant of Death” among US intelligence circles.

The CIA’s investigations revealed that Khan’s network supplied multiple foreign nuclear and missile programs, often assisted by Pakistani generals and officials on his payroll—but importantly, without direct state knowledge.​

Musharraf’s response involved placing Khan under years-long house arrest—a decisive step signalling Islamabad’s attempt to regain control and contain damage. Khan was forced to publicly confess and apologise, though many experts doubted his claim that he acted alone without institutional backing. 

Musharraf distanced his government from Khan’s actions, asserting that proliferations were carried out by individuals for personal gain rather than official policy.​

The CIA's covert counter-proliferation operation, led by James Lawler, combined intelligence infiltration with sting tactics that involved front companies posing as nuclear technology suppliers to sabotage Khan’s network.

This initiative bore fruit notably after 9/11, when intercepted shipments of nuclear components destined for Libya prompted its nuclear disarmament, an event celebrated within US intelligence as preventing future nuclear conflict. The CIA continued to closely monitor Pakistan’s nuclear assets to ensure Khan’s network did not supply terrorists.​

The wider implications were profound. Khan’s network had helped proliferate Iranian nuclear centrifuge technology and ballistic missile designs, raising fears of a cascading nuclear arms race in the Middle East. US tolerance of Pakistan’s nuclear development contrasted with its hard stance on Iran, attributed partly to Pakistan’s strategic role in Afghanistan, although with awareness of long-term risks.​

Musharraf’s furious reaction was a critical moment in exposing and curtailing Abdul Qadeer Khan’s clandestine export of nuclear secrets. Despite government denials, Khan’s intricate and far-reaching proliferation network posed a major global threat, countered by persistent and covert US intelligence operations that reshaped non-proliferation strategies in the early 21st century.​

This account integrates intelligence revelations, Musharraf's political manoeuvrings, and the persistent dangers posed by the clandestine nuclear trade orchestrated by AQ Khan. The episode illustrates the complexity and high stakes of nuclear counter-proliferation in South Asia and beyond.

Based On ANI Report


'American Foreign Policy Is A Big Puzzle, US Needs Stronger Ties With India': Ex-CIA Officer James Lawler


The United States must build a significantly stronger relationship with India, according to James C. Lawler, a highly respected former CIA officer and ex-head of the agency's Counter-Proliferation Division.

Lawler expressed puzzlement over the historical state of US-India relations, noting that although the two nations were never adversaries, they never developed into true friends despite sharing many common interests and values.

He pointed out that both countries have vibrant economies, share democratic frameworks, and many ethnic Indians in the US have become some of the brightest minds, underscoring the potential for a much closer partnership.

Lawler highlighted the shift in India's economic policies away from socialism towards capitalism, which he believes is a strong basis for enhanced cooperation between the two democracies.

He urged that rather than maintaining a standoffish stance, the US and India should embrace their convergent interests and work much more closely. Notably, Lawler also expressed a personal desire to visit India, which he has yet to do.

The backdrop of Lawler's remarks includes the turbulent period during President Donald Trump's administration, which saw a deterioration in relations: Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods and accused India of funding the Russia-Ukraine conflict through Russian oil purchases.

India consistently rejected these allegations, and the complexities were further heightened by Trump's claim of preventing a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan — a claim India denies, stating all ceasefire agreements and issues are resolved bilaterally without third-party mediation.

From a strategic perspective, Lawler observed that during his CIA tenure it was difficult to understand the hesitation in India-US ties, especially given India's historically closer relationship with the Soviet Union and reliance on Soviet military equipment.

He advocated that the US should now supply India with more advanced technology and acknowledged reports that Indian firms have substantially decreased their purchase of Russian oil, which creates an opening for deeper cooperation.

On broader strategic challenges, both nations share concerns about China, making it imperative to move beyond Cold War-era thinking and focus on mutual interests that could make the partnership far stronger.

Lawler's insights call for a recalibration of American foreign policy towards India, emphasising that despite past frictions, the future holds significant potential for a robust alliance based on shared democratic values, economic interests, and strategic concerns.​

Based On ANI Report


Saturday, November 8, 2025

Former CIA Officer Reveals US Knew Pakistan’s F-16s Were Nuclear-Capable But Continued Arms Supply


Former CIA counterproliferation officer Richard Barlow has made startling revelations about Washington’s complicity in enabling Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions during the 1980s. Speaking to ANI, Barlow stated that successive US Presidents consciously certified Islamabad as non-nuclear despite clear intelligence proving otherwise.

He revealed that the CIA had knowledge by the late 1980s that Pakistan possessed deployable nuclear weapons which were capable of being mounted on American-supplied F-16 fighter jets. "We knew all about the Pakistani nuclear weapons design, and we knew all about the F-16s... they were capable of delivering the Pakistani nuclear weapons as they existed at that time, without any doubt," he said.

Barlow’s testimony sheds light on a period when political expedience outweighed non-proliferation commitments. According to him, the Reagan and Bush administrations concealed Pakistan’s nuclear activities to maintain Islamabad’s support during the Soviet-Afghan War.

Throughout the 1980s, Washington continued to certify Pakistan’s compliance under the Pressler Amendment, a law requiring annual presidential confirmation that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device to retain US aid.

He explained that despite the CIA’s unease, elected officials decided to push forward with arms deliveries for geopolitical reasons. “All we can do is present the intelligence to the elected leaders... what they choose to do after that is not our place,” Barlow noted.

Seymour Hersh’s 1993 report in The New Yorker corroborated these concerns, documenting how US satellites detected Pakistan moving nuclear weapons to airbases where F-16s were stationed. These findings contradicted US government certifications at the time.

The 1987 Brasstacks Crisis

The episode coincided with one of South Asia’s most dangerous nuclear standoffs. During India’s massive military exercise, Operation Brasstacks (1986–87), Pakistan perceived the manoeuvre as an invasion rehearsal. Barlow recounted that during this crisis, Islamabad had already successfully assembled nuclear weapons. Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan even confirmed as much in a 1987 media interview, stating that the bomb existed as a deterrent against India.

Barlow insisted that the intelligence community observed the movement of nuclear weapons and delivery platforms during that period. “The nuclear weapons that Pakistan was said not to possess were being mated with F-16s,” he added.

The 1990 Nuclear Crisis

US authorities eventually halted the certification process in 1990 after Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan. By then, Washington’s strategic priorities had changed, and officials could no longer deny Islamabad’s nuclear status. President George H. W. Bush dispatched Defence Secretary Robert Gates to defuse the rising tension between India and Pakistan, which Barlow termed “the most dangerous crisis since the Cuban missile crisis.”

Comparing that standoff to recent tensions during Operation Sindoor, he remarked that the 1990 scenario was far more volatile due to weak command and control systems and the limited number of warheads, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation.

Barlow also said that at the time, US intelligence assessments found that the Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, had little control over the nuclear programme, which was dominated by the military leadership under General Mirza Aslam Beg and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

Policy Deception And Suppression

Barlow claimed that during his tenure at the CIA and later the Pentagon, he discovered senior officials in both the State Department and the CIA had misled Congress about Pakistan’s nuclear procurement activities. When he refused to alter his assessments to downplay Islamabad’s progress or soften the findings in his reports to the National Security Council, he faced retaliation, the suspension of his security clearance, and eventually termination.

He revealed that his Pentagon superior, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Edward Gnehm (nicknamed “Skip”), had tasked him with compiling a comprehensive review of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, including its delivery capabilities and aerospace adaptations for the F-16s. However, regional officers attempted to pressure him into revising his findings. “They wanted me to change my report, but my analysis was consistent with the CIA’s conclusions,” he stated.

Fallout And Aftermath

In the aftermath of his whistleblowing, Barlow’s allegations were later investigated and deemed credible by the State Department’s Inspector General. His case symbolised institutional efforts to suppress intelligence that contradicted Washington’s foreign policy interests during the Cold War.

Reflecting on that period, Barlow said that the deception persisted even after the Soviet withdrawal because vested interests were reluctant to terminate aid and military collaboration with Pakistan. “There were still people in the US government who wanted to certify under the Pressler Amendment, even after nuclear weapons had been fielded. They were having collective panic because they knew the aid would end,” he recalled.

Barlow concluded that while Pakistan has since developed more advanced delivery systems and expanded its arsenal, the earlier decades were far riskier. The absence of strong nuclear command structures and the secrecy enveloping the arsenal made the 1980s and early 1990s one of the most precarious eras for South Asian nuclear stability.

Based On ANI Report


Ex-CIA Officer Reveals US State Department Tipped Off Pakistan About Nuclear Smuggling Arrest In 1980s


Former CIA officer Richard Barlow has made explosive revelations that senior officials in the US State Department secretly alerted the Pakistani government to an undercover American operation aimed at arresting a retired Pakistani general involved in nuclear smuggling during the 1980s.

In a detailed interview with ANI, Barlow disclosed that the joint CIA–US Customs operation was closing in on an agent named Arshad Parvez, who attempted to procure 25 metric tons of Maraging 350 steel—a high-strength alloy critical for producing uranium enrichment centrifuges—from an American steel supplier.

Parvez was allegedly acting under the direction of retired Brigadier General Inam-ul-Haq, a known procurement agent linked to Pakistan’s Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). Both institutions were pivotal in the country’s covert nuclear weapons development programme.

Barlow explained that his team had created the Nuclear Export Violations Working Group to coordinate investigations against illegal nuclear material acquisitions. Once they identified Parvez’s operation, a complex sting was arranged with US Customs officials that led to Parvez’s arrest. However, when his superior, General Inam-ul-Haq, was expected to arrive at the Pennsylvania facility to finalise the deal, he never appeared.

It was later discovered, Barlow said, that senior State Department figures had confidentially informed Pakistani officials of the arrest warrant, allowing Haq to evade capture. “I was ballistic,” Barlow recalled. “These were people in my own government—the enemy within.”

The former intelligence officer emphasised that the tip-off was not a result of operational negligence but of deliberate political interference. Barlow maintained that powerful figures in Washington prioritised Pakistan’s strategic role in the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan over enforcing US non-proliferation laws.

The decision effectively undermined years of investigative work and exposed dangerous policy divisions within the American government.

According to Barlow, his team had gathered irrefutable evidence linking Parvez and Haq to Pakistan’s state-controlled nuclear institutions. “There was no doubt they were government agents. We had hard evidence in the form of documents, communications, and undercover recordings,” he said.

When Parvez’s arrest became public, the incident provoked an uproar in the US Congress. Lawmakers, including Congressman Stephen Solarz, demanded the suspension of American aid to Pakistan under non-proliferation amendments such as the Solarz and Pressler laws. The disclosure highlighted a growing split between the State Department’s pro-Pakistan stance and sections of the intelligence community concerned with stopping nuclear proliferation.

Barlow argued that the true fault lay not in intelligence lapses but in flawed foreign policy. “It was not an intelligence failure; it was a policy failure,” he insisted. Despite clear violations of American export controls, the White House and State Department continued facilitating military and financial assistance to Pakistan throughout the 1980s.

By 1986–87, Barlow said, most analysts within the intelligence community were convinced that Pakistan had successfully produced all the components required for nuclear weapons assembly. However, government lawyers sought ways to bypass legislative restrictions and preserve aid flows essential for sustaining Pakistan’s support of the Afghan Mujahideen.

Barlow later testified before Congress alongside National Intelligence Officer David Einsel, who he claimed had close ties to the White House and instructions not to threaten aid continuity. His testimony revealed the depth of bureaucratic conflict between policy authorities and proliferation monitors.

“This was not an intelligence failure,” Barlow reiterated. “This was a policy issue—a wink and a nod.” He further described how the Reagan administration’s obsession with countering the Soviet Union overshadowed the dangers posed by Pakistan’s nuclear advances.

“The Cold Warriors were in charge,” Barlow said. “The fight against the Soviets was everything. They viewed Pakistan’s quest for nuclear weapons as secondary, interpreting everything through the prism of the Cold War.”

The revelations underscore how geopolitical considerations during the Cold War era often overrode non-proliferation commitments, enabling Pakistan’s rapid nuclear progress while straining internal cohesion across the US intelligence and diplomatic apparatus.

Based On ANI Report


Sunday, October 26, 2025

Saudi Intervention Shielded Rogue Pak Nuclear Scientist A.Q. Khan From U.S. Action, Admits Ex-CIA Officer


In a striking admission, former CIA officer John Kiriakou has revealed that Washington refrained from targeting Pakistan’s nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan due to direct intervention from Saudi Arabia. The decision, he said, represented one of the major policy failures of U.S. intelligence in the early 2000s.

Kiriakou, who served the Central Intelligence Agency for 15 years as both an analyst and a counterterrorism officer, told ANI that the U.S. had operational-level intelligence on Khan’s location, habits, and movements.

However, a directive was issued to stand down after diplomatic appeals from Riyadh warned against any action.

According to Kiriakou, Saudi authorities urged Washington to “leave A.Q. Khan alone,” citing their close relationship with Islamabad and cooperation with the Pakistani nuclear scientist. “We knew precisely where he lived and how his day unfolded. But the Saudis stepped in, saying they liked and were working closely with him,” he stated.

The former agent described this episode as a serious lapse, arguing that an opportunity to dismantle a major proliferation network was deliberately ignored. During his later assignment with the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he learned that both CIA and IAEA officials confirmed executive orders not to target Khan came from the White House itself—reportedly at Riyadh’s insistence.

Kiriakou added that Saudi Arabia’s protection of Khan may have been tied to its own nuclear ambitions. He hinted that the kingdom’s collaboration with Pakistan could have extended beyond political and military domains, possibly into nuclear cooperation.

A Q Khan, born in Bhopal in 1936 before migrating to Pakistan after Partition, became infamous for developing Islamabad’s nuclear weapons programme and for illicitly exporting sensitive nuclear technology to countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya. He died in Islamabad in 2021 aged 85.

Kiriakou’s remarks come in the wake of a new Saudi–Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement inked in September 2025. The pact commits both nations to treat aggression against one as an attack on the other.

Kiriakou dismissed the deal’s novelty, pointing out that Pakistan has long formed the operational backbone of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces. “Nearly the entire Saudi military is staffed by Pakistanis. Saudis rarely enlist except for top positions,” he said wryly.

While describing talk of a Saudi “nuclear umbrella” as unrealistic, he acknowledged the longstanding defence and security nexus between the two Muslim-majority nations as one of deep strategic value. He suggested Riyadh could now be “calling in its investment” after decades of support to Pakistan’s defence sector.

Reflecting on America’s broader diplomatic conduct, Kiriakou criticised Washington’s continued alignment with Saudi Arabia despite the 9/11 attacks involving Saudi nationals. He described U.S. foreign policy as driven not by values but by shifting national interests. “We claim to stand for democracy and human rights, but our alliances often serve convenience over conscience,” he said bluntly.

Based On ANI Report


Saturday, October 25, 2025

Pakistan Would Lose Any Conventional War With India: Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou Warns Islamabad


Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer John Kiriakou has said that Pakistan would lose any conventional military confrontation with India, urging Islamabad to abandon its confrontational stance and reassess its national security policies.

In a candid interview with ANI, Kiriakou argued that there is “nothing positive” for Pakistan in maintaining hostility towards India, given the disparity in capabilities and outcomes of past engagements.

Kiriakou, who served in the CIA for 15 years and headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan, noted that India’s response to terrorism has consistently demonstrated its military superiority. He referred to India’s surgical strikes in 2016, the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, and Operation Sindoor earlier in 2025 — the latter launched in retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians. These precision strikes, according to him, underscored India’s willingness and capacity to decisively punish cross-border terrorism.

The former officer recalled that during his posting in Islamabad in 2002, he had been told unofficially that the Pentagon exercised control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal under President Pervez Musharraf’s rule. However, he acknowledged that in the years since, Pakistan’s military leadership has consistently rejected that claim, insisting that their nuclear assets remain under domestic control.

When asked whether such information had ever been shared with India, Kiriakou expressed doubt. He emphasised that Washington’s stance historically urged both nations to keep conflicts limited and non-nuclear. “The State Department told both sides — if you’re going to fight, fight short and keep it non-nuclear. If nuclear weapons are introduced, the whole world changes,” he said, pointing to the restraint exercised by both governments despite grave provocations.

Kiriakou bluntly stated that Pakistan would unequivocally lose in a conventional war, without even considering nuclear escalation. “Nothing good will come out of an actual war between India and Pakistan because the Pakistanis will lose. It’s as simple as that,” he asserted, highlighting that provoking India yields no strategic advantage.

Commenting on Pakistan’s controversial nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Kiriakou revealed that Washington had enough intelligence to target him directly but decided against it due to Saudi Arabia’s intervention. “We could have taken the Israeli approach and eliminated him. We knew where he lived. But the Saudis requested we leave him alone because they were working with him,” he said, calling that a grave misjudgement by the US government given Khan’s role in global nuclear proliferation.

Kiriakou, who became widely known for exposing the CIA’s torture programme in 2007, later faced prosecution and served 23 months in prison. Reflecting on that period, he maintained that he had acted ethically, saying he had “no regrets and no remorse” for revealing what he described as unlawful interrogation practices.

His remarks once again bring attention to the fragile equilibrium of nuclear deterrence in South Asia and the implications of terrorism-driven conflict cycles. Kiriakou’s perspective, shaped by close field experience and later dissent against the CIA’s policies, adds weight to concerns about the futility and risks of any renewed military escalation between India and Pakistan.

Based On ANI Report


Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou Alleges Musharraf Gave US Control Over Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal


Former CIA officer John Kiriakou has alleged that the United States effectively “purchased” former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf by funnelling millions of dollars in military and economic aid, effectively gaining control over Pakistan’s strategic decisions—including its nuclear arsenal.

Speaking to ANI, the ex-intelligence operative, who served 15 years in the CIA’s analytical and counterterrorism divisions, said that Washington found Musharraf a convenient partner due to his authoritarian style. “The United States loves working with dictators,” Kiriakou remarked, adding that Musharraf allowed the US broad freedom to operate within Pakistan.

Kiriakou claimed the relationship was transactional, with Musharraf allegedly granting Washington carte blanche in exchange for vast financial support. The former officer said, “We gave millions and millions of dollars… and essentially he would let us do whatever we wanted to do.”

According to him, Musharraf maintained a delicate balance between American demands and the interests of Pakistan’s powerful military establishment. To preserve his position, Musharraf is said to have “kept the military happy” by turning a blind eye to anti-India militant operations while publicly cooperating with Washington’s counterterrorism agenda.

He further implied that Pakistan continued covert terrorist activities against India even as it presented itself as a US ally in the post-9/11 war on terror, noting the heightened tensions following the December 2001 attack on India’s Parliament and the near-war crisis that followed in 2002.

Kiriakou expressed concern over Pakistan’s enduring political instability and violent power struggles, warning that internal divisions could again erupt into street unrest. “The country is not known for transformative leaders making positive decisions,” he observed grimly.

He also recounted what he termed a “Marie Antoinette moment” involving ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto during her exile in Dubai. Describing her opulent lifestyle, Kiriakou recalled visiting her lavish Gulf residence and hearing her frustration over her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, purchasing “another Bentley.” He questioned how such leaders could claim to represent a population struggling with poverty and basic deprivation.

“Benazir earned about $60,000 a year, yet lived in a $5 million mansion,” he recounted, calling it emblematic of Pakistan’s entrenched corruption. “Aren’t they ashamed of themselves?” he asked, lamenting that ordinary Pakistanis must endure such self-serving leadership.

Drawing on former President Musharraf’s own writings, Kiriakou referenced passages from In the Line of Fire, where Musharraf admitted reversing Islamabad’s Taliban policy after realising Pakistan could not survive a military confrontation with the US. Musharraf wrote that his assessment concluded Pakistan would be “wiped out militarily,” lose economic sustainment, and lack the necessary national unity to withstand American retaliation.

Kiriakou’s candid remarks have reignited debates over Pakistan’s political corruption, its military’s influence over foreign policy, and the controversial depth of US involvement in the country’s internal affairs during the early 2000s.

Based On ANI Report


Wednesday, September 17, 2025

US Military Activity In Bangladesh’s Chittagong: Should India Be Alarmed


A recent arrival of US Air Force C-130J Super Hercules aircraft at Chittagong’s Shah Amanat International Airport signals a growing American military presence in Bangladesh. The deployment is part of ‘Operation Pacific Angel 25-3,’ a four-day trilateral exercise involving the US, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. This initiative reinforces humanitarian assistance, interoperability, and logistics cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.

The exercise features three C-130J aircraft, including two from US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), alongside Bangladesh Air Force’s Mi-17 helicopter assets. It involves over 240 personnel, with 92 from the US Air Force and 150 from Bangladesh.

Senior US diplomats and officers, including the US Chargé d’Affaires in Dhaka, have already visited the base to oversee operations, underscoring Washington’s political and military intent behind these activities.

Chittagong’s geographic position makes it central to India’s neighbourhood security calculus. Located near India’s northeast and close to Myanmar, the region commands access to the Bay of Bengal and critical maritime routes. Increased US activity here could give Washington an influential foothold in South Asia’s strategic corridor, one historically secured by India.

This is not an isolated case. Earlier, the US conducted “Tiger Lightning 2025,” a six-day combat exercise with Bangladesh’s elite Para Commando Brigade in Sylhet. Drills included counterterrorism, jungle warfare, and medical evacuation training. Repeated military engagements indicate America’s long-term strategy of embedding presence in Bangladesh, straddling both Army and Air Force partnerships.

Bangladesh’s political transition in August 2024, which forced Sheikh Hasina into exile in India, has reshaped Dhaka’s external engagements. Accusations linger that Washington was displeased with Hasina’s refusal to lease St Martin’s Island, a strategic Bay of Bengal outpost. Reports of a US Special Forces officer’s suspicious death in Dhaka last month only deepen the perception of covert American involvement. Under Muhammad Yunus’s interim government, Dhaka appears more receptive to Western defence cooperation.

For New Delhi, a strong US presence in Bangladesh is a double-edged sword. On one hand, closer US-Bangladesh ties could restrain Chinese ingress into the Bay of Bengal, limiting Beijing’s influence in ports and infrastructure.

On the other, American deployments in Chittagong risk narrowing India’s traditional security space in its eastern flank, raising concerns about surveillance, intelligence operations, and future strategic balancing.

The Bay of Bengal is turning into a new theatre of US-China rivalry. Both Washington and Beijing are also said to be eyeing Myanmar’s rebel networks, which could further complicate India’s security environment along insurgency-prone border states.

Any militarisation of Bangladesh’s ports and air bases changes the operating environment for the Indian Navy and Air Force, particularly in the Andaman–Nicobar TRI-Command security zone.

India now faces a policy dilemma: whether to tacitly welcome a US presence as a counterweight to China or to perceive it as intrusion into South Asia’s strategic architecture. New Delhi will need to recalibrate its diplomatic ties with Dhaka’s interim government while simultaneously coordinating with Washington to ensure its eastern security buffer is not eroded.

Based On First Post Report


Sunday, July 6, 2025

Pakistan Nuclear Arsenal Controlled By US: Claims Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou


Former CIA officer John Kiriakou has made a dramatic and controversial claim that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is effectively under the command of an American general, an arrangement he alleges was established by the Pakistani government itself, reported MoneyControl.

According to Kiriakou, this unprecedented level of U.S. oversight has significantly reduced the nuclear threat in South Asia and may be a key reason why India has “backed off” from escalating conflicts with Pakistan in recent years.

Kiriakou, who served as a CIA counterterrorism operative in Pakistan, stated in a widely circulated video that a senior Pakistani army general personally disclosed this arrangement to him. He claims that the command and control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, estimated at over 170 warheads, is not solely in Pakistani hands but is overseen by an American general.

This assertion, if true, would mark a significant shift in the regional security architecture and strategic calculus of both India and Pakistan, fundamentally altering the balance of power and the nature of nuclear deterrence in South Asia.

The timing of Kiriakou’s claim coincides with new revelations about India’s Operation Sindoor, in which a BrahMos missile reportedly struck Pakistan’s high-security Nur Khan airbase—located just over a mile from the headquarters of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD), the nerve center of its nuclear command.

Pakistani officials, including Rana Sanaullah, Special Assistant to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, have confirmed the missile strike, noting that it threw Islamabad into “panic mode” due to uncertainty over whether the missile carried a nuclear payload. Satellite imagery has shown extensive damage to the airbase’s infrastructure, highlighting the vulnerability of Pakistan’s strategic assets.

Kiriakou’s assertion suggests that U.S. oversight of Pakistan’s nuclear command may have provided India with assurances about the security and control of Pakistan’s arsenal, reducing the risk of unauthorized or accidental use and thus lowering the incentive for escalation. This aligns with longstanding Indian concerns over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, particularly given Pakistan’s history of political instability and the presence of extremist groups.

Officially, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are controlled by the National Command Authority (NCA), chaired by the Prime Minister, with operational management by the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), a military body.

The United States has provided assistance to Pakistan for nuclear security, including funding and equipment, but there is no independent or official verification supporting Kiriakou’s claim of direct American command.

Pakistani authorities have consistently maintained that their nuclear arsenal is secure and under their exclusive control, and most independent analysts view Kiriakou’s statement with scepticism due to his controversial background and the lack of corroborating evidence.

Kiriakou himself is a contentious figure, known for exposing the CIA’s use of waterboarding and for being convicted in 2012 for leaking classified information, for which he served nearly two and a half years in prison. His history as a whistleblower adds complexity to the credibility of his latest claims.

John Kiriakou’s claim that an American general controls Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal remains unverified and highly controversial, with no official confirmation from either the U.S. or Pakistani governments. The claim has, however, reignited debate over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the delicate balance of power in South Asia.

MoneyControl Report