On October 31st, 1984, India lost a monumental personality, Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi. She is the only woman who has served as Prime Minister of India, and that too for three terms. Her existence is like a big tree whose branches symbolise the era of women, unity, socialism, and autocracy in India—popularly known as the 

, Indira Gandhi's life reads like an epic tale of her indomitable courage, unwavering conviction, and turbulent controversies. The political debate and social matters in India are influenced by her complex legacy to this day.

She held the post of the Prime Minister of India from 1966 to 1977 and again from 1980 until her assassination in 1984. Thus, a series of events still in discourse among people marked her time in power, and they remain deeply divided in public opinion. Those days were initially crowned by a triumphant 1971 war, which led to the emergence of Bangladesh, until later, when the infamous Emergency was implemented. In addition to the political highs and lows, Indira Gandhi embodied power and resistance as she courageously took on the male-dominated political arena. While her idea of self-reliant and modern India was strongly supported or opposed, it cannot be denied that it has become the bedrock for most of the future developments in the country. The annual commemoration of her death anniversary is a significant moment; it is a call to review the impact of her leadership on the Indian subcontinent, apart from her memory.

Indira Gandhi was born on November 19, 1917, in Allahabad (now Prayagraj), to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and Kamala Nehru. Being raised in the center of the Indian freedom movement, she learned politics, nationalism, and public life duties from an early age.

Her education at Visva-Bharati University in Shantiniketan and later at Oxford University in England made her a firm believer in her father's vision of a modern, secular India. However, she had a very different character from Nehru- more aggressive, realistic, and instinctive in politics.

She began her political career alongside her father and gained firsthand experience in politics and diplomacy. After Nehru died in 1964 and the short-lived Lal Bahadur Shastri's administration, Indira Gandhi was elected the Prime Minister of India in 1966. At the time, very few people believed that she would make history as one of the most influential and powerful leaders in India.

Transforming India: Key Policies and Achievements

Indira Gandhi was both a daring reformer and a leader who faced severe challenges during her rule. Her period in office was a testament to her relentless desire to invigorate India's unity, make the country self-sufficient, and improve its global status.

The Green Revolution program that made India food self-sufficient was one of the most long-lasting legacies of Indira Gandhi, which started in the late 1960s. Collaboration with the likes of M.S. Swaminathan led her government to introduce the high-yield seed varieties, modern irrigation practices, and better fertilizers. These initiatives not only reversed India's status as a food-deficient nation dependent on external sources but also stabilized the agricultural sector. This led to the reinforcement of India’s agriculture and a stable future for millions of farmers across the nation.

In 1969, one of the most significant and divisive moves by Indira Gandhi was the nationalization of 14 big, privately owned banks. Within her plan, banking was to be made easily available to the rural poor and small industries, and credits were to be given more to agriculture and the social sector, rather than those for corporate profits. Economic elites objected to the move, but it eventually restructured the country's financial system and paved the way for empowering growth by means of the grassroots.

“Garibi Hatao” (Remove Poverty), the famous slogan of the Indian leader Indira Gandhi, was a central point of her 1971 election campaign. It was intended to give top priority to rural India by means of providing better housing, education, and employment opportunities for the poor sections of the villages and towns of India. The implementation of her leadership saw the launch of many welfare schemes that addressed rural poverty and social injustice, promoting her image as a leader of and for the people.

The 1971 Indo-Pak War and the Birth of Bangladesh

Her greatest achievement was probably the year 1971, when India, under her leadership, was the main power to offer a successful resistance to the military junta of East Pakistan, and in doing so, the independence of Bangladesh was accomplished. The support, both humanitarian and military, provided by her administration during the crisis manifested her sharp political insight and strength in protecting India's moral and strategic interests. Besides altering the geopolitics of South Asia, the triumph also propelled her to the league of the world's most outstanding leaders.

Advancing India’s Scientific and Nuclear Capabilities

According to Gandhi, independence in the political sphere alone would hardly be complete without India also becoming self-reliant in technology and defense. The first atomic bomb tested in India, carried out in 1974 at Pokhran and named Smiling Buddha, was done under her orders. This made India a nuclear power for the first time after the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the only country in the developing world to do so at the time. With her encouragement, India also started ambitious space programs that involved ISRO's founding and development, which would later be known as the world's advances in the field of technology made by India.

The time of Indira Gandhi's reign was met with some unpleasant truths as well. The Emergency period (the years 1975–1977) is singled out as one of the most debatable moments in the history of India’s democracy. The emergency lasted as a reaction to the political unrest and the challenge to her leadership. Among the steps taken during this period were the abolishment of civil rights, control over the press, and the arrest of the leaders of the opposition.

Whereas her supporters considered it to be a necessary step for reestablishing order and stability, opponents accused it of being a dictatorial and undemocratic act. The event not only damaged her image as a democratic leader but also resulted in her losing the elections held in 1977. However, her amazing political revival in 1980, after the disappointment of the people with the opposition coalition, was yet another proof of her toughness and of the fact that she was deeply connected to the masses.

Known for her intellectual prowess, Indira Gandhi was also very simple and an unwavering patriot of her motherland. She defined India not just as a country but as a living civilization that should change and, at the same time, keep its core untouched. Her effectiveness in winning the respect of both the great powers and the other third-world countries was a clear demonstration of her diplomatic skill and lucidity of aim.

Indira Gandhi, as a female leader of one of the world's largest democracies, was a source of motivation to women everywhere. Her exit through the door has changed the rules of leadership in the male-dominated world of politics, thereby becoming an example of drive and decision-making power.

Among the aftermaths of Operation Blue Star, on 31 October 1984, her two Sikh bodyguards shot and killed Indira Gandhi at her residence in New Delhi. Her death made the whole country mourn for days in a row, thronged with nefarious incidents, and followed by widespread communal riot. Her legacy remains deeply ingrained in India's story — a blend of stellar accomplishments and disputed decisions — even decades later. She was a leader who loved India with intense passion and thus was ready to take risks and make sacrifices for what she believed was in the best interest of the country.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

Remembering​‍​‌‍​‍‌ Indira Gandhi: The Iron Lady of India

In August, the US imposed a sizable 50% duty on Indian exports, inflicting a serious breakdown in the US–India relationship—the sort that has not happened in several decades. What appeared to be a thoughtful action by Washington to compel India to liberalize its markets and move away from Moscow has become instead a significant diplomatic, economic, and geopolitical standoff. The repercussions extend far beyond the trade space, literally questioning the trajectory of India's foreign policy direction, threatening the survival of millions of citizens, and reinvigorating talk of national sovereignty in the wake of the evolving world order.

In February 2025, the Trump administration imposed a 25% "reciprocal" tax on imports from India. This was done because it was believed that the access to the market between the countries wasn't reciprocal. The US administration argued that India hadn't afforded fair and comparable opportunities for US products and services in its marketplace. The initial tax applied to a wide selection of Indian goods entering the US.

Six months later, a second punitive 25% duty was leveled on August 27th. This second policy is directly connected to the current oil and arms trade between India and Russia, a step that the US administration took to counter its foreign policy objectives, particularly where global alignments and international sanctions are a concern. The addition of these two policies led to a significant 50% duty on a wide range of Indian products for export to America. The most impacted industries were apparel, seafood, gemstones, footwear, and furniture, all being key participants in the export-oriented economy of India.

The macroeconomic effects of these duties are important for India. With India's annual exports to the United States typically between $60 billion and $87 billion, a 50% duty on a large segment of these exports amounts to a serious problem. Nearly two-thirds of all Indian exports to America are now facing these increased levels of duties and have become much less competitive in the American marketplace. This is disastrous for a very significant component of the New Delhi-Washington economic relationship and has the potential to lead to lower levels of trade, export-oriented industry losses of jobs, and a broad-based effect on the growth of the Indian economy. On a longer time scale, the effects may lead to a reassessment of the trade policy of India and its geopolitical alignments in the context of these negative economic effects.

India's export industry has a lot to worry about in the near term because economists are of the opinion that possible losses of anywhere between $36 billion a year may lower the GDP growth rate by anywhere between 0.6 and 0.8 percentage points. These impact most severely on labour-intensive sectors like textiles, seafood (prawns), gems, and footwear, where roughly two million jobs are threatened if the present regime of protection through tariffs persists.

In response, the administration has just extended a duty waiver for cotton imports while seeking to reduce input expenses for exporters. Although the move will benefit manufacturing industries that depend on cheaper raw material inputs, it has raised alarm for local cotton-producing farmers who are worried about increased pressure when it comes to the harvesting season. Generally speaking, the effects of the tariffs are far-reaching beyond trade statistics by possibly upsetting employment and rural incomes, thereby impacting India's larger socioeconomic stability.

Whereas previous trade disagreements involved mere economic conflicts, these tariffs are a direct challenge to India's independent sovereign decision-making, especially when it comes to its Russian oil and defense acquisitions.

New Delhi has vociferously condemned the move as "unfair and unreasonable," underscoring the fact that its decisions are informed by the principles of strategic autonomy and self-interest. Critics argue that the United States is using the instrument of economic coercions for conditioning India's foreign policy course of action—an attitude that bodes ill for the international community and challenges India's autonomy in global affairs.

Prime Minister Modi responded with symbolic defiance—holding a warm meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. For many observers, this was a clear signal that India might look forward to its eastward policy if pushed too hard by Washington.

Representative Ro Khanna branded the tariffs a "grave mistake," cautioning that such a step could have the unintended consequence of pushing India further into China's and Russia's arms. Economist Jeffrey Sachs criticized the policy as, in the long term, counterproductive for the United States, and implied that India should broaden its trade ties rather than rely so predominantly on Washington. Various Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate leveled these criticisms, arguing that the imposition of the tariffs is detrimental to a major US alliance in Asia and will have a marginal impact in making Moscow change its trajectory vis-à-vis Ukraine.

Indian opposition leaders, led by Arvind Kejriwal, have criticized the Modi regime's typically mild policy. They have called for a far tougher reaction while going so far as to advocate the imposition of 100% retaliatory duties against US imports. This reflects a very clear requirement for a tougher and rigid foreign policy.

For so long, analysts have considered the US–India rapport a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific policy. But the recent imposition of tariffs has injected considerable doubt and diluted reciprocal confidence. India, already mulling diversified trade avenues by itself for entities like the EU, UAE, the UK, and Australia, might now accelerate efforts to reduce dependence on the US marketplace. If these concerns are not addressed, the tensions so sparked are likely to dilute the Quad alliance (constituting the US, India, Japan, and Australia) and possibly push India further into the geopolitical orbit of China and Russia. India has formally triggered WTO consultations and is also seeking legal recourse in the courts of the United States, where the limits of presidential powers for tariffs, particularly measures by the Trump administration, remain under review by the courts. Meanwhile, discreet bilateral talks are underway, and the expectation remains for a full trade agreement by November 2025. Until that time, however, exporters are in a state of considerable confusion, and workers are already facing redundancies that point towards a dilemma for the Indian economy.

The fundamental question remains: Is it feasible for India to maintain its economic sovereignty while keeping its major global relationships? The new US tariffs are much more than a typical economic sanction; it is a watershed event in the strategic calculus. They actually test the strength of the resilience of the Indian economy, question the independence of its foreign policy, and challenge the depth and dependence of the US–India alliance. It will become clear in the coming months whether this disruption proves merely a transient spat or marks a larger shift in the global balance of power

Tariff Crossfire: How U.S. Trade War With India Threatens Economy, Sovereignty, and Global Alliances

Famously known as Sher-e-Mysore or 'Tiger of Mysore', Tipu Sultan is best remembered as one of the most fascinating yet enigmatic figures of Indian history. He was born on November 20, 1751, in Devanahalli (now within Bengaluru), as the eldest son of Hyder Ali, who governed Mysore (the modern city of Mysore). Tipu Sultan came to power after the death of his father, Hyder Ali, in 1782. Tipu was an innovative leader himself who
introduced reforms in Mysore in the areas of military, economy, and agriculture rule from 1782 to 1799 is characterized by new-type military strategies, economic development, and firm opposition to British colonial troops. Over two hundred years after his death, his legacy remains to inspire awe and controversy, revealing both his significance in history and the
controversial perceptions of him in modern-day India. He developed the iron-cased Mysorean rockets and wrote the military treatise Fathul Mujahidin.

He is one of the earliest Indian rulers known to employ rocketry in warfare. His engineers designed iron-cased rockets that were effectively used against the British during the Anglo-Mysore Wars. The rockets, which were remarkable by the standards of their day, later influenced similar experiments in Europe.

Aside from military innovations, Tipu brought about many economic and agricultural reforms. He promoted silk cultivation, thus increasing Mysore's trading economy. His support of agriculture saw the introduction of new crops like sugarcane and mulberry. Tipu's land revenue systems secured economic success, making Mysore a great power in South India.

In diplomatic terms, he aligned himself with France, Iran, and the Ottoman Empire, showing the need for global cooperation against British imperialism. This forward-thinking spirit highlights his strategic genius and understanding of international dynamics. Tipu Sultan's resistance to the British East India Company made him one of India's earliest freedom fighters. His leadership during the Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767–1799) was instrumental in halting British expansion in the subcontinent.

Tipu encountered severe challenges during the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789–1792) but showed great resilience. The Treaty of Seringapatam forced him to cede land, but he continued planning for the inevitable conflict with the British. During the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799), he strongly defended his kingdom but was killed in action during the siege of Seringapatam on May 4, 1799. His maxim, "It is better to live one day as a tiger than a thousand years as a sheep," manifests his brave nature and defiance.

While Tipu Sultan is celebrated for his struggle against colonialism and his role in the economic prosperity of Mysore, there are issues with his legacy as well. Critics point to his military campaigns in regions such as Malabar, Coorg, and Mangalore, when he supposedly conducted forced conversions and destroyed temples. Supporters, on the other hand, point to his secular efforts, including his donations to Hindu temples such as the Sringeri Sharada Peetham and the Nanjanagudu Temple. This ambivalence makes Tipu a complex historical personality, whose existence cannot be simply characterized as exclusively heroic or tyrannical. The Role of Media in the Perception of Tipu Sultan. In present-day India, several media have been instrumental in shaping and polarizing public views regarding Tipu Sultan.

The Secular and left-leaning media often describe Tipu Sultan's resistance to British colonialism. They portray him as a revolutionary leader who promoted innovation, economic change, and India's independence movement. These accounts stress his work on rocketry, Mysore's silk industry, and his strategic alliances in resistance to imperial powers, whereas the Right-wing media often spotlight Tipu's military efforts and purported religious intolerance, especially in areas where he encountered resistance. His actions are presented as proof of his bias towards his faith, often ignoring the complexities of 18th-century geopolitical scenarios and the realities of territorial conflicts.

In order to appeal to audiences, many media accounts of Tipu Sultan's legacy reduce him to an ideal hero or a ruthless tyrant. This simplistic view heightens polarizations and prevents an in-depth examination of his life and rule.

Tipu Sultan's legacy requires a balanced portrayal beyond ideological polarizations. A multifaceted approach would consider the following aspects, which include Tipu's progress in technology, governance, and diplomacy should be acknowledged. His efforts in India's resistance against colonial rule position him among the nation’s most important historical figures.

Nonetheless, certain actions and decisions made by Tipu Sultan are considered to be controversial, as most of them have had to be read in the context of his time. Territorial wars and religious policies were common among 18th-century rulers. His positive as well as controversial policies should be read from historical facts instead of political prejudice.

Politicization of Tipu's legacy for the sake of elections taints its historical accuracy. Objective assessments should take precedence over sensationalized reports in the media and public discourse.

Apart from his military campaigns, Tipu's diplomatic acumen, economic reforms, and emphasis on innovation make him a personality of continuing importance. These aspects need to be at the forefront of debate regarding his legacy. The name of Tipu Sultan is often mentioned in modern-day political parlance, particularly in Karnataka, as his legacy has become a polarizing poll issue. Tipu Jayanti and other state celebrations commemorating his achievements emphasize his historical role but also trigger debates that generally favor specific political positions.

The media stands the chance of reducing a multi-dimensional historical figure into a mere symbol of modern politics by propagating polarization. Rather, it should propagate reasonable debate that acknowledges both his achievements and failures to promote a better understanding of Tipu's role in Indian history. Tipu Sultan's life is a complex weave with threads of complexity, foresight, and defiance.

Not merely a king, but a figure of revolt, unflinching in the face of colonial overreach, Tipu Sultan steered his times through their political turmoil and imperial expansion. Tipu has left behind a legacy that is controversial and intriguing as he was a reformist king, a fearless tactician, and a man out of time. The nuance of his struggle and the sincerity of his quest for independent Mysore are too sophisticated to get obscured if his legacy is narrowed down to an argument. His steadfast defiance of foreign control and his efforts to fortify his kingdom defensively, economically, and technologically disclose a commander who entertained visions of an independent, modern Indian nation well before they became a national fact. Tipu Sultan's legacy must be employed as a prism through which we examine courage, conviction, and unity, not as a wedge to drive a gulf in the current fractured conversation. Honest and nuanced recounting of his life moves beyond religious and political binaries and acts as a reminder that history is written in conscience, not stone. To remember him is to understand, not to idolize. It is to embrace him for what he is—weaknesses, strengths, human beings—and allow that reflection to foster empathy and critical thought. At its best, history tells not only what occurred but shapes the tale of who we choose to become.

Tipu Sultan: A Revolutionary Leader, Freedom Fighter, and a Symbol of Modern Contention.

In the politically vibrant Bihar landscape — a state that is synonymous with intricate social hierarchies and grassroots democracy — an administrative exercise has recently stirred deep uneasiness. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the election rolls, conducted by the Election Commission, was intended to be a run-of-the-mill voter list update. Nonetheless, the timing, scale, and character of its implementation have invited parallels with the politically contentious comparisons. Is it simply a bureaucratic rectification of election records, or a clandestine bid at demographic engineering? This article deconstructs the politics, society, and economics of Bihar's voter authentication initiative and its extensive implications nationwide.

Electoral roll updates are not uncommon. They are statutorily required procedures to ensure clean, current voter lists. But the current push in Bihar is different. It targets areas with "abnormal" increases in voters, precipitating house-to-house document checks and intensive checks on voters' credentials. The Election Commission has highlighted the requirement of eliminating bogus or duplicate voters, but the rapidity and criteria of this exercise have sent shivers down many spines.

In those parts of the country with large concentrations of downtrodden populations or large migrant populations, this verification is coming to be perceived less as an administrative process and more as an exclusionary screen. The procedural subtlety and absence of clear public explanation have merely increased these anxieties.

Adding to the worry is the state of areas like Kosi and Mithilanchal region, where they are perennially hit by flash floods that leave thousands homeless. In such disaster zones, where people usually manage not even to save their lives, never mind their homes, it is heartlessly utopian to expect them to preserve sensitive documents such as birth certificates, marksheets, or any such valid yet important documents. Not only does this reflect a disconnect in administrative thinking, but it also threatens to disenfranchise bona fide citizens from the democratic process.

A more profound constitutional concern also emerges: 

Who has the authority to delegate the power to the Election Commission to determine citizenship?

 Under the Constitution, deciding on citizenship comes under the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under 

While verifying and authenticating voter eligibility is the duty of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), giving them the authority to determine or revoke citizenship or take legal action under the Citizenship Act amounts to grave overreach— one that goes against the very motto of the ECI: 

Politics of Numbers: Realignment in the Making

Bihar has experienced caste arithmetic and vote bank politics before. As the elections draw near in 2025, critics contend that the SIR can be an astute step taken to quietly change the voter base demography.

Political implications may be weakening communities that have always voted for opposition parties, strengthening the image of "clean elections" under the reigning regime and utilizing electoral legitimacy as a cover for more profound ideological goals. While the Election Commission remains an autonomous body, selective scrutiny by the optics thereof can undermine the credibility of the institution in the public perception.

One of the most unsettling consequences of this process is the fear that it generates — not in criminals or scammers, but in regular citizens. For landless workers, casual laborers, and intra-state migrants, the on-demand requirement of documentary evidence of domicile or lineage is simply existential. They are scrambling to seek electricity bills, Aadhaar cards, or ration documents to establish what they have always assumed — that they belong.

This deepens the urban-rural divide as urban residents, equipped with digital literacy and access to paperwork, glide through the process, while vulnerable rural populations struggle with paperwork, language issues, and bureaucratic red tape. The outcome? An increasingly large part of society now feels unsure about a right as basic as voting.

What It Means for India: A Dangerous Precedent?

If Bihar's model is approved, the same can be replicated in other politically sensitive states — such as Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, or Assam — with the same incendiary results. These measures could lead to the systematic harassment of marginalised communities under the guise of electoral reform, resulting in bureaucratic overreach into core democratic rights.

Bihar's Special Intensive Revision could have been just another routine electoral exercise, unifying as well as including the people, but it has turned out to be a political litmus test — one that exposes the cracks in India's democratic machinery. Politically, it creates opportunities for those who wish to manage votes strategically. Socially, it excludes the undocumented and poor. Economically, it levies a silent tax on the poor — one paid in fear, time, and lost opportunity.

Its implications are not just Bihar-specific. Normalized, these practices could redefine the state-citizen relationship, bringing democratic participation down to a paperwork hunt. The bigger question is whether our democracy can weather such surreptitious underminings without abandoning its very inclusive heart. This process should be carried out to smoothly facilitate the electoral process, but the timing and the character of its implementation undermine the democratic values of the process. As suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent proceedings on this matter, the Election Commission should consider increasing the time span given to the voters to show the required documents for verification, as well as consider accepting the Aadhar Card, Voter ID, and Ration Card also as documents for verification.

Ultimately, the soul of a democracy lies not merely in clean voter rolls but in how it cares for its weakest voter. Today, in Bihar, that soul stands at a crossroads and we can only hope that in the times to come, it chooses a path of inclusion— not exclusion of its voters, nor the democratic values instilled at its core.

 SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

The Iran-Israel conflict escalated on June 13, 2025, with Israel’s ”Operation Rising Lion,” targeting Iran’s nuclear and military sites, killing key figures, and causing significant damage. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, leading to civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. The conflict intensified over days, with Israel striking Tehran’s infrastructure and Iran launching over 400 missiles. Global reactions urged restraint, while oil prices surged 15%. India advocated for diplomacy, monitoring energy supply risks.The conflict risks nuclear escalation and regional instability, with proxy groups like Hezbollah involved. Diplomatic intervention by neutral mediators is critical to prevent a broader war, balancing the fine line between escalation and de-escalation.

The Iran-Israel conflict, reignited on June 13, 2025, heightened tensions in the Middle East, drawing global concern due to its intensity, rising casualties, and potential for broader escalation. This report examines the conflict’s origins, military developments, global reactions, and strategic implications.

following intelligence reports of Iran accelerating uranium enrichment beyond 60%. The operation involved airstrikes on 200 Iranian sites, including Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities and the 

. Over 200 aircraft were deployed, killing senior Iranian military leaders, including Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh and six nuclear scientists. Iran reported 56 deaths, with unofficial estimates exceeding 100, including civilians. The Natanz facility’s above-ground sections were destroyed, though radiation levels remained stable per IAEA reports.

Day 1: June 13, 2025 – Operation Rising Lion

Israel’s preemptive strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, hitting Natanz, Fordow, and IRGC missile sites. Cyber operations disrupted Iranian communications. The U.S. repositioned aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as a precaution, while Russia warned against escalation.

Day 2: June 14, 2025 – Iran’s Counteroffensive

Iran retaliated with 150 ballistic missiles and 60 drones targeting Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other Israeli cities. Israel’s 

 intercepted 85% of missiles, but some caused damage, killing 11 civilians and injuring over 120. A high-rise in Tel Aviv was hit, and a diplomatic consulate was damaged. The 

 called for dialogue, while the Arab League condemned the violence without taking sides.

Day 3: June 15, 2025 – Escalation Intensifies

Israel expanded strikes to Tehran’s infrastructure, including oil depots, and sabotaged missile sites via 

. Iran launched 200 missiles and cyberattacks targeting Israeli financial systems. Hezbollah mobilized along the Israel-Lebanon border, raising multi-front concerns. China and Turkey urged de-escalation, with Turkey calling for an 

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

Day 4: June 16, 2025 – Ongoing Conflict

Israel struck Quds Force centers in Tehran, prompting the evacuation of 330,000 residents. Iran launched 65 missiles and drones, targeting Israeli urban centers. Cumulative casualties reached over 400 in Iran and 24 in Israel. Hamas fired rockets from Gaza, complicating Israel’s defense strategy. Global media highlighted the humanitarian toll.

Day 5: June 17, 2025 – High-Profile Assassination

Israel assassinated IRGC General Ali Shadmani and struck Fordow’s perimeter. Iran fired over 400 missiles, targeting Israeli military and civilian sites. Two oil tankers collided near the Strait of Hormuz, possibly due to electronic jamming. Israel’s cyber operations disrupted Iranian missile systems. 

Israel’s airstrikes targeted Tehran’s state TV headquarters and Farabi Hospital in Kermanshah, causing civilian casualties. Iran launched approximately 370 missiles and hundreds of drones, hitting the Bazan oil refinery and the U.S. Embassy building in Tel Aviv. Israel claimed to have destroyed one-third of Iran’s missile launchers, though evidence is unverified. Cumulative casualties include 450+ in Iran and 24 in Israel, with thousands displaced in both nations.

Global crude oil prices surged 15%, with Brent crude reaching $95/barrel due to supply fears. Proxy groups in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria are on high alert, threatening regional stability. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding, with UN agencies mobilizing aid for displaced populations in both countries.

Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could accelerate its nuclear program, prompting regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to pursue similar capabilities. Increased proxy involvement risks a multi-front war.

A ceasefire mediated by Russia or China, coupled with United Nations-supervised nuclear negotiations, could stabilize the region. Confidence-building measures, such as halting strikes and resuming dialogue, are critical to averting catastrophe.

India has urged restraint and dialogue, maintaining open channels with both Tehran and Tel Aviv. Concerned about energy supply disruptions, New Delhi is monitoring the situation closely, positioning itself as a potential mediator while adhering to its non-alignment policy.

The Iran-Israel conflict is a high-stakes confrontation with global implications. Immediate diplomatic efforts are essential to prevent a regional war and address underlying tensions. Both nations stand at a crossroads: continued escalation risks catastrophic consequences, while dialogue offers a fragile path to peace. The international community must act decisively to avert a broader crisis.

Articles by Arsalan Zahir Khan

Remembering‍‌‍‍‌ Indira Gandhi: The Iron Lady of India

Tariff Crossfire: How U.S. Trade War With India Threatens Economy, Sovereignty, and Global Alliances

Tipu Sultan: A Revolutionary Leader, Freedom Fighter, and a Symbol of Modern Contention.

SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

Iran-Israel Conflict: A Delicate Balance of Power

Remembering‍‌‍‍‌ Indira Gandhi: The Iron Lady of India

Tariff Crossfire: How U.S. Trade War With India Threatens Economy, Sovereignty, and Global Alliances

Tipu Sultan: A Revolutionary Leader, Freedom Fighter, and a Symbol of Modern Contention.

SIR: Decoding Bihar's Voter List Verification Drive

Iran-Israel Conflict: A Delicate Balance of Power