India's Jaishankar Engages Iran's Foreign Minister On West Asia Crisis And Bilateral Relations
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar conducted a telephone conversation with Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi on Friday, focusing on the deteriorating security situation in West Asia and strengthening bilateral diplomatic ties between the two nations.
According to an official statement from Iran's Foreign Affairs Ministry, the discussion centered on recent aggressive actions by the United States and Israel against Iranian territory, with both ministers examining the broader implications for regional stability. The conversation addressed the evolving dynamics in West Asia following escalated military confrontations that have significantly impacted the geopolitical landscape.
During the call, Araghchi provided Jaishankar with Iran's official perspective on the current crisis, strongly criticizing what Tehran considers violations of international law and direct attacks on Iranian sovereignty. The Iranian Foreign Minister called upon the international community to hold responsible parties accountable for their actions and to take decisive steps to prevent further escalation of hostilities.
Jaishankar expressed India's appreciation for the recently announced ceasefire agreement, indicating hope that the temporary halt in fighting would contribute to reducing regional tensions and creating space for diplomatic solutions. The Indian External Affairs Minister acknowledged Iran's continuous efforts to maintain diplomatic engagement despite the challenging circumstances and thanked Tehran for its cooperation in consular matters between the two countries.
The conversation also covered Iran's assistance in facilitating the evacuation of Indian nationals from the conflict zone. Jaishankar specifically thanked Araghchi for Tehran's support in helping hundreds of Indians safely leave Iranian territory as part of India's broader evacuation efforts in the region.
Following the discussion, Jaishankar shared his perspective on social media, stating his appreciation for Araghchi's insights into Iran's position and strategic thinking during the current complex regional situation. The Indian minister emphasized the value of maintaining open communication channels during such critical periods.
India has been actively conducting evacuation operations under the codename Operation Sindhu, which was launched on June 18. According to Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, India has successfully evacuated 3,426 Indian nationals from Iran and 818 from Israel as part of this comprehensive operation. The spokesperson noted that approximately 10,000 Indians reside in Iran, while around 40,000 Indian nationals are present in Israel.
The backdrop to these diplomatic discussions involves significant military actions that began on June 13, when coordinated bombing campaigns by Israel and the United States targeted Iran's nuclear infrastructure. These strikes included a major assault involving US bunker-buster bombs that specifically targeted uranium enrichment facilities, causing substantial damage to Iran's nuclear program and reportedly setting back the country's nuclear ambitions.
The military confrontation escalated dramatically as both sides engaged in multiple missile exchanges, resulting in casualties among hundreds of individuals and injuring thousands of civilians. The sustained attacks caused considerable infrastructure damage and heightened fears of a broader regional conflict that could destabilize the entire Middle East.
US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel early Tuesday, providing a temporary respite from the intense military exchanges. The ceasefire has created an opportunity for diplomatic interventions and efforts to prevent the conflict from expanding further.
The India-Iran conversation reflects New Delhi's careful diplomatic approach to regional crises, maintaining dialogue with all parties while prioritizing the safety of Indian citizens abroad. India's balanced stance allows it to engage constructively with both sides of the conflict while focusing on humanitarian concerns and regional stability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
Beyond Trump's Iran strikes: Is America a compulsive warmonger? Debate rages on US military interventions
From its inception to at least 2022, the United States has carried out nearly 400 military interventions worldwide. It's possible that the roots of this behaviour go deeper than the ideology or personality of any particular president. read more Donald Trump's recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have once again triggered a familiar and deeply polarised debate: is the United States compulsively drawn to war? The operation, billed as the largest B-2 stealth bomber deployment in history and involving over 125 aircraft and submarine-launched missiles, came despite Trump's repeated promises to keep America out of foreign entanglements. Critics say the action illustrates a long-standing pattern in US foreign policy– where rhetoric about restraint consistently gives way to the use of force. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But defenders of the strikes argue that Trump's hand was forced by the international obligations and security commitments that come with being a global superpower. An empire built on interventions From its inception to at least 2022, the United States has carried out nearly 400 military interventions worldwide– a number that has sharply accelerated in recent decades. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the US conducted 469 interventions between 1798 and 2022, with over 250 occurring after the Cold War ended in 1991. These have spanned nearly every region of the world, from Latin America to West Asia, and from Africa to the South Pacific. Instead of receding after the Cold War, military action only intensified. The post-9/11 period is now regarded as one of the most militarily aggressive eras in US history, characterised by not only the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also continuous drone strikes, special operations, and cyber offensives in countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Far from signalling a retreat, America's global military posture appears more entrenched than ever. The structure that compels war It's possible that the roots of this behaviour go deeper than the ideology or personality of any particular president. The US operates over 750 military bases in 80 countries and is treaty-bound to defend more than 50 nations, including through alliances such as Nato, ANZUS, and bilateral pacts with countries like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. This sprawling network of obligations and strategic interests creates what some experts describe as a structural bias toward intervention. In effect, the US is constantly at risk of being pulled into conflicts on terms dictated by others. Even Trump, whose 'America First' campaign promised to end 'endless wars,' escalated drone strikes during his first term, killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, and sent troops back to West Asia in moments of crisis. Addiction or obligation? To critics, this behaviour is not a coincidence but a pathology: a kind of compulsive warmongering disguised as leadership. They cite the uninterrupted line of US military campaigns from Korea and Vietnam to Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now, again, Iran. Yet others argue that US military power remains the backbone of global security. As threats multiply from state and non-state actors, and as alliances such as Nato agree to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, they insist that America's engagements abroad are less about aggression than deterrence. Either way, the question remains: Can the United States ever break its cycle of war, or is the machinery of global empire too deeply embedded to stop? As Trump's recent actions show, the pattern is likely to persist — whoever sits in the White House. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites set up "cat-and-mouse" hunt for missing uranium
Live Events PICTURE BLURRED CHASING SHADOWS (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites creates a conundrum for U.N. inspectors in Iran: how can you tell if enriched uranium stocks, some of them near weapons grade, were buried beneath the rubble or had been secretly hidden away?Following last weekend's attacks on three of Iran's top nuclear sites - at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan - President Donald Trump said the facilities had been "obliterated" by U.S. munitions, including bunker-busting bombs But the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which monitors Tehran's nuclear program, has said it's unclear exactly what damage was sustained at Fordow, a plant buried deep inside a mountain that produced the bulk of Iran's most highly enriched uranium. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said on Monday it was highly likely the sensitive centrifuges used to enrich uranium inside Fordow were badly damaged. It's far less clear whether Iran's 9 tonnes of enriched uranium - more than 400 kg of it enriched to close to weapons grade - were governments are scrambling to determine what's become of spoke to more than a dozen current and former officials involved in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program who said the bombing may have provided the perfect cover for Iran to make its uranium stockpiles disappear and any IAEA investigation would likely be lengthy and Heinonen, previously the IAEA's top inspector from 2005 to 2010, said the search will probably involve complicated recovery of materials from damaged buildings as well as forensics and environmental sampling, which take a long time."There could be materials which are inaccessible, distributed under the rubble or lost during the bombing," said Heinonen, who dealt extensively with Iran while at the IAEA and now works at the Stimson Center think-tank in more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% purity - a short step from the roughly 90% of weapons grade - are enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA a fraction of that left unaccounted for would be a grave concern for Western powers that believe Iran is at least keeping the option of nuclear weapons are indications Iran may have moved some of its enriched uranium before it could be chief Grossi said Iran informed him on June 13, the day of Israel's first attacks, that it was taking measures to protect its nuclear equipment and materials. While it did not elaborate, he said that suggests it was moved.A Western diplomat involved in the dossier, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said most of the enriched uranium at Fordow would appear to have been moved days in advance of the attacks, "almost as if they knew it was coming".Some experts have said a line of vehicles including trucks visible on satellite imagery outside Fordow before it was hit suggests enriched uranium there was moved elsewhere, though U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved has also dismissed such concerns. In an interview due to air on Sunday with Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures", he insisted the Iranians "didn't move anything.""It's very dangerous to do. It is very heavy - very, very heavy. It's a very hard thing to do," Trump said. "Plus we didn't give much notice because they didn't know we were coming until just, you know, then."The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The State Department referred Reuters to Trump's public remarks.A second Western diplomat said it would be a major challenge to verify the condition of the uranium stockpile, citing a long list of past disputes between the IAEA and Tehran, including Iran's failure to credibly explain uranium traces found at undeclared sites."It'll be a game of cat and mouse."Iran says it has fulfilled all its obligations towards the Israel launched its 12-day military campaign aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, the IAEA had regular access to Iran's enrichment sites and monitored what was inside them around the clock as part of the 191-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, to which Iran is a rubble and ash blur the more, Iran has threatened to stop working with the IAEA. Furious at the non-proliferation regime's failure to protect it from strikes many countries see as unlawful, Iran's parliament voted on Wednesday to suspend says a resolution this month passed by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations paved the way for Israel's attacks, which began the next day, by providing an element of diplomatic cover. The IAEA denies has repeatedly denied that it has an active program to develop a nuclear bomb. And U.S. intelligence - dismissed by Trump before the airstrikes - had said there was no evidence Tehran was taking steps toward developing experts say there is no reason for enriching uranium to 60% for a civilian nuclear program, which can run on less than 5% a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its stock of enriched uranium. The IAEA then has to verify Iran's account by means including inspections, but its powers are limited - it inspects Iran's declared nuclear facilities but cannot carry out snap inspections at undeclared has an unknown number of extra centrifuges stored at locations the U.N. nuclear watchdog is unaware of, the IAEA has said, with which it might be able to set up a new or secret enrichment makes hunting down the material that can be enriched further, particularly that closest to bomb grade, all the more important."Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium may not have been part of the 'mission' but it is a significant part of the proliferation risk - particularly if centrifuges are unaccounted for," Kelsey Davenport of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said on X on IAEA can and does receive intelligence from member states, which include the United States and Israel, but says it takes nothing at face value and independently verifies pummelled the sites housing the uranium, Israel and the U.S. are seen as the countries most likely to accuse Iran of hiding it or restarting enrichment, officials Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.U.N. inspectors' futile hunt for large caches of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which preceded the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, showed the enormous difficulty of verifying foreign powers' assertions about hidden stockpiles of material when there is little tangible information to go in Iraq, inspectors could end up chasing shadows."If the Iranians come clean with the 400 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) then the problem is manageable, but if they don't then nobody will ever be sure what happened to it," a third Western diplomat IAEA, which answers to 180 member states, has said it cannot guarantee Iran's nuclear development is entirely peaceful, but has no credible indications of a coordinated weapons U.S. this week backed the IAEA's verification and monitoring work and urged Tehran to ensure its inspectors in the country are is a long journey from there to accounting for every gram of enriched uranium, the IAEA's above-ground plant at Natanz, the smaller of the two facilities enriching uranium up to 60 percent, was flattened in the strikes, the IAEA said, suggesting a small portion of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile may have been Iran's most deeply buried enrichment plant, which was producing the bulk of 60%-enriched uranium, was first seriously hit last weekend when the United States dropped its biggest conventional bombs on it. The damage to its underground halls is underground area in Isfahan where much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium was stored was also bombed, causing damage to the tunnel entrances leading to agency has not been able to carry out inspections since Israel's bombing campaign began, leaving the outside world with more questions than said on Wednesday the conditions at the bombed sites would make it difficult for IAEA inspectors to work there - suggesting it could take time. "There is rubble, there could be unexploded ordnance," he the former chief IAEA inspector, said it was vital the agency be transparent in real time about what its inspectors have been able to verify independently, including any uncertainties, and what remained unknown."Member states can then make their own risk assessments," he said.
News18
43 minutes ago
- News18
Shattered Hope: Bangladesh & The Unfinished Dream Of Freedom
Sain G.M. Syed laid the ideological foundation for a separate Sindhi state as early as 1971, inspired by the liberation of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). His dream, and ultimately mine, was to break free from the theocratic and militarised state of Pakistan—a nation that has been consistently dominated by the Pakistan Army and manipulated by jihadi Islamist groups. The freedom of Bangladesh was not just a geopolitical event; it was a torch of hope for us in Sindh. When I read about the sacrifices and courage of the Bangladeshi people, and about the leadership of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, it stirred something deep within me. Mujib was not only the architect of Bangladesh's independence, but also a friend of Sain G.M. Syed. He even visited Sindh on our leader's invitation—a visit that symbolized the solidarity of two oppressed nations under the yoke of an unjust state. It was Bangladesh's liberation—with the vital support of India—that inspired me to engage in student politics. It wasn't about power, popularity, or personal gain. It was about a cause larger than life: the right to self-determination, the dream of a secular, democratic, and peaceful Sindhudesh. For decades, I believed that Bangladesh was a successful example of that dream, proof that resistance could triumph against oppression. Years later, I found myself in exile in America. My first international media interview took place in Houston, Texas, during the 'Howdy Modi' event. There, I told India TV that we had come not only to welcome the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, but to appeal to him. As the leader of the world's largest democracy, and as a neighbour with a shared history of resistance to extremism, we looked to India for help—just as it had helped the Bengali people in 1971. We believed that India would also stand with Sindh. But those hopes have been painfully shattered in recent years. A tragic reversal has taken place in Bangladesh—one that breaks the heart of any freedom lover. In 2024, forces backed by Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), along with Islamist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami and quiet support from some Western powers, orchestrated a political upheaval. The secular, pro-India government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina—daughter of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman—was pushed out. She was forced into exile, ending a decade-long era of remarkable economic growth and relative stability. Under Hasina's leadership, Bangladesh had become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Despite starting from a position of poverty and devastation, she steered her country past Pakistan, whose economy continues to survive on international bailouts and military patronage. Bangladesh under Hasina was a beacon for us. It proved that post-colonial states could chart an independent, secular, and economically prosperous path. But now, the nightmare has returned. The streets of Dhaka and Chittagong echo once more with the chants of Islamist slogans. ISI-backed operatives walk freely in government circles. Even China, with its expanding influence and authoritarian leanings, has found a new base of operations in Bangladesh. What was once a story of hope is now marred by fear and regression. Advertisement How did this happen? Why did this happen? And who is to blame? These are the questions that haunt me. I've spoken with scholars, activists, and intellectuals from Bangladesh and around the world. The consensus is sobering: we are all responsible. Not just the political actors within Bangladesh, but also those outside who failed to protect democracy and secularism. To me, however, this is also a story of unfinished business. When India helped liberate Bangladesh in 1971, it only cut off one finger from the cancerous hand of Pakistan. The rest of the hand—Punjab-dominated military, religious extremism, and jihadist networks—was left untouched. That cancer continued to spread, metastasizing through Kashmir, Balochistan, Sindh, and even within Pakistan itself. The strategic mistake was stopping short of a full disintegration of Pakistan. Time and again, I have heard the argument that a further Balkanization of Pakistan would have created more unstable and hostile neighbors for India. But history tells us otherwise. The real danger lies in leaving a militarized and extremist state intact. If Pakistan had been fully dismantled in 1971, and its constituent oppressed nations like Balochistan, Sindh, and Pashtunistan were allowed self-rule, we would not be facing the security threats we see today—from proxy wars to cross-border terrorism. advetisement India invested over $7 billion in Bangladesh in recent years. It built roads, ports, and power stations. It signed defense and trade agreements. It even supported counter-terrorism efforts. And yet, all of this progress was undone not just by local forces but by a combination of geopolitical negligence and short-term diplomacy. This should be a wake-up call—not just for India, but for all democracies in the region. There is still time to act. Bangladesh can be saved from falling back into the abyss. But that will require renewed commitment from democratic nations, including India, to support the people of Bangladesh—not just its governments. The legacy of Sheikh Mujib must not be buried under the rubble of Islamist revivalism. Similarly, the dream of Sindhudesh, Balochistan, and a free Pashtun land must be revived with the same passion and vision that brought Bangladesh its freedom. Our hopes may be shattered, but our spirit is not. For those of us who were inspired by Bangladesh's fight for independence, we must continue to resist the forces of oppression and religious extremism. History has shown us that no tyranny lasts forever. But justice, like freedom, must be demanded—and sometimes, fought for. advetisement
