Hours after US military carried out airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets, US President Donald Trump took to social media platform Truth Social to share that he won’t be averse to regime change in the country. Trump shared a graphic with the text, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change’, but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
It is obviously styled after his political campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” — and it left the world guessing about the real meaning behind the message.
Strategic strikes or a push for regime change
The message, posted on Sunday (22 June), followed soon after what the Pentagon described as an “overwhelmingly successful” attack on strategic Iranian military and nuclear targets. While the Trump administration asserted that the strikes were retaliatory in response to Iranian aggression, Trump’s social media message suggested greater ambitions — namely, regime change in Tehran.
Trump’s statement is largely being read by many analysts as an appeal to bring Iran back to where it was before 1979, when Western-aligned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled the country. The Shah had close military and diplomatic relations with the US and Israel, but in the eyes of most Iranians, he was a Western puppet. His rule was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which propelled Ayatollah Khomeini to power and founded the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By calling on “greatness” for Iran, Trump could be appealing to a vision of a pro-West Iran, rather than the existing clerical regime led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Critics see this as de facto backing for regime change, a concept Trump has flirted with in the past under his presidency but never seriously pursued with military action.
Iranian reaction: Colonial arrogance
Though no official release came from the Trump campaign explaining the post, its imagery and timing raised alarm among foreign observers. Iranian authorities branded the post “colonial arrogance,” with political commentators throughout the Middle East cautioning it had the potential to fuel added instability.
US officials deny regime change agenda
However, officials in today’s U.S. administration were quick to disavow the notion of regime change. Vice President JD Vance, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, said, “We don’t want regime change. We want to shut down their nuclear program and work towards a long-term resolution.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seconded the thought, referring to the airstrikes as “a precision operation” and not one intended to overthrow Iran’s leadership.
“Operation Midnight Hammer” was known to only a few in Washington and CENTCOM in Tampa, Florida, highlighting the operation’s secrecy and strategic importance.
Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan launched a scathing attack on what he termed “fake secularists” during a major Hindu gathering in Madurai on Sunday, June 22, accusing them of systematically targeting Hindu deities and beliefs under the guise of freedom of expression. Speaking primarily in Tamil at the Muruga Bhakthargal Maanadu, organized by the Hindu Munnani, Kalyan said he is a “committed Hindu” who is demanding equal respect for his faith.
Addressing a vast assembly of devotees alongside prominent leaders including BJP’s K. Annamalai and AIADMK representatives, the Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM said that secularism was being misapplied. “Secularism means no discrimination against any religion,” he asserted, “but for them (atheists and self-styled secularists), secularism means no discrimination against any religion except Hinduism.” He contended that Hindu gods are uniquely singled out for mockery and criticism under the banner of free speech, a trend he warned threatens the survival of the faith itself.
“The word secularism is a convenient word for a lot of people… Freedom of expression was one great weapon given by the Constitution. It has become common to target Hindu gods in the name of freedom of expression. This has to change. If this doesn’t change, it would be very difficult to sustain our religion, faith,” Kalyan stated, as reported by PTI.
Reiterating his commitment while distancing himself from extremism, he declared, “I am not a fanatic Hindu, but a committed Hindu. I respect Christianity, Islam. My plea is don’t disrespect my faith.” He invoked the concept of ‘aram’ (Dharma or righteousness) as India’s foundational strength and condemned divisive questions about holding Hindu conferences in Tamil Nadu, calling such doubts “very very dangerous.”
Kalyan sharply criticized the double standard, “A Christian can be a Christian, a Muslim can be a Muslim but they have a problem if a Hindu is Hindu. If one is Hindu, they call him communal. This is their fake secularism.” He urged respect, cautioning that Hindu patience should not be mistaken for weakness. “You may not respect my faith but don’t disrespect it,” he pleaded.
Dressed in traditional Murugan devotee attire (green veshti, angavastram, white shirt), Kalyan lamented past mockery of sacred hymns like the Kanda Sashti Kavacham. Calling for unity, he urged the audience to “protect dharma,” expressing confidence that “change is bound to happen.”
BJP leader K. Annamalai, speaking at the same event, emphasized its non-political nature, stating it aimed “to raise questions and seek rights,” adding, “We are not enemies to anyone, only trying to assert our rights.” The conference concluded with a mass recitation of the Kanda Sashti Kavacham, underscoring its devotional core amidst the strong political and cultural assertions.
Congress MP, and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi comes out of his AC room very rarely these days. Whenever he comes out, he somehow always finds some or the other sad person. After this, that sad story is somehow linked to Modi government and then PM Narendra Modi is criticized.
Rahul Gandhi, the de facto head of Congress which has ruled the country for more than 6 decades, recently visited Nehru Place Market in Delhi, named after his great grandfather. It has the honour of being Asia’s largest computer and mobile market.
“Make in India” promised a factory boom. So why is manufacturing at record lows, youth unemployment at record highs, and why have imports from China more than doubled?
Modi ji has mastered the art of slogans, not solutions. Since 2014, manufacturing has fallen to 14% of our… pic.twitter.com/HsL9PBUYpx
When Rahul Gandhi reached there, he saw Made in India mobile phones. However, this didn’t quite please him and he shared his problems on X in a post. Rahul Gandhi claimed that the manufacturing sector has been ruined after the Modi government came to power in India.
He also claimed that the phones being manufactured in India is actually not manufacturing but assembling i.e. joining the parts together. Along with this, he claimed in the video that we are far behind China. He also blamed the Modi government for the trade deficit between China and India.
Although it would have been a matter of great happiness for the leader of the opposition of the country to be concerned about things like manufacturing, but Rahul Gandhi is not really concerned, rather he is lying and trying to attack the government by presenting half-baked facts. OpIndia is bringing the truth of Rahul Gandhi’s claims in front of you.
First claim- assembling and manufacturing
Rahul Gandhi said that the smartphones being manufactured in our country are actually not ‘Make in India’ but Assemble in India. He claimed that we are just calling the work of assembling parts as Make in India. Rahul Gandhi claimed that the parts come from China and we assemble them.
The truth of this claim of Rahul Gandhi is revealed by a recent report. According to the report, more than 20% of the parts used in Apple phones and other products made in India are being made in the country itself. That is, about 20% of the parts of any iPhone made in India are manufactured locally.
The report shows that this achievement has been achieved by the vendors supplying different parts to Apple. Apple has parts suppliers all over India. These include TDK Corporation, Hon Hai Precision, Tata Electronics, Foxlink and many other companies.
According to the report, Samsung and Dixon are also using 20%-25% parts made in India. The government’s target is to take it to 35%-40% in the coming years. This will strengthen Indian industry and also reduce dependence on foreign countries for essential parts.
Rahul Gandhi should know that China, which has been engaged in this work for decades, has also reached the level of 35%-40% till now. India has achieved 20% in just 5 years. And he should understand one more thing that when the production of any product starts, its localization happens gradually.
The biggest example of this is the country’s auto industry. In the 1980s, Suzuki had started only assembling vehicles in India, but now 95% of the parts in every Suzuki vehicle made in India are Indian. The situation is the same for other industries as well.
The assembling that Rahul Gandhi is cursing today has contributed more than ₹ 2 lakh crore to the country’s exports in the financial year 2024-25. This has created lakhs of jobs. However, this is not the first time that Rahul or his gang has tried to downplay this achievement of India.
Earlier, Raghuram Rajan, close to him, has also said such thing. However, when India started making parts locally, their lips have been sealed. Rahul Gandhi should tell the entire truth to the country.
Claim 2: Increasing dependence on China
Rahul Gandhi claims in the video that our imports from China have doubled in the last 10 years and the Modi government is responsible for the growing trade deficit between the two countries. It is true that we import a large quantity of things from China and our trade deficit with China is also very large.
But Rahul Gandhi very cleverly hides one thing during this. He does not tell that India’s dependence on China actually started during the UPA era. India’s trade deficit with China increased almost 20 times during the rule of Rahul Gandhi’s party, who is blaming the Modi government for the doubling of imports.
In the year 2004, India’s imports from China were only 7.5 billion dollars (₹62 thousand crores). During the rule of Congress from 2004 to 2014, it increased 8 times and reached almost 60 billion dollars (₹5 lakh crore+). That is, during this period it increased 8 times without any check.
Rahul Gandhi should also know that during this period, the trade deficit between India and China also increased at a rate of 45% per year. According to Union Minister Piyush Goyal, between 2004 and 2014, India’s trade deficit increased from $2 billion to about $40 billion.
According to the data, India’s trade deficit with China was almost negligible in the year 2004. It crossed $40 billion (₹3.2 lakh crore+) in 2014 when the Congress was in power. Currently, the Modi government has kept it under control for the past several years.
Rahul Gandhi and his party should answer why the doors of India’s market were opened for China during his government and why its products kept coming to India without any hindrance. Why during that time the Congress didn’t emphasize on promoting manufacturing in India.
This work was also started by the Modi government and the PLI (Production Linked Incentive) scheme was introduced. Due to this, India’s manufacturing sector came back to life and foreign companies started looking at India as an option instead of China.
Claim 3 – Decreasing share of manufacturing
Rahul Gandhi claimed in his video and the post that the share of the manufacturing sector in India’s economy is continuously decreasing. He cleverly hid two facts while saying that. The first fact is that whenever a country travels from developing to developed, the share of manufacturing and agriculture sector in its economy decreases.
Second, whenever a country starts developing, it goes from agriculture to manufacturing and then to the service sector. But it is the contribution of Congress that India has become an economy that went directly from agriculture to the service sector, missing the manufacturing part in between. Economists advising Congress have constantly opposed the fact that India should increase its focus on the manufacturing sector.
The biggest example of this is Raghuram Rajan. He had advised India not to focus on the manufacturing sector like China. Economic reforms did not take place in India till 1991 during the rule of Congress. Due to this, the manufacturing sector did not flourish. After this, when economic reforms were done out of compulsion, we focused on the service sector.
The reduction in the share of the manufacturing sector in the GDP that Rahul Gandhi is talking about is not a new thing. This process had started during the Congress rule itself. The fact is that India is now showing its strength in the manufacturing sector again. However, Rahul Gandhi has a problem with this.
Sometimes he is calling it Assemble in India and sometimes a process to benefit China. Rahul Gandhi is mocking this achievement of India just for the sake of criticism, although this is nowhere close to the truth.
After United States launched a coordinated military strike on three of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine held a press conference from the Pentagon early Sunday morning to give details about the operation. They detailed how Operation Midnight Hammer was executed with precision and strategic deception, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran.
“Last night, on President Trump’s orders, U.S. Central Command conducted a precision strike in the middle of the night against three nuclear facilities in Iran Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan in order to destroy or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear program,” Pete Hegseth said.
He added, “The order we received from our commander in chief was focused. It was powerful, and it was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program. But it’s worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people for the entirety of his time in office.” Hegseth said that the operation was “an incredible and overwhelming success.”
Giving details about Operation Midnight Hammer, Gen. Dan Caine said that the operation included the use of submarines, dozens of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, and it was the “longest B-2 spirit bomber mission since 2001.” He said that apart from dropping bunker busting bombs on Iranian nuclear sites, US also launched Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets.
He said, “At approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time last night and just prior to the strike package entering Iran, a U.S. submarine in the Central Command area of responsibility launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets as often as the Operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace.”
The main strike was conducted by seven B-2 Spirit bombers that took from US and flew over the Atlantic. Notably, as a deceptive tactic, US also flew some B-2 bombers westwards over Pacific towards Guam.
Caine said, “On Friday midnight into Saturday morning, a large B-2 strike package comprised of bombers launched from the continental US. As part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise, a part of the package proceeded to the west and into the Pacific as a decoy, a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington and in Tampa.”
He said that the lead B-2 bomber launched two massive bunker-buster bombs at the Fordow nuclear site at 6.40 pm, and then the remaining bombers hit their targets. He added that the other targets were struck between 6.40 pm and 7.05 pm (US Eastern Time), and a total of 14 bunker-busting GBU-57 bombs were used. Therefore, the entire mission in Iran was completed in just 25 minutes.
Dozens of refuelling aircraft worked in tandem with the seven B-2 bombers to refuel them on the route. Fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, including F-22 jets, were used to clear the way for the airstrikes.
Caine added that Iran didn’t fire at the American planes, and the bombers and other jets returned home without any incident. “Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission. We retained the element of surprise,” he added.
Hegseth noted that this the first operational deployment of the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) — the most powerful heavy-duty bunker buster bomb known to exist. “Our initial assessment is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect,” Hegseth said.
“It was historic, a strike that included the longest B-2 Spirit Bomber mission since 2001 and the first operational employment of the MOP, a massive ordinance penetrator,” Hegseth added.
Early on Sunday, the United States launched a coordinated military strike on three of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites—Natanz, Fordow, and Arak. The strikes came amid rising tensions in the Gulf and growing concern over Iran’s nuclear breakout timeline. Precision munitions pounded infrastructure suspected of housing advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges and heavy water reactors. The immediate goal: cripple Iran’s nuclear development before it crosses a red line.
As per reports, US used its bunker busting bomb GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) dropped from B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to strike the underground facilities. The 13,600 kg GBU-57 can penetrate deep into the grounds to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities located under mountains. The B-2 bomber flies at 50,000 feet altitude and is practically invisible in radar due to its stealth properties.
But while today’s headlines feature bombers and fighter jets, massive bombs, detailed military planning and coordination, this isn’t the first time Iran’s nuclear program has been set back by a foreign adversary. Over a decade ago, the most effective attack on Iranian nuclear establishment came not from bombs and missiles, but from a few thousand lines of code—discreet, invisible, and devastating.
No airstrikes, no bombs, just a sophisticated piece of malware that slipped silently into the heart of Iran’s enrichment facilities and blew centrifuges apart from the inside out.
This was Stuxnet—the world’s first true cyberweapon that caused physical damage to machinery. Not ordinary machinery, hi-tech equipment used in nuclear facilities.
The mission of the malware: delay Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon without triggering a full-blown war. Stuxnet silently damaged a lot of centrifuges at a Iranian nuclear facility even before anyone knew what was happening.
The Silent Sabotage
First discovered in 2010 but likely deployed as early as 2007, Stuxnet marked a watershed moment in cyberwarfare. It wasn’t just code—it was a precision-engineered digital weapon, designed to do physical damage to one of the most heavily guarded and secretive operations in the world: Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz.
The worm was not designed to spy or steal, it sabotaged, manipulated critical machinery to self-destruct while feeding operators false data to mask the damage. It worked flawlessly for years before anyone even knew it existed.
Centrifuges at Natanz facility
Stuxnet was designed to spread from computer from computer running Microsoft Windows, and sit there, looking for presence of some very specific equipment connected to that computer. Specifically, it sought a specific Siemens software used to control industrial centrifuges, which are also used in nuclear facilities.
Stuxnet caused the Iran’s nuclear centrifuges to spin very fast and very slow, causing substantial damage. It is estimated that one-fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges were destroyed by the malware. While causing the centrifuges to spin at unusual speeds, the malware also fed false data to the system, therefore the operators didn’t spot the malfunction.
Operation Olympic Games: The Architects of Stuxnet
The creation of Stuxnet was no amateur operation. Based on leaks, investigative journalism, and cybersecurity analysis, it’s widely attributed to a joint initiative between the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and Israel’s Unit 8200, under the codename Operation Olympic Games.
This partnership brought together unparalleled intelligence, industrial systems expertise, and cyber capabilities. The result was a worm that exploited four zero-day vulnerabilities—unprecedented at the time—and had the ability to mask its tracks, self-update, and even delete itself after completing its mission.
When the malware was finally discovered and experts looked into it, they knew that it was a work of govt agencies, not rogue elements. The creators went to a great extent to not damage any system not linked to Iran’s nuclear programs. Stuxnet just sat idle on computers if the specific conditions were not met. Moreover, it was designed to erase itself from infected systems on 24 June 2012.
The fact that four zero-day vulnerabilities were used in one program also confirmed that it was a govt program, as real hackers will use one vulnerability at a time, to maximise gains. Stuxnet represented a level of complexity, precision, and purpose never seen before in malware.
Of the four different zero-day vulnerabilities, one was so dangerous that it simply required having an icon visible on the screen – no interaction like clicking anything was necessary.
How Stuxnet Infiltrated and Attacked
Stuxnet had three components, a worm that conducted most of the work, a link file which automated execution of propagated worm copies, and a rootkit which hid files from detection.
Stuxnet was custom-built to target Siemens Step7 software used to program Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). These controllers governed the speed and operation of IR-1 centrifuges, the machines that spin uranium hexafluoride gas to concentrate U-235 isotopes—essential to creating weapons-grade uranium.
But Natanz was air-gapped—not connected to the internet. Therefore, it was not possible to infect the system remotely. Therefore, Stuxnet’s designers designed it to spread via infected USB drives, exploiting removable media to breach isolated networks. Once some unsuspecting engineer inserted an infected USB drive into his work computer at the nuclear site, the worm was inside the internal network, spreading to other computers on the network.
Once inside, it scanned the system for very specific configurations: the presence of Siemens PLCs running on Windows machines, connected to Vacon and Fararo Paya frequency converters, all operating within a particular range of speeds (807 Hz and 1210 Hz). This is a much higher frequency than motors typically operate at in most industrial applications.
Siemens Step 7 software
If those conditions were met, Stuxnet activated, and introduced the infected rootkit onto the PLC and Step7 software. It then modified the code to give unexpected commands to the PLC to spin the centrifuges at various speeds. It would subtly vary the centrifuge speeds in ways that stressed the rotors, causing them to crack and fail. It also reported normal status back to operators, hiding its activities.
The worm also included a rootkit, which hides the malware on the system and masks the changes in rotational speed from monitoring systems. The malware first increased the centrifuge speeds and then lowered it, and did it repeatedly. This caused excessive vibration, causing the centrifuges to tore themselves apart. Essentially, the malware caused the centrifuges to self destruct.
Siemens PLC
It was digital sleight of hand, and it worked. According to IAEA data and U.S. intelligence estimates, Stuxnet destroyed around 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had in operation at Natanz.
While initially spread via USB drives, Stuxnet was designed to be updated once it reached a computer connected to internet. Two websites in Denmark and Malaysia were configured as command and control servers for the malware for this purpose. It could also sent information on infected systems back to the control centres.
Global Fallout: The Worm That Escaped
For all its surgical precision, Stuxnet eventually escaped its target environment. In mid-2010, it was detected by a Belarusian cybersecurity firm, VirusBlokAda, on a client’s computer in Iran. The code had begun spreading outside Natanz, infecting industrial systems around the globe.
It appeared in over 100,000 systems across more than 155 countries. Most of these infections were benign—Stuxnet only triggered its payload under very specific conditions—but its global presence set off alarm bells. Researchers from Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, and others began dissecting the code, uncovering its unprecedented complexity and purpose.
The worm was designed not just to infect, but to hide in plain sight, avoid detection, and even remove itself when done. It used stolen digital certificates to appear legitimate, employed advanced rootkits, and had multiple fallback strategies for persistence. Its sophistication left little doubt: this was the work of a nation-state, not a hacker.
Though Stuxnet’s payload only executed under precise conditions, its spread revealed the vulnerability of global industrial systems. Factories, power plants, and infrastructure operators across the world were suddenly faced with the unsettling realization: a worm designed for one site in Iran had infected them too. While fast spinning centrifuges are not used in most industries, they are used in some specific sectors, like gas turbines.
While most systems were unaffected functionally, some Siemens-based control systems in India, Indonesia, and even the United States experienced abnormal behaviour or had to undergo security audits and partial shutdowns to ensure safety. Therefore, even thought there were no serious physical damage, firms had to spend considerable amounts of money and resources to fix the systems.
The incident forced governments and corporations to reevaluate cybersecurity for Operational Technology (OT)—the realm of hardware and software that controls industrial equipment. For the first time, IT security wasn’t just about data—it was about life.
The Beginning, Not the End
Once detected, Stuxnet was removed from the infected machines, and the vulnarabilities that it relied on were patched. Siemens released a detection and removal tool for Stuxnet.
Stuxnet was the first, but it wasn’t the last. It inspired a new class of malware— like Duqu, Flame, Triton, and Industroyer—each one more aggressive or more dangerous. Cyberweapons have since targeted Ukrainian power grids, Saudi petrochemical plants, and American pipelines.
Malicious software targeting critical infrastructure is no longer is a subject of Hollywood movies, it is happing in the real world. And it began with an attempt to shut down Iranian nuclear enrichment program.
As tensions escalate in the Middle East, and U.S.-Iran hostilities enter a dangerous new phase, the silent war continues beneath the surface: in servers, control rooms, high-speed internet networks and perhaps still in USB ports.
Tensions have flared up dramatically in the Middle East after the United States launched targeted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Three of Iran’s most critical nuclear sites—Natanz, Fordow, and Arak—were bombed using bunker-busting bombs dropped from B-2 bombers. In the first act of retaliation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened to completely shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost one-fifth of the world’s oil flows.
The statement came hours after US President Donald Trump confirmed strikes on Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan, key nuclear sites of Iran. In response, IRGC Navy Commander Brigadier General Alireza Tangsiri reportedly warned, “The Strait of Hormuz will be closed within a few hours.” However, closing the Strait of Hormuz completely is easy to say but not that easy to actually do.
What is Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow channel between Iran and the Omani Musandam Peninsula. It is around 30 miles wide at the narrowest point and connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. The Strait of Hormuz is deep and free of maritime hazards. The depth of the Strait is greatest near the Musandam Peninsula.
Commercial traffic through the Strait moves through the designated Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) north of the Musandam Peninsula. However, the water is deep enough to accommodate larger ships to pass through an Inshore Traffic Zone south of the Omani island of Didimar. In this area, the Strait is over 650 feet deep. But often, restrictions are imposed on smaller vessels considering peacetime situations. Before 1979, the ITZ was the main shipping channel through the Strait.
There are eight major islands in the Strait, out of which seven are controlled by Iran. There is conflict of ownership of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb islands between Iran and the United Arab Emirates because of their strategic locations. Since the 1970s, Iran has maintained military presence on these islands. Furthermore, Iran’s navy has access to open sea from bases at Chah Bahar, Bandar Abbas and Bushehr. Because of the control on these strategic islands, Iran has strong influence in the waters of the Strait.
Can Iran actually block the Strait of Hormuz? Unlike the Suez, it’s not that simple
Iran may threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and it looks an easy task for the Islamic nation. However, in reality, it is far more complex than it sounds. Strait of Hormuz is not like the Suez Canal that can be blocked if a ship gets grounded. the Strait of Hormuz is a vast and natural waterway over 30 kilometres wide at its narrowest point.
Iran controls only the northern half of the Strait. The southern half is under the control of Oman, which has consistently championed freedom of navigation. This bilateral geography significantly limits Iran’s capability to enforce a complete blockade without escalating into full-blown war with its neighbouring countries.
While Iran has asymmetric capabilities, including fast-attack boats, naval mines, missiles and drones, any attempt to deploy these would not go unchallenged. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and maintains a permanent presence in the region. The aim of the Fleet is to prevent such disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Furthermore, there are multiple global powers other than the US that routinely patrol these waters to ensure that no single actor can dominate the passage.
Even a temporary disruption in the Strait would invite swift military and diplomatic retaliation. It would also hurt Iran’s own economic interests. Its allies like China will not be happy with the disruption in oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.
It may also push regional adversaries to unite against Iran. Several countries on the Persian Gulf depend of the strait for marine trade, including UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. These nations will not like the vital path to be shut down.
Thus, while Iran can certainly raise tensions and delay shipments temporarily, converting the Strait into a non-passable corridor is a far-fetched dream.
Importance of Strait of Hormuz for India
A closure or disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would spell trouble for India. Nearly 70% of its crude oil and almost 40% of its LNG imports pass through this route, with Qatar alone supplying nearly 10 million tonnes of LNG in 2024. Any blockage could severely impact energy security and prices. Additionally, India faces a diplomatic dilemma, having close ties with both Israel and Iran. With Chabahar port and the IMEC corridor already stalled due to rising tensions, India’s strategic and energy interests now hang in delicate balance amidst the worsening Israel-Iran standoff.
Notably, in 2024, India and Iran signed a 10-year pact over Chabahar, allowing India to manage the port for one decade. In 2016, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Iran, an agreement for Chabahar was inked. When Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, paid a visit to India in 2018, the prospect of expanding India’s role at the port was extensively discussed.
Risks to Iran outweigh the rewards
Even if Iran succeeds in disrupting oil traffic for some time, it may not sustain such actions for long. Iran’s own economy is supported by oil production and its sale to the world. China, which buys over three-quarters of Iran’s oil, would be affected. Beijing may exert pressure on Tehran to keep trade lanes open.
Furthermore, by closing the waterways, Iran would risk angering Oman and further straining relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council. Oman has historically advocated for maritime peace, and any hostile act may isolate Iran further in the region.
Iran’s domestic economy is fragile and cannot absorb the shock. Any disruption in oil revenue could trigger unrest among an already agitated population. The regime is grappling with protests and economic distress. Any disruption will result in uncontrollable inflation, leading to compounded internal instability.
Historical context shows restraint
Notably, even during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, when both sides attacked oil tankers, the Strait of Hormuz remained open. Past conflicts have seen escalation, but never a full shutdown of the Strait. Iran has threatened to close the strait several times in the past, but never actually did it. History suggests that Tehran knows the cost of going that far.
In conclusion, while Iran may continue to rattle sabres and use the Strait as a geopolitical pressure point, the possibility of a complete closure remains remote. The Strait of Hormuz is not something that can be easily “blocked”, neither using a halted ship nor military might, certainly not without consequences that Iran may not be ready to bear.
In a tragic incident, a supporter of Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) was crushed to death by the vehicle of former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, during a road show on Wednesday (18TH June). The incident happened near the Lord Anjaneya temple on the National Highway in Etukuru village, Guntur district when Reddy was returning from Rentapalla village in Palnadu district after visiting the family of a former sarpanch, who committed suicide.
55-year-old Cheeli Singaiah, lost his life after being run over by Reddy’s car after he slipped and fell while trying to shower flowers on the former CM. The front right wheel of Reddy’s car ran over Singaiah’s neck, leading to his death. The horrifying incident was caught on camera and the videos showing the man being crushed by Reddy’s car are going viral on the internet
Shocking Visuals: Ex-Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Jagan Reddys car runs over bystander in rally. https://t.co/tXDzLJDwte
Initially, the police claimed that the victim was run over by a private vehicle which was not part of the official convoy of YSRCP. However, the videos of the incident surfaced on social media show that the victim was brutally crushed under the front wheel of a black car as Reddy was stretching out from the car window on the side of the passenger seat.
It can be seen in the video that Reddy’s car did not stop and kept moving even after the victim was crushed under it. The family of the victim has demanded an investigation into the incident.
Vehicle exceeding permitted number were present in the convoy: Police
Guntur Superintendent of Police S Satish Kumar and Guntur Range IG Sarva Shrestha Tripathi confirmed the incident. SP Kumar said that the victim was rushed to a nearby hospital by police and YSRCP supporters from where he referred to Guntur Government Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
IG Tripathi said that vehicles exceeding the permitted number were present in Reddy’s convoy. “It’s unfortunate that the victim died in such a manner. Preliminary findings indicate that around 30 to 35 vehicles were in the convoy, even though only three were officially permitted,” said IG Tripathi. “Action will be taken after a thorough inquiry to determine how unauthorised vehicles joined the convoy,” he added. The police have launched an investigation into the matter.
YSRCP puts the blame on the state government
YSRCP leader and former state Minister Ambati Rambabu put the blame for the incident on the TDP-led state government alleging that it failed to provide proper security for the rally. “The government failed to provide the required protection during YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s tour on one hand and tried to stop people from joining the rally. When a popular leader is on the move, the basic crowd management method of maintaining the circular rope was not ensured and his security was compromised,” Ambati Rambabu said respsonding to the tragic incident on 22nd June.
“The fabricated stories and the death of a person during YS Jagan’s Palnadu tour have been blown out of proportion and versions came out aimed at tarnishing the image of our leader. After the grand success of the tour, the police, under the instructions of higher-ups, tried to implicate YSRCP leaders in the case and backed out only after our intervention,” a statement from YSRCP reportedly stated refuting the reports claiming that Reddy’s car ran over Singaiah.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Gandhinagar, has stirred a controversy yet again as the social media posts of its member, Professor Amit Arora, Department of Material Science went viral. In some of his posts, Professor expressed support for terrorist organisation Hamas and Umar Khalid, an accused under the UAPA in connection with anti-Hindu Delhi riots. Arora also made some political posts mocking the policies of the Modi government. Following backlash over his social media posts, Arora deleted his account.
On May 27, 2020, Arora posted some comments on the Ram Temple on X. A few months before that, the Supreme Court had passed the verdict in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute and the formation of the Ram Mandir trust was underway.
Amit Arora wrote in his post, “Ram Lalla is in the child who is trying to wake up his mother’s corpse lying on the platform. As long as there is even one such child, Ram Lalla will never come to your temple. Go and build a temple.” This is an example of a typical leftist mindset which always portrays Hindus as inferior by linking any social or economic problem to their temples or Gods. Such things can be in the context of religion or sect, but the leftist minds always target Hindus.
On April 2, 2025, Professor Arora commented on a post made by a leftist account on X questioning why “Sanghis” have started using the name “Bharat” in their conversations instead of “India”. “What is the sudden onset of Sanghis using the name Bharat while conversing about in English about India? What are they trying to do? Trying to fool everyone to make them believe that Bharat is a different developed version of India?” the post read.
Responding to this, Professor Arora wrote, “Nope. Bharat is their Brahmanical, oppressive, and bigoted version of the actual united secular India”.
Professor Arora has also made many comments on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which clearly reflect his bias against the Prime Minister. In June 2024, he posted a photo on X taking a dig at PM Modi.
Meet Mr Amit Arora.
Full-time work: Material Science faculty at IIT Gandhinagar
Part-time work: Twitter troll during and after work hours.
We are paying him salary from our taxes. Can government officers use such language online? pic.twitter.com/iDJ2RSo0cY
In 2020, he posted a photo of 2014 BJP poster with a caption that read, “Nothing left to write here”. The poster said that petrol and diesel prices will be decreased after the Modi government comes to power.
In a recent post from April 25, 2025, Amit Arora wrote, quoting a post by Modi-hating Gujarati journalist Urvish Kothari, “He speaks Hindi when he goes to America and English when he goes to Bihar. His (Modi’s) style of playing is different, the drama never ends.”
Professor Arora has also reposted Ravish Kumar’s posts. He reposted a post of Twitter troll Arpit Sharma, who wrote in support of Umar Khalid that if his name was Umesh or Umang, he would have been out of jail by now. But both Arpit who posted this and the IIT Gandhinagar professor who reposted it forgot that Umar Khalid is accused of plotting anti-Hindu riots. Yet here a deliberate propaganda was spread that he is being persecuted because he is a Muslim.
Meet prof Amit Arora of IIT Gandhinagar. Instead of teaching material science to Engineering students, he is more interested in supporting terrorist Umar Khalid, making fun of Indian war time diplomacy, crying about Islamophobia and glorifying Hamas support by American students.… pic.twitter.com/3zQJt3HlJz
— Eminent Intellectual (@total_woke_) June 8, 2025
After all these posts of the professor came to light, many questions have arisen. There is a debate going on whether teachers working in educational institutions run by the central government and teaching students can make such comments on social media or can they join the gang of those who spread propaganda by promoting their ideology?
These educational institutions run on taxpayers’ money and if professors with such clearly ideological inclinations are working here, spreading their ideology in this way, then what kind of ideological environment will be created for the students studying there, is also a question. Especially for an educational institution like IIT Gandhinagar, which is already surrounded by controversies regarding these subjects.
IIT Gandhinagar is already mired in controversies
IIT Gandhinagar has recently been in the news for the wrong reasons. Few days ago, the prestigious institute stirred controversy after a social media user revealed PhD thesis topics centred on Islamic studies are being undertaken at the Humanities and Social Sciences Department (HSS).
OpIndia reported how students studying in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of IIT Gandhinagar had started researching Islamic topics in the name of their annual thesis project. It was difficult to tell from the thesis topics whether it was an educational institution or an Islamic research centre.
When the issue came out in public, an email sent by Professor Nishant Choksi going viral in which he threatened students with disciplinary action, penalties for revealing thesis projects and student information. Professor Choksi was also in news for his association with Adilok NGO, which is said to have a religious agenda.
Later, OpIndia reported in another report how some teachers are associated with controversial NGOs working in tribal areas, while others are active on social media and are propagating leftist ideology. No action was taken in this matter, but now more controversies related to teachers are surfacing one after the other.
In a major setback for Hindus living in Jalalpur town in Kaliachak I CD block in Malda district of West Bengal, the police have refused to grant permission for the ‘Rath Mela’ (chariot fair) that has been organised for the past 629 years.
The West Bengal police, which work under the directives of the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government, turned down permission for the ancient Hindu festival citing ‘law and order’ issues.
The ‘Rath Mela’ is organised each year, adjacent to the Sri Mahaprabhu Mandir, for about a week’s time. It is preceded by a ‘Rath Yatra’. While the police granted permission for the ‘Rath Yatra’, the same was not extended for the Mela which is a part of the festivities.
The cops alleged that Jalalpur has been witnessing a rise in anti-social activities including murder during ‘Rath Yatra’ and as such denied permission for the chariot fair.
The vicious attempt to smear the 629-year-old fair has left the organisers shocked. They pointed out that the fair is essential to the economy of the area and hosts people irrespective of caste and religion.
Forced by circumstances, the organisers have decided to approach the District Magistrate (DM), followed by the court.
The Secretary of ‘Rath Yatra’ Committee, Gautam Mandal, informed, “The Rath Mela is being organised even before Babur and other Mughals set foot on this soil. It is 629 years old. This ancient chariot fair is being stopped for a special vote bank”
The State General Secretary of TMC, Krishnendu Narayan Chowdhury, has attempted to justify and rationalise the decision of the local police.
Local BJP leader Ajay Ganguly pointed out that the denial of permission for the ‘Rath Mela’ proved that the police were working in the interests of the TMC government.
‘Halal’ sweet shops, owned by Muslims to supply prasad for Jagannath temple in Digha
Since its inauguration in April this year, the replica of the Odisha’s Jagannath temple constructed by Mamata government in Digha, West Bengal, has consistently been at the centre of controversies, with the latest one involving the temple prasad.
The BJP has accused the West Bengal government of entrusting the task of preparing the prasad of the temple to Muslim-owned shops. BJP IT Cell Head, Amit Malviya slammed the Mamata government on Tuesday (17th June) saying that the government was “trampling on Hindu sentiments with impunity in West Bengal”. Malviya shared a document on X showing a list of names of shops that he claimed were owned by Muslims.
Malviya said that these shops owned by Muslims were involved in preparing Gaja and Pera, sweets being distributed as prasad from the Digha Jagannath temple. He pointed out while the original Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha does not allow the entry of non-Hindus, the Mamata government was violating the sanctity of the temple by distributing prasad prepared by Muslims.
On 21st June, the United States launched coordinated military strikes on three of Iran’s top nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. It triggered a fresh wave of geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. The strikes, which were reportedly executed with high-precision munitions, “bunker busters”, left key infrastructure in ruins. President Donald Trump claimed the strike was successful, however, Iran has claimed that the infrastructure sustained minimal damage. Overall, it has definitely crippled Iran’s nuclear ambitions, at least for some time.
While official statements from Washington have so far not detailed the operational support received, it is being speculated that Pakistan might have played a crucial role in the strikes by giving access to its airspace to the United States. While the role of Pakistan is unclear, its history has led to speculations that it would side with the US hoping to get monetary and weapon support in the future. Not to forget, President Trump has already said the US will have trade deals with Pakistan and it might include fighter jets, drones and weapons.
Did Pakistan serve Osama Bin Laden on a silver plate to the US?
The notorious terrorist of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was behind the infamous 9/11 terrorist attack in New York, was killed in Pakistan in May 2011. It is widely believed that Pakistani authorities were unaware of the US strike to kill Osama in Abbottabad. However, it is hard to believe that the Pakistani government did not provide any support to the US authorities to locate Osama, who had been hiding in Pakistan for years.
Similarly, an operation of this scale conducted by the US against Iran, a country which is in proximity to Pakistan’s west, is not easy to be done without the help of Pakistan. Notably, Pakistan’s Army Chief Asif Munir was in the US on the invitation of Trump. Something must have been said that could have pushed Pakistan to backstab Iran, an Islamic nation, and help the US to strike it. Someone might have opened Pakistan’s airspace, and it was not Allah.
Selling out the ‘brotherly’ neighbour?
If Pakistan has helped the US, it will be the biggest irony of the Islamic nation as Pakistan publicly sermonises on Islamic brotherhood but aids missions that destabilise fellow Muslim nations. Could Pakistan have sold out Ummah for a Happy Meal, “once again after Osama Bin Laden, after Afghanistan”? At this rate, even Yemen should watch its airspace.
It is possible that Pakistan’s troubled economy and fear of Indian strikes were the motivation. A few diplomatic handshakes and promises of financial aid might have sealed Islamabad’s support for the US in the strikes.
What role could Pakistan have played?
Though speculative, there are several logistical avenues through which Pakistan could have aided the US strike without overt participation. These include:
• Allowing temporary access to air corridors.
• Ground intelligence relays from shared sources in the region.
• Passive silence, failing to alert Iran about unusual US military activity.
None of these leave a direct fingerprint, but Pakistan’s silence on the matter definitely raises eyebrows.
