Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The past twenty-four hours have altered the geopolitical landscape in ways few anticipated, yet many feared. After weeks of military buildup in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, the United States and Israel launched what officials described as a coordinated offensive targeting Iranian leadership and military infrastructure. The reported confirmation by Iranian state media of the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei marks a turning point not only for Iran but for the broader Middle East.
Images from inside Iran reflect a nation divided and shaken. Smoke rose above Tehran as airstrikes struck command centers and security compounds. Civilians were seen fleeing neighborhoods, rescuers searching through rubble, and families heading north from the capital amid uncertainty. In contrast, some pockets of the country witnessed celebrations following reports of Khamenei’s death—evidence of deep internal fractures that have long existed beneath the surface of the Islamic Republic.
Israeli officials have described the operation as one of the largest regime-decapitation strikes in modern warfare, claiming dozens of senior security and military figures were eliminated. Among those reported killed were high-ranking officials within the Revolutionary Guard, defense establishment, and intelligence apparatus. Whether every detail withstands independent verification remains to be seen, but the scale of the strike signals a deliberate attempt to dismantle the core of Iran’s command structure.
The central question is not simply what has happened—but why now.
For months, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program had fluctuated between tension and cautious optimism. Technical discussions were reportedly scheduled to continue in Vienna. Yet amid those diplomatic channels, Washington and Tel Aviv appear to have concluded that the risks of waiting outweighed the risks of acting. Official statements emphasize preventing nuclear weaponization, degrading missile capabilities, and neutralizing what they call imminent threats. Critics, however, argue that the abrupt transition from negotiation to bombardment raises doubts about whether diplomacy was ever given sufficient space to succeed.
Beneath the surface of nuclear rhetoric lies a deeper strategic reality: energy leverage and global power competition.
Iran sits at the crossroads of one of the most vital arteries of global commerce—the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply transits this narrow corridor. Any serious disruption there sends immediate shockwaves through global markets. Energy prices spike, supply chains tighten, shipping insurance costs rise, and inflationary pressures intensify worldwide.
China, in particular, relies heavily on Gulf energy flows. Even as Beijing invests aggressively in renewable energy and alternative supply chains, oil remains central to industrial continuity and economic growth. If the United States and its allies consolidate influence over major energy producers across the Gulf, they acquire a powerful instrument of geopolitical leverage. In an era defined by U.S.–China rivalry, control over energy corridors is not merely economic—it is strategic.
This broader context helps explain why Iran’s position extends beyond its borders. The confrontation is not solely about enrichment levels or centrifuge counts; it intersects with global power balances, trade routes, and long-term strategic containment.
At the same time, regime decapitation does not automatically produce stability. History offers multiple examples where eliminating leadership structures created power vacuums that fueled prolonged instability rather than swift transition. Within hours of the reported strike, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) reintroduced its 10-point democratic plan, led by president-elect Maryam Rajavi. The proposal calls for universal suffrage, separation of religion and state, abolition of the death penalty, gender equality, dismantling of the IRGC, and a non-nuclear Iran aligned with international norms.
On paper, the plan outlines a comprehensive democratic transformation. In practice, implementing such reforms requires security guarantees, institutional continuity, and broad domestic consensus—conditions rarely present amid aerial bombardment and political shock.
International reactions have reflected caution rather than celebration. European leaders have urged restraint and a return to negotiations. Russia condemned the strikes as destabilizing. China expressed concern and called for de-escalation. Gulf states fear maritime disruption and regional spillover. The United Nations has warned that continued escalation risks undermining international peace and security.
Perhaps the most immediate economic concern remains the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s parliament reportedly approved a motion to close the corridor, though final authority rests with its Supreme National Security Council. Analysts note that a full blockade would also harm Iran’s own economy and risk military confrontation with U.S. naval forces. Nonetheless, even partial interference could disrupt approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day—an amount sufficient to destabilize markets globally.
Markets have already responded with volatility. Aviation disruptions across the region have stranded travelers. Shipping routes are being recalculated. Energy futures have fluctuated sharply. For import-dependent nations in Asia, the stakes are profound.
Inside Iran, public sentiment appears complex and layered. Years of economic hardship, political repression, and protest crackdowns have eroded confidence in the clerical establishment for many citizens. Yet external military strikes can rapidly transform internal grievances into nationalist solidarity. Civilian casualties, if confirmed and sustained, may intensify anti-foreign sentiment rather than facilitate internal reform.
Israel, for its part, calculates that neutralizing Iran’s senior command reduces long-term threats from missile arsenals and proxy networks. The United States frames the action as defensive and preventive. However, military planners must now consider retaliation—whether through missile exchanges, cyber operations, or asymmetric tactics targeting U.S. assets in the region.
Russia and China, meanwhile, observe carefully. Both powers may seek to avoid direct confrontation while allowing geopolitical dynamics to weaken American influence if escalation becomes prolonged. A drawn-out conflict risks draining U.S. resources, complicating alliances, and eroding soft power credibility.
In this environment, the probability of swift resolution appears low. Decapitation strikes often initiate new phases of contestation rather than closure. Leadership succession struggles, regional retaliation, and diplomatic fragmentation can extend instability for months—or longer.
The humanitarian dimension must not be overlooked. Images of collapsed buildings and fleeing civilians underscore the human cost. Infrastructure damage, potential refugee flows, and economic paralysis could follow if hostilities persist.
Ultimately, this moment represents more than a bilateral confrontation. It is a strategic inflection point involving energy security, nuclear proliferation, regime legitimacy, and global power competition. The intersection of these forces makes the trajectory unpredictable and potentially prolonged.
The world must therefore prepare—not for a brief shock—but for sustained volatility. Energy markets, diplomatic channels, and regional security architectures will remain under strain. Whether the coming weeks produce negotiations, containment, or escalation will depend on decisions made in Tehran, Washington, Tel Aviv, Beijing, and Moscow.
What is clear is that the consequences of this operation will extend far beyond the initial strike. The Middle East has entered a new phase of uncertainty, and the global community must brace for economic, political, and strategic reverberations that may reshape the region for years to come.
When examined through this lens, the United States’ decision reflects calculated confidence in its strengths, yet it is shadowed by significant structural risks. Military superiority provides tactical advantage, but the strategic outcome will depend on political evolution inside Iran, the resilience of global markets, and the restraint—or escalation—of regional actors.
The war is unlikely to conclude swiftly. Leadership strikes may change faces, but they rarely end confrontations overnight. Economic volatility, diplomatic recalibration, and security tensions will likely persist for an extended period.
The world must prepare for sustained turbulence. Whether this moment becomes a gateway to negotiated transformation or a prolonged cycle of retaliation depends not only on battlefield capability but on strategic wisdom in the days ahead.

Donald Trump delivered a combative State of the Union address on Tuesday night that hailed what he said was an American “turnaround for the ages”.

At a time when polls suggest many in the US are dissatisfied with the current state of the nation – and with Trump’s leadership of it – the president offered little hint of a change of course.

Instead, with an eye on crucial midterm elections later this year, he delivered a sales pitch to the nation, a patriotic rallying cry to his loyal supporters and taunts for his political opponents.

It was a speech filled with theatrical flourishes – the kind of made-for-the-cameras moments the man who once hosted a reality television show seems to enjoy.

Early on, he welcomed the US Olympic men’s hockey team to the gallery. They held up their gold medals as Republicans chanted “USA!” and even Democrats stood and applauded.

Later, Trump praised military heroes including a 100-year-old World War Two veteran who received a Medal of Honor, and a Coast Guard swimmer who rescued 165 people trapped in last year’s Texas flooding and was given a Legion of Merit award for Extraordinary Heroism.

Although his speech set a record for length at 107 minutes, these moments quickened the pace of the evening and fit with the president’s larger theme of American patriotism and accomplishment.

His speech opened with familiar lines. “Our nation is back,” he said. It was the “hottest” country in the world. At one point, after blaming Democrats for creating a crisis of “affordability”, he added: “We are doing really well.”

He pointed to the rising incomes, a growing stock market, lower petrol prices, a southern border with dramatically reduced undocumented migrant crossing and tamed inflation.

“Our country is winning again,” he concluded.

The challenge for the president is that his public approval ratings are hovering around 40 percent, and the American public wants him to do more to address their concerns.

Two months ago, he gave a national address from the White House where he struck similar themes and cited similar statistics – but it hasn’t convinced the public. The president and his aides appear to be hoping that with a bigger State of the Union audience, which should measure in the tens of millions, the results will be different.

What Trump didn’t do in this speech, however, was offer much in the way of new policies.

He sprinkled the nearly two-hour address with a handful of ideas, including new retirement savings accounts for working-class Americans and a deal with AI companies to provide sufficient electricity for their plants to avoid consumers being hit with higher bills.

He made new pitches for other, older ideas, such as a healthcare plan that provides direct payments to Americans to help cover insurance premiums, a law to require all voters to prove their citizenship and a ban on providing commercial driver’s licences to undocumented migrants.

He also pledged to continue to push ahead with his broad tariff regime, even in the face of last Friday’s Supreme Court decision striking down many of the duties he had previously imposed.

Three of the justices who had ruled against the president remained expressionless as they watched on from the front row. Earlier, Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts – who penned the court’s tariff opinion – briefly shook hands, but neither man smiled.

In a speech that was frequently interrupted by cheering Republicans in the crowd, Trump’s tariff discussion prompted murmurs from Democrats and uncomfortable silences from Republicans, many of whom have been uneasy about their economic cost and the threat their unpopularity with the public might pose to their electoral chances.

If tariffs sucked the air out of the chamber, when Trump turned to immigration tempers flared.

Trump’s passages on what he said was the threat of “illegal aliens” prompted some of the most thunderous applause from Republicans in the chamber and angry shouts and icy stares from Democrats.

The immigration issue had been one of Trump’s political strengths, but his enforcement surge in Minneapolis, which resulted in the shooting deaths of two American citizens by federal agents, has significantly eroded his standing.

The president made no mention of those fatal shootings – or the “softer approach” to enforcement he had suggested might be needed in the aftermath. Instead, Trump’s speech, with its focus on crimes committed by undocumented migrants – murders, accidents and corruption – was an attempt to wrest back the issue.

“The only thing standing between Americans and a wide-open border right now is President Donald J Trump and our great Republican patriots in Congress,” he said.

That was a tacit acknowledgement that in just over eight months, Americans will head to the polls in midterm elections that will determine the composition of both chambers of Congress.

As is typical with these congressional addresses, no matter who the president is, foreign policy tended to take a back seat. Despite the massive build-up of American forces near Iran, Trump did little to make the case to the American public that a sustained US military action was necessary.

“My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon,” he said, and then moved on.

For the moment, the political winds are blowing in the president’s face. But Trump may believe that the public’s mood is poised for a change.

Perhaps he is convinced Americans will begin to feel the economic benefits of his policies. Or maybe he believes the mood will shift, with a renewed sense of patriotisim, during the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations this summer.

His speech, with call-outs to military heroes and gold-medal-winning hockey players in the audience, could hint that this is a political wager he has placed.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

An armed man has been shot dead after entering the secure perimeter of US President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, the Secret Service has said.

The man was carrying a shotgun and fuel can when he was stopped and shot by Secret Service agents and a Sheriff’s deputy, authorities said.

The incident happened around 01:30 ET (06:30 GMT) on Sunday morning, when the president was in Washington DC.

The suspect has been named as Austin T Martin of Cameron, North Carolina, according to the BBC’s US partner CBS.

His family in North Carolina had reported him missing in the early hours of Sunday morning, the Moore County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement to the BBC.

The missing persons information has since been turned over to federal authorities, the sheriff’s office said.

They added that the department had no prior history involving Martin and it was not involved in the Florida investigation.

Officials are looking into whether he bought the gun along the driving route he took from North Carolina to Florida, according to CBS.

Secret Service agents fired at him after they saw him “unlawfully entering the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago early this morning”, agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi posted on X.

The suspect “was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can”, the agency said in a statement.

The man was then shot after refusing orders, Palm Beach County sheriff Ric Bradshaw said.

“The only words that we said to him was ‘drop the items’ which means the gas can and the shotgun,” Bradshaw told a news conference.

“At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” he said.

At that point, agents fired their weapons to “neutralise the threat”, he said.

The officers were wearing body cameras and no law enforcement officers were injured, he added.

Bradshaw said that he does not know if the suspect’s gun was loaded, and that will form part of an investigation, which the FBI will be assisting in.

US Secret Service Director Sean Curran travelled to Florida on Sunday for “after-actions” and has “reinvigorated operational communication and agency response to critical incidents”, the agency said in a post on X.

Security at Mar-a-Lago is extremely tight, with an outer cordon of local Palm Beach sheriffs and an inner one maintained by the Secret Service. Visitors are searched, and cars and bags are swept by dogs and metal detectors.

Trump has been the target of several assassination plots or attempts.

In July 2024, Trump was shot in the ear as he stood in front of crowds in Butler, Pennsylvania. One bystander was killed and two were injured in the shooting. The shooter, 20-year-old Matthew Crooks, was immediately shot and killed by security forces and his motive remains unknown.

Months later, a US Secret Service agent spotted a rifle sticking out of bushes at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. The man, later identified as Ryan Routh, fled but was caught. The 59-year-old was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month for attempting to assassinate the president.

During an appearance on Fox Business after the fatal incident, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed the the political left for “normalising” political violence, citing the two attempts on Trump’s life in 2024,

“Two would-be assassins dead, one in jail for life, and this venom coming from the other side,” Bessent said, adding: “They are normalising this violence. It’s got to stop.”

Political violence has become a prominent issue in the US, sparking debate after a series of other high-profile incidents last year, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion being set on fire, the fatal shootings of a Democratic lawmaker and her husband in Minnesota and the public shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

Donald Trump