Home

Featured Articles

Jun 23, 2025
Viren S Doshi

Trump’s Action Inevitable Against Iran and the Fallout on Other Rogue Regimes

Iran’s fight for democracy is challenged by severe internal repression under the Jihadi Ayatollah regime. But the regime is more into turmoil because of its external actions - apart from its proxy war against Israel through Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis; its assassination plots against U.S. President Donald Trump by IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) have made the conflict with the so called “West” deeply personal for President Trump, reinforcing his resolve to confront the regime. Hamas has even tried to spread its tentacles to Kashmir in India, though India is a trusted partner of the Iranian nation. Hamas has also mobilised violent university campus protests across the free world with the support of leftists, liberals and communists backed by the CCP - the Chinese Communist Party. The Ayatollah regime's so-called alliance with the CCP is also not without issues. CCP exploitation of the regime’s sanctions-inflicted misery adds geopolitical complexity. (See https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/jihadi-ayatollahs-iran-global-terror-hub-propped-up-by-ccp-occupied-china) Why was the Trump administration's action against the Ayatollah's regime inevitable? Ayatollah regime's fate was sealed the day Trump was lethally attacked in person. Ayatollah's advisors and masters, including those from the CCP, might regret what they advised. Assassination Plots Against Trump: Personal Lethal Attacks and Their Strategic Imperatives On July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old lone shooter, fired eight shots during a Pennsylvania rally that grazed Trump’s ear, killing Corey Comperatore and injuring two others. This was probably Crooks’s independent attack on Trump. But the pro-Ayatollah Biden administration's security failures raised suspicions about the IRGC. On November 8, 2024, the DOJ charged Farhad Shakeri, an IRGC asset in Tehran, and U.S. citizens Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt in a murder-for-hire scheme targeting Trump and Masih Alinejad (Iranian Journalist), as retaliation for the 2020 killing of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani. Shakeri, using prison contacts, recruited Rivera and Loadholt. Charges include murder-for-hire and sanctions violations, with a 40-year maximum penalty. Shakeri remains at large; Rivera and Loadholt are in custody. On September 15, 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh attempted to shoot Trump at his Florida golf course; he has to his “credit” pro-Ayatollah writings. In June 2025, Peter Stinson was arrested for online threats referencing Butler, though no Ayatollah Regime ties have come forth so far. These incidents, especially the IRGC plot, have solidified Trump’s resolve, evident in his June 2025 demand for the regime’s “unconditional surrender” and statements like “Big threats on my life by Iran… they will try again.” Trump went an extra mile to placate Asim Munir and his Pakistan. Biden-Harris Autopen Administration vs. Trump: Contrasting Policies Biden-Harris Autopen administration’s measures favouring the jihadi Ayatollah regime were perplexing and serially administered. Sanctions Relief and Non-Enforcement: The Biden-Harris administration has been criticised for lax enforcement of sanctions, enabling jihadi regime’s oil exports to rise from 324,000 barrels per day in 2020 to over 1.1 million by 2024, generating over $100 billion since 2021, primarily from CCP-occupied China. A November 2024 waiver, issued post-election, granted the Ayatollah's Regime access to $10 billion in frozen funds for Iraqi electricity payments, convertible to euros in Oman, fuelled criticism that it turbocharged terrorism. $6 Billion Hostage Deal: In 2023, the administration released $6 billion in frozen funds to Qatar for hostage negotiations, criticised as fungible money enabling Ayatollah’s proxy attacks by groups like Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah. Critics argue this emboldened the regime’s aggression, including its October 2023 attacks on Israel. Nuclear Deal Revival Attempts: Biden’s efforts to revive the 2015 JCPOA included sanctions waivers in 2022 for Russian, Chinese, and European firms, seen as appeasement that allowed the Ayatollah's regime to advance its nuclear program, reaching weapons-grade uranium by 2024. Limited Response to Ayatollah's Aggression: The administration avoided direct strikes on Ayatollah's strategic targets after attacks like the April 2024 missile assault on Israel, urging Israeli restraint to prevent escalation, which critics view as enabling Ayatollah’s “ring of fire” strategy to arm proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. Trump’s Hardline Approach: Tightening Sanctions: Trump’s 2018-2020 “maximum pressure” campaign crippled Ayatollah Regime’s economy, reducing oil exports to $7.9 billion in 2020 (which increased to $66 billion by 2022 under Biden). His administration imposed frequent sanctions, targeting the regime’s petroleum and financial sectors, limiting funds for terrorism. Trump signalled intent to reinstate and expand these measures. Full Support for Israel: Unlike Biden’s May 2024 pause on certain munitions to Israel over Rafah concerns, Trump authorised uninterrupted military aid, including support for Israel’s 2025 “Operation Rising Lion” against Iran’s nuclear sites. His administration’s direct talks with Hamas and truce with the Houthis, excluding Israel, reflect a pragmatic yet pro-Israel stance, prioritising its defence. Confronting the Ayatollah regime directly: Trump’s 2020 strike on Soleimani and recent military action - Operation Midnight Hammer - to eliminate nuclear threats, contrast with Biden’s restraint. CCP-Occupied China’s Role: Opportunistic Exploitation CCP-occupied China’s 2021 25-year agreement with the Jihadi Ayatollah Regime, involving over 1 million barrels daily in oil imports, sustains regime’s economy, indirectly funding IRGC operations. The DOJ’s March 2025 indictments of 12 CCP nationals for hacking U.S. agencies show its espionage focus. Iran’s Democratic Struggle: Resilience Amid Repression Iran’s democratic movement faces severe repression from the Jihadi Ayatollah Regime. The 2022–2023 “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death in morality police custody, reflect widespread discontent, with a 2022 GAMAAN survey showing 90% of Iranians against the regime and 73% favouring a secular democracy. Freedom House’s 2025 report scores Iran at 11/100 for freedom, citing censorship, enforced veiling under the Noor Plan, and executions of minorities like Baluchis and Kurds. Activists like Narges Mohammadi, a 2023 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Nasrin Sotoudeh remain imprisoned, with over 200 students arrested since May 2025. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), led by Maryam Rajavi, proposes a secular democratic transition, but opposition fragmentation — among secular democrats, monarchists like Reza Pahlavi, and reformists — hinders unified action. Israel’s 2025 “Operation Rising Lion” and Trump’s aggressive stance, including calls for “unconditional surrender,” risk bolstering the regime’s narrative of foreign threats, rallying jihadi support. Activists like Mehrangiz Kar warn that foreign military action could empower the IRGC further. Regime Resilience: The regime’s security apparatus, including the IRGC and Basij, has suppressed uprisings like the 2009 Green Movement through torture and executions. Wartime conditions in 2025 increase risks for protesters, often labelled as foreign spies. International Dynamics and the Path Forward Trump’s resolve, intensified by surviving the Butler incident and IRGC threats, drives his hardline stance, prioritising Israel’s defence and sanctions to choke the regime’s economy over diplomatic concessions. His personal stake—surviving multiple assassination attempts—ensures he cannot back down, framing his policy as both a security necessity and a personal vendetta against the jihadi Ayatollah Regime. This is why the enucleation of the Ayatollah's regime was inevitable, sooner rather than later. The DOJ’s charges against IRGC operatives underscore the urgency of addressing threats like the assassination plot against Trump and this may necessitate regime change. The NCRI’s democratic transition plan and many others, including Shah Reza Pahlavi, have offered a framework, but international support must avoid fuelling the regime’s propaganda and the Trump administration has correctly and strictly limited its actions to the nuclear issue, making it loud and clear that it doesn't intend a regime change. Activists like Shirin Ebadi advocate for self-determination, opposing both war and nuclear escalation. Now it is for Iranian people to show their mettle; the ball is in their court. The next question. What are the fallouts for other rogue regimes? Nuclear jihadi Pakistan under its belligerent army, nuclear North Korea under dictator Kim Jong Un and nuclear CCP-occupied China under supremo Xi Jinping too can't have nukes… just as Ayatollah's regime can't have nukes. Let us do a comparative strategic analysis of these four rogue regimes. 1. Middle East and Globe: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Near-Nuclear but now Enucleated Jihadi Regime Ayatollah Ali Khamenei leads a regime with a degraded nuclear program following Israeli and American strikes (June 2025) targeting facilities like Natanz and Fordow. Khamenei’s support for proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis drives regional conflict, with his anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric escalating tensions. Nuclear Capability: Khamenei’s nuclear ambitions are set back, with enrichment capabilities (previously near 60%) crippled. Latent expertise poses a future risk if rebuilding occurs. Regional Impact: Khamenei’s proxies destabilise Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, threatening Israel and Gulf states. Retaliatory attacks via proxies are likely. Global Impact: Khamenei’s oil exports and Strait of Hormuz position affect energy markets. His CCP-occupied China ties counter Western influence, but his global reach is limited post-strikes. Cyberattacks are a secondary threat. Current Status: Weakened but defiant, Khamenei’s regime is less of an immediate nuclear threat but remains a regional provocateur. The possibility of CCP or Kim supplying nuclear weapons to this regime is theoretically there but how practical or practicable it is remains to be looked into. Threat Level: Moderate (Regional), Moderate (Global). Khamenei’s proxy network sustains regional danger, but nuclear setbacks curb global impact; however, obtaining a nuke from other rogue nuclear regimes is a possibility at least in theory. 2. South Asia and Globe: Asim Munir’s Army-led Nuclear Jihadi Regime Asim Munir, as Pakistan’s army chief, oversees ~170 nuclear warheads, focused on India. The military’s dominance and jihadist sympathies raise concerns about extremist access. Tensions with India and disinformation (e.g. Iran conflict links) amplify risks. Nuclear Capability: Munir’s arsenal is robust, with diverse delivery systems. Its India-centric policy risks escalation, and past proliferation (e.g. A.Q. Khan’s network) fuels global distrust. Regional Impact: Munir’s support for groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed destabilises South Asia. India clashes (e.g. 2025 Kashmir) and Afghan border issues heighten volatility. Global Impact: Munir’s nuclear stockpile is a global concern, but economic reliance on aid limits aggression. False narratives tying Munir to Khamenei’s defence were debunked, yet perception persists. Current Status: Stable but brittle, Munir’s regime maintains control, but economic woes and jihadist influence risk missteps. Threat Level: High (Regional), High (Global). Munir’s nuclear arsenal and India's rivalry drive regional threats, with proliferation risks globally. This threat is further amplified as it is a proxy of CCP-occupied China and the Globalists as well as certain Colonialists of the leftist Western deep state. 3. Indo-Pacific, Asia and Globe: Xi Jinping’s CCP-occupied China Communist Dictatorial Nuclear Regime Xi Jinping leads CCP-occupied China with ~500 nuclear warheads, up 100 from 2024. Xi’s expansionist agenda over Taiwan, the South China Sea and India's borders escalates tensions, backed by vast economic and military power. Nuclear Capability: Xi’s expanding arsenal, including hypersonic missiles, aims to deter U.S. intervention. His wolf warrior diplomacy, on top of nuclear postures, signals ambition. Regional Impact: Xi’s claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait provoke the U.S., Japan, and others. Border clashes with India and the Pacific Island influence expand his reach. Global Impact: Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative, jihadi-Khamenei alignment and supply chain dominance, along with resource monopoly, challenge the World. Cyber warfare and espionage are major non-nuclear threats. Current Status: Expansionist Xi’s regime faces internal threats and growing external pushback (e.g. US Israel Actions, QUAD, AUKUS, Rising Nuclear India). Threat Level: High (Regional), High (Global). Xi’s nuclear growth, aggression and economic leverage make him a top threat, though it is calculated and cunning enough to avoid direct confrontation and war despite getting provoked by Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer on its allies with whom it has iron clad partnerships. 4. East Asia: Kim Jong Un’s Nuclear Communist Dictatorial Regime Kim Jong Un controls ~50 nuclear warheads, with ICBMs and frequent missile tests. His provocative rhetoric keeps East Asia tense. Nuclear Capability: Kim’s smaller but credible arsenal includes tactical nukes. His unpredictability and modernisation despite sanctions heighten risks. Regional Impact: Kim’s tests threaten South Korea and Japan, drawing U.S. forces. His CCP ties complicate deterrence, with nuclear leverage central to survival. Global Impact: Kim’s proliferation and ICBM plans and cybercrime (e.g. hacking) are global risks. His antisemitic propaganda adds friction. Current Status: Erratic but politically stable Kim uses nuclear threats for leverage, with high provocation potential but limited resources. Threat Level: Moderate (Regional), Moderate (Global). Kim’s arsenal and unpredictability are concerning, but containment and resource constraints limit reach. (We may add Erdogan's Jihadi Regime to this list and make an assessment but as it is non-nuclear in itself, we have skipped this rogue regime.) Conclusion CCP-occupied China’s “exploitative” economic support through oil imports sustained the Ayatollah regime’s actions, almost one-fourth of its GDP. The Biden-Harris administration’s sanctions relief and military aid pauses contrast with Trump’s aggressive sanctions and unwavering support for Israel and direct actions. Supporting Iran’s democratic aspirations requires countering threats like the IRGC and empowering its people, ensuring actions do not strengthen the jihadi Ayatollah Regime or destabilize the region further. Iran’s democratic struggle faces repression and fragmentation. Nevertheless, apart from Iran, this enucleation of the Ayatollah's regime has fallout on other similar rogue regimes. Ranking by Threat Level (June 22, 2025): Xi Jinping (CCP-occupied China): Highest threat due to nuclear expansion, regional aggression, and global economic/military clout. Asim Munir: High regional threat from India tensions and nuclear arsenal; moderate to high global risk from proliferation. Kim Jong Un: Moderate threat regionally and globally, limited by resources but amplified by provocations and Russia ties. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Moderate regional threat via proxies, unpredictable global threat post-strikes, with latent or imported nuclear risk. Xi’s threat is systemic, driven by capability and ambition. Munir’s is acute, tied to regional flashpoints. Kim’s is volatile but contained, while Khamenei’s is resilient but diminished though with possibility of revival. Disinformation (e.g., Munir-Khamenei nuclear links) and proxy dynamics (e.g. Khamenei’s Hezbollah) cloud assessments. Global nuclear risks grow with modernisation across regimes. Global Peace is yet a dream far from realisation. Nations will have to brace up, come together to decimate these rogue regimes.

Jun 23, 2025
Dr Ryan Baidya

The Special June 21st: Is the U.S. Constitution Still Serving “We the People”?

On June 21, 1788, the United States reached a historic milestone: New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, making it the final approval needed to establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This foundational moment occurred 237 years ago, marking a bold experiment in governance based on democratic principles and constitutional law. Since then, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times, despite more than 11,000 proposed amendments, a fact that reflects both the reverence for the document and the difficulties involved in changing it. But in 2025, amid widening political polarisation, questions about judicial overreach, institutional gridlock, and the erosion of public trust, we must confront an urgent question: Is the Constitution still fulfilling its promise to “We the People”? Jefferson’s Warning: Constitutions Must Live and Breathe Thomas Jefferson, one of the most influential Founders, offered a prescient critique of constitutional immutability. Writing to Samuel Kercheval on July 12, 1816, he observed: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched…” Jefferson argued that such untouchable reverence was dangerous. The Constitution was not intended as scripture, but as a framework designed by fallible men constrained by the science, culture, and political knowledge of their time. He insisted that constitutions must evolve with the lived experiences of the people they govern: “...Forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading… they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.” This belief culminated in Jefferson’s powerful assertion in a letter to James Madison on September 6, 1789: “No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.” Jefferson’s point was not merely theoretical. He envisioned constitutions as contracts between generations, meant to be reviewed, revised, and reimagined. Constitutional permanence, in his view, leads not to order but to stagnation—a society locked in the frameworks of its past, unable to rise to the challenges of the present. 2025 America: Fractured Institutions and Waning Trust In today’s America, Jefferson’s warnings ring louder than ever. Partisan Gridlock: Congressional inaction on crucial issues—ranging from gun violence to climate change—exposes a system designed for compromise but paralysed by division. Judicial Supremacy: The Supreme Court, originally intended as a co-equal branch, now holds outsized power in shaping everything from reproductive rights to environmental regulation—often with lifetime-appointed justices wielding decades of influence far beyond the era that confirmed them. Electoral Inequality: Gerrymandering and the Electoral College have created vast disparities between the popular will and actual political outcomes, undermining the principle of “one person, one vote.” Economic Disparity and Corporate Power: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) transformed elections by equating money with speech, amplifying the voice of corporations, and silencing ordinary citizens. Erosion of Civil Discourse: Trust in government institutions has reached historic lows, with misinformation, media fragmentation, and ideological polarisation weakening the civic fabric. These are not merely policy failures—they are constitutional symptoms. The document that was designed to serve “We the People” now increasingly appears to serve those best positioned to manipulate its ambiguities and rigidities. Global Ripples: America's Constitution and Its International Impact The consequences of an outdated constitutional framework do not stop at America’s borders. U.S. foreign policy, shaped by executive prerogative and congressional dysfunction, has produced inconsistent global leadership. Examples include: The withdrawal from international agreements (like the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal) under one administration, followed by re-entry under the next, reveal the instability bred by excessive executive power. Foreign military engagements—often launched without formal declarations of war—underscore Congress’s abdication of its war powers. Globally, the U.S. example of constitutional democracy has lost its luster. Nations once inspired by the U.S. model now look elsewhere as America struggles with domestic unrest, racial tensions, mass shootings, and a widening wealth gap. The global perception of the U.S. as a stable democracy has diminished. From Eastern Europe to Latin America, constitutional scholars and democratic reformers are increasingly pointing to Scandinavian models or newer constitutional systems in places like South Africa and Iceland as more dynamic and people-centered. Toward Renewal: Honouring the Spirit, Not the Text Alone Ironically, those most vocal in defending the Constitution today often do so by opposing any serious attempt to reform it. But constitutional fidelity is not the same as constitutional stagnation. To truly honour the Founders, we must embrace the ethos they themselves articulated: to learn, to adapt, and to renew. June 21st should not be celebrated merely as the day the Constitution was ratified. It should also be remembered as a moment to ask whether our social contract still holds. The question before us is not whether the Constitution is sacred. It is whether it is still serving “We the People.” If the answer is no, then patriotism demands not reverence, but reform. References for Further Reading Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816. In The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904–5. Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958. Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House, 2005. Levinson, Sanford. Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It). New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Dahl, Robert A. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Mounk, Yascha. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2018. United States Supreme Court. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Government: 1958–2023.” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2023/ Baidya, Ryan. A New Constitution: A New America. California: Takshila Foundation Press, 2025. Image provided by the author.

Age of Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Debt Reality: Accountability, Economic Strength and Trump’s Fiscal Reforms

PM Modi’s Historic Visit to Croatia Opens a Fresh Chapter in Indian Diplomacy

Featured Articles

Trump’s Action Inevitable Against Iran and the Fallout on Other Rogue Regimes

The Special June 21st: Is the U.S. Constitution Still Serving “We the People”?

Reports View All

Israel strikes Tehran’s Evin prison and Fordo access routes as conflict escalates

"Canadians need to know that the bomb was placed in Canada": Canadian diplomat Bob Rae on 40 years anniversary of Kanishka bombing

Government considers multi-party parliamentary groups after global outreach on Pakistan terrorism

Trump pushes for regime change in Iran as doubts emerge over nuclear strike impact

AAP, Congress, Trinamool score big in bypolls, BJP wins only one seat out of five

HAL wins ₹511 crore bid for tech transfer to manufacture. commercialise SSLVs

Search

Top Authors

Archives

Featured Articles

Reports View All

Search

Podcast / Videos

Popular Posts

Top Authors

Archives