The American airstrike against Iran — codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer — was, in operational terms, a masterclass in the focused use of military power. In the early hours of 22 June 2025, seven B-2 stealth bombers carrying 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, supported by submarine-launched cruise missiles and over 120 other aircraft, struck Iran’s most fortified and important nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The targets were chosen with surgical precision. No American personnel or aircraft were lost.

The strike was executed under the shadow of the Twelve Day War between Iran and Israel, a conflict in which Israeli forces had already inflicted severe damage on Tehran’s air defenses and missile launchers. In a coordinated series of blows, Israeli strikes killed dozens of senior Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists. Iran’s vaunted proxy deterrent network, anchored by Hezbollah, had previously been badly degraded.

The immediate military verdict is clear: this was a devastating, high-tempo strike that neutralized key nuclear infrastructure and struck at the heart of Iran’s overall strategic capacity. But military success does not automatically translate into strategic victory…

The NATO Summit held on June 25, 2025, was the shortest in the alliance’s history—and yet, perhaps one of the most consequential. In less than 24 hours, leaders of the 32-member alliance endorsed a communiqué that outlined a dramatic reorientation of NATO’s strategic and financial posture. Secretary General Mark Rutte hailed it as “transformational,” citing a new defense spending target, pledges to ramp up military-industrial capacity, and an “ironclad” recommitment to collective defense under Article V.

But behind the polished language lies a more complex story: one of political compromise, shifting transatlantic power dynamics, and unresolved tensions over Ukraine, nuclear strategy, and industrial sovereignty. While the summit avoided the rupture many feared under President Donald Trump’s second term, it may ultimately be remembered less for its declarations and more for its omissions and ambiguities…

For all the geopolitical fanfare that surrounds the U.S.-India relationship — the shared democratic identity, the pivot to Asia, common concerns about an aggressive China — this remains a partnership with limits. It is forged more by converging interests than shared grand strategies. It is stable, but brittle. Warm, but cautious. And after the 2025 Pahalgam crisis, it faces its most intense test yet.

The U.S.-India relationship matters already, and its importance will grow in future. India is the world’s fastest-growing major economy. It’s critical to global supply chains, arms trade, and regional maritime stability. But India is also increasingly nationalistic, militarily assertive, resistant to external influence (including from Washington) and in many ways encumbered by its past.

As the recent crisis in Kashmir revealed, the U.S. may believe India is a cornerstone of its evolving Indo-Pacific strategy. But India doesn’t see itself as a cornerstone of anything but its own grand design. And, sadly, its inability to establish a stable relationship with Pakistan may threaten Washington’s ability and willingness to expand relations…