Over the past couple of years, the geopolitics of the globe have altered very rapidly and dramatically with various events that have been witnessed by the world such

Over the past couple of years, the geopolitics of the globe have altered very rapidly and dramatically with various events that have been witnessed by the world such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the US-China trade war, Brexit, Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Gaza conflict. In the last five years, these events have served as factors in altering global dynamics, resulting in the formation of new alliances and trade blocs, while also reinforcing existing alliances. The partnership between China and Pakistan, as well as the alliance between India and Taiwan, exemplify the bloc alliances.

South Asia: A Historical Relationship? Or a new one under development

In the last five years, the globe has seen a significant and rapid transformation; however, this does not apply to the South Asia. While the COVID-19 pandemic caused a global standstill, South Asia has seen significant transformation over the 

, characterized by intense rivalry among neighboring nations. In the South Asia region, it was not the COVID-19 pandemic that prompted change, but rather a succession of events that occurred previously to the pandemic. The increased tension between India and China since 2020 regarding the LAC conflict, the deteriorating relationship between India and Pakistan, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka's economic crisis, political instability in Nepal, regional economic disparity, the ineffectiveness of SAARC due to intensified India-Pakistan tensions, and the escalating threat of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, all contribute to the risk of conflict escalation. These events have distinctly transformed these nations compared to their status a decade ago; however, amidst such instability, various countries in the region have managed to enhance their relationships and achieve greater prosperity than previously. The intersection of China-Pakistan and India and Taiwan exemplifies this phenomenon well.

China and Pakistan: A Unidirectional or Bidirectional Route?

In the last two decades after the 9/11 and 26/11 attacks occurred. Pakistan has been subjected to ongoing and persistent monitoring by many Western nations. The Islamic country has been recognized as a breeding ground for several terrorists throughout the years, who have perpetrated different assaults worldwide. Consequently, in recent years, various countries around the globe have shown their unwillingness to support or aid Pakistan in any way. Due to which, currently, there are very few countries that are willing to assist Pakistan today, or in its time of need. China which over the past decades have been the constant umbrella for Pakistan during any bad weather by willing to aid the country, whether it be human aid or increase of exports of defense products. Over the years, the relationship between the two nations has evolved into a substantial partnership, characterized by the continuous sale of defense items from China. In the past 4 years, 2019 to 2023, almost 80% of Pakistan's defense imports originated from China. This partnership has been beneficial for both 

, since the direct shipment of weaponry to Pakistan provides cash for Chinese manufacturers and facilitates the completion of their projects in Pakistan within a safe and protected framework. Over the years, China has used its many projects in Pakistan to establish a strategic presence in the Indian Ocean via seven South Asian ports and 17 more ports in the Indian Ocean. Experts assert that the connection between the two states is more beneficial for China than for Pakistan. It may be said that without Pakistan, China would have struggled to assert its supremacy in the Indian Ocean and would have encountered several challenges in initiating its highly anticipated project, the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor).  

India-Taiwan Relationship: A source of solace or a supportive ally?

Over a decade has elapsed since China launched its most significant initiative, the CPEC; since then, China's global footprint has expanded, with several nations preferring its assistance over that of Western peers. Latin American countries exemplify the pursuit of aid from China throughout the years. The rise of China's global influence has been advantageous not just for China but also for smaller nations that have received assistance from China over the years. Nonetheless, with the increasing growth, China's antagonistic stance towards nations such as India and Taiwan has also intensified. Currently, China exhibits more confidence in demonstrating its physical force rather than using diplomatic measures concerning India and Taiwan. Over the years, India and Taiwan have consistently been targets of China, however ties between India and China have improved after a significant four-year period since the LAC (Line of Actual Control) battle. However, this has not been the case for the island country of Taiwan. Since 2020, China has significantly boosted its demonstration of hard might by repeatedly violating the maritime limits of island nations and intruding into Taiwan's airspace. Both countries have been victims of Chinese hostility for many years, which analysts say has only intensified over time. It might be said that China's persistent intimidation has facilitated the rapprochement between New Delhi and Taipei. It has been almost 30 years since both nations have maintained an unofficial connection. The bilateral connection between the two nations has significantly enhanced throughout the years. Currently, both nations comprehend each other's predicament, as they seek to address the issues that China has presented to them over the years. The expanding China-Pakistan alliance and the escalation of defence agreements between the two nations have emerged as significant concerns for both India and Taiwan. The recent procurement of J-35A stealth fighters by Pakistan has intensified India's apprehensions, prompting India to contemplate involving Taiwan in its AMCA program. 

The J-35A or the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft Program

The evolving geopolitics of South Asia may indicate a probable change in the balance of power in the region. Numerous sources suggest that Pakistan is on the verge of obtaining the J-35A, a fifth-generation stealth fighter from China. The transfer of weaponry has elicited concerns not just in New Delhi but also in Taipei. Pakistan's procurement of the J-35A is not alone an enhancement of its aerial capabilities but also a pivotal factor in augmenting the operational proficiency of its air force, since the J-35A is designed for both air superiority and strike operations. This purchase may confer technical supremacy upon Pakistan. The transfer of military systems has generated concerns for both India and Taiwan. The successful transfer of weaponry from China to Pakistan might initiate a new phase in the bilateral relationship between the two nations. This agreement would enhance China's influence on Islamabad and bolster the defence relations between the two nations. This agreement may enhance China's clout over Pakistan, enabling it to sway future negotiations and affect Pakistan's actions in strategically significant areas, such as the Indian Ocean Region and the Kashmir issue. This agreement adversely affects not just India but also Taiwan, which is already under increased military pressure from China in the Taiwan Strait, as Beijing continues to augment its stockpile of armaments. A strengthened partnership between Pakistan and China may establish a concerning precedent for China, as its use of military technology to sway similarly aligned states, such as Pakistan, in proximity to Taiwan might facilitate more surveillance of the island country. India has been concentrating on the development of the 

 (AMCA) project, which is deemed essential for the country's 'Make in India' initiative. This initiative aims to facilitate the creation of fifth-generation fighters with superior capabilities to exceed fourth-generation aircraft and to compete with global standards. The China-Pakistan military alliance elicits concerns on the timeliness and effectiveness of India's response. The strengthening partnership between Islamabad and Beijing may further alter regional power dynamics, presenting new challenges for New Delhi in both strategic and operational domains. Notwithstanding the apprehensions, this situation offers a significant opportunity for India and Taiwan to enhance their defense collaboration. Through the amalgamation of their resources and technological expertise, both nations may address shared security concerns and provide a geopolitical counterweight to the China-Pakistan alliance.

Over the years, India has pursued a strategy of self-reliance in the defense industry, transitioning from a defense importer to a defense exporter to assume a more significant position in the Indo-Pacific region and counter China's growing influence. The partnership with Taiwan in the AMCA project will significantly transform the nation. Taiwan's expertise in advanced technologies, such as semiconductors and complex electronics, aligns with India's goal of enhancing its domestic defense capabilities via the 'Make in India' initiative. 

While this engagement with the Taiwan Government may benefit India, it will also complicate matters for the nation and possibly exacerbate India's relationship with China, a point that cannot be disregarded. China has articulated its views and apprehensions on the strengthening friendship between India and Taiwan throughout the years. China has consistently urged India to comply with the One-China policy and to refrain from further provocation, thus any action by India may exacerbate tensions and result in diplomatic and economic consequences, potentially complicating Sino-Indian relations. Consequently, India must exercise utmost caution in managing the situation.

New Delhi's initiative to enhance its connection with Taipei is a significant opportunity for the nation and will undoubtedly yield ramifications for India. Nevertheless, as seen during the last six years, India has experienced a considerable transformation in its foreign policy. The shift seen in New Delhi's ability to navigate complex global dynamics while maintaining national interests without succumbing to external pressures. In recent years, India, which once adhered to the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM), has transitioned to a more pragmatic and multilateral stance, prioritizing its own interests. A prime illustration of this is when, during the Russia-Ukraine crisis, India was among the few nations that did not succumb to the Western powers' trend of boycotting Russia. India successfully fortified its connections with both Russia and Ukraine while advocating for a peaceful resolution at national and international forums, whilst preserving amicable and robust ties with the USA. Consequently, India can adopt a similar approach; however, regarding Beijing, New Delhi must maintain open diplomatic channels and remain receptive to dialogue. As previously stated, the opportunity with Taiwan represents a pivotal moment for the nation to enhance its defense collaboration and objectives by consolidating resources and technological expertise. This may assist both nations in strategically counterbalancing China's regional ambitions, and if India leverages its diplomatic acumen and prioritizes its strategic autonomy, it can enhance its relations with Taiwan while mitigating the risks of tension with Beijing.

India-Taiwan Strategic Collaboration: Countering the China-Pakistan Alliance and Strengthening Self-Reliance in South Asia

The Gaza conflict, which has already lasted for more than 6 months, has extended perilously into Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and possibly Iran. On January 2, an Israeli dr

The Gaza conflict, which has already lasted for more than 6 months, has extended perilously into Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and possibly Iran. On January 2, an Israeli drone attack targeted a Hamas headquarters in Beirut, resulting in the death of Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy commander of the Hamas leadership from overseas. On the next day, two detonations occurred in Kerman, namely at the mausoleum of General Qassem Soleimani, the former leader of the Al Quds Force. These blasts resulted in the death of 95 individuals who had gathered at the shrine to commemorate the fourth anniversary of his killing. While the Islamic State has claimed credit, a significant number of Iranians believe that Israel is responsible.  

On January 4, the United States declared the deliberate assassination of the leader of an Iran-associated militia in Baghdad. This force has been carrying out attacks on American targets since the start of the Gaza conflict. These strikes have taken place during the continuing conflicts in the Red Sea's waters in recent weeks, when the Houthis have been using drones and missiles to target commercial vessels. This has resulted in the United States responding with significant retribution. The Houthis have urgently requested the provision of humanitarian aid to the besieged Palestinians in Gaza.  

These strikes have intensified tensions in the already unstable area that is suffering from the death and damage caused by Israel in Gaza since early October. In the last three months, more than 22,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have lost their lives, and almost two million have been forced to leave their homes. This is the biggest displacement of Palestinians ever recorded. The Palestinian population in Gaza is now facing an exceptional humanitarian crisis.

Israeli forces have extended their military activities to the West Bank, resulting in the deaths of about 300 Palestinians, the arrest of several thousand others, and the destruction of several houses. Israeli cabinet Ministers have endorsed the use of force by their military and have advocated for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza and the replacement of the population with Jewish settlers.

The current primary concern is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by desperation, may choose to pursue a path of escalation. Despite the significant number of deaths in Gaza, Israel has achieved very little in its efforts. Despite their commitment to destroying the Hamas military capabilities and the movement itself, no prominent Hamas leader has been captured in Gaza. Furthermore, Hamas continues to cause harm to Israeli soldiers in the ongoing ground combat. Israeli security forces have imprisoned many thousand women and children in an attempt to extract information about the whereabouts of Hamas officials. However, their efforts have not yielded any noticeable results thus far. There are allegations that the execution of al-Arouri was executed to demonstrate a measure of achievement in the conflict against Hamas. Saleh al-Arouri, according to all reports, was an easily accessible and vulnerable individual. Despite his significant role in the Hamas leadership, he has been mostly based in Beirut in recent years, where he mainly coordinated with Hezbollah and Iran. The majority of sources indicate that he was not involved in the planning or execution of the October 7, 2023, assaults.

Targeted murders are devoid of any practical value: while the eliminated leaders are swiftly replaced, these killings intensify mutual animosity and raise tensions. There is a concerning possibility that Mr. Netanyahu may not be opposed to a large-scale conflict in the region. This is due to the recent political and military failures that allowed Hamas to carry out attacks on October 7. Additionally, with no significant military achievements thus far and the Supreme Court rejecting his proposals for judicial reforms, the Prime Minister is now facing the imminent likelihood of resigning, being arrested, and being imprisoned. Could Netanyahu, driven by desperation, be inclined to use this chance to completely eradicate all Palestinian opposition, neutralise Hezbollah as a combat force, and weaken Iran as a menace? The potential is being raised due to the lack of a clear vision or plan from any major party throughout the three-month conflict in Gaza, considering the endgame and the aftermath of the cessation of hostilities. Israel has not provided clear objectives or plans for the supervision of Gaza after the conflict, while making aggressive statements about the annihilation of Hamas and ethnic cleansing of the seized regions. Indeed, there is no explicit reference to a peace process that extends over a longer period. Therefore, acts of mass murders in Gaza and deliberate targeted assassinations in the surrounding area have now become goals.

Since its inception, the United States has been actively seeking a comprehensive policy. In addition to providing comprehensive political and military backing to Israel, the Biden administration has shown insincere sympathy for humanitarian issues, however, has not accomplished any tangible results in addressing them. The dominant power in the area, which has already lost credibility, is unable to assert itself in promoting a peace process. Evidently, the influence of Israel's right-wing backers in Washington has immobilised the government and caused it to become complacent. The Arab governments have not shown any assertiveness or guidance so far. Apart from ineffective conferences and resolutions, there is no indication of a unified and powerful strategy regarding the wider Palestine problem or even worries about regional security. Saudi Arabia now has the primary burden for bringing about peace. Only it has the regional and global influence necessary to demand that its opinions be prioritized. Having boldly rejected its subordinate position to U.S. directives, it has been actively pursuing an autonomous foreign policy that garners favorable support from the world's major countries. Palestinian interests and the achievement of regional peace need the implementation of strong and proactive actions by Saudi Arabia, which have been lacking so far.  

Now is the opportune moment for West Asian leaders and their citizens to align their interests and work together for the benefit of the region. If they fail to do so, they will be overwhelmed by the surge of regional war that they have made no effort to stop.

Israel – Gaza Conflict and where is West Asia headed?

With the expansion of BRICS membership, the global geopolitical and economic situation becomes intricate and cannot be understood through oversimplified perspectives

With the expansion of BRICS membership, the global geopolitical and economic situation becomes intricate and cannot be understood through oversimplified perspectives or frameworks. At the same time, it is crucial not to lose sight of key geopolitical realities. On January 1, 2024, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Ethiopia officially joined the BRICS+ alliance. The five nations were extended invitations to become members of BRICS during the 15th BRICS Summit, which took place in Johannesburg in August 2023. Argentina was sent an invitation to join the group, however, the country's newly appointed President, Javier Milei, overturned the decision made by his predecessor.

Importance of other nations entering the BRICS alliance

The inclusion of these five nations into the BRICS alliance, established by Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2006, with South Africa joining in 2010, holds significant importance for many reasons. Initially, the aggregate economy of the newly formed coalition amounts to $28.5 trillion, surpassing a quarter of the global economy (28%). The aggregate population of BRICS+ amounts to 3.5 billion individuals, representing approximately 45% of the global population. The BRICS+ countries will also be responsible for generating more than 40% of the world's oil.

Furthermore, Russia has taken on the role of leadership in BRICS in 2024, and the relations with western countries have escalated following the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Due to escalating geopolitical tensions with Western nations and the implementation of sanctions on Russia, countries like India, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, which have strong connections with the United States, are advocating for de-dollarization. This entails reducing reliance on the US dollar for international trade. Only recently for instance, Iran and Russia had concluded an arrangement for trading in local currencies. It is important to note that there has been a substantial increase in the trading of commodities in currencies other than the US dollar following the implementation of sanctions on Russia. In his virtual presentation to the Johannesburg Summit, Putin characterized de-dollarization as "irreversible" and stated that it is "gaining pace."

The Kremlin issued a statement in which Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned the objectives of the BRICS+ alliance, including the desire to establish a multipolar global order and a just global financial and trade system. Additionally, the group aims to collectively address the major challenges of our era.

The triumph of BRICS+ and the geopolitical circumstances

Russia, China, Iran, and other nations have been actively advocating for the establishment of a BRICS+ currency. The global geopolitical and economic situation is indeed intricate and cannot be understood by oversimplified dichotomies or perspectives. Simultaneously, it is crucial to maintain awareness of specific geopolitical circumstances.

Firstly, it is impossible for BRICS+ to evade geopolitical realities.  An essential reality is in the tensions existing between India and China. That is the reason why the previous entity, although advocating for the reduction of reliance on the US dollar, has been so prudent in its approach towards a BRICS+ currency. Furthermore, Argentina declined to join BRICS+ due to China's predominant influence over the group. Multiple nations will closely monitor China's involvement in BRICS+.

Furthermore, although BRICS+ is being hailed as a potential substitute for G20, it is worth noting that numerous members of BRICS+ also hold significant positions within the G20. In 2023, India assumed the leadership of the G20 and hosted the highly successful G20 Summit in Delhi. India successfully brokered a compromise between Western countries and those aligned with Russia, resulting in the New Delhi leaders' declaration. This declaration called for an end to the conflict without explicitly mentioning Russia. This was considered as a diplomatic success. Furthermore, considering Saudi Arabia's significant role as a member of the G20, it can be contended that India would embrace the inclusion of nations such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia into BRICS in order to establish shared interests. Furthermore, several constituents of the BRICS+ alliance, notably India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, may seek to capitalize on the advantages of BRICS+ without being entangled in any geopolitical rivalries. These countries may also feel uneasy about BRICS+ assuming an anti-western stance, considering their significant affiliations with western nations. Dismissing the US dollar due to the growing de-dollarization is a simplistic perspective. It still accounts for a considerable percentage of global currency reserves. Several countries who are transitioning away from using the US dollar as their primary currency are aware of the limitations of this approach.

The expansion of BRICS is essential in economic and geopolitical terms, it is crucial to appreciate the complexity and nuances of the global geopolitical and economic landscape. It is important for the United States to recognize the constraints of the existing system and the economic vulnerabilities of developing nations. Similarly, Russia and China should recognize that expressing hostility against the United States and criticizing the current global order without offering practical alternatives are unlikely to garner significant backing.

The expansion of BRICS and its implications for India

The geopolitical landscape of the world has undergone significant and quick changes in the past few decades. In recent years, significant events have unfolded, inclu

The geopolitical landscape of the world has undergone significant and quick changes in the past few decades. In recent years, significant events have unfolded, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US-China trade war, the Brexit, and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aforementioned events have significantly influenced the current state of world affairs and have the potential to impact global supply chains and disrupt the previously stabilizing dynamics following the Russia-Ukraine Conflict.

The Conflict and the Geopolitical and Supply Chain

The recent struggle between Hamas, an armed group in Palestine, and Israel has had a significant impact on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East in the long term. In a surprising turn of events on October 7, 2023, the Palestinian militant organization Hamas initiated an assault on Israel. In response, Israel swiftly retaliated by conducting airstrikes and implementing a comprehensive blockade. The conflict has not only changed the geopolitical landscape, but it has also disrupted the efforts of developed and developing countries to reconfigure their supply chains. Given the current challenges of high inflation, interest rates, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and a slowing Chinese economy, the world cannot afford another large-scale war. Many countries are attempting to limit any further escalation in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict for this very reason. Since the conflict occurred, analysts and economists have been carefully examining the track of the Middle East crisis and comparing it to past conflicts in the region to assess the probable economic consequences. The ongoing confrontation between Israel and Hamas has had a minimal influence on global commodity markets thus far. Following the Israeli-Hamas crisis, there has been a 6% increase in oil prices, although most industrial metals, agricultural commodities, and other commodities have seen minimal or no price fluctuations. Thus far, this has been the prevailing situation.  However, with the ongoing war and Israel's increasing military operations in Gaza, there has been a significant surge in gasoline prices over the past two weeks. The recent development has triggered a sense of unease among economists and policymakers, reigniting worries about the potential disruption of global supply networks and commodities markets caused by the war. Economists globally have already been formulating methods to mitigate inflation resulting from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The incursion that has had an enduring influence on the worldwide economy, resulting in persistent disturbances up until the present time. Economists are currently conducting a thorough analysis of the Middle East crisis trajectory and making comparisons with past conflicts in the region in order to ascertain the probable magnitude of economic consequences.

The protracted conflict between Israel and Hamas is anticipated to lead to a rise in food and energy costs. A crisis of this nature has the potential to worsen economic repercussions, leading to a double blow for commodity markets worldwide, many of which are still dealing with the effects of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. Worries about possible disruptions to pipelines causing major disruptions to global supply networks led to a substantial increase in petrol prices throughout Europe last month. The impact of the Israel-Hamas conflict and the length of elevated oil prices on inflation and the global economy will be determined by World Bank officials. The significant oil price shock will solely amplify commodities prices and heighten the prevailing concerns about inflation in food costs, particularly in poor nations that are already grappling with escalating levels of hunger.  The current Middle East crisis evokes recollections of the Arab oil embargo in 1973, during which OPEC reduced oil supplies to nations supporting Israel. At that time, it constituted 50 percent of the total oil production. Despite the increase in non-OPEC output and the lesser contribution from OPEC at 32 percent, it remains significant enough to cause an increase in oil prices. A 10 percent increase in the price of crude oil will lead to a corresponding 0.4 percentage point increase in worldwide inflation in the coming year.

Despite predictions by various analysts and comparisons to the 1973 oil crisis, where OPEC reduced oil supply to Israel's supporters, it is important to note that the current situation, although alarming, cannot be directly equated to that of the past. Over the past five decades, non-OPEC countries have significantly increased their oil production. As a result, the contribution of non-OPEC countries to global oil supply today stands at less than 32%. If the Israel-Hamas conflict escalates, policymakers in developing nations will be required to devise methods to address a potential surge in inflation and interest rates. Given the existing difficulties in the supply chain, it is advisable for businesses and their network of suppliers to contemplate the implementation of trade finance solutions that are powered by technology and provided by modern fintech companies. These solutions provide convenient access to cash at the right time and assist enterprises in gaining a competitive edge in the global trade environment. 

The conflict in the Middle East can provide clarity to the countries in the region regarding their position in the current situation and which countries they can depend on in the long term. The present circumstances are significantly different from the 1973 oil crisis, and recent technological advancements and events like the Russia-Ukraine conflict have prompted developed and developing nations to explore alternative methods for addressing supply chain issues. Middle Eastern countries can utilize this situation to establish a new position for themselves in the energy markets. 

 Israel-Hamas War and the disruption in Supply-Chain Management

In recent years, there has been a significant and swift transformation in the geopolitical landscape on a global scale. Whenever a region has a period of peace, a co

In recent years, there has been a significant and swift transformation in the geopolitical landscape on a global scale. Whenever a region has a period of peace, a consequential event often occurs that significantly impacts the geopolitical landscape. This event not only affects the two countries directly involved, but also has far-reaching implications for the global economy and geopolitics as a whole. Historical occurrences, such the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US-China trade war, the Brexit, and the COVID-19 pandemic, have had significant ramifications on the supply chain, hence impacting the field of Supply Chain Management. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, a Palestinian militant organization governing the Gaza Strip, commenced on October 7th, 2023. This escalation was initiated by Hamas through a multifaceted assault on Israel, prompting a forceful retaliatory action by the Israeli government. Subsequently, as a consequence of the ongoing conflict, the number of Palestinian fatalities has exceeded 900, while the Israeli casualties have surpassed 1000. The victims primarily consist of women and children. 

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has been influenced by the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel, extending beyond the political dynamics of the two nations involved. Over the course of the previous year, the United States has actively pursued the normalization of diplomatic relations with nations including Saudi Arabia and Iran. The United States sought to establish diplomatic normalization not just with its own nation but also with Israel and several other Middle Eastern countries that had maintained a boycott against Israel since its inception. Both the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, have been advocating for the normalization of diplomatic relations. Following the occurrence of the incident, Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State of the United States, asserted that the primary aim of Hamas in the conflict was to undermine Israel's prospects of establishing normalized relations with Middle Eastern nations. Ever since US President Joe Biden took office, he has pursued efforts to normalize relations between the United States and Iran. The United States has been engaged in efforts to reduce tensions with Iran and pursue a phased resumption of the Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the previous US president, Donald Trump, withdrew in 2018. Subsequently, in an effort to normalize relations, both nations engaged in a reciprocal exchange of prisoners, while the United States subsequently lifted the freeze on Iran's $6 billion assets.

Furthermore, an additional consequence of the battle may have a prolonged impact on the IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Corridor), a project supported by the United States as a strategic response to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The ongoing war has the potential to hinder the United States' efforts to counter China's BRI, as the United States has shown unwavering support, while countries in the Middle East are demonstrating their solidarity with the victims in Palestine. In light of the ongoing violence, Secretary Anthony Blinken of the United States has engaged in diplomatic discussions with leaders of West Asian nations in an effort to address the escalating humanitarian crisis, which has been progressively worsening with each passing day. Blinken has also visited Saudi Arabia in order to address the status of its suspended normalize efforts with Israel.

Since the occurrence of the trade war between China and the United States, tensions have persisted between the two nations on various matters. Consequently, instances of mutual agreement on crisis resolution have become infrequent. Nevertheless, in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, both China and the United States are currently engaged in diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the hostilities. In March 2023, China facilitated a diplomatic accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran, enabling the two nations to restore their diplomatic relations. Subsequently, China has been widely acknowledged as a prominent actor whose influence has exhibited a steady expansion inside the region. In contrast to the United States, the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas has the potential to yield long-term benefits for China. Following the G20 meeting held in India, an announcement was made regarding a new corridor project known as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC). This project garnered support from the United States, as it sought to provide an alternative solution or counter project to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The IMEC was seen as a viable option to complement and compete with the BRI. However, recent conflicts and the suspension of efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, this has impacted the progress of the IMEC. Numerous analysts have already made predictions on the protracted nature of the Israel-Hamas conflict, positing that its prolonged duration could potentially facilitate the effective and seamless operation of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project. Despite China's willingness to facilitate peace talks between Israel and Hamas through diplomatic means, some countries, like the United States, perceive China's involvement as driven by its own self-interest. In recent months, China has provided support to Palestine in response to escalated Israeli military operations. Palestine is included within China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Consequently, China recognises that providing support to Palestine in the ongoing conflict has the potential to yield significant geopolitical benefits. This backing might serve as a strategic advantage for China, enabling the country to establish lucrative agreements with diverse Arab nations. China is aware of the longstanding alliance between the United States and Israel, which has been in place since the establishment of the latter. Consequently, China perceives limited advantages in aligning itself with Israel in the ongoing struggle.

A thorn for India’s geopolitical situation

India, as a nation, has always adhered to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a strategy conceived by India's inaugural Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, during the period of the Cold War. Over the course of 76 years, numerous leaders have assumed and relinquished positions of power. Nevertheless, India's policy of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has consistently aligned itself with the interests of the nation. Despite facing criticism from various observers, India has successfully employed this policy and continues to do so in the 21st century. The aforementioned scenario became evident during the Russia-Ukraine Conflict, wherein India refrained from boycotting Russia despite pressure from Western nations and did not extend military support to Ukraine, unlike countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. India has consistently pursued diplomatic means to facilitate dialogue and engagement between the involved parties. Contrary to expectations, the Israel-Hamas conflict witnessed a notable stance from India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who openly proclaimed his unwavering support for Israel through a tweet on the X platform from personal social media account. Despite receiving support from other Western countries and even certain individuals within India, the Indian government's stance in favor of Israel and against terrorism was upheld. Nevertheless, this strategic decision carries the potential for adverse consequences. India, known for its historical commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement and its impartial stance in conflicts, has established diplomatic ties not only with Israel but also with Palestine. In recent years, India has offered economic assistance to Palestine, specifically in the areas of education, healthcare, and technology. However, India's relationship with Israel is characterized by greater strength and depth. Israel has provided significant support to India during various conflicts with Pakistan, exemplified by the 1999 Kargil War. During this conflict, Israel extended aid to India by supplying mortar and ammunition, as well as advanced weaponry such as laser-guided missiles and surveillance drones. Hence, India's firm endorsement of Israel can be seen justifiable to some extent. Over the course of the previous eight days, subsequent to the commencement of the conflict, numerous Arab states have demonstrated their support for the Palestinian cause. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), despite expressing criticism towards the Hamas attack, promptly provided $20 million in help to the Palestinian population. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has also demonstrated its solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In the event that the duration of the conflict resembles that of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it is plausible that the I2U2 pact, which aims to establish a connection between Israel, India, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates, may now be perceived as doubtful. The process of normalizing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been temporarily suspended by Saudi Arabia. Another potential ramification might be the indefinite suspension of the Indian Manufacturing and Exporting Council (IMEC), which could have a substantial detrimental impact on India.

Furthermore, in the event of the conflict spreading to other Arab states, India will need to closely monitor the potential consequences on oil prices, given that India relies only on imports to cover 85% of its oil requirements. While Israel is not currently a significant producer, the escalating tensions in the Middle East pose a potential threat to India. If the conflict, similar to the Russia-Ukraine War, persists, it could negatively impact India's reputation as an emerging superpower. India, which asserts itself as a growing superpower in the Global South, will need to adopt a stance similar to its position in the Russia-Ukraine conflict in order to maintain this image. There exists a significant probability that India may experience greater adverse consequences in this conflict compared to China or the United States.

China and US strategic game in the Middle East and repercussions for India

In recent years, there has been a significant and swift transformation in the global geopolitical landscape. Events such as the ongoing trade dispute between the Uni

In recent years, there has been a significant and swift transformation in the global geopolitical landscape. Events such as the ongoing trade dispute between the United States and China, the global COVID-19 pandemic, and the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine have had significant impacts on the geopolitical landscape and global supply chains. The rivalry between India and China serves as a prominent illustration of the geopolitical shifts occurring on a global scale. Over the past few years, the competition between the two neighboring nations has evolved from mere verbal exchanges along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to the occupation of strategic and military positions in pursuit of their respective interests.

Over the recent years, following China's heightened engagement in the 

 (IOR), the area has emerged as a focal point for the dynamic developments taking place. The Maldives, an island nation renowned for its unspoiled beaches and high-end resorts during the previous few decades, has recently emerged as a significant and very volatile country. The Maldives, situated in a physically diverse region, is considered to be one of the most diversified countries in terms of its geographical characteristics. The island republic, spanning an area of over 90,000 square kms and consisting of more than 26 islands, is situated in a central position within the Indian Ocean. This geographical location has rendered it strategically significant, attracting considerable attention from both India and China. Throughout the years, both India and China have endeavored to garner the allegiance of Maldives inside their own spheres of influence. These nations have recognized Maldives as a nation of utmost importance.

Relationship between the Maldives and India

The Island nation is situated at a distance of 70 nautical miles from India's Lakshadweep archipelago and 300 nautical miles from the west coast of India. Throughout history, the Island has consistently maintained a significant alliance with India, serving as a longstanding and reputable commercial partner. The diplomatic ties between India and Maldives have endured for over five decades, with India being the initial nation to acknowledge the sovereignty of Maldives. Furthermore, India holds the distinction of establishing the inaugural resident mission in the capital city of Male. India has provided assistance to the Maldives on multiple occasions, exemplified by the implementation of operation Cactus in 1988. This operation was conducted in response to a coup attempt targeting 

 Gayoom. Subsequently, both nations have entered into a defense cooperation treaty in 2009, wherein the Indian Navy and the MNDF (Maldives National Defense Force) would engage in collaborative surveillance operations. The government of New Delhi has also consented to furnish the Maldives with a Dhruv chopper. India has provided assistance to Maldives on multiple occasions, including during the 2004 tsunami catastrophe and the 2014 drinking water crisis. The two nations interact with each other based on India's "

". Since the transition in leadership of the Indian Government in 2014 and the assumption of office by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has adopted a proactive stance in solidifying its position in the Indian Ocean through the implementation of maritime diplomacy and initiatives. An additional rationale for maintaining close ties with Maldives is to prevent China from expanding its influence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), as evidenced by China's increasing interest in Maldives since 2013.

 were established in the year 1972. Subsequently, the level of interaction between the two entities has exhibited a slow and consistent upward trend. Since 1986, the Chinese government has made substantial investments in the Island Nation. Both nations have entered into multiple contractual agreements, totaling $46.37 million in value in the year 2001, resulting in a turnover of $40 million. The bilateral relations between the two nations reached a pinnacle of prosperity in 2013, marked by the election of Chinese President Xi Jinping and the assumption of office by Abdulla Yameen in the Maldives. Following their assumption of power several months later, the Chinese government extended an invitation to the Maldives government to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a highly ambitious project. Subsequently, the Chinese President extended an offer to the Maldives to join the Maritime Silk Road, resulting in the formal endorsement of the BRI by the Maldives. This development positioned the Maldives as the second South Asian nation to officially support the BRI. Over the course of the previous decade, subsequent to the assumption of leadership by Xi Jinping, the Chinese government has actively promoted investment activities among its populace in the Island nation. The Chinese government has implemented several construction initiatives, including the development of housing units, the expansion of the international airport, and other investments aimed at promoting tourism and agriculture. During the tenure of the Yameen administration, the Maldives has incurred a debt of approximately $1.3 billion, a substantial sum relative to the country's GDP of $4 billion. Over the past few years, there have been multiple rumors indicating China's intention to establish an observation post in Makunudhoo, a location situated in the Northwestern Maldives. Historically, whenever the announcement of such a plan was made, it was promptly abandoned, much to the satisfaction of India.

The electoral process in the Maldives has historically adhered to established norms, wherein each election presents an opportunity for a transition of power to a different political party and the election of a new president. The prevailing domestic concerns inside the nation primarily pertain to matters of growth, corruption, violent extremism, and an evaluation of the current leader's performance relative to their predecessor. Since the inception of the 

 (BRI) between China and Maldives, India has expressed apprehension regarding the strategic implications. This unease stems from the fact that Maldives, situated in close proximity to 1,200 coral islands, serves as crucial shipping lanes that facilitate uninterrupted supply chains for India, China, and Japan. The 2018 elections in the Maldives raised significant concerns for India due to the notable shift in the country's government under the leadership of Abdullah Yameen from 2013 to 2018. Yameen's administration took a pronounced pro-China stance, exemplified by the "India Out" campaign and the offer to return helicopters gifted by India. However, the outcome of the 2018 elections, which saw Ibrahim Solih elected as the new leader, brought about a change in the country's foreign policy orientation towards a more pro-India approach. Ibrahim Solih expressed a willingness to prioritize the Quad countries over China. Nevertheless, the outcome of the recent elections, which saw the triumph of Mohamed Muizzu, a pro-China candidate who aligns himself more closely with the China campaign, has raised apprehensions in India. Even prior to the election results, Muizzu campaigned on a platform advocating for the removal of Indian influence, further exacerbating India's concerns. The prevailing outcome of the election has the potential to impede India's progress and may facilitate China's pursuit of 

 (FTAs) with Maldives, so bolstering its supply lines. Despite Mohamed Muizzu's continuation of the pro-China campaign initiated by Abdulla Yameen, it is unlikely that Maldives will fully embrace a comprehensive China-centric approach. This is primarily due to the fact that over the past five years, India has extended significant support to Maldives in a friendly manner, providing military and healthcare assistance during times of crisis. Despite the strained state of India-Maldives relations from 2013 to 2018, it is noteworthy that defense cooperation between the two nations persisted. India has emerged as the primary trading partner of Maldives, serving as both its largest trading partner and a prominent export destination. Additionally, India has maintained its status as a longstanding benefactor for the Maldivian nation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the initial leader to extend congratulations to Mohammed Muizzu upon his victory. Consequently, while India may have relinquished the pilot seat, it does not imply the full absence of opportunities for discussions and diplomatic efforts.

 in 2008 and the commencement of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, both India and China have made concerted efforts to exert influence over the Maldives. However, the sole distinction between the aid provided by both nations is that India has consistently extended support to its friends through military and healthcare assistance. The assistance provided by India to Sri Lanka in 2022 following the period of unrest known as "The Struggle" serves as a notable illustration of this phenomenon. The Maldives currently carries a debt of 

 owed to China. Recent events involving China's involvement in the economic situations of Pakistan and Sri Lanka have led other countries to exhibit caution while seeking loans from China. Currently, both nations find themselves burdened by substantial debts resulting from financial loans provided by China. This serves as a cautionary reminder to the Maldives about the potential risks associated with excessive reliance on China for aid. It is worth noting that Male's debt repayment to India aligns with the declining foreign reserves of the Maldives, which may facilitate positive relations between Maldives and India and provide a basis for future negotiations. It is evident that due to ideological and domestic factors, Mohamed Muizzu may exhibit a greater inclination towards China. However, he will not hesitate to align more closely with a country that would not place Maldives in a situation similar to that of Pakistan or Sri Lanka in the future.

Maldives in the middle of India-China power play

"Multiple chickens are coming home to roost". Dr. S Jaishankar made the remark during a discussion event hosted by the US think tank Hudson Institute in Washington. 

 are coming home to roost". Dr. S Jaishankar made the remark during a discussion event hosted by the US think tank Hudson Institute in Washington. Although the Foreign Minister did not name the country, everyone in attendance may have surmised what country he was referring to when he referenced "India's neighbor in the West."

For the past few years, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which is located on the South Asian Continent and is one of India's immediate neighbors, has been mired in a maelstrom of issues. For the past few years, Pakistan's economic problems have increased so dramatically and so rapidly at the same time that various heads of various countries and even Pakistan's closest allies are not un-eager to assist the country because they are concerned about whether Pakistan will be able to repay the loans if they aid the country. Although the country's economic challenges are nothing new, Pakistan has also been getting a taste of its own medicine in the last couple of years, and since the COVID-19 outbreak, with terror attacks near its western border by the TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) and the recent halt in the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) and the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor), all of these factors are working as a plus point that have pushed the country into the stage it is today.

Pakistan's economy was already in a troubled state; however, 

 pandemic was the final nail in the coffin. Today, the country's economy is in considerably worse shape than previously, with the country on the verge of bankruptcy, unlike its neighbors. Pakistan's economy has only deteriorated in recent years. Pakistan's GDP growth rate has never been spectacular, but it has been steadily improving. Pakistan's economy has been damaged since 2018, with growth falling from 5.5% in 2018 to -0.3% in 2020. Pakistan's economy suffered as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. In 2018, Pakistan's economy was growing at a rate of 5.5%, but in just three months into 2020, more than 3 million people lost their jobs, raising the jobless rate to 9.56%. Pakistan's inflation rate has risen from 2.6% before COVID-19 to more than 

 in the last two years, from 2020 to 2022. Power succession in Pakistan has also contributed to this in the last year, with the change in Prime Ministers from Imran Khan to Shebaz Sharif to the current caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, which has also acted as a plus point for the country's deteriorating situation, as the change in leadership has led to a change in ideas and a change in policies, which has affected the country's situation and today brought it to a point.

"If you have snakes in your backyard, you can't expect them to bite only your neighbors." The former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made the remark during a 2011 discussion, and a decade later, the same statement was quoted by. Today's Pakistan is going through exactly what Hilliary Clinton warned Pakistan more than a decade ago. Whenever the topic of terrorism has been highlighted in recent years, India's immediate neighbor, Pakistan, has been in the news as well. In recent decades, Pakistan has been put in the spotlight by various countries and international organizations. However, in the last 2–3 years, Pakistan has experienced a surge in terrorist attacks. Since the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, former 

 general director General Faiz, who declared then that "their western borders have been secured," has not been kind to Pakistan since gaining power. Following a period of factionalism and internal warfare, the TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) underwent a process of reorganization and reunification in 2020. This restructure was spearheaded by 

, who took over as TTP leader during this time. The Pakistan Army claims that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was responsible for the deaths of more than 220 Pakistani soldiers and commanders in 2023. The TTP's increasing savagery can be linked to its growing political and material capabilities, as seen by its growing political legitimacy and pool of well-trained militants, suicide bombers, weaponry, and resources. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)'s political leadership and operational capacity are mostly headquartered in Afghanistan. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has successfully reclaimed control of several districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's southern districts, including South Waziristan, North Waziristan, Tank, Bannu, and Lakki Marwat. Today, the TTP has threatened Pakistan's security and poses a dangerous threat, and with growing affiliates, the TTP has increased its visibility in two ways: First, with more affiliates, TTP has an abundance of battle-hardened militants inside its ranks, which has a huge impact on its fight against Pakistan. Second, the increased number of affiliates has provided TTP with a strategic opportunity to develop in places such as southern Baluchistan and the tribal district of North Waziristan in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

China's debt trap diplomacy and the hanging sword

China has become renowned as an ally to all countries where there is no western front in recent years. In recent years, China's footprint has expanded not only to its neighbors but also to other continents such as South America and the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, but China's relief packages have always come with massive debts and other purposes, such as using the home country's land to fulfil their own geopolitical purposes. Pakistan is the clearest example of this; the country is well-known for borrowing large sums from "its all-weather ally." Although China has always been there to assist Pakistan in times of economic crisis, with the mounting economic concerns in Pakistan and petrol prices hitting a new high of 300 Pakistani rupees, this economic crisis is currently affecting both China and Pakistan, as various sources indicate that China is closely monitoring Pakistan's economic crisis in order to avoid becoming entangled in it. China appears to be backing away from its multi-billion-dollar BRI commitments in Pakistan as the country tightens its purse strings with several projects associated with CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) that are now either stalled or running way behind schedule. To assist Pakistan in this situation, China has agreed to reschedule over USD 2 billion in debt over the next two years. Even if Pakistan cancels this 

, China will still provide it with a USD 6.5 billion loan for the development of its two nuclear power plants in Karachi, totaling USD 9.5 billion. Pakistan is also seeking approximately 

 from China and Saudi Arabia to bridge external and internal resource gaps in order to keep the IMF rescue package on track. Although these kinds of loans help Pakistan resolve its present debt crisis, in the long run, the Chinese loans, combined with Pakistan's habit of repaying one loan with another, are to blame for the country's current financial dilemma. While China is cordial enough to provide money to Pakistan when it needs it, China has a different personality when it comes time to repay the debt. China has sought repayment of several loans granted to Pakistan over the last two years, including the 

, for which Pakistan must repay USD 55.6 million by November 2023. Meanwhile, China-Railway North Industries Corporation (CR-NORINCO), which finished the Lahore Orange Line Project, has asked for an advance payment of USD 10 million. Many of Pakistan's electrical power facilities are deeply indebted, with debts totalling over USD 14 billion.

Although Saudi Arabia and the IMF bailout package may help Pakistan in the short term, any loan from China will not help Pakistan. Even if China has allowed Pakistan to repay one of its debts after two years, the rest of the loans will have to be paid, putting Pakistan back at square one, especially given the increase in casualties at the hands of TTP terrorists. It is possible that Pakistan will remain in this dilemma for a long time because the present Afghan administration has raised its hands and resolved not to provoke TTP members by siding with or assisting Pakistan. If the issue continues, it can be assumed that the current BRI or CPEC projects, which are currently behind schedule, will be postponed without a fixed date, and China may also take a wait-and-see approach, as they would not want to invest more in an economically and civil-war-torn country because Pakistan has always paid China's loans with hefty sums of interest, which China would not want to lose.

Pakistan's never ending cycle of problems 

 State Terrorism is a unique and a different phenomena from a non-state terrorism. State TerrorismThe term State-terrorism refers to acts of terror in which a state 

State Terrorism is a unique and a different phenomena from a non-state terrorism. 

The term State-terrorism refers to acts of terror in which a state conducts or take any action against other state or its citizens. This concept of terrorism is far more devastating that non-state terrorism, as state terrorism has claimed more lives than terrorism which is directed against the state. State-terrorism are of two types, first is the one which takes place against perceived enemies of a state outside that state borders which usually ends up in a costly retaliation for the state. For instance, the discotheque La-Belle bombing which happened in April 1986 in Berlin which was planned by Libya in which one Turkish citizen and two US citizens lost their lives which was retaliated massively by the US under the operation El Dorado Canyon.

The other would be the act of terror which is initiated against special target groups – prominent or outspoken dissidents living abroad, although this type of terror has occurred more frequently as during the 1980s and 1990s in which action of agents from Khomeini’s Iran killed more than 120 Iranian dissidents.

State Sponsored Terrorism is a distinct concept from the concept discussed above. In state sponsored terrorism it is not the state that commit the violent acts but they allow others to do so as they have similar objectives to those of the state sponsoring them. This usually involves all type of assistance whether it be technical, financial or logistical by a state to terror organization. State usually prefer this option as this is an easy way for the states to wage a war against their enemy through a proxy. There are several factors for a state to sponsor terrorism as these may include a shared ideology where both the state and the terrorist organization want to target the same person. For example, Israel supports various types of terror groups that tend to conduct attacks in the Palestinian territory. States also support state sponsored terrorism which tends to include goals such as strategic goals through which state tends to weaken the security of the other state through the attacks conducted by the terror organization, for example Iran has been providing funding to organizations such as Hezbollah to rival and destabilize Israel.

It is usually the motivation such as ideology gains or to destabilize the immediate neighboring countries to achieve a strategic or tactical advantage which are used to enhance domestic support. There are mostly two ways through which a state supports a terrorist organization either passively or actively. In the passive support, the states usually turn a blind eye to the operations conducted by the terror organizations. In Passive support many countries even allow to offer the terror organization a safe haven and also allow them to establish training camps on its territory, State also allows the terrorist organization to engage in activities such as money laundering, smuggling of weapons and drugs. For example, Saudi Arabia had turned a blind eye to many activities of many private organizations which used to operate in its land which used to fund many terror organizations one of the prime examples would be Al Qaeda who used to operate in Saudi, however Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to the fundraising activities of the private organizations as they tend to enhance their own image in the Islamist foreign policy and in the Islamic world. Thus, Saudi choose to ignore the supporters of Al-Qaeda as long as they don’t harm the citizens of Saudi. If we’ll talk about active support, a state actively supporting a terrorist organization in which the state is usually helping the terror organization by not just letting them rally troops or run any illicit activities such as trafficking but also supporting them actively and diplomatically by defending their action in places such as the UN. A state actively supporting terror group helps them in their operations. The best example for a state in active support would be Pakistan as Pakistan has been actively supporting Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban and insurgency in Kashmir and North-East India by supporting various other organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Another example could be of US and NATO supporting terrorism in Yugoslavia by killing hundreds of civilians for their gain.

The perspective of one state of another state funding terrorism varies and is subjective. For example, for one state, another state funding terrorism might constitute terrorism or liberation fight. In its 'Country Reports on Terrorism,' for example, the United States designates North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba as state sponsors of terrorism, whereas countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others that have openly supported terrorist organizations are not on the list of terrorist organiszations of the United States. According to Al Gore, this has also allowed Saudi Arabia to openly sponsor terrorism, and the United States' ignorance of it provides a handy cover for the nation in which Saudi carries out attacks while the United States ignores the fact.

Another aspect of state-sponsored terrorism is the portrayal of Western democracies as innocent targets and victims of terrorism, according to Hermann and O'Sullivan. According to this, the West only responds to the deployment of terrorist forces to protect democratic governments against authoritarian opponents, rather than foment terrorism itself. Nonetheless, multiple cases from US history show that US personnel have actively participated in the sponsorship of terrorism. During the Cold War, for example, the Reagan Doctrine passively and covertly supported guerrilla groups in Eastern bloc nations such as Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba. In each of the cases, the United States projected its form of activity as protecting democratic ideals and praised its people as "freedom fighters," while the other countries' activities were denounced as "terrorism" and their people as "terrorists," revealing the democratic countries' double standards.

Numerous human rights atrocities, including as rape, torture, and executions, have been performed by US troops, highlighting these countries' contradictory positions, which are portrayed as rational and logical. Similarly, when the West, led by President Bush, gave the go-ahead to capture and depose Saddam Hussein's regime, they adopted terrorism as their foreign policy and advocated for the destruction of terrorism from the Iraqi regime, which they claimed was legitimate, necessary, and based on humanitarian need, while labelling them as terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. The CIA has also sponsored Mujahideen, the Islamic zealots in Afghanistan who subsequently carried out assaults in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1980s and produced one of the most infamous terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, who carried out one of the most serious attacks in the United States, the 9/11 attack. In truth, the United States is the sole country that utilized weapons of mass devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, committing one of history's most horrific crimes.

Not only the United States, but the whole Western world, has long embraced terrorism as a means of achieving geopolitical goals. During the World Wars, for example, Britain relentlessly attacked German towns, killing thousands of people and damaging property worth millions of dollars. It is ironic that Western countries that present themselves as the "protectors of the world" and criticize other countries for funding terrorism are the same powers that promote terrorism in their foreign policy and carry out massive bombs, killing people and destroying property. Consequently, terrorism, particularly post-World War II, has not been perpetuated by Arabic names but has been carried out, directly or indirectly, by democratic and Western governments, particularly the United States, resulting in the loss of more lives than terrorism by non-state actors.

In reality, an examination of the attacks carried out by the United States reveals that these acts of terror were not even necessary. The US invasion of Yugoslavia revealed that all ethnic cleansing actions by Serbs in Kosovo occurred after the American invasion, demonstrating the futility of the nation's invasion. This demonstrates the hypocrisy of democratic countries in which terrorism directed against its adversaries is justified but terrorism aimed against America is not.

Furthermore, the mainstream media and scholarly papers on terrorism have completely overlooked the West's double standard and idea. According to Herman/O'Sullivan, this is mostly due to the conviction of the conventional approach to terrorism, which promotes that the West is only a victim of terrorism while the other is associated with the adversary. In 1998, even soloman stated that when terrorists attack, they are terrifying. When the West strikes, they respond, and when they retaliate, they terrorize even more, and when the West attacks again, they retaliate even more.

This strategy may also be utilized by other governments who want to portray themselves as "defend the nation" through their "freedom warriors" and look pious. This tool can thus be employed by several countries, potentially resulting in the loss of many lives and the destruction of property worth millions of dollars. Although it might seem to dissuade any country from supporting a terrorist organization, however if we’ll take a look at Pakistan the country has been an active supporter of terrorism and it was even supported by US, however later Pakistan was convinced to abandon the terrorist group which it used to support, so this also reflects another debate of the reasons of supporting terrorist organizations actively and then dissuading terrorism.

State Terrorism is a form of terror which is conducted against the state or the citizens of the state whereas the state sponsored terrorism refers to a state conducting terrorism not by themselves but through proxies. States fund terrorism for a variety of reasons, including the promotion of a common ideology, domestic support, and geopolitical benefit. Terrorism is actively and passively supported by states. Many disputes show how one government's assistance for terrorism in another one is seen differently by various countries. Some see it as terrorism, while others see it as a liberation fight. Furthermore, democratic countries present themselves as innocent and victims of terror, but their hypocrisy and double standards are revealed when they carry out terror in the name of necessity, humanitarian need, and to protect democratic ideals for their own geopolitical, ideological, and domestic needs. Furthermore, an examination of the West's attacks reveals that these acts of terror were not even required. Furthermore, the West's duplicity is not exposed by mainstream media or scholarly journals, allowing these countries to continue carrying out terrorist attacks for their own advantage. This strategy can and is adopted by a number of different countries for their objectives.

It may be argued that all mainstream media must recognise this duplicity, and all acts of terror must be demonised and portrayed only as acts of terror.

State terrorism and the difference it has from state-sponsored terrorism.

For the last several years, there has been a significant and swift shift in the geopolitics of the globe. Recent examples include the trade dispute between the Unite

For the last several years, there has been a significant and swift shift in the geopolitics of the globe. Recent examples include the trade dispute between the United States and China, the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Today, we live in a time where every government, regardless of whether it is a developed country or a developing country, wants to expand its footprint in every sphere, whether it be agriculture or the military. For the last several years, China has significantly increased its presence not just in every industry but also on every continent. It has been more than 40 years since Deng Xiaoping, the leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and General Architect, introduced the economic reforms that launched the nation and helped it attain the position that it occupies today. These reforms were important in propelling the PRC to its current position.

"To explore the vast cosmos, develop the space industry, and build China into a space power is our eternal dream," President Xi Jinping said." The space industry is one of the most important businesses for China's economy and military in terms of strategic planning. China has had rapid and innovative progress in the previous seven years, as shown by the installation of a high-resolution earth observation system and the ongoing improvement of satellite communications and broadcasting serviceability. This success has presented itself in a variety of ways. Because of China's excellent technology, Mars exploration and interplanetary flight have gone rather successfully. These achievements have not only boosted China's space programme, but have also caught the attention of the whole world due to the speed with which the country is catching up to all other nations in space research. China has launched a spacecraft into low-Earth orbit with success. However, like with all of China's other programmes that get praise and applause from all nations, it also raises worldwide concerns. The same is true of China's rapid progress in the space sector: it is earning praise and admiration from all over the world. Nonetheless, in recent years, China has been able to weaponize the space realm via technological advances such as ground-based energy, anti-satellite missiles, and orbital interception capabilities. China's presence in space is admirable; nevertheless, be aware since, since 2015, China has engaged into a number of cooperation with countries such as Russia in order to expand its presence in space. This has prompted the United States and its allies to be worried about China's rapid advancement in the space domain. China and China's long-time partner Russia have made considerable financial contributions to the space sector in recent years. As both Russia and China are expected to undercut the United States in the next years, Russia and China's space fleets have grown by almost 70% in the previous four years. China is currently in second position in the space weapons race, behind only the United States. Furthermore, China and Russia have agreed to cooperate on the construction of a lunar research station, which is set to begin in 2025. China has also been working on the development of ASAT missiles, which are a priority of China's research and development activities and, if successful, have the potential to produce massive debris fields, making them a serious concern for the future of space. In addition to its rapid expansion, China has been using other countries to expand its space footprint.

China’s Presence in the Latin American continent

Several Latin American nations have articulated their relationship with China over the last twenty years, and several nations have entered into various pacts and arrangements that have assisted them in obtaining more favourable trade deals and loan agreements than those offered by the IMF or the United States and its allies. China's investment in Latin American nations has expanded over the previous two decades, from a meagre $12 billion in 2000 to more than $445 billion in 2021. In addition to these loans, China's state-owned banks have provided over $139 billion in loans to Latin American nations for usage in areas such as agriculture, mining, and energy, compared to the US and its allies. China has been able to maintain stronger ties with Latin American nations and reach better economic agreements with those countries in recent years for a variety of reasons, including i) South-South ideals such as non-interference in the nation's internal affairs; ii) China's alternative growth model; and iii) the lack of loan conditions. In recent years, China has been one of the most important donors to the economic development of Latin American countries. Latin American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have signed various space cooperation agreements with their Chinese counterparts throughout the years. Ecuador and Chile are two other countries that have done so. However, many commentators believe that the "special relationship" that exists between China and Latin America will benefit China more than the Latin American countries. China's military presence in Latin America, which was traditionally thought to have a limited reach there, has grown at a dizzying speed in recent years. China has used Latin American countries to build substations, military bases, and space stations. Many observers believe China is using these substations for monitoring purposes. China has been increasing its influence in authoritarian Latin American countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, both of which are boycotted by the US. What is worrying today is the lack of knowledge about China's goals for its stations, which is part of Beijing's bigger ambition to portray itself as one of the major space powers. This wider thrust includes China's space network throughout Latin America. The United States of America is quite worried because numerous Latin American nations have promised not to interfere with or disrupt any of the Chinese efforts. This has increased US concerns that substations in numerous Latin American nations may be used to spy on US assets and collect vital information. The United States and its allies have sent warnings to different Latin American nations, concerned that China's operation of a space station or military base, even for "peaceful purposes" as claimed by China, would be damaging to the countries hosting the facilities. One such occurrence occurred in 2019, when Sweden issued a warning that China may be using its space stations to gather military intelligence on the host country. Despite the fact that China has said publicly on multiple times that its space objectives are for peaceful reasons, the government has been working for the greater part of the previous two decades to develop its space capabilities. The rapid rise of China over the Latin American continent will cause issues for Latin American nations.

Even if one were to take China at its word and think that the space stations are not being used for military objectives, this does not exclude the possibility of the other issue that the Latin American continent has to be aware of is the substantial debt that has been incurred as a result of the governments in Latin America taking out loans from China. Even though Chinese loans may seem more affordable in terms of interest and debt, several nations have made the same mistake and are now mired in debt. The debt trap has already started showing early signs in Argentina, as the country has already started dealing in Yuan for payments, which is a sign of their currency falling in value in comparison to the Chinese currency. One could take a good look at Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both of which have sold their country's assets because they could not pay the debt back with interest to China. Because of this, not only should the United States and other democratic nations be concerned about the possibility of losing their hegemony over the continent, but even the host countries should be concerned since they will be required to sell their assets.