India distances itself from SCO statement condemning Israeli strikes on Iran
New Delhi: India has formally dissociated itself from a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) statement that strongly condemned Israel’s military strikes on Iran. The SCO, of which Iran is also a member, termed the attacks a violation of international law and the UN Charter. However, India clarified it had not participated in the decision-making process and issued a separate statement reflecting its own stance.
The SCO statement, issued earlier on June 14, described Israel’s June 13 strikes as “aggressive actions against civilian targets” and a “gross violation” of Iran’s sovereignty, resulting in civilian casualties and threatening global peace. It specifically referred to damage to Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility and the killing of 78 people, including senior security officials and top nuclear negotiator Ali Shamkhani.
While the SCO made no mention of dissent from any member, India simultaneously released a statement stating that it did not participate in the discussions regarding the condemnation. “India did not participate in the discussions on the above-mentioned SCO statement,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) noted. “Our position was shared with member states in advance.”
India reiterated its call for restraint and diplomacy. “We urge that channels of dialogue and diplomacy be utilised to work towards de-escalation,” the MEA stated. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also spoke to his Iranian counterpart, expressing global concerns and urging both nations to return to diplomatic efforts and avoid further escalation.
India’s reaction to the growing conflict has been notably cautious. On Friday, it had expressed being “deeply concerned” about the developments between Iran and Israel. A day earlier, India abstained from voting on a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, reversing its previous support for a similar resolution six months ago.
In contrast, several other Asian countries reacted more forcefully to the Israeli strikes:
Japan’s foreign minister Takeshi Iwaya condemned Israel’s actions as “completely unacceptable,” particularly in light of ongoing diplomatic talks between Iran and the US.
China, which currently chairs the SCO, described the Israeli attacks as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and called for restraint.
South Korea expressed “deep concern” and condemned actions that destabilize the region.
Indonesia, which does not maintain diplomatic ties with Israel, called the strikes “unlawful” and a violation of international law.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim issued a strong condemnation, stating the attack was aimed at sabotaging US-Iran nuclear negotiations and deflecting attention from Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Other countries, including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Singapore, issued more muted responses, with Singapore simply urging restraint.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
