Though often grouped together as ‘nationalist strongmen,’ Narendra Modi and Donald Trump reveal strikingly different approaches to power, diplomacy and governance. Politics in the 21st century has become increasingly personalised. Institutions still matter, but voters often view governments through the prism of individual leaders rather than parties or policies. Few contemporary politicians illustrate this trend better than Donald Trump and Narendra Modi. Both have cultivated

The fight over Donald Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee reveals deeper tensions over immigration and presidential power AI generated image While the urge to chase the American dream has remained unchanged for most Indians from past few decades, the Trump card that helps fulfil the dream too has remained unchanged. That’s the H1B Visa. However, what has drastically changed is America’s outlook towards the same talent that they once craved for when the concept of the Silicon Valley was

Donald Trump’s lavish praise of Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G7 summit offered a familiar lesson that in international affairs, there is often a vast gulf between atmospherics and reality. Whether it translates into warmer U.S. policy towards India after a period of pretty intense frostiness is another matter. Trump, who only months ago was disparaging India with the sort of rhetorical abandon usually reserved for political opponents, suddenly rediscovered his affect

Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restric

For nearly half a decade, the global geopolitical landscape has been stuck in a state of permanent turbulence. The protracted war in Ukraine, the protectionist tariff regimes of the Trump presidency, and the volatile escalation of hostilities between the United States, Israel, and Iran are no longer distant regional frictions. Their tremors have rewritten the global order and weaponized transnational supply chains. In today’s splintered global order, nations are ruthlessly pr

Xi Jinping’s invocation of the ‘Thucydides Trap’ revives the long shadow of the Peloponnesian War and asks whether America and China are repeating history’s oldest great-power mistakes. AI generated image During last week’s summit in Beijing with U.S. President Donald Trump, Xi Jinping once again summoned the ghosts of ancient Greece. The Chinese leader warned that Beijing and Washington must avoid falling into the ‘Thucydides Trap,’ the now-famous formulation popularised by

US President’s Donald Trump’s latest lapse of judgment wherein he amplified a post that branded India a “hellhole” might have been dismissed as yet another crude flourish in a career built on provocation. But the timing renders it something darker. Even as he recycled insults about foreign lands, gunfire echoed once again in the heart of his own. Secret Service agents again rushed the President to safety as shots rang out near the Washington Hilton during the correspondents’

Trump’s Hormuz blockade seeks to weaponize a chokepoint that history shows is far easier to disrupt than to control. Across centuries, for rulers and states alike, to command a narrow strait has been to wield power far out of proportion to its geography. From the Hellespont of antiquity to the Danish Sound, chokepoints have tempted them with the promise of effortless leverage. The Strait of Hormuz is the latest test of that enduring illusion. If the latest stream of conflicti

For a man who relishes brinkmanship, US President Donald Trump has increasingly begun to resemble a pyromaniac with a fire extinguisher, lighting crises only to theatrically douse them. His latest performance, announcing a ceasefire to pause the ongoing Iran conflict, bears ample testament to this phenomenon. Within the span of a single day, Trump threatened to annihilate Iranian civilian infrastructure by warning that “a whole civilisation will die” before pivoting, scarcely

Mr. President, History has a quiet way of asking uncomfortable questions. It does not shout. It observes. And then, years later, it decides. What makes a leader endure in its memory? Is it the wars he wages, or the wars he prevents? Is it the force of command, or the wisdom of restraint? When the world stands at the edge of uncertainty, does true strength lie in action, or in the courage to pause? The Gulf today is a fragile crossroads of humanity’s future. The rising smoke f

From the Øresund to the Dardanelles, chokepoints have imposed prolonged conflict and heavy costs on those who seek to command them. Gallipoli landings, 1915. With Washington mired in a strategic cul-de-sac in Iran with no evident off-ramp, there has been frenzied speculation in the past few days of President Donald Trump and the Pentagon mulling weeks-long ground operations, including raids on Kharg Island and Iranian coastal positions abutting the Strait of Hormuz. Kharg, ly

Donald Trump likes to claim he has already “won” the war with Iran. The trouble is that no one, least of all his own administration, seems quite sure what that victory means while his European allies are tuning him out. Barely a month into a conflict that began with joint American and Israeli strikes on February 28, the White House has offered a masterclass in inconsistency. At various points, Trump has said the war would last “four to five weeks,” could go on “far longer” an

From dealmaker to belligerent, America’s President risks repeating the history he once sought to escape. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, a scholar-president wary of foreign entanglements, found himself drawn into a war he had hoped to avoid. A century on, Donald Trump, who rose to power denouncing “endless wars” and promising to end them, appears to be caught in a similar contradiction. The arc of his Middle East policy, at once erratic and revealing, has bent from negotiation to co