US President Donald Trump on Friday (local time) said Washington may soon wind down its military operations against Iran, claiming that key objectives of the campaign are close to being achieved.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump outlined five broad goals of the ongoing offensive, including crippling Iran’s missile systems, dismantling its defence industry, and preventing it from developing nuclear capability.

The remarks come even as fighting continues across the region, with fresh strikes, missile launches, and rising military activity keeping tensions high.

‘We are close’: Trump lists war goals

Trump said US operations had focused on weakening Iran’s military capacity across land, air and sea, while ensuring the security of key allies in West Asia, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar.

“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran: (1) Completely degrading Iranian Missile Capability, Launchers, and everything else pertaining to them. (2) Destroying Iran’s Defense Industrial Base. (3) Eliminating their Navy and Air Force, including Anti Aircraft Weaponry. (4) Never allowing Iran to get even close to Nuclear Capability, and always being in a position where the U.S.A. can quickly and powerfully react to such a situation, should it take place. (5) Protecting, at the highest level, our Middle Eastern Allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and others,” Trump said.

He also suggested that the responsibility for securing the Strait of Hormuz should eventually shift to other nations that depend on the route, though the US could assist if needed.

“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not! If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated. Importantly, it will be an easy Military Operation for them,” he added.

Strikes continue despite talk of winding down

Even as Trump spoke of a possible drawdown, US Central Command released visuals of recent strikes targeting Iranian assets, including a drone production facility in Esfahan linked to Shahed drones.

According to updates from US officials, thousands of targets have been hit as part of “Operation Epic Fury”, including command centres, missile systems and military infrastructure.

Officials also said more than 120 Iranian naval vessels, including submarines, have been damaged or destroyed.

Iran, meanwhile, hit back. According to a Wall Street Journal report citing US officials, two intermediate-range ballistic missiles were fired towards the US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

One of them didn’t make it through and failed mid-air. A US warship tried to intercept the second, but it’s still not clear if that attempt worked.

The attempted strike is notable for its distance, roughly 4,000 km, raising questions about the true range of Iran’s missile capabilities.

No ceasefire yet

Despite signalling progress in the campaign, Trump made it clear that Washington is not looking to pause operations.

“You don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side,” he said while speaking outside the White House.

The conflict, which began with US and Israeli strikes in late February, has since expanded across multiple fronts, with both sides continuing to escalate military actions.

The United Kingdom has agreed to allow the United States to use British military bases for operations aimed at countering threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, according to a statement from Downing Street. The US would be permitted to use UK bases to conduct “operations to degrade the missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.”

The move comes amid escalating tensions in West Asia, with the UK emphasising that its support is limited and does not signal entry into a broader conflict.

The statement added that Britain is working with international partners to develop “a viable plan to safeguard international shipping” through the strategic waterway, a key artery for global oil flows.

However, the government underscored that the UK remains committed to “not getting drawn into the wider conflict.”

Iran’s stern warning to Britain

Iran sharply criticised the decision, warning London against supporting US and Israeli military actions.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi cautioned his British counterpart that any assistance to “aggression” would risk further escalation, according to reports.

In a post on X, Araghchi said the “vast majority of the British people do not want any part” in a war involving the US and Israel against Iran. “Ignoring his own people, Mr. Starmer is putting British lives in danger by allowing UK bases to be used for aggression against Iran. Iran will exercise its right to self-defence,” he said.

The UK government pushed back against Tehran’s warning, urging restraint. During the same exchange, British officials cautioned Iran against targeting “UK bases, territory or interests,” highlighting the risks of further escalation in an already volatile region.

Missile tensions rise after Diego Garcia attack

Tensions escalated further after Iran launched two ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia, a key joint US-UK military base in the Indian Ocean.

Neither missile hit its target—one reportedly failed mid-flight, while the other was intercepted by a US naval system, though it remains unclear whether it was fully destroyed.

The attempted strike has raised concerns among defence analysts, as Diego Garcia lies roughly 4,000 kilometres from Iran, suggesting a potentially greater missile range than previously assessed.

The base is a critical strategic asset, hosting US bombers, nuclear submarines and guided-missile destroyers.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) today executed the 70th wave of its retaliatory Operation True Promise 4, claiming strikes on more than 55 targets linked to the United States and Israel across West Asia. In its statement, the IRGC reiterated its offensive posture, warning that it would continue to escalate strikes in response to any attacks on Iranian territory.

“It is necessary at this stage of the war to once again remind that the IRGC, in its offensive strategy, will target the origin of any aggression against the Islamic Republic’s territory and national sovereignty with strikes beyond previous ones,” the statement said.

The development marks a further escalation in the ongoing regional conflict, with Tehran calling the latest phase a part of a broader strategy of “gradual attrition” against its adversaries.

According to the statement released by the Corps, five US military installations were among the primary targets in the latest wave. These included bases at al-Kharj in Saudi Arabia, al-Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates, Ali al-Salem in Kuwait, Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, and the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

The IRGC said its Aerospace Force also focused on strategic areas in Israel, including the port city of Haifa and the commercial hub of Tel Aviv. Other locations cited in the statement included Hadera, Kiryat Ono, Savion, and Ben Ami.

Iranian officials claimed the strikes resulted in “loud explosions, bursts of fire, and columns of smoke” across targeted zones.

Iran said it deployed a combination of missile systems and attack drones during the operation. These included Qiam and Emad missiles, along with Khorramshahr-4 and multi-warhead Qadr missile systems.

According to the IRGC, the use of these weapons resulted in impacts “beyond the enemy’s estimates,” and contributed to worsening conditions in the territories.

The latest wave underscores the widening scope of the conflict, as multiple countries across the region remain on high alert amid fears of further escalation.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Saturday used the Eid ul-Fitr gathering at Kolkata’s Red Road to launch a sharp attack on the BJP and the Centre, accusing the ruling party of voter suppression, threatening President’s Rule, and funding vote-splitters in the state.

Opening her address with the verse “Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai, dekhna hai zor kitna baazu-e-qaatil mein hai,” Banerjee set the tone early, telling the crowd her government had only one objective: “To remove BJP and protect the nation.”

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls drew her sharpest words. Banerjee said voter names had been illegally deleted and that she had personally taken the matter from the Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court, travelling from Kolkata to Delhi in the process.

“I hope that people’s rights are safeguarded. I stand with everyone in Bengal, with all castes, communities and creeds. I will continue this fight,” she said ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly Elections.

She directly challenged the Centre over what she described as attempts to destabilise her government. “You are trying to forcibly control our government, you want to impose President’s Rule. Still, we won’t be scared,” she said, adding: “Jo darte hain, wo marte hain. Jo ladte hain, wo zindagi mein kamyab hote hain.”

At the launch of the Trinamool Congress manifesto earlier, Banerjee had alleged that forces from across the border were attempting to bring money and arms into Bengal to engineer riots and create conditions for central intervention. “They aim to destabilise Bengal and impose indirect control through President’s Rule,” she said, calling on people to remain united and resist efforts to undermine the state’s peace.

She described the situation as “an undeclared form of central control, almost like a President’s Rule without officially declaring it.”

Banerjee called the BJP “a party of thieves and goons, a party of traitors” and warned those she accused of accepting money from the BJP to divide votes: “Muddai lakh bura chahe to kya hota hai, wahi hota hai jo manzoor-e-khuda hota hai.”

She closed with a couplet from Allama Iqbal: “Khudi ko kar buland itna ki har taqdeer se pehle, Khuda bande se khud pooche, bata teri raza kya hai“.

She wished the gathering: “May Allah bless you. May India and Bengal prosper. Those who target Bengal can go to hell.”

Trinamul Congress will introduce annual health camps across the state if voted to power, Trinamul Congress chairperson Mamata Banerjee said today.

She announced 10 promises titled Banglar Jonno Didir 10 Protigya at a Press conference held at her Kalighat residence this afternoon.

The health camps named, ‘Duare Chikitsa’, will be held annually in every block and town for effective doorstep delivery of health care.

“We keep our promises while others make promises but never carry them out,” she said.

Miss Banerjee said the monthly support of Rs 1,500 under Bangla Yuba Sathi scheme will be given to the unemployed youths. “It is not an unemployment allowance. Those who are getting scholarships can avail the scheme. It is a kind of pocket money and they will get it till they get a job,” she said.

Lakshmider Joy, Swanirbhatara Akshay is a popular scheme called Lakshmir Bhandar. Under the scheme women belonging to the general caste will keep getting Rs 1,500 per month while those belonging to the SC and ST categories will get Rs 1,700 per month.

Trinamul Congress government will provide piped drinking water to every household under the scheme Ghore Ghore Nal, Porisruto Paniyo Jal.

Under the ‘Nischit Basasthan, Chintar Abasan’, Trinamul Congress has pledged to ensure that every family in Bengal has a pucca home.

The state government will go for holistic infrastructural upgrade of all state-run schools under the initiative ‘Shikshai Sampad, Bhabishyat Nirapad’.

Bengal is to become the gateway of all trade for eastern India with world class logistics, ports, trade infrastructure and state of the art global trade centre.

The state government is committed to ensure uninterrupted old age pension support for all existing beneficiaries while gradually extending the safety net of the pension to all eligible senior citizens.

The state government will set up seven new districts and expand the number of urban local bodies through a holistic geographical reorganisation, said the Chief Minister.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Friday cracked down on internal dissent in Nadia district, expelling seven party members accused of vandalising its Kaliganj local office following controversy over the nomination of Sabina Yasmin ~ mother of slain child Tamanna Khatun ~ as a candidate for the upcoming Assembly elections.

In a statement issued by Nadia district secretary Meghlal Sheikh, the party announced the immediate expulsion of Saidul Sheikh, Sentu Sheikh, Zahiruddin Ahmed, Ajay Sarkar, Modasser Mir, M. Rahman and Hanif Mohammad, all of whom were active party members. The disciplinary action came three days after violence erupted at the party office, exposing simmering factional tensions within the local unit.

According to party sources, the accused allegedly entered the CPI-M office soon after the announcement of candidates in the first phase and damaged furniture, smashing chairs and tables during a protest against the selection of Ms Yasmin. The office premises briefly turned into a battleground as party workers and supporters reportedly clashed with one another.

Political observers view the swift disciplinary action as an attempt by the party leadership to send a clear message against indiscipline and rein in dissent ahead of the elections.

The controversy began on Tuesday when Left Front chairman Biman Bose announced candidates for 192 Assembly constituencies in the first phase, with the nomination from Kaliganj drawing particular attention. The selection of Ms Yasmin ~ whose nine-year-old daughter Tamanna Khatun was killed in a bomb attack last year ~ was seen as both symbolic and politically significant.

Tamanna had died on the day of the Kaliganj Assembly bypoll results last year after a bomb allegedly hurled during a victory procession struck near her home. The family was known locally as CPI-M supporters. Ms Yasmin had earlier refused financial compensation offered by the state government, a decision that had drawn public attention.

The nomination, however, triggered discontent among sections of local party workers, some of whom reportedly opposed the choice. Opposition parties, including the Trinamul Congress, accused the CPI-M of politicising the child’s death, an allegation rejected by the Left leadership.

Responding to reports of internal resentment earlier, Ms Yasmin had maintained that she contested at the people’s request and claimed she received overwhelming support from party workers. She suggested that disturbances may have been instigated by rival political forces.

Meanwhile, the CPI-M on Thursday announced candidates for another 32 Assembly seats, indicating that the party is moving ahead with its election preparations despite internal turbulence in certain pockets.

Ending days of speculation, the Indian Secular Front (ISF) on Friday announced that it will contest 29 Assembly seats in West Bengal following a seat-sharing agreement with the Left Front, while also indicating it may field candidates in four additional constituencies where the Left has already declared nominees.

ISF chairman Nausad Siddique said the agreement was reached after multiple rounds of discussions and exchange of letters with Left leaders at Alimuddin Street, the CPI-M headquarters. “We have finally been able to arrive at a consensus with the Left on several seats. To defeat both the BJP and the Trinamul Congress, we have made the maximum possible sacrifices,” he said while announcing the constituencies.

According to ISF leaders, the party will contest in two seats in Malda ~ Mothabari and Sujapur ~ and three in Murshidabad: Samserganj, Raghunathganj and Hariharpara. In Nadia, it will field a candidate in Nakashipara.

In North 24-Parganas, the ISF will contest from Ashoknagar, Amdanga, Madhyamgram, Deganga, Haroa, Minakhan, Basirhat North and Baduria. In South 24-Parganas, the party has chosen Basanti, Kulpi, Mandirbazar, Canning West, Canning East, Magrahat West and Bhangar. The party will also contest Uluberia East and Jagatballavpur in Howrah; Haripal and Khanakul in Hooghly; Mahishadal in East Midnapore; Salboni in West Midnapore; Barabani in West Burdwan; and Bolpur in Birbhum ~ taking the total to 29 seats agreed upon with the Left. ISF working president Samsur Ali Mallick, who read out the list, said candidates would contest under the party’s “envelope” symbol. However, the announcement also triggered fresh uncertainty over four constituencies — Panskura West, Nandigram, Bhagabangola and Murarai ~ where the Left Front has already declared candidates.

The ISF made it clear that it intends to field nominees in these seats as well and has urged the Left to reconsider. “We have informed the Left leadership through letters and emails that we are keen to contest these four seats. We request them not to field candidates there,” Mr Siddique said. The development is particularly significant in Nandigram, where a multi-cornered contest is shaping up. Incumbent MLA Suvendu Adhikari is set to contest on a BJP ticket, while the All India Trinamul Congress has fielded Pabitra Kar.

The Left Front has already nominated CPI candidate Shanti Giri from the seat. Sources indicated that Mr Siddique himself is likely to contest from Bhangar, setting up a direct contest with Trinamul leader Saokat Molla. On the timing of the candidate list, Mr Siddique said the formal announcement would be made after Eid. “People are in a festive mood now. We will release the full list immediately after Eid celebrations,” he added.

Antonio Moyano’s brilliant brace in the second half proved decisive as Diamond Harbour FC registered a commanding 2-0 victory over Aizawl FC in Match 19 of the Indian Football League (IFL) 2025-26 at the Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Aizawl on Friday.

Diamond Harbour climbed to the top of the table after their third straight win of the season, with nine points, while Aizawl FC dropped to seventh with five points. Antonio Moyano was adjudged the Player of the Match.

Both teams set up in 4-3-3 formations. Aizawl FC head coach R. Lalruatfela made two alterations to his starting eleven, bringing in Laldanmawia and Eric Remruatpuia Chhangte in place of Laldawngzuala and Vanlalawmpuia. Diamond Harbour gaffer Kibu Vicuña also made two changes, handing starts to Sunday Kolawole Afolabi and R Ramdinthara at the expense of Jobby Justin and Hugo Díaz Rodríguez.

Diamond Harbour were dominant from the first whistle, constantly attacking and keeping hold of the ball with a 74% possession. Aizawl were happy to play the waiting game and slowly found their groove after 20-odd minutes.

The momentum shift created a couple of half-chances for the hosts as they improved their possession towards the end of the first half. Though Diamond Harbour were the much better side in the first half, Aizawl defended resolutely, preventing any clear-cut opportunities and keeping the visitors’ major threat, Luka Majcen, relatively quiet for most of the period.

The deadlock was finally broken shortly after the restart in the 47th minute. Capitalising on a poor clearance from Aizawl defender Rohmingthanga, Moyano picked up the loose ball and produced a precise finish. The Spanish midfielder calmly slotted the ball past goalkeeper Vanlalhriatpuia to give his side the lead.

The match picked up intensity as Aizawl began attacking in search of an equaliser, but they still lacked the cutting edge to create clear openings.

However, it was the visitors who doubled their advantage in the 77th minute. Bryce Miranda ran past two defenders to create an almost perfect chance, setting up Moyano with an empty net. Moyano made no mistake, clinically securing his second goal of the night.

After the second goal, Diamond Harbour completely controlled the proceedings. A hefty 11 minutes of added time were announced after play had to be halted briefly due to mist and bad light.

Aizawl did win a couple of late corners, but they failed to cause any threat to the Diamond Harbour defence. The visitors maintained complete dominance from the first whistle to the last, securing a crucial away victory.

The Trinamool Congress on Friday released its first list of 17 candidates for the April 9 assembly polls in Assam. The list was released under the “guidance and inspiration” of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Earlier, the party submitted 18 star campaigners to the Election Commission, with Mamata herself at the top, followed by Abhishek Banerjee, Sushmita Dev, Mahua Moitra, and Shatrughan Sinha.

The party has fielded Udangsri Narzary from Baokhungri in Kokrajhar and Mominur Islam from Bilasipara in Dhubri. Arif Akhtar Ahmed will contest from Jaleswar in Goalpara, and Kaushik Ranjan Das from Abhayapuri in Bongaigaon.

Kalyani Kalita will contest from Bajali, Dulu Ahmed – Chamaria, Bhogial Rabha – Boko-Chaygaon seat, Bikash Nath Yogi – Palasbari, and Amirul Islam – Barkhetri.

The Congress has named 94 candidates across the 126-seat assembly and is still firming up alliances with Raijor Dal and other regional outfits.

On the other side, the BJP is contesting 89 seats, with coalition partners Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and Bodoland People’s Front (BPF) taking 26 and 11 seats respectively.

Assam votes in a single phase on April 9, with results on May 4.

India made an impressive showing in the men’s and women’s quarterfinals of the Indian Open squash championships on Friday, with multiple Indian players delivering dominant performances to secure semifinal berths.

India enjoyed an impressive outing in the men’s quarterfinals as second seed Abhay Singh and fourth seed Veer Chotrani produced dominant performances to storm into the semifinals. In the last four stage, Singh will take on Malaysia’s Ameeshenraj Chandaran, while Chotrani is set to face another Malaysian challenger, Sanjay Jeeva.

Jeeva secured his semifinal berth with a commanding 3-0 (11-8, 11-7, 11-8) victory over Egypt’s Ibrahim El Kabbani in the quarterfinals. Chandaran, meanwhile, advanced after defeating compatriot Duncan Lee in an all-Malaysian contest. Singh was in excellent touch as he brushed aside Egypt’s Yassin Shohdy 3-1 (11-8, 7-11, 11-5, 11-7). The Indian made a confident start, taking the initiative early and holding off Shohdy’s challenge to clinch the opening game 11-8.

Shohdy, however, responded strongly in the second game, stepping up the intensity to claim it 11-7 and draw level in the match. The setback proved only temporary for Singh, who quickly regained control with his aggressive play and sharp court coverage. He dominated the next two games, winning them 11-5 and 11-7 to seal a deserved place in the semifinals.

Earlier, Chotrani produced a composed performance to defeat Egypt’s Mohamed Sharaf 3-0 (11-9, 11-8, 11-2). Despite the straight-games victory, Sharaf put up a spirited fight, especially in the opening two games, where both players matched each other shot for shot. The Egyptians led for much of the first game before Chotrani fought back to level the score at 8-8 and eventually edge ahead to secure the game.

Chotrani carried that momentum into the second game, taking a narrow lead at 4-3 and maintaining the advantage to move 2-0 ahead. Sharaf appeared to run out of steam in the third game as the Indian dominated proceedings to close out the match comfortably and book his place in the last four.

Anahat, Tanvi advance

Top seed Anahat Singh and unseeded compatriot Tanvi Khanna ensured a strong Indian presence in the women’s singles semifinals after winning their respective quarterfinal matches. However, local favourite Joshna Chinappa bowed out of the competition following a 1–3 defeat to Egypt’s Nadien El Hammamy, which proved to be the only setback for Indian fans during the day.

In another quarterfinal clash, second seed Hana Moataz fought hard to edge past eighth seed Yasshmita Jadishkumar of Malaysia in a five-game thriller, winning 3–2 (11-8, 8-11, 7-11, 11-7, 11-8).

Saturday’s semifinals will feature an all-Indian showdown between Anahat and Tanvi, while Moataz will square off against El Hammamy for a place in the final.

Anahat underlined her status as one of the top contenders for the title with a dominant 3–0 (11-2, 11-6, 11-4) victory over Malaysia’s Sehveetrraa Kumar. The top seed raced through the opening game with ease, taking it 11-2 without breaking much sweat. Kumar offered a stronger challenge in the second game, but Anahat’s blend of power and clever deception helped her maintain control and clinch it 11-6.

The third game followed a similar pattern, with Anahat dictating the pace and cruising to an emphatic 11-4 win to seal a comfortable passage into the last four.

Meanwhile, Tanvi produced one of the standout performances of the day by upsetting fourth seed Ainaa Amani 3–1. The Indian started strongly, taking the opening game 11-6 before Amani levelled the match by winning the second 11-7. Tanvi, however, held her nerve in the remaining games, winning 11-5 and 11-8 to book her semifinal berth.

Earlier, Joshna began confidently against El Hammamy but gradually found it difficult to counter the Egyptian’s deceptive movement and sharp cross-court shots. After a closely contested start and a strong comeback in the second game, Joshna lost momentum as El Hammamy raised her intensity to clinch the final two games. Earlier, Joshna began confidently against El Hammamy but gradually found it difficult to counter the Egyptian’s deceptive movement and sharp cross-court shots. After a closely contested start and a strong comeback in the second game, Joshna lost momentum as El Hammamy raised her intensity to clinch the final two games and seal the match.

Cinema has long been drawn to relationships shaped by imbalance—of age, authority, or emotional control. Few works have examined this terrain as provocatively as Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel, whose unsettling force lies as much in its subject as in its psychologically distorted narration. The Netflix series Vladimir, adapted from Julia May Jonas’s 2022 novel, traces a similar thematic arc while shifting perspective.

It follows an older English professor (Rachel Weisz) and her younger colleague, Vladimir (Leo Woodall), as they enter a fraught emotional entanglement. Weisz delivers a finely controlled performance, capturing a descent into moral ambiguity and unease. Retaining the novel’s dark, ironic tone, the eight-part series unfolds as a black comedy navigating morally grey spaces. The professor’s marriage to John (John Slattery) rests on an unconventional understanding that allows personal liberties without scrutiny.

This fragile balance collapses when John faces consequences for inappropriate relationships with students, exposing deeper fractures. Focusing less on physicality than on emotional dependency and influence, the narrative probes shifting power equations. Yet despite its ambition, Vladimir often feels uneven and subdued, falling short of the novel’s psychological sharpness—highlighting the difficulty of translating literary depth to screen.

At one heart stopping point in the craggy narrative, a shop’s shutter is hurled down on the necks of prostrate victims. Never seen such slaying, slaughter and butchery…all for a cause, of course. Full marks for inventive carnage. No sacrifice, and by extension, no mayhem is too much to save your country from extraneous threats. “Us mulk ki Sarhad ko koi choo nahin sakta,” Mohammed Rafi sang in Aankhen decades ago. Those films about preserving the sanctity of the Indian border seem like child’s prayers compared to Dhurandhar and its companion piece, which opened to a roaring ovation.

Can writer-director Aditya Dhar fail with his patriotic pitch? Pitch perfect, of course. The mood is more murderous and unforgiving than in the earlier film. The surprise element is largely missing, except for two forced twists at the interval and climax—audience-baiting that harks back to old-school mass entertainment. This is more of the same sock-in-the-solar-plexus mayhem, multiplied many times over, yet not entirely gratuitous—more like a dirty job that someone has to do. Many unforeseen methods of torture and murder surface in this four-hour flood of blood and gore, which is never a bore. This is no place for the squeamish. Severed heads and limbs abound.

By the time we reach the one-to-one combat between Hamza (Ranveer Singh) and Major Iqbal (Arjun Rampal), the mood is relentlessly angry. A tongue is painfully squeezed by a son who thinks his father talks too much; enemies are impaled in a milk factory while the perpetrator sips a milkshake; in a loo fight, a knife is driven into an adversary’s eye—a reminder of how much must be sacrificed to settle scores with the enemy. So much of the playing time goes into choreographed violence that the storytelling often feels like a pretext. Did Dhar first conceive ways to make the enemy moan before building a patriotic plot around it? As a compilation of action choreography, Dhurandhar: The Revenge works well. It is a very angry film with little comic or erotic relief. No item song like the first one—I missed that, and Dhar’s softer aesthetic touches.

Amidst the amplified action, women are barely given a voice. Sara Arjun, assertive earlier, is now almost absent. Yami Gautam’s cameo barely registers. More than Ranveer Singh’s vendetta, it is the violence that dominates this cataclysmic film. The rusty-brown skin tone of the frames enhances the zeal to get even with the terror academy. There is no restraint in the way enemies are neutralized. Dawood Ibrahim is reduced to a helpless figure, while others seem directionless once their guns fall silent. Shashwat Sachdev’s music is eclectic. Why include Bappi Lahiri’s “Tamma Tamma” and Boney M’s “Rasputin” when neither complements the narrative? They feel like reminders of spectacle rather than reflections of mood. Dhurandhar: The Revenge is not better than the first segment, nor does it try to be. The world remains dangerous, especially for those protecting us. We participate by proxy, indulging in the guilty pleasure of watching enemies being neutralized—for which we remain grateful to Aditya Dhar.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday (local time) that Iran’s military was “finished”, rejected any ceasefire, and told Europe, Japan, South Korea, and China to take charge of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open – framing a war the United States and Israel started as a problem the rest of the world now needs to help solve.

The remarks, made to reporters on the South Lawn and in a formal statement, came as the Iran conflict entered a potentially decisive phase.

Tehran has retaliated by firing two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia – the joint US-UK base deep in the Indian Ocean – while Iran’s Foreign Minister issued a direct warning to Britain that it would face consequences for allowing its bases to be used against Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world’s oil passes, has emerged as the conflict’s central geopolitical pressure point, drawing in countries that have so far tried to stay on the sidelines.

Trump, however, added: “I think we’ve won… We’ve knocked out everything, we’re roaming free. From a military standpoint… they’re finished.”

He claimed that the operation was running “weeks ahead of schedule.”

Hormuz: Trump tells allies to step up or stay quiet

On the Strait of Hormuz, Trump argued that the United States no longer depends on the route and therefore has limited interest in bearing the full cost of keeping it open.

“We don’t use the Strait, the United States, we don’t need it… Europe needs it, Korea, Japan, China, a lot of other people, so they’ll have to get involved,” he said.

He described reopening the waterway as “a simple military maneuver” but acknowledged the scale involved – ships, coordination, volume.

His sharpest words were reserved for NATO, which he said had “so far not had the courage” to act.

He also said he was “very surprised” at the reluctance of South Korea and Australia to get involved, adding pointedly: “They should get involved.”

Despite the pressure on allies to take on more, Trump made clear the US was not stepping back from the fight itself.

On ceasefire calls, which have grown louder from several countries, he was dismissive. “You don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side… We’re not looking to do that,” he said.

“We’re not giving a nuclear weapon to terrorist thugs, and we’re knocking the hell out of them,” he said.

Iran fires at Diego Garcia, warns Britain

While Trump projected confidence in Washington, Tehran showed it still had the capacity as well as the intent to strike back. Iran fired two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, the strategically critical joint US-UK base in the Indian Ocean that hosts American bombers, nuclear submarines, and guided-missile destroyers. One missile reportedly malfunctioned mid-flight; the other was engaged by a US naval interceptor, though it is not yet confirmed whether it was fully destroyed.

The attempted strike drew immediate attention because Diego Garcia sits roughly 4,000 kilometres from Iranian territory, suggesting Iran’s ballistic missile range may be greater than previously assessed by Western intelligence.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi also escalated the diplomatic confrontation with Britain on Saturday. In a post on X, he wrote that Prime Minister Keir Starmer was “putting British lives in danger by allowing UK bases to be used for aggression against Iran,” and stated that Tehran would “exercise its right to self-defence.” Araghchi conveyed the same warning in a phone call with UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Cooper, in turn, cautioned Iran against targeting “UK bases, territory or interests”, underlining that London would not remain passive if its assets came under attack.

Starmer has maintained that Britain does not seek a wider military role in the conflict, saying this week that the UK would not be drawn into a broader war.

He acknowledged the decisions involved were “difficult,” particularly given American pressure, but said Britain continued to pursue a diplomatic resolution while evaluating options including potential naval deployments to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Israeli strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field on 18 March 2026, represents one of the most consequential escalations in the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, as the first direct strike on critical energy infrastructure, and will have global economic significance. The South Pars field, which Iran shares with Qatar’s North Dome field, is the largest natural gas reservoir in the world and forms the backbone of Iran’s domestic energy system. It also underpins a substantial share of global Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) supply through Qatari exports.

Any disruption to this field therefore carries implications far beyond Iran itself. Reports indicate that the Israeli strike hit facilities in the Asaluyeh energy complex on Iran’s southern coast, including gas processing units, pipelines, and associated petrochemical infrastructure linked to South Pars production, resulting in temporary suspension of operations in parts of the field. Estimates suggest that roughly twelve per cent of Iran’s gas output was affected, a level of damage sufficient to disrupt domestic supply chains and force Tehran to halt gas exports to Iraq. The immediate market reaction reflected the strategic importance of the target, with oil prices rising sharply amid fears of wider disruption to Gulf energy flows.

By targeting energy infrastructure rather than purely military facilities, Israel signalled a willingness to impose costs on the Iranian state and population, and to expand the scope of the conflict into the economic domain. Crucially, the attack comes precisely when the United States appears to be looking, with increasing desperation, for a face-saving way out of this ill-conceived imbroglio, and traps Washington with a fait accompli, into an escalation cycle that President Donald Trump seemed increasingly eager to avoid. Following at the heels of the assassinations of Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and former Chairman of Iran’s Parliament, and Gholamreza Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Basij militia, among others, the attack on the South Pars gas field shuts down any easy pathways to de-escalation that the US appeared to have been exploring.

It also demonstrates the degree to which it is Israel, rather than the feckless Trump administration, that is shaping the trajectory, strategic goals and architecture of the present conflict. Iran’s response further widens the conflict. Tehran had long warned that any attack on its energy sector would be answered by strikes on energy infrastructure across the Gulf, including in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Subsequent Iranian missile and drone attacks targeted facilities linked to Gulf oil and gas production, including the Ras Laffan LNG complex in Qatar, the world’s largest LNG export terminal. Even limited damage to such installations is enough to alarm markets and governments.

Iranian threats to continue targeting regional energy assets raises the possibility that the conflict could move beyond a bilateral Israel-Iran confrontation and become a wider Gulf crisis. The economic impact of the escalation has been immediate. Oil and gas prices have already risen sharply on fears that further strikes could disrupt production or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important energy chokepoint. The suspension of Iranian gas exports to Iraq has created power shortages there, illustrating how quickly the effects of the attack spread beyond the immediate battlefield.

Concerns are also growing that damage to facilities connected to the South Pars-North Dome reservoir could affect Qatar’s LNG output, which would have serious consequences for energy-importing countries in Asia and Europe. Strategically, Israel’s willingness to strike economic infrastructure indicates that it is prepared to accept higher escalation risks in order to impose pressure on Iran, while Iran’s retaliation against Gulf energy facilities shows that it will not hesitate to regionalise the conflict. If attacks begin to threaten shipping lanes and major export terminals the US and Gulf Arab states are likely to be pushed towards a mounting and protracted conflict that could undermine global economic stability.

The strike reflects a broader breakdown of deterrence, with both sides now targeting assets whose destruction destabilises global markets and increases risks of wider military intervention. In physical terms, the damage to South Pars is not catastrophic, and production losses may be partly recoverable. In strategic terms, however, the impact is immense. By bringing the world’s most important energy infrastructure under direct attack, the episode sharply increases the risk of a wider regional war and a global energy shock. The South Pars strike may prove to be one of the most dangerous turning points in the current conflict, not because of the scale of destruction inflicted, but because of the precedent it has set.

(The writer is Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, and Publisher & Editor, Second Sight.)

India is about to test a radical idea: can a country known as the world’s pharmacy also become its slimming clinic? The imminent arrival of low-cost versions of semaglutide ~ marketed globally as Wegovy and Ozempic by Novo Nordisk ~ could turn a once-exclusive therapy into a mass-consumption drug. In India, where price determines access more than innovation, this shift is tectonic. Consider the scale. India already carries one of the world’s heaviest burdens of metabolic disease, with tens of millions living with type-2 diabetes and many more on the edge of it.

Until now, effective weight-loss drugs existed, but largely as aspirational medicine ~ prescribed sparingly, often abandoned early due to cost. That barrier is about to fall. Indian pharmaceutical giants are preparing to flood the market with competing versions. If pricing behaves as it typically does in India’s generics ecosystem, monthly treatment cost could drop to a fraction of current levels. That would place a powerful metabolic drug within reach of the middle class. The consequences will not be confined to India. When Indian manufacturers scale production, global pricing shifts.

This is not conjecture; it is precedent. The transformation of HIV treatment in the early 2000s ~ driven by Indian generics and endorsed by institutions like the World Health Organisation ~ turned life-saving drugs from Western monopolies into global public goods. A similar dynamic could now emerge in obesity treatment, especially across Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. But there is a difference. HIV drugs treated a fatal disease. Semaglutide treats a condition that straddles medicine and lifestyle. That ambiguity will define India’s challenge. Already, the contours of misuse are visible. In cities like Mumbai and Delhi, weight-loss injections are drifting beyond endocrinology clinics into gyms, beauty centres, and online consultations. The risk is not merely medical ~ though side effects from improper dosing are real ~ but cultural.

A drug designed for disease management is being reimagined as a shortcut to aesthetic transformation. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation will therefore face a dual burden: ensuring manufacturing quality in a crowded generics market, and enforcing prescription discipline in an environment prone to commercial excess. Neither task is trivial in a healthcare system that remains unevenly regulated. There is also a deeper economic tension. If India succeeds, it could unlock a multibillion-dollar export market and reinforce its position as the backbone of global generics.

If it fails ~ through substandard production or misuse ~ it risks discrediting an entire therapeutic class. The promise of semaglutide is undeniable. It offers, for the first time, a pharmacological lever against a condition long resistant to intervention. But its power lies not in rapid weight loss, as social media would have it, but in sustained metabolic control. India’s real test, then, is not whether it can make these drugs cheap. It is whether it can make their use disciplined. In that distinction lies the difference between a public health breakthrough and a pharmaceutical free-for-all.

The killing of Ali Larijani is not just another episode in a widening shadow war; it signals a more consequential shift in how power may now be exercised within the Islamic Republic of Iran. At a moment when Iran is simultaneously confronting external military pressure, internal unrest, and an uncertain leadership transition after the death of Ali Khamenei, the removal of a figure like Larijani alters the balance between deliberation and impulse at the very top of the state.

For years, Iran’s governing system functioned less as a rigid hierarchy and more as a negotiated order among clerics, security institutions, and political technocrats. Bodies such as the Supreme National Security Council served as arenas where competing instincts ~ ideological rigidity, strategic caution, and institutional self-preservation ~ were forced into alignment. Larijani occupied that middle ground. He was trusted by hardliners but understood the cost of miscalculation in a region already prone to escalation. His absence weakens that mediating layer. What remains is a system increasingly tilted toward the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its operational logic. Military institutions are designed for speed and clarity, not for ambiguity or restraint.

In a conventional conflict, that can be an advantage. In a multi-front confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and volatile maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, it becomes a liability. There is also a domestic dimension that cannot be ignored. Iran has, in recent years, faced recurring waves of protest driven by economic strain and political dissatisfaction. These have been contained, but not resolved. Figures like President Masoud Pezeshkian now preside over a landscape where authority may be formally civilian but substantively securitised.

Without intermediaries capable of translating dissent into policy adjustment, the state’s default response risks becoming more coercive, not less. The strategic implications extend beyond Iran’s borders. For Washington and Jerusalem, the apparent success of targeted strikes may reinforce a belief that leadership attrition can degrade Iranian capacity. Yet history offers a caution: systems under sustained pressure often become less predictable rather than more pliable. The removal of experienced actors narrows the range of internal debate, increasing the likelihood that future decisions will be shaped by narrower, more hardline calculations. China’s quiet engagement with Tehran, including long-term cooperation frameworks, also hangs in the balance. Beijing’s interest has always rested on stability ~ secure energy flows and a predictable partner.

A leadership structure hollowed out by repeated losses complicates both. What emerges, then, is not the collapse of the Iranian state but its transformation under stress. A more centralised, security-driven order may prove resilient in the short term. But resilience is not the same as stability. When decision-making becomes faster but thinner, the margin for error shrinks. Larijani’s death underscores that the real risk is no longer just escalation between states, but miscalculation within one. It also signals that some of these targeted killings are being planned to ensure that resolution of the conflict becomes even more complex than it already is.

Other than a rousing, raunchy performance by Sean Penn as a power-revved pervert, Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another left me battle-fatigued, underwhelmed. It is a good film, clogged with an irresistible visual and verbal you-chew-my-line-I-chew-yours vitality. But beyond that, the pulverised plot falls short of the greatness that is being attributed to the film.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Pat Calhoun, a member of a defunct revolutionary group named French 75(?!) who wants to lead a quiet, peaceful life with his 17-year-old daughter Willa (Chase Infiniti). But the Establishment wouldn’t let him. That’s it. This is the plot. For all we care, Pat (with his multitudinous aliases, many borrowed from musical bands of the 1970s) could have been a bank robber trying to leave his violent past behind and rehabilitate with his daughter—in brief, a Schwarzenegger film with political overtones. The “revolutionary” thrusts in the plot are eyewash-level anti-Trumpisms, hurling abusive statements against American anti-migration laws.

In Paul Thomas Anderson’s vainglorious vision, there is room for all colours and cultures, though the focus of the writer-director’s satirical romp is Mexico. There is a lengthy look at an undercover Mexican shelter run by a sufi-like martial arts teacher Sergio, played by the brilliant Benicio del Toro. The coverage of this episode, where acute danger is alchemized into cute game-playing, didn’t work for me. We can’t whittle down racist hunting to a joke and expect humour to wash away the toxicity. There is an ongoing joke about DiCaprio forgetting the password on the phone that accesses his special privileges as a former revolutionary.

Watching the tiring gag, I was reminded of the Malayalam film Eko, where a character describes how his Maoist parents were blown into smithereens. Death, particularly of the outlaw, is not funny. For this film and its terrific cast, it is. Amen to that. What caught my attention in One Battle After Another was how the action tumbles out in a ferocious fusion of farce and fear, with the funny lines finally overcoming the danger. It’s like watching a reality show where you know no one is going to be harmed—or at least hopefully not. Then there is Sean Penn, so twisted, so perverse, and yet not too sinister as an American army officer who is hoodwinked by a Black revolutionary woman and must have his revenge. The problem is, they wouldn’t let him. Not in a film as wildly subversive as this.