Israel has shattered the old playbook of Middle Eastern warfare. What began with the decimation of Iran's proxies has culminated in a direct assault on Iran itself. The global alignments now laid bare, and the irreversible shift in regional power dynamics.
In a world where GPS can be blinded and signals spoofed, surviving future wars hinge on mastering the quantum battlefield.
As global debt spirals and central banks lose control, the old rules of finance are quietly collapsing. Treasuries no longer offer safety. America and Japan’s bond markets are flashing red. Supply Chains disrupted and Wars on the horizon.
Trump's America is isolating allies, backing enemies, and burning global trust. From India to the EU to South Africa — nations are walking away and charting their own paths forward.
The world was very uncertain last year. Over the last few years with COVID and the Ukraine war, the world has truly become different to understand easily. We thought things would improve post the US elections in January, but they have gotten worse.
Now, we are in a free-for-all situation. Intriguingly, the adversaries of every nation are not just willing to jump into the ring but keep giving every relationship the facade of altruism.
Given all the stories and the situation on the ground, we try to bring every event and agenda together to create and understand the truth of today.
SUPPORT DRISHTIKONE
In an increasingly complex and shifting world, thoughtful analysis is rare and essential. At Drishtikone, we dedicate hundreds of dollars and hours each month to producing deep, independent insights on geopolitics, culture, and global trends. Our work is rigorous, fearless, and free from advertising and external influence, sustained solely by the support of readers like you. For over two decades, Drishtikone has remained a one-person labor of commitment: no staff, no corporate funding — just a deep belief in the importance of perspective, truth, and analysis. If our work helps you better understand the forces shaping our world, we invite you to support it with your contribution by subscribing to the paid version or a one-time gift. Your support directly fuels independent thinking. To contribute, choose the USD equivalent amount you are comfortable with in your own currency. You can head to the Contribute page and use Stripe or PayPal to make a contribution.
Today, using a summary of our analysis, we have used AI tools to create a podcast that you can listen to at your leisure. Please download it and listen and share your comments below.
Recently, violent pro-Palestinian protests erupted in Basel, Switzerland. It all happened during the Eurovision Song Contest. A nation known for its neutrality and tight public order saw this extremely significant breach.
Switzerland, often seen as a symbol of calm amidst Europe’s chaos, has had rare moments of unrest, notably during anti-globalization and anti-WEF demonstrations. However, this recent Islamist-driven protest signifies a deeper shift.
And, this has been brewing for some time now. In January 2025, the protests "were peaceful". Now they have become violent.
But this last week, the sentiment and the actions were very clearly differently - unmistakable violent.
The growing divide between Islamist movements and nationalist responses is threatening civil cohesion. What happened in Basel is not an isolated event but a harbinger. As once-stable cities erupt in unexpected violence, governments across Europe will respond with harsher surveillance measures, stricter protest laws, and expanded police powers.
The very freedoms that defined Europe—open expression, peaceful dissent, individual privacy—are at risk.
Civil liberties will become collateral damage in the fight to preserve order. As political Islam asserts itself more aggressively within European democracies, nationalist backlash and state control will only intensify.
The clash of ideologies is reshaping Europe—not at the ballot box, but in the streets.
Recently, President Trump explicitly forbade Apple CEO Tim Cook from manufacturing his iPhones in India.
He added a direct threat:
"If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S."
Apple however decided to continue with its planned expansion into India anyway.
After this he doubled down on his threat and displeasure with Apple manufacturing in India.
Trump is threatening massive tariffs on companies like Walmart, Amazon, Apple if they continue to manufacture outside the U.S. (India, Vietnam, Mexico included).
America’s highest-profile retail chains are walking a difficult tightrope — trying to blunt the financial hit from tariffs by raising prices for consumers without angering them or President Donald Trump. Walmart, Target and Home Depot are recent examples of how companies are struggling to navigate raising prices because of Trump’s tariffs. Companies say the trade levies will increase their costs. But Corporate America has to learn to speak a new language — one that informs shareholders and customers about the effects from tariffs while avoiding reaction from Trump on social media or a threat from him or his administration to punish or investigate a company. The three big-box chains will all take a hit from the global trade war. Around 40% of Walmart’s merchandise is imported, while roughly half of Target’s and Home Depot’s products come from overseas. The chains are all likely to change suppliers, absorb higher costs, raise prices or cut products to handle tariffs. But the similarity ends there: Despite using a similar toolbox to minimize the impact, each company has communicated about the impact of tariffs in different ways in recent quarterly earnings calls. (Source: "Walmart got an angry message from Trump on tariffs. Then Home Depot and Target downplayed them" / CNN)
Amongst these, Walmart, was the first to report earnings The company warned that higher tariffs would raise consumer prices.
Trump swiftly responded, insisting Walmart should "eat" the cost instead. The confrontation clearly highlights the rising corporate unease.
Given this backdrop, Home Depot and Target, reporting shortly after, took a more cautious tone. They avoided direct criticism while subtly acknowledging the pressure of tariff-related price hikes during their earnings calls.
Trump also threatened Mattel’s CEO, warning against raising toy prices from tariffs by threatening a 100% tariff on the toymaker if he did so.
In recent days, tensions over trade and corporate pushback have been escalating.
This is not a mere trade dispute; it is a declaration of war on the very idea of global supply chains.
One thing is exceptionally disconcerting about Trump's pronouncements—he is bullying American businesses into doing what he wants per his administration's policies. The businesses have very little decision-making power left now.
And if they can bully businesses like Apple, Walmart, Amazon and Target, imagine how much of leverage small businesses have in new America?
Given these actions, we may want to ask ourselves about the future ramifications. These seem obvious.
But actions against the corporates and bullying them to a certain direction isn't the only thing Trump is doing. In fact, he has started pushing his agenda on the colleges as well. Starting with Harvard.
So, Donald Trump is now pushing to restrict international students at top American universities.
He gave a direct warning to Harvard. His warnings seem to be driven by a mix of nationalist sentiment, perceived economic grievances, and concerns about national security.
One key reason Trump cites in his opposition to the international students is that international students, particularly from countries "not at all friendly to the United States," allegedly "pay NOTHING toward their student's education." He also expresses a desire to "know who those foreign students are," especially given the federal funding universities receive. This suggests a belief that American taxpayers are subsidizing foreign students, coupled with a demand for greater transparency and control over who enters the country's academic institutions.
I'm not sure where Trump is coming from, but the international students actually help the US through their fees. And of course, they do not get any subsidies from the in-state kids.
In fact, they bring in additional $44 billion to he US.
Association of International Educators released new data last week showing that international students at colleges and universities in the United States “contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023-2024 academic year and supported more than 378,000 jobs.” According to NAFSA’s analysis, international students’ economic contributions to the United States were at “the highest amount ever calculated.” Further, the data showed that “for every three international students, one U.S. job is created/supported.” States with the largest economic activity derived from international students were California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, and Illinois. (Source: Association of American Universities)
Beyond financial concerns, Trump's rhetoric is linking foreign individuals to "troublemakers" and potential national security risks. The reported accusations against Harvard of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party" highlight a potential underlying fear of foreign influence or espionage within academic settings. The fact is that the protests that may have sparked Trump's anger were started indigenously, with international students joining in.
Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students in the 2024-25 school year—accounting for 27.2 percent of total enrollment, according to data posted on the university's website. When including scholars, the international population at Harvard is more than 10,000. The Harvard International Office lists the150 countries that international students and scholars hail from, the most coming from China, India and Canada. The administration's action came after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on April 16 demanded that Harvard provide information on what she called the "illegal and violent" activities of the university's foreign student visa holders, warning the university would lose its ability to enroll international students if the information was not provided. (Source: Donald Trump Demands Harvard Students' Names / Newsweek)
The Trump administration's multi-front political and regulatory crackdown could radically transform American higher education and damage the U.S. economy, innovation ecosystem, and global influence in the process.
As we think through it, now the foreign students will begin withdrawing or transferring to countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia. Given the potency of the policies, the applications to U.S. universities may drop by 15–25% within months.
Cities such as Boston, San Francisco, New York, and Austin, which are heavily reliant on student spending, housing demand, and part-time skilled labor, will start facing significant economic strain.
A sharp decline in international and domestic college enrollment will disrupt local economies, especially in housing, food services, and retail.
There will be a series of job losses in academia, local service industries, and technology innovation hubs that draw talent from nearby universities.
The shrinking student population threatens not only immediate revenues but also the long-term vitality of these cities’ intellectual and economic ecosystems, weakening their competitive edge in research, development, and the startup economy.
Graduate STEM and research programs in the U.S. will face a severe decline as international student numbers drop.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately half of the one million international students in this country are enrolled in STEM programs. And even though they make up only 5% of the total student population, international students earned nearly half of all master’s and doctoral STEM degrees awarded in 2019, a total of 117,000 degrees. (Source: NAFSA)
These students fuel innovation, driving patents, startups, and scientific breakthroughs.
With their absence, America's research edge will erode.
Meanwhile, China, India, and the UAE are stepping in and establishing Ivy League–caliber institutions that promise academic excellence, political stability, and STEM leadership.
These emerging hubs will attract top global talent, shifting the epicenter of innovation away from the U.S. As America retreats, others are rising to dominate the next technological and scientific progress era.
Also, this comes at a time when the U.S. is facing a dual crisis in higher education:
What will this do?
The idea of America and Elite Academia takes on an antagonistic tone. Suddenly, elite colleges become un-American.
That in itself is a losing proposition for the United States.
We will now go to a significant speech made by JD Vance.
JD Vance’s commencement speech at the U.S. Naval Academy marks a paradigm shift in American geopolitical strategy—away from the liberal internationalist, soft power-driven framework that dominated post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy, toward what can only be described as muscular, hard-edged realism, verging on neo-imperial pragmatism.
We may have thought that Trump's "Make America Great Again" policy and his administration's actions would isolate the US and cause it to 'disengage' from the world.
That may not be true at all.
In fact, if you listen to the speech carefully, you will realize that he is not talking of pulling the US back from the world, rather, he is redefining how America shows up on the global stage.
Trump's America is no longer the "City on a Hill" offering inspiration to other nations. But it is being fashioned into a fortress arsenal, looking for respect out of overwhelming power.
The gloves are off. The mask of idealism is being discarded.
Welcome to America First 2.0 — a world where you either deliver strategic value to the U.S., or prepare to face its wrath, delivered with a precision drone swarm.
Although JD Vance does not explicitly use the phrase "City on a Hill" in this Naval Academy commencement speech above, he however, implicitly rejects the idea behind the words implying that America holds a unique moral leadership role in the world and serves as an example to others.
If you look at it carefully, JD Vance and Donald Trump are effectively reviving a 21st-century version of the Monroe Doctrine, but with a modernized, more muscular twist that combines geopolitical deterrence with economic enforcement and military assertiveness.
While they don’t use the term explicitly, the doctrine’s spirit — of hemispheric dominance, strategic autonomy, and opposition to foreign interference — is unmistakably present in their emerging foreign policy.
The idea of looking at the American continent as the US sphere of influence is very clear. Vance’s speech and Trump’s actions (e.g., restricting supply chains, immigration, tariffs, regional military shows of force) reflect a return to “hemisphere thinking.”
China’s ventures in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even Canada are increasingly seen as provocations, and the U.S. is preparing to respond. The message from the Trump administration is very clear: This is our neighborhood. Back off.
Just as Monroe wanted to avoid European wars, Vance/Trump administration wants to withdraw from endless Middle Eastern and European conflicts that don’t serve core U.S. interests to concentrate power and capital at home.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s flurry of transition pronouncements has made it abundantly clear that the decadeslong era of U.S. passivity in the Western Hemisphere is over. Trump is not simply pronouncing the potential U.S. acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland; rather, by his very choice to inveigh on strategic topics in the United States’ own hemisphere and appoint officials focused on the region even before the start of his tenure, he is signaling a profound shift in Washington’s posture toward its backyard. Trump’s reprioritization of the Western Hemisphere is impossible to ignore. While quickly dismissing a U.S. interest in post-civil war Syria and promising to mediate a swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has made clear his focus on closing the U.S.-Mexico border to illegal entry; expressed interest in reviving traditional American views of the strategic necessity of both Greenland and the Panama Canal; focused heavily on U.S. security and trade concerns with Mexico and Canada; nominated a secretary and deputy secretary of state with deep Latin America expertise, along with a special envoy for Latin America and 10 regional ambassadorships; and elevated his longtime immigration expert, Stephen Miller, to the role of White House homeland security advisor, further institutionalizing a focus on the southern border and its regional nexus inside the national security process. (Source: "Trump Will End U.S. Passivity in the Western Hemisphere" / Foreign Policy)
So, instead of promoting the U.S. as a moral beacon, Vance critiques past efforts to export democracy and engage in nation-building, calling them incoherent, costly, and contrary to American interests.
He unambiguously lays out strategic self-interest, military dominance, and transactional diplomacy over idealistic leadership. Vance in his speech pushes for clear, hard goals and military strength, not the moral authority that the “City on a Hill” imagery has traditionally implied.
So while he doesn’t quote the phrase, he undermines the ethos it represents, essentially signaling a rejection of American exceptionalism in its moral-missionary form, in favor of realist, hard-power-driven imperial pragmatism.
The Trump-Vance strategy is not isolationism. It's regional consolidation. A "fortress America" that controls its neighborhood, guards its gates, and makes the rest of the world pay to enter.
The Monroe Doctrine is back—but this time, it's weaponized with drones, sanctions, tariffs, and TikTok bans.
J.D. Vance’s recent address at the U.S. Naval War College marks a subtle yet unmistakable pivot in American strategic rhetoric—from idealism to unapologetic power projection.
While Vance avoids the explicit language of imperialism, the functional contours of his policy propositions align squarely with what Zbigniew Brzezinski once termed “imperial geostrategy” — a cold calculus of influence, leverage, and coercion stripped of moral pretense.
Gone is the façade of democracy-promotion or human rights advocacy.
In its place, Vance articulates a vision grounded in transactional realism: enforce red lines without hesitation, secure economic entanglements with Gulf monarchies regardless of their autocratic nature, and pursue technological supremacy as a strategic imperative.
This approach does not merely sidestep liberal internationalism; it actively discards it.
His metaphor of future military actions as “punches” reveals the ethos at play—not interventions to stabilize or democratize but deliberate strikes to dominate and signal resolve. This doctrine privileges outcomes over optics, power over principle.
Vance is not crafting a new imperial doctrine—he is excavating an older, less apologetic one. A realism shorn of Wilsonian illusion. An empire, not by name, but by function.
Interestingly, the United States under Trump and JD Vance is dismantling long-standing alliances, discarding decorum, and redrawing the global map—not with treaties, but with tariffs, threats, and humiliations.
Check the recent clash between US President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
After this exchange, one question keeps coming back to me.
Meanwhile, after what Trump did with respect to engagement and backing Pakistan and its terror goals, the Indian administration has turned its weight towards Europe. Please read this to understand this better.
Desh Kapoor
India's External Affairs minister, Dr. Jaishankar was in Germany recently and had this press conference where the German Foreign Minister backed India's stance against terror.
He then addressed DGAP's Centre for Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, and Technology in Berlin on May 23rd.
Quite simply, Dr. S. Jaishankar’s address in Berlin was a strategic declaration.
Dr. Jaishankar situated the India-Germany bilateral ties within the tremors of a shifting world order.
He spoke of a world gripped by instability — geopolitical tensions, weaponized interdependencies, technological disruption, and an eroding global commons. Against this backdrop, he argued, India and Germany must not merely transact—they must co-create the future.
Defense cooperation, once dormant, must evolve into technological co-development. India's demographic dividend can stabilize Germany’s aging workforce, provided mobility is freed from bureaucratic sclerosis. Semiconductor and AI ecosystems should be built not merely for profit but as trusted bulwarks against digital autocracies. The long-delayed India-EU FTA is now a geopolitical imperative, not just economic alignment.
He stressed that climate action must transcend virtue-signaling. India’s scale allows European green technologies to move from concept to impact. Infrastructure—12 km of railway and 30 km of highways daily—signals not just growth but velocity. And when terror strikes, as in Pahalgam, India’s retaliation is not escalation—it is sovereignty in action.
In the Indo-Pacific, India is no longer a passive pivot. It offers smaller nations strategic alternatives, without coercion. As the U.S. recedes, Jaishankar urged Germany to step in—not as a substitute hegemon, but as a responsible collaborator.
And he ensured that the audience realized that India is ready.
From backing Pakistan despite its acts of terror against India to threatening Harvard over international students, and from undercutting European trust to publicly humiliating South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the Trump administration is no longer just an unpredictable partner — it’s becoming a dangerous one.
Geopolitical stage doesn't like a vacuum.
As the United States burns bridges, China consolidates, India recalibrates, and Europe awakens.
Let us look at all the players and how they are evaluating their situations.
India finds itself at a diplomatic crossroads.
After years of growing U.S.-India alignment, Trump’s silence during terror attacks, his cozying up to Pakistan (even through bizarre crypto deals), and repeated slights against Modi have signaled a disturbing rupture.
Instead of reacting with outrage, India is responding with strategic recalibration.
Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s visits to Germany and the Netherlands are not routine diplomacy; they are a signal.
India is building stronger bridges with Europe, forging deeper ties with France, Israel, UAE, and Japan, and reassessing Washington's reliability.
This is not a pivot away from the U.S., but a multi-alignment reset.
With this approach, Delhi ensures that if America burns down the alliance, India won’t be left in the ashes.
For China, Trump’s chaotic diplomacy is a windfall.
While the U.S. alienates its partners, Beijing:
China doesn’t need a grand confrontation.
It just needs to look like the adult in the room.
And right now, Trump is handing Beijing the global "stability" mantle on a silver platter.
Why would they refuse?
The EU has watched in horror as Trump:
But the wake-up call has arrived.
Countries like France and Germany are investing in defense autonomy, tech sovereignty, and new partnerships with India, ASEAN, and Latin America.
Macron’s bold statements about reducing reliance on Washington are not outliers—they're becoming policy.
The EU is realizing: if the U.S. won’t lead, Europe must survive alone.
However, which way EU countries will go is ambiguous as of now.
France’s recent behavior regarding the Rafale narrative - especially its ambiguous stance on India’s security concerns when it refused to give the Rafale source codes despite having promised them - suggests a deeper strategic recalibration that contradicts its own national interest.
Despite being India's long-standing defense partner and a proponent of “strategic autonomy,” France has, in recent months, appeared to tilt toward Beijing’s line, even at the cost of jeopardizing its high-value defense relationship with India. That loss of trust and partnership is pushing India to again go with Russia's SU-37 rather than France's Rafale.
This shift is more than diplomatic inconsistency. It signals Europe’s deeper identity crisis in a post-American world.
Perhaps the clearest symbol of Trump’s new world order came in his disrespectful treatment of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
During a diplomatic event that should have showcased the U.S.-Africa partnership, Trump chose instead to publicly insult and diminish Ramaphosa, the leader of one of Africa’s most influential democracies and a core member of BRICS.
This was not a mistake. It was a message:
For the Global South, it’s a significant moment. These nations that once looked to America for partnership now see a bully cloaked in a flag.
We are not heading back to a U.S.–China bipolar world.
That moment has passed.
Instead, the global order is fracturing into fluid, transactional blocs:
Just a few days back, we had discussed how in the adversarial relationship between the US and China, India's partnership with the US would be most pivotal. However, with the new dynamic of the US-China deal and Trump's stance towards India, that may no longer be relevant anymore. The basic premise of how the different forces stack up remains intact. In fact, India's centrality to the whole equation, post Operation Sindoor, where the Chinese Air Defense Systems (ADS) and missiles were rendered useless, becomes even more profound.
Desh Kapoor
An interesting aspect of the foreign policy approach of a potential Trump administration, from 2025 onwards, is deeply rooted in a profound dissatisfaction with the existing global system.
This perspective views the current international order as unfairly disadvantaging the United States, with a pervasive belief that the nation has been exploited by "almost every country in the world".
This sentiment aligns with domestic grievances, portraying the US as a victim of global arrangements. The core motivation is to leverage the immense military and economic power of the United States to dictate new terms and assert global dominance, while simultaneously reducing its contributions and commitments to other nations.
This approach, described as "smash and grab," aims to dismantle the existing global order, which is seen as obsolete or even a "weapon being used against us".
The fundamental aspect of this policy is the engagement in unilateral trade wars.
The administration has imposed tariffs, including a universal 10% tariff and additional duties on goods such as autos, auto parts, steel, and aluminum. It also threatens further tariffs on semiconductors, copper, lumber, and pharmaceuticals.
These actions have significantly increased consumer costs, undermined American manufacturers and their workers, and generated market instability, leading to a loss of nearly $10 trillion in market value.
The "America First" doctrine seems to be an abdication of traditional global leadership. But is it so?
Vice President J.D. Vance's foreign policy views broadly align with this "America First" philosophy.
He asserts that the administration has ended a decades-long approach of "meddling in other countries' affairs," advocating for a "return to a strategy grounded in realism and protecting our core national interests".
This is framed as a "generational shift" away from "nation building".
However, a closer examination reveals a nuanced dynamic.
While the rhetoric emphasizes non-interventionism, the administration's actions often involve significant influence or "meddling" in global affairs.
For instance, the escalation of trade wars with the European Union, the strategic interest in acquiring territories like Greenland and the Panama Canal, and even the public "trolling" of Canada with suggestions of annexation, all demonstrate a willingness to exert power unilaterally.
The European Union, on the other hand, is undergoing a major strategic realignment with the launch of its new Defence Strategy on March 19, 2025.
This ambitious plan marks a decisive push toward strengthening the EU’s own security autonomy, preserving regional stability, and protecting its vital interests amid rising global threats.
Driving this shift is a growing sense that the United States is no longer the steadfast security guarantor it once was.
After Trump's arrival in January 2025, adversarial relations within the transatlantic alliance have prompted serious concerns in European capitals.
These developments have forced the EU to rethink its long-standing reliance on Washington and chart a more independent course in defense and strategic affairs. Strategic autonomy is the new buzzword. A lazy confused region is now looking to stand up on its own.
Quite simply - the world is entering a storm.
This isn't the normal geopolitical rivalry. It's the unraveling of old certainties.
Once shaped by Western will and held together by American muscle, global institutions are cracking.
The U.S. is stepping back only to unleash unilateral attacks for a chaotic world.
The vacuum, if you will, isn’t empty.
New players, adversarial agendas, rival frameworks, and unpredictable coalitions are filling it.
The result?
A fragmented world where consensus is rare and confrontation is the norm.
South Asia simmers. The Middle East broods. Flashpoints multiply. A single spark could redraw borders — or collapse entire alliances.
In this chaotic chessboard, survival won't come from brute power alone.
It will demand agility. Ruthless clarity. And a deep grasp of hidden interests and shifting fault lines.
Because in a world where everything is in motion, the only way to lead… is to see beyond the noise.
As the fog of the war of the initial Operation Sindoor settles, it seems that the Trump administration was working behind the scenes against India in a far more profound way than we thought. What does that mean for us? Let us analyze.
China is not playing by the West's rules. It’s not negotiating. It’s not retaliating. It’s dismantling — the dollar, the supply chains, the brands, even the minds of Western youth.
What if a trade policy wasn’t just about economics—but about resetting the entire global power structure? Trump’s 2025 tariffs are doing just that. We look at the strategies, and hidden levers behind this economic disruption—and explore what it means for the world.
The Prosperity, stability and power of the United States and indeed the West survives on it being an empire. That empire is now devouring itself. After destroying many. Trump's ways may dismantle this colonial behemoth. Will United States survive as a country, when it is no longer an empire?
Explore Drishtikone for expert analysis on global geopolitics, cultural shifts, and Hinduism's role in modern discourse. Stay informed with insightful articles, news, and thought-provoking newsletter.
