The National Intelligence Service (NIS) presented its findings during a closed-door parliamentary session, with lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties saying the agency’s conclusion was based on collected intelligence rather than circumstantial inference.

Briefings indicated the imagery of Ju Ae operating military equipment was intended to project capability and address doubts surrounding the prospect of a female successor.

North Korea’s state-run KCNA last month released photographs showing Kim and his daughter driving a new tank, adding to earlier images of her participating in weapons training, including firing a rifle and handling a handgun. Lawmakers said the pattern of exposure suggested a deliberate effort to embed her within the country’s military narrative.

Democratic Party lawmaker Park Sun-won said the public appearances echoed those of Kim Jong Un in the early 2010s, when he was being prepared to succeed his father, describing the imagery as a form of symbolic continuity in leadership grooming. The NIS assessment marks a progression from earlier evaluations that Ju Ae was being prepared for a future role, with her current prominence indicating a more accelerated succession framework.

Lawmakers have previously cited the agency as viewing Ju Ae as effectively the second-ranking figure in North Korea’s leadership hierarchy. People Power Party lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun said the NIS dismissed suggestions that Kim Yo Jong might oppose the development, noting she does not exercise independent authority within the system.

Some analysts urged caution in interpreting the developments as definitive confirmation of succession. Hong Min of the Korea Institute for National Unification said the available imagery alone did not establish that Ju Ae had been formally designated as heir, noting she continues to appear alongside her father rather than independently, unlike Kim Jong Un during his own transition period.

North Korea has not publicly confirmed any succession plan, and state media has not explicitly identified Ju Ae as a future leader.

The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries.

Northern Syria is in a cataclysmic crisis. Kurdish communities in Rojava are facing relentless attacks by Turkish-backed militias and Syrian regime forces. Villages are being razed, civilians executed, women raped, and entire neighbourhoods systematically targeted.

Turkey’s involvement is central: Erdoğan manipulates proxies and leaders, such as Syria’s interim president Al-Jolani, to press his agenda, pursuing Ottoman-style expansionist ambitions while advancing a ruthless campaign to erase Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds, who have built pluralistic and stable governance systems in a region dominated by authoritarianism and sectarianism, now face existential threats.

What is unfolding against the Kurds in Syria carries lethal implications throughout the Middle East and beyond. The Kurdish struggle underscores a larger geopolitical reality: unchecked aggression here emboldens expansionist and Islamist forces throughout the region.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey are moving to form a NATO-style alliance, called the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), whereby any attack on one party is considered an attack on all.

Turkey’s destabilising ambitions, combined with Pakistan’s support for Islamist networks and Saudi Arabia’s regional influence, are forming a bloc whose goals clash directly with the security and values of Israel, India, and the UAE — three powers on the Middle-East-Asia Corridor with shared strategic and democratic imperatives. For these three countries, the threat and consequences of extremism are immediate.

Israel and India maintain solid defence cooperation, forged over decades of shared security challenges and strategic alignment. India and the UAE have recently strengthened economic and security partnerships, including agreements in energy, defence collaboration, and trade, with the aim of doubling bilateral commerce to $200 billion over the next six years.

Together, Israel, India, and the UAE form a natural coalition committed to protecting citizens, countering extremist ideologies, and preserving regional stability.

The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries. Kurdish forces bravely fought off ISIS between 2014 and 2017, when much of the region collapsed, protecting religious minorities and detaining thousands of terrorists on behalf of the international community.

Today, these efforts are under severe strain. Prison breaks in north-eastern Syria, escalating attacks on Kurdish-held territory, and the vulnerability of displacement camps signal a potential resurgence of ISIS.

ISIS had never truly disappeared. Since losing its territorial caliphate in 2019, it restructured into a decentralised global network with regional affiliates. By the end of 2024, it remained the most lethal terrorist organisation worldwide. Its digital presence, financial networks using cryptocurrencies, and ideological influence over minors and lone actors make it a persistent global threat.

Weakening Kurdish control creates space for ISIS to regroup and export violence far beyond the Middle East — to Europe, India, and beyond.

ISIS has also preserved and expanded its digital capabilities. Through social media, encrypted messaging platforms, and online propaganda, the organisation radicalises and recruits globally, particularly among minors.

ISIS-inspired attacks involving teenagers in Europe, including Austria and Germany, demonstrate how rapidly online radicalisation can translate into real-world violence, often beyond early detection by security services.

Geopolitics, however, is not just about land and strategy; at its heart lies a spiritual dimension that is often overlooked. The current chaos is unfolding around the Euphrates, a river whose surrounding lands are historically sacred. This was where Abraham, the father of monotheistic faiths, settled, amassed wealth and influence, and lived in coexistence with people of different faiths.

The values Abraham embodied, such as respect, dignity, coexistence — continue to shape the cultural DNA of the Kurds. Today, those same values, reflected in the Kurdish society, which I have personally witnessed in their respect for human dignity, women’s rights, and pluralism, are under direct threat from extremist ideologies seeking to destroy them.

The Kurds’ defence of pluralism, coexistence, and local governance mirrors values shared by Israel, India, and the UAE. Failing to protect them is not neutral; it constitutes strategic negligence with consequences that will be felt far beyond Syria.

The opportunity for trilateral cooperation is clear. Israel and India already maintain strong defence ties, sharing expertise in counterterrorism, military technology, and intelligence operations. India and the UAE have deepened strategic, economic, and security partnerships, building a foundation for coordinated action in the region. The existing intelligence-sharing framework between Israel, India, and the UAE is a critical asset.

Strengthened and fully integrated, it could become a force that regional aggressors would approach with caution, knowing that any misstep against the trio carries immediate, precise consequences. Such strengthened coordination would allow pre-emption of terrorist operations, disruption of financing channels, prevention of further prison breaks escalating into global attacks, and early identification of radicalisation in vulnerable populations.

This is not abstract geopolitics; it is about protecting citizens under threat, whether in Kobane in Syrian Kurdistan, Tel Aviv, Delhi, or Dubai.

The Kurdish crisis also has profound moral resonance. Jews and Kurds are both ancient peoples shaped by exile, persecution, and the longing for homeland and dignity. Both have survived through resilience, shared values, and a commitment to coexistence rather than domination. This shared ethos should compel Israel to safeguard regional allies by building strong, long-term partnerships with stable partners such as the UAE and India.

The systematic dismantling of Kurdish society is not only a regional tragedy — it is a blow against the principles that govern other modern, pluralistic nations. For India, which faces Pakistan-sponsored jihadism and digital radicalisation, the Kurdish struggle mirrors its own fight against extremist ideologies that weaponise religion and erase pluralistic traditions.

For me personally, these countries matter deeply. My Indian background and consistent time spent in Israel give me a unique perspective on the stakes involved.

The UAE has proven to be a strong and reliable Middle Eastern partner, and I hope for even closer trilateral cooperation with Israel and India. Together, these nations have both the strategic capability and the moral imperative to act decisively.

But the capability should not just be expressed in words, but through concrete, coordinated action to prevent further atrocities and the resurgence of ISIS.

The human toll is urgent. Displacement, executions, and destruction in north-eastern Syria (Rojava) are accompanied by women’s lives in grave danger and children living amid trauma and extremist influence.

ISIS’s adaptability, both digital and operational, means that failing to act now risks renewed terror reaching far beyond Syria. Supporting the Kurds is about defending humanity against an extremist ideology that threatens us all.

The question is simple: will the world stand by, or will it recognise the moral and strategic necessity of supporting those on the front lines of extremism? The Kurdish crisis is a stark reminder that regional ambitions must be firmly contained.

For India, Israel, and the UAE, strengthening trilateral cooperation is not only about countering ISIS. It is also about ensuring that Pakistan’s proxies and Turkey’s expansionist ambitions remain within their own borders and fantasies. Coordinated intelligence, rapid-response networks, and strategic alignment can send a clear message: no aggression will go unchecked, and no extremist ideology will reshape the region. The time to act is now.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

His remarks came in response to a question by the show’s host, Zahack Tanvir, who asked whether it would “be really … logical enough” to involve Pakistan in the Gaza Stabilisation Force — and what repercussions might follow.

Meyer’s answer was unequivocal. “I think you have to choose,” he said. “Either Pakistan will be involved or we can have a stabilisation force. The two are not going to happen together.” He added that the same logic applies to any other state — including those like Qatar — that some have proposed might contribute to the force.

“You know, there’s the old expression of inviting the fox into the hen house,” Meyer argued. “Once you have … bad actors … the only result is going to be negative.” He said it “does not take a crystal ball” to see the consequences and described even the possibility of such inclusion as “ludicrous.”

The debate unfolded against the backdrop of recent developments: the ISF has been proposed as part of a broader peace plan aimed at stabilising the Gaza Strip following ongoing conflict. Under that plan, a multinational peacekeeping force would be mandated to help restore security, oversee demilitarisation and facilitate the rebuilding of Gaza.

Countries such as Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been frequently discussed in connection with potential troop contributions — but according to Meyer, inviting Pakistan into the mix would seriously undercut the force’s legitimacy.

Also participating in the podcast discussion were other security and regional-experts: Siddhant Kishore, a national-security analyst based in Washington DC; Yeshaya Rosenman, an India–Israel specialist in Jerusalem; and Irina Tsukerman, attorney and national security analyst. Their collective participation underscored the gravity of the conversation, which framed the ISF not only as a means for peace-building, but also as a test of the international community’s resolve to exclude parties deemed incompatible with such a mission.

Meyer’s intervention resounds especially strongly given the background against which the podcast was framed — a remembrance of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, widely attributed to militants operating out of Pakistan. The episode aimed both to honour the memory of the victims and to raise awareness of what the hosts described as “Pakistan-sponsored terror.”

For the international audience, Meyer’s warning is likely to add weight to ongoing debates over the composition and mandate of the ISF. Critics of including contested actors warn that doing so could undermine both operational discipline and political legitimacy; proponents counter that broad inclusion may be necessary for regional buy-in. With the Gaza conflict continuing to exert global repercussions, the question of who gets to stabilise Gaza remains deeply fraught.

Experts agree: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a global catastrophe.

As tensions between Iran and Israel reach a fever pitch following Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month, global attention is zeroing in on one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for energy transit: the Strait of Hormuz.

This narrow, 33-kilometer-wide strait, which lies between Iran and Oman, is more than a geographical feature — it is the lifeline of the global energy market. With nearly 20 percent of the world’s daily oil consumption passing through its waters, even the hint of a blockade or disruption sends shockwaves through financial markets and rattles policymakers from Beijing to Brussels.

Now, as the specter of U.S. military involvement in support of Israel looms larger, Iran’s threats to block the strait are once again dominating headlines. Analysts warn that such a move would ignite an oil shock unlike any seen in recent history.

“The Strait of Hormuz is not just a waterway; it is the artery of global energy,” said Saudi geopolitical analyst Salman Al-Ansari. “Any blockade would trigger a chain reaction the global economy is not prepared for.”

A Strategic Lifeline

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nearly 20 million barrels of crude oil — around one-fifth of global oil consumption — transits the Strait of Hormuz daily. It also handles about 20 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, mostly from Qatar.

There are virtually no viable alternatives. The strait is the only deep-water passage in the region capable of accommodating the world’s largest oil tankers. Pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula offer limited relief but cannot come close to replacing the volume that moves through Hormuz.

The EIA estimates that 84 percent of the crude oil flowing through the strait heads toward Asia, with China, India, Japan, and South Korea as top consumers. In February 2024, the Center for Security Policy in Washington reported that more than three-quarters of crude passing through the strait is destined for Asian markets.

Volatility on a Knife-Edge

When Iran launched retaliatory strikes on Israel last week, oil markets reacted immediately. Brent crude surged from $69 to $74 per barrel in a single day — and that was without any actual blockade.

“The market’s reaction to mere tension is telling,” said Jassem Ajaka, an economist and professor at the Lebanese University. “The full closure of the strait would send prices soaring above $100 per barrel in a matter of hours.”

Ajaka stressed the ripple effect such a spike would have on inflation: “Oil is a foundational commodity — its price is embedded in 95 percent of goods. Everything from food production to transportation will see costs surge.”

Limited Escape Routes

Saudi Arabia, which exported 5.5 million barrels per day through Hormuz in 2024 — nearly 40 percent of all crude transiting the strait — has some contingency plans in place. The Kingdom’s East-West Pipeline can divert up to 7 million barrels per day to the Red Sea, but current use is already high due to ongoing disruptions in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait from Houthi threats.

The UAE’s Fujairah Pipeline, with a capacity of 1.8 million barrels per day, is also operating near capacity. Iran’s Goreh-Jask Pipeline, meant to ease its own vulnerability, has remained largely dormant since late 2024.

“If the Strait of Hormuz were blocked, only about 2.6 million barrels per day could be rerouted,” noted Al-Ansari. “That leaves a gaping shortfall of more than 17 million barrels — a blow the world cannot absorb overnight.”

Asian Economies at Risk

China, which imports nearly half its crude oil via Hormuz, would be among the hardest hit in the event of a closure. India, Japan, and South Korea would also face severe disruptions, likely triggering the release of emergency reserves.

“China would be the first to feel the sting,” said Ajaka. “If the blockade stretches beyond a few weeks, we could be looking at a global recession.”

Shipping costs would rise exponentially as tankers are forced to reroute around Africa. Supply chains would suffer, and energy-importing nations would scramble to find alternatives.

For smaller nations like Lebanon, the consequences could be catastrophic. “We’d face a total blackout,” said Ajaka, “as our power generation depends entirely on imported fuel oil from Iraq.”

Not Just an Economic Gamble

Iran has long viewed the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point — a strategic card it holds to deter Western intervention. But experts warn that closing the strait would not come without consequences for Tehran.

“Iran’s own economy is heavily reliant on oil exports through the same strait it threatens to close,” said Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Gulf Research Center, in a recent op-ed. “Shutting it down would inflict self-harm — unless the regime feels cornered.”

Indeed, a growing number of Iranian officials are openly discussing the possibility. On June 20, Behnam Saeedi, a member of Iran’s National Security Committee, told local media that closure remains an “option on the table” should the U.S. become involved.

Another lawmaker, Ali Yazdikhah, warned that Iran’s tolerance for shipping freedom depends on the West’s posture. “If the U.S. enters the war operationally, Iran has the legitimate right to disrupt energy transit,” he said.

However, Ajaka cautioned that any such move would be seen as a last resort. “Iran would only close Hormuz if the survival of the regime is at stake — the economic fallout would be too severe otherwise.”

Western Response and Global Stakes

The U.S. and its allies have long maintained a naval presence in the Gulf to safeguard shipping routes. In 2019, attacks on Saudi oil tankers and the Abqaiq facility — which briefly took out 5 percent of global supply — triggered a multinational response.

On June 17, U.S. intelligence officials revealed that Iran has positioned ballistic missiles and military assets aimed at American bases in the Middle East — a clear signal of escalation readiness. Additional reports suggested that Iran may consider mining the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic designed to trap U.S. naval forces in the Gulf.

In the event of a closure, emergency strategic reserves would likely be released. However, Ajaka pointed out that this solution offers only temporary relief.

“Non-OPEC nations are already producing at capacity. Only OPEC members like Saudi Arabia have the ability to increase output — and even that depends on geopolitical calculations,” he said.

Should the crisis deepen, Ajaka predicts Washington may ease sanctions on countries like Venezuela to boost supply. “It’s not just about oil anymore — it’s about stabilizing a world economy on the brink.”

The Strait Must Remain Open

Experts agree: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a global catastrophe.

“It would prompt immediate military intervention by the U.S. and the U.K.,” said Ajaka. “The stakes are simply too high.”

Al-Ansari underscored that the crisis is more than a regional flashpoint. “What’s at risk is not just oil — it’s the fragile equilibrium that keeps economies functioning and societies stable.”

With tensions mounting, the world now watches anxiously. The Strait of Hormuz, long seen as a barometer of Gulf stability, is once again the frontline of global geopolitics.

If diplomacy fails and the conflict escalates further, this critical chokepoint may turn from a transit hub to a trigger — one capable of reshaping the global order.

Vaibhav Singh opened the conversation with a blunt observation: there seems to be a glaring absence of protests when it comes to atrocities faced by Uyghur Muslims in China, Balochs in Pakistan, or even the Sindhi and Pashtun communities who have endured brutal oppression. He questioned why the deaths of 20,000 Mahajirs in Karachi, Hyderabad, and Sukkur go unmentioned in Indian Muslim discourse, while emotional demonstrations erupt for Palestine and Rohingya Muslims.

He highlighted the horrific reality in Xinjiang, where practicing Islam is almost criminalized—people are forced to surrender prayer mats in police stations, growing a beard is banned, and even Islamic names are discouraged. Yet, no placards or rallies appear in Indian streets for them.

Instead, Singh lamented, the spotlight is always on Palestine. Thousands protest in Indian cities, sometimes to the extent of vandalism, as was the case when some reportedly attacked Amar Jawan Jyoti in Mumbai in the name of solidarity with the Rohingyas. “Why such selective empathy?” he asked. “Are Indian Muslims afraid of Pakistan and China?”

Zahack Tanvir responded with a layered analysis that combined historical context with geopolitical realism. He agreed that the overwhelming focus on Palestine while ignoring other equally devastating crises suggests a form of emotional manipulation rather than informed advocacy. “Most Muslims here don’t even realize that India is engaged in a silent conflict with both Pakistan and China,” he said. “But even beyond that, there is a kind of shameless tunnel vision—where people hold on to just one or two issues and act as if those define the entire Muslim world’s struggle.”

He dug deeper into the Palestinian issue, emphasizing how it has evolved over the last 75 years into a political industry. “Billions have been poured into it. NGOs, lobbies, donations, protests—yet no solution has emerged. Not because one isn’t possible, but because resolving it would shut down a global cottage industry of activism, influence, and income,” Zahack said. He clarified that his statements weren’t anti-Palestinian but rather critical of the politicization of their suffering.

He further illustrated how Palestinians, themselves a diverse mix of Muslims, Christians, Communists, Marxists, and Atheists, have historically disrupted the very nations that sheltered them. In Lebanon, internal conflict erupted with the local Christian population. In Jordan, they attempted to assassinate King Hussein. “This isn’t just a Muslim issue—it was initially an Arab issue supported by Arab Christians,” Zahack explained.

Shifting the lens inward, he shared a startling reality: many Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians are unaware that India has over 250 million Muslims. “When I told them, they were shocked. For them, Pakistan equals Muslims, and India equals Hindus,” Zahack said.

And yet, Indian Muslims in places like Mominpura, Shivaji Nagar, or Zakir Nagar wage symbolic battles—boycotting multinational brands like Nestlé, Starbucks, and McDonald’s—as a gesture of protest.

“But what difference does it make? In 1973, all Arab nations imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. It didn’t stop America from giving $2 billion in aid to Israel, and later $8 billion more,” Zahack pointed out. “When a country has wealth and a strong lobby, a few boycotted chocolates and potato chips won’t matter.”

Zahack stressed that national interest should always come first. “Every country is looking after itself. Sudan and Morocco don’t have a problem with Israel. Bahrain and the UAE have formal ties. The Turks and Kurds have moved on. So why are we getting emotionally entangled in their politics?”

Zahack reiterated India’s pragmatic foreign policy: a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian rights to exist. “India isn’t blindly siding with anyone. It maintains healthy relations with Russia, the U.S., Israel, and the Arab nations. We are focused on trade, growth, and development,” he said.

He ended the discussion with a powerful anecdote: while speaking with an Egyptian army officer, Zahack explained why India doesn’t get involved in third-party fights. The officer nodded in agreement, appreciating India’s non-interventionist stance.

“Why should we fight your fight?” Zahack asked. “You fight today and hug tomorrow. We’ll mind our own business.”

The dialogue between Vaibhav Singh and Zahack Tanvir wasn’t just a critique of selective outrage; it was a call to maturity in activism. It challenged Indian Muslims—and Indians at large—to think with clarity, weigh their allegiances with wisdom, and prioritize national interest over borrowed causes.