Editorial

The escalation of U.S.-Iran tensions, marked by President Donald Trump’s explicit endorsement of regime change in Tehran and the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to join forces already in the Middle East, represents a dangerous pivot toward confrontation. Trump’s statement that regime change “would be the best thing that could happen” is not mere rhetoric; it signals a willingness to upend decades of U.S. policy that has avoided direct calls for overthrowing Iran’s government, even during periods of intense hostility.

This rhetoric arrives amid ongoing diplomatic efforts—indirect talks in Oman and elsewhere—aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional proxy activities. Yet, Iran’s leadership has firmly rejected concessions on missiles, viewing them as core to national defense, while refusing to dismantle enrichment capabilities entirely. Trump’s administration, building on “maximum pressure” tactics from his first term, has imposed new tariffs on countries dealing with Iran and positioned overwhelming military assets, including two carrier groups, to back threats of force if diplomacy fails.

The Pentagon’s preparations for potentially weeks-long sustained operations underscore the gravity. Unlike limited strikes, a prolonged campaign would target not just nuclear sites but broader state and security infrastructure, risking far higher U.S. casualties, Iranian retaliation against American bases or allies, and spillover into a wider regional war involving Israel, Gulf states, and Iranian proxies like Hezbollah or the Houthis. The buildup—redirecting the Ford from the Caribbean after an already extended deployment—reflects urgency but also strain on naval resources.

Trump’s approach carries high-stakes gamble: it may coerce Tehran into a deal more favorable than the 2015 JCPOA, which he abandoned, or force internal collapse amid ongoing protests. However, history cautions against optimism. Regime change pursuits in Iraq and Libya led to chaos, empowered extremists, and created power vacuums. Iran’s theocracy, despite internal dissent and economic woes, retains resilient institutions, a large military, and asymmetric tools like missiles and drones capable of disrupting global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

The international community watches warily. Allies like Israel may welcome the pressure, but Europe and others fear escalation without clear endgame. A military path risks entangling the U.S. in another protracted Middle East conflict, diverting resources from domestic priorities and great-power competition elsewhere.

Ultimately, while Trump’s bluntness exposes Iran’s intransigence, sustainable resolution demands diplomacy backed by credible threats—not regime-change fantasies that could ignite catastrophe. The coming weeks will test whether pressure yields negotiation or unleashes war. Restraint, not bravado, must prevail to avert disaster.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address at the ET NOW Global Business Summit on February 13, 2026, framed India’s recent surge in free trade agreements (FTAs) as evidence of restored global confidence, contrasting his government’s deals covering 38 countries with the mere four under the previous UPA regime. This narrative—echoed by Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal—paints a picture of decisive diplomacy transforming India from a “Fragile Five” economy plagued by scams and policy paralysis into a confident global player. Yet, a closer examination reveals this boast as selective, overstated, and potentially misleading, masking deeper structural concerns about trade strategy, domestic vulnerabilities, and long-term economic costs.

The 38-country figure aggregates multiple agreements, including the landmark India-EU FTA (covering 27 nations, signed January 27, 2026), the EFTA bloc (4 countries), the UK, Australia, UAE, Oman, Mauritius, and others like the recent US interim tariff deal. Official sources confirm roughly eight major FTAs since 2021, predominantly with developed economies, totaling around 37-38 partners when counting bloc members. This marks a genuine acceleration from the UPA era’s limited pacts (mostly with ASEAN, Japan, Korea, and a few others). However, Modi’s comparison ignores context: UPA negotiations laid groundwork for many stalled deals (e.g., EU talks began in 2007), and India’s pre-2014 caution stemmed from protecting sensitive sectors like agriculture and small industries—principles the current government claims to uphold but increasingly bends.

Critically, the quality of these “high-quality” FTAs remains questionable. While the government insists on safeguards for farmers, MSMEs, fishermen, and artisans, concessions in recent pacts—such as phased tariff reductions on industrial goods, agri-products, and services—risk flooding domestic markets with cheaper imports. The EU deal, hailed as the “Mother of All Deals” for accessing 25% of global GDP, exposes Indian textiles, dairy, and pharmaceuticals to intense European competition without equivalent reciprocal gains in high-value areas like technology transfer or mobility. The US framework (February 2026) reduced tariffs but tied India to energy purchases and alignment on strategic issues, raising questions about sovereignty in trade policy.

Moreover, the focus on developed partners avoids confronting China-dominated supply chains or RCEP regrets (which India exited). Exports have grown, but imports often outpace them, widening deficits. Domestic manufacturing, despite “Make in India,” struggles with competitiveness, infrastructure gaps, and regulatory hurdles—issues FTAs alone cannot fix. The celebratory tone glosses over farmer protests against earlier agri-reforms and persistent rural distress, where import surges could exacerbate vulnerabilities.

Modi’s rhetoric serves political ends: deflecting opposition criticism amid election cycles and projecting strength amid global protectionism (e.g., Trump’s tariffs). But sustainable trade policy demands transparency, stakeholder consultation, and evidence-based impact assessments—not cherry-picked statistics. Without addressing domestic reforms, these FTAs risk becoming pyrrhic victories: short-term headline wins at the expense of long-term inclusive growth. True confidence lies not in the number of handshakes but in ensuring every Indian benefits from global integration.

• SAS Kirmani