By: Simran Sodhi, Guest Author, GSDN

The Trump 2.0 Presidency, most in India thought, would be an easy one for India. After all, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the United States President Donald Trump called each other ‘good friends’ and seemed to share a great personal equation. Modi was also among the first of the world leaders who visited Washington DC soon after Trump took charge in January this year. Modi’s February visit to the United States seemed to then indicate that both leaders were picking up from where they had last left. But since then something seems to have gone amiss in this relationship with Trump’s almost daily tirades against India. It would be fair to say that at this point the India-US relationship seems to be at its lowest in the last two decades or more.

The recent announcement where the United States has slapped India with a 50 percent tariff, the highest among all countries so far, will ensure that the India-US relationship goes into a sharp nose-dive. Brazil is the only other country today facing tariffs as high as India’s. New Delhi responded sharply to this latest onslaught by Trump and pointed out that the tariffs are “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable” and said its imports of Russian oil is based on its objective of securing the energy needs of its nation of 1.4 billion people. But the damage to the relationship is now a done deal.

If one was to try and make sense of how it has all come to this, it would be fair to state that Trump seems irked with India. And there are many theories as to what has upset the US President. Many believe that not giving Trump credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan during Op Sindoor has upset him. India has been quite clear that no third country was involved in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan following four days of conflict in May this year. It is important to point out here that it was actually the US President who first announced the ceasefire in a post on social media and claimed credit for it. He has since then taken credit for it almost 28 times. Pakistan was quick to thank him and also went on to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. India diplomatically maintained that no third country was involved in this. Many have since argued that India should try and play up to Trump’s ego and maybe give him the headlines and attention he craves. But that is hard for India to do given the domestic sensitivities when it comes to Pakistan; and Pakistan-sponsored cross border terrorism.

Now Trump has decided to ‘weaponize’ tariffs against India and much of the world. And if that was not enough, Trump has now dragged Russia into the row by pointing out how India’s purchase of Russian oil has in a way funded the Ukraine war.

In his latest move, Trump has raised by 25 per cent the tariffs on India as a punishment over its purchases of cheap Russian oil, which today account for one-third of its imported oil. So in effect India today faces 50 per cent tariffs, one of the highest the US has imposed on any country so far.

“They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,” he said in a post to his Truth Social network recently. He also accused India of selling Russian oil “on the Open Market for big profits”. In a previous social media post, he went on to refer to both Russia and India as ‘dead economies”.

These almost daily comments have of course upset many in India and there has been a fierce debate on how to deal with Trump and his constant and rather insulting remarks. Some have suggested that perhaps India can assuage his ego a little and give in to his demands to soften his stance. But the majority opinion in India seems to be clear that India must push back and Trump’s behaviour should not be tolerated.

After showing considerable restrain, India’s Foreign Ministry had issued a statement 4 August that was clearly a push back against Trump and his various allegations. It was rather strongly worded and for once minced no words about the hypocrisy being displayed by both the US and the European Union with regards to Russia. “India has been targeted by the United States and the European Union for importing oil from Russia after the commencement of the Ukraine conflict. In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability,” said the statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

The MEA statement also pointed out that, “In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.”

In the end, what we are now looking at is a bilateral relationship that has hit its lowest. India has decided to stand up and push back at Trump, who is going overboard with his penalties in the form of tariffs. This will push India to seek conciliation with China even as the US moves closer to Pakistan. The coming weeks will now tell whether the India-US relationship is likely to worsen or start repairing.

About the Author

Simran Sodhi is a Delhi-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. She holds a Masters in International Relations from the American University in Washington DC. In 2009, her book ‘Piercing the Heart- Untold Stories of 26/11’ was published. She has written for a number of leading national and international publications. She tweets at @Simransodhi9

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Sonalika Singh, Research Analyst, GSDN

“Make America Great Again” (MAGA), first coined by Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, has evolved into a potent political movement grounded in nativist nationalism and populism. Its core message asserts that America has lost its former prosperity and global status due to issues like immigration, globalization, and a perceived cultural decline. Since then, MAGA has left a lasting imprint on Republican politics, public discourse, and international right-wing strategies.

But in 2025, with Trump back in the White House and brandishing slogans reminiscent of MAGA’s origins, the question arises: Is MAGA really happening? To answer, we must examine its electoral strength, ideological unity, institutional influence, ideological potency, and cultural reach. This article delves into MAGA’s current reality from its increasingly visible power to internal rifts, its blueprint for change, and the fragile coalition that sustains it. Only then can we evaluate whether MAGA is a transformative movement reshaping American politics or a personalized brand vulnerable to fractures and contingent upon one man’s influence.

MAGA is more than campaign sloganeering it represents a deeply embedded worldview. According to Britannica, it blends nativist resentment of immigration and globalization with a nostalgic idealism about America’s past.  Among Republicans, about half to 60% identify as MAGA-aligned, making it the dominant faction within the party. However, MAGA remains a minority on the national scale, with non-Republican Americans less likely to identify with it.

Beyond politics, MAGA has spawned a parallel economic ecosystem conservative-aligned businesses intentionally cater to its base. Prominent examples include Public Square (a conservative Yelp alternative) and GrabAGun, an online firearms retailer backed by Trump Jr. These ventures are not merely symbolic they’ve raised over US$ 179 million in IPO proceeds and generated meaningful revenue, indicating economic momentum beyond mere rhetoric.

MAGA-like ideologies are crossing borders. Terms such as “Make Europe Great Again” and conservative summits in London reflect a global resonance. While Trump’s foreign populism remains parochial, its theme’s identity, skepticism of globalization resonates among right-wing groups in Europe, Latin America, and beyond.

In July 2025, MAGA’s coherence was jolted by the controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump received intense pressure from MAGA influencers like Steve Bannon, Dan Bongino, and Nikki Haley to release grand-jury testimony against liberal elites.  When the DOJ disclosed no such “client list,” many within MAGA perceived it as a cover-up.

This generated rare internal backlash at Turning Point USA’s summit, young MAGA leaders booed the administration’s approach and warned that disillusionment could erode support by up to 10%. Axios labeled it a crisis of faith within the base. Although Trump eventually dismissed the controversy and loyalists rallied back, the episode revealed friction MAGA’s predictive influence no longer guarantees command over its audience.

Internal MAGA tensions also arose over foreign and economic policy. Hardline MAGA members criticized Trump’s continued military aid to Ukraine and measured stance on Iran, suggesting he’s drifting from his “America First”. Meanwhile, the signature tax-cut initiative nicknamed the “Big, Beautiful Bill” (BBB) faced criticism conservatives celebrated it, but populists argued it betrayed working-class interests and spiked inequality.  This economic divergence underscores the tension between Trump’s plutocratic policies and his working-class supporters.

The MAGA movement now straddles Donald Trump’s personal brand and a deeper ideological current. Trump remains indispensable his actions set movement direction, but MAGA influencers are increasingly vocal in policing deviations. Figures like Bannon and Carlson have publicly reprimanded Trump when they perceive he strays.

Analysts warn this relationship is fraught Trump seeks control, while true believers expect ideological fidelity. That friction tends to emerge over issues like transparency, executive overreach, and foreign alliances and they could intensify if Trump bends to institutional or donor pressures.

Project 2025 is the institutional architecture designed to convert MAGA sentiment into lasting power. Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and Trump-aligned officials, it consists of four components a detailed policy manual, a personnel database, training programs, and a “day-one” playbook.  Its 900-page plan, Mandate for Leadership 2025, seeks to “deconstruct the administrative state” and accelerate conservative governance.

If enacted, Project 2025 would drastically reshape governance replacing civil servants with loyalists, subsuming independent agencies under the White House, curtailing federal equality and environmental enforcement, and bolstering executive authority.  Critics liken it to a template for democratic erosion, with warnings about removing checks and balances and repositioning agencies as political tools.

Despite distancing statements during the 2024 campaign, Trump’s second term has adopted many of the plan’s recommendations. Brookings notes that almost two-thirds of Trump’s early executive actions match Project 2025’s proposals on deregulation, immigration, environmental rollback, and social issues.  The Guardian concurs that Trump is using Project 2025 as a century-long governance blueprint.

Public opinion reflects serious concerns. A Navigator poll found most Americans fear that Project 2025 would grant unprecedented presidential power, roll back constitutional rights, and dismantle checks and balances. Legal scholars warn it amounts to democratic backsliding a rewiring of governance toward authoritarian control.

MAGA faithful view Project 2025 as a mechanism to institutionalize their agenda, ensuring permanence beyond electoral cycles. For opponents, it’s a warning sign revealing how ideology can morph into systemic overhaul.

Key MAGA influencers Steve Bannon, JD Vance, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy are already positioning themselves for future leadership roles.  Whether they build successor movements or serve under a future Trump term will shape MAGA’s evolution.

MAGA’s base is an uneasy fusion of rural lower-middle-class populists and billionaire-aligned elites, united by shared suspicion of the liberal establishment.  This coalition thrives on policy friction populists want tariffs, protectionism, and cultural conservatism, while elites back deregulation and business-focused governance. Historical parallels to past populist-authoritarian alliances suggest fissures are inevitable.

Young conservatives, especially those aligned with Turning Point USA, continue to champion MAGA ideals rank-and-file maintenance of “America First” rhetoric remains strong. Internationally, MAGA themes appear in conservative movements globally, though adaptations vary.

MAGA’s durability depends on managing internal tensions loyalty vs ideology, Trump vs institutions, populism vs plutocracy. If Trump maintains his authoritarian populist posture, MAGA may persist even grow. Absent Trump, ideological opponents or establishment Republicans might fracture the movement. The Epstein backlash hints at these fragilities, underscoring the continual risk of fragmentation.

So, is MAGA really happening? The evidence suggests yes, but not in a simple or monolithic way.

On one hand, MAGA remains a powerful force. Politically, it shapes Republican primaries and executive decisions. Economically, its parallel ecosystem including IPO-backed conservative platforms continues to expand. Globally, its rhetoric and themes resonate with right-wing movements abroad.

Yet internal tensions pose serious challenges. The Epstein files controversies, economic policy splits, and foreign policy misalignments reveal unseen cracks. Trump’s discomfort with ideological purists and his alliances with mega-capitalists create persistent friction.

Project 2025 exemplifies MAGA’s ambition an institutionalized, authoritarian-flavored blueprint capable of transforming governance. But mishandling ideological divisions or ceding control to non-populist elites could splinter the movement.

MAGA’s future hinges on alignment between leadership, ideology, and institutional structure. If Trump or his ideological heirs remain leaders, and Project 2025 continues driving implementation, MAGA is more than a moment it’s a political transformation underway. But if ideological coherence falters or Trump’s media grip diminishes, MAGA risks splintering into rival factions. In a polarized America, MAGA is undoubtably happening but whether it endures or implodes remains undecided.  

About the Author

Sonalika Singh began her journey as a UPSC aspirant and has since transitioned into a full-time professional working with various organizations in the governance and policy sector. Over the years, she has developed a strong interest in international relations, security studies, and geopolitics, along with a deep passion for research, analysis, and writing. Her work reflects a commitment to insightful inquiry and meaningful contribution in the field of public affairs.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

On July 30, 2025 as the 47^th US President announced tariffs on India along with penalties for purchasing Russian arms & oil, the Indian media and social media was agog with the effects of these tariffs in the coming times with heating debates and discussions noticeable in all forms of the electronic & digital media. On August 06, 2025 the tariffs on India were increased to 50%.

I am no economist and can’t comment on the effect the tariffs will have on India but what hit me the most were Donald Trump’s words on July 30, 2025 that India is a “dead economy”. Calling the most populous nation in the world with 1.46 billion population and the world’s fourth largest economy with the GDP of US$ 4.1 trillion, was an outright insult to each of the 1.46 billion Indian citizens.

Of the three super-powers ie the USA, Russia and China, India has normal relations with Russia and tensions with the USA and China. Donald Trump’s stance on India since he was inaugurated as the 47^th US President on January 20, 2025, has certainly not been pro-India. Whether it was him praising Pakistan during his inauguration speech and not mentioning India at all in the entire 30 minutes speech, or him taking credit 32 times for effecting the India-Pakistan ceasefire after the 88-hour conflict between the two nations in May 2025, a claim outrightly rejected by India or his words calling India a dead economy, none of Donald Trump’s actions inspire strong India-US relations any more, that existed in the last one decade.

Donald Trump’s rhetorical remarks on India are not an aberration but the climax of the anti-India stance that the USA has for decades. The US 7^th Fleet steaming towards the Bay of Bengal as the 1971 India-Pakistan War raged on and the US refusal to give India supercomputers in the 1980s are two of many such examples.

For decades, the USA has allowed Khalistani & Jihadi terrorists to use the American soil to wage a war on India. It is surprising that the Indian mainstream & social media didn’t see it coming in the last one decade and were agog with singing peans and praises for the USA and Donald Trump.

As India stands at a critical juncture in international geopolitics with tensions with two of the three superpowers, and seven out of the eight India’s neighbours not on friendly terms with India, sole exception being Bhutan, and with the two-front war to be waged by the China & Pakistan combine any time after 2030, it is now time for the Great Indian Leap!

The national animal of India is the Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris). Tigers are famous for their leaps which can be up to 16 metres vertically and in the forward distance up to 25 metres, a remarkable achievement considering the fact that the length of an average tiger is 9 to 10 feet. And with this gigantic leap, the tiger catches its target.

India’s target for the next five years till 2030 is to increase her economic and military might despite the grave geopolitical situation that exists today in South Asia and with the growing uncertainty in global geopolitics, for the two-front war by China & Pakistan likely any time after 2030, which will be in all seven domains of modern warfare – land, sea, air, cyber, electromagnetic spectrum, space and water. India’s economic and military growth in the next five years has to be prodigious.

And for this to happen, India has to be poised for the Great Indian Leap.

Factors for the Great Indian Leap

India has made outstanding progress since her Independence in 1947. From being called a snake charmers nation in the 1950s, today India is the nation with an economy that outstrips the current economic growth of many developed nations. For a nation whom the British leader Winston Churchill had stated on March 06, 1947 that “Indian leaders will be men of straw”, Indians have proved him wrong and India’s strong progress in economic, diplomatic and military fields is attributed to the strong Indian leadership from 1947 till date.

However, the current regional and global uncertainties that exist today with the two-front war on the horizon to happen any time after five years, it is the period 2025-2030 that needs extra vigour and vitality that needs to outstrip the pace of progress India has made in the last 78 years since independence.

Everything is possible. Two examples of China, prove the impossibility theory incorrect.

One, in 2007, China had no high-speed rail network, also called bullet trains. In 2017, China achieved the maximum high-speed rail length for any nation in the world. As on date, China has 45,000 kilometres of high-speed rail network which connects all major Chinese cities.

Two, in 2015, no Chinese university ranked in the top 500 universities in the world. China launched World Class 2.0 programme with the aim of having atleast two Chinese universities in the top 500 of the world by 2030. The target was achieved well before time in 2023.

The Great Indian Leap in the next five years has to incorporate the following factors:

Accountability & Responsibility:   For every infrastructure big or small, for any central or state schemes, new or old, accountability and responsibility should be fixed. Non-performers should be removed and those be given the tasks which are lagging behind schedule. It is a pity that Gurugram, nick-named as the Millennium City, which contributes maximum tax to the state of Haryana, during each year’s monsoon is in a pitiable state. The inconvenience caused to residents and the loss of business is of enormous proportions during the three-month period from July-September when monsoon hits north India. Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh, the Chief of Air Staff, Indian Air Force on May 29, 2025 expressed dismay at the delay in the delivery of fighter jets stating that “timeline is a big issue”. With the two-front war on the horizon, such delays are unacceptable and accountability and responsibility needs to be enforced in the strictest manner possible.

Role of Indian mainstream & social media:   The Indian mainstream & social media needs to highlight issues requiring attention, rather than only bring forth communal & religious issues and deep state & conspiracy theories, which are fast losing their charm and effect. It is time to face the real issues & challenges that are staring at the nation. The media be it electronic or social, plays a very important part in shaping narratives and has great viewership and following. Their role as the Fourth Estate has to be in national interest and not only focussed on Television Rating Points which garner more advertising revenue, and electoral advantages. Money and political advantage should take a back-seat for these media outlets for the next five years and the national interest should be the sole criteria for the challenges that India will face after 2030. USA and the West have become developed nations as they being democracies, have encouraged questioning. Russia & China have become developed nations as they have a single political party system, and hence questioning is discouraged. India is a democracy, hence questioning by the press will speed up the progress rate.

Political Unity:   On issues of national security, economic growth and military prowess, the political parties of India need to be united, irrespective of the political party’s ideology. The challenge in front of India needs the political parties to express solidarity on critical issues, irrespective of the outcome of elections at any level – national, state or municipal. The next five years have to be treated as a war effort as the two-front war clouds have started darkening. On March 17, 2025, General Upendra Dwivedi, the Chief of the Army Staff, Indian Army, while delivering the fourth General Bipin Rawat Memorial Lecture in New Delhi remarked that two-front war was no longer a possibility-it’s a reality.

Framing of the National Security Strategy:   India needs to formulate the National Security Strategy (NSS) within the next two months and put it in public domain. The NSS framed should spell out clearly what are the external and internal threats of India. This would greatly help in the whole-of-the-nation to deal with the adversarial situation that is just five years away.  After all, fighting a war isn’t the sole responsibility of a nation’s military only. Every ministry, organisation and individual have to contribute in war preparedness according to its capacity and capability. The future war to be waged by China & Pakistan will have to be met by enhanced technological, economic and of course military power, for which the NSS has to clearly spell out the path ahead so that all public and private sectors contribute with total clarity. A famous Chinese proverb says “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now”.

Finally, US President Donald Trump’s Tariff war on India and his remark of the Indian economy being dead should be the transfiguration of the Great Indian Leap. Jane Goodall’s quote “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make” has deep significance for 1.46 billion Indian citizens and all public and private sector organisations that the next five years have to see a transformational India that is prepared for the two-front war that will happen any time after 2030.

About the Author

Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd) is the Founder-Editor, Global Strategic & Defence News and has authored the book “China’s War Clouds: The Great Chinese Checkmate”. He tweets at @JassiSodhi24.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

The recent Iran-Russia growing strategic partnership has shifted the attention towards the Middle East and elevated the concerns for nuclear security. This bilateral military-technology trade partnership increases the military capabilities in each country’s respective area of influence such as Ukraine in Europe and Israel in the Middle East. This strategic partnership has big implications not only in the Middle-East or Eastern Europe but many other countries. The relationship between Iran and Russia has made U.S. put economic and political sanctions on both countries. This can push both countries to come even closer and rely on each other and potentially have a big impact on global nuclear regime.

Russia-Iran Strategic Partnership

The two countries have been engaged in unprecedented rapprochement since the start of the war in Ukraine. The peak of military co-operation between the two countries came in 2022, when Iran supplied drones to Russia to be used in the Russia-Ukraine war. On January 17, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian signed an historic 20-year strategic agreement. This new “strategic partnership” between Russia and Iran was finally signed in the Kremlin just three days before the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president.

The treaty spans forty-seven articles, covering almost all major areas, including trade, energy, security, nuclear issue, port visits and joint officer training. They pledged not to allow their territory to be used in any military action against the other, or help anyone to attack the other, and would cooperate to counter outside military threats. The agreement, however, does not directly or explicitly talk about a “mutual defence clause”. The text also includes exchanges “in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy” including “the construction of nuclear energy facilities,” according to information released by the Kremlin.

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, exacerbated by the air strikes conducted by the United States (US) on Iranian nuclear sites, has significantly escalated tensions in the Middle East. Russia has condemned both Israel and the US for ‘violating international law and the United Nations Charter’. But all that condemnation was only on paper that yielded no efforts from Russia to stop the crisis. This muted reaction showed the reality of Iran-Russia strategic partnership for all the rhetoric of anti-Western solidarity. This silence is all the more striking given that Iran is one of the few countries actively supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, supplying drones, arms, and military equipment but Russia not helping Iran militarily in return.

Despite all the agreement between Iran-Russia, Russia has not supplied any arms to Iran. The Kremlin has limited itself to a formal condemnation while leaving the Islamic Republic to deal with what initially appeared to be an existential crisis that has now been temporarily paused through a ceasefire. Vladimir Putin said that Iran had not asked for help since the beginning of Israel’s air campaign. The Russian president added that the comprehensive partnership treaty between Moscow and Tehran has no articles related to the military sphere.

Impact on Global Nuclear Regime

Global focus has been shifted to the Middle East, allowing the Kremlin to intensify its attacks on Ukraine, hoping for military gains there, and if the Iranian regime overcomes this crisis, it will emerge more dependent on Russia for its survival. A collapse of the Islamic Republic or a potential Iranian nuclear breakout could destabilize the broader region, erode Moscow’s strategic foothold, and expose the limitations of its capacity to shape regional power dynamics and secure its southern periphery.

The United States of America has always been against the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear state. Due to which, Trump always opted for the “Maximum Pressure” by putting more economical sections on Iran and the supporting nation Russia. This Maximum Pressure has the potential to push Tehran and Moscow Even Closer. This can increase Iran’s keenness towards making nuclear weapon or at least increase the chance of Iran asking for technological help from Russia for the development of nuclear weapon technology Nuclear Weapon Technology.

Russia recognizes that the war’s outcome has the potential to reshape its global stature, fundamentally alter the dynamics of the “Iran question” in which Moscow has long claimed a central role or as a moderator and impact global strategic stability and non-proliferation efforts. Although, Russia’s role in the Iran-Isreal crisis is constrained by its deep involvement in Ukraine crisis and the U.S. is criticised by many nations for funding the genocide in Gaza and the West-Bank. These conflicting pressures presents both risks and opportunities, with risks currently outweighing potential gains. Simultaneously, due to international sanctions, Russia grew increasingly reliant on longtime Iranian rivals for the oil-price coordination and investments in civil nuclear program and Missile development. 

Due to the ongoing crisis and global focus shifting to the Middle East, the Non-Proliferation regime has been affected. Some states may grow more interested in nuclear weapons such as Iran and South Koria. If Iran makes a nuclear weapon, the bordering countries in the Middle-East may also be forced to build deeper underground, more secretive facilities that are less vulnerable to conventional attacks. Similarly, South-Koria has repeatedly asked the U.S. to help them with North-Koria which is a nuclear country. But not getting significant response from U.S. has made them believe that America’s Nuclear Umbrella is reliable. The U.S. is losing its influence in many countries. For example, they already have strategic pacts with North Korea and close ally Belarus, as well as a partnership agreement with China. The concern about national defence and security could make them choose nuclear option.

The progress of Iran’s civil nuclear program may also be at stake due to the U.S. sanctions for limiting Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, the progress of Western sanctions on Iran and Russia have complicated Russian efforts to receive payment from Iran for work on the Bushehr plant. Russia reduced half billion dollars in debt from Iran in 2023. Yet work on new reactors at Bushehr 2 has been slow. By early 2025 only 17% of the project was completed. Isolated from the West and facing China’s investment hesitance, Tehran has little option but to rely on Russian technology. This close relationship strengthens Russia’s grip globally over civilian nuclear energy.

Iran has signed multiple treaties in the past as well with several other major nations Iran and Russia’s partnership allows the opportunity to challenge the United States and the West. Countries includes China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cube, and Belarus share similar objectives to decrease American hegemony and to create a multipolar world. China and India also seek a multipolar world but do not suffer from the same political and economic isolation levied against the Russians and Iranians.

China’s support for Iran’s nuclear ambition has been constant, which now, extends to investment in infrastructural projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, proposing a massive investment of $400 billion over the next 25 years. North Korea has signed a pact with Iran, enhancing its missile technology. Venezuela, on the other hand does not have much to offer, but has still signed the strategic pact as a tool of mutual defiance against US. Belarus, a staunch Russian ally, has consistently shown its support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear purposes.

For Europe, the Israeli–Iranian conflict has exposed its geopolitical marginalization. Efforts to align closely with the US and Israel have brought strategic risks, while excluding Europe from the decisions shaping key developments in the region. Europe faces new challenges in its relations with both Iran and Russia, arising from the war in Ukraine and the dynamics of nuclear diplomacy.

Future prospects

Nuclear talks between Iran or Russia and the United States could lead to one of these scenarios. If Iran or Russia agrees with U.S., it will likely result in a ceasefire in Ukraine and the genocide of Palestinian civilians will continue. This will reduce the U.S. sanctions on Russia and Iran, might give some economic relieve for both countries. Moscow’s reliance on military cooperation and alternative economic partnerships with countries like Iran, China and North Koria could diminish. This could increase the west influence and decrease the Russia’s influence in the Middle-East. This also erase all the chances of Iran acquiring Weapon of Mass Destruction and it will could also impact the Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

On the other hand, an agreement could take place between Iran and Russia, whether through tighter Western sanctions on Russia or increased pressure on Iran. In this case, America will try to put more sanctions on both nations. Russia will most likely try to bolster its ties with countries like China and North Koria and simultaneously increase control in the Middle-East. The economic and Military cooperation between Iran and Russia can speed up Iranian weapon program and grow arm supply in many countries. This can potentially end the genocide in Gaza and West-Bank, although nothing can be said about Russia-Ukraine war. This could potentially drive Tehran and Moscow into even closer strategic alignment.

Conclusion

The Iran-Russia 20-year agreement is important not just from a bilateral context but has wide raging geopolitical ramifications. The evolving alignment between Tehran and Moscow will likely continue to operate on a spectrum between transactional cooperation and strategic coordination, advancing in selective areas of mutual benefit while avoiding the risks of overcommitment. Systemic pressures have created conditions that are pushing Tehran and Moscow toward deeper cooperation, and that will continue to shape the intensity and trajectory of the partnership in the future.

By: Gayathri Pramod, Research Analyst, GSDN

The India–Canada reset in relations represents one of the most consequential diplomatic recalibrations undertaken by New Delhi in recent years, striking a balance between pragmatism and cautious optimism. For decades, India and Canada have shared a robust partnership grounded in democratic ideals, parliamentary systems, economic complementarities, and deep-rooted people-to-people connections that have flourished across generations. According to the Ministry of External Affairs, bilateral engagement has historically rested on a framework that combines trade, education, scientific collaboration, and cultural exchanges. However, the crisis triggered by the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in mid-2023 tested these pillars in unprecedented ways, causing a protracted freeze in high-level dialogue and a sharp deterioration of trust. New Delhi consistently rejected Canada’s “credible allegations” as unsubstantiated and politically motivated, emphasising in multiple official statements that India remained committed to addressing security concerns through lawful channels rather than what it described as public grandstanding.

Despite the turbulence, by early 2025, a combination of domestic political shifts in Ottawa and strategic compulsions in both capitals created conditions ripe for rapprochement. The arrival of Mark Carney as Canada’s new Governor of the Bank of Canada provided the first real opportunity to reset ties after nearly two years of strained relations. Carney’s pragmatic approach stood in stark contrast to the Trudeau era, with his administration signalling its readiness to compartmentalise individual legal proceedings from the broader strategic partnership. According to MEA press releases, India welcomed this shift, describing it as an “opportunity to restore momentum to a relationship of substantial promise.”

One of the first visible outcomes of the reset was the decision to fully restore diplomatic staffing at both High Commissions in New Delhi and Ottawa, which had been operating at reduced capacity since late 2023. Consular services, including visa processing for students, tourists, and business travellers, resumed within weeks of the Carney-Modi meeting on the sidelines of the 2025 G7 summit in Alberta. This development was particularly significant for the Indian diaspora in Canada, which at over 1.8 million strong represents one of the largest and most influential immigrant communities in the country. As noted in the MEA Annual Report 2024–25, restoring normal consular operations was a priority to minimize disruptions for families and businesses affected by the standoff. Beyond immediate normalisation, India and Canada have outlined an ambitious roadmap for future engagement that spans economic, technological, and security cooperation.

On trade, both sides agreed to revive negotiations toward the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and an interim Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA), with a stated goal of concluding at least the interim pact within a year. According to the Government of Canada, CEPA could unlock preferential access for Canadian exporters in sectors ranging from pulses, potash, and forestry products to advanced manufacturing and services. At the same time, Indian companies would benefit from reduced tariffs on textiles, pharmaceuticals, and IT services. The India–Canada CEO Forum, reconstituted after a hiatus, has been tasked with developing a roadmap to scale bilateral trade beyond USD 15 billion by 2030, focusing on key sectors and potential trade barriers.

The MEA has also emphasised that the new chapter in ties will involve closer cooperation on climate action, critical minerals, and the deployment of clean technology. India is looking to Canada as a partner in its National Green Hydrogen Mission, which aims to transform the country into a global hub for green hydrogen production and export. Canada, endowed with abundant reserves of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements, is eager to position itself as a reliable supplier to India’s booming battery and electric vehicle sectors. The two countries are also exploring joint ventures in grid modernisation and carbon capture, utilisation, and storage, areas where Canadian expertise aligns with India’s ambitious decarbonization targets under its updated Nationally Determined Contributions.

Security collaboration, which had nearly collapsed following the Nijjar crisis, is cautiously resuming through structured institutional mechanisms. As reported in The Hindu, the MEA and Canada’s Global Affairs have agreed to expand the annual Strategic Dialogue to include working groups on counter-terrorism financing, radicalisation prevention, and cybersecurity. A new track-1.5 dialogue involving senior security officials and think tanks is planned for early 2026 to deepen understanding of transnational extremism and strengthen legal cooperation. Canadian authorities, while maintaining that due process will continue in the Nijjar investigation, have signalled their readiness to clamp down on organisations that incite violence or promote secessionist propaganda. Indian diplomats have described this as an essential confidence-building step to insulate strategic engagement from domestic political pressures.

One area identified by the MEA as ripe for future collaboration is defence industrial cooperation. India has expressed interest in sourcing advanced simulation technologies, Arctic weather gear, and specialised aircraft components developed by Canadian firms. Canadian aerospace companies, in turn, are exploring opportunities in India’s rapidly expanding civil aviation market and defence modernisation programs. While no major defence deals have yet been finalised, the potential for collaboration in this area is significant, and both sides are expected to convene a dedicated Defence and Security Cooperation Working Group later in 2025, paving the way for a promising future.

People-to-people ties remain a robust foundation and a source of both opportunity and challenge. According to Statistics Canada, Indian immigrants are now Canada’s largest source of new permanent residents and students. In the wake of the reset, provincial governments, such as Ontario and British Columbia, are collaborating with the Indian High Commission to establish smoother pathways for academic mobility and professional accreditation, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare and engineering. The MEA has also emphasized the importance of safeguarding Indian students from fraudulent immigration consultants and ensuring that unscrupulous agents do not exploit labour mobility agreements. Looking ahead, the India–Canada reset is significant as it is poised to become a test case for how democratic countries can navigate disagreements while advancing shared interests in a multipolar world. Both nations are deeply committed to reforming global governance institutions to reflect contemporary realities better. India’s G20 presidency and Canada’s engagement in the G7 have provided platforms to align positions on inclusive digital transformation, sustainable finance, and resilient supply chains. The MEA has indicated that India expects Canada to be an important partner in championing reforms of the World Trade Organisation, democratisation of climate finance, and more representative frameworks for technology governance.

Perhaps most tellingly, senior Indian officials have consistently framed the reset not as a return to status quo ante but as an opportunity to define a more mature, resilient partnership built on clarity of red lines and mutual respect. As stated in the MEA briefing, “India remains committed to engaging constructively with Canada based on sovereign equality, non-interference, and shared values.” This commitment will likely be tested as the Nijjar investigation continues and as both societies grapple with the challenge of managing diaspora politics without undermining national security. Nevertheless, the Carney-Modi dialogue has already produced measurable dividends—complete restoration of diplomatic channels, resumption of trade negotiations, incremental intelligence cooperation, and a roadmap for expanding clean energy and innovation partnerships. Over the next decade, India and Canada have the potential to redefine their engagement through sustained high-level exchanges, deeper business integration, and a clearer understanding of each other’s domestic constraints. If this reset is grounded in consistent policy and mutual accountability, it could become a model for other democracies seeking to reconcile their strategic ambitions with the realities of complex, pluralistic societies.

 It is essential to examine the future of India-Canada relations through the lens of strategic, cultural, and economic dimensions, with a significant emphasis on defence cooperation. Despite recent tensions and diplomatic standoffs that have periodically strained bilateral ties, the underlying imperatives driving mutual engagement suggest that both countries have strong incentives to recalibrate and deepen their relationship. The socio-political landscapes of both nations are evolving, shaped by internal pressures, diaspora dynamics, and global strategic realignments. While current diplomatic frictions—particularly over politically sensitive issues involving diaspora activism and allegations of interference—have impeded progress, these appear to be temporary setbacks in a broader context marked by potential for long-term collaboration. The future relationship will likely be shaped not only by government-to-government negotiations, but also by deeper, multifaceted linkages in trade, people-to-people contact, cultural exchanges, technological cooperation, and, increasingly, defence partnerships. In terms of defence and strategic affairs, a convergence of interests is emerging.

India’s growing emphasis on self-reliance in defence manufacturing (Atmanirbhar Bharat) aligns well with Canada’s advanced technological capabilities and innovation ecosystem. As global threats become more transnational—ranging from cyber warfare to climate-related security risks—there is scope for increased collaboration in intelligence sharing, maritime security, cybersecurity frameworks, and peacekeeping operations. Canada’s status as a NATO member and its increasing participation in Indo-Pacific dialogues position it as a valuable partner in India’s Act East policy and broader regional strategic outlook. Although Canada has traditionally maintained a restrained defence posture in the Indo-Pacific, pressures from allies such as the United States, Australia, and Japan may compel it to take a more proactive role, one where India could emerge as a critical strategic interlocutor. The future could witness joint training exercises, strategic dialogues, and the establishment of formal defence mechanisms, especially as both countries seek to counterbalance Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and uphold the rules-based international order.

Cultural ties will continue to serve as a resilient foundation of bilateral relations, mainly due to the significant Indian diaspora in Canada, which is one of the largest globally. This community not only contributes to the economic and political fabric of Canada but also acts as a bridge for cultural understanding, educational exchanges, and soft power diplomacy. Over time, cultural diplomacy is likely to assume a more formalised role, with expanded programs in language, cinema, art, and education. India’s soft power—manifested through Bollywood, yoga, cuisine, and festivals—resonates strongly within Canada’s multicultural ethos. Universities and academic institutions from both countries have the potential to become platforms for shared innovation and global research, particularly in fields such as clean energy, artificial intelligence, and public health. These cultural and educational ties may help to soften political differences, fostering greater understanding and reducing the friction caused by conflicting domestic narratives. Economically, both countries have strong incentives to revitalise trade and investment ties. While a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) has remained elusive for years, the urgency of diversifying global trade relationships in a post-pandemic world may revive negotiations. Canada’s vast reserves of critical minerals and clean energy resources are of particular interest to India’s burgeoning technological and manufacturing sectors.

Meanwhile, India’s massive consumer base and digital economy offer Canadian firms access to one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. Strategic investments in sectors such as agriculture, information technology, and green energy could be mutually beneficial, supported by regulatory harmonisation and visa facilitation. The evolution of this economic partnership will depend mainly on political will and the ability to compartmentalise differences on sensitive issues while advancing mutually beneficial areas of cooperation.

Furthermore, multilateralism could become a key area of cooperation, particularly in the context of global governance reforms, climate change, and global health resilience. Both countries, as democratic nations with pluralistic values, have overlapping interests in preserving an open international system. Canada’s advocacy for human rights and inclusive governance, when expressed with diplomatic sensitivity, can find resonance with India’s constitutional values, albeit with recognition of its unique socio-political context. In terms of climate cooperation, Canada’s experience with carbon pricing and sustainable infrastructure could complement India’s ambitious renewable energy goals. Engagement in forums such as the G20, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations provides further avenues for alignment on global challenges, particularly as both nations increasingly recognise the importance of South-South cooperation and equitable development.

However, the relationship will not be without its challenges. Political rhetoric, fuelled by domestic electoral considerations in both countries, can hinder diplomatic progress. Diaspora politics, especially when it intersects with separatist movements or perceived interference in domestic affairs, will continue to be a recurring flashpoint. However, the maturity of the relationship will be tested not by the absence of conflict but by the capacity to manage disagreement through institutional mechanisms, dialogue, and mutual respect. Canada’s evolving understanding of India’s strategic sensitivities and India’s appreciation of the complexities of liberal democracies will be crucial in navigating contentious issues. Over time, both nations may develop a more pragmatic approach—one that allows for disagreements without derailing cooperation in other domains.

While India-Canada relations are presently navigating a complex phase, the long-term forecast remains cautiously optimistic. Defence cooperation stands poised to become a new pillar, supported by shared concerns over regional stability and global security. Cultural linkages and diaspora relations will continue to serve as a deep connective tissue, offering resilience even during diplomatic downturns. Economic complementarities and multilateral engagements offer rich opportunities for constructive collaboration. The future relationship will not be linear nor devoid of challenges, but it will likely be defined by increasing interdependence, strategic dialogue, and a maturing understanding of each other’s priorities. As both nations seek to assert themselves in an increasingly multipolar world, their relationship—if anchored in pragmatism and mutual respect—could evolve into a comprehensive partnership that contributes meaningfully to global peace, prosperity, and democratic resilience.

By: Dr. Bawa Singh

Civilian casualties have been rising, with someone dying every 12 minutes in conflict zones on account of humanitarian crisis. Whereas on the other hand, the military expenditure is growing exponentially of the major powers.  As of today, the countries engaged in conflicts, disputes, wars and on account of this background, million people are suffering a major humanitarian crisis. Since 2024 onwards, the world has been facing its gravest humanitarian crisis. An estimated 186.5 million people across 72 countries, direly needed humanitarian aid. Yet, the donors have provided only US$ 22.58 billion out of the US$ 49 billion needed i.e., leaving a shortfall to the amount of $26.42 billion resulting in vulnerabilities of food insecurity, collapsed health systems, and seriously devastated livelihoods.

The above-mentioned figures revealed stark paradoxes as the so-called major powers cannot mobilize required resources needed to avert a mass humanitarian crisis. On the one hand, millions are not able to manage their basic needs and on the other hand, military unproductive expenditure is growing exponentially.  In 2024, it is reported that global military spending surged to a record US$ 2.718 trillion, which roughly comes to the amount of 2.5 percent of world GDP. The humanitarian assistance declined from US$ 37.5 billion in 2023 to US$ 33.9 billion. Major donor countries cut their aid programmes up to 40 percent even as they expanded their defense budgets to counter perceived threats. How the world is paradoxical with stark misalignment? Major economic powers arming for war instead of providing humanitarian aid to protect vulnerable people in conflict/war zones. Currently, million people have been facing humanitarian crisis resulting in deaths, displacements, refugees, lack of basic necessities like food, health, education etc.

The US and Russia are wielding outsized strategic influence over both conflict escalations and relief operations in the conflicting zones. When their bilateral tensions grow, sanctions used to choke off aid funding, airspace restrictions take place resulting in restrictions on medical and food deliveries, and resolutions are blocked for safe corridors. If a thaw takes place in the US–Russia relations, consequence would be positive resulting in unlock of frozen assets, coordinate targeted relief for life-saving goods, and establish de-confliction corridors. It used to amplify humanitarian relief in the conflicting zones.

For example, the humanitarian lifeline proved vulnerable to political shifts in early 2025. It  became even more critical,  when the US’s Executive Order 14169 imposed a 90-day pause on nearly all foreign assistance. In view of this, the UN warned that the suspension could cause up to 350,000 excess deaths.  More than 32 million women would be deprived of reproductive health services along with 12.8 million displaced people of basic healthcare. About 10 million refugees could not avail emergency aid. This reflected how strategic disagreements directly result into life-and-death outcomes for the conflict zone entrapped people.

If Washington and Moscow can rebuild trust by defusing their bilateral and other geopolitical tensions, then the multilateral bodies would gain vital resources and political backing. For example, a shared US-Russia framework for ceasefire could empower the UN to establish safe corridors in Yemen and Ethiopia. While their joint funding commitments, could close the current US$ 26 billion aid shortfall that impacted seriously millions with malnutrition and preventable disease.

Beyond their direct assistance, cooperative US–Russia diplomacy can strengthen the Security Council’s capacity to adopt binding resolutions for humanitarian relief access. In 2016, adhoc US–Russia geopolitical understandings, had enabled the cross-border convoys into besieged Syrian territories. Today, similar collaboration is required to handle the grave humanitarian crisis. It could unlock frozen assets in billions for reconstruction, provide access of humanitarian aid in conflict-eroded health systems, drinking water, sanitation, and shelter projects across Gaza, the Sahel etc.

Ultimately, it is argued that genuine détente between Washington and Moscow is direly needed. Such cooperation would be helpful in liberating the financial, logistical, and diplomatic resources from perpetual crisis management. The liberated sources can be redirected toward accessibility of humanitarian aid. Even a considerable amount of their combined military budgets reallocated towards humanitarian aid. These two powers could reduce the current funding shortfall. It could prevent million deaths, and restore hope for better life battered by conflict. Therefore, détente is direly needed between the US and Russia, which could become an urgent humanitarian lifeline.

About the Author

Dr. Bawa Singh has been teaching in the Department of South and Central Asian Studies at the School of International Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda. His research expertise includes the geopolitics of South and Central Asia, Indian foreign policy, regional cooperation, maritime security, and global health diplomacy.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Trishnakhi Parashar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Middle East carries the imprint of being perceived as an exceptional region, mainly due to its unique culture, geography, and not to mention its profound religious centrality, as being the cradle of three predominant monotheistic religions- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. While discussing about the Middle East, spotlight currently casts upon Iran, Israel or Saudi Arabia, but in the meantime two nations- Jordan and Syria remain pivotal and more or less overlooked.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, commonly known as Jordan and Syria are two naturally beautiful, culturally vibrant nations of the Middle East region. In contemporary times, the region is commonly known for two of its most flagrant aspects – ginormous oil reserves with on and off power struggles. However, both the nations are unique in their own ways, not due to abundant natural resources, as they possess little of it but sure they face reoccurring struggles within and between nations. Although such challenges are not specific to any one nation but Middle East has a bad reputation for ongoing conflicts.

In the beginning…

The beginning of all these difficulties can be traced back to the post-World War I period, when the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in 1916 led to a window of opportunity for Britain and France partitioning the region. Both Jordan and Syria, as we know them today have their modern borders and early political frameworks designed by the mandates imposed by these western colonial powers. Through the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British gained control of Iraq and Palestine, which included Jordan, whereas the French took Lebanon and Syria. The two mandates differed in implementation as the British mandate was more of an indirect rule, they chose to install local leaders, whereas the French ruled by direct civilian and military rule. 

The legacies of British and French mandates understandably had a lingering impact on political matters of Jordan and Syria. In the meantime, their geographical locations have also played an equally critical role in enlightening why both the nations still matter in the Middle East.

Geography matters

Jordan is one of the few nations with a special strategic location in the Middle East region, as it’s located at the focal meeting point between two continents of Asia and Africa. Apparently, such unique advantage of location provides Jordan a crucial role in political and economic cooperation, not just within the region but has also elevating its stature in the international politics. Jordan is to a large extent considered as a connecting thread between the Middle East and the Western world as it remaining a reliable ally for many international powers. It also works as an ideal buffer state between some of the larger Arab nations and Israel, establishing it as a hub for political and diplomatic negotiations and a meeting point for different actors in the region and the world. So, it is not an exaggeration to state that its positioning made it a gateway between the Arab/Islamic culture and Western culture.

Similarly, Syria today is one of undeniably the most dynamic at the same time controversial location of the region. Syria is part of the Levant, highlights its historical and strategic centrality in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Syria particularly is the vital bridge linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian interior, providing the routes for trade and military logistics across the region. The historic Silk Route, one of the important trade routes, passed through Syria, linking Asia with Europe. Empires throughout history has a common intention to control over this area. Even after independence, during the Cold War era, Syria’s strategic positioning never failed to attract the attention of superpowers, which later made it an arena for contending ideologies.

It is evident that, both the nations’ geopolitical location continues to bear importance in forming their policies in different spheres, particularly in matters of security and stability.

Balancing security and stability

On many occasions, Jordan under the leadership of King Abdullah, has led the way towards security and stability in the region through enhancing regional cooperation to tackle common obstacles such as terrorism, climate change and economic crises. Jordan has successfully managing its image as a dependable partner during the war on terror. Being a strategic partner in the fight against radical terrorism, it contributes admirably to deal with this growing nuisance. Surrounded by major conflicting actors, Jordan has become a venue of advanced security services that can combat security threats emanating from such volatile neighborhood. As a country that seeks to maintain peace and stability The Jordan Armed Forces-Arab Army (JAF) is among United States Central Command’s (CENTCOM) most dedicated and strongest allies. On October 26, 1994, The Wadi Araba Agreement was concluded between Jordan and Israel that officially ended decades of hostilities to enhance stability between the two nations and across the region. However, Jordan has been and continues to be one of the most prominent advocates for Palestinian rights in various international platforms.

Its contributions to regional peace and stability, has demonstrated its ability to play a mediating role in regional and international conflicts. The Kingdom is trusted by international actors; on regional level it maintains somewhat moderate relations. But, Islamist non-state actors remain suspicious and view it as an ally of the Western bloc. Jordan faces numerous difficulties on the path to supporting peace and stability in a turbulent region. Albeit its own limitations, Jordan continues to committed to regional peace.

Syria, on the hand, become severely entangled in terrorism and proxy conflicts/wars, often catching national and international eyes as a hotbed for regional and international rivalries. During March 2011, pro-democracy protests erupted in Syria against President Basher al-Assad, following violent government crackdown. Soon, before anyone could anticipate, the protests spiraled into an anarchical war-like situation in the region, involving government forces, rebellious groups, and militias.

Battleground for a Proxy-war

The Syrian opposition to Bashar al-Assad was quick to escalate an insurgency along with groups such as the Free Syrian Army. Anti-Assad forces received support and arms from states like- Qatar and Turkey. In contrast, Iran and Russia were assisting Pro-Assad forces with financial and military support. Such devastating situation with the collapse of local governing body, created a power vacuum in large parts of Syria, which paved way for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a designated terrorist group. Later, United States and other Western allies joined to launch a military campaign against ISIS, marking Syria a geopolitical chessboard.

Russia, maintains strong ties with Syria mostly to protect its own strategic interest, particularly the naval base at Tartus, a strategic gateway for arms and logistics. Russia, in fact tried to shield Assad regime from global interventions. The US, in this scenario, is trying to advance its own agenda, i.e. to checkmate Russia and Iran in Syria, and maintain hegemonic stability in the region.

The refugee crisis

Throughout that crisis, countless people endured extreme human rights violation, such as-massacres, indiscriminate killings, kidnapping of civilians, physical abuse, sexual violence, destroying civilians’ property, and unjust detentions. Millions of people unable to withstand the situation forced to flee to other nations. Since the beginning of the war, approximately 13 million Syrians have been displaced, and scattered around neighboring states, even in some parts of Europe. This rises another ongoing controversial issue of immigration and refugee intake. To the EU, stability within the Syria is vital. Because, if the conflict continues/worsens, the EU might face an increased flow of refugees.

When Syria’s revolution began and intensified into civil war, neighboring state Jordan guided by compassion, opened its borders. Within a few years, a huge number of Syrians crossed into Jordan, it became a home to more than 1.4 million Syrians. Working closely with international agencies, Jordan’s rapid actions involved setting up temporary shelters for the refugees; build refugee camps, most notably Za’atari, which quickly became one of the world’s largest refugee camps and providing basic healthcare services. Even though Jordan has not offered citizenship or permanence to these refugees, yet its policies seems to have gradually shifted from emergency relief to managing prolonged displacement.

The influx of refugees from Syria and Palestine has unfolded some significant challenges to Jordan’s economic resources and social services. The Jordanian economy has burdened by a complex set of internal and external challenges that, to some extent have disrupted its development. Massive population growth, high unemployment, strained social services, dependence on external aid and a scarcity of natural resources, such as water and oil, have collectively complicates economic self-sufficiency and curtails growth opportunities. While bearing all these ongoing burdens, the nation has been globally praised for its efforts in this regard and its promptness to manage this humanitarian crisis.

The fuel behind everything

Jordan also plays an important role in energy and water cooperation in the Middle East. Jordan is considered as one of the leading nations in the region in renewable and clean energy. It also plans to working toward the development of a hydrogen strategy to support green energy export. However, it is counted among the most water-scarce nations in the world, therefore compelled to depend on external sources, particularly on Israel for fresh water. On July 2021, Israel increased the water quota sold to Jordan by 50 million cubic meters for three years, later on 16 May 2024, amid bumpy relations, Israel and Jordan renewed its water-sharing agreement for another six months. Moreover, on November 8, 2022, the two nations formulated a memorandum of understanding under the auspices of the United Arab Emirates, to advance the “Water for Energy” project, which envisions Israel providing Jordan 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water annually in exchange for Jordan supplying renewable solar energy from a UAE-sponsored solar farm.

Regarding Syria, prior to the outbreak of civil war, the nation’s oil and natural gas reserves were self-sufficient in terms of energy supplies also had exported oil. Multiple foreign companies participated in development of natural gas resources. Exporting oil and gas provided almost 20 percent of the then government’s revenue. Syria, in fact, annually generated approximately to 29.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, though its consumption was only about 25.7 billion kilowatts. A significant portion was produced by thermal power plants, that fueled by oil and natural gas. But, then the war came into the picture and Syria transitioned from energy sufficient to become dependent on imports. During these times, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have pledged to supply fuel and electricity to Syria. The revenue drop from exporting oil was a major setback in the regime’s inability to cope with public unrest.

The regime change

In early December 2024, Hayet Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) toppled the Assad regime. On March 29, 2025, Syrian people under new President Ahmed Al Shara, witnessed the new transitional administration. Amid regime change and security concerns, international momentum is growing towards state rebuilding. For now, with the new President taking office, opens the possibility of reopening trade and boosting its economy. That said, signaling a diplomatic initiative, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi became the first Arab foreign minister to visit Syria to meet the new Head of the state. However, like other nations in the world Jordan’s approach continues to be a careful one.

Conclusion

In summary, Jordan and Syria face a series of challenges and opportunities that define its role in the world politics. Despite the common mutual volatility, Jordan, to a large extent has played a significant role in maintaining security. Throughout Jordan’s history, it has established itself as a comparatively stable with the monarchy and moderate nation in a region that is best known for conflicts. Jordan’s willingness and ability to continue strong diplomatic ties, manage the refugee crisis, effectively charting a path out to economic and political dynamics in parallel with its commitment to assisting Syria in its recovery and reintegration- are evidence to its resilience. On the other hand, Syria has a complex past but due to a blend of both avoidable/unavoidable circumstances it gripped in tumultuous crisis. However, Syria’s nascent efforts to revive, such as reestablishing governance, rebuilding infrastructure, relations- signals a cautious step towards post-war nation building. While the prospects for peace in these territories or, for that matter, in the broader region is uncertain, but one cannot deny Jordan and Syria’s importance in the Middle East.