The war is over. Putin “wins”

Until the middle of this week, the global political landscape remained volatile. At one point, the Iran-Israel conflict reached its peak, and shortly afterward, the bloody war came to a climax. During this period, Iran struck a U.S. military base for only the second time in its history, and for the first time, targeted a base in Qatar.

Russia, meanwhile, capitalized on the distraction and continued its aggressive military operations in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin used the Middle Eastern conflict as a pretext to shift global attention away from Ukraine and push his narrative.

In Europe, leaders of NATO member states appeared indifferent. Just a day after the Iran-Israel war—during which hundreds died and thousands of civilians were wounded—they were seen smiling, as if nothing had happened.

Pakistan, the only Muslim-majority country with nuclear weapons, is believed to have been deeply alarmed by the U.S. military action against Iran. Sources suggest that Pakistan has begun working on a nuclear warhead capable of reaching American territory.

In the United States, under the leadership of ultra-Israeli Donald Trump, a Muslim candidate known for his pro-Palestinian stance—who has even vowed to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu—may be elected governor of New York.

QALAMPIR.UZ's Midweek program will offer further analysis of these developments and other key events from around the world.

Iran celebrates “victory”

The war between Israel and Iran has come to an end. In the initial hours, there was hesitation on both sides, as well as worldwide uncertainty. Despite some confusion early on—particularly the launch of a missile from Iran into Israel shortly after the ceasefire agreement, and Israel’s subsequent threat of retaliation—active military operations have ceased. In short, the 12-day war is over. Iran celebrated what it called a “victory,” while the Netanyahu administration claimed it had achieved all of its military objectives. The Trump administration also asserted that it played a decisive role in ending the conflict. In essence, every side claims to have won something. Yet the aftermath of the war suggests otherwise. The damage, losses, and strategic weaknesses exposed during the fighting indicate that none of the parties emerged with anything to boast about. Trump, whose approval ratings continue to drop, may have aimed to bolster his image by ordering B-2 bomber strikes on Iran. Netanyahu, for his part, reinforced his administration’s reliance on military action—an approach built on war and the bloodshed of women and children. However, this was a war that neither side needed. In fact, it may end up backfiring politically. Trump’s popularity has suffered, with recent polls showing his approval rating at just 41 percent—one of the lowest points in his political career. Netanyahu has also drawn criticism, particularly over the performance of Israel’s air defenses. Iran’s missiles penetrated the country's multi-layered air defense system, including the much-touted Iron Dome. This failure has exposed vulnerabilities in what was once considered one of the world’s most advanced defense networks. The global community—and Israelis themselves—witnessed the system’s inability to intercept Iranian projectiles. This will likely lead to growing mistrust in the state’s military preparedness and in the Netanyahu government. The human cost adds to Netanyahu’s mounting challenges. According to the Israeli National Ambulance Service, 28 people have been killed and over 3,000 injured by Iranian strikes since June 13. Key urban areas like Tel Aviv and Haifa, among the main targets, now resemble war-torn cities of the Middle East. A simple Google image search of “Tel Aviv” or “Haifa” yields images similar to those of Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Sanaa, and Gaza.

On the other side, Iran also suffered significant military setbacks. Israeli fighter jets were able to operate freely over Iranian territory, a major source of embarrassment for Tehran. The country’s counterintelligence capabilities were shown to be severely lacking. The abrupt failure of air defense systems, the successful targeting of sensitive facilities by Mossad operatives within Iran, and the assassination of generals and nuclear scientists underscored the vulnerability of Iran’s internal security. Nevertheless, none of these tactical losses outweigh the devastating loss of innocent civilian lives. According to Iran’s Minister of Health, at least 610 people have been killed and around 5,000 injured in Israeli strikes on Iranian territory since June 13. Among the dead are 49 women and 13 children.

Russia "wins" from the Israeli-Iranian war

As tensions in the Middle East escalated, Russia intensified its invasion of Ukraine. While the world’s attention was fixed on the war between Iran and Israel, Russia launched a series of devastating attacks on Kyiv. On the night of June 17, dozens of sites across the capital—including residential buildings, schools, and critical infrastructure—were targeted. A rocket strike hit a nine-story residential building in the Solomianskyi district, killing 21 people. In total, the attacks on Kyiv claimed nearly 30 lives and left 134 people injured. On June 20, during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia might occupy Ukraine’s Sumy region under the pretext of establishing a “security zone.” Putin has repeated this claim since 2024, citing a Ukrainian Armed Forces incursion into Russia’s Kursk region as justification. At the height of the Middle East conflict, Putin went further, stating that “anywhere a Russian soldier steps foot belongs to Russia.” He reiterated his long-standing belief that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people," asserting that all of Ukraine is part of Russia. This kind of rhetoric, more commonly associated with the late ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, came at a moment when global attention was diverted by missile exchanges between Iran and Israel.

Russia’s aggression escalated further. On the night of June 21, new explosions were reported in Odesa. In the early morning hours, the city of Kremenchuk in the Poltava region was targeted by Russian missiles and drones. On June 24, at least three people were killed in a major drone strike in the Verkhnesyrovatka area of the Sumy region. That same night, drone attacks were reported in the Kharkiv region. Oleg Synegubov, head of the regional military administration, confirmed that Russian drones struck the Nemyshlianskyi district of Kharkiv, shattering windows in residential buildings and damaging civilian enterprises. Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov reported that seven Shahed drones were used in the attack.

Later on June 24, Russia launched another missile strike, making the day one of the bloodiest since the start of the full-scale invasion. The number of confirmed deaths from the strike rose to 18, with nearly 300 people injured. Tragically, many of the victims were children. According to Ukraine’s State Emergency Service, civilian infrastructure was severely damaged, including a dormitory, a gymnasium, and an administrative building. In total, 46 apartment complexes and 41 private homes were hit.

These attacks occurred while the world's attention was consumed by the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel. Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has continued for over three and a half years, such large-scale attacks—featuring massive missile barrages and resulting in hundreds of casualties—are not a daily occurrence. Analysts suggest that the timing of these escalations reflects Moscow’s attempt to exploit the distraction created by the Middle East war.

Pakistan seeks to target the United States

According to "Foreign Affairs", Pakistan's military is reportedly working on the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching the United States. Previous reports indicated that, in the aftermath of India’s “Sindur” operation, Pakistan was seeking to strengthen its nuclear capabilities with assistance from China. If successful, such a development would mark a major shift in Washington’s strategic calculations, potentially placing Pakistan alongside existing nuclear-armed adversaries like Russia, China, and North Korea. Sources suggest Pakistan’s motivation stems from India’s expanding military power and investment in advanced missile defense systems. While Pakistan has long relied on its nuclear arsenal to offset India’s conventional military superiority, the pursuit of an ICBM would represent a significant escalation in the regional arms race. Pakistan's nuclear ambitions have long raised concerns in Washington, particularly given its close ties to China. China, which possesses its own advanced nuclear and missile programs, has provided Pakistan with significant military and economic assistance over the years. Although Beijing has not openly supported the development of Pakistani ICBMs, some experts believe it may have tacitly approved the program, seeing it as a way to further complicate security challenges for both India and the United States.

Pakistan’s nuclear program dates back to the early 1970s, largely in response to regional tensions following India’s first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan officially became a nuclear weapons state in 1998 after conducting six nuclear tests. Today, Sino-Pakistani relations continue to play a crucial role in shaping Islamabad’s defense posture. As Pakistan pushes ahead with its missile development, concerns are growing that the country’s evolving capabilities could further destabilize both regional and global security.

Pro-Palestinian candidate may become New York governor

It is becoming increasingly common for Muslim politicians to lead some of the West’s most influential financial centers. In London, Sadiq Aman Khan serves as mayor, and in the United States, Zohran Mamdani is emerging as a strong contender in the New York gubernatorial race. Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and vocal critic of Israel, defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary.

With 90 percent of ballots counted, Mamdani has secured nearly 44 percent of the vote, while Cuomo trails with 36 percent. The 33-year-old has centered his campaign on affordable housing and economic justice. His proposals include a rent freeze, free public transportation, and city-owned grocery stores—funded, he says, by \$10 billion in new taxes on corporations and high-income individuals. Despite support from Democratic Party leadership and major donors, Cuomo failed to regain momentum. Observers attribute Mamdani’s rise to his grassroots outreach and populist messaging, which resonated strongly with younger voters.

Cuomo has not ruled out an independent bid. Current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has faced criticism for alleged favoritism toward the Uzbek community, has also announced plans to run as an independent. Meanwhile, Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, is seeking the Republican nomination. The final election is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has quickly become the frontrunner in the race. Born in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian Muslim parents, Mamdani became a U.S. citizen in 2018. He is a Shia Muslim affiliated with the Twelver sect. While attending Bowdoin College in Maine, he founded the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and graduated in 2014 with a degree in African Studies. If elected, Mamdani could become the first Muslim governor of New York. He has previously stated that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the state, he would push for his arrest—calling him the “Butcher of Gaza.”

NATO summit

On June 25, the NATO summit convened in The Hague, where member states discussed a proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to increase defense spending from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP. The proposal, which Trump has frequently advocated since taking office, aims to boost the alliance’s deterrence capabilities. According to "Reuters", European countries have generally pledged to move toward the new target, though the measure has met resistance. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was reportedly the only leader who refused to support the initiative, citing the need to prioritize social welfare. Slovakia also voiced criticism, emphasizing that improving living standards and reducing national debt should not be neglected.

Nevertheless, President Trump insisted on incorporating the 5 percent target into NATO’s long-term agenda, declaring at a press conference that “Russia’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine and could spread beyond it.” French President Emmanuel Macron did not rule out the possibility of direct confrontation with Russia, warning that NATO must "think carefully" before any escalation.

Several bilateral meetings took place on the sidelines of the summit. President Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for 50 minutes. Zelensky later shared a statement via Telegram:

“I had a long and meaningful meeting with President Trump. We discussed all the key issues. I thanked him and the United States. We spoke about the ceasefire and ways to achieve real peace. We exchanged views on how to protect our people. More details to follow.”

Zelensky also secured additional support for Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the delivery of £70 million worth of air defense missiles to Ukraine, funded by proceeds from frozen Russian assets. Since taking office, Starmer has supported holding Russia financially accountable for the destruction caused by its invasion of Ukraine.

Another significant closed-door meeting occurred between President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. According to the Turkish president’s press service, Erdoğan emphasized the potential for expanded cooperation in energy, investment, and especially the defense industry. He reaffirmed Turkey’s goal of increasing bilateral trade with the U.S. to \$100 billion. Erdoğan also welcomed the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran, brokered by President Trump, and called for its permanence. He urged continued dialogue to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and advocated for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. Both leaders underscored the importance of reinforcing NATO’s deterrent capabilities as the alliance faces multiple global challenges.