India set new record in Asian Games with 71 medals, go past previous best

US President Donald Trump says he is willing to reach an agreement with Iran that allows Washington to “blow up” Tehran’s nuclear energy facilities.

“It’s that simple,” he said during an exchange with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, on Wednesday.

“I would much prefer a strong, verified deal where we actually blow them up…,” Trump said, referring to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Deal’s outcome: Either ‘Nice aggression’ or ‘vicious aggression’

The 78-year-old former president added that there were only two possible outcomes, namely “blowing them up nicely or blow them up viciously.”

This is not the first time, Trump and other American officials have urged “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear energy program. The US president had last made the insistence during comments on the NBC's "Meet the Press" program.

Observers said such statements underline the US administration's continued aggressive approach towards the Islamic Republic and its nuclear energy program.

The adversarial standing comes while Washington and Tehran have been engaging in indirect talks since March. The talks’ initiation marked drawn-out absence of such engagement between the two sides that had been caused by Washington’s illegal and unilateral withdrawal from a historic nuclear deal between Tehran and others in 2018.

Most recently, Trump’s regional envoy Steve Witkoff said, “The president wants to see this solved diplomatically if possible, so we’re doing everything we can to get it going."

Trump’s remarks, though, diagonally contradict Witkoff’s statement about the president’s alleged interest in a diplomatic solution.

Trump also said potential American aggression against Iran’s nuclear sites had to result in “de-nuking them.”

The US and its allies have for long been trying to accuse the Islamic Republic of pursuing “nuclear weapons,” despite the country’s repeated avowal not to either pursue, develop, or stockpile such weaponry as per moral and religious imperatives.

Tehran’s peaceful nuclear policy has been verified unexceptionally by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has never found any indication of such pursuit, as it has put the country's nuclear activities under the most extensive investigative processes compared to any other member of the United Nations nuclear agency.

The Western narrative, though, has been used extensively to try to justify escalating sanctions, military threats, and covert operations targeting Iran and its nuclear infrastructure.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic has invariably vowed to deal effectively with attempts on the part of the US, its allied states, or proxies at engaging in military adventurism against the country.

The assertion was last reiterated by Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's permanent ambassador to the United Nations, who underscored on Monday that the country would unquestionably defend its sovereignty against any threat or use of force.

New Delhi, May 10: In a detailed joint briefing today, India’s defence and foreign ministries dismantled Pakistan’s claims of major strikes on Indian infrastructure and exposed Islamabad’s alleged attempts to escalate conflict along the border. Here's a clear breakdown of 12 crucial points made by Indian military officials:

1. Pakistan’s Claims Are False
The Indian government called Pakistan’s statements about destroying airbases, power grids, and cyber systems “completely false” and “state-sponsored propaganda.”

2. No Damage to Indian Airbases
Indian officials categorically denied Pakistani claims of hitting Sirsa, Suratgarh, and the S-400 radar base in Udhampur.

3. Pakistan Used Multiple Attack Platforms
Pakistan employed UCAVs (unmanned combat aerial vehicles), loitering munitions, long-range missiles, and fighter aircraft to target military and civilian sites.

4. Civilian Infrastructure Targeted
Pakistan struck schools and a Medicare centre near Indian Air Force bases in Srinagar, Awantipora, and Udhampur.

5. Over 26 Locations Attacked
India reported air intrusions and harassment attacks across 26+ locations from Srinagar to Naliya, along the Line of Control (LoC) and international border.

6. Limited Damage at IAF Bases
Minor damage occurred at four IAF stations: Udhampur, Patan, Adampur, and Bhuj — but all operations remain unaffected.

7. Heavy Cross-Border Shelling
Sectors like Kupwara, Baramulla, Poonch, Rajouri, and Akhnoor saw intense artillery, mortar, and small arms fire — all met with strong Indian retaliation.

8. Pakistan Moving Troops to Forward Areas – Signals Possible Escalation
The Indian Army observed significant Pakistani troop mobilisation toward forward posts along the LoC. This movement, described as “indicative of offensive intent,” suggests that Pakistan may be preparing for a wider military escalation. The Indian armed forces are on high operational alert, closely monitoring the situation and ready to respond to any provocation.

9. India’s Response: Swift, Measured, Targeted
In retaliation, India struck only military assets — radar stations, command centres, and storage sites — using precision air-launched weapons.

10. No Damage to Critical Indian Defences
Pakistan’s claims of destroying India’s S-400 systems, BrahMos base, and Chandigarh ammo depot were debunked with timestamped visual evidence.

11. Pakistan Trying to Spread Communal Discord
Indian officials accused Pakistan of fabricating stories to stoke communal unrest in India — calling such efforts "doomed to fail."

12. India Committed to Responsible Conduct
India reiterated its commitment to non-escalation — “provided Pakistan reciprocates.” Officials stressed that India’s military operations have been calibrated and proportionate.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, undergoing life imprisonment in connection with a 1990 custodial death case, for bail and the suspension of his sentence. While denying him the relief, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also directed that the hearing of his appeal be expedited.

“We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt on bail. However, we make it clear that the observations made herein above are restricted to the prayer for bail only and will have no bearing on the appeals of the appellant and the co-accused. The prayers sought by the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt, for the grant of bail are dismissed. Hearing of the appeal is directed to be expedited,” Justice Mehta said while reading out the order.

The case dates back to 1990 when Bhatt was posted as the additional superintendent of police in Gujarat’s Jamnagar. He had detained around 133 people under the stringent Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Act during a communal riot in Jamjodhpur town.

On November 18, 1990, one of those detained, Prabhudas Vaishnani, died in a hospital after he was released, allegedly due to torture while he was in custody. A complaint of custodial death was registered against seven policemen, including Bhatt, by Amrutlal Vaishnani, the brother of the deceased, following which the investigation was transferred to the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) branch in Gandhinagar.

In 1995, the CID investigating officer requested sanction from the government to prosecute Bhatt as is required for the prosecution of a government officer when on duty. However, the government did not grant the sanction. After that, CID filed a summary report, which is a closure report, in the court. However, the court rejected this report in December 1995 and instead took cognisance of offences alleged against Bhatt and six others.

An A-summary report was filed in this case in 1995 after the Gujarat Government refused to grant sanction for prosecuting Bhatt. However, after Bhatt’s deposition in relation to the 2002 communal riots before the Nanavati and the Mehta commissions between May and July 2011, the state government withdrew protection granted to him, and the Jamnagar court began framing charges soon after.

A Jamnagar sessions court sentenced Bhatt to life imprisonment in June 2019. This was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.