World Mourns as Pope Francis Bids His Final Farewell – Here’s What Vatican Will Do Next

Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza has warned that around 1,500 citizens have lost their eyesight due to the war and another 4,000 are at risk of blindness because of severe shortages of medications and medical equipment.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in a report on Sunday said that the eye care services in Gaza have been facing a catastrophic collapse because of the genocidal war.

“The health sector is witnessing a critical shortage of consumables and medical equipment for eye surgeries, which is leading to an almost total collapse of surgical services, particularly for retinal diseases and diabetic retinopathy with internal bleeding,” said Dr. Abdelsalam Sabah, director of Gaza’s Eye Hospital.

“The Eye Hospital currently has only 3 worn-out surgical scissors in use, which greatly increases risks to patients’ lives and prevents effective treatment,” he added.

The majority of eye injuries are caused by shrapnel from ordnance explosions and need medical materials such as Healon and fine sutures, which are almost impossible to find in the Strip due to the blockade.

Unless immediate and urgent intervention is made by relevant bodies and international organizations, the Eye Hospital will be unable to provide any surgical services in the near future.

The siege has forced hospitals and medical centers in Gaza to ration medications such as painkillers, provide less effective treatment, or turn patients away.

Hospitals and medical centers have run out of surgical supplies such as anesthetics, pediatric antibiotics, and medicines for chronic conditions.

Since March 18, when the Israeli regime broke its ceasefire agreement with Hamas, it has killed around 1,900 Palestinians and wounded several thousand more, most of whom are children and women. 

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: India’s defense budget is set to receive an unprecedented mid-year boost of ₹50,000 crore in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, according to senior government officials cited by multiple media outlets. The increase, expected to be formalized through a supplementary budget during the Winter Session of Parliament, will push the overall military allocation for 2025–26 beyond ₹7 lakh crore — a record in the nation's history.

This boost comes on top of the ₹6.81 lakh crore already earmarked for defense in the Union Budget presented on February 1, which itself marked a sharp 9.2% rise from the previous year’s ₹6.22 lakh crore. At nearly 13% of the total Union Budget, defense continues to be the single-largest expenditure of the central government.

Sources quoted in reports by The Hindu, India Today, and Business Standard say that the additional allocation will primarily fund weapons procurement, strategic research and development, and expansion of indigenous defense systems.

Taxpayer Money & Military Spending
The ballooning defense allocation raises important questions about fiscal priorities, as the central government continues to invest heavily in its military apparatus. While national security is undoubtedly critical, some experts warn that such massive spending — funded by taxpayer money — should be subject to greater public debate and transparency.

The trend began in 2014, the first year of the Modi administration, when the defense allocation stood at ₹2.29 lakh crore. Since then, the budget has more than tripled in a decade, signaling a clear policy shift toward military modernization and assertive defense posturing.

The dramatic budget escalation follows Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. In that incident, 26 civilians were killed in an assault attributed to the Pakistan-backed terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

India retaliated with precision air strikes on nine alleged terror hubs located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. In a display of military preparedness, Indian forces showcased sophisticated coordination between their air and ground defense systems — notably the domestically developed Akash missile system and the Russian-origin S-400.

Strategic Signals

In his post-operation speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a stern warning to terror networks and their state sponsors. He stated that India’s approach to cross-border terrorism had irreversibly changed, and no talks would be entertained unless they pertain to dismantling terror infrastructure and restoring Indian sovereignty over Pak-occupied Kashmir.

Following the military engagement, Pakistan launched retaliatory drone and missile attacks, targeting both military and civilian locations. Most were intercepted or neutralized by India’s air defense systems, reinforcing confidence in the nation's growing technological capabilities.

Defense Minister Rajnath Singh has reiterated the government's commitment to indigenous production, stating in a recent press briefing that relying on foreign suppliers for national defense is “not a viable long-term solution.”

As India steers into an increasingly volatile regional climate, the government's substantial financial commitment to defense has invited both praise and concern. While some see it as a necessary step in safeguarding the nation, others caution that such steep investments, ultimately borne by taxpayers, demand more rigorous public scrutiny.