In the declaration, Mohammed bin Issa Al-Jaber—founder, chairman and chief executive of the MBI Group, a multinational conglomerate with assets exceeding $10 billion—said decision-making over war and peace in Yemen has shifted away from the state and into the hands of actors aligned with a regional agenda linked to Iran.

Power Fragmentation and Loss of Sovereignty

Al-Jaber argued that Yemen’s institutional framework has effectively collapsed into a dual structure: an internationally recognised government lacking operational authority, and a rival administration in Sanaa dominated by the Houthi movement, which he said imposes military decisions without public consent.

He characterised this imbalance as a “confiscation of national sovereignty,” warning that Yemenis are being drawn into conflicts that do not serve their national interests. His remarks echo broader assessments that Yemen’s war has increasingly become entangled in regional geopolitical competition, particularly involving Iran and Gulf states.

Federalism as a Structural Remedy

Positioning federalism as a viable exit strategy, Al-Jaber called for a decentralised Yemeni state in which regions are granted full administrative and political authority. He argued that such a framework would enable local governance, reduce corruption, and shield communities from externally driven military escalations.

He pointed to developments in Hadramout, where intervention by Saudi Arabia helped stabilise tensions late last year. Saudi Arabia has been a central actor in Yemen since 2015, backing the recognised government against Houthi forces.

Federal restructuring has previously been proposed during Yemen’s National Dialogue process, though implementation has stalled amid ongoing conflict and institutional breakdown.

Tihama and the Self-Determination Debate

Al-Jaber highlighted Tihama as particularly exposed to the consequences of continued instability. Home to more than eight million people and possessing strategic access to the Red Sea, he said the region holds the economic and geographic foundations of a viable state.

He warned that, in the absence of sovereign decision-making and public consent, calls for self-determination could intensify. “When people are forced into wars that do not serve their interests, self-determination becomes a legitimate political option,” he said.

While such claims remain legally and politically contentious, the principle has been invoked in cases where state authority collapses or fails to represent local populations (UN Charter, Article 1).

International Appeals and Escalating Rhetoric

The statement also urged former U.S. President Donald Trump and the international community not to interpret current developments as reflective of the Yemeni population’s will. It called on the United Nations and the UN Security Council to convene urgently and organise elections under international supervision.

Al-Jaber further issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Houthi leadership to cease claiming representation of the Yemeni people and to issue an apology, warning that failure to do so could trigger widespread public mobilisation across regions from Mahra to Saada and from Aden to Medie.

He concluded that Yemen should only engage in war in self-defence, stressing that long-term stability depends on political consensus and national interest rather than what he described as “reckless military adventurism.”

In comments shared in a video that resurfaced online, the minister said “anyone here who is more loyal to Iran than to Bahrain should rely on Allah and leave,” adding that those who prioritise ties to Iran should “leave and settle down” there. The remarks come as Bahrain and neighbouring Gulf countries face continued missile and drone attacks from Iran in a conflict that escalated following tensions with the United States on Feb. 28.

Iran has launched strikes not only on Israel but also on multiple Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, according to official statements and regional reporting. The attacks have targeted both military and civilian infrastructure across the region. Bahrain has reported damage to sites including areas near the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, underscoring the proximity of strategic assets to the conflict.

The United Arab Emirates has also reported sustained strikes, with its defence ministry citing hundreds of missiles and drones launched since late February. The widening scope of the conflict has raised concerns among Gulf governments about both external threats and internal vulnerabilities.

The minister’s remarks follow heightened concern among Gulf authorities over domestic security and alleged links between Iran and networks operating within the region. Regional security reporting has pointed to concerns about covert cells providing intelligence or operational support, including relaying coordinates or documenting strike locations.

Bahraini authorities have long accused Iran of backing militant groups and fomenting unrest in the kingdom. The issue of national loyalty has remained a sensitive topic in Bahrain, particularly during periods of heightened regional tension.

Bahrain has experienced episodes of unrest in the past, and officials have repeatedly emphasised national unity during times of geopolitical strain. Since the outbreak of hostilities, Gulf states have tightened security measures and reinforced public messaging as they respond to the expanding conflict, which has disrupted energy flows and heightened geopolitical risks across the region.

The reports, accompanied by a high-definition image of a man in handcuffs standing before the Bahraini Ministry of Interior’s emblem, claimed that an Indian national named Nitin Mohan had been caught red-handed.

As a telecommunications expert, he was allegedly accused of transmitting sensitive geospatial data and video reconnaissance of strategic Gulf locations to Israel’s external intelligence service.

The story spread with surgical precision, fueled by “The Intel Consortium” and other accounts, racking up millions of views and appearing on news portals in Pakistan and beyond.

Anatomy of a Digital Fabrication

The investigation into “Nitin Mohan” quickly revealed a sophisticated web of lies.

On March 10, 2026, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India, via its dedicated FactCheck wing, officially designated the claim as “false and baseless.”

Forensic analysis of the viral photograph—the purported “smoking gun”—revealed it was an AI-generated deepfake.

Digital analysts pointed to classic synthetic “hallucinations,” such as misaligned reflections in the man’s eyes, blurred fingers that merged into a single fist, and structural inconsistencies in the handcuffs. No primary source from the Bahraini government ever mentioned a “Nitin Mohan,” and no such arrest record exists in the Kingdom’s judicial system.

The Real Arrests Behind the Smoke

While Bahraini authorities did announce arrests around that time, the facts were vastly different.

On March 9, the Ministry of Interior detained six individuals for cybercrime violations related to filming and sharing videos of “Iranian aggression” and “glorifying acts of hostility” during the heightened regional tensions of 2026.

Of those arrested, five were Pakistani nationals and one was Bangladeshi. None were Indian, none were named Nitin Mohan, and zero mention was made of Mossad or espionage.

The “Nitin Mohan” story was a classic case of identity substitution, where real arrests were used as a skeleton to hang a completely fabricated and more inflammatory narrative.

The Strategic Indian Workforce: A Pillar of Progress

This disinformation campaign targeted a community that forms the literal backbone of the Middle East’s modern infrastructure.

As of 2026, over 9 million Indians live and work in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Far from being “operatives,” these individuals are the architects of the region’s future.

Indian engineers and tech experts lead massive projects like Saudi Arabia’s NEOM and the UAE’s renewable energy grids. In the medical sector, Indian doctors and nurses comprise nearly 30% of the workforce in many Gulf states.

Economically, their contribution is unparalleled; in recent years, Indian workers in the Middle East have sent back over $50 billion in annual remittances, while simultaneously driving the GDP of their host nations through construction, retail, and hospitality.

The Shadow War: Why the Diaspora is Targeted

Security experts warn that the “Nitin Mohan” hoax is part of a broader “Grey Zone” warfare strategy. Adversary countries, often utilizing organized bot networks from Pakistan and Iran, have increasingly weaponized social media to attack the credibility of the Indian workforce.

By linking ordinary Indian professionals to Mossad or foreign intelligence for ulterior goals, these campaigns aim to sow seeds of suspicion between New Delhi and Arab capitals.

This digital sabotage attempts to create a “security risk” perception around Indian talent, hoping to slow the preference for Indian engineers in sensitive sectors. As this case proves, while bots can generate lies, they cannot dismantle the decades of trust built by millions of hardworking Indians across the Middle East.

Anthropic was the first major AI developer to handle classified information through a supply agreement routed through its cloud partner Amazon.

Several investors in artificial intelligence developer Anthropic are working to defuse a growing dispute between the company and the U.S. Department of Defense over limits on military uses of its technology, according to seven people familiar with the matter, amid concerns that an escalating conflict could damage the company’s business prospects.

Chief Executive Dario Amodei has discussed the issue in recent days with major investors and partners, including Amazon Chief Executive Andy Jassy, two of the people said. Venture capital firms Lightspeed and Iconiq have also contacted Anthropic executives about the situation, two sources added. Some investors have simultaneously reached out to contacts within the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump in an effort to reduce tensions between the company and the Pentagon.

The discussions are centered on preventing a potential government move to bar Pentagon contractors from using Anthropic’s artificial intelligence systems, the sources said. One person familiar with the situation said Anthropic and the Defense Department continue to hold discussions, though details of those talks were not clear.

The White House has publicly called on Anthropic to assist the government in phasing out its AI systems. Neither the Pentagon nor investors including Amazon responded to requests for comment.

The dispute follows months of disagreement between Anthropic and the Defense Department—renamed the Department of War by the Trump administration—over how the military may deploy the company’s technology in operational settings. The conflict has become a broader test of the degree of control AI developers can retain over the use of their systems once they are integrated into government and commercial applications.

Pentagon officials have urged AI companies to abandon internal usage restrictions and instead accept a contractual framework allowing any use that complies with U.S. law. Anthropic has refused to remove certain safeguards governing its flagship Claude AI models, maintaining prohibitions against the technology being used to operate autonomous weapons or to support large-scale domestic surveillance programs.

Anthropic was the first major AI developer to handle classified information through a supply agreement routed through its cloud partner Amazon. Last week, rival OpenAI said it had also reached a classified agreement with the Pentagon and added that Anthropic should not be treated as a security risk to the department.

During discussions with Anthropic leadership, investors have reaffirmed their support for the company while urging a negotiated solution with defense officials, the seven people familiar with the talks said. Some investors privately expressed frustration that Amodei’s approach had intensified tensions with the Pentagon rather than easing them.

One person briefed on the discussions described the situation as partly a diplomatic challenge. At the same time, investors acknowledge that Amodei faces internal constraints. Several people familiar with the matter said that if the company appeared to fully concede to administration demands, it could alienate employees and customers who have supported Anthropic partly because of its public stance on AI safety restrictions.

Amodei has not responded to requests for comment. In prior statements, he said the company could not “in good conscience accede” to government demands to remove its safeguards. According to one person who participated in a call with investors late Tuesday, Amodei said Anthropic would continue attempting to find a workable arrangement with the Department of War.

Investors are particularly focused on preventing Anthropic from being designated a “supply-chain risk” by the U.S. government. Such a designation could require federal contractors to discontinue use of the company’s technology, potentially affecting commercial customers that also conduct government work.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that a supply-chain risk determination would compel all government contractors to stop using Anthropic’s systems across their operations. Anthropic has publicly challenged that interpretation, stating that Hegseth lacks the statutory authority to prohibit the use of its AI technology outside of direct defense contracts. The Pentagon has not responded to questions about that claim.

Anthropic said last week it would contest any supply-chain risk designation in court.

Even without a formal ban, some investors fear the confrontation could deter potential customers who prefer to avoid conflict with the administration, one person familiar with the matter said.

The dispute comes at a critical stage for the San Francisco-based startup. Anthropic has raised tens of billions of dollars from investors betting on rapid growth in enterprise adoption of its AI systems. The company has previously said enterprise customers account for roughly 80% of its revenue.

Demand for products including its Claude chatbot and the Claude Code programming assistant has expanded rapidly. On Monday, the Claude app ranked as the most downloaded free application in Apple’s App Store, surpassing OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

One person familiar with Anthropic’s finances said the company’s annualized revenue run rate has reached about $19 billion based on current sales, compared with roughly $14 billion only weeks earlier.

Investors say maintaining that growth trajectory is important for the company’s longer-term capital plans. Anthropic is currently allowing employees to sell shares to outside investors in secondary transactions, and the company has previously said no decision has been made regarding a potential initial public offering.

The investor push to calm tensions intensified after several U.S. government agencies began discontinuing Anthropic technology. Following an order issued by President Trump on Friday directing federal agencies to replace Anthropic systems within six months, the State Department switched to OpenAI’s products, according to people familiar with the change.

The ​U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran entered its fourth day on Tuesday, as explosions tore ​through Tehran and Beirut and global financial markets slid at the prospect of ⁠a prolonged disruption to global energy supplies.

India has high stakes in the Gulf region as an ​estimated 10 million Indians live and work there. It is also critical to New Delhi’s trade, energy ​and supply chains.

Some Indian nationals have already been killed or are missing after the attacks, the official spokesperson of India’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

The Indian embassy in Oman had confirmed the death of an Indian national ​on board the Marshall Islands-flagged product tanker MKD VYOM, that was hit by a projectile on ​Sunday.

“As a proximate neighbour with critical stakes in the security and stability of the region, these developments evoke great ‌anxiety,” ⁠the statement said.

Tough Balancing Act For India

India is walking a tightrope in the conflict, boasting historical cultural ties with Iran, strong strategic relations with Israel and close friendships with Arab countries.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken to leaders of Arab countries and strongly condemned Iran’s attacks on them. He has ​also spoken to Israeli ​Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ⁠and stressed the need for an early cessation of hostilities.

India could be among the most vulnerable if higher oil prices are sustained, analysts say. ​India’s oil minister assured on Tuesday that the country has sufficient energy reserves ​to deal with ⁠the crisis.

Indian airlines have started organising special flights to bring home Indians stranded in the affected countries.

Among those who returned on Tuesday was Piyush Pallav, who was travelling from Delhi to London and was ⁠stranded in ​Dubai since Saturday.

“It is business as usual there but our ​families here were in bad shape,” he said. “We were stuck there so we knew the situation on ground, but hearing ​about missiles from far is more scary.”

The conflict has disrupted energy shipments in the region and affected India’s key supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Qatar, prompting supply adjustments by companies that depend on imported cargoes to meet domestic demand.

Sources familiar with the matter said lower gas availability had already marginally affected output at some fertiliser producers, including Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd and Kribhco Fertilizers Ltd. The companies did not respond to requests for comment outside normal working hours.

Gujarat Gas Ltd said in a stock exchange filing that it had declared force majeure and would restrict gas supplies to industries from Thursday. Its parent, Gujarat State Petroleum Corp (GSPC), sources much of its gas from Qatar and Abu Dhabi National Oil Co for sale to local customers.

Tanker disruptions at Ras Laffan

India’s largest gas importer, Petronet LNG Ltd, said it had issued a force majeure notice to supplier QatarEnergy and to local buyers GAIL (India) Ltd, Indian Oil Corp and Bharat Petroleum Corp after three LNG tankers were unable to reach the Ras Laffan loading port in Qatar.

Petronet said QatarEnergy had also sent a notice indicating a potential force majeure event due to the hostilities in the region.

GAIL and Indian Oil have already reduced gas supplies to industrial users, Reuters reported earlier this week.

Fertiliser sector begins to feel impact

Industry sources said the restrictions had begun to affect fertiliser manufacturers, which rely heavily on natural gas as a feedstock for ammonia and urea production.

Any sustained reduction in gas supplies could tighten fertiliser output, although the impact so far has been limited, according to the sources.

Hormuz disruption stalls shipments

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman has slowed sharply after attacks on vessels in the area during the hostilities and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes.

The narrow waterway carries about one-fifth of the world’s oil consumption as well as large volumes of LNG, making it one of the most critical maritime routes for global energy supplies.

India imported about 27 million tonnes of LNG in the 2024/25 fiscal year, accounting for roughly half of its natural gas consumption, according to government data. Qatar supplies the bulk of those imports.

Companies have not announced cuts to gas supplies for households or the automobile sector.

In the statement, Pezeshkian said Iran had attempted to avoid war through diplomatic engagement with neighbouring governments but that recent military actions by the United States and Israel had forced Tehran to act in self-defence. “We have strived alongside you and through diplomacy to avoid war, but the American-Zionist military aggression has left us no choice but to defend ourselves,” he wrote.

The Iranian president addressed the message to what he described as “friendly and neighboring states,” stressing that Tehran respects the sovereignty of countries across the Middle East. He added that regional security and stability should be achieved collectively by states in the region rather than through outside intervention.

Iranian officials have repeatedly framed their military posture in recent months as defensive, arguing that the country is responding to external threats. Pezeshkian’s remarks reflect Tehran’s long-standing position that regional security arrangements should be managed by Middle Eastern governments themselves.

The message appeared aimed at reassuring neighbouring governments that Iran’s response would not threaten their territorial sovereignty while also signalling that Tehran considers recent military actions against it to justify retaliation under self-defence.

Araqchi told Sheikh Mohammed that the Iranian strikes were aimed at U.S. assets and were not intended to target Qatar, the Qatari foreign ministry said in a post on social media platform X.

Sheikh Mohammed “categorically rejected” that characterization and called for an immediate halt to Iran’s attacks, the ministry said.

During the conversation, Sheikh Mohammed said Qatar would confront any aggression and reaffirmed the country’s right to self-defence, according to the ministry’s statement.

Qatar hosts major U.S. military facilities, including Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American base in the Middle East, making the Gulf state a key strategic partner for Washington in the region.

Sheikh Mohammed also stressed that Doha remains committed to dialogue and diplomacy conducted in good faith, the ministry said.

Qatar has frequently positioned itself as a regional mediator, maintaining diplomatic channels with a range of actors across the Middle East while hosting U.S. military forces on its territory.

The ministry issued a heavy worded statement praising the life and legacy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, framing his political and religious role as central to the country’s independence and resistance to foreign influence.

In the statement, the ministry said Khamenei “lived a pious life, loved Iran, secured Iran’s independence, opposed foreign domination, and worked tirelessly for our country’s resilience and fortitude,” language that echoes long-standing official narratives promoted by the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.

A statement heavy with symbolism

The ministry’s message went further, using highly symbolic and emotive language to describe what it called the “last phase” of Khamenei’s life, portraying his death as “honorable and dignified” and describing it as martyrdom occurring “on the 10th day of Ramadan.”

It alleged he was killed “at the hands of the most corrupt and criminal individuals on earth,” without naming those responsible or providing evidence.

Such language reflects the Islamic Republic’s deep-rooted political culture, in which martyrdom holds powerful religious and national significance, particularly in the context of confrontation with perceived external enemies.

Analysts say official references to martyrdom are often used to reinforce internal unity and frame geopolitical conflict in moral and existential terms.

Independence, resistance and legitimacy

By emphasizing themes of independence and resistance to foreign domination, the Foreign Ministry’s statement reinforces a core pillar of Iran’s state ideology: the portrayal of its leadership as guardians of sovereignty against outside interference.

This narrative has been a constant feature of official discourse amid decades of sanctions, regional rivalries and strained relations with Western powers.

The ministry said Khamenei would remain “a living nightmare for his killers forever,” a confrontational tone Tehran frequently adopts when addressing its adversaries, particularly during periods of heightened regional tension.

Domestic and regional implications

While the statement does not outline any immediate policy steps, its rhetoric is likely to resonate with hardline constituencies inside Iran and among allied groups across the region. Observers note that such messaging can serve multiple purposes: consolidating domestic support, signaling defiance abroad and framing ongoing conflicts as part of a broader historical struggle.

No independent confirmation of the ministry’s claims was immediately available, and the statement offered no further details beyond its symbolic and ideological assertions.

These amplified efforts were mainly noticed after Operation Sindoor and around the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

The April 22, 2025 Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 people in the Baisaran valley of Kashmir, quickly evolved beyond a single act of violence into a wider strategic confrontation, as China emerged as a key supporter of Pakistan across both military and information domains, confronting India with a simultaneous on-ground and narrative-driven challenge.

The detailed analysis below is produced by ThinkFi, a research-focused think tank that used advanced open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools to trace, map and analyse coordinated influence operations surrounding the Pahalgam attack, exposing how misinformation, propaganda and narrative manipulation were deployed across digital platforms.

The first major narrative built against India was that related to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) after India responded with its abeyance as a diplomatic measure in retaliation for the Pahalgam attack. From blaming India for weaponizing IWT to criticizing it for leading a humanitarian crisis, attempts were made at internationalizing the whole issue of IWT.

Along with efforts at pushing words like ‘water terrorism’ and ‘economic siege’, warnings of famines were circulated while sidelining the terror attack and the reason behind such actions taken by India. To further threaten India and portray China as capable of punishing India, parallel narratives circulated alleging China could block the Brahmaputra River, despite the absence of any official basis for these claims.

Subsequently Pakistan not only undertook efforts to defend and justify the Pahalgam attack, by making statements in support of the terror group The Resistance Front (TRF) a United States-designated terrorist organisation linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and blaming the Indian government’s administrative failure in Kashmir but Pakistani linked twitter accounts further circulated a 9 page fake documents attributed to India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) claiming the Pahalgam attack as a false flag operation designed by India itself to justify the strikes in Pakistan and suspension of the Indus Water treaty.

The next narrative sought to portray India as the sole provocateur in India-Pakistan hostilities, along with accusing New Delhi’s actions as pushing for Nuclear War and instability in South Asia. Amplification of words like ‘reckless’ and ‘unprovoked’ referring to India’s approach was spotted on social media.

Further, a sudden surge in coordinated Twitter activities from posts and accounts linked to China and Pakistan drew comparisons between the Indian response against a terror attack to the Israeli-style occupation in Gaza at the same time, also framing India as an apartheid occupier and accusing it of ethnic repression.

Similar accounts circulated a fabricated document appearing to be from India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), falsely claiming a radiation hazard at a strategic military facility in Beas, Punjab. These efforts appear designed to spark fear, as well as paint India’s image as irresponsible and unsafe with its nuclear assets.

A clearer version of this coordinated campaign could be understood by noticing the attempts made at undermining the credibility of the Indian missile aircraft and missile performance like that of BrahMos, Rafale, and S-400 air defense systems, while promoting the Chinese systems like J-10C, JF-17, and PL-15.

Even though this narrative was circulated online between May 8th and 11th, it reached its peak on May 10th, 2025 only after the announcement of the ceasefire.

The aim of securing a financial gain from this clash was observable through the stock market behaviour. An intentional effort at discrediting the Indian Missiles and Aircrafts was substantiated by the twitter analysis of the keywords ‘BrahMos and Rafale’ whose peak (10 May) also coincided with the share price fluctuations of the Chinese defense Manufactures – Chengdu Aircraft Corporation and Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, whose stocks saw a sudden rise in that period.

These deliberate efforts by China to achieve financial gains out of the conflict by undermining the Indian aircraft while simultaneously promoting Chinese systems were even documented in official reports by France and the USA.

It is worth noticing that initially, the dissemination of these narratives was mainly driven by Chinese state-linked media outlets. However, the Chinese engagement intensified only when it became evident that the conflict, along with the information space, could yield economic and financial gains.

These amplified efforts were mainly noticed after Operation Sindoor and around the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

This shift is clearly visible in the analysis of the two famous Chinese applications – TikTok and Weibo, where open source (OSINT) analysis on the key terms ‘India & Pakistan’ started appearing only after 7th May, after Operation Sindoor, where the engagement on these terms ‘India & Pakistan’ was minimal or entirely absent before that. Indicating silence during the Pahalgam attack, in contrast to the heavy engagement during Operation Sindoor.

Following the consistent application of narrative warfare by the partnership, an element of irony was revealed when, after the ceasefire, a new narrative appeared portraying China as a peacemaker in the Indo-Pak hostilities. This stood in sharp contrast to China’s earlier activities in both military and information aspects.

Taken together, the post-Pahalgam phase illustrates how modern conflict now extends beyond conventional military operations into the domain of perception warfare. Collectively, the dual strategy of offering real-time battlefield intelligence along with influencing the information space exemplifies a contemporary strategy of warfare, commonly described as Hybrid warfare.

This approach blurs the lines between physical and virtual combat, bringing the gap between military coordination and media manipulation to harm the other country both psychologically and strategically. These events indicate an evolving security environment where wars are not restricted to battle fields but travel even at the level of media, cyberspace, digital technologies, and public opinion.

This development reveals a new depth of collaboration between China-Pakistan and therefore indicates a need for India and its institutions to safeguard its national interests and regional stability.