Washington, April 9: The United States will maintain full military readiness in the Middle East despite a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the White House said, signalling that Washington is prepared for a rapid escalation if negotiations falter.

Officials said no immediate drawdown of US forces is planned, even as diplomatic efforts begin following weeks of intense military operations.

Asked what to expect from US troops during the ceasefire window, a reporter queried: “What we should expect from U.S. troops in theatre for the next two weeks and beyond?”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration is taking a cautious approach.

“We’re not going to move anything immediately… in the meantime, we’re going to ensure that our military is always at the ready of the commander in chief,” she said.

She referred operational specifics to the Pentagon but made clear that US forces will remain in place as negotiations proceed.

The posture reflects concerns within the administration that the ceasefire could break down, particularly given ongoing regional tensions and uncertainty over Iran’s internal command structures.

“This is a fragile truce. Ceasefires are fragile by nature,” Leavitt said, warning that implementation could face disruptions in the coming days.

The ceasefire, announced after 38 days of US military operations against Iran, has opened a two-week diplomatic window aimed at securing a longer-term agreement.

However, Washington has emphasised that military preparedness remains central to its strategy, both as a deterrent and as leverage in negotiations.

The White House has argued that sustained military pressure forced Iran to accept the ceasefire in the first place.

“The President’s maximum pressure and the leverage created by the success of Operation Epic Fury led to the Iranian regime asking for and ultimately agreeing to a ceasefire proposal,” Leavitt said.

At the same time, officials acknowledged that the operational impact of US strikes on Iran could complicate the ceasefire’s early stages.

One reporter raised concerns about reports of renewed activity inside Iran, asking about explosions and air defence activation in multiple cities.

Leavitt said she had not yet verified those reports but pointed to a broader issue.

“One of the results of Operation Epic Fury was that we completely dismantled Iran’s command and control center, which makes it difficult for them to pass messages up and down the chain,” she said.

The disruption, she suggested, could affect Iran’s ability to coordinate compliance with the ceasefire, at least in the short term.

The administration has also said that many of Iran’s remaining leaders are operating under constraints following the strikes, further complicating internal coordination.

In addition to military effects, questions were raised about the political consequences inside Iran, particularly whether the conflict had led to greater freedoms for its population.

Asked directly whether “regime change has led to more freedoms for the Iranian people,” Leavitt said it was too early to draw conclusions.

“I think that’s a question that’s being asked a little bit too early… ” It’s something that has yet to be seen,” she said.

Tehran, April 9: A fresh diplomatic row has erupted after Iranian officials accused the United States of violating three clauses of the 10-Point Proposal, the agreed framework for upcoming negotiations.​

In a formal statement released late on Tuesday, Iran said its “deep historical distrust” of Washington had been reinforced by repeated violations of commitments. ​

The statement noted that while the President of the United States had described the 10-Point Proposal as a “workable basis on which to negotiate,” three provisions had already been breached.​

The first violation, according to Tehran, was non-compliance with the ceasefire clause relating to Lebanon. ​

Iranian officials pointed out that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had explicitly called for “an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and other regions, effective immediately.” ​

The second violation involved the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, which was shot down in Lar, Fars Province. ​

The third concerned denial of Iran’s right to enrichment, a right enshrined in the sixth clause of the framework.​

Iran argued that these breaches undermine the credibility of negotiations even before they begin. ​

“The very workable basis on which to negotiate has been openly and clearly violated,” the statement declared, adding that in such circumstances, “a bilateral ceasefire or negotiations is unreasonable.”​

The development comes as Pakistan has been actively engaged in efforts to broker peace in the region, with Prime Minister Sharif repeatedly urging restraint and dialogue. ​

Islamabad has positioned itself as a mediator, stressing the importance of immediate ceasefires to prevent escalation across Lebanon and other conflict zones.​

The allegations highlight the fragile state of trust between Tehran and Washington, raising doubts over whether the proposed framework can serve as a viable foundation for meaningful talks.

Washington, April 9: The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) has approached a US appeals court, arguing that California’s civil rights regulator has wrongly linked caste discrimination to Hinduism and targeted Indian and South Asian communities, in a case that could shape how caste is addressed in US workplaces.

In a reply brief filed on April 6 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, HAF urged the court to remove what it called procedural hurdles that led a lower court to dismiss its lawsuit against the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The foundation said the district court erred by not examining the substance of its claims.

HAF argues that the CRD’s enforcement approach “explicitly and implicitly links ‘caste’ to Hinduism and people of Indian or South Asian descent,” effectively singling out a minority community.

The case traces back to a high-profile complaint filed by the CRD against Cisco Systems and two managers, alleging caste-based discrimination. The regulator publicly stated it had “Sue(d) Cisco Systems, Inc. and Former Managers For Caste-Based Discrimination” and filed action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

According to HAF, the CRD “doubled down” on its theory that Cisco should have prevented caste discrimination “occurring within its South Asian Indian workforce.” The foundation noted that the term “caste” appears repeatedly in the agency’s active complaint.

HAF contends that the CRD’s framing relied on “racist and demonstrably false tropes” about Indians and Hindus. It cited the department’s earlier claim that “India’s caste system” is “a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy.”

The CRD has since removed that phrasing and argued that the issue is now moot. But HAF maintains that the core problem persists.

“Removing the phrase ‘Hindu social and religious hierarchy’ doesn’t change the fact that the CRD is attempting to direct ‘caste’ policies solely at the company’s Indian, South Asian, and Hindu workforce,” the foundation said.

Needhy Shah, HAF Senior Legal Director, warned that the implications extend beyond a single case.

“The Hindu American, Indian American, and South Asian American communities are concerned, and if they aren’t, they should be,” Shah said.

“The CRD is attempting to wield its enforcement powers by singling out the very minority groups it is charged to protect. Californians are paying attention, and so are employers and businesses regulated by the CRD,” Shah added.

She further said, “The CRD is playing caste cop, blaming caste discrimination on Hinduism, and it’s only a matter of time until they identify their next Hindu target.”

HAF is represented by lead counsel Tim Travelstead of Narayan Travelstead Ku P.C.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision on whether to revive the case could have broader implications for how US civil rights law interprets caste and its association with religion or ethnicity, particularly for Indian-origin communities.

Caste has emerged as a contentious issue in parts of the United States, especially in technology sector workplaces with significant South Asian representation. Some advocacy groups have pushed for explicit caste protections, while others argue such measures risk stereotyping entire communities.