Connect with us

Asia

A total failure of US war on terror in Afghanistan

Published

on

Whatever is the views of analysts regarding evacuation of NATO or US troops from Afghanistan and letting Taliban to occupy power corridors in Afghanistan through Doha Qatar Peace Accord but it could be considered part of America spy master’s strategies for exposing the “hidden militants and militant groups” in the region. In fact, the US made changes in its Afghan policies after 2009 and gave it final touches after targeting Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 last.

In fact, for a very brief period after 9/11, Pakistan, considered a major stakeholder in Afghan conflict, extended visible support to US led allied troops but internally Pakistan’s intelligence agencies remained busy in patronization of Taliban, especially its faction called Haqqani network. Both Haqqani Network and its patrons Pakistan’s secret agencies remained very careful in its acts of carrying out deadly terror acts against the NATO troops throughout Afghanistan. And the US after thorough consultation and in connection with its strategies, offered office in Doha, Qatar. The move remained very successful and now not only Haqqani network but even Al Qaeda fugitives are visible in Kabul and other areas of Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the US has stakes not only in Afghanistan but also in Central Asian Republics, Middle East and especially in Iran. Iran since the failure of US in Syria war, becoming a serious threat to US influence in the region. In particular, Chinese attempts to get occupation of all trade routes in the region is also a serious threat to the US interests in the region. At the moment, Pakistan is in a dominant position in Afghanistan and Pakistan is in close links with Iran. So far the US is very careful in its strategies for tackling the situation that erupted in Afghanistan.

US invaded Afghanistan on pretext of war on terror 

In 2001, the USA invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of the war on terror with the support of NATO and over 40 countries. On September 11, 2001, 19 members of al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing the first two into the World Trade Center in NYC, and the third into the Pentagon. In NYC, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives and over 2,500 others received injuries.

US blamed al-Qaeda for the attacks and decided to send troops to Afghanistan on the pretext of war on terror. The US was in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and eventually withdrew in August 2021.

20 years of US involvement in the Afghan conflict is considered the longest war in the history of the USA.

The highest number of US troops in Afghanistan was in 2011 after then-President Barack Obama decided to increase the number of US forces, which reportedly around 140,000 US and NATO troops were present in Afghanistan.

NATO officially ended its military mission in Afghanistan in 2014 and handed over security responsibility to the Afghan National Security and Defense Forces (ANDSF).

Unwinnable war in Afghanistan

Realizing the fact that war is not winnable in Afghanistan, the former US President Donald Trump pursued the path of reconciliation and appointed Afghan-born US veteran diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad to continue the peace negotiations with the Islamic Emirate’s Qatar-based political office.

After more than 10 rounds of negotiations, Khalilzad reached a peace deal on February 29th, 2020, in Doha.

When the incumbent president Joe Biden won the election, echoed Trump’s policy and openly said they are not interested in nation-building in Afghanistan and stressed on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan no matter even if it resulted into the collapse of western-backed government they supported in the last 20 years.

Finally after spending trillion dollars on training and equipping hundreds of thousands of (ANSDF) and with casualties of 2,448 US forces while another 20,722 were wounded, US accepted defeat and went out of Afghanistan.

Former Afghan National Army and US forces in Afghanistan.

Reality check:

The main reason behind US presence in Afghanistan was to fight against terrorist group, but is that happened so. With one word we can describe that US not only waged a flop war against terrorist group, but many other groups emerged under the very noise of US presence and the most terrible example is the emerge of the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.

In its July report, the UN Security Council warned that the Daesh group has expanded to other provinces, including Nuristan, Badghis, Sar-e-Pul, Baghlan, Badakhshan, Kunduz, and Kabul, where fighters formed a slipper cell.

The report said: “In its efforts to resurge, ISIL-K has prioritized the recurrent and training of new supporters and to recruit fighters from the Syrian Arab Republic (Assad regime) Iraq and other conflict zones.” Daesh has strength of some 500-1500 militant in Afghanistan and its three key commanders namely Sanaullah Ghafari, a key commander of the terror group, and two so-called spokesmen of the group Sultan Aiz Azam, and Maulaw Rajab were placed on the US specially designated global terrorist list.

The US left Afghanistan at the mercy of Daesh, with many experts believing that the US has been deliberately supporting Daesh to use it as a pressure tool against the current Taliban government. The US reportedly also started supporting the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) aimed at further destabilizing Afghanistan and from there to destabilize its rival countries in the neighboring Afghanistan and regional countries.

US aim of Afghanistan occupation

Afghanistan is located on the heart of Asia. It has borders with most rival countries of the US. Afghanistan has borders with Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and a tiny border with China. Afghanistan is also very near to Russia, another biggest rival of US. There is believe that US tried to penetrated  into these countries through its 20 years of presence, but these countries were smart enough to prevent any such designs. At one hand, US was trying to pretend that Washington is in Afghanistan to fight terrorist groups, but covertly they were pursing secret agenda, in other hand, the Afghans were very hopeful that US presence is for the betterment of the country, which proved false. US time and again said they were not in Afghanistan for any nation-building purposes, but a simple question arise that why US interfered into internal affairs of Afghanistan, especially in elections and appointing top ministers, especially the Interior, Defense and  head of intelligence department. Once US realized they can’t reach its goal to these countries from Afghanistan, they changed their policy in which Afghanistan gradually become insecure after 2006, and many more terrorist groups started emerging. The neighbors and regional countries, especially Iran, the Central Asian states, China and Russia started to strengthen its intelligence department to avoid any terrorist activities inside their soil from Afghanistan.

Jeopardizing regional security

US has a scenario to destabilize Afghanistan similar like Iraq and Syria, to threat its rival countries and now after withdrawing from Afghanistan they still did not recognize the Taliban, and indirectly supporting Daesh to change Afghanistan into a ruin just to reach its goal of destabilizing other countries from the Afghan soil.

Afghanistan and regional countries in map.

Afghanistan Overview map, ColorIn July, five rockets presumably fired from Afghanistan fell on the border town of Termez in the south of Uzbekistan, a move that raised speculation that the US is pursuing a different agenda. Taliban should also be very careful in its relation with US because Washington abandoned its 20 years allies and let the Taliban to took control of Afghanistan, the same US can support other groups, probably Daesh is in the line, against the Taliban just to reach its goal.  The US has approximately left behind $7 billion of military equipment in Afghanistan after withdrawal from the country in August. The equipment is now in a country that is controlled by enemy the US was trying to drive out over the past two decades. This is shocking reality that US has a very secret agenda behind this. US is trying to support other groups, most likely Daesh, and once the terrorist group took control of Afghanistan with $7 billion of military equipment, they can easily threat any country they want and this the long-term policy of US.

Asia

China outpaces India in race for Russian crude oil supplies

Published

on

China has accelerated its crude oil purchases from Russia to replace oil shipments originating from the Middle East.

According to a Reuters report based on data from energy analytics firm Kpler, China is outpacing India in the Russian oil market.

India’s crude imports from Russia’s European ports fell by approximately 30% in August.

Beijing’s increased purchases could curb India’s exports of refined petroleum products and consequently trigger a diesel and gasoline shortage across Asia.

While China previously favoured ESPO blend crude shipped from Russia’s Asian ports, the share of its purchases from Russia’s European ports, consisting primarily of the Urals grade, has climbed to 31%.

Russian crude imports by India, the world’s third-largest oil importer, dropped to 1.87 million barrels per day in August. This volume remained well below the 2.79 million barrels per day recorded in July.

Under this scenario, which poses a risk to the Asian region, India stands as the region’s largest exporter of diesel and gasoline.

However, the country’s total crude imports in August were recorded at 4.17 million barrels per day. This figure marked the lowest level since the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East.

If the tightening raw material supply prevents Indian refineries from maintaining processing throughput, a severe deficit in refined products could emerge across the Asian market starting in September.

The Times of India previously reported that India’s Russian crude imports reached their highest share since 2022 in July.

During that period, Russia supplied more than half of India’s total crude imports of just over 5 million barrels per day, delivering 2.8 million barrels per day.

At the end of July, the Russian government extended its temporary export ban on gasoline, diesel, and other fuel types until 31 January 2027.

Under the restrictions that took effect on 1 August, direct exports of diesel, marine fuel, and gas oils by refiners will be exempted starting 1 September.

Bloomberg reported in June that Russian Urals crude was being sold in India at a $3.90 discount per barrel against international benchmarks after a hiatus of more than two months.

Urals crude traded at a discount again on 29 May for the first time since mid-March.

According to The Times of India, however, this discount on Russian Urals crude had almost entirely evaporated by early August.

Continue Reading

Asia

Japan sharpens defense posture while strengthening Turkish ties

Published

on

In an extensive interview on the Harici YouTube channel hosted by journalist Elif Ilhamoglu, Asia-Pacific research specialist and journalist Mehmet Asil Gonultas provided a comprehensive analysis of East Asia’s shifting geopolitical landscape.

Focusing on the newly released 2026 Japanese Defence White Paper, Tokyo’s military posture, foreign policy recalibrations under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and expanding bilateral ties with Turkiye, Gonultas detailed how systemic anxieties regarding China, Russia, and North Korea are reshaping the region.

“China, Russia, and North Korea are explicitly named as threats”

Addressing the release of Japan’s updated national security strategy document, Gonultas noted that the nearly 600-page publication represents the longest and most assertive security outline produced by Tokyo to date. He underscored that the tone toward regional competitors has hardened markedly compared to previous editions.

“China, Russia, and North Korea are explicitly named as threats in this year’s document,” Gonultas said. “Regarding Russia, the text explicitly characterizes its military presence on the contested Kuril Islands as an occupation, particularly following the recent visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to one of the islands. North Korea is evaluated through the operational lens of the Russia-Ukraine war, where Pyongyang is actively refining its military capabilities, deploying personnel, utilizing drones, and gaining battle-tested experience in an active combat zone.”

Gonultas explained that the characterization of Beijing as a deteriorating security risk reflects a trajectory that has intensified steadily over recent years. “While China has been identified as a primary security concern since at least 2022, the rhetorical severity increases with every iteration. This year’s assessment is the heaviest yet, directly mirroring the firm posture of the state,” he stated.

Contrasting the current administration with former leadership, Gonultas remarked, “Former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba advocated a relatively moderate approach, maintaining that Japan and China must find ways to coexist peacefully given their geographic reality. However, Prime Minister Takaichi adopted an uncompromising stance toward Beijing even prior to assuming office.”

He noted that Beijing’s actions have reinforced Tokyo’s apprehensions: “Beijing continuously provides justification for this stance. During recent missile testings, Beijing claimed to have informed Japan in advance, but Tokyo clarified that notice was provided merely 30 minutes prior to launch, emphasizing that no formal permission was granted. Furthermore, Chinese naval vessels regularly test boundaries in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, and a Chinese warship recently targeted a Japanese fighter jet with a guidance laser. The white paper explicitly argues that China’s actual military expenditures significantly exceed its publicly declared defense budget.”

Following the publication of the document, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Defense swiftly issued formal condemnations, accusing Tokyo of fanning regional tensions and reverting to historic militarism. “China reacted directly by asserting that this document reflects rising Japanese militarism,” Gonultas said. “In response, Tokyo points to China’s rapid rearmament, its inventory of ballistic missiles capable of striking Japanese territory, its maritime incursions, and its anti-aircraft capabilities targeting Japanese military aviation.”

“There is no question of acquiring nuclear weapons”

Turning to the structural and military capabilities outlined in the white paper, Gonultas clarified that Tokyo is prioritizing high-technology defense systems and diplomatic-economic integration rather than unconventional deterrence.

“There is no question of acquiring nuclear weapons,” Gonultas emphasized, addressing recent media speculation surrounding defense policy debates. “While domestic discussions on nuclear deterrence surfaced during the era of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, implementing such a policy remains politically impossible. Regardless of a ruling party’s parliamentary majority, strong internal factions vehemently oppose the concept. When Abe tentatively raised the question of nuclear deterrence after leaving office, then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida immediately rejected the notion. Kishida, who remains an influential parliamentary figure, reaffirmed only recently that Japan must unconditionally oppose nuclear armament.”

Clarifying recent remarks made by Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi regarding the public taboo surrounding nuclear debates, Gonultas observed, “The prohibition against discussing nuclear weapons is not a formal statutory ban, but rather a deeply ingrained societal consensus. The public remains firmly opposed to even raising the topic. Defense Minister Koizumi, whose personal popularity has risen significantly among right-wing factions since taking office, uses this rhetoric largely as a political signaling strategy to consolidate his base as he positions himself for a future prime ministerial run.”

Gonultas outlined Tokyo’s actual defense investments, highlighting unmanned systems and domestic defense manufacturing. “Japan’s primary technological focus centers on advanced drone infrastructure,” he stated. “Furthermore, Japan has revised its historical restrictions on arms exports. While the constitution was previously interpreted to ban the export of lethal weaponry—limiting sales strictly to search-and-rescue or non-lethal equipment—legislative shifts now permit defensive exports, provided they are directed toward allied nations that are not actively engaged in armed conflict.”

“Japan is acutely aware that it cannot stand alone against China”

Evaluating Tokyo’s strategic dependence on Washington, Gonultas emphasized that Japan’s defense planners view the US alliance as indispensable for national survival.

“Japan is acutely aware that it cannot stand alone against China’s sheer scale,” Gonultas stated. “This fundamental reality forces Japanese policymakers to maintain flawless relations with Washington at all costs. Recently, when a US serviceman was implicated in an assault incident on Okinawa Island, Defense Minister Koizumi explicitly declined to criticize the US military, drawing sharp domestic backlash. Yet, this reflects Tokyo’s overriding priority: retaining the US strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific.”

“Both the Japanese government and the general public harbour deep anxieties regarding Chinese intentions, particularly concerning a potential military move against Taiwan,” Gonultas continued. “Should China blockade or seize Taiwan, Japan’s vital maritime trade routes would be compromised at Beijing’s discretion. Aside from the United States, no regional power possesses the capacity to offer meaningful deterrence.”

Gonultas added that this strategic anxiety has intensified under the current US administration. “Japanese planners are operating under immense pressure to keep US President Donald Trump fully committed to regional security, even as Washington signals potential adjustments to its military posture, including reductions in joint exercises with South Korea,” he noted. “To build a broader network of deterrence, Tokyo is actively cultivating overlapping bilateral and trilateral security partnerships with Australia, the Philippines, India, and South Korea, aiming to anchor US power within the region.”

“Constitutional limits restrict Japanese forces to purely defensive operations”

Addressing whether growing regional friction could lead to direct military confrontations, Gonultas pointed to the legal constraints governing Japan’s Self-Defense Forces.

“The likelihood of Japan initiating or engaging in direct offensive conflict remains minimal,” Gonultas stated. “Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution explicitly renounces war and prohibits the maintenance of offensive war potential. All military assets held by Japan are structured strictly for self-defense, meaning operational force can only be applied after Japanese territory sustains an explicit attack.”

“When Prime Minister Takaichi previously stated that Japan would protect Taiwan in the event of an invasion, any operational support would realistically be limited to logistics, non-combatant evacuation operations, and naval resupply missions for US forces, rather than direct front-line engagement,” Gonultas explained. “Although Takaichi favors constitutional revision, the Japanese public remains overwhelmingly pacifist and deeply attached to Article 9, driven by demographic aging, historical memory, and a profound fear of military escalation.”

“Turkiye is viewed as a reliable and capable defense partner”

Highlighting expanding diplomatic and industrial engagement between Ankara and Tokyo, Gonultas noted that defense procurement and technological cooperation have gained significant momentum.

“Following high-level diplomatic engagements, including Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s official visit to Tokyo and subsequent defense agreements signed at the SAHA EXPO defense exhibition, bilateral security cooperation has entered a concrete phase,” Gonultas said. “Japan is actively seeking to acquire drone technology. Importantly, Tokyo does not merely wish to purchase off-the-shelf equipment; it seeks technology transfers and co-production frameworks to understand manufacturing methodologies. Ankara has demonstrated a positive reception to these discussions.”

“Turkiye is viewed in Tokyo as a reliable, highly capable defense actor and a non-aggressive diplomatic mediator,” Gonultas added. “With negative public perception toward Israel reaching 80% in Japan, Tokyo has deliberately diversified its defense partnerships away from Tel Aviv, placing increased value on its historical alliance with Turkiye.”

Gonultas further observed that diplomatic coordination extends into Central Asia. “Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Eri Arfia, who is of Uyghur origin and fluent in Turkish, visited Istanbul and met with representatives of the Organization of Turkic States, expressing Japan’s interest in securing observer status,” Gonultas explained. “Tokyo views Turkiye as a vital bridge to Middle Eastern energy stability and Central Asian critical mineral supply chains.”

“Takaichi’s public approval ratings have dropped toward 50%”

Analysing domestic political dynamics, Gonultas reported that Prime Minister Takaichi faces mounting economic pressures that threaten her initial political momentum.

“While Prime Minister Takaichi entered office with approval ratings approaching 70%, recent surveys show public support dropping toward 50%, with some independent polls placing approval near 40%,” Gonultas stated. “The primary driver behind this decline is economic dissatisfaction. Despite state interventions to stabilize the yen around 170 per US dollar following energy price surges caused by the Iran conflict, living costs remain elevated.”

“Voters supported Takaichi expecting structural economic revitalization, but the administration has heavily prioritized ideological and administrative initiatives—such as designating Osaka as a secondary capital alongside its coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, enacting national flag protection laws, and tightening permanent residency requirements for foreign workers,” Gonultas explained. “Although the government plans to cut consumption taxes on food items from 8% to 1%, prominent figures within her own Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), including former Prime Minister Ishiba and veteran leader Taro Aso, have publicly questioned the fiscal viability of these plans.”

Concurrently, economic authorities face severe macroeconomic challenges following joint currency interventions by the US and Japan. “While joint interventions successfully halted the chaotic depreciation of the yen beyond the 170 threshold, Japanese government bond yields recently hit 30-year highs of approximately 3%,” Gonultas noted. “To offset inflationary pressures on households, the government has facilitated a 5% average wage increase—the highest in recent decades—while coordinating with Washington to maintain exchange rate stability.”

Concluding his evaluation of Tokyo’s regional policy, Gonultas noted that despite broader regional instability, Japan continues to maintain active diplomatic communication with Tehran to safeguard energy transit through the Strait of Hormuz. “Tokyo maintains functional diplomatic channels with both Washington and Tehran, leveraging its neutral diplomatic standing to support regional maritime stability and energy security,” Gonultas concluded.

Continue Reading

Asia

Pakistan top court orders Imran Khan moved from prison to hospital

Published

on

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan must be transferred from prison to a hospital.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) announced on Tuesday that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had ordered the transfer of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from prison to a hospital. The ruling meets a long-standing demand from his party and family, who have voiced concerns over his health.

The 73-year-old cricketer-turned-politician has been imprisoned since August 2023, following convictions in a series of cases that he maintains were politically motivated after his removal from office in 2022.

His sons had repeatedly raised concerns over the past year regarding his deteriorating health, while his lawyers stated that he had suffered significant vision loss in his right eye during his time in detention.

PTI spokesman Zulfikar Bukhari said: “This is a welcome decision. We wish this had happened earlier so that his eye and overall health would not have deteriorated this much.”

Bukhari added: “He should remain in the hospital until all doctors are satisfied.”

Khan’s spokesman Naeem Haider Panjutha stated on X that the court had directed Khan to be moved to Shifa International Hospital within 48 hours and to remain there until 16 September.

Since being ousted from power in a no-confidence vote, Khan has faced numerous legal proceedings, including cases involving state gifts and unlawful marriage. While some convictions have been suspended or overturned, appeals against others remain pending. Khan denies the charges against him.

In February, leading figures from the global cricket community, including prominent names from across the border in India, expressed “deep concerns” over Khan’s prison conditions and demanded improved treatment for him.

PTI came to power in 2018 and retains a broad support base across key provinces. However, the party was stripped of its electoral symbol ahead of the 2024 elections, forcing its candidates to contest the polls as independents.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey