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

Pentagon plans covert spy ring for economic war on China, report says

Published

on

The US Department of War (Pentagon) is reportedly planning to establish an extensive network of deep-cover agents to wage economic warfare against China and other adversaries of the US.

According to a report by The Washington Post citing six sources familiar with the initiative, the plan has not yet been put into effect. The newspaper reported that the initiative remains at the planning stage. The Pentagon, however, denies that any such initiative exists.

The report said the operatives would pose as entrepreneurs or private sector employees while concealing their ties to the US government. The network’s mission would be to gather economic intelligence and counter China.

The programme is led by Tom Rakusa, who spent 39 years at the CIA. Rakusa serves as a senior adviser to Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg.

The proposed spy network is seen as part of a broader policy by the Donald Trump administration to sharpen economic competition with other countries.

The US is already resorting to tariffs, export controls, and investment in strategic sectors, alongside expanding its economic intelligence gathering.

According to The Washington Post, the new initiative demonstrates the Pentagon’s growing influence under the Trump administration. The department is currently seeking a record budget of $1.5 trillion.

Trade war flares up again with Trump’s return to the White House

The trade friction between the US and China flared up again following Donald Trump’s return to the White House. In April 2025, Washington raised tariffs on Chinese goods to as much as 145%, and Beijing retaliated with tariffs of up to 125%.

In May, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described China as the primary geopolitical challenge facing Washington. Rubio said that to avoid war, the two sides needed to manage their conflict of interests.

In July, Chinese expert Zheng Yongnian did not simply warn that underestimating the US could prove to be a “fatal mistake”; he stated it explicitly.

According to Zheng’s assessment, the US maintains its primacy through the role of the dollar, its military superiority, and its technological advantages.

Even so, the two sides agreed in June to declare a truce and lower tariffs. In autumn 2026, the US and China extended their trade truce until 10 January 2027.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the extension would give the parties more time to discuss economic issues.

Trade deals do not eliminate the strategic contradictions between the two countries. Financial Times columnist Rana Foroohar likened the race between the two nations for commercial, technological, and geopolitical influence to the 19th-century “Great Game” between the Russian and British empires.

Foroohar cited China’s standing in shipbuilding and commercial maritime transport, as well as its expanding footprint in overseas ports, among its key advantages.

Continue Reading

Asia

Japan plans curbs on short-term home sales to cool urban prices

Published

on

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) plans to restrict short-term property trading to rein in surging home prices in major urban centres, particularly Tokyo.

Led by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the party aims to make support for working households a core priority ahead of local elections scheduled for April next year.

The LDP’s research commission on housing and land policy met on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

According to a report by the Nikkei Asia newspaper, Commission Chair and LDP lawmaker Midori Matsushima said at the opening of the meeting: “Prices of newly built condominiums across Tokyo’s 23 wards have doubled over the past decade. We must work on measures ensuring that people who wish to live in these homes can actually afford to buy them.”

Homeownership in the capital has become virtually unattainable for broad segments of the population. According to data from the Real Estate Economic Institute, the average sale price of a newly built condominium in Tokyo’s 23 wards rose %18.5 in fiscal 2025 compared with the previous year, reaching 137.84 million yen (around $872,000).

Meanwhile, statistics from the Ministry of Labour show that the average annual income of a full-time worker in the capital remained at 6.78 million yen in fiscal 2025. This widening gap between incomes and residential property prices is directly shaping political priorities.

During its campaign for the House of Representatives election in February, the LDP pledged to curb speculative transactions across metropolitan Tokyo and other regions. Earlier this month, a party project team focused on policies concerning foreign nationals also submitted a recommendation urging the government to introduce immediate tax measures against rising home prices.

Under current legislation, profits realized from properties sold within five years of acquisition are classified as “short-term capital gains”. These returns face a tax rate approaching %40, including income tax and local inhabitant tax.

Although this rate is twice the approximately %20 levied as “long-term capital gains” tax on properties held for more than five years, several party members argue it remains insufficient to deter speculation. Calls to tighten the framework may be considered as part of the annual tax reform package to be drafted in December alongside the LDP’s coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party.

The ruling bloc wants to present concrete housing pledges to voters heading to the polls in April across numerous urban centres, including 22 of Tokyo’s wards where local assembly terms expire.

“We need to support families with children, who are typically at the stage of purchasing a home,” a senior LDP official said.

Opposition parties are also preparing alternative proposals that target not only prospective homebuyers, but also residents forced into the rental market by high property prices and now affected by escalating rents.

Tax steps take precedence over limits on foreign buyers

Several countries seeking answers to housing affordability pressures have imposed direct restrictions on foreign purchasers. In South Korea, real estate policies played a major part in the declining public approval ratings of President Lee Jae Myung.

In August 2025, authorities in Seoul introduced an approval requirement for foreign nationals buying homes in the capital and adjacent areas, while also mandating that buyers reside in the properties for at least two years.

Canada and Australia have enacted temporary bans on foreign residential purchases, while Singapore levies a %60 additional stamp duty on foreign buyers.

The role of overseas investors in Japan’s property market also drew debate during the February election. However, restrictions aimed directly at foreign nationals are viewed as potentially conflicting with international trade and services agreements.

Consequently, rather than imposing restrictions based on the nationality of buyers, the government is discussing tax measures aimed at speculative real estate deals, such as rapid resales.

Fears that sharp market measures could shake regional banks

Concerns have also surfaced that aggressive steps to force down prices could harm the wider national economy.

A senior LDP tax official cautioned that a steep drop in land prices could weaken local financial institutions, warning: “We must consider the impact on regional banks.”

The real estate sector accounts for roughly %18 of total lending by Japanese banks. This proportion sits well above the %10 level recorded during Japan’s bubble economy of the mid-to-late 1980s.

At certain regional banks, property lending accounts for nearly half of total loan portfolios.

According to March 2025 data from the Financial Services Agency, approximately one-quarter of all loans extended by regional banks to the real estate sector are concentrated directly in Tokyo’s five central wards.

Buoyant asset valuations, supported in part by rising stock indices, have underpinned strong public approval for the Takaichi administration. Observers note that property interventions designed to cool the market could drag down equity prices and weaken the government’s standing.

A senior official on the LDP research commission stressed that decision-makers must act with caution regarding the scope and timing of any measures intended to bring price increases under control.

Continue Reading

Asia

South Korea plans $120B spend on eight US nuclear power plants

Published

on

South Korea will spend $120 billion to construct eight nuclear power plants in the US under an agreement that provides for $350 billion in investments in exchange for lower tariffs.

The South Korean government also announced that Seoul and Washington will begin examining a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Alaska comprising a large-scale pipeline to transport natural gas from the north of the state to the south, alongside the construction of an LNG terminal for exports overseas.

Seoul stated that a decision regarding the LNG project will be made following a commercial feasibility study. However, US President Donald Trump said that South Korea would invest $54 billion in the project, pointing to an apparent lack of full coordination between the two sides on the matter.

Trade and Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan said in a statement: “This announcement opens a new horizon of cooperation where the two countries join forces to develop joint commercial ventures in strategic areas directly linked to economic security and future sectors such as artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and LNG.”

“We will adhere to the principle of prioritising national interests and investing solely in commercially viable projects,” Kim said.

Speaking at the White House, Trump characterised South Korea’s plans as “one of the largest energy infrastructure investments in American history”.

The announcement followed a meeting between Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung roughly one year ago at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting held in South Korea, where they agreed on the creation of a $350 billion investment fund.

Under that agreement, $150 billion was allocated to the shipbuilding sector and $200 billion to other sectors. In return, the US announced it would reduce tariffs imposed on goods imported from South Korea from 25% to 15%.

Under the nuclear power project, South Korea’s state-controlled utility will build two plants in the US, while Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse Electric will construct six plants.

According to the South Korean government, this will mark the first instance in which a foreign country builds its own nuclear power plants in the US.

South Korean firms are also evaluating the possibility of acquiring a stake in Westinghouse as part of negotiations over sharing profits generated by the project.

South Korea additionally announced that it will build a $22.3 billion natural gas-fired power plant in Texas with a capacity of 6,472 megawatts.

The facility will be designed to supply electricity directly to nearby data centres. The project’s first phase is targeted to begin commercial operations in 2029, with full-capacity operations slated for 2032.

Seoul also disclosed that it had agreed to allow the US to receive 50% of the profits generated by the projects until South Korea recoups all of its investments.

After South Korea fully recovers its total investment amount, 90% of the profits will go to the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey