Connect with us

Middle East

Afghanistan-Iran cross-border tension: Who to blame

Published

on

Afghanistan and Iran troops have engaged in heavy cross-border clashes, killing and wounding troops in rapid escalation of tensions over water rights.

At least two Iranian border guards and one Taliban member have lost their lives in the battle and several other people received injuries.

There is no immediate indication of what had provoked the incident, but recently Iran’s leader threatened the Taliban amid tensions between the two countries over water rights.

The deadly clashes happened on the border of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province and southern Afghan province Nirmoz. Authorities from both sides confirmed the clashes had subsided and the two neighbors engaged in talks to ease tensions. Both sides accused each other of firing first.

Spokesman for the Taliban Interior Ministry Abdul Nafi Takor said that Iranian border forces fired toward Afghanistan first, which faced a counter-reaction by the Taliban border forces.

Takor said that the situation is now under control, and the Islamic Emirate does not want to fight with its neighbors, but prevent mentioning the name of Iran.

Iran‘s Deputy Police Chief, Qasem Rezaei blamed Taliban forces for firing first at the Sasoli checkpoint which caused a decisive response. Rezaei charged the Taliban forces for not observing intentional laws and neighborliness.

No room for aggression

A Taliban commander, Abdul Hamid Khorasani called on the Iran leadership not to play with the patience of the people of Afghanistan and the government.

“We are not slaves of the colonialists and we won’t tolerate your aggressions,” Khorasani said, referring to Iran’s border firing toward Afghanistan.

In a message sent to Harici, Khorasani said that the Taliban security forces will not tolerate any kind of “aggression” and warned Iran of a “deadly response” if a single bullet fired toward Afghanistan.

“Our leadership had shown restraint, otherwise we were ready to fight against Iran with more passion and even greater than our fight against the NATO occupiers,” he added.

In a clear word, he said that they will conquer Iran if the leadership in the Islamic Emirate allow them to wage Jihad against Tehran, and also accused Iran of being a good friend to the Western countries.

But, Taliban defense ministry spokesman, Enayatullah Khowarazmi said that Kabul considers dialogue and negotiation to be a reasonable way to address any problem.

He said that blaming games and negative actions is not in the interest of either side.

Iran decisively responses to any aggression

Iran had vowed not to let the Taliban attack stand, and said that its border forces have been alert 24 hours to respond in a harsh way to any cross-border aggression.

Iran’s Police Chief, Ahmadreza Radan said that the border forces will “decisively respond” to any border trespassing and aggression and blamed the Taliban leadership for the border skirmishes.

Iran’s deputy head of the police force, Qassem Rezaee said that the Taliban started shooting with all kinds of weapons at an Iranian police station.

Light and semi-light weapons and artillery were used in the clashes, according to the official Tasnim news agency.

The escalation comes after Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi during his visit to Sistan-Baluchistan on May 18, warned Taliban leadership to give the people of Sistan their water rights.

He also warned the Taliban to take his words “seriously” and called on Kabul to observe Iran‘s water rights under the 1973 treaty. However, the Taliban rejected Raisi’s perceived threat.

Water, the real cause of dispute

Tensions over water rights have risen between Iran and Afghanistan in recent weeks, where Iran accused Afghanistan for blocking the flow of water and called for the release of more water.

Kajaki Dam on the Helmand River, Afghanistan.

The Taliban had repeatedly denied violation of the agreement, and said low water levels on the Helmand River and rejected the preclude of water flows to Iran’s southeastern Sistan-Baluchistan province.

Iran has been struggling with drought for some 30 years, but has worsened over the past decade, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Meteorological Organization said there is an estimated 97pc of the country that now faces some level of drought.

The Taliban seized Afghanistan in August 2021 as U.S. and NATO troops were in the final weeks of their pullout from the country after 20 years of war.

While not directly accepting the Taliban government, Iran has maintained relations with Afghanistan’s new rulers. Tehran also has called on the Taliban to allow women and girls to go to school.

Diplomacy didn’t work

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian had earlier spoken on a phone with his Afghan counterpart Amir Khan Muttaqi and asked for the reopening of the gates of the inland Kajaki Dam on the Helmand River, and let the people on both sides be hydrated.

Right after the call, Muttaqi held a meeting with Hassan Kazemi Qom, the Iranian ambassador in Kabul, where they discussed issues of bilateral relations, including water issues.

“The minister of foreign affairs also noted that issues between the two sides can be better resolved through mutual dialog and understanding,” Afghan Foreign Ministry’s deputy spokesman said on Twitter.

Muttaqi had earlier said that Taliban remains committed to the 1973 treaty, but said that drought in Afghanistan and the region should also not be ignored.

Afghanistan has been facing its third year of drought, and has been ranked third on a 2023 emergency watch list issued by the International Rescue Committee.

On May 22, the Taliban foreign ministry called on Iran to prevent talking about water in the media and instead engaged in talks directly with Kabul to find a local solution to the problem.

It was the first deadly clashes between the border forces of Afghanistan and Iran since Taliban took control of the country in 2021.

Middle East

US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization

Published

on

US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.

At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.

Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.

“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”

Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:

“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”

Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.

Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.

Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.

“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.

The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.

The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.

Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.

“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.

Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.

However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.

Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.

“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say

Published

on

The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.

Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.

As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.

Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.

That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.

Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.

While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.

Washington fears regional spillover

The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.

The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.

For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.

The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.

According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.

Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.

“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.

Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.

Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.

The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing

Published

on

As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.

Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.

However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.

Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government

According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.

A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.

Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.

The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.

Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out

A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.

Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.

In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.

Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters

Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.

Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”

Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”

Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.

Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey