Middle East
Dismantling freedom of expression: Live coverage of political shows banned
Afghanistan is now considered as one of the worst countries for journalists and free flow of information. The Taliban since their return in 2021, has imposed several restrictions against media independence, freedom of expression and self-censorship.
In the latest move, the Taliban have banned live media coverage and ordered the media outlets to share their analytical and political programs with the Taliban officials before publication and publish them after their approval.
However, the decision has raised the concerns of media and journalists supporting institutions inside and outside Afghanistan. They have emphasized that with such a situation, the activities of the media, which continued for the past three years despite restrictions, for freedom of expression and people’s access to information, have been practically dismantled.
However, some journalists working covertly inside the country say that the Taliban see journalists as spies and want a tougher crackdown and wider restrictions on the media and journalists.
According to them, even the media that have been completely at the service of the Taliban’s propaganda are also suspected by the Taliban.
In an official meeting, the Taliban ordered the owners and top officials of the private media outlets in Kabul that they can no longer broadcast political programs live. According to this order, political programs must be recorded and published after the approval of the Taliban.
According to the sources, the Taliban have warned the domestic media that no media is allowed to broadcast content critical of the group’s policies and laws.
Also, the Organization Supporting Afghan Journalists confirmed this issue and released a statement, saying that Taliban have banned the live broadcasting of political programs in the media in a new move.
Taliban introduced their trusted people as experts in the analytical and political tv programs
The Taliban have introduced their trusted people as experts in the analytical and political programs of the media, according to the statement. It also said that the Taliban destroyed freedom of expression in the country by imposing severe censorship against the media.
“The Taliban hold frequent meetings with media managers in the center and provinces, and in these meetings, the decisions and restrictions of the Taliban are mainly communicated orally,” an Afghan journalist said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, he told Harici that in these meetings, the media are instructed on what to publish and what not to publish. “In the latest case, the selection of guests in programs and the recording of political programs that used to be broadcast live and its publication after the approval of the Taliban, is another blow to freedom of expression,” he added.
Meanwhile, a female journalist said access to information has become very difficult for journalists, especially female journalists, and said that it is challenging to be a journalist.
She said that female reporters cannot work independently on any subject because they do not have access to information and it is difficult for them to obtain the necessary information to prepare reports and news.
Taliban called the critics as destructive tool, considered them “rebellious”
In the current situation, local journalists across provinces can only cover topics that are compatible with the spirit and accepted by the Taliban.
According to him, the Taliban have repeatedly warned that they will not accept journalists from media operating from outside the country. “Being a journalist under the rule of the Taliban is considered a crime and this group considers journalists as spies,” she said, wishing anonymity due to security reasons.
She added that if the Taliban find out that a local journalist is cooperating with the media in exile, the journalist’s life will lead to prison or death.
These concerns are raised while Taliban officials have previously prohibited criticizing and asking questions about the activities of this group and even considered the critic to be killed.
Taliban’s head of ministry of higher education, Mohammad Nadeem had recently said that the critics should stop and called them a destructive toll and should be killed. Those who destroy the Taliban regime with their tongue or pen are “rebellious and liable to be killed”, he added.
In the latest move, the Taliban’s Prime Minister’s Office has issued a declaration to further suppress freedom of expression and ban critical thinking, which has led to stricter control over the public intellectual and religious space in the country.
In this statement, the Taliban have prevented “controversial and contentious discussions and debates” and have emphasized that debates and discussions through the media should be avoided.
This is despite the fact that banning discussions and debates, instead of providing a logical solution to prevent conflict, will lead to the elimination of diversity and the continuation of stagnation and intellectual stagnation in the society.
Reporters Sans Frontier said that Taliban targeted journalists on a wider scale and multiplied the number of pretrial detentions.
According to the report on freedom of expression in the world in 2024, the situation of freedom of expression in Afghanistan has reached a state of crisis and Afghanistan has become one of the worst countries in this field. The Global Expression organization has announced that Afghanistan is in 155th place among 161 countries. The findings of this organization show that in the last five years, from 2018 to 2023, Afghanistan has fallen 47 places in the ranking of freedom of expression.
Reporters Without Borders has also announced that the Taliban have arrested 141 journalists in the last three years. According to this organization, the Taliban have targeted journalists on a wider scale and have multiplied the number of pre-trial detentions. Reporters Without Borders added that the Taliban treat journalists like criminals and imprison them under various pretexts.
In the past three years, the Taliban have imposed many restrictions against journalists, especially female journalists. According to the orders of the Taliban, women are prohibited from appearing in television shows and hosting programs without covering their faces. Also, the Taliban have banned women’s voices in the media in many provinces and ordered local radio stations not to broadcast women’s voices.
The Afghan Journalists Association has previously said that the Taliban have issued 17 media directives against the media law in the past three years, which include a wide range of media-related issues.
According to this organization, banning the coverage of civil protests, banning women from working on national radio and television, banning the music, covering women’s faces, banning women from appearing in plays, separating the positions of women and men in the media, banning women from interviewing men, and the media refraining from speaking, are the main opponents and critics of the Taliban.
Middle East
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Middle East
Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Middle East
Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
-
Europe4 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia1 week agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Middle East1 week agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia1 week agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
