Middle East
Does India take advantage of current rising tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan?
At the height of the current tensions between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, India condemned Pakistan’s airstrikes in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan with a delay of two weeks. India is the second country that has officially reacted to these attacks.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India supported the position of the Taliban and condemned the killing of civilians in Pakistan’s attacks. Delhi made no mention of Pakistan’s claim that it had struck four hideouts of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), a group that has become a security problem for the Pakistani military. Delhi ironically said that “Islamabad always blames its neighbors.”
Pakistan traditionally holds India and Afghanistan responsible for internal insurgencies and attacks by terrorist and separatist groups on its soil. Recently, Pakistani officials accused the Afghan Taliban of colluding with India to destabilize Pakistan.
Trust-building
India’s new stance can be described as a clever political game or even political opportunism. India, which has always considered the Taliban as Pakistan’s proxy force in the region and was one of the main supporters of the former Afghan government, now plans to use the tension between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan to get closer to the Taliban.
Over the past three years, New Delhi has tried to reduce its longstanding mistrust with the Taliban. Expelling the ambassador and diplomats of the previous government from Delhi, handing over the Afghan embassy and consulates in India to the Taliban, cutting ties with former allies such as the leaders of the resistance front, and stopping the issuance of visas to former officials have been part of this trust building and rapprochement.
Revival of lost influence
Afghanistan has always been important for Delhi due to its geographical proximity to Pakistan. Pakistan says that Delhi’s purpose in getting closer to Afghanistan was to destabilize the tense areas in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
India has traditionally supported Afghan governments against Pakistan. Due to the dispute with Pakistan over the “Durand Line”, Afghanistan has had enough incentive to get closer to India. India has also provided various economic, technical and diplomatic assistance to Afghanistan to strengthen this relationship.
With the return of the Taliban, India was forced to close its embassy and consulates in Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Nangarhar and Kandahar provinces. Following this, India severed all ties – even people-to-people links – with Afghanistan.
Thousands of Afghan students were prevented from continuing their studies in Indian universities due to lack of visas. After the political collapse in Afghanistan, many believed that the history of India’s influence in Afghanistan was also over.
But the Taliban, unlike the previous period, is trying to establish relations with all countries in the region and is not dependent on a particular country, and took steps to strengthen relations with India.
Yaqoob Mujahid, the Minister of Defense of the Taliban, in an unprecedented statement said that the Taliban is ready to send its forces to India for training. India also responded to the goodwill of the Taliban by sending its diplomats to Kabul.
Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian about expanding relations with Afghanistan through Chabahar port. The government of Iran said that “the talk about Afghanistan was made because of the interest of the Indian side.”
India is seriously trying to reduce the Taliban’s dependence on Pakistan and strengthen its relations through Chabahar.
Approaching the enemy border
The importance of India’s efforts to improve relations with the Taliban and open a foothold in Afghanistan should be seen from the eyes of Pakistan. Islamabad has consistently complained about India’s diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, especially in its border areas.
Pakistan considers India a vital threat and does not accept the country’s proximity to its borders. In the previous government of Afghanistan, relations between Kabul and Islamabad were cold.
Pakistani officials had repeatedly expressed concern about the activities of Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in meetings with Afghan leaders. Even some Pakistani leaders had made cooperation in securing peace and stability in Afghanistan conditional on reducing relations with India and closing the country’s embassies in the mentioned cities.
Analysts are unanimous on the point that Pakistan considers Afghanistan as a barrier or an area free of Indian influence. This country has continuously supported the paramilitary groups and the subversive central government in order to establish a pro-Pakistan government.
India sees an opportunity to expand its influence in Afghanistan in the worsening relations between Islamabad and the Taliban. However, it is not clear how far this tension will make the Afghan Taliban rely on Delhi.
What is certain is that Pakistan finds the closeness of the Taliban and India intolerable, just as it was angry about the close relations of the former Afghan government with New Delhi.
Of course, we should not ignore the fact that the Afghan Taliban is as much a double-edged sword for Delhi as it is for Pakistan. Because the Afghan Taliban has not cut off its relations with militant and terrorist groups.
Strengthening the Afghan Taliban also means strengthening Pakistani militant Islamist groups, which Delhi considers a tool in the hands of Pakistan and a threat to its national security.
Rising unrest in Pakistan by TTP, a close ally of the Afghani Taliban has benefited India
In recent decades, part of India’s strategy in Afghanistan has been to weaken Pakistan. Supporting separatist groups and creating unrest in Pakistan is an important part of this policy.
Rising unrest in Pakistan by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a close ally of the Afghan Taliban, has benefited India. From 2020 until now, the level of insecurity in Pakistan has increased steadily and 2024 was the most unstable year in Pakistan in a decade.
Pakistan believes that the insecurity and violence in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is organized from the soil of Afghanistan and that the Afghan Taliban have collaborated with India.
Understanding the depth of these tensions, India has taken steps to intensify the differences between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban by supporting the Taliban. India seeks to increase the dependence of the Afghan Taliban on New Delhi in order to exploit these relations in the long run to weaken Pakistan.
The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India can probably increase Islamabad’s skepticism towards the Taliban. To solve the problem of militants, Pakistan has increased military and political pressure on the Taliban. However, this pressure will make the Afghan Taliban more inclined towards Delhi.
Despite the absence of three years in the diplomatic arena of Afghanistan, India has been able to advance its goals. Pakistan has suffered the most from the recent developments in Afghanistan. The increase in insecurity in Pakistan is largely related to the events after the fall of the republican system in Afghanistan.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe4 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy4 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
