Connect with us

Middle East

Does India take advantage of current rising tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Published

on

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

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey