Connect with us

Middle East

End to hostilities: Afghanistan and Pakistan must search way forward

Published

on

Instead, hostilities between the two neighboring countries are fueling with each passing day as Islamabad and Kabul are stick to its inflexible stances and reluctant to accept each other’s autonomous and sovereign status. Pakistan along with recognition of controversial Durand Line as a permanent International border also forcing Taliban (Emirate Islami Afghanistan) to take action against banned Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants or to surrender them. But despite their staunch stance on own interpretation of Islamic doctrine, Taliban are firm to defend Afghanistan historical traditions of hospitality, “saying banned TTP militants are guests and guests are not forced to return or will be handed over to their enemies.” Taliban rulers are suggesting Pakistan to go for reconciliation with TTP instead threatening them of dire consequences.

Amidst hectic preparation on the part of UN sponsored third Doha Conference on Afghanistan scheduled to be held, the Taliban regime yet to get support from other countries especially those having direct or indirect stakes in the long awaited conflict. Earlier Taliban have not only got but Pakistan worked like its attorney in both the previous held conferences in Doha. But this time Pakistan is attaching or making conditional its support to Afghanistan. Most recently Pakistan’s high level team headed by Interior secretary had visited Kabul and held series of talks with the Taliban ministers but the results seems disappointing. On return of interior secretary lead delegation from Kabul, Pakistan has stimulated further security measures along with Pak Afghan border. Similarly terrorists also intensified its attacks and threats to tribesmen, especially in Kurram region. The extra ordinary activism on the part of security forces in different merged tribal districts portray something else.

Reginal countries are in direct talk with the Taliban and Pakistan needs to learn from this.

Whatever might be strategies of Pakistan but one thing is very clear. Compare to recent past, situation is different in Afghanistan. Like of former Peshawar manufactured Jehadi groups. Almost top Taliban leaders are also made disheartened. Instead Rawalpindi-Islamabad, now major stake holders i.e. US lead allies are engaging Taliban through Qatar, whereas China and Russian Federation succeeded in establishing own links with Kabul and Kandahar. Saudi Arab is completely reshuffling its internal and external policies. On such grounds instead becoming sentimental, Pakistan must review its failed even flopped policies towards Afghanistan. In the wake of poor or even “BIG NO” response from Taliban regime, Pakistan instead, has declared, “no more talks with TTP.” But it doesn’t resolve the issue. The issue could easily be resolved through peaceful and political means. Instead dictating Taliban (Emirate Islami Afghanistan) like masters, Pakistan needs to behave like friend and contemporary, if it really wants settling its own scores in that war ravaged country.

No one deny the fact that Pakistan suffered a lot on its involvement in prolonged conflict in Afghanistan but its trade and diplomatic relations remained satisfactory even during the hostile or unfriendly regimes in Kabul. But now when Kabul is governed by Pakistan backed Taliban, clashes between and across the border encounters, closure of border for bilateral trade and pedestrians and war of words between the two neighboring countries become a routine matter. Almost Afghan traders have diverted trade and business affairs from Karachi Port to Bandar Abbass Iran and other Central Asian countries. Construction of Railway track with technical and logistic support of India likely to smash dreams of Pakistan regard establishing and dominating consumer markets in CAR states through Afghanistan. Pakistan’s most sincere friend also seems disappointed as it has established direct links with Afghanistan. In such a circumstances, Pakistan must realize gravity of ground situation and remain careful regarding insisting on Zia-Hameed Gul framed strategic depth policies in Afghanistan.

Afghans could easily be controlled through friendly attitude be not possible through sticks and guns.

“Afghans could easily be governed and controlled through friendly attitude but seems impossible to be controlled through sticks and guns,” it is the most readable and circulated proverb. Long standing conflict in Afghanistan is a political issue and could easily be settled through political means. Unfortunately since along the main stake holder-US lead allies remained reluctant to let resolve or let political awareness and  unification in Afghanistan for settling the issue through political means. Whatever may be claims but anger and hate against Taliban is stimulating day by day. Pakistan as immediate neighbor can play a vital role in permanent and durable solution to the conflict.

Pakistan deserves peace and tranquility as its leaders are ahead with huge issues of governance, security, poverty, unemployment and deteriorating economy. Unless and until return of complete peace and tranquility in Afghanistan, it could be hard for Pakistan to put its own house in order, therefore, Pakistan needs to play a rule as a “mediator” instead of a “partisan.” Pakistan could easily convince Taliban for transferring power to an inclusive interim government, which go for strengthening of political process before holding of elections. Only a democratically elected political government may be capable of settling the long standing conflict in Afghanistan. And this democratically elected government may be in interests of Pakistan.

Middle East

France explores Syrian transit routes as alternative oil corridor to bypass Strait of Hormuz

Published

on

France is evaluating the creation of alternative energy routes through Syria to mitigate potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz following the resumption of hostilities between the United States and Iran. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that Paris is working on new transit routes for the transport of Persian Gulf oil, with Syria emerging as a prominent option in this context.

“Among the initiatives we have pursued since the beginning of this crisis is the concept of preparing alternative routes, in order to avoid remaining dependent on blockages that could occur here or there,” Barrot said.

Barrot indicated that Syria, which has entered a process of reunification following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad administration, could become a “new regional hub.” The French minister characterized the country as a strategic corridor that could transport Persian Gulf oil to the Mediterranean, thereby reducing the impact of potential shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Stating that France wishes to expand commercial and economic cooperation with the Damascus administration, Barrot expressed that they aim to establish a secure transit route for Gulf producing nations through this cooperation.

According to Barrot, implementing this plan requires a comprehensive assessment of existing infrastructure and the provision of necessary security guarantees. The French minister noted that these efforts are of critical importance for securing global energy markets.

Barrot’s remarks followed French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Damascus on Tuesday. During the visit, Macron met with Ahmed Shara, the former al-Qaeda leader who has declared himself President of Syria.

Patrick Pouyanné, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of TotalEnergies, was among the delegation accompanying Macron. Characterizing Syria as a country situated “at the crossroads of the Middle East,” Pouyanné said it could establish a vital energy link between Iraq and the Mediterranean.

In response to the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iraq has been shipping its oil via tankers through Syria for export since April.

More than 600,000 tons of fuel were exported through this route between April and June. Last month, Iraqi and Syrian officials discussed the reactivation of the Kirkuk-Baniyas oil pipeline and the establishment of energy transit mechanisms.

TotalEnergies has also signed a memorandum of understanding for an offshore exploration block in the Mediterranean. However, Pouyanné stated that beyond this, the company currently has no concrete projects under development.

Stating that security conditions in the country have not yet stabilized, Pouyanné said, “It is clear today that the security situation does not yet permit us to operate here. However, I believe coming here, to Damascus, is a positive initiative.”

Shortly after Pouyanné’s statements, two bombs reportedly exploded near the Four Seasons Hotel, where the French delegation was staying.

Stating that the Syrian administration must be given time to establish control over the country, Pouyanné said, “We must not demand too much,” adding, “We need to be a little patient.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Senior US military officers ignored system alerts on obsolete targets, leading to strike on Iranian school

Published

on

Senior US military commanders approved strike lists despite automated system warnings indicating that intelligence on certain targets in Iran was years out of date and required revalidation, according to a CNN report citing three sources familiar with the decision-making process.

The warnings were bypassed to “speed things up” under intense pressure to rapidly designate targets during the opening days of the conflict. One of the targets approved by commanders under these conditions resulted in a strike on a school in Minab.

This military decision is directly linked to the February 28 strike on the Shajara Tayyiba School in Minab, which killed at least 168 children and 14 teachers. The heavy loss of life makes the strike one of the mass casualty events involving the highest number of civilian deaths in the recent history of the US military.

According to the sources, automated system warning messages indicating that the intelligence was obsolete were already integrated into the database used during the target development process. Within this system, a target could only be added to a strike list with the approval of a senior officer. Two sources stated that the decision by senior commanders to ignore these warnings directly contributed to the school being targeted “by mistake.”

Military officials reportedly realized within days of the strike on the school that the error stemmed from outdated information. Despite the passage of months, the Pentagon has not released its investigation report on the incident.

A White House official stated that the investigation remains ongoing, asserting, “As we have said before, the US does not target civilians.”

The Pentagon referred inquiries on the matter to US Central Command (CENTCOM), which declined to comment, citing the active investigation.

School and military facility were located within the same compound

The strike reportedly occurred while the US military was targeting an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facility located near the Shajara Tayyiba School. Initial military investigative findings also pointed to this conclusion.

Satellite imagery reveals negligence in the target analysis process. Imagery from 2013 shows the school and the IRGC base located within the same compound, whereas imagery from 2016 clearly indicates that the school had been separated from the base by a fence and provided with a separate entrance.

In satellite imagery dated December 2025, dozens of children can be seen playing in the schoolyard.

The strike took place on the first day of operations following Donald Trump’s decision to launch military action, a period during which military officials and intelligence analysts worked under intense pressure to update thousands of targets.

Analysts were unable to update all records in the Pentagon database prior to the operation. As a result, records for multiple targets—including the IRGC facility adjacent to the elementary school—consisted of information that was more than 10 years old.

Due to the accelerated timeline, analysts prioritized updating “high-priority” records, which included moving targets with a high probability of being struck first and locations posing an immediate threat to US forces. Because fixed facilities were deemed a lower priority, the information for the facility near the school was not updated.

Disconnected databases and staffing shortages compounded the error

At the center of the investigation are two separate targeting databases used by the Pentagon. These are known as the Modernized Integrated Database (MIDB), which was built in the 1980s and relies on manual data entry, and the Mitigation and Analysis Reporting System (MARS), a new artificial intelligence-backed digital platform.

Both systems indicated that information needed to be updated before use. However, efforts to fully transition to the MARS system were reportedly years behind schedule, leaving official targeting data still dependent on the legacy MIDB system.

An intelligence analyst had previously noted changes on the ground in a separate digital tool, but because this tool was not connected to the official targeting database, the information did not reach commanders. How this disconnect influenced the targeting of the school is also being examined as part of the investigation.

Following the strike, Donald Trump suggested that Iran might be responsible for the incident, later asserting that responsibility might never be determined. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the strike would be thoroughly investigated, claiming that the US takes every possible measure to prevent civilian casualties.

However, due to cuts implemented early in Hegseth’s tenure, Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) teams within CENTCOM were reportedly facing severe staffing shortages.

Under the cuts made by Hegseth prior to the conflict with Iran, the 10-person civilian casualty specialist staff at CENTCOM was reduced to a single full-time employee.

Sources added that while the remaining staff did everything they could, they lacked adequate resources due to the budget and personnel cuts implemented by Hegseth.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US revokes Iran oil license and launches airstrikes following Strait of Hormuz tanker attacks

Published

on

The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has revoked a general license that permitted commercial transactions involving Iranian oil.

According to a statement issued by the agency, the “General License X” regulation, which had been in effect since June 21, 2026, was fully rescinded as of July 7, 2026, and replaced by the newly introduced “General License X1” regulation.

The statement noted that a wind-down period lasting until July 17 has been granted to allow for the completion of transactions initiated prior to the revocation.

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted strongly to the OFAC decision, declaring that Tehran will take all necessary measures to protect its national security and interests.

In a statement shared on the ministry’s official Telegram channel, Iran stated: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran decisively condemns the US Department of the Treasury’s decision to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil. This step is a flagrant violation of Article 10 of the memorandum of understanding concerning the cessation of military conflict.”

Following the decision, the US Armed Forces conducted a series of airstrikes targeting Iranian territory during the night of July 8. US officials maintained that the military operation was a response to Tehran’s actions in the region. Washington characterized Iran’s conduct as a violation of the ceasefire regime and a threat to the security of navigation in the region.

The Iranian state broadcaster, IRIB, reported that explosions occurred at various locations across the country. News sources noted that seven explosions were heard near the village of Taherui in the Sirik district, and six explosions were heard near the city of Qeshm.

Previously, US media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and Axios, citing US officials, had reported that despite the active ceasefire, forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had attacked oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz.

According to data shared by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a tanker off the coast of Oman was struck by an unidentified munition, causing a fire on board. It was reported that the incident resulted in no casualties, injuries, or environmental pollution.

The Wall Street Journal reported that one of the targeted vessels may have been the “Al Rekayyat,” a tanker owned by the Qatar-based shipping company Nakilat.

The vessel sustained damage to its engine room, though the crew was reported to be safe. Axios reported that while the attacked vessels sustained damage, no major destruction had occurred.

On June 18, 2026, the US and Iran had signed a memorandum of understanding that established a two-month ceasefire and envisioned the initiation of negotiations for a more comprehensive agreement.

Following the start of the ceasefire period, the US had also struck targets in Iran on June 27 and June 28, citing Iranian actions against commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Following those strikes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had announced that operations would be launched against US facilities located in Arab countries.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey