Connect with us

Middle East

India’s foreign policy and relations with the Taliban

Published

on

Indian diplomat J.P Singh, who is in charge of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan affairs in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, visited Kabul recently and held enormous meetings and discussions with senior Taliban officials, including Defense Minister Mullah Yaqoob and Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. Although many details of these meetings have not been published, the Times of India in a report on this trip called it a “fundamental progress” in the relations between India and the Taliban.

The Ministry of Defense of the Taliban also said that the two sides emphasized their common desire to expand bilateral relations, especially in the fields of humanitarian cooperation and other issues, and expressed their interest in strengthening more interactions between Afghanistan and India.

The Times of India has evaluated this meeting as a “strategic change in India’s approach to Afghanistan”; in the sense that the Taliban’s repeated assurances that Afghanistan’s soil will not be used against India, probably influenced India’s decision to increase its interactions with Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban.

This shows that the Taliban, after taking control of Afghanistan, do not shy away from any attempt for international and regional recognition as well as interaction with the regional and world powers, that is just for the purpose of legitimizing their ruling.

India’s relations with the Taliban and its challenges for the country’s regional strategies is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a more detailed analysis.

After the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan and the fundamental change in the political and security equations of the region, India also sought to review its policies towards Afghanistan and the Taliban. This relationship, although designed to protect India’s immediate interests in the region, is undoubtedly not without significant strategic concerns.

India’s instrumental policy in Afghanistan

India’s foreign policy in Afghanistan was not originally based on the values ​​of the Non-Aligned Movement and its historical relations with Afghanistan. This has become more intense especially after the coming to power of the Hindu Nationalist Party led by Narendra Modi. Since Modi’s party came to power, India’s policy towards Afghanistan has become more of a political game focused on short-term interests. In this policy, the element of enmity with Islam and negation of cultural and historical relations with the Muslim countries of the region has become a decisive element.

Joint secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs, J.P. Singh, meets with acting Afghanistan defense minister of Taliban Muhammad Yaqoob Mujahid.

As tensions escalate between Pakistan and the Taliban, known as Pakistan’s former proxies, India is once again considering using Afghanistan as a tool to counter Pakistan. In this framework, while establishing relations with the Taliban on the one hand, on the other hand, India seeks to create more tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to somehow achieve its goals against Pakistan.

India’s policies in this regard have not only led to the consolidation of the Taliban’s power in Afghanistan, but have also indirectly fueled the expansion of tensions and instability in the region. The instrumental use of Afghanistan and the escalation of differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan have generally been the defining element of India’s foreign policy.

India has always tried to use every opportunity to weaken Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan, even if this leads to the strengthening of extremist groups such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). This approach is not only harmful for India in the long run, but it can turn the region into a clash of strategic and security interests, which will not benefit any of the countries in the region.

India’s transactional and dual policy in Afghanistan

India has always abandoned its allies in Afghanistan and has never acted as a strategic partner during difficult times, especially after the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 15 August 2021 at least.

This is evident from India’s behavior towards Dawood Khan’s government, Dr. Najibullah and his government members and even Hamid Karzai and his government members who had close relations with India and considered India as their natural ally. After the Taliban came to power, India cut ties with these people, which shows the instability and lack of loyalty in India’s foreign policy. Even when Afghanistan needed vital and strategic help, India did not stand by the people of Afghanistan as a strategic ally.

This fact can be seen in India’s severance of relations with Hamid Karzai and members of his government who strongly trusted India. This move of India even shows lack of commitment to strategic cooperation and disloyalty to diplomatic principles.

India prevented Afghan students from entering the country even in critical situations when Afghan youth needed support, and many Afghan students who were studying in Indian universities were not allowed to finish their studies.

Unlike Pakistan, India has never been loyal to its allies in Afghanistan as strategic partners. Even when many Afghans were trying to escape from Taliban rule, India closed its gates to them and many people who took refuge in India did not have their visas extended.

Security challenges and threats

Strengthening India’s relations with the Taliban can bring new security threats to Afghanistan in the long run. One of the most important risks arising from these relations is the strengthening of (TTP), which has now become one of the serious threats to the security of Pakistan and the region.

TTP has had influence in the border areas of Afghanistan since the past, and even in some areas, it is difficult to separate them from the Afghan Taliban. This influence and links have made the Pakistani Taliban to enjoy a powerful position and, regardless of the official relations between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, they have organized themselves and organized complex attacks inside Pakistan.

India must understand that this situation could even be considered as a serious threat to India itself, because TTP can become a symbol of inspiration for Islamic extremist forces inside India and endanger India’s security by expanding the scope of violence and instability in the region.

Long-term consequences and strategic problems

In the long term, strengthening India’s relationship with the Taliban will lead to other regional actors, including Pakistan, taking advantage of this situation to weaken India’s position. This approach can strengthen extremist ideologies and asymmetry in India’s policies towards Afghanistan.

The Taliban, who present themselves as a “legitimate” government, will use these relationships to strengthen their international standing. While this can introduce India as an unstable actor without a clear policy in the region.

Already, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said that instability in Pakistan was fueled by an “Indian proxy war”, pointing to regional rivalries as a key factor. Asif also described the use of Afghanistan’s territory for attacks on Pakistan as an “action of aggression” following a deadly explosion in Quetta of Pakistan that killed at least 26 people, including 16 soldiers and 61 others received injuries.

Middle East

Qatar and UAE LNG tankers go dark in Strait of Hormuz to evade security risks

Published

on

Qatar and United Arab Emirates liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers are turning off their transponders in the Strait of Hormuz, shifting their logistical strategies in response to ongoing military conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the strategic waterway.

According to a Bloomberg report citing industry sources and vessel-tracking data, as time and patience run thin for both nations, tankers have begun operating under radio silence to conceal their movements and secure their LNG shipments.

The report noted that neither Qatar nor Abu Dhabi, the federal emirate of the UAE, is subject to international sanctions. Despite this, state-owned QatarEnergy and Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (ADNOC) are employing these “going dark” tactics to minimize security risks for their vessels and crews transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Vessel-tracking data revealed that in May, at least four Qatari LNG vessels and four tankers linked to Abu Dhabi-based ADNOC transited the Strait of Hormuz without transmitting tracking signals. Sources speaking to Bloomberg stated that Qatari authorities requested captains of state-owned and chartered tankers to turn off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders when navigating around the Ras Laffan port—the world’s largest LNG export terminal—as well as when transiting or exiting the Persian Gulf.

The implemented security measures extend beyond turning off transponders. Sources reported that vessels have been instructed to transit the gulf in pairs to enhance security, and tanker captains who refused to comply with the “shadow” navigation protocols have been replaced.

Industry sources speaking to Bloomberg warned that the increase in covert transits undermines the fundamental rules of international maritime trade and transforms these shipping routes into high-risk areas.

They emphasized that until recently, every cargo in the LNG sector could be tracked in real time, but these newly adopted tactics have eliminated that transparency.

Saul Kavonic, a senior energy analyst at energy consultancy MST Marquee, commented on the situation, saying: “It is entirely natural for Persian Gulf LNG producers to try to avoid Iranian attacks and consequently adopt shadow fleet methods. This could persist as long as Iran continues to control and threaten transits through the Strait of Hormuz. This practice may continue for a long time even after a peace agreement is signed.”

Following the start of US and Israeli attacks on Iran, the Tehran government closed the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for approximately 20% of global oil shipments and 30% of global liquefied natural gas.

After negotiations in Islamabad failed, US President Donald Trump announced on April 13 that he would impose a blockade on Iranian ports. In late May, he announced that the blockade was lifted as part of the planned peace treaty process with Tehran.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Israeli defense exports hit record $19.2 billion fueled by regional conflicts

Published

on

The Israeli Ministry of Defense has announced that international demand for military systems manufactured in the country and deployed in regional conflicts has reached unprecedented levels.

In an official statement, the ministry declared that exports of military equipment and weaponry have hit an all-time high for the fifth consecutive year.

According to the disclosed data, export volume reached $19.2 billion in 2025, representing an approximate 30% increase compared to the previous year. The figures demonstrate that the country’s defense exports have doubled over the past five years and quadrupled over the past decade.

Data shared by the ministry indicates that missile, rocket, and air defense systems secured the largest share of military sales contracts signed throughout 2025.

Sales in this sector accounted for 29% of the total trade volume. The ministry noted that the vast majority of these agreements fell into the category of “mega-contracts”—each valued at a minimum of $100 million—and that these large-scale deals constituted 53% of the total export volume.

The Ministry of Defense directly attributed this export growth to ongoing regional military operations.

The statement argued that global demand was driven by results achieved on the ground and the “combat-proven” performance of Israeli-made systems across all fronts, including the “Rising Lion” operation launched against Iran in June 2025.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has conducted simultaneous military operations across multiple fronts in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

The military equipment and ammunition described as “combat-tested” in the ministry’s report continue to be deployed in active conflict zones, most notably in Lebanon.

Among the defense firms highlighted during this period is the Israel-based company Xtend, which has drawn attention for its unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Systems developed by the company have reportedly been utilized in operations in Gaza and for targeted assassinations. International reports revealed that an Xtend UAV was used to locate Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who was killed in October 2024.

Earlier in the year, Eric Trump, son of US President Donald Trump, announced that he would make significant investments in Xtend’s technology and support the company’s merger with the Florida-based JFB Construction Holdings.

Meanwhile, airstrikes and bombings conducted by the Israeli military continue to drive up civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. In Lebanon alone, attacks over the past few months have claimed more than 3,400 lives. Thousands of deaths have also been reported in US-backed military operations carried out in Iran.

Studies published in the medical journal The Lancet project that the total death toll in Gaza, when including both direct and indirect fatalities, could reach hundreds of thousands.

During this period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has supported Israel’s operations, emerged as one of the largest buyers of Israeli-origin weapons.

The Gulf nation is reported to have procured billions of dollars in military equipment from Israel over the past five years. According to US sources, the Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv administrations have established a joint fund to develop and procure new weapons systems.

On the other hand, as Tel Aviv continues to market its air defense systems globally, military tensions along the Lebanese border persist.

Hizbullah kamikaze drones have reportedly targeted Iron Dome batteries positioned at Israeli locations near the Lebanese border. The Israeli military has reportedly faced difficulties intercepting these attacks, with dozens of Israeli soldiers killed in Hizbullah strikes launched since March 2.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Report challenges official assessments of damage from Iranian attacks on US military assets

Published

on

BBC Verify, the verification unit of the BBC, published a detailed investigation on June 1 based on satellite imagery and video analysis that found Iranian retaliatory strikes had successfully hit and damaged at least 20 US military facilities across the Middle East since the start of the war launched against Iran by the United States and Israel.

The findings suggest that the scale and accuracy of Iran’s retaliatory attacks were significantly greater than previously acknowledged by US officials. Some independent analysts estimate that the number of affected bases may be as high as 28.

The military facilities targeted were reportedly spread across eight Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain and Oman.

Material losses in the region are said to include three THAAD missile defense batteries, each valued at approximately $1 billion and regarded as a cornerstone of the regional defense network.

Expert assessments also identified at least 42 aircraft that were destroyed or severely damaged, including F-35 fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones and an E-3 Sentry airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft valued at $700 million.

According to military analysts, Iran achieved these results by altering its tactics. Rather than relying on large-scale, high-volume barrages, Tehran reportedly shifted to using smaller, more precise salvos concentrated on high-value infrastructure targets.

The shift in strategy was said to have exploited what was described as a degree of complacency within the US military during the early stages of the conflict.

US military commanders reportedly failed to relocate aircraft and other military assets at strategic installations such as Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia despite previous attacks on those facilities, a factor that is said to have increased losses. Commenting on the strikes, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared that the Middle East was no longer a “safe place” for US bases.

The White House had previously claimed that Iran’s military capabilities had been almost entirely eliminated.

However, the Pentagon’s latest estimates place the cost of the war at $29 billion.

A substantial portion of that expenditure is reportedly being directed toward repairing heavily damaged military equipment and replenishing significantly depleted munitions stockpiles. Former military officials have warned that damaged air defense systems in the region “cannot be replaced quickly or easily.”

The heavy consumption of interceptor missiles during the conflict has also left other US facilities across the Gulf increasingly vulnerable to future Iranian precision-guided missile attacks, according to the assessments cited.

The Washington administration is also reported to have sought restrictions on satellite imagery providers in an effort to conceal the extent of the damage and limit criticism.

However, the “smoking craters” and flattened aircraft hangars featured in the BBC report appear to contradict official US assertions, illustrating what the report described as the true scale of the destruction on the ground.

Iran also announced that it struck a US air base in Kuwait with missiles and drones on Sunday night in retaliation for attacks by US forces on Iranian military targets over the weekend, which Tehran said constituted a violation of the ceasefire.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey