Middle East
India’s foreign policy and relations with the Taliban
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
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.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
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
