Asia
Reasons for US withdrawal from Afghanistan
America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was not a one-time decision, but was formed gradually. The US left Afghanistan when it was sure that the Taliban regime would implement its terms. Months of negotiations took place in Doha for a safe exit.
Some reasons are as follows:
1- The excessive pressure of the Eastern Front against US, NATO and India
The US entered the region which is bordered with China, Iran and the borders of the former Soviet Union. This was not digestible for the regional powers. China’s fear of Uyghurs being strengthened by the US and also China’s need for Afghanistan to expand the Silk Road caused it to directly and indirectly support the opposition of the republic and the withdrawal of US from the region.
This is why before the fall of the Republic in Afghanistan, we witnessed the presence of Taliban delegations in China. In 1395, this delegation traveled to China under the title of peace.
India brought itself closer to Afghanistan by building the Salma Dam. Salma Dam is the biggest project of India for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, which is worth 300 million dollars.
The construction of Salma Dam was one of the big projects of the government of Mohammad Dawood Khan, the first president of Afghanistan, which started in 1976 with the help of India. The construction process of this dam, which was stopped due to the conflicts in Afghanistan, started again in 2005.
Salma Dam was put into operation in the presence of Ashraf Ghani, the former president of Afghanistan, and Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India. India had a special economic view on Chabahar port to export goods to Afghanistan and Central Asia through this port. Pakistan was against increasing India’s influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and by strengthening the Taliban, it tried to make the republic fall in order to reduce India’s influence. For that purpose, Pakistan sent all its extremist groups, including the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to Afghanistan for suicide attacks.
Pakistan’s subversive operations in Afghanistan were carried out for three purposes:
First: Due to the reduction of India’s influence through the fall of the Republic.
Second: By transferring suicide bombers and extremist groups to Afghanistan and guaranteeing its unity and security by moving extremist groups away from Pakistan to neighboring countries.
Third: Weakening the desire for independence in the Pashtunistan region of Pakistan (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) by strengthening extremist groups.
But these extremists were all focused on confronting the republic, not the Pakistani army. After the fall of the republic, TTP was automatically activated – because it did not have a playground and the best playground was their own land (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) which was located in Pakistan. For this reason, TTP has made some areas insecure and caused border conflicts and Pakistani attacks on Afghanistan.
Iran also felt very threatened by the US, so it was trying to plan to drive the US out of Afghanistan. The president of the United States at the time called Iran a part of the axis of evil.
Axis of Evil is a term coined by George W. Bush, the president of the United States on January 29, 2002, in his annual speech to the Congress, used it in referring to the three countries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.
Bush is the one who started the global war against terrorism after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the main results of which were the occupation of Afghanistan in the same year and the occupation of Iraq in 2003.
When such a person occupied two countries, one in the east and the other in the west of Iran, and also considered Iran as the axis of evil, he also planned to attack Iran from a political point of view. For this reason, Iran was not happy with the presence of the US in Afghanistan.
We all remember that an American archive 170 plane fell into the hands of Iran. This spy plane, which was sent by the US to Iran, caused the Iranian security authorities to become more suspicious of the US and to work indirectly against the US in Afghanistan.
The Russians, who once had a physical presence in Afghanistan in the form of the Soviet Union, and their agents such as Taraki and Najib could not fulfill their hopes and dreams, considered America the cause of their failure.
During the height of the war between the Mujahideen and the Soviet Red Army, the Americans sent many weapons through Pakistan to Afghanistan to prevent Soviet influence and expansion.
Both because revenge against the US and Washington had penetrated to spread terrorism, the Russians determined all their will to expel the US from the region. The Taliban’s visit to Russia before the fall of the republic indicated Moscow’s determination to overthrow the republic and drive the US out of Afghanistan.
2- Internal differences and the failure of nation building
The lack of formation of nation building in Afghanistan made the US regret staying and start negotiations with the Taliban.
When a government system cannot institutionalize nation building, division and corruption will spread and it will lose the ability to deal with external and internal threats in a coherent and unified manner. The US were fully aware of this and did not see the national army as the main supporter or protector of the country.
3- Countering China’s economic power
The only country in the world that has been able to challenge the US economically is China. The Chinese dragon is getting stronger day by day and is taking over the world markets.
The US’s staying in Afghanistan would cause it to lose the necessary focus for economic competition and struggle with China. In addition, the presence of the US military in Afghanistan and in the neighborhood of China was a weak point, which could be indirectly attacked by China at any moment. Meanwhile, the US’s focus on the Yellow Sea and Taiwan Island will increase the pressure on China.
4- Failure to realize democracy in Afghanistan
The US stayed in Japan and Germany, but left Afghanistan. One of the important reasons is the issue of culture and economy. Japan did not have a religious ideology and quickly accepted democracy.
The culture of liberalism permeated all the cultural layers of the Japanese people and the people also accepted this culture. West Germany also accepted American culture and with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, East Germany also joined the liberalism system.
The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 was the starting point of liberalism in Eastern and Central Europe. This did not happen in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have been accustomed to Islamic culture for about 1,400 years and were also caught up in internal wars for many years. Extensive damage caused democracy to not penetrate in the city and village.
As long as a culture is not indigenous and is not accepted from within the society, it is not possible to impose it with external pressure. The communists did this in Afghanistan and failed. The US also failed to influence culturally in the middle and lower layers of the Afghan society and saw no hope of realizing democracy and liberal culture and therefore, the US left Afghanistan.
Asia
Analysts warn new surge in Chinese exports threatens global markets
Financial Times writer Ryan Avent has written that a fresh, rapid surge in China’s trade surplus could signal a new wave of the “China shock”.
Economists define the “China shock” as a spike in Chinese exports to global markets that intensifies competition for manufacturers in advanced economies and curtails employment in certain sectors.
The term gained widespread currency after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, accelerating the inflow of inexpensive Chinese goods into the US and other nations.
The US was the country hit hardest by the initial shockwave. Between 1999 and 2011, more than 2 million jobs were lost because domestic producers were unable to withstand the competition.
Avent argued that the effects of the initial wave are still felt across the American economy because China failed to carry out the rebalancing that the world expected.
The share of net exports in China’s gross domestic product contracted during the 2007-2019 period, allowing Western nations to focus on national security and other matters.
Avent reported that the trade surplus is now escalating rapidly once again, posing a threat to the economies of wealthy nations.
The writer pointed to the stagnation of domestic demand following the collapse of the real estate market six years ago as one cause of this surplus. Another prominent factor is the Beijing government’s channelling of massive resources into manufacturing in pursuit of self-sufficiency.
Attention was also drawn to the role of the depreciating yuan. An appreciation of the currency could require China to alter its foreign exchange interventions, reduce purchases of foreign currency and assets, and sell those assets off. That scenario could trigger currency depreciation and rising interest rates in other countries.
The Wall Street Journal also reported in the spring of 2024 on economists’ concerns regarding a potential second wave.
Experts predicted that global markets would once again be flooded with inexpensive goods, stating that China was manufacturing far beyond domestic demand to overcome its economic troubles.
Moreover, it was stressed that China is now competing in high-technology fields such as automobiles, computer chips, and complex machinery manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Vasiliy Kashin, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics (HSE) University in Moscow, told the Russian media outlet RBC that the US has imposed sanctions on the Chinese economy since the first shock period, adding that these measures would very likely tighten in the event of a fresh export wave.
According to assessments reported by the Financial Times, this new process could also shake China’s own economy. Alongside rising output, entry-level manufacturing plants across the country are turning toward automation and reducing personnel.
This trend could trigger a painful departure from labour-intensive production, leaving millions unemployed. Manufacturing activities in China that previously capitalised on cheap labour are shifting to other Southeast Asian countries.
The Beijing administration rejected allegations that its industrialisation steps pose risks to other countries. As reported by the Xinhua news agency, China’s Ministry of Commerce stressed that claims of a “China shock 2.0” are groundless. The ministry stated:
“The US and other Western countries have circulated the so-called ‘China shock 2.0’ narrative, asserting that China’s industrial development has shaken Western monopolies and narrowed growth space for Global South countries. This claim is unsupported by concrete data and is entirely unfounded.”
Asia
Iran and China run secret barter network to bypass oil sanctions
Iran is operating a covert, barter-like trade mechanism to bypass sanctions on its oil sales and procure billions of dollars in goods from China, including military hardware.
Speaking to the Reuters news agency, two senior Iranian officials and three sources closely monitoring the matter said the Tehran administration receives credits for goods imported from China instead of cash in exchange for the oil it sells to the country.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasised that this method of swapping oil revenues for Chinese goods provides an immediate financial lifeline to the Tehran government at a time when the US has intensified economic and military pressure over its nuclear programme.
China, the world’s largest crude importer, continues to access discounted Iranian oil through this arrangement while shielding its banks and exporting companies from the risk of international penalties.
Although the Washington administration has imposed sanctions on several small-scale Chinese entities facilitating the transport of Iranian oil, it avoids sweeping measures that could shake the global economy.
The US has stepped up its pressure as it seeks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz amid the ongoing war between the two countries.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month that countries failing to cut commercial ties with Tehran would risk exclusion from the dollar system.
It remains unclear how the barter mechanism has been affected by the US naval blockade imposed on Iran as part of the six-month-old war.
However, since the reimposition of the blockade on 14 July, no shipments of Iranian oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz to China have been recorded.
Beijing and Tehran, which describe Western unilateral sanctions as illegal, refrain from disclosing publicly how they sustain their trade.
Sources state that Tehran introduced this system to obtain pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and communications equipment. Chinese manufacturers are said to have no direct contact with Iran, and there is no indication that they are violating sanctions.
On the other hand, the mechanism was utilised at least once last year under contracts supplying Iran with millions of dollars’ worth of air defence equipment. The sources provided no details regarding the shipments in question, and the transactions were not independently verified.
The United Nations conventional arms embargo returned alongside other sanctions in September 2025 following the collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers.
Tehran had withdrawn from the terms of the agreement, while Beijing and Tehran described the European nations’ automatic reimposition of sanctions as legally flawed.
Responding to questions from Reuters, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it had no knowledge of the trade structure in question.
Beijing stated that it opposes unilateral sanctions lacking United Nations Security Council authorisation and having no basis in international law.
Iran’s diplomatic missions in New York and Geneva remained silent on the inquiries. A US official speaking on behalf of the White House stated only that they are working with international partners, including the EU, to prevent Tehran from achieving its nuclear goals.
According to data analytics company Kpler, China purchased more than 80% of the crude oil exported by Iran in 2025. This share equates to an average of 1.4 million barrels per day.
Although the two countries signed a 25-year strategic partnership agreement in 2021 covering energy and infrastructure, the operational details of their cooperation remain largely confidential.
The model in question constitutes only one of the networks through which Iran procures goods and services from China without passing through international banking channels.
A Western official and two other individuals tracking the matter said that a buyer acting on behalf of state-owned Chinese oil company Zhuhai Zhenrong deposited hundreds of millions of dollars each month until this year into ChuXin, a shadow financial entity based in China.
These deposits reportedly represent payment for oil purchased from a Hong Kong-based company linked to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
Approximately 70% of the oil revenues routed through ChuXin is allocated to infrastructure projects in Iran. The remainder is transferred to the accounts of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) established to disburse payments to companies supplying goods to Iran.
Sources close to Iran’s decision-making apparatus confirm the existence of this financial mechanism.
Fund management is shared between a firm acting on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and another entity linked to the Central Bank of Iran. When the Central Bank of Iran authorises importers, money transfers are directed to supplier firms. While the name ChuXin does not appear in official records, one source noted that the structure exists solely on balance sheets.
Andrea Ghiselli, an international politics specialist at the University of Exeter, stated that Beijing uses these indirect networks to demonstrate that it will not bow to US secondary sanction threats.
Highlighting that Chinese leaders aim to protect their own banks and firms from being pushed out of the global financial system, Ghiselli said: “They want to create deniability.”
Asia
China leads $54bn capital injection into state banks and insurers
China’s Ministry of Finance will lead a total capital injection of $54 billion into state-owned insurance companies and banks as part of a coordinated push to reinforce the capital structure across the country’s financial system, according to details disclosed by the institutions in statements on Sunday.
China Life Insurance (Group) Co, the country’s largest life insurer, will receive 35 billion yuan ($5.2 billion) in capital support, whilst China Taiping Insurance Group will receive 7 billion yuan.
In a separate announcement, People’s Insurance Company (Group) of China (PICC) said it plans to raise up to 15 billion yuan via a private placement of A-shares to the Ministry of Finance. The company stated that the proceeds will be used to replenish its capital.
The initiative could fortify the financial position of state insurers, which have been called upon to support the equity market with medium- and long-term funds. At the same time, it could position these institutions to help regulatory authorities manage smaller and higher-risk insurance companies.
Financial sector stability
China’s insurance industry has been contending with shrinking profitability caused by prolonged low interest rates. Solvency ratios across numerous small and medium-sized insurers have also deteriorated.
China Export and Credit Insurance Corp stated that the Ministry of Finance will inject 10 billion yuan to boost the company’s core capital. China Reinsurance (Group) announced that it will execute a capital increase of 3 billion yuan.
“The capital injection represents an important step for enhancing the financial sector’s capacity to serve the real economy and promoting high-quality development across the financial and insurance industries,” China Life said in a statement. The insurer added that the capital support will improve the group’s resilience to risks.
Taiping also noted that the funds provided will strengthen the company’s solvency and other core metrics.
Banks benefit from recapitalisation plan
Separately, three state banks announced on Sunday that they will receive capital support totalling 290 billion yuan.
The recapitalisation framework was first announced during the annual parliamentary meetings in March this year. The move broadens a funding mechanism deployed last year to strengthen the capital structures of several other major state-owned lenders.
Agricultural Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), two of the country’s largest state-owned lenders, announced plans to raise up to 160 billion yuan and 100 billion yuan, respectively, through private placements of A-shares to the Ministry of Finance, China National Tobacco Corp, and affiliated entities.
Both lenders confirmed that all net proceeds will be deployed to replenish their Core Tier 1 capital. The measure is expected to help sustain credit expansion at a juncture when Beijing is increasingly relying on state lenders to support economic growth.
Weak credit demand remains a persistent headwind for the world’s second-largest economy, while continuing to erode profitability across the banking sector.
Export-Import Bank of China, one of the country’s three policy banks, stated that the Ministry of Finance will inject 30 billion yuan of capital into the institution, thereby bolstering its capital base.
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
