By Naade Ali

Context

What began as a focused conflict between Israel and Hamas has morphed into a complex regional crisis that threatens to engulf the entire Middle East. Despite intensive diplomatic efforts from both Western powers and Arabian Gulf states, the situation continues to get worse, with military action becoming less a means to peace and more an end in itself.

The results of the American elections have added to the complex situation, in terms of what policy direction will president elect Trump will take after his inauguration on January 20th. His administration was the architect of Abraham Accords reached in 2020, which envisioned normalization of Arab Israeli ties – accompanied by two-state solution. Reportedly, his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has already traveled to Qatar to help achieve Gaza ceasefire accompanied by release of hostages.

Netanyahu’s War Strategy and Domestic Pressures

In the aftermath of October 7, Israel’s military response has evolved into a pattern of expanding operations that extends far beyond its initial defensive posture. Under Netanyahu’s leadership, the emphasis is on military action irrespective of the cost, rather than diplomatic engagement.

The strategy is most visible in two key theaters. In Gaza, where the conflict began, Israel has made its intentions clear through leaflets declaring “Hamas will no longer rule Gaza,” suggesting plans for a fundamental restructuring of the territory’s governance.
Netanyahu’s approach is defined by several consistent elements: an unwavering rejection of the two-state solution, a commitment to military rather than diplomatic solutions, and a stated goal of eliminating both Hamas and Hezbollah. His vision extends beyond immediate security concerns to what he describes as “reshaping the region’s security landscape for future generations.” Some call this a version of the Greater Israel approach.

This expansive military strategy has manifested in multiple forms: the deployment of forces to Lebanon, sustained operations in Gaza, reinforced positions along the Golan Heights, and over 220 strikes in Syria. Each action suggests a regional approach to security that prioritizes military control over diplomatic compromise.

Israel’s security challenges extend far beyond Lebanon. The Houthi forces in Yemen have opened a maritime front, targeting Israeli-linked ships in the Gulf of Aden and forcing Israel to consider establishing a military base in Somaliland. Iraq’s Islamic Resistance has joined the fray with drone strikes, while Syria serves as a strategic haven for Hezbollah while maintaining support from both Iran and Russia.

Russia’s role adds another layer of difficulty, warning Israel against attacking either Syrian President Assad’s regime or Iranian nuclear facilities. Recent Russian bombing of rebel-held areas in Syria serves as a reminder of Moscow’s military presence and its potential to intervene.

The broader implications of this strategy are still unfolding, as Israel balances its military objectives against growing international pressure and regional resistance. However, Netanyahu remains steadfast in his position that Israel will “stand alone if needed,” suggesting a long-term expansive security approach regardless of international opinion or diplomatic alternatives.

This hard-line stance also serves a domestic political purpose. With Israel experiencing widening divisions between secular elites and the far-right, Netanyahu has positioned the war as crucial not only for national security but for his own political survival. Even attacks on his private residence have been leveraged to reinforce this narrative of unwavering determination.

The Multi-Front Challenge

Israel’s military ambitions are most visible in Lebanon, where Operation Northern Arrows has expanded far beyond its initial scope of “limited, localized raids.” The deployment of over 15,000 troops across four army divisions suggests potential territorial ambitions reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights.

However, Hezbollah has proven a formidable opponent. Despite losing key leaders, including Hassan Nasrallah, the group maintains significant combat capabilities with an arsenal of 150,000 rockets, missiles, and drones. Under the new Secretary General Naim Qassem, Hezbollah has adapted its strategy, combining traditional guerrilla warfare with sophisticated drone strikes that have exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s defenses. Reports estimate Hezbollah has a stockpile of about 2,000 long-range drones capable of striking targets up to 2,000 km away.

The human cost has been substantial, with Israel suffering over 700 military fatalities and thousands of wounded soldiers. This has forced heavy reliance on reservists, raising questions about their effectiveness against Hezbollah’s experienced fighters. Despite Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s attempts to boost morale by claiming Hezbollah is “collapsing,” continued rocket salvos into Israel suggest otherwise.

Iran’s Diplomatic and Military Maneuvers

Iran has emerged as a sophisticated player in this expanding conflict, balancing military deterrence with diplomatic outreach. While maintaining the threat of harsh retaliation for any Israeli attacks, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has conducted an aggressive diplomatic campaign, strengthening ties not only with traditional allies but also with countries having peace agreements with Israel.

This diplomatic offensive has included warnings to Gulf Arab states against allowing their airspace or military bases to be used by Israel, while simultaneously calling for regional cooperation to prevent Lebanon from becoming “another Gaza.” Turkey has emerged as Iran’s most vocal supporter, promising backing if Israel draws Iran into direct conflict.
Strains in the Western Alliance

With its emphasis on military solution that has coming at a tremendous human toll, Israel’s relationships with Western allies show increasing strain. European nations are divided, with some calling for weapons sales restrictions and potential sanctions against far-right Israeli ministers. France’s President Macron has repeatedly urged countries to stop arms deliveries to Israel, while Spain and Ireland push for reevaluating EU-Israel relationships. Germany, however, remains steadfast as Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the U.S.
The U.S.-Israel relationship faces its own complications. While the U.S. has deployed anti-missile systems and forces to support Israel’s defenses, it has also warned of potentially cutting off arms shipments unless more humanitarian aid reaches Gaza. Netanyahu appears to be looking beyond current tensions, possibly anticipating renewed support under Trump presidency.

Conclusion

The conflict has evolved into a war of attrition, with both Israel and Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” seeking to exhaust each other militarily. However, this strategy risks indefinite conflict escalation. Even if a ceasefire is achieved, deep-rooted ideological animosities suggest continued regional instability.

For Iran and its allies, the struggle against Israeli Zionism represents a religious obligation. Israel, conversely, appears committed to pursuing regime change in Iran and neutralizing its proxy forces. This fundamental clash of worldviews, combined with historical grievances and religious differences, has created a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that continues to reshape the Middle East’s political landscape.

As the conflict enters new phases, neither side shows signs of backing down. Netanyahu maintains his position that Israel will stand alone if necessary, while Iran continues to strengthen its regional alliances with the backing of Russia and China. The intersection of religious conviction, political ambition, and great power competition has created a complex web of conflicts that threatens to permanently alter the region’s security architecture. Without significant diplomatic breakthroughs or shifts in strategic thinking from key players, the Middle East appears set for continued instability and potential further escalation.

Possibly the best result at this point can be the renewal of the Abraham Accord as President Trump returns to office. However, it was the very apprehensions regarding the ‘Outside In’ approach, associated with the Abraham Accords, which also caused the October 7 Hamas attack last year.

The “Outside-In” approach refers to Israel’s strategy of normalizing relations with Arab and Muslim-majority countries to foster regional stability and security. This strategy was notably advanced through the Abraham Accords in 2020, which established diplomatic ties between Israel and nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco – but left out the Palestinians.

Rekindling the Abraham Accords would mean accepting the two-state premise as agreed in the 1995 Oslo Accords. It would also require a cessation of military hostilities and inflow of massive humanitarian assistance for Gaza – followed by the reconstruction phase in earnest. The stickiest points would be to determine if the two-state solution is still on the table  – and who now represents the Palestinians.

The post The Escalating Middle East Crisis And President Elect Trump appeared first on Politact.

As the American influence wanes in the Arab world, Russian and China are likely to gain. One of the important reasons why the US wanted to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan was to concentrate on the threat posed by the emerging clout of China. While the focus of the world was fixated on the nuclear deal with Iran and affairs of Syria for the last few months, tensions have been brewing in the Asia Pacific, related to the disputed islands of Senkaku/Diaoya in the East China Sea.

In the case of Syria, and other recent Arab conflict, both Russia and China have resisted the calls for intervention. Moreover, the last minute deal struck with Syria over its chemical weapons would not have been possible without Russian cooperation. In fact, many claim that Russia helped US out of a tight position, and thus also provided an opening for a political solution to Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, others argue it was the build up of military hardware in and around the Strait of Hormuz that finally convinced Syria and Iran about West’s seriousness.

Nonetheless, while most of these conflicts appear to have local underpinnings, it would be difficult to grasp the holistic picture without understanding their significance to the overall balance of power, especially amongst global actors such as US, Russia and China, including other European heavyweights.

The Russian Influence

While Russia encroaches in the Middle East, it has also been re exerting itself in Eastern Europe. The case of Ukraine is a case in point where under pressure from Russia, the government decided against joining the European Union and that has now led to public protests. Additionally, Russia wasted no time in the aftermath of the recent deal reached with Iran, to make a case for why there was now no need for the American/NATO missile defense system. While US and NATO had claimed the system was directed at countering the threats from Iran, the Russians had consistently protested against the placement of some components of this system in eastern Europe, alleging the system was actually meant for its missiles.

In South Asian theater, while Russia traditionally has good ties with India, it is also gradually warming up to Pakistan and offered assistance with building up the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. The Kremlin has also offered partial funding and technical assistance for CASA-1000 project, expansion of Pakistan Steel Mill ($500m), Guddu and Muzaffargarh power plants, and Thar coal project. On the other hand, good ties with Russia facilitate Pakistan’s outreach to Central Asia; another region previously under the Russian sphere of influence.

The American Influence

As the American influence ebbs in the core Islamic world and its long-term ties with nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan in flux, it has been building relations with the Islamic nations of the Pacific. The recent US engagement of US with Iran can be viewed as connected to the worsening of ties with Sunni Muslim states.

While China and Russia have been deepening ties with both the Shiite and Sunni states using SCO, US and NATO have remained disengaged from Iran and the Shiites. Now this pattern is heading for a historic reversal as US focuses on building a balance by engaging Iran and perhaps in the future attempt to pull it away from China and Russia. To what extent will this move disillusion the Gulf Sunnis, and if this would push them in the arms of Russia and China, remains to be seen.

How the other European powers respond to these changes will also help in understanding the emerging picture. Early signs indicate France is focusing heavily on the Islamic Maghreb and Central African region. On April 29th, UK based think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) presented a ‘Return to East of Suez’ policy brief. The paper suggests that Britain is considering placing its land, sea, and air forces across the Middle East, for touch and go type operations that increasingly look likely. The report adds that Arab awakening, the situation of Iran and Syria, has made the Middle East highly volatile and Britain is preparing policy options on how to respond. The British outlook looks pretty similar to the US; small bases located strategically across the region with Special Forces and smart weapons on the ready to conduct quick operations.

According to the RUSI report, the potential missions could be in support of the American and NATO operations, but could be taken independently as well. And, it goes on to ease European worries that Britain is looking to operate outside of European security arrangements. In a larger framework, while US is pivoting to the Pacific, UK appear to be pivoting back to the Middle East. Whether this is a coordinated move is not known yet, nonetheless, it would likely provoke reaction from other powers.

The Chinese Influence

The above context provides another angle to understand the recent occurring in the Asia Pacific, where China becomes more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims. China established a new air defense zone over the disputed islands in East China Sea last month, and has declared it will start enforcing fresh rules. The declaration was immediately tested when unarmed American B-52 and B-2 bombers intruded the zone without informing the Chinese, followed by Japan and South Korean planes doing the same. This has raised a discussion about the Chinese intent and reaction, and with that the chances of escalation. If China does not enforce the new rules, it would seem weak, but then why did it want to appear strong at this juncture.

Ironically, accompanying the air disturbances in East China Sea is the civil unrest in Thailand; a country with the strongest ties with China in the region. Whether it’s a matter of NATO supply line and drones in Pakistan, EU membership in Ukraine, or the type of government in Egypt, these are all reflections of the rapidly unsettling global balance of power.

The post Turbulence In East China Sea, Unrest In Ukraine, Thailand appeared first on Politact.

In the aftermath of the chemical weapons attack, the American decision to punish Syria has already morphed in to something larger and a mismanaged affair. The first manifestation of this was showcased when British Parliament voted down its military involvement in Syria on August 29th (Thursday). No body ever thought the decision to strike would put the future of US-UK ties on the pedestal in a way it did.

President Obama himself appears to have run in to problem with Congress on making a case for an intervention in Syria and defining the American goals and interests at stake there. Frankly, the arguments being presented mimic previous calls of ‘cry wolf,’ when there is little domestic and global appetite for it.

Analysis

The decision to strike Syria revolves around the following key tangents:

Building a representative alliance that involves western nations and regional countries; using the appropriate military tactics and weapons to achieve the objective; defining what the goal really is; assessing the possible reaction to the military strikes.

Unfortunately, problems have emerged in each one these realms, but they all stem from having an ill-defined goal.

Forming an Alliance and the Goal

Forming an alliance should have been the easiest part. Many Arab nations have been urging US for sometime now to deal with Syria sternly. The Saudis, for example, have left no stone unturned to create urgency in this matter. They even approached the Russians to stop supporting the Syrians, a liaison that may have backfired according to some unconfirmed reports. Turkey is openly calling for a regime change. Then there was the time-tested partnership with UK that US could always rely upon.

Even with such support, something went dramatically wrong and it is connected with the failure to clearly define the objective for why a military attack on Syria was needed. Is the strike required to destroy its chemical warfare capacity, diminish the military capability of Syria, or is it the higher aim of regime change? Each one of these options requires a different set of military assets and possible consequences to deal with. For example, what happens if the conflict spreads, as many believe it would, and ground troops are needed? Most importantly, how will the mission be supported financially if things do drag out, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Policy, Strategy, and Tactics

In short, the failure to correctly understand the difference between policy, strategy and tactics, made it difficult to frame the debate correctly. Moreover, the episode represents a miscalculation to grasp the political environment. There is little appetite domestically, and amongst European allies, for another foreign military misadventure.

With out a clear policy objective, it also became difficult to define an appropriate strategy, and the tactics to accomplish it. How the events unfolded suggest that the decision to strike was made before determining the precise policy goals. This technical flaw created difficulties for President Obama, and allies, to make a good case for why a military intervention was needed now.

Car Sales Man Approach

How the whole affair was attempted resembles a style that a typical American car sales man adopts in making a pitch. After spending considerable amount of time on gauging customer’s interest and other superfluous matters, the salesman tries to create urgency and attempts to rush through a deal. If the client is not worn off and is still paying attention, the trade being offered usually has several entrapments. If everything else fails, the dealer throws in the ‘now or never’ wrench. He knows very well if the customer was given time to rethink, or return another day, the deal will fall through. If there is a next time, the deal almost always has to be reframed.

The Real Goals

When President Obama did clarify what the goal was on August 30th (Friday); it turned out to be ‘none of the above’ choices. Obama stated the aim in Syria is ‘limited, narrow act,’ or, in other words, a slap on the wrist. The question arises; if it was going to be a couple of cruise missiles being shot across the bow, why a need for such a ruckus.

This developed confusion about the real intent behind the strikes and distrust regarding the evidence, especially in the backdrop of Iraq fiasco. Russia and China appear to be in no mood to give the West benefit of the doubt after Libya, where they felt the mandate they agreed to was blatantly violated.

This does not imply Obama administration does not know what the real objective in Syria is; it’s just that there is war fatigue. American exceptionalism usually drives many of its decisions in such matters. That approach works when the country is economically strong, but when it is not doing well; many unforeseen challenges emerge. Someone grossly underestimated the challenges they would face to make a public case.

Back Tracking

Ultimately, Obama had to back track on August 31st (Saturday), as the goal that was defined was not worth the costs and risks involved, and that to with out the public support. Only a day earlier, US appeared poised to launch an attack on Syria. Not because it had presented a convincing justification for it, but because it had cornered itself. First be declaring there was a red line, and secondly by making a decision before the case for it was made.

This does not mean all is set and done yet. Both US and UK will now try even harder to make a genuine case for why a strike is needed in Syria. As they do, the policy goal might be reframed, with appropriate changes to the strategy and tactics.

The reality is that military intervention in Syria is needed to degrade its military capability and to rid Iran of its only regional ally. Moreover, to dent the growing resurgence of non-state actors in Syria which is increasingly threatening to Israel and western allies in the region. The challenge is how to go about doing this when there is little public buy-in for another regime change and a larger war. Now that the ‘cry wolf’ phenomenon may be real, no one seems to be heeding the call based on how it has been framed.

The post Striking Syria; Misalignment of Policy Goals, Strategy And Tactics appeared first on Politact.

Context

The five-day Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit was held from August 26-31 in Tehran, hosted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran assumed the 3-year presidency of NAM. The 16th get-together was attended by more than 50 heads of states, including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Zardari of Pakistan, and President Mohammad Morsi of Egypt, along with the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Senior representatives of China and Russia were also in attendance.

Western media and Iran were hard at work to shape the perceptions on the NAM Summit. The foreign policy journals in the US debated if the Americans should take the NAM conference seriously or not. While the West was attempting to exploit the differences that emerged at the meeting to demonstrate disunity, Iran, on the other hand, was striving to project NAM support and solidarity for its positions. At the opening ceremony, Iranian Foreign Minister Salehi commented,

“The non-aligned (movement) must seriously oppose … unilateral economic sanctions which have been enacted by certain countries against non-aligned countries.”

Meanwhile, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan used the conference not only to present their views on these crises but to also raise other matters that worry them. 


Analysis

The Western Concerns

The proceedings of the conference received extensive media coverage and there were several reasons for that. Firstly, the mere fact that the meeting was being held in Iran was significant, as the West is trying hard to isolate the country using diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations. Israel and the US extended direct pressure on Ban Ki-Moon to not attend; according to them his presence at the summit conveyed the wrong message.

Secondly, Iran is a lynchpin to the Syrian crisis due to closeness to the Syrian regime and influence over Hezbollah and Hamas.

Thirdly, the summit was the first visit of the Egyptian President to Iran. Since Morsi came to power, Western and Gulf quarters are worried about how the foreign policy of the country will change on Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both these conflicts will be greatly influenced by the direction of Egypt’s ties with Iran.

Pakistan And NAM Summit

Pakistan emphasized how the Iranian crisis can lead the already tinder region, towards wider instability. Addressing a debate on ‘Lasting Peace through Global Governance’ ahead of the Non-Aligned Movement summit, Hina Rabbani Khar commented that the Iranian nuclear issue will set off instability in the broader region. She called for dealing with the issue using instruments of dialogue and diplomacy using NAM principles of peaceful coexistence, respect for human rights and territorial integrity. On the other hand, President Zardari supported the principles of non-intervention and interference in the internal affairs of a state and expressed a desire for an immediate end to the conflict in Syria.

Khar used the NAM platform to raise concerns over the drone strikes. In an interview to Press TV of Iran she stated: “You see Pakistan’s position is clear today and has been clear in the past. Our position is that this is [drone strikes] something which is counter-productive. It is unlawful. It is illegal, and therefore they must cease. This is what the parliament of Pakistan has clearly said.”

Moreover, Pakistan stressed on collective efforts to deal with scarcity of energy and water. When Zardari and Ahmedinejad met on the sidelines of the summit, they reviewed enhanced energy and trade cooperation between the two countries. This is despite US pressure on Pakistan to curtail its ties with Iran. The review covered the IP gas pipeline project, the Taftan-Quetta power transmission line, the Gwadar power supply project, the construction of Noshki-Dalbandin part of Quetta-Taft Highway and upgrading of the Quetta-Taftan railway track.

In an approach similar to the one Pakistan has adopted with India, the two leaders discussed ways to ease issuing of visas and opening of the new border posts, Mand-Pishin and Gabe-Ramadan. These posts will link Karachi and Gawadar with Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas using the coastal highway. Moreover, the two sides reportedly also made progress towards establishing air links between Islamabad and Tehran, and Peshawar, Quetta, and Gilgit with Mashhad.

India, Afghanistan And NAM Summit

Being a founding member of NAM, Indian position on Syria was not much different than the one articulated by Pakistan. Indian PM Manmohan Singh took a more cautioned line expressing support for democratic and pluralistic order in Syria while warning against external intervention that can make humanitarian crisis worse.

Before the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit, India, Iran and Afghanistan held an important trilateral meeting on August 26 and agreed to set up a joint working group to stimulate trade and transit via the Iranian port of Chah Bahar. Some media reports projected that India has long wanted to develop the port as an alternative route to Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan. However, the mere fact that Iran and Pakistan also discussed linking with the Chah Bahar port, negates this perception.

Speaking at the summit, President Karzai pointed out to terrorism as a major challenge in achieving regional cooperation. He emphasized defeating extremism requires regional and international cooperation. The Indian prime minister echoed a similar sentiment when he met President Zardari and conditioned his trip to Pakistan on speedy efforts against Indian centered terrorism, demonstrated by speedy conclusion of the Mumbai attack trial.

To allay regional distress that has emerged as a result of strategic pacts Afghanistan has signed with the US and other NATO countries, Karzai commented that these agreements do not diminish the Afghan commitment to NAM.

Conclusion

In short, the NAM conference exposed the regional anxiety on the fast flux underway in the Middle East, in which the role of Iran is pivotal. The mere attendance of the heads of states of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan reflects on the delicate balancing act these nations are playing. Clearly, regional ambitions are colliding with global tussles, and these countries do not want to blindly follow western dictates at the cost of regional instability. Meanwhile, Pakistan is moving fast forward to diversify its trade and energy ties with Iran. As it does, the sectarian clashes are intensifying.

The post The NAM Summit And War Of Perceptions appeared first on Politact.

US Vice President Joe Biden is to lead the US delegation to Saudi Arabia to offer condolence over the death of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz. The delegation consisted of several military and political high officials including Republican Senator John McCain, CIA chief David Petraeus, US Ambassador to Riyadh James Smith, head of US Central Command James Mattis, Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus as well as former defense secretary William Cohen. Washington announced the delegation on Sunday. The US president has already offered his county’s sympathies to the people of Saudi Arabia.

Prince Sultan was a former defense minister of the Saudi Kingdom. He was undergoing medical treatment in the US since June of this year.

The post Joe Biden To Lead Powerful US delegation To Mourn Saudi Crown Prince appeared first on Politact.

Five policemen and three civilians were killed in the southeastern province of Bitlis in a terrorist attack carried out by the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) on Tuesday. The attack took place in the predominantly Kurdish district of Güroymak in Southeast Turkey. A two year old girl was among the killed. Two injured police officers are also said to be in critical condition.

The blast is believed to be the work of PKK under orders by Syrain Bahoz Erdal, a senior member of the group. It was conducted in retaliation to the destruction of a PKK camp in Kavakli by Turkish forces last week. The camp was an important base for the Kurdish Communities Unions (KCK), the network which controls PKK. Nearly 20 people have been killed by attacks carried out by the group in the last few months. The Turkish government has also stepped up its operations against the party.

The post PKK Kills Five Police And Three Civilians in Bitlis Attack appeared first on Politact.

Russia and China have vetoed a UN resolution proposed by Britain and other European countries against Syria. The resolution called on Damascus to end all violence, respect rights and freedoms and to allow in the media and human rights investigators. It warned the Security Council would “consider its options” against the Assad regime after 30 days of non compliance, under a non-military section of the UN charter. The resolution received 9 votes in favor, with China and Russia providing the double-veto. India, Brazil, South Africa, as well as Lebanon abstained.

The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice criticized the vetoes and accused Moscow and Beijing of choosing to “prop up desperate, cruel dictators”.

China’s UN ambassador said his country was opposed to interference in Syria’s “internal affairs.”Nearly 3000 people have been killed this year since protests against President Bashar-al Assad gained momentum.

The post appeared first on Politact.

India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement on Tuesday; the pact was signed between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during talks in Delhi. The agreement will increase economic and trade cooperation and boost security ties.

Analysis

“Afghanistan recognizes the danger this region is facing through terrorism and the radicalism that is being used as an instrument of policy against civilians and innocent citizens of our country,” Karzai said.

It will also enhance social and cultural exchanges between the two countries. Two separate deals relating to mining and energy have also been signed by the two head of states.
The agreement comes as relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to remain strained. Kabul blames Pakistan for the assassination of former president and Afghan envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani, an allegation Islamabad denies.

The post India And Afghanistan Sign Strategic Partnership Deal appeared first on Politact.

The Turkish Prime Minister on Sunday said that a joint military offensive would be launched with Iran against Kurdish rebels. Kurdish fighters based in northern Iraq are a common enemy for both Tehran and Ankara; Turkey is fighting against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on its south east border while Iran is battling The Party of Free Life of Kurdistan or PEJAK from Qandil. The Kurdish areas of Iraq are one of the most prosperous of the country. However, they are a source of tension for both Iran and Turkey who fear support for Kurdish uprisings from across the border

It is not clear whether joint Turkish-Iranian action involves a major land offensive being launched against the Kurdish rebels.

The post Joint Turkish-Iranian Action Against Kurdish Rebels In Iraq appeared first on Politact.

Iran began negotiations with Russia on building more nuclear power plants. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his country was planning on building additional nuclear facilities and required assistance of international experts. He said Iran would accept any cooperation in this field. The head of state told reporters in Moscow that he believed scientific achievement should not be the privilege of a few, but should be regarded as “humankind’s possession”.

Russia has already assisted in the building of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. The plant was launched on Sept 12. Moscow has also agreed to provide nuclear fuel and to reprocess the use fuel.

The post Iran And Russia Discussing Building New Nuclear Facilities appeared first on Politact.