World
‘Don’t see a major war with India, but have to be ready’: Pakistan ex-NSA
Islamabad, Pakistan – Eleven days after gunmen shot 26 people dead in the scenic valley of Baisaran in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pahalgam, India and Pakistan stand on the brink of a military standoff.
The nuclear-armed neighbours have each announced a series of tit-for-tat steps against the other since the attack on April 22, which India has implicitly blamed Pakistan for, even as Islamabad has denied any role in the killings.
India has suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty that enforces a water-sharing mechanism Pakistan depends on. Pakistan has threatened to walk away from the 1972 Simla Agreement that committed both nations to recognising a previous ceasefire line as a Line of Control (LoC) – a de-facto border – between them in Kashmir, a disputed region that they each partly control but that they both claim in its entirety. Both nations have also expelled each other’s citizens and scaled back their diplomatic missions.
Despite a ceasefire agreement being in place since 2021, the current escalation is the most serious since 2019, when India launched air strikes on Pakistani soil following an attack on Indian soldiers in Pulwama, in Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 40 troops. In recent days, they have traded fire across the LoC.
And the region is now on edge, amid growing expectations that India might launch a military operation against Pakistan this time too.
Yet, both countries have also engaged their diplomatic partners. On Wednesday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, urging both sides to find a path to de-escalation. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called his Indian counterpart, Rajnath Singh, on Thursday to condemn the attack and offered “strong support” to India.
Sharif met envoys from China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three of Pakistan’s closest allies, to seek their support, and urged the ambassadors of the two Gulf nations to “impress upon India to de-escalate and defuse tensions”.
To understand how Pakistani strategists who have worked on ties with India view what might happen next, Al Jazeera spoke with Moeed Yusuf, who served as Pakistan’s national security adviser (NSA) between May 2021 and April 2022 under former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Prior to his role as NSA, Yusuf also worked as a special adviser to Khan on matters related to national security starting in December 2019, four months after the Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir.
Based in Lahore, Yusuf is currently the vice chancellor of a private university and has authored and edited several books on South Asia and regional security. His most recent book, Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia, was published in 2018.
Al Jazeera: How do you assess moves made by both sides so far in the crisis?
Moeed Yusuf: India and Pakistan have for long struggled in terms of crisis management. They don’t have a bilateral crisis management mechanism, which is the fundamental concern.
The number one crisis management tool used by both sides has been the reliance on third parties, with the idea being that they would try and restrain them both and help de-escalate the crisis.
This time, I feel the problem India has run into is that they followed the old playbook, but the leader of the most important third party, the United States, didn’t show up to support India.
It appears that they have so far taken a neutral and a hands-off position, as indicated by President Donald Trump few days ago. (Trump said that he knew the leaders of both India and Pakistan, and believed that they could resolve the crisis on their own.)
Pakistan’s response is directly linked to the Indian response, and that is historically how it has been, with both countries going tit-for-tat with each other. This time too, a number of punitive steps have been announced.
The problem is that these are easy to set into motion but very difficult to reverse, even when things get better, and they may wish to do so.
Unfortunately, in every crisis between them, the retaliatory steps are becoming more and more substantive, as in this case, India has decided to hold Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, which is illegal as the treaty provides no such provision.
Al Jazeera: Do you believe a strike is imminent and if both sides are indicating preparedness for a showdown?
Yusuf: In such moments, it is impossible to say. Action from India remains plausible and possible, but the window where imminence was a real concern has passed.
What usually happens in crises is that countries pick up troop or logistics movements, or their allies inform them, or they rely on ground intelligence to determine what might happen. Sometimes, these can be misread and can lead the offensive side to see an opportunity to act where none exists or the defensive side to believe an attack may be coming when it isn’t the case.
Pakistan naturally has to show commitment to prepare for any eventuality. You don’t know what will come next, so you have to be ready.
Having said that, I don’t think we are going to see a major war, but in these circumstances, you can never predict, and one little misunderstanding or miscalculation can lead to something major.
Al Jazeera: How do you see the role of third parties such as the US, China and Gulf States in this crisis, and how would you compare it with previous instances?
Yusuf: My last book, Brokering Peace (2018) was on the third-party management in Pakistan-India context, and this is such a vital element for both as they have internalised and built it into their calculus that a third-party country will inevitably come in.
The idea is that a third-party mediator will step in, and the two nations will agree to stop because that is what they really want, instead of escalating further.
And the leader of the pack of third-party countries is the United States since the Kargil war of 1999. (Pakistani forces crossed the LoC to try to take control of strategic heights in Ladakh’s Kargil, but India eventually managed to take back the territory. Then-US President Bill Clinton is credited with helping end that conflict.)
Everybody else, including China, ultimately backs the US position, which prioritises immediate de-escalation above all else during the crisis.
This changed somewhat in the 2016 surgical strikes and 2019 Pulwama crisis when the US leaned heavily on India’s side, perhaps unwittingly even emboldening them to act in 2019.
(In 2016, Indian troops launched a cross-border “surgical strike” that New Delhi said targeted armed fighters planning to attack India, after gunmen killed 19 Indian soldiers in an attack on an army base in Uri, Indian-administered Kashmir. Three years later, Indian fighter jets bombed what New Delhi said were bases of “terrorists” in Balakot, in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, after the attack on the Indian military convoy in which 40 soldiers were killed. India and Pakistan then engaged in an aerial dogfight, and an Indian pilot was captured and subsequently returned.)
However, this time, you have a president in the White House who turned around and told both Pakistan and India to figure it out themselves.
This, I think, has hurt India more than Pakistan, because for Pakistan, they had discounted the possibility of significant US support in recent years, thinking they have gotten too close to India due to their strategic relationship.
But India would have been hoping for the Americans to put their foot down and pressure Pakistan, which did not exactly materialise. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s phone call again is playing down the middle, where they are telling both the countries to get out of war.
So, what they have done has, oddly enough, still played a role in holding India back so far, since India didn’t (so far) feel as emboldened to take action as they may have during Pulwama in 2019.
Gulf countries have played a more active role than before. China, too, has made a statement of restraint.
Al Jazeera: How has Pakistan’s relationship with India evolved in recent years?
Yusuf: There has been a sea change in the relationship between the two countries. When I was in office, despite serious problems and India’s unilateral moves in Kashmir in 2019, we saw a ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control as well as back-channel talks.
We have tried to move ahead and reduce India’s incentive to destabilise Pakistan, but I think India has lost that opportunity due to its own intransigence, hubris and an ideological bent that continues to force them to demean and threaten Pakistan.
That has led to a change in Pakistan as well, where the leadership is now convinced that the policy of restraint did not deliver, and India has misused and abused Pakistan’s offers for dialogue.
The view now is that if India doesn’t want to talk, Pakistan shouldn’t be pleading either. If India does reach out, we will likely respond, but there isn’t any desperation in Pakistan at all.
This is not a good place to be for either country. I have long believed and argued that ultimately for Pakistan to get to where we want to go economically, and for India to get to where it says it wants to go regionally, it cannot happen unless both improve their relationship. For now, though, with the current Indian attitude, unfortunately, I see little hope.
Al Jazeera: Do you anticipate any direct India-Pakistan talks at any level during or after this crisis?
Yes – I don’t know when it will be, or who will it be through or with, but I think one of the key lessons Indians could probably walk away with once all this is over is that attempting to isolate Pakistan isn’t working.
Indus Water Treaty in abeyance? Simla Agreement’s potential suspension? These are major decisions, and the two countries will need to talk to sort these out, and I think at some point in future they will engage.
But I also don’t think that Pakistan will make a move towards rapprochement, as we have offered opportunities for dialogues so many times recently to no avail. As I said, the mood in Pakistan has also firmed up on this question.
Ultimately, the Indians need to basically decide if they want to talk or not. If they come forth, I think Pakistan will still respond positively to it.
*This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
World
‘God of War’ Creator Says TV First Look Is ‘So Dumb’ and ‘Terrible’: Looks Like He’s ‘S—ing in the Woods’
David Jaffe, the creator of the “God of War” video games, took to his YouTube channel on Saturday to slam the first look image from Amazon Prime‘s upcoming “God of War” TV show. He said the frame, which features franchise hero Kratos in the woods with his son, was “so bad in so many ways.”
“I’m sure everybody’s trying real hard, [but] it’s so dumb,” Jaffe said. “But let’s be incredibly clear, okay? Two things can be true. This can be a terrible image, and it is. It’s so bad in so many ways, which we’ll talk about in a moment. And Ron Moore is awesome, who is the showrunner… This guy is a juggernaut of a talented fellow. I have absolutely no doubt it is going to be a good show.”
Jaffe added that he doesn’t mind that star Ryan Hurst isn’t a dead ringer for Kratos, but instead takes issue with his expression and pose in what he described as a “dumb fucking image.”
“Kratos in this pose with this expression, not the guy’s face, but this expression, he just looks stupid,” Jaffe explained. “If you’re going to reveal, to most people, a brand new character that you hope is going to carry your series, for the first time, and they’ve never really seen this before, and this is the way you introduce them?”
He continued, “Maybe that’s conscious. Maybe they’re like, ‘Well, what we really want to focus on is the father-son story. And if we focus on him being like, Spartan rage, and all that, maybe people are like, “I don’t want to watch that show.”’ Ok maybe. But then, at that point, could you find a picture that doesn’t look like he’s shitting in the woods? Cause that’s what the picture looks like.”
Amazon Prime unveiled the first look photo on Feb. 27. Along with Hurst as Kratos and Callum Vinson as his son, other cast members include Max Parker as Heimdall, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson as Thor, Mandy Patinkin as Odin, Alastair Duncan as Mimir, Danny Woodburn and Jeff Gulka as brothers Brok and Sindri and Ed Skrein as Baldur.
Watch Jaffe’s entire reaction below.
World
Iran nuclear talks ‘didn’t pass the smell test’ before Trump launched strikes, says Vance
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Vice President JD Vance confirmed Monday that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program collapsed after U.S. officials concluded Tehran’s claims “did not pass the smell test,” prompting President Donald Trump to authorize Operation Epic Fury.
Speaking on “Jesse Watters Primetime,” Vance said U.S. envoys — including Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner — had conducted rounds of “deliberate” talks in Geneva with the Iranian delegation.
The discussions were aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and averting a broader conflict, he said, but ultimately broke down.
“But the Iranians would come back to us and they’d say, ‘Well, you know, having enrichment for civilian purposes, for energy purposes, is a matter of national pride,’” Vance said.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, President Donald Trump’s Special Representative for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff and U.S. negotiator Jared Kushner meet ahead of the U.S.-Iran talks, in Muscat, the capital of Oman, on Feb. 06, 2026. (Oman Foreign Ministry/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“And so we would say, ‘OK, that’s interesting, but why are you building your enrichment facilities 70 feet underground? And why are you enriching to a level that’s way beyond civilian enrichment and is only useful if your goal is to build a nuclear bomb?’” he said.
“Nobody objects to the Iranians being able to build medical isotopes; the objection is these enrichment facilities that are only useful for building a nuclear weapon,” Vance clarified.
“It just doesn’t pass the smell test for you to say that you want enrichment for medical isotopes, while at the same time trying to build a facility 70 to 80 feet underground,” he explained.
TRUMP DECLARES ‘I GOT HIM BEFORE HE GOT ME’ AFTER IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER KILLED IN STRIKE
This image from video provided by U.S. Central Command shows a missile being launched from a U.S. Navy ship in support of Operation Epic Fury on Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026. (U.S. Central Command via AP)
Vance spoke as Operation Epic Fury ended its third day. Launched on Feb. 28, U.S. and Israeli forces carried out coordinated precision strikes deep inside Iran aimed at crippling Tehran’s missile arsenal and nuclear infrastructure.
A key issue had been Iran enriching uranium to high levels, including material around 60% purity — a fraction of weapons-grade but far above limits set under the 2015 nuclear deal — keeping international alarm high over proliferation risks.
“We destroyed Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump’s term,” Vance told Watters. “We set them back substantially. But I think the President was looking for the long haul,” he said.
“Trump was looking for Iran to make a significant long-term commitment that they would never build a nuclear weapon, that they would not pursue the ability to be on the brink of a nuclear weapon.”
FIRES RAGE AT IRAN’S BANDAR ABBAS NAVAL HEADQUARTERS, STRAIT OF HORMUZ TRAFFIC STALLED
Vice President JD Vance speaks with Breitbart News Washington bureau chief Matthew Boyle at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, Nov. 20, 2025, in Washington. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)
“He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon, and that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The President is not going to rest until he accomplishes that all-important objective of ensuring that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon, not just for the next few years, not just because we obliterated for dough or some other.”
“There’s just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multiyear conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective,” Vance added while describing that the administration would prefer to see “a friendly regime in Iran, a stable country, a country that’s willing to work with the United States.”
World
Unexpected birth brings hope to near-extinct Amazon tribe
Pugapia and her daughters Aiga and Babawru lived for years as the only surviving members of the Akuntsu, an Indigenous people decimated by a government-backed push to develop parts of the Amazon rainforest. As they advanced in age without a child to carry on the line, many expected the Akuntsu to vanish when the women died.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
That changed in December, when Babawru – the youngest of the three, in her 40s – gave birth to a boy. Akyp’s arrival brought hope not just for the Akuntsu line but also for efforts to protect the equally fragile rainforest.
“This child is not only a symbol of the resistance of the Akuntsu people, but also a source of hope for Indigenous peoples,” says Joenia Wapichana, president of Brazil’s Indigenous protection agency, known as Funai. “He represents how recognition, protection and the management of this land are extremely necessary.”
Protecting Indigenous territories is widely seen as one of the most effective ways to curb deforestation in the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest and a key regulator of global climate.
Researchers warn that continued forest loss could accelerate global warming. A 2022 analysis by MapBiomas, a network of nongovernmental groups tracking land use, found Indigenous territories in Brazil had lost just 1 per cent of native vegetation over three decades, compared with 20 per cent on private land nationwide.
In Rondonia state, where the Akuntsu dwell, about 40 per cent of native forest has been cleared, and what remains untouched is largely within conservation and Indigenous areas. The Akuntsu’s land stands out in satellite images as an island of forest surrounded by cattle pasture as well as soy and corn fields.
In the 1980s, an agriculture push sparked attacks in Rondonia
Rondonia’s deforestation traces back to a government-backed push to occupy the rainforest during Brazil’s military regime in the 1970s. Around the same time, an infrastructure program financed in part by the World Bank promoted domestic migration to the Amazon, including the paving of a highway across the state.
In the 1980s, Rondonia’s population more than doubled, according to census data. Settlers were promised land titles if they cleared the forest for agriculture and risked losing claims if Indigenous people were present, fuelling violent attacks by hired gunmen on Indigenous groups such as the Akuntsu.
Funai made first contact with the Akuntsu in 1995, finding seven survivors. Experts believe they had numbered about 20 a decade earlier, when they were attacked by ranchers seeking to occupy the area. Funai agents found evidence of the assault, and when they contacted the Akuntsu, the survivors recounted what happened. Some still bore gunshot wounds.
The last Akuntsu man died in 2017. Since then, Babawru lived with her mother, Pugapia, and Aiga, her sister. The women, whose ages aren’t known for certain, have chosen to remain isolated from the non-Indigenous world, showing little interest in it.
In 2006, Funai granted territorial protection to the Akuntsu, establishing the Rio Omere Indigenous Land, which they have since shared with the Kanoe people. The two groups, once enemies, began maintaining contact, usually mediated by officials. The relationship is complex, with cooperation but also cultural differences and language barriers.
The Associated Press requested a facilitated interview with the women through Funai, but the agency didn’t respond.
Amanda Villa, an anthropologist with the Observatory of Isolated Peoples, says Akuntsu women depend on Kanoe men for tasks considered masculine, such as hunting and clearing fields. The two groups have also exchanged spiritual knowledge – the current Kanoe spiritual leader, for example, learned from the late Akuntsu patriarch.
But the most consequential development for the future of the Akuntsu may have occurred last year, when Babawru became pregnant by a Kanoe man.
Linguist Carolina Aragon is the only outsider able to communicate with the three women after years studying and documenting their language. She works closely with Funai, translating conversations almost daily through video calls. Aragon also supported Babawru remotely during her labour and was with her during an ultrasound exam that confirmed the pregnancy.
Aragon said Babawru was stunned by the news. “She said, ‘How can I be pregnant?’” Aragon recalled. Babawru had always taken precautions to avoid becoming pregnant.
Social collapse shaped the Akuntsu’s choices
The surviving Akuntsu women had decided they would not become mothers. The decision was driven not only by the absence of other men in their community, but also by the belief that their world was disorganised – conditions they felt were not suitable for raising a child.
“You can trace this decision directly to the violent context they lived through,” says Villa, the anthropologist. “They have this somewhat catastrophic understanding.”
The Akuntsu believed they could not bring new life into a world without Akuntsu men who could not only perform but also teach tasks the group considers male responsibilities, such as hunting and shamanism.
“A breakdown of social relations that followed the genocide shaped their lives and deepened over the years. That does lead people to think – and rethink – the future,” Aragon says. “But the future can surprise everyone. A baby boy was born.”
Aragon says the women were embarking on a “new chapter”, choosing to welcome the child and adapt their traditions with support from the Kanoe and Funai. Villa says the fact that the newborn is a boy creates the possibility of restoring male roles like hunter.
Researchers and officials who have long worked with the three women understood that protecting the territory depended on the Akuntsu’s survival as a people. They sought to avoid a repeat of what happened to Tanaru, an Indigenous man who was discovered after living alone and without contact for decades.
After the discovery, authorities struggled to protect Tanaru’s territory. After he died in 2022, non-Indigenous groups began disputing the land. Late last year, the federal government finally secured the area, turning it into a protected conservation unit.
Funai’s Wapichana says Babawru’s child “is a hope that this next generation will indeed include an Indigenous person, an Akuntsu, ensuring the continuity of this people.”
Through years of careful work, Funai secured territorial protection for the Akuntsu and helped foster ties with the Kanoe. The agency also arranged spiritual support from an allied shaman, allowing the women to feel safe bringing new life into the world after decades of fear and loss.
The Akuntsu form emotional bonds with the forest and with the birds. Now, they are strengthening those bonds with a new human life in their world.
“What kind of relationship will this boy have with his own territory?” Aragon says. “I hope it will be the best possible, because he has everything he needs there.”
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers