Connect with us

World

Why is South Africa upset about Iran joining BRICS naval drills?

Published

on

Why is South Africa upset about Iran joining BRICS naval drills?

South Africa has launched an inquiry into Iran’s participation in joint naval drills with BRICS nations last week, apparently against the orders of President Cyril Ramaphosa.

BRICS is a group of 10 countries: Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates. The acronym BRICS represents the initial letters of the founding members, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The group, formed in 2006, initially focused on trade, but has since expanded its mandate to include security and cultural exchanges.

It concluded a week of joint naval drills in South African waters on January 16. The drills have caused controversy in the country and drawn the ire of the United States.

Although South Africa regularly holds drills with Russia and China, the latest maritime training comes amid heightened tensions between the US and many of the group’s members, particularly Iran, which until last week was grappling with mass protests at home that turned deadly.

Advertisement

Pretoria said the exercise, named Will for Peace 2026, was essential for ensuring maritime safety and international cooperation. The training “brings together navies from BRICS Plus countries for … joint maritime safety operations [and] interoperability drills”, a statement from the South African military noted before the exercises.

However, US President Donald Trump’s administration, which has previously accused BRICS of being “anti-American” and has threatened its members with tariffs, has strongly criticised the naval exercises.

Here’s what we know about the exercises and why they were controversial:

What were the drills for?

South Africa hosted the BRICS naval exercise, which included warships from participating countries, on January 9-16.

China led the training, which took place near the southwestern coastal city of Simon’s Town, which is home to a major South African naval base.

Advertisement

Exercises in rescue and maritime strike operations as well as technical exchanges were planned, according to China’s Ministry of National Defense. All BRICS countries were invited.

Captain Nndwakhulu Thomas Thamaha, South Africa’s joint task force commander, said at the opening ceremony that the operation was not just a military exercise but a statement of intent by BRICS countries to forge closer alliances with each other.

“It is a demonstration of our collective resolve to work together,” Thamaha said. “In an increasingly complex maritime environment, cooperation such as this is not an option. It is essential.”

The purpose, he said, was to “ensure the safety of shipping lanes and maritime economic activities”.

South African Deputy Defence Minister Bantu Holomisa told journalists that the drills had been planned before the current tensions between some BRICS members and the US.

Advertisement

While some BRICS countries may face issues with Washington, Holomisa clarified that they “are not our enemies”.

The Iranian navy ship Naghdi is seen docked at Simon’s Town Harbour near Cape Town, South Africa, on January 9, 2026 [Nardus Engelbrech/AP]

Who participated and how?

China and Iran deployed destroyer warships to South Africa, while Russia and the United Arab Emirates sent corvettes, traditionally the smallest warships.

South Africa, the host country, dispatched a frigate.

Indonesia, Ethiopia and Brazil joined the exercises as observers.

India, the current chair of the group, chose not to participate and distanced itself from the war games.

Advertisement

“We clarify that the exercise in question was entirely a South African initiative in which some BRICS members took part,” India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement. “It was not a regular or institutionalised BRICS activity, nor did all BRICS members take part in it. India has not participated in previous such activities.”

Why is South Africa facing US backlash over the drills?

The US is angry that South Africa allowed Iran to participate in the drills at a time when Tehran was accused of launching a violent crackdown on antigovernment protests that had spread across the country.

The protests broke out in late December, when shopkeepers in Tehran closed up their businesses and demonstrated against inflation and the falling value of the rial. These protests swelled into a broader challenge to Iran’s rulers, as thousands of people took to the streets nationwide to demonstrate over a few weeks.

Security forces in some areas cracked down on the crowds, resulting in the deaths of “several thousands”, according to a statement on Saturday by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While activists said thousands of protesters were killed, the Iranian government said this was an exaggeration and claimed police officers and security service members formed a significant chunk of those who were killed.

The Iranian authorities also claimed the US and Israel had armed and funded “terrorists” to inflame the protests. They said agents affiliated with foreign powers, and not state forces, were responsible for the deaths of civilians, including protesters.

Advertisement

The mass uprising is one of the most disruptive the country has witnessed since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Tens of thousands of people are believed to have been arrested.

Before the BRICS drills, the US warned South African President Cyril Ramaphosa that Iran’s participation would reflect badly on his country, according to a report by the Daily Maverick, a South African newspaper.

Ramaphosa subsequently ordered Iran to withdraw from the exercises on January 9, the paper reported.

However, three Iranian vessels that had already been deployed to South Africa continued to participate.

In a statement on January 15, the US embassy in South Africa accused the South African military of defying orders from its own government and said it was “cozying up to Iran”.

Advertisement

“It is particularly unconscionable that South Africa welcomed Iranian security forces as they were shooting, jailing, and torturing Iranian citizens engaging in peaceful political activity South Africans fought so hard to gain for themselves,” the statement read.

“South Africa can’t lecture the world on ‘justice’ while cozying up to Iran.”

South African political analyst Reneva Fourie said Washington was merely fishing for reasons to criticise South Africa for bringing a genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice for its war in Gaza.

“The US is looking for an entry point,” she said.

The US “is facing increased infringement on freedom of expression and association, democracy and human rights as well as increased militarisation. The US should focus on its own dire state instead of meddling in the affairs of others.”

Advertisement

Tensions over the military drills are only the latest point of contention between the US and Iran.

During the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in 2025, Washington sided with Israel, and on June 22, the US bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. Initial assessments from US officials noted that all three were severely damaged. Iran retaliated by bombing a military base in Qatar where US troops are positioned, in what was largely seen as a face-saving exercise.

Which other BRICS members have tensions with the US?

Nearly all members of BRICS have problems with the current US government.

Besides the dispute over Iran joining the naval drills, South Africa is also caught up in a battle of narratives with the Trump administration, which alleges, without any evidence, that the country’s minority white population is being subjected to a “genocide“. In 2025, Trump established a refugee programme for white Afrikaners wishing to “flee” to the US.

The US has also condemned South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice in December 2023.

Advertisement

The US currently levies tariffs on South African exports of up to 40 percent as a result.

China has been locked in a tense trade war with the US for more than a year. After slapping each other with tariffs exceeding 100 percent early last year, these were suspended pending trade talks. But China then restricted exports of its rare earth metals, which are required for technology crucial for defence, and Trump again threatened more tariffs before the two sides reached an agreement in late October, under which China agreed to “pause” restrictions on the export of some metals.

Russia is also on Washington’s radar because of its war in Ukraine.

Just three days before the drills began, the US seized a Venezuela-linked Russian oil tanker in the North Atlantic due to its sanctions on both countries.

On January 3, the US military abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from the capital, Caracas. Both now face drugs and weapons charges in a New York federal court. In September, the US had begun a campaign of air strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean, claiming they were trafficking drugs to the US, but providing no evidence.

Advertisement

India has been hit with 50 percent tariffs on its exports to the US, partly as punishment for continuing to buy Russian oil.

This month, the US withdrew from the India-led International Solar Alliance, although this withdrawal was part of a broader move to pull the US out of several international bodies.

Harsh V Pant, a geopolitical analyst at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank, told Al Jazeera that, for India, keeping out of the naval drills was “about balancing ties with the US”.

Pant added that in India’s opinion, “war games” were never part of the BRICS mandate.

While BRICS was founded as an economic bloc, it has widened its mandate to include security.

Advertisement
brics
Leaders and top diplomats from Brazil, China, Russia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran meet at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 6, 2025 [Pilar Olivares/Reuters]

What has the response been in South Africa?

Ramaphosa’s government has also faced some backlash over the drills at home.

The Democratic Alliance (DA), a former opposition party that is now part of the governing coalition and largely represents the interests of the white minority, blamed Minister of International Relations Ronald Lamola for failing to hold the Department of Defence to account.

Lamola is from the African National Congress (ANC) party, which, until 2024, governed South Africa alone.

“By allowing the Department of Defence to proceed unchecked in these military exercises, Minister Lamola has effectively outsourced South Africa’s foreign policy to the whims of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), exposing the country to serious diplomatic and economic risk,” the DA said in a statement two days after the exercises started.

“South Africa is now perceived not as a principled non-aligned state, but as a willing host for military cooperation with authoritarian regimes.”

What is the South African government saying now?

South African officials have shifted from initially justifying the drills to distancing themselves from the Iran debacle.

Advertisement

Despite initial statements from officials that the drills would go ahead as planned, Ramaphosa eventually appeared to bow to US pressure and, on January 9, ordered that Iran be excluded, local media reported.

Those instructions do not seem to have been followed by the South African Defence Department or the military, however.

In a statement on January 16, Defence Minister Angie Motshekga’s office said Ramaphosa’s instructions had been “clearly communicated to all parties concerned, agreed upon and adhered to as such”.

The statement went on to say that the minister had established an inquiry board “to look into the circumstances surrounding the allegations and establish whether the instruction of the President may have been misrepresented and/or ignored as issued to all”.

A report on the investigation is expected on Friday.

Advertisement

This is not the first time South Africa has been criticised for its military relations with Iran.

In August, its military chief, General Rudzani Maphwanya, prompted anger from the DA when he embarked on a trip to Tehran and affirmed that South Africa and Iran had “common goals”.

His statement came just weeks after the Iran-Israel war. He was also reportedly critical of Israel while in Tehran.

Some ANC critics called for Maphwanya’s firing, but he has remained in office.

Advertisement

World

Video: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

Published

on

Video: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

new video loaded: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated on Friday as the two countries clashed.
Advertisement

By Monika Cvorak

February 27, 2026

    Denmark’s Prime Minister Calls For a Snap Parliamentary Election

    1:36

    Marco Rubio Says U.S. Is Probing Deadly Cuban Shooting

    0:45

    Amid Chaos in Mexico, False Images Stoked Fears

    2:45

    Advertisement
    Violence in Mexico After Cartel Boss Is Killed

    1:40

    Violence Erupts Across Mexico After Cartel Boss Killed

    0:58

    The Japanese Airport That Doesn’t Lose Bags

    2:59

Video ›

Today’s Videos

Advertisement

U.S.

Politics

Immigration

NY Region

Science

Advertisement

Business

Culture

Books

Wellness

World

Advertisement

Africa

Americas

Asia

South Asia

Donald Trump

Advertisement

Middle East Crisis

Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Visual Investigations

Opinion Video

Advertisement

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Continue Reading

World

State Dept authorizes non-essential US Embassy personnel in Jerusalem to depart ahead of possible Iran strikes

Published

on

State Dept authorizes non-essential US Embassy personnel in Jerusalem to depart ahead of possible Iran strikes

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The State Department is allowing non-essential personnel working at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem to leave Israel ahead of possible strikes on Iran. The embassy announced the decision early Friday morning and said that “in response to security incidents and without advance notice” it could place further restrictions on where U.S. government employees can travel within Israel.

Advertisement

The decision came after meetings and phone calls through the night Thursday into Friday, according to The New York Times, which reviewed a copy of an email that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sent to embassy workers.

The Times reported that the ambassador said in his email that the move was a result of “an abundance of caution” and that those wishing to leave “should do so TODAY.” He reportedly urged them to look for flights out of Ben Gurion Airport to any destination, cautioning that the embassy’s move “will likely result in high demand for airline seats today.”

The U.S. has authorized non-essential embassy personnel to leave Israel amid escalating tensions with Iran. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Iranian Leader Press Office/Anadolu via Getty Images)

In the email, Huckabee also said that there was “no need to panic,” but he underscored that those looking to leave should “make plans to depart sooner rather than later,” the Times reported.

“Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to D.C., but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country,” Huckabee said in the email, according to the Times.

Advertisement

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel, arrives to testify during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Mar. 25, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

TRUMP MEETS NETANYAHU, SAYS HE WANTS IRAN DEAL BUT REMINDS TEHRAN OF ‘MIDNIGHT HAMMER’ OPERATION

The embassy reiterated the State Department’s advisory for U.S. citizens to reconsider traveling to Israel and the West Bank “due to terrorism and civil unrest.” Additionally, the department advised that U.S. citizens not travel to Gaza because of terrorism and armed conflict, as well as northern Israel, particularly within 2.5 miles of the Lebanese and Syrian borders because of “continued military presence and activity.” 

It also recommended that U.S. citizens not travel within 1.5 miles of the Egyptian border, with the exception of the Taba crossing, which remains open.

“Terrorist groups, lone-actor terrorists and other violent extremists continue plotting possible attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Terrorists and violent extremists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities,” the embassy said in its warning. “The security environment is complex and can change quickly, and violence can occur in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza without warning.”

Advertisement

Israeli and U.S. flags are placed on the road leading to the U.S. consulate in the Jewish neighborhood of Arnona, on the East-West Jerusalem line in Jerusalem, May 9, 2018. (Corinna Kern/picture alliance via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

While the embassy did not specifically mention Iran in its warning, it referenced “increased regional tensions” that could “cause airlines to cancel and/or curtail flights into and out of Israel.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department and the White House for comment on this matter.

Advertisement

Related Article

Iran’s shadowy chemical weapons program draws scrutiny as reports allege use against protesters
Continue Reading

World

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?

Published

on

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?

Pakistan has accused Afghanistan’s Taliban of serving as a “proxy” for India, amid escalating hostilities between Islamabad and Kabul.

Just hours after Pakistan bombed locations in Kabul early on Friday, Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Khawaja Asif wrote on X that after NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2021, “it was expected that peace would prevail in Afghanistan and that the Taliban would focus on the interests of the Afghan people and regional stability”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“However, the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a colony of India,” he wrote and accused the Taliban of “exporting terrorism”.

“Pakistan made every effort, both directly and through friendly countries, to keep the situation stable. It carried out extensive diplomacy. However, the Taliban became a proxy of India,” he alleged as he declared an “open war” with Afghanistan.

This is not the first time that Asif has brought India into tensions with Afghanistan.

Advertisement

Last October, he alleged: “India wants to engage in a low-intensity war with Pakistan. To achieve this, they are using Kabul.”

So far, Asif has presented no evidence to back his claims and the Taliban has rejected accusations that it is being influenced by India.

But India has condemned the Pakistani military’s recent actions in Afghanistan, adding to Islamabad’s growing discernment that its nuclear rival and the Taliban are edging closer.

Earlier this week, after the Pakistani military carried out air raids inside Afghanistan on Sunday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that New Delhi “strongly condemns Pakistan’s airstrikes on Afghan territory that have resulted in civilian casualties, including women and children, during the holy month of Ramadan”.

After Friday morning’s flare-up between Pakistan and Afghanistan, India’s foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal again said New Delhi “strongly” condemned Pakistan’s air strikes and also noted that they took place on a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.

Advertisement

“It is another attempt by Pakistan to externalise its internal failures,” Jaiswal said in a statement on X.

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban and what is India’s endgame with Afghanistan?

Here’s what we know:

How have relations between India and the Taliban evolved?

When the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan in 1996, India adopted a hostile policy towards the group and did not recognise its assumption of power. India also shunned all diplomatic relations with the Taliban.

At the time, New Delhi viewed the Taliban as a proxy for Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were the only three countries to have also recognised the Taliban administration at that point.

Advertisement

Then, in 2001, India supported the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which toppled the Taliban administration. India then reopened its embassy in Kabul and embraced the new government led by Hamid Karzai. The Taliban, in response, attacked Indian embassies and consulates in Afghanistan. In 2008, at least 58 people were killed when the Taliban bombed India’s embassy in Kabul.

In 2021, after the Taliban returned to power, India closed its embassy in Afghanistan once again and also did not officially recognise the Taliban as the government of the country.

But a year later, as relations between Pakistan and the Taliban deteriorated over armed groups which Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harbouring, India began engaging with the Taliban.

In 2022, India sent a team of “technical experts” to run its mission in Kabul and officially reopened its embassy in the Afghan capital last October. New Delhi also allowed the Taliban to operate Afghanistan consulates in the Indian cities of Mumbai and Hyderabad.

Over the past two years, officials from New Delhi and Afghanistan have also held meetings abroad, in Kabul and in New Delhi.

Advertisement

In January last year, the Taliban administration’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi met India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.

Then, in October 2025, he visited New Delhi and met Indian foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

After this meeting, Muttaqi told journalists that Kabul “has always sought good relations with India” and, in a joint statement, Afghanistan and India pledged to have “close communication and continue regular engagement”.

Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrives at Darul Uloom Deoband, an Islamic seminary, in Deoband in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, India [File: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters]

Besides beefing up diplomatic ties, India has also offered humanitarian support to Afghanistan under the Taliban’s rule.

After a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck northern Afghanistan in November last year, India shipped food, medicine and vaccines, and Jaishankar was also among the first foreign ministers to call Muttaqi and offer his support. Since last December, India has also approved and implemented several healthcare infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, according to a December 2025 report by the country’s press information bureau.

Advertisement

Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that the costs of avoiding engagement with the Taliban in the past have compelled the Indian government to adopt strategic pragmatism towards the Afghan leadership this time.

“New Delhi does not want to disregard this relationship on ideological grounds or create strategic space for India’s main strategic rivals, Pakistan and China, in its neighbourhood,” he said.

Raghav Sharma, professor and director at the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at the OP Jindal Global University in India, added that the current engagement also stems from New Delhi’s pragmatic realisation that the Taliban is now in charge in Afghanistan and that there is no meaningful opposition.

“States engage in order to protect and further their interests. While there is little by way of ideological convergence, there are areas of strategic convergence, which is what has pushed India to engage with the Taliban, some of their unpalatable policies notwithstanding,” he said.

Is this a new stance towards Afghanistan?

No. India’s growing influence and engagement with Afghanistan began well before the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.

Advertisement

Between December 2001 and September 2014, during the US presence in Afghanistan, New Delhi was a strong supporter of the Karzai government, and then of his successor, Ashraf Ghani’s government, which was in power from September 2014 until August 2021, when the US withdrew from the country.

In October 2011, under Karzai, India and Afghanistan renewed ties by signing an agreement to form a strategic partnership. New Delhi also pledged to support Afghanistan in the face of foreign troops in the nation as a part of this agreement.

Under both Karzai and his successor, Ghani, India invested more than $3bn in humanitarian aid and reconstruction work in Afghanistan. This included reconstruction projects like schools and hospitals, and also a new National Assembly building in Kabul, which was inaugurated in December 2015 when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Afghanistan for the first time.

India’s Border Road Organisation (BRO) also assisted Afghanistan in the development of infrastructure projects like the 218km Zaranj-Delaram highway in 2009 under Karzai’s government.

Under Ghani, New Delhi undertook building the Salma Dam project to help with irrigating Afghanistan. In June 2016, when Modi visited Afghanistan once again, he inaugurated this $290m dam project. In May 2016, Iran, India and Afghanistan also signed a trilateral trade and transit agreement on the Chabahar port.

Advertisement
Modi and Ghani
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani hold sweets as they inaugurate Afghanistan’s new parliament building in Kabul, Afghanistan [File: Stringer/Reuters]

During this period – 2001-2021 – Pakistan’s unease with New Delhi and Kabul’s new partnership grew.

In October 2011, after signing a strategic agreement with India, Karzai had assured Islamabad that while “India is a great friend, Pakistan is a twin brother”.

But Karzai was critical of Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. In his last speech as president of Afghanistan in Kabul in September 2014, he stated that he believed most of the Taliban leadership lived in Pakistan.

In a 2011 report by a Washington, DC-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Amer Latif, former director for South Asian affairs in the US Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, noted that Karzai was walking a “fine line between criticising Pakistan’s activities while also referring to Pakistan as Afghanistan’s ‘twin brother’.”

“It is in this context that Karzai appears to be looking to solidify long-term partnerships with countries that will aid his stabilisation efforts,” he said, referring to Karzai’s visit to India and his efforts to improve relations with the subcontinent.

When Ghani rose to power in September 2014, he tried to reset ties with Pakistan and also visited the country in November that year. But his efforts did not result in improved ties due to border disputes with Pakistan continuing until his administration was overthrown by the Taliban in August 2021.

Advertisement

So why has India maintained ties with Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Initially, when the Taliban returned to power in 2021 following the withdrawal of the US, political analysts largely expected Pakistan to lead the way in recognising the Taliban administration as the official government of Afghanistan, improving bilateral relations which had turned icy under Karzai and Ghani.

But relations turned hostile, with Pakistan repeatedly accusing the Taliban of allowing anti-Pakistan armed groups like the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) to operate from Afghan soil. The Taliban denies this.

Then, the deportation of tens of thousands of Afghan refugees by Pakistan in recent years further strained ties between the two neighbours.

India has ultimately taken a pragmatic approach to the Taliban in order to maintain the good relations it built with Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and has somewhat leveraged poor relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan to cement these.

“With Pakistan’s increasingly strained relations with Afghanistan, the logic of ‘enemy’s enemy’ is acting as a glue between Kabul and New Delhi,” International Crisis Group’s Donthi said.

Advertisement

He added that despite the fact that India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government opposes Islamist organisations, “the strategic necessity to counter Pakistan has led it to engage with the Taliban proactively”.

India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed rivals which engaged in a four-day conflict in May 2025 after armed rebels killed Indian tourists in Pahalgam, a popular tourist spot in Indian-administered Kashmir, last April. New Delhi accused Pakistan of supporting rebel fighters, a charge Pakistan strongly denied.

For its part, Afghanistan took the opportunity to strongly condemn the Pahalgam attack and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs expressed “deep appreciation” to the Taliban for its “strong condemnation of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam … as well as for the sincere condolences”.

India has also condemned Pakistani military action in Afghanistan and has provided aid to thousands of Afghan refugees displaced from Pakistan.

So what is India’s endgame in Afghanistan?

Sharma, the OP Jindal Global University professor, said India wants to ensure that Pakistan and China, whose influence has grown in South Asia in recent years, “do not have a free run”, as “there is a divergence of interest on Afghanistan” with both Pakistan and its ally, China.

Advertisement

“There are security interests New Delhi is keen to further and protect for which engagement [with the Taliban] is the only option,” he added.

Anil Trigunayat, a former Indian diplomat, noted that while Afghanistan and Pakistan relations have their own dynamic, currently the Taliban leadership, even if not a monolith, refuses to play to the tunes of the Pakistan military and its intelligence agency.

“Hence they [Pakistan] accuse Indian complicity in Taliban actions in Pakistan,” he said.

But the Taliban, he said, “understands and appreciates India’s intent, policies and [humanitarian] contributions”, making its leaders keen to continue collaboration with New Delhi.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending