What options US can exercise if Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base?

If Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base back to the United States, Washington is likely to face a serious strategic dilemma. The response will likely depend on how far the super power is willing to push its military and political leverage in the region. Some of the likely options are:

1. Diplomatic Pressure

The first option would be to apply diplomatic pressure on the Taliban government, possibly through Qatar or Pakistan as intermediaries. The US may frame Bagram’s access as essential for counterterrorism monitoring, and push for a limited presence under international arrangements rather than outright US control.

2. Economic and Sanctions Leverage

If diplomacy fails, Washington could use financial levers that include:

Tightening sanctions on Taliban leaders.

Blocking international recognition of the Taliban government.

Cutting off humanitarian exemptions or aid that Afghanistan relies on.

This would make Kabul’s refusal costlier.

3. Regional Partnerships

The US might deepen military partnerships with neighbors instead. For instance:

Expanding use of bases in Central Asia (though Russia and China will resist this).

Strengthening presence in the Persian Gulf (Qatar, UAE).

Increasing over-the-horizon operations using drones and satellites.

This would reduce dependency on Bagram, though at a higher logistical cost.

4. Covert Operations

If Washington views Bagram as critical for counterterrorism, it could resort to covert methods—arming rival Afghan groups, intelligence penetration, or even destabilization strategies to pressure the Taliban into concessions.

5. Accept and Adapt

Though difficult, the US may accept that Afghanistan is now firmly outside its reach and adapt by monitoring from afar. This would reflect Washington’s reluctance to re-engage militarily in Afghanistan after two decades of war.

Syria regime change: MI6 links with HTS

The outgoing chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Richard Moore, has confirmed that London maintained clandestine communications with the extremist group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) before the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

Spy agencies determining fate of Middle East

We are of the view that the geopolitics in the Middle East are basically driven by the top ace spy agencies CIA and MI6 due to their long presence and lust to attain dominance. Both the agencies often play complementary as well as opposing role. In the Middle East, both the CIA of United States and MI6 of Britain active, but their influence and power are not equal. To read details click https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2025/09/spy-agencies-determining-fate-of-middle.html

Speaking in Istanbul on Friday, Moore described establishing a “backchannel” with HTS—still officially designated a terrorist organization—as allowing Britain to “get ahead of events” during Syria’s political transition.

HTS, which many consider the rebranded version of al-Qaeda in Syria, was formally dissolved after its leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, assumed power in December 2024, but its senior operatives continue to dominate Syria’s government.

Al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, was captured as a senior al-Qaeda commander in Iraq in 2006 and released from US custody in 2011, yet remains unapologetic for his past attacks.

According to reports by independent journalist Kit Klarenberg, the British engagement with HTS was facilitated by Inter-Mediate, a shadowy “conflict resolution” NGO founded by Jonathan Powell, now National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to leaked documents, the firm maintains an office inside Syria’s Presidential Palace and worked closely with MI6 and the Foreign Office to groom HTS for political legitimacy. Critics warn this constitutes a flagrant violation of British counter-terrorism laws, which criminalize dealings with proscribed groups.

The partnership between HTS and Western intelligence agencies had long been suspected. Former US ambassador Robert Ford disclosed that in 2023, a UK NGO sought his help to rebrand HTS from a terrorist entity into a political actor. Inter-Mediate’s consultations reportedly ensured the extremist group’s military seizure of Damascus would align with London’s strategic interests.

This revelation raises serious questions about Britain’s role in Syria, echoing the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program, which, from 2012 onwards, funneled weapons, funding, and training to rebel groups fighting Assad—many of which later merged with extremist factions like HTS.

The program exposed how Western interventions intended to shape Syria’s political landscape often empowered the very groups classified as terrorists, underscoring the risks of covert operations that prioritize regime change over stability and civilian protection.

 

From RCD to ECO to Complete Dormancy

Regionalism has often been hailed as a path toward prosperity, but the trajectory of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) and its successor, the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), tells a sobering story of missed opportunities. What began with promise in the 1960s has today slipped into near-complete irrelevance.

The RCD was founded in 1964 by Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey to strengthen economic, cultural, and technical cooperation. It emerged in a Cold War environment, where smaller powers sought to shield themselves from great-power dependency by building regional linkages.

On paper, the project had logic, three strategically located Muslim countries, with shared aspirations of modernization, pooling resources to advance trade, industry, and connectivity. In practice, RCD never went beyond symbolism.

The organization lacked institutional strength, faced political frictions, and struggled to overcome the dominance of external economic ties over intra-regional trade.

By the late 1970s, the Iranian Revolution and shifting geopolitical alignments sealed RCD’s fate. In 1979, it faded into history without leaving a substantial legacy.

A revival attempt came in 1985, when the same three countries launched the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). ECO promised a fresh start and greater ambition. Its major breakthrough came in 1992 with the admission of seven new members — Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

ECO spanned a vast geography bridging South, Central, and West Asia, with a market of nearly half a billion people and immense natural resources.

Observers predicted that ECO could become a Eurasian economic powerhouse, knitting together landlocked Central Asia with energy-rich Iran and Turkey, and consumer-rich Pakistan.

As decades passed, the promise remained unfulfilled. Member states pursued conflicting foreign policies, were more deeply tied to external trade partners than to each other, and often lacked political trust. Infrastructure gaps meant goods could not move freely.

Overlapping memberships — in the OIC, SCO, CIS, and other blocs — diluted ECO’s relevance.

High-sounding declarations at summits were rarely followed by implementation. Even flagship projects, such as the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul railway, never became viable trade corridors.

Today, ECO exists largely as a ceremonial body. Meetings are infrequent, agreements unenforced, and the organization invisible in global or even regional affairs.

Intra-ECO trade remains stuck around 7–8% of members’ total trade, a telling indicator of stagnation.

Compared to other regional blocs such as ASEAN or the EU, ECO demonstrates how political will, not geography, determines success.

The journey from RCD to ECO to dormancy offers a lesson ‑ regional cooperation cannot survive on rhetoric alone. Without trust, shared vision, and consistent follow-through, even the most promising initiatives collapse into irrelevance.

ECO still retains potential — its geography places it at the crossroads of major trade routes, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative. But unless member states move beyond statements and invest in genuine integration, ECO’s story will remain one of unrealized potential and organizational decay.

 

 

Britain, Australia and Canada recognize Palestinian state

Britain, Canada and Australia all recognized a Palestinian state on Sunday in a move borne out of frustration over the Gaza war and intended to promote a two-state solution but which is also bound to anger Israel and its main ally, the United States.

The three nations' decision aligned them with about 140 other countries which also back Palestinians' aspiration to forge an independent homeland from the Israeli-occupied territories.

Britain's decision carried particular symbolic weight given its major role in Israel's creation as a modern nation in the aftermath of World War Two.

"Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognizes the State of Palestine," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on X.

Other nations, including France, are expected to follow suit this week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Israel's Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that Britain, Canada and Australia's decisions on Sunday were a reward for murderers. That assault killed 1,200 people and saw 251 others taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's ensuing campaign has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Gazan health authorities, and has spread famine, demolished most buildings and displaced most of the population - in many cases multiple times.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin welcomed countries recognizing a Palestinian state.

"It is a move bringing us closer to sovereignty and independence. It might not end the war tomorrow, but it's a move forward, which we need to build on and amplify," she said.

Western governments have been under pressure from many in their parties and populations angry at the ever-rising death toll in Gaza and images of starving children.

"Canada recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday.

Israeli minister Ben-Gvir said he would propose at the next cabinet meeting to apply sovereignty in the West Bank - de facto annexation of land Israel seized in a 1967 war.

He also said the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, should be dismantled.

 

 

President Trump you cannot order Taliban to handover Bagram Air Base to the United States

It may be a wish of US President Donald Trump to get control of Bagram Air Base. However, he does not have any authority to demand the Afghan government to handover the base. Threatening bad things would happen to Afghanistan if it does not give back control of the base to the United States, is outright terrorism.

Here are several possible motives behind the Trump demand:

·        Restoring US influence in Afghanistan and the wider region, especially after the pull-out which many view as a strategic loss.

·        Countering rivals, particularly China and others by having a base close by.

·        Strengthening counterterrorism posture, ensuring that militant groups can't easily use Afghan territory to plan or launch attacks.

·        Leveraging domestic political pressure as the opponents say the withdrawal decision was a mistake.

·        Using it as a bargaining chip to secure concessions i.e. economic aid, diplomatic recognition, etc.

Being a sovereign county and also because the US does recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan it is the inherent right of Taliban to outright rejected the US demand.

·        They rightly say Afghanistan’s territorial integrity cannot be compromised.

·        No foreign military presence will be allowed.

·        Taliban insists that political and economic relations with the US are possible without giving up land or allowing foreign bases.

Regaining control of Bagram will not an easy task for the US. It would likely require a major military deployment, security provisions, defense spending, etc. Experts say holding the base would be challenging militarily and politically.

Some analysts view the US demand as an attempt to restore hegemony over Afghanistan and adjoining countries.

They warn that pushing too hard might destabilize relations, reduce cooperation, or provoke negative responses from locals or other countries.

Under the Doha Agreement (2020) and other engagements, the US made certain commitments about respecting Afghanistan’s sovereignty, no foreign bases, etc. Returning to or demanding possession of Bagram is violation of these agreements.

Chinese dam being termed a global threat

According Nikkei Asia, China is building a massive dam that could alter the world's water systems as profoundly as climate change itself, Brahma Chellaney writes this week. He doesn't hold back, says "What Beijing portrays as an engineering marvel is in fact an ecological disaster in the making."

The US$168 billion Himalayan super-dam is being constructed on the Yarlung Zangbo River (also known as the Brahmaputra) in the one of the world's most seismically active zones, straddling a heavily militarized frontier where Beijing claims India's sprawling Arunachal Pradesh state as "South Tibet."

"Constructing the world's largest dam atop a geological fault line is more than reckless ‑ it is a calculated gamble with catastrophic potential," the author of "Water: Asia's New Battleground" says. "Any collapse, whether from structural weakness or reservoir-induced seismicity, would devastate India's northeast and Bangladesh, placing tens of millions at risk."

"The stakes extend beyond Asia," he adds. "Tibet is warming twice as fast as the global average, accelerating glacier melt and permafrost thaw. With its towering height rising into the troposphere, the Tibetan Plateau shapes the Asian monsoons, stabilizes climate across Eurasia and influences the Northern Hemisphere's atmospheric general circulation."

Here is a summary about the Himalayan super-dam/ hydropower project on the Yarlung Zangbo (upper Brahmaputra) river.

The project is officially known as the Yarlung Zangbo hydropower project, also referred to by names like the Medog Hydropower Station in some sources.

It is being built in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River in the Tibet Autonomous Region (People’s Republic of China), particularly in Medog County/ Nyingchi Prefecture, near the area where the river makes the dramatic U-turn close to the border with Arunachal Pradesh, India.

The total investment is estimated to be around 1.2 trillion yuan, which translates roughly US$168 billion. It will consist of five cascade hydropower stations. Expected electricity generation is about 300 billion kilowatt-hours per year. Commercial operations are planned for some time in the 2030s.

The site takes advantage of a section of the river where there is a 2,000 meter drop over a relatively short distance, about 50 kilometers, which gives great potential for hydropower generation.

Rivers downstream of this are India’s Brahmaputra and then Bangladesh’s (Jamuna), so water flow and downstream effects are a big concern.

India and Bangladesh have expressed concerns about how the dam might affect water volume, timing of flow, sediment transport, and flooding downstream.

The region is ecologically rich, with biodiversity hotspots. Building large dams in steep gorges may disrupt habitats, wildlife, and the natural ecology.

Because Tibet is tectonically active, building in deep gorges and making large engineering modifications poses risk. Landslide, earthquake hazards are of concern.

It is not yet clear how many people would need to be relocated or how local Tibetan communities will be affected.

China says the project is important to help meet its increasing demand for clean energy and to reach net-zero emissions goals. It also maintain, in official statements, that downstream impacts will be minimal and manageable.

Donald Trump Wants to Be "Caesar of 2025"

The prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025 has provoked widespread debate over the resilience of American democracy. Beyond the policy agenda he promotes, Trump’s political project increasingly resembles what political theorists describe as Caesarism: the concentration of power in a single leader who claims legitimacy through personal charisma, mass support, and the promise of restoring order to a faltering republic. 

The analogy with Julius Caesar is not merely rhetorical. It highlights structural weaknesses in the American political system, the erosion of institutional checks, and the dangers posed when democratic populism shades into authoritarianism.

The term Caesarism has been used in political thought from Max Weber to Antonio Gramsci to describe moments when parliamentary systems are unable to govern effectively, allowing a charismatic figure to rise above institutions. Such leaders do not necessarily abolish democracy outright but hollow it out by subordinating legal frameworks and representative bodies to their own authority. In ancient Rome, Julius Caesar capitalized on decades of institutional dysfunction, elite corruption, and popular disillusionment to establish personal rule. Similarly, Trump situates himself as the only figure capable of resolving America’s political polarization and institutional “gridlock.”

Cult of Personality

Trump’s political strength lies less in coherent policy proposals than in the loyalty of his supporters. This is reminiscent of the shift in Rome from loyalty to the res publica to loyalty to individual generals. Trump frames his struggles with the judiciary, Congress, and the press not as legal or political matters, but as evidence of systemic betrayal of the people’s will. In this framework, Trump becomes the sole authentic interpreter of popular sovereignty—an attribute central to Caesarist leadership.

Elite Complicity

American democracy, like the late Roman Republic, is experiencing a crisis of institutional legitimacy. Repeated constitutional confrontations, the politicization of the judiciary, and hyper-partisan gridlock in Congress have eroded public trust. In such an environment, many elites, particularly within the Republican Party, have aligned with Trump either out of calculation or fear of alienating his base. This dynamic mirrors the Roman Senate’s oscillation between resistance and acquiescence to Caesar, ultimately hastening the republic’s collapse.

Authoritarian Temptation

Both Caesar and Trump have framed their leadership in restorative terms. Caesar promised to restore stability to Rome after decades of civil war and corruption; Trump pledges to “restore American greatness” in the face of cultural fragmentation, economic dislocation, and geopolitical uncertainty. Yet restoration is often a rhetorical cover for consolidation of power. The risk in 2025 is that Trump’s project of national renewal may require undermining constitutional safeguards, subordinating independent institutions, and weakening democratic accountability.

The comparison between Trump and Caesar is not an exercise in historical exaggeration but a warning grounded in political theory. Republics often fall not because they are violently overthrown but because they erode from within, hollowed out by charismatic leaders and complicit elites.

If Trump seeks to become the Caesar of 2025, the United States faces a critical test: whether its institutions and citizenry can resist the allure of strongman politics, or whether it will follow Rome’s trajectory from republic to empire.