US and Israel must pay for Gaza reconstruction

Reports suggest that US President Donald Trump is set to convene leaders and officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan for a multilateral meeting on Gaza. The centerpiece of his proposal will be threefold: 1) release of captives, 2) a ceasefire, and 3) Israeli withdrawal. Yet behind these points lies Washington’s real demand — pressing Arab and Muslim countries to provide troops and bankroll Gaza’s reconstruction.

This approach is deeply flawed. After nearly two years of war, Gaza has been turned into rubble. Over 65,000 Palestinians are dead, the entire population displaced, and famine has taken hold. UN inquiries and global rights experts have already concluded that Israel’s campaign constitutes genocide.

Against such evidence, one must ask: why should Arab and Muslim states be asked to fund the rebuilding of a land destroyed by Israel with American weapons and American diplomatic cover?

Morally and legally, it is Israel and its principal sponsor — the United States — who must foot the bill, not the victims’ brothers and neighbors.

In fact, justice demands far more: compensation to the families of the dead, even a million dollars for each life taken, as a measure of accountability.

History underscores this logic. After World War II, defeated aggressors were made to pay. Germany’s factories and patents were seized, Japan delivered reparations to occupied nations, and Italy compensated countries it had invaded.

The Western Allies later softened the approach through the Marshall Plan, choosing reconstruction over humiliation. But the guiding principle remained the same: those who destroy must pay to rebuild.

Expecting Arab and Muslim nations to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction is not only unjust, it is an insult. It absolves Israel of responsibility while shifting the burden onto those who stood with the victims.

If Washington and Tel Aviv believe in peace, they must accept the hard truth: accountability is the foundation of stability. Gaza will not rise from the ashes if the arsonists walk free and the neighbors are forced to pick up the tab.

President Trump Gaza Belongs to Palestinians

US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet leaders and officials from multiple Muslim-majority countries on Tuesday and discuss the situation in Gaza, which has been under a mounting assault from Washington's ally Israel.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that Trump will hold a multilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.

Axios reported Trump will present the group with a proposal for peace and post-war governance in Gaza.

In addition to freeing hostages and ending the war, Trump is expected to discuss US plans around an Israeli withdrawal and post-war governance in Gaza, without Hamas involvement, according to Axios.

Washington wants Arab and Muslim countries to agree to send military forces to Gaza to enable Israel's withdrawal and to secure funding for transition and rebuilding programs, Axios reported.

Trump will address the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, a day after dozens of world leaders gathered at the United Nations to embrace a Palestinian state, a landmark diplomatic shift nearly two years into the Gaza war that faces fierce resistance from Israel and the United States.

The nations said a two-state solution was the only way to achieve peace, but Israel said the recognition of a Palestinian state was a reward to extremism.

Israel's assault on Gaza since October 2023 has killed tens of thousands, internally displaced Gaza's entire population, and set off a starvation crisis. Multiple rights experts, scholars and a UN inquiry assessed it amounts to genocide.

Israel calls its actions self-defense and has also bombed Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar during the course of its war in Gaza.

Trump had promised a quick end to the war in Gaza, but a resolution remains elusive eight months into his term.

In February, Trump proposed a US takeover of Gaza and a permanent displacement of Palestinians from there. It was labeled as an "ethnic cleansing" proposal by rights experts and the United Nations. Forcible displacement is illegal under international law. Trump cast the plan as a re-development idea.

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.