Latest news with #Dari-language
Memri
2 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
Dari-Language Media Outlet: 'In The West, Led By The United States, The Greatest Fear Is That The Plan To Keep Israel Afloat Will Fail'; 'America Has Made The Survival Of The Israeli Regime Conditiona
In a Dari-language article titled "Will the Israeli Regime Collapse Instead of the Islamic Republic of Iran?", released on X by the Bazgasht media outlet, the author argues that while many media outlets focus on the potential fall of Iran, they ignore signs of Israel's internal collapse. He claims that Israel's survival depends on perpetual war but growing dissent among Israeli youth and reports of emigration signal instability. The article suggests the U.S. is willing to destabilize the entire Middle East to protect Israel. Following is a translation of the article: "Israel Will Never Survive Without War – But War Without Occupying The Lands Of Syria And Lebanon Has Not Been Recognized As Beneficial To Israel Either" "Will The Israeli Regime Fall Instead Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran? "Author: Seyyed Hasib Mosleh Biswad "Afghan and Iranian media outlets talk about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its dismemberment into seven countries. However, no Iranian media outlet that opposes the existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran speaks about the possibility of the overthrow of the Israeli regime and the dismemberment of the fake state of Israel itself. "In the West, led by the United States, the greatest fear is that the plan to keep Israel afloat will fail. Israel is trying to stake its survival on the 'policy of survival probability' by creating wars to deceive the minds of the Israelis and maintain the corridor of support needed from the United States and its other supporters among NATO member states. "Israel will never survive without war. But war without occupying the lands of Syria and Lebanon has not been recognized as beneficial to Israel either. Israelis believe that 'Hamas has carved the planks of the coffin of Israel's existence after October 7, 2023.' "Israelis also consider the Israeli regime's continued war against Hamas, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran to be the basis for completing the art of carpentry in the policy of completing Israel's coffin, before the destruction of that fake country." "Opposition Among Most Young Israelis To The Continuation Of The Israeli Regime's War Against Hamas, Hizbullah In Lebanon, The Houthis In Yemen, And The Islamic Republic Of Iran Is Growing Day By Day" "Opposition among most young Israelis to the continuation of the Israeli regime's war against Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is growing day by day. Israeli and Western media outlets do not report much on the thousands of Israelis fleeing Israel. "But Mossad operatives and the ever-ambivalent consideration of pro-Israeli Western Iranians in the direction of propaganda against Iran, exaggerate in the media about the supposed overthrow of the Iranian government and the collapse of most Islamic countries, and instead of [reflecting] the truly difficult political-economic-military conditions of the Israeli regime, which have been called a sign of the overthrow of that regime and even an indication of the possibility of the destruction of the State of Israel. "But America has made the survival of the Israeli regime conditional on the overthrow of the Islamic Republic by starting the second phase of bombing Iran's nuclear bases. "Water shortages and power shortages are being promoted inside and outside Iran to create internal unrest in Western media outlets such as Fox News, BBC, CNN, Voice of America, etc. [U.S. President] Donald Trump has again spoken about the possibility of bombing the Islamic Republic's nuclear bases on the eve of Iran's readiness to resume negotiations on its nuclear program. The second wave of Israeli and American attacks on Iran has been completed." "The Escape Of Israelis Will Endanger The Lives Of The Druze And Other Muslim And Christian Bedouin Minorities Living In Occupied Palestine" "The renewed condemnation of Israel by most Western countries with a policy of rejection and acceptance has angered Trump. Israel's defeat is known as America's failure to occupy and annex territories outside America's territorial integrity. But Israel's internal collapse will cause all Israelis to emigrate and flee from occupied Palestine. "The escape of Israelis will endanger the lives of the Druze and other Muslim and Christian Bedouin minorities living in occupied Palestine. The Israelis' refuge in Western countries has also raised the issue of the re-emergence of anti-Jewish parties in Europe and America. The defeat and collapse of Israel will deal huge blows to American oil, gas, and commodity companies and markets in the Muslim world. "America is willing to sacrifice the whole of Iran and the Middle East for the survival of Israel. But the main question is, will Israel use nuclear bombs against Iran, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and even Lebanon for its survival? Time will tell." Source: July 23, 2025.
Memri
2 days ago
- Politics
- Memri
Dari-Language Website: 'The New Middle East Project Is Essentially A Revised Version Of Classical Colonialism'; 'The Taliban Are... A Deliberately Engineered Project For The Destruction Of Regional Se
On July 14, 2025, the Dari-language Afghan media outlet Rewayat News published an article accusing the West of implementing a new colonial project for the fragmentation of the Middle East and Central Asia, and arguing that the Taliban rulers of Kabul are a tool in this project. "Today's Afghanistan is the operational backbone of proxy terrorism in West Asia – a tool for pressuring Iran, destabilizing China's borders in Xinjiang, and threatening Russia in its traditional sphere of influence," according to the article, titled "The New Middle East: A Project of Fragmentation, Crisis, and Neo-Colonial Domination by the West." The writer claims that the U.S. and Israel are reviving the "New Middle East" strategy to destabilize the region through proxy terrorism, ethnic division, and internal crises, but the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, an obstacle in this strategy, "proved that Tehran is not only resilient in the face of aggression, but also possesses high capability in responding. This resistance, in the short term, halted the enemy's plan." Following are excerpts from the article, as translated from Dari: "In Recent Years, The Phrase New Middle East Has Once Again Turned Into The Central Slogan Of The Foreign Policy Of The United States Of America And The Zionist Regime" "In recent years, the phrase New Middle East has once again turned into the central slogan of the foreign policy of the United States of America and the Zionist regime – a slogan that, although it appears to have a democratic and developmental gloss, is in fact a re-reading of an old colonial project with newer and more destructive tactics. "The real goal of this project is nothing other than the fragmentation of the countries of the region, the weakening of the Axis of Resistance, and the reconstruction of Western domination over the resources and strategic equations of West Asia. "In the meantime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as one of the main pillars of the new multipolar world order, and Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, as a base of proxy terrorism, have been placed at the center of this complex game. "The New Middle East was first proposed in the 2000s, in the context of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by Western political and military elites. On the surface, slogans such as democratization, combating terrorism, and economic development were presented, but the reality on the ground was nothing but military occupation, the promotion of sectarian violence, the collapse of states, and the formation of extremist groups." "Today's Afghanistan Is The Operational Backbone Of Proxy Terrorism In West Asia – A Tool For Pressuring Iran, Destabilizing China's Borders In Xinjiang, And Threatening Russia In Its Traditional Sphere Of Influence" "Now, this project has returned with a new face, relying on proxy war, regional terrorism, and the erosion of security from within borders. One of the main obstacles to the realization of the New Middle East project is the Islamic Republic of Iran – a country with an independent policy, strategic ties with China, Russia, and the BRICS axis, and continuous support for the Axis of Resistance. "The recent 12-day war [from June 13-24, 2025] between the Zionist regime and Iran, which began with the green light from the West and with the aim of testing Iran's deterrent power, proved that Tehran is not only resilient in the face of aggression, but also possesses high capability in responding. This resistance, in the short term, halted the enemy's plan, but it was a sign of the beginning of a new phase of multi-layered aggression against Iran and its allies. "After the hasty withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban, with covert support from the West, took control of the country. Contrary to initial claims, stability and security did not return. Today, the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan has turned into a safe haven for terrorist networks – from ISKP [the Islamic State Khurasan Province] to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Jaish al-Adl, Ansarullah of Tajikistan, and other regional extremist groups. "Today's Afghanistan is the operational backbone of proxy terrorism in West Asia – a tool for pressuring Iran, destabilizing China's borders in Xinjiang, and threatening Russia in its traditional sphere of influence. "The greatest strategic mistake of countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and the Central Asian republics is underestimating the emerging reality of the Taliban. If Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, as a center for the export of proxy terrorism, continues to be viewed with wishful thinking and appeasement, the region will soon face a new wave of instability, internal uprisings, and war of attrition. The Taliban are not a force for reconstruction, but a deliberately engineered project for the destruction of regional security." "Groups Such As Jaish Al-Adl In Southeastern Iran, TTP In Pakistan, And Extremist Islamists In Central Asia Are All Tools For Eroding The Territorial Cohesion Of Independent Countries" "As part of this same project, the West is pursuing targeted fragmentation within the countries of the region from within. Inciting minorities, arming extremist ethnic and religious currents, and supporting separatist armed groups are parts of this strategy. Groups such as Jaish Al-Adl in southeastern Iran, TTP in Pakistan, and extremist Islamists in Central Asia are all tools for eroding the territorial cohesion of independent countries. The ultimate goal is to reshape weak states, embroiled in internal crises and dependent on external support – a pattern that has been experienced repeatedly in other parts of the world as well. "The New Middle East project is essentially a revised version of classical colonialism with modern tools. This time not through direct invasion, but through proxy terrorism, war of attrition, ethnic incitement, and narrative warfare. "The Taliban-ruled Afghanistan has now become the central base for the implementation of this project. If the countries of the region, especially the members of the BRICS axis, do not respond to this intelligent and coordinated threat, we should expect in the not-too-distant future an explosion of violence, insecurity, and ... fragmentation throughout the region. "Today is the time to stand firm. The time to move beyond wishful thinking. Either the region reaches unity and a redefinition of independent regional security, or it will burn in the fire of the new version of colonialism." Source: (Afghanistan), July 14, 2025.
Memri
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Hezb-e-Islami Leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Discusses Russia's Recognition Of Afghan Taliban, Advocates 'National And Religious Unity Within The Framework Of A Just And Lawful System' In Afghanistan
On July 9, 2025, Daily Shahadat published a Dari-language article by former mujahideen commander and the leader of Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is also the publisher of the daily, addressing Russia's recognition of the Afghan Taliban government and its acceptance of the Taliban-appointed ambassador to Moscow. Hekmatyar also publishes Daily Shahadat. In the article – titled "Acceptance Of The Islamic Emirate's Ambassador In Moscow – Political Maneuver Or Political Gamble?" – Gulbuddin Hekmatyar describes Russia's move to recognize the Taliban government variously as a political and diplomatic maneuver, a gamble, and a reaction to developments in Syria and Iran, suggesting it may also be part of a broader deal between Russia and the United States. The article is informative and offers insight into the past half-century of Afghanistan's history and its unique geographical location, which draws global powers to seek to control it in a strategic game. However, the Hezb-e-Islami leader thinks that foreign powers' meddling in Afghanistan can be ended. "If Afghanistan succeeds in realizing its national and religious unity within the framework of a just and lawful system, it will overcome the most dangerous conspiracies and pressure circles of foreign actors," he says. Following are excerpts from the article: "The Coup Against Najib [Dr. Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, President Of Afghanistan Executed By The Taliban In 1996] Was A Joint Plan Of Russian And American Intelligence, And Iranian And Saudi Intelligence Were Also Involved In It" "Acceptance Of The Islamic Emirate's Ambassador In Moscow – Political Maneuver Or Political Gamble? "A Reaction To The Events In Syria And Iran Or A Give-And-Take Deal With America? "In The Light Of Moscow's Policies On Afghanistan From The Founding Of The Soviet Union To Today "Moscow, since the time of Peter the Great – when it emerged as a regional power – has always pursued the expansion of Russian influence toward the south and access to warm waters. "In this regard, Afghanistan, due to its sensitive geopolitical position, was considered one of the areas of interest to Russia. The expansionist policies of Peter the Great laid the groundwork for the (rivalry between Russia and Britain) in Afghanistan. This rivalry later turned into the Great Game in the 19th century, and Afghanistan was accepted as a (buffer) between Russia and Britain. "After the establishment of the Soviet Union and when it occupied the regions of Central Asia and the Caucasus and reached the borders of Afghanistan, this country gained greater importance. Until today, throughout all this time, it has had an active presence in the affairs of our country. As the Soviet Union, at one time, it competed with Great Britain over the occupation of Afghanistan, and at another time with the United States of America. "At one point, against the first Taliban government, it, together with India, Iran, Israel, France, Britain, and America – supported the [anti-Taliban] Northern Alliance, which included the Parcham Party, militias from the Soviet occupation era, Shura-e-Nazar, Jamiat, and Shia parties under Iran's influence. It provided them with weapons and printed Afghani [currency] for them. "There was also a time when Russia and Iran helped America in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. From 2001 to 2014, a major part of the logistics for NATO and American forces in Afghanistan was carried out through Russian land and airspace, and another part of America's logistics was delivered through Pakistan's land and airspace. Groups affiliated with Moscow and under Tehran's influence, during the 20 years of occupation, were at the service of America. "This coalition was formed when Moscow, due to continuous failures and the financial and human losses in the war in Afghanistan, and the problems that this situation created for it within the Soviet Union, had no choice but to withdraw its forces from our country. It considered the establishment of an Islamic government in Afghanistan a serious threat to its dominance over Central Asia. America and Iran had similar concerns. They jointly decided to unify their positions regarding Afghanistan and to prevent the establishment of a Mujahideen government... "The coup against Najib [Dr. Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, former president of Afghanistan executed by the Taliban in 1996] was a joint plan of Russian and American intelligence, and Iranian and Saudi intelligence were also involved in it..." "Saudi Support Was Cut Off When The Taliban Refused To Hand Over [Saudi National] Osama Bin Laden To Them"; "Saudi Intelligence Chief Turki Al-Faisal Traveled On His Private Jet... To Kabul [But Osama Was Too Powerful For The Taliban To Hand Him Over]" "[During 1996-2001] The first era of the [Islamic] Emirate, from beginning to end, was spent in war against the Northern Alliance. The Hezb-e-Islami did not want to fight the Taliban; it considered such a war neither useful nor in accordance with its military policies. The Alliance benefited from financial, military, and political support from Russia, the United States, India, Iran, France, Britain, and Israel, while the Taliban were supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who also recognized their government. "Saudi support was cut off when the Taliban refused to hand over [Saudi national] Osama bin Laden to them. This was despite the fact that a gathering of the Emirate's religious scholars in Kabul asked Osama to leave Afghanistan. The Emirate's foreign minister traveled to Saudi Arabia with the message that they were willing to hand over Osama to the Saudis. "Saudi intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal traveled on his private jet, together with the Taliban foreign minister [Wakil Ahmad] Muttawakil, to Kabul and then Kandahar to take Osama and bring him to Saudi Arabia. But the Taliban were not able to do so, because Osama was so powerful that the Taliban simply were unable to arrest and hand him over to Turki al-Faisal. In fact, in the war against the Alliance, the Taliban were largely indebted to the active role of Osama's loyal fighters, who fought on the front lines in all Taliban battles. "The 9/11 attacks and the refusal to hand over Osama to Saudi Arabia and the United States led America to strike Afghanistan from land and sky – first targeting it with cruise missiles and then bombarding the Taliban centers and strongholds with terrifying B-52 bombers. The Taliban offered no resistance whatsoever; from the day the first American missile was launched toward Afghanistan to the day the Taliban evacuated Kandahar and, through a press conference, surrendered to America and Karzai, a total of five weeks (35 days) passed!" After 9/11 "The U.S. Decision Changed – A Large-Scale Aerial And Ground Assault, With The Participation Of Hired Afghan Fighters Belonging To The Northern Front And Groups Under Iranian Influence, Replaced The Limited And Covert Operation Planned With Russia And Iran [To Replace The Taliban Government]" "Before the United States began its operation to occupy Afghanistan, it had a plan for a joint operation with Russia, in such a way that 17,000 Russian soldiers would participate in the operation, capture Mazar and Takhar, and hand them over to the Northern Alliance. The expenses of this operation were to be paid by the United States. "Akhdar Ibrahimi [aka Lakhdar Brahimi], the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Afghanistan, told a group of Afghans in a meeting in Switzerland: Moscow and Washington have a plan for a joint operation; it is better that you get on this train! "Before September 11, 2001, the United States and some Western countries including Russia, Iran, and India were providing intelligence, weapons, and financial support to the United Northern Front [aka Northern Alliance] against the Taliban. In the years 2000–2001, secret meetings were held in Moscow, Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Tehran, and Delhi to coordinate this support. "After the Al-Qaeda attack on America, the U.S. decision changed. A large-scale aerial and ground assault, with the participation of hired Afghan fighters belonging to the Northern Front and groups under Iranian influence, replaced the limited and covert operation planned with Russia and Iran. And the United States was able to launch its operations under the flag of 'the international counter-terrorism coalition' (ISAF)." "Although Pakistan's Role... In Assisting The U.S. In The Occupation Of Afghanistan Was No Less Than That Of Russia And Iran, Due To Its Support For The Taliban, It Was Deprived Of An Active And Significant Presence In The Bonn Negotiations [That Led To Formation Of Post-Taliban Government Headed By Hamid Karzai]" "The United States first overthrew the Taliban government and captured major cities, including Kabul and Kandahar. Then, it convened a meeting in Bonn with the participation of representatives from the United States, Britain, Germany, Iran, and Russia, so that with their consultation and agreement, the future government during the occupation period could be formed. "The share of Russia and Iran in the governments during the occupation period was greater than other countries due to their extensive cooperation in the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Although Pakistan's role and contribution in assisting the United States in the occupation of Afghanistan was no less than that of Russia and Iran, due to its support for the Taliban, it was deprived of an active and significant presence in the Bonn negotiations. Former mujahideen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar "Britain insisted on the restoration of [former king of Afghanistan Mohammad] Zahir Shah as king, but Iran was sensitive to this, because the restoration of monarchy in Afghanistan would pave the way for the return of Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. The replacement of [Burhanuddin] Rabbani, a Tajik, with [Hamid] Karzai, a Pashtun, was also not pleasing to Iran; they preferred Satar Sirat, who was the representative of the deposed king, but did not succeed. The United States considered Karzai suitable to its own liking, and in the Bonn meeting, the final word had to be spoken by the actual victor of Afghanistan – the United States. "Karzai used to refer to Zahir Shah as 'Baba' [father or grandfather] and would bow to kiss his hand. However, in his first presidential term, in the face of the Northern Alliance – and especially [Mohammad Qasim] Fahim, who was his defense minister and later his deputy – he resembled a sparrow in a cage beside a hawk. Even his protection in Arg [the Presidential Palace] was provided by the gunmen of Shura-e Nazar [created by Ahmad Shah Massoud]. "Russia and Iran formed the Jabal Al-Siraj Alliance led by Rabbani against Hezb-e-Islami [led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] and supported it for four years with financial, military, intelligence, and propaganda assistance, and supported the fight against the Taliban for five years. Both of them helped the United States in the occupation of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban government with all their capabilities..." "Russia Abandoned Its Important And Strategic Friend In The Region (Iran) During The Hardest Days And The Dangerous U.S.-Israel Attack, And Aside From Empty Rhetoric, Gave Iran No Help – Neither Did It Provide The S-400 Air Defense System, Nor The SU-35 And SU-57 Fighter Jets – Iran Was Forced To Purchase 40 Chinese J-10 Aircraft" "However, the United States, in its negotiations with the Taliban [in Doha, 2020] and in handing over Kabul to them, did not inform Moscow and Tehran and made a unilateral decision. The reason was its differences with its two former partners on one hand, and their efforts to establish an anti-American front – BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO] and its expansion – on the other. The founders of this organization are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and these five countries constitute more than 40 percent of the world's population and about 25 percent of the global gross domestic product. "Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates have also joined [BRICS subsequently]. So far, more than 30 countries have expressed their desire to join or cooperate with BRICS. All of these countries want to reduce their dependence on the dollar and the Western financial system. The United States considers any effort to strengthen this organization or join it as hostility toward itself and finds it intolerable. "However, regarding the lack of official recognition of the Taliban government [since it assumed power in August 2021] and how to engage with it, they had a joint position. The events in Syria and later the massive and joint attack by the United States and Israel on Iran [in June 2025] deepened the rift in their relations, and Moscow decided to be the first country to accept the Taliban's ambassador in Moscow and allow the white Taliban flag to replace the previous tricolor flag [of Afghanistan] – perhaps in this way they could lessen the pain that had reached Russia. "It is clear that this is a political game and nothing else – Russia has not changed, nor has its policies and positions regarding Afghanistan. Official recognition or non-recognition of any government has had no effect on its policies in the past, nor will it in the future. "Russia abandoned its important and strategic friend in the region (Iran) during the hardest days and the dangerous U.S.-Israel attack, and aside from empty rhetoric, gave Iran no help – neither did it provide the S-400 air defense system, nor the SU-35 and SU-57 fighter jets. Iran was forced to purchase 40 Chinese J-10 aircraft. Russia's position regarding the U.S. attack on Iran was so passive and vague that some observers and analysts thought perhaps a deal had been made between Moscow and Washington over Iran." "Basically, Russia Has Always Pursued Policies Regarding Afghanistan That Are Based On Its Strategic Goals"; "This Was Part Of An Agreement Between Moscow And Washington During The Dissolution Of The Soviet Union: That Russia Would Withdraw From Eastern Europe But Would Continue Its Active Presence In Central Asia" "Moscow's move [to recognize the Taliban government] led to the issuance of a warrant by the Hague International Court [ICC] for the arrest of the Taliban leader [Mullah Hibbatullah Akhundzada] and Chief Justice [Abdul Hakim Haqqani]. "The United Nations also called it a unilateral decision [by Russia]. The White House, the U.S. State Department, and Congress also reacted, emphasizing their firm rejection of recognizing the Taliban, maintaining sanctions, imposing additional sanctions, and continuing the freeze on Afghanistan's assets in American banks. And [U.S. President Donald] Trump once again said: We handed over the world's most powerful base (Bagram) to China! "Basically, Russia has always pursued policies regarding Afghanistan that are based on its strategic goals. Central Asia was under the complete control of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the region remained under Moscow's influence. In some countries, such as Tajikistan, power remains to this day in the hands of former KGB members, and in others, they hold the largest share and role in governments. "This was part of an agreement between Moscow and Washington during the dissolution of the Soviet Union: that Russia would withdraw from Eastern Europe but would continue its active presence in Central Asia. At that time, we repeatedly heard from Washington statements such as: Central Asia is the soft underbelly of the Soviet Union; it is facing threats from radical Islamic groups in Afghanistan; the mujahideen government destabilizes the region's stability and security; the withdrawal of Soviet forces from this region is harmful and will have dire consequences! Meaning, America agreed to the continued dominance of Moscow over this region, despite the complete collapse of the Soviet Union! "Likewise, Moscow does not allow Central Asia to connect to the South through Afghanistan, nor for its gas and oil to be transported via this route to the South – thus freeing itself from dependence and reliance on Moscow and its transit path. At any cost, this must be prevented. It would be the height of folly for anyone to think that Russia would easily abandon its strategic objectives merely by accepting the ambassador of the Kabul government in Moscow." "When Hezb-e-Islami Forces Entered Kabul, [Hashemi] Rafsanjani, The Former President Of Iran, Said In His Friday Prayer Sermon: We Will Never Allow Hezb-E-Islami To Rule Over Kabul"; "Pakistan Also Does Not Favor The Establishment Of An Islamic Government Led By A Pashtun And Considers It A Cause For Provoking And Encouraging The Pashtuns Of Pakistan To Separate From Pakistan" "In this regard, Iran also holds a position identical to that of Russia: the transfer of Central Asian gas and oil through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India – two important markets for Iran – is in no way acceptable to it. Iran's opposition to the project for transporting Turkmenistan's gas to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (TAPI), and the creation of obstacles against it, stems from this very point. Iran has spared no effort to prevent the implementation of this project, and one of the main reasons behind its massive investments in the continuation of insecurity and war in Afghanistan has been exactly this. "Furthermore, a majority Pashtun and Sunni government in Afghanistan is intolerable for Iran. When Hezb-e-Islami forces entered Kabul, [Hashemi] Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, said in his Friday prayer sermon: We will never allow Hezb-e-Islami to rule over Kabul. Iran opposes U.S.-backed TAPI gas pipeline, while U.S. opposes Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline "Pakistan also does not favor the establishment of an Islamic government led by a Pashtun and considers it a cause for provoking and encouraging the Pashtuns of Pakistan to separate from Pakistan and join Afghanistan. For this very reason, it preferred non-Pashtuns belonging to ethnic minorities, such as Mojaddedi [Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, former President of Afghanistan] and [Burhanuddin] Rabbani, for the presidency. "One of the heads of Pakistan's ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistani military], who was known for being propagandistic, wrote in his analytical report to Pakistan's decision-making authorities: A government led by a Pashtun in Kabul is not in Pakistan's interest. When the forces of Hezb-e-Islami entered Kabul, this same general, in a meeting with the leaders of the Peshawar-based factions [of the Taliban], said: Pakistan will never allow Hekmatyar to rule Kabul. One of them said to him: Please, General Sahib, do it." "As Long As Afghanistan Lacks A Government Based On The Will Of The Majority Of The People And A Strong Consultative System, It Will Remain A Toy For External Competition – Neither Accepting Political Representatives From This Side Nor From That Side, Nor Financial Aid, Nor Diplomatic Maneuvers, Will Replace True Legitimacy" "The truth is this: As long as Afghanistan lacks a government based on the will of the majority of the people and a strong consultative system, it will remain a toy for external competition – neither accepting political representatives from this side nor from that side, nor financial aid, nor diplomatic maneuvers, will replace true legitimacy. If Afghanistan succeeds in realizing its national and religious unity within the framework of a just and lawful system, it will overcome the most dangerous conspiracies and pressure circles of foreign actors. "We also believe that as long as diplomatic and political relations among the countries of the world are not based on sound principles and genuine justice, and as long as unhealthy rivalries, reprehensible hypocrisy, and malicious intent are not set aside, the existing problems between countries will not be resolved, and trust and confidence will not be established. "Some of these sound and justice-based principles are as follows: "i) Non-interference by large and powerful countries in the internal affairs of small and underdeveloped countries. "ii) Non-support for imposed, non-national, non-popular, coup-installed, puppet, autocratic governments that lack internal legitimacy. "iii) Severing relations with ethnocentric and racist regimes. "These fundamental conditions must be strictly observed in dealing with any government and system: "1) The country's political and social system must be lawful and supported by the majority of the nation. "2) It must have a shura [council] that genuinely represents the will of the people, as the highest and most authoritative body for all major national decisions. "3) It must possess a constitution accepted by the nation, as a national covenant and guarantor of the individual human rights of every member of society. "However, diplomatic relations and political engagements between countries are currently, in general, based on reprehensible motives and unhealthy political, economic, and military rivalries. No attention is paid to who the counterpart is and what background and characteristics they have – whether they represent their nation and people or a forcibly imposed minority, whether they respect and submit to the will of their people or not. "If it were not so, and if these standards were observed in political relations, we would not witness authoritarian, coup-installed, and individual-centered governments in any country in the world. Such regimes would face severe global isolation, and the space for their survival and continuation would be significantly restricted. "Hekmatyar" Source: (Afghanistan), July 9, 2025.
Memri
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Afghan Media Outlet: 'Will Israel Become Depopulated?'; Israel Assumed Iran War Would Be A Short-Term Conflict That Would Conclude With A Lightning-Fast Collapse Of The Islamic Republic
Recently, a Dari-language Telegram channel Bazgasht News published an article titled "Will Israel Become Depopulated?" arguing that the 12-day war with Iran has severely strained Israel's economy, infrastructure, and public morale, with military spending reaching up to $300 million per day. The article asserts that Israeli military doctrine presumed that the 12-day war would quickly cause the collapse of the Iranian regime. "On the contrary, Israel's attack on Iran caused the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people to oppose Israel, except for a minority of supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy who are optimistic about Israel, because usually a foreign war brings internal cohesion," the article reads. The piece seems to have been written when the Iran-Israel war was yet to end. Following is a translation: "The [October 7, 2023] Hamas Jihadist Attack... That Killed More Than 1,200 Israelis, Further Reinforced The Perception That Israel Will Never Be A Safe Place To Live" "Will Israel Become Depopulated? "Author: Shafiqullah Shafiq "While both sides of the war (the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Israeli regime) are facing detrimental economic consequences, according to media estimates, Israel's military spending is estimated at $200 to $300 million per day. In addition to the huge costs of the war, the destruction of infrastructure, the closure of economic ports and businesses have caused the severe devastation of the Israeli economy and situation. "On the other hand, Iran, while also suffering from crippling sanctions, will experience more problems as the war continues. But what weakens Israel's ability to continue the war are its rootless social and human structures. "On the one hand, Israel has a small population and a very limited geography; on the other hand, almost all of its citizens are dual citizens. The continuation of the war and the increasing dangers create the impression: Is a secret living [in bunkers] and violence worth staying there [in Israel]? "The Hamas jihadist attack... [of October 7, 2023], which killed more than 1,200 Israelis, further reinforced the perception that Israel will never be a safe place to live, even though the Israeli regime has brutally killed more than 50,000 Palestinian women, children, and civilians in retaliation." "With The Escalation Of The War With The Islamic Republic Of Iran And The Resulting Devastation, The Question Has Become Even More Serious: How Can Israel Become A Safe Place?" "However, the main source of Israeli anger so far stems from the serious question of survival, because sufficient guarantees for the survival and lasting trust of a secure Israel cannot simply be reversed. In recent days, with the escalation of the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the resulting devastation, the question has become even more serious: How can Israel become a safe place? "Security has not been achieved with anger and blood, fire and gunpowder, for 70 years; security has not been guaranteed with advanced military equipment and the Iron Dome. Therefore, in the first days of the war, the Israeli government symbolically tried to highlight its main political and national weakness with extensive media coverage in order to return its citizens from Cyprus so that the enemy would not use this gap to launch psychological warfare. "However, the reality on the ground, albeit censored, when reflected in the English-language media, shows that the motivation to live in Israel exists only among the religious and military elite. Once Israel's borders are opened, the land will be severely emptied as the recent wars continue. "For this reason, in most cases, Israeli military doctrine emphasizes strong and decisive attacks in the early days. Even the perception of the war with Iran, like Israel's six-day attack on the Arab states and Egypt in 1967, was analyzed as a short-term [conflict] that would come to a lightning-fast conclusion, that is, the Islamic Republic would collapse due to a military leadership vacuum, internal disputes, and pressure from the Iranian people, or, as President [Donald] Trump put it, 'unconditional surrender.'" "The Winner Of A War Is The One Who Endures It The Longest – Typically, Non-Democratic Governments, Which Are Less Subject To Public Opinion, Are More Patient And Persistent Than Democratic Governments" "On the contrary, Israel's attack on Iran caused the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people to oppose Israel, except for a minority of supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy who are optimistic about Israel, because usually a foreign war brings internal cohesion. "On the other hand, it is understood that the military intervention of the United States of America alongside the Israeli military can be interpreted more as aiming to rebuild the morale and collective psyche of the residents of Israel. And on the other hand, it may pave the way for an end to the war, unless the Islamic Republic launches more widespread attacks on U.S. regional bases. "Finally, there is a famous adage in international relations: The winner of a war is the one who endures it the most. Typically, non-democratic governments, which are less subject to public opinion, are more patient and persistent than democratic governments." Source: Telegram, June 24, 2025.
Memri
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Memri
In Open Letter, Afghan Civil Society Groups Demand International Prosecution Of Former U.S. Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad 'For Complicity In Crimes Against Humanity'
At least 76 civil society groups and human rights organizations fighting against the Afghan Taliban's theocratic rule have published an open letter calling for international prosecution of former U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for enabling the Taliban jihadi group to seize power in Afghanistan in 2021. According to a June 18, 2025 Dari-language report on Amu TV, the open letter, the text of which is given below, stated: "Khalilzad is accused of directly interfering in the fall of the former Afghan government, whitewashing the Taliban, and facilitating their return to power. The signatories also accuse him of promoting immunity for perpetrators of crimes."[1] The report continues: "The letter calls for Khalilzad's case to be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). It also calls for his political and advisory activities in Afghan affairs to be banned and his affiliated media and financial networks to be investigated."[2] Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan from September 2018-October 2019, and Afghan Taliban deputy leader Mullah Baradar led multiple rounds of talks in Doha, resulting in the 2020 Doha agreement, which allegedly undermined the democratically elected government of President Ashraf Ghani and paved the way for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA, i.e., the Afghan Taliban) to return to power in August 2021.[3] February 29, 2020: U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad (left) and Afghan Taliban negotiator Mullah Baradar shake hands after signing the 2020 Doha accord. Following is the original English text of the letter: "Open Letter And Initial Complaint Against Zalmay Khalilzad "From: A Collection of Human Rights Institutions, Civil Society Organizations, And Protest Movements in Afghanistan "Subject: Request to Initiate International Prosecution of Zalmay Khalilzad for Direct Role in Collapse of The Afghan Legal System And Whitewashing of The Taliban "We, a group of human rights, women's, justice, and civil society organizations and activists in Afghanistan, are publishing this letter, based on official documents and evidence, as part of the process of legal prosecution and political disclosure of Zalmay Khalilzad's role in the Afghan crisis. "Zalmay Khalilzad, as the U.S. envoy to the Doha talks [leading to the signing of U.S.-Taliban pact in 2020], has played a direct role in the collapse of the legitimate Afghan system, the exclusion of people from the political equation, the facilitation of the Taliban's return, and their subsequent whitewashing. His actions are considered, from a legal and political perspective, to be an example of cooperation with a group that violates human rights and disrupts international peace and security. A copy of the open letter signed by the civil society groups. "Cited Legal Cases: "1. Facilitating the illegal transfer of power to the Taliban without the will of the people and outside the framework of international law and the Afghan constitution "2. Violating the principle of impartiality in diplomatic mediation missions in accordance with the UN Charter and the principles of mediation "3. Indirectly contributing to the implementation of systematic discrimination, gender apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by the Taliban from 2021 onwards "4. Continuing the media and political purification of the Taliban in academic, diplomatic, and media circles, despite extensive reports by international organizations about their crimes "5. Violating the rights of victims by promoting impunity for perpetrators and preventing transparent judicial proceedings "Demands: "Initiation of a formal international investigation into Zalmay Khalilzad's role in facilitating Taliban crimes "Referring his case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for complicity in crimes against humanity "Banning Khalilzad from any decision-making structure regarding the future of Afghanistan "Investigating the role of his financial, advisory, and media networks in purification of the Taliban and disrupting the transitional justice process "We announce that this letter is part of a broader legal process that will be pursued in international organizations by collecting documentation, testimonies, and documents." Afghan civil society groups that signed the open letter.
