Latest news with #WeaponsofMassDestruction
Arabian Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Bangladesh: The US Deep State's newest victim
By Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury (Approx. 705 words) In 2003, Washington justified its invasion of Iraq by claiming Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. These allegations -later proven false – enabled the toppling of Iraq's leadership, replacing it with an externally controlled regime of opportunists and mercenaries. Iraq's sovereignty was dismantled, and its oil wealth looted under the watch of the US Deep State. This was not a one-off. It was the first act of a brutal geopolitical blueprint—a regime-change model later repeated in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. Western media branded these interventions as part of an 'Arab Spring,' masking the real intent: destabilization, economic exploitation, and the installation of puppet governments loyal to foreign interests. ADVERTISEMENT Egypt's '25 January Revolution' in 2011 was sold as a popular uprising, yet it was driven by Western-backed networks. Mubarak's ouster led not to stability but to chaos, with the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi – another foreign-backed figure—briefly in power before being overthrown. In Libya, NATO's 2011 intervention ended with the gruesome killing of Muammar Gaddafi. The once-prosperous nation descended into lawlessness, its oil and gas reserves falling into the hands of foreign corporations. The same playbook appeared in Ukraine, where the 2014 Maidan uprising installed a NATO-friendly regime openly allied with neo-Nazi militias. Today, Ukraine's vast mineral resources and farmland are quietly being handed over to Western companies, while its people pay the price of endless war. Now, in 2024, Bangladesh has been added to the list of nations reshaped by the US Deep State's regime-change machinery. On August 5, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina – whose leadership had brought consistent economic growth and stability – was ousted in what bears all the hallmarks of an externally orchestrated coup. Behind the scenes, Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) acted as the operational partner, while Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus emerged as the public face of the so-called 'interim regime.' Just like in Iraq and Libya, the new administration is populated by figures whose loyalties lie not with Bangladesh but with foreign benefactors. ADVERTISEMENT The destabilization of Bangladesh is not happening in isolation. Credible sources suggest that the Deep State has also been working to undermine Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's nationalist government, with Indian National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi courting foreign support. Reports indicate that between 2022 and 2024, Gandhi held discreet meetings in the US with regime-change architects such as Victoria Nuland and George Soros – figures notorious for meddling in sovereign nations' politics. For Washington's strategists, a weakened or compliant Bangladesh and India would serve as powerful levers in reshaping South Asian geopolitics. Since Sheikh Hasina's removal, Bangladesh's economy has spiraled downward. Inflation has surged, GDP growth has stalled, and foreign investors are fleeing. Mob violence has become common – over 200 people, many of them Hindus or Awami League supporters, have been lynched. More ominously, extremist groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and Hizb ut-Tahrir are reactivating their cells. ISI is reportedly overseeing guerrilla and commando training for over 1.6 million Rohingya refugees and nearly a million Bihari 'Stranded Pakistanis', with the aim of exporting terrorism to India, Myanmar, and potentially Southeast Asia and the Middle East. If these groups succeed, the consequences will ripple far beyond Bangladesh's borders. Targeting the Armed Forces A particularly alarming development is the interim regime's campaign to weaken the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) – Bangladesh's premier counterterrorism agency. Former DGFI chiefs are now facing politically motivated charges of 'crimes against humanity'. This move appears designed to dismantle the very institution that has been most effective at containing terrorist threats. Once neutralized, Islamist militants could infiltrate the military, creating conditions for attacks on the scale of 9/11 or the 2008 Mumbai massacre. Bangladesh's descent into instability is not just a national tragedy – it is a looming global security crisis. A failed Bangladesh, teeming with jihadist networks, would be a launchpad for terrorism across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. The Deep State's strategy is consistent: destabilize, install loyal proxies, exploit resources, and leave the population in perpetual crisis. The only question is – how long will the international community look away before the flames spread beyond Bangladesh? Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
01-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Why do nations acquire nukes? Decoding Iran's dilemma
It is a dominating West which encourages nuclear proliferation, but the world, as always, remains silent read more Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, tweeted during the Iran-Israel conflict, 'Iran must never acquire the bomb.' She subsequently welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire by Trump and added, 'We call on Iran to engage seriously in a credible diplomatic process. Because the negotiating table remains the only viable path forward.' Evidently the West appears to believe that they possess the power to determine who can develop nuclear weapons and who should not. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD They have also taken it upon themselves to remove regimes which they assume are acting against their interests. To achieve their aims, they occasionally exploit global bodies such as the United Nations to legalise their actions. In recent times, they have begun ignoring the UN and acting on their own. Wherever the West has interfered, they have left behind a mess or were forced to withdraw in defeat. The only nations which are secure are those who possess a deterrent in terms of nuclear weapons. It has hence become an unwritten rule that a nation with political systems at odds with the West must possess nuclear weapons or bow to Western supremacy to ensure its security, as many monarchies in West Asia have done. In March 2003, Nato invaded Iraq, claiming it possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The sole intent was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was overthrown, captured, tried and hanged, but no WMDs were discovered, a fact known well even before the invasion was considered. Evidently, the intent was not WMDs but possibly oil. Since then, US forces have remained deployed in Iraq's oil fields, whose operations are controlled by US companies. Almost five thousand US troops and over a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed and millions displaced since Saddam Hussein's removal. ISIS rose in the vacuum created by Saddam's ouster. It needed years and thousands of casualties before they were finally subdued. Iraq remains politically unstable, with multiple insurgent groups backed by Iran continuing to operate. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program once Gaddafi assumed power in 1969. Post the Cold War, Gaddafi attempted to enhance relations with the West and sought the lifting of sanctions. It was compelled to surrender its nuclear weapons program and finally signed an agreement on it in December 2003. Without nuclear weapons, Libya was vulnerable to Western manipulation. Following the Arab Spring, which commenced at the end of 2010 and spread to Libya in 2011, the US pushed a resolution in the UNSC authorising the use of force to protect civilians in Libya. It launched airstrikes and supported anti-Gaddafi forces. Gaddafi was overthrown. Over a decade later, Libya remains divided and violence continues unabated, with thousands of civilians killed. Libya, once the most thriving economy in North Africa, is now struggling to survive. Once again, the reason for Gaddafi's removal was Libya's oil resources. When questioned on what was his biggest mistake as president, Barack Obama stated, 'Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Twenty years in Afghanistan, and the US could show nothing. It handed over the country to the same Taliban which it overthrew. Pak was the only nation which gained by playing both sides. As per reports, the US suffered over 2500 dead and 20,000 wounded, while almost forty-five thousand Afghans lost their lives. Currently Afghanistan is no better than what it was in 2001. Osama Bin Laden, whom the US hunted for the 26/9 attacks, was finally eliminated in Abbottabad in Pakistan. On obtaining independence from the USSR in 1991, Ukraine possessed the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, including almost 2000 strategic warheads, 170 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and strategic bombers. In December 1994, the US, UK and Russia signed the 'Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances' with Ukraine. The agreement provided security assurance against the use of force against Ukraine. It also promised to respect its sovereignty and existing borders. Based on this agreement, Ukraine surrendered all its nuclear weapons to Russia and signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Today it faces loss of territory and attacks by Russia. Would it have happened if it had held onto its nuclear weapons? Agreements and promises mean nothing with the passage of time. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea is secure only because it possesses nuclear weapons. The nation may be isolated and amongst the world's most sanctioned, but no major power has ever attempted to push a regime change or destroy its nuclear stockpiles. It is reported to have sold nuclear weapon technology to nations including Pakistan but has yet to be acted against. North Korea has, over the years, developed missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Europe and the US, imposing further caution. All that the West can do is impose sanctions and threats, which are meaningless against the authoritarian state. Iran was attacked on June 13 because Israel felt threatened by it developing nuclear weapons. On the contrary, because it is a US ally, Israel's holding of nuclear weapons is acceptable. Tehran remains amongst the world's most sanctioned regimes. It was in talks with the US on its nuclear program; however, Israel, with the backing of the US, decided to act unilaterally. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US joined in the attack intending to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Rather than criticise Israel's and the US's unilateral actions, the EU President commented that Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The action was a manifestation of partiality towards particular countries. The trigger for attacking Iran was the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution in its board meeting on June 12 claiming Tehran was 'breaching its non-proliferation obligations'. The IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi, in a subsequent interview with al-Jazeera on June 19, mentioned, 'Iran's alleged violations of its assurances had not led this agency to conclude that Tehran was building bombs.' Both Trump and Netanyahu, in their desperation to attack Iran, ignored the statement by the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who had mentioned, '(US intelligence) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump rebuked her on her statement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nations which are traditionally against Western views and concepts will always remain at risk of being subjected to regime change unless they possess a reliable deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons. It is, in reality, a dominating West which encourages nuclear proliferation. But the world, as always, remains silent. The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hans India
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
India has done well by not signing the SCO joint statement
By not signing a tendentious joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet, India has made it clear that it will never allow Pakistan and its supporters to peddle their narrative at international forums. The draft statement did not have any reference to the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 innocent lives were lost, but it did mention the Jaffar Express hijacking in Pakistan in March. Addressing the SCO gathering, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh spoke about the Pahalgam attack and the ensuing Operation Sindoor. He articulated Delhi's stand on terrorism in unambiguous terms: 'Peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action... Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations.' The double standards continue because China, the wannabe superpower, keeps supporting and abetting Pakistan to chafe and fret India by whatever means possible, including jihad. Over the decades, China has provided Pakistan with military hardware, financial bailouts, nuclear assistance, and diplomatic cover on the world stage. This is not born out of altruism or ideological affinity—neither exists—but of a deliberate maneuver to keep India perpetually engaged in regional skirmishes, border tensions, and security concerns, thereby slowing down its strategic and economic ascent. Beijing's strategy is part of a broader geopolitical playbook often referred to as the 'String of Pearls' or the policy of 'encirclement.' Through this approach, China seeks to establish strong strategic footholds around India's periphery. This includes developing port infrastructure in countries like Sri Lanka (Hambantota), Pakistan (Gwadar) and Myanmar (Kyaukpyu), effectively tightening a strategic noose around India. By nurturing these relationships, China ensures that India's attention remains divided between defending its immediate borders and countering Beijing's increasing influence in the Indian Ocean region. Beijing's tacit and, at times, overt support for Pakistan's use of asymmetric warfare, including the indirect promotion of jihadist elements targeting India, is a particularly dangerous aspect of this strategy. While China officially distances itself from terrorism, it has repeatedly shielded Pakistan from international scrutiny, especially at forums like the UN Security Council, where Beijing has vetoed or stalled resolutions against Pakistan-based terrorists. This not only emboldens Pakistan but also sends signals to New Delhi that it must constantly remain on guard against cross-border terrorism and hybrid warfare tactics. By abetting Pakistan's antagonistic posture towards India, China ensures that a significant portion of India's resources—both financial and military—are tied up in managing regional conflicts, internal security threats, and defence preparedness against a two-front war scenario. This, in turn, diverts India's focus from economic reforms, infrastructure development, and global diplomatic initiatives that would otherwise propel it to great power status. Ultimately, China's aim is not necessarily to provoke a full-scale war, but to strategically annoy and frustrate India, keeping it politically and militarily overstretched. By exploiting Pakistan's historical animosity towards India and weaving it into its grand strategy, China hopes to slow down India's rise and consolidate its dominance in Asia. India's refusal to sign the statement will not make Islamabad or Beijing mend their ways, but it will make it difficult for them to sell their narrative.
Hans India
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
No mention of Pak terror: Rajnath refuses to sign SCO joint statement
New Delhi: The perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism must be held accountable, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told a conclave of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on Thursday, even as he chose not to sign a communique by the bloc for not explicitly addressing India's concerns over Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism. The SCO operates under the framework of consensus, and Singh's refusal to endorse the document resulted in the SCO defence ministers' conclave ending without a joint communique, people familiar with the matter said. There was no clear-cut approach to combating terrorism, including cross-border terrorist activities, they said. The Opposition launched a scathing attack, accusing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government of failing diplomatically to rally international support against terrorism and to hold Pakistan accountable. In his address, Singh said there should be "no double standards" in combating terrorism and urged the SCO member nations to condemn the menace with unity. Besides India and China, the SCO comprises Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In an oblique reference to Pakistan, Singh said some countries are using cross-border terrorism as an "instrument of policy" to provide shelter to terrorists. "The biggest challenges that we are facing in our region are related to peace, security and trust-deficit," he said. "And the root cause of these problems is increasing radicalisation, extremism and terrorism." Singh said peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. "Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action, and we must unite in our fight against these evils for our collective safety and security," he said.
India Gazette
26-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"India's concern on terrorism was not acceptable to one country": MEA on Rajnath Singh's refusal to sign SCO joint statement
New Delhi [India], June 26 (ANI): The Ministry of External Affairs on Thursday said India refused to sign the joint declaration at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting in China as its concerns on terrorism were not included in the document, a proposal that was 'not acceptable to one particular country', preventing the consensus required for adoption. Addressing a press briefing, MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh reiterated India's firm stance against terrorism during his address, urging member countries to fight terrorism in 'all its forms and manifestations.' 'The Defence Minister participated in the defence ministers' meeting of the SCO. This meeting happened over two days and has concluded. They could not adopt a joint statement. Certain member countries could not reach consensus on certain issues, and hence, the document could not be finalised. India wanted concerns and terrorism reflected in the document, which was not acceptable to one particular country, and therefore the statement could not be adopted,' Randhir Jaiswal said. 'The Defence Minister, in his address, called upon these 11 countries to come together to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations... He also reiterated the need to uphold that the perpetrators, organisers, financers, sponsors of reprehensible acts of terrorism, including cross-border terrorism, need to be held accountable and brought to justice,' he added. India's decision not to sign the declaration was also influenced by the fact that it did not mention the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, but included references to incidents in Pakistan. Speaking at the SCO meeting in China, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said there should be no double standards on terrorism and that countries supporting such acts must be called out. Without naming Pakistan directly, he said terrorism and peace cannot exist together. 'I believe that the biggest challenges that we are facing in our region are related to peace, security and trust deficit. And the root cause of these problems is increasing radicalisation, extremism and terrorism, he said. He also warned about the danger of terror groups gaining access to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), saying, 'Peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action, and we must unite in our fight against these evils for our collective safety and security.' (ANI)
