Connect with us

Politics

Afghanistan’s water crisis goes regional

Published

on

Afghanistan’s water crisis goes regional


A view of Afghanistans Band-e-Amir National Park. — AFP
A view of Afghanistan’s Band-e-Amir National Park. — AFP

Over four decades of war, Afghanistan wielded limited control over five major river basins that flow across its borders into downstream neighbouring nations.

But as Taliban authorities swept to power and tightened their grip on the country, they have pushed for Afghanistan’s water sovereignty, launching infrastructure projects to harness precious resources in the arid territory.

Dams and canals have sparked tensions with neighbouring states, testing the Taliban government’s efforts to build strong regional ties, as they remain largely isolated on the global stage since their 2021 takeover.

At the same time, the region is facing the shared impacts of climate change intensifying water scarcity, as temperatures rise and precipitation patterns shift, threatening glaciers and snowpack that feed the country’s rivers.

Here are key points about Afghanistan’s transboundary water challenges:

Central Asian states to the north

Afghanistan is emerging as a new player in often fraught negotiations on the use of the Amu Darya, one of two key rivers crucial for crops in water-stressed Central Asia, where water sharing relies on fragile accords since Soviet times.

Central Asian states have expressed concern over the Qosh Tepa mega canal project that could divert up to 21% of the Amu Darya’s total flow to irrigate 560,000 hectares of land across Afghanistan’s arid north, and further deplete the Aral Sea.

Afghanistans major transboundary river networks. — AFP
Afghanistan’s major transboundary river networks. — AFP

Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are likely to face the biggest impact, both joined by Kazakhstan in voicing alarm, even as they deepen diplomatic ties with the Taliban authorities — officially recognised so far by only Russia.

“No matter how friendly the tone is now,” water governance expert Mohd Faizee warned, “at some point there will be consequences for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan when the canal starts operating”.

Taliban officials have denied that the project will have a major impact on the Amu Darya’s water levels and pledged it will improve food security in a country heavily dependent on climate-vulnerable agriculture and facing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

“There is an abundance of water, especially when the Amu Darya floods and glacial meltwater flows into it” in the warmer months, said project manager Sayed Zabihullah Miri, during a visit to the canal works in Faryab province, where diggers carved into a drought-ridden plain dotted with camels and locusts.

Iran to the west

Iran is the only country with which Afghanistan has a formal water sharing treaty, agreed in 1973 over the Helmand river, which traverses Taliban heartland territory, but the accord was never fully implemented.

A member of Taliban security forces stands guard near the Pashdan Dam, also known as Band-e Pashdan, in Herat province. — AFP
A member of Taliban security forces stands guard near the Pashdan Dam, also known as Band-e Pashdan, in Herat province. — AFP

Longstanding tensions over the river’s resources have spiked over dams in southern Afghanistan, particularly in periods of drought, which are likely to increase as climate shocks hit the region’s water cycle.

Iran, facing pressure in its parched southeastern region, has repeatedly demanded that Afghanistan respect its rights, charging that upstream dams restrict the Helmand’s flow into a border lake.

The Taliban authorities insist there is not enough water to release more to Iran, blaming the impact of climate pressures on the whole region.

They also argue long-term poor water management has meant Afghanistan has not gotten its full share, according to an Afghanistan Analysts Network report by water resources management expert Assem Mayar.

Iran and Afghanistan have no formal agreement over their other shared river basin, the Harirud, which also flows into Turkmenistan and is often combined into a single basin with the Morghab river.

While infrastructure exists on the Afghan portions of the basin, some has not been fully utilised, Faizee said.

But that could change, he added, as the end of conflict in Afghanistan means infrastructure works don’t incur vast security costs on top of construction budgets, lifting a barrier to development of projects such as the Pashdan dam inaugurated in August on the Harirud.

Pakistan to the east

Water resources have not topped the agenda in consistently fraught relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan’s Kabul river basin, which encompasses tributaries to the greater Indus basin and feeds the capital and largest city, is shared with Pakistan.

The countries, however, have no formal cooperation mechanism.

With the Afghan capital wracked by a severe water crisis, the Taliban authorities have sought to revitalise old projects and start new ones to tackle the problem, risking fresh tensions with Pakistan.

But the lack of funds and technical capacity means the Taliban authorities’ large water infrastructure projects across the country could take many years to come to fruition — time that could be good for diplomacy, but bad for ordinary Afghans.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Clearing Hormuz Strait mines could take six months: report

Published

on

Clearing Hormuz Strait mines could take six months: report


Ships and boats in the Strait of Hormuz, Musandam, Oman, April 22, 2026. — Reuters
Ships and boats in the Strait of Hormuz, Musandam, Oman, April 22, 2026. — Reuters 

A Pentagon assessment said it could take six months to completely clear the Strait of Hormuz of Iranian-laid mines, which could keep oil prices high, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

Iran has all but blocked the vital waterway since the start of a war with the United States and Israel, sharply driving up oil and gas prices and disrupting the global economy.

The strait — through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes in peacetime — has remained largely closed during a shaky ceasefire, with the US imposing its own blockade.

Even if hostilities end and the blockade lifts, it could take months to clear the waterway of mines, according to a Pentagon assessment, the Washington Post reported citing officials close to the discussion.

The assessment added that it was unlikely such an operation would begin before the end of the war.

The six-month estimate was shared with members of the House Armed Services Committee during a classified briefing, the Post reported.

Lawmakers were told that Iran may have placed 20 or more mines in and around the strait, some floated remotely using GPS technology which makes them harder to detect, according to the report.

AFP has contacted the Department of Defense for comment.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told the Washington Post that its information was “inaccurate.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have warned of a “danger zone” covering 1,400 square kilometres — 14 times the size of Paris — where mines may be present.

Iran’s parliament speaker said the Islamic republic would not reopen the strait as long as the US naval blockade remained.

A spokesman for German transportation giant Hapag-Lloyd cautioned last week that shippers needed details on viable routes as they remain fearful of mines.

When the Hormuz strait briefly reopened at the start of the ceasefire this month, only a few ships trickled through amid fears of attacks or mines.

Earlier in April, the US Navy said its ships transited the waterway to begin removing the mines, but that claim was denied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which threatened any military vessels attempting to cross the channel.

London hosted talks with military planners from over 30 countries starting Wednesday on a UK and France-led multinational mission to protect navigation in the Strait of Hormuz once hostilities end.

The “defensive” coalition is set to discuss plans to reopen the strait and conduct mine clearance operations.





Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump seeks exit from war as Iran signals resistance to deal

Published

on

Trump seeks exit from war as Iran signals resistance to deal



By extending a ceasefire indefinitely with Iran, President Donald Trump appears to be searching for a way out of a costly war, but Tehran may be unwilling to give him a win.

Trump has insisted on maintaining a naval blockade, which Iran is demanding must end before it can consider any agreement to end the conflict launched on February 28 by Israel and the United States.

For Trump, who boasts of his prowess to secure big deals quickly through his team of business buddies, negotiating with Iran’s Islamic republic presents an ultimate contrast — methodical, unyielding diplomats ready to fight for the long haul against what they see as a deceitful enemy.

Trump had raised hopes of progress at a second round of talks in Pakistan, with Vice President JD Vance designated to fly out, but Iran refused to confirm its attendance and Vance stayed home.

With a two-week ceasefire set to end, and Gulf Arab allies of the United States bracing for potential new Iranian strikes, Trump said he was extending the ceasefire because Iran’s leadership, decimated by the war, was “fractured” and needed time to come up with a proposal.

“He really could have doubled down and engaged in more reckless military action. But so far he has stopped digging himself into a deeper hole,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who studies Iran.

For Trump, who campaigned on promises to shun military interventionism, the war has proven politically disastrous, facing opposition from even his Republican base.

Iran responded to being attacked by exerting control over the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway for one-fifth of the world’s oil, making American consumers pay more at the pump months before congressional elections.

– Seeking to exhaust all options –

Despite suffering losses, Iran’s clerical state is not on the verge of collapsing and will not surrender, said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence expert on Iran now at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies and the Washington-based Atlantic Council.

Trump “does not want escalation. I am not saying there is not going to be one, but he is trying to really exhaust any political option,” he said.

“I think Trump is fed up with this war and more than that he understands, despite what he is saying, that the price is only going to intensify. It’s not going to decrease,” Citrinowicz said.

But Iranian leaders are deeply suspicious of Trump, whose negotiators were discussing a deal with them days before the United States and Israel attacked — a pattern also seen last June, with the two sides talking just before an Israeli bombing campaign then.

Both Trump and Iran’s ruling clerics are sensitive to any suggestion of backing down.

In declaring the naval blockade during the ceasefire, Trump had forced Iran to respond, undermining his own diplomacy “for the sake of optics and looking strong,” Vatanka said.

In one potential off-ramp, Vatanka said that the United States could maintain the blockade but not enforce it rigorously.

“The Iranians would know if it’s not being enforced because that is easy to measure,” Vatanka said.

Iran could call it a win but if they insist on a full opening, “that tells me they’re more interested in the optics than actually getting a deal. It would be a mistake on their part,” Vatanka said.

– How big a blockade? –

Trump has not indicated any let-up on the blockade so far. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who long advocated for striking Iran, indicated the blockade could now serve as the key US means of pressure.

Graham wrote on X that he had concluded after speaking with Trump on Wednesday that “the blockade will be growing and that it could become global soon.”

Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy, said Trump had a choice on the blockade — lifting it, which would reinforce to Iran how much leverage it had gained, or keeping it and risking ending the ceasefire.

“The prevailing view in Tehran is that time is on its side and that a prolonged conflict would impose mounting costs on the US and the global economy,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

US Navy Secretary Phelan fired, say sources

Published

on

US Navy Secretary Phelan fired, say sources


US Secretary of the Navy John Phelan speaks, after President Donald Trump announced the Navys Golden Fleet, at Mar-a-lago in Palm Beach, Florida, US, December 22, 2025. — Reuters
US Secretary of the Navy John Phelan speaks, after President Donald Trump announced the Navy’s “Golden Fleet”, at Mar-a-lago in Palm Beach, Florida, US, December 22, 2025. — Reuters
  • Phelan clashed with Hegseth, other military leaders.
  • Hegseth has fired top officials from across the military.
  • Firing of Navy secretary comes amid US naval blockade of Iran.

WASHINGTON: Navy Secretary John Phelan has been fired, a US official and a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday, in another wartime shakeup at the Pentagon coming just weeks after Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted the Army’s top general.

The Pentagon announced his departure in a brief statement, saying he was leaving the administration “effective immediately.” But it did not provide a reason or say whether it was his decision to go.

His firing was first reported by Reuters.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Phelan was dismissed in part because he was moving too slow to implement reforms to speed shipbuilding and because he had fallen out with key Pentagon leadership.

One source cited bad relationships with Hegseth, Hegseth’s deputy, Steve Feinberg, as well as the Navy’s number 2 civilian, Hung Cao, who the Pentagon said will now take over as acting Navy secretary.

The source also cited an ethics investigation into Phelan’s office.

A billionaire seen as having close ties to President Donald Trump, Phelan is the first administration-picked service secretary to be fired since Trump came back into office last year.

His departure fits within a broader context of upheaval at all levels of leadership at the Pentagon under Hegseth’s watch, including the firing last year of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General CQ Brown, as well as the chief of naval operations and Air Force vice chief of staff.

On April 2, Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Randy George without citing a reason. Two US officials said the decision was tied to tensions between Hegseth and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll.

Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Phelan’s dismissal “troubling.”

“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defence under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” Reed said.

The latest departure comes during a tense ceasefire with Iran, as the US flows more naval assets into the Middle East.

The US military is relying on naval assets to carry out a blockade of Iran, which President Donald Trump is hoping will pressure Tehran to negotiate an end to the conflict on his terms.

The Navy is under intense pressure to expand its fleet. China’s shipbuilding industry now dwarfs the US, which was once a global powerhouse.

Trump’s $1.5 trillion defence budget request for fiscal year 2027 includes over $65 billion to procure 18 warships and 16 support ships made by General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries.

It is part of what the Pentagon is calling the “Golden Fleet” initiative, which officials say is the largest shipbuilding request since 1962.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending