Posted on Leave a comment

The American Playbook: How the US Engineered Imran Khan’s Ouster to Control South Asia

Leaked cables reveal Washington pressured Pakistan to remove its prime minister for pursuing independence. This isn’t diplomacy—it’s imperial manipulation.

When Imran Khan visited Moscow on the very day Russia invaded Ukraine, it wasn’t just a diplomatic snub to Washington—it was an act of defiance. For that, he would pay the ultimate political price. Recently leaked diplomatic cables confirm what many suspected: the United States pressured Pakistani officials in 2022 to remove their prime minister. Within months, Khan was out of office, then arrested, while Pakistan signed a new defense agreement with the United States. This isn’t coincidence—it’s the modern imperial playbook in action.

The Coup That Wasn’t Secret
The leaked cables reveal a systematic campaign to undermine Khan’s government. Why? His foreign policy vision directly challenged American hegemony. While previous Pakistani leaders had balanced between Washington and Beijing, Khan unequivocally pivoted toward China and Russia. He embraced China’ Belt and Road Initiative, pursued energy deals with Moscow, and most provocatively, maintained Pakistan’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict—a stance Washington viewed as alignment with its adversaries.

Khan’s removal followed a familiar pattern: political instability engineered, a pliable successor installed, and then—crucially—a new defense pact signed that locked Pakistan deeper into America’s security architecture. The entire operation took less than a year.

This document, known as a cipher, is a clandestine piece of correspondence that has now emerged as a focal point within Pakistan’s political landscape due to the tumultuous removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan.

In a development that has sent shockwaves through Pakistan’s political sphere, The Intercept, an American news organization, has unveiled a copy of the notorious cipher. This document sheds light on what the publication describes as unequivocal interference, vested interests, and the active role played by the United States in orchestrating the downfall of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government. The news agency claims that Imran Khan’s foreign policy goals were the main reason behind his ouster, for example strengthening bilateral relations with China and Russia.

The Great Game 2.0: Playing India Against Pakistan
Washington’s strategy in South Asia is a masterclass in “divide and rule.” On one hand, the US cultivates India as a counterweight to China, supplying advanced weapons and intelligence. On the other, it maintains Pakistan as a check on Indian power—a nuclear-armed rival that ensures Delhi never becomes too independent.

This balancing act serves multiple purposes:

  • It keeps both nations dependent on American military equipment

  • It prevents the emergence of a united South Asian bloc

  • It ensures Washington remains the ultimate arbiter of regional disputes

The US doesn’t want India to win—it wants both countries to remain perpetually engaged in managed conflict, forever needing American mediation.

India and pakistan flag print screen on paw chess.now both countries have  economic tariff trade war and patriotic conflict. | Premium Photo
Washington’s strategy in South Asia is a masterclass in “divide and rule.” On one hand, the US cultivates India as a counterweight to China, supplying advanced weapons and intelligence. On the other, it maintains Pakistan as a check on Indian power—a nuclear-armed rival that ensures Delhi never becomes too independent.

Pakistan’s Strategic Value: More Than Just Real Estate
With over 200 million people and nuclear weapons, Pakistan represents the ultimate “swing state” in Asia. Its location offers access to Central Asia, the Middle East, and critically—the Indian Ocean. China recognized this years ago, investing heavily in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The US now seeks to counter that influence by drawing Pakistan back into its orbit.

But Washington’s interest isn’t in Pakistan’s development—it’s in Pakistan’s utility. As one analyst noted, “The US wants to have its cake and eat it too: use India against China, while using Pakistan against India.”

CHINA PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (CPEC): THE MARITIME-STRATEGIC DIMENSION
CHINA PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR (CPEC): THE MARITIME-STRATEGIC DIMENSION
US Military Bases and Facilities in the Middle East | ASP American Security  Project
US Military Bases and Facilities in the Middle East | ASP American Security Project

The Inevitable Next Target
If the US succeeds in containing China, India will inevitably become Washington’s next “problem.” A nation of 1.4 billion people with its own civilizational ambitions cannot permanently serve as another country’s lieutenant. American strategists understand this—which is why they work to ensure no regional power becomes strong enough to challenge US primacy.

The same playbook used against Pakistan—strengthening neighbors, planting narratives of aggression, economic pressure—will eventually be deployed against India once it outlives its usefulness as a Chinese counterweight.

India Is Trump's Next Tariff Target
“Next Target?”

Conclusion: Sovereignty as the Ultimate Rebellion
Imran Khan’s real crime wasn’t corruption or incompetence—it was asserting Pakistan’s right to an independent foreign policy. In today’s unipolar world, that remains the ultimate rebellion. The leaked cables exposing US interference should serve as a warning to all nations seeking strategic autonomy: Washington still believes it has the right to choose other countries’ leaders. IndependenceIndependence

But the era of American unipolarity is ending. As China rises and regional powers assert themselves, the US will find it increasingly difficult to manipulate nations like chess pieces. The people of South Asia—whether in Islamabad or Delhi—are waking up to the reality that their conflicts often serve interests an ocean away. True sovereignty begins when they recognize the manipulator behind the mediation.

The people of South Asia—whether in Islamabad or Delhi—are waking up to the reality that their conflicts often serve interests an ocean away. True sovereignty begins when they recognize the manipulator behind the mediation.

IndependenceIndependenceIndependenceIndependence

Independence

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

Dollar, Ballots & Debt: How Trump Installed His Man in Argentina to Fight China

Dollar, Ballots & Debt: How Trump Installed His Man in Argentina to Fight China

When far-right economist Javier Milei swept to victory in Argentina’s parliamentary by-election on October 26, 2025, the world saw more than just another swing to the right in Latin America. They witnessed the opening move in Donald Trump’s new Cold War—fought not in the South China Sea, but in the streets of Buenos Aires.

The “Made in Washington” Victory
Milei’s win didn’t happen in a vacuum. Voter turnout was low. Opposition parties were divided. But behind the scenes, a more powerful force was at work: the direct involvement of the United States. Trump, publicly and privately, threw his weight behind Milei, framing his support as a financial and strategic necessity. The message was clear: a Milei victory meant American money. A loss meant isolation.

For Washington, Milei isn’t just an ideological ally—he is a geopolitical tool. His commitment to dollarizing Argentina’s economy, slashing public spending, and aligning foreign policy with the U.S. makes him the perfect vehicle to roll back years of Chinese expansion in the region.


The election is seen as a test of Washington’s new policies in South America, where Trump made clear his support for Milley as a way to counter Chinese influence in the region

Trump’s Real Fear: China’s Silk Road Reaches the Andes
Over the past decade, China has become a critical partner for Argentina—funding infrastructure, buying soybeans, and offering loans without the political lectures that often come from Washington or the IMF. From space stations in Patagonia to port projects near Buenos Aires, Beijing’s presence has grown steadily. To Trump, this isn’t trade—it is trespassing.

Milei’s victory represents a U.S. counterattack. By installing a pro-Washington leader in one of South America’s largest economies, Trump hopes to:

  • Push Argentina out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative

  • Force the renegotiation of Chinese-backed projects

  • Pull the region back into the U.S. sphere of influence

    Chinese infrastructure projects in Latin America

A Nation Caught Between Empires
Not all Argentinians are celebrating. Milei’s radical austerity policies—wage cuts, privatization, and deregulation—have already sparked mass protests. Many see his alignment with the U.S. not as liberation, but as subordination. As one Argentine political thinker noted: “Milei doesn’t serve Argentina—he serves Washington’s geostrategic interests.”

The risk for Argentina is becoming a pawn in a game it cannot control. If Milei’s economic shock therapy fails, the social backlash could be severe. And if he succeeds in alienating China, where will the investment and buyers for Argentine goods come from?

Thousands protest in Argentina over proposed economic reforms
An aerial view of demonstrators against the Milei’s Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) in Buenos Aires, Argentina on December 27, 2023. ( Luciano Gonzalez – Anadolu Agency )

The New Cold War Is Here—And It’s Speaking Spanish
What happens in Argentina no longer stays in Argentina. Milei’s victory signals a new chapter in hemispheric politics—one where local elections are shaped by global rivalries. From Brazil to Chile, Mexico to Peru, the U.S. and China are competing for loyalty, and no ballot is too small to be weaponized.

The era of non-alignment is over. Nations are being forced to choose—and superpowers are making sure they choose correctly.

Scott Bessent, left, gives a thumbs up as Javier Milei hold a blue folder and glass award. Both men are wearing tuxedos against a purple backdrop. A teleprompter is in the foreground.
Argentine President Javier Milei receives an Atlantic Council Global Citizen Award from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the 2025 Atlantic Council Global Citizen Awards in New York City on Sept. 24

Conclusion: Sovereignty for Sale
Javier Milei may frame his mission in terms of liberty and free markets. But behind the libertarian rhetoric lies a darker reality: sovereignty is up for auction, and the highest bidder isn’t always the one with the best intentions.

Argentina is now a battlefield in Trump’s war on China. The only question is: who will pay the price?

1+ Thousand Argentina Old Map Royalty-Free Images, Stock Photos & Pictures  | Shutterstock
A Geopolitical Auction Block. Argentina finds itself a strategic prize in the escalating rivalry between the United States and China. The rhetoric of liberty masks a fierce struggle for influence, with the Argentine people ultimately holding the bill.
twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

Orbán’s Unflinching Truth: Ukraine’s Sovereignty Is an Illusion

In a stark and unapologetic address at the “Peace March,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán articulated what many in the West whisper but rarely state aloud: Ukraine has lost its sovereignty. No longer an autonomous nation, its fate now rests in the hands of foreign powers.

The End of Illusion
Orbán declared that Ukraine’s sovereignty is a relic of the past. Its government, military, and economic survival are now dictated by external actors—primarily the United States and European institutions. In his view, Ukraine has become a geopolitical chessboard, where its people’s future is negotiated in distant capitals.

3x5 Ft Ukraine America EU NATO Flag ...
Ukraine’s fate being decided by external powers

Hungary’s Defiant Stand
Rejecting EU pressure to contribute funds, weapons, or troops, Orbán stated plainly: “We will not give our money, our weapons, or our soldiers for Ukraine.” For Hungary, this conflict is not its war, and Orbán refuses to let Brussels drag his nation into a military quagmire that serves others’ interests.

Tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of Budapest on Thursday(Oct. 23.) for the annual Peace March, voicing strong opposition to the European Union’s military policies and growing involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

 

The Real EU Agenda: Partition Under the Guise of Solidarity
While the European Union publicly champions Ukraine’s cause, Orbán revealed a darker reality: behind closed doors, the discussion is not about saving Ukraine, but about carving it up. Billions in aid are not acts of charity—they are strategic investments in influence and control. The conflict, far from a tragedy, is seen by some as an opportunity for territorial and political reordering.

Flags of Ukraine, the European Union and Russia. Conflict. Ukraine russia conflict illustrations
Is the country vanishing?

 

A Warning to Europe
Orbán’s speech serves as a sobering critique of EU hypocrisy. As Western leaders preach unity and resolve, their actions suggest a willingness to sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty for broader strategic gains. The Prime Minister’s refusal to participate is not isolationism—it is a rejection of this cynical calculus.

Photo: Vilnius, Lithuania. 12th July, 2023. Rishi Sunak (l-r), Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Joe Biden, President of the United States, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, and Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, welcome Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, at the NATO-Ukraine meeting during the NATO summit. Credit: Kay Nietfeld/dpa/Alamy Live News.
Photo: Vilnius, Lithuania. 12th July, 2023. Rishi Sunak (l-r), Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Joe Biden, President of the United States, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, and Jens Stoltenberg, NATO (former)Secretary General, welcome Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, at the NATO-Ukraine meeting during the NATO summit. Credit: Kay Nietfeld/dpa/Alamy Live News.

Conclusion: The Naked Truth
Viktor Orbán has torn away the diplomatic veneer surrounding the Ukraine war. Sovereignty, when sustained by foreign funds and foreign weapons, is sovereignty in name only. As the West pours billions into Ukraine, Orbán’s words remind us: in geopolitics, there are no saviors—only opportunists.

“The situation is clear. The West speaks of defending Ukraine, but in reality, it is an imperialist grab for land, resources, and money. The unfortunate Ukrainian people are being plundered, while those pushing for war cloak exploitation in the guise of protection. Let there be no illusion, this is about power and profit,” Orban said in a post on social media platform X. 
twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

🎖️ Nobel Peace Prize: The West’s Political Weapon Targets Venezuela This Time

How a “Peace Prize” Becomes a Tool for Regime Change

🔍 Who Is María Corina Machado? — Washington’s “Perfect Candidate” PHOTO: Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a Venezuelan flag during a rally in Caracas on August 28, 2024.

  • Political Background: Founded the pro-U.S. liberal party Vente Venezuela in 2013

  • Congressional Experience: Served in Venezuela’s National Assembly (2011-2014)

  • Key Stances:

    • Advocates for privatization and absolute market freedom

    • Calls for lifting sanctions on Venezuela (while accepting U.S. backing)

    • Promotes “democratic transition” — a euphemism for regime change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Corina_Machado


🎭 The Nobel’s Double Standards: A Handbook of Western Political Toolkits

1. Selective “Peace”

  • Recipients Include:

  • Overlooked Candidates:

    • Qasem Soleimani — Actually fought terrorism

    • Venezuelan community kitchen workers — Real peacebuilders on the groundCommunity kitchen feeds thousands of Venezuelans each day

2. Timing Is Everything

  • 2023: Narges Mohammadi (Iran) → Awarded during domestic unrestThe Struggle for Freedom: Iranian human rights activist Narges Mohammadi advocates for 'Women, Life, and Freedom' from prison | George W. Bush Presidential Center

The Noble Comitee qutes:

A champion of equality and women’s rights

 

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2023 was awarded to the imprisoned Iranian human rights advocate Narges Mohammadi. More than 20 years of fighting for women’s rights made her a symbol of freedom and standard-bearer in the struggle against the Iranian theocracy. In 2003, she joined the Defenders of Human Rights Center, founded by that year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Shirin Ebadi. In the years that followed, Ms Mohammadi helped imprisoned activists, led a campaign against the death penalty and criticized the regime’s use of torture and sexualized violence.

The freedom struggle cost her dearly. She was arrested 13 times and sentenced to 31 years in prison and 154 lashes. In October 2023, when her selection as the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was announced, she was locked in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.

From captivity, Narges Mohammadi stood at the forefront of major protests against the Iranian regime in autumn 2022. The unrest had been triggered by the arrest, mistreatment and death of a young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Jina Amini, at the hands of the morality police. Her crime: not adequately covering her hair. The authorities responded harshly against the demonstrators. More than 500 were killed, thousands were injured, and at least 20 000 were arrested.

Narges Mohammadi commented on her peace prize as follows: “I will never stop striving for the realization of democracy, freedom and equality. Surely, the Nobel Peace Prize will make me more resilient, determined, hopeful and enthusiastic.”

  • 2025: María Corina Machado → Coincides with U.S. military threatsWho is Nobel Peace laureate Maria Corina Machado? | Reuters

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025 to Maria Corina Machado.

She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.


As the leader of the democracy movement in Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado is one of the most extraordinary examples of civilian courage in Latin America in recent times.

Ms Machado has been a key, unifying figure in a political opposition that was once deeply divided – an opposition that found common ground in the demand for free elections and representative government. This is precisely what lies at the heart of democracy: our shared willingness to defend the principles of popular rule, even though we disagree. At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground.

Venezuela has evolved from a relatively democratic and prosperous country to a brutal, authoritarian state that is now suffering a humanitarian and economic crisis. Most Venezuelans live in deep poverty, even as the few at the top enrich themselves. The violent machinery of the state is directed against the country’s own citizens. Nearly 8 million people have left the country. The opposition has been systematically suppressed by means of election rigging, legal prosecution and imprisonment.

Venezuela’s authoritarian regime makes political work extremely difficult. As a founder of Súmate, an organisation devoted to democratic development, Ms Machado stood up for free and fair elections more than 20 years ago. As she said: “It was a choice of ballots over bullets.” In political office and in her service to organisations since then, Ms Machado has spoken out for judicial independence, human rights and popular representation. She has spent years working for the freedom of the Venezuelan people.

Ahead of the election of 2024, Ms Machado was the opposition’s presidential candidate, but the regime blocked her candidacy. She then backed the representative of a different party, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, in the election. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers mobilised across political divides. They were trained as election observers to ensure a transparent and fair election. Despite the risk of harassment, arrest and torture, citizens across the country held watch over the polling stations. They made sure the final tallies were documented before the regime could destroy ballots and lie about the outcome.

The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.

Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.

In its long history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has honoured brave women and men who have stood up to repression, who have carried the hope of freedom in prison cells, on the streets and in public squares, and who have shown by their actions that peaceful resistance can change the world. In the past year, Ms Machado has been forced to live in hiding. Despite serious threats against her life she has remained in the country, a choice that has inspired millions of people.

When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognise courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist. Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended – with words, with courage and with determination.

Maria Corina Machado meets all three criteria stated in Alfred Nobel’s will for the selection of a Peace Prize laureate. She has brought her country’s opposition together. She has never wavered in resisting the militarisation of Venezuelan society. She has been steadfast in her support for a peaceful transition to democracy.

Maria Corina Machado has shown that the tools of democracy are also the tools of peace. She embodies the hope of a different future, one where the fundamental rights of citizens are protected, and their voices are heard. In this future, people will finally be free to live in peace.

  • Clear Pattern: The prize serves as a geopolitical signal for intervention

read also: https://countercurrents.org/2025/10/nobel-peace-prize-a-political-tool-to-reward-pro-western-ideology/


🇺🇸 Trump’s Nobel Ambitions — An Unfulfilled Craving

Despite Trump’s public claims:

“Not giving me the prize would be a great insult to America”

The Nobel Committee understands:

  • Trump dismantled the post-WWII international order

  • His climate denial threatens global security

  • He openly scorns multilateral institutions

Yet, when geopolitics demands, the same committee readily awards equally controversial figures.


🌍 The Nobel’s Dark History — Beyond “Peace”

Year Winner Controversy
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi Later defended the Rohingya genocide
2009 Barack Obama Expanded drone warfare after receiving the prize
2012 European Union Deeply involved in wars in Libya and Syria
2023 Narges Mohammadi Remained silent on Palestine genocide

💡 Real Peacebuilders Are Ignored

While the Nobel Committee rewards professional opposition figures, true peacemakers are:

They will never win a Nobel — because they don’t serve Western geopolitical interests.


🎯 Conclusion: The Nobel Peace Prize Is Dead

The award has fully become:

  1. A Western Soft Power Weapon — Rewarding obedience, punishing independence

  2. A Regime Change Tool — Creating legitimacy for military intervention(Drug war in Venezuela)

  3. Ideological Propaganda — Promoting Western liberal hegemony

As Machado accepts the prize in Oslo, U.S. warships patrol the Caribbean. This isn’t peace—it’s preparation for war

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail
Posted on Leave a comment

Why is Trump Obsessed with Recapturing Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base?

The Bagram base, once the heart of the US war in Afghanistan, has re-emerged as a flashpoint in global geopolitics. For Donald Trump, it’s not just a military facility—it’s the key to controlling resources, countering China, and projecting power across Asia. And he’s willing to threaten the Taliban with “bad things” to get it back.

Despite a withdrawal deal signed in Doha in 2020, the former and potential future US president has openly expressed his desire to reoccupy the strategic Bagram Air Base. The Taliban have responded with defiance, vowing to block any return of foreign forces to Afghan soil.

But why is this remote base so important to Washington? The answer lies in four pillars of US imperial strategy: geopolitical positioning, resource theft, regional influence, and overwhelming military capacity.


1. A Front-Row Seat to Contain China

Bagram is more than an Afghan base—it’s a potential US listening post just 500 miles from the Chinese border. In Washington’s new Cold War against Beijing, this proximity is priceless. The base would allow the US to monitor Chinese military activity in Xinjiang, track missile tests, and project power into Central Asia—a region China is integrating through its Belt and Road Initiative.

For a US deep state obsessed with “containing” China, Bagram is the perfect unsinkable aircraft carrier on Beijing’s doorstep.

China manufactures its nuclear weapons deeper within the country, according to nuclear experts, but there is an old nuclear test range at Lop Nur, about 1,200 miles from Bagram.

2. Plundering Afghanistan’s $3 Trillion Mineral Bounty

Beneath Afghanistan’s soil lies one of the world’s last great untapped mineral treasures: an estimated $3 trillion in lithium, copper, gold, iron, and rare earth elements. Afghanistan’s lithium reserves alone rival those of global leaders like Chile and Argentina.

Who controls Bagram controls access to these resources. In the race for green energy dominance, these minerals are not just commodities—they are strategic weapons. The US wants to deny them to China and fuel its own tech and defense industries. This isn’t development; it’s 21st-century colonialism.

3. A Wedge Against Russia, Iran, and Regional Sovereignty

Central Asia is a chessboard where the US, Russia, China, and Iran vie for influence. By re-establishing a fortress in Bagram, Washington aims to:

  • Disrupt regional integration led by China and Russia.

  • Pressure Iran from its eastern flank.

  • Monitor and intimidate Pakistan.

It’s a classic imperial move: plant a military flag to dominate the neighborhood and block the rise of independent power centers.

The spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, reacting to Trump’s statements, said that the United States left Afghanistan in a shameful manner.

She added that although Bagram air base is a tempting target, the struggles of the Afghan people against NATO show that they will not give up their national sovereignty.

Maria Zakharova stated: “The Bagram air base, located near Kabul, has been renovated and is undoubtedly considered a tempting target. But Washington knows well that the Afghan people, who fought NATO forces for their freedom, will not abandon their national sovereignty.”

Iran also reacted to Trump’s comments. The Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, citing earlier remarks by Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Emirate, said that the Emirate is not willing to give Afghanistan’s land to the United States.

Ali Larijani further added that U.S. presence in the region would face resistance and that bombings and military campaigns in the region would be deadly for American soldiers.

He said: “Why should they come? What does it mean that they want to seize Bagram airport? In my view, this issue will not be resolved so easily, and it will also be costly for the Americans themselves. The American people must decide whether they want to constantly hold funerals for their children or not. If they do, then let them come, invade countries, and fight.”

The Islamic Emirate has so far not commented on other countries’ statements about the Bagram air base. However, earlier, Fasihuddin Fitrat, Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Defense, responding to Trump’s remarks, said that any deal over even “one inch” of the country’s land is unacceptable.

Jamil Shirwani, a political analyst, also said on the matter: “They will not come by force and pressure; they don’t have the ability to come, and even they themselves don’t have the demand to re-enter Afghanistan militarily.”

Earlier, China also reacted, stating that fueling tensions and creating confrontation in the region does not have public support. Lin Jian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, stressed that his country respects Afghanistan’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

4. Unmatched Military Capacity for Regional Wars

Bagram isn’t a simple airstrip. It’s a massive war hub with two long runways capable of handling the largest US bombers and cargo planes like the C-5 Galaxy. It served as the central nervous system for the 20-year occupation, and the Pentagon dreams of using it again as a launchpad for interventions across South Asia and the Middle East.

In short, Bagram allows the US to strike fast, far, and with devastating force—anywhere, anytime.

For Washington, the base’s strategic logic is clear. From Bagram, the United States could oversee counterterrorism operations, track regional militancy, and monitor Chinese and Russian activity. But the operational feasibility of returning is slim. Militarily seizing Bagram would mean re-invasion, with all the troop deployments, logistics, and costs that toppled three empires before. Diplomatically, the price would be high: recognition of Taliban rule, lifting of sanctions, or large-scale aid – concessions that are potentially toxic in Washington.

History also cautions against optimism. From the British retreats of the 19th century to the Soviet defeat in the 1980s and the US exit in 2021, foreign powers have learned the same lesson: Afghanistan cannot be held without local consent.

Bagram’s strategic importance is unquestionable, but in Afghan politics, symbols matter as much as runways. For the Taliban, ceding the base would be a humiliation, undermining the sovereignty they fought to reclaim.

Trump’s call, then, seems more rhetorical than practical. It signals a desire to reassert US influence in a region increasingly shaped by Chinese and Russian engagement. It may also be a way of further prodding the record of the Biden administration. But the Taliban’s rejection, coupled with their international backing, makes a negotiated return highly unlikely. The alternative – military force – would be prohibitively costly and politically untenable. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-chance-does-trump-have-negotiating-bagram-airbase-deal-taliban


The Cost of Imperial Arrogance

Returning to Bagram would be a catastrophic miscalculation—one that repeats every US failure since 2001.

  • Financial Drain: Billions more taxpayer dollars would be wasted on rebuilding a base only to lose it again.

  • Human Toll: More dead soldiers, more traumatized veterans, and countless more Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire.

  • Political Blowback: Trump campaigned on “America First” and ending endless wars. Reoccupying Bagram would be a naked betrayal of his voters and proof that the war machine controls US policy, no matter who is president.

The American people are tired of war. The Taliban will not surrender sovereignty. And the world is watching—no one is buying Washington’s lies anymore.

Timeline: The U.S. War in Afghanistan Taliban soldiers sit on tank on the outskirts of Kabul.


twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail

Posted on Leave a comment

Ministry of War: Trump’s ‘Peace’ Mask Slips in Symbolic Return to Aggression

Rebranding the Pentagon as ‘War Department’ exposes the true face of US foreign policy—contradictions, crises, and a dangerous new era of militarism.


1. The Symbolic Declaration of War

  • Friday, September 14: Trump officially reinstates the title “Ministry of War” for the Pentagon.

    Image 1: “I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace.”: Trump
  • Immediate Actions: New website (war.gov), Secretary of Defense now referred to as “Secretary of War.”

    Image 2: From defense to war
  • Legal Loophole: Congress retains the official name (“Department of Defense”), but the propaganda shift is complete. (In defense of the War Department, The Washington Post)

Why It Matters:
Language shapes perception. This isn’t a bureaucratic tweak—it’s a declaration of intent.


2. The Contradiction: “Peace President” or Warmonger?

Image 3: Donald Trump at “Fort Bragg,” NC on June 11, 2025. ( https://whowhatwhy.org/international/trump-tries-out-being-a-warmonger-and-likes-it/)
  • Trump’s Narrative: Claims he “ended 6 wars in 6 months” and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. CBS News

  • Reality:

    • Orders strikes on Iranian soil (violating sovereignty). WILIPEDIA

    • Threatens military action in Venezuela. REUTERS

    • Increases Pentagon budget while preaching “America First.” NBC NEWS

  • Verdict: A calculated deception to mask escalating aggression. Trump tells Qatar: Won’t happen again


3. The Global Message: Arson, Not Diplomacy

To Adversaries (Iran, Russia, China):

  • “The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence.”

  • Google AI: The statement “The US is embracing confrontation, not deterrence” suggests a shift in US foreign policy from preventing conflict to actively engaging in it, a claim that is debated but has some recent evidence, such as the potential symbolic impact of restoring the “Department of War” name and rhetoric from some within the current administration emphasizing strength and countering threats from nations like China. However, the concept of “deterrence through denial” still actively shapes US strategy, and the administration’s overall goal remains to avoid war and maintain stability through a strong military and capable defense industrial base. 

    Arguments for “embracing confrontation”
    • Rhetoric and actions:
      Some government officials, like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have emphasized the need for strength and capability in the Indo-Pacific, which could be seen as a less defensive posture than pure deterrence. 

    • Symbolic shifts:
      The reported restoration of the “Department of War” name is presented as a signal that the United States is openly acknowledging its role as a war-making power, rather than a reactive one.
       

    • Focus on counteracting threats:
      The new administration is seen by some as focusing strategic attention on countering threats from China, which could be interpreted as a more confrontational approach. 

    Arguments against “embracing confrontation”
    • Deterrence remains a core goal:
      The official mission of the Department of Defense is still to “deter war and ensure our nation’s security”. 

    • Integrated deterrence strategy:
      The US has a strategy of “integrated deterrence,” which includes economic, technological, military, and ideological elements, as well as the role of allies and partners. 

    • Emphasis on peace and stability:
      While acknowledging increased tensions, the goal is still to build a constructive relationship and restore peace and stability. 

    • Building capability for deterrence:
      Efforts to increase defense spending, revitalize the defense industrial base, and improve military capabilities are intended to end conflicts and restore stability through deterrence. 

    Conclusion
    The assertion that the US is embracing confrontation over deterrence is a strong claim. While some actions and rhetoric might be interpreted as more confrontational, the stated goals and broader strategic framework still include deterrence as a central pillar of US foreign policy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. The distinction often lies in the interpretation of how to best achieve deterrence in a complex, competitive environment. 

To Allies (NATO, Gulf States):

  • “Washington is unstable, unreliable, and hungry for conflict.”

To the World:

  •  “The rules-based order is dead. Welcome to the era of open imperialism.”

    Image 4: Palestine, genocide, and the imperialist lie of the ‘rules-based international order’

4. The Historical Parallels

  •  WIKIPEDIA1947: Last use of “War Department” before rebranding to “Defense Department” post-WWII. WIKIPEDIA(United States Department of Defense)

  • 2024: Trump revives pre-Cold War terminology, signaling a return to unchecked militarism.


5. The Inevitable Fallout

  • Escalation Risk: West Asia (Iran-Israel), Latin America (Venezuela), and Eastern Europe (Ukraine) are tinderboxes.

  • Loss of Trust: Allies question US motives; adversaries prepare for conflict.

  • Legacy: Trump’s presidency may be remembered not for “peace,” but for normalizing war as policy. NEWSWEEK


Call to Action

*“Share this article. Tag media outlets. Demand answers:

  • Why is a ‘peace president’ rebranding for war?

  • Will Congress block this dangerous shift?

  • Is the world ready for Trump’s militarized America?

#MinistryOfWar #TrumpHypocrisy #EndlessWar”*

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail