Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey recently signed the “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement”. Many analysts believe this trilateral pact is aimed at checking Iranian and Israeli “hegemony” in the tumultuous Middle East region.
Meanwhile, the biggest question running through India’s nearly 1.5 billion people is how this trilateral defense pact will impact India, which has fought multiple wars with Pakistan and maintains a tense relationship with Islamabad.
Despite hogging global media limelight for playing the role of mediator in the ongoing Iran war, Pakistan’s position back home looks scary with relentless terror attacks and a deteriorating security situation.
Pakistan continues to face tremendous domestic pressures. Protests in Pak-controlled Kashmir have intensified since mid-2026, with scores of innocent protesters killed by the security forces.
Islamabad imposed a communication blockade, ordered foreign journalists to leave the region, and limited access to international media outlets, including Al Jazeera’s digital platform.
This is no ordinary region. India claims the Pak-controlled Kashmir as its own and has vowed to integrate it with Jammu and Kashmir. Reportedly, pro-India slogans and flags were seen in the demonstration.
Then, regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) are Pakistan’s Achilles’ heel. Separatism in these two regions appears to have gone beyond the control of the Pakistan Army, and looks as volatile as East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during 1971. The question is how long Pakistan can hold these two regions, and at what cost.
Dismal economic conditions, disgruntled population, and heightened tensions with neighboring India and Afghanistan have intensified Pakistan’s problems. The question is: does Pakistan have the financial muscle or resources to fight a five-front conflict — Balochistan, KPK, Kashmir, India and Afghanistan, simultaneously?
On top of it, Pakistan has signed a defense pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which means they should be prepared to fight outside the country as well, probably against Houthis in Yemen. That would open a sixth front.
Indian military exposed Pakistan’s defense architecture during Operation Sindoor last year in May. India not only managed to breach Pakistani defenses to hit multiple terror targets in the first wave of attacks, but India also launched precision strikes that impaired critical Pakistani military infrastructure across the country.
Indian military targeted multiple airbases including Nur Khan (Chaklala) near Rawalpindi, Mushaf (Sargodha), Murid, Rafiqui, Rahim Yar Khan, Sukkur, Jacobabad, Bholari, and others—using supersonic BrahMos and other precision munitions.
Satellite imagery confirmed the heavy damage, including destroyed runways, hangars, command-and-control centers, and loss of up to 14 aircraft (as per IAF) and scores of personnel on the ground. Pakistan also claimed downing multiple Indian jets, but it could hardly penetrate the Indian air defense network, led by the S-400.
Operation Sindoor demonstrated that Pakistan’s defenses could be easily penetrated and its Air Force could be crippled even with limited, restrained strikes.
Meanwhile, Turkey is already a member of NATO, arguably the most powerful Islamic country in terms of military. It does not really need Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has been battered by Iran and Houthi rebels. But when the US could not completely defend it, what can Pakistan and Turkey do?
In the case of Pakistan, it is the most vulnerable of the three.
The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, signed on 7 August 2026 by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, assumes utmost importance for Islamabad. The pact’s core clause treats an armed attack on any one party as an attack on all three.
It directly follows the September 2025 Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
For Riyadh, it’s another insurance policy, but for Pakistan—still repairing airbases more than a year later—the pact is aimed at sending a strong deterrence message to India, which has pledged a devastating response to any terror attack on the country.
Collective defense commitments from Riyadh and Ankara are sure to boost Pakistan’s morale, but Turkey (and Saudi Arabia) have been supporting Pakistan since 1947 and have never managed to turn the tide against India.
For instance, during the 1971 war, Turkey provided critical military and diplomatic support to defend Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Operating under the CENTO defense pact, Ankara provided substantial material support to Pakistan by providing aircraft assistance and military hardware, but to little avail.
Even politically, Turkey refused to recognize the newly independent state of Bangladesh for over two years. It only recognized Bangladesh in February 1974 after Pakistan did.
Meanwhile, India has already established strong military ties with Ankara’s adversaries, Greece, Cyprus, and Armenia. India also shares robust military ties with Israel. There might not be a formal agreement on paper, but India-Israel ties go beyond any melodramatic pact.
No doubt, the Mecca pact embeds Pakistan in a broader Islamic-world security architecture at a moment when its conventional defenses have been publicly tested while the country’s biggest province, Balochistan, continues to fight for its liberation, just like East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
For a country simultaneously battling insurgencies in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir while managing tense borders with both Afghanistan and India, the Mecca defense pact is far more valuable to Pakistan than it is to either Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
The post Pakistan’s “Six-Front War”: Why Mecca Defense Pact Helps Islamabad More Than Turkey or Saudi Arabia? OPED appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
The specter of a “Red-Green Alliance” seems to be haunting the strategic elites not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world these days.
The debate over this alliance between so-called Leftists and Islamists intensifies whenever a Muslim leader in the American Democratic Party secures an important nomination or an electoral victory.
It is not that these Muslim leaders in America are radical Islamists. They are essentially far-left in their political, economic, and global views and are being accepted as leaders within the Democratic Party. But they evoke apprehensions for their support of Islamists in all parts of the world on important global strategic issues.
The subject of the latest debate is Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive doctor and former Wayne County health director, who on August 4 won a historic victory in the Democratic primary in Michigan to join the Senatorial race in the upcoming November 2026 midterms.
If successful, he will be creating history as the first Muslim Senator in the history of the United States.
Of course, the Democratic Party has already seen elsewhere the rise of Muslim elected officials who often act as a bridge between progressives and Muslim advocacy groups. In the House of Representatives, there have been the likes of Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
At the local and State level, cities like Minneapolis, Dearborn, Hamtramck, and parts of New Jersey/New York now have Muslim mayors, councilors, and state legislators, many elected with support from both progressive and Muslim voter blocs.
Zohran Mamdani has taken office as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Abdullah Hammoud is now the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. Ghazala Hashmi has won the lieutenant governorship in Virginia.
Incidentally, the rise of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been portrayed by experts as showing that democratic socialism and hardline anti-Israel politics are no longer marginal in America’s largest city.
His national profile, and his demand that the federal government enforce an International Criminal Court warrant against Israel’s prime minister, have forced Democrats to reconsider their traditional stance on the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.
In other words, the strategic consequences of the Leftists sharing the global outlook with that of the Islamists outfits like Hamas or countries like Iran, or rising demands of Muslims in favor of their separate legal and social systems in many European countries, seem to be reshaping Western politics, traditional national security frameworks, and geopolitical alignments.
It is worth sharing in this context the thoughts of US Army veteran and human rights activist Mansoor Hussain Laghari, who had migrated from Pakistan. He strongly warns against the “Red-Green Alliance,” characterizing it as a dangerous and underappreciated ideological convergence between the revolutionary far left and political Islamism inside Western societies.
Using his unique background as a political refugee from Pakistan and experience in the US military, Leghari says that “Political Islamism” has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims or Islam as a faith. For him, it is something that seeks to place religious authority above democratic pluralism and civil law.
Laghari notes that while the radical Left (which claims to support secularism, feminism, and LGBTQ rights) and Islamists should be natural enemies, they cooperate because they share the same targets: American power, Western democratic institutions, capitalism, traditional faith, and Israel.
As he writes, “ These movements (Leftists and Islamists) should be natural enemies. The radical Left presents itself as secular, feminist, and supportive of LGBTQ rights. Islamists often reject those principles. Yet alliances are not always built on shared values. They are often built on shared enemies.
“Both sides portray America as an imperial project rather than an imperfect constitutional republic. Both reduce complex societies to oppressors and oppressed. Both treat Western institutions as guilty until dismantled. Israel has become a powerful mobilizing symbol, but the deeper target is the political confidence and social cohesion of the United States.
“This ideology is no longer confined to campus seminars. It is entering mainstream political life. The Democratic Party remains broad, and many Democrats reject antisemitism, revolutionary socialism and political Islamism. But an increasingly influential progressive faction now treats these ideas as legitimate components of the party’s future”.
For Laghari, more than the rise of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the concern extends to “Ideas incubated in universities and activist networks (that) eventually influence city governments, congressional offices, public agencies and national-security institutions. Americans should debate these ideas openly but stop pretending that hostility toward the country’s constitutional and strategic foundations is merely youthful idealism.”
Laghari insists that Western societies must confront this Red- Green alliance with accountability and directness rather than comfortable denial, arguing that the constitutional protections of individual liberty over tribal obedience are actively worth defending.
“As a U.S. Army veteran, I learned that readiness is not measured only by weapons, aircraft or troop numbers. It also depends on national cohesion, public trust and citizens willing to serve. A military cannot remain fully effective if young Americans are taught that patriotism is shameful, service is complicity, and their country is uniquely evil.”
Many strategic analysts not only agree with Laghari but also discern the same pattern in European democracies and even India.
The following points in this regard they make are noteworthy:
One, after Trump’s victory in 2016 in the US, Brexit in the UK, the rise of the BJP in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and right-populist governments in Europe, both Left-liberals and Islamist organizations found a common adversary and used in their parlance terms like “right-wing nationalism,” “Islamophobia,” “majoritarianism,” and “fascism.”
Their alliance uses legal and academic frameworks in these democratic countries to label valid criticism of political Islamism or extreme Leftism for promoting terrorism or anarchy as “hate speech,” effectively silencing moderate and genuinely secular reformers.
Two, by infiltrating universities, local governments, and civil society organizations, the alliance shifts institutional policies toward anti-constitutional curricula and identity-driven governance. They popularize what is called “intersectionality” — placing Muslims, Palestinians, and refugees in the same “marginalized” category as racial minorities and LGBTQ communities.
This has created institutional incentives in universities and NGOs to platform Islamist speakers under the banner of “diversity” and “anti-racism.”
As a result, antisemitism is repackaged as mainstream progressive anti-imperialism, lowering the cultural barrier to targeted violence and exclusionary politics. And universal constitutional values are being replaced with tribal, identity-based loyalty, fracturing national unity.
Three, this collusion begins in universities and then feeds into media, NGOs, and politics. Progressive NGOs, left faculty, and Muslim student groups share funding, legal aid, and media training. And, university administrations, wary of being called “Islamophobic” or “racist,” often allow protests that would be shut down for other groups.
Politically, the collusion enables the sharing of an agenda with major political parties in the name of dissent, protecting minorities, and expanding asylum/refugee programs. And that, in turn, generates narratives of state or police oppression and dangers of military modernization at the cost of social justice.
Then it becomes normal for progressives and Muslim politicians to vote and campaign together. They hold joint press conferences and share legal teams, and write joint petitions to global human rights bodies and the United Nations.
If Islamists find an ally in the Democratic Party in the US, in Europe one witnesses how Labour, Greens, and Left parties coordinate with Muslim community organizations on Gaza, policing, and counter-terror laws.
Apparently, European intelligence agencies have flagged that jihadist networks exploit progressive and anti-war protest spaces, such as climate and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, to recruit vulnerable individuals and gain mainstream legitimacy by aligning with broader, localized grievances.
The same pattern is also noticed in India.
Here, sections of left and liberal parties, student unions, liberal NGOs, and Islamist organizations have coordinated since 2019 on CAA-NRC ( Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register for Citizens), abrogation of Article 370 that had accorded special status to Kashmir, hijab cases, and “bulldozer” actions ( against the properties of hardened criminals and habitual law-breakers).
That is how domestic issues in Western democracies and countries like India are getting globalized as “human rights” issues, and hardline groups are gaining legitimacy by appearing next to mainstream left/liberals.
All this complicates a nation’s defense spending and foreign policy, forces strategic distractions, and weakens important partnerships. For instance, on Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, and the “war on terror,” Left-liberals critical of US/European/Indian foreign policy found common cause with Islamist groups who also oppose those policies.
When human rights language is used to defend individuals with extremist links, preventive policing becomes harder. Europe’s “returning fighters” problem and India’s experience with banned organizations show this. And the US, EU, and Indian foreign policy on the Middle East and counter-terror is now increasingly being constrained. Any action is immediately framed as “Islamophobic” or “imperialist”.
Viewed thus, the geopolitical alliance between Left/liberal elements and the votaries of political Islam that one sees across America, Europe, and India does present distinct challenges to the national security and social cohesion of each region. Its operational methods and societal impacts may vary from region to region based on local political landscapes, but its ideological foundation remains the same – shared opposition to the existing state apparatus.
Of course, experts point out that this alliance is “ironical” and could be “unstable” in the long run, given that Leftists and Islamists differ in their views on secularism and social rights. The Left wants progressive social change, emphasizing equality, social justice, and human rights. They are driven by secular and humanitarian concerns. But for conservative Islamists, it is traditional religious values and communal loyalty that are their principal motivations. Islamists often seek to establish states governed by Sharia.
However, despite their differences, at the moment, they are together on many aspects of global politics and are collaborating in unexpected ways. And that is said to be a matter of grave concern.
As Laghari says, “The question is no longer whether this ideological struggle has reached the United States. It has. The question is whether Americans will recognize it before the next generation inherits a country that no longer recognizes itself.”
What Laghari asks of Americans seems to be equally apt a question for Europeans and Indians as well.
The post Red-Green Alliance Begins To Hurt U.S, India & Others as Left-Islamist Affinity Reshapes Global Politics: OPED appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
In Afghanistan’s northeastern Badakhshan province, dozens of excavators operate day and night to extract gold from the mountains where villagers and their livestock once roamed.
Thousands of miners are deployed across the Shiwa area, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) northeast of the provincial capital Faizabad, extracting gold for investors nationwide.
Some residents in the area have profited from the gold rush, only to regret it later, such as farmer Muhammad Amin.
“Before, the river was deep, the water was clean,” said the 74-year-old from Pul-e-Ziri Ban valley.
Since mining got underway, “the water of the river is not drinkable; you can’t even wash your body with that water”, he told AFP.
With tears in his eyes, Amin said the grass along the riverbank “has all gone” and farming is no longer possible due to “the wind and dust”.
Now he can only feed up to 15 goats, compared with as many as 40 previously.
Amin said he was paid half the $20,000 for which he agreed to lease his land to a mining firm that failed to fulfil a promise to restore his fields after the work stopped.
The Taliban authorities have expanded the mining sector since returning to power five years ago, aiming to tap into Afghanistan’s vast underground resources to boost state coffers.
Abdul Mateen Rahimzai, head of Badakhshan’s mines department, said they have registered “almost 650 to 700 companies, and there are thousands of people working manually”.
The World Bank said hundreds of mining contracts have been signed since 2021, with “real growth averaging 25 to 30 percent” annually according to a May report.
– ‘Better than anything else’ –
While mining has temporarily stopped in Amin’s village, not far from his home, in Gulak-Dara valley, dozens of diggers were carving into the mountainside.
With jobs scarce in Afghanistan, the area has drawn workers from across the country.
Mohammad Agha Khwaja Khail, from Kabul, has worked in mining for five years and earns 10,000 Afghanis ($150) a month loading trucks.
“It’s better than anything else… There aren’t many jobs in Kabul,” said the 21-year-old, above the din of diggers.
Shafiullah Ehsas, a father-of-five, transported his excavator hundreds of kilometres from Jalalabad about three months ago.
“In Jalalabad, the gold (mining) work hasn’t started, and it was happening in Badakhshan, so we didn’t have any other option but to bring our machinery here,” said the 32-year-old, who earns 25,000 Afghanis per month.
The Ministry of Mines and Petroleum has sought to regulate the industry, with spokesman Hamayoun Afghan saying resources “used to be extracted erratically; it wasn’t done under supervision” by the previous government.
Gold mining has accelerated in the north, the ministry spokesman said, including in neighbouring Takhar province where an Afghan company was operating with Chinese partners.
Fabrizio Foschini, a researcher at the Afghanistan Analysts Network, said during earlier decades of war “mining mainly benefited insurgent groups, including the Taliban, and local strongmen with links to corrupt government officials”.
Mining firms are now taxed 20 grams of gold per hectare per month, or the equivalent in cash, no matter their profits.
– ‘Reduced to ruins’ –
Mohammadullah Mubariz, the manager of a mining company with about a hundred labourers and 20 diggers, said the team can extract “200 to 300 grams of gold” in a week.
Despite this, he said the firm was operating at a loss because of start-up costs since April.
Rahimzai, head of the provincial mines department, said last year the government collected 112 kilograms (247 pounds) of gold in Badakhshan. According to miners who spoke to AFP, their sale price per gram was around $118.
Rahimzai said that last year, “most of the mines were not registered, and there was no system to collect the fees from them”.
He has also ordered the closure of around 225 sites that caused damage, including in the Shiwa area.
“There was a bridge there, there were shops, and there was a school. All of them were buried under floodwater, mud, and debris. The area has been completely reduced to ruins,” Rahimzai told AFP.
The provincial mining chief also pledged to tackle any corruption, and ensure the “mineral resources of Badakhshan will be utilised properly and for the benefit of the people”.
Some parts of the province remain untouched, including a few kilometres from Shiwa where herder Fazil hoped the miners would stay away.
“Because it’s a place for people, for picnics, for livestock to graze,” he told AFP, giving only his first name for security reasons.
The gold industry “doesn’t benefit the local communities here”, said the 45-year-old, who has brought his herd to the mountains each summer since childhood.
“It benefits only the powerful people.”
By Agence France-Presse
The post “Gold Rush” in Afghanistan: Taliban Mining Booms in Badakhshan. Jobs & Gold for Some, Ruined Land for Others appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Automakers and aircraft manufacturers share a history that stretches back more than a century.
Many automakers have entered the production of aircraft, aircraft engines, components, and drones/UAVs, often spurred by wartime demands and by leveraging their shared expertise in engine engineering.
Big car brands such as Rolls-Royce, Renault, Ford, General Motors (GM), Chrysler, BMW, Alfa Romeo, Honda, and Fiat have been involved in aircraft engine and components production for years.
Brands such as Renault and Ford had delivered thousands of aircraft during World War II.
Swedish aviation major Saab had a flourishing car business for decades. Japanese Mitsubishi and Subaru started as aviation companies and remain active in both aviation and the automobile business.
Meanwhile, Turkish drone company Baykar started as a car garage company in Istanbul in the 1970s.
Given this shared history, it is no wonder that automobile companies have often taken inspiration from fighter jet cockpits to revolutionize their car design philosophy.
For instance, Lamborghini’s ‘red flip-cover start button,’ copied directly from aircraft and resembling a fighter jet’s missile launch button, has become the identity of the iconic supercar maker.
You have to flip up the red safety cover, exactly like aircraft weapon switches, before pressing the start button.
This feature is found in the Lamborghini Aventador, Huracán, Revuelto, Urus, and some special editions.
Even though the ‘red flip-cover start button’ offers little practical benefit, the feature has now become synonymous with Lamborghini cars, and the automaker believes that its dedicated users are unlikely to ever get tired of this feature even in the age of digital touchscreens.
The Italian supercar maker believes that this red flip start button evokes a certain emotion whenever drivers start their vehicles.
Combined with Lamborghini’s roaring and heavy engine throttle sound, this gives its riders a unique experience, akin to launching a missile from a fighter jet.
The feature was first introduced in Lamborghini’s Aventador back in 2011.
Speaking with CarBuzz earlier this week, Lamborghini’s design director Mitja Borkert said the start/stop switch found in the Temerario, Revuelto, and Urus creates “the right amount of emotions,” even though it makes the starting sequence a little slower.
Supercar performance has become easy to replicate with the rise of hybrid motors and cheaper performance parts, but Lamborghini knows that speed isn’t all that customers look for.
“For sure, there is a faster way to start the car, but is it fun?” Borkert asked.
“I think we are creating the right amount of emotions, and I think that belongs on such a car.”
However, some critics believe that this process could become a little tiresome when you have to do it over and over again.
Borkert, however, doesn’t think so.
“I don’t think so,” Borkert said, adding, “In the kitchen, you want to do something with quality. If you’re going fast, it’s not as enjoyable as when it takes a little bit of time. You need to feel a little bit involved.”
Sitting next to the latest Lamborghini Urus SE Performante at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, Borkert was keen to share that the theme is consistent across all three Lamborghini models, which brings synergy and familiarity for those with multiple Lamborghinis.
“We have the same philosophy in our supercars so that when you take your precious car out on the weekends, you’re not confused. You have an architecture that integrates you like a pilot.”
Borkert believes that features like these also make Lamborghini stand apart from its competitors.
These small physical elements remind the driver they are in a Lamborghini, even when they’re driving on electric range in the Revuelto.
Moreover, as more and more automakers replace physical switches with digital screens, Lamborghini sticking with its same old design philosophy will make its customers rejoice, he said.
“We are not the champions of screen sizes, but we have the right sizes to provide the modern visualization the driver or the pilot needs. We always keep our iconic keys, like the start/stop button,” Borkert said. When you step into a Lamborghini, you know you’re stepping into a Lamborghini – nothing else.
However, Lamborghini is not the only automobile maker that has taken inspiration from cockpit designs.
Tesla’s Aircraft-Style Yoke Steering Wheel: Tesla borrowed this idea from airplane yokes and Formula 1 cars. Instead of a round wheel, it’s a rectangular “yoke” for a more pilot-like feel.
In a Joe Rogan interview, Elon Musk noted that “they use a yoke in Formula One.” He has also described future versions of Tesla as working “like the way aircraft and modern jets are controlled.”
However, Tesla says that the rectangular yoke also offers some practical advantages, such as an unobstructed view of the instrument cluster and the road ahead and a more futuristic, immersive feel.
Musk has famously called conventional round wheels “boring” and said they block the screen.
With Tesla’s success, many iconic brands such as the Lexus RZ, Mercedes-Benz, and MG Cyberster have adopted similar Yoke-style steering wheels.
Chevrolet C8 Corvette’s Fighter-Jet-Inspired Cockpit Layout: Chevrolet designers openly said the C8 Corvette’s interior was inspired by fighter jet cockpits, low dashboard, controls wrapped around the driver, and a very pilot-centric feel.
Chevrolet design team studied jet cockpits, where controls “wrap around” the pilot. This led to the long, sloping vertical strip of physical buttons running down the high center console, creating a driver-enveloping “cockpit” that partially separates the driver and passenger, much like an aircraft.
In fact, its exterior design also drew heavily from modern fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, with a canopy-forward stance and aggressive proportions. Corvette has a long history of aircraft inspiration. Many astronauts owned earlier generations.
Airplane Ceiling Panels-Like Overhead Toggle Switches: The Ineos Grenadier placed many switches on the roof, just like in aircraft cockpits and military vehicles.
Tata Harrier Handbrake: Sometimes, cockpit-inspired design features look great, but aren’t received well due to large size or ergonomics.
India’s Tata Harrier’s handbrake was intentionally designed to look like an aircraft thrust lever. Tata officially described it as an “Aero-throttle styled” parking brake lever. Reviewers noted that the handbrake was deliberately designed to look like an aircraft thrust/throttle lever to give the cabin a more “cockpit-like” feel.
Though it looked distinctive, unique, and aesthetic, many users complained that the handbrake took too much space in the central console, interfered with the cup holders, felt awkward to operate, and criticized it for its poor ergonomics.
Therefore, from 2023 onwards, Tata replaced it in many of the new variants with a conventional electronic parking brake button + Auto Hold. The aircraft-style lever was discontinued.
Given the long association between automobile makers and aviation companies, it is only natural that car designers will adopt certain aircraft features to give the car a fighter jet cockpit feel.
However, such features must be adopted carefully, as they should not interfere with the overall design philosophy of the car’s interiors and must be easy to operate.
The post Straight Out of a Fighter Jet Cockpit! Lamborghini’s Red Switch to Tesla’s Yoke — How Aviation Shaped Modern Car Design appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
As Japan marks the anniversary of the 1945 atomic bombs, its leaders are pushing for a renewed debate on nuclear weapons in a challenge to the nation’s long-time pacifist stance.
Japan’s constitution renounces offensive military force, and successive governments have maintained a decades-old pledge not to possess nuclear weapons, produce them or permit their introduction into the country.
That commitment is now under pressure as East Asian neighbors — notably China — boost their military capabilities, while doubts persist about the reliability of Tokyo’s biggest security backer, the United States.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has refused to clarify whether she will maintain the stance known as the three non-nuclear principles, and Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi called last month for a “discussion without a taboo” on the subject.
In December, an unnamed senior administration official told local media in an off-the-record session suggesting that Japan should possess nuclear weapons.
The remark was widely reported by major Japanese outlets including national broadcaster NHK and Asahi Shimbun, sparking public criticism.
“If I look at it cynically, I can’t help but think that maybe she really wants to change” Japan’s anti-nuclear commitment, 82-year-old Satoshi Tanaka, a campaigner who survived the 1945 attack on Hiroshima, told AFP.
The country marked the 81st anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing on Thursday and will do the same on Sunday to commemorate the attack on Nagasaki.
The August 1945 assault by the United States killed more than 210,000 people, including many from the effects of radiation exposure.
It remains the only time that atomic weapons have been used in warfare, and was one of the last major acts of World War II.
The Takaichi administration is undertaking a major update of the national defense strategy this year in the face of China’s expanding military ambitions.
The prime minister has already lifted Japan’s self-imposed ban on weapons exports and expanded defense spending, while pushing to amend the constitution.
Those policies have drawn rebukes from China, which accuses Japan of “new militarism” and Takaichi of bending to the whims of the far right.
They have also unnerved survivors of the 1945 bombings, who have long helped shape Japan’s post-war pacifist political culture.
Tanaka, the Hiroshima survivor, expressed frustration that current political leaders like Takaichi are focusing on military capacity at the expense of diplomacy.
“There is so much talk about national security. What about building peace through diplomacy?” he said.
Despite winning the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts, they are debating whether to continue their national association as their members grow older.
As of March, Japan recognized just over 91,000 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, down from over 164,000 a decade ago. Their average age is 86.7.
The focus has turned firmly towards the future of the non-nuclear principles, which date to 1967.
Takaichi’s supporters argue that the final clause needs to be changed to allow the United States to bring nuclear arms to Japan and ensure regional deterrence.
Hirofumi Yoshimura, head of the Japan Innovation Party, a coalition partner of Takaichi’s government, said the principle deserved discussion in the context of the US-Japan security alliance.
“Of course, we need to work toward building a world without nuclear arms,” Yoshimura told reporters on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.
“But when considering how to ensure the effectiveness of extended nuclear deterrence within the framework of our alliance with the United States, I believe we should…continue to adhere to the principle of ‘neither possessing nor producing’ nuclear weapons,” he said.
“As for ‘not allowing them to be brought in,’ I do think there is some room for discussion on that point.”
Critics argue that Takaichi’s hawkish approach to defense increases the danger for Japan.
After Takaichi attended the annual ceremony in Hiroshima on Thursday, she sat down for a televised meeting with survivors.
When pressed, Takaichi declined to offer clarity on whether she might change the country’s nuclear course.
“Our nation currently adheres to the ‘three non-nuclear principles,'” she said in response to a direct question from Tanaka, without discussing what she might do next.
“That,” Tanaka told AFP on Friday, “only explains the current situation. It says nothing about the future.
“It only worries me more. I am concerned.”
By Agence France-Presse
The post Japan’s Nuclear Debate Unnerves Pacifists as Tokyo Declines to Reaffirm Non-Nuclear Principles Amid China Threat appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Turkey’s foreign minister said he expected Egypt to join a joint defense agreement with regional partners designed to stabilize the region that is grappling with the Middle East war.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the agreement on Friday against the backdrop of war between the United States and Iran, which has drawn in surrounding nations and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.
The war has emboldened Iran and its Houthi allies in Yemen, both of which have attacked Saudi Arabia, and a drone last month hit US assets at an Egyptian port on the Mediterranean.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told state news agency Anadolu he expected Egypt to join the “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement”, calling the country a “natural partner on all issues”.
“I believe that at the next stage Egypt will also be among us in the alliance. We already act toward one another as if we were alliance members,” he said in an interview.
“There are a few technical issues. Once these are implemented, there is no reason for Egypt not to be part of it.”
Fidan said the agreement does not target a specific country.
“There is no common threat that we have put in writing,” he said, according to the news agency.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry said Friday the pact meant an attack on any member would be regarded as an attack on all, adding it was “intended to strengthen collective deterrence”.
In the interview, Fidan said the agreement was “the most important step toward bringing lasting stability to this region”, and suggested the alliance could expand further.
“Under our president’s vision, we should not remain limited to three countries. We should grow and, if necessary, bring all countries under this umbrella,” he said.
By Agence France-Presse
The post Egypt Could Join Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Defense Pact To Stabilize Middle East, Turkish FM Says appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
A defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan could totally reshape the Middle East. Analysts believe that it could deter Iran, offset an unpredictable United States, and send a strong message to Israel.
This alliance binds three Sunni nations that are strategic allies of the United States with a NATO-style clause that considers any attack on one country as an attack on all.
Analysts doubt this provision will be enforced, as the trio seeks resolutions to the war, with Pakistan and Turkey acting as intermediaries.
Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has positioned itself at the center of this new alliance, signed in Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, but what does this agreement mean in practical terms?
Nearly six months into the Iran war, the US has failed to knock out Iran, while Tehran continues to choke off traffic in and around the Strait of Hormuz and its Houthi allies disrupt shipping in the Red Sea.
This reality has upended the region’s security architecture — forcing a rethink of decades of conventional wisdom rooted in US military supremacy.
Despite the archipelago of US bases across the region, American forces have struggled to intercept all of the drones and ballistic missiles fired by Iran and its proxies.
The new alliance shows “American deterrence has been significantly weakened and that the Iranian threat will increasingly need to be managed by regional powers,” wrote Ali Shihabi, a political analyst close to the Saudi government.
Since the onset of the war, Saudi Arabia has grown closer to Turkey, with whom it previously had fraught ties, as well as Egypt and Pakistan. The four nations have supported mediation in the conflict.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a history of security ties and had already signed a similar agreement last year.
This Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan defense pact is less about creating a new NATO-style alliance and more about an insurance policy. Riyadh is using its financial muscle to buy military assurance from Ankara and Islamabad. The mutual defense agreement is largely symbolic — neither Turkey nor Pakistan is likely to go to war with Iran on Saudi Arabia’s behalf — but the real message is clear: the Gulf can no longer rely solely on Washington and is determined to shape its own regional security architecture.
Andreas Krieg, lecturer at King’s College London, says: “The three countries are unusually complementary. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has wealth but limited indigenous military-industrial depth… Turkey has technology and manufacturing capacity but needs markets and investment. Pakistan has manpower, military institutional depth and nuclear deterrence but needs financing and industrial opportunities.” “It is in Saudi Arabia’s interest to seek several layers of security rather than one American umbrella.”
Asfandyar Mir, Senior Fellow, Stimson Center, says: “What matters is three militarily capable states, in crucial geographies, with diverse relationships, are committing to one another’s defense. It is not intended to replace the United States. But it certainly reflects a judgment that U.S. commitment alone is no longer sufficient to ensure security and maintain stability.”
Pakistan has not done much for Saudi Arabia despite coming under attack from Iran and the Houthi militia.
“Turkey and Pakistan will not fight Iran. These countries view themselves as ‘stabilizers’ and want to create a political momentum to push for that,” wrote Asli Aydintasbas, a fellow at Brookings Institution.
HA Hellyer, geopolitical analyst, says even if it is unlikely for Pakistan and Turkey to hit Iran in retaliation for strikes on Saudi Arabia, “this pact sends a politically symbolic signal to Iran and Israel”.
Saudi Arabia has grown closer to Pakistan and Turkey as deep divisions plague the Gulf, even as it reeled from repeated attacks from Iran and its allies.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE were embroiled in a public rift even before the war, and though they recently appeared to reconcile, the UAE is likely to be wary of the new pact, analysts say.
The United States has long sought to build on the Abraham Accords that saw the UAE, Bahrain and others normalize relations with Israel, pushing for a regional alliance that integrates its close ally. But the new defense pact consolidates major US allies into an alternative security architecture that rejects Israel’s hegemony, analysts said.
Pakistan and Turkey have been vocal against Israel, while Saudi Arabia has insisted it will not normalize unless Israel agrees to a path to Palestinian statehood.
“Washington would have wanted a security architecture that includes Israel, and they’re still keen for Saudi Arabia to normalize ties. This alliance doesn’t point to that in the slightest,” said Hellyer.
The alliance, he said, “shows a desire to interrupt both the project of Iranian hegemony and that of Israeli paramountcy”.
By Agence France-Presse and ET Online Desk
The post Fighting Iran & Israel’s “Hegemony”! Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Defense Pact Aimed at Tehran & Jerusalem: Analyst appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
In a first such experiment, the P-8A Poseidon was teamed with the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle, potentially laying the groundwork for a future manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) for the US Navy and allied maritime patrol, reconnaissance, anti-submarine, and surface warfare.
Northrop Grumman and Boeing conducted the first automated, manned-unmanned mission control collaboration between the P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle in a laboratory environment, demonstrating how the two systems can share intelligence, mission planning, and execution.
“A P-8A operator issued machine-readable, machine-actionable mission tasking to a simulated MQ-4C Triton using UCI [Universal Command & Control Interface] formatted messages,” Boeing stated in an official press statement. “The P-8A cued the Triton transit to a specific area. After receiving the request, the Triton autonomously planned and executed a transit to the area, employed sensors per the tasking, processed findings onboard, and reported results back to the P-8A Poseidon.”
This approach could reduce operator workload, speed up decision-making in a contested environment, and enable more dynamic in-flight tasking without always routing through distant ground control.
Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman emphasized the broader value of the standardized approach: “Using this standardized interface, Triton can collaborate with other U.S. or allied assets sharing the same interface—cutting operator workload and accelerating commander decision-making, making integration across platforms quicker and more cost-effective. The Universal Command and Control Interface is a machine-to-machine collaboration standard based on Open Mission Systems and Autonomy – Government Reference Architecture.”
Notably, the MQ-4C Triton was originally designed to work closely with the P-8A. A maritime-optimized derivative of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, Triton offers 24-hour endurance and high-altitude, persistent surveillance over vast ocean areas with its 360° multi-function radar, electro-optical/infrared sensors, and other systems. It functions as an “unblinking eye” for continuous maritime domain awareness.
Meanwhile, the P-8A has comparatively shorter endurance but boasts higher speed and lower-altitude capability than the MQ-4C Triton. Furthermore, it is designed to conduct anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, investigate contacts of interest, support search-and-rescue, and assist in kinetic operations, among other things.
Together, the two platforms cover more ocean more persistently than either could alone, improve the common operating picture, shorten the sensor-to-shooter timeline, and make better use of limited manned aircraft and aircrew.
As a core element of the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force, Triton transmits real-time data via satellite to ships, aircraft, and shore stations.
Until now, the two platforms have operated in a complementary but in a relatively separate manner. Triton provides broad-area maritime ISR and cues contacts of interest, such as ships or potential submarines, prompting a P-8A to investigate, prosecute, or engage.
The coordination between them has normally flowed through ground control stations, introducing latency, especially when stations manage multiple missions, operate across time zones, or sit at the end of long satellite communications chains. However, the new automated capability could essentially allow a P-8A crew to issue commands directly to the Triton, after which the drone can autonomously plan and execute the task.
This would expedite the response to unanticipated changes, such as potential threats or seemingly transient targets of interest. Moreover, automation and onboard AI handling of data collection or processing would free crews, both in the air and on the ground, to focus on higher-level decisions rather than routine tasking or sifting through raw sensor feeds.
“The key idea of teaming them is to let each do what it does best while reducing the workload on human operators. Instead of both independently searching the same ocean, the Triton can detect something unusual and automatically cue the Poseidon. It would reduce operator workload, speed up decision-making, enable more flexible and responsive manned-unmanned teaming, and leverage their complementary strengths for broader, more efficient maritime ISR and related missions,” Air Marshal Anil Khosla (retd), Indian Air Force veteran and military commentator, told the EurAsian Times.
“Triton handles the long-endurance, broad-area “look” mission persistently. Poseidon handles responsive, close-in, multi-mission work. Automated teaming lets them operate more seamlessly as a unit rather than operating in relative isolation or with slower human-mediated coordination,” he added.
In a hypothetical scenario, one manned P-8 could also team with one or more Tritons at a time, stretching limited manned aircraft hours and freeing up the Poseidon for high-value missions, such as anti-submarine warfare and responsive strikes in combat.
Only the United States and Australia currently operate both the P-8A and MQ-4C Triton. The P-8A, however, has been acquired by a wider group of nations, including the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Germany, Canada, Singapore, and Denmark.
The UCI architecture that enables the latest P-8-MQ-4C teaming could also potentially enable Poseidon teaming with other uncrewed assets, as Northrop stated
Indian Air Force (IAF) veteran Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd) told the EurAsian Times: “All advanced militaries are focusing on data and sensor fusion, and rapidly working on facilitating integration between different platforms, ranging from manned-manned teaming to manned-unmanned teaming, across domains. The P-8A and Triton’s MUMT merely reflect that larger pattern. The same logic extends beyond air-to-air or air-to-surface pairings into surface, subsurface, land, and space sensors and effectors. The goal is a resilient “kill web” rather than linear kill chains, with data moving freely enough that any suitable shooter or sensor can contribute.”
“In the future, the maritime surveillance aircraft could be similarly teamed with other drones, such as the Sea Guardian,” he added.
The SeaGuardian, a variant of the MQ-9 Reaper, is also designed for maritime surveillance and reconnaissance, and could be teamed with the Poseidon aircraft with some tweaks.
Earlier work has already shown related possibilities. A Boeing-led team virtually demonstrated that the MQ-25’s architecture can support ISR and tanking missions by other aircraft within the mission airspace without conventional communications to a ship-based ground control station. That demonstration included the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, P-8A Poseidon, and F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet.
There are several other examples of the US military’s efforts aimed at manned-unmanned teaming between aircraft to perform a variety of tasks. In fact, sensor fusion, edge AI, open architectures, and seamless teaming are becoming baseline requirements for competitiveness in contested areas.
The P-8A–MQ-4C laboratory demonstration is clearly a step forward.
However, its actual impact in real conditions will probably depend on how quickly the capability moves from the lab to operational skies.
“MQ-4C Triton and P-8A are the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s maritime patrol and reconnaissance force, delivering complementary capabilities unmatched by any other platforms,” Jane Bishop, Vice President and General Manager of the Global Surveillance Division at Northrop Grumman, was quoted as saying in the official statement. “This demonstration underscores the flexibility of our systems, our unwavering industry investment, and the strength of our industry relationships. Our commitment to pushing the boundaries of advanced technology ensures that the U.S. and allied nations’ operators maintain an unparalleled edge against evolving maritime threats,” he added.
The post P-8 Poseidon “Cues” MQ-4C Triton! IAF Experts Call MUM-T Teaming of U.S. Navy Assets a Revolutionary Step appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.
Login