In their incisive policy brief, Islomkhon Gafarov and IAIS volunteers Bobur Mingyasharov and Bositkhon Islamov provide a structured and comprehensive analysis of the latest and most severe escalation in India-Pakistan tensions, triggered by a deadly terrorist attack in April 2025. The report is both timely and significant, as it places the attack and its aftermath in a broader geopolitical, regional, and institutional context. The authors demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the security architecture in South Asia and identify the risks of a wider interstate conflict with remarkable clarity.   The policy brief begins with a factual account of the April 22 terrorist assault in the Pahalgam district of Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in 26 fatalities. The group “Kashmir Resistance”, allegedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. India’s claims of Pakistani complicity — backed by allegations of intelligence involvement — form the backdrop to a sweeping series of retaliatory moves, both military and diplomatic. The authors meticulously list and assess India’s responses, from mass detentions and infrastructure demolitions to the drastic step of suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, a long-standing pillar of bilateral water-sharing and a foundational agreement for regional cooperation.   In parallel, the authors explore Pakistan’s countermeasures and diplomatic posture. Islamabad’s firm denial of involvement in the attack, coupled with its readiness to submit to an international investigation, is presented as a calculated attempt to internationalize the crisis and rally global sympathy. Pakistan’s reciprocal expulsion of Indian citizens, suspension of trade, and closure of airspace represent a measured but firm riposte. Particularly insightful is the authors’ discussion of Pakistan’s non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council, which Islamabad appears intent on leveraging to gain moral and diplomatic high ground.   An important contribution of the brief lies in its focus on international actors. The authors highlight the calibrated support India has received from Western powers, the Gulf states, and even Russia and Ukraine — framing it within the global consensus against terrorism. Iran’s mediation efforts, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, are examined as a diplomatic overture balancing Tehran’s strategic ties with both Delhi and Islamabad. The inclusion of Iran’s role demonstrates the authors’ broader regional lens and their understanding of evolving multipolar dynamics. Similarly, China’s predictable alignment with Pakistan is described as part of its long-term strategic calculus, anchored in the CPEC and wider regional ambitions.   Perhaps most compelling are the forward-looking scenarios the authors present. They warn of the potential for cross-border military escalation, proxy conflicts involving separatist groups, and even a reconfiguration of regional alignments, including possible shifts in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. The brief astutely observes that the Kashmir crisis may test the credibility of multilateral institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which appears increasingly paralyzed in the face of a direct confrontation between two of its major members.   In sum, this policy brief is a cogent and multifaceted analysis of a developing regional crisis with global repercussions. By combining factual reporting with geopolitical foresight, the authors provide not only a valuable resource for policymakers and analysts, but also a stark reminder of the enduring volatility of South Asia’s most intractable fault line.   Read on Paradigma.uz   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In early May, President Donald J. Trump announced the dismissal of White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong.   Background: Michael Waltz, 51, is a retired Green Beret officer with deployments in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. He has received numerous government commendations for bravery. Waltz previously served in the White House and the Pentagon and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. Alex Wong served in Trump’s first administration as Deputy Special Representative for North Korea.   The dismissal followed public revelations that Waltz had used unsecured communication channels while coordinating sensitive National Security Council discussions on covert operations. Another key factor was his unreserved support for Israel, including frequent contact with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and efforts to escalate military confrontation with Iran — actions that ran counter to Trump’s campaign promises to end wars rather than start new ones. The impact of Waltz’s removal was somewhat mitigated by his subsequent nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.   Secretary of State Marco Rubio has assumed the role of acting National Security Advisor. Rubio reportedly earned the President’s trust through his deference, unwavering loyalty, and frequent informal weekend visits to Trump for off-the-record consultations.   One of the leading contenders to permanently replace Waltz is Trump’s longtime golf partner and confidant, Steven Witkoff. Despite lacking formal credentials in foreign policy, Witkoff enjoys unique access to the President and is simultaneously overseeing negotiations with Israel, Hamas, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran — an unusual concentration of responsibilities that has drawn sharp criticism within the State Department.   Another serious candidate for the post is Stephen Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff and the architect of Trump’s hardline immigration agenda. Miller, one of the President’s most trusted and long-standing aides, is currently pushing for the immediate deportation of undocumented migrants without judicial hearings. Insiders credit him with turning the Homeland Security Council into a highly efficient apparatus, “outperforming the National Security Council despite having a fraction of the staff”. Given Trump’s preference for consolidating power among a narrow circle of loyalists, it is possible that Miller — like Rubio — may be tasked with holding multiple senior roles simultaneously.   These changes at the helm of national security come at a politically delicate moment. According to Washington insiders, Waltz’s departure was in part the result of a simmering feud within the Trump Administration that dates back to the start of his second term. At the heart of this struggle are two camps: foreign policy hawks like Waltz, often referred to as neoconservatives, and allies of Vice President J. D. Vance, associated with a neo-isolationist outlook. While these labels simplify a more complex internal dynamic, they provide a useful framework for understanding the evolving power structure.   The defining feature of Trump’s second term has been the outward display of loyalty among his inner circle. Yet beneath this façade lies a tripartite power struggle. The first faction comprises committed “America First” ideologues, skeptical of entangling alliances and eager to reduce U.S. military and economic burdens abroad. This group includes Vice President Vance and Donald Trump Jr., who has stepped into the informal advisory role once held by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Right-wing commentator Laura Loomer serves as the public voice of this faction and is reportedly influential enough to have prompted the recent ousting of NSA (electronic intelligence) Director Howe.   The second group is made up of traditional Republican internationalists and neoconservatives. Waltz was a prominent member, along with Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Despite holding high office, this faction’s sway over Trump appears to be waning.   The third, and arguably most influential faction, consists of a circle of billionaire allies — Trump’s personal oligarchy. At the forefront is Steven Witkoff, joined by Steve Bessent and Howard Lutnick, who serve as Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce respectively, as well as Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency.   Although this triad has thus far held together, internal tensions are becoming increasingly visible. Waltz’s removal was catalyzed by an op-ed in the Trump-aligned New York Post titled: “Steven Witkoff Should Not Be Negotiating with Iran and Russia, Say Allies and Insiders”. The piece quoted an anonymous former Trump aide who described Witkoff as “a good guy but a bumbling fool”. It also featured criticism from two analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank, who expressed doubts about Witkoff’s suitability for high-stakes negotiations with Iran.   The article prompted a swift rebuttal from Trump allies. Charlie Kirk, a prominent MAGA media figure and frequent companion of Donald Trump Jr., tweeted: “The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is leading the charge against Steven Witkoff. They are openly encouraging officials to sabotage President Trump’s efforts and derail the Iran deal. Anyone opposing Witkoff is opposing MAGA”.   These internal fissures are emerging at a time when the Trump Administration is pursuing peace accords with Iran and Russia, while trying to reassure close allies in Israel, Ukraine, and Europe. Waltz, and now Rubio, represented the continuity of traditional Republican foreign policy. But in today’s White House, President Trump remains the sole axis of authority.   This week, Trump toughened his stance on Russia by signing a new security agreement with Ukraine. While signaling a desire to end the war and revisit U.S.–Russia economic ties, Trump warned that sanctions against Moscow would follow unless President Vladimir Putin engaged in serious negotiations. He has also hinted at targeting Russia’s banking sector or imposing so-called secondary sanctions.   Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed Trump’s tougher rhetoric, revealing that he had secured the support of 72 senators for a bipartisan bill imposing “crippling” sanctions should Putin fail to enter meaningful peace talks. The legislation proposes a 500% tariff on imports from any country that buys Russian oil, gas, or uranium. If endorsed by the White House, the bill will advance to a Senate vote.   In conclusion, the recent reshuffling of national security leadership reflects more than just personnel changes; it reveals deep ideological rifts within the Trump Administration. The power struggle between proponents of aggressive foreign engagement and advocates of strategic restraint underscores the fragility of internal decision-making structures. As external pressures mount, this fragmentation may hinder the development of a coherent national security strategy — posing growing risks for the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy.   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

Nargiza Umarova’s new publication presents a comprehensive examination of the evolving role of Afghanistan as a potential transit hub within the emerging transcontinental trade architecture. Under the Taliban’s stewardship, Afghan authorities have embraced a pragmatic and assertive approach toward infrastructure development, with an emphasis on regional connectivity. She highlights how key regional actors — particularly Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran — are revitalizing or expanding ambitious railway projects that pass-through Afghan territory, in pursuit of more direct access to South Asian and global markets. The Termez–Mazar-i-Sharif–Kabul–Peshawar railway (the Kabul Corridor) and the western Kandahar route emerge as key arteries in these plans.   The author underscores Uzbekistan’s leading role in spearheading initiatives such as the Kabul Corridor, positioning itself as a linchpin in Central Asia’s drive toward diversified trade routes. Turkmenistan’s collaboration with Kazakhstan on a parallel western corridor and Iran’s push to complete the Khaf–Herat and Zahedan–Zaranj lines demonstrate how multiple regional actors are converging on Afghanistan as a conduit for economic integration. Importantly, Umarova details the proposed Five Nation Road — linking Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China — which could significantly alter the current logistics map of Eurasia. The article also notes that Iran seeks to use Afghan routes to access China’s Xinjiang via the Wakhan Corridor, though this remains more aspirational than imminent.   Russia’s entry into the equation adds a strategic layer to the growing complexity. The Kremlin’s interest in linking Afghanistan to the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC) via new railways is particularly significant. Russian initiatives through both the eastern and western Afghan railway routes, in cooperation with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, reflect Moscow’s intent to tap into the southward logistics flow to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean. However, the expert rightly notes the lack of confirmation from Uzbekistan Railways, suggesting that while high-level political support exists, implementation details remain unsettled.   Toward the conclusion, Nargiza Umarova engages with the broader strategic calculus, arguing that security concerns, particularly along the Pakistan route, may shift regional preferences from the Kabul Corridor to the longer but potentially more stable Kandahar route. She also emphasizes that without regional coordination, the multiplicity of competing projects could lead to fragmented infrastructure development. Harmonization and joint investment, especially from Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, are framed as prerequisites for success. The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: if the stakeholders manage to coordinate their efforts effectively, Afghanistan could transform from a landlocked conflict zone into a vital logistics corridor connecting Eurasia’s heartland to global trade routes.   Read on Bourse & Bazaar Foundation’s website   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In his latest policy brief, Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov presents a layered analysis of Washington’s shifting strategies toward Afghanistan following the return of the Taliban to power. He outlines four key stages in U.S. policy — ranging from counterterrorism to political disengagement and direct engagement — underscoring the lack of a coherent long-term vision. This phase reflected Washington’s continued prioritisation of national security concerns over broader engagement.   The second stage was marked by strategic disengagement, as the United States distanced itself from Afghanistan’s internal politics and ceased involvement in infrastructure projects such as TAPI and CASA-1000. The Trump administration’s role, however, introduced a dual-track policy — partly rhetorical, in line with the MAGA campaign narrative, and partly strategic, with direct contacts initiated with Taliban representatives by mid-2020. This shift demonstrated an awareness of Afghanistan’s enduring geopolitical significance, especially in the context of U.S. competition with China.   As Dr. Gafarov observes, the current U.S. approach combines rhetorical condemnation of the Taliban’s human rights abuses with pragmatic engagement, including the recent release of an American hostage after high-level contacts with Taliban officials. These moves indicate a nuanced recalibration of policy, driven partly by China’s growing presence in Afghanistan and the urgency of reasserting U.S. influence in a strategically pivotal region. The Taliban, for their part, demand parity in negotiations, rejecting both the return of U.S. equipment and the conditional release of frozen Afghan assets — signalling their intent to frame themselves as sovereign actors rather than subordinates.   In examining future scenarios, the author identifies two potential directions: a wait-and-see policy banking on internal shifts within the Taliban (particularly favouring the more pragmatic Sirajuddin Haqqani over the ideologically rigid Akhundzada), or the use of economic levers such as Afghanistan’s frozen assets to counter Chinese encroachment. Both scenarios highlight the instrumental role of Afghanistan in wider geopolitical rivalries, especially between the United States and China. Notably, the recent U.S. cancellation of the bounty on Haqqani may hint at a selective engagement strategy favouring more pliable Taliban factions.   Finally, Uzbekistan emerges in his analysis as a key mediator in restoring U.S.-Taliban relations. Given Tashkent’s strategic ties with both Washington and Kabul, its neutral stance, and its past cooperation on military logistics, Uzbekistan could provide a valuable bridge for diplomatic re-engagement. Shared views on regional stability, coupled with Uzbekistan’s proximity and influence in Afghanistan, strengthen this possibility. Overall, Dr. Gafarov concludes that the erratic evolution of U.S. policy reflects not only the complexities of Taliban rule but also Washington’s broader struggle to reconcile normative commitments with geostrategic imperatives.   Read on Kun.uz   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

The first issue of the scientific and technical journal Uzbekistan Oil and Gas 2025 features an article on the Centre for Energy Diplomacy and Geopolitics of the Institute of Advanced International Studies (IASI) at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED). This publication notes the growing importance of energy diplomacy in global politics and highlights the Centre’s contribution to the scientific understanding of current trends in this area.   The article focuses on key areas of the Centre’s work, including analysis of the energy strategies of the world’s leading powers, the prospects for transnational cooperation in the energy sector, and the impact of global energy processes on the economies and policies of Central Asian countries. The material pays special attention to energy security, sustainable development and Uzbekistan’s role in international energy initiatives.   It is noted that IAIS Centre for Energy Diplomacy and Geopolitics is an important scientific and analytical platform contributing to the development of strategic recommendations for policy makers and energy experts. The research highlights the geo-economic aspects of energy co-operation, including infrastructure development, energy transit issues and geopolitical challenges in this area.   Publication in Uzbekistan’s leading core journal is a sign of recognition of the importance of scientific research in the field of energy diplomacy. The Uzbekistan Oil and Gas journal, established by Uzbekneftegaz JSC, is the only specialised publication covering the country’s oil and gas industry, and its authority in the professional environment underlines the significance of the published material.   In addition to expanding the scientific discourse on global energy geopolitics, the journal contributes to the formation of an expert dialogue between research structures, industrial enterprises and the government sector.

The policy brief, co-authored by Mushtariy Usmonova and Fazliddin Djamalov, provides a comprehensive analysis of the upcoming EU-Central Asia Summit. The authors highlight the summit as a crucial event in strengthening ties between the European Union and the Central Asian states, building on past engagements such as the 2023 meeting in Cholpon-Ata. The piece underscores the significance of the EU’s Global Gateway strategy in fostering economic and infrastructural cooperation while positioning the EU as a key partner for the region amid global challenges.   The historical context of EU-Central Asia relations is examined, tracing back to the Silk Road era and evolving through post-Soviet engagements such as the TACIS programme and the EU Strategy for Central Asia. The article outlines the strategic importance of trade and investment, citing that EU-Central Asia trade is expected to surpass €54 billion by the end of 2024, with the EU being a major investor in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and technology. The authors highlight key recent agreements, including a €3 million deal on critical raw materials and a €20 million investment grant to Tajikistan’s power grid modernisation, reflecting Europe’s commitment to economic sustainability in the region.   A major focus is placed on infrastructure and connectivity, particularly the EU’s support for the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), where €10 billion has been pledged to enhance regional transit links. The article also discusses the geopolitical complexities of EU engagement, including the challenges posed by sanctions on Russia and strategic competition with China. Additionally, the role of cultural and educational exchanges, such as the Erasmus+ programme and EU-funded language centres, is emphasised as a means to foster long-term cooperation.   The publication underscores the summit as a pivotal moment for advancing EU-Central Asia relations, both in economic and socio-cultural dimensions. The agreements and initiatives expected from the meeting are portrayed as key steps toward ensuring regional stability and deeper integration with the EU. By addressing economic development, infrastructure, and cultural cooperation, the article argues that the summit will elevate the partnership to a new level of enhanced and targeted collaboration.   Read on uwed.uz   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.