Struck

Hotel in Iraqi capital Baghdad struck as attacks on US embassy intercepted | Conflict News

No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which took place amid the escalating Israel-US war on Iran.

A prominent hotel in central Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone was struck by a drone, amid reports that Iraqi air defences intercepted an attack over the United States Embassy.

The strike on Monday evening hit the top floor of Al-Rasheed Hotel, causing damage but no casualties, according to two Iraqi security officials cited by The Associated Press (AP) news agency.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Security sources told the Reuters news agency that two Katyusha rockets had been intercepted that evening near the US Embassy in the Green Zone, which houses diplomatic missions as well as international institutions and government offices.

Earlier Monday, the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah announced that Abu Ali Al-Askari, a prominent security official with the paramilitary group, had been killed, without giving details on the circumstances.

Kataib Hezbollah is one of the largest groups in the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) operating in Iran, which was founded in 2014 to stop lightning advances by ISIL (ISIS).

On the same day, AP reported that six PMF fighters were killed in a strike on a checkpoint in western Iraq’s Anbar province, and two others were killed in a separate strike on the headquarters of a PMF brigade in the same area.

Two Iraqi security officials told AP that the Majnoon oilfield in Iraq’s southern Basra province was targeted by two drones. No casualties were reported, and it was not immediately clear if there was damage to the facilities.

Iraq’s oil industry has been severely impacted by the US and Israel’s war on Iran and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil trading corridor.

Iraqi Minister of Oil Hayan Abdul-Ghani said in a video statement on Monday that a pipeline from the northern city of Kirkuk to Turkiye would be operational within a week, allowing the country to resume its oil exports, which have been interrupted by the ongoing war.

Also on Monday, air defences intercepted and shot down a drone near Erbil airport in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, according to security sources.

Source link

From Ally to Adversary: Why Pakistan Struck the Afghan Taliban

For decades, Pakistan was the Afghan Taliban’s closest supporter. Islamabad helped the Taliban rise in the early 1990s, seeking “strategic depth” in its rivalry with India. Pakistan welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, with then-Prime Minister Imran Khan describing it as Afghans “breaking the shackles of slavery.”

However, the alliance soon frayed. Islamabad found the Taliban less cooperative than anticipated, particularly regarding insurgent groups that targeted Pakistani territory. Border clashes, insurgent attacks, and fragile ceasefires have repeatedly disrupted trade, security, and civilian life along the rugged frontier.

Escalating Tensions: From Ceasefires to “Open War”

Tensions have been mounting since late 2025, following deadly cross-border clashes in October that killed dozens of soldiers. Ceasefires mediated by Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia temporarily eased the situation, but attacks persisted.

The latest escalation came after Pakistan cited “irrefutable evidence” that Afghan-based militants were behind recent attacks and suicide bombings targeting Pakistani forces. Air and ground strikes targeted Taliban posts, headquarters, and ammunition depots in multiple sectors, with both sides reporting heavy losses. Pakistan’s defence minister labeled the situation an “open war.”

The Trigger: Attacks by Afghan-Based Militants

Pakistani security sources linked several recent attacks to militants operating from Afghan territory. These include seven incidents since late 2024, the most deadly being the Bajaur district attack that killed 11 security personnel and two civilians, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad argues that Taliban inaction allowed the TTP and Baloch insurgents to operate freely, while Kabul denies the allegations.

Who Are the Pakistani Taliban?

The TTP, formed in 2007, is a coalition of militant groups mainly active in northwest Pakistan. It has carried out attacks on markets, mosques, airports, military bases, and police stations, occasionally gaining territory along the Afghan border and deep inside Pakistan. Its most notorious act was the 2012 attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, who later received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The TTP has historically fought alongside the Afghan Taliban against U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan and used Pakistani territory as a base for operations. Pakistan’s previous military offensives against the group, including the 2016 operation, temporarily reduced attacks but did not eliminate the threat.

Diverging Interests: Pakistan vs. Afghan Taliban

Historically, Pakistan’s support for the Taliban was based on shared strategic interests. Today, those interests are diverging:

  • Pakistan’s Perspective: Taliban inaction against TTP and Baloch insurgents threatens Pakistan’s internal security. The continued use of Afghan territory as a safe haven fuels Islamabad’s justification for strikes.
  • Afghan Taliban Perspective: Pakistan allegedly harbors fighters from Islamic State

Analysis

Pakistan’s sudden escalation against the Afghan Taliban is a striking example of how strategic calculations can shift dramatically when security threats directly affect domestic stability. Historically, Islamabad viewed the Taliban as a partner a way to secure influence in Afghanistan and counterbalance India. Today, that calculation has reversed: the Taliban are now seen as enabling militants who attack Pakistani territory, undermining the very national security Pakistan sought to protect.

From my perspective, this is as much about perception as capability. Pakistan’s frustration reflects not just the TTP threat, but the Taliban’s unwillingness or inability to control insurgent groups. Even if the Taliban are technically powerless to fully rein in these groups, Islamabad interprets every attack as a breach of trust, eroding decades of strategic alignment.

Another important dimension is geography and asymmetric warfare. Despite Pakistan’s overwhelming conventional advantage its larger military, air force, and nuclear arsenal the border region’s terrain favors smaller, agile forces like the Taliban. History shows that superior firepower does not always translate into quick resolutions in insurgency-heavy zones, and repeated airstrikes may inflame, rather than contain, cross-border tensions.

This conflict also signals that Pakistan’s security calculus is increasingly domestic-focused. While in the past its Afghan strategy prioritized influence over immediate risk management, the TTP’s growing attacks within Pakistan have shifted the priority toward internal stability. From this angle, the strikes are a defensive measure designed to project strength and send a warning to the Taliban that safe havens for insurgents will no longer be tolerated.

Finally, the regional implications are worrying. Repeated clashes threaten civilian populations, disrupt trade, and could destabilize Afghanistan’s already fragile governance structures. Mediation by third parties may temporarily ease hostilities, but without long-term mechanisms to hold both sides accountable, the cycle of violence is likely to continue.

In short, Pakistan’s attack reflects the intersection of historical strategy, modern security threats, and the practical limits of alliances. It highlights that even long-standing partnerships are fragile when domestic security imperatives collide with regional politics—and that conventional power advantages may not guarantee quick solutions in border conflicts dominated by asymmetric warfare.

With information from Reuters.

Source link