tensions

Islamabad, Pakistan — More than 16 months after India and Pakistan fought a four-day air war, firing missiles and drones at each other, the South Asian neighbours came the closest since then to a military face-off — this time in the Arabian Sea.

Indian and Pakistani naval vessels collided on Tuesday, setting off tit-for-tat accusations. Pakistan’s government summoned India’s top diplomat in Islamabad on Wednesday, mirroring action New Delhi had taken hours earlier when it summoned Pakistan’s charge d’affaires and lodged a protest of its own over the incident.

The collision is the first direct military encounter between the nuclear-armed neighbours since their four-day conflict in May 2025, when Indian air strikes and Pakistani retaliation brought both countries closer to full-scale war than at any point in decades.

So far, details of what happened remain disputed. Neither government has released video, track data or an independent account – and each statement places the blame on the other’s vessel.

But analysts say it underscored the risks of unintended incidents in the seas that could potentially escalate into broader crises, when India and Pakistan have few military and diplomatic mechanisms left in place to defuse tensions.

Two accounts

According to Pakistan’s Foreign Office statement issued on Wednesday evening, the navy has been conducting its biennial SEASPARK-26 exercise inside its exclusive economic zone since September 1 .

A country’s EEZ extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coast. Its territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles (22km) from the coast, with the rest of the EEZ in international waters. While vessels from other countries can pass through a nation’s EEZ in international waters unencumbered, they cannot exploit the waters economically: that right belongs only to the country whose EEZ it is.

Pakistan said that an Indian vessel, identified as the guided-missile destroyer INS Kolkata, had “repeatedly” tried to enter the exercise area since September 7 .

On September 15 , it said, Kolkata made a “dangerous” change of course that brought it into contact with a Pakistani vessel identified in local media as PNS Hunain, an offshore patrol vessel.

“Pakistan strongly rejects this belligerent Indian action,” the Pakistani Foreign Office said, calling it a violation of a 1991 bilateral agreement requiring warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.5km, 3.4 miles) apart in international waters.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said the warship was on “routine surveillance” in international waters when a Pakistani vessel approached at high speed and manoeuvred unsafely.

Neither government has named the vessels in its own on-record statement, and India has not confirmed or denied the Kolkata identification.

The two navies last collided in June 2011, when Pakistani frigate PNS Babur brushed against Indian frigate INS Godavari in the Gulf of Aden, while escorting a merchant vessel freed from Somali pirates.

Each side blamed the other then too. That row faded within weeks.

The risks

Retired Vice Admiral Ahmad Saeed of the Pakistan Navy said the pattern — two ships pressing close without a clear intent to collide — was familiar from Cold War-era “bumping” incidents between Soviet and US ships in the Black Sea.

But he argued that India and Pakistan are worse placed to manage similar encounters.

“There’s no bilateral Incidents at Sea agreement, the kind the US and USSR signed in 1972, and no navy-to-navy hotline,” Saeed told Al Jazeera. “Article 10 sets a distance, but it gives no manoeuvring rules and no procedure for investigating an incident afterwards. That gap is exactly why each side can just accuse the other.”

Article 10 of the 1991 confidence-building agreement between the two nations requires warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.6km, 3.5 miles) apart in international waters.

Saeed said the greater risk was what might follow the collision: sharper tactics such as fire-control radar lock-ons or helicopter overflights and eventually “a contact with actual casualties.”

Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based security and maritime analyst, however, pointed to the same 1991 agreement, which he said requires 30 days’ written notice before a military exercise, as well as international collision regulations that apply to both countries as signatories to the UN maritime convention.

“If this collision really had the potential to escalate militarily, you’d have noticed by now,” Qazi said. “There’s a tool for that, called chaff, fired just above the bow or stern purely to signal you could escalate if needed. Nothing like that happened here.”

Both navies also have their own internal accountability channels, he added, with a captain found to have acted without authorisation facing a court martial process separate from any diplomatic protest.

On fishermen routinely detained for straying across the Sir Creek boundary, which is not demarcated between India and Pakistan further south, Qazi said the link to incidents further out at sea was indirect but real.

“Clear demarcation could help close those ambiguities over time, by reducing the ambiguity around where and how these interactions are expected to occur,” he added.

Saeed was more cautious about how contained an incident like this would remain.

“This hasn’t stayed quiet. Both governments went public with protests within a day of each other,” he said, adding that what made the moment riskier than 2011 was that “both publics are primed after last year’s conflict, which was not the case in 2011.”

Similar close-quarters confrontations have become more frequent between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

In the most recent flare-up, on July 24 , Philippine officials said a Chinese vessel came within about seven metres (23 feet) of a Philippine fisheries boat near Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine-claimed reef that China has controlled since 2012, and that Chinese coast guard ships fired water cannon at Philippine vessels.

Whether this week’s collision follows that pattern or fades like the 2011 incident depends less on the ships than on what comes next diplomatically, Qazi said.

“If, in the next 24 to 48 hours, an official statement suggests there was a genuine cause to manufacture an incident for the purpose of escalation, then yes, there may be a real possibility of this happening again,” he added.

BEIJING: Oil prices jumped more than two percent on Monday, after new Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia and Iranian attacks on ships in the Gulf compounded supply concerns following the closure of a key Saudi oil pipeline.

Brent crude futures rose $2.90, or 2.77 percent, to $107.51 per barrel as of 2313 GMT. WTI futures rose $2.27, or 2.27 percent, to $102.32 per barrel. Prices had initially risen more than ‌3 percent at market ‌open.

Saudi Arabian state media on Sunday released ​video ‌footage of ⁠damage to ​homes ⁠and a mosque from what it said was a Houthi attack on the country’s southern Jazan province. The Houthis said they had also struck a Saudi military base in a neighboring province.

A vessel in the Strait of Hormuz was struck by a projectile, causing a fire and forcing the crew to be evacuated, the British maritime security agency UKMTO said on Sunday.

Iran said one person was killed ⁠and four crew wounded aboard an Iranian commercial vessel struck ‌off its coast.

Oil prices had been ‌expected to rise on Monday amid growing concerns about ​risks to supply from Saudi Arabia, ‌the world’s largest oil exporter, whose East-West oil pipeline was shut on Friday ‌by a drone strike that originated in Iraq.

The loss of the pipeline, which helped Saudi Arabia re-route its exports avoiding the Strait of Hormuz, threatens up to 4 percent of global oil supply.

Meanwhile, Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis had reached the strategic island of Perim on ‌Friday, moving to tighten their control over the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, another key oil transit lane that has been shipping ⁠4-5 percent of ⁠global supply in recent months.

Oil surged 8 percent higher on the week due to the disruptions, rising above $100 for the first time since July.

“Looking ahead, unless this week’s talks in Oman produce something operational — or the East-West pipeline is brought back online quickly — the risk is that crude oil continues to extend its gains toward the $119.48 high of early March,” IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note on Sunday.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X later on Sunday, however, that a scheduled Monday meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss the Strait of Hormuz had been postponed.

No peace talks ​have been held in the ​war, launched six months ago by the United States and Israel, since an interim agreement in June collapsed after a few weeks.

World War Two continues to shape relations between Russia, China, Taiwan and Japan, with competing interpretations of the conflict increasingly intersecting with present day geopolitical tensions.

The issue resurfaced last week when Russian diplomats in Taiwan screened a film about Japanese militarism and World War Two. The screening raised concerns in Taiwan that Moscow was helping Beijing promote a narrative of a rising Japanese military threat while also creating divisions between Taipei, Tokyo and their Western partners.

The disagreement reflects fundamentally different interpretations of who fought Japan, who ultimately defeated Japanese forces in East Asia and which governments have the right to claim that legacy.

What’s Happening

Russia’s presentation of Japan’s wartime history comes against the backdrop of its own unresolved dispute with Tokyo over territory captured at the end of World War Two.

Soviet forces entered the war in East Asia only during its final weeks, when the Red Army moved into Japanese occupied northeastern China. Soviet forces withdrew from most of the region in 1946 and transferred many captured Japanese weapons to Mao Zedong’s communist forces.

The Soviet Union quickly recognized Mao’s government after the People’s Republic of China was established in October 1949 following the communist victory over Chiang Kai shek’s Republic of China.

Soviet forces also seized four islands off Japan’s Hokkaido at the end of the war. Russia calls them part of the Kurils, while Japan refers to them as the Northern Territories. Moscow continues to control the islands.

Russia and Japan have never signed a formal World War Two peace treaty, with the territorial dispute remaining a major obstacle.

China’s View of World War Two

Beijing presents the history of the war as a central part of China’s national narrative.

The Chinese government says China sacrificed 35 million people during its struggle against Japan, which Beijing dates back to Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria.

China officially refers to the conflict as the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and describes World War Two as the World Anti Fascist War.

Beijing argues that China and the Soviet Union were the mainstays of resistance against Japan and Germany, while Chinese communist guerrilla forces formed the backbone of the resistance inside China.

This interpretation gives the wartime struggle an important role in China’s broader political narrative and its portrayal of Japan’s contemporary military posture.

Taiwan’s View

Taiwan strongly disputes Beijing’s interpretation.

Taiwan’s government argues that the People’s Republic of China cannot claim credit for a war fought before the PRC was established in 1949.

During World War Two, the Republic of China under Chiang Kai shek was China’s government, while Taiwan itself was under Japanese colonial rule. Republican forces carried out much of the fighting against Japan.

The Chinese civil war was temporarily suspended during the conflict as Chiang’s forces and Mao’s communists formed an uneasy alliance against Japan.

Taiwan also points to the formal Japanese surrender at the end of the war. The Republic of China, represented by Chiang’s government, signed the surrender alongside the other Allied powers, including the Soviet Union.

From Taipei’s perspective, Mao’s communist forces used the war to strengthen themselves and subsequently benefited from the civil war that resumed after Japan’s defeat.

Why It Matters

The competing historical narratives are not simply disagreements about the past. They influence how the governments involved portray present day security threats and diplomatic relationships.

For China, Japan’s wartime history remains an important element of its criticism of Japanese military development. For Taiwan, however, Beijing’s use of that history is also connected to its claim over Taiwan and its attempt to define the historical legitimacy of the Chinese state.

Russia’s involvement adds another layer because Moscow has its own unresolved territorial dispute with Japan stemming directly from the final stages of World War Two.

The screening of a film about Japanese militarism in Taiwan therefore carries significance beyond historical commemoration. Taipei sees the issue through the lens of its current relations with Japan and the West, while Russia and China share interests in challenging what they portray as a resurgence of Japanese military power.

Key Stakeholders

Russia retains control of the disputed islands off Hokkaido and has never concluded a formal World War Two peace treaty with Japan.

China presents itself as a central force in the wartime resistance against Japan and emphasizes the enormous Chinese sacrifice during the conflict.

Taiwan argues that the Republic of China, rather than the People’s Republic of China, represented China during World War Two and carried out much of the fighting against Japan.

Japan remains directly affected by the competing historical narratives, particularly because of its territorial dispute with Russia and its increasingly important relationship with Taiwan.

What’s Next

The dispute over World War Two history is likely to remain intertwined with current tensions in East Asia.

For Taiwan, the concern is that Russia and China could use wartime history to portray Japan as an emerging military threat and undermine Taipei’s growing ties with Tokyo and other Western partners.

For Japan, historical disputes remain connected to its relationships with both Russia and China.

For Russia and China, emphasizing their wartime resistance against Japan provides a historical framework through which they can criticize what they see as a revival of Japanese military power.

Analysis

The significance of the dispute lies in how history is being used as a tool of contemporary geopolitics. The same war produces fundamentally different political narratives depending on which government is telling the story.

Beijing emphasizes China’s enormous wartime sacrifice and the role of communist forces. Taipei emphasizes the Republic of China’s role as the government that fought Japan and signed the Japanese surrender. Moscow emphasizes the Soviet Union’s final campaign against Japan and retains territory captured during that period.

These competing narratives matter because they provide historical legitimacy for present day political positions. As Japan strengthens its security relationships with Taiwan and Western partners, wartime memory can be used to frame those developments not simply as responses to current security concerns, but as part of a longer historical confrontation.

The dispute therefore shows how the legacy of World War Two remains an active element of East Asian power politics rather than simply a question of historical interpretation.

With information from Reuters.

Asian stocks fell on Monday as hawkish comments from Federal Reserve boss Kevin Warsh saw investors ramp up bets on a US interest rate hike, while oil prices spiked after a fresh flare-up in the US-Iran war.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

With inflation remaining stubbornly high – largely on the back of elevated energy costs – the US central bank has come under pressure to act, and Warsh’s refusal to provide guidance has stoked uncertainty.

But in a highly anticipated speech at the Jackson Hole symposium of central bankers and economists in Wyoming, he left traders with few doubts that he was ready to increase borrowing costs.

Warsh said: “We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do.”

He called the spike in inflation – currently at 3.7% and nearly double the Fed’s 2% target – “concerning”, and said he would be “hard-pressed” to describe current financial conditions as “restrictive”, a potential hint that rate hikes could be on the horizon.

However, he stopped short of saying he would support a hike, adding: “I stand here today committed to a discipline, not to a decision.”

All three main indexes on Wall Street fell Friday. Yields on short-term US Treasury bonds – which reflect monetary policy expectations – jumped, and the dollar rallied against its peers. Gold, which benefits from lower interest rates, fell.

And Asia followed suit, with tech firms – which rely on borrowing to fuel their huge AI investments – leading the way down.

Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei and Jakarta were all down, though Singapore and Wellington edged up.

Investors eye crucial data releases

Focus will now turn to a string of crucial data releases over the next two weeks before the Fed makes its decision, with jobs up this week and the consumer price index (CPI) next week.

“Should we get an inline payrolls print that does not give the Fed too much to work with, next week’s core CPI report will become the major decider for the market’s Fed belief system,” wrote Chris Weston at Pepperstone.

“The volatility priced around that outcome across rates, forex and equities could therefore be significant.”

Oil prices spike on US-Iran tensions

The Fed’s battle against inflation has been hobbled by the Iran war, which has pushed oil prices higher.

And after a run lower for most of last week, they spiked again on Monday, a day after the United States said it had attacked Iranian rocket launchers on a small island in the Strait of Hormuz, its first strikes on the country in a month.

The attack prompted Tehran to retaliate by hitting US military targets in Jordan. Both main crude contracts rose more than 2% on Monday.

The exchange came shortly after the US-Iran war hit the six-month mark, and at a time when hostilities had been subsiding.

The news revived concerns about the conflict, with attempts and peace talks appearing to be going nowhere and the strait – through which a fifth of global crude and gas passes – largely closed.

US officials this month vowed the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran to make it open the waterway.

“Hormuz is once again threatening to put a floor under oil just as Warsh is putting a ceiling on how much inflation patience markets should assume from the Fed,” said Quintex Intel’s Stephen Innes.

“For oil traders, (the) move is another reminder of how quickly the geopolitical premium can return.

“Physical flows through Hormuz have improved materially from their worst levels, which is precisely why crude had started giving back some of the fear premium, but the latest exchange shows how fragile that progress remains and how quickly the shipping story can be pushed back onto the trading desk.”

Additional sources • AFP

Khamenei urges Gulf rulers to confront their ‘real enemy’ as Iran keeps the Strait of Hormuz restricted amid stalled diplomacy.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has urged Gulf leaders to identify their “real enemy” and confront it, as Tehran maintains its hard line over the Strait of Hormuz, while regional mediators push for renewed diplomacy.

“My emphatic and repeated recommendation to the rulers of Islamic countries, especially the countries of West Asia and the Gulf, is to identify your real enemy, understand his plan and confront it,” Khamenei said in a message published on Sunday to mark the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.

Khamenei has not appeared publicly since the US-Israeli attacks on February 28 that killed his father and predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The message comes as the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which about 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed before the war, remains unresolved.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Saturday that Iran had reached an understanding with Oman on a temporary maritime route, but that its implementation would depend on the United States fulfilling its commitments under the memorandum of understanding the countries signed in mid-June, which has since lapsed.

“The Strait of Hormuz is closed,” Gharibabadi said, adding that any vessel seeking to cross would have to coordinate with Iran.

“Implementing this understanding requires the other side, particularly the US, to fulfil its commitments. Whenever these commitments are implemented, Iran will also take its measures,” he said.

Iran and Oman have been discussing a temporary joint shipping corridor and mine clearance, while Qatar and Pakistan have intensified mediation efforts. Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani visited Tehran on Thursday, where talks included de-escalation and restoring shipping through Hormuz.

Recorded transits through the strait remain low. The Reuters news agency, citing Kpler data, said seven commodity vessels crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, down from 17 a day earlier and below the 10-day average of 15.

The International Maritime Organization said on Friday that up to 400 ships carrying about 6,000 seafarers have been unable to leave the Gulf safely since the US-Israel war on Iran began.

“Renewed political will and cooperation is needed,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said, calling for practical measures to restore freedom of navigation through the strait.

The diplomatic push is unfolding alongside mounting economic pressure on Tehran. Iran’s annual inflation reached 66 percent last month, while President Masoud Pezeshkian said imports and exports had fallen nearly 35 percent because of US sanctions and the naval blockade.

Washington has also widened its sanctions campaign, targeting Iran-linked individuals and entities and moving to restrict the branches of Egypt’s Banque Misr bank in the United Arab Emirates from dollar transactions over alleged dealings with Tehran.

Despite the pressure, Tehran has shown no sign of yielding on Hormuz. Pezeshkian has instead called for reviving the June interim agreement with Washington.

“We can solve our problems and gain our privileges with the memorandum of understanding,” he said.