In the ongoing Iran war, Russia, the Eurasian superpower, and China, the Asian superpower, have disapproved of American armed intervention in the Iran–Israel war. Their pro-Iranian policy is in line with their anti-imperialist stance since the beginning of the Cold War era. We may recall the warning President Trump once issued to Iran, declaring that if the regime continued shooting and executing civilians, the US would take steps to prevent it in accordance with the Human Rights Charter. If Russia and China had reacted judiciously and without prejudice to the Iranian theocracy’s treatment of its own people, particularly the women, the political scenario in the Gulf and West Asia might be different today. They avoided condemning the regime’s crimes and expressed appreciation for Tehran standing up to the US pressures.
The Afghan Taliban kept fighting against the American ground forces for nearly two decades. How many precious sacrifices did they have to make to throw out the occupational forces from their land? Very few countries expressed appreciation for the Taliban’s heroic fight to free their country.
The US eyes Bagram.
President Trump wants to recapture the highly strategic Bagram airport in Afghanistan. That shows Trump has learned nothing from America’s twenty-year-long war against the Taliban, which finally ended with its disastrous withdrawal from the Afghan scene.
In the aftermath of the Taliban victory over the American and NATO forces on August 15, 2021, Pakistan felt insulted by the Taliban’s refusal to accept Islamabad’s hegemony. The chagrined Pakistan adopted a belligerent posture against the Kabul regime under two pretexts. One was the allegation that the Kabul regime shields the TTP rogue elements, and the second was that the Taliban refuse to recognise the infamous Durand Line border with Afghanistan. Kabul rejected Pakistan’s assertions.
This provided Pakistan army planners a reason to trigger cross-border skirmishes in which there were fatalities on both sides. Violent firing and killings in these border clashes took place. In the meantime, as the Iran war was escalating into naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump demonstrated his appreciation for the Pakistani army chief, whom he entertained over lunch in the White House and with whom he also had lengthy private meetings. What was talked about is not known to us, but at that time Trump was mulling the recapture of the strategic Bagram air base in Afghanistan. He believed the control of said base would facilitate US surveillance of Russia’s military activities in Central Asia and of China’s military deployment along the Himalayan belt.
The Pakistani air force would not have struck, first some targets in Paktia province, and then certain spots in Kabul without taking the Pentagon on board. Obviously, it suited Trump’s scheme of things to covertly encourage the Pakistani army chief to weaken Afghanistan, something he thinks would make it easy for him to seize Bagram airport. Afghans have vowed to reject the Durand Line and fight the Pakistanis. Incidentally, India proved her friendship with the people of Afghanistan at that crucial time.
None among the 53-member states of the OIC uttered a word of concern over the Pakistan air force bombarding Kabul. The Iranian regime only expressed concern about regional insecurity. The Shia theocratic dispensation in Tehran appear sto find Pakistan’s military regime preferable to the Afghan dispensation.
Afghanistan: crisis in the making
The crisis involving the Strait of Hormuz is viewed mainly in terms of energy security or military escalation. However, its spreadand adverse impact on humanitarian dimensions has not been highlighted. In a recent article, The Guardian has “called for a humanitarian corridor through the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war hits vital aid.” The paper highlights that because of instability around the vital channel, traditional humanitarian supply routes are beginning to break down. Afghanistan is becoming a victim of conflicting interests in the Gulf.
Citing the World Food Programme (WFP), The Guardian writes that the cost of delivering food to Afghanistan has tripled. Cargo that previously moved through Hormuz and onwards to Pakistan ports must now travel overland across multiple countries, which means adding weeks to the delivery schedule. This has adverse consequences for the vulnerable population, especially children. Some shipments are stranded in regional hubs. Land-locked countries like Afghanistan, depending on imports of food grains and other necessary provisions and humanitarian assistance, are conditioned by predictability. As long as the situation in the Gulf remains in the doldrums, no guarantee or predictability can work. Routes are changing; fuel cost continues to rise. Even a modest rise in oil prices significantly raises operational expenses for humanitarian agencies.
According to the estimates made by the United Nations, “around 3.7 million Afghan children are currently suffering from wasting, nearly one million of them from severe wasting, a condition associated with sharply elevated mortality risk.”
UNICEF estimates that in 2026 alone, 1.304 million pregnant and breastfeeding women are also suffering from acute malnutrition. Evidently, even temporary disruptions in aid deliveries pose a direct threat to human life. It is nothing short of a crisis for humanitarian logistics. Pakistan has sealed its borders with Afghanistan. Chabahar port, which India used for the transhipment of food grains, medicines and other necessities to the landlocked country, is in a state of limbo in view of the militarisation of Hormuz.
Chabahar Port is geographically positioned to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, offering a potential alternative for India-Afghanistan trade, but its functionality is currently hindered by intense geopolitical and legal challenges. While designed to operate outside the Strait, the port faces a “functional block” owing to tightened US sanctions against Iran and heightened regional military tension, making it a “delicate” alternative rather than a clean workaround, according to maritime security analysts.
The situation is compounded by several overlapping factors. First, instability around the Strait of Hormuz has made maritime routes both more expensive and riskier. Second, the Pakistani corridor, previously the main overland route, has become unreliable, as repeated border closures and restrictions have tied humanitarian deliveries to the fluctuating political and security relationship between Kabul and Islamabad. Third, Iran has imposed restrictions on food exports and has itself become part of the conflict zone, undermining its role as both a supplier and transit route for Afghanistan.
The Alternative
Realising the critical food situation in Afghanistan, the WFP is restructuring its logistics network. One solution under consideration is the increased use of the Lapis Lazuli Corridor: Turkey – Georgia – Azerbaijan via the Caspian Sea – Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. It is a long, more expensive and time-consuming route. But it offers predictability and an alternative to a disrupted maritime pathway. The WFP does not consider which route is cheaper, but which one is more reliable.
Should this option be accepted, naturally, the centre of regional humanitarian logistics shifts to Central Asia. The overland routes to Afghanistan through Central Asia were seen as a secondary option. It was not comparable with maritime shipping in terms of speed and cost. But in given circumstances, reliability is given more importance than speed. The corridors through Central Asia are now looking less like alternatives and more like necessities.
Interestingly, the Central Asian region possesses much of the infrastructure needed to support humanitarian transit. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan both have ports on the Caspian, which can provide multimodal transport connections. Rail networks link Central Asia with Afghanistan through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The city of Termez in Uzbekistan has long served as a key logistical hub for northern Afghanistan.
The redeeming factor is that the Central Asian states are not involved in the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. This gives them space to become more practical partners for international organisations. The infrastructure is there, and what is needed is adaptation and expansion. Regional roles are emerging. Kazakhstan can serve as a northern entry point via the Caspian and rail corridors connected to China. Uzbekistan may become the principal overland hub through which humanitarian aid enters Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan offers the shortest route into the West of that country. The UN Regional Centre for the Sustainable Development Goals for Central Asia in Almaty could take on increased significance and become the nodal point for systematising the Afghanistan–Central Asian connectivity mission.
Add comment