“Fewer Squadrons, Bigger Risks”-Can the Indian Air Force maintain air superiority with far fewer fighter jets than sanctioned? Indian Air Force (IAF) cannot maintain air superiority with a fighter jet fleet far below its sanctioned strength. The IAF is authorized to have 42.5 squadrons to effectively counter a two-front threat from China and Pakistan, but it currently operates with a significantly smaller number. This shortfall creates critical vulnerabilities, particularly as its aging fleet of jets is phased out. The Dangerous Shortfall- The IAF's squadron strength has plummeted to around 29-31 squadrons, the lowest it has been in decades. This is primarily due to the retirement of old, Soviet-era aircraft like the MiG-21 and MiG-27 without timely replacements. The IAF is set to retire its last two MiG-21 squadrons, a move that will further reduce its strength to near parity with the Pakistan Air Force, which has around 25 squadrons. This numerical disadvantage is a major concern. Ageing Fleet: The IAF's fleet is a mix of modern and aging aircraft. The backbone of its fleet, the Russian-origin Sukhoi Su-30MKI, is a capable platform, but many of its other jets, including the Mirage 2000s and Jaguars, are due for retirement in the coming decade. Slow Replacements: India's indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program has been plagued by delays, and the slow pace of production means it can't replace the retiring aircraft fast enough. The more advanced Tejas Mk1A, designed to be the backbone of the IAF, has also faced delays in production and delivery. Modernization and the Way Forward- Despite the challenges, the IAF has a clear roadmap for modernization and is investing heavily in a future-ready force. Next-Generation Aircraft: To address the immediate shortfall, India has acquired the Rafale from France, a highly advanced multirole fighter jet that provides a crucial technological edge. The IAF is also pursuing the Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) program to acquire 114 new fighter jets to bridge the gap. Force Multipliers: The IAF is also focusing on acquiring and developing "force multipliers," such as new mid-air refuelers and Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) systems, to enhance the combat effectiveness and range of its existing fleet. Indigenous Programs: For the long term, the IAF is banking on indigenous programs like the Tejas Mk2 and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation stealth fighter, to ensure long-term self-reliance and bridge the squadron gap. The IAF's ability to maintain air superiority will depend on its capacity to accelerate the induction of new jets. The current situation, with fewer squadrons and bigger risks, is unsustainable for a nation that faces a two-front threat. While the IAF's professionalism and training are top-notch, bravery alone cannot overcome a significant numerical disadvantage.

What is the role of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, or international NGOs, in shaping modern geopolitical landscapes? Non-state actors like multinational corporations (MNCs), terrorist organizations, and international NGOs play a crucial role in shaping modern geopolitics by operating outside of traditional government structures. They challenge the state-centric model of international relations by wielding significant economic, political, and social influence, often blurring the lines between domestic and international affairs. Their actions can either align with or oppose the interests of sovereign states, leading to both cooperation and conflict. Multinational Corporations (MNCs)- MNCs are powerful economic forces that influence geopolitics through their vast resources and global reach. Their primary role is driven by profit, but their operations have significant political consequences. Economic Leverage and Lobbying: MNCs use their immense financial power to lobby governments, shape trade agreements, and influence regulatory policies in both their home and host countries. Their investment and employment decisions can be critical to a nation's economy, giving them leverage over governments. For example, a corporation might threaten to pull a major factory out of a country to secure favorable tax laws or relaxed labor regulations. Corporate Diplomacy and Geopolitical Strategy: In an era of increasing geopolitical tension, MNCs engage in their own form of diplomacy, navigating sanctions, trade wars, and political instability. They can act as "diplomatic brokers" between nations or, conversely, become pawns in state-on-state rivalries, with their supply chains and assets used as leverage. Infrastructure and Technology: Many MNCs control critical global infrastructure, from telecommunications networks to energy pipelines, and dominate key technological sectors like social media and data services. This gives them power to influence information flows, set global standards, and even aid or hinder state security efforts. Terrorist Organizations- Terrorist organizations are non-state actors that use violence and fear to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. Their impact on geopolitics is significant and often destabilizing. Challenging State Sovereignty: Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS directly challenge the sovereignty of states by operating across borders, controlling territory, and imposing their will on local populations. This forces states to dedicate immense resources to counter-terrorism efforts, domestically and internationally. Shaping Foreign Policy: Terrorist attacks have been a major driver of foreign policy decisions for decades. The 9/11 attacks, for example, directly led to the US-led "War on Terror," which reshaped international alliances, led to military interventions in the Middle East, and resulted in a massive increase in global security cooperation. Catalyzing Regional Instability: By exploiting existing ethnic, religious, or political grievances, terrorist groups can exacerbate conflicts, destabilize entire regions, and create humanitarian crises. Their actions can draw external powers into regional conflicts, as seen in Syria and Yemen, complicating peace efforts and fueling proxy wars. International NGOs- International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) are often seen as a force for good, advocating for social and environmental causes. Their influence is rooted in their moral authority, expertise, and ability to mobilize public opinion. Advocacy and Norm-Setting: INGOs like Amnesty International or Greenpeace play a vital role in setting international norms and agendas on issues like human rights, climate change, and humanitarian aid. They can "name and shame" states for their actions, lobbying international bodies and mobilizing public campaigns to pressure governments into changing their policies. Service Provision and Information Gathering: Many NGOs, such as Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross, provide essential services in conflict zones and disaster-stricken areas where state capacity is lacking. They also act as important sources of information, providing a ground-level perspective on crises that can challenge or complement official state narratives. Filling Governance Gaps: In a world with complex transnational problems, NGOs often fill governance gaps left by states. They create networks of experts, civil society groups, and citizens to tackle issues like poverty, public health, and environmental degradation, often working in partnership with, but also holding accountable, governments and international organizations.

How are shifting alliances and power dynamics between major global players (e.g., the US, China, Russia, and the EU) impacting regional stability in various parts of the world? The shifting alliances and power dynamics between major global players are having a profound and complex impact on regional stability around the world. The traditional post-Cold War international order, often characterized by US hegemony, is being challenged by the rise of new or resurgent powers, creating a more multipolar and contested environment. This has led to a reshaping of alliances, increased competition, and a heightened risk of conflict in various parts of the globe. Here's a breakdown of how these dynamics are affecting regional stability: 1. The Indo-Pacific: US-China Rivalry- The rivalry between the United States and China is arguably the most significant geopolitical dynamic shaping the world today, with its impact most acutely felt in the Indo-Pacific. Formation of new alliances: The US has been strengthening its alliances and forming new ones to counter China's growing military and economic influence. Examples include the AUKUS security pact (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia). These alliances are seen by some as a necessary measure for collective security, while others view them as a source of increased tension and a potential trigger for conflict. Southeast Asia's "hedging" strategy: Countries in Southeast Asia find themselves in a precarious position. They are heavily dependent on China for trade and investment, while relying on the US for security and as a counterweight to Chinese assertiveness in areas like the South China Sea. This has led many to adopt a "hedging" strategy, seeking to engage with both powers without aligning exclusively with either. However, this balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult as pressure from both sides mounts. Economic and technological competition: The US-China rivalry extends beyond military matters into the economic and technological spheres. US tariffs on Chinese goods and bans on certain technologies have prompted companies to relocate their supply chains, with Southeast Asian nations often benefiting from the shift. However, this also creates new dependencies and vulnerabilities for these countries. 2. Europe and Eurasia: The Russia-Ukraine War and its Aftermath- Russia's invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape in Europe, and its ripple effects are being felt globally. NATO expansion and a more unified EU: The invasion has revitalized and expanded NATO, with previously neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining the alliance. This is a direct response to a perceived Russian threat. The European Union, once seen as struggling with a unified foreign policy, has also demonstrated greater cohesion in its response to Russia, imposing sanctions and providing support to Ukraine. Russia's alignment with China: In the face of Western sanctions and isolation, Russia has deepened its strategic partnership with China. This alignment, which includes economic and diplomatic cooperation, is a key component of the challenge to the US-led international order. For China, a strong relationship with Russia helps to divert US attention from the Indo-Pacific and provides a reliable source of energy. Impact on the Middle East: Russia has also expanded its influence in the Middle East, particularly through its military intervention in Syria. Moscow has cultivated relationships with a wide range of regional players, including Iran, Turkey, and Israel, often positioning itself as a pragmatic and non-ideological partner. This complicates US and EU foreign policy in the region and makes Russia an indispensable actor in addressing regional crises. 3. The Role of the European Union- The EU's role is complex, as it seeks to assert its own foreign policy while navigating its relationships with the other major powers. Seeking "strategic autonomy": The EU has been working to reduce its economic dependencies on both Russia (for energy) and China (for manufacturing and raw materials). This push for "strategic autonomy" is a direct response to the vulnerabilities exposed by the war in Ukraine and the growing US-China competition. Impact on its neighborhood: The EU's foreign policy is most evident in its "European Neighbourhood Policy," which aims to foster stability and prosperity in its neighboring regions to the east and south. This includes promoting democracy and human rights through trade agreements and financial aid. However, the effectiveness of this policy is often challenged by the competing influences of Russia and other regional actors. In summary, the shifting power dynamics between the US, China, Russia, and the EU are creating a more volatile and contested international environment. Regional stability is being impacted by the formation of new alliances, the intensification of great power competition, and the difficult balancing acts that smaller nations are forced to perform. This new era is marked by a heightened risk of interstate conflict and a reevaluation of the norms and institutions that have long underpinned the global order.

How does cyber fraud differ when done by a lone actor vs. someone hired by an organization or government? The nature of cyber fraud changes significantly depending on whether it's executed by a lone actor or as part of a larger organization or even sponsored by a government. The key differences lie in scale, sophistication, resources, motivation, targeting, and legal implications. 1. Lone Actor Cyber Fraud Characteristics: Motivation: Primarily personal financial gain (greed), thrill-seeking, ego, curiosity, or sometimes revenge against a specific entity. Rarely ideological or political in a broader sense. Scale: Typically smaller in scale and impact. Attacks might target individuals or small businesses. Losses per incident are generally lower, though cumulative losses can add up. Sophistication: Varies widely. Lower End: Often relies on readily available tools, leaked credentials, or basic social engineering (e.g., mass phishing campaigns using templates, simple online shopping scams, basic romance scams). May use "script kiddie" techniques. Higher End: A lone actor could be highly skilled and capable of exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities or developing custom malware, but this is less common for pure fraud and more for hacking/espionage. Resources: Limited to personal funds, skills, and tools. They lack the dedicated infrastructure, development teams, or financial backing of larger groups. Targets: Often opportunistic. They might cast a wide net (mass phishing) or target individuals they can easily manipulate (e.g., through romance scams where they find vulnerable individuals). Operational Security (OpSec): Can be inconsistent. Lone actors might make mistakes in their OpSec that lead to their identification and capture, but they also have fewer communication channels to compromise. Money Laundering: Less sophisticated; might rely on direct transfers, basic crypto mixers, or using money mules without complex laundering networks. Legal Implications: If caught, they face individual criminal charges, typically at the national level. Examples: An individual running a series of fake online stores, a lone scammer executing romance fraud, or someone using stolen credit card numbers from a breach to make online purchases. 2. Organized Cybercrime (Hired by a "Cybercrime Organization") Characteristics: Motivation: Overwhelmingly financial gain, but on a massive, institutionalized scale. Organized crime groups operate cyber fraud as a business, often diversifying into various illicit activities. Scale: Large-scale and systematic. They can launch highly effective and widespread campaigns, impacting thousands or millions of victims and causing billions in financial losses (e.g., large-scale ransomware operations, global BEC rings). Sophistication: High. These groups often resemble legitimate businesses, with specialized roles: Developers: Create custom malware, phishing kits, and exploit tools. Penetration Testers: Identify vulnerabilities in target systems. Social Engineers: Craft highly convincing lures and scripts. Negotiators: Handle ransom demands. Money Launderers: Establish complex networks to obscure illicit funds. Recruiters: Find new talent and money mules. Resources: Significant. They have budgets for R&D, infrastructure (bulletproof hosting, botnets), talent acquisition, and sophisticated money laundering operations. They leverage "cybercrime-as-a-service" models. Targets: Strategic and varied. Can target specific industries, geographies, or types of victims that promise the highest returns. They often conduct extensive reconnaissance. Operational Security (OpSec): Generally very high. They use advanced anonymization techniques, encrypted communications, and constantly adapt their tactics to evade detection. Money Laundering: Highly sophisticated, often involving layers of cryptocurrency transactions, shell companies, international transfers, and professional money mules. Legal Implications: Face charges related to organized crime, racketeering, money laundering, and international conspiracy, often leading to longer sentences and complex international law enforcement efforts. Examples: Major ransomware groups (like those behind Conti, LockBit), large BEC syndicates, or sophisticated dark web marketplaces for stolen data. 3. State-Sponsored Cyber Fraud (Hired by a Government) Characteristics: Motivation: Primarily geopolitical, strategic, or economic advantage for the state, rather than direct individual financial gain for the operator (though operators may be well-compensated). This includes: Economic Espionage: Stealing intellectual property, trade secrets, and proprietary data to boost national industries or military capabilities. This is a form of fraud/theft on a national scale. Funding Operations: Some states use cyber fraud (e.g., bank heists, cryptocurrency theft) to generate revenue to fund other illicit state activities or circumvent sanctions. Destabilization/Disruption: Pre-positioning in critical infrastructure to cause economic disruption during conflict. Scale: Can be massive, targeting entire industries, critical infrastructure networks, or key government agencies globally. Impact is often strategic and long-term. Sophistication: Highest. These actors (often referred to as Advanced Persistent Threats - APTs) are well-funded, have access to top-tier talent (sometimes including former military/intelligence personnel), utilize zero-day exploits, develop custom tools, and employ highly advanced tradecraft to remain undetected for extended periods. Resources: Virtually unlimited state resources – intelligence agencies, military units, research institutions, and sometimes "patriotic hackers" or outsourced criminal groups (with plausible deniability). Targets: Highly specific and strategic targets related to national interests – defense contractors, critical infrastructure, government networks, research facilities, or companies holding valuable intellectual property. Operational Security (OpSec): Extremely high and meticulously planned to ensure deniability and long-term persistence. They may conduct extensive reconnaissance over months or years before an attack. Money Laundering: If financial gain is a motive, it's integrated into larger state-level financial mechanisms, often involving sanctioned entities or complex international money flows. Legal Implications: Attribution is difficult and often becomes a geopolitical issue. Consequences typically involve diplomatic pressure, sanctions against the state or specific entities, or targeted law enforcement actions against attributed individuals. Examples: Groups like China's APTs (e.g., for IP theft), North Korea's Lazarus Group (for bank heists to fund nuclear programs), or certain Russian state-aligned groups (for influence operations or pre-positioning in critical infrastructure). In essence: A lone actor commits fraud for personal benefit, usually with limited reach. An organized crime group operates fraud as a scalable, structured criminal enterprise. A government uses cyber fraud as a tool of statecraft, prioritizing national strategic goals over individual profit. The latter two categories represent a significantly greater threat due to their resources, sophistication, and potential for widespread, systemic impact.

https://corkroo.com/thread/14944 President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court, an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Hamas led group killed and kidnapped many that resulted in the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Why are radicals in and around European elite countries and mainly radical students in America protesting against Israel and not against Hamas a terrorist organisation? The protests observed in and around European countries and among students in America, which are predominantly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, stem from a complex interplay of factors. While the October 7th attack by Hamas, which involved the killing and kidnapping of Israelis, is acknowledged as the immediate trigger for the Israeli invasion, protestors often highlight a broader context and a different set of concerns that lead them to focus their criticism on Israel. Here are some of the key reasons cited by analysts and the protestors themselves: Scale of Response and Civilian Casualties: A primary driver of the protests is the sheer scale of Palestinian casualties, including a high number of women and children, and the widespread destruction of infrastructure in Gaza resulting from Israel's military operations. Many protestors view Israel's response as disproportionate to the initial Hamas attack and a form of collective punishment against the entire Gazan population. The dire humanitarian crisis, including lack of food, water, and medical supplies, further fuels this outrage. Historical Context and Occupation: Protestors often frame the current conflict within the decades-long history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. They point to the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, the blockade of Gaza (in place since Hamas took control in 2007), settlement expansion, and the displacement of Palestinians as root causes of the conflict. From this perspective, Hamas's actions, while condemned by many, are sometimes seen as a violent manifestation of resistance against a prolonged occupation. Perceived Power Imbalance: There's a strong perception among protestors of a significant power imbalance between Israel, a state with a sophisticated military and strong international allies (particularly the United States), and the Palestinians, who lack a state and comparable military or economic power. This leads many to sympathize with the Palestinians as the weaker party and to scrutinize the actions of the more powerful entity more intensely. Accountability of State Actors: Protestors often argue that states, like Israel, should be held to a higher standard of accountability under international law and human rights conventions than non-state actors like Hamas. They focus on the actions of the Israeli government and military, demanding adherence to international humanitarian law and investigations into alleged war crimes. Criticism of Western Foreign Policy: In many Western countries, especially the United States, protests against Israeli actions are also implicitly or explicitly a critique of their own government's foreign policy. This includes long-standing military aid to Israel, diplomatic support, and perceived unwillingness to hold Israel accountable for actions that draw international criticism. Protestors often demand that their governments take a stronger stance against Israeli policies and advocate for a ceasefire and Palestinian rights. Distinction Between Hamas and the Palestinian People: Many protestors emphasize that their criticism of Israeli policy is not an endorsement of Hamas. They state they are advocating for the human rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, who are seen as victims of both Hamas's rule in Gaza and Israeli military actions. However, critics of the protests often argue that there isn't sufficient condemnation of Hamas's ideology and tactics by these groups. Concerns over "Genocide" or "Ethnic Cleansing": Some protestors and activist groups have adopted strong language, accusing Israel of committing acts tantamount to genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Such severe accusations galvanize intense opposition to Israeli policies and actions. It's important to note that the motivations and views within these protest movements are diverse. While the predominant focus has been on criticizing Israel's conduct, this does not universally mean an absence of condemnation for Hamas's October 7th attack. However, the emphasis of the protests has largely been on the devastating humanitarian impact of the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza and the broader historical context of the conflict. The protests observed in some European countries and among students in America following the Hamas-led attacks on October 7th and the subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza are driven by a complex set of factors. While these protests are often characterized by their strong criticism of Israel, the reasons for not focusing equally or primarily on Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, are multifaceted. Here are some of the key perspectives and motivations often cited by or attributed to these protestors: Focus on State Actions and Asymmetry of Power: Many protestors view Israel as a powerful state actor with a sophisticated military, often supported by Western governments (including their own). They focus their criticism on what they perceive as a disproportionate response by the Israeli military, leading to a high number of civilian casualties and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The significant power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly Hamas in Gaza, leads many protestors to hold the more powerful entity to a higher standard of accountability for its actions and their impact on civilians. Humanitarian Concerns and Civilian Casualties: The sheer scale of death and destruction in Gaza, including the deaths of thousands of children and women, and the dire humanitarian situation (lack of food, water, medical supplies, and shelter) are primary drivers for many protestors. Their focus is often on stopping the immediate suffering and calling for a ceasefire. Historical Context and Occupation: Protestors frequently frame the current conflict within the broader historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, the blockade of Gaza, the expansion of Israeli settlements, and the displacement of Palestinians. From this perspective, Hamas's actions, while not necessarily condoned, are sometimes seen as a consequence of or resistance to this long-standing situation. Criticism of Own Government's Policies: In the U.S. and some European countries, protestors often criticize their own governments' foreign policies, including military aid to Israel, arms sales, and diplomatic support, which they see as enabling Israeli actions. Their protests are, in part, a demand for their own governments to exert pressure on Israel or change their supportive stance. Calls for Divestment and Boycott (BDS Movement): Many student protests, in particular, are linked to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for broad-based economic, academic, and cultural boycotts of Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. These campaigns inherently focus on Israeli institutions and policies. Perception of War Crimes and International Law: Protestors often accuse Israel of committing war crimes and violating international humanitarian law in its military operations in Gaza. They call for investigations and accountability through international bodies. Differing Views on Hamas: While Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and other countries, and its targeting of civilians on October 7th was widely condemned, some protestors may have a more nuanced or critical view of this designation in the context of what they see as an anti-colonial or resistance struggle. It's also important to note that some protestors or groups do condemn Hamas's actions but choose to focus their activism on the actions of Israel, which they see as a state with greater power and responsibility, and potentially more susceptible to international pressure or pressure from their own governments. For some, the demand to explicitly condemn Hamas before criticizing Israel is viewed as a tactic to deflect attention from Israeli actions. Free Speech and Anti-War Stance: Many protestors are driven by a broader anti-war sentiment and a commitment to free speech, advocating for the rights of Palestinians and criticizing what they see as oppression. It's crucial to understand that these protest movements are not monolithic. Participants come from diverse backgrounds, including Jewish students and groups who are critical of Israeli government policies. Their motivations can vary, but a common thread is often a focus on the severe humanitarian impact of the conflict on Palestinians in Gaza and a critique of Israeli state policies, viewed through lenses of human rights, international law, and social justice. The charge that these protests are antisemitic is a contentious issue. While protest organizers often explicitly state their opposition to antisemitism, some incidents of antisemitic rhetoric or actions have been reported at or around these protests, leading to concerns for the safety and well-being of Jewish communities. Conversely, many protestors, including Jewish participants, argue that criticism of Israeli government policies should not be conflated with antisemitism. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

Afghanistan's Economy: Navigating a Profound Crisis with Nascent Stability. (Part 1) As of early 2025, Afghanistan's economy remains in a state of profound crisis, though some measures of macroeconomic stabilization have been observed following the catastrophic collapse in late 2021 and 2022. The economy operates at a significantly reduced capacity, what some economists term a "low-level equilibrium." Key Details:- Severe Contraction and Stagnation: The economy experienced a massive contraction (over 20-25% in the initial year after the Taliban takeover). While the freefall has largely halted, meaningful recovery and growth remain elusive. GDP per capita has plummeted, pushing a vast majority of the population into poverty. Humanitarian Crisis: A severe humanitarian crisis persists, with over half the population facing acute food insecurity. While international humanitarian aid continues to flow, it is insufficient to address the widespread need and does not replace the development aid that previously propped up the economy. Banking and Financial Sector Paralysis: The formal banking sector is largely dysfunctional due to frozen foreign reserves, international sanctions, a lack of liquidity, and the absence of correspondent banking relationships. This severely hampers trade, investment, and everyday transactions. Drastic Reduction in International Aid: The cessation of large-scale international development aid, which previously financed around 75% of public spending, has had a devastating impact on aggregate demand, public services, and employment. Dominance of Agriculture and Informal Economy: Agriculture remains a crucial sector, employing a large portion of the population, but it is highly vulnerable to recurrent droughts (a significant issue in recent years) and lacks investment. The informal economy, including illicit activities like opium cultivation (despite an official ban), plays a substantial role. Nascent Private Sector Activity: Some small-scale private sector activity, particularly in trade (including coal exports to Pakistan) and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), continues. The Taliban administration has focused on domestic revenue collection (customs, some taxes) and reports some success in curbing corruption, which has contributed to relative currency stability in the afghani. Restrictions on Women and Human Capital Flight: Severe restrictions on women's education and employment are not only a grave social concern but also a significant economic impediment, shrinking the available workforce and potential for human capital development. A substantial "brain drain" of skilled professionals has further weakened institutional capacity. Limited International Engagement: Lack of formal recognition of the Taliban administration by most countries limits access to international financial institutions, foreign investment, and broader trade relationships. Fiscal Challenges: While the Taliban administration has managed to collect domestic revenue to cover its basic operating budget, this budget is drastically smaller than pre-2021 levels and lacks funds for significant development or public services. Outlook: The economic outlook for Afghanistan in 2025 remains bleak. Without a significant improvement in the political and security situation, meaningful engagement with the international community, a resolution to the banking crisis, and a reversal of policies that restrict human capital (especially for women), the economy is likely to remain stagnant at a very low level, with continued high rates of poverty and humanitarian need. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

Iranian and U.S. delegations wrapped up a fifth round of talks in Rome on Friday and signs of some limited progress emerged in the negotiations aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Despite both Washington and Tehran taking a tough stance in public ahead of the talks on Iran's uranium enrichment, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there was potential for progress after Oman made several proposals during the talks. "We have just completed one of the most professional rounds of talks ... We firmly stated Iran's position ... The fact that we are now on a reasonable path, in my view, is itself a sign of progress," Araqchi told state TV. "The proposals and solutions will be reviewed in respective capitals ... and the next round of talks will be scheduled accordingly." A senior U.S. official said the talks lasted more than two hours and were both direct and indirect with Omani mediators. "The talks continue to be constructive – we made further progress, but there is still work to be done. Both sides agreed to meet again in the near future. We are grateful to our Omani partners for their continued facilitation," the official said. The stakes are high for both sides. President Donald Trump wants to curtail Tehran's potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. The Islamic Republic, for its part, wants to be rid of devastating sanctions on its oil-based economy. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X the talks between Araqchi and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had ended "with some but not conclusive progress". Ahead of the talks, Araqchi wrote on X: "Zero nuclear weapons = we Do have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide." Among remaining stumbling blocks are Tehran's refusal to ship abroad its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium - possible raw material for nuclear bombs - or engage in discussions over its ballistic missile programme. Diplomats have said reaching a concrete deal before the summer would technically be impossible given the complexities of an accord. In the meantime, a senior Iranian official involved in nuclear talks with the U.S. said "if Washington drops its 'zero enrichment' demand, a political agreement is feasible." STUMBLING BLOCKS U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington was working to reach an accord that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy programme but not enrich uranium, while acknowledging that this "will not be easy". Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last say on matters of state, rejected demands to stop refining uranium as "excessive and outrageous", warning that such talks were unlikely to yield results. Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord. Trump in his first term in 2018 ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between major powers and Iran. Since returning to office this year, he has restored a "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran and reimposed sweeping U.S. sanctions that continue to hobble the Iranian economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact's limits. Wendy Sherman, a former U.S. undersecretary who led the U.S. negotiating team that reached the 2015 agreement, earlier said that Tehran presents enrichment as a matter of sovereignty. "I don't think it is possible to get a deal with Iran where they literally dismantle their programme, give up their enrichment, even though that would be ideal," she told Reuters. The cost of failure of the talks could be high. Iran's arch-foe Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat and says it would never allow the clerical establishment to obtain nuclear weapons. Tehran says it has no such ambitions and the purposes are purely civilian. Israel's strategic affairs minister and the head of its foreign intelligence service, Mossad, were also due to be in Rome for talks with the U.S. negotiators. Araqchi said on Thursday that Washington would bear legal responsibility if Israel attacked Iranian nuclear installations, following a CNN report that Israel might be preparing strikes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Iranian foreign minister said..... The United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, Iran’s foreign minister has warned, after CNN reported that Israel could be preparing strikes. Iran and the US, Israel’s closest ally, will hold a fifth round of nuclear talks on Friday amid deep disagreement over uranium enrichment in Iran, which Washington says could lead to developing nuclear bombs. Tehran has consistently denied seeking a bomb and insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes. “Iran strongly warns against any adventurism by the Zionist regime of Israel and will decisively respond to any threat or unlawful act by this regime,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. “I have called on the international community to take effective preventive measures against the continuation of Israeli threats, which if unchecked, will compel Iran to take special measures in defence of our nuclear facilities and materials,” Araghchi said. The minister said Tehran would view Washington as a “participant” in any such attack. “The nature, content, and extent of our actions will correspond and be proportionate to preventive measures taken by these international bodies in accordance with their statutory duties and obligations,” he added. Araghchi’s remarks follow a CNN report on Tuesday that described the US as having “new intelligence suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities”. Israel has not acknowledged any preparations, though officials up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent it from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon, should it choose to pursue one. The US and Iran are due to hold indirect talks on Friday in Rome in what would be their fifth round of negotiations over a possible deal that could see Tehran limit or end its enrichment of uranium, in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Israel has repeatedly opposed such an agreement between the US and Iran. Later on Thursday, Araghchi said in an interview carried by Iranian state TV that if the US aims to end uranium enrichment then there will be no nuclear deal. US officials have said “that they do not believe in enrichment in Iran … and it has to stop completely; if this is their goal there will be no deal”, Araqchi said. The foreign minister said the idea of a uranium enrichment consortium with the participation of other nations is not bad, but will not replace enrichment on Iranian soil. Earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said US demands that Tehran stop enriching uranium were “excessive and outrageous”. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which reports directly to Khamenei, also warned on Thursday that Israel would receive a “devastating and decisive response” if it attacks Iran. “They are trying to frighten us with war, but are miscalculating as they are unaware of the powerful popular and military support the Islamic Republic can muster in war conditions,” IRGC spokesperson Alimohammad Naini was quoted by state media as saying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Iran’s top diplomat insisted that Tehran will never stop enriching uranium, reinforcing the Islamic Republic’s hard line ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the United States over its fast-advancing nuclear program. Iran's foreign ministry later confirmed it has agreed to take part in the next round of talks Friday in Rome. The comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi come after multiple rounds of talks between the two nations, including at an expert level over the details of a possible deal. American officials including President Donald Trump, Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio maintain that Iran must give up enrichment — something it didn’t do in its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. “I have said it before, and I repeat it again: uranium enrichment in Iran will continue — with or without an agreement,” Araghchi said, according to state television. Araghchi added that Iran was “currently reviewing whether to participate in the next round and when to take part” in talks with the U.S. Negotiators previously met in Muscat, Oman, and Rome but Trump’s trip to the Mideast last week delayed any new meeting. Later Wednesday, Oman’s foreign minister announced that the fifth round of indirect talks will be Friday in Rome. The minister made the comment on social media. Oman has long served as a mediator, facilitating quiet diplomacy amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, in a post on X later confirmed that Tehran has agreed to take part in the new round of talks. Washington has not confirmed the meeting or announced whether it will attend. “We have never abandoned diplomacy. We will always be present at the negotiating table, and the main reason for our presence is to defend the rights of the Iranian people,” Araghchi said. “We stand against excessive demands and rhetoric at the table.” Araghchi’s remarks came a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he didn’t expect the negotiations to produce a deal. “I don’t think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don’t know,” Khamenei said. The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic, closing in on half a century of enmity. Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached. Iranian officials increasingly warn that they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Meanwhile, Israel has threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if it feels threatened, further worsening tensions in the Mideast already spiked by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers capped Tehran’s enrichment level at 3.67% and reduced its uranium stockpile to 300 kilograms (661 pounds). That level is enough for nuclear power plants, but far below weapons-grade levels of 90%. Since the nuclear deal collapsed in 2018 with Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the accord, Iran has abandoned all limits on its program and enriched uranium to up to 60% purity — a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels. There have also been a series of attacks at sea and on land in recent years, stemming from the tensions even before the Israel-Hamas war began. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

## Key Actors and Methods in the Financing of Islamic Extremism in Nigeria and West Africa Islamic extremist groups operating in Nigeria and the broader West African region, notably Boko Haram factions (including JAS) and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), alongside Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) in the Sahel, sustain their activities through a complex and multifaceted network of financial and material support. Funding sources range from localized criminal activities and resource exploitation to international financial networks and support from global extremist organizations. **Key Funding Mechanisms:** * **Criminal Activities:** A primary revenue stream for these groups is direct criminal enterprise. This includes: * **Kidnapping for Ransom:** A highly lucrative tactic, targeting both locals and foreigners, generating significant income. * **Extortion and Taxation:** Imposing levies on local populations, businesses, and economic activities (such as farming, fishing, and trade) in areas under their control or influence. For instance, ISWAP is known to tax the lucrative fish and red pepper trade in the Lake Chad Basin. * **Bank Robberies and Looting:** Direct attacks on financial institutions and pillaging of communities. * **Trafficking:** Involvement in various forms of trafficking, including arms, drugs, and humans, often leveraging porous borders and existing criminal networks. * **Exploitation of Natural Resources:** Extremist groups exploit natural resources in areas they operate. This includes: * **Illegal Mining:** Particularly of gold in regions like the Sahel. Groups like JNIM have been linked to the control and taxation of artisanal gold mining sites. * **Control of Agricultural and Fishing Economies:** As seen with Boko Haram and ISWAP in the Lake Chad Basin, controlling and taxing these local industries provides substantial revenue. * **Local Support Networks:** * **Wealthy Sympathizers and Professionals:** Reports suggest that some local politicians, religious sympathizers, and wealthy professionals provide financial support to these groups, sometimes through "protection money." * **Bureau De Change Operators:** The Nigerian government has identified and arrested Bureau De Change operators involved in facilitating financial transactions for extremist groups. * **International Support and Networks:** * **ISIS Core Support to ISWAP:** ISWAP, as an affiliate of the Islamic State, reportedly receives financial backing from the ISIS core. This includes alleged monthly payments to fighters and funds to support governance-like activities in areas ISWAP controls. * **Foreign Donations and Remittances:** While often opaque, foreign donations and remittances from sympathizers abroad contribute to funding. These may be channeled through informal money transfer systems (like hawalas) or disguised through charitable organizations. * **Specific International Financing Cells:** A notable case involved a Boko Haram financing cell based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Six Nigerian individuals were convicted in the UAE and subsequently sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for establishing this cell, which funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Boko Haram in Nigeria. Individuals like Abdurrahman Ado Musa were central to this network. * **Alleged Al-Qaeda Links:** Historically, Boko Haram was reported to have received initial funding from Al-Qaeda. While current direct financial ties are less clear, ideological affiliations and potential connections with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its successor JNIM remain a factor in the regional extremist landscape. **Identified Individuals and Entities:** * **Nigerian Government Actions:** The Nigerian government has arrested and sanctioned individuals suspected of terrorism financing. For instance, **Abdurrahaman Musa Ado** was designated by Nigeria's Sanctions Committee as a terrorist financier. The government has also spoken of uncovering a significant funding ring involving numerous individuals and businesses. * **U.S. Sanctions:** The United States has designated several individuals for supporting Boko Haram. Notably, six Nigerians linked to the UAE-based financing cell were sanctioned: * **Abdurrahman Ado Musa** * **Salihu Yusuf Adamu** * **Bashir Ali Yusuf** * **Muhammed Ibrahim Isa** * **Ibrahim Ali Alhassan** * **Surajo Abubakar Muhammad** These individuals were found guilty of transferring significant funds from Dubai to Boko Haram in Nigeria. * **Global Terrorist Organizations:** ISWAP is an officially recognized affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), and JNIM is aligned with Al-Qaeda. This affiliation implies a degree of command, control, and potentially material and financial support from these global entities, as evidenced by ISIS's financial backing of ISWAP. **Challenges in Countering Terrorism Financing:** Despite efforts by national governments and international bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA), and the United Nations, disrupting terrorist financing in the region remains a significant challenge. These challenges include: * **Cash-Based Economies:** The prevalence of informal, cash-based economies makes tracking illicit financial flows difficult. * **Porous Borders:** Weak border security facilitates the movement of cash, goods, and individuals involved in illicit activities. * **Difficult Terrain and Ungoverned Spaces:** Large, remote, and often ungoverned or poorly governed areas provide safe havens for extremist groups to operate and generate funds. * **Difficulties in Prosecution:** Even when financiers are identified, securing convictions can be challenging due to legal and evidentiary hurdles. * **Adaptability of Terrorist Groups:** Extremist groups continually adapt their financing methods to circumvent counter-terrorism measures. **State Sponsors:** While specific states are not consistently and publicly named by international bodies as direct, ongoing sponsors of Islamic extremist groups in Nigeria and West Africa in the same vein as global state sponsorship designations, the complex geopolitical landscape means external influences and historic interventions (like the situation in Libya) are sometimes cited as contributing factors to regional instability that extremist groups exploit. The primary identified external financial support comes from transnational terrorist organizations like ISIS and networks of individuals, rather than direct state sponsorship in most public accounts. In conclusion, the financing of Islamic extremism in Nigeria and West Africa is a multifaceted issue, deeply intertwined with local criminal economies, regional instability, and international extremist networks. Efforts to counter this require a comprehensive approach that addresses both the local drivers of funding and the transnational financial flows supporting these groups.

Sanction checks are essential for ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and preventing businesses from doing business with prohibited or high-risk individuals as well as entities. #Sanction #checks can in preventing violations of international laws as well as protect against the hefty penalties, and help maintain the reputation of a #business. Particularly in areas like #finance, #healthcare, or #government, regular #screenings of sanction aid in ethical business practices, decrease the risk of fraud, and enhance the due diligence process. Read Blog: https://blogs.venops.com/learn-about-the-importance-of-sanction-checks/