Iran's new President Ebrahim Raisi said on Monday that "defeat" of US in Afghanistan was a chance for peace in the war-wrecked country

"The military defeat and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan should offer an opportunity to restore life, security and lasting peace in that country," Raisi said, quoted by his office.

The statement was issued after the Taliban took control of Kabul. The statement didn't mention Taliban or fall of Kabul.

Raisi, during an exchange with Iran's outgoing foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Iran wanted good relations with neighbouring Afghanistan and was "closely monitoring the evolution of events" there.

The foreign ministry later said Zarif had met China's special envoy to Afghanistan, Yue Xiaoyong, and discussed "the issue of persons displaced during the latest events in Afghanistan and their arrival en masse in neighbouring countries".

Iran shares a 900-kilometre (560-mile) border with Afghanistan. It already hosts nearly 3.5 million Afghans, according to the UN's refugee agency.

The interior ministry's border affairs chief, Hossein Ghassemi, said on Sunday that efforts were underway in three provinces bordering Afghanistan to set up temporary accommodation for a potential influx of Afghan refugees.

They would, "once conditions improve, be repatriated", he told the official IRNA news agency.

Analysts say Tehran is taking a pragmatic stance on the Taliban's resurgence, but many Iranians have painful memories of the hardline Sunni group's rule in the late 1990s.

(With inputs from agencies)

Iran's new President Ebrahim Raisi said on Monday that "defeat" of US in Afghanistan was a chance for peace in the war-wrecked country "The military defeat and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan should offer an opportunity to restore life, security and lasting peace in that country," Raisi said, quoted by his office.

Iran's new President Ebrahim Raisi said on Monday that "defeat" of US in Afghanistan was a chance for peace in the war-wrecked country "The military defeat and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan should offer an opportunity to restore life, security and lasting peace in that country," Raisi said, quoted by his office. The statement was issued after the Taliban took control of Kabul. The statement didn't mention Taliban or fall of Kabul. Raisi, during an exchange with Iran's outgoing foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Iran wanted good relations with neighbouring Afghanistan and was "closely monitoring the evolution of events" there. The foreign ministry later said Zarif had met China's special envoy to Afghanistan, Yue Xiaoyong, and discussed "the issue of persons displaced during the latest events in Afghanistan and their arrival en masse in neighbouring countries". Iran shares a 900-kilometre (560-mile) border with Afghanistan. It already hosts nearly 3.5 million Afghans, according to the UN's refugee agency. The interior ministry's border affairs chief, Hossein Ghassemi, said on Sunday that efforts were underway in three provinces bordering Afghanistan to set up temporary accommodation for a potential influx of Afghan refugees. They would, "once conditions improve, be repatriated", he told the official IRNA news agency. Analysts say Tehran is taking a pragmatic stance on the Taliban's resurgence, but many Iranians have painful memories of the hardline Sunni group's rule in the late 1990s. (With inputs from agencies)

US 'defeat' in Afghanistan is a chance for lasting peace: Iran

An unnamed Afghan woman's blog is making waves online and being shared widely on social media. The words of the 24-years-old woman are indicative of the potential situation Afghan women face in light of Taliban takeover.

The woman was going for a university class in Kabul on Sunday when the news of Taliban fighters' entry into Kabul broke. Women students rushed to go home but it was not as easy.&nbsp;

"We all wanted to get home, but we couldn’t use public transport. The drivers would not let us in their cars because they did not want to take responsibility for transporting a woman...," she writes as published by The Guardian.

Taliban are known for their hardline stance against women's rights. During their rule in late 90s Taliban had imposed harsh, oppressive restrictions on women and brutally punished, even killed those who appeared to 'violate' their diktat by slightest of margins.

There are justified fears in Afghanistan that the 'dark days' are returning.

"I worked for so many days and nights to become the person I am today, and this morning when I reached home, the very first thing my sisters and I did was hide our IDs, diplomas and certificates. It was devastating. Why should we hide the things that we should be proud of? In Afghanistan now we are not allowed to be known as the people we are," says the woman as mentioned in The Guardian.

The woman describes how men started teasing them as news of Taliban's entry in Kabul broke

“It is your last days of being out on the streets,” “I will marry four of you in one day,” were the words uttered by men as per the report.

Women media professionals are apprehensive about coming days in Afghanistan 
&nbsp;

An unnamed Afghan woman's blog is making waves online and being shared widely on social media. The words of the 24-years-old woman are indicative of the potential situation Afghan women face in light of Taliban takeover.

An unnamed Afghan woman's blog is making waves online and being shared widely on social media. The words of the 24-years-old woman are indicative of the potential situation Afghan women face in light of Taliban takeover. The woman was going for a university class in Kabul on Sunday when the news of Taliban fighters' entry into Kabul broke. Women students rushed to go home but it was not as easy. "We all wanted to get home, but we couldn’t use public transport. The drivers would not let us in their cars because they did not want to take responsibility for transporting a woman...," she writes as published by The Guardian. Taliban are known for their hardline stance against women's rights. During their rule in late 90s Taliban had imposed harsh, oppressive restrictions on women and brutally punished, even killed those who appeared to 'violate' their diktat by slightest of margins. There are justified fears in Afghanistan that the 'dark days' are returning. "I worked for so many days and nights to become the person I am today, and this morning when I reached home, the very first thing my sisters and I did was hide our IDs, diplomas and certificates. It was devastating. Why should we hide the things that we should be proud of? In Afghanistan now we are not allowed to be known as the people we are," says the woman as mentioned in The Guardian. The woman describes how men started teasing them as news of Taliban's entry in Kabul broke “It is your last days of being out on the streets,” “I will marry four of you in one day,” were the words uttered by men as per the report. Women media professionals are apprehensive about coming days in Afghanistan

Afghan woman's impassioned blog makes waves online

The bridge has an eerily Orwellian name — the Friendship Bridge — and a storied history in Afghanistan’s wars.

And again last week, the bridge, which spans the Amu Darya River between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, provided a backdrop for a watershed moment in the fighting. In a chaotic retreat from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif, pro-government soldiers streamed onto the crossing, seeking safety on the opposite bank.

The scene Thursday mirrored an iconic moment 32 years ago at the end of the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, when the bridge provided the final exit route out of the country for the defeated Soviet army.

Then, red flags fixed to the armored vehicles flapped in a winter wind as the departing Soviet troops drove and marched across the bridge on Feb. 15, 1989. That was meant to signal an organized, dignified exit for the superpower’s army after a decade of occupation and defeats.

The Soviet commander, Gen. Boris V. Gromov, walked alone behind the last armored column as it rumbled across and out of the country. He then declared that Russia was done with Afghanistan.

“That’s it,” Gromov told a television crew. “Not one Soviet soldier or officer is behind my back.”

The Red Army withdrew ceremonially.

The armored vehicles rolled across over the roiling, glacier-fed river slowly and precisely, as if in a parade. On the Uzbek side, women met the soldiers with the traditional greeting of bread and salt. Soldiers were given wristwatches for their service. Television cameras filmed.

The Biden administration had made a point of avoiding a similar scene of ceremonial closure for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, hardly imaginable now in any case given the unexpectedly rapid collapse of the U.S.-backed government Sunday.

The U.S. commander, Gen. Austin Miller, quietly left the country July 12. And the United States evacuated its headquarters at Bagram Airfield — a site originally built by the Soviets — without a formal handover to the Afghan army.

The Soviet pomp in departure did nothing, of course, to prevent a grinding civil war in the wake of withdrawal, or soul searching at home about the war. And given what followed, Gromov’s march became emblematic of the ignoble end to the Soviet war.

The leader the Russians left behind, Mohammad Najibullah, remained for three years after the parade on the Friendship Bridge, a good deal longer than President Ashraf Ghani, who fled the country even before all of his American backers got out.

The Soviet Union had, in some ways, put down deeper roots than the United States despite the fact that the U.S. occupation lasted longer, said Yuri V. Krupnov, a Russian expert on Afghanistan and director at the Institute of Demography and Migration in Moscow.

The Soviet Union educated about 200,000 Afghan engineers, military officers and administrators, providing the Najibullah government a base of support.

“You can criticize the Soviet Union as much as you want, but the goal was to build a contemporary, modern state” and to stabilize the empire’s southern borders, he said. The Soviet Union built hydroelectric dams, tunnels, roads and bridges, including the Friendship Bridge.

The government the Soviets left behind also limped along for a longer time, he said, because Moscow entrusted its client army with heavier weapons like tanks and artillery, in contrast to the mostly light arms the U.S. handed out. The Soviets also brutally cracked down on the narcotics trade, preventing the emergence of a corrupt class of police and officials.

It failed nonetheless. The Najibullah government collapsed in 1992 and in 1996, the Soviet-installed leader was captured and executed by an emerging new force in Afghanistan, the Taliban. His body was hung from a utility pole in Kabul.

After leaving, Russians spoke of having an Afghan syndrome, like the Vietnam syndrome in the United States. They wanted nothing to do with the country.

The retreat over the Friendship Bridge of soldiers loyal to the U.S.-backed Afghan government, which collapsed just three days later, was a more chaotic scene than the Soviet departure decades earlier.

The Taliban seized Mazar-e-Sharif swiftly after breaking through the Afghan army's front lines. The government security forces and the militias of two warlords — Marshal Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Muhammad Noor — fled toward the bridge about 45 miles to the north seeking safety.

By evening, the Friendship Bridge became a stalled traffic jam of cars and pickup trucks laden with soldiers, social media posts showed.

There was no dignified exit.

Uzbek authorities allowed in one group of 84 pro-government soldiers but arrested them for illegal border crossing, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. They blocked others from crossing.

Russian officials have been ambivalent in their public statements about the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, three decades after their own withdrawal.

They have not been above scoring propaganda points by noting the abandonment of allies and failure of a long-running U.S. foreign policy. But Russia could now also be forced to defend Central Asian client states against Islamist extremism in Afghanistan. The U.S. military had been doing that job.

“It came as a surprise,” Zamir Kabulov, a former Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, said Monday in an interview with the Echo of Moscow radio station, speaking of the quick collapse of the U.S.-backed government. “We thought the Afghan army, whatever its state, would resist for some time. But apparently we were too optimistic in evaluating the quality of training of the American and NATO armed forces.”

The White House has said that the Afghan army was trained and equipped but lacked the will to fight.

“They have what they need,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last week.

And Afghan and U.S. officials have said that starting in 2018, Moscow had been clandestinely arming a Taliban group operating around the city of Kunduz, a dusty regional trade hub east of the Friendship Bridge. It was, in a sense, payback for the U.S. support of the anti-Soviet insurgency years ago.

But as the Taliban swept through northern Afghanistan this summer, eventually taking Kunduz and other major cities, the Russian military deployed tanks for a military exercise near the border in Tajikistan.

The bridge’s name always had a sinister hue, as the Soviet Union built the Friendship Bridge in 1982 to ease resupply of its army fighting in Afghanistan. The full name is the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan Friendship Bridge.

The road and railroad bridge crosses the silty water of the Amu Darya River, which is fed by glacial melt in the Hindu Kush mountains and prone to seasonal flooding. The U.S. military, much like the Red Army before it, sent tanker trucks of helicopter and jet fuel over the crossing for years.

It had also been the focus of U.S. plans to deepen trade and infrastructure ties between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Central Asia, to spur economic development and wean the U.S.-backed government in Kabul off U.S. aid.

A decade ago, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund financed improvements to the railroad.

Uzbekistan had planned to extend the railroad, which now reaches only Mazar-e-Sharif, about 45 miles to the south, to Kabul and into neighboring Pakistan. Work was scheduled to begin in September. It is now on indefinite hold.

The bridge, said Alexander Cooley, director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and author of “Great Games, Local Rules,” about the geopolitics of Central Asia, has come to “symbolize great power engagement and great power withdrawal.”

The bridge has an eerily Orwellian name — the Friendship Bridge — and a storied history in Afghanistan’s wars. And again last week, the bridge, which spans the Amu Darya River between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, provided a backdrop for a watershed moment in the fighting.

The bridge has an eerily Orwellian name — the Friendship Bridge — and a storied history in Afghanistan’s wars. And again last week, the bridge, which spans the Amu Darya River between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, provided a backdrop for a watershed moment in the fighting. In a chaotic retreat from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif, pro-government soldiers streamed onto the crossing, seeking safety on the opposite bank. The scene Thursday mirrored an iconic moment 32 years ago at the end of the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, when the bridge provided the final exit route out of the country for the defeated Soviet army. Then, red flags fixed to the armored vehicles flapped in a winter wind as the departing Soviet troops drove and marched across the bridge on Feb. 15, 1989. That was meant to signal an organized, dignified exit for the superpower’s army after a decade of occupation and defeats. The Soviet commander, Gen. Boris V. Gromov, walked alone behind the last armored column as it rumbled across and out of the country. He then declared that Russia was done with Afghanistan. “That’s it,” Gromov told a television crew. “Not one Soviet soldier or officer is behind my back.” The Red Army withdrew ceremonially. The armored vehicles rolled across over the roiling, glacier-fed river slowly and precisely, as if in a parade. On the Uzbek side, women met the soldiers with the traditional greeting of bread and salt. Soldiers were given wristwatches for their service. Television cameras filmed. The Biden administration had made a point of avoiding a similar scene of ceremonial closure for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, hardly imaginable now in any case given the unexpectedly rapid collapse of the U.S.-backed government Sunday. The U.S. commander, Gen. Austin Miller, quietly left the country July 12. And the United States evacuated its headquarters at Bagram Airfield — a site originally built by the Soviets — without a formal handover to the Afghan army. The Soviet pomp in departure did nothing, of course, to prevent a grinding civil war in the wake of withdrawal, or soul searching at home about the war. And given what followed, Gromov’s march became emblematic of the ignoble end to the Soviet war. The leader the Russians left behind, Mohammad Najibullah, remained for three years after the parade on the Friendship Bridge, a good deal longer than President Ashraf Ghani, who fled the country even before all of his American backers got out. The Soviet Union had, in some ways, put down deeper roots than the United States despite the fact that the U.S. occupation lasted longer, said Yuri V. Krupnov, a Russian expert on Afghanistan and director at the Institute of Demography and Migration in Moscow. The Soviet Union educated about 200,000 Afghan engineers, military officers and administrators, providing the Najibullah government a base of support. “You can criticize the Soviet Union as much as you want, but the goal was to build a contemporary, modern state” and to stabilize the empire’s southern borders, he said. The Soviet Union built hydroelectric dams, tunnels, roads and bridges, including the Friendship Bridge. The government the Soviets left behind also limped along for a longer time, he said, because Moscow entrusted its client army with heavier weapons like tanks and artillery, in contrast to the mostly light arms the U.S. handed out. The Soviets also brutally cracked down on the narcotics trade, preventing the emergence of a corrupt class of police and officials. It failed nonetheless. The Najibullah government collapsed in 1992 and in 1996, the Soviet-installed leader was captured and executed by an emerging new force in Afghanistan, the Taliban. His body was hung from a utility pole in Kabul. After leaving, Russians spoke of having an Afghan syndrome, like the Vietnam syndrome in the United States. They wanted nothing to do with the country. The retreat over the Friendship Bridge of soldiers loyal to the U.S.-backed Afghan government, which collapsed just three days later, was a more chaotic scene than the Soviet departure decades earlier. The Taliban seized Mazar-e-Sharif swiftly after breaking through the Afghan army's front lines. The government security forces and the militias of two warlords — Marshal Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Muhammad Noor — fled toward the bridge about 45 miles to the north seeking safety. By evening, the Friendship Bridge became a stalled traffic jam of cars and pickup trucks laden with soldiers, social media posts showed. There was no dignified exit. Uzbek authorities allowed in one group of 84 pro-government soldiers but arrested them for illegal border crossing, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. They blocked others from crossing. Russian officials have been ambivalent in their public statements about the collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, three decades after their own withdrawal. They have not been above scoring propaganda points by noting the abandonment of allies and failure of a long-running U.S. foreign policy. But Russia could now also be forced to defend Central Asian client states against Islamist extremism in Afghanistan. The U.S. military had been doing that job. “It came as a surprise,” Zamir Kabulov, a former Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, said Monday in an interview with the Echo of Moscow radio station, speaking of the quick collapse of the U.S.-backed government. “We thought the Afghan army, whatever its state, would resist for some time. But apparently we were too optimistic in evaluating the quality of training of the American and NATO armed forces.” The White House has said that the Afghan army was trained and equipped but lacked the will to fight. “They have what they need,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last week. And Afghan and U.S. officials have said that starting in 2018, Moscow had been clandestinely arming a Taliban group operating around the city of Kunduz, a dusty regional trade hub east of the Friendship Bridge. It was, in a sense, payback for the U.S. support of the anti-Soviet insurgency years ago. But as the Taliban swept through northern Afghanistan this summer, eventually taking Kunduz and other major cities, the Russian military deployed tanks for a military exercise near the border in Tajikistan. The bridge’s name always had a sinister hue, as the Soviet Union built the Friendship Bridge in 1982 to ease resupply of its army fighting in Afghanistan. The full name is the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan Friendship Bridge. The road and railroad bridge crosses the silty water of the Amu Darya River, which is fed by glacial melt in the Hindu Kush mountains and prone to seasonal flooding. The U.S. military, much like the Red Army before it, sent tanker trucks of helicopter and jet fuel over the crossing for years. It had also been the focus of U.S. plans to deepen trade and infrastructure ties between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Central Asia, to spur economic development and wean the U.S.-backed government in Kabul off U.S. aid. A decade ago, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund financed improvements to the railroad. Uzbekistan had planned to extend the railroad, which now reaches only Mazar-e-Sharif, about 45 miles to the south, to Kabul and into neighboring Pakistan. Work was scheduled to begin in September. It is now on indefinite hold. The bridge, said Alexander Cooley, director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and author of “Great Games, Local Rules,” about the geopolitics of Central Asia, has come to “symbolize great power engagement and great power withdrawal.”

An iconic bridge sees US allies flee Afghanistan as Soviets did

The day after the Taliban installed themselves in the presidential palace in Kabul, seizing control over Afghanistan two decades after being toppled from power by the U.S. military, fears intensified Monday about a return to the Taliban’s brutal rule and the threat of reprisal killings.

Kabul’s international airport was under the protection of foreign forces, including thousands of U.S. soldiers sent to the country to assist in a hasty evacuation. The Pentagon said Monday evening in Kabul that all flights had been suspended, military or civilian, into Hamid Karzai International Airport.

It was a scene of desperation, sadness and panic.

Thousands of Afghans flooded the tarmac Monday morning, at one point swarming around a departing U.S. military plane as it taxied down the runway.

Images of people clinging to the hulking aircraft even as it left the ground quickly circulated around the world. It seemed to capture the moment more vividly than words: a symbol of U.S. military might, flying out of the country even as Afghans hung on against all hope.

U.S. forces on site used helicopters to help clear the runway in the military section of the airport. U.S. troops fatally shot at least two armed men who approached the Americans at the airport security perimeter and brandished their weapons, according to a U.S. military official.

President Joe Biden will speak about the situation at 3:45 p.m. in Washington, after cutting short a stay at Camp David to return to the White House.

Worries pervaded Kabul, the capital, about the potential for violence as the Taliban filled the city and the Afghan government crumbled. President Ashraf Ghani fled the country as the insurgents entered the city Sunday.

In remarkable scenes broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Taliban leaders ensconced themselves in the palace only hours after Ghani fled — taking control over what was once one of the most secure locations in the country and a symbol of the nation that the United States spent so much money and sacrificed so much blood to uphold.

Though not a formal surrender, it might as well have been.

In the video, the head of the Afghan presidential security guard shook hands with a Taliban commander in one of the palace buildings and said he had accompanied the Taliban commander at the request of the senior Afghan government negotiator.

“I say welcome to them, and I congratulate them,” the official said.

Afghan officials in other cities were filmed handing over power to insurgent leaders. Former President Hamid Karzai said he had formed a council with other political leaders to coordinate a peaceful transition to a new Taliban government. Karzai also asked the head of the Presidential Protection Service to remain at his post and ensure that the palace was not looted.

Early Taliban actions in other cities under their control offered a glimpse of what the future might hold. In Kunduz, which fell Aug. 8, they set up checkpoints and went door to door in search of absentee civil servants, warning that any who did not return to work would be punished.

The change in atmosphere in Kabul was as swift as it was frightening for many who thought that they could build a life under the protection of their U.S. allies.

Some in the city said the Taliban had already visited government officials’ homes. They entered the home of one former official in western Kabul and removed his cars and took over the home of a former governor in another part of town.

In other parts of the country, there were reports that fighters were searching for people they consider collaborators of the United States and the fallen government.

Residents of Kabul began tearing down advertisements that showed women without headscarves for fear of upsetting the Taliban, whose ideology excludes women from much of public life.

Some police officers were taken into custody by Taliban fighters, while others were seen changing into civilian clothes and trying to flee.

The Taliban said their forces had entered Kabul to ensure order and public safety.

A member of the Taliban’s negotiating team in Qatar told the BBC that “there will be no revenge” on civilians.

“We assure the people in Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe,” Suhail Shaheen said Sunday night. “There will be no revenge on anyone.”

The day after the Taliban installed themselves in the presidential palace in Kabul, seizing control over Afghanistan two decades after being toppled from power by the U.

The day after the Taliban installed themselves in the presidential palace in Kabul, seizing control over Afghanistan two decades after being toppled from power by the U.S. military, fears intensified Monday about a return to the Taliban’s brutal rule and the threat of reprisal killings. Kabul’s international airport was under the protection of foreign forces, including thousands of U.S. soldiers sent to the country to assist in a hasty evacuation. The Pentagon said Monday evening in Kabul that all flights had been suspended, military or civilian, into Hamid Karzai International Airport. It was a scene of desperation, sadness and panic. Thousands of Afghans flooded the tarmac Monday morning, at one point swarming around a departing U.S. military plane as it taxied down the runway. Images of people clinging to the hulking aircraft even as it left the ground quickly circulated around the world. It seemed to capture the moment more vividly than words: a symbol of U.S. military might, flying out of the country even as Afghans hung on against all hope. U.S. forces on site used helicopters to help clear the runway in the military section of the airport. U.S. troops fatally shot at least two armed men who approached the Americans at the airport security perimeter and brandished their weapons, according to a U.S. military official. President Joe Biden will speak about the situation at 3:45 p.m. in Washington, after cutting short a stay at Camp David to return to the White House. Worries pervaded Kabul, the capital, about the potential for violence as the Taliban filled the city and the Afghan government crumbled. President Ashraf Ghani fled the country as the insurgents entered the city Sunday. In remarkable scenes broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Taliban leaders ensconced themselves in the palace only hours after Ghani fled — taking control over what was once one of the most secure locations in the country and a symbol of the nation that the United States spent so much money and sacrificed so much blood to uphold. Though not a formal surrender, it might as well have been. In the video, the head of the Afghan presidential security guard shook hands with a Taliban commander in one of the palace buildings and said he had accompanied the Taliban commander at the request of the senior Afghan government negotiator. “I say welcome to them, and I congratulate them,” the official said. Afghan officials in other cities were filmed handing over power to insurgent leaders. Former President Hamid Karzai said he had formed a council with other political leaders to coordinate a peaceful transition to a new Taliban government. Karzai also asked the head of the Presidential Protection Service to remain at his post and ensure that the palace was not looted. Early Taliban actions in other cities under their control offered a glimpse of what the future might hold. In Kunduz, which fell Aug. 8, they set up checkpoints and went door to door in search of absentee civil servants, warning that any who did not return to work would be punished. The change in atmosphere in Kabul was as swift as it was frightening for many who thought that they could build a life under the protection of their U.S. allies. Some in the city said the Taliban had already visited government officials’ homes. They entered the home of one former official in western Kabul and removed his cars and took over the home of a former governor in another part of town. In other parts of the country, there were reports that fighters were searching for people they consider collaborators of the United States and the fallen government. Residents of Kabul began tearing down advertisements that showed women without headscarves for fear of upsetting the Taliban, whose ideology excludes women from much of public life. Some police officers were taken into custody by Taliban fighters, while others were seen changing into civilian clothes and trying to flee. The Taliban said their forces had entered Kabul to ensure order and public safety. A member of the Taliban’s negotiating team in Qatar told the BBC that “there will be no revenge” on civilians. “We assure the people in Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe,” Suhail Shaheen said Sunday night. “There will be no revenge on anyone.”

With the Taliban in control, uncertainty and fear grip Afghanistan

The Taliban is sweeping across Afghanistan seizing more than a dozen provincial capitals in the past week, and is poised to seize more. Afghan defense forces, finding themselves mostly cut off from US&nbsp;air support, haven’t been able to stop them, and the Afghan government may not survive for much longer. The United States has all but abandoned the country.

A disastrous Taliban takeover wasn’t inevitable. President Biden said his hands were tied to a withdrawal given the awful peace deal negotiated between the Trump administration and the Taliban. But there was still a way to pull out American troops while giving our Afghan partners a better chance to hold the gains we made with them over the last two decades.

Mr. Biden chose otherwise. The way he announced the drawdown and eventual departure of American troops — at the start of the fighting season, on a rapid timeline and sans adequate coordination with the Afghan government — has in part gotten us into the current situation.

Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of keeping American military forces in Afghanistan indefinitely, even at very low numbers. I and others have argued that the investment, including the risk to American personnel, is worth it to prevent militant groups from once again overrunning the country.

Mr. Biden believes that further expending U.S. resources in Afghanistan is “a recipe for being there indefinitely.” He rightly notes that President Trump had left him few good options by making a terrible deal with the Taliban. That’s a fine argument, but it explains neither the hastiness nor the consequences we are now observing: the Taliban overrunning swaths of the country, closing in on Kabul, pushing the Afghan security forces and government to the brink of collapse and prompting the Pentagon to prepare for a possible evacuation of the U.S. embassy.

A responsible withdrawal needed more time and better preparation. History will record Mr. Biden, a supposed master of foreign policy for decades, as having failed in this most critical assignment.

As U.S. military planners well know, the Afghan war has a seasonal pattern. The Taliban leadership retreats to bases, largely in Pakistan, every winter and then launches the group’s fighting season campaign in the spring, moving into high gear in the summer after the poppy harvest. At the very least, the United States should have continued to support the Afghans through this period to help them blunt the Taliban’s latest offensive and buy time to plan for a future devoid of American military assistance.

American diplomats could have used this time to negotiate access to regional bases from which to continue counterterrorism operations. Simultaneously, the American military should have prepared contingencies in case those negotiations failed. And even that plan would have meant contending with an increasingly brazen Taliban. (A report by the special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction said the Taliban launched its latest offensive after U.S. and coalition forces officially began drawing down in May.)

Adopting a more judicious approach would have required Mr. Biden to accept two things in addition to a longer timeline: the temporary deployment of additional U.S. forces and the slightly increased risk of American casualties.

Sending additional troops into Afghanistan could have allowed the United States to carry out the withdrawal safely without severely disrupting military support. When the president ordered the pullout, there were some 3,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. One thousand or 2,000 additional troops deployed for less than a year could have made a significant difference. They would have allowed Gen. Austin S. Miller, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to continue supporting the Afghan security forces while simultaneously prepping the withdrawal.

Obviously, Mr. Biden did not proceed in this manner. Instead, he ordered a hasty withdrawal of the military just as the Taliban offensive was moving into its major phase.

Several weeks after the president’s announcement, there was no clear plan for responding to terrorist threats emanating from Afghanistan post-withdrawal. It was still unclear if the United States would continue to provide air support to Afghan forces, whether it would have bases in neighboring countries, or how Kabul’s international airport would be secured — an element essential to the maintenance of a U.S. diplomatic presence in the country.

Since then, the U.S. military has provided some support to Afghan forces as the Taliban continues to advance. Unfortunately, this support has been too limited and late to save major cities under attack. In addition, several details of the withdrawal appear to remain unresolved, including how to keep the Afghan military operational without the presence of U.S. contractors for technical support, and how to expedite the immigration of Afghan interpreters who risked their lives for U.S. troops. Protecting these people is an ethical responsibility and strategic imperative, but the administration’s current Special Immigrant Visa Program is plagued by delays.

To be clear, Mr. Trump did put the Biden administration in a bind with a peace deal that specified U.S. troops had to leave by May 1. Still, Mr. Biden blew past that deadline, so pushing for a slightly longer timeline with some extra troops, even if in theory that goes against the peace deal, shouldn’t have been difficult for the administration to accept to permit an orderly, safer withdrawal. The additional financial cost of waiting until early 2022 to complete the retreat would have been bearable with a slightly different budgetary prioritization. (The Senate just approved a trillion dollar infrastructure bill and passed a $3.5 trillion budget plan.)

And then there are the optics of an American retreat. Mr. Biden has repeatedly emphasized the importance of getting U.S. forces out the door, because he was tied to the peace deal and lest U.S. soldiers come under Taliban attack. Is this really the type of fearful, defeatist message a global leader should be sending out to the world?

Both the U.S. and Afghan governments are now scrambling to mitigate the effects of Mr. Biden’s specific decisions. Amid the chaos, there is an important lesson to be learned: Whether announced by tweet or speech, decisions made without concrete plans or robust implementation strategies are wrong — regardless of which president or party spearheads them.

Afghans are paying the price of Mr. Biden’s decision today as the Taliban seizes cities, assassinates officials and begins reimposing its oppressive ideology on a people who have long fought to be free of it.

The United States will likely also continue to pay for its actions in Afghanistan. There’s a real danger that militant groups will reconstitute themselves and once again pose a significant threat to the American homeland. With America’s allies left in the lurch, prospective partners will think twice before offering up their support in future conflicts.

They know that this is not how a global leader acts. And most important, so do we.

The Taliban is sweeping across Afghanistan seizing more than a dozen provincial capitals in the past week, and is poised to seize more. Afghan defense forces, finding themselves mostly cut off from US air support, haven’t been able to stop them, and the Afghan government may not survive for much longer.

The Taliban is sweeping across Afghanistan seizing more than a dozen provincial capitals in the past week, and is poised to seize more. Afghan defense forces, finding themselves mostly cut off from US air support, haven’t been able to stop them, and the Afghan government may not survive for much longer. The United States has all but abandoned the country. A disastrous Taliban takeover wasn’t inevitable. President Biden said his hands were tied to a withdrawal given the awful peace deal negotiated between the Trump administration and the Taliban. But there was still a way to pull out American troops while giving our Afghan partners a better chance to hold the gains we made with them over the last two decades. Mr. Biden chose otherwise. The way he announced the drawdown and eventual departure of American troops — at the start of the fighting season, on a rapid timeline and sans adequate coordination with the Afghan government — has in part gotten us into the current situation. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of keeping American military forces in Afghanistan indefinitely, even at very low numbers. I and others have argued that the investment, including the risk to American personnel, is worth it to prevent militant groups from once again overrunning the country. Mr. Biden believes that further expending U.S. resources in Afghanistan is “a recipe for being there indefinitely.” He rightly notes that President Trump had left him few good options by making a terrible deal with the Taliban. That’s a fine argument, but it explains neither the hastiness nor the consequences we are now observing: the Taliban overrunning swaths of the country, closing in on Kabul, pushing the Afghan security forces and government to the brink of collapse and prompting the Pentagon to prepare for a possible evacuation of the U.S. embassy. A responsible withdrawal needed more time and better preparation. History will record Mr. Biden, a supposed master of foreign policy for decades, as having failed in this most critical assignment. As U.S. military planners well know, the Afghan war has a seasonal pattern. The Taliban leadership retreats to bases, largely in Pakistan, every winter and then launches the group’s fighting season campaign in the spring, moving into high gear in the summer after the poppy harvest. At the very least, the United States should have continued to support the Afghans through this period to help them blunt the Taliban’s latest offensive and buy time to plan for a future devoid of American military assistance. American diplomats could have used this time to negotiate access to regional bases from which to continue counterterrorism operations. Simultaneously, the American military should have prepared contingencies in case those negotiations failed. And even that plan would have meant contending with an increasingly brazen Taliban. (A report by the special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction said the Taliban launched its latest offensive after U.S. and coalition forces officially began drawing down in May.) Adopting a more judicious approach would have required Mr. Biden to accept two things in addition to a longer timeline: the temporary deployment of additional U.S. forces and the slightly increased risk of American casualties. Sending additional troops into Afghanistan could have allowed the United States to carry out the withdrawal safely without severely disrupting military support. When the president ordered the pullout, there were some 3,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. One thousand or 2,000 additional troops deployed for less than a year could have made a significant difference. They would have allowed Gen. Austin S. Miller, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to continue supporting the Afghan security forces while simultaneously prepping the withdrawal. Obviously, Mr. Biden did not proceed in this manner. Instead, he ordered a hasty withdrawal of the military just as the Taliban offensive was moving into its major phase. Several weeks after the president’s announcement, there was no clear plan for responding to terrorist threats emanating from Afghanistan post-withdrawal. It was still unclear if the United States would continue to provide air support to Afghan forces, whether it would have bases in neighboring countries, or how Kabul’s international airport would be secured — an element essential to the maintenance of a U.S. diplomatic presence in the country. Since then, the U.S. military has provided some support to Afghan forces as the Taliban continues to advance. Unfortunately, this support has been too limited and late to save major cities under attack. In addition, several details of the withdrawal appear to remain unresolved, including how to keep the Afghan military operational without the presence of U.S. contractors for technical support, and how to expedite the immigration of Afghan interpreters who risked their lives for U.S. troops. Protecting these people is an ethical responsibility and strategic imperative, but the administration’s current Special Immigrant Visa Program is plagued by delays. To be clear, Mr. Trump did put the Biden administration in a bind with a peace deal that specified U.S. troops had to leave by May 1. Still, Mr. Biden blew past that deadline, so pushing for a slightly longer timeline with some extra troops, even if in theory that goes against the peace deal, shouldn’t have been difficult for the administration to accept to permit an orderly, safer withdrawal. The additional financial cost of waiting until early 2022 to complete the retreat would have been bearable with a slightly different budgetary prioritization. (The Senate just approved a trillion dollar infrastructure bill and passed a $3.5 trillion budget plan.) And then there are the optics of an American retreat. Mr. Biden has repeatedly emphasized the importance of getting U.S. forces out the door, because he was tied to the peace deal and lest U.S. soldiers come under Taliban attack. Is this really the type of fearful, defeatist message a global leader should be sending out to the world? Both the U.S. and Afghan governments are now scrambling to mitigate the effects of Mr. Biden’s specific decisions. Amid the chaos, there is an important lesson to be learned: Whether announced by tweet or speech, decisions made without concrete plans or robust implementation strategies are wrong — regardless of which president or party spearheads them. Afghans are paying the price of Mr. Biden’s decision today as the Taliban seizes cities, assassinates officials and begins reimposing its oppressive ideology on a people who have long fought to be free of it. The United States will likely also continue to pay for its actions in Afghanistan. There’s a real danger that militant groups will reconstitute themselves and once again pose a significant threat to the American homeland. With America’s allies left in the lurch, prospective partners will think twice before offering up their support in future conflicts. They know that this is not how a global leader acts. And most important, so do we.

Biden could have stopped the Taliban. He chose not to

The collapse of Afghanistan government and Taliban's return to power has sent shockwaves throughout the world. But the forcible change in government means a lot of things for Afghan people. There is a lot of apprehension about what will happen next within the country.

The Taliban are hardline Islamists who have extreme ideas about number of social matters like gender equality. During their previous reign in late 90s, Taliban had imposed harsh, oppressive restrictions on women and brutally punished, even killed those who appeared to 'violate' their diktat by slightest of margins.

Women journalists now fear retribution by the Taliban. They already have been receiving death threats from Taliban and those against gender equality. Now these women journalists are trying to destroy their online footprint as well as keep a low profile.

“In the last 24 hours, our lives have changed and we have been confined to our homes, and death threatens us at every moment...We see silence filled with fear of the Taliban around us,” The Guardian quoted a woman journalist as saying.

There are reports of Taliban already establishing harsh rule against women. There are also reports of women and girls forcibly being taken as wives or sexually exploited by Taliban fighters.

The collapse of Afghanistan government and Taliban's return to power has sent shockwaves throughout the world. But the forcible change in government means a lot of things for Afghan people.

The collapse of Afghanistan government and Taliban's return to power has sent shockwaves throughout the world. But the forcible change in government means a lot of things for Afghan people. There is a lot of apprehension about what will happen next within the country. The Taliban are hardline Islamists who have extreme ideas about number of social matters like gender equality. During their previous reign in late 90s, Taliban had imposed harsh, oppressive restrictions on women and brutally punished, even killed those who appeared to 'violate' their diktat by slightest of margins. Women journalists now fear retribution by the Taliban. They already have been receiving death threats from Taliban and those against gender equality. Now these women journalists are trying to destroy their online footprint as well as keep a low profile. “In the last 24 hours, our lives have changed and we have been confined to our homes, and death threatens us at every moment...We see silence filled with fear of the Taliban around us,” The Guardian quoted a woman journalist as saying. There are reports of Taliban already establishing harsh rule against women. There are also reports of women and girls forcibly being taken as wives or sexually exploited by Taliban fighters.

Women journalists fear for life in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan

Lawyers for a former leader of Cambodia's notorious Khmer Rouge regime asked a U.N.-backed court on Monday to overturn a 2018 verdict against him in a genocide trial, arguing it had insufficient reason to conclude he was guilty.

The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), sentenced former Khmer Rouge-era President Khieu Samphan, 90, to life in prison for genocide against the Cham Muslim minority and Vietnamese people and for crimes against humanity.

Most of the estimated 1.7 victims of the 1975-79 ultra-Maoist regime died of starvation, torture, exhaustion or disease in labour camps, or were bludgeoned to death during mass executions.

Guilty verdicts have so far been reached against three former top members of the regime, but several have died while on trial or before indictments were made.

Khieu Samphan's defence team argued that the trial chamber in its verdict had failed to provide sufficient reasoning and violated its own legal framework.

Lawyer Kong Sam Onn told Supreme Court judges present at the hearing that they should dismiss the chamber's ruling.

"The judgement against Khieu Samphan has no legal effect, it should be null and void," the lawyer said, adding Khieu Samphan had been denied a right to a fair trial.

"If judges do not respect their own law, that's the end and that will be a failure."

Co-prosecutor Chea Leang defended the 2018 judgement saying evidence for the conviction was "extensive, diverse and compelling."

"The appellant was one of the key leaders... who committed gruel and barbarous crimes against his own people for his party's own political and ideological goals," Chea Leang said.

Lawyers for a former leader of Cambodia's notorious Khmer Rouge regime asked a U.N.-backed court on Monday to overturn a 2018 verdict against him in a genocide trial, arguing it had insufficient reason to conclude he was guilty.

Lawyers for a former leader of Cambodia's notorious Khmer Rouge regime asked a U.N.-backed court on Monday to overturn a 2018 verdict against him in a genocide trial, arguing it had insufficient reason to conclude he was guilty. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), sentenced former Khmer Rouge-era President Khieu Samphan, 90, to life in prison for genocide against the Cham Muslim minority and Vietnamese people and for crimes against humanity. Most of the estimated 1.7 victims of the 1975-79 ultra-Maoist regime died of starvation, torture, exhaustion or disease in labour camps, or were bludgeoned to death during mass executions. Guilty verdicts have so far been reached against three former top members of the regime, but several have died while on trial or before indictments were made. Khieu Samphan's defence team argued that the trial chamber in its verdict had failed to provide sufficient reasoning and violated its own legal framework. Lawyer Kong Sam Onn told Supreme Court judges present at the hearing that they should dismiss the chamber's ruling. "The judgement against Khieu Samphan has no legal effect, it should be null and void," the lawyer said, adding Khieu Samphan had been denied a right to a fair trial. "If judges do not respect their own law, that's the end and that will be a failure." Co-prosecutor Chea Leang defended the 2018 judgement saying evidence for the conviction was "extensive, diverse and compelling." "The appellant was one of the key leaders... who committed gruel and barbarous crimes against his own people for his party's own political and ideological goals," Chea Leang said.

Ex-Khmer Rouge leader seeks overturning of Cambodia genocide conviction

Sri Lanka's president on Monday demoted the health minister who publicly endorsed sorcery and magic potions to battle Covid-19, as coronavirus infections and deaths hit record highs.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's office said Pavithra Wanniarachchi's health portfolio had been given to Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella who is also the government spokesman.

Wanniarachchi was in intensive care in January after contracting the virus despite publicly consuming and endorsing a "magic potion" against Covid-19 made by a sorcerer.

She also poured a pot of "blessed" water into a river in November after a self-styled god-man told her that it would end the pandemic in the island nation of 21 million people.

Sri Lanka's health ministry under Wanniarachchi came under intense criticism last week for understating coronavirus infections.

Despite the demotion, she will remain in the cabinet -- the president gave her the less important transport ministry.

The number of daily virus deaths crossed 150 in the past week, overwhelming crematoriums.

Daily infections crossed 3,000, and with hospitals struggling to cope, even government health workers say the actual number of infections could be three times higher.

The government has so far rejected calls for a lockdown to contain the surge, but last week tightened restrictions.

Wedding and parties have been banned from Tuesday, while state ceremonies and public gatherings are also prohibited until September 1.

Shops, restaurants and officers will have to follow a night curfew from Monday.

In the cabinet reshuffle, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Education Minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris swapped their portfolios.

Sri Lanka's president on Monday demoted the health minister who publicly endorsed sorcery and magic potions to battle Covid-19, as coronavirus infections and deaths hit record highs.

Sri Lanka's president on Monday demoted the health minister who publicly endorsed sorcery and magic potions to battle Covid-19, as coronavirus infections and deaths hit record highs. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's office said Pavithra Wanniarachchi's health portfolio had been given to Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella who is also the government spokesman. Wanniarachchi was in intensive care in January after contracting the virus despite publicly consuming and endorsing a "magic potion" against Covid-19 made by a sorcerer. She also poured a pot of "blessed" water into a river in November after a self-styled god-man told her that it would end the pandemic in the island nation of 21 million people. Sri Lanka's health ministry under Wanniarachchi came under intense criticism last week for understating coronavirus infections. Despite the demotion, she will remain in the cabinet -- the president gave her the less important transport ministry. The number of daily virus deaths crossed 150 in the past week, overwhelming crematoriums. Daily infections crossed 3,000, and with hospitals struggling to cope, even government health workers say the actual number of infections could be three times higher. The government has so far rejected calls for a lockdown to contain the surge, but last week tightened restrictions. Wedding and parties have been banned from Tuesday, while state ceremonies and public gatherings are also prohibited until September 1. Shops, restaurants and officers will have to follow a night curfew from Monday. In the cabinet reshuffle, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Education Minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris swapped their portfolios.

Sri Lanka axes health minister over Covid misinformation as outbreak grows

Power in Afghanistan is firmly in hands of the Taliban but an interesting bit about Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani's escape from the country has come out. RIA news agency mentioned Russian embassy in Kabul as saying that Ghani fled Afghanistan with four cars and helicopter full of cash. As per the report, some money had to be left behind as all would not fit in the escape vehicles.

Accurate information about Ghani's exact whereabouts is not available.

Russia's embassy in Kabul said on Monday that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had fled the country with four cars and a helicopter full of cash and had to leave some money behind as it would not all fit in, the RIA news agency reported.

Russia has said it will retain a diplomatic presence in Kabul and hopes to develop ties with the Taliban even as it says it is no rush to recognise them as the country's rulers and will closely observe their behaviour.

"As for the collapse of the (outgoing) regime, it is most eloquently characterised by the way Ghani fled Afghanistan," Nikita Ishchenko, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Kabul, was quoted as saying by RIA.

"Four cars were full of money, they tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac," he was quoted as saying.

Ischenko, the Russian embassy spokesman, confirmed his comments to Reuters. He cited "witnesses" as the source of his information. Reuters could not independently confirm the veracity of his account immediately.

President Vladimir Putin's special representative on Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said earlier it was unclear how much money the fleeing government would leave behind.

"I hope the government that has fled did not take all the money from the state budget. It will be the bedrock of the budget if something is left," Kabulov told Moscow's Ekho Moskvy radio station.

(With inputs from agencies)

Power in Afghanistan is firmly in hands of the Taliban but an interesting bit about Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani's escape from the country has come out. RIA news agency mentioned Russian embassy in Kabul as saying that Ghani fled Afghanistan with four cars and helicopter full of cash.

Power in Afghanistan is firmly in hands of the Taliban but an interesting bit about Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani's escape from the country has come out. RIA news agency mentioned Russian embassy in Kabul as saying that Ghani fled Afghanistan with four cars and helicopter full of cash. As per the report, some money had to be left behind as all would not fit in the escape vehicles. Accurate information about Ghani's exact whereabouts is not available. Russia's embassy in Kabul said on Monday that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had fled the country with four cars and a helicopter full of cash and had to leave some money behind as it would not all fit in, the RIA news agency reported. Russia has said it will retain a diplomatic presence in Kabul and hopes to develop ties with the Taliban even as it says it is no rush to recognise them as the country's rulers and will closely observe their behaviour. "As for the collapse of the (outgoing) regime, it is most eloquently characterised by the way Ghani fled Afghanistan," Nikita Ishchenko, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Kabul, was quoted as saying by RIA. "Four cars were full of money, they tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac," he was quoted as saying. Ischenko, the Russian embassy spokesman, confirmed his comments to Reuters. He cited "witnesses" as the source of his information. Reuters could not independently confirm the veracity of his account immediately. President Vladimir Putin's special representative on Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said earlier it was unclear how much money the fleeing government would leave behind. "I hope the government that has fled did not take all the money from the state budget. It will be the bedrock of the budget if something is left," Kabulov told Moscow's Ekho Moskvy radio station. (With inputs from agencies)

Afghan president Ghani fled country with helicopter full of cash: Report

An Afghan military plane has crashed in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek defence ministry has confirmed the earlier reports.

"The military plane illegally crossed the border of Uzbekistan. An investigation is under way," ministry spokesman Bakhrom Zulfikarov told AFP, confirming Uzbek media reports of a crash taking place late Sunday in Uzbekistan's southern province of Surkhondaryo, which borders Afghanistan.

Zulfikarov said the ministry would prepare a statement on the crash.

Bekpulat Okboyev, a doctor in Surkhondaryo province, told AFP his hospital had taken in two patients who were wearing Afghan military uniforms on Sunday evening.&nbsp;

The doctor described one of the patients as having come in "with a parachute" and noted that the man had suffered fractures.&nbsp;

Central Asia has watched with alarm as Afghanistan's government has collapsed.&nbsp;

Three former Soviet countries -- Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- border the country.&nbsp;

On Sunday, Uzbekistan said 84 Afghan soldiers had been detained crossing the border, adding that it was negotiating with the Afghans over the soldiers' return.

(With inputs from agencies)

An Afghan military plane has crashed in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek defence ministry has confirmed the earlier reports. "The military plane illegally crossed the border of Uzbekistan.

An Afghan military plane has crashed in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek defence ministry has confirmed the earlier reports. "The military plane illegally crossed the border of Uzbekistan. An investigation is under way," ministry spokesman Bakhrom Zulfikarov told AFP, confirming Uzbek media reports of a crash taking place late Sunday in Uzbekistan's southern province of Surkhondaryo, which borders Afghanistan. Zulfikarov said the ministry would prepare a statement on the crash. Bekpulat Okboyev, a doctor in Surkhondaryo province, told AFP his hospital had taken in two patients who were wearing Afghan military uniforms on Sunday evening. The doctor described one of the patients as having come in "with a parachute" and noted that the man had suffered fractures. Central Asia has watched with alarm as Afghanistan's government has collapsed. Three former Soviet countries -- Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- border the country. On Sunday, Uzbekistan said 84 Afghan soldiers had been detained crossing the border, adding that it was negotiating with the Afghans over the soldiers' return. (With inputs from agencies)

Afghan military plane crashed in Uzbekistan, says Uzbek defence ministry

By now, the Taliban's grip on power in Afghanistan is firm. On Sunday (August 15) Taliban fighters entered Kabul and also in the presidential palace. Situation is chaotic in Kabul with thousands of people wanting to escape the country as they fear Taliban rule. Taliban have already said that they will form the next government in the country. Taliban have survived USA's two-decades-long war on terror and these prominent Talibani figures are likely to get prominent positions in the emerging government set-up in Afghanistan

Haibatullah Akhundzada

<img alt="Akhundzada" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8bbead5b-2714-44b0-9c23-e6826729fb3b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/000_9L69HL%20%281%29_0.jpg" />

Akhundzada became leader of the Taliban after assassination of his predecessor Mullah Mansour Akhtar, in 2016.

After being appointed leader, Akhundzada secured a pledge of loyalty from Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, who showered the religious scholar with praise -- calling him "the emir of the faithful".

This helped him seal his jihadi credentials with the group’s long-time allies.

He is seen more as a spiritual leader than a military figurehead.

Akhundzada was tasked with the enormous challenge of unifying a militant movement that briefly fractured during a bitter power struggle following the assassination of his predecessor, and the revelation that the leadership had hid the death of Taliban founder Mullah Omar for years. 
The leader's public profile has been largely limited to the release of annual messages during Islamic holidays.

The founder, Mullah Baradar

<img alt="Baradar" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bd2c9535-3430-475b-b44a-ba8b0862c19b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/000_9L69HU%20%281%29_0.jpg" />

Mullah Baradar shares his birthplace with Talibani movement, Kandahar

He turned insurgent during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1970s.

He was believed to have fought side-by-side with the one-eyed cleric Mullah Omar. Baradar and Omar founded the Talibani movement in early 90s amid the chaos of civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Arrested in Pakistan in 2010, Baradar was kept in custody until pressure from the United States saw him freed in 2018 and relocated to Qatar.

This is where he was appointed head of the Taliban's political office and oversaw the signing of the withdrawal agreement with the Americans.&nbsp;

Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Haqqani Network

He is son of the famed anti-Soviet commander Jalaluddin Haqqani.

Sirajuddin doubles as both the deputy leader of the Taliban movement while also heading the powerful Haqqani network.&nbsp;

The Haqqani Network is a US-designated terror group that has long been viewed as one of the most dangerous factions fighting Afghan and US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan during the past two decades.

The group is infamous for its use of suicide bombers and is believed to have orchestrated some of the most high-profile attacks in Kabul over the years.&nbsp;

The network has also been accused of assassinating top Afghan officials and holding kidnapped Western citizens for ransom -- including US soldier Bowe Bergdahl, released in 2014.

Known for their independence, fighting acumen, and savvy business dealings, the Haqqanis are believed to oversee operations in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan, while holding considerable sway over the Taliban's leadership council.&nbsp;

Mullah Yaqoob, the scion

The son of the Taliban's founder Mullah Omar.

Mullah Yaqoob heads the group's powerful military commission, which oversees a vast network of field commanders charged with executing the insurgency's strategic operations in the war. &nbsp;

His lineage and ties to his father -- who enjoyed a cult-like status as the Taliban's leader -- serves as a potent symbol and makes him a unifying figure over a sprawling movement.&nbsp;

However, speculation remains rife about Yaqoob’s exact role within the movement, with some analysts arguing that his appointment to the role in 2020 was merely cosmetic.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

By now, the Taliban's grip on power in Afghanistan is firm. On Sunday (August 15) Taliban fighters entered Kabul and also in the presidential palace. Situation is chaotic in Kabul with thousands of people wanting to escape the country as they fear Taliban rule.

By now, the Taliban's grip on power in Afghanistan is firm. On Sunday (August 15) Taliban fighters entered Kabul and also in the presidential palace. Situation is chaotic in Kabul with thousands of people wanting to escape the country as they fear Taliban rule. Taliban have already said that they will form the next government in the country. Taliban have survived USA's two-decades-long war on terror and these prominent Talibani figures are likely to get prominent positions in the emerging government set-up in Afghanistan Haibatullah Akhundzada Akhundzada became leader of the Taliban after assassination of his predecessor Mullah Mansour Akhtar, in 2016. After being appointed leader, Akhundzada secured a pledge of loyalty from Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, who showered the religious scholar with praise -- calling him "the emir of the faithful". This helped him seal his jihadi credentials with the group’s long-time allies. He is seen more as a spiritual leader than a military figurehead. Akhundzada was tasked with the enormous challenge of unifying a militant movement that briefly fractured during a bitter power struggle following the assassination of his predecessor, and the revelation that the leadership had hid the death of Taliban founder Mullah Omar for years. The leader's public profile has been largely limited to the release of annual messages during Islamic holidays. The founder, Mullah Baradar Mullah Baradar shares his birthplace with Talibani movement, Kandahar He turned insurgent during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1970s. He was believed to have fought side-by-side with the one-eyed cleric Mullah Omar. Baradar and Omar founded the Talibani movement in early 90s amid the chaos of civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Arrested in Pakistan in 2010, Baradar was kept in custody until pressure from the United States saw him freed in 2018 and relocated to Qatar. This is where he was appointed head of the Taliban's political office and oversaw the signing of the withdrawal agreement with the Americans. Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Haqqani Network He is son of the famed anti-Soviet commander Jalaluddin Haqqani. Sirajuddin doubles as both the deputy leader of the Taliban movement while also heading the powerful Haqqani network. The Haqqani Network is a US-designated terror group that has long been viewed as one of the most dangerous factions fighting Afghan and US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan during the past two decades. The group is infamous for its use of suicide bombers and is believed to have orchestrated some of the most high-profile attacks in Kabul over the years. The network has also been accused of assassinating top Afghan officials and holding kidnapped Western citizens for ransom -- including US soldier Bowe Bergdahl, released in 2014. Known for their independence, fighting acumen, and savvy business dealings, the Haqqanis are believed to oversee operations in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan, while holding considerable sway over the Taliban's leadership council. Mullah Yaqoob, the scion The son of the Taliban's founder Mullah Omar. Mullah Yaqoob heads the group's powerful military commission, which oversees a vast network of field commanders charged with executing the insurgency's strategic operations in the war. His lineage and ties to his father -- who enjoyed a cult-like status as the Taliban's leader -- serves as a potent symbol and makes him a unifying figure over a sprawling movement. However, speculation remains rife about Yaqoob’s exact role within the movement, with some analysts arguing that his appointment to the role in 2020 was merely cosmetic. (With inputs from agencies)

Afghanistan: Who's who of Taliban leadership

Spain is launching an inquiry against a power company for draining water reservoirs just when the country is in the grips of a heatwave and drought. Iberdrola, the company, is facing flak for draining dams in Zamora and Caceras provinces to make electricity in order to gain profit from exceptionally high electricity prices.

Spain is currently experiencing high temperatures. Some regions of the country have recorded temperatures as high as 47 degrees Celsius. And it is partly why the profiteering action of the company has drawn attention.

Spain's minister for ecological transition Teresa Ribera has written to the company. She has described the company's actions as scandalous. In a televised interview, Ribera said that what the company did should not have been allowed to happen.

“Water is a scarce resource which is just as important for the wellbeing of families and the economy as it is for generating electricity,” she was quoted as saying by The Guardian

Ribera said that the company's actions were irresponsible but it was not illegal as the company was allowed to use a fixed quantity of water any time of the year irrespective of climatic conditions.

Both the reservoirs are away from the sea and were popular for swimming and boating especially during heatwaves. They have been reported to have desert-like conditions now.

(With inputs from agencies)

Spain is launching an inquiry against a power company for draining water reservoirs just when the country is in the grips of a heatwave and drought. Iberdrola, the company, is facing flak for draining dams in Zamora and Caceras provinces to make electricity in order to gain profit from exceptionally high electricity prices.

Spain is launching an inquiry against a power company for draining water reservoirs just when the country is in the grips of a heatwave and drought. Iberdrola, the company, is facing flak for draining dams in Zamora and Caceras provinces to make electricity in order to gain profit from exceptionally high electricity prices. Spain is currently experiencing high temperatures. Some regions of the country have recorded temperatures as high as 47 degrees Celsius. And it is partly why the profiteering action of the company has drawn attention. Spain's minister for ecological transition Teresa Ribera has written to the company. She has described the company's actions as scandalous. In a televised interview, Ribera said that what the company did should not have been allowed to happen. “Water is a scarce resource which is just as important for the wellbeing of families and the economy as it is for generating electricity,” she was quoted as saying by The Guardian Ribera said that the company's actions were irresponsible but it was not illegal as the company was allowed to use a fixed quantity of water any time of the year irrespective of climatic conditions. Both the reservoirs are away from the sea and were popular for swimming and boating especially during heatwaves. They have been reported to have desert-like conditions now. (With inputs from agencies)

Spain: Power company under probe for deliberately draining reservoir for profits during heatwave

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Manas Joshi

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.