US House of Representatives&nbsp;Republicans on Monday (Sep 9) are set to release a long-awaited critical report blasting President Joe Biden for the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The report claims that "America's credibility on the world stage was severely damaged" with the withdrawal and that Biden failed to mitigate the "likely consequences of the decision" to withdraw, made by the previous administration of Donald Trump.

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:131,&quot;w&quot;:579,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:1968}" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/honeymoon-period-over-for-harris-trump-leads-among-likely-voters-in-fresh-poll-756917">Honeymoon period over for Harris? Trump leads among likely voters in fresh poll</a>

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:167,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2004}">The failings of Afghanistan withdrawal</h2>

The report, a result of a three-year investigation led by Representative Michael McCaul, the Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, slams the Biden administration on many counts, including for its delayed decision to evacuate non-combatants — formally ordered only on Aug. 16.

Additionally, it claims&nbsp;that the administration did not effectively communicate within departments in Washington or among officials in Afghanistan, and mishandled the paperwork for the departure of eligible Afghan civilians.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/largest-attack-on-us-soil-since-911-pakistani-citizen-who-planned-terrorist-attack-in-ny-on-oct-7-756903">'Largest attack on US soil since 9/11': Pakistani citizen who planned terrorist attack in NY on Oct 7</a>

"America’s credibility on the world stage was severely damaged after we abandoned Afghan allies to Taliban reprisal killings — the people of Afghanistan we had promised to protect," states the report, adding that&nbsp;"the moral injury to America’s veterans and those still serving remains a stain on this administration’s legacy."

The report also&nbsp;highlights the shared concerns of military leaders who believed the US should have kept troops in the country and continued the war launched in 2001 after the 9/11 (September 11) attacks.

"Biden's decision to withdraw all US troops was not based on the security situation, the Doha agreement, or the advice of his senior national security advisors or our allies," claims the report.

"Rather, it was premised on his longstanding and unyielding opinion that the United States should no longer be in Afghanistan."

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:413,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:34,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2250}">Democrats clap back</h2>

As the issue of 9/11 gets increasingly politicised ahead of the November elections, Democrats, as per the news agency AFP, slammed the Republican report as an attempt to upset the upcoming presidential elections.

"If they have had three years to assess what happened, why are they delivering a report after Labor Day in a presidential election year?" asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg during an interview with CNN.

Biden's party contends that some blame for the messy withdrawal lies with Trump, who started the withdrawal process in 2020.

(With inputs from agencies)

US House of Representatives Republicans on Monday (Sep 9) are set to release a long-awaited critical report blasting President Joe Biden for the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

US House of Representatives Republicans on Monday (Sep 9) are set to release a long-awaited critical report blasting President Joe Biden for the 2021 military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The report claims that "America's credibility on the world stage was severely damaged" with the withdrawal and that Biden failed to mitigate the "likely consequences of the decision" to withdraw, made by the previous administration of Donald Trump. Also read | Honeymoon period over for Harris? Trump leads among likely voters in fresh poll The failings of Afghanistan withdrawal The report, a result of a three-year investigation led by Representative Michael McCaul, the Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, slams the Biden administration on many counts, including for its delayed decision to evacuate non-combatants — formally ordered only on Aug. 16. Additionally, it claims that the administration did not effectively communicate within departments in Washington or among officials in Afghanistan, and mishandled the paperwork for the departure of eligible Afghan civilians. Also read | 'Largest attack on US soil since 9/11': Pakistani citizen who planned terrorist attack in NY on Oct 7 "America’s credibility on the world stage was severely damaged after we abandoned Afghan allies to Taliban reprisal killings — the people of Afghanistan we had promised to protect," states the report, adding that "the moral injury to America’s veterans and those still serving remains a stain on this administration’s legacy." The report also highlights the shared concerns of military leaders who believed the US should have kept troops in the country and continued the war launched in 2001 after the 9/11 (September 11) attacks. "Biden's decision to withdraw all US troops was not based on the security situation, the Doha agreement, or the advice of his senior national security advisors or our allies," claims the report. "Rather, it was premised on his longstanding and unyielding opinion that the United States should no longer be in Afghanistan." Democrats clap back As the issue of 9/11 gets increasingly politicised ahead of the November elections, Democrats, as per the news agency AFP, slammed the Republican report as an attempt to upset the upcoming presidential elections. "If they have had three years to assess what happened, why are they delivering a report after Labor Day in a presidential election year?" asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg during an interview with CNN. Biden's party contends that some blame for the messy withdrawal lies with Trump, who started the withdrawal process in 2020. (With inputs from agencies)

Republican report slams Biden for 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, damaging 'America's credibility’

Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach.

That approach appears to have brought Biden to the precipice of victory on a $2 trillion deal that could begin to define his legacy as a successful Oval Office legislative architect, one who is reshaping government spending and doing so by the narrowest of margins in a country with deep partisan and ideological chasms.

But the bill is certain to be far smaller than what he originally proposed, and far less ambitious than he and many of his allies had hoped. It won’t make him the one who finally secured free community college for everyone. Seniors won’t get free dental, hearing and vision coverage from Medicare. And there won’t be a new system of penalties for the worst polluters.

“Look — hey, look, it’s all about compromise,” Biden said at a CNN town hall meeting on Thursday, shrugging off the doubters as he sought to close the deal with lawmakers and the public.

But accepting less and calling it a win has its limits — and consequences.

By spending the last several months pushing for an even larger and more ambitious agenda, knowing that he would most likely have to pare it back, Biden has let down some supporters who believed he could deliver on his soaring rhetoric about the need for better higher education, expanded Medicare services and bold advances in the fight against climate change.

“In order to make real progress, you have to inspire people about the importance of the work,” said Doug Elmendorf, the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And then any compromise is a disappointment.”

Negotiations are continuing on the package’s final framework. But after pushing for months for a $3.5 trillion bill, the president is likely now to end up with a measure that includes less than $2 trillion in spending on various social programs and anti-climate-change initiatives.

Once the spending bills are behind him, Biden still faces challenges that are not so easily solved by compromise. On Thursday, he appeared to acknowledge that reality by hinting that he was open to altering the Senate’s longstanding filibuster rules if that is what it takes to break through Republican opposition to protecting voting rights and passing other parts of the Democratic agenda.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indecency-turkeys-erdogan-orders-expulsion-of-10-ambassadors-423377">Also read |&nbsp;'Indecency': Turkey's Erdogan orders expulsion of 10 ambassadors</a>

“We’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster,” he told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.

That is a dramatic concession for a politician like Biden, who embraced the often arcane rules of the Senate during the three decades he served there. Like other institutionalists in the chamber, Biden has resisted demands from liberal activists to shatter those rules, fearful of the consequences the next time Republicans are in charge.

But the Washington that Biden often reminisces about the one in which Democrats and Republicans work together toward common goals is largely a distant memory. If he wants to make progress on voting rights, climate change, prison reform, an immigration overhaul and more, he most likely won’t be able to lean on the same instincts that have animated most of his political life and defined the brand that helped him win the White House.

The political differences are stark: Republicans argue the president’s spending program would burden future generations with more debt and serve as a drag on the economy. They insist the voting rights legislation is intended to benefit Democrats, and they oppose many of the president’s climate policies because they say they will be bad for jobs and business.

John Podesta, who served as former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, said Biden “has done a pretty good job of pushing as far as he could in the style that he was a champion of.” But he said that beyond the spending bills, “it’s hard to see how he gets that same spirit of collaboration, good will, honorable compromise.” The issue of voting rights may be the clearest example in the months to come.

Just this week, Republicans used the filibuster to block an already watered-down Democratic voting rights bill for the third time since Biden took office. The takeaway? If Democrats want federal legislation to stop what they view as an assault on voting in Republican-controlled states, they will need to play hardball.

That very likely means persuading all 50 Democrats and independents in the chamber to vote for changing the filibuster rule — if he can.

“President Biden and Senate Democrats need to fulfill campaign promises and defend our democracy — there’s too much at stake,” leaders of Fix Our Senate, a group that favors eliminating the filibuster, said in a statement on Friday. “After three Republican filibusters of common sense voter protection laws, it’s time to end the filibuster and protect the right to vote for all Americans.”

Advocates for immigrants’ rights are poised to make a similar argument on behalf of fixing what most agree is a broken system. The idea of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, which Biden proposed on his first day in office, has stalled amid opposition from Republican lawmakers.

An attempt to use the spending bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally was blocked by special Senate rules on the budget. If Biden wants to make good on his promised immigration overhaul, it would require a separate bill, and he may have no choice but to change the filibuster rules for that issue as well.

But perhaps the biggest promise Biden made during the campaign was to be the president who would finally confront the environmental dangers facing the planet. On Thursday, he put it in the bluntest possible terms: “The existential threat to humanity is climate change.”

Biden and his party are likely to face that threat alone in the coming months and years. Most Republicans have shown little appetite for aggressive action to counter the environmental damage from cars, manufacturing and other economic activities.

And even within his own party, the president faces divisions that make it difficult to convince the rest of the world that the United States is serious about reducing the emissions that are causing global warming.

For Biden, then, the question will be: Is he willing to treat the debate of core issues like the climate, voting rights and immigration as a “break the glass” moment in which he and his Democratic allies have no choice but to change the rules, even if it means Republicans will take advantage of the chance to advance their own agenda once they return to power?

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cop26-climate-deal-will-be-harder-than-paris-accord-says-alok-sharma-423292">Also read |&nbsp;Cop26 climate deal will be harder than Paris accord, says Alok Sharma</a>

Of course, the president can’t change the filibuster by himself. Doing so would take the votes of all 50 Democratic and independent senators, along with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris. And already, some of the same Democratic senators who forced him to accept less spending have said they oppose altering the filibuster.

But the president is the leader of his party, and his voice matters. If he decides it’s time to “fundamentally alter the filibuster,” as he said on Thursday, members of his party may listen.

One argument at his disposal: Changing the rules to allow more of the Democratic agenda to pass could be vital for the party’s success at the polls.

Strategists say enthusiasm among core Democratic voters is critical to defeating the Republican Party in the midterm elections of 2022 (and perhaps Trump, its leader, two years later). If crucial parts of the president’s coalition remain unhappy because they are disappointed in the compromise bill, that could threaten Democratic hopes to remain in power in Congress and the White House.

“The political costs of this will be large,” Elmendorf said.

Podesta, who advised Hillary Clinton during her runs for the presidency, agreed. He said it was a “big problem” if Democrats couldn’t deliver on the fundamental promises. Biden’s approval ratings have already fallen into the low-to-mid-40s.

“Particularly younger voters,” he said. “You are seeing it among independents, African American and Latino voters. They are just feeling like these guys are not delivering.”

Biden might turn the enthusiasm gap around by making progress on the rest of his agenda, including voting rights, immigration and climate change.

He vowed on Thursday that he would continue to press for parts of his agenda that were left on the cutting room floor during the debate over the spending bills. He called increasing Pell Grants for college students “a start” but he pledged to keep trying for free community college&nbsp;in part to satisfy the demands of his wife, Jill Biden, who is a longtime college professor.

“I’m going to get it done,” he vowed, adding with a smile at his wife in the front row, “and if I don’t, I’ll be sleeping alone for a long time.”

Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach.

Joe Biden’s pitch during the 2020 campaign to unseat President Donald Trump was simple: Trade in a stubborn, immovable leader for one with a proven record of taking half a loaf when a full one is out of reach. That approach appears to have brought Biden to the precipice of victory on a $2 trillion deal that could begin to define his legacy as a successful Oval Office legislative architect, one who is reshaping government spending and doing so by the narrowest of margins in a country with deep partisan and ideological chasms. But the bill is certain to be far smaller than what he originally proposed, and far less ambitious than he and many of his allies had hoped. It won’t make him the one who finally secured free community college for everyone. Seniors won’t get free dental, hearing and vision coverage from Medicare. And there won’t be a new system of penalties for the worst polluters. “Look — hey, look, it’s all about compromise,” Biden said at a CNN town hall meeting on Thursday, shrugging off the doubters as he sought to close the deal with lawmakers and the public. But accepting less and calling it a win has its limits — and consequences. By spending the last several months pushing for an even larger and more ambitious agenda, knowing that he would most likely have to pare it back, Biden has let down some supporters who believed he could deliver on his soaring rhetoric about the need for better higher education, expanded Medicare services and bold advances in the fight against climate change. “In order to make real progress, you have to inspire people about the importance of the work,” said Doug Elmendorf, the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And then any compromise is a disappointment.” Negotiations are continuing on the package’s final framework. But after pushing for months for a $3.5 trillion bill, the president is likely now to end up with a measure that includes less than $2 trillion in spending on various social programs and anti-climate-change initiatives. Once the spending bills are behind him, Biden still faces challenges that are not so easily solved by compromise. On Thursday, he appeared to acknowledge that reality by hinting that he was open to altering the Senate’s longstanding filibuster rules if that is what it takes to break through Republican opposition to protecting voting rights and passing other parts of the Democratic agenda. Also read | 'Indecency': Turkey's Erdogan orders expulsion of 10 ambassadors “We’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster,” he told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. That is a dramatic concession for a politician like Biden, who embraced the often arcane rules of the Senate during the three decades he served there. Like other institutionalists in the chamber, Biden has resisted demands from liberal activists to shatter those rules, fearful of the consequences the next time Republicans are in charge. But the Washington that Biden often reminisces about the one in which Democrats and Republicans work together toward common goals is largely a distant memory. If he wants to make progress on voting rights, climate change, prison reform, an immigration overhaul and more, he most likely won’t be able to lean on the same instincts that have animated most of his political life and defined the brand that helped him win the White House. The political differences are stark: Republicans argue the president’s spending program would burden future generations with more debt and serve as a drag on the economy. They insist the voting rights legislation is intended to benefit Democrats, and they oppose many of the president’s climate policies because they say they will be bad for jobs and business. John Podesta, who served as former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, said Biden “has done a pretty good job of pushing as far as he could in the style that he was a champion of.” But he said that beyond the spending bills, “it’s hard to see how he gets that same spirit of collaboration, good will, honorable compromise.” The issue of voting rights may be the clearest example in the months to come. Just this week, Republicans used the filibuster to block an already watered-down Democratic voting rights bill for the third time since Biden took office. The takeaway? If Democrats want federal legislation to stop what they view as an assault on voting in Republican-controlled states, they will need to play hardball. That very likely means persuading all 50 Democrats and independents in the chamber to vote for changing the filibuster rule — if he can. “President Biden and Senate Democrats need to fulfill campaign promises and defend our democracy — there’s too much at stake,” leaders of Fix Our Senate, a group that favors eliminating the filibuster, said in a statement on Friday. “After three Republican filibusters of common sense voter protection laws, it’s time to end the filibuster and protect the right to vote for all Americans.” Advocates for immigrants’ rights are poised to make a similar argument on behalf of fixing what most agree is a broken system. The idea of a bipartisan immigration overhaul, which Biden proposed on his first day in office, has stalled amid opposition from Republican lawmakers. An attempt to use the spending bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally was blocked by special Senate rules on the budget. If Biden wants to make good on his promised immigration overhaul, it would require a separate bill, and he may have no choice but to change the filibuster rules for that issue as well. But perhaps the biggest promise Biden made during the campaign was to be the president who would finally confront the environmental dangers facing the planet. On Thursday, he put it in the bluntest possible terms: “The existential threat to humanity is climate change.” Biden and his party are likely to face that threat alone in the coming months and years. Most Republicans have shown little appetite for aggressive action to counter the environmental damage from cars, manufacturing and other economic activities. And even within his own party, the president faces divisions that make it difficult to convince the rest of the world that the United States is serious about reducing the emissions that are causing global warming. For Biden, then, the question will be: Is he willing to treat the debate of core issues like the climate, voting rights and immigration as a “break the glass” moment in which he and his Democratic allies have no choice but to change the rules, even if it means Republicans will take advantage of the chance to advance their own agenda once they return to power? Also read | Cop26 climate deal will be harder than Paris accord, says Alok Sharma Of course, the president can’t change the filibuster by himself. Doing so would take the votes of all 50 Democratic and independent senators, along with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris. And already, some of the same Democratic senators who forced him to accept less spending have said they oppose altering the filibuster. But the president is the leader of his party, and his voice matters. If he decides it’s time to “fundamentally alter the filibuster,” as he said on Thursday, members of his party may listen. One argument at his disposal: Changing the rules to allow more of the Democratic agenda to pass could be vital for the party’s success at the polls. Strategists say enthusiasm among core Democratic voters is critical to defeating the Republican Party in the midterm elections of 2022 (and perhaps Trump, its leader, two years later). If crucial parts of the president’s coalition remain unhappy because they are disappointed in the compromise bill, that could threaten Democratic hopes to remain in power in Congress and the White House. “The political costs of this will be large,” Elmendorf said. Podesta, who advised Hillary Clinton during her runs for the presidency, agreed. He said it was a “big problem” if Democrats couldn’t deliver on the fundamental promises. Biden’s approval ratings have already fallen into the low-to-mid-40s. “Particularly younger voters,” he said. “You are seeing it among independents, African American and Latino voters. They are just feeling like these guys are not delivering.” Biden might turn the enthusiasm gap around by making progress on the rest of his agenda, including voting rights, immigration and climate change. He vowed on Thursday that he would continue to press for parts of his agenda that were left on the cutting room floor during the debate over the spending bills. He called increasing Pell Grants for college students “a start” but he pledged to keep trying for free community college in part to satisfy the demands of his wife, Jill Biden, who is a longtime college professor. “I’m going to get it done,” he vowed, adding with a smile at his wife in the front row, “and if I don’t, I’ll be sleeping alone for a long time.”

Biden the dealmaker finds that compromise can have consequences

Anarkali Kaur Honaryar, an Afghan MP who was evacuated from Afghanistan amid the Taliban crisis, praised the Indian government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the Indian Air Force on Monday.&nbsp;

The MP described the current scenario in Afghanistan as "unimaginable," adding that "there is no government" and that "the president has not been there for ten days."&nbsp;

"We had high hopes for a peaceful resolution, but nothing materialised," she added.

She said, "Many people in Afghanistan don't have travel documents. We had to wait from 12 midnight to 10 am in the hot weather."&nbsp; 
 
Watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/watch-us-jets-evacuating-afghans-make-diving-combat-landings-drop-flares-amid-isis-missile-fears-407853">US jets evacuating Afghans make ‘diving combat landings’, drop flares amid ISIS missile fears</a>

"There were incidents of firing around the airport every day and 3-4 people died daily," Kaur added.&nbsp;

Slamming the Taliban, she said, "20 years ago, the Taliban used to think that Sikhs and Hindus were not entitled to any rights as they were not Muslim," she added.

"When a Taliban spokesman spoke to the media for the first time, he didn't mention Sikhs or Hindus, and it's unclear whether they'll have any rights in the future," the MP pointed out.

Meanwhile, the government has planned an all-party meeting on the Afghanistan crisis for August 26. The government will brief members of parliament from various political parties on the latest developments in the war-torn country.

(With inputs from ANI)

Anarkali Kaur Honaryar, an Afghan MP who was evacuated from Afghanistan amid the Taliban crisis, praised the Indian government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the Indian Air Force on Monday.

Anarkali Kaur Honaryar, an Afghan MP who was evacuated from Afghanistan amid the Taliban crisis, praised the Indian government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the Indian Air Force on Monday. The MP described the current scenario in Afghanistan as "unimaginable," adding that "there is no government" and that "the president has not been there for ten days." "We had high hopes for a peaceful resolution, but nothing materialised," she added. She said, "Many people in Afghanistan don't have travel documents. We had to wait from 12 midnight to 10 am in the hot weather." Watch: US jets evacuating Afghans make ‘diving combat landings’, drop flares amid ISIS missile fears "There were incidents of firing around the airport every day and 3-4 people died daily," Kaur added. Slamming the Taliban, she said, "20 years ago, the Taliban used to think that Sikhs and Hindus were not entitled to any rights as they were not Muslim," she added. "When a Taliban spokesman spoke to the media for the first time, he didn't mention Sikhs or Hindus, and it's unclear whether they'll have any rights in the future," the MP pointed out. Meanwhile, the government has planned an all-party meeting on the Afghanistan crisis for August 26. The government will brief members of parliament from various political parties on the latest developments in the war-torn country. (With inputs from ANI)

Uncertain whether Hindus and Sikhs will have any rights in Afghanistan: Afghan MP after Taliban takeover

Amidst the calls for extension of&nbsp;US troops withdrawal&nbsp;deadline,&nbsp;the&nbsp;Taliban&nbsp;have&nbsp;issued a stark warning against the move. The&nbsp;Taliban spokesperson said&nbsp;if the US or the UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations,&nbsp;the answer is no or there would be consequences.&nbsp;

Watch: Taliban 'mock US' with propaganda photo copying Iwo Jima flag raising

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/taliban-mock-us-with-propaganda-photo-copying-iwo-jima-flag-raising-407771/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In an interview to Sky News in Doha,&nbsp;Taliban spokesperson Dr Suhail Shaheen said, "It's a red line. President Biden announced that on August 31, they would withdraw all their military forces. So, if they extend it that means they are extending occupation while there is no need for that."&nbsp;

Just days away, the&nbsp;deadline for&nbsp;US&nbsp;troops withdrawal&nbsp;from Afghanistan&nbsp;is approaching. It has made the&nbsp;evacuation of people more intense. Several calls are being made for its extension.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-founder-of-only-all-girls-school-burns-records-for-students-safety-407754">Afghanistan: Founder of only all-girls school burns records for students' safety</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Taliban spokesperson&nbsp;added,&nbsp;"If the US or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations - the answer is no. Or there would be consequences.&nbsp;It will create mistrust between us. If they are intent on continuing the occupation it will provoke a reaction."&nbsp;

The development comes as&nbsp;United&nbsp;Kingdom&nbsp;Prime&nbsp;Minister&nbsp;Boris Johnson is&nbsp;about to&nbsp;ask&nbsp;United&nbsp;States&nbsp;President&nbsp;Joe Biden to extend&nbsp;the&nbsp;deadline&nbsp;for&nbsp;withdrawal&nbsp;to allow more people to flee the Taliban&nbsp;rule.&nbsp;

Amidst the calls for extension of US troops withdrawal deadline, the Taliban have issued a stark warning against the move. The Taliban spokesperson said if the US or the UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations, the answer is no or there would be consequences.

Amidst the calls for extension of US troops withdrawal deadline, the Taliban have issued a stark warning against the move. The Taliban spokesperson said if the US or the UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations, the answer is no or there would be consequences. Watch: Taliban 'mock US' with propaganda photo copying Iwo Jima flag raising × In an interview to Sky News in Doha, Taliban spokesperson Dr Suhail Shaheen said, "It's a red line. President Biden announced that on August 31, they would withdraw all their military forces. So, if they extend it that means they are extending occupation while there is no need for that." Just days away, the deadline for US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan is approaching. It has made the evacuation of people more intense. Several calls are being made for its extension. Also Read | Afghanistan: Founder of only all-girls school burns records for students' safety Taliban spokesperson added, "If the US or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations - the answer is no. Or there would be consequences. It will create mistrust between us. If they are intent on continuing the occupation it will provoke a reaction." The development comes as United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson is about to ask United States President Joe Biden to extend the deadline for withdrawal to allow more people to flee the Taliban rule.

Taliban warn of 'consequences' if US troops withdrawal deadline of August 31 is not met 

Iran and Israel traded blame on Sunday for an unprecedented, weeks-long surge in hostilities between their forces over Syria but played down prospects of a spillover into war.

A showdown between the arch-foes has loomed since Feb. 10, when Israel said an armed Iranian drone launched from a Syrian base penetrated its territory. Israel downed the drone and, during a reprisal raid, lost an F-16 jet to Syrian ground fire.

On April 9, an air strike killed seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps members at the Syrian base. Tehran blamed Israel and vowed unspecified retaliation, drawing Israeli counter-threats to broaden attacks on Iranian military assets in Syria.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a U.S. television interview that further Israeli sorties in Syria would have "consequences". But he deemed major escalation as unlikely.

"I do not believe that we are headed towards regional war but I do believe that unfortunately, Israel has continued its violations with international law, hoping to be able to do it with impunity because of the U.S. support and trying to find smokescreens to hide behind," Zarif told CBS News.

"The easiest answer would be to stop - to stop these acts of aggression, to stop these incursions."

Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and Russia have been reinforcing Damascus against a 7-year-old Syrian rebellion. The Israelis worry that Iran's garrison will remain, linking with Hezbollah to form a broad Syrian-Lebanese front against them.

Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman reiterated his government's policy of preventing Iranian entrenchment in Syria.

"No matter the price, we will not allow a noose to form around us," he told Israel Radio in an interview.

DETERRENCE

But asked if that meant war was imminent, he said: "I hope not. I think that our primary role is prevent war, and that requires concrete, real deterrence as well as readiness to act."

Israel Katz, the Israeli intelligence minister, suggested world powers might intervene to curb Iranian activity in Syria.

Israel is "not interested" in escalation, Katz told the Ynet news site. But Israeli power-projection, he said, "can challenge the Iranians, can clarify to the Russians, who seek stability, that it is worth it for them to apply their influence, and the same goes for the United States, for France and all the others".

The Syria face-off comes as the Trump administration mulls reimposing U.S. economic sanctions against Tehran by May 12, a move that could deal a blow to an international 2015 deal under which the Iranians capped their nuclear projects.

Zarif said Iran might respond to any unravelling of the deal by "resuming at a much greater speed our nuclear activities".

Israel has savaged the deal and encouraged a U.S. review, but Katz appeared to acknowledge the outcome could be costly.

"The United States is changing policy. Israel is determined to prevent this (Iranian nuclear) red-line, a crossing of this red-line," he said. "These are testing times for us. I hope that we won't pay prices."

Also read:<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-hints-it-could-hit-irans-air-force-in-syria-132058"> Israel hints it could hit Iran's 'air force' in Syria</a>

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said however deemed major escalation as unlikely

Iran and Israel traded blame on Sunday for an unprecedented, weeks-long surge in hostilities between their forces over Syria but played down prospects of a spillover into war. A showdown between the arch-foes has loomed since Feb. 10, when Israel said an armed Iranian drone launched from a Syrian base penetrated its territory. Israel downed the drone and, during a reprisal raid, lost an F-16 jet to Syrian ground fire. On April 9, an air strike killed seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps members at the Syrian base. Tehran blamed Israel and vowed unspecified retaliation, drawing Israeli counter-threats to broaden attacks on Iranian military assets in Syria. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a U.S. television interview that further Israeli sorties in Syria would have "consequences". But he deemed major escalation as unlikely. "I do not believe that we are headed towards regional war but I do believe that unfortunately, Israel has continued its violations with international law, hoping to be able to do it with impunity because of the U.S. support and trying to find smokescreens to hide behind," Zarif told CBS News. "The easiest answer would be to stop - to stop these acts of aggression, to stop these incursions." Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and Russia have been reinforcing Damascus against a 7-year-old Syrian rebellion. The Israelis worry that Iran's garrison will remain, linking with Hezbollah to form a broad Syrian-Lebanese front against them. Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman reiterated his government's policy of preventing Iranian entrenchment in Syria. "No matter the price, we will not allow a noose to form around us," he told Israel Radio in an interview. DETERRENCE But asked if that meant war was imminent, he said: "I hope not. I think that our primary role is prevent war, and that requires concrete, real deterrence as well as readiness to act." Israel Katz, the Israeli intelligence minister, suggested world powers might intervene to curb Iranian activity in Syria. Israel is "not interested" in escalation, Katz told the Ynet news site. But Israeli power-projection, he said, "can challenge the Iranians, can clarify to the Russians, who seek stability, that it is worth it for them to apply their influence, and the same goes for the United States, for France and all the others". The Syria face-off comes as the Trump administration mulls reimposing U.S. economic sanctions against Tehran by May 12, a move that could deal a blow to an international 2015 deal under which the Iranians capped their nuclear projects. Zarif said Iran might respond to any unravelling of the deal by "resuming at a much greater speed our nuclear activities". Israel has savaged the deal and encouraged a U.S. review, but Katz appeared to acknowledge the outcome could be costly. "The United States is changing policy. Israel is determined to prevent this (Iranian nuclear) red-line, a crossing of this red-line," he said. "These are testing times for us. I hope that we won't pay prices." Also read: Israel hints it could hit Iran's 'air force' in Syria

Further Israeli sorties in Syria will have consequences: Iran

Britain is expected to submit an application to leave the European Union (EU) following Thursday&#39;s referendum, after which it would have two years to negotiate an exit. Below are possible consequences for Britain and the EU of a Brexit. 
 
ECONOMY 
 
Britain would no longer be subject to EU budget rules, which limit a government&#39;s budget deficit to 3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and public debt to 60 per cent of GDP.&nbsp;It could therefore run whatever budget shortfall it wants without admonishment from the European Commission and other EU ministers. It would also be free from the Commission&#39;s monitoring and advice on future actions. 
 
FINANCE 
 
Financial services firms based in Britain, from banks to clearing houses and funds, could lose their money-spinning EU &quot;passports&quot;, which allows them to sell services across the 28-nation bloc with low costs and a single set of rules. 
 
The passporting system has contributed to making London one of the world&#39;s most important financial centres. UK has been a gateway to European financial market for Non-EU banks based in UK.&nbsp;Some American, Japanese and other non-European banks that have European headquarters in London have said they would consider moving parts of their business inside the European Union, in the event of a BREXIT. 
 
Capital Requirement regulations is legislated through Financial Conduct Authority Handbook and Prudential Regulation Authority Handbook. BREXIT would not likely cause any immediate change in these requirements, however, a certain divergence might be expected in the future. 
 
Individuals and Corporates are covered under EU&#39;s insolvency regulations. This is relevant to banks in their dealings with their borrowers with operations in Member States of EU. Unless replaced by an alternative agreement with the EU or individual EU Member State, banks lending to such borrowers who take enforcement proceedings and/or institute insolvency proceedings in the UK, may find themselves exposed to the risk of competing insolvency proceedings being commenced in one or more other jurisdictions and of not being able to rely on the primacy of the UK proceedings. 
 
Market volatility has caused concerns among borrowers for being exposed to lending risks. 
 
BREXIT would have an impact on capital market instruments.&nbsp;The bond instruments issued in UK, may be amended by borrowers given the conditions in UK post BREXIT. Amendments in syndicate agreements would be costly and ineffective as decisions would be delayed and inadequate. 
 
TRADE 
 
The rest of the EU has a trade surplus in goods of about 100 billion Euros ($110 billion) with Britain, while Britain exports some 20 billion Euros in services than it imports, principally due to financial services. 
 
BREXIT campaigners say if would be in the EU&#39;s interest to agree a free trade deal with Britain even if it leaves the bloc. 
 
However, there tends to be more of a focus on goods than services in free trade deals. Switzerland, where financial services are a larger share of GDP than in Britain, has no general access to EU financial service markets and runs a financial services trade deficit with the bloc. 
 
COMPETITION 
 
British companies acquiring EU peers would still need approval from the UK competition watchdog and the European Commission, resulting in more legal costs and the risk that each delivers a different ruling. 
 
Britain will have a free hand to aid ailing companies or industries without fear of EU action but it will also not be able to oppose subsidies granted by EU governments to their own national champions. 
 
ENERGY 
 
Leaving the EU could make UK energy infrastructure investment costlier and delay new projects at a time when the country needs to plug a looming electricity supply gap. 
 
The uncertainty after BREXIT could make energy investors demand higher returns for the risk of less favourable conditions. Oil and gas majors, BP and Shell are among energy companies who warned about the potential downside. 
 
CLIMATE 
 
Britain is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe and its utilities are among the largest buyers of carbon permits in the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). 
 
Although most analysts believe Britain will remain in the cap-and-trade scheme, the vote is viewed as bearish for the market as Britain would no longer be able to drive tough reforms to drive up the price. 
 
BREXIT would also disrupt the bloc&#39;s plans to share out the burden of its Paris climate change pledge. 
 
The environmentally minded also worry that EU climate targets would be less ambitious without British leadership to balance against more reluctant member states such as coal-dependent Poland. 
 
AVIATION 
 
A BREXIT could call into question EU agreements on open airspace that have granted the region&#39;s airlines unlimited access to the skies of fellow member states, benefiting both UK and EU airlines. 
 
It would also affect transatlantic routes because of the EU-U.S. Open Skies agreement, which gives British airlines unlimited flying rights to the United States. 
 
FOREIGN POLICY 
 
Along with France, Britain is the leading foreign policy power in the EU, boasting a large military and close ties with the United States. After a BREXIT, Washington has made clear it will be less interested in London as an ally because of a perceived loss of influence. 
 
Britain would no longer be bound by joint EU positions, for instance on economic sanctions against Russia. Britain would remain a member of NATO. 
 
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS 
 
Britain has multiple exemptions from justice and home affairs policies, notably not being part of bloc&#39;s Schengen zone of free travel. 
 
It is not clear what restrictions Britain might place on foreign arrivals. The EU has vowed to respond in kind. 
 
Britain currently recognises other EU members&#39; arrest warrants, exchanges police information, including personal data, and is a member of the bloc&#39;s police agency Europol.&nbsp;Its future involvement, including access to EU databases, could diminish, meaning less cooperation on policing and fighting crime. 
 
DEMANDS BY STAKEHOLDERS 
 
With the impact of BREXIT on several sectors of UK, Britain&#39;s biggest banks have put forward their list of demands to the politicians. 
 
1. Exit from the EU should be made smoothly over time, so there is no change over time 
 
2. UK should negotiate to attain a mechanism similar to the passport regime, so that UK operating firms have access to continental market 
 
3. Promote competitiveness of London financial market implying that the UK politicians should promote a level playing field in global financial regulation, throwing the UK fully into a leading role in the G20, Financial Stability Board, Basel Committee, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It also means slashing red tape. 
 
4. Banks and finance firms are keen to ensure that the finance sector is not cut off from the international jobs market. This implies that Britain should press the case for continued access to skilled talent from the EU and the rest of the world in order to boost the UK&rsquo;s competitiveness. The banks are also lobbying for accommodating immigration rules. 
 
IMPACT OF BREXIT ON MARKET 
 
Australia lost $56 billion in a day after BREXIT result was clear. 
 
Asian stocks are dumped as Global economic conditions remain uncertain. 
 
Wall Street and British Sterling also observed a slump.&nbsp; 
 
For markets, BREXIT signals failure of monetary policy and change in political attitude that may encourage governments around the world pursue more inward-looking policies,thus, restricting free flow of trade and finance.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from Reuters)

With BREXIT, there would be impact on several sectors such as Economy, Finance, Trade, Aviation, Energy, Climate etc.

Britain is expected to submit an application to leave the European Union (EU) following Thursday's referendum, after which it would have two years to negotiate an exit. Below are possible consequences for Britain and the EU of a Brexit. ECONOMY Britain would no longer be subject to EU budget rules, which limit a government's budget deficit to 3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and public debt to 60 per cent of GDP. It could therefore run whatever budget shortfall it wants without admonishment from the European Commission and other EU ministers. It would also be free from the Commission's monitoring and advice on future actions. FINANCE Financial services firms based in Britain, from banks to clearing houses and funds, could lose their money-spinning EU "passports", which allows them to sell services across the 28-nation bloc with low costs and a single set of rules. The passporting system has contributed to making London one of the world's most important financial centres. UK has been a gateway to European financial market for Non-EU banks based in UK. Some American, Japanese and other non-European banks that have European headquarters in London have said they would consider moving parts of their business inside the European Union, in the event of a BREXIT. Capital Requirement regulations is legislated through Financial Conduct Authority Handbook and Prudential Regulation Authority Handbook. BREXIT would not likely cause any immediate change in these requirements, however, a certain divergence might be expected in the future. Individuals and Corporates are covered under EU's insolvency regulations. This is relevant to banks in their dealings with their borrowers with operations in Member States of EU. Unless replaced by an alternative agreement with the EU or individual EU Member State, banks lending to such borrowers who take enforcement proceedings and/or institute insolvency proceedings in the UK, may find themselves exposed to the risk of competing insolvency proceedings being commenced in one or more other jurisdictions and of not being able to rely on the primacy of the UK proceedings. Market volatility has caused concerns among borrowers for being exposed to lending risks. BREXIT would have an impact on capital market instruments. The bond instruments issued in UK, may be amended by borrowers given the conditions in UK post BREXIT. Amendments in syndicate agreements would be costly and ineffective as decisions would be delayed and inadequate. TRADE The rest of the EU has a trade surplus in goods of about 100 billion Euros ($110 billion) with Britain, while Britain exports some 20 billion Euros in services than it imports, principally due to financial services. BREXIT campaigners say if would be in the EU's interest to agree a free trade deal with Britain even if it leaves the bloc. However, there tends to be more of a focus on goods than services in free trade deals. Switzerland, where financial services are a larger share of GDP than in Britain, has no general access to EU financial service markets and runs a financial services trade deficit with the bloc. COMPETITION British companies acquiring EU peers would still need approval from the UK competition watchdog and the European Commission, resulting in more legal costs and the risk that each delivers a different ruling. Britain will have a free hand to aid ailing companies or industries without fear of EU action but it will also not be able to oppose subsidies granted by EU governments to their own national champions. ENERGY Leaving the EU could make UK energy infrastructure investment costlier and delay new projects at a time when the country needs to plug a looming electricity supply gap. The uncertainty after BREXIT could make energy investors demand higher returns for the risk of less favourable conditions. Oil and gas majors, BP and Shell are among energy companies who warned about the potential downside. CLIMATE Britain is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe and its utilities are among the largest buyers of carbon permits in the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). Although most analysts believe Britain will remain in the cap-and-trade scheme, the vote is viewed as bearish for the market as Britain would no longer be able to drive tough reforms to drive up the price. BREXIT would also disrupt the bloc's plans to share out the burden of its Paris climate change pledge. The environmentally minded also worry that EU climate targets would be less ambitious without British leadership to balance against more reluctant member states such as coal-dependent Poland. AVIATION A BREXIT could call into question EU agreements on open airspace that have granted the region's airlines unlimited access to the skies of fellow member states, benefiting both UK and EU airlines. It would also affect transatlantic routes because of the EU-U.S. Open Skies agreement, which gives British airlines unlimited flying rights to the United States. FOREIGN POLICY Along with France, Britain is the leading foreign policy power in the EU, boasting a large military and close ties with the United States. After a BREXIT, Washington has made clear it will be less interested in London as an ally because of a perceived loss of influence. Britain would no longer be bound by joint EU positions, for instance on economic sanctions against Russia. Britain would remain a member of NATO. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS Britain has multiple exemptions from justice and home affairs policies, notably not being part of bloc's Schengen zone of free travel. It is not clear what restrictions Britain might place on foreign arrivals. The EU has vowed to respond in kind. Britain currently recognises other EU members' arrest warrants, exchanges police information, including personal data, and is a member of the bloc's police agency Europol. Its future involvement, including access to EU databases, could diminish, meaning less cooperation on policing and fighting crime. DEMANDS BY STAKEHOLDERS With the impact of BREXIT on several sectors of UK, Britain's biggest banks have put forward their list of demands to the politicians. 1. Exit from the EU should be made smoothly over time, so there is no change over time 2. UK should negotiate to attain a mechanism similar to the passport regime, so that UK operating firms have access to continental market 3. Promote competitiveness of London financial market implying that the UK politicians should promote a level playing field in global financial regulation, throwing the UK fully into a leading role in the G20, Financial Stability Board, Basel Committee, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It also means slashing red tape. 4. Banks and finance firms are keen to ensure that the finance sector is not cut off from the international jobs market. This implies that Britain should press the case for continued access to skilled talent from the EU and the rest of the world in order to boost the UK’s competitiveness. The banks are also lobbying for accommodating immigration rules. IMPACT OF BREXIT ON MARKET Australia lost $56 billion in a day after BREXIT result was clear. Asian stocks are dumped as Global economic conditions remain uncertain. Wall Street and British Sterling also observed a slump. For markets, BREXIT signals failure of monetary policy and change in political attitude that may encourage governments around the world pursue more inward-looking policies,thus, restricting free flow of trade and finance. (With inputs from Reuters)

Consequences of BREXIT

consequences

Consequences, News on Consequences, stories on Consequences, articles on Consequences, Consequences stories at Wion, Consequences news, Consequences latest news