Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said the United States was signaling openness to negotiations while simultaneously planning military escalation, adding Tehran would not accept what he described as attempts at coercion.

His remarks came as thousands of U.S. Marines began arriving in the region, with the first contingents deployed aboard an amphibious assault ship, according to the U.S. military.

The conflict, triggered by U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, has killed thousands and severely disrupted oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy shipments.

Foreign ministers from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt met in Islamabad to discuss pathways to de-escalation, with Pakistan positioning itself as a potential intermediary between Washington and Tehran. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held talks a day earlier with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar conducted bilateral meetings with his Turkish and Egyptian counterparts ahead of broader consultations.

Parallel military-level engagements are also underway. Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir remains in contact with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, according to a source familiar with the discussions, indicating ongoing coordination alongside diplomatic outreach.

A Turkish official said Ankara was working with partners on a proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as part of confidence-building measures tied to a potential ceasefire.

The United States has previously outlined a 15-point ceasefire framework, including reopening the waterway and curbing Iran’s nuclear programme, though Tehran has rejected the proposal and advanced its own terms.

Despite diplomatic efforts, hostilities continued. Israel said it struck dozens of targets across Iran, including weapons production and storage facilities in Tehran, while Iranian media reported casualties from strikes on southern port infrastructure.

The conflict has expanded geographically, with Iran-linked Houthi forces launching attacks on Israel, raising concerns about renewed threats to commercial shipping routes. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, while risks are also rising around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a key gateway to the Suez Canal.U.S. officials, cited by the Washington Post, said the Pentagon was preparing for the possibility of prolonged ground operations, including special operations raids and conventional troop deployments, though it remains unclear whether President Donald Trump will authorize such action.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington could achieve its objectives without deploying ground forces but emphasized the need for military flexibility.Oil prices have surged toward $100 per barrel since the conflict began, reflecting supply disruptions and heightened geopolitical risk.

Iran has allowed limited passage for Pakistani-flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, permitting two ships per day, according to Pakistani officials.

The conflict is also reverberating domestically in the United States, where protests have taken place in multiple cities amid growing public opposition.

With midterm elections approaching, the war has added pressure on the administration as it weighs military escalation against diplomatic resolution.

Araqchi made the remarks during separate phone calls with his counterparts in Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan, where he stressed the need for a unified regional approach to counter rising tensions.

He said the recent actions by Washington and Tel Aviv were aimed at escalating instability and undermining regional security.

In the reported conversations, Araqchi emphasised that cooperation among neighbouring states was essential to prevent further deterioration in the security environment. Iranian state media cited him as warning that unchecked escalation could have broader implications for regional stability.

The outreach reflects Tehran’s effort to consolidate diplomatic backing among key regional actors at a time of heightened geopolitical strain.

Araqchi said that recent U.S. and Israeli actions had targeted Iranian infrastructure, characterising them as deliberate attempts to provoke confrontation. He did not specify the nature or extent of the damage in the statements carried by state media.There has been no immediate response from U.S. or Israeli officials to the claims.

Iran would continue to defend its sovereignty and security with all available means, Araqchi said, according to the report, signalling Tehran’s readiness to respond to what it views as external threats.

The remarks come amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East, where rivalries involving Iran, the United States and Israel have periodically intensified, raising concerns about broader regional fallout.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt said they supported steps announced by Hamas, including the release of hostages — alive or deceased — and the group’s readiness to transfer administration of Gaza to a transitional Palestinian committee of independent technocrats.

The ministers also endorsed President Trump’s call on Israel to halt its military campaign and begin implementing an exchange agreement linked to the proposal. They described the US leader’s commitment to peace as “an opportunity to achieve a ceasefire and address the critical conditions facing the people of Gaza”.

The ministers urged the launch of immediate negotiations to agree on practical mechanisms for implementing the plan. They stressed the need for unrestricted humanitarian aid deliveries, the prevention of Palestinian displacement, and guarantees for the security of civilians.

The joint statement also called for the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza and efforts to unify governance across Gaza and the West Bank.

The ministers underlined that any agreement must include a security mechanism to protect all sides, ensure a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and pave the way for reconstruction. They reiterated support for a “just peace” based on the two-state solution.

The statement marks a rare moment of regional alignment on Gaza’s future, though much depends on whether the proposal gains traction with Israel and key international stakeholders.

Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark and Poland have all said Russian drones or fighter jets have violated their airspace in recent weeks, prompting the NATO alliance to beef up defence around Europe’s eastern flank.

“Within the scope of NATO Assurance Measures, our Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft is carrying out missions in Lithuanian airspace between September 22-25,” the ministry said in its weekly press statement.

AWACS are capable of detecting low-flying drones and other objects that ground radars miss.

The ministry provided no further information.

Poland has shot down some of the drones, and Lithuania’s parliament on Tuesday granted the armed forces powers to shoot down any unmanned drone violating its airspace.

Western officials say Russia is carrying out the airspace violations to test NATO’s readiness and resolve. Estonia and Poland have asked the alliance to open consultations under Article 4 of the NATO treaty.

Article 4 says members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territory, political independence or security of any of them is threatened.

Turkey, NATO’s second largest army, has strong ties with Russia in areas including energy and tourism. It has condemned Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and provided Kyiv with military support, but refrained from joining Western sanctions against Russia as part of a balancing act that it says helps it talk to both sides.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that Trump will hold a multilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan. A person familiar with the matter said Gaza will be discussed.

Axios reported Trump will present the group with a proposal for peace and post-war governance in Gaza.

In addition to freeing hostages and ending the war, Trump is expected to discuss U.S. plans around an Israeli withdrawal and post-war governance in Gaza, without Hamas involvement, according to Axios.

Washington wants Arab and Muslim countries to agree to send military forces to Gaza to enable Israel’s withdrawal and to secure funding for transition and rebuilding programs, Axios reported.

Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, a day after dozens of world leaders gathered at the United Nations to embrace a Palestinian state, a landmark diplomatic shift nearly two years into the Gaza war that faces fierce resistance from Israel and the United States.

The nations said a two-state solution was the only way to achieve peace, but Israel said the recognition of a Palestinian state was a reward to extremism.

Israel’s assault on Gaza since October 2023 has killed tens of thousands, internally displaced Gaza’s entire population, and set off a starvation crisis. Multiple rights experts, scholars and a U.N. inquiry assessed it amounts to genocide.

Israel calls its actions self-defense after an October 2023 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants that killed 1,200 people and in which more than 250 were taken hostage. Israel has also bombed Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar during the course of its war in Gaza.

Trump had promised a quick end to the war in Gaza, but a resolution remains elusive eight months into his term.

Trump’s term began with a two-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which ended when Israeli strikes killed 400 Palestinians on March 18. More recently, images of starving Palestinians, including children, have sparked global outrage against Israel’s assault on Gaza.

In February, Trump proposed a U.S. takeover of Gaza and a permanent displacement of Palestinians from there. It was labeled as an “ethnic cleansing” proposal by rights experts and the United Nations. Forcible displacement is illegal under international law. Trump cast the plan as a re-development idea.

Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign.

Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Thursday has declared India as a rising military and political superpower. Authored by Senior Research Fellow Anna Mahjar-Barducci, the report titled “India Has Emerged As A Military And Political Superpower” highlights India’s growing clout in global geopolitics, citing its successful Operation Sindoor as a pivotal moment in asserting its military might and strategic autonomy.

Operation Sindoor: A Turning Point

The report emphasizes that India’s military success during Operation Sindoor, which began on May 7 and paused temporarily on May 10, marked a seismic shift in South Asia’s strategic balance. The operation was launched in response to the Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam terror attack, which killed dozens of civilians.

“India managed to bring Pakistan to its knees,” the report claims. “In just a few days, India struck 11 Pakistani airbases and destroyed 25 percent of Pakistan’s air force. This is a remarkable feat, especially considering Pakistan’s nuclear capability.”

According to MEMRI, Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign. Despite diplomatic pressure, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a firm stance.

“We have just suspended our retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps,” PM Modi said in a televised address on May 12. “In the coming days we will measure every step of Pakistan on the criterion that what sort of attitude Pakistan will adopt ahead.”

Political Ascendancy: India’s Battle on Multiple Fronts

Beyond the battlefield, India’s political leadership has taken center stage. MEMRI’s report credits New Delhi with successfully leading a multipronged offensive—not just against state-sponsored terrorism but also against geopolitical actors that enable and support it.

India’s stand against Turkey has been particularly noted. Ankara, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is alleged to have provided Pakistan with Asisguard Songar drones during the conflict. This military assistance has fueled a strong backlash in India.

The “Boycott Turkey” movement, once limited to online activism, has now taken on a life of its own. “From marble yards in Udaipur to fruit markets in Pune, Indian traders and consumers are turning away from Turkish goods,” reported Indian media. The movement reflects India’s new approach: aligning economic decisions with national security interests.

India also faced off with Iran, which drew criticism for sending its deputy foreign minister to Islamabad days before the strikes. Indian media condemned the move, viewing it as a tacit endorsement of Pakistan at a volatile time.

Modi’s Doctrine: No Compromise on Terror

MEMRI’s analysis highlights Prime Minister Modi’s doctrinal shift in India’s foreign policy. By linking trade and diplomacy to a country’s stance on terrorism, Modi has signaled that India will not return to the status quo.

“We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” Modi asserted. “Terror and trade cannot go together.” This statement was widely interpreted as a firm response to then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that India and Pakistan work out trade deals in exchange for a ceasefire.

According to Mahjar-Barducci, Modi’s unapologetic approach marks a turning point. India has broken free from years of strategic restraint and has adopted a more assertive, self-assured international posture.

A Beacon for the Democratic World

The MEMRI report concludes with a sweeping endorsement of India’s position in the global order. As the world’s largest democracy, India is now seen as a vital counterbalance to authoritarian powers like China and a key player in maintaining regional and global stability.

“All those that believe in liberty and freedom are looking in awe at India,” the report says. “India is the major obstacle to China’s expansionist ambitions in Asia. It is the only country that has openly defied Beijing’s hegemony.”

Mahjar-Barducci argues that India’s rise is not just military or economic, but deeply ideological. It is emerging as the voice of democratic resistance in a time of global uncertainty.

“India is now a beacon of hope, projecting its power and determination. It is becoming the leader of the democratic world that is ready to fight for its values,” she writes.

The MEMRI report positions India not merely as a regional power, but as a central pillar of a reshaping world order. Operation Sindoor may have been a military operation, but its ripple effects have traveled far beyond the battlefield—into diplomacy, economics, and the very discourse of global power.

As the report ends on a nationalistic note—“Bharat Mata ki Jai” (Victory to Mother India)—it is clear that India’s moment on the world stage has arrived. What remains to be seen is how the world, particularly the West and China, will recalibrate their strategies in response to this rising giant.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah.

On August 15, 2019, a seemingly emotional piece appeared in a Turkish publication. Written by Ruwa Shah, the daughter of jailed Kashmiri separatist Altaf Ahmad Shah, the article lamented the “besieged” condition of Kashmir, portraying a picture of despair and victimhood. Shah, writing from Turkey, decried the “loss of childhood” among Kashmiri children—despite living thousands of miles away from the region.

While the article may appear at first glance to be a personal narrative, its deeper context and timing are far more consequential. The piece, and many others like it published in Turkish media, reflect an expanding ecosystem of information warfare aimed at maligning India’s global image, particularly in the Muslim world. The source and structure of this narrative appear increasingly tied to a broader project of political Islam, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Altaf Shah Connection: Terror and Propaganda

Ruwa Shah’s father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, was no ordinary man. He was a key operative in Kashmir’s separatist ecosystem and is currently facing charges in India related to terror financing. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case in 2017 implicating him in illegally raising funds, including through hawala channels, to fuel street violence, destroy schools, and provoke unrest in the Kashmir Valley. His actions, far from the realm of peaceful protest, allegedly contributed to organized violence and efforts to destabilize the region.

Thus, Ruwa Shah’s presence in Turkey and her article in its media cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in conjunction with the growing pattern of Turkish platforms becoming hubs for Pakistani-backed and separatist-driven disinformation campaigns.

A New Axis: Ankara and Islamabad’s Media Alliance

Under President Erdogan’s rule, Turkey has undergone a dramatic transformation—from a relatively secular, pro-Western democracy to a country increasingly under the sway of Islamist populism. Central to this transformation has been Erdogan’s use of media as a strategic weapon—both domestically and internationally.

Analysts have raised concerns that Erdogan’s government has gone beyond domestic control of press freedom and has now adopted a deliberate strategy of international ideological export. Turkish state-run media outlets like Anadolu Agency and TRT, which once hired Western journalists, are now seeing an influx of Pakistani nationals with strong ideological leanings.

Currently, nearly half of the copy-editing staff in Anadolu Agency comprises Pakistani nationals. Many of these journalists have known affiliations with hardline ideologies, and some have shown clear sympathies with separatist movements in South Asia. Turkish media, particularly these two flagship outlets, are now actively providing platforms to voices that echo the narratives of Islamabad and anti-India actors.

ISI’s Invisible Hand?

Foreign policy observers argue that the placement of Pakistani journalists in Turkish media is not merely a reflection of Ankara-Islamabad camaraderie—it may very well be an orchestrated move by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. The intent: to amplify Pakistani geopolitical interests, challenge Indian narratives, and use Turkish soft power as a megaphone for radical Islam.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah. It explains why separatists from Kashmir, like Ruwa Shah, are finding Turkish media an inviting space to propagate their agenda.

Erosion of Sufi Pluralism in Turkey

One of the most tragic consequences of this media radicalization is the cultural loss within Turkey itself. Historically rooted in Sufi traditions, Turkish Islam was celebrated for its pluralism and syncretism. However, with the increasing dominance of Pakistani-Deobandi interpretations of Islam—promoted by the new wave of Pakistani journalists and clerics—there is growing concern about an erosion of Turkey’s spiritual heritage.

This ideological shift is being fueled not only through newsrooms but also through Turkey’s expanding religious institutions. The Diyanet, Turkey’s powerful Directorate of Religious Affairs, has witnessed exponential growth in both influence and budget. It is actively promoting a curriculum increasingly aligned with political Islam.

One such example is Erdogan’s controversial move in 2020 to convert Heybeliada Sanatorium—originally a hospital on one of Istanbul’s Princes’ Islands—into a religious school under Diyanet’s control. This follows the pattern of converting key historical monuments like Hagia Sophia and Kariye Church into mosques, symbolic of Erdogan’s Islamization campaign.

Observers worry that Turkey’s religious education sector is now being weaponized to raise generations of youth loyal to a singular, rigid ideological framework—one that is uncritical, conformist, and detached from Turkey’s once-rich theological diversity.

Radicalization of the Marginalized

Erdogan’s strategy doesn’t target the elite. Instead, his focus is on Turkey’s marginalized and underprivileged communities. For academically weaker students who are unable to get into mainstream education systems, religious schools are increasingly becoming the only option. Many of these schools promote a curriculum that serves political interests rather than religious or moral development.

In the long term, this has the potential to create an entire generation susceptible to radical ideologies and blind allegiance to Erdogan’s leadership. The role of imported media ideologues—especially Pakistani journalists—in this radicalization project cannot be underestimated.

A Caution for Turkish Society

Ruwa Shah’s article may have been a drop in the ocean, but it is emblematic of a larger, more dangerous tide. Turkish media, under Erdogan, is being transformed into a global hub for political Islam. It is actively collaborating with Pakistan’s ideological machinery, offering space to separatists and radicals, while undermining secular, moderate narratives.

The Turkish people—once custodians of a rich, pluralistic Islamic tradition—must now reckon with the possibility that their society is being reengineered. If unchecked, the radicalization of Turkish media and religious institutions could lead to long-term domestic instability and international isolation.

As for the rest of the world, particularly nations grappling with terrorism and separatism, the emerging Ankara-Islamabad axis of ideological influence poses a new frontier in the battle against extremism. What appears on the editorial page may just be a soft echo of a harder, strategic plan being executed in real time.

In contrast, Russia continues to maintain a time-tested rapport with India

As the dust settles on yet another tense standoff between India and Pakistan, a wave of introspection has swept across India’s strategic and civil circles. From geopolitical alignments to domestic cohesion, the conflict has laid bare uncomfortable truths, prompting many in India to reassess both alliances and national priorities.

One of the starkest revelations has been the geopolitical reality of international loyalties. Despite diplomatic pleasantries and economic ties, Turkey, China, and even the United States appear to consistently position themselves favorably toward Pakistan in times of heightened tensions. For India, this has raised pressing questions about the reliability of its global partnerships, especially when diplomatic neutrality could mean indirect support for hostile narratives or platforms.

In contrast, Russia continues to maintain a time-tested rapport with India, providing a semblance of consistency in an otherwise fluid global arena. While Russia navigates its own complex global relationships, its stance during South Asian crises often reflects a strategic inclination toward New Delhi—an anchor India appears increasingly dependent on.

Beyond diplomacy, the conflict has once again exposed India’s chronic weakness in information warfare. As narratives around the conflict played out across global media, India’s digital diplomacy and media engagement seemed sluggish. Pakistan’s ability to frame its position more compellingly on international platforms left many in India questioning the effectiveness of their country’s strategic communications machinery.

Adding to this frustration is the perceived silence of influential Indian voices—notably from Bollywood, elite athletes, and prominent non-resident Indians in the corporate world. During moments of national crisis, these figures often choose a neutral or muted stance, citing professional boundaries. Critics argue that their silence stands in contrast to their massive influence and the need for soft power mobilization during geopolitical flashpoints.

Yet, amidst external disillusionment and internal criticism, one aspect remains clear: in moments of war or national threat, India stands united. Across states, religions, and political ideologies, there emerges a sense of collective identity and resilience. The surge in public solidarity during conflict is a testament to the depth of national consciousness that still binds the country.

However, concerns over international financial institutions have also intensified. Observers argue that bailouts and financial packages, particularly to economically unstable states with militant linkages, risk indirectly funding destabilizing activities. While not officially acknowledged, the perception that financial support can be misappropriated is gaining traction in Indian public discourse.

The recent episode has forced India into a mirror. It reflects a nation with immense potential and unity, but also with vulnerabilities—diplomatic, informational, and strategic—that demand urgent attention. If anything, the lessons from the conflict point not just to threats from without, but also to gaps within that India must address to navigate an increasingly complex global order.

According to the intelligence report, TRT World has been providing repeated space to controversial figures linked to Pakistan’s Kashmir campaign, most notably Nasir Qadri—an Islamabad-based lawyer who heads the Legal Forum for Kashmir (LFK). Qadri, who once travelled extensively within India, is now operating from Pakistan’s capital, spearheading global campaigns to malign India’s military and government under the guise of human rights advocacy.

Observers say Qadri’s rise in the propaganda machinery is part of a broader, coordinated effort involving Turkey, Pakistan, and organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. These connections came into sharper focus during the Russell Tribunal on Kashmir held in 2022—a politically charged event co-organized by actors from all three camps.

In a significant flashpoint noted by the report, Legal Forum for Kashmir, in collaboration with UK-based law firm Stoke White, ran a highly orchestrated Twitter campaign in January 2022 targeting key Indian leaders. The online offensive singled out Union Home Minister Amit Shah and then-Chief of Army Staff, General Manoj Naravane. Hashtags and posts flooded social media, attempting to paint India’s security operations in Jammu and Kashmir in a negative light.

This digital campaign conveniently coincided with the Russell Tribunal, raising questions about its timing and coordination. While the event branded itself as an independent tribunal on Kashmir, critics argue it was little more than a political showpiece aimed at India, leveraging platforms and personalities closely aligned with Ankara and Islamabad.

Analysts suggest TRT World’s coverage fits into Ankara’s broader geopolitical ambitions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has, in recent years, amplified his rhetoric on Muslim causes, often positioning himself as a global defender of Muslim rights. In that narrative, Kashmir finds repeated mention—frequently aligned with Pakistan’s stance.

Qadri’s Legal Forum for Kashmir, though presented as a legal advocacy group, has drawn scrutiny for functioning as a front for anti-India narratives. Its frequent engagement with Turkish media outlets and joint events with organizations sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood only deepen suspicions about its true objectives.

What makes the situation more concerning, according to @OSINTWa_com, is the blurring of lines between journalism and state-driven messaging. When a state-funded broadcaster like TRT World gives repeated coverage to one-sided narratives without space for opposing views, it raises red flags about media neutrality and intent.

Experts urge caution and call for international media watchdogs to investigate the growing weaponization of public broadcasters in geopolitically sensitive regions. “This is not journalism—it’s soft warfare,” one analyst noted.

As India and Pakistan navigate yet another phase of tense relations, observers argue that platforms like TRT World must be held accountable for enabling biased discourse that could inflame public sentiment and undermine regional stability.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes.

In the aftermath of European colonialism, the world has seen many upheavals—but few have been as globally disruptive and persistently violent as the rise of Islamist terrorism. It is one of the darkest legacies of the colonial era, ironically shaped and sharpened by the very empires it now claims to oppose. Today, it stands as a transnational threat, claiming lives from Karachi to Kuala Lumpur, and from Tel Aviv to London.

The data tells a haunting story. Since 1979—the year of the Shia Islamic Revolution in Iran—there have been more than 49,000 Islamist terror attacks worldwide, resulting in over 220,000 deaths. But what is often overlooked is the fact that 89.5% of these attacks occurred in Muslim-majority countries, with the vast majority of victims being Muslims themselves. Even the holiest of sites, such as Mecca, have not been spared. The carnage is indiscriminate, and the ideology behind it is far more complex than simplistic narratives often suggest.

Islamist groups would have the world believe that their violence is a response to foreign occupation or injustice. Yet the overwhelming facts betray that narrative. Most Islamist terrorism does not take place in occupied territories but in nations where Muslims are the majority. This disproportionality demands a deeper, more historically rooted investigation into how this ideology emerged and why it continues to thrive.

The Colonial Incubator of Political Islam

To understand the modern-day menace of Islamist terrorism, we must go back to the time of European imperialism—particularly British colonial rule. Colonizers, determined to suppress nationalist uprisings and maintain control over their dominions, employed a classic divide-and-rule strategy. In this context, religious identity became a tool of political manipulation.

Extremist elements were co-opted and even fostered by colonial administrators to counter secular, anti-colonial movements. It is no coincidence that key Islamist movements—such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in India—were born during this time. These Islamist movements did not rise organically from within their societies as spiritual or theological reforms; rather, they were often sponsored or tolerated by colonial regimes as buffers against resistance.

Figures like Sir Syed Ahmed, who promoted the divisive “two-nation theory” in British India, and Sir Agha Khan, who founded the Muslim League, played pivotal roles in politicizing Islam. Their ideas—encouraged, amplified, or at least facilitated by the British—ultimately contributed to the partition of India and laid the groundwork for modern political Islam. This ideological framework would later become fertile ground for the rise of violent jihadist movements.

From West Africa to Southeast Asia, similar patterns emerged: colonial authorities empowering Islamist elements for short-term control, only to leave behind long-term instability.

Cold War Complicity and the Rise of Armed Jihad

The Cold War did not reverse this legacy—it accelerated it. In Afghanistan, for example, the United States and its allies, including Pakistan, armed and trained Islamist fighters to push back against Soviet expansion. The result was the creation of well-equipped and ideologically radicalized groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What was once political Islam turned into militant jihadism. The West had, once again, fed the very forces it would later call its enemies.

The Twin Threats: State-Sponsored and Non-State Jihadism

In the modern context, Islamist terrorism operates under two primary umbrellas: non-state actors and state-sponsored networks.

Non-state actors are dispersed, often embedded within societies, waiting for ideological or operational cues. Their roots trace back to political Islamist thought developed during colonialism, shaped further by theological radicalism and geopolitical grievances. Their dream of a global caliphate transcends borders, and they are often motivated not by poverty or lack of opportunity—but by ideology. No amount of economic aid or deradicalization programs alone can address this; it requires ideological confrontation led by credible scholars and religious authorities.

On the other hand, state-sponsored Islamist terrorism is far more organized—and dangerous. Here, nation-states actively fund, shelter, or enable terrorist proxies to project power or destabilize rivals. Iran, since the 1979 revolution, stands out as the most prolific actor. From supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza, and from Houthi insurgents in Yemen to Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Iran’s fingerprints are evident across some of the most devastating conflicts in the Middle East.

Turkey and Qatar, despite being close Western allies, also play significant roles. Both states have financially supported Islamist groups—including the Muslim Brotherhood and others—across North Africa and the Levant. Media outlets like TRT (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Qatar) have become soft-power instruments, often amplifying Islamist narratives under the guise of journalistic independence.

Then there is Pakistan—arguably the most paradoxical player. Created as a result of colonial partition, Pakistan has, since its inception, used Islamist militancy as statecraft. Its long-standing doctrine of “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” has led to decades of cross-border terrorism. From Kashmir to Punjab, from Naxalite regions to the Northeast, India has faced relentless proxy warfare orchestrated from across the border.

Unlike Iran, Pakistan has largely escaped Western censure or sanctions, remaining a “major non-NATO ally” and benefiting from strategic utility. Whether during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets or the post-9/11 conflict, Pakistan’s duplicity has been tolerated, if not rewarded.

A recent example was the attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, where 26 innocent civilians were killed by Pakistan-sponsored Islamist militants. It is part of a consistent pattern—not an anomaly.

Solutions Begin with Truth and Courage

Combating Islamist terrorism requires more than drones, security checkpoints, or surveillance. It demands truth—about its origins, its enablers, and its geopolitical underpinnings.

The first step must involve addressing state actors that perpetuate terrorism under ideological or strategic pretexts. In this context, resolving the “Pakistan-Iran-Turkey” triad is essential. And one of the most viable ways to do this is by supporting the self-determination of oppressed peoples within those states.

The liberation of Balochistan (currently divided between Pakistan and Iran) and Kurdistan (spanning parts of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria) is not just a moral imperative—it could be a strategic game-changer. Empowering these freedom movements would strike at the very heart of the Islamist-terror ecosystem and weaken the foundations upon which these regimes rely.

Time for a Reckoning—and a Response

India, Israel, and democratic states across the world must come together, not just to condemn terrorism, but to confront its root causes and supporters. The West, too, has an opportunity—a responsibility—to correct the historical wrongs of colonialism. This means no longer appeasing authoritarian allies who feed Islamist extremism for their own ends.

Islamist terrorism did not rise in a vacuum. It was engineered, cultivated, and weaponized—first by colonial powers, then by Cold War strategists, and now by regional regimes. To dismantle it, we must stop treating the symptoms and start confronting the disease.

And that means standing with those who fight for freedom—not those who hide behind religion to suppress it.