The policy brief by Islomkhon Gafarov, Hamza Boltaev, and Bobur Mingyasharov, published on The Diplomat, provides an incisive analysis of Uzbekistan’s evolving policy towards Afghanistan under Taliban rule, characterized by pragmatic engagement despite the absence of formal diplomatic recognition. The authors argue that Uzbekistan’s recent bilateral agreement on the joint management of the Amu Darya River with Afghan provincial authorities signifies a deepening of institutional ties, driven by a strategic imperative to secure transboundary water resources. This development reflects a calculated shift in Tashkent’s foreign policy — from cautious observation to selective, interest-based cooperation, underscoring the need to address pressing regional challenges through direct dialogue and functional arrangements.   The brief underscores that Uzbekistan's stance on the Taliban government embodies a form of de facto recognition, exemplified not only by the acceptance of a Taliban-appointed ambassador but also by sustained intergovernmental cooperation. While such steps raise questions under international law, the Uzbek government’s priority remains practical problem-solving over ideological posturing. In this context, the authors stress the centrality of water diplomacy, especially as Afghanistan’s controversial Qosh-Tepa Canal project threatens to divert significant volumes from the Amu Darya, jeopardizing downstream water availability in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Given the canal’s potential environmental and geopolitical consequences, Uzbekistan’s strategy signals a proactive commitment to defending vital interests, regardless of the international community’s indecisiveness regarding Taliban legitimacy.   Security concerns remain a critical factor in Tashkent’s calculus. The persistent threat from extremist groups operating in Afghanistan compels Uzbekistan to extend its security and developmental engagement across the border. This includes soft-power tools like funding religious educational institutions in Afghan provinces, designed to foster stability and counteract radical influences. At the same time, the authors point to the absence of a collective regional approach toward managing water disputes with Afghanistan. While Iran and Afghanistan have recently made progress over the Helmand River, countries like Pakistan remain locked in unresolved negotiations, further highlighting Uzbekistan’s preference for bilateralism over multilateral dependency.   Importantly, the brief reveals that Uzbekistan is developing a nuanced model of “limited recognition” anchored in economic interdependence, cross-border trade, and municipal cooperation. The authors cite examples such as the establishment of Afghan trade infrastructure in Termez and plans for Uzbek commercial representation in Mazar-i-Sharif. These moves suggest that official recognition is not the only pathway to effective engagement, especially when national interests demand urgent and adaptive diplomacy. Uzbekistan’s approach offers a blueprint for other regional actors seeking stability without conferring political legitimacy on a controversial regime.   In conclusion, the authors argue that Uzbekistan’s Afghanistan policy is less a break from tradition than a continuation of a strategic doctrine that balances principle with pragmatism. As the international community stalls, Uzbekistan’s actions may eventually catalyze a broader regional realignment, prompting others to pursue similar policies of conditional engagement. Thus, Tashkent’s carefully managed cooperation with the Taliban may well redefine the contours of Central Asian diplomacy, illustrating how mid-sized powers can take initiative in shaping regional security and development agendas.   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

The article by Professor Ibragim Mavlanov published in the electronic scientific and practical journal “Human Capital and Labor Protection” focuses on the fact that the country’s share in world exports is the most important macroeconomic indicator directly affecting its status in the world economy. He stresses that the growth of Uzbekistan’s export potential is a key condition for realizing the tasks set by the President, including the strategic goal of joining the ranks of developed countries. Analyzing statistics, Professor Mavlanov demonstrates the positive dynamics of Uzbekistan's export growth in recent years, but points to its inconsistency with the scale achieved by countries with similar or smaller populations.   An important place in the article is given to economic diplomacy as a strategic tool for promoting export policy. The author stresses that strengthening foreign economic interaction and supporting exports of services and intellectual property are becoming key areas of export strategy modernization.   The author concludes with several practical recommendations, ranging from interagency coordination to radical expansion of services exports. He argues that to achieve the target indicators of the Uzbekistan-2030 Strategy the volume of exports should be increased by 2.5-3 times. Thus, the article is a substantial and well-founded contribution to the scientific and applied discussion on the place of Uzbekistan in the global economy.   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In his new policy brief, Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov explores the shifting contours of American foreign policy toward Afghanistan. He presents a nuanced periodization of U.S. engagement, tracing four evolving phases that reflect Washington’s strategic ambiguity, internal contradictions, and the absence of a long-term vision in its dealings with the Taliban regime. Beginning with the continuation of counterterrorism efforts beyond the military withdrawal — epitomized by the 2022 killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri — Dr. Gafarov highlights how terrorism remained the dominant lens through which U.S. policymakers initially viewed Afghanistan.   The subsequent phase, characterized by political disengagement, saw Washington adopt a posture of strategic patience and indirect diplomacy, largely withdrawing from political and infrastructural involvement while maintaining limited humanitarian assistance. Dr. Gafarov then focuses on the Trump administration’s more assertive yet bifurcated approach. On one hand, President Trump’s MAGA-driven rhetoric called for punitive measures against the Taliban, such as suspending aid and demanding the return of military equipment. On the other, pragmatic calculations led to direct contact with Taliban representatives—underscoring a willingness to adjust tactics when electoral messaging proved inadequate for realpolitik imperatives.   In analyzing the most recent phase of direct engagement, Dr. Gafarov argues that the United States has begun to reassess its methods, engaging Taliban officials in dialogue despite earlier antagonism. This shift is attributed, in part, to growing Chinese influence in Afghanistan, which has challenged U.S. strategic interests in the region. The resumption of U.S.-Taliban contact — symbolized by high-level meetings and hostage releases — signals Washington’s renewed recognition of Afghanistan’s geopolitical centrality, particularly considering China’s Belt and Road ambitions.   Dr. Gafarov also explores the potential for Uzbekistan to serve as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and the Taliban. He underscores Tashkent’s historical and logistical relevance, its alignment with U.S. perspectives on regional development and stability, and its unique standing as one of Afghanistan’s most engaged neighbors. In this context, Uzbekistan’s mediation role is portrayed as a promising avenue for cautious re-engagement that would allow Washington to advance its interests while maintaining a degree of political distance.   Ultimately, Dr. Gafarov concludes that the U.S. strategy toward Afghanistan remains fragmented and reactive. Internal divisions within the Taliban, the persistence of terrorist threats, and the unresolved issue of human rights all contribute to Washington’s uncertainty and strategic hesitation. While pragmatic engagement may increase, he suggests, it is likely to remain constrained by ideological, geopolitical, and humanitarian considerations.   Read on The Asia Today   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

The article by Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov has attracted considerable attention, having been shared by 12 Pakistani media and analytical sources — an indication of its growing relevance in the discourse on regional connectivity and strategic cooperation between Central and South Asia. The author presents a compelling case for recognizing Uzbekistan and Pakistan as key drivers in advancing interregional dialogue across the Eurasian space.   Gafarov’s central argument is that the growing “region-to-region” cooperation model is not only timely but essential for addressing complex challenges such as regional security, sustainable development, and economic interdependence. He identifies the dialogue between Central and South Asia as a leading example of this trend, with Uzbekistan and Pakistan emerging as principal actors. Unlike global powers whose interest remains largely declarative, these two countries have demonstrated genuine commitment through investment-backed infrastructure initiatives, most notably the Trans-Afghan Transport Corridor.   The article highlights a strategic convergence in the foreign policy priorities of Uzbekistan and Pakistan, both of which are transitioning from geopolitics to geo-economics. Uzbekistan seeks access to maritime routes and integration into global supply chains through Afghan and Pakistani territory, while Pakistan views Central Asia as a promising market and transit route to northern Eurasia. These aligned interests have led to active cooperation in transport, trade, and energy, positioning both countries as indispensable to the future of Central–South Asian connectivity.   Afghanistan, as a geographical and logistical bridge, plays a pivotal role in this framework. Dr. Gafarov underscores the necessity of stabilizing Afghanistan not only through infrastructure development but also through educational and humanitarian initiatives. He cites the construction of a madrasa in Mazar-i-Sharif by Uzbekistan as a positive example and proposes greater educational exchanges and scholarship programs as instruments for long-term peace and regional integration.   However, the author also identifies persistent challenges that threaten to slow down progress: weak transport connectivity, a deficit in people-to-people diplomacy, water-sharing disputes, and the continued presence of extremist groups. To overcome these barriers, Dr. Gafarov proposes the institutionalization of platforms like the Termez Dialogue and the creation of joint academic and cultural institutions. Notably, he calls for the establishment of a Central and South Asian Joint University in Termez and a Museum of the Peoples of South and Central Asia in Lahore, aiming to foster mutual understanding and build durable foundations for cooperation. Through this multi-layered and forward-looking vision, Dr. Gafarov’s article provides not only a strategic diagnosis but also a roadmap for sustainable interregional engagement.   Read the article: Diplomatic News Agency – DNA Pakistan in the World The Diplomatic Insight Islamabad Post Daily Ittehad Daily Spokesman (PDF) The World Ambassador The Gulf Observer News Guru The Europe Today World News Common Future Society   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

The 100-day mark of President Donald Trump’s second term has been defined by an extraordinary pace of executive activity, sparking intense debate both within the United States and across the international stage. At this juncture, political analysts and journalists alike have turned their attention to the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings, the cohesion of his cabinet, and the administration’s early legislative and executive milestones.   Operating within the framework of the conservative “Project 2025” – an ideological blueprint for restoring traditional values and consolidating executive power – Trump launched a wave of sweeping reforms under the banner of “Make America Great Again”. His domestic policy agenda has been marked by what observers have dubbed a “Trumpian restructuring”: a concerted effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy, challenge prevailing socio-cultural norms, and redirect the nation’s economic strategy.   Note: Project 2025 is a set of conservative policy proposals aimed at overhauling the federal government and expanding presidential authority, developed by the Heritage Foundation and released in April 2023 in anticipation of the 2024 election.   Pursuing a strategy of “flooding the zone” — a deliberate inundation of executive actions to disorient opponents — Trump signed approximately 140 executive orders within his first 100 days, far exceeding the pace of both his first term and his predecessors. The overwhelming majority of these orders focused on domestic affairs.   Values Realignment. A central theme of Trump’s second-term agenda has been dismantling what he calls the “deep state” and rolling back “woke culture” – particularly the emphasis on minority rights and inclusivity in government institutions. One of Trump’s earliest actions was the repeal of all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. His administration officially recognized only two genders and eliminated regulatory oversight on public discourse, citing the need to restore free speech.   This cultural rollback extended beyond government: corporations scaled back inclusion initiatives, and universities came under direct pressure to terminate DEI programs or face funding cuts. The administration’s crackdown on campus political activism, especially concerning pro-Palestinian movements, triggered high-profile clashes with leading academic institutions.   Government Downsizing. Trump established a new Department of Government Efficiency, reportedly headed by Elon Musk, to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucracy. Under its oversight, an estimated 260,000 federal employees were laid off, with severance and termination-related costs surpassing $135 billion.   One of the hardest-hit institutions was the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was merged into the State Department. Over 5,000 projects were cancelled, and 90% of staff were dismissed. The Department of Education began a phased dismantlement, transferring its functions to state and local governments. Major staffing cuts were also initiated in agencies overseeing national security, including the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, and NSA. The resulting budgetary savings were redirected to reindustrialization efforts and deficit reduction.   Migration. The administration adopted a stringent stance on immigration, resuming construction of the southern border wall and designating human smuggling cartels as terrorist organizations. Reports suggest illegal border crossings have dropped by up to 90% — a 60-year low. While many Americans supported these measures, critics, including human rights groups and courts, condemned the deportation of immigrants who had long integrated into American society and faced persecution in their countries of origin.   In parallel, Trump moved to tighten electoral regulations, introducing mandatory citizenship verification for voters and limiting mail-in ballots. These actions drew sharp accusations from Democrats, who claimed they infringed upon civil liberties.   Economy. Trump reignited a trade war with China and escalated global tariff disputes. Duties on Chinese imports soared to 145%, while base tariffs on goods from more than 180 countries were raised to 27–67%. Though later lowered to 10% for 75 nations, the moves disrupted global trade.   These protectionist measures, justified as efforts to restore “trade fairness” and reshore manufacturing, caused turmoil in financial markets. The S&P 500 fell by 8.5% — the worst first-quarter performance since the Nixon era. Wall Street investors suffered over $8 trillion in losses, and the U.S. economy shrank by 0.3% in Q1 2025, marking its first contraction since 2022.   Public sentiment was largely unfavorable: according to Fox News, 58% of Americans opposed the tariffs due to fears of inflation and recession. Trump, in response, blamed the economic turbulence on the Biden administration’s legacy and urged patience. Economists noted that tariff revenues ($1.9 trillion over 10 years) would fall short of covering the cost of Trump’s proposed corporate tax cut from 21% to 15%—a move estimated to cost nearly $4 trillion.   Foreign Policy. On the international front, the Trump administration pursued an assertive agenda to end major conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the case of Ukraine, Trump sought direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, prompting criticism from both domestic and European allies who accused him of favoring “peace through capitulation”. U.S. military aid to Ukraine was temporarily suspended as leverage, while Trump demanded audits and “gratitude” from Kyiv, as well as resource access agreements on heavily skewed terms.   Observers noted a broader crisis within the Republican Party’s foreign policy doctrine, where loyalty to Trump appeared to eclipse traditional ideological positions. Prominent figures such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Marco Rubio softened previously hardline stances toward Russia.   Relations with the European Union grew strained. Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference about reevaluating transatlantic solidarity and pressuring European states on defense spending and trade fueled further discord. The administration also withdrew funding from public diplomacy programs while promoting the global expansion of MAGA-aligned values.   Elements of geopolitical adventurism also surfaced: renewed efforts to purchase Greenland, coercive overtures to Canada about U.S. accession, calls for the return of the Panama Canal, continued military support for Israel, strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, unexpected outreach to Iran, and the redeployment of U.S. naval forces to Libya after five decades.   Yet, constitutional constraints hampered these ambitions. The administration faced legal hurdles requiring Senate ratification for new treaties (Republicans lack a supermajority) and compliance with the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which limits unilateral presidential powers to lift sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.   Note: Passed in 2017, CAATSA mandates congressional approval for any easing or removal of certain sanctions, curbing the executive branch’s autonomy in foreign affairs.   Conclusions   I. Public opinion has largely turned against the administration. National polls show Trump’s approval ratings dropping to 39–44%, down from 53% at the start of his term. This decline is particularly evident among key voting blocs and in traditionally Republican states.   The public disapproves of Trump’s policies on trade, governance, foreign affairs, and economic management. While Trump’s media-saturating approach kept him in the spotlight, the long-term viability of his chaos-based governance remains in doubt — especially with the 2026 midterms looming.   II. Trump’s economic policies have heightened domestic anxieties and triggered global market volatility. Fears of a recession, coupled with falling oil and commodity prices, are driving sell-offs in U.S. debt. Having spent nearly a decade cultivating his image as a steward of economic growth, Trump now faces reputational risks that could erode his political capital.   Signs of a constitutional crisis are emerging. The balance of power between branches of government, long a pillar of American democracy, appears destabilized. Congress — once seen as firmly under Trump’s control — is showing signs of rebellion. Republican senators are drafting legislation independently, and Democrats, though in the minority, have begun exploring impeachment proceedings.   III. U.S. alliances are fraying. Canada is reportedly exploring EU membership, while China, South Korea, and Japan are deepening regional economic ties. Mexico is expanding cooperation across Latin America.   Despite high energy and assertive leadership, Trump’s second-term strategy of information overload and relentless initiative-taking may have overstretched the administration’s capacities. Without a clearly articulated, step-by-step roadmap, doubts are mounting over the long-term coherence and sustainability of the White House’s policy direction.   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.

In their incisive policy brief, Islomkhon Gafarov and IAIS volunteers Bobur Mingyasharov and Bositkhon Islamov provide a structured and comprehensive analysis of the latest and most severe escalation in India-Pakistan tensions, triggered by a deadly terrorist attack in April 2025. The report is both timely and significant, as it places the attack and its aftermath in a broader geopolitical, regional, and institutional context. The authors demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the security architecture in South Asia and identify the risks of a wider interstate conflict with remarkable clarity.   The policy brief begins with a factual account of the April 22 terrorist assault in the Pahalgam district of Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in 26 fatalities. The group “Kashmir Resistance”, allegedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. India’s claims of Pakistani complicity — backed by allegations of intelligence involvement — form the backdrop to a sweeping series of retaliatory moves, both military and diplomatic. The authors meticulously list and assess India’s responses, from mass detentions and infrastructure demolitions to the drastic step of suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, a long-standing pillar of bilateral water-sharing and a foundational agreement for regional cooperation.   In parallel, the authors explore Pakistan’s countermeasures and diplomatic posture. Islamabad’s firm denial of involvement in the attack, coupled with its readiness to submit to an international investigation, is presented as a calculated attempt to internationalize the crisis and rally global sympathy. Pakistan’s reciprocal expulsion of Indian citizens, suspension of trade, and closure of airspace represent a measured but firm riposte. Particularly insightful is the authors’ discussion of Pakistan’s non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council, which Islamabad appears intent on leveraging to gain moral and diplomatic high ground.   An important contribution of the brief lies in its focus on international actors. The authors highlight the calibrated support India has received from Western powers, the Gulf states, and even Russia and Ukraine — framing it within the global consensus against terrorism. Iran’s mediation efforts, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, are examined as a diplomatic overture balancing Tehran’s strategic ties with both Delhi and Islamabad. The inclusion of Iran’s role demonstrates the authors’ broader regional lens and their understanding of evolving multipolar dynamics. Similarly, China’s predictable alignment with Pakistan is described as part of its long-term strategic calculus, anchored in the CPEC and wider regional ambitions.   Perhaps most compelling are the forward-looking scenarios the authors present. They warn of the potential for cross-border military escalation, proxy conflicts involving separatist groups, and even a reconfiguration of regional alignments, including possible shifts in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. The brief astutely observes that the Kashmir crisis may test the credibility of multilateral institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which appears increasingly paralyzed in the face of a direct confrontation between two of its major members.   In sum, this policy brief is a cogent and multifaceted analysis of a developing regional crisis with global repercussions. By combining factual reporting with geopolitical foresight, the authors provide not only a valuable resource for policymakers and analysts, but also a stark reminder of the enduring volatility of South Asia’s most intractable fault line.   Read on Paradigma.uz   * The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.