The Afghan Women Farmers Keeping Their Village Alive

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
TT

The Afghan Women Farmers Keeping Their Village Alive

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)
This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows Afghan woman farmer Habiba (R) working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

In a remote province of northeastern Afghanistan, women farmers are playing a vital role in their community's survival among the snow-capped mountains.

The fields of Eshtiwi show only the first faint signs of growth in June, with small green sprouts emerging around the village.

Habiba, who spoke to AFP while busy weeding, is proud to have been farming in Nuristan province for decades.

"Since I was eight years old, I've been going to the field with my mother," said the 46-year-old, who only has one name.

"When we harvest wheat, beans, potatoes and corn in the fields in autumn and bring them back home, we feel happy," she added.

In Afghanistan, women are generally allowed to farm despite being banned by the Taliban government from most employment.

Mohammad Yahya Faizi, a 34-year-old agriculture graduate, said he respects the women's work.

"We would not have food anymore in the middle of the winter" without their work, he said.

Eshtiwi in summertime is only reachable by a dirt track and, before AFP's visit, it had been years since international media had reached the village.

Faizi said "tasks have been divided between men and women" for generations in the Parun Valley, where residents speak their own dialect.

"Women are busy with agriculture, planting, watering and cooking at home," said Faizi, a village farmer who volunteers with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Men help with animal-drawn ploughs, handle livestock, and gather firewood for winter, when snow cuts the village off from the outside world for almost six months.

Habiba's day starts at around 4:00 am, when she gets up to pray before preparing breakfast with her daughters on a wood-fired stove.

She makes bread using flour from her wheat, together with red beans from her fields, to eat alongside butter and dried yoghurt made by her husband.

The room, which doubles as a kitchen and bedroom, was decorated with flowers drawn by Habiba's 11-year-old daughter, Nahida, who was practicing English that she had learnt at the village school.

While her mother never had the chance to go to school, Nahida's education will soon stop as girls nationwide are banned from education beyond the age of 12.

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows a river flowing past houses at the Eshtiwi village in Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

- 'Unrecognized' -

FAO has declared 2026 the International Year of the Woman Farmer, with the agency highlighting how "unrecognized" their vital role is in supporting food security.

This is particularly true in Afghanistan, where almost a third of the population needs emergency food aid according to the UN.

Bibi Jan, a 70-year-old who grows beans and potatoes, said farming can be grueling.

"We have to work hard, our hands peel... but there are children to feed," she said.

Habiba dreams of having a tractor, but it is too expensive; there is only one in the village that a family rents out to those who can afford it.

"I'm not that strong; my back and my legs hurt," she said.

Najia, who requested her surname not be used for privacy reasons, agreed local farmers need more tools as well as opportunities to trade.

"Farming is a great profession; it's not just for men," said the 28-year-old, who went to university in Pakistan.

The farmers often have surplus crops, she said, but "there is no structured market to sell our produce."

Being in such a remote area makes it impossible to sell direct to customers, and there are only limited options to meet traders who pass through.

"I sell my potatoes for 70 afghanis ($1.10) for seven kilos (15 pounds), but I would need 150 afghanis" to earn a decent income, Najia said.

This photograph taken on June 8, 2026 shows an Afghan woman farmer working at a field in the Eshtiwi village of Afghanistan's Parun district. (AFP)

- 'Help each other' -

Storage units have been financed by the UN, to allow harvests to be kept and sold when the market improves, and some of the women have received better seeds.

FAO has also introduced agroforestry -- the combination of trees and crops on the same plot -- to diversify their income.

Faizi said that the village, which once produced only apples and walnuts, now has cherry, pear, and peach trees, among others.

But climate change is a big concern, with less predictable snow and rain, or bringing floods that destroy the crops.

The UN Development Program has found that Afghanistan is among a group of countries that "have contributed the least to global warming yet bear its heaviest costs".

For Najia, the weather was a further challenge: "We can't predict it; it just hits us."

But despite the difficulties, she said women love working outdoors together.

"We can help each other," she said, while also providing the village with nutritious food.

"What we grow with our own hands is very healthy."



What Do We Know About the 1968 Pact on ‘Hormuz’ Shipping Routes that Iran is Rejecting?

A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
TT

What Do We Know About the 1968 Pact on ‘Hormuz’ Shipping Routes that Iran is Rejecting?

A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 
A boy balances on a tire at the water's edge as ships are seen in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, Tuesday, June 30, 2026 (AP) 

By John Yoon

One of Iran’s negotiators in talks with the United States, Kazem Gharibabadi, reasserted claims this week of permanent Iranian control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and rejected internationally recognized shipping routes established in 1968.

Tensions over the strait, a crucial path for oil and gas shipments, have threatened a fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran. Iran has insisted it has authority over the strait and threatened ships that don’t travel on its mandated routes.

Here’s a closer look at the decades-old agreement that established the shipping routes and why Iran is opposed to it.

What was the agreement?

Nearly six decades ago, Omani and Iranian officials negotiated an agreement, ratified by the UN International Maritime Organization, that established the official way to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for global energy supplies.

The framework, called the Traffic Separation Scheme, was largely a technical solution to prevent collisions between supertankers passing through the waterway, which is just 24 miles wide. It was also a legal solution to the fact that there are no neutral international waters in the middle of the strait where ships transit because the sovereign waters of Iran and Oman overlap.

Why is Iran rejecting it?

At the time, Iran was a dominant military power in the region and did not need to use its geography as leverage, Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said.

Today, in Iranian officials’ view, the traditional transit routes have allowed warships to pass through the strait, threatening Iran’s security, Vaez said.

Gharibabadi, the deputy foreign minister, noted on Monday that the agreement predated the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the shah and brought an authoritarian clerical regime to power.

“Today we told the Omani side that those routes must definitely change,” he said. “We decided that we would also begin expert and technical talks on changing the routes.”

What does Iran want?

Gharibabadi’s remarks solidified Iran’s intention to move away from that framework in favor of negotiating a new system that gives them more control over the waters. Iran has already placed naval mines in the strait, effectively blocking those established 1968 routes.

“They are refining their argument to sound more legalistic,” said Jennifer Parker, a former naval officer now at the University of Western Australia’s Defense and Security Institute. She said the argument was designed to maximize Tehran’s leverage at the negotiating table.

To bypass Iran’s territorial waters, the United States and Oman recently attempted to establish an alternative corridor along the strait’s southern side in Omani waters under a US military escort mission. Gharibabadi reiterated on Monday that Iran would refuse to recognize any such parallel routes.

*The New York Times


Lebanon-Israel Deal May Entrench Stalemate Rather Than End War, Analysts Say

An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
TT

Lebanon-Israel Deal May Entrench Stalemate Rather Than End War, Analysts Say

An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)
An Israeli helicopter flies on patrol near the Israel-Lebanon border, 23 June 2026, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (EPA)

A security deal between Lebanon and Israel risks entrenching a stalemate rather than resolving Israel's underlying conflict with Hezbollah by tying Israel's pullout from southern Lebanon to the Iran-aligned group's disarmament, a condition regional analysts and politicians say is unattainable.

At its core is a bargain few see as workable: Hezbollah has flatly rejected disarmament, and no Lebanese government has the power to enforce it.

With Hezbollah unlikely to disarm, analysts say Israel has political cover to keep an open-ended military presence in southern Lebanon, which it invaded after Hezbollah fired at Israel on March 2 in solidarity with Tehran over the war in Iran.

The deal leaves the Lebanese state trapped between obligations it cannot meet and sovereignty it cannot fully reclaim, the analysts say.

The framework deal also collides with Lebanon’s political realities, asking a fragile sectarian state to confront the most powerful armed faction in the country despite a post–civil war system built on power-sharing rather than coercion.

"This is not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement," said a senior Lebanese politician who ‌declined to be ‌named, according to Reuters.

The Lebanese army, he said, was neither structured nor equipped to disarm Hezbollah, and expecting it ‌to do ⁠so ignored both the ⁠group’s entrenched military capacity and the fragile sectarian balance on which Lebanon's stability rests.

'BURDEN' PLACED ON LEBANON

Political analysts say the imbalance is built into the agreement’s design, with sweeping obligations placed on Lebanon but no reciprocal guarantee of Israeli withdrawal.

"This agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon," said Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, adding that it "creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain (in southern Lebanon) indefinitely."

Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the deal was "born dead" and is structurally flawed, hinging on a condition that is impossible to meet in practice.

Gerges said Israel had already occupied a buffer zone in southern Lebanon about eight to 10 km (five to six miles) deep while tying any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s ⁠disarmament.

The terms of the deal risk the buffer zone becoming long-term and giving it diplomatic legitimacy, he ‌said, describing it as a political "gift" to Israel.

The conflict in Lebanon has been a ‌central part of diplomacy towards ending the wider US-Iran war.

Gerges said Washington’s deliberate decoupling of the conflicts gave Israel greater freedom of action in Lebanon.

FEAR OF ‌CIVIL CONFLICT

The framework agreement signed in Washington affirms that Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and makes Lebanese army authority in the ‌south contingent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu portrays the deal as a historic achievement that could lead to broader peace, while Israeli troops remain deployed in a so-called security zone which Israel says is designed to protect its north from potential attack.

"We will continue to hold it (territory in the security zone) until Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon," Netanyahu said on Saturday.

Three senior Israeli ‌officials said Israel has little faith in Lebanon's ability to disarm Hezbollah but sees the deal as a vital diplomatic step towards building peace with Lebanon in the long run.

About 4,000 people have been ⁠killed in Lebanon and a ⁠million displaced during Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as a first step towards restoring Lebanon's sovereignty, saying it should allow Lebanese people to return to fully liberated land.

Parliament Speaker and key Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri said it amounted to an "agreement of dictates, not one that preserves Lebanon's rights" and said it would not be implemented.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the deal "null and void" and a "surrender" and said his group would keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned of "internal conflict" in Lebanon.

Any attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah would risk deepening sectarian tensions.

Young said the deal "won't lead us anywhere except to civil conflict, and maybe an insurrection by the Shiite community."

DEAL'S IMPLEMENTATION IN QUESTION

Danny Citrinowicz, a regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, said Hezbollah's dismantlement was "something that would never happen" and the deal in effect legitimized an open-ended Israeli military presence.

"Nothing will happen. Israel won't withdraw, and Hezbollah won't dismantle," he said.

Citrinowicz said no Israeli prime minister has the domestic political space to withdraw while Hezbollah is still armed and northern Israeli communities remain displaced.

A narrower pact focused on Hezbollah's pullout from south of the Litani River, an expanded Lebanese army deployment and an extension of state authority, would have stood a better chance of success, he said.

Pro-Hezbollah analyst Mohammed Obeid also said the deal was unlikely to be implemented, adding that its provisions were "like explosives", capable of detonating Lebanon's internal stability, as they hinge on state action to disarm Hezbollah.


13 Years Since 'June 30' in Egypt... The Muslim Brotherhood Has Suffered Severe Setbacks

The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters burning in Cairo in summer 2013 (Getty)
The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters burning in Cairo in summer 2013 (Getty)
TT

13 Years Since 'June 30' in Egypt... The Muslim Brotherhood Has Suffered Severe Setbacks

The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters burning in Cairo in summer 2013 (Getty)
The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters burning in Cairo in summer 2013 (Getty)

Thirteen years after the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood's rule in Egypt during the events of "June 30" 2013, the group has suffered major setbacks locally and internationally.
The group, whose rule lasted for one year since its member Mohamed Morsi ascended to the presidency in 2012, is now experiencing a domestic blow amidst judicial and security prosecutions.

Its international presence has also shrunk due to decisions by Western countries to pursue and label it as terrorist, with observers and analysts predicting that "the organization and its ideology will soon disappear.”

A Pivotal Day

June 30, 2013, is considered a pivotal day in modern Egyptian history. One year after Morsi assumed the presidency, massive demonstrations erupted across Egypt's governorates demanding the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power and Morsi's ouster. On July 3 of that year, his removal was announced in response to these demands.

In the same year, Egyptian authorities banned the Muslim Brotherhood and placed it on the list of "terrorist entities." Now, hundreds of its leaders and supporters are imprisoned, headed by its Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie.

Some have received sentences of execution, harsh imprisonment, and life in prison. The group's presence is now only known in cyberspace through platforms abroad, mainly in Türkiye and the United Kingdom.

Disappearance Domestically

Egyptian researcher specializing in extremist groups Munir Adib states that when discussing the disappearance of the Muslim Brotherhood on the thirteenth anniversary of the June 30 events, "it is necessary to differentiate between two things: the disappearance of the organization and the disappearance of the ideology."

"In both cases, the Egyptian state and its security agencies have succeeded over 13 years in dismantling, neutralizing the organization, and refuting many of its ideas to the extent that it no longer has the influence it had before 2013 or even before 2011,” he adds in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat.

He predicted that the organization would disappear soon, saying: "The organization, which is now 98 years old, has only two more years left, for its hundredth year to be its last... to become merely a line in history books."

Ahmed Ban, an analyst specializing in religious and extremist groups, states that the group has shifted from a tangible existence to a mere presence on media platforms, specifically non-traditional media such as social media platforms, digital platforms, and artificial intelligence technologies to spread messages of frustration and chaos.

International Moves

Internationally, the organization's situation is no different than in Egypt, with official movements in Austria, Germany, France, and the Netherlands witnessing radical shifts in their stances over the past years, moving from a phase of monitoring and caution to prosecution.

In May 2026, the administration of US President Donald Trump unveiled a new national counter-terrorism strategy, which at its core focused on the Muslim Brotherhood as the ideological source of modern "militant terrorism."

This was preceded last January by Washington's designation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as its branches in Jordan and Lebanon, as "terrorist organizations." This was followed in March by placing its Sudanese branch on the same list.

Moreover, a majority in the French Parliament agreed last January to call on the European Commission to add the Brotherhood and its leaders to the list of terrorist organizations. This was followed in March by the Dutch Parliament's approval of a proposal calling for a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organizations, though it has not yet been implemented.

Adib believes that these international moves are "an essential part of the confrontation that will lead to the disappearance of the organization, especially since the international community, Europe, and the United States represented the lifeline it breathed from."

He noted that the situation has now changed with the European move to re-evaluate the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and its institutions, which has tightened the noose on the group, contributed to its neutralization, and consolidated predictions of its complete disappearance, along with its ideology, within the coming years.