OA Iran-Afghanistan Water Dispute & Regional Implications July 2023 Website Thumbnail

The water issue between Iran and Afghanistan is not new. It can be traced back to 1973 when a formal treaty was signed between the two countries. Despite this agreement, both states have been unable to amicably resolve their transboundary water issues.

Friction escalated in 2021 with the completion of the Kamal Khan Dam in Afghanistan, inaugurated by then-President Ashraf Ghani. Iran, being concerned about the construction on the Helmand River, raised specific objections. With the construction of this dam, Afghanistan failed to fulfill its obligation of sharing 850 million cubic meters of water annually with Iran, as outlined in the 1973 treaty. Iran alleges that it has only received approximately 4% of the agreed share of water.

Against this backdrop, the recent border clashes between Iran and Afghanistan has increased the political temperature of the region. In the latest clash, on 27th May, two Iranian border guards, and one Taliban fighter tragically lost their lives. In response to this incident, Iran took the step of closing the Malik Zarnaj Border crossing, a vital commercial passage connecting the two nations.

In this context, the responsibility for the escalated tensions lies with the Taliban. At a time when regional countries are striving for stability in the region, disputes with neighboring nations raise legitimate concerns regarding the intentions and modus operandi of the current Afghan government.

Iran’s vulnerability to water scarcity has increased over the past few decades. Recent satellite images shared by IRNA reveal a significant reduction in water flow towards Iran due to the operational Kamal Khan Dam, which Tehran argues is a violation of the 1973 agreement. It is important to note that according to international law, specifically the Madrid Declaration of 1911, altering or modifying rivers and lakes to the detriment of a co-riparian state requires the consent of both parties. In light of customary international law, it is crucial for both Iran and Afghanistan to respect each other’s water rights and avoid engaging in a dispute that could further complicate the situation.

In a similar vein, Pakistan is also trying to seek a formal agreement on the Kabul River water sharing mechanism with Afghanistan. However, no positive development has taken place so far. Afghanistan has already built five strategic dams on Kabul River in the past few decades namely – Chak, Mahipar, Sarawbi, Naghalao and Dronaq dams. Pakistan has expressed interest in addressing the upper and lower riparian rights of both nations through bilateral agreements and talks. However, despite many attempts, the current and former leadership in Afghanistan has shown no interest in initiating any formal mechanisms for resolving this issue.

Such disputes are not only concern for Pakistan but could also have a negative impact on Pakistan-China efforts to promote stability in the region. The recent trilateral meeting of Foreign Ministers of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China shows an evolved foreign policy aspiration of Beijing towards its neighbours. According to its official stance, China respects independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan. Its Global Security Initiative (GSI) and Global Development Initiative (GDI) also indicate that it considers Kabul an opportunity for cooperation, rather than a battleground of geopolitics.

During a critical period when the Afghan Taliban is actively seeking international recognition, China and Pakistan have stepped forward to provide support in terms of peace and reconstruction efforts, as well as considering extending the benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to this region. However, any further Iran-Afghanistan border skirmishes could potentially raise concerns for all stakeholders involved. More importantly, if such a situation escalates China may no longer wish to invest in a country whose actions are detrimental to water security of neighboring states.

In conclusion, for Afghanistan to achieve stability and prosperity, it is crucial for the Taliban government to prioritise not only gaining legitimate recognition but also fostering regional cooperation and resolving conflicts. Given Afghanistan’s history of being a war-torn nation and Iran’s status under sanctions, it is in the best interest of both countries to avoid disputes that hinder their shared goals of attaining comprehensive national security and international cooperation. Instead of engaging in confrontational politics, they should explore opportunities for bilateral cooperation and address water-related issues in accordance with international law. By doing so, they can work towards mutually beneficial solutions and pave the way for a more harmonious and productive relationship and region.

Asad Ullah Khan is a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Modern Diplomacy. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »