India and Afghanistan's Strategic Agreement

{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

India and Afghanistan's Strategic Agreement

India and Afghanistan's new strategic security agreement may be aimed at persuading Pakistan to stop supporting forces fighting the Afghan government, but it not likely to be a precursor to Indian troops on Afghan soil.

By Ashley J. Tellis

Published on Oct 4, 2011

Source: Background Briefing with Ian Masters

Speaking on Background Briefing with Ian Masters, Carnegie’s Ashley Tellis examined the new strategic agreement signed by Afghanistan and India. He argued that the agreement was intended, in part, as a shot across Pakistan's bow in order to show Islamabad that Kabul has other options if the Pakistan Army continues to support Afghan insurgencies. The agreement, however, does not presage a replacement of American troops by Indian ones, Tellis asserted. Instead, it relies on continued American involvement in the region.

About the Author

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Recent Work

Paper
Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future
- Ashley J. Tellis
Commentary
India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.
- Ashley J. Tellis

Security Military Foreign Policy North America United States South Asia India Afghanistan Pakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

Commentary
Diwan
Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran
Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks
Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center