EXPERT INTERVIEWS — The Taliban government in Afghanistan enjoys no formal recognition from the rest of the world, thanks largely to a poor human rights record and its support for terrorism. Since the group overthrew the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan in August 2021, the Biden and Trump administrations have both been clear: there will be no U.S. recognition of the Taliban regime absent significant changes to their approach. All of which made the public appearance of a high-level U.S. delegation in Kabul earlier this year a surprise – along with a U.S. decision to drop multimillion dollar bounties against Taliban leaders who remain on the U.S. list of wanted terrorists.
The U.S. mission to Afghanistan, led by former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and White House special envoy for hostage response Adam Boehler, was a reflection of a Trump administration priority to free Americans held overseas. The negotiations with the Taliban have led to the freeing of three American prisoners from Afghanistan this year, and suggestions from U.S. officials that more engagement may be in the offing. One official told CNN that “there is a path that's positive, and if they walk that path, we walk that path."
Amb. Khalilzad was an architect of the 2020 Doha Agreement, negotiated with the Taliban during the Trump administration’s first term, and which led to the 2021 U.S. withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. That withdrawal prompted a Taliban offensive that ultimately brought their return to power.
The recent U.S. mission to Kabul has prompted a fundamental question: Is this the beginning of a deeper American engagement with the Taliban?
Cipher Brief Managing Editor Tom Nagorski spoke with two experts with deep experience in Afghanistan – Dave Pitts, a former Assistant Director of the CIA for South and Central Asia, and Hassan Abbas, an expert on the Taliban and Chair of the Department of Regional and Analytical Studies at the National Defense University.
The interviews have been edited for length and clarity.
THE EXPERTS
The Cipher Brief: How surprised were you to learn that a high-level U.S. delegation was holding public talks with the Taliban in Kabul?
Pitts: When you think through it, it sort of makes sense. The United States has talked to the Taliban periodically about the release of American citizens. That always gets a lot of attention; presidents and administrations like to bring Americans home. Americans love to see that so it's always a big deal.
This was more interesting because of how it played out, with Ambassador Khalilzad there and a senior member of the administration there as well. But I think that makes sense too, that the administration wanted to lean in on this a little bit, make sure this really happened, maybe introduce some new members of the administration to the Taliban. Maybe that's why Ambassador Khalilzad was involved. He has had long-term, long-time access to the Taliban through the Doha negotiations [between the U.S. and the Taliban under the first Trump administration]. I think he is trusted by the Trump administration.
It's another reminder, though, that in these very transactional contacts with the Taliban, we don't have much leverage. Frankly, they don't either. They're not trying to meet the United States and the international community halfway on anything, or even a quarter of a way. So their leverage with us and with other countries is our citizens who are being held with no reason in their country. It's just another example that one thing the Taliban can always do to get our attention is offer to release an American — who shouldn't be in custody in the first place.
Abbas: This was certainly an interesting development. U.S. communication or interaction with the Taliban was always there to a limited extent. One of the reasons was the presence in Afghanistan of the Islamic State of Khorasan (IS-K), one of the terrorist groups aligned with ISIS. And they were the new bad boys in a sense, because they have not only regional interests but global interests which could threaten the U.S. homeland as well. So some collaboration of sorts [with the Taliban], and signal intelligence, some talking was always happening.
But with the latest situation, this was unexpected – this shows that there's more cooperation, there's a new door that is open.
The Cipher Brief: The U.S. also lifted the bounties that existed on several high-level officials who were on the U.S. terrorist list, including the current Taliban interior minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani. Did that surprise you? This is a man who is believed to have American blood on his hands.
Pitts: The [Taliban] have been trying to get that done for a while. Of course he's still on the list, just the bounties have been removed – so maybe it’s a quid pro quo, maybe not. In the past we would trade some person of interest to the Taliban for an American citizen to get them back. This is a bit more interesting. It kind of instructs the Taliban that we're willing to make concessions on big things that matter [like getting] American citizens out.
By the way, we always want American citizens to come home. Nobody's going to criticize bringing American citizens home. But when we trade things, when we have these sorts of arrangements, we should just acknowledge that we increase the odds that more Americans will be arrested when they shouldn't be by the Taliban to advance their interest in this way. So it's a complicated matter. I'm glad the Americans are home. But you also have to be conscious of the price you're paying to get those things done.
Abbas: I would call this more of a tactical move by the U.S. The 10-million-dollar bounty for Sirajuddin Haqqani, the interior minister, who was on top of the FBI most wanted list, is gone. But the Haqqani group is still a foreign terrorist group designated by the U.S.
Sirajuddin Haqqani has the blood of U.S. soldiers on his hands. He had targeted Kabul and many other places – Afghan forces and police, and the Americans as well. And it was his campaign, or a campaign led by his wing of Taliban, which forced the U.S. into a situation where we decided, OK, we’ll negotiate with them and take care of our core interests, which was so long as the Taliban ensure that there'll be no terrorist activity against the U.S., we are okay with that. Sirajuddin Haqqani played a very important role in that. Haqqani was the most pragmatic of the Taliban leaders, because of his father, who was a very important U.S. ally during the Afghan jihad back in the 1980s.
Join experts with deep experience in government and the private sector as they tackle the biggest cyber challenges of our time by signing up for the Cyber Initiatives Group’s Sunday Cyber Read Ahead today.
The Cipher Brief: There've been comments from U.S. officials about what may happen next. One official told CNN that the Taliban saw this as “a step-by-step normalization.” Another said that the group is “eager to please Trump” and that “there is a path that's positive, and if they walk that path, we walk that path.” We know what the Taliban want. They want engagement. And recognition. What's in it for the U.S.?
Pitts: Well, a number of things. There's national security interests. We still have terrorism to worry about inside Afghanistan. IS-K is still there. It's been a little quiet recently, but that doesn't mean anything with a group like IS-K. I don't think the Taliban have them under control; we've seen external operations by IS-K, so they're still a significant threat.
We've got a bit of a resurgent al-Qaeda there we should be worried about. We don't have as many insights on that as we want. And there's a number of other terrorist groups there that are probably being supported a little bit by the Taliban. They're probably in contact with IS-K. So you have these multiple networks there that are bad for U.S. national security.
And of course we're worried about things that Iran, China and Russia might do in the region.The current administration has kind of hinted that Afghanistan could play a role in countering China and Iran in the future.
We might be thinking there's opportunities there just to provide greater stability in the region. We're seeing an issue currently with Pakistan and India – it's pretty ugly at this point. We still see these border issues with Afghanistan and Pakistan that are a bit worrisome. You might have elements on the ground serving as proxies maybe for some of those countries, which is problematic for the whole region.
And of course, there's natural resources [in Afghanistan] that might be on the U.S. radar. China is interested in that. So there's a handful of things there where the U.S. might have an interest.
My hope is that we're taking a close look at who the Taliban is, what they are as an organization. That we're not falling for their narratives and the propaganda that they are something else or that they've changed. I hope that as we're moving forward, we're doing that with eyes wide open. We're ensuring we're not on this very slippery slope of normalization with the Taliban, which would be bad.
Abbas: I hope [the U.S. engagement] is about more than just [the prisoner release], because that can lead to some support for ordinary Afghans. It can lead to some support for those Afghans who had helped us during all those years as well.
And I think this move is also a hedge against what China is doing, because China is the most important player in Afghanistan right now. They have their embassy there, they have received the Afghan diplomats, and the vice president also. China has almost accepted and acknowledged and recognized the Taliban. And they are supporting them, training their forces. Also, they have some rights for the minerals and other issues.
Russia also is very active. Russia has actually already started a move in their own legal system to take the Taliban off their terrorist list. So other players are involved in a big way there.
President Trump, to give credit where due, is at times very straightforward and direct. And that means he's saying, if we have interests, why not talk to them directly and engage with them directly? I think that's what's happening. And the Taliban, surprisingly, have reciprocated. They also probably got a little scared, I think, because unlike before, when Taliban leaders were in hiding or in tribal areas or in the border regions, now they are right in the heart of Kabul. We exactly know where they are. Our drones are surveilling them.
Experts talking about investments in cyber and critical technologies and their impact on national security at The Cipher Brief’s NatSecEDGE conference June 5-6 in Austin. Join us and bring your expertise to the mission.
Pitts: It's complicated. The risk is that when you start talking to the Taliban in a transactional way to get business done, you don't recognize there's a slippery slope with the things that really matter — the other national security issues in the region; our partners in the region; the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who are practically in exile around the world because of the Taliban; the poor security state; the poor economic conditions in Afghanistan; the potential that the Taliban could be exploited by many of the larger neighbors in their desperate state for support and recognition; and the dismal state for the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan that has become an international issue. I just hope our wise diplomats, as they're charting the path forward, keep all those things in mind and that we don't lose our footing on this slippery slope that I think other countries find themselves on as well.
I also think that when we look at how we advance Afghanistan and if there is a political path forward, that political path should not run exclusively through the Taliban. I think the Taliban's interest is in the survival of its regime, not a viable path or a future for Afghanistan. So if you're talking only to the Taliban about the future of Afghanistan, I just don't see that going anywhere.
So you bring in legitimate political opposition, those who can speak for the many dispersed groups of Afghans — those inside of Afghanistan and those in exile around the world. That's the group we should encourage to stand up and organize and come speak in Washington and speak in New York at the UN, speak in London, Canberra and all the other capitals so we can start moving forward on a political path for Afghanistan.
The Cipher Brief: We have also seen, since the Trump administration took office, measures effectively halting the resettlement program, for people who had already been approved to come from Afghanistan to the U.S., people who had helped the Americans. Do you see any hope on the horizon for those people?
Pitts: It's disheartening to see frankly. I think that those individuals have earned our support. They fought with us for two decades in Afghanistan. They sacrificed a lot. We made our own sacrifices, but so did they. I think probably untold sacrifices in Afghanistan. I would hope this is something the administration would take a really close look at. Because I share the opinion of many Americans that that's a mistake.
Abbas: There may be some change, but at this time, there is this blanket policy of all such asylum seekers. There's a door which is closed. One would argue that American prestige and American credibility will also demand that the U.S. lives up to the promises that it has made – at least for those who had made sacrifices, who are important partners. Some people are already here and their families are on the way. It is expected, for humanitarian reasons, that we stand by the commitments we have made.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.
