Regional Actors Paying The Price For Taliban Inability (or Unwillingness) to Contain ISKP
Michael Hughes
February 11, 2023
The U.S. handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban to end America’s role in the war, knowing full well that doing so would make the country seem even more comfy to jihadist groups. So long as Afghan-based terrorists did not target the U.S. homeland, Washington could care less about other scenarios.
If, for instance, Afghan-based terrorists targeted neighboring states or regional actors, it would not be seen as America’s problem. And, if said states and actors also happened to be U.S. rivals, it would be seen as much more than a nice bonus. In fact, that jihadist groups would target non-allies was seen by Washington as among the top benefits of exiting – a benefit it appears the U.S. is reaping.
ISKP/Daesh has tripled in strength since the Taliban took power – now numbering some 6,000 – and, as a new UN report reveals, no country is safe. ISKP has threatened to attack diplomatic sites in Afghanistan belonging to China, India, and Iran, among others, and has already targeted Russian and Pakistani sites. Meanwhile, even Saudi diplomats have relocated over security concerns.
The UN report said the terror group hopes to isolate the Taliban from the few countries it relies on as diplomatic allies and “was reportedly set to portray the Taliban as incapable of providing security in the country.” This is a valid point given Taliban legitimacy, especially in the eyes of Afghans who were unwilling to fight for the Ghani regime, was grounded in its ability to end the never-ending war.
But it is also fair to question the extent to which the Taliban are willing to go to crack down on fellow violent religious fanatics. Let’s face it, the two groups share much ideologically, the key major difference being only a matter of geographic scope. It is just hard to believe the Taliban – a force capable of defeating a much larger NATO-backed army – cannot be more effective in their war against ISKP.
In the meantime, countries in the region appear quite powerless to do anything besides press the Taliban to up their counter-terrorism game. On Friday, Russian Ambassador to Tajikistan Semyon Grigoriev slammed the radical movement for failing to live up to commitments made during its transition to power.
“Almost every promise that the Taliban made when they came to power has not been fulfilled. After coming to power, the Taliban guaranteed that there would be no terrorist threat from the territory of Afghanistan,” Grigoriev told Sputnik. “Nevertheless, in recent months we have witnessed major terrorist attacks, including against diplomatic missions in Kabul and on the border with northern neighbors… we can see that terrorist organizations continue to operate freely.”
The UN report, wisely in my opinion, also recommends a “multilateral” approach to countering Daesh both globally and within Afghanistan. From a diplomatic standpoint, there are regional mechanisms like the Moscow process, which, although better than nothing, have yet to yield tangible dividends in the fight against ISKP.
Earlier this week, the Kremlin hosted a multilateral dialogue with senior level security officials from China, India, Iran, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. Pakistan surprisingly declined the invitation – showing how local rivalries among Afghan neighbors only complicate the situation. Voice of America reported that unnamed senior officials cited India’s participation as the reason behind Islamabad’s decision to skip the talks.
And the members of the radical movement itself – for reasons yet to be known – were not invited, although perhaps they wanted Kabul to believe that the Taliban were on the agenda as part of the problem. Based on the lack of results, perhaps these states now believe they have been too accommodating.
President Vladmir Putin actually chaired part of the session, which shows how serious Moscow takes the issue, considering some of the other priorities on his list – such as the full-fledged conventional nation-state war Russia is embroiled in near its own borders (also known as the special operation in Ukraine).
Moreover, the fact the Taliban and Pakistan play host to other terror groups makes forming a united front against ISKP quite challenging – not to mention the ironic rift between Kabul and Islamabad over TTP terrorists finding sanctuary in Afghanistan.
Other options seem inconceivable – if not suicidal – such as backing anti-Taliban elements to effect regime change, hoping a new government could be more responsible on the anti-terror front. Long-time Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin explained why regional actors are totally opposed to the concept of military intervention. One of the reasons, interestingly enough, would be strengthening the hand of the United States.
“All the neighboring countries have concluded that a proxy war would not serve their interests,” Rubin said in a piece for the Stimson Center a few months ago. “Rather it would create a power vacuum that could provide opportunities for both ISKP and the U.S., the two entities that the most powerful neighboring countries consider preeminent threats.”