Will the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan follow the Doha Accord or align with US rivals like China and Russia? As the Taliban's policies face global outrage, the future is uncertain. This article explores three scenarios—peace talks, sanctions, or military action—that could shape US-Taliban ties and the regional, if not global, balance of power in the foreseeable future.
Ever since the United States (US) pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021, relations between the two nations have been marked by animosity, uncertainty, political tensions, and an inability to reconcile differences. The Doha Accord, a peace agreement signed by the Afghan Taliban and the US, signalled the potential for diplomatic relations between the two countries. However, global politics in the 21st century is effectively a game of chess — prioritising strategy, game plan, and action. From a realist perspective, it is about safeguarding national security and maintaining the balance of power that keeps the international world order in check. In light of US-Afghan relations, it can be said that relations will remain antagonistic unless Afghanistan complies with the principles laid out in the Doha agreement.
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and the subsequent policies they implemented largely go against the fundamental principles of the aforementioned treaty: the curtailment of human rights, particularly those of women, the subjugation of minorities, ethnic violence, and terrorist activities of militant groups such as the ISK (Islamic State-Khorasan) and Al Qaeda. The participation of women in any professional sphere in Afghanistan has been severely restricted; women do not have access to education, jobs, or a voice in political matters. Thus, the US, founded on the liberal principles of humanity, liberation, and human rights, uses Afghanistan's breach of the agreement as a strategic tool to condemn the government internationally.
In the intricate web of contemporary politics, bilateral relations never remain limited to two countries, especially when involving a complex, conflict-driven state such as Afghanistan and a global superpower. There are several factors one must consider: the stance of US allies and that of its enemies. Since the US is essentially the orchestrator of the international world order, its European allies and neighbouring states are likely to follow suit. Countries like Pakistan, in particular, are inclined to side with the US, given their financial dependence on the latter. It is an undeniable fact that if the US formally starts recognising the Taliban government, then other nations will likely follow.
In the current dynamics, Afghanistan edges closer to establishing relations with China and Russia — two of Washington's adversaries. However, it is important to note that Russia is involved in an intense war with Ukraine and thus cannot provide unfettered aid to Afghanistan. Similarly, although China has been leaning toward business investments in the country, Afghanistan's human rights abuses may limit the scope of China's financial assistance to the oppressive state.
In light of such circumstances, the foreseeable future of US-Afghan relations points toward three potential scenarios. The first is Afghanistan accepting the Doha agreement as is — integrating a liberal, humanitarian, and inclusive system of government in which women's rights are not curtailed, ethnic minorities are protected, and the country does not become a breeding ground for terrorist activities by militant groups that threaten global security. If Afghanistan conforms to the aforementioned principles, the US is likely to recognise this and potentially build an alliance to assert regional dominance and counter countries like Russia, China, and Iran.
Additionally, another potential scenario is one currently being implemented by Afghanistan. They may continue disregarding the Doha agreement and focus on incorporating puritanical religious values into their political system. As a result, they would advance relations with China and Russia. In such a scenario, the United States is likely to respond sternly and potentially double down on economic sanctions. The US' isolationist policy toward Afghanistan has already caused tremendous socio-economic damage there. Considering Washington's historical record of brutally condemning states that go against international norms — such as Libya, Iraq, and Iran — Afghanistan being next in line is not an implausible theory.
The third scenario would be the US advocating for regime change in Afghanistan, provided there are clear evidences of terrorist activities that could threaten the security of American soil. Post-9/11, Bush justified the invasion of Iraq in a similar manner — traces of terrorist activity were speculated through the Iraqi government's alleged possession of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) coupled with the involvement of Al Qaeda. Although proven false, the US was able to successfully destabilise the country. In the case of Afghanistan, the US has already killed al-Zawahiri in a drone strike, claiming that Afghanistan had been hosting the Al Qaeda leader.
Hence, a future response to the Taliban's defiance might be larger and more intense. Yet, it is also important to note that the Taliban has been resisting American military forces for over 20 years, so they would certainly respond with increased animosity. For the US, this would have diverse impacts, similar to those seen after the Iraq War. The human cost of such an offensive would transcend geopolitical gains, and the US would face severe criticism from the rest of the world for perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in an already unstable country.
It is essential to understand that the Taliban regime does not possess formal recognition from any country; therefore, they have nothing to lose. They are already condemned in the international arena, and thus, they would undoubtedly respond aggressively to a militant attack from the US or its Western allies without considering the 'moral cost' to their reputation. Such a condition would lead to bloodshed, chaos, terrorism, and potentially a civil war between the Taliban and US-backed anti-Taliban forces such as the former Northern Alliance.
It is important to note that the mentioned scenarios are not hypothetical situations limited to the context of Afghanistan. In fact, they have already been implemented by the US in one way or another. The first scenario applies to Pakistan — also a country marked by terrorism and corruption. However, since it largely maintains friendly relations with Washington and does not breach international laws, the US continues to provide its support and use the country as a shield against opposing forces, namely Iran and Afghanistan. The second case applies to Iran, and the third to Iraq. Therefore, even though the scenarios are regarded as potential outcomes, they are not far from the reality facing these countries.
Currently, however, Washington is not likely to initiate any strong policy measures regarding Afghanistan until a new administration is in place following the presidential election. Nonetheless, implementing the third scenario would be a rash decision, as it could lead to a broader crisis that involves more than just the United States and Afghanistan. From a humanitarian perspective, the only way forward that avoids further bloodshed would be through establishing diplomatic peace talks. The very existence of the Doha Accord is a testament to the diplomacy that emerged from negotiations between the two nations. Hence, by utilising Qatar as a reconciling third party, peace, stability, and order might be restored in the South Asian region. That is effectively the only productive way forward.