MOSCOW (AP) — Russia hosted a delegation of Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban government Tuesday and issued a strong warning against a foreign military presence in the country.
Speaking at the start of an international meeting on Afghanistan in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praised the Taliban government for efforts to combat the Islamic State and other extremist groups, as well as eradicate illegal drugs.
Lavrov emphasized that “the deployment of military infrastructure of any third countries on the territory of Afghanistan, as well as on the territories of neighboring states, is categorically unacceptable under any pretext.”
“The military presence of any extra-regional players could only lead to destabilization and new conflicts,” Lavrov said. “The history of Afghanistan has seen a lot of situations with foreign military presence. I believe everyone should have drawn the right conclusions long time ago.”
Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in August 2021 after the pullback of U.S. and NATO forces, they have sought international recognition while also enforcing their strict interpretation of Islamic law.
In July, Russia became the first country to recognize the Taliban’s government after removing the group from its list of outlawed organizations.
At Tuesday’s talks, Lavrov said Russia was looking forward to expanding business ties with Afghanistan and boosting anti-terrorism and anti-narcotics cooperation. He assailed the West for conducting “hostile” policies toward Kabul, maintaining a freeze on its assets and other sanctions.
Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi praised “the bold move of the Russian Federation to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”
“I appreciate it and wish that all countries follow the same path,” he said.
Muttaqi said the Moscow talks offer “a good opportunity for the countries of the region to listen to each other’s views,” noting his government has created an opportunity “to ensure comprehensive security after four decades and provide a good ground for investment, economy, transit and connectivity.”
Officials from China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan also took part in Tuesday’s talks.
While Russia was the first country to recognize the Taliban administration, the group had engaged in high-level talks with many nations and established some diplomatic ties with countries including China and the United Arab Emirates.
Still, the Taliban government has been relatively isolated on the world stage, largely over its restrictions on women.
Although the Taliban initially promised a more moderate rule than during their first stint in power from 1996 to 2001, it enforced restrictions on women and girls soon after the 2021 takeover. Women are barred from most jobs and public places, including parks, baths and gyms, while girls are banned from education beyond sixth grade.
Russia hosts Taliban delegation and warns against foreign military presence in Afghanistan
The Taliban commander, armed with a machine gun, hopped out of a tan Ford ranger the US troops had left behind. Flanked by fighters, he knocked on the door of the female judge whohad put him behind bars.
It was 17 August 2021 – two days after the Taliban captured Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul following the withdrawal of US and allied troops. The Taliban’s subsequent mass release of prisoners unleashed criminals who were seeking revenge. Female judges – staunch advocates for women’s rights and justice – faced deadly reprisals.
A phone call from a neighbour alerted Pakiza Nawim’s husband that the commander she had sentenced for the rape of a 13-year-old boy three years earlier was at their front door. Luckily, the family had already fled, knowing the inevitable collapse of Afghanistan left Nawim exposed because of her work.
But four years later, Nawim and her colleagues fear the Taliban could seek retribution against their family members in Afghanistan and those at risk of deportation in neighbouring countries.
Their family members are among more than 160,000 Afghans in the queue for Australia’s offshore humanitarian visas. Nawim’s 13 relatives are in Iran illegally after fleeing the Taliban’s control of their home country 2023. They fear being deported to Afghanistan.
“I was the reason for this situation for my family. I feel guilty,” Nawim says, through her husband, who is translating.
Appointed a primary court judge in 2018, Nawim presided over criminal cases in Afghanistan’s Maidan Wardak province, about 35km from Kabul. She was the youngest judge in the province.
That year, she sentenced the commander who later came searching for her to 14 years behind bars for raping a child. He issued her a warning in the courtroom: “I will take revenge on you and your family.”
When a suicide bomber attacked the court district where Nawim worked in 2019, her government-appointed security guards fled. Her family members were the only people she could trust after this, she says, so she appointed her brothers as her security guards.
Nawim says her two brothers, who are in Iran, would be killed by the Taliban for helping a female judge if they returned to Afghanistan. Her 70-year-old mother, who has severe back pain, fears she would be deported by Iranian authorities if she sought medical treatment at a hospital.
“Sometimes during the night, I’m not able to go to sleep. I have anxiety and stress because my mother cannot have medical essentials,” Nawim says. “I’m thinking about my family a lot.”
“I was not alone in this journey … to bring justice on that province. My family was also fighting with me.”
In her final year working in the court, Nawim opted to wear the full burqa to conceal her identity when she travelled to court.Despite the threats, she remained steadfast in her convictions.
“I wanted to change the perspective of the people that the ladies are not able to do anything. I tried to make changes in the community,” she says. “I tried to put a legacy for the next generation that ladies are powerful and they are able to change the society.”
The 19 judges who resettled in Australia were granted temporary protection visas, which converted into permanent residency. But the pathway to Australia for thousands of other Afghans is complicated and lengthy.
In 2022, Australia allocated 26,500 dedicated visa places for Afghans to migrate to Australia under the offshore humanitarian visa program through to mid-2026. But demand soars beyond this.
Since the Taliban captured Kabul in August 2021, more than 251,000 Afghans have applied for visas in this program; about 20,000 have been granted. The latest statistics show that Afghan nationals accounted for 59% of all offshore humanitarian visa applicants in the 2023-24 financial year.
Iran and Pakistan have forced Afghans without valid visas to return to their home country or face deportation in recent years amid a hardening stance on refugees. The UN estimates that this year more than 2.1 million Afghans have returned or been forced to return to Afghanistan, including 352,000 from Pakistan and 1.5 million from Iran.
A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said despite the ongoing closure of Australia’s embassy in Iran, it has continued to process humanitarian visas for applicants in the country.
“The department is aware the current situation in Iran may impact humanitarian visa holders waiting to depart,” the spokesperson said. “Resettlement of Afghans continues to be a key priority of Australia’s offshore humanitarian program.”
Nawim now lives in Melbourne with her husband, three sons and in-laws. Sitting in the family’s suburban house, her eyes well with tears as she remembers the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban.
“It was like waking from a dream that that was full of colour. When the Taliban came, we wake in a black and white world,” she says.
Nawim says she hopes to one day study law in Australia. But her mind remains focused on ensuring her family’s safe passage from the Middle East.
“I’m thinking a lot about my family members. If I feel that my family is safe, then definitely I can continue my education,” she says.
“I am still that Pakiza that can fight for education, fight for the justice.”
After finding refuge in Australia, a trailblazing judge fears the Taliban will take revenge on her family
This is the first time he is participating as an official member of the format, and he will discuss the expansion of Afghanistan’s relations with regional countries.
Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has traveled to Russia to attend the “Moscow Format” meeting.
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this is the first time he is participating as an official member of the format, and he will discuss the expansion of Afghanistan’s relations with regional countries.
Zia Ahmad Takal, head of public relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: “The country’s foreign minister is participating for the first time as an official member in the Moscow Format meeting. He is expected to present Afghanistan’s perspective and position among the member countries regarding the expansion of Afghanistan’s relations with the region.”
The “Moscow Format” meeting will be held tomorrow, October 7, and is considered one of the most significant regional and international gatherings, focusing on economic, security, and diplomatic cooperation among regional countries.
Ghaws Janbaz, a former Afghan diplomat in Russia, said: “If economic and trade issues are discussed more in this format and similar meetings, it can help improve and develop Afghanistan’s infrastructure.”
According to political analysts, the participation of the Islamic Emirate’s representative in this meeting can be seen as a sign of the regional countries’ willingness to establish constructive dialogue with the current Afghan government.
Abdul Naser Shafiq, a political analyst, said: “Regional and global countries jointly want to cooperate to address Afghanistan’s current crisis, especially at a time when the Islamic Emirate has not yet been officially recognized by the international community.”
Ahmad Khan Andar, another political analyst, also emphasized: “The participation of representatives of the Islamic Emirate in meetings concerning Afghanistan’s situation is an important political and diplomatic step.”
The Moscow Format is a diplomatic initiative by Russia that has been held since 2017. The seventh round of this meeting, hosted by Russia, will take place at the level of special representatives and senior officials of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and nine other countries.
The Russian Foreign Ministry had previously announced that on the sidelines of this meeting, Amir Khan Muttaqi would meet with Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, to discuss bilateral cooperation.
Muttaqi Leaves for Russia to Attend Moscow Format Meeting
GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human rights body agreed Monday to set up an ongoing probe of human rights violations in Afghanistan under the Taliban, including against women and girls, in a measure pushed for by the European Union.
With no opposition and only China opting out of the consensus, the Human Rights Council agreed to set up an “ongoing, independent investigative mechanism” to monitor rights in Afghanistan since the Taliban’s return to power over four years ago.
The resolution aims to prepare case files that could be used by international justice, such as at the International Criminal Court, and build on work by the special investigator that the 47-member-country council has already created, among other things.
That investigator — special rapporteur Richard Bennett — last month said the Taliban have “weaponized” the legal and judicial system to oppress women and girls in what amounts to “crimes against humanity.”
Among the steps taken, the Taliban suspended laws that protected the rights of women and girls including one that had criminalized 22 forms of violence against women, including rape and forced marriage.
The Taliban dismissed all judges under the previous U.S.-backed government, including 270 women, replacing them with men who lack legal training and hand down decisions based on edicts issued by the Taliban, Bennett said.
Wang Nian, a Chinese envoy in Geneva focusing on human rights, said Afghanistan has recently “taken various measures for stability, economic growth and improvement of people’s livelihoods. The overall security situation has remained stable.”
“These positive developments merit recognition from the international community,” said Wang, adding that the proposed resolution, “failed to acknowledge the positive progress” and “lacks balance” as he explained China’s break with consensus.
UN rights body orders probe into human rights in Afghanistan, with a focus on women and girls
Reacting to the UN Human Rights Council’s decision to establish an independent investigative mechanism for Afghanistan to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of past and ongoing crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, said:
“In the face of continued impunity in Afghanistan, the establishment of a UN-mandated evidence gathering mechanism is a vital step towards advancing accountability for past and ongoing crimes under international law and paves the way for victims and survivors to access justice, reparation, and truth.
“Amnesty International, together with Afghan civil society and others, has been calling for this mechanism since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. Since then, the Taliban has plunged Afghanistan into a system of control and repression. Women and girls have been systematically erased from public life, denied education, work and voice; journalists, activists and minorities silenced through arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearance; and brutal corporal public punishments and executions used as tools of fear. This assault on human rights has long demanded more than words from the international community and the mechanism is a major step in a long journey towards accountability for the people of Afghanistan.
The establishment of a UN-mandated evidence gathering mechanism is a vital step towards advancing accountability for past and ongoing crimes under international law and paves the way for victims and survivors to access justice, reparation, and truth
Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard
“Today’s resolution has the potential to be an important milestone in the fight against impunity for millions of victims and survivors in Afghanistan, spanning more than four decades of conflict. However, this potential hinges on the mechanism adopting a truly comprehensive approach – one that considers crimes committed both before and after August 2021. This should include systematic targeted attacks by the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) and other insurgent groups, as well as allegations of crimes under international law committed by security forces under the former government, international military and security forces and other agents.
“Establishing a mechanism is only the beginning. States owe it to the victims to ensure that the mechanism is properly resourced and empowered to promote justice.”
Background
Amnesty International, together with Afghan civil society and others, has been continually advocating for the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish an independent and impartial investigative mechanism on the situation in Afghanistan since August 2021. Calls for this type of mechanism emerged as early as 2003, and were renewed in May 2021, after the deliberate and targeted attack at the Sayed Shudaha Girl High School in the west of Kabul which killed and wounded over 250 people, mostly girl students. In response, with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC)’s lead, Afghan civil society organizations and international human rights organizations advocated for the establishment of such a mechanism.
Afghanistan has grappled with continuous conflict for over four decades, resulting in crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses by warring parties including the Taliban, ISKP, security forces under the former Government and international military and security forces and other agents. Victims and survivors have had almost no access to justice, reparation, and truth. This has now worsened with the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. Amnesty International has documented many incidents of war crimes and the crime against humanity of gender persecution, as well as other crimes and human rights violations and abuses by the Taliban and others across the country.
With no access to justice, truth, and reparation, between 1978 and 2001, at least two million people were estimated to have either been killed or wounded due to the conflict.
Following longstanding calls from Afghan and international civil society organizations, the UN Human Rights Council today adopted a resolution without a vote to establish an “independent investigative mechanism to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of international crimes and the most serious violations of international law, including those that may also amount to violations and abuses of international human rights law, committed in Afghanistan.” While it does not have prosecutorial powers, the mechanism can collect and preserve evidence of international crimes and serious human rights violations. This evidence can support future prosecutions in international and national courts, including those exercising universal or other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and for credible efforts in the future to build a framework for accountability and justice in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan: Establishment of accountability mechanism a landmark moment in pursuit of justice
More than 1 million Afghans have been pressured to leave or deported by Pakistan. Many were former U.S. contractors approved for U.S. resettlement, now on hold under Trump.
For Mursal, the nightmares began in late January.
That’s when the 28-year-old Afghan woman learned that President Donald Trump, in one of his first acts back in office, had suspended all refugee arrivals to the United States.
The former economics student’s father had worked for U.S.-funded media projects during the 20-year war in Afghanistan. After the Taliban toppled the U.S.-backed government in Kabul in 2021, the Biden administration promised them safe haven in America.
They sold their belongings, moved to Pakistan and awaited what they and tens of thousands of refugees believed to be imminent resettlement in the U.S. Now she feared she would be deported back to Afghanistan under the Taliban’s repressive rule.
The nightmare came true in July. With their U.S. resettlement cases still pending, Mursal and her family joined the more than 1 million Afghans pressured to leave or be forcibly deported by Pakistani officials in the past 2½ years, the U.N. estimates.
Now, they’re hiding in Afghanistan not only from the Taliban, which have imposed increasingly harsh restrictions on Afghan women, but also from family and friends.
“Everyone knows we worked with the U.S.,” Mursal told The Washington Post via a secure messaging app. “We fear what will happen if someone informs the Taliban’s intelligence unit.” Like other Afghans in this report, she spoke on the condition her full name be withheld out of concern for her safety.
When Pakistan began deporting Afghans en masse in fall 2023, the Biden administration gave letters of protection to Mursal and others who were waiting for U.S. resettlement. For almost two years, Pakistani authorities largely complied with U.S. requests to shield those who had supported the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan or were otherwise eligible for resettlement.
But that has changed in recent months. Pakistani officials appear to no longer believe the U.S. is serious about resettling the Afghans who have been left behind, according to interviews with seven Afghans who have recently been deported from the country.“Trump has created this chaos,” said Taimor, a 36-year-old former contractor for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He fled Afghanistan, he said, after the Taliban detained and tortured him for his work in 2022. He was deported back to the country in July.
The Pakistani Interior Ministry did not respond to a request for comment. A senior Foreign Ministry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, acknowledged “missteps at the operational level by law enforcement.”
But he disputed that Afghans awaiting resettlement in the U.S. have been deported in large numbers. “Individuals who were mistakenly deported have later been facilitated to return,” he said.
The White House did not comment and the State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
“We’re not hearing a lot from government anymore,” said Shawn VanDiver, the Navy veteran who leads AfghanEvac, which helps Afghans flee the country. “They just frankly don’t seem
Taliban officials say returnees have nothing to fear. They cite a general amnesty for all members of the U.S.-backed Afghan administration the regime declared in August 2021.
But the U.N. warned in July that some are still subjected to “serious human rights violations” including “torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and threats to personal security.” Women, former employees of the previous government, media workers and members of civil society are at particularly high risk, the U.N. said.
Some refugees say Trump has appeared more eager in recent months to regain control of Afghanistan’s Bagram air base than with their plight.
“If the U.S. is serious about wanting to return to Bagram, the Taliban will take it out on us,” Taimor said. “They take this very seriously.”
‘There is no mercy’
Many recent deportees could have applied to resettle in Europe or elsewhere. But several told The Post they wanted to go to the U.S., and trusted the government would keep its word.
The Biden administration resettled about 200,000 Afghans after the fall of Kabul. Around 20,000 cases were still being processed when Trump suspended resettlements, according to Pakistani officials. Thousands, having depleted their savings, are stuck.
“In all these years, we haven’t received a penny from the U.S.,” said a 34-year old civil rights activist. He had just been told his resettlement was imminent when Trump suspended the program, he said, but has since been deported to Afghanistan.
Many of the refugees are paying for their own accommodations in Pakistan. Some have been flushed out of their hideouts in recent months as Pakistani officials threaten to fine landlords found to be hosting migrants with expired visas.
The civil rights activist’s landlord brought police to evict him in April. He showed the officers the protection letter confirming that his U.S. resettlement case was being processed, he said, but “they tore it apart and threw it into my face.”
Pakistan’s crackdown appears to have grown more severe. When Pakistani officers detained Taimor in the past, he said, they would find his name among a list of people under U.S. protection and let him go.
“But in July,” he said, “they came back, arrested us, and this time they didn’t listen.”
Only one of the seven deportees interviewed by The Post has been able to return to Pakistan, and only on a short-term visa. (He needed help from relatives to buy the expensive document.)
Two refugees interviewed by The Post said they were beaten by Pakistani officers. “There is no mercy,” said Frotan, a 33-year-old former Afghan Air Force captain. He was detained, he said, alongside a former judge. Both fell under categories particularly vulnerable to Taliban retribution, according to the U.N.
When he arrived at a deportation camp, he said, police demanded a $600 bribe to release him. Unable to pay, he said, he was locked in an overcrowded prison cell, together with elderly people, babies, and a woman who said she had no relatives left in Afghanistan.
“They laughed and played an Afghan song, telling her to enjoy it,” he said.
Mursal’s mother was separated from the family, she said, and detained in one of the camps.
“She’s still traumatized,” she said. “Our family is going through a very difficult time.”
Returnees fear being recognized
As Mursal and her sister crossed the Pakistani border into Afghanistan, they held each other’s hands tightly. Her sister had wanted to become a midwife; Mursal
The Taliban border guards questioned them.
“They wanted to know: Why are you alone?” Mursal recalled. “Thankfully, our father was waiting on the other side of the border.” Traveling without a male relative would have violated the regime’s restrictions on women’s movement.
Others feared immediate arrest for their U.S. ties. “I was shaking,” Taimor said. But the Taliban, which have seen more than 2 million Afghans return this year from Iran and Pakistan, appeared too overwhelmed to search phones or to question most returnees, he said.
For many, the greater fear is being recognized by former neighbors in tight-knit communities where not only the Taliban but local elders keep close watch.
None of the deportees who spoke to The Post felt safe returning to their old neighborhoods. Almost all said they were relying on close relatives for housing and financial support.
To avoid being recognized, Taimor said, “we only go outside during the night.”
Many fear it’s only a matter of time until the Taliban finds them. Matiullah, a 34-year-old former Afghan air force pilot, has so far avoided deportation from Pakistan but has had several close calls with police.
“When the Taliban took Kabul, they had no information,” he said. But the regime’s apparatus has become more professional in the four years since, “and now they know my name, my position, everything.”
Formoly, a 39-year-old Afghan who spent 15 years working with U.S.-backed organizations, said the Taliban appear increasingly paranoid about potential spies. When the Taliban detained and questioned a relative’s friend who had once applied to the U.S. military in a translator role, he said, they wanted to know two things: Was he still in touch with the Americans — and were they planning to reinvade?
When Formoly was deported to Afghanistan last month, he sent urgent messages to his U.S. contacts pleading for help.
“All I’ve received are automated replies, thanking me for my emails,” he said.
Afghans awaited U.S. resettlement. Pakistan sent them back to the Taliban.
A quick flick through guidebooks of the time reveals an Afghanistan unimaginably different from today: of royal levees and fashion shows and apres-ski restaurants. Facing a photo of a gargantuan mound of melons – “delicious Afghan fruits are a treat for travellers” – you’d see a picture of “a tourist and his hunting party in the Pamir mountains with a Marco Polo sheep”. Most poignant of all are images of the priceless treasures of the Kabul Museum, almost of all which are now missing or destroyed, after looting during the mujahideen takeover of Kabul in the 1990s and the smashing up of what remained by the Taliban in 2001.
In such guidebooks, there was only one place to stay: the InterContinental. This is “the finest hotel in Kabul” of foreign correspondent Lyse Doucet’s charming and often surprising memoir. “The Intercon”, as it was known, was a beacon of sophistication where Paris couturiers opened fashionable boutiques and Italian coiffeurs competed with their rival salons. Celebrated Afghan singing stars such as Ahmad Zahir (the “Elvis of Afghanistan”) lolled by the pool while his Afghan Vogue-model girlfriend shimmied past in her bikini. In the evening, guests could choose whether to drink Afghan brandy in the Nuristan cocktail lounge, dine on escargots in the Pamir supper club or attend the annual Miss Afghanistan contest in the ballroom, followed by dancing to Gloria Gaynor in the basement discotheque.
Doucet acknowledges that the Kabul InterContinental, “a white box of cement and steel”, was always, from its opening in 1969, “an iridescent bubble floating above the city’s cares”. She even hints that the kind of libertine western modernity that the hotel represented, and the corruption that financed it in what was still one of the poorest countries in the world, was partly responsible for stirring up resentments that eventually led to catastrophic and violent reactions – first Marxist, then Islamist. Nevertheless, Doucet succeeds in making the hotel an oddly successful frame for a sweeping social history of Afghanistan over the last half century and a moving symbol of its remarkable ability to endure whatever horrors fate has thrown at it.
The book opens soon after President Biden has pulled the plug on US military assistance, with a description of the tragic disintegration of a 2021 wedding feast in the hotel. The news arrives that President Ashraf Ghani has fled the country and the Taliban are at the city’s gates. Guests scatter as a Taliban pickup is spotted trundling up the hill to the hotel; the bride bursts into tears and Naeem, the banquet manager, tells the groom: “Comfort your bride! If you don’t show courage today, you will always disappoint her.”
Doucet then doubles back to the 1969 opening during the glory days of the Zahir Shah monarchy, as Kabul pullulated with nightclubs and the InterContinental played host to black-tie dinners in the only cold war capital where western and Soviet diplomats routinely invited each other to their parties. We follow the hotel through two successive coup d’etats, the assassinations of three presidents in two years, the Soviet invasion, the successful mujahideen counterattack and the rise of the Taliban. Somehow, throughout it all, the hotel manages to remain open.
What sustains the book is Doucet’s focus on the ordinary Afghans who keep the place going despite the shelling, rockets, suicide bombs and occasional massacres of both staff and guests. These are terrible affairs: during the era between the two Taliban governments, three successive suicide squads broke through rings of hotel security to maraud along the guest floors, shooting diners, throwing grenades down stairwells after fleeing staff, peppering cupboards full of hiding waiters with machine gun fire.
Today, despite everything, the hotel remains a monument to Afghan resilience and to the bravery and persistence of its staff. In Doucet, and her witty, observant and sometimes heartbreaking book, they have found a worthy chronicler.
The Finest Hotel in Kabul by Lyse Doucet review – a monument to Afghan resilience
Iran is considering releasing hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees across its western borders with Iraq and Turkey. It would be part of what officials describe as a necessarily more offensive and unpredictable strategy in the wake of the bombing of its nuclear sites and the European reimposition of UN sanctions.
The multi-pronged offensive includes expansion of its missile programme, strengthening air defences, suspending cooperation with the UN weapons inspectorate and on 18 October blocking the establishment of a UN committee to oversee the administration of the reimposed sanctions. Officials remain opposed to reopening talks with the US, believing the talks would fail.
The threat to send refugees towards the west as well as the east has echoes of the warning issued by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who threatened to send millions of Syrian refugees towards Europe.
Iran has at times had to accommodate as many as 6 million Afghan refugees, but Amnesty International reports that in 2025 a million Afghan refugees have been sent back to Afghanistan, having fled either due to poverty or Taliban rule. Amnesty claimed the mass expulsions had been scaled up in the wake of Israel’s 12 June attacks on Iran’s leadership and nuclear sites. It estimates 500,000 Afghans have been sent back over the border since June.
Until March 2025, several million Afghans had been permitted to temporarily legalise their stay in Iran by obtaining a “headcount” document. Those granted this document could access limited services, including access to state healthcare, public education, work authorisation, banking and ability to enter into rental agreements. But the authorities nullified these headcount documents.
The Iranian authorities have given different figures about the number of Afghan refugees in the country, but it is thought a minimum of 2 million are in Iran illegally. The UN high commissioner for refugees has predicted that up to 4 million Afghans may be sent back to Afghanistan this year.
A broader programme of repair and recovery is under way in Iran, including a discussion about the levers it retains to protect itself in the wake of the Israeli-US attacks in June. Iran has recalled its ambassadors from France, Germany and the UK for consultations at the foreign ministry in Tehran about the crisis. Officials are leaning against leaving the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, partly since the substantive steps have already been taken to end co-operation with the UN nuclear weapons inspectorate.
Iranian officials confirm that in discussions with the French at the UN general assembly Iran offered to allow weapons inspectors to visit one bombed nuclear site at Natanz and also offered to report on its stockpile of highly enriched uranium within 45 days. In return Iran wanted the threat of the return of UN sanctions to be lifted permanently, rather than for three months, the original French-led offer.
Iran claims the US refused to engage with these proposals, part of what Tehran believes has become an increasingly erratic and unprofessional US diplomatic operation run by Steve Witkoff, a man that the Iranians regard as either outside the loop or duplicitous. Witkoff, for instance, was sending the Iranian delegation heading to the UN details of a meeting he was intending to hold with Iran’s diplomats, but he then scrapped the meeting altogether.
In the next probable diplomatic clash with the US, it is expected that on 18 October Russia, which holds the rotating presidency of the security council, will use its power as a permanent member to block the establishment of a UN committee to monitor and oversee the sanctions the EU reimposed last week.
Russia and China have already written to the UN secretary general, António Guterres, to say European countries did not have the right to snap the sanctions back as they did on 28 September, since Europe in their view was no longer a participant in the nuclear deal, and had not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanism.
The impasse makes it likely that some countries will not comply with the enforcement of the UN sanctions. Japan, Canada and Turkey have already started to reimpose the sanctions, but countries in the Russian and Chinese orbit will not do so. The Turkish president, Erdoğan, for instance, issued a presidential decree ordering asset freezes on Iranian individuals and entities linked to Tehran’s nuclear programme and major state banks.
Officials say the most damaging sanctions on Iran are the existing ones imposed by the US, and by comparison the restored UN sanctions dating back from 2006-10 are relatively narrow, since they do not cover Iran’s oil programme but instead specific asset freezes, arms limits and bans on missile trade.
But Tehran accepts that even the partial return of UN sanctions is having an impact on economic confidence and on the exchange rate. The price of the dollar in Iran’s free market has set a new record.
Iran may release hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees into Iraq and Turkey
It’s not every day that a U.S. president publicly demands the return of a military base from a former adversary. But that’s exactly what happened last week, when President Donald Trump said that his administration is “trying to get” Bagram back from the Taliban.
The statement sparked a mix of surprise and skepticism. Once the nerve center of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, the Bagram Airfield was abandoned during the messy 2021 U.S. withdrawal and quickly taken over by the Taliban. Now, four years later, it has resurfaced as Trump’s latest foreign-policy gambit, rekindling debate over the United States’ unfinished business in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Trump, who has repeatedly raised the issue of control of Bagram since the withdrawal, now appears to be ramping up his push. “We want it back and we want it back soon. Right away,” he warned on Sept. 20.
Media reports indicate that the White House is actively weighing options to reestablish a U.S. foothold at the base, citing both its counterterrorism value and its proximity to key Chinese nuclear facilities. Located 40 miles north of Kabul, the base remains fully capable of supporting large aircraft, drones and surveillance platforms, special operations forces, and rapid-response missions. Where its loss came to symbolize American retreat, regaining Bagram could mark a bold reassertion of U.S. power in a turbulent region.
While the Taliban quickly rejected Trump’s idea, the issue is far from settled. In recent years, internal fissures within the group have widened, driven by growing discontent over the emir’s consolidation of power and his merging of clerical authority with executive control over policy and personnel decisions.
Combined with mounting economic desperation and the escalating threat from the Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K), fractures are reshaping the Taliban’s internal dynamics and creating potential openings for practical engagement. Given the regime’s obsession with survival and pressure from within its own ranks, Trump’s idea is not as far-fetched as it may seem. His team could exploit these cracks through a right mix of incentives, back-channel diplomacy, and pressure from regional actors. Both symbolically and operationally, Bagram remains one of the few fixed assets capable of reinserting U.S. influence across the South Asia and Central Asia regions.
“If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!” Trump wrote in a Sept. 20 Truth Social post. That blunt threat signals a possible recalibration of U.S. posture in a region where U.S. influence has sharply declined. Since the withdrawal, IS-K has rapidly expanded operations, terrorist safe havens have resurfaced, and U.S. intelligence collection has weakened considerably. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and Iran have moved aggressively to fill the vacuum.
The case for returning to Bagram is driven by urgent security requirements. U.S. government assessments warn that IS-K could rebuild its external operations capabilities within months if left unchecked. With no physical U.S. presence in Afghanistan, the current over-the-horizon model, which relies on distant bases in the Gulf, is a poor substitute for the proximity and on-the-ground visibility needed for effective counterterrorism.
The administration now faces several potential pathways, each fraught with risks and trade-offs. The real challenge lies in structuring an arrangement that delivers meaningful value without inviting mission creep or open-ended commitments. Trump’s penchant for transactional diplomacy could give him a unique advantage in striking such a deal.
The most direct route forward would be a negotiated agreement with the Taliban, either as a stand-alone deal or an expansion of the existing U.S.-Taliban Doha framework. In exchange for partial or full access to Bagram, Washington could offer what amounts to a survival package that includes economic assistance, counterterrorism cooperation, and gradual steps toward political normalization and easing sanctions. The Taliban would almost certainly demand international legitimacy, starting with a seat at the United Nations, as well as relief from financial and travel restrictions. A more distant but significant opportunity lies in potential U.S. investment in a lithium mine in Afghanistan. If included in the broader deal, it could deliver substantial benefits for both sides and plug Afghanistan into global supply chains.
While hard-liners, especially the emir in Kandahar, are expected to resist any accommodation with Washington, other factions within the Taliban’s uneasy coalition may privately favor such a deal as both tolerable and profitable. The emir, however, is neither untouchable nor invincible, particularly if he refuses to compromise and faces dissent from within his own ranks. Although direct dialogue with the emir remains largely untested, the regime’s broader reality as an isolated, cash-strapped hermit state increasingly vulnerable to IS-K offers meaningful leverage. These conditions may make a negotiated opening more plausible than it might appear.A more politically acceptable alternative could involve a third-party arrangement, potentially outsourcing Bagram’s management to a Gulf intermediary such as Qatar or the United Arab Emirates, a NATO member such as Turkey, or even a Central Asian partner such as Uzbekistan. These countries maintain close ties with the Taliban, have accepted regime-appointed ambassadors, and remain close security partners of Washington.
Under such an arrangement, Bagram could be repurposed as a joint counterterrorism hub and training facility, technically overseen by an external partner but functionally enabling U.S. access for intelligence collection, surveillance, and operations.
Qatar, for instance, already hosts a U.S. interests section within its embassy in Afghanistan and facilitates back-channel talks with the Taliban. Uzbekistan, which shares a border with Afghanistan, still houses dozens of U.S.-supplied combat helicopters and other military equipment previously provided to the former Afghan government, assets that the Taliban are eager to recover. But more importantly, Uzbekistan faces serious threats from at least four Uzbek jihadi groups, all of which enjoy Taliban sanctuary and maintain operational ties with al Qaeda, IS-K, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Syria. These concerns have pushed Uzbekistan to seek a closer counterterrorism partnership with Washington.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates manages four of Afghanistan’s main airports, including Kabul International Airport. It oversees systems and technology, terminal operations, and ground services, giving it considerable visibility into Taliban logistics and movement. This role, combined with the UAE’s deepening technological footprint in Afghanistan’s telecommunications and energy sectors, further enhances its insight into the regime’s internal workings. The UAE has also hosted Taliban dissenters and enjoys high-level, direct access to senior Taliban leadership, including during sensitive engagements such as hostage negotiations.
Such a third-party arrangement could provide Washington both legal and diplomatic cover while minimizing the optics of direct engagement with the Taliban. For the Taliban, it could provide a face-saving narrative by allowing them to present the partnership as engagement with a fellow Muslim nation rather than with the United States itself. While they may demand some visibility into U.S. activities at the base or seek to limit certain operations, especially those targeting al Qaeda, a workable compromise could still preserve the United States’ core counterterrorism capabilities on the ground.
A third option could draw on the post-9/11 precedent with Pakistan, where the United States operated for years from airfields in Jacobabad and Pasni under the nominal control of the Pakistani government. That arrangement showed how even adversarial or uneasy partners can collaborate when the right incentives or threats are on the table. A similar low-visibility setup at Bagram could enable U.S. personnel to operate discreetly in designated zones, possibly with Taliban-appointed liaisons serving as intermediaries. Though politically delicate, such quiet engagement would mirror existing forms of U.S.-Taliban interaction, ranging from back-channel coordination on migration and humanitarian aid to limited dialogues on counterterrorism and narcotics issues, including the sharing of actionable targeting information. If the Taliban were to refuse such an arrangement, Pakistan could once again emerge as a fallback partner by providing U.S. access to facilities within its own territory.
Another alternative could involve a hybrid civilian-military consortium, a joint venture between select Gulf, Taliban, and U.S. stakeholders. In this version, Bagram could be rebranded as a civilian logistics, maintenance, and aviation hub with embedded security and intelligence components managed by American personnel. While unconventional, similar gray-zone basing arrangements have proven effective in places such as Somalia, Iraq, Djibouti, and the Sahel.
If formal channels fail, the United States could opt for a covert presence by leveraging intelligence networks, paramilitary units, or private contractors. This approach could build on existing relationships with former Afghan strike units, regional intermediaries, or even Taliban defectors. It could resemble the CIA-run Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams, who were recruited in the early days of the Afghan campaign and remained active in Afghanistan until the Taliban takeover. Many of the units’ members have since been resettled in the United States and partner countries.
While the risks of exposure and Taliban retaliation would be significant, this approach is consistent with the U.S. track record of operating in hostile environments through deniable means. However, such efforts could face serious challenges, including the growing threat of Taliban hostage-taking involving U.S. dual nationals, a recurring issue that has already entangled Washington in ransom-driven hostage diplomacy with the regime.
Beyond counterterrorism, the big-picture rationale for the United States wanting Bagram back is just as compelling. China is rapidly deepening its footprint in Afghanistan, pursuing rare-earth minerals and embedding itself in critical infrastructure. Russia, having moved early to formally recognize the Taliban government, is expanding its security engagement. Iran continues to move weapons, fighters, and currency across Afghan borders with little resistance. India, though sidelined, is watching with concern. And Pakistan—long a disruptive player in Afghan affairs—is readjusting its position amid rising instability inside Pakistan and growing tensions with the Taliban over cross-border sanctuaries involving the Pakistani Taliban.
To be sure, any U.S. return to Bagram would be seen by China and Russia as a direct challenge to their regional influence, likely prompting them to pressure the Taliban to resist such a move. Iran would oppose any U.S. reentry outright. Pakistan would be forced to balance its ties with the Taliban and its dependency on China to reap potential gains from renewed cooperation with Washington. India, though unlikely to say so publicly, would quietly welcome it. Ultimately, the Taliban understand that no country can, nor would, outmatch the scale of U.S. investment or rival its influence.
In the end, getting Bagram back won’t be easy. But if the Trump administration embraces a pragmatic bargain and explores creative basing arrangements, it could secure a meaningful foothold without slipping into another costly entanglement. In a region where the United States’ absence has created a dangerous vacuum—and where the Taliban have now held power for the full length of a U.S. presidential term—reestablishing access to Bagram under new terms and for new priorities could represent a significant foreign-policy win for the administration. It’s an opportunity worth seizing.
Javid Ahmad is a counterterrorism research scholar and author of the Taliban Leadership Tracker at the Middle East Institute. He also teaches at George Washington University.
Two senior U.S. officials dismissed rumors of American troops returning to Afghanistan, confirming that the United States has no military presence or plans to reoccupy Bagram airbase.
Two senior U.S. officials have categorically dismissed claims that American troops have returned to Afghanistan or regained control of the Bagram airbase, calling the rumors “entirely baseless.”
A Pentagon source confirmed that “no U.S. troops are in Afghanistan,” while a diplomatic official in Washington said there are no plans or negotiations to re-establish a military presence in the country.
The clarification follows days of widespread speculation on social media and local outlets suggesting that the Taliban had asked residents near the Bagram airbase, north of Kabul, to evacuate the area. The rumors spread rapidly amid an internet blackout and disrupted communication networks across Afghanistan.
The renewed speculation intensified after U.S. President Donald Trump claimed his administration might negotiate with the Taliban to “reclaim” the Bagram base, which he described as strategically vital for countering China’s influence and combating ISIS. Trump warned that “serious consequences” would follow if the Taliban refused to hand over the base.
In response, the Taliban’s military leadership firmly rejected the reports, stating that they will not hand over the Bagram airbase to the United States or any foreign power. Taliban officials also dismissed claims of prisoner transfers or troop withdrawals from Bagram as fabricated.
Despite official denials from both Washington and Kabul, speculation persisted online that the Taliban and the U.S. had reached a secret understanding regarding control of the airbase. Some political activists suggested a possible arrangement through intermediaries such as Qatar, the UAE, or Uzbekistan.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Policy magazine recently noted that a negotiated U.S. return to Bagram “cannot be ruled out,” current political and security conditions make such a move highly improbable.
For now, both U.S. and Taliban officials insist that no American military personnel are in Afghanistan — and that Bagram, once the centerpiece of U.S. operations, remains firmly under Taliban control.
U.S. Officials Deny Rumors of Returning to Bagram Airbase, Say No Troops in Afghanistan
The United Nations says aid workers are still in a “race against time” to remove rubble and rebuild after the devastating earthquake struck eastern Afghanistan last month, killing at least 2,200 people and cutting off remote areas.
The 6.0-magnitude quake on Aug. 31 was shallow, destroying or causing extensive damage to low-rise buildings in the mountainous region. It hit late at night, and homes — mostly made of mud, wood, or rocks — collapsed instantly, becoming death traps.
Satellite data shows that about 40,500 truckloads of debris still needs to be cleared from affected areas in several provinces, the United Nations Development Program said Wednesday. Entire communities have been upended and families are sleeping in the open, it added.
The quake’s epicenter was in remote and rugged Kunar province, challenging rescue and relief efforts by the Taliban government and humanitarian groups. Authorities deployed helicopters or airdropped army commandos to evacuate survivors. Aid workers walked for hours on foot to reach isolated communities.
“This is a race against time,” said Devanand Ramiah, from the UNDP’s Crisis Bureau. “Debris removal and reconstruction operations must start safely and swiftly.”
People’s main demands were the reconstruction of houses and water supplies, according to a spokesman for a Taliban government committee tasked with helping survivors, Zia ur Rahman Speenghar.
People were getting assistance in cash, food, tents, beds, and other necessities, Speenghar said Thursday. Three new roads were under construction in the Dewagal Valley, and roads would be built to areas where there previously were none.
“Various countries and organizations have offered assistance in the construction of houses but that takes time. After the second round of assistance, work will begin on the third round, which is considering what kind of houses can be built here,” the spokesman said.
Afghanistan is facing a “perfect storm” of crises, including natural disasters like the recent earthquake, said Roza Otunbayeva, who leads the U.N. mission to the country.
Afghanistan Peace Campaign