P.O.Box 21375, Washington, D.C. 20009

Islamic Emirate: Doha Process Has Failed to Meet Its Objectives

September 16, 2026
TOLOnews
TV Network
15 September 2026

It is not yet clear when the fourth Doha meeting on Afghanistan will be held.

Three years after the launch of a series of meetings of special envoys on Afghanistan, known as the Doha Process, the spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan says that despite a promising start, the process has so far failed to achieve its stated objectives.

Zabihullah Mujahid added that the Doha Process remains incomplete and that very little progress has been made in social and economic cooperation with Afghanistan, while the country’s demands have yet to be met.

Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate, said: “We can say that the Doha meetings had a good start, but they have not been followed up sufficiently. I do not think the process has been completed yet. It should have been completed and succeeded in achieving its objectives. In terms of cooperation with Afghanistan in the social and economic sectors, we have seen very little progress, and what we wanted has not been achieved.”

The Doha Process was launched three years ago at the initiative of the UN Secretary-General with the aim of creating a coherent framework for the international community’s engagement with Afghanistan. Through three rounds of meetings of special envoys on Afghanistan and meetings of its working groups, the process was intended to help reintegrate Afghanistan into the international community.

UNAMA recently said the Doha Process remains the main framework for dialogue on Afghanistan’s political issues and that progress has been made toward developing a comprehensive approach. However, the mission said further efforts are needed.

Sayed Muqaddam Amin, a political analyst, said: “The Doha Process remains an important roadmap for Afghanistan’s development in various sectors and its integration into the global system.”

Moeen Gul Samkani, a political analyst, said: “For Afghanistan’s reintegration, we must take the UN Charter into consideration and align our plans accordingly.”

It is not yet clear when the fourth Doha meeting on Afghanistan will be held.

Earlier, on the 4th of the solar month of Dalwa, Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, held talks with Islamic Emirate officials during a three-day visit to Kabul about the Doha Process and its working-group meetings.

Islamic Emirate: Doha Process Has Failed to Meet Its Objectives
read more

Al-Qaeda Releases New Video of Hamza bin Laden Ahead of 9/11 Anniversary

September 12, 2026
Khaama Press

Al-Qaeda has released a new propaganda video featuring Hamza bin Laden, the son of the group’s founder Osama bin Laden, ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, raising renewed international concerns about the militant network’s presence and activities in Afghanistan.

The nearly 50-minute video, titled A Quarter Century of the 11 September Raids, was published by Al-Qaeda’s media wing, As-Sahab, days before the anniversary of the 2001 attacks on the United States. The footage shows Hamza bin Laden describing Islam as being engaged in an “all-out war” and urges supporters to continue jihad, according to intelligence monitoring organizations.

The release is significant because it includes what analysts describe as the first publicly circulated footage of Hamza bin Laden in years. U.S. officials reported in 2019 that Hamza had been killed in a counterterrorism operation near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but Al-Qaeda has never officially confirmed his death or issued a funeral statement for him.

According to intelligence monitoring platform Hamer Intelligence, the new production differs from previous As-Sahab videos because it makes fewer apparent attempts to conceal filming locations or environmental details. Analysts say the clearer visual background could indicate increased confidence within Al-Qaeda’s propaganda apparatus or an effort to demonstrate the group’s continued operational relevance.

The video also contains previously unseen footage of former Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Kabul in 2022. Security analysts quoted by Indian media said the production appears designed to reinforce the leadership of current Al-Qaeda chief Saif al-Adl while leveraging the Bin Laden name for recruitment and ideological influence.

The publication comes as international security agencies continue to warn that Al-Qaeda maintains an active presence in Afghanistan despite repeated assurances from the Taliban that Afghanistan territory will not be used to threaten other countries.

The United Nations has repeatedly reported that Al-Qaeda continues to operate in Afghanistan and maintains longstanding ties with Taliban members. Recent UN monitoring reports said the group has training facilities, safe houses and senior operatives in several Afghanistan provinces, while describing its relationship with the Taliban as close despite public denials from Taliban authorities.

Former Afghan intelligence officials have also alleged that Hamza bin Laden has been present in Afghanistan since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021. Ahmad Zia Saraj, the former head of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, and former deputy intelligence official Ajmal Obaid Abidi have claimed Hamza was seen in Kandahar and, at times, Panjshir. Those claims have not been independently verified.

The Taliban has consistently rejected accusations that it harbors Al-Qaeda leaders, insisting it is complying with commitments under the 2020 Doha Agreement to prevent terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a base for international attacks.

Counterterrorism experts say the timing of the video’s release is unlikely to be accidental. As-Sahab has historically used major anniversaries, including September 11, to distribute propaganda aimed at supporters and sympathizers while attempting to demonstrate that Al-Qaeda remains active despite years of leadership losses and military pressure.

The latest video is expected to intensify scrutiny of Al-Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and renew questions about the group’s ability to maintain regional networks and produce high-profile propaganda nearly five years after the Taliban regained control of the country.

Al-Qaeda Releases New Video of Hamza bin Laden Ahead of 9/11 Anniversary
read more

Pakistan Court Suspends Order Expelling Afghan Medical Students, Allows Them to Continue Studies

September 12, 2026
Khaama Press

The Lahore High Court has temporarily suspended a Pakistani medical regulator’s order requiring Afghan medical students to leave the country, allowing them to continue their education while the court reviews legal challenges against the decision.

The interim ruling, issued on Friday, came after a group of Afghan medical students petitioned the court against a directive from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) ordering Afghan students to return to Afghanistan and instructing medical colleges not to admit new Afghan students during the current academic year.

The court ordered medical and dental colleges in Lahore not to expel the students, prevent them from taking examinations, or deny them access to classrooms and university hostels until further hearings are held.

The petition was filed by 13 Afghan students enrolled at some of Pakistan’s leading medical institutions, including King Edward Medical University, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Medical and Dental College, and Services Institute of Medical Sciences in Lahore. Lawyers representing the students argued that the PMDC directive would abruptly end their education despite years of study in Pakistan.

During the hearing, a PMDC representative told the court that some Afghan students did not possess valid visas. Justice Khalid Ishaq questioned the argument, asking how students had been admitted to Pakistani medical institutions and allowed to study if their immigration documents were allegedly invalid from the outset.

The judge also stressed that the status of Afghan medical students should not be treated as a national security issue. He said changes in Pakistan’s policy toward Afghan nationals should not automatically deprive students of their right to complete their education.

The PMDC issued its directive on September 1 as Pakistan continues tightening policies affecting Afghan nationals. The regulator instructed medical colleges across the country to stop offering new admissions or academic placements to Afghan students and asked those already enrolled to return to Afghanistan.

The court’s temporary order provides immediate relief to the affected students, who can now return to their hostels, attend classes, and sit for scheduled examinations while the legal case proceeds.

The decision could affect a broader group of Afghan students. Pakistani media reports indicate that more than 30 additional Afghan medical students have filed similar petitions challenging the PMDC order in courts across Pakistan.

Thousands of Afghan students have pursued higher education in Pakistan over the past decade through scholarship programs, including the Allama Iqbal Scholarships administered by Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission. Many of the affected students are women who left Afghanistan after the Taliban imposed sweeping restrictions on female education, including bans on university attendance inside the country.

Human rights organizations and education advocates have warned that forcing Afghan students to leave Pakistan could interrupt the education of young professionals who have few opportunities to continue their studies in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s restrictions on women and higher education.

The Lahore High Court’s ruling is an interim measure and does not overturn the PMDC directive. The court is expected to hear further arguments from the students and Pakistani authorities before deciding whether the regulator’s order can be implemented.

Pakistan Court Suspends Order Expelling Afghan Medical Students, Allows Them to Continue Studies
read more

Former U.S. Diplomat Says Stable Post-9/11 Afghanistan Remains in America’s Interest

September 12, 2026
Khaama Press

Former U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad said the United States’ primary interest in Afghanistan is preventing the country from once again becoming a base for terrorist groups that could threaten America, while urging Washington to remain engaged in Afghanistan rather than leave the field to rival powers.

Speaking in a video published on Saturday, Khalilzad said the U.S. wants to avoid Afghanistan descending back into “chaos and disorder,” arguing that instability would create conditions for extremist groups to regroup and threaten American interests. He said continued engagement with Afghanistan serves Washington’s long-term strategic and security objectives.

Khalilzad also argued that Afghanistan’s economic development, including investment in its vast natural resources, could align with U.S. interests if carried out in cooperation with international partners and private companies. He warned that if Washington disengages from Afghanistan entirely, a strategic vacuum could emerge that would be filled by competing global powers.

According to Khalilzad, China is seeking greater access to Afghanistan’s mineral resources through its Belt and Road Initiative, while Russia has become “very active” in expanding its influence in the country. He said U.S. policy should consider not only Afghanistan’s current situation but also what kind of country Washington wants Afghanistan to become in the future.

Khalilzad served as the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation during the Trump administration and was the chief architect of the 2020 Doha Agreement between the United States and the Taliban, which paved the way for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Washington distances itself from Khalilzad’s comments

The U.S. government has repeatedly said Khalilzad does not represent official American policy on Afghanistan. State Department spokespersons have stated on multiple occasions that Khalilzad holds no official position in the U.S. government and is not a U.S. envoy or representative for Afghanistan.

His latest remarks therefore reflect his personal views and policy recommendations rather than the official position of the Trump administration or the U.S. State Department.

Washington’s stated Afghanistan policy has continued to focus on counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance and securing the release of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents detained in Afghanistan, while maintaining that broader engagement depends on the Taliban’s actions.

US policy remains tied to terrorism, hostages and human rights

U.S. officials have consistently said preventing terrorist organizations such as ISIS-K and al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan territory remains a central American security priority. Washington has also pressed the Taliban to honor commitments that Afghanistan soil will not be used to threaten other countries.

At the same time, the United States has continued to demand the release of detained Americans and Afghan-American citizens, including Mahmood Shah Habibi, an Afghan-American businessman who disappeared in Kabul in 2022. U.S. officials have repeatedly said they believe Habibi is being held by the Taliban, while Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid has denied the group has information about his whereabouts.

American officials have also linked deeper political and economic engagement with Afghanistan to improvements in human rights, particularly the Taliban’s restrictions on women and girls, as well as progress on counterterrorism commitments and unresolved hostage cases.

Khalilzad’s remarks come as debate continues in Washington over the future of U.S. engagement with Afghanistan nearly five years after the Taliban returned to power in August 2021. While Russia has formally recognized the Taliban government, the United States and most other countries have not extended diplomatic recognition to the Taliban administration.

Former U.S. Diplomat Says Stable Post-9/11 Afghanistan Remains in America’s Interest
read more

Pakistani Ambassador: Current Situation Blocks Afghanistan’s SCO Membership

September 12, 2026
TOLOnews
12 September 2026

According to the Pakistani ambassador, some SCO member states have concerns about the participation of the Islamic Emirate.

Pakistan’s ambassador to Russia says Afghanistan is part of the region and an important link between Central and South Asian countries, and Islamabad hopes the country can eventually become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Faisal Niaz Tirmizi, in an interview with a Russian media outlet, said that given the current situation, Afghanistan’s full membership in the organization does not appear possible.

According to the Pakistani ambassador, some SCO member states have concerns about the participation of the Islamic Emirate.

Faisal Niaz Tirmizi said: “I hope it happens, because Afghanistan is part of our region and an important link. But given the current regime in Kabul, I do not see this as an option at present.”

Tirmizi stressed that Islamabad wants a stable Afghanistan that is part of regional processes and, according to him, can facilitate the development of transit routes and connectivity among countries in the region.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani ambassador said his country will participate in the Moscow Format consultations on Afghanistan in October.

Tirmizi said: “Pakistan will also participate in the Moscow Format consultations on Afghanistan in October. We want to see a stable government in Afghanistan that is part of the region, not a country that causes instability for its neighbors.”

Wahid Faqiri, a political analyst, said: “Pakistan will try at this meeting to portray Afghanistan as unstable and exaggerate the threat of the TTP and other terrorist groups from Afghanistan, so that it can both keep Afghanistan isolated and conceal its own internal problems.”

The Islamic Emirate has previously stressed the importance of its representatives participating in regional meetings.

Afghanistan was admitted as an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2012, but following the developments of 2021, Afghanistan’s participation and activities in the organization have faced suspension and challenges.

Pakistani Ambassador: Current Situation Blocks Afghanistan’s SCO Membership
read more

UNSC Raises Concerns Over Afghanistan

September 12, 2026
TOLOnews
12 September 2026

They said that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and their affiliates remain active, with ISIS-Khorasan being one of the group’s most active branches.

The United Nations Security Council held a meeting marking the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Representatives of several countries said at the meeting that 25 years later, the threat of terrorism has not disappeared and that terrorist groups have expanded the scope of their activities by changing their operational methods.

They said that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and their affiliates remain active, with ISIS-Khorasan being one of the group’s most active branches.

Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s representative, said: “ISIS-Khorasan in Afghanistan remains a serious threat, and the problem of foreign terrorist fighters who are able to transfer their battlefield experience from one region to another also persists.”

Jérôme Bonnafont, France’s representative, said: “In the Middle East, terrorist groups have taken advantage of every opportunity to establish safe havens for themselves in Afghanistan. ISIS-Khorasan is one of the most active branches of this organization.”

China’s representative at the meeting called on the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to effectively combat terrorist groups and prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a breeding ground for terrorism.

Sun Lei, China’s representative, said: “The Afghan government should also adapt to the situation, effectively combat all terrorist forces in Afghanistan, including the Pakistani Taliban and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, and resolutely prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a breeding ground for terrorism.”

Pakistan claimed at the meeting that Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) operate from safe havens in Afghanistan.

Asim Iftikhar, Pakistan’s representative, said: “Terrorism in various geographical regions, including Africa, which my colleague from Liberia elaborated on, the Middle East, and in our own neighborhood, Afghanistan, is deeply concerning.”

In response to these remarks, the Interior Ministry spokesman said Afghanistan’s territory is secure and that all groups in Afghanistan were suppressed during the first years of the Islamic Emirate.

Abdul Matin Qani, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said: “In the first, second, and third years, we eliminated all groups and factions that opposed the system, posed threats to internal and cross-border security, or had previously expanded their presence here.”

The Islamic Emirate has previously described security concerns stemming from Afghanistan as unfounded.

UNSC Raises Concerns Over Afghanistan
read more

Al-Qaeda regroups in Afghanistan, 25 years after 9/11

September 12, 2026
The Washington Post
September 12, 2026

The terror organization and its offshoots have set up at least eight training sites over the past three years, taking advantage of the Taliban’s return to power.

Al-Qaeda’s plans for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took root in dusty, mud-walled compounds in Afghanistan that served for years as terrorist training camps.

A quarter-century later — despite decades of U.S. military and counterterrorism operations aimed at eradicating those strongholds — al-Qaeda is again operating training camps in Afghanistan, according to U.S. and Western intelligence officials and a United Nations organization responsible for monitoring terror networks.

The terror organization and its offshoots have set up at least eight training sites over the past three years, taking advantage of the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul and the security void created by the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, according to U.N. reports and security officials.

Other terror groups, including an affiliate of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda’s main rival, also have set up new training sites, officials said, giving militant Islamist groups a foothold in at least 14 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.

These officials and others in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Because the Taliban has again provided “a permissive environment,” a U.N. report said, al-Qaeda has been able “to consolidate, with the presence of safe houses and training camps across Afghanistan.”

There are notable differences from the pre-9/11 period, officials and counterterrorism experts said.

The groups now training in Afghanistan seem more focused on regional fights than mounting elaborate plots against the United States or its allies. They appear to be constrained by Taliban hosts wary of again drawing the wrath of global powers. And with al-Qaeda’s top leaders still believed to be hiding in Iran or elsewhere, no Osama bin Laden-like figure has emerged to galvanize followers.

Even so, the reappearance of training camps is a cause of growing concern.

“They’re not following the pre-9/11 game plan of going after the far enemy,” said Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University. “But I think they hope that with local and regional gains they can start to rebuild momentum. They haven’t forgotten us.”

The U.S.’s failure to dismantle al-Qaeda’s training camps in the 1990s still looms as one of the major missed opportunities to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

The idea of flying hijacked planes into U.S. buildings was first proposed by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 1996 at an al-Qaeda complex in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, according to the U.S.’s 9/11 Commission.

Bin Laden later approved the operation at a site near Kandahar. Before storming the cockpits of four transatlantic flights, all 19 of the hijackers had spent time at al-Qaeda camps or safe houses in Afghanistan.

U.N. and other security officials said they had recently investigated claims that al-Qaeda was seeking to re-establish a presence at Tarnak Farms, a sprawling compound near the Kandahar airport where one of the first CIA Predator drone surveillance flights caught a pre-9/11 glimpse of bin Laden. A Washington Post examination of satellite imagery found no visible sign of resumed activity at Tarnak.

The new camps are being used to train fighters on weapons, explosives and guerrilla tactics that would be familiar to the thousands of recruits who passed through al-Qaeda’s camps in the 1990s, officials said. But they also cited indications of instruction on the use of encryption, artificial intelligence, drones and other technologies that were in their infancy in 2001.

The number of militants in Afghanistan considered part of core al-Qaeda, the parent group that spawned affiliates and imitators, is probably 100 or fewer, said Colin Smith, coordinator of a U.N. monitoring team that tracks the threat posed by terror groups and oversees international sanctions on them.

Instead of spearheading operations, “we’ve seen al-Qaeda acting as a consulting service for other groups,” Smith said. “Giving them advice and training on things like covert operations and information security.”

The arrangement has put core al-Qaeda in a supporting role to larger affiliates including Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, a group that seeks to overthrow the government in Pakistan and establish an Islamic state.

A U.N. report in 2024 said that al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan’s Kunar province were “conducting suicide bomber training for TTP.”

Al-Qaeda’s main rival has also worked to establish a foothold in Afghanistan. An Islamic State affiliate known as Islamic State-Khorasan, for the historical region of Khorasan, has attracted about 2,000 recruits and used northern Afghanistan as its “main hub” for training and planning operations across Central Asia, according to officials and U.N. reports.

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State remain fierce rivals, fighting for dominance of the jihadist movement and overseeing splinter groups that compete with one another, officials said.

Both groups seem focused mainly on recruiting operatives from within Afghanistan or neighboring states, unlike in the 1990s when al-Qaeda attracted thousands of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia — where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from — and other Middle Eastern countries.

“What I’ve seen from al-Qaeda media suggest that they’re not really looking for foreign fighters right now,” said Sara Harmouch, a terrorism expert at George Washington University who tracks the group’s propaganda and social media messages. “They don’t want eyes on them as they try to rebuild these capabilities.”

Even so, the killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who succeeded bin Laden as al-Qaeda’s leader, in a 2022 drone strike in Kabul showed that the U.S. has intelligence and strike capabilities that survived the chaotic pullout of U.S. forces.

Al-Qaeda is now led by Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian, who spent years helping to run training camps in Afghanistan after his 1988 arrival. But al-Adel is believed to remain in hiding in Iran, officials said, underscoring the organization’s concern about security in its former stronghold.

Terror watch lists, travel surveillance and other security measures adopted after 9/11 would likely put any visitor to Afghanistan’s training camps under intense scrutiny, officials said. Instead, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have sought to recruit operatives online and urged sympathizers in Western countries to stay in place for “lone wolf” operations.

Many of these plots have been disrupted. In a recent case, a 35-year-old woman in Albany, New York, was arrested last month and charged by the Justice Department with pursing an “ISIS-inspired” terror plot to bomb the state capitol.

Jarrett Ley contributed to this report.

Al-Qaeda regroups in Afghanistan, 25 years after 9/11
read more

25 Years After 9/11, Al Qaeda Still Has a Home in Afghanistan

September 12, 2026

By Elian Peltier

Reporting from Kabul and Badakhshan, Afghanistan

The New York Times

Sept. 12, 2026

The Taliban claim that Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary for terrorist groups, but Al Qaeda and others are still present, reviving old fears.

Twenty five years ago, Osama bin Laden led the planning of Al Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, from a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan, where he lived as their guest.

Now, the Taliban rule over Afghanistan once again, trying to present a more modern face to the world.

But despite the veneer, the Taliban have not changed their ideology, and armed groups, including dozens of Qaeda members, remain in Afghanistan. Many of the conditions that made the Sept. 11 attacks possible remain.

The Taliban outlasted the American war to oust them and are now ruling over 45 million Afghans. They use the latest iPhones to contact European and American diplomats. They travel to the Persian Gulf and Turkey, and promote trade with Uzbekistan and India. Their fighters now patrol Afghanistan’s cities, some using abandoned U.S. military gear.

And when Taliban officials receive foreign visitors in their gilded offices in Kabul, the capital, they insist that they want peaceful relations with the world. They repeat the commitments they made in 2020, during peace talks with the United States, not to allow another major attack to take root on Afghan soil.

“We consider the chapter of war to have come to an end,” Afghanistan’s foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said in a recent interview in Kabul.

But the United States, the European Union and most other governments are not ready to trust them.

Their promises about security are similar to the ones Mullah Muhammad Omar, then the Taliban’s leader, made months before 9/11, when he told a journalist that bin Laden “does not operate against anyone from the soil of Afghanistan.”

Al Qaeda and other militant groups remain in Afghanistan, although without a leader as powerful as bin Laden and without their past influence over the Taliban.

And there is a troubling intelligence vacuum. Security officials and diplomats acknowledge that they lack the full picture of what is happening inside Afghanistan. It has again become a dark room where, they warn, new threats could emerge unnoticed.

What Security Means Now

In conversation, Afghans often describe life in their country by what it is no longer: at war. Roads are safe. Mining deals are welcome. The sound of gunfire is less common. Civilians are no longer in constant danger of being killed by drones or crossfire, though the threat from unexploded devices remains. Kabul has seen an influx of new money and new restaurants that mimic the glitter of Dubai.

That is the Taliban’s message: Calm, not chaos, permeates Afghanistan.

But that is only one part of the story. Extremist armed groups still have a home in Afghanistan, according to the United States, China, Russia and the United Nations.

The militant threat in Afghanistan is much less significant and visible than in the years leading up to 9/11, experts and security officials say, when up to 30,000 militants and fighters were in the country.

Still, United Nations experts estimate that 15,000 to 20,000 militants are scattered among about 20 groups in Afghanistan. Russia says they could number up to 23,000.

Al Qaeda has only a few dozen members, according to estimates from the United Nations and security experts, but some of them live freely in Kabul. The Afghan authorities have issued national identity cards to the leadership of Al Qaeda’s South Asian branch, according to the United Nations’ group of experts monitoring terrorist networks.

Thousands of Islamic State militants also roam the rugged borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Most numerous are the thousands of militants from Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, known as the Pakistani Taliban, or T.T.P., who navigate the porous border to stage attacks on Pakistani security forces. Security experts and officials attribute a sharp increase in attacks on Pakistan to the permissive environment provided by the Afghan Taliban since 2021.

Though in far lower numbers than in the 1990s, foreign fighters have also recently traveled to Afghanistan from Syria and Somalia. er the vestiges of fli

The Taliban in Afghanistan deny backing the Pakistani Taliban but privately say that they could not rein in the group even if they wanted to.

Pakistan has been a close ally of the United States under President Trump, and the United States has accused the Taliban of breaking their counterterrorism promises. Even China, long a staunch supporter of pragmatic engagement with the Taliban, has urged the group to “resolutely eliminate all terrorist forces.” The European Union wants it “to do more to convince the world that Afghanistan is not a potential threat.”

Intelligence Diplomacy

The continued presence of thousands of militants is one of the main reasons for the Taliban’s continued isolation from the rest of the world. Most security analysts believe that they pose a threat mainly to the region, not the West, but Al Qaeda and the Islamic State still promote a global ideology.

The Taliban claim they work closely with foreign intelligence services to fend off the Islamic State’s regional affiliate, ISIS-K. A senior Afghan intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters, called this “intelligence diplomacy.”

The two groups are enemies because ISIS-K adheres to an extremist jihadist ideology that views the Taliban as apostates for accommodating religious minorities and seeking international engagement. ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the attack near the Kabul airport during the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021 that killed 13 U.S. troops and more than 170 Afghan civilians. It has repeatedly targeted Shiite communities in Afghanistan and has claimed deadly attacks in Kabul and Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, this year.

The Taliban have deployed special forces teams to infiltrate areas controlled by the Islamic State, according to Antonio Giustozzi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London who follows militant groups in the region.

Experts and security officials say ISIS-K no longer has the capacity to mount a large-scale assault. They attribute this to the work of the Taliban and Pakistan, as well as a broader loss of momentum by the group.

“Kabul, to its credit, is waging a fierce armed struggle against Islamic State,” Sergei K. Shoigu, Russia’s former defense minister and now the secretary of its Security Council, said earlier this year.

The Taliban’s relationship with Al Qaeda is of another nature.

U.S. counterterrorism officials have in recent years called Afghanistan a “nursing home” for Al Qaeda’s senior members and defined the Qaeda threat from the country as being at its “lowest point” in decades.

But its influence persists.

Al Qaeda never abandoned the Taliban during their 20-year insurgency, and the Taliban have not abandoned Al Qaeda in power.

A few dozen Qaeda members remain in Kabul and along the Pakistani border, training the Pakistani Taliban, according to the United Nations’ monitoring group on terrorist networks.

(Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahri, was killed in a U.S. drone strike on his balcony in Kabul in 2022.)

“The exact role of Al Qaeda Afghanistan? It’s very hard to say,” said Colin Smith, the coordinator of the U.N. group, which collects information from more than 40 intelligence agencies for its biannual reports.

In April, Al Qaeda declared support for the Pakistani Taliban and renewed its endorsement of the Taliban government in Kabul, hailing the group as “a modern role model.” By backing the Taliban, Al Qaeda is buying time and space in Afghanistan, Mr. Giustozzi said.

Cumbersome Allies

The Taliban’s relationship with militant groups keeps alive a long-running debate: Are the Taliban an insurgent group engaged in statecraft; a state-ruling entity that hasn’t shed its insurgent past; or a mix of both?

That uncertainty reflects the balancing act at the heart of the Taliban’s survival. Allowing Afghanistan to serve as a launchpad for international terrorism is not in the Taliban’s interest — as they learned after 9/11. But out of hospitality, ideological zeal and a lack of resources, they have so far been unable, and in part unwilling, to expel them.

The Pakistani Taliban are forcing the Taliban to face the consequences. The two fought side by side during the U.S.-led war, and the Pakistani Taliban now expect a return on investment: support to establish a similar stronghold in Pakistan.

If the Taliban withdraw support to their Pakistani counterparts, they risk seeing more of their disgruntled fighters join the Pakistani Taliban. Most of the Taliban’s rank and file now control checkpoints and patrol cities. The Pakistani Taliban are offering a new jihad, right next door.

“We sacrificed our generation to bring peace,” said Farhad Sangari, the Taliban commander of a special forces unit in Kabul, on a recent evening as he led a traffic patrol. He added, “I miss the memories of jihad and the front line.”

Many experts and security officials also fear that the vast network of religious schools that has expanded across Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover is teaching a violent, expansionist agenda.

“How many hundreds of thousands of men have been exposed to the Taliban ideology glorifying jihad?” said Michael Semple, a longtime Afghanistan expert at Queen’s University Belfast.

Afghans are now living with a situation they haven’t faced in decades. They are somewhat safe at home, but Afghanistan is once again exporting insecurity.

The Return of Gunfire

Whatever its exact nature, the relationship between the Taliban and militant groups now threatens to destabilize Afghanistan.

Fed up with relentless attacks from the Pakistani Taliban, the Pakistani military has retaliated with dozens of airstrikes on Afghan security and civilian infrastructure this year, including in Kabul.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters, said his country’s leadership had concluded Pakistan’s domestic security would not improve until it “sorted out” the Taliban. Over the past few months, Taliban officials have grown increasingly concerned about the possibility of a Pakistani-backed attempt at regime change in Afghanistan.

Anti-Taliban resistance groups waiting in the wings now see an opportunity. Three groups, led by former members of the U.S.-backed Afghan military, have claimed responsibility for more than 50 attacks on Taliban officials, checkpoints and buildings across Afghanistan since July.

The leader of one of them, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the attacks, described them in an interview as targets of opportunity, aimed at cracking the veneer of security that the Taliban have so far maintained.

The scattered attacks do not yet pose a regime-ending threat, but at least two local officials have been killed by anti-Taliban forces in recent weeks.

They are another reminder that in Afghanistan, war is not yet a distant memory.

25 Years After 9/11, Al Qaeda Still Has a Home in Afghanistan
read more

UN: Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan persists

September 11, 2026

UA.News

11 September 2026

UN: Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan persists

Support for Pakistani Taliban

According to the report, Al-Qaeda provided ideological guidance, training and support to the Pakistani Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan movement in its insurgent activities against Pakistan. On April 28, the group’s media arm, As-Sahab Media Foundation, released a statement supporting the Taliban and, for the first time, the Pakistani Taliban in their operations against Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, according to the UN’s assessment, has transformed from a fragmented group into a regional terrorist structure. It has created logistical and financial networks operating through decentralized and dispersed cells rather than large units. The report also states that the group’s leaders are in Kabul and have received Afghan identity documents — tazkiras — which may indicate close cooperation with the Taliban.

Differing assessments of the threat

Analyst Alex Mishra told the publication that 25 years after the September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda has a greater territorial presence on three continents than at any time since its founding. In his view, the group’s lower public activity does not mean that it has disappeared or been defeated.

More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.

Former Pakistani special representative for Afghanistan Asif Durrani, by contrast, believes that Al-Qaeda has lost influence and appeal, while the Islamic State group has become the more prominent jihadist threat. Afghan affairs expert Kamal Alam said that Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since the Taliban returned to power in 2021. He recalled the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul after the Taliban seized power.

The Taliban’s position and the Mohammed case

The Taliban’s chief spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, rejected Afghanistan’s responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks and said that the organizers allegedly received training, housing and logistical support outside the country. He also claims that the current authorities do not allow foreign armed groups to operate in Afghanistan and do not shelter foreign organizations.

The publication also recalls the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom U.S. authorities call the alleged organizer of the September 11 attacks. He was detained in Pakistan in 2003 and transferred to Guantanamo in 2006. A military judge set the start of his trial with three co-defendants for June 5, 2028.

UN: Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan persists
read more

The 9/11 response got the most important thing right

September 11, 2026
By Douglas J. Feith
The Washington Post
Opinion
10 September 2026

Douglas J. Feith, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of “War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.”

9/11 is misery. It is horror, with people jumping from twin towers windows. And it is grateful amazement at the self-sacrifice of first responders. On that day 25 years ago, fright, rage and disorienting shock made it hard to think straight.

But those of us on President George W. Bush’s national security team had to think as straight as we could about what to do. In the days after the attack, the team reached general agreement on certain points.

First, the Sept. 11 attacks were more than a crime. A global jihadist network was at war with America. Its leaders boasted of their role in destroying the Soviet Union and intended to destroy the United States, too. 9/11 was not when the war began. But it was the day that most Americans discovered they were in it.

Second, we had entered a new era of terrorism. Terrorism had long been understood as political theater: shock people, gain attention, win support. Palestinian groups provided the model: Hijack planes, shoot up airport terminals, attack Israeli school buses — killing a few hundred people over several years — and by 1974 the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization is addressing the U.N. General Assembly. The goal was large — to destroy Israel — but the violence was relatively small scale. The idea was to influence spectators, and perhaps win their sympathy.

The 9/11 attackers had a different idea. They wanted mass destruction. The attacks — four hijacked planes crashing within 77 minutes — resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths. Had the attackers possessed more destructive means, they would have killed more people. U.S. officials therefore focused on the danger that jihadists might acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Fourth, repeated 9/11-scale attacks would endanger the freedom and openness of U.S. society. Liberty and security are always in tension. If Americans felt increasingly unsafe, they would demand stronger government action, even at some expense to their rights.

Critics accused officials of being too willing to curtail civil liberties in the name of security. What I saw was the opposite: concern that repeated catastrophic attacks would create irresistible public pressure for measures adverse to freedom.

As some of us put it, we had to change the way we lived or change the way the terrorists lived. To preserve an open society at home, we had to act strongly abroad to prevent follow-on attacks.

That was the heart of the global war on terrorism.

The war’s results are judged largely with reference to the regime-change campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. A small U.S. force helped Afghan rebels overthrow the Taliban. An interim government, a new constitution and national elections were then promptly organized. But the multinational reconstruction effort fell short in nearly every sector, and Afghanistan failed to achieve political stability.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ousted Saddam Hussein, an important and good result, but the United States made major mistakes: erroneous intelligence assessments that Iraq possessed WMD stockpiles, a prolonged occupation government, slow development of Iraqi armed forces and ineffective counterinsurgency strategies retained for too long. The fighting lasted longer than was generally expected, and it had higher costs, especially in U.S. military dead and wounded. Many Americans came to see the entire effort there as a failure.

That view strengthened isolationism. As pressure to retrench intensified, the United States committed itself to withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2020 and completed the exit in 2021, helping trigger the Kabul government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power. Many Americans came to regard the Afghanistan campaign as a failure, too.

There is much to criticize in the war on terrorism. On its main objective, however, the success has been remarkable: For 25 years, our enemies have failed to carry out another 9/11-scale attack on the United States. Terrorists have not exploded skyscrapers, stadiums or power plants across the country. They have not transformed America into a police state. The post-9/11 response initiated by the Bush team deserves a great deal of credit for that.

The years since 9/11 have reinforced the eternal verity that failure breeds failure — and quitting in a way that looks like defeat can be as damaging as defeat itself.

Osama bin Laden depicted the United States as weak by invoking Vietnam and the 1984 withdrawal from Lebanon. Saddam calculated similarly. Captured Iraqi records and postwar interviews showed that he saw the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo as evidence that America was unwilling to take casualties. He therefore discounted U.S. threats to overthrow him. Such perceptions matter. Deterrence works only if the people to be deterred take the threats seriously.

Historians will continue to reassess all of this. Meanwhile, the past quarter-century poses basic questions about threats and war.

When should U.S. presidents act against national security threats? How should they account for intelligence that is inevitably incomplete and often wrong?

How should presidents counter well-resourced ideological enemies? Are there good options short of regime change? When, if ever, is regime change warranted?

If America overthrows a government, should it try to put a better one in its place? Does it necessarily — or ever — have an interest in democracy spreading abroad? In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush was committed to helping establish non-tyrannical, perhaps democratic, governments that would not again threaten the United States or oppress their own people.

Was that a strategic mistake?

The cases of Germany and Japan suggested that successful reconstruction could enormously benefit the defeated countries, their regions and the United States. But World War II ended with enemy surrenders and organized resistance crushed. Afghanistan and Iraq were different. The Taliban survived and regrouped in Pakistan. Saddam’s regime disappeared, but former members of it helped create a Sunni insurgency. Also, Iran funded, trained and supplied Shiite militias that fought U.S. forces and the new Iraqi authorities.

Afghanistan and Iraq both improved to the point where a relatively small U.S. force could help secure the new governments at comparatively low cost in U.S. casualties. But neither conflict ended once and for all. Impatience with “endless wars” fed pressure to disengage. Afghanistan’s government was routed as the U.S. withdrawal proceeded. Regarding Iraq, advocates of a U.S. pullout accentuated the negative, but, despite its many ills, the country is no longer under Saddam’s tyranny. Its government holds competitive elections, is not a U.S. enemy and does not threaten its neighbors.

Is criticism of “endless wars” well grounded? It reflects understandable frustration, but can distort reality by implying that peace is the normal condition and wars short-lived anomalies. Ending U.S. participation in a war does not necessarily end the conflict or danger. The Cold War lasted roughly half a century and ended only as the Soviet empire and then the Soviet Union collapsed. America cannot always control whether it is at war.

Does anyone object to domestic crime-fighting as an “endless war”? People do not expect theft, rape and murder to disappear and allow police to turn in their badges and go home. So long as dangerous criminals exist, societies must defend themselves. The logic is similar in world affairs. A self-defense effort is not unnecessary just because it lacks a foreseeable end date. Dropping a necessary effort will not produce peace, only an enemy with a freer hand.

Even appreciating the war on terrorism’s benefits, it is fair to ask whether the United States overinvested in Afghanistan and Iraq at the expense of defenses against other state threats, especially from China, Russia and Iran. Strategists must keep sight of problems down the road. History never ends — at least it hasn’t so far.

An essential lesson of Sept. 11 is that perils grow when enemies conclude that America lacks the will, capability or staying power to defend itself. The war on terrorism helped prevent the follow-on attacks widely expected after 9/11, but terrorist threats persist — from Sunni jihadist groups and from Iran and the groups it supports. The United States also faces security challenges from China, Russia and North Korea. Others will arise.

Staying power is essential to America’s safety, and three of its key ingredients are:

Love of country. Military strength depends heavily on morale, and morale on a sense that one’s cause is just. Americans should understand why their country is worth defending.

Weapons — in ample quantities. Recent missile and drone wars have revived the old truth that quantity can have a quality all its own. America needs deep stocks of munitions, missile-defense interceptors and counter-drone systems before a crisis makes it urgent to have them.

Resolve. The United States needs leaders willing to do the right thing for the right reason and keep doing it, if necessary, when costs mount and popular applause tapers off.

Ronald Reagan put the grander purpose this way: “Freedom is not the property of one generation; it’s the obligation of this and every generation. It’s our duty to protect it and expand it and pass it undiminished to those still unborn.” Americans who lived through 9/11 learned that lesson the hard way. The question on this anniversary is whether we will do our duty — or require the next generation to learn it the hard way, too.

The 9/11 response got the most important thing right
read more

Recent Posts