The relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban over the past two years has been influenced by various factors such as water rights, migration, border tensions, and more, experiencing numerous ups and downs. Sometimes it has been warm, and at other times cold, although currently, it appears to be devoid of tension. However, the relationship between the United States and the Taliban has remained relatively stable and less exposed to the storms of events. The Biden administration has neither engaged in warm interactions nor demonstrated favor towards forces opposing this group. Despite direct and face-to-face meetings between U.S. officials and the Taliban in Doha and Abu Dhabi since mid-August 2021, Taliban authorities have repeatedly stated that they will be officially recognized by the world only if the U.S. withdraws its presence.
Understanding whether the Taliban can maintain a balance between the United States and Iran or will be compelled to choose one side is crucial. To answer this question, recent events related to the Taliban in Tehran and Washington need to be examined:
1- Mullah Amir Khan Mutaqqi, the Taliban’s foreign minister, shared his views at a recent meeting of Islamic countries held in Tehran on the issue of Palestine. His seemingly sharp criticisms were directed towards the West. This stance bears a striking resemblance to the Islamic Republic’s position against the West, especially the United States: “We need a new global order based on justice and equality, an order that brings peace, justice, and stability to the world.” The new global order is a product of the will of Western governments, especially the United States, after the end of the Cold War, which Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc., seek to overturn. Mutaqqi continued to say, “Countries are sanctioned for human rights reasons, but the continuous genocide of a nation by a regime faces the smallest criticism.” This statement is more significant than the first one, as Iran, like the Taliban, is sanctioned by the Western world for what is considered a violation of human rights. These statements seem particularly meaningful in Tehran, especially in a meeting held to condemn Israel’s actions. Perhaps, due to these remarks, Mutaqqi faced a warm reception from the Islamic Republic of Iran. ISNA news agency also reported that Mutaqqi, in his recent meeting with Kazemi Qomi, Iran’s ambassador to Afghanistan, expressed high appreciation for the warm hospitality of Iranian authorities.
2- Following the recent deadly explosions in the city of Kerman, Iran, Kazemi Qomi held a seemingly warm meeting and dialogue with Taliban officials. In a meeting with Mullah Abdul Kabir, the political deputy head of the Taliban, Qomi stated that Iran does not support armed actions against the territorial integrity of Afghanistan, a statement that has been interpreted by many as expressing discontent towards forces opposing the Taliban. Qomi, in a meeting with Mullah Mutaqqi, also spoke about the necessity of initiating a regional contact group, an initiative proposed by Iran. The Iranian embassy in Kabul, in a press release, claimed that Mutaqqi welcomed the idea of establishing a regional contact group and showed enthusiasm for hosting representatives of regional countries in Kabul, something that pleased Qomi. If the hosting of representatives by the Taliban becomes a reality, it will confer diplomatic advantages upon the group.
3- Simultaneously, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a four-point statement that serves as a tentative prescription for resolving the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan. Although the Taliban has not reacted to this statement, it is unlikely that it was not prepared in coordination with the group. The first point of the statement condemns the appointment of a UN special envoy for Afghanistan and emphasizes consultation with neighboring countries instead: “The necessity of resolving the issue of Afghanistan and efforts to accelerate the country’s participation in the global system requires strengthening consultations with the neighboring environment before creating structural dualism and establishing new missions.”
The crucial point here is that the Taliban have welcomed the findings of Fereydoun Sinirlioglu, but not his appointment as a special envoy. They claim that the war has ended, and there is no need for dialogue with other factions. More importantly, the reaction from anti-Taliban factions has been positive only regarding the appointment of the special envoy, not other findings by Sinirlioglu. In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran is practically aligned with supporting the Taliban against factions opposing this group. However, Tehran’s opposition to this issue is not solely for the sake of gaining the Taliban’s approval; rather, it is more due to the concern that once again, the initiative in the Afghan issue is slipping into the hands of the Western world, especially the United States.
In the four-point declaration by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the stance of this country regarding the necessity of establishing an inclusive government in Afghanistan appears rather restrained. While Iranian officials have repeatedly, in explicit terms, conditioned the recognition of the Taliban on the establishment of an inclusive government, recent statements by Hussein Amir Abdollahian, the Iranian Foreign Minister, emphasized the need for the formation of an inclusive government in Afghanistan, stating that the Taliban and Pashtuns are a part of Afghanistan’s reality, not the entirety of it. These remarks faced a response from Abdul Karim Khorram, a former official in the Afghan government, who stated, “The Taliban group does not represent the Pashtuns.” However, in the newly released declaration, instead of an inclusive government, a more ambiguous term, “specific governance,” is used, which introduces a questioning tone: “Tehran believes that the formation and success of a specific governance by individuals of integrity from diverse segments of Afghan society, by clear principles, responsible commitments, and a desirable plan, will lead Afghanistan to overcome the challenges of recent decades.”
The above points indicate that Iran still considers engaging with the Taliban as a solution to mitigate the threat emanating from Afghan soil, even if the danger from ISIS-K has intensified along its eastern borders.
In Washington, there are also reports suggesting an implicit shift in the country’s stance toward the Taliban.
1- The United States representative at the United Nations Security Council has strongly welcomed the appointment of a special envoy for Afghanistan, contrary to the positions of China and Russia. Similarly, Matthew Miller, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, stated in a press conference that his country supports the appointment of a special envoy for Afghanistan, sending a clear message to the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan, and the world. This emphasis and support come at a time when the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran vehemently oppose such an appointment.
2- The Taliban’s reaction to the U.S. and British airstrikes on Houthi positions in Yemen appears significant. In a released statement from the Taliban spokesperson, the attack on Houthi positions is strongly and openly condemned: “It is a blatant violation of international principles leading to the complicating of regional issues.” Another part of the statement states: “The United States and its allies must learn from their past aggression and failures.” It raises doubts about whether this expression represents the position of the Islamic Republic or the Taliban. It further states: “From the war in Gaza by Israel to the attack on Yemen, it is entirely inhumane and an invasion of Muslim nations.” This statement seems favorable to the taste of Iranian authorities.
The Taliban’s reaction to the attack on the Houthis seems directionless for two reasons: first, the Taliban has not yet formed a legitimate government to officially take a position on what is happening in the region and the world. Second, the Taliban is defending the Houthis, despite practically denying the presence of Shia in Afghanistan. Recently, Mullah Nida Mohammad Nadim, the Minister of Higher Education for the Taliban, happily stated that there is only one religion in Afghanistan, and everyone follows it. He also ordered private universities to remove non-Hanafi jurisprudence books from their libraries. Therefore, the issuance of the statement by the Taliban condemning the attack on the Houthis, who identify themselves as Shia Zaidiyya, has more of a political nature, aligning with Iran and distancing from the U.S. This position of the Taliban may not be well-received by the Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain), as they have been fighting against the Houthis, claiming they are supported by Tehran.
3- A recent session held by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Afghanistan sheds light on the Taliban’s efforts to balance between Washington and Tehran. Michael McCaul, who is critical of the Taliban, once again labeled them as terrorists and claimed that this group hosts other terrorist organizations. He accused the Biden administration of lobbying for the benefit of the Taliban and alleged that the government wants to remove this group from the list of terrorists. McCaul went so far as to advocate for establishing contacts with anti-Taliban forces, especially Ahmad Masoud, the leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. He emphasized that the Taliban are not good people, and the regime of this group must be destroyed. Perhaps that’s why he mentioned Ahmad Massoud, as the National Resistance Front prefers war over negotiations with the Taliban. However, he did not deny the necessity of dialogue.
The insistence and stance of Republican representatives in the U.S. Congress on avoiding interaction with the Taliban cannot be without an impact on the long-term behavior of the Biden administration. In the upcoming elections, if Republicans make their way to the White House, they might adopt a different approach in dealing with the Taliban, but in either case, the Taliban have no option other than sliding towards the Islamic Republic.
