The presence of ISIS Khorasan in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s administration cannot be denied. Despite the Taliban denying or sometimes negligently disregarding the presence of ISIS, over the past nearly three years, ISIS has been a source of threat – if not significantly, then notably – to the regime of Mullah Hibatullah. Kabul, Baghlan, and Kandahar have witnessed deadly attacks attributed to ISIS following the return of the Taliban to power. Taliban spokespersons and officials have often contradicted themselves in their stance against ISIS: on the one hand, denying the group’s presence, while on the other occasionally reporting the destruction of militant centers. From the perspective of experts, there isn’t much ideological difference between the Taliban and ISIS, and the overarching definition that can be applied to both groups is that they perpetrate atrocities in the name of religion. What seems to differentiate the two groups superficially is their pursuit of power and its monopoly. This has led each to portray the other as an enemy in the eyes of the other.
While ISIS is ostensibly considered a threat to the Taliban, in reality, the regime has utilized the presence of this group as an opportunity over the past nearly three years. The Taliban have repeatedly assured foreign officials that their regime has domestic agendas and does not concern itself with events outside Afghanistan’s borders. Conversely, they have stated that ISIS has a global, particularly regional, agenda and that if not contained, it poses a threat to the security of many countries. Simultaneously, Taliban officials have often claimed to the media that some countries deliberately exaggerate the threat posed by ISIS, which, according to them, lacks physical presence. However, behind the scenes and in discreet conversations with foreign diplomats, the Taliban emphasize the danger of ISIS more prominently to benefit from aid from certain countries.
While the Taliban highlight the ISIS threat to foreign audiences, they also demonstrate astuteness in presenting a way to deter the threat: steadfast support for their regime. Taliban diplomats portray to foreigners that the weakness of their regime leads to the strengthening and expansion of the ISIS threat; thus, they corner the world into having no choice but to support their regime. Of course, if there were strong and democratic opposition in the country, the world would not easily buy into the illusion that ISIS would be an alternative to the Taliban. Therefore, recently, the Long War Journal published an article warning that “using the Taliban against ISIS is an imperfect method and does not lead anywhere.” According to the journal, this ongoing method has led the Taliban to position themselves as an anti-extremist force and seek global support and legitimacy. Perhaps only recently discusses utilizing ISIS as an opportunity by the Taliban has been better understood, as cautioned by a reputable Western publication. The journal adds that “the Taliban now see ISIS as a strategic asset rather than a threat.” If not for this, Shia Iran would not have coexisted with the Sunni Taliban, who blatantly violate the rights and freedoms of Shias. Similarly, Russia, which was previously counted among serious supporters of the anti-Taliban front, is not relying on the Taliban to fight terrorism. These two countries value the Taliban so highly because they believe this group can contain the ISIS threat.
Not only the Long War Journal but also a renowned American institution called “Just Security” has deemed the notion of aligning with the Taliban to fight terrorism as perilous. The organization addressed the Taliban and perhaps even America, stating: “Those who think the Taliban’s opposition to ISIS makes them a good partner for the United States in the fight against terrorism need to think again.” The American institution asserted that the Taliban’s opposition to ISIS does not turn them into a partner for Washington in the fight against terrorism. According to the institution, it is true that the Taliban oppose ISIS, but they have embraced the United States’ main enemy: Al-Qaeda.
While the American organization has refuted the idea of Washington coordinating with the Taliban in the fight against terrorism, officials of the Biden administration have refrained from expressing a clear opinion on the matter so far. However, Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army, stated in September 2021, when his country believed that the Taliban had changed and were no longer extremists, that coordination between Washington and the Taliban in the fight against terrorism was possible. After ISIS carried out deadly attacks in Moscow and Tehran, voices from within the US Congress also raised concerns about the possibility of the country aligning with the Taliban against terrorism. Most notably, Joe Biden had previously claimed that his country’s soldiers had killed the former leader of the Al-Qaeda network in collusion with the Taliban.
Russia has become even more seduced than America. Its stance on proximity to the Taliban has recently become more serious, even taking steps to remove this group from the list of terrorist organizations. Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, reiterated at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, which took place a few days ago and was attended by representatives of the Taliban, that maintaining contact with the regime of Mullah Hibatullah is essential to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime. While the Taliban themselves are a terrorist group. More importantly, the largest drug traffickers, each committing crimes more organized than what Russian officials claim, operate within the Taliban regime. Zakharova explicitly stated that although bloggers and journalists may be upset about Russia’s contact with the Taliban, it is still in her country’s interest to maintain contact with this group. These instances indicate that to the Taliban, ISIS is more of an opportunity than a threat; however, the world has not caught on to the Taliban’s deceit. If it has, it might just ignore it.
Moreover, under the guise of fighting ISIS, the Taliban have easily eliminated those they deem as opponents. No human rights defender has been able to speak out because they are accused of supporting ISIS. It has also happened repeatedly that the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has, during its reports to the UN Security Council, juxtaposed the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, the Freedom Front of Afghanistan, and ISIS when mentioning armed groups opposed to the Taliban. Of course, without indicating any link between these two fronts and ISIS. Perhaps there is no deliberate intention in UNAMA’s manner of expression, but the unintended consequence is placing anti-Taliban fronts alongside ISIS, which ultimately benefits the Taliban regime.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: