Ismail Khan, an Afghan jihadi leader and an opponent of the Taliban, and a member of the Islamic Jamiat of Afghanistan sought refuge in Iran following the collapse of the previous government and is still residing there. He did not surface on the media for more than two years and nor did he attend any regional or international meeting. It was assumed that he might have stepped out of politics, seemingly due to Afghanistan being under the control of the Taliban, with the opposing forces of the group not being able to turn to a challenging power.
Additionally, the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he is hosted, holds a good relationship with the Taliban, disregarding the opposing currents of this group. However, by participating in the 11th round of security talks in Herat, this anti-Taliban figure broke his prolonged silence and once again became the center of media attention by making rather harsh remarks against the Taliban. If the role of Iran was effective in the silence of Ismail Khan, it is also effective in the failure of its silence.
Hence, the question that arises is: Is Iran’s approach towards the Taliban about to change?
To answer this question, three points are presented below:
1- Ismail Khan’s participation in Herat security talks is worthy of attention. He was also invited to the tenth round of Herat security talks held in Tajikistan, but he refused to take part. It is reported that Iran has played a part in this refusal. This supposition could be accurate because, at that time, the Islamic Republic had a good middle ground with the Taliban. For example, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran’s current ambassador to Afghanistan, called the resistance forces against the Taliban the servants of the United States, but after the backlash, he softened his speech by praising Ahmad Masoud, the leader of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan (NRF). Additionally, when the Taliban attacked the Balkhab district of Sar-e-Pol Province from several sides, displacing thousands of Hazara families, Qomi accused the United States of creating sectarian strife in Afghanistan instead of sympathizing with the displaced. It was further reported that the Iranian government allegedly prevented Mawlawi Mahdi, a disgruntled member of the Hazara Taliban, from entering its territory, leading to his killing by the Taliban forces. However, such a claim has yet to be proven. Hence, it can be stated that Ismail Khan’s non-participation in the tenth round of Herat security talks may have involved the Islamic Republic.
If such a claim is accurate, the aforementioned participation in the tenth round of Herat security talks has also taken place with Iran’s permission, which could indicate a change in this country’s approach towards the Taliban. The Islamic Republic is very cautious in hosting others, attempting to control the behavior and rhetoric of its guests. Wherever this country feels the need, it provides its guests with a platform, otherwise nothing. Now maybe this need has been felt. However, this turn cannot be taken too seriously. In the most optimistic case, it can be said that the Islamic Republic is trying to establish a balance between the Taliban and Ismail Khan, as evident by the occurrence of verbal and border tension between the parties over the Hirmand River water rights.
2- Ismail Khan was at the center of the media’s attention in Dushanbe, Tajikistan extensively. This may be because he has been silent for more than two years, apparently having fought well against the Taliban in the defense of Herat in a few weeks. The 11th round of Herat security talks was held differently from the past. Ismail Khan’s presence may be an effective factor in the field because he was often referred to as the anti-Taliban face.
Furthermore, the statements of this jihadist leader did not appear to be pleasing to the Taliban. The security talks in Herat, despite being referred to as a scientific meeting, had turned into a political meeting against the Taliban this time. While the Taliban were also invited, they did not participate. It felt satisfying that all the voices were against the Taliban, with even the Pakistani guests emphasizing the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban regime and saying that this group came with weapons and should be driven away with weapons. Two factors made the content of the meeting anti-Taliban. Firstly, Ismail Khan was present and the media referred to him as an anti-Taliban figure. Secondly, two years and several months of Taliban rule have made everyone’s life dark, which cannot be overlooked.
It could be inferred from Ismail Khan’s statements that he seems determined in the fight against the Taliban. He emphasized the formation of a real correlation between the opposing forces of the Taliban, calling the formation of a non-Taliban government an important need of Afghanistan. He even stated that Salahuddin Rabbani and Atta Mohammad Noor were not the leaders of the Jamiat-e-Islami Party since, according to him, in today’s times, there should be unity to fight against the Taliban, not that it was a prisoner of internal conflicts. Ismail Khan noted that if the Taliban do not agree to the creation of an inclusive government, the resistance will overcome the tyranny. This jihadist leader called it almost unlikely for the world to officially recognize the Taliban, citing that the countries that supported the Taliban until yesterday are now ashamed of the group’s performance. This Jamiat-e-Islami member underlined that not only Iran, but the world is weary of the Taliban, meaning that serious steps may be taken against this group.
The Islamic Republic, which hosts Ismail Khan, does not have much interaction with the free media, and if it did not allow him, it would be difficult for him to appear powerful all of a sudden.
3- The Islamic Republic of Iran has not overlooked the NRF led by Ahmad Masoud. This front holds an office in Mashhad and is engaged in political-cultural activities. For example, in the current year, a scientific meeting was held in Tehran by the NRF in cooperation with some Iranian and Tajik institutions on the topic of “Current History of Resistance in Afghanistan”. Guests from different countries were present at that meeting, with people’s representatives in the previous parliament, leaders of political parties, independent political personalities, civil activists, university professors, and others also attending it from Afghanistan.
Although the name of the meeting was scientific, its content was completely political and focused on the ineffectiveness of the Taliban emirate in Afghanistan. Regardless of whether the content of the meeting is scientific or political, its name and title are not pleasing to the Taliban. This shows that the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to gain the satisfaction of the parties, not to sacrifice one for the other. The Taliban are currently in control of Afghanistan. The opposing forces of this group do not possess even one district under their control. The relationship between the Islamic Republic and this group is warm, even though verbal and border tensions have arisen between the parties on several occasions. The Afghan embassy in Tehran has been handed over to the Taliban. The inter-party trading market seems to be booming. Thus far, Iran’s interests have not been directly threatened by the Taliban-dominated Afghanistan.
Considering these points, the question is, why does the Islamic Republic of Iran provoke the Taliban by hosting Ahmad Massoud and Ismail Khan? Perhaps, the answer is that Tehran cannot trust the Taliban in the long run and its current interaction is only out of necessity. In this case, the Islamic Republic does not consider itself obliged to support Ahmad Masoud and Ismail Khan, it considers itself obliged to maintain the balance between them and the Taliban.
