
More of the same in Afghanistan as Taliban mark four years since return
The Taliban govern through decrees, but Afghans have aspirations and needs that cannot be fulfilled through edicts and ideology.
Climate change, an increasing population, and severe cuts to foreign aid will test the Taliban's ability to lead and not just rule.
Here are five things to know about the Taliban as they start their fifth year in power:
The supreme leader has cemented his legacy
Kandahar-based Hibatullah Akhundzada has led the Taliban from insurgency to authority since his appointment in 2016. But transition and status are peripheral to what he has wanted for the past 20 years: establishing an Islamic system.
Central to this vision was his ratification last year of the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law, which codifies many aspects of Afghan life, including who people can befriend.
In June, Akhundzada said the Taliban had fought and sacrificed themselves for the implementation of Islamic law. It was obligatory to follow the leadership's commands and directives, he added, and everyone was required to act within the bounds of this obedience.
His supporters emphasize his superior religious authority to issue decrees. The higher education minister went one step further in April, equating criticism of Akhundzada with blasphemy and saying obedience to him was a divine order.
'He (the leader) decides what moves and what doesn't move, what happens and what doesn't,' said Ibraheem Bahiss, a senior analyst with Crisis Group's Asia program.
The Taliban's internal differences are buried deep
There were pockets within the Taliban that initially advocated lifting bans on women and girls, or at least modifying them, to allow greater global and financial engagement. Akhundzada and his circle withstood such pressure, however, and the Taliban government has emerged from its isolation to develop diplomatic ties and raise several billion dollars every year in tax revenues to keep the lights on.
Power brokers, like Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, have been weakened. Since November, Akhundzada has had direct control over Afghanistan's weapons and military equipment, sidelining the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry, which is run by Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, whose father founded the Taliban.
Haqqani, whose uncle was killed in a high-profile suicide attack last December, used to take swipes at the leadership. Not anymore. Haqqani, who heads a powerful network of his own, cannot start a fight with the Kandahar faction and win.
Political deputy Sher Abbas Stanikzai rebuked Akhundzada in January, stating the education bans had no basis in Islamic law, or Sharia. He left Afghanistan shortly afterwards and remains outside the country. He denies reports that he fled or faced arrest had he stayed.
Akhundzada has put Islamic law at the heart of his leadership, while also putting his leadership at the heart of its implementation.
'He's made himself indispensable, and the entire movement is beholden to him,' Bahiss said.
There's no sign of change for Afghan women and girls
Russia's recognition of the Taliban sends a 'deeply troubling' message, said Zahra Nader, the editor-in-chief of the Afghan women-led newsroom Zan Times. 'It tells the Taliban they can continue to suppress women's rights and commit systematic human rights violations without facing consequences. They are being rewarded for it. This move is a slap in the face to Afghan women.'
There is opposition to the Taliban's policies, but people are fearful because no powerful alternative exists, she said. The Taliban 'took the country by force and maintained control' through violence. Women took to Afghanistan's streets in protest after the takeover, but these were met with retaliation.
'The absence of visible protest should not be mistaken for acceptance,' said Nader. 'It reflects the extreme risks people face for dissent. The resistance is still there, quiet, private, and simmering, but public expression has been crushed through fear and force.'
The Taliban insist that women's rights are protected. Nader says that, although there is 'little faith' that the country's rulers will change their policies, women are preparing themselves 'emotionally and intellectually' for a future beyond the Taliban.
'That hope, that this brutality will not last forever, is what keeps many of them going. These women do not believe the regime will change its stance on women's rights.'
Regional ties are transactional
It's not trust or shared values that define the Taliban's relationships.
Afghanistan borders six countries, many of which are trade partners and also balk at being lectured by the West on rights and freedoms. Landlocked Afghanistan is sandwiched between the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia, making it strategically located for energy-rich and energy-hungry nations.
The Taliban's bilateral relations proceed on common ground: borders, water, transit, and security. Anti-migrant rhetoric, especially in Europe, could increase diplomatic engagement as political parties in the West seek to placate their supporters.
The UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said the Taliban's broader diplomatic interactions were eroding the 'non-recognition' approach of the West and ushering in 'creeping normalization.'
The Taliban feel comfortable in the region and have found an acceptable way of operating, while the region has adjusted to their presence.
'What we've seen in the last four years is not real pressure (on the Taliban), but rather normalization and appeasement,' Nader said. 'For those of us watching from inside and outside Afghanistan, this is not just political, it's personal. It's painful. It confirms our fear that the suffering of Afghan women is being sidelined in favor of political interests.'
The real test for the Taliban is yet to come
Until April, the US was the largest donor to Afghanistan, where more than half of the population relies on aid to survive. But it terminated this emergency assistance due to concerns that the Taliban were benefiting from such aid.
Thousands of Afghans, including women, will lose their jobs as nongovernmental organizations and agencies scale back their work or shut down. The loss of jobs, contracts, and the shrinking humanitarian footprint also equate to a loss in revenue for the Taliban.
One UN agency said there were 'reputational and staff security risks' where humanitarian agencies were forced to suspend operations due to reduced funding, causing grievances among communities, or after partners couldn't pay suppliers or complete contracts. Aid officials warn that frustration and an increase in tensions will trigger spontaneous violence as people compete for resources and services.
The cuts coincide with the mass expulsions of Afghans from neighboring countries, swelling the population and the ranks of the unemployed while also halting the flow of inward remittances. The World Health Organization estimates the population will increase by 85 percent to 76.88 million by 2050. Afghanistan needs to give people food, shelter, and economic opportunities.
Thomas Ruttig, from the Afghanistan Analysts Network, recalled meeting a leading Taliban figure in a 'completely rundown' office during the late 1990s. The Taliban fighter told him they could live under those circumstances, but foreigners couldn't.
'What they also say is that Afghans can live under those circumstances, which, to an extent, is true,' said Ruttig. 'They were forced to live under those circumstances and have learned how to cope.' Now their means of coping — houses, land, and some savings — are gone.
The Taliban took it for granted that they won the war with the help of Allah and the population, he explained. He added that, although the Taliban were a reflection of Afghans' ambitions, they needed to open up and listen to people's concerns.
'But they know the more they open up, the more they are questioned, and their rule might be undermined.'
The Taliban needed to think about whether they wanted to govern the country simply to rule it, said Ruttig. 'Or do we want to rule this country to make Afghanistan a better place to live? That's probably the big question in front of them.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Al Arabiya
28 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Power plant south of Yemeni capital hit by ‘aggression,' Houthi-run TV says
A power plant south of the Yemeni capital Sanaa was hit by an 'aggression,' knocking some of its generators out of service, the Houthi-run Al Masirah TV reported on early Sunday. The Yemeni channel did not identify the source of the reported 'aggression.' Teams were working to put out a fire caused by the incident, Al Masirah added, citing a source in civil defense as saying. At least two explosions were heard earlier in Sanaa, residents said. Israel has been bombing Yemen in what it says is in response to the Iran-aligned Houthis' attacks on Israel. The Yemeni group has been firing missiles towards Israel, most of which has been intercepted, in what they describe as support to Palestinians during the war in Gaza. The US and the UK had also previously launched attacks against the Houthis in Yemen. In May, the US announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to the group's shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel.


Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Trump drops Ukraine ceasefire demand after Putin summit
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump on Saturday dropped his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine in favor of pursuing a full peace accord — a major shift announced hours after his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin yielded no clear breakthrough. Prior to the high-stakes meeting in Alaska, securing an immediate cessation of hostilities had been a core demand of Trump — who had threatened 'severe consequences' on Russia — and European leaders, including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will now visit Washington on Monday. The shift away from ceasefire would seem to favor Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal — a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticized as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances. Trump spoke with Zelensky and European leaders on his flight back to Washington, saying afterward that 'it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement which would end the war.' Ceasefire agreements 'often times do not hold up,' Trump added on his Truth Social platform. Complicated This new development 'complicates the situation,' Zelensky said Saturday. If Moscow lacks 'the will to carry out a simple order to stop the strikes, it may take a lot of effort to get Russia to have the will to implement far greater — peaceful coexistence with its neighbors for decades,' he said on social the call, Trump expressed support for a proposal by Putin to take full control of two largely Russian-held Ukrainian regions in exchange for freezing the frontline in two others, an official briefed on the talks told AFP. Putin 'de facto demands that Ukraine leave Donbas,' an area consisting of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine, the source said. In exchange, Russian forces would halt their offensive in the Black Sea port region of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine, where the main cities are still under Ukrainian control. Several months into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia in September 2022 claimed to have annexed all four Ukrainian regions even though its troops still do not fully control any of them. 'The Ukrainian president refused to leave Donbas,' the source said. Trump notably also said the United States was prepared to provide Ukraine security guarantees, an assurance German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed as 'significant progress.' But there was a scathing assessment of the summit outcome from the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who accused Putin of seeking to 'drag out negotiations' with no commitment to end the bloodshed. 'The harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war any time soon,' Kallas said. Onus now on Zelensky The main diplomatic focus now switches to Zelensky's talks at the White House on Monday. An EU source told AFP that a number of European leaders had also been invited to attend. The Ukrainian president's last Oval Office visit in February ended in an extraordinary shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berating Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for US aid. Zelensky said Saturday after a 'substantive' conversation with Trump about the Alaska summit that he looked forward to his Washington visit and discussing 'all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war.' In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump had suggested that the onus was now on Zelensky to secure a peace deal as they work toward an eventual trilateral summit with Putin. 'It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done,' Trump said. 'Coalition of the willing' The leaders of France, Britain and Germany are due to host a video call Sunday for their so-called 'coalition of the willing' to discuss the way forward. In an earlier statement, they welcomed the plan for a Trump-Putin-Zelensky summit but added that they would maintain pressure on Russia in the absence of a ceasefire. Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine raged on, with Kyiv announcing Saturday that Russia had launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile during the night. Back in Moscow, Putin said his summit talks with Trump had been 'timely' and 'very useful.' In his post-summit statement in Alaska, Putin had warned Ukraine and European countries not to engage in any 'behind-the-scenes intrigues' that could disrupt what he called 'this emerging progress.'


Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Israel is moving one (big) step closer to annexing Gaza
It would be an understatement to suggest that the current Israeli government has lost the plot. What it is plotting can only bring disaster to the Palestinians in Gaza, probably on Israel as well, and on the chances of bringing this horrific war to an end any time soon. After an all-night meeting last week, the Cabinet decided, in a symbolic move, that by Oct. 7 this year, the Israeli army will take over the entire Gaza Strip. This includes taking control of Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been trapped for many months, suffering from acute shortages of food, drinking water and medical aid, and living in constant fear of the next Israeli military assault. The many hours it took the Israeli Cabinet to reach this decision might suggest to some that there were deep divisions among the decision makers. This is hardly the case. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was determined to gain approval for the proposal, come what may. The only robust resistance came from Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, who tried to talk some sense into those around the table regarding the horrendous implications of such a decision for the military, the hostages still held by Hamas, and the country's standing in the world. But in a Cabinet stuffed with extremists, sycophants who would have no political existence without Netanyahu, and those who are too afraid to challenge him, the go-ahead for the plan was a formality. The Cabinet set out what it called five principles for expanding the military campaign in Gaza: disarming Hamas; the return of all hostages, both living and deceased; the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip; Israeli security control of the Gaza Strip; and the establishment of an alternative civilian government that involves neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority. In reality, these can hardly be described as 'principles' but instead simply repeat the Cabinet's existing objectives; some of which were set early in this war, others added as it became apparent that the level of destruction Israeli authorities were inflicting on Gaza required that they at least pretend that they do not intend to remain in Gaza for the long term. In a Cabinet stuffed with extremists, sycophants who would have no political existence without Netanyahu, and those who are too afraid to challenge him, the go-ahead for the plan was a formality. Yossi Mekelberg So far, Israel might have reduced the military capabilities of Hamas but it has not eliminated the organization. Instead, it has simply inflicted immense misery and suffering upon the Palestinian people and deepened the divisions within Israel itself, while compromising the reputation of the country to the extent that it will now take a very long time for it to be salvaged. And for this Israeli government, any mention of efforts to secure the release of the remaining hostages is mere lip service. Why Netanyahu should continue to believe that what Israel has failed to achieve in more than 22 months of war, despite infinitely superior military capabilities operating with little-to-no consideration for the lives or well-being of civilians, will nonetheless eventually lead to ultimate victory over Hamas beggars belief. The obvious ulterior motives of Israel's prime minister are becoming ever more apparent as he not only ignores the recommendations of the head of his army but, astonishingly, also a letter signed by some 600 retired senior security officials, including former army and intelligence agency chiefs, who wrote to US President Donald Trump urging him to put pressure on Israeli authorities to end the war in Gaza immediately. It is also telling that in their despair, these people, all of whom served their country loyally for decades, should send their plea to the American president and not their own prime minister, in whose integrity and judgment they have completely lost trust. Those who signed that letter are not wrong to have lost faith in Netanyahu's conduct of this war; his latest decision, which to all intents and purposes means occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety, was taken either because he is biding his time to satisfy the messianic ultranationalists within his coalition government, or is gambling that by entering Gaza City he will be able to defeat Hamas and release the hostages, which could put him in a position to call an early general election and perhaps win it. The former scenario is pure, cynical opportunism. The latter reflects cynicism and delusion in equal measure. Regardless of the motivation, the outcome will be yet more suffering and bloodshed. Moreover, it was reported that during last week's Cabinet meeting, Gen. Zamir warned that this course of action was as good as giving up on those hostages still thought to be alive. In light of the fact that it was mainly diplomacy that achieved the prior release of some hostages, it is impossible to contradict his warning. For a long time now, this war has no longer been about defeating Hamas or rescuing the hostages … it has purely been about rescuing Netanyahu's declining political career and saving him from a possible jail sentence. Yossi Mekelberg In an effort to cool the inevitable roasting his country would receive from the international community upon learning of his plan, Netanyahu refrained from describing the objective of the military operation as an 'occupation' and opted instead to use the word 'takeover.' After more than 22 months of mass killings and destruction inflicted by Israel in Gaza, however, his decision was still viewed as a step too far by countries around the globe, including close friends and allies, who condemned it in no uncertain terms. The UK's prime minister, Keir Starmer, instantly condemned the Israeli security Cabinet's decision as 'wrong' and urged its members to immediately reconsider as 'it will only bring more bloodshed.' In an unprecedented move, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that his government would no longer approve the sale of military equipment to Israel if it might be used in Gaza. It would be naive not to believe that one of the calculations made by the Israeli government in formulating its plan was that the threat of a large-scale military operation would result in many residents of Gaza City fleeing to other parts of the tiny territory, and perhaps eventually leaving it. This would only add to the extreme woes of the Palestinian population, many of them young children, who have been displaced several times in the past two years with no access to food or clean water, and are suffering from malnutrition and even starvation. Moreover, war in urban areas not only means the likelihood of many civilian casualties, it also means further deployment in such an environment of already exhausted Israeli troops who have been on active service on the front lines for nearly two years, with all the likely effects this might have on their judgment. It is a recipe for disaster. For a long time now, this war has no longer been about defeating Hamas or rescuing the hostages. Instead, it has purely been about rescuing Netanyahu's declining political career and saving him from a possible jail sentence for corruption. In service of that, he will stop at nothing. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg