The ghastly bombings at Kabul airport Thursday resulting in the deaths of 12 U.S. Marines and as of this writing, 60 civilians, are the latest in a series of especially savage terrorist attacks reportedly by the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP), the local affiliate of the Islamic State of the Middle East. The growth of ISKP faces the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan with both a threat and an opportunity.
The threat is that ISKP will attract enough Taliban defectors and foreign fighters to cause serious instability and ruin the hopes of pragmatic Taliban leaders for economic development. The opportunity lies in the fact that ISKP are feared by every government in Afghanistan’s region, as well as the United States and Europe. This gives the Afghan Taliban the chance to attract support from all of these states in their fight against ISKP.
ISKP appeared in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan in 2014-15. It was founded not by Arabs sent from the Middle East (though some moved to Afghanistan later after the defeat of IS in Iraq and Syria) but by local figures and groups who adopted the name of the Islamic State to garner some of its prestige and to reflect their own international jihadi allegiance (just as previously, local groups in north Africa and elsewhere took the name of al- Qaida).
Since then, ISKP have emerged as a distinctly more ferocious and radical force than the mainstream Taliban, carrying out savage attacks on targets that in recent years the Taliban leadership have made a deliberate political decision to spare: especially schools, clinics and markets serving the Shia minority. The Taliban leadership have strongly condemned these attacks, although some analysts accuse the Taliban of benefiting from plausible deniability. In alliance with Pakistani terrorist groups, they have also conducted several major terrorist attacks within Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, ISKP have fought pitched battles against the Taliban for local power. When I visited Nangrahar province on the Pakistani border in 2017, I was told of an operation earlier that year in which the Taliban, the Afghan National Army, and the U.S. Air Force had engaged in de facto cooperation against them.
The key difference between the Afghan Taliban and ISKP lies in their substantially different national origins. The Taliban have links to international jihadi groups including al-Qaida; but the entire Taliban leadership, and the overwhelming majority of its troops, are Afghans (and chiefly Afghan Pashtuns). They embody a strong sense of Afghan nationalism, and the pragmatists among them see themselves as the heirs (in a specifically Shariah-based way) of the history of Pashtun state-building in Afghanistan.
ISKP by contrast largely took shape in 2014-15 among Pakistani Pashtun Islamist rebels against Pakistan who were driven to seek refuge among their fellow Pashtuns of eastern Afghanistan by the successful counter-insurgency campaigns of the Pakistan Army. The first Emir of ISKP, Hafiz Saeed Khan (Killed by a U.S. airstrike in 2016), was also a leader of the Pakistani Taliban. One source of deep ISKP bitterness against the Afghan Taliban has been that the Taliban refused to support their Pakistani brethren in their rebellion — for the very good reason that the Afghan Taliban depended heavily on the Pakistani state and army for shelter.
A second major element in ISKP membership is made up of Islamist fighters from a range of failed Islamist revolts in the former USSR who took refuge in Afghanistan over the past generation; notably Uzbeks linked to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Chechens, Daghestanis, and others from the North Caucasian rebellions against Russia. To these can be added a certain number of anti-Chinese Uighur militants from Sinkiang.
As in Iraq and Syria, Arab members of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan have also joined ISKP. With the Taliban leadership over the past decade repeatedly declaring that it was not an international jihadi force and would not support international jihad, those international fighters who hoped one day to renew jihad in their homelands naturally gravitated to ISKP.
Coming from outside Afghanistan (though in the case of the Pakistanis, of the same Pashtun ethnicity as the Afghan Taliban), these elements of ISKP do not pose much of a threat to the stability of Afghan Taliban rule. The third element is much more dangerous. This is made up of Afghan defectors from the Taliban. Their motives for leaving the Taliban for ISKP are various, and it is very hard to say in individual cases which one predominated.
Some local commanders and fighters who joined ISKP have been ideological hardliners infuriated with the Taliban leadership’s negotiations with the Americans, Russians, and Iranians and renunciation of international jihad. Some became involved in local feuds with other Taliban commanders or were disappointed not to receive local positions of authority from the Taliban.
The danger for the Taliban lies in the fact that all these impulses to defect to ISKP may increase as a result of the Taliban’s conquest of government. Rigid ideologues will be outraged if the Taliban leadership keep any (let alone all) of their promises to include non-Taliban figures from the previous regime in government, to continue women’s education, and so on. Sunni sectarian extremists (possibly backed covertly by Saudi Arabia) will be outraged if the Taliban leadership keep their promises to Iran to respect Shia minority rights. Many local commanders will be disappointed not to receive the government positions they had expected. And if the Taliban keep their promise to suppress the heroin trade, then they can expect resistance from some of their own commanders and followers who have profited from that trade.
The Taliban will be using all of this in their appeals for international aid, especially from China, Russia, and the West, to strengthen their government against ISKP; while ISKP on the other hand will seek by further terrorist attacks to destabilize Afghanistan, prevent economic growth and eventually bring down Taliban rule and turn Afghanistan into a base for international jihad. They will doubtless focus their attacks above all on their traditional objects of hatred: Shia; Western, Russian, and Chinese offices, NGOs and individuals; westernized Afghans; and institutions of learning.
As they have demonstrated by their reported bombings at Kabul airport, ISKP can cause dreadful suffering. In terms of a struggle for power however the odds are heavily on the side of the Taliban. ISKP is a dangerous terrorist force whose attacks increased threefold from 2020-21, but a relatively small military force (estimates today are of around 2,000 ISKP fighters). The Taliban now control the central government (or whatever is left of it) and have captured enormous stocks of U.S.-supplied weapons, ammunition, and vehicles from the Afghan National Army. They have the prestige that comes from their long struggle and their stunning victory. And perhaps most important of all, in their fight with ISKP, the Taliban will have the support of every country in the region — though only as long as they keep to their own promises not to support international terrorism, to suppress heroin, and to respect Shia rights.
Or at least, so it seems at present; but it would be unwise to forget that every attempt to create an effective state in Afghanistan over the past 100 years has failed from a combination of social and religious conservatism, social fissures, kinship and ethnic loyalties, corruption, lack of education, limited state resources, and sheer poverty. The Taliban are now making yet another attempt. It is likely to be a long time before we will be able to judge how successful they have been.
Who are the Islamic State in Afghanistan?
Thursday's ghastly bombings reflect a real threat to the Taliban's new-found control over the country — and to the U.S. evacuation on the ground.
Anatol Lieven
Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.
Top Photo: Yousef Masoud / SOPA Images/Sipa via Reuters Connect
American guns are going to Gaza
January 23, 2025
The ceasefire in Gaza is not yet a week old, and Washington is already sending private U.S. security contractors to help operate checkpoints, a decision that one former military officer told RS is a “bad, bad idea.”
This will be the first time since 2003 that American security contractors have been in the strip. At that time, three private American contractors were killed by a roadside bomb while providing security for a diplomatic mission in Gaza.
Axios reports that two U.S. security companies will operate as part of a multi-national group, as laid out in the Gaza cease-fire deal, and Israel and Hamas have already approved them, as required by the deal.
The contractors will be inspecting vehicles that are moving into northern Gaza via the Netzarium corridor to ensure that no heavy weapons enter that part of the territory.
Israel had previously considered using security companies to distribute aid to Palestinians in Gaza last year as the Knesset was discussing banning the United Nations relief organization, UNRWA.
The Qatari government will likely fund the security forces. An Egyptian security company has also been selected for the mission. Safe Reach Solutions is one of the American companies providing security assistance and is credited with drawing up the plan. The other company, UG Solutions, is known for employing former soldiers from American and foreign special forces, according to Axios.
As part of the deal, these contractors will likely remain in Gaza during the first phase of the cease-fire, which is expected to last six weeks. Critics are already raising alarms about the potential safety issues.
“This is a bad, bad idea. This is a cauldron of angry people who are quite hostile towards Americans because most of the bombs that have fallen on Gazans have been U.S. provided,” said Lt Col. (retired) Daniel L. Davis.
“Gaza has been turned into a moonscape by Israeli Defense Forces actions, and thus any operation inside the Strip going forward should be IDF, not American,” Davis added. “The chances that angry Palestinians may target and kill Americans are uncomfortably high, in my view. Nothing good will come of this.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the presentation of the United States Space Force Flag in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 15, 2020 (Department of Defense photo)
Once ridiculed Space Force ready to blast off with Trump
January 23, 2025
Upon its creation as part of the Department of the Air Force in 2019, the U.S. Space Force, whose mission was previously described on its website as being “focused solely on pursuing superiority in the space domain,” was often a subject of ridicule.
Mocked on Saturday Night Live, the Space Force’s logo has been called an “obvious Star Trek knockoff.” In 2021, Politico reporter Bryan Bender described the Space Force as “still mired in explaining to the public what it does.” The Force even inspired a short-lived satire series on Netflix.
Despite a rough start, Space Force has persisted, almost doubling its annual funding since its creation. It has its own network of satellites to boot. And now, Air and Space Force leadership is pushing for more funds and resources in an increasingly militarized space domain. With their founder President Donald Trump returning for a second term, the skies, it would seem, are no limit.
Proponents say Space Force expansion is key to maintaining American military superiority as space becomes the new military frontier. But ramping up Space Force investment and growth in the name of power competition could ultimately promote an unpredictable, perhaps dangerous, militarization of space amid already tenuous geopolitical conditions.
Space and Power Politics
According to now-departed Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, the Space Force needs to “expand to several times its current end strength.” To this end, Kendall wrote in a report last month that “major and transformative investment” in the Space Force is required to ensure adequate robustness for geopolitical challenges ahead.
“Space is going to be the decisive [geopolitical] domain,” Kendall explained in a recent talk, which highlighted his report, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The ability of the entire joint force to project power depends upon our success in space.”
Critically, the perceived Russia and China threats are front-and-center in Kendall’s calls to bolster the Space Force.
War between the U.S. and China and/or Russia “can happen at any time, even if the probability is only five or 10 percent. You've got to take that seriously, and…deterring that is the reason we have an Air Force and Space Force,” Kendall said at CSIS. “And winning, if we get into a fight, is the reason we have the Air Force and Space Force.”
Highlighting adversaries’ bolstered capacities, Kendall posited in his report that China was working to utilize emerging technologies, especially air and space technologies, “to defeat the United States in the Western Pacific.”
But Kendall’s push to bolster U.S. space military capabilities, coupled with frequent discussion of China and Russia as threats, rather than as parties to find common ground with, stirs the pot when relations are already weak.
“I think any militarization of space is undesirable, to be honest. I think we have enough militarization on earth, we don't need to also expand it to new domains,” Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow and Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told Responsible Statecraft. “Rather than trying to out-compete China and Russia by militarizing space more than [them], I would push for…a real concerted effort at some kind of arms control regime to put the militarization of space off the table.”
“It would require going to the negotiating table, willing to give things up,” Kavanagh said. “I don't see [doing so] as a weakness. I see it as a smart and a smart investment in diplomacy to prevent a militarized outcome that is undesirable.”
Looking ahead
Kendall has called for increased Space Force capacities to ensure U.S. space superiority; a new Trump administration appears likely to follow suit.
Namely, President Trump has tapped Troy Meink, principal deputy director for the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, to replace Kendall as U.S. Air Force head. Noting Meink’s close work with the Space Force at the NRO, Breaking Defense reporters Michael Marrow and Theresa Hitchens wrote the appointment signaled space “will be a focus for the next administration.”
Like predecessor Kendall, Meink has played up the threats posed by China and Russia in space. “It’s…very concerning that the Russians may be considering the incorporation of nuclear weapons into their…counter space systems,” Meink remarked at a talk held by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies last year, parroting vague U.S. allegations made last year about possibly nuclear Russian space capabilities.
“China is looking to deny our ability to operate in…space, creating a heightened threat environment. They are also building proliferated architectures of their own,” Meink explained. “That is a big challenge for us to stay ahead of.”
Trump vowed last year to create a “Space National Guard” if re-elected, which he said would act as “the primary combat reserve of the U.S. Space Force.” Upon taking office, he even called for sending astronauts to Mars, saying "we will pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars."
“Our military budget is already almost $1 trillion,” said Kavanagh. “It is a hard sell for me…that we need to do something that's going to increase the force structure of an already too big military.”
Zooming out, Kavanagh challenged the need for U.S. space superiority, an idea those at Space Force have repeatedly pushed, as a prerequisite for U.S. security.
“The U.S. does need space assets and space capabilities to be able to project power in ways that defend the homeland,” Kavanagh explained. But that “the U.S. may need to be dominant in space if it wants to maintain unmatched global military primacy… it is clear to me [this primacy] is not a good goal...is not the goal the US should be aiming at.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attend a ceremony to sign an agreement of comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia January 17, 2025. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTERS
Interpreting the 20-year military pact between Russia & Iran
January 23, 2025
On January 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian signed an historic 20-year strategic agreement that a Reuters report later said “is likely to worry the West.”
In it, the two countries agreed to boost cooperation in security services, military drills, port visits and joint officer training. They pledged not to allow their territory to be used in any military action against the other, or help anyone to attack the other, and would cooperate to counter outside military threats.
Initially, there was speculation that the pact would be approved during the BRICS summit in Russia in October, but Moscow quickly dispelled those rumors at the time. It is likely that Russia chose not to sign the agreement in October given Moscow’s efforts to make the summit inclusive to the Global South.
Thus the optics surrounding a bilateral trade and security partnership would have undermined the main objectives of the summit. Specifically, those objectives (also fundamental underpinnings of the newly signed partnership) focused on discrediting Western claims of Russian isolation and showing that BRICS continues to gain support, particularly, from a geoeconomic perspective, that the bloc can counter sanctions imposed by the West through various means.
The latter includes the development of new payment systems that would allow countries to trade in their national currencies.
Furthermore, the carefully cultivated message of BRICS unity would have been damaged if the announcement had blind-sided such important attendees such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, not known to be the strongest supporters of the regime in Tehran.
However, less than two months later, Turkey’s involvement in the overthrow of the Moscow/Tehran-supported Assad government and its subsequent power play in Syria hastened the formal signing of the agreement.
Syria was clearly a key topic for both Putin and Pezeshkian. When discussing recent developments in Syria, they each emphasized their commitment “to a comprehensive settlement in that country based on respect for its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity,” according to the Kremlin’s readout of the conversation.
Furthermore, Syria and the immediate region are of significant importance as expressed in the language of the partnership. For example, in Article 12, both sides agreed to enhance Russian-Iranian security cooperation “in Central Asia, the South Caucasus and the Middle East with the goal to prevent interference … and destabilization by third parties [states].” This includes mutual agreement to ignore future Western sanctions on the two countries.
During the press conference after the signing, Putin underscored that ensuring peace and stability in this region (often described as West Asia) “serves the interests of both our nations.” West Asia is not only important to the two countries in a security context but also in terms of regional trade and economic cooperation and development.
“Promising opportunities … opening up in connection with the international North-South transport corridor,” Putin said during remarks after the signing. “Discussions are ongoing regarding the construction of its Rasht-Astara railway section. Implementing this project would help establish (a) seamless supply chain from Russia and Belarus to Iranian ports in the Gulf.”
Further development of such increased supply chain opportunities serves not only Russia and Iran but also sends an important signal to key partner China in support of its Belt and Road Initiative. It is also a message to BRICS and potential BRICS members seeking more trade and economic development opportunities in the region.
The joint press conference also included the announcement that the two sides are close to finalizing a 2 billion cubic meter per year deal to send Russian gas to Iran, potentially growing to 55 Bcm/yr. The two countries likely value closer energy ties amid growing tensions with the West and the risk of tougher energy sanctions policy from the incoming Trump administration.
The project also demonstrates Russia’s commitment to developing new partnerships and energy routes after Ukraine stopped Russian gas supplies. Russian gas has stopped flowing to EU states via Ukraine after a five-year deal expired in December, marking the end of a decades-long arrangement.
Russia and Iran are now significant partners in trade, finance, and investment, and their collaboration in these areas is steadily growing. Putin claimed that “over the first ten months of 2024, bilateral trade grew by 15.5 percent.”
“Our countries have almost completely transitioned to using national currencies in mutual settlements,” Putin asserted. “Efforts are being made to establish sustainable lending and banking interaction channels and to align national payment systems. In 2024, transactions conducted in Russian rubles and Iranian rials accounted for over 95 percent of bilateral trade.”
Given that the deal’s signing took place three days before President Trump’s inauguration, this statement could quite possibly be a shot directed at Trump himself, who recently threatened 100 percent tariffs on countries that seek to undermine the dollar or use other currencies during bilateral trade transactions.
The partnership comes at a time when Moscow and Tehran’s influence in the region has been diminished due to developments in Syria and the Middle East. For example, in responding to a question regarding Assad’s fall, Trump wrote in December on social media platform Truth Social that “Russia and Iran are in a weakened state right now, one because of Ukraine and a bad economy, the other because of Israel and its fighting success.”
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Moscow has aggressively cultivated closer ties with Iran and other nations considered hostile towards the U.S. to counter assertions of its weakness and loss of influence. For example, it already has strategic pacts with North Korea and close ally Belarus, as well as a partnership agreement with China.
Whether these strategic pacts will serve as a deterrent to future conflict, whether military or economic, with the United States or its allies, remains to be seen.
Greater restraint will be required but made more difficult as the West finds itself increasingly divided regarding the future of its own security and economic institutions due to declining commonality between Washington and Brussels.
As such, these pacts could undermine Trump administration efforts at peace by exacerbating assertions from hardline factions in the West.
keep readingShow less
Newsletter
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.