Follow us on social

2021-10-09t093824z_768213779_mt1eyeim240277_rtrmadp_3_us-and-taliban-to-first-talks-since-afghan-withdrawal

US and Taliban take major first step, quietly

The desire to do this without the glare of the media is understandable; the need to do it outside Afghanistan is less so.

Analysis | Middle East

On Sunday and Monday, a significant event took place outside the public eye: U.S. officials engaged in high-level talks with senior Taliban representatives in Doha, Qatar, to discuss the future of Afghanistan. 

Some observers noted the lack of attention, but it might be a blessing in disguise. While the lack of media glare might raise concerns about Afghanistan slipping off the radar, conducting diplomacy without public scrutiny, media sensationalism, and political grandstanding could create the space for substantive and meaningful change in the war-ravaged country's future.

These talks represent the most substantial and public dialogue between the Taliban and the United States since Washington’s withdrawal almost two years ago. The State Department's statement on the meeting outlined the critical issues that were discussed, including human and women's rights, Afghanistan's foreign exchange reserves, terrorism, and the potential for “confidence building” between Washington and the Taliban.

The U.S. delegation, led by Special Representative for Afghanistan Thomas West, along with Special Envoy for Afghan Women, Girls, and Human Rights Rina Amiri, and Chief of the U.S. Mission to Afghanistan (based in Doha) Karen Decker, held talks with the Taliban’s foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi. 

Interestingly, neither the State Department’s official statement nor West’s Twitter account mentioned Muttaqi by name, while Abdul Qahar Balhki, the spokesperson for the Taliban’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted about it. This could be coincidental, or it might be part of a broader pattern adopted by the Biden administration to amplify engagement with Afghan civil society figures and exiled politicians, while downplaying direct interactions with the Taliban, particularly its senior officials.

As I have previously argued, talking with senior Taliban officials remains important, even if they lack ultimate decision-making power. But it raises questions about why such conversations cannot take place within Afghanistan, as is the case for UK and EU officials. While there might be concerns about diplomatic security, there should be ways to address them, just as Washington’s European counterparts have managed to do. Concerns about legitimizing the Taliban by being seen to engage them publicly became moot the minute then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Mullah Baradar in 2020, and had a photo taken of the occasion.

There is an opportunity cost in not meeting with the Taliban inside Afghanistan. As outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman recently told the Washington Post, “[i]n negotiating, you have to understand the other side — their interests, as well as their culture, their history.” U.S. diplomacy often views sitting at the table with adversaries as a concession or a display of weakness. 

In reality, however, engaging with the Taliban within Afghanistan will prove an essential initial step for any chance for sustainable progress.


A high level delegation of the Taliban met with US officials in Doha, Qatar, on July 30-31. In this October 8, 2021 photo some of the same officials, including Maulvi Amir Khan Mottaki (center) landed in Doha to engage in talks after the US withdrawal. (Reuters)
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.