Follow us on social

google cta
Is it time for the US to recognize the Taliban?

Is it time for the US to recognize the Taliban?

Sanctions are making the people poorer, and frankly, Washington's competitors are already jumping into the breach

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Late last month, roughly two dozen countries sent envoys to Qatar for a conference about international engagement with Afghanistan and for the first time the Taliban participated too.

Taliban representatives attended the latest round of the “Doha process” because, unlike the May 2023 gathering, activists were not in attendance this time around. This conference gave the Taliban the chance to call on the U.S. and other western governments to lift economic sanctions on Afghanistan and build deeper ties with the Islamist regime in Kabul.

That diplomats from these roughly two dozen countries and Taliban officials attended this recent conference speaks to the fact that more states are engaging the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), even if no government has officially recognized the Taliban since it reconquered the country in August 2021.

Most of Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors and a host of non-western, Muslim-majority countries along with China and Russia have essentially informally recognized the Taliban and stepped up outreach to the IEA to further their own economic, trade, and security interests.


Afghanistan’s Disastrous Economic Conditions

Against this backdrop of growing international engagement with the Taliban, Afghanistan’s economy is in horrible shape. As of March, 69% of Afghanistan’s population is “subsistence insecure” and “dramatic” water scarcity plagues many parts of the country, according to a UN official.

The Afghan economy has contracted by 27% since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. Unemployment has doubled, and only 40% of the Afghan population enjoys access to electricity, while the country’s financial sector has “basically collapsed.

The Taliban’s governance and extreme policies that limit women’s rights have greatly contributed to these problems. But there is no denying that much of the blame for Afghanistan’s economic crises can be laid on Washington’s doorstep given the sanctions it has imposed on the country since the Taliban retook power almost three years ago.

U.S. Diplomacy Toward the Taliban

Despite waging financial warfare against post-occupation Afghanistan, the Biden administration has been engaged with the IEA diplomatically since before the U.S. withdrawal in 2021.

Since the Obama years, Doha has been the main venue for U.S.-Taliban dialogue and engagement. To this day, Qatar’s foreign ministry remains the chief interlocutor between Washington and the Taliban. To lesser degrees, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Norway, and the United Nations serve bridging roles too.

Throughout the past roughly three years, the U.S. and Taliban have engaged on a host of issues such as the mutually perceived threat of Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the status of American citizens detained in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, rights of women and girls, and humanitarian challenges in post-U.S. Afghanistan.

The extent to which such engagement with the de facto rulers of Kabul has advanced Washington’s interests is mixed. With respect to the status of Afghanistan’s women and girls, Washington’s diplomatic outreach to the Taliban has basically achieved nothing. At the same time, the Biden administration’s efforts to convince the Taliban to protect certain segments of the Afghan population from the IEA’s oppressive hand have proven futile.

“The U.S. has also failed to convince the Taliban not to target former Afghan government officials, former Afghan National Defense and Security Force members, and millions of those Afghans who were educated under the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan,” Ahmad Sayer Daudzai, the former Afghan ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, told RS.

“This is important for the U.S., as the U.S. considers this generation of Afghans as a long-term asset of the U.S. in Afghanistan. As the Taliban continue to target, arrest, assassinate and force this segment of Afghan society to emigrate from Afghanistan, the U.S. is losing their 20-year gains in Afghanistan,” he added.

But since August 2021, diplomacy has resulted in the release of four U.S. citizens who were held in the Taliban’s prison system. According to U.S. government sources, and it has also led to some productive counterterrorism coordination.

“There is cooperation between the U.S. and the Taliban’s Defense Minister Mullah Yaqoob, which has allegedly led to successful raids against ISKP in eastern Afghanistan. The details of this financial and intelligence cooperation were declassified [in June 2024] by a CIA veteran of Afghanistan named Sarah Adams,” explained Daudzai.

Russia, China, and Iran’s Influence

In the longer-term, great power competition is the key variable in the equation that incentivizes the Biden administration to engage the IEA through diplomacy.

Put simply, the White House understands that if the U.S. does not engage the Taliban at all, Washington’s foes and rivals — Russia, China, and Iran — will move to fill vacuums in post-occupation Afghanistan at the expense of America’s interests in West Asia. This dynamic helps explain in part the rationale behind the Biden administration’s outreach to the IEA despite the humiliation of doing so.

A concern for U.S. policymakers is that Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran could bring Taliban-governed Afghanistan increasingly into their orbits of influence. One example pertains to trade and sanctions. Currently, China’s over-land trade with Iran has to transit Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. But, if there is greater stability in Afghanistan, such Sino-Iranian trade could go through one country (Afghanistan) rather than three Central Asian countries, serving to increase geo-economic connectivity between China and Iran.

Taliban Rule is Probably Here to Stay

The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that no actor poses any credible challenge to the IEA’s rule. ISKP is the most serious threat to the Taliban government today, but this extremist group is unlikely to establish any statelet within Afghanistan (as other Islamic State franchises did in Libya, Iraq, and Syria) — let alone topple the IEA and take control of Afghanistan. Nor is the National Resistance Front in a position to take over.

Therefore, the Taliban’s control of the country is probably set to remain a fact of life for the foreseeable future. Washington not recognizing the Taliban while imposing sanctions on Afghanistan is unlikely to change that. Those in the U.S. who see the world through the lens of great power competition may find themselves challenging the wisdom of not recognizing the Taliban while Washington’s competitors make moves to establish deeper informal (and perhaps before long formal) relationships with the de facto regime in Kabul.

The U.S. recognizing the IEA would be the Taliban’s dream. But that’s a dream which probably would only come true in the distant future. Given Washington’s struggles in Afghanistan since 2001 and the way in which the IEA took power in 2021, any push for recognition of the Taliban would be extremely unpopular in Washington.

However, it would be worth having a serious debate about where Washington’s policy of non-recognition and economic sanctions is headed, and what U.S. interests can be realistically advanced through it.






Members of Afghanistan's delegation, led by the Taliban-run government's Acting Labour and Social Affairs Minister Abdul Hanan Omari, attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in Saint Petersburg, Russia June 5, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.