Follow us on social

Water wars: What the US can offer the Taliban, for a price

Water wars: What the US can offer the Taliban, for a price

A crisis is on the horizon in Afghanistan and Washington has significant leverage to help fix it

Analysis | Global Crises

Three years after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, many Western countries are unwilling to formally recognize the hardline group as a legitimate government until it ends widely banned practices such as institutionalized oppression of women or extrajudicial detentions and killings of suspected political opponents.

While the West justifiably remains fixated on human rights, the Taliban government remains intransigent and refuses to bend to the demands of the international forces it defeated in August 2021.

Dangling the reward of formal recognition has failed as an effective incentive to modify Taliban behavior, especially as numerous regional countries are already engaging with Kabul. China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and several Central Asian republics are pursuing transactional, pragmatic policies towards the Taliban to revive the ancient “Silk Road” trade route which is part of China’s “One Road, One Belt” mega-project, and would see Afghanistan become a major logistics point for regional exports, including oil. This approach does not consider the internal affairs of the Taliban significant.

Even with non-Western support, a rapidly worsening water crisis poses a grave and imminent threat to Afghan lives. On-the-ground assessments persuasively argue that the Taliban’s isolation is aggravating the underlying causes of the crisis, which has resulted in food insecurity, hunger, mental health issues and the spread of infectious diseases. Until now, external actors have shown indifference to the problem, but if ignored, the present situation will most likely lead to a broader humanitarian catastrophe. This crisis, a direct threat to Taliban governance, may offer the West greater leverage to address its concerns than previous aid-based policies.

Climate crisis

While Western-dominated international institutions focus on the Taliban’s oppressive policies, there is comparatively little reported in mainstream media about the climate-related pressures facing an Afghan population of over 43 million. Rising temperatures and extreme weather events such as melting glaciers, flash floods, droughts, and earthquakes, have led to the destruction of vital water sources and facilities in Afghanistan.

Nearly four out of every five Afghans now lack access to clean water, while only 27 percent of the rural population enjoy access to sanitation facilities. Afghanistan currently ranks fourth on the list of countries most at risk of a climate change crisis and eighth on the index of countries most vulnerable and least prepared to adapt to climate change.

These pressures would challenge any government, let alone Afghanistan’s current de facto rulers of madrassa-educated guerrilla fighters. They are hardly capable of assessing and managing highly complex geoclimatic factors that impact the economic viability of the entire South Asia region. Although not a unified body — with reports of schisms within the ranks of its leadership — some elements within the Taliban may be aware, if not fearful, of the near-term consequences of their inability to manage the crisis on their own.

Efforts are underway to manage groundwater in the country with at least 300 projects in various provinces set to be implemented this year, according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Energy and Water. Rehabilitation has begun on six major water projects, including the Pashtun dam, Kamal Khan dam, Turi Bakhshabad dam, and Shah and Arous dam, and construction is set to start on 11 more check dams to store water and release it into springs and canals for irrigation.

But these projects are hardly sufficient to meet the needs of the Afghan people, mostly concentrated in rural areas and living a bare, subsistence-level agrarian lifestyle. Sadly, it is not for lack of water within Afghanistan, as its high mountains and near-alpine conditions provide a surplus. Yet, distribution of that water is severely impaired by outmoded or non-existent delivery systems. Currently, Afghanistan annually uses only 30 percent of available water resources; 70 percent is wasted due to lack of infrastructure, water storage facilities, and inefficient distribution systems.

Rivers run through it

Despite an inability to get water to its own people, Afghanistan is a major source of water to Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. With major population and industrial growth and shrinking rivers, water is a vital concern for them. They understand the threat of water shortages to their economies and political and social stability.

As a result, water disputes have been a significant cause of tensions between Afghanistan and its neighbors. In May 2023, Afghan and Iranian forces clashed after Iran’s president charged the Taliban government with restricting access to water from the Helmand River. The Taliban’s construction of a 285-kilometer canal off the Amu Darya, the Qosh Tepa Canal, could draw off 12 to 15 percent of the water that now flows to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Water wars are not new and may soon come to Central Asia.

An offer they can’t refuse

As a country whose economic viability is dependent on agriculture, an adequate domestic supply of water, reliable irrigation and power are fundamental. The Taliban will need to understand that the sustainability of its grip on power will be in large part contingent upon its ability not just to rule, but also to govern and maintain good relations with its neighbors. Water is key to both. Failure to do so will likely result in a powerful backlash, including regional isolation and even an uprising by people who have nothing left to lose.

This situation presents Western countries with leverage with the Taliban, to both reduce the suffering of the Afghan people and enhance their influence in the larger region which, according to most accounts, they have lost to China and Russia. The West can deploy both advanced water resource management technologies inside Afghanistan and regional diplomacy with its neighbors as tools to move forward on long-stalled objectives. The Taliban may be ideological, but it can also be pragmatic.

To avert the risk of being left out of a new reality in Central Asia, the West must move toward decoupling politics from environmental and humanitarian issues. It must reach an entente of sorts whereby the Taliban would accept desperately needed assistance in exchange for a few “good faith” concessions on human rights issues in particular. These concessions would need to be made quietly and without fanfare, to allow the Taliban to save face.

The Taliban will also need to attract and work with technocrats and with expertise in hydraulics engineering and water resource management, as well as negotiate partnerships with countries that are at the cutting edge of water management technology, such as the Netherlands, the U.S., Australia and Germany.

If the Taliban’s behavior is to be modified, those seeking modification need to use more carrots and fewer sticks.

Some measure of pragmatism 

Humanitarian catastrophes routinely require good faith efforts by both local authorities and outside aid agencies, but the situation with the Taliban is anything but routine. The “facts on the ground” demonstrate that the conventional assumption — that humanitarian aid can be used to effect changes in local governance practices — have not worked with the Taliban. Part of this is ideological, and part of this is practical.

While Western nations seek to tie assistance to reforms, other nations, such as China, famously “take no position on internal affairs” and view engagement as transactional in nature. In Afghanistan, that means trade and investment in return for aid.

While this is unfortunate (and some would say immoral), it is clear that the West should be similarly pragmatic in exchange for minor reform. Water resources is one key area where this could bear fruit.


Afghan people crowd around a water tap to fill their containers in Nahr-e-Shahi district in Balkh province, Afghanistan, August 6, 2023. REUTERS/Ali Khara

Analysis | Global Crises
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.