MOSCOW: When the Taliban swept over Afghanistan, Russia was ready for the rapid developments after working methodically for years to lay the groundwork for relations with the group that it still officially considers a terrorist organization.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized this week that Moscow was “in no rush” to recognize the Taliban as the new rulers of Afghanistan, but he added there were “encouraging signals” of their readiness to let other political forces join the government and allow girls into schools.
The Taliban was added to the Russian list of terrorist organizations in 2003, and Moscow has not yet moved to remove the group from the list. Any contact with such groups is punishable under Russian law, but the Foreign Ministry has responded to questions about the seeming contradiction by saying that its exchanges with the Taliban are essential for international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
Unlike many other countries, Russia said it wouldn’t evacuate its embassy in Kabul, and its ambassador quickly met with the Taliban for what he described as “constructive” talks after they took over the capital.
The Soviet Union fought a 10-year war in Afghanistan that ended with its troops withdrawing in 1989. Since then, Moscow has made a comeback as an influential power broker in international talks on Afghanistan. It has worked continuously to cultivate ties with the Taliban, hosting their representatives for a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings.
“We have maintained contacts with the Taliban for the last seven years, discussing many issues,” Kremlin envoy on Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said earlier this week. “We saw them as a force that will play a leading role in Afghanistan in the future even if it doesn’t take all power. All those factors, along with guarantees given to us by the Taliban’s top leaders, give us reason for a calm view of the latest developments, although we remain vigilant.”
A month before Taliban militants unleashed their offensive that ended with the seizure of Kabul, their delegation visited Moscow to offer assurances that they wouldn’t threaten the interests of Russia and its ex-Soviet allies in Central Asia — a sign that they consider ties with Russia a priority.
Taliban spokesman Mohammad Sohail Shaheen said during a visit last month to the Russian capital that “we won’t allow anyone to use the Afghan territory to attack Russia or neighboring countries,” noting that “we have very good relations with Russia.”
Russian diplomats say they trust the group’s assurances, noting the Taliban’s focus on fighting the Daesh group, which Moscow sees as the main threat from Afghanistan. Moscow also has hailed the Taliban’s pledge to combat drug trafficking and stem the flow of drugs from Afghanistan via Central Asia.
Russian ambassador to Kabul, Dmitry Zhirnov, praised the Taliban as “reasonable guys” following a “positive and constructive meeting” this week. He added that the Taliban guaranteed the embassy’s security.
“Russian diplomats are doing all they can to consolidate the contacts they have established with the Taliban,” Moscow-based analyst Alexei Makarkin said in a commentary. “Russian representatives cast the Taliban as moderate and responsible, acting as their advocates in the public sphere.”
He argued that the Taliban might not try to project their influence to the ex-Soviet Central Asian nations for now, but that could change later after securing a hold on Afghanistan.
“The Taliban’s leaders will be unlikely to launch an expansion now, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t take such steps in the future,” Makarkin observed, noting that multiple factions inside the Taliban may have varying goals.
Despite the Taliban’s assurances, Russia has held a series of joint war games with its allies in Central Asia in recent weeks to underline its pledge to help them fend off any possible security threats from Afghanistan. The latest of those drills began in Tajikistan this week.
While cultivating contacts with Taliban officials, Russia will be unlikely to move quickly to formally recognize their government, at least not until the group is removed from the United Nations list of terrorist organizations.
“It’s premature to say that we would make any unilateral political steps,” Lavrov said this week.
Kabulov, the Kremlin envoy, emphasized that Moscow’s recognition of the Taliban will hinge on “whether they will govern the country in a responsible way in the near future, and proceeding from that, the Russian leadership will make the necessary conclusions.” He added that Russia would only take the Taliban off its list of terrorist organizations after the UN Security Council decides to remove it from its terror list.
Russian diplomats argued that the US-led campaign in Afghanistan helped change Afghan perceptions of the Soviet invasion and made many local leaders willing to accept Moscow’s mediation.
When Washington went to war with the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for harboring Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, Moscow offered a helping hand, welcoming US bases in the Central Asian nations of the former Soviet Union to support operations in Afghanistan. But as US-Russia relations have grown increasingly strained, Russia grew more critical.
Still, Moscow and Washington have continued to coordinate their diplomatic moves on Afghanistan, and Russian officials have angrily rejected the allegations last year that Moscow paid the Taliban to kill US soldiers.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, driven by fears that the US was trying to establish a foothold there after losing Iran to the Islamic Revolution. The Soviet plans for a quick campaign bogged down in fierce resistance by the US-backed guerrillas, known as mujahedeen, or holy warriors. The Soviet Union lost more than 15,000 troops, according to official count, while estimates of civilian casualties in that period have varied widely, from more than 500,000 up to 2 million.
Many in Russia gloated over the quick collapse of the US-backed Afghan government, pointing out that President Mohammad Najibullah’s communist government held on for three years after the Soviet withdrawal until Moscow’s aid completely halted following the 1991 collapse of the USSR.
“The regime created by the Americans tumbled down even before they left, that’s a principal difference,” Kabulov said, adding that he and others in Russia didn’t expect such a fast meltdown.
Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy head of the defense and security committee in the lower house of Russian parliament, told The Associated Press that the US has left behind huge arsenals of weapons that fell into the Taliban’s hands.
“Who would make such gifts to terrorists after fighting them for 20 years?” said Klintsevich, a veteran of the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Russia was ready for Taliban’s win due to longtime contacts
https://arab.news/cssbc
Russia was ready for Taliban’s win due to longtime contacts
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow ‘in no rush’ to recognize Taliban rule
- The Taliban was added to the Russian list of terrorist organizations in 2003
With Iran war exit elusive, Trump aides vie to affect outcome
- Aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East
- In taking America to war, US President Donald Trump offered little explanation
WASHINGTON: A complex tug-of-war inside the White House is driving US President Donald Trump’s shifting public statements on the course of the Iran war, as aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East.
Some officials and advisers are warning Trump that surging gasoline prices could exact a political cost from the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, while some hawks are pressing the president to maintain the offensive against the Islamic Republic, according to interviews with a Trump adviser and others close to the deliberations.
Their observations to Reuters offer a previously unreported glimpse inside White House decision-making as it adjusts its approach to the biggest US military operation since the 2003 Iraq war.
Shifting messages, various internal viewpoints
The behind-the-scenes maneuvering underscores the high stakes Trump, who returned to office last year promising to avoid “stupid” military interventions, faces nearly two weeks after plunging the nation into a war that has rattled global financial markets and disrupted the international oil trade.
The jockeying for Trump’s ear is a feature of his presidency, but this time the consequences are a matter of war and peace in one of the world’s most volatile and economically critical regions.
Shifting from the sweeping goals he framed in launching the war on February 28, Trump in recent days has emphasized that he views the conflict as a limited campaign whose objectives have mostly been met.
But the message remains unclear to many, including the energy markets, which have lurched in both directions in response to Trump’s statements.
He told a campaign-style rally in Kentucky on Wednesday that “we won” the war, then abruptly pivoted: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”
Economic advisers and officials, including from the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council, have warned Trump that an oil shock and rising gasoline prices could quickly erode domestic support for the war, said the adviser and two others close to the deliberations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.
Political advisers, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief James Blair, are making similar arguments, focusing on the political fallout from higher gas prices and urging Trump to define victory narrowly and signal the operation is limited and nearly finished, the sources said.
Pushing in the other direction are hawkish voices urging Trump to sustain military pressure on Iran, including Republican lawmakers such as US Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, and media commentators such as Mark Levin, according to people familiar with the matter.
They argue the US must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and respond forcefully to attacks on American troops and shipping.
A third force comes from Trump’s populist base and figures such as strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing television personality Tucker Carlson, who have been pressing him and his top aides to avoid getting dragged into another prolonged Middle East conflict.
“He is allowing the hawks to believe the campaign continues, wants markets to believe the war might end soon and his base to believe escalation will be limited,” the Trump adviser said.
Asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: “This story is based on gossip and speculation from anonymous sources who aren’t even in the room for any discussions with President Trump.
“The President is known for being a good listener and seeking the opinions of many people, but ultimately everyone knows he’s the final decision maker and his own best messenger,” she said. “The President’s entire team is focused on ensuring the objectives of Operation Epic Fury are fully achieved.”
Other people named for their roles in the deliberations did not immediately respond to Reuters’ questions.
Looking for an exit
In taking America to war, Trump offered little explanation, and the administration’s stated war aims have ranged from thwarting an imminent attack by Iran to crippling its nuclear program to replacing its government.
As he seeks an exit from an unpopular conflict, Trump is trying to juggle competing narratives that some critics say have complicated an already difficult situation, with Iran defiant despite the devastating US-Israeli air assault.
Top political aides and economic advisers, whose warnings before the war of the potential economic shock were largely ignored, appear to have played a major role in pushing Trump’s efforts this week to reassure skittish markets and contain rising oil and gas prices.
His public shift to downplaying the war’s impact, describing it as a “short-term excursion,” and his insistence that gas price hikes would be short-lived appeared aimed at calming fears of an open-ended conflict.
Some top aides have advised him to work toward a conclusion to the conflict that he can call a triumph, at least militarily, the sources said, even if much of the Iranian leadership survives, along with remnants of a nuclear program that the campaign was meant to target.
Wave after wave of US and Israeli air strikes have killed a number of top Iranian leaders among some 2,000 people overall – some as far away as Lebanon – devastated its ballistic missile arsenal, sunk much of its navy and degraded its ability to support armed proxies around the Middle East.
But the military achievements have been seriously undercut by Iran’s stepped-up attacks on oil tankers and transport facilities in the Gulf, driving up oil prices.
Trump has said he will decide when to end the campaign. He and his aides say they are far ahead of the four- to six-week timeframe Trump initially announced.
The shifting reasons for launching the conflict, which has spilled over into more than half a dozen other countries, have only made it more difficult to predict what comes next.
For their part, Iran’s rulers will claim victory, analysts say, for simply surviving the US-Israeli onslaught, especially after demonstrating their ability to fight back and inflict damage on Israel, the US and its allies.
Venezuela miscalculation
Critical to the war’s final trajectory will be the Strait of Hormuz. A fifth of the world’s oil shipments, which normally traverses the narrow waterway, has come to a near-standstill. Iran in recent days has struck tankers in Iraqi waters and other ships near the strait, and the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has vowed to keep it shut.
If Iran’s stranglehold on the waterway pushes US gas prices high enough, that could increase political pressure on Trump to end the military campaign to help his Republican Party, which is defending narrow majorities in Congress in November’s midterm elections.
Trump has recently refrained from pushing the idea that the war seeks to topple the government in Tehran. US intelligence indicates that Iran’s leadership is not at risk of collapse anytime soon, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
At least some of the confusion over the war’s trajectory appears rooted in the quick US military success in Venezuela.
Since the start of the war, some aides have struggled to convince Trump that the Iran campaign was unlikely to unfold in the same way as the January 3 Venezuela raid that captured President Nicolas Maduro, according to another source familiar with the administration’s thinking.
That operation opened the way for Trump to coerce former Maduro loyalists into giving him considerable sway over the country’s vast oil reserves – without requiring extended US military action.
Iran, by contrast, has proved a much tougher, better-armed foe with an entrenched clerical and security establishment.
Experts have rejected claims by Trump aides that Iran had been within weeks of being able to produce a nuclear weapon, despite the president’s insistence in June that US-Israeli bombing had “obliterated” its nuclear program.
Most of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to have been buried by the June strikes, meaning the material potentially could be retrieved and purified to bomb grade. Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons.
If the war drags on, American casualties mount and the economic costs multiply, some analysts say it could erode backing from Trump’s political base. But despite criticism from some supporters opposed to military interventions, members of his “Make America Great Again” movement have so far largely stayed with him on Iran.
“The MAGA base is going to give the president wiggle room,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.
