In his latest policy brief, Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov presents a layered analysis of Washington’s shifting strategies toward Afghanistan following the return of the Taliban to power. He outlines four key stages in U.S. policy — ranging from counterterrorism to political disengagement and direct engagement — underscoring the lack of a coherent long-term vision. This phase reflected Washington’s continued prioritisation of national security concerns over broader engagement.
The second stage was marked by strategic disengagement, as the United States distanced itself from Afghanistan’s internal politics and ceased involvement in infrastructure projects such as TAPI and CASA-1000. The Trump administration’s role, however, introduced a dual-track policy — partly rhetorical, in line with the MAGA campaign narrative, and partly strategic, with direct contacts initiated with Taliban representatives by mid-2020. This shift demonstrated an awareness of Afghanistan’s enduring geopolitical significance, especially in the context of U.S. competition with China.
As Dr. Gafarov observes, the current U.S. approach combines rhetorical condemnation of the Taliban’s human rights abuses with pragmatic engagement, including the recent release of an American hostage after high-level contacts with Taliban officials. These moves indicate a nuanced recalibration of policy, driven partly by China’s growing presence in Afghanistan and the urgency of reasserting U.S. influence in a strategically pivotal region. The Taliban, for their part, demand parity in negotiations, rejecting both the return of U.S. equipment and the conditional release of frozen Afghan assets — signalling their intent to frame themselves as sovereign actors rather than subordinates.
In examining future scenarios, the author identifies two potential directions: a wait-and-see policy banking on internal shifts within the Taliban (particularly favouring the more pragmatic Sirajuddin Haqqani over the ideologically rigid Akhundzada), or the use of economic levers such as Afghanistan’s frozen assets to counter Chinese encroachment. Both scenarios highlight the instrumental role of Afghanistan in wider geopolitical rivalries, especially between the United States and China. Notably, the recent U.S. cancellation of the bounty on Haqqani may hint at a selective engagement strategy favouring more pliable Taliban factions.
Finally, Uzbekistan emerges in his analysis as a key mediator in restoring U.S.-Taliban relations. Given Tashkent’s strategic ties with both Washington and Kabul, its neutral stance, and its past cooperation on military logistics, Uzbekistan could provide a valuable bridge for diplomatic re-engagement. Shared views on regional stability, coupled with Uzbekistan’s proximity and influence in Afghanistan, strengthen this possibility. Overall, Dr. Gafarov concludes that the erratic evolution of U.S. policy reflects not only the complexities of Taliban rule but also Washington’s broader struggle to reconcile normative commitments with geostrategic imperatives.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
