Haider Ali Khan-Tal-Afg-Fut-Oped thumbnail-Dec-2024-UPDATED

Afghanistan stands at a crossroads, grappling with governance, international isolation, and economic challenges – a precarious situation with deep ramifications for regional security. Challenges mainly stem from the complexity of the Afghan social structure, long periods of political instability, and a history of conflict. On the other hand, Afghanistan’s geostrategic location offers opportunities for regional trade and connectivity. Regional stakeholders too, have vital interests in Afghanistan’s stability, however, the country must overcome issues of inclusivity, institutional reform, and international legitimacy.

At present, Afghanistan seems to have achieved relative stability as compared to the times of the Taliban takeover in mid-2021. Major resistance to the regime has been curtailed, but this remains contingent on strict control and harsh measures. However, the Afghan people are beset with economic degradation, humanitarian crisis, and a lack of institutional framework, which could potentially destabilise the country.

Re-modelling the governance structures has produced mixed results so far. Part of the reason for reforming governance was to abolish structures established by the former Afghan republic. One of the most notable changes was restructuring the judiciary. The Islamic Emirate has invoked the  Hanafi interpretation of Sharia which presently serves as the law of the country.

Findings from a recent World Bank report highlight the critical challenges Afghanistan faces in its trade and tax structures. Trade disruptions have heavily impacted Afghanistan’s export economy, causing a drop in coal and food exports. Interestingly, Afghanistan’s internal revenue collection has seen growth, primarily through inland taxes and non-tax revenues, including passport fees and mining activities. This dual dynamic underscores the need for Afghanistan to improve domestic revenue mechanisms to offset external trade dependencies and enhance economic stability.

International recognition remains a challenge to the regime’s legitimacy, however, regional engagement with Afghanistan is growing. The Afghan Deputy Prime Minister met his Russian counterpart Alexei Overchuk last month to discuss trade, commerce, and transit. Moscow also announced the decision to delist the ‘Islamic Emirate’ from its blacklist. China’s acceptance of the Emirate’s Ambassador has also been a positive development in the Sino-Afghan relationship. Moreover, talks between Kabul and Beijing are underway to include Afghanistan in Belt and Road Initiative projects. Meanwhile, the IEA is also keen to  revive projects like CASA-1000 which are crucial for regional connectivity.  

Internal security remains a leading concern for the IEA. The  Islamic State-Khorasan Province (IS-KP) has emerged as a great challenge. In fact, IS-KP poses a threat to all regional governments, including the Taliban regime. Since its emergence in 2015, the majority of its attacks have occurred within Afghanistan. Just this month, IS-KP managed to assassinate Khalil Haqqani, the country’s Minister for Refugees and a leading figure of the Haqqani network. There are growing internal fractures within the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan, which are undermining their ability to govern effectively. Afghanistan’s history of leadership divisions and power struggles, including the Soviet invasion and Taliban’s fall in 2001, reflects a recurring pattern of fragmentation.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has experienced a resurgence since the Afghan Taliban’s return to power in 2021, presenting a complex regional security challenge. Analysing this conundrum through a socio-political lens is crucial, as ideological and cultural affinities within certain factions of the Afghan Taliban have fostered sympathies toward the TTP.

The Taliban face an urgent need to establish stable institutions to effectively govern Afghanistan. Thus far, they have struggled to form a hierarchical governance structure codified under a written constitution or mechanisms for power distribution. The contentious status of women’s rights, particularly access to education, remains a significant barrier. Gender and ethnic exclusion not only hinder Afghanistan’s societal progress but also obstruct the international recognition the Taliban seek to integrate the Islamic Emirate into the global order.

Stronger diplomatic relations and bilateral trade are essential for Afghanistan’s economic recovery and regional stability. Free Trade Agreements with neighbours could help Afghanistan overcome its geographic limitations and isolation. However, before pursuing outward engagement, the Taliban must first address internal factionalism, which risks further destabilising the country. Meeting the demands of the international community, including addressing human rights concerns and fostering inclusivity, will be essential for cultivating durable ties and ensuring regional peace.

Haider Ali Khan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »