A recent report by the UN has said the Taliban are once again allowing the terror group Al Qaeda on Afghan soil – one of the original justifications for the US-led invasion of the country, following the group’s September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington that killed 3,000 people.
The UN as well as experts spoken to by The National say the movement is now torn between a dangerous militant wing that refuses to compromise and a less militant but still extremely conservative side.
The Taliban have also appointed several Al Qaeda members to advisory roles in its administration as well as provided their members with monthly “welfare payments”, portions of which filtered down to fighters of affiliated groups, according to the Security Council’s Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team.
The sustained influence of Al Qaeda, the report claims, has contributed to widening fault lines within the Taliban.
The killing of former Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri in a US drone strike in July 2022 exposed these divisions, with some Taliban members feeling deceived over the presence of the terrorist leader in Kabul, reportedly protected by the Haqqanis – a powerful network within the movement.
Others sensed Al Zawahiri had been betrayed by senior Taliban leaders, the report noted.
These divisions, the report observed, have created preconditions for the weakening of the de facto regime that could have a dire impact on regional and international security.
“[The] ongoing struggles for power among various factional leaders are further destabilising the situation, to the point where an outbreak of armed conflict between rival factions is a manifest risk,” the report stated.
Intelligence officials and security analysts, however, have long claimed the Taliban are a fracturing group.
“There were pre-existing differences among the Taliban factions, of which there are many. Consequently, even at the Qatar talks, representatives from four factions [of Taliban] participated,” said Rahmatullah Nabil, a former Afghan spy chief who has frequently claimed that several distinct Taliban councils have not only operated simultaneously, but also clashed.
“Now that they have come to power, the tensions between different factions have become more apparent, primarily revolving around power, wealth and even tribal affiliations.” He added that their status as proxy groups for other countries has further intensified divisions.
Kabul and Kandahar split
According to the report, the principal split within the Taliban was between factions representing Kandahar and Kabul power bases.
“The Kandahar group consists primarily of loyalist clerics close to [Taliban Supreme Leader] Hibatullah Akhundzada, while the Kabul-based faction represents the Haqqanis and much of the working de facto cabinet in the capital, including Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, acting Defence Minister Mullah Mohammad Yaqub Omari and head of the General Directorate of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wassiq,” it noted.
The report described the Kandahari faction as “isolationist, more religiously conservative and unmoved by international opinion”, while the Kabul group, although not very moderate, was described as “pragmatic and willing to engage internationally”.
Security analysts shared a similar assessment, elaborating that fundamental differences exist between these groups on key issues.
“The most notable of these appears to be a disagreement over the ban on anything above elementary school for girls and women,” said Jonathan Schroden, director at CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organisation.
But he added that “the disagreements appear to at least also extend to the level of desired engagement with the international community, including recognition of the Taliban government, and the level of inclusion of non-Pashtuns in the governing structures”.
Mr Nabil claimed that while the Haqqani-led Kabul group gained power with the assistance of Pakistan’s intelligence chief Faiz Hamid, the Kandahar faction emphasises consolidating power in the south.
“The Kabul faction sought to maintain their power, attract international attention, and garner public support by adopting a softer tone and expressing moderate views. Conversely, the Kandahar-based group focused on issues related to power dynamics, wealth distribution, tribal tendencies and external dependencies, which significantly contribute to these divisions,” he said.
The growing rift, however, is unlikely to provide leverage to the international community anytime soon, experts noted.
“It’s notable that these disagreements appear to be over policy and not the general ideology of the Taliban, which means the threat of these disagreements to the group’s cohesion is generally overblown,” said Mr Schroden, who added that, for more than a decade, the Taliban prioritised their own cohesion during policy disputes.
“For the very reason that they are cognisant of attempts by external actors to divide and conquer them,” he said, pointing out that no Taliban leader has publicly questioned the role or authority of the ‘Amir Al Mu’minin’ – the Taliban’s supreme leader.
“Rather, public statements by the likes of Haqqani have been mostly suggestive of alternative policies or critical of the implementation of existing ones.”
Threat to Pakistan
The report, however, stated that while the cohesion of the Taliban could remain for a year or two, deepening cracks could eventually spell disaster for regional security.
“[UN] member states judged that Taliban unity is likely to prevail, some predicting for at least 12–24 months. States in the region were concerned about the risk of a return to civil war should current Taliban policies continue,” it noted.
In addition, the group’s continued alliances with regional and international terror groups amid political instability has revived their image as a security threat.
The report noted that the link between the Taliban and both Al Qaeda and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan – its Pakistani branch – remains strong and symbiotic. The TTP have been accused of an escalating series of attacks on Pakistani security forces.
“A range of terrorist groups have greater freedom of manoeuvre under the Taliban de facto authorities. They are making good use of this, and the threat of terrorism is rising in both Afghanistan and the region,” it said.
Mr Schroden added: “While the Taliban are clearly monitoring the activities of these groups, so far, they’ve done little to rein them in.
“The Taliban act first and foremost in their own interest, and currently there’s no indication that their cost/benefit calculation has shifted toward taking notable action against these groups.”
Mr Nabil, however, also blamed the international community for complacency in dealing with the Taliban, which has allowed the group to consolidate power in regional terror networks.
“Since the inception of the Doha peace talks, they have wasted time in the hopes of reforming the Taliban or Taliban 2.0, only to ultimately surrender Afghanistan to their control … trying to engage with and provide political incentives to the Taliban.”
He said that when these efforts proved fruitless, the international community sought to separate the radical and moderate Taliban leaders.
“Both the international community and Taliban leaders have played a duplicitous game in this regard,” he said.
“Some Taliban leaders attempt to present themselves as moderate, while a number of countries are attempting to overlook the past of certain Taliban members and present them as 'reformed suicide bombers'.”
Meanwhile, Mr Nabil said the Taliban not only refused to retreat but also deepened their connections with terrorist organisations both within and beyond the region.
“This strategic alliance will have severe consequences for the country, the region, and the global community in the near future,” he warned.
