Analysis – Part Two
Written by: Khalil Rahnaward
Disagreements with the Resistance Front:
Simultaneously with the collapse of the Republic in Afghanistan, a front known as the Resistance Front was formed under the leadership of Ahmad Massoud and resisted for several days in Panjshir Province. Eventually, it was eliminated inside the country after many of its members were killed and others fled. After that, the Freedom Front was also formed under the leadership of Yasin Zia and began its activities outside the country.
Since at the beginning some Western or Eastern countries, or certain parties affiliated with them, supported the continuation of opposition and armed clashes in Afghanistan, they therefore provided limited support to the Resistance Front. However, this support was insufficient and did not even cover the personal expenses of the Front’s leaders. Meanwhile, as the Freedom Front increasingly presented itself on political stages and social media, it endangered the personal interests of the Resistance Front’s leaders, because another front emerged for foreign sponsors to wage proxy war on their behalf.
Both fronts considered the ruling Islamic government in Afghanistan their common enemy, but deep political disputes emerged between them over foreign support, manpower, influence, and share. Each viewed the other as a rival. These conflicts escalated into severe distrust, verbal confrontations, and eventually physical eliminations, clear examples of which have been observed over the past more than four years. The most recent example was the killing of a former general, Ikramuddin Saree, in Iran.
Given that disputes over influential figures existed between the Resistance and Freedom fronts from the outset, the Freedom Front had hired several spies within the Resistance Front to attract key individuals from the Resistance Front to the Freedom Front and assign them various responsibilities. Among these was the espionage of Qari Isa Mohammadi within the Resistance Front, which Voice of Hindukush had earlier published recordings of his audio conversations and messages with Abdul Sattar Husseini.
Many other behind-the-scenes disputes between the Resistance and Freedom fronts had already arisen over the above-mentioned issues. However, during the fifth Vienna meeting, which was essentially a propaganda meeting organized by Ahmad Massoud and Yasin Zia to outwardly display unity, a verbal dispute erupted over the flag. After the meeting ended, media activists affiliated with the Resistance Front insulted Yasin Zia.
Social media activists of the Resistance Front used abusive language against Yasin Zia. The meeting also provoked criticism from some activists, who leveled numerous accusations against him, raised interviews and topics about his failed past, and addressed him as a traitor, slave, flatterer, savage, and untrustworthy person.
Some activists also considered his participation in the Vienna meeting as a revival of the disgraced faces of the fallen Republic and accused him of removing the Resistance Front’s flag on the orders of Hamdullah Mohib and Ashraf Ghani. This was while members of the Resistance Front had already accused Yasin Zia, prior to the meeting, of flattery and allegiance to Hamdullah Mohib and Ashraf Ghani.
The deep distrust and disagreements between these fronts have caused them to become entangled with one another, diverting their focus from their objectives and activities toward targeted killings and internal disputes. Another clear example of this mistrust and internal conflict was the encrypted audio message of Yasin Zia published by Voice of Hindukush, in which he made statements about betrayals and other issues.
Relations with Pakistan:
Afghan opposition fronts, after beginning their activities abroad, attempted to establish relations with global powers. Some countries provided limited financial and intelligence assistance, but due to internal disputes, embezzlement, and corruption within these fronts, such efforts went nowhere. On the other hand, the Afghan government expanded its engagement with countries from East to West, gradually causing many states to withdraw support from the opposition, even expelling them or imposing restrictions on their political activities.
Due to nearly one to two years of tense movements and relations between the Afghan government and Pakistan’s military regime, the latter attempted various methods to threaten the Afghan government or Afghanistan. An article in an international newspaper called New Lines stated that Pakistan is quietly seeking to recruit new proxy groups in Afghanistan.
The newspaper wrote that the Pakistani regime is attempting to revive relations with opponents of the Afghan government, and according to the author, among these proxy groups are Freedom Front leader Yasin Zia and its political affairs officer Dawood Naji, whom Pakistan may support. It further stated that Islamabad is quietly summoning Afghan opposition figures and even hosted them at a meeting in early October 2025.
The newspaper added that tensions between the Afghan government and the Pakistani regime have provided a good opportunity for the Freedom Front led by Yasin Zia to benefit from Pakistan, and there are also rumors that Yasin Zia has opened an office in Pakistan. The report revealed that after becoming disappointed with all other countries, Yasin Zia turned to neighboring Pakistan and is attempting to fight for that country’s interests.
In October 2025, Islamabad hosted a number of former politicians and representatives, activists, and members of opposition groups. This hosting, planned by a covert intelligence organization, aimed to expand relations with opposition groups, including the Freedom Front, and to create activities aligned with Pakistan’s interests. Based on all this evidence and reporting, it can be said that the Freedom Front has close ties with Pakistan’s military intelligence service (ISI) and continues its opposition under its support.
Symbolic Political Activities and Legitimacy:
The leaders and decision-making networks of the Freedom Front reside outside Afghanistan, where they make decisions. In political science, exiled opposition groups are considered legitimate when they meet the following conditions (there may be other conditions, but these appear essential for a movement claiming to be an alternative):
- Their source of legitimacy must be Islamic Sharia; if they rely only on international standards, they must have genuine social, intellectual, or political popular support inside the country.
- Commitment to territorial integrity, unity, and independence of the country.
- Freedom from financial, political, or any other form of foreign influence; meaning foreign countries or their political positions do not interfere in decision-making.
- A clear foundation, strategy, and vision for the future to justify their claim as an alternative.
- Leaders and officials must not be involved in crimes or corruption and must not have a bad record.
- All peaceful and reconciliation paths with the ruling government must be closed.
However, the Freedom Front has completely failed to meet these conditions. It has no presence among the people and instead relies on activity through anonymous social media accounts and small gatherings of fugitives in foreign cities as proof of legitimacy. It does not value territorial integrity, independence, or unity, but instead consistently seeks to throw the country into the lap of others without any cost. This front is funded by foreign countries and intelligence circles, and therefore all its decisions are influenced by foreign policies.
The front also lacks a clear strategy, foundation, and vision for the future, wearing only the mask of “opposition.” Its leaders are implicated in crimes against humanity, corruption, and national betrayal, have a bad record, and imposed nearly two decades of the bitter Republican era on the Afghan people. Meanwhile, the Afghan government has opened the door of reconciliation, amnesty, and unity to all opposition groups so they can live peacefully and work alongside the new government for the country’s welfare and development. Despite this, the Freedom Front continues political opposition and promotes slogans of armed conflict.
When opposition groups face a legitimacy challenge, their activities take on a purely symbolic political form. The Freedom Front faces this very challenge, which has reduced its activities to media statements and symbolic political gestures, relying on declarations, propaganda meetings like those in Vienna, joint meetings of two groups, and imaginary promises.
Summary of the Analysis:
After 1400 Hijri Solar Calendar, political and military figures who had long histories of power, corruption, war, and personal interests under the Republic fled the country out of fear of accountability and raised the banner of opposition abroad. This opposition, presented under various colorful names, neither emerged from the people nor has real capacity to bring change. The armed struggle claimed by the Freedom Front is, in practice, sometimes limited to targeting civilians, issuing statements, slogans, and virtual maps, lacking real field presence, organized structures, and social support.
The Freedom (!) Front lacks the fundamental conditions of legitimacy; its leaders are linked to the failed era of the fallen Republican regime, have bad records, and their decisions are largely influenced by the demands and political calculations of British intelligence and other foreign circles. As a result, its activities revolve around propaganda meetings and short-term media reactions rather than building a political alternative. It is an opposition with no clear vision, no clear path, and no ability to inspire confidence about the future.
Internal disputes between the Freedom Front and the Resistance Front, struggles over influence, physical eliminations, and deep mistrust are signs of internal decay and elimination within both fronts. They failed to unite; instead, foreign support, personal rivalries, and thirst for power made their structures vulnerable. These disputes gradually crossed into political conflicts, taking the form of sabotage, insults, and elimination against one another, resulting in further erosion of public trust.
While an environment of stability, general amnesty, and relative security has been established in the country, exiled opposition groups continue to use the language of war while remaining far from the battlefield. This contradiction shows that these movements seek existence in the name of opposition without a sense of sacrifice or responsibility. Such groups neither have the ability to change the balance of power nor can they present a convincing alternative for the people’s future; rather, they will continue merely as symbolic opposition.
Note: The articles, essays, and comments published by the Voice of Hindukush only reflect the views of the authors & writers and do not necessarily represent the agreement of the Voice of Hindukush.
