For a long time, U.S. President Donald Trump has been advocating for a change in the U.S. foreign policy and has always talked about ending wars. The withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan, efforts to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict without Ukraine’s intervention, and the emphasis on reducing NATO’s financial support are all continuations of Donald Trump’s policy.
The impact of the caretaker government’s policy on opposing groups: The entire focus of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is on ending foreign wars and U.S. economic interactions. Although the opposing groups of the Afghan government, led by Ahmad Massoud, Sami Sadat, Yasin Zia, Amrullah Saleh, and several other figures of the fallen republic, have so far been hopeful for potential U.S. support, the current policy of the Trump administration indicates that the issue of another war in Afghanistan may no longer be a priority for the U.S.
If these individuals repeatedly request assistance from Donald Trump against the caretaker government, Trump’s potential response may be based on his previous policies and views. During his previous administration, Trump reached an agreement with the current caretaker government officials and signed the Doha Agreement for the end of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, which included the complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, intra-Afghan negotiations, and preventing threats from Afghanistan to the region and the world; he might continue the same policies and not support the war against the caretaker government.
So far, Donald Trump’s response regarding Afghanistan is clear to international media and those who want to plunge Afghanistan into another war. According to Trump, “We are no longer going back to the war in Afghanistan.” His statement sends a clear message to opposing political and armed groups; that is, the U.S. does not support a new front against the Taliban, and even if it does, it will not be significant or obvious support.
Similarly, if the leaders of opposing groups expect the U.S. to provide them with military, financial, or intelligence support, Trump’s statement significantly reduces that possibility. It may also be a message to the groups opposing the Taliban to work towards a political settlement or negotiation with the Taliban instead of a military solution. Trump’s consistent view is that the U.S. government should focus on its internal issues, not get involved in the wars of other countries.
Political analysts and commentators describe Donald Trump as a global businessman, and they say that if the opposition groups of the caretaker government request assistance from the United States, Trump will analyze whether this deal is worth it for the U.S. or not! If the opposing individuals propose something that has economic or strategic benefits for the U.S. (like natural resources, weakening the caretaker government’s ties with China and Russia, or cooperation for U.S. intelligence interests), then Trump might consider limited support. However, if this assistance is only against the Taliban, Trump might remain indifferent.
If the United States continues to support the opposing factions of the caretaker government, the political and military pressure on the Taliban may not be as significant as expected, due to the absence of opposing factions in Afghanistan and their strained relations with the public, which could protect the caretaker government from such pressures. It should not be forgotten that the United States has consistently interacted with the caretaker government since 2021, and part of this interaction has included occasional prisoner exchanges between the two sides.
Similarly, the spokesperson for the caretaker government, Zabihullah Mujahid, occasionally talks about domestic public support, claiming that their public support exists to the extent they assert. Therefore, the caretaker government’s military response to opposing groups may become even more intense.
Some experts also urge the caretaker government to take serious steps regarding interaction with the international community, recognition, and other issues. They state that although the United States does not engage in military intervention, it often presents some reactions as pressure, which should be addressed beforehand.
Note: The articles, essays, and comments published in Hindukush Voice only reflect the views of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the agreement of Hindukush Voice.
