Two decades ago, NATO forces led by the United States entered Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda. At that time, the main target for the United States was the al-Qaeda group led by Osama bin Laden, not the Taliban – but because the Taliban did not hand Osama over to the US, the Taliban still became the US target. Although some Taliban leaders at the time opposed this decision by the group’s previous leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, the main decision-maker was the leader himself.

According to American experts, the likelihood of NATO’s war in Afghanistan being prolonged was low; but the war continued and, in addition to material losses, it also caused human losses for NATO. After more than twenty years, the United States and the West decided to end this war and prevent financial costs and casualties of their military forces in Afghanistan.

In addition, as the Taliban were not the main target of the US presence in Afghanistan, there were also differences among American officials about eradicating the Taliban from the geography of Afghanistan. For this reason, the ground was prepared for the Taliban to flee to Pakistan. Pakistan’s ISI served as a guiding light for the US on how to deal with the Taliban. This guidance was also true for the Mujahideen leaders.

The US and Pakistan maintain an opposition and alternative bloc for each ruling group in Afghanistan to challenge and replace the government’s rule when necessary. The relocation of Taliban leaders to the border areas of Pakistan was one of those cases, so that one day they would be brought onto the stage as pawns in the US and Pakistan’s game in Afghanistan, and as soon as they achieved their goals, they would have another group ready. In this regard, the US began negotiations with the Taliban to bring them back to power. The Taliban, as a proxy group, are moving forward with the goals and plans of the US and the guidance of the ISI.

There have been disagreements among American officials regarding the Taliban’s return to power, with American senators occasionally expressing their dissatisfaction openly; however, for the Trump administration in the current situation, the Taliban are a suitable option for governance in Afghanistan for the following reasons:

First:

Trump is moving hastily in achieving his goals, and for this approach, he needs a single group that is strict and consistent in its decisions. Also, financial cost is of great importance to Trump, and the Taliban has been the cheapest group in implementing America’s plans in the region.

Second:

The Taliban opponents, many of whom are members of the former Afghan government, have spent their valuable time with the United States at this historical juncture, and there is currently no opportunity for them to play an absolute role. But this does not mean that they are eliminated from the political games of Afghanistan. Tomorrow, if the Taliban oppose the decisions of the United States even slightly, the Americans will put the groups opposing the Taliban against them.

Third:

The groups opposing the Taliban are living in a state of disorganization. They do not have a coherent plan or idea regarding their stand against the Taliban. Some talk about negotiating and engaging with the Taliban, and some talk about military confrontation; but in reality, they are pursuing their own personal and group interests. Also, the meetings they have held regarding Afghanistan have been mostly verbal in nature and no practical steps have been taken.

Fourth:

The groups opposing the Taliban are more divided among themselves than they are against the Taliban. Before they have liberated Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban, they are looking for the type of future system and its internal structures. Therefore, it is clear that the meetings are purely media-related. They have continued this approach for the past twenty years to stay in power and gain wealth. They also undermined their trust with their international partners. The Americans know well that if these individuals are supported again, it will not only be costly, but will also challenge America’s regional plans.

Unfortunately, the main loser in this game is the Afghan people

But the main losers in the game between the US and the Taliban are the Afghan people, who have been turned into the walking dead for more than three years under the Taliban rule and do not have access to their most basic rights. Women have been deprived of the right to education and work, and the geography of Afghanistan has been turned into a prison.

The Taliban have no domestic legitimacy, they are not capable of governing and providing social services. In addition, the level of public dissatisfaction with the Taliban government is increasing with each passing day. In the situation of oppression that the Taliban have created, the public supports any kind of uprising against this group and is trying to overthrow it. The Taliban themselves are aware of the public’s dissatisfaction with it; on this basis, they rule the country by force of arms.

Given the above, America has no alternative to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the question that arises is – will the Taliban survive?

Given the internal disagreements within the Taliban over decision-making, it seems unlikely that the Taliban will continue to function as a unified force with a single leadership. The Taliban’s “spell of unity” may be broken unless the interests of the US and the ISI deem otherwise. Recently, the Center for Contemporary Afghan Studies in Moscow published a report from its research that suggests that another civil war awaits Afghanistan.

First, war and peace depend on the interests of America and other great powers. Supposedly, if a war is coming, it will not be between the opposition and the Taliban, but within the Taliban group, and the people will be on the opposing side of both branches of the Taliban and will try to destroy this group. In Afghanistan, any group that does not have internal legitimacy and rules with the help of foreign countries is bound to collapse sooner or later.

Ultimately, the US and other major powers do not have a suitable alternative for Afghanistan in the current situation. The Taliban, with all their problems, have been beneficial to US interests in the region and Afghanistan. But the Taliban are on a path that is contrary to the interests of the people, which is not in the interest of this group. In addition, based on the assumptions of realism on which foreign policy is based, interests take precedence over any value for the US. If America’s interests lie in the Taliban today, tomorrow perhaps a better group will be found.

China has announced it will impose an additional 50% tariff on all American imports, in response to US President Donald Trump’s similar tariff increases on its goods. This raises China’s total tariff on US goods to 84%.

The world’s second-largest economy also pledged to implement new supportive policies in a timely manner to counter external shocks.

Analysts warn that tit-for-tat retaliation and high tariffs risk further decoupling with the US, but noted that Beijing’s move is a clear signal that it will resolutely defend its interests and fight to the end.

US stock index futures fell sharply following China’s announcement of the retaliatory measures.

Trump’s action, which increased the total of additional import taxes since he took office in January to 104%, took effect at noon on Wednesday.

The tax to be implemented by Beijing will take effect at noon on Thursday, raising the total of additional tariffs raised by Beijing to 84%.

“China will resolutely defend its interests, the multilateral trading system, and the international economic order,” the Ministry of Commerce said in a statement online.

Zhang Zhiwei, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management in Hong Kong, said: “China has sent a clear signal that it will maintain its stance on trade policies despite high tariffs in the US.”

In addition to filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization over the US’s new tariffs, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has added six US companies – Shield AI, Sierra Nevada, Cyberlux, Edge Autonomy Operations, Group W, and Hudson Technologies – to its list of unreliable entities.

It also imposed export controls on 12 American companies, banning Chinese companies from supplying these companies with dual-use items that have both civilian and military applications.

Those facing restrictions are American Photonics, Novotech, Echodyne, Marvin Engineering, Exovera, Teledyne Brown Engineering, BRINC Drones, SYNEXXUS, Firestorm Labs, Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems, Domo Tactical Communications, and Insitu.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government intervened in capital markets to bolster investor confidence by increasing A-share purchases through its “national team” of state-backed funds.

Premier Li Qiang said at a symposium with economists and entrepreneurs on Wednesday that the Chinese economy had gained good momentum in the first quarter and acknowledged external pressure.

“We have made a full assessment and are preparing for various uncertainties,” Li said, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

Li, China’s number 2 political figure, vowed new measures to stabilize the national economy, while setting his sights on boosting domestic markets.

“We will regard the expansion of domestic demand as a long-term strategy,” he added.

The world’s second-largest economy will release March trade figures and first-quarter GDP next week.

Before announcing its latest retaliation, Beijing released a comprehensive framework on Wednesday reaffirming its stance on trade relations with the US, warning that tariffs will “ultimately backfire,” while leaving the door open for an “equal dialogue” between the countries.

China releases white paper on US trade relations

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has signaled his intention to use every means to mitigate risks to Japan’s economy by selecting his close aide and key economic policy figure, Ryosei Akazawa, to lead tariff negotiations with the US.

Akazawa, who serves as the state minister in charge of economic and fiscal policy, warned on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs could negatively impact Japanese exports and the global economy. Akazawa told lawmakers he would maintain a “sense of urgency.”

Shunichi Suzuki, a former finance minister who chairs the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s General Council, said Ishiba had chosen a cabinet member with Akazawa who “can act as a playmaker.” He added, “I have worked with him, and he is very talented.”

As the state minister in charge of economic and fiscal policy, Akazawa coordinates the government’s economic agenda across institutions, giving him access to various bargaining chips and flexibility in negotiations.

Until now, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yoji Muto and Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya had been in contact with the US side regarding tariffs through their own channels.

Akazawa is not the first person to lead key trade negotiations with the US in this role.

From 2013, Akira Amari served as the point person for the Obama administration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. Toshimitsu Motegi led negotiations for the Japan-US Trade Agreement during Trump’s first term and was described as a “tough negotiator” by his American counterpart, then-US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

Akazawa, a former Ministry of Transport bureaucrat, has also served as state minister in the Cabinet Office and state minister of finance. He appears to have policy expertise in areas expected to be covered by the tariff talks.

Meanwhile, the US’s selection of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as its chief negotiator with Japan signals that the dollar-yen exchange rate may also be addressed in the upcoming talks.

Trump’s tariffs are expected to deal a heavy blow to the Japanese economy. A failed response from Ishiba could become a liability for the prime minister as he leads his party into upper house elections this summer.

A senior Japanese official said, “The difference between Trump’s first and second terms is that he has even more power this time.”

Ishiba’s cabinet was already shaky within the LDP and suffered from low approval ratings. His government faces the difficult task of persuading affected industries domestically to abide by the outcome of the negotiation and preparing relief measures.

Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of Japan’s opposition Democratic Party for the People, told reporters on Tuesday, “Even as officials negotiate, there will soon come a time when the prime minister himself must try to break the deadlock with a leaders’ summit.”