In his new policy brief, Dr. Islomkhon Gafarov explores the shifting contours of American foreign policy toward Afghanistan. He presents a nuanced periodization of U.S. engagement, tracing four evolving phases that reflect Washington’s strategic ambiguity, internal contradictions, and the absence of a long-term vision in its dealings with the Taliban regime. Beginning with the continuation of counterterrorism efforts beyond the military withdrawal — epitomized by the 2022 killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri — Dr. Gafarov highlights how terrorism remained the dominant lens through which U.S. policymakers initially viewed Afghanistan.
The subsequent phase, characterized by political disengagement, saw Washington adopt a posture of strategic patience and indirect diplomacy, largely withdrawing from political and infrastructural involvement while maintaining limited humanitarian assistance. Dr. Gafarov then focuses on the Trump administration’s more assertive yet bifurcated approach. On one hand, President Trump’s MAGA-driven rhetoric called for punitive measures against the Taliban, such as suspending aid and demanding the return of military equipment. On the other, pragmatic calculations led to direct contact with Taliban representatives—underscoring a willingness to adjust tactics when electoral messaging proved inadequate for realpolitik imperatives.
In analyzing the most recent phase of direct engagement, Dr. Gafarov argues that the United States has begun to reassess its methods, engaging Taliban officials in dialogue despite earlier antagonism. This shift is attributed, in part, to growing Chinese influence in Afghanistan, which has challenged U.S. strategic interests in the region. The resumption of U.S.-Taliban contact — symbolized by high-level meetings and hostage releases — signals Washington’s renewed recognition of Afghanistan’s geopolitical centrality, particularly considering China’s Belt and Road ambitions.
Dr. Gafarov also explores the potential for Uzbekistan to serve as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and the Taliban. He underscores Tashkent’s historical and logistical relevance, its alignment with U.S. perspectives on regional development and stability, and its unique standing as one of Afghanistan’s most engaged neighbors. In this context, Uzbekistan’s mediation role is portrayed as a promising avenue for cautious re-engagement that would allow Washington to advance its interests while maintaining a degree of political distance.
Ultimately, Dr. Gafarov concludes that the U.S. strategy toward Afghanistan remains fragmented and reactive. Internal divisions within the Taliban, the persistence of terrorist threats, and the unresolved issue of human rights all contribute to Washington’s uncertainty and strategic hesitation. While pragmatic engagement may increase, he suggests, it is likely to remain constrained by ideological, geopolitical, and humanitarian considerations.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
