Is Iran already changing its tune on the Taliban?

The story: Having celebrated the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iran is already showing the first signs of discontent with the aftermath of the Taliban takeover next door. Senior Iranian officials have slammed the Taliban for forming a non-inclusive government. Tehran has also rejected “foreign intervention” and called for dialogue instead of “violence.” At the same time, following Iran’s condemnation of the Taliban push to seize the Panjshir Valley, Iranian Reformists are urging support for Afghan forces who have been putting up resistance in an unequal battle.

The coverage: Iranian officials are once again publicly criticizing the Taliban after a notable hiatus in such moves in recent months. Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), tweeted on Sept. 8 that “ignoring the need for inclusive government, foreign intervention and the use of military means instead of dialogue to meet the demands of ethnic groups and social groups are the main concerns of the friends of the Afghan people.”

The tweet was posted in connection with the Taliban’s announcement of the formation of an all-male government without any non-Taliban ministers.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian also adopted a position similar to that of Shamkhani. In a virtual ministerial meeting gathering Afghanistan’s neighbors—China, Iran Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan—Amir-Abdollahian called for an “inclusive” Afghan government to be formed. He also emphasized the need for “dialogue instead of violence” while rejecting “foreign intervention.”

Amir-Abdollahian and Shamkhani’s references to “foreign intervention” and “violence” likely refer to Pakistan’s purported military intervention in favor of the Taliban in Panjshir. The valley is located northeast of the capital Kabul and is the only region which has remained outside the reach of the Taliban.

The day before, Fars News Agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported that Tehran had sought to mediate between fighters in Panjshir under the leadership of Ahmad Masoud and the Taliban to reach a compromise. However, the negotiations failed. Fars also wrote on Sept. 7 that if rumors of Pakistan’s intervention prove to be true, Tehran must react harshly. “Although military cannot be an option, all other firm options must be pursued with reference to both Pakistan and the Taliban.“

Fada Hossein Maleki, an Iranian MP and former ambassador to Afghanistan, on Sept. 8 told Reformist Asr-e Iran that the Taliban is not “trustable.” However, he added that Tehran wants all forces in Afghanistan at the same table to decide their country’s destiny.

Maleki further urged the Taliban to enter negotiations with its opponents in Panjshir and the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif to form a government that includes all ethnicities. The Iranian lawmaker, a member of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, warned that if the Taliban does not negotiate, “the country will surely enter a civil war and the international community and some countries—except the US and Pakistan—will stand behind the popular [anti-Taliban] groups. The Taliban will not be the victor.”

Meanwhile, on Sept. 9, hardline Kayhan daily, whose chief editor is appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, slammed the Reformists for urging Iran’s conservative government to “enter Afghanistan and fight the Taliban.” It then argued that Reformists have always erred in their “analyzing of the situation in the region and the foreign policy strategy of the Islamic Republic.” Kayhan asked why Reformists conversely opposed the Iranian intervention in Syria amid the Islamic State group’s (IS) threats that Iran would be next after its capture of Iraq and Syria.

Importantly, the hardline daily noted that Iran’s approach to Afghanistan is “prudent and clear: opposing foreign intervention and supporting a national government based on the votes of all ethnicities and religions.” It added that Tehran has adopted the same approach in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, claiming that Iranian forces have operated solely in an “advisory” capacity in the armed conflicts in those countries.

Addressing the reasoning behind Iran's Afghanistan strategy, the daily wrote that Washington plans to through a sectarian war trap the Islamic Republic in the same quagmires that the US and the Soviet Union faced in the country.

Of further note, Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani visited Tehran on Sept. 9 to meet his Iranian counterpart. The two sides discussed a series of bilateral and regional issues, including Afghanistan.

The context/analysis: The Iranian government has adopted a cautious stance towards developments in Afghanistan in the past few months. Prior to the Taliban takeover, Tehran hosted several rounds of talks between the group and Afghan government officials to facilitate a deal on the future of the country.

Iran in all likelihood sought its own guarantees from Taliban leaders prior to their takeover, and key among these are security assurances. Indeed, it is vital to bear in mind that the Islamic Republic has no interest in seeing the Taliban re-emerge as an enemy that harbors Sunni extremists bent on targeting Iran.

Furthermore, Iran neither wishes to see instability and civil war on its eastern borders as it is highly aware of the consequences. The latter include waves of refugees, possible persecution of Afghan Shiites and the emergence of more extremist groups—all of which pose serious challenges for Iran. As such, Tehran has consistently called for negotiations instead of violence, and urged the formation of an inclusive Afghan government.

Shamkhani and Amir-Abdollahian’s statements indicate growing Iranian dissatisfaction with the Taliban as the group has so far failed to live up to its promises of political inclusion. Tehran also appears furious with Pakistan’s alleged role in the Taliban offensive in Panjshir. Notably, Saeed Khatibzadeh, the Iranian foreign ministry’s spokesman, on Sept. 6 condemned the attack on Panjshir and urged dialogue. He also described the deaths of opposition commanders in the valley as having reached "martyrdom"—a term usually reserved for those deemed to have fought on the right side of history.

The future: Iran will likely do its utmost to prevent hostility with the Taliban as it is highly aware of the likely negative consequences of such a shift. Against this backdrop, the Iranian criticism is not a change in approach, but rather a sign of discontent—and a warning to both the Taliban and Pakistan. As Iranian MP Fada Maleki signaled, if a civil war erupts in Afghanistan, Tehran may back opposition groups—including the fighters in Panjshir.

For now, Iran will likely avoid armed escalation and instead deploy other means to pressure the Taliban to agree to negotiate with its opponents and include them in the governing of Afghanistan. In this vein, the Qatari chief diplomat’s trip to Tehran could be one part of the puzzle in Tehran’s attempts to get the Taliban to form an inclusive government.