Photo Credit: The New York Times/ Bryan Denton

A regional solution to Afghanistan has long been touted as an essential ingredient of any peaceful transition. Much has been said and written about it; yet, most of it only rehearses its importance and why no Afghan settlement is likely to hold without it. The discussion has remained fairly weak on prescriptions, at best banking on rather idealistic ideas of Afghanistan's near and far neighbors accepting non-interference. Not many have explained the incentive structures for countries like Pakistan, Iran, some of the Central Asian Republics, India, etc. to do so, and even more importantly, what it would take to get their interests to synergize.

All along, we have understood that the regional states have a long history of mistrust and tensions and would likely remain more concerned about their bilateral equations rather than taking a truly regional approach, thereby choosing to overcome their differences for the sake of peace in Afghanistan. And therefore, it is widely accepted that outside powers would have to try and create conditions and broker a regional arrangement which prevents Afghanistan from becoming a proxy battleground for its more powerful neighbors.

Few, however, seem to have thought through this proposition and whether the kind of concessions needed to make the regional piece work are realistic to expect from outside powers. Everyone assumes that it will be the U.S. that will have to pull this off. Yet, a closer look suggests that Washington is simply not in a position to prioritize a truly regional approach to the region ahead of its own bilateral ties with respective countries. 

Let me use the two most problematic relationships to highlight the problem: Pakistan-India and U.S.-Iran. There has been constant acknowledgement that Pakistan is the most important external actor when it comes to ensuring peace in Afghanistan. What will get Pakistan to play a constructive role: the answer, as we detailed in a recent USIP-Jinnah Institute report on Pakistan's interests lies, in large part, in addressing Islamabad's concerns vis-à-vis Indian presence in Afghanistan. This, at a minimum, requires an active dialogue on development and intelligence issues between the two sides – and most likely might require New Delhi to make significant concessions at the end of the day.

On Iran's Afghanistan policy, recent analyses suggest that Tehran's fundamental interests overlap greatly with the U.S. but that the state of the bilateral equation between the two sides is one of the reasons Tehran has decided to support the Taliban and use other subtle (and not so subtle) means to challenge the U.S. presence. Most Iran experts believe that Tehran sees this is a quid pro quo for the tensions over the U.S.'s overall policy towards Iran.

If a regional understanding in Afghanistan were to be prioritized, it would mean the U.S. would need to take a very different approach toward Tehran and engage the Pakistan-India equation head on. It is fairly obvious that neither conform to the current priorities and mood in Washington. This may well be for good reason but that is irrelevant to my point. The outcome is what matters: the fact that these bilateral concerns trump the need to work the Pakistan-India and Iran-U.S. equations in order to change the respective policies of these countries toward Afghanistan.

The unfortunate part is that we are running out of time. The U.S., will likely be unable to pull this off for reasons cited above; and yet there is no other power or entity on the horizon that seems to be a natural fit to take up this role.

Perhaps the effort should shift from hoping regional actors will somehow agree to behaving differently toward Afghanistan to identifying who (and what format) has the best shot at succeeding in getting the region on a common platform. Holding regional and global meetings alone won't cut it.

Related Publications

The Fatemiyoun Army: Reintegration into Afghan Society

The Fatemiyoun Army: Reintegration into Afghan Society

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

By: Ahmad Shuja Jamal

Since 2013, as many as 50,000 Afghans have fought in Syria as part of the Fatemiyoun, a pro-Assad force organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. Based on field interviews with former fighters and their families, this Special Report examines the motivations of members of the Afghan Shia Hazara communities who joined the Fatemiyoun as well as the economic and political challenges of reintegrating them into Afghan society.

Civilian-Military Relations; Fragility & Resilience

What Can Make Displaced People More Vulnerable to Extremism?

What Can Make Displaced People More Vulnerable to Extremism?

Thursday, March 14, 2019

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Rahmatullah Amiri; Sadaf Lakhani

As the international community works to prevent new generations of radicalization in war-torn regions, debate focuses often on the problem of people uprooted from their homes—a population that has reached a record high of 68.5 million people. Public discussion in Europe, the United States and elsewhere includes the notion that displaced peoples are at high risk of being radicalized by extremist groups such as ISIS. Scholars and peacebuilding practitioners have rightly warned against such generalizations, underscoring the need to learn which situations may make uprooted people vulnerable to radicalization. A new USIP study from Afghanistan notes the importance of specific conditions faced by displaced people—and it offers indications suggesting the importance for policy of supporting early interventions to stabilize the living conditions of displaced people after they return home.

Violent Extremism

Afghanistan Talks: No Women, No Peace

Afghanistan Talks: No Women, No Peace

Friday, March 1, 2019

By: Belquis Ahmadi

As talks between the U.S. and the Taliban raise hopes for peace in Afghanistan, the country’s women fear another—and related—possibility: That their hard-won rights to participate in the nation’s political and economic life could again be washed away by the Taliban’s rigid views on gender.

Gender; Peace Processes

Intra-Afghan Peace Negotiations: How Might They Work

Intra-Afghan Peace Negotiations: How Might They Work

Friday, February 22, 2019

By: Sean Kane

Recent positive developments in the Afghan peace process have renewed hopes that the country’s 17-year-old conflict could come to a close. Direct negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban, however, are likely to involve complex constitutional questions. This Special Report provides...

Peace Processes

View All Publications