The sudden breakdown of potential peace talks on Afghanistan just a day after the Taliban triumphantly announced the opening of an office in Qatar that was to be the hub of those efforts raises a more profound question: does the United States want a negotiated peace more than either of the parties?

Taliban peace talks
Photo courtesy of NY Times

Whatever one’s thoughts on the likelihood of a peace process, the agreement to open the political office in Doha seemed like a triumph of American diplomacy, which had shown persistence, discretion, and flexibility in ultimately attaining the objective officials had sought for the past 2 1/2 years.

But several hours later, everything was in heaps. Not only had Karzai backed away from talks with the Taliban, he suspended negotiations with the U.S. over the post-2014 troop presence. This both signaled the extent of his displeasure and will raise the costs of resuming both processes.

The reason for the sudden breakdown was a press conference that the Taliban gave to announce the opening of the office. They called it the “political office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” hung a banner saying the same behind them, and appeared with the Qatari deputy foreign minister, whose presence appeared to endorse a de facto embassy. As I wrote in my blog post last week, this is precisely what Karzai feared the office would become.

Karzai does not trust a U.S.-brokered peace process that excludes his government, and he was afraid that the Taliban office would be used more to legitimize the Taliban by granting it international recognition than to advance negotiations. His fears were immediately justified.

On the weekend of June 8 in Doha, on the sidelines of the U.S.-World Islamic Forum, U.S. diplomats had failed to secure President Karzai’s agreement to recognize the office in Doha, which was first proposed at the end of 2011. It was to serve as a venue for negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government to find a political solution to the war.

On June 18, the White House announced that the Doha office would open. The spur was a statement by the Taliban that they supported a peace process and opposed the use of Afghan territory to threaten other countries. Qatar also made a statement. There was no statement from Kabul, but Karzai had obviously finally provided his consent.

U.S. and Qatari diplomats are apparently scrambling to repair the damage. But it will be that much harder now to secure Karzai’s consent and active cooperation, as well as his cooperation on other issues.

If the U.S. wants an agreement more than either of the parties, and it expends political and other capital to get the parties to the table, then it may run out of capital long before the parties even approach agreement.

Scott Smith is deputy director of USIP’s Afghanistan program.

Related Research & Analysis

What Does ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran Mean for Iraq?

What Does ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran Mean for Iraq?

Thursday, March 13, 2025

On March 8, the United States allowed a waiver to expire that had permitted Iraq to buy Iranian electricity. The move was the latest in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign to cut off Iran’s revenue streams and push Tehran to negotiate over its controversial nuclear program. The waiver dates back to President Trump’s first term. In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which had granted Iran sanctions relief in return for curbing its nuclear program and expanding cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Type: Question and Answer

The Current Situation in Iraq

The Current Situation in Iraq

Monday, February 10, 2025

Iraq continues to recover from cycles of conflict that have displaced millions of people and caused widespread destruction. As the country rebuilds domestically and reintegrates into the region and the international community, it also needs to improve governance, diversify its economy and address water insecurity, among other challenges. Iraq also continues to grapple with the lasting human legacies of ISIS, including the reintegration of returnees from al-Hol camp in Northeast Syria and internally displaced persons.

Type: Fact Sheet

Stigmatization Experienced by Families with Perceived ISIS Affiliation in Anbar Province

Stigmatization Experienced by Families with Perceived ISIS Affiliation in Anbar Province

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

This discussion paper addresses the challenge of stigmatization faced by families in Iraq with perceived ISIS affiliation, particularly in Anbar province, where many have lived in the al-Hol camp. This stigma arises from community beliefs about their connection to ISIS through male relatives or past residence in ISIS-controlled areas. Stigmatization impacts these families' ability to reintegrate and includes harassment, rejection, property appropriation, and legal and social barriers. The paper includes key research findings and policy recommendations in response to these findings.

Type: Discussion Paper

How Assad’s Fall Could Impact Iraq

How Assad’s Fall Could Impact Iraq

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

The fall of President Bashar al-Assad earlier this month and what comes next in Syria will likely have significant security, political and other implications for Iraq. The situation is dynamic and could evolve in favor of Iraq’s stability or pose new challenges for the country. Iraq is one of a key group of actors — along with Iran, Turkey, the Gulf countries and the United States — whose actions could significantly impact Syria’s trajectory in the months ahead.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis