Terrorist Attack in Bamyan Afghanistan: Unraveling the Complex Web of Implications and Beneficiaries

Terrorist Attack in Bamyan Afghanistan: Unraveling the Complex Web of Implications and Beneficiaries

The recent terrorist attack on foreign tourists visiting Bamyan, Afghanistan, on Friday, May 17, 2024, marks another grim chapter in the global struggle against extremist violence. This tragedy not only underscores the persistent threat posed by terrorist groups but also raises critical questions about the broader implications and potential beneficiaries of such attacks. As the world grapples with this latest act of terror, it’s essential to examine the multifaceted dynamics at play and the parties that might indirectly gain from this unsettling incident.

The Immediate Impact: Renewed Fear and Insecurity

The immediate consequence of the attack is a palpable sense of fear and insecurity among both locals and international communities. Bamyan, known for its historical significance and peaceful, attractive environment, has been a symbol of cultural heritage and resilience. The targeting of tourists in this region aims not only to sow fear but also to disrupt the stability achieved in recent years. For Afghanistan, striving to rebuild its economy and improve its international standing—especially as official figures indicate a 120 percent increase in foreign tourists year-on-year in 2023, reaching nearly 5,200 visitors—such attacks are significant setbacks.

The Taliban Government

Since the Taliban’s return to power on August 15, 2021, following the Doha Agreement with the United States and the subsequent collapse of the US-backed, corrupt, ineffective, and warlord-dominated regime, Afghanistan has been under intense scrutiny. The Taliban have faced widespread criticism for their policies, particularly their treatment of women and exclusionary approach to governance. However, one area where the Taliban have received praise from war-weary Afghans and international observers is their ability to establish security in a country long plagued by violence and instability.

This latest attack, however, challenges the Taliban’s narrative of maintaining security. It exposes cracks in their ability to control extremist factions and prevent such incidents. The Taliban’s response to this attack will be crucial in determining their legitimacy and effectiveness as a governing body. They must demonstrate not only their capability to apprehend those responsible but also their commitment to protecting all citizens and visitors, irrespective of the numerous internal and external pressures they face.

The Main Suspect: Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISKP)

It is well known that since the start of Taliban rule, starting with the Kabul airport bombing—which killed American service members and a large number of Afghan civilians—the attacks on Shia minorities, and the Shar-e Naw attack on Chinese businessmen in December 2022, have been conducted by the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISKP). ISKP states that it is different from the Afghan Taliban and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) through its distinct ideology, ethnic composition, and geographical goals. Based on a Salafi ideology inspired by the late Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISKP’s beliefs sharply contrast with those of the Taliban, JUI-F, and the wider Deobandi sect of Islam. ISKP deems these rival ideologies impure, superstitious, and idolatrous, leading to variations in their geographic reach, ethnic diversity, and methods of attack.

Geographically, ISKP aims to establish a global “Islamic Caliphate,” while the TTP and Afghan Taliban concentrate on more localized objectives. The TTP, aligned with the Afghan Taliban, seeks to enforce its version of Sharia in Pakistan, focusing its activities within Pakistan and Afghanistan. In contrast, ISKP’s global ambitions present a direct threat to international peace and security.

As the main suspect, ISKP has a vested interest in destabilizing Afghanistan. ISKP aims to undermine the Taliban’s authority by highlighting their inability to secure the nation. For these terrorists, attacks such as the one in Bamyan serve a dual purpose: they terrorize civilians and delegitimize the ruling government. Moreover, these attacks can attract media attention and possibly new recruits drawn to the cause of jihad. By perpetuating violence, ISKP seeks to keep Afghanistan in a state of perpetual conflict, thereby ensuring its relevance and survival.

Who Else Benefits?

Pakistan:

Pakistan, which had expected and was projected to have a significant role in controlling Afghanistan after the collapse of the previous government, has realized that the events have not turned out as it desired. The Afghan Taliban, whom Pakistan had supported, are operating more independently than Pakistan wanted, and the TTP has become emboldened in its operations against Pakistan. The Afghan Taliban-led government’s smart and strong management of Afghan water resources, including plans to utilize shared water resources with Pakistan, signing contracts for mining resources with regional companies (not Pakistani), and opening robust communication and trade channels to the north and west through Central Asia, China, Iran, and Turkey, has angered Pakistan. Pakistan now claims that the Afghan Taliban authorities have been providing safe havens and support for the TTP, which the Afghan Taliban deny. Pakistan has used several tactics, including closing the border, stopping trade and transit routes for Afghans, conducting cross-border bombings into Afghanistan claiming to target TTP operatives, and forcibly removing Afghan refugees from Pakistan to apply pressure on Taliban authorities in Afghanistan. Historically, Pakistan has benefited from chaos and uncertainty in Afghanistan, and once again, the appearance of insecurity in Afghanistan benefits Pakistan.

The Nominal, Trivial, Ineffective Resistance Movement:

Organized by the remnants of the former corrupt warlords of the previous government, this resistance has mainly operated through social media and press, constantly accusing the Taliban authority of supporting terrorism and questioning its authority and ability to establish security in Afghanistan. Recently, some international organizations and figures have tried to portray this resistance as more than the trivial force it is. For instance, David Lyon, a senior writer for the British think tank Chatham House, in an article titled “The scattered forces opposing the Taliban need support now,” has discussed Afghan women’s movements abroad and described the National Resistance Front (NRF). He writes that “Ahmad Massoud, the commander of the most prominent anti-Taliban armed group, the National Resistance Front, was at both Dushanbe and Vienna. His father, Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on the eve of the 9/11 attacks, was the most successful mujahideen commander in the insurgency against Russian occupation in the 1980s. Apart from the NRF, which has been fighting, with some effect, in the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul, Yasin Zia, a former Afghan army chief of staff, has also had success in guerrilla actions, including targeted assassinations. Sami Sadat, another former Afghan general, has spent most of 2023 in the US, building support among veterans’ groups for a fightback.” It is interesting that David Lyon of Chatham House legitimizes the start of “guerrilla actions, including targeted assassinations,” and demands support for another war in Afghanistan, ignoring that the war-weary people of Afghanistan want peace and security. In any case, the trivial nominal resistance force and its best feature of social media and press, and their propaganda machine will benefit from this terrorist attack in Bamyan, Afghanistan.

The attack also has significant geopolitical implications. Afghanistan’s neighbors, particularly Iran, China, Central Asian countries, and Russia, are keenly observing the situation. Each of these countries has its own strategic interests in Afghanistan and stands to gain or lose depending on the stability of the region. An unstable Afghanistan can lead to a spillover of violence, refugee crises, and heightened regional tensions.

In conclusion, the recent terrorist attack on foreign tourists in Bamyan, Afghanistan, highlights the enduring challenges posed by extremist violence and its far-reaching implications. This tragic event not only heightens fear and insecurity but also threatens Afghanistan’s efforts to stabilize and rebuild, particularly in its burgeoning tourism sector. The Taliban government, already under scrutiny, faces a critical test in demonstrating its ability to maintain security and govern effectively.

The Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISKP), the main suspect, has a clear motive to destabilize Afghanistan and undermine the Taliban’s authority. Their attacks serve to terrorize civilians, delegitimize the ruling government, and attract global attention and potential recruits. Additionally, other regional and international actors, such as Pakistan and the remnants of former Afghan warlords, could indirectly benefit from the instability, each driven by distinct strategic interests.

This attack underscores the complex interplay of local and global forces in Afghanistan, with significant geopolitical ramifications. Neighboring countries, including Iran, China, and Russia, are closely monitoring the situation, as instability in Afghanistan can lead to broader regional consequences. As the world grapples with this latest act of terror, it is crucial to address the underlying dynamics and potential beneficiaries to formulate effective responses and strategies for peace and stability in the region.