How a Trump Administration Could Forge a Working Relationship with the Taliban Government in Afghanistan

Pragmatism Over Ideals: How a Trump Administration Could Forge a Working Relationship with the Taliban Government in Afghanistan

An analysis of a potential Trump administration’s approach to Afghanistan, particularly with the Taliban government, would likely underscore pragmatism and a focus on strategic interests over ideological concerns. Given Trump’s past foreign policy moves, his approach to Afghanistan would probably prioritize security, economic interests, and countering Chinese and Iranian influence over broader commitments to democratic principles, human rights, and women’s rights. Here’s how such an approach could shape relations:

1. Strategic Calculus Over Ideological Commitments

Historically, Trump’s foreign policy has often emphasized transactional relationships and pragmatic alliances, placing greater importance on U.S. security and economic gains rather than democratic ideals. His administration’s dealings with countries like Saudi Arabia and North Korea demonstrated a willingness to engage with authoritarian regimes if it aligned with perceived American interests. Applying this to Afghanistan, a Trump administration might focus on preventing Afghanistan from becoming a security threat while avoiding extensive investments in nation-building or enforcing social reforms, such as women’s rights and democratic processes, which have been U.S. foreign policy priorities in the past.

The Taliban’s statement expressing hope that the next U.S. administration takes “realistic steps” suggests an openness to diplomacy rooted in mutual benefits rather than ideological demands. For the Taliban, this implies a relationship that respects Afghanistan’s sovereignty and avoids imposing liberal democratic standards.

2. Continuing the Legacy of the Doha Agreement

Trump’s administration brokered the Doha Agreement, which paved the way for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in exchange for Taliban commitments to prevent terrorist activities on Afghan soil. This agreement was primarily transactional: the U.S. aimed to extricate itself from a prolonged conflict without seeking to transform Afghan society. If Trump were to continue engagement with the Taliban, his administration would likely build on this agreement, emphasizing counterterrorism and the Taliban’s role in ensuring stability in Afghanistan.

For Trump, a practical relationship with the Taliban might focus on maintaining Afghanistan as a buffer against terrorist threats without significant interference in internal Afghan affairs. This could also involve negotiated agreements that prioritize intelligence sharing or economic incentives to prevent the growth of extremist networks hostile to U.S. interests.

3. Countering Chinese and Iranian Influence

The strategic competition with China, and to some extent Iran, would likely be a central consideration in Trump’s approach to Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s strategic location makes it a potential arena for influence in Central and South Asia, with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) already extending into neighboring Pakistan. Trump might see cooperation with Afghanistan as a means to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the region, potentially by offering economic incentives or infrastructure investment to lure Afghanistan away from Chinese dependence.

Additionally, Afghanistan’s proximity to Iran might provide leverage to curtail Iranian influence or apply indirect pressure on Tehran. While this would likely involve covert or low-visibility intelligence cooperation rather than overt diplomatic alignment, Afghanistan under the Taliban could be seen as a useful partner in curbing Iranian interests.

4. Low Emphasis on Human Rights and Women’s Rights

Unlike the Biden administration, which has emphasized human rights and women’s rights in its foreign policy, a Trump administration would likely deprioritize these elements. Trump’s past policies have shown less focus on pressuring allies or adversaries on human rights issues, particularly if they did not align directly with U.S. security or economic objectives. In this context, Trump’s administration would likely refrain from advocating for women’s rights or civil liberties in Afghanistan, accepting the Taliban’s conservative governance as a cultural norm to be tolerated rather than challenged.

This approach would foster a working relationship that emphasizes non-interference in domestic policies, a stance likely welcomed by the Taliban. In return, the Taliban could cooperate on security matters without the pressure to implement Western democratic norms or extend rights for women.

5. Transactional Diplomacy with an Eye on Regional Stability

Trump’s foreign policy style favors deals and measurable outcomes rather than open-ended commitments. With Afghanistan, this might translate into agreements focused on security assurances, economic arrangements, or mutual non-interference. Trump could push for a diplomatic pathway that involves Afghanistan as a partner in achieving stability and preventing threats that could impact U.S. interests, such as terrorism or regional conflict, without committing to long-term nation-building or humanitarian programs.

Conclusion

A potential Trump administration would likely adopt a practical, interest-based approach to Afghanistan, prioritizing stability, countering regional adversaries, and securing tangible outcomes over ideological alignment. This would align with the Taliban’s desire for “realistic steps” in diplomacy, offering them a chance to solidify their governance without significant pressure on human rights issues. Such a relationship could, however, entail risks, including the reemergence of extremism within a minimally supervised Taliban regime. Nonetheless, this alignment of interests could enable a functional, if limited, working relationship under a pragmatic Trump administration.

Pakistan’s Fragile Grip: How Repression, Extremism, and Ethnic Suppression Sustain an Artificial State